pothos.org

I wrote a paper on Hephaestion's worship and uploaded it in Academia.edu. The title of my paper is 'Il culto di Efestione', by Alina Veneri. I hope it would be a tribute in the 2348 year from his death.

Thank you for this. The link is here https://www.academia.edu/125404971/IL_C ... _EFESTIONE.

As I do not know Italian unfortunately, I have had to run this through Google translate. It may not be terribly accurate, but would you like me to post it here?

Thank you, Alexias, Yes, of course, I'll be glad if you put here the translation! I pondered each word I wrote, but I'm afraid it is hard to understand, because I used so many Greek words; but it was necessary.

THE CULT OF HEPHESION: A NEW PERSPECTIVE
by ALINA VENERI

The essay by J. Reames -Zimmerman, 'The Mourning of Alexander', Syllecta Classica 2001, pp.98-145, opening up the hitherto more limited field of alexandrography to the area of socio-anthropological studies , is very stimulating and invites further investigation. Here I would like to try to answer some questions that arise for those who investigate in this area. On pp. 118-119 of the essay J. Reames , speaking of the death of Hephaestion , states: “ Hephaestion may also have been perceived as one who died “ untimely ”, falling into the category of ἄ ωρος and making him a potential problematic ghost. Johnston (1) notes that a ghost's restlessness resulted not from failing to attain given life marks (eg marriage , child bearing , etc.) but from failing to achieve the status and κλέος of those markers. Hephaestion certainly achieved something or other but his death followed almost immediately after both his marriage and his appointment to the chiliarchy ( Reames -Zimmerman [1998] 93-94, (2 ). Further , he died of illness , not as a result of battle , so his mode of death was not a κα λ ὸ ς θ ά να τος . All this casts doubts on the fullness of his κ λ έ ος . His fellow marshals (and even Alexander himself ?) may have feared his shade's envy and/or anger”. The ideal of the “beautiful death” has been present in Greek culture since the Homeric poems: equally ancient is the evaluation of death in war as “the most beautiful”, on the basis of the heroic ethos (3). It is therefore not surprising that people tried to 'solve' the problem of the value to be given to 'common' death which could not fit within the epic parameters. A possible solution is the one suggested by Plato in the Republic (5, 468a ff.): the philosopher, after having reiterated that courage in war constitutes the main criterion of distinction between the Guardians, with his typical argumentation through dialogue, comes to touch on the most burning issue. It is right – he says – that those who die in battle are considered as belonging to the golden lineage. And at this point he quotes the famous passage from Hesiod (Works 122 ff.) which theorizes the degradation of humanity, from the golden age to the iron age. But the most interesting thing is the commentary that Plato gives: after having affirmed that homage and veneration must be paid to the tombs of these dead, he adds: "And should we not also adhere to these same rules when citizens who have shone for virtue in their life die of old age or in any other way?" ( ὅ ταν something γ ή ρ ᾳ ἤ τινι ἄ λλ ῳ τρ ό π ῳ fore or aft , Resp. 469b, it. trans . R. Radice). The question, evidently rhetorical, inaugurates a completely new vision of the evaluation of the virtuous man: aretè is no longer attributed only to the one who fights courageously and dies in battle, but also to the one who has behaved virtuously but has died of old age or from any other cause.

This is a significant step forward in the evaluation of ἀ ν ὴ ρ ἀ γ αθ ό ς regardless of the circumstances of his death. The time of the 'epic' heroes may be over, but it will no longer be necessary to fall into this category to be considered ' daimones ', or 'divine' beings and venerated as such. But this reference is also very significant for another element that emerges as we continue reading. Plato asks himself a second rhetorical question that implies an affirmative answer: to know the right way to bury these extraordinary men, one must "ask the god in what particular way these divine beings, these demons, must be laid to rest in the tomb and carry out his order" ( π ῶ ς χρ ὴ what is daimonion or eye you what is it that and the eye τιθ έ ναι , Resp. 5, 469a ) . Not only that, but “these tombs must be paid homage ( θεραπε ύ σομεν ) and venerated ( προσκυν ή σομεν ) for all time to come, as is done with the tombs of demons” ( ibid .). Plato returns later to the subject of the fate of the Guardians after death. He reiterates that “the city will dedicate to them monuments ( μνημε ῖ α ) and public sacrifices ( θυσ ί ας … δημοσ ίᾳ ) as to demons ( δα ί μοσιν ), if the Pythia also gives the same response ( συναναιρ ῇ ), otherwise as to blessed beings ( ε ὐ δα ί μοσι ) and divine beings ( θε ί οις )” Resp . 7, 540 bc). Comparing the two passages we note that they have in common the fact that the choice of the quality of the honors due to the deceased is constantly delegated to the oracle; however, while in Resp . 5, 469a the response would have been limited to establishing what honors are attributable to these beings of demonic and divine nature ( δαιμον ί ους you what is it θείους ), in the second passage Plato seems to admit that the honors – and therefore the nature – of demons are different from those of blessed and divine beings ( εὐδαίμοσί you καὶ θεῖους ), and that this distinction is recognized by the Pythia freely, at her sole discretion. It seems therefore that Plato is thinking of two different categories of illustrious deceased: the δαίμονες (more important) and the θείοι : both, however, worthy of honors and sacrifices.

The difference between δαίμων , ἥ ρως and θε ό ς with many examples belonging to different contexts and eras. But now it seems to me that the definitive answer is the one formulated in two very important studies by G. Ekroth ( 4 ) who has demonstrated how the three terms, originally well differentiated from each other, have then in practice been used as synonyms. Even the use of honoring illustrious deceased people as gods, demons or heroes is not an invention of Plato, but is found applied in different sources and of different registers, even if the philosopher expresses it in a more articulated and authoritative way. Ultimately, honors to the deceased, in the classical age were reserved for imaginary characters, such as the Guardians of Plato's Republic, but also to the protagonists of the myth, such as Alcestis, who in the homonymous tragedy by Euripides is invoked as μάκαιρα δαίμων after death ( vv . 1003-4). Furthermore, even real human beings are called δαίμων θνητός (mortal demon) or θεὸς ἐν ἀνθρώποις (god among men) as Evagoras , the deceased king of Salamis in Cyprus in the eponymous encomium written by Isocrates (9, 72). So Plato only proposed to extend the privilege of receiving divine honors also to people who had died of illness or natural causes. At this point, returning to the theme of my study, it is clear that the attribution of similar honors to the deceased Hephaestion would be nothing but a further example of a practice already known previously, even if not common, extended, as was Plato's intention, also to illustrious deceased but not killed in battle. In fact, the testimonies on the cult accorded to Hephaestion – albeit with variations in the terms used – agree in recognizing that such honors placed the deceased in a special category, that of otherworldly beings endowed with certain powers, who however can be called ' daimones ', ' theoi (or theioi )' and ' heroes ' indifferently in the same text and by the same author. Precisely for this reason, it cannot be surprising – nor can it be considered as the only authentic testimony – the inscription, now preserved in the Museum of Thessaloniki (inv. no . 1084; Bull. Epigraph. 1992, no. 309; late 4th century BC) placed under a relief, which reads : ΔΙΟΓΕΝΗΣ ETHIOPIA ΗΡΩΙ (Diogenes to the hero Hephaestion ). The term 'hero' is only one of the possible ways to indicate the superhuman nature of the recipient of the dedication. But let us analyze the literary texts on the institution of the cult of Hephaestion .

Four authors report the funeral of Hephaestion ; of these only one, Justin, does not mention Alexander consulting the oracle to know what kind of honors were appropriate for the deceased: [11] “Dum haec aguntur , unus ex amicis eius Hephaestion decedit , dotibus primo formae childish , mox obsequiis regi percarus . [12] Quem contra decus regium Alexander god luxury tumulumque ei duodecim milium talent fecit eumque post -mortem coli ut deum iussit (ordered that after his death he should be venerated as a god)” (12, 11-12): the order seems to come directly from Alexander, without any previous intervention of an oracle. Instead Diodorus Siculus (17, 115, 6), Plutarch ( Vita Alex . 72, 3) and Arrian ( Anab, 7, 14, 7; 7, 23, 6), albeit with some variations, all report the consultation of the oracle, but none (except Arrian, as we will see later) reports that Alexander had expressly asked whether Hephaestion should be venerated as a god and had received a negative answer (7, 14, 7).

Diodorus devotes a large space to the narration of the death and funeral of Hephaestion : he describes in great detail Alexander's mourning, the pyre and its cost (17, 110, 8; 114, 1-5, 115, 1-6) ( 5 ). Of special interest here is the passage in which he speaks of the honours given to the deceased (17, 115, 5-6):

5) “In general, all the commanders, soldiers, ambassadors and local population having competed among themselves in organizing the funeral, they say that the amount of goods spent was more than twelve thousand talents [essentially it would have been a sum collected through a practice that today we would call 'crowdfunding'].

6) In consequence of such magnificence and since there had been such honors on the occasion of the funeral, at the end [Alexander] ordered everyone to sacrifice to Hephaestion as to the god paredro ( θύειν Ἡ φαιστίωνι thee παρέδρῳ , cf. Lucian, De calumnia 17). And indeed it happened that one of his friends, Philip, came bearing an oracle from Ammon, to sacrifice ( θύειν ) to Hephaestion as a god ( θεῷ ). Therefore, [Alexander] very pleased that the god had also ratified his opinion, first performed the sacrifice and made splendid gifts to the multitude, after having sacrificed ( θύσας ) ten thousand victims (ἱ ερεῖα ) of every kind.

From this passage it emerges clearly that Alexander, 'before' receiving Ammon's response, had not only already formed his own opinion on the deification of Hephaestion , but had also implemented a series of procedures suitable for celebrating such deification: the monumental pyre, the gold and ivory images, the extinguishing of the sacred fire ( Diod . 17, 115, 1-5; 114, 4). The oracle – according to Diodorus' account – had been consulted only to have confirmation of what he had already considered feasible; Alexander evidently simply expected advice on the quality and quantity of the sacrifices and honours to be performed and a ratification of what he had already planned and done. After all, it was common practice not to ask oracles questions that required 'alternative' answers that cancelled each other out, but questions on the 'way' of obtaining what was desired. An example of this practice is offered by an episode taken from Arrian's Anabasis . The historian says that when he reached the mouth of the Hydaspes , "Alexander sacrificed to the gods to whom he said he had been commanded by Ammon to sacrifice. The next day he sailed to the other island, the one in the sea, and after landing he made other sacrifices there too to other gods and with a different rite: he claimed to offer these also according to an oracle of Ammon (Anab. 6, 19, 4, Italian translation by D. Ambaglio )".

Plutarch, on the other hand, is more ambiguous: he reports that the oracle of Ammon had prescribed to honour Hephaestion and to sacrifice ( θύειν ) to him as to a hero (ἥ ρωι ). However, later on - always according to Plutarch - Alexander had called ἐναγισμός for Hephaestion the killing of the young Cossaeans , literally 'funeral sacrifice' ( Plut . Vita Alex . 72, 3-4). We know however that the terms thysia and enagismos , originally distinct, are then in fact used indiscriminately, ending up being interchangeable (G. Ekroth , The sacrificial rituals , cit. at n. 4, p.331 ff.), through a process similar to that undergone by the words 'god', 'demon' and 'hero'.

At this point it is inevitable to ask a question: if all our sources speak of divine honours paid to Hephaestion – albeit using different but substantially equivalent terms – and if all the sources (except Justin) mention Alexander consulting the oracle to define the modality of such honours, why does Arrian alone mention Ammon's ( οἰ) denial of the concession to sacrifice to Hephaestion as to a god? δὲ logosyn ὅτι καὶ you and me ἔπεμψεν ἐρησομένους τὸν theon yea what is it thee thein συγχωρεῖ Ἡ φαιστίωνι , τὸν δὲ or ξυγχωρῆσαι , Anab . 7, 14, 7)? It must also be kept in mind that the text which reports the denial is preceded by the phrase: “ οἰ δὲ λέγουσιν (others instead say)”, a formula that usually introduces rumours that are not very authoritative or without valid references, in this case then contrasted with the previous testimony which says: “That he ordered for the future to make sacrifices to Hephaestion as to a hero, this has been written by the majority of historians” ( τοῦτο μὲν for τῶν πλείστων ἀ ναγέγραπται , ibid . , it . trans . D. Ambaglio ). But, a little further on, Arrian himself, recalling the consultation of the oracle, totally ignores the prohibition on deification: “There also arrived from the oracle of Ammon the sacred delegation of those whom [Alexander] had sent to ask how it was right for him to honor Hephaestion (ὅ πος themis aphrodisiac τιμᾶν Ἡ φαιστίωνα , ibid . 7, 23, 6). The text continues as follows: "And they reported that Ammon said that it was right to make sacrifices ( θὐειν ) as to a hero". It is therefore necessary to resolve the problem by keeping two elements in mind:

1) Arrian is the only one who reports this isolated alternative version, openly supported by an anonymous and not very authoritative minority (which however, without valid reasons, is now universally considered more truthful and important than the others).

2) We have already emphasized that the difference between god and hero (or demon, as in Plato) has always been, as demonstrated by Ekroth ( 6 ), purely formal and, above all, very uncertain since the first attestations. If a distinction had ever existed (as Plutarch supposes, Moralia 415 A), it now remained only theoretical, especially in the imperial age, when Arrian wrote his Anabasis (7).

There is, however, a reason that seems to me compelling enough to justify Arrian's citation of the oracle's refusal to recognize the deification of Hephaestion . Lucian, more or less at the same time as Arrian, in De calumnia gives ample space to an excursus on the deification of Hephaestion , a subject that he treats with a critical spirit, ridiculing the whole episode. The narration, in a strongly sarcastic and grotesque tone, accentuates the exaggerated aspect of Alexander's actions in that circumstance: his behavior at the death of his friend is characterized by a childish reaction, which however leads to tyrannical actions. In fact, anyone who did not show sufficient respect for the new god, or smiled at the acts of homage paid to him, would have been punished with death or exile. Lucian even reports an anecdote with a paranormal background: Agathocles of Samos, who had been surprised in tears in front of the tomb of Hephaestion - demonstrating with this behavior that he did not believe in the divinity of the deceased, but considered him just another dead person - would have been condemned to be locked in a cage with a lion if Perdiccas had not promptly intervened by telling how the same deified Hephaestion had appeared to him ( φανέντα ἐ ναργῆ τὸν θεόν ) during the hunt to exonerate the unfortunate man. The strongest moment of Lucian's mockery of Alexander is this: "Alexander reached the point of being proud of himself , because not only was he the son of a god, but he was also capable of creating gods " ( οὐ theoῦ you are the one moon , with moon καὶ theophilus poehn δυνάμενος , De calumnia 17).

Probably in the age of Arrian and Lucian the interest in the divinization of a common deceased had been rekindled after the emperor Hadrian had elevated the dead Antinous, his favorite, to divinity ( 8 ). R. Lambert, who has devoted many pages to defining the nature of the cult of the young Bithynian, notes very acutely that Hadrian issued an edict of divinization in Egypt and was careful not to consult the Senate in Rome about it. In this way he broke the custom according to which “public and formal divinization accompanied by a cult was , in Roman times, quite another matter , far more exclusive , reserved strictly fo the Emperor and his immediate family and conferred by an official edict of the Senate ”( Beloved and God. cit a n. 7, p. 147). Lucian, heavily criticizing Alexander's 'creation of gods', would have actually alluded to what the Roman emperor accomplished through a motu proprio in favor of his beloved, to subtly ridicule him. In the light of Lucian's excursus, the fact that Arrian feels obliged to point out the oracle's denial of Alexander's proposed deification of Hephaestion , a tradition totally opposed to that ridiculed in De calumnia , is not insignificant. We do not know the origin, the dating and the credibility of the news, but it is impossible to avoid the idea that it is a response to Lucian's 'slander' , or – at least – to the environment from which such criticism arose. Only in the philosophical-political climate of the imperial age could it have made sense to underline a fact that, in all likelihood, would have seemed of little interest at the time of Alexander and even in those immediately following. Arrian therefore seems to exploit the rumor to take a position in the contemporary debate on the opportunity of deification: seizing on a (presumed) testimony, neglected by all the other historians, he adds an extra touch to his representation of Alexander as a man "extremely respectful of divinity" ( τοῦ θείου ἐ πιμελέστατος , 7, 28, 1) which he completes in the eulogistic portrait of the Macedonian king at the end of his Anabasis ( 7, 28-30).

At this point I think I can conclude that the most reliable source on the cult of Hephaestion is Diodorus, because – for chronological reasons – he is completely extraneous to the inevitable comparison with Hadrian's behaviour towards Antinous and towards Roman legislation, which distinguishes what emerges from the texts of Lucian and Arrian examined above. The latter then manifests, even more clearly than Lucian, moralistic concerns, already well known, also in another episode referable to the cult of Hephaestion , in which the historian of Nicomedia criticises the alleged letter of Alexander to Cleomenes ( Anab. 7, 23, 6-8). But his are reflections typical of a period much later than the events narrated (9), and have nothing to do with the real historical moment in which the institution of the cult of Hephaestion takes place .

It now remains to ask whether Aristotle, writing in his Nicomachean Ethics, "do not friends perhaps desire for their friends the greatest of goods, for example the existence of gods? ( οὐ bolontai or philosphy tos philos τὰ magpie τῶν ἀγατῶν , οἷον theophilus εἶναι ”, Eth . Nic.8, 9, 1159a 6-7), had not had in mind what Alexander would have done for Hephaestion, now dead, that is, when the last impediment to deification mentioned by the philosopher had disappeared: “If therefore it has been said exactly that the friend wants what is good for the friend and for himself, it will be necessary for him to remain what he is. He will therefore want the greatest goods for him on condition that he is a man .” ( ibid . 9-11, Italian translation by M. Zanatta).

NOTE
1) S. I. Johnston, Restless Dead: Encounters Between the living and the Dead in Ancient Greece, Berkeley, Univ. Of California Press, 1999, pp. 148-149; 152.

2) J. Reames-Zimmerman, Hephaestion Amyntoros: Eminence Grise at the Court of Alexander the Great, Diss. Pennsylvania State University, 1998, pp. 93-94.

3) Cf. J.-P. Vernant , The Heroic Death in Ancient Greece (Paris 1980), trans. it . Genoa 2007, p. 11, p.

4) G. Ekroth , The sacrificial rituals of Greek hero -cults in the early Archaic Hellenistic periods , Liège , International Center for the Study of Religion Ancient Greek , 2002 and Id, 'Heroes and Hero-cult' in A Companion to Greek Religion ( ed by D. Ogden) , Malden MA-Oxford-Victoria, Blackwell 2007, pp.100-114.

5) On the cult of Hephaestion , cf. F. Goukowsky , Essay sur les origins two mythe d'Alexandre (336-270 av.J.-C. , I: Les origins policies , App. XXII, Nancy 1978, pp.204-205; 353-354. L. Prandi, Diodoro Siculo, Historical Library, Book XVII , historical commentary, Milan 2013, pp. XXVIII-XXX; 196-199 (with bibliography ); T. Mavrojannis , 'The “Great Tumulus ” at Amphipolis . Remarks on its chronology in comparison to the debate for the “ deification ” of Hephaistion ', Vestigia. Miscellany of archaeological and historical-religious studies in honor of Filippo Coarelli on his 80th anniversary, edited by Valentino Gasparini, Stuttgart 2016, pp. 645-662 (with bibliography). Recently S. Mueller ( Lexicon of Argead Makedonia , W. Heckel /J. Heinrichs /S. Mueller/F. Pownall eds ., Berlin 2020, s.v. ' Hephaistion ', p. 255) has tried to explain rationally, but in my opinion without any credible source support, that the motive for Alexander's establishment of the cult of Hephaistion was to encourage others to follow his example of loyalty.

6) G. Ekroth,’Heroes and Hero-cults in the Archaic to the early Hellenistic periods’, cit. a n.4, p.331.
7) Cfr. R. Lambert, Beloved and God. The story of Hadrian and Antinous, London 1984, p. 178-180.
Cfr. S. Mueller,’Icons, Images, Interpretations: Arrian, Lukian, Their Relationship, and Alexander at the Kydnos’,Karanos 1, 2018, pp.67-86.
9) I have already highlighted elsewhere the particular position of Arrian, who is not always able to separate his point of view, conditioned by the socio-political environment in which he lives, from the historical reality that he wants to narrate, see A. Veneri, ' Callistene e Alessandro' , ΠΡΑΚΤΙΚΑ THE ' DIETINOS SYNDRIOTH KASISIKON ΣΠΟΥΔΩΝ , ΚΑΒΑΛΑ 24-30 ΑΥΓΟΥΣΤΟΥ 1999, ΤΟΜΟΣ Β ', ΑΘΗΝΑΙ 2002, p. 967 ff.

Thank you a lot, Alexias! You have done a big work, and it seems to me quite well translated. Unfortunately (as I have foreseen) I had to put in too many Greek words that aren't all well written, but never mind! Only a thing I 'd correct: the last quote of Aristotle is "don't the friends want for their friends the best of goods, such as to be gods?"(Eth. Nicom. 8, 9, 1159a, 6-7). Perhaps it is a neglected evidence of Hephaestion's deification from a very authoritative philosopher.

An apposite post for the time of year when we remember the dead, and especially on Remembrance Sunday when we honour the war dead. It's an interesting notion that the generals may have sought to appease Hephaestion's ghost, but in a sense, isn't that what funerals are for, to honour the dead, show respect (as well as grief), and to lay the ghost.

I don't know enough about Roman views on deification, but if Arrian didn't start writing his works until after Hadrian's death (138 AD), when the initial impetus for Antinous's cult was gone, I'm not quite sure of the point of him complaining about Antinous's deification, unless he was complaining about the spread of the cult, which I believe, sometime later, was a serious threat to early Christianity.

I've always been a bit suspicious of the Agathocles anecdote. Alexander indulged his own grief at Hephaestion's death, so it seems a little unhinged that he wouldn't permit anyone else to grieve. If the anecdote is true, maybe it has been misinterpreted in some way.

An interesting read, thanks.

Thank you Alexias for your comment. I think the opposite opinions expressed by Lucian and Arrian for or against the deification of Hephaistion by Alexander were raised by the recent deification of Antinous by Hadrian, but in fact weren't directed explicitly against the emperor. It was rather a rethorical/ philosophical debate, very fashionable in those times, but not in Alexander times. As for the story of Agathocles, I think it was all made up (whether by Lucian or not I don't know), concocting true and false elements (as Heckel writes). To cry in front of a grave was the same as to believe Hephaestion a normal dead man, not a deified man, let alone a god!