New Article - Alexander's Lovers

[Halil]

Sorry everyone. I had to delete a thread this morning and deleted the wrong one. Here's the link to Nick's new article:http://www.pothos.org/alexander.asp?paraID=115

[nickw]

Hi Halil, hi Companions ---It's OK - no problem. Things happen.I still wonder about Euxenippus. Was he really a lover, as Jona and Linda said? My Curtius translation says "favourite", but that doesn't sound like convincing evidence. So, is there anyone to fill me in here?Regards ---Nick

[amyntoros]

I think this could be forever up for debate. We could argue that there was something more going on between Alexander and Euxenippus, else why does the comparison between Euxenippus and Hephaistion exist? Seems like it had to have been a topic of conversation amongst Alexander's other Companions. On the other hand, Euxenippus may have been a favorite simply because he was beautiful and Alexander liked to be surrounded by beautiful people. (Notice how in the earlier incident with naptha during Alexander's bath where a boy is set on fire, excuses are actually made for the boy's lack of good looks.) Aeschine in Against Ctesiphon (The Debate on the Crown) talks of Aristion, his origin and personal history unknown to Alexander, worming himself into Alexander's favour because of his extraordinary beauty of person. I don't think this means that he too was a lover of Alexander.

[jan]

I believe that the king is who makes these women the most beautiful women in the world. Because they appealed to them, they become the most beautiful, whether true or not. I have always found it is a bit suspect that King Darius's wife is the most beautiful and Roxanne the second most beautiful. Also very superficial!

[nick]

Hi Jan ---Agree. Maybe it is just the dress?Regards ---Nick

[ruthaki]

Depends on your definition of 'beauty'. Perhaps back then 'beauty' was defined differently than now.

[ruthaki]

That's a really useful and informative article, Nick. Thanks for the contribution. ruthaki

[corina]

Hi Nick,
this is a most informative article you wrote; I enjoyed it a lot. I do have one question about the following: "Plutarch confirms Alexander's relationship with the eunuch "whose lover he was" and tells us about one event in Gedrosia in late 325 BC when both of them were cheered by the army. "The Macedonians clapped in applause and loudly called for Alexander to kiss him, until eventually the king took him in his arms and gave him a kiss" (Plut. 67)." In which translation does the line 'whose lover he was' show up? I've only read the Dryden version, and I believe he called him 'his favourite'. Is this just a different translation, or does it stem from another part of Plutarch's Alexander? It seems kind of crucial for discussion (of which I've had a few recently), because some people will stubbornly maintain that 'favourite' in this context does not equal 'lover'...
And would you (or anyone else on this forum) happen to know by any chance whether the Greek original uses the word eromenos in connection with Bagoas?Thanks,
Corina

[amyntoros]

"And would you (or anyone else on this forum) happen to know by any chance whether the Greek original uses the word eromenos in connection with Bagoas?"
Corina, I have previously been curious about this myself. According to Guy MacLean Rogers in his new book Alexander: The Ambiguity of Greatness, Plutarch uses the word eromenon (the accusative case of eromenos).

Linda Ann

[nick]

Hi Corina ---Heckel and Yardley use the translation "lover" in Historical Sources in Translation (Blackwell Publ., 2004), page 40. Indeed, my Scott-Kilvert Penguin translation also reads "favourite", not lover. Now the interesting question is: would Yardley today also translate "lover" instead of "favourite" in the case of Euxenippus if he had to revise his 1984 Curtius translation?Thanks for being so alert!Regards ---Nick

[jona]

Here's the actual quote of QCR 7.9.19, who describes Euxenippus as"adhuc admodum iuvenem, aetatis flore conciliatum sibi, qui cum specie corporis aequaret Hephaestionem, ei lepore haud sane virili par non erat" in which the first two parts mean something like "still very young, but because of his youth his *conciliatus*". "Conciliatus" means both friend and lover.If we were in doubt about the physical nature of this friendship, the third and fourth parts compare the young man's beauty to that of Hephaestion, "although his charms were less masculine". In other words, he was what the Dutch call "a nicht" (I suppose that the English equivalent is "queen", but perhaps this is pejorative; perhaps effeminate is better).The word for charm, "lepos", is significant in this context, because its ablative (which is used over here), is the same as the ablative of "lepus", which means "hare". Now a hare was a present between male lovers. I suppose this pun shows that at least QCR believed that Euxenippus was the king's lover.BTW, some QCR manuscripts call the young man Elpenicus, but that is irrelevant over here.Jona

[nick]

Hi Jona ---Million thanks. I will revise the article om Euxenippus.Many greetings ---Nick

[corina]

That is interesting! I've tried to find the Greek original for a while, but it's not online, and our library doesn't have it either.
Thanks for the information!Corina

[corina]

Thanks for the info, Nick! About Yardley I'm not sure, because I don't read Latin very well, and I can't say which of the words in "Benigne igitur exceptis Sacarum legatis, comitem Euxenippon dedit, adhuc admodum iuvenem, aetatis flore conciliatum sibi; qui cum specie corporis aequaret Hephaestionem, ei lepore haud sane virili par non erat" he translated as 'favourite'... I KNOW I should have paid more attention in Latin class. :)Corina

[marcus]

Just a quick note, Nick, as there's already been loads of discussion - great article, and a timely addition to the site.All the ebstMarcus