I've been browsing this wonderful website after having been recently been stirred to reread Renault's trilogy and the Alexander histories I own (Arrian, Plutarch, and Curtius)....anyway, some random thoughts about which I was curious to hear some other Alexandrophiles response.
Renault strongly hints Alexander saw the way things went down with his father and mother (the jealousies among Philip's wives, Philip's notorious philandering with anything on two legs, finally culminating in being assassinated by an ex-lover), and just said, "Heck, NO!" That after seeing all that, Alexander intentionally chose to be extremely discreet with his liaisons in order to avoid such scandals ever erupting around Alexander himself. This seems a not implausible idea.
Now, it has occurred to me that extreme discretion would also be the best way to protect Hephaistion's reputation from jibes that Hephaistion had earned his position by his performance in Alexander's bed. Given the mores of Philip's court, that Hephaistion was reputed good-looking, was close to Alexander from their youth, and had an extraordinary elevation in rank by pretty much any measure, an enemy of Hephaistion might naturally have come up with that jibe. And I think if Alexander loved Hephaistion, he would have wanted to do what he could to cut off that kind of gossip. And would be quite careful of how he treated Hephaistion publically, again for Hephaistion's own sake if nothing else. I mean, I think it in most people's nature to want those they love to be thought well of by others, or at the very least, to not be scorned. So my feeling is Hephaistion wouldn't have gotten a racy (?) kiss in front of a bunch of cheering soldiers as Bagoas did because well, firstly, Heph was a high-ranking lord so the soldiers wouldn't have dared (at least not without a lot of unmixed wine), but even if they had dared(!), Alexander wouldn't have done it because it would have placed Hephaistion too much in the role of a mere sexual object. A role which was OK for a eunuch, but completely unacceptable for Alexander's Chiliarch/right hand man. Am I wrong in thinking that by the mores of the society, Hephaistion's social rank would be incompatible with openly acknowledging that they were physically involved at least after a certain age (especially given that Heph would have been seen as the necessarily passive/receptive partner due to difference in social rank)? And jibes about how Hephaistion got to his position would have a lot more punch behind them if Alexander went about flaunting a physical relationship with Hephaistion past the "proper" age. I especially think one would be conscious of how one's lover was perceived if the lover was seen as an extension of one's own self as Alexander gave signs he did in regards Hephaistion.
There are many instances cited in the sources of Alexander giving public signs of favor to Hephaistion: the sacrifices at Troy, the "He too is Alexander" comment to Sisygambis, the story about Alexander touching his ring to Hephaistion's lips in regards to Alexander's letters, Hephiasiton holding the highest military rank and the Chiliarchy both even after all Alex's apparent concern about concentration of power (was he still commander of the bodyguard too? even if just an honorary position an even bigger sign of favor to hold all three), the marriage to Drypetis, the ways Alex honored Heph after Heph's death.
One of the things about most of these signs of favor is that they don't convey to me "Hey this is my lover" as much as rather "Hey, this is my right hand/my number two/my alter ego/my other self/the sharer of my secrets in whom I trust implicitly." Especially the interaction with Sisygambis, the bit about touching the seal to Hephaistion's lips, and the mirroring of Alex's marriage to Stateira in Heph's marriage to Drypetis seem to me to be very much about sending the message that Hephaistion is a "second Alexander." I think the idea that Alex wanted Heph to be viewed in this "He is my other self" way is greatly reinforced by the things done after Heph's death: extinguishing the sacred fire which was only done at the death of the king himself (this to me is perhaps the most poignant and telling tribute Alex gave Heph
), the incineration of royal robes on Hephaistion's pyre as if to symbolize Alex himself being immolated, the desire to have Heph deified in which again I see Alex trying to mirror his own deification by raising Heph up to be a god as well. Indeed, the very scale of the mourning seems to have been deliberately designed to propagate the idea that the King himself had died. I mean this was by all accounts a funeral to put all other funerals ever to shame. I have read that the 10,000 talents of gold Alex spent on Hephaistion's funeral is estimated conservatively to be the equivalent of 25 tons of gold equating to a modern day sum of over one billion dollars 
. And that doesn't even include the cost of the funeral games Alex ordered, the sacrifices made on Heph's behalf, etc. 
Among the public signs of favor Alexander bestowed, the one that mainly stands out to me as conveying a qualitatively different sort of message than the rest is the sacrifice at Troy. Is it perhaps significant that the sacrifice at Troy took place when Alex and Heph were still comparatively young (would they have been early twenties when they first crossed to Asia?) and not so far removed from when a physical component to the relationship would have been socially acceptable? Perhaps, Alexander intentionally moved away from signs that could be interpreted as signaling Heph's status as his favorite for personal reasons and instead towards signs that Heph was "a second Alexander" as the years went by and the potential damage to Heph's reputation became more of a concern? Though of course, when Heph died, Alex did many things to identify them with Achilles/Patroklos (cutting his hair, burning Heph, murdering the Cosseians (sp?) as a sacrifice to Heph's spirit) so perhaps I am all wet with this idea? Or perhaps, if one is a romantic, Alex in his grief just didn't give a fig anymore about being discreet.
What if Alexander had lived to carry out his plans to memorialize Hephaistion? If Alexander had lived to old age? We know Alexander planned to build lasting monuments to Hephaistion. They never came to be as all of Alex's memorial plans were abandoned by Alexander's generals in the succession wars that followed Alex's death. However, the sources give plenty of hints that the monuments planned were as extravagant as only a man who drops twenty-five tons of gold on a funeral can make them.
Plutarch says Alexander wished to employ Stasicrates to design Heph's tomb, and Alex chose Stasicrates because "this artist was famous for his innovations, which combined an exceptional degree of magnificence, audacity, and ostentation." Stasicrates is the same guy who proposed carving a statue of Alex out of Mount Athos and though Alex had declined that offer, after Heph's death, Plutarch says "Alexander...now spent his time with his engineers and architects planning projects which were even more outlandish and extravagant." Plutarch seems to be implying that these projects are related to memorializing Heph.
Then there's the letter to Cleomenes cited in Arrian that indicates Alexander planned two shrines for Hephaistion to be built in Alexandria/Pharos. The shrines were "to be of great size and built regardless of expense." That sounds like it would have been a pretty grand memorial: two shrines no expense spared framing Alexandria's harbor. I think its no accident that Alexander wanted these shrines built in the city Alexander had founded with the intent of it becoming the great port-city of the Mediterranean?
(Side question- does anyone know what happened to Hephaistion's ashes after he was burned? Was it even intended for the ashes to be gathered given how huge the pyre was? If the ashes were never intended to be gathered, does anyone know what was meant to be Hephaistion's symbolic final resting place? Did having a place to visit that contained some part of the deceased person's mortal remains have the same significance to Alexander and contemporaries as it would to modern Westerners?)
Also, Alexander made a effort to get the ritual worship of Hephaistion under way in the months before Alex died, organizing the first sacrifices to Heph as a divine hero, and ordering contracts to be sworn in Hephaistion's name, etc.
It seems to me that if Alexander had lived long enough to see to completion his plans for Hephaistion's memorials, Heph may very well have ended up with gigantic monuments to him scattered all over the world. And if Alexander had lived long enough for his son to grow up and start an dynasty, Alexander may very well have done other things to memorialize Heph that none of the generals who went on to squabble over Alexander's empire had any motive to do.
I feel like Hephaisiton is a mysterious figure in many ways which intrigues me and yet so many people just dismiss him. I mean I guess it's possible that Hephaistion was a fairly regular guy who just happened to have one of the most exceptional (choose your own definition of that word
)people in history fall in love with him. I mean, it happens like that sometimes. We humans aren't wholly rational, predictable creatures. The length and depth of Alexander's devotion towards Hephaistion tends however to make me think there must have been something exceptional about Hephaistion for Alexander to rate him so highly. I think a large part of my own interest in Hephaistion arises from this mystery to me of what it was that made Alexander so enamored of him. For as much as I love Renault's books, I'm ultimately disappointed with how flat her Hephaistion seems as a character. And I'm also quite disappointed with most modern historians dismissive assessment of him. Most of them that I've read seem outright hostile and I don't get why. I find it hard to believe that Alexander, who seemed so obsessed with excellence, would have publicly held Hephaistion in such high esteem if Alexander himself didn't rate Hephaistion's contributions immensely valuable. I have seen some intriguing stuff that posits Heph may have been involved in persuading Athens to back down from joining Sparta's rebellion against Alexander or that Heph may have been the man responsible for suborning by covert diplomacy the Persian governor of Babylon and arranging for him to turn against Darius at the battle of Gaugamala. (I would be curious for more info about Hephaistion possibly acting as Alexander's cloak-and-dagger/diplomacy guy. Has any historian really explored this idea?)
Not that I really understand where this meme that pops up in a lot of Alexander biographies about "Hephaistion was bad at soldiering" or "an incompetent commander" comes from. Not being as awesome a commander as Crateros is not the at all the same as being incompetent. And nowhere do the sources I've seen (Curtius, Arrian, and Plutarch) even hint to my memory that Hephaistion is a bad commander. I've only ever read the assertion of Hephaistion being a bad commander in modern historians who often seem to take a certain pleasure in tearing Hephaistion down as a sycophant. I do remember Hephaistion was apparently quite successful when Alexander sent him off with Perdiccas to make war in India. As for the soldiering side, there's not a lot of discussion of Heph's soldiering ability in the three ancient historians I've read as I can recall, except Heph is said to be commander of the bodyguards at Gaugamala(?), which to me implies he was fighting in Alexander's proximity. Now, Alexander putting the premium on physical courage and combat prowess that he did, it is difficult for me to believe that Heph was not at least as physically courageous as any of the other close companions and possessing of at least a roughly equivalent level of combat prowess. Alexander just seems like the kind of guy who strove for the best in himself and in those with whom he surrounded himself. I have this gut feeling (beware blatant personal opinion ahead) that attitude of seeking the best would have extended at least unconsciously to the choice of the man Alexander elevated to the status of his "second self." It also strikes me that it's not only stupid to put a bad fighter or incompetent leader in command of your bodyguard, it's potentially suicidal. And even if nepotism inclined you to place your lover among your personal bodyguard, would it incline you to put him in command of it?
I wonder too, in an era that glorified aptitude in warfare, would someone whose greatest contributions were as a diplomat, logistical officer, political advisor, or engineer/architect have gotten much credit, even if he was extraordinarily gifted at it? If Alexander had lived, would he have commissioned a biography or two of his right hand man? Alexander's other generals outlived him, and a goodly number of them went on to write their own propaganda. Hephaistion never had that opportunity. I will always wonder how much the image we have of Hephaistion is intrinsically related to fact that the man who would have the most reason to promote Hephaistion's memory in a unambiguously positive light was too busy going bonkers with grief and then dying himself to leave us more to go on.
