pothos.org

I start this post because i think we have run out of space in the previous thread and there were somne errors while trying to post in the end. So,to reply for the reactions of the soldiers: This whole event is described by Athenaeus who quoted Dicaearchus.What do we know about Dicaearchus?Very little.He was a philosopher and cartographer,pupil of Aristotles.And he spend most of his life in Sparta.
Sparta???Wasnt Sparta against Alexander and the Macedonians in a very extreme way?Of course Dichaearhus was from Messina in Italy but the fact that he lived in Sparta tells us that maybe that was because he was very fond of the Spartans and not for the climate there.
But there are little that we know about Dichaearhus and for his own sources too.So he is somewhat dubius,unreliable unless we find out where did he get his sources.So that makes Athenaeus unreliable too in some extent. Also Plutarch mentions this scene about Bagoas and the soldiers cheering loudly, but Plutarhos again had his source from Clietarchus who is thought of being dubius too. This in not my oppinion only but for the majority of the historians Clietarhus was dubius.At least that is the general idea in the encyclopedias and strictly historical books about Alexander. I agree with them. This scene may have happened in some extent as it was described but we do not know exactly if the kiss was just a simple kiss as we nowdays give to friends e.t.c ,in a customary way,or something else.
We dont even know if the cheering from the soldiers originally started from Alexander's friends who actually might have wanted to mock the whole scene and then it was spread in the whole audience too.Because it is strange that the soldiers were opposed at Alexander wearing Persian clothes e.t.c and then cheering for him to kiss a Persian boy. Strange things.But i tend to believe that it was a customary kiss rather than something else.
And as Plutarh said in his Symposium of the seven sages,facts are very quickly altered and people tend to believe them. But since we are talking about the sources,lets dig a little bit into the origin of them.The origin of the writers themselves ,their influences.
A Macedonian would write differently than an Athenean,or a Thebean,or a Spartan would.Dont you think?

Thanks, Linda Ann, for making my day with the quotation from Athenaeus. That is wonderful. You know why.I agree that we should be discussing the extant sources and not using personal beliefs. But my own personal belief is that Alexander's importance to the world today is because of his victories against King Darius, and other adversaries, and not because of a single event at a party.Yet, like everyone else, I enjoy the discussion of his involvement with various and sundry personalities. But as far as the original sources are concerned, I am always wondering why and how it is that a statement can be made about Alexander's camp and also one of King Darius's camp. Where did they obtain this much information for each separate camp? For example, when the eunuch is supposed to have consoled King Darius with the thought that Alexander had always treated his wife so gentlemanly, never even looking at her unveiled face, how did this story get into the histories?It has always struck me odd when I had been reading these stories that there were descriptions of not only Alexander but also King Darius's tents and camps.I believe it is Curtius who is most notorious for that kind of writing.And yes, as you say, I was commenting upon the various contemporary authors who tell the story of Bagoa's dancing, and then the recognition given to him by Alexander. As I remember it was a kiss that got Callisthenes into trouble also. A kiss from Alexander was considered a kind of spoil as it were, better than a laureal wreath maybe? The personal touch.

HI Linda Ann again, You also know that I don't believe that the Bagoas dancing incident is gossip at all, nor the kiss gossip either. It is just a matter of interpretation as to what its significance really is. My belief is that Bagoas had won the contest and that was his reward, and evryone approved madly!It is worthwhile to note that more serious types like Arrian did not bother to include it in their stories for whatever reason they had. However, I underlined in yellow pen in my copy of Arrian every single altar that Alexander erected, and noted every sacrifice. That is why a comparative study of historical sources would be interesting to me, showing the differences amongst the various writers. I have noticed many discussions of military variations in terms of statistics about the numbers who survived and those who died, demonstrating that none of the sources ever agree about anything.Some overemphasize the drinking parties, and the amount of wine consumed, and blame everything on that. Others appear, like Arrian, to emphasize the achievements and the military accomplishments.But I deliberately compared the amount of wine consumption to the amount of altars built and sacrifices made due to the influence of The Invisible Enemy. I used only Arrian though.In the end, I still always conclude that Alexander is taken up with his being one of the Gods of the time, because I had read in a book by Agnes Savill that someone had told his father Phillip that if he defeated King Darius he would be considered a god. What else was Alexander to do, but to fulfill his own father's ambition? He did so.

Speaking of the sources does anyone know any site that is devoted to the Oxyrinch scripts?(The scripts that they now trying to read with the method of x-rays,or something like that).
It would be very interesting to see if among them there is anything about Alexander.After all these scripts are supposed to be almost the 20% of the whole of ancient scripts.That is what i have read,and that until know we had in our possesion only the 2%.

Well, Efstathios, I already know this will be another long post, but it will probably be my last on the subject for a while as it's consuming more time than I intended. Do I hear sighs of relief and cheers from Pothosians everywhere? ***So he is somewhat dubius, unreliable unless we find out where did he (Dicaearchus) get his sources. So that makes Athenaeus unreliable too in some extent.*** What if we did know Dicaearchus' sources? Are they only going to be considered reliable if they turned out to be Ptolemy/Aristobulus, Nearchus, etc. - henceforth to be referred to as PAN? (I included Nearchus here only to make the acronym work!) And do you have any idea how many different writers and lost works are cited in Athenaeus? How little information we have on many of these writers? And how often Athenaeus is our only source for these works? If the lack of detailed information on a source makes their histories "dubious" then perhaps we should disregard *everything* we've read about Alexander except for that which is reported by writers who quote PAN as their source. But wait . . . . the members of PAN couldn't have been firsthand witnesses at every single event reported! Even some of their information had to be second-hand, unless you believe that they were each by Alexander's side throughout his entire life. So we can't know all of *their* sources either - does that mean parts of their histories are dubious and unreliable as well, and Arrian too, by default? Can you see where this train of thought is taking us? Yes, we can argue for or against reliability in individual cases, but to discredit the writers themselves, just because you don't like what they say?*** A Macedonian would write differently than an Athenean,or a Thebean,or a Spartan would. Dont you think?*** Not necessarily, although a Spartan tome would probably be much shorter! (How about I give a prize for the best Spartan-inspired History of Alexander in under 25 words or less? "Alexander defeated the Athenians and the Thebans. He conquered all Asia, even unto India, but never overcame the Lacedaemonians. Ha!" )I'll be serious again. A writer's feelings about Alexander wouldn't always be reflective of his origin. An Athenian writer could be an admirer of Alexander - such people did exist! And it's possible that a Macedonian writer could be a detractor. One could assume a Theban might not be too fond of Alexander, but what about a Phrygian, an Alexandrian, a

One could assume a Theban might not be too fond of Alexander, but what about a Phrygian, an Alexandrian, a Romanized Gaul? Even if you could prove that a particular individual was prejudiced against Alexander because of his birthplace, it wouldn't necessarily follow that everything he reported is untrue. Our mythical Theban, present at the sack of his city, is going to give a very different report of events than those flattering little stories about Pindar's house and Timocleia, but his version can still be wholly truthful. A dislike for Alexander does not a natural liar make. (I must be tired. It appears that I'm channeling Yoda.)***.This in not my oppinion only but for the majority of the historians Clietarhus was dubius.*** (1) Not everything reported by Cleitarchus is dubious. (2) Not everything in Curtius is quoted from Cleitarchus. (3) Curtius is being reexamined as we speak. The next batch of historians may have a very different outlook. Some do already - see my original reference to Baynham. *** We dont even know if the cheering from the soldiers originally started from Alexander's friends who actually might have wanted to mock the whole scene and then it was spread in the whole audience too.*** Earlier in the campaign, Alexander had taken a spear and killed Cleitus because he had mocked him, wine and circumstances notwithstanding. Alexander had recently punished, removed, or dispatched various satraps whom he considered had failed in their duties or had behaved badly, Macedonians amongst them. I doubt that everyone was actually afraid of Alexander at this point as some scholars have theorized, but you can safely bet the men were watching their P's and Q's. And later, at Opis, when some of his soldiers mocked Alexander's supposed claim to semi-divine status, he jumped off the dais, seized them himself, and had them imprisoned or executed. Now does he strike you as the sort of man who would have appreciated been made fun of in public? In the theatre, no less? In front of thousands? Over his relationship with a eunuch? Oh my, oh my. . . I really don't think so.No we can't rely on everything in the sources. Yes, there are contradictions. Yes, the politics at the time of writing may well have influenced an author when it came to certain people or events; I'm not denying this. But try not to completely discredit the authors themselves rather than their report of the particular incident that disturbs you. Putting together all

(Third time's the charm!)Putting together all your many arguments, there'd be no point in reading anyone else but Arrian because only his history is reliable! If that were really the case, then we *do* have a definitive history of Alexander after all, so the owners of this forum might as well take their ball and we can all go home. :-)Best regards,Amyntoros

Hello Jan. This is in response to your question of how the incidents in Darius' camp could have found their way into the histories - how did anyone learn about the eunuch consoling Darius with the news of Alexander's gentlemanly treatment of Stateira? Well, Mary Renault believes that Bagoas was present on the occasion and subsequently reported the conversations to Alexander. However, that's only her opinion - it didn't have to be Bagoas. Once Darius was dead, all his personal staff came under the dominion of Alexander. Any individual Persian could have told Alexander the gist of the conversations, even the eunuch who had originally escaped to Darius camp. (If he was caught for the second time, you can bet your bottom dollar that he was "interviewed" about his escape and where he'd gone!) Of course, the stories could also have been fabricated as part of a public relations campaign to exonerate Alexander in the death of Stateira. (I'm sorry - I couldn't resist - but there are people who this might be so.) However, if we trust the reports, there are convincing routes of transmission whereby Alexander and his historians could have learned of the conversations.Best regards,Amyntoros

Frankly, as I was rereading Curtius again, I think that his book reads like a novel. Where did he obtain all of Alexander's speeches? (I think he made them up himself.) Not for one minute do I believe that many of these speeches were recorded and maintained as they happened spontaneously.I began to realize that this book reads more like a novel than anything. It has always reminded me of modern day serial soap opera style movies that I grew up on as a kid. Always a cliffhanger at the end to get you back for the next movie next week same time same place. I think Curtius did that to his Roman friends. Kept them glued to their seats.

We miss you playing ball at Alexander-Macedon, but I know you are busy.

Of course Curtius reads like a novel, Jan --á Alexander's life reads like a novel! I'd be a lot more suspicious of any work on Alexander if it was dull and boring. Curtius' speeches are rhetoric - we know that.-á However, his speeches may well be based on reports of what was said at the time. Even when the words used are not the ones originally spoken, the gist of a speech can still remain.:-)Amyntoros