pothos.org

Paralus wrote: As an aside Marcus, what do you consider "mainstream" on either Heph or the others? Or, better put, you seem to consider Heckel outside mainstream GÇô why? Not being picky, just a genuine question.

Good call, Paralus. What I was trying to aim at was the difference between the sorts of books that one will find on the shelves of all good bookshops, and books such as "Marshals" or the more recent "Who's who" which don't (I certainly haven't seen Marshals on the shelves for a good 6-7 years, and haven't ever seen "Who's who" on the shelves - that was an Amazon job).

Mainstream was the best word I could think of at the time.

ATB

Paralus wrote:I actually find little to disagree with in Heckel's portrait of Hephaestion. As readers will know, I purchased GÇô at some bloody expense GÇô "Marshalls" a little time back and was intrigued to find much that agreed with my preconceptions (of the marshals - particularly Antigonus and Antipater).

Maybe I should email you my "commentary" file on Heckel's chapter on Hephaistion - the one that Marcus is afraid to open. I think that this is one of those rare instances where Heckel started out with a preconceived opinion and - perhaps unknowingly - manipulated the evidence (and his readers) to support his own conclusions.

As more than one scholar has observed, the relationship was certainly not limited to the plutonic.

Sometimes I love typos. This is a great one, especially as Hephaistion is often thought of as Alexander's ROCK!

Best regards,

Well, someone did mention Eumenes which is one of the stories that Saunders used to explain his attitude about Hephaestion. I know too little about Hephaestion to get into a discussion but know that Dr. Jean Zimmerman devotes a lot of space to him on her website.

My personal experience for what it is worth is that Hephaestion is a true and loyal friend to Alexander who loves Alexander very much. I know that Hephaestion and Craeterus as well as Hephaestion and Eumenes were both admonished by Alexander and that Alexander then even changed his mind about the situation...so the story goes. As everyone knows, Alexander changes his mind at the flick of a second.


I just understood why it was that Linda Ann bought the famous illustration of Hephaestion's pyre, if memory serves me correctly! I loved the illustration as I recall it.

Sorry, Linda Ann, didn't mean to resurrect old memories.

But the book about the search for the Tomb of Alexander is a well written and very interesting book. I do recommend it but have only just begun to fathom it myself.

amyntoros wrote: Maybe I should email you my "commentary" file on Heckel's chapter on Hephaistion - the one that Marcus is afraid to open.

Hmm, I fear I have to protect my reputation. I'd like to say that I'm sure you never sent that file to me ... but it's much more likely that you did and that my filing system has let me down for once. So I'm not going to try and foist the blame onto you - far too much of a gent to do that; and I suppose I'd better dig it out and have a read.

O tempora, O mores!

ATB

amyntoros wrote:

As more than one scholar has observed, the relationship was certainly not limited to the plutonic.

Sometimes I love typos. This is a great one, especially as Hephaistion is often thought of as Alexander's ROCK! ,

Ha, ha, haaaa! Yes in-bloody-deed. I could plead one of two lame excuses: typing from the office between site meetings or the fact that I'd just bought a telescope so as Paralus and son could view the heavens (the nine year old Salaminia is studying "space" at the moment and expessed an interest in one - Dad wanted one anyway).

Aleaxander's rock!! Pluto! Hephaestion would be a very cold experience one thinks. Most likely suits my view?

Email me the commentary file if Marcus has no objections. You may be right about the preconcieved notion. As I made (reasonably?) plain, I too carry a somewhat similar notion so Heckel's view was not unduly different to my own. Like to see what you wrote.

marcus wrote:Hmm, I fear I have to protect my reputation.

Ah, your reputation is safe! I just checked the file and realized that I only commented on HephaistionGÇÖs participation in the Philotas affair, as detailed by Heckel. This was about 18 months ago when IGÇÖd been doing a historiographic examination of the Philotas affair and it was very fresh in my mind (and you were very busy, as I recall.) There are three whole pages of 9 point type, just on this small part of HeckelGÇÖs chapter, and although IGÇÖm not normally a person who romanticizes Hephaistion, it does amount to a very vigorous defense of his character, or, more aptly, a defense against HeckelGÇÖs character assassination! I know that debating Hephaistion's character is not one of your preferred subjects and I rather think I foisted it upon you! SoGǪyou were busy and had neither need nor inclination to read it at the time. And, having just re-read it, you were probably wise. I am reminded of that old horror movie quote: GÇ£Be afraid. Be very afraid!GÇ¥

Paralus GÇô I just sent you a copy by PM. You have been warned!

Best regards,

I'DSURE LIKE TO SEE THE 9 POINT FILE TOO. MAYBE YOU COULD POST IT SOMEHOW FOR ALL READERS. I'M THINKING THAT HEPH. WAS GOOD FOE ATG, NOW I HEAR ALL THIS DISCUSSION.... THEY WERE TOGETHER A LONG TIME AND ATG DID HAVE A HISSY FIT WHEN HE PASEED. SEEMS TO ME HESP WAS NOT PERFECT BUT I BELIEVE HE WAS IN LOVE WITH ATG. NINA

amyntoros wrote: Ah, your reputation is safe! I just checked the file and realized that I only commented on HephaistionGÇÖs participation in the Philotas affair, as detailed by Heckel. This was about 18 months ago when IGÇÖd been doing a historiographic examination of the Philotas affair and it was very fresh in my mind (and you were very busy, as I recall.)

Aha! I did read that one, Amyntoros, never fear. I do remember it. I would have to re-read it, because it was some time ago. But by all means send the new file - as we have just broken up for the summer I now have a 6 week "holiday", so ought to be able to read it.

Just to clarify, for those other than Amyntoros (who is well aware of my thoughts/feelings on the matter) - I have never argued that Hephaestion was not "good for Alexander", nor have I argued in any way for or against their relationship (in any form, platonic, plutonic, sexual, whatever) ... all I have ever said is that he was a nasty piece of work - as they probably all were, in their own way! Amyntoros has been trying to convince me that the evidence for Hephaestion being the "prime mover" in the anti-Philotas plot is not really strong enough ... and also that his arguments with Eumenes and Craterus again do not point sufficiently to any particular degree of fault on Heph's part. I have yet to be convinced although, to be fair, I have yet to provide adequate evidence to support my view. Perhaps with a long holiday ahead of me I will at last get round to doing that.

ATB

nina wrote:I'M THINKING THAT HEPH. WAS GOOD FOE ATG, NOW I HEAR ALL THIS DISCUSSION....

Unfortunately, Nina, my comments are rather meaningless if you donGÇÖt have a copy of HeckelGÇÖs The Marshals of AlexanderGÇÖs Empire GÇô or at least a copy of the chapter on Hephaistion. Also, I only commented on a specific part of the chapter wherein Heckel pretty much makes Hephaistion responsible for the trial and death of Philotas.

You might want to take a look at Andrew ChuggGÇÖs AlexanderGÇÖs Lovers. I havenGÇÖt read it yet but IGÇÖve heard good things about it from those who are admirers of Hephaistion.

Best regards,

Saunders study of the years of searching for the tomb of Alexander ends with a very interesting question. Do we really want to find it? Should we find it? The discussion of the tomb which was found in Siwa is fascinating since it appears that the effort to find Alexander is to achieve fame and notoriety. If that is the main motivation for persons who are interested in the artifacts of Alexander, one will always be suspicious of fraud.

At any rate, I honestly believe, Marcus, and I will address this to you since you are the primary moderator, the tone of the discussions group should always be open and friendly to all interested in Alexander, no matter whether whacko or serious. If one really wants scholarly, I believe one should enroll in the university, but I believe that to be warm and friendly to all participants no matter the topic is best for Alexander.

jan wrote:At any rate, I honestly believe, Marcus, and I will address this to you since you are the primary moderator, the tone of the discussions group should always be open and friendly to all interested in Alexander, no matter whether whacko or serious. If one really wants scholarly, I believe one should enroll in the university, but I believe that to be warm and friendly to all participants no matter the topic is best for Alexander.

I feel obligated to add my own comments, Jan, as there are no primary moderators per se. First of all I do feel that the forum is open and friendly to all - whether whacko or serious, as you express it GÇô however (with the exception of the Greek/Macedonian debate), it is the members who dictate what is to be discussed. If they want scholarly discussions GÇô and it is obvious that most of them do - then they can find them here and happily participate without the need to attend a university. On the other hand, if members do not respond to less than serious posts or threads they are under no obligation to do so. They cannot be forced to reply to a post that does not interest them, nor can they be forbidden from politely commenting if they think that the subject matter is foolish. The participants here dictate the direction of the forum, and, as Pothos has been established for several years now, I think that the records show that the preferred focus for this forum is the historical Alexander.

Best regards,

Amyntoros may I have a copy of the piece critiquing Heckel on Hephaistion too, please?

Thanks in advance,
Karen

marcus wrote:Just to clarify, for those other than Amyntoros (who is well aware of my thoughts/feelings on the matter) - I have never argued that Hephaestion was not "good for Alexander", nor have I argued in any way for or against their relationship (in any form, platonic, plutonic, sexual, whatever) ...

Argghhh!!! Everbody's picking on me! Mum! Mummy!

Paralus wrote:

marcus wrote: (in any form, platonic, plutonic, sexual, whatever) ...

Argghhh!!! Everbody's picking on me! Mum! Mummy!

Now, if Olympias were your mummy, I might find that sufficiently alarming to feel it necessary to detract my insertion of said word ...

ATB

You're safe mate! She died some three years back - and not at the hands of some latter day Cassander. Actually, one might compare cancer and Cassander....then again that may be being unkind to the disease.

Kidding..I'm sure he wasn't that bad. Bad enough though.