Hephaistion's pyre question

[Taphoi]

The passage clearly means that Agathokles shed tears at a tomb and not during the funeral rites; he is described as 'pariwn' – passing by – whilst Alexander's preciousness around Hephaistion is overdrawn (to suit the source's picture of Oriental excess, no doubt) any officer (taxiarch) 'passing-by' the actual funeral would have to have ball-bearings for gonads…

Despite your amusing rhetoric it remains possible to pass a funeral ceremony just as easily as to pass a tomb.

[McKechnie] does not accept the plausibility of the monument described by Diodorus only that a simple pyre would not have proved a problem.

If on the other hand the thing under discussion is a pyre, which is essentially only a heap of firewood, it ceases to be axiomatic that a long time would be required to set it up. The decorative work would require some time, but if it was all for burning, compromises could be made: it would not need the attention to basic quality of workmanship over some years which a thing like the Mausoleum would demand… a pyre decorated with precious metals was a plausible artefact.

Seems to me that he’s talking about the plausibility of Diodorus’s pyre rather than some other pyre of arbitrary size.

Firstly, Diodorus claims that the area (τόπον - 17.115.1) for the pyre was leveled. He then states that the same cleared area (τόπον - 115.2) was divided into thirty compartments.

Topos is more accurately translated as “place” and just as a place can mean a building in English so topos can mean a building in Greek (see LSJ). Diodorus states that Alexander levelled off the place (meaning the site) for the pyre and then that the pyre was square, each side a being a stade in length, and then that the place (meaning the building) was divided into thirty chambers. There is no reason why successive uses of topos need refer to exactly the same thing. If I write, “his place was at his place” in English, it is gibberish unless the two uses of place are interpreted differently. There is no authority in Diodorus’s second use of topos to assume that the ground plan is meant. Since he describes the whole pyre in the preceding sentence, that is the “place” that he meant.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

. There is no reason why successive uses of topos need refer to exactly the same thing. If I write, “his place was at his place” in English, it is gibberish unless the two uses of place are interpreted differently. There is no authority in Diodorus’s second use of topos to assume that the ground plan is meant. Since he describes the whole pyre in the preceding sentence, that is the “place” that he meant.

And that might be so if Diodorus utilised the word successively, within the same sentence. Unfortunately, unlike your inapt example, Diodorus uses it it different sentences. Diodorus describes the leveling of the "place" for pyre. Having finished that, he then describes that "place" as divided into to thirty chambers. Your claim would be similar to stating that he leveled off the "place" with the baked tiles because they are mentioned contiguous with the act of leveling.

But, of course, this is not of seminal importance. The claims of fifteen cubit high "bands of decoration" per "stage" are and you have chosen to ignore it. Bald assertions do not an argument make.

[McKechnie] does not accept the plausibility of the monument described by Diodorus only that a simple pyre would not have proved a problem.

If on the other hand the thing under discussion is a pyre, which is essentially only a heap of firewood, it ceases to be axiomatic that a long time would be required to set it up. The decorative work would require some time, but if it was all for burning, compromises could be made: it would not need the attention to basic quality of workmanship over some years which a thing like the Mausoleum would demand… a pyre decorated with precious metals was a plausible artefact.

Seems to me that he’s talking about the plausibility of Diodorus’s pyre rather than some other pyre of arbitrary size.

I would suggest you re-read the whole paper - in an effort to understand McKecnie's point - rather than those bits you see suiting your view. I can save you some time by quoting his summary sentence:

In fact Hephaestion's funeral was at Ecbatana, and D.S. 17.115 is fiction, describing a pyre which was not built - only the monument was planned for Babylon, and that, thanks to Perdiccas, was eventually not built either.

This too might help:

I make these calculations with reluctance, because although Diodorus' description can be made plausible up to a point I do not think he was dealing with a structure that was really built, or even begun and left unfinished...

McKecnie penned many a word in ascribing this story of the pyre to Ephippus. In simple speak McKechnie's point is that he does not believe the pyre described by Diodorus was ever built. He is, then, hardly to argue that it was or could have been (as described) - no matter how desperately you would like him to. You really shouldn't misrepresent someone's stated views in such a fashion. Agesilaos is correct: he is speaking of a far simpler pyre, "essentially only a heap of firewood".

[amyntoros]

The passage clearly means that Agathokles shed tears at a tomb and not during the funeral rites; he is described as 'pariwn' – passing by – whilst Alexander's preciousness around Hephaistion is overdrawn (to suit the source's picture of Oriental excess, no doubt) any officer (taxiarch) 'passing-by' the actual funeral would have to have ball-bearings for gonads…

Despite your amusing rhetoric it remains possible to pass a funeral ceremony just as easily as to pass a tomb.

Unless that funeral was one arranged by Alexander for Hephaistion! And you were one of Alexander's highly esteemed officers who did not attend the funeral but merely "passed by"!!! I rather think that failing to attend Hephaistion's funeral ceremony would have been the greatest imaginable offense in Alexander's mind at that time. Yes, it remains possible, but not all things possible are probable.

[Xenophon]

McKechnie states categorically, like the 'communis opinio' here, that the 'pyra' in Babylon as described By Diodorus is imaginary, and that Hephaistion was most likely cremated at Ecbatana, and knowing this, Taphoi deliberately distorts what he says, distorts McKechnie's line of argument, takes words and sentences out of context etc in a hopeless attempt to prop up a lost and dead argument - very much like the pet shop owner in Monty Python's "Dead Parrot" sketch, and using similar type arguments/methods.

( Hephaistion could have been cremated in a steel mesh/perforated bronze coffin....and anyway, recovering his bones didn't matter..... points 1-3 regarding fire and temperature in Taphoi's 5 April post on page 4 , which are just plain wrong, etc )

Readers, so Pothosians like to believe believe, turn to this site for honest and authoritative, or at least informed, comment - and presentation of fallacious arguments, rationalisations, flat unsupported assertions, false premises, red herrings and so on lower the standard of debate here - especially when knowingly propounded.

[Alexias]

Is this really all this community is about now - Taphoi-bashing and ridicule?

Please can we leave some room for those (like me) who are not scholars but would like to discuss Alexander and his world without fear of getting mauled to pieces?

[amyntoros]

Is this really all this community is about now - Taphoi-bashing and ridicule?

Please can we leave some room for those (like me) who are not scholars but would like to discuss Alexander and his world without fear of getting mauled to pieces?

Alexias, I've left up your post but have done some editing on a couple of prior posts from others to remove as much as possible the perceived "bashing" elements and ridicule. For those involved I have copied and saved the original posts if they wish to see what I have edited. I haven't actively participated much lately (my recent post above is the first in weeks, I believe) because of an inflamed and painful hand, however I should have paid more attention to the direction of the thread.

What we (Pothos) have been experiencing here is what in the real world would be called a "heated" argument - like begets like - and as such arguments are often wont to do, it has become personal on many levels. Unfortunately, where the Web is concerned, such arguments are uncomfortable to observe. You are right in that this can be intimidating for other members who might wish to participate on the forum. Posts should be limited to discussions of historical events, persons, articles, books, etc. and not be descriptive or insulting about the member posting. I've been on the receiving end and know how this feels and have even recently snapped back myself. However, if everyone sticks to defending their opinions with actual information about the subject under discussion then this can be avoided.

We (the mods) are always available and more than happy to oblige if something seems to have been ignored, as happened in this case. For myself, I may not always be actively posting but I will respond to any PM with haste.

On another matter in your post, I'm not altogether sure that everyone (anyone?) participating in this thread would describe themselves as "scholars". I know that I don't! When I first discovered the forum I had a lifelong interest in ancient Greek history but my knowledge of ancient authors and extant texts was somewhat limited. I merely read the posts of others for a year or two (while reading the texts) before actually joining and finally participating. I have learned as I have gone along. Oh, and back in the day, on the old forum, the fur flew on a regular basis so I really do understand how intimidating that can be!

Best regards,

[agesilaos]

topos in LSJ

7. a room in a house, τόπον ἕνα ἄνευ ἐνοικίου ib.896.4 (ii A. D.); “δύο τόπους ἤτοι συμπόσια” POxy. 1129.10 (V A. D.), cf. 502.34 (ii A. D.), 912.13 (iii A. D.).

LSJ's italics; it does not mean a building; although

οἱ κοινοὶ τ. public sites or buildings, IG42(1).65.8 (Epid.); “ἄσυλος τ.” BGU1053 ii 9 (i B. C.), PTeb.5.83 (pl., ii B. C.); οἰκίαι καὶ τόποι houses and sites, ib.281.12 (ii B.C.); so ψιλοὶ τ. sites not built upon, OGI52.2 (Ptolemais, iii/ii B. C.).

hoi koinoi topoi is contextual, without the koinoi, topos does not mean building, oikai means houses and contrasts with topoi empty sites.

This isn't bashing just quoting the stated source, as anyone ought.

Diodoros describes an edifice as Paralus says thirty rooms on the ground level which were roofed, a stade is 600 Greek feet which do vary but let us take it as equivalent to English feet (most are longer) that means there is a 100 foot gap to span in a six by five arrangement. Four by four means 150 ft to span this cannot be done with whole trees so further support would be required, more wood more time, nor were the Greeks adept at using arches which are common only with the Romans; the Babylonians did use arches but the material would deplete the alleged demolition fatally, again assuming 3ft trunks there need to be 11 walls of a stade long or 2,200 trees 4x4 would still require 1,600. Far from adding up the engineering is impossible,

McKechnie's big mistake is taking Arrian's planned funeral as a notice of its occurring, Diodoros's story stands alone complete with Hephaistion's divine honours, which belie the editors amendment of 'proedros' presiding to 'paredos' assistant, Philip returns and confirms Alexander's choice of making Hephaistion a full god, which means the text is sound and should not be amended to fit other sources even though epigraphy confirms Arrian's version of heroization only.

[Xenophon]

Is this really all this community is about now - Taphoi-bashing and ridicule?

Please can we leave some room for those (like me) who are not scholars but would like to discuss Alexander and his world without fear of getting mauled to pieces?

On a public forum such as this, ANYONE who posts false facts, ill-considered views etc is asking, and deserving of, having those views refuted, or at least criticised.....and is of course entitled to debate the matter and refute in turn - if they can.

Use of hyperbole such as "Taphoi bashing" and "ridicule" are emotive terms which should be avoided, especially as they aren't true. ( Rather like Taphoi's accusation of being "shouted down", which was also untrue......though as I know myself, to have to refute or take issue with multiple opposing views is very difficult)

Please don't confuse refutation of statements put forward here with personal attacks. No-one has launched personal attacks consisting of insulting language aimed at the personality of the poster in this instance.

And don't feel so intimidated as to not post here.....if you have something to say on any subject, or want to start a new subject,and can support your views in some way, then yours or anyone else's views are more than welcome by all, I am sure. After all, that is the purpose of the site.

[Alexias]

Imagination is required in the use of the internet - and the ability to differentiate between a forum and a blog. It is very easy just to listen to one's own voice and to forget that there is a real person on the other end in a forum. The time lag and the lack of non-verbal communication make it very easy to say things, and in a manner, that a person would not dream of saying in a face-to-face confrontation. As the old saying goes, politeness costs nothing.

[Taphoi]

Use of hyperbole such as "Taphoi bashing" and "ridicule" are emotive terms which should be avoided, especially as they aren't true... Please don't confuse refutation of statements put forward here with personal attacks. No-one has launched personal attacks consisting of insulting language aimed at the personality of the poster in this instance.

Of course we all know why Taphoi defends the impossible with increasingly desperate vehemence of the 'maybe it could have been so' variety - rather like the pet shop owner in Monty Python's "Dead Parrot" sketch ! It's because it is part of his own published works as 'fact'. But let us get away from his imaginative 'flights of fancy' for a moment and get back to what is being debated here.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Taphoi]

hoi koinoi topoi is contextual, without the koinoi, topos does not mean building, oikai means houses and contrasts with topoi empty sites.

hoi koinoi topoi is literally "the public places" and LSJ states that this is used to mean "the public buildings". It is a perfect illustration of topos referring to a building. There is no reason why such a usage should not apply in the case of any mention of a public building or structure, of which the pyre is a good example.

McKechnie's big mistake is taking Arrian's planned funeral as a notice of its occurring, Diodoros's story stands alone complete with Hephaistion's divine honours, which belie the editors amendment of 'proedros' presiding to 'paredos' assistant, Philip returns and confirms Alexander's choice of making Hephaistion a full god, which means the text is sound and should not be amended to fit other sources even though epigraphy confirms Arrian's version of heroization only.

Arrian does not say that the funeral in Babylon was a mere plan. He states that Alexander ordered it and that all writers agreed that he had. He says nothing about the order being countermanded, so it is inevitable that it was put into effect. McKechnie is correct that Arrian supports Diodorus on this matter and confirms a funeral in Babylon. McKechnie's subsequent excuse that Arrian got this wrong because his source, Ptolemy, followed Ephippus instead of his own recollections is an absurd piece of speculation. McKechnie's argument for a funeral in Ecbatana falls on this point as well as on the other points that I have listed.

The editors are correct that proedros is a mistake for paredros in Diodorus 17.115, because the latter is used in the corresponding phrase in Lucian, who was also working from the Vulgate sources and because the rest of the sources are in agreement that Ammon authorised that Hephaistion should become a sub-God or Hero.

Best wishes,

andrew

[Xenophon]

Use of hyperbole such as "Taphoi bashing" and "ridicule" are emotive terms which should be avoided, especially as they aren't true... Please don't confuse refutation of statements put forward here with personal attacks. No-one has launched personal attacks consisting of insulting language aimed at the personality of the poster in this instance.

Of course we all know why Taphoi defends the impossible with increasingly desperate vehemence of the 'maybe it could have been so' variety - rather like the pet shop owner in Monty Python's "Dead Parrot" sketch ! It's because it is part of his own published works as 'fact'. But let us get away from his imaginative 'flights of fancy' for a moment and get back to what is being debated here.

Best wishes,

Andrew

It would appear that you are unable to distinguish between a comment on your motivation -legitimate enough, and criticism of your illogical methods and fallacies - also legitimate debate - on the one hand; and personal criticism of someone using abusive language on the other.

The latter, one might point out, is something you have been guilty of yourself on frequent occasions, with derisive and sarcastic comments made against individual members here, mostly caught by alert moderators.

The evident inability to distinguish the two goes far to explain why you do venture into personal attacks - though does not excuse them. Perhaps if you do learn the difference, debate here would become less 'heated' on occasion......

[agesilaos]

When a phrase is given in a dictionary/lexicon it means that the word may be translated in the given way only in that phrase not that the header word can take that meaning when it stands alone, then it has a sole entry and the phrase is used as an illustration. I think everyone will confirm this. So hoi konoi topoi is, as you say, literally public places' and the context makes the sense 'public buildings' by extension. English usage is not helpful.

Arrian VII 14 viii

καὶ πυρὰν κελεῦσαι αὐτῷ ἑτοιμάζεσθαι ἐν Βαβυλῶνι ἀπὸ ταλάντων μυρίων, οἱ δὲ καὶ πλειόνων ἀνέγραψαν

And he urged a pyra to be made ready in Babylon at a cost of a thousand Talents, some have written more.

Nothing says it was completed and there is no funeral in Babylon in the text; indeed the messenger granting heroic honours seems to arrive shortly before Alexander's last binge perhaps leaving no time. Also a disposable pyre, the pile of decorated firewood McKechnie concedes might have been practical, would not cost a thousand talents. Arrian has perhaps been influenced by his reading of Hieronymos in preparation for 'Ta Meta Alexandron', something seems to have given him pause over his depiction of Antipatros.

McKechnie's point about Ptolemy retailing Ephippos' version rather than the truth is that the King adopted the most politically advantageous version, we can see this in the stay in the Serapeion and the talking snakes too as well as the depiction of Perdikkas et al. Whilst I accept that it is possible I do not find Ephippos at the root of Arrian's statement that a pyre was ordered for Babylon. This tale of extravagance had become a commonplace as we can see from Arrian's own statement about the cost, he had at least three sources and in the absence of any part of the monstrous description of Diodoros I can see no reason supposing Ephippos to be behind his narrative.

That not all orders are completed is apparent from Diodoros XVIII and the cancelled hypomnemta.

You are right that Diodoros has been edited based upon Lucian, but the case should really be vice versa. The error is simple to diagnose, it stems from Arrian's authoritative statement that Ammon permitted Heroic honours alone for Hephaistion, faced with Diodoros's proedros the fashion has been to drag him into line with Arrian and Lucian. BUT Diodoros' narrative clearly requires that alexander's initial choice is supported by the reply from Ammon which is (XVII 115 vi)

Ἄμμωνος θύειν Ἡφαιστίωνι θεῷ

Ammon said Hephastion was to receive sacrifices as a GOD.

The internal logic of a piece must take priority over bringing it into line with the facts. Now consider Lucian's tale and ask yourself does it make better sense with Hephaistion a God or a hero and the inescapable conclusion is that he must be being considered a god.

[Paralus]

hoi koinoi topoi is contextual, without the koinoi, topos does not mean building, oikai means houses and contrasts with topoi empty sites.

hoi koinoi topoi is literally "the public places" and LSJ states that this is used to mean "the public buildings". It is a perfect illustration of topos referring to a building. There is no reason why such a usage should not apply in the case of any mention of a public building or structure, of which the pyre is a good example.

That reading by Taphoi is, I'm afraid, a reading of hope. Agesilaos is correct: topos is qualified (above) by "common'' (koinos). The LSJ is clear that topos is used for "place'', "region", "district", "position" etc. (area/location). When it is used otherwise it is qualified. Looking at its usage throughout the entirety of book 17, rather than simply looking for what suits our fancy, might well be instructive. In Book 17 Diodorus uses the word 41 times - 39 should we remove the two under discussion here. There is not a single instance where topos can be remotely construed to mean 'building'. In almost every single usage it refers to location (place or area). People occupy places (96.2); specified places (105.8); the Syrian gates (32.2); defiles, passes, ground, country (34.8 & 9; 35.6; 68.2); army contingents are arranged in correct places and assembled in one place (33.1 & 56.3) and Alexander selects a site for Alexandria (52.2). I could go on (and have them all tabulated) but the drift is clear: never is a building indicated.

Often, in translation, it will be rendered as "defile", "pass", "ground / country" or even "centre" and, at 115.2, "intervening spaces"(metaxu topous). This is due to the words used to qualify it (as at 115.2). So, topois at 34.8 is rendered as "defiles" due to stenois topois ("narrow places") and "passes" and 34.9. With topōn trakheōn at 35.6 topon is rendered as "ground" ("rough places").

Thus we come to 115. Diodorus uses topon three times in this passage. At 115.2 Alexander "collected the baked tiles and leveled off the place (topon) which was to receive the pyre, and then constructed this square in shape, each side being a furlong in length". It is the place that is to receive the pyre that is leveled and is the subject here - not the pyre - and that topon was square in shape. Diodorus then goes on (115.3) to say that Alexander "divided up the area (topon) into thirty compartments and laying out the roofs upon the trunks of palm trees wrought the whole structure into a square shape" and later adds that "while the intervening spaces (metaxu topous) were occupied by red banners fashioned out of felt". Why the difference? Topous is qualified by metaxu ("the midst / intervening") and thus intervening place/space. There is absolutely no such qualifier for topon in the preceding two useages: the word is used naked and can only mean area/place as is logical from the natural flow of the text. Diodorus is referring to the subject under discussion: the place (or area) receiving the pyre. And, in the second case, the area [topon[/i] is divided into thirty compartments to create its base. Further, Diodorus is hardly using topon here for "structure", as Taphoi would claim, for he uses structure - kataskeuasma - in the same sentence. Had Diodorus been referring to the actual pyre in his second usage of topon he most assuredly could have used the word. He was not and did not.


All that said, hoi koin topoi almost assuredly refers to "the common places".

Other matters need attention:

16 were arrayed in a 4x4 configuration in the first stage, 9 in the second, 4 in the third and one at the summit. The body and its support probably gave the last 10 cubits and there may have been banners. Each stage was split into two bands of decoration, so these were 15 cubits high (as stated by Diodorus), but the last band (the sirens) was probably 30 cubits high giving seven bands in all. I

What is your evidence for only five levels?
What is your evidence for "two bands of decoration"?
What is your evidence that each of these "bands of decoration" were 15 cubits high?

[Taphoi]

When a phrase is given in a dictionary/lexicon it means that the word may be translated in the given way only in that phrase not that the header word can take that meaning when it stands alone, then it has a sole entry and the phrase is used as an illustration.

No. The phrases are examples of usage and they indicate that other similar usages are possible.

Best wishes,

Andrew