"He too is Alexander".

[atlas]

Hello,Reading the "he too is Alexander"-quote in smittysmitty's post ("A world full of Alexanders) made me think of Plato's Symposium. In this, Aristophanes is giving his speach on love explaining how once the sexes were not two but three; man, woman and a union of these two - "androgynous". Man had four legs, four arms, one head with two faces, and so on. But when man angered the gods, Zeus decided to split him in half, and what was then left looked like men look today. After this division, the two parts of the man in a desperate attempt to join embraces each other and never lets go and shortly mankind is on the brink of extinction. But Zeus finds a way to deal with this aswell and the result is this; "Men who are a section of that double nature which was once called androgynous are lovers of women; adulterers are generally of this breed, and also adulterous women who lust after men: the women who are a sextion of the woman do not care for men, but have femal attachments; the female companions are of this sort. But they who are a section of the male follow the male, and while they are young, being slices of the original man, they hang about men and embrace them, and they are themselves the best of boys and youths because they have the most manly nature." He goes on to explain how these men are not inclined to marry and how when they do it's out of duty, and also "when one of them meets with his other half, the actual half of himself, the pair are lost in an amazement of love and friendship and intimacy". Maybe this is what Alexander had in mind when he replied that Hephaistion too was Alexander?//Atlas.

[amyntoros]

I remembered this once before (indeed, when I was also thinking about Alexander and Hephaistion) but I had no idea where I'd originally read it. I spent wasted hours pouring through Aristotle to see if he was the writer. Should have known it was Plato! Thanks.Amyntoros.

[Linda]

This is what I often quote when it is said the the Greeks had no notion of different sexualities - eg homo and hetero...it may be different slant on the issue, but different "types" are clearly defined. Of course, that is just what Plato said - it does not follow that this was a idely held, or commonly held belief.There is also Alexander's quote about Hephaestion, after the latter's death, that Hephaestion as as dear as his own self. You could see it as an ego thing ( ) ie Alexander couldn't love anyone more than he loved himself, or that this was another embodiment of the twin soul idea, or maybe both..Linda

[atlas]

Hi,"Of course, that is just what Plato said - it does not follow that this was a idely held, or commonly held belief."I agree. But I think that even though most people probably didn't believe in this explanation (and in the text Aristophanes seems quite worried that the others will laugh at him), I get the impression that the story is one that people were familiar with, and related to in the same way that we today might talk about Santa. I like to imagine that Alexander's comment about Hephaistion was made tongue-in-cheek (wouldn't that be lovely?). The army knew about their friendship and would probably have found it quite funny. Or maybe that's just me. //Atlas.

[Linda]

Or another angle is that Alexander took himself seriously, and that what he embodied - his ideals, and his values and qualities - were of great importance and central to how he saw the world. Hence there is the story (I read on a Christian website, of all places) in which he is dealing with a soldier accused of cowardice, and when he hears the man's name is Alexander, say angrily that the man is not fit to bear that name. Don't know where that is from..

[Gigi]

Hi people from Pothos: nice to post first time.It might have been a suptle ways of explaining the old lady that both had the same level in hierarchy; and that bowing to Hephaestion was not a waste of ones time. I don't see it as a 'romantic output'. It was, I think, needless and, in that moment, pointless.
If that happened at all. We have to consider this!best,Genevi+¿ve

[amyntoros]

Linda, I tend to agree with you on this. Alexander did have a dry wit, but I don't think this event was an example of it. And you made me curious about the tale of the other Alexander. I knew it before, but I can't find it anywhere in the sources. As I remembered it, Alexander ends by telling the soldier to either change his attitude or change his name. I Googled "Alexander" and "change his name" and came up with countless sites that have the story - and *all* of them are Christian websites! I think the story must be apocryphal and probably based on Plutarch, Alexander 58 where Alexander "spoke to one who also bore the name of Alexander. 'You at least,' he told him, 'will have to prove yourself a brave man to live up to your name.' After this the young man fought with the utmost gallantry, and was killed to the great sorrow of the king." Now I'm wondering where and when the *new* version of this story began.Amyntoros

[Linda]

Ah - right. It sounds like someone paraphrased Plutarch, and then the new version has done the rounds. Thanks for the reference, once again!You are right - it could have been slightly tongue in cheek - it is so hard to tell with some of his utterances. L.