Newbie question

[karen]

I too find things that “grate”. That which currently wears like a shirt of sandpaper is the – seemingly growing – view of Alexander as the “benevolent, civilising conqueror”. This once prevalent idea (particularly early last century) is about as factual as the “Mongol mass-murderer” Alexander who existed only to “hunt men”. Neither of these is correct. Between the two we will all find that which suits our take on the conqueror.

My take is somewhere in the middle, which I think is reasonable, and that's exactly my point -- Green is on the extreme, because he takes a person who is, like everyone, capable of all emotions, and portrays him capable only of anger and greed, interpreting all the others, from generosity to his soldiers to remorse for killing Kleitos, as faked. I asked for examples from his book showing otherwise, and I note that you have not provided anyway, so I take it you concede this point

Warmly,
Karen

[Paralus]

Green is on the extreme, because he takes a person who is, like everyone, capable of all emotions, and portrays him capable only of anger and greed, interpreting all the others, from generosity to his soldiers to remorse for killing Kleitos, as faked. I asked for examples from his book showing otherwise, and I note that you have not provided anyway, so I take it you concede this point .

Not a jot. But, as I've an office to get to, if you think I'm about to re-read the book simply to do so, think again.

He does not portary Alexander as capable only of "anger and greed", though the first features large from Bactria onwards. As to Clietus' death, I believe Green accords him "genuinne grief" though with a pithy aside to his failure to kill himself on the same spear. It is the reaction of the army - declaring Clietus a traitor in effect - and therefore absolving Alexander that draws remarks about possible calculation in the mandatory three days tent bound.

[marcus]

My take is somewhere in the middle, which I think is reasonable, and that's exactly my point -- Green is on the extreme, because he takes a person who is, like everyone, capable of all emotions, and portrays him capable only of anger and greed, interpreting all the others, from generosity to his soldiers to remorse for killing Kleitos, as faked. I asked for examples from his book showing otherwise, and I note that you have not provided anyway, so I take it you concede this point

I have to say that that isn't how I remember Green's book myself, although it is a few years since I read it. When I first read it, many many moons ago, I felt he was quite harsh on Alexander; but on my more recent reading decided that he was much more fair than I had originally given him credit for.

I feel I am due another perusal soon, but as I suspect that won't be for some time, what with the other calls on my time, I must go by my poor fuzzy memory.

ATB

[karen]

...but as I recall he portrayed Alexander's entire behaviour after killing Kleitos as a cynical ploy to manipulate the army into absolving him. And nothing else. I remember nothing about genuine grief. As I recall, I was looking for it. I also seem to remember he had anger feature large with Thebes, Tyre and Persepolis, well before Baktria.

I would cite if I owned a copy. We're really debating in the dark here, I have to confess, without the book at hand. And I did read it a few years ago, and don't claim a perfect memory. Likeliest place I think you would prove me wrong, Paralus, would be after the death of Hephaistion, so I invite you to.

Warmly,
Karen

[amyntoros]

So that you’re no longer arguing in the dark: -

Peter Green, Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C. Page 364-366 - Aftermath of the death of Cleitus:

Struck by sudden overwhelming remorse, the king plucked the spear from his old comrade’s dead body and tried (not very energetically, it would seem) to impale himself on it. His friends, however, once more closed in and forcibly restrained him. He now shut himself up in his private quarters where he continued to lament all night, recalling, inter alia, the omission of a sacrifice to Dionysus, which sounds like an attempt to divest himself of responsibility for his murder by laying it at the door of an angry god. At dawn he had Cleitus’ body brought to him, and mourned over it for a while, though it was later removed again. For a considerable period – estimates range between Plutarch’s thirty-six hours (the most likely) and Justin’s four days (a characteristic exaggeration), with Curtius and Arrian settling for a quasi-canonical three day retirement – he remained in seclusion, without food or drink.

The point at which genuine grief began to merge into calculated play-acting is very hard to determine: perhaps the two elements co-existed up to a point throughout. We can only judge by results, and the results were of great interest and significance. Once it sank into the minds of Alexander’s followers that he might really starve himself to death, leaving them leaderless in this remote and barbarous country, they did everything they could to make him change his mind. What the king sought, in effect, was a combined absolution and vote of confidence: he got both. Callisthenes tried tactful philosophical comfort. This was not a success. Anaxarchus, however, a political realist, saw at once that Alexander needed not intellectual placebos but philosophical justification. He therefore marched into the king’s bedroom and told him, with cheerful brutality, to get up and quit sniveling: the king stood above mere human laws.

This, of course, was precisely what Alexander hoped to be told : from now on Anaxarchus enjoyed increasing favour at Callisthenes’ expense. The Macedonians, taking their cue from the king’s reaction, now ‘decreed that Cleitus had been justly put to death’, presumably for treason. Soothsayers complicated the issue by ascribing his end to the anger of Dionysus: various premonitory omens were ‘remembered’ (i.e. manufactured) confirming such a view, and implicitly transferring the burden of responsibility from Alexander to ‘Fate’s decrees’ (Aristander played a useful role here). His crime thus retrospectively legitimized – and conscious that henceforth he could, at a pinch, get the army’s endorsement for almost anything – Alexander consented to sit up and take nourishment. Nevertheless, every man present at that fatal banquet knew the truth. Cleitus had been killed for daring to express open criticism of the king, and for no other reason. What was worse, Alexander’s act of murder had not been forgiven so much as publicly justified. From now on there would be no holding him. The death of Cleitus, coming so soon after that of Parmenio, did indeed, as Curtius says, mark the end of freedom.

Flicking through the book to see if I could find anything ‘in which an action of Alexander's is imputed to love, genuine generosity, compassion, friendship, concern for his men, or anything altruistic at all’, I found myself charmed by the book all over again. Yes, I did say charmed. Though his biases are strongly evident, Green has an admirable command of the language and a creativity of expression which equals that of Mary Renault. Although his opinion of Alexander is at the opposite end of the spectrum from Renault’s, he is equally skillful at manipulating the reader. If someone has little knowledge of Alexander they will likely read his book and believe Green’s interpretation to be the one and only truth. But if they have already formed strong opinions, they ought still, IMO, to find the book very entertaining. Personally, I delight in Green’s frequently snide asides. (It reminds me of when The Rock first turned heel and insulted stadium after stadium full of wrestling fans – and they enthusiastically applauded him for it. His personal magnetism shone through. In the same way, I would expect after reading his works to find Peter Green to be a most charismatic man.)

And no, Karen, I haven’t found evidence of an altruistic Alexander in the book, but I don't agree that the only attributes which Green confers on him are anger and greed. Alexander in Green's book is far, far cleverer than he is portrayed by any other author. And much more Philip’s son! Even though there are times when I feel that Green has gone too far to the extreme, I can’t help but think that there’s still a grain of truth in what he writes. In this book readers may not find many qualities (in Alexander) that they admire in a man, but the ones they do find are most suitable for a king and conqueror.

Best regards,

[Alita]

Paralus, I was making a comment on Michael Wood's accuracy of research for his doc; I was not saying anything about the validity of scripture. I was hoping my comments wouldn't lead to theological apologetics.

In general, bible prophecy is a very messy matter and nobody (from either side of the 'fundamentalist' fence) can really make claims today about things on which little or no sound evidence is to be found, especially without backing up their arguments with sources. (One I found that provides a very balanced view is: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qwhendan3a.html - you may like to check it out).

Whether or not Daniel or his contemporaries actually predicted the events described in his book, the fact remains that Mr Wood did not read through this material thoroughly and it irritated me to see it on a video he had otherwise so carefully and passionately put together. That was my point.

Cheers,
Alita.

[karen]

Amyntoros, thank you so much for reproducing this passage! Especially if you keyed the whole thing -- did you?

It reminds me all over again of why I can't stand Green's work (sorry Paralus -- I just read elsewhere that he is your favorite historian). Over and over and over again, he imputes psychological motives with certainty that simply cannot be imputed with certainty.

There's the word "remorse" yes... but the remorse is "not very energetic." There's the words "genuine grief" yes... but the grief supposedly merges into "calculated play-acting," which genuine grief never actually does. When Alexander laments, he's making "an attempt to divest himself of responsibility," not truly lamenting -- though his frequent repetition of the words "the murderer of my friends!" as recorded by ancient sources doesn't exactly sound like divesting himself of responsibility to me.

"We can only judge by results"? No, actually, we can't judge by results either. We can't know the internal dynamic behind the external actions. The thrust of Green's whole accounting is, "Alexander emotionally blackmailed everyone into justifying the crime, and giving him carte blanche for the future." (Though note nothing else similar ever happened again.) But what actually happened for Alexander could just as likely be, "I don't want to live with having done this, but I'm going to have to, because by killing myself I'll do everyone even worse harm than I've already done." On the outside, they'd both look the same. What was recorded of conversations around Alexander during that time, if it's even accurate, is a tiny fraction of the conversations that must have occurred, most of them behind firmly closed doors, so making definite interpretations based on the recorded ones is just not academically valid or intellectually honest.

The army absolved Alexander; did he absolve himself in his own mind? Neither Peter Green nor anyone else can possibly know, and therefore should not claim to.

...he is equally skillful at manipulating the reader.

Well, not this one. I can easily spot it in both Renault and Green, and I don't take kindly to attempts to manipulate readers. (I know it's just a novel, but I can't stand the way Renault had Alexander blow off the murder in The Persian Boy either.) Just give me the facts, and if you can't know something, admit it. Probably why my favourite modern Alexander historian is Lane Fox.

I haven’t found evidence of an altruistic Alexander in the book, but I don't agree that the only attributes which Green confers on him are anger and greed. Alexander in Green's book is far, far cleverer than he is portrayed by any other author.

And that cleverness is in the service of what emotional impulse? At any time, is it anything other than anger or greed (or more exactly, as I should have stated from the outset, ambition)? (Not a rhetorical question -- I'm perfectly prepared to be proven overly biased myself, and redeem Green in my own mind, if the evidence is there.)

Warmly,
Karen

[Paralus]

It reminds me all over again of why I can't stand Green's work (sorry Paralus -- I just read elsewhere that he is your favourite historian).
There's the word "remorse" yes... but the remorse is "not very energetic." There's the words "genuine grief" yes... but the grief supposedly merges into "calculated play-acting," which genuine grief never actually does.

No need to be sorry Karen. We should clear something up though. “Favourite historian”? Yes – one of them. That not necessarily based on this book, though it has a large bearing. I’ve read Green on many a subject. Most – in fact all aside from the book under discussion – outside the close, not to say Macedonian myopic, confines of this forum and it’s sole subject. His Armada From Athens was – is – a tour de force on the Athenian disaster in Sicily and , in large part, responsible for a “re-mark” offer in a final examination essay I wrote on the same subject in 1975. The Ancient History Master informed me in no uncertain terms that the book was controversial because it employed a “modern” economic argument to explain Athens’ motivations. This was not an idea of wide acceptance at the time. He was correct. How times have changed. Green was – is – spot on. Today, few would gainsay it.

The remorse was "sudden and overwhelming" and the "not very energentically" quip related to the act of - ostensibly, as the results show - spearing himself.

We can only judge by results"? No, actually, we can't judge by results either. We can't know the internal dynamic behind the external actions. The thrust of Green's whole accounting is, "Alexander emotionally blackmailed everyone into justifying the crime, and giving him carte blanche for the future." (Though note nothing else similar ever happened again.) But what actually happened for Alexander could just as likely be, "I don't want to live with having done this, but I'm going to have to, because by killing myself I'll do everyone even worse harm than I've already done."

Results are often a pretty fair guide Karen. I can fairly say that the annihilation of the Athenians and their allies in Sicily was in great part due to the indolence and lack of initiative of the (resultant) supreme commander Nikias. I don’t necessarily need Thucydides’ narrative to come to that conclusion. The result speaks for itself. I don’t necessarily need to know the “internal dynamics” of Alexander’s brilliant planning of Gaugamela to judge that he had a remarkable tactical take on the battle. The result speaks for itself.

No, nothing like ever occurred again. Callisthenes, were he alive, might take some issue with that. Better though, that I leave it to he whom you cannot stand:

The statrap, Abilutes, offered Alexander 3,000 talents in cash as a substitute (for provisions not supplied in Gedrosia). The king had the money thrown to his horses. “What kind of provisions do you call these?” he asked, when they refused to touch it. He is said to have dispatched Abilutes’ son in person, transfixing the wretched youth with a spear. The ghost of Clietus, it seems had ceased to trouble him.

And that cleverness is in the service of what emotional impulse? At any time, is it anything other than anger or greed (or more exactly, as I should have stated from the outset, ambition)?

Well of course it is ambition. It is his defining trademark. A trademark that knew few bounds. Ambition to better Achilles, Heracles and, of course, the ghost of his father. In the end, as Arrian wrote, he would compete with himself having bettered all others. To again quote Green:

(He) was now twenty-seven years old: a strong, sensual, heavily bearded man much addicted to drink, women, and (when the fancy took him) boys.

Not of course Alexander, but his father and competitor Philip II. Now, why is it such might be said about him and not raise a yelp but, impute it about the son and….

Just wondering aloud.

[karen]

Hi Paralus:

I thought Green was your favourite historian from reading this by you:

Now, to the Green quote. How dare you use my favourite historian against me?

http://pothos.william-powlett.net/forum ... dae888b40a

I will join you in commending Green for his outside-the-box thinking on the Athenian disaster, and I'm glad you got the re-mark. Perhaps he should stick to strategy, tactics & logistics, and leave the whole emotional field alone.

Might Alexander have genuinely, rather than ostensibly, speared himself, had other Makedonians not stopped him? The other Makedonians seem to have thought so.

Indolence and lack of initiative are observable behaviours, not emotional motives. Of course we can judge Alexander's tactical expertise from the results of battles, because winning was his clear intent.

But when a man does something his culture considers reprehensible, attempts suicide, withdraws into himself and refuses sustenance, is absolved by those around him who need him, then relents and continues his life, there are two basic emotional dynamics possible. Either he's faking the histrionics so as to emotionally blackmail everyone around him into absolving him, as Green would have it; or -- if he has conscience -- it is as reprehensible to him as to the rest of his culture, the sadness, the regret and the self-condemnation are genuine, he doesn't really accept the absolution, but relents and continues on because they need him. Gives two very different pictures of a person, doesn't it? One with conscience and one without. From the same result. Thus, some things you absolutely cannot judge on results, and Green is ingenuous in pretending you can.

Callisthenes, were he alive, might take some issue with that.

But there was evidence of involvement in an assassination conspiracy on his part. I notice that when Alexander had people killed who had, or might have, conspired against him, he had no regret at all. They were no longer friends or allies. Kleitos, he realized, still had been, and that was the problem.

The case of Abulites is not to be analogized with Kleitos either, since he had contributed to the Gedrosia disaster and the deaths of tens of thousands. Why does Green draw these specious comparisons, if not to just plain damn Alexander?

Besides, this is a perfect example of Green's false certainty. "He is said to have dispatched Abilutes' son in person..." Slender evidence that this actually happened necessitates the tentative wording of the sentence. But then -- "The ghost of Cleitus, it seems, had ceased to trouble him." -- an editorial comment impugning motive, as if the preceding evidence were certain.

Ambition is really too broad a term for what I mean that Green imputes to Alexander... greed is closer; perhaps the most exact is power-lust. Ambition can be much more than that; you can aspire to be generous, to give to the world, to leave a benevolent mark; you can desire fame for your war-like deeds or the breadth of your knowledge or the brilliance of your art. So let me re-phrase it like this: Green presents Alexander as truly motivated by no emotion other than anger or power-lust. Other emotions are either faked for effect, or short-lasting and superficial.

Drink is debatable, but let someone say that Alexander was addicted to boys and women, and you bet that I for one will raise a yelp, as should you, at a clear falsehood.

[karen]

Hi Paralus (et al):

I thought Green was your favourite historian from reading this by you:

Now, to the Green quote. How dare you use my favourite historian against me?

http://pothos.william-powlett.net/forum ... dae888b40a

I will join you in commending Green for his outside-the-box thinking on the Athenian disaster, and I'm glad you got the re-mark. Perhaps he should stick to strategy, tactics & logistics, and leave the whole emotional field alone.

Might Alexander have genuinely, rather than ostensibly, speared himself, had other Makedonians not stopped him? The other Makedonians seem to have thought so. They were there, so I'll go with their view.

Indolence and lack of initiative are observable behaviours, not emotional motives. Of course we can judge Alexander's tactical expertise from the results of battles, because winning was his clear intent.

But when a man does something his culture considers reprehensible, attempts suicide, withdraws into himself and refuses sustenance, is absolved by those around him who need him, then relents and continues his life, there are at least two basic emotional dynamics possible. Either he's faking the histrionics so as to emotionally blackmail everyone around him into absolving him, as Green would have it; or it is as reprehensible to him as to the rest of his culture, the sadness, the regret and the self-condemnation are genuine, he doesn't really accept the absolution, but relents and continues on because they need him. Gives two very different pictures of a person, doesn't it? One with conscience and one without. From the same result. Thus, some things you absolutely cannot judge on results, and Green is ingenuous in pretending you can.

There was evidence of involvement in an assassination conspiracy on Kallisthenes' part. (More than there was against Alexander re the assassination of Philip, and Green was quite happy to label Alexander a "probable parricide.") I notice that when Alexander had people killed who had, or might have, conspired against him, he had no regret at all. They were no longer friends or allies. Kleitos, he realized, still had been, and that was the problem.

The case of Abulites is not to be analogized with Kleitos either, since he had contributed to the Gedrosia disaster with its tens of thousands of deaths. Why does Green draw these specious comparisons, if not to just plain pillory Alexander?

This one is as well a perfect example of the false certainty I was talking about. "He is said to have dispatched Abilutes' son in person..." Slender evidence that this actually happened necessitates the tentative wording of the sentence. But then -- "The ghost of Cleitus, it seems, had ceased to trouble him." -- an editorial comment impugning motive, as if the preceding evidence were certain and thus leaving an imprint in the reader's mind as if it is. That is, as Amyntoros was saying, reader manipulation, not scholarship.

Ambition is really too broad a term for what I mean that Green imputes to Alexander... greed is closer; perhaps the most exact is power-lust. Ambition can be much more than that; you can aspire to be generous, to give to the world, to leave a benevolent mark; you can desire fame for your war-like deeds or the breadth of your knowledge or the brilliance of your art. So let me re-phrase it like this: Green presents Alexander as truly motivated by no emotion other than anger or power-lust. Other emotions are either faked for effect, or short-lasting and superficial.

Drink is debatable, but let someone say that Alexander was addicted to boys and women, and anyone who values accuracy should raise a yelp!

Warmly,
Karen

[amyntoros]

But when a man does something his culture considers reprehensible, attempts suicide, withdraws into himself and refuses sustenance, is absolved by those around him who need him, then relents and continues his life, there are two basic emotional dynamics possible. Either he's faking the histrionics so as to emotionally blackmail everyone around him into absolving him, as Green would have it; or -- if he has conscience -- it is as reprehensible to him as to the rest of his culture, the sadness, the regret and the self-condemnation are genuine, he doesn't really accept the absolution, but relents and continues on because they need him. Gives two very different pictures of a person, doesn't it? One with conscience and one without. From the same result. Thus, some things you absolutely cannot judge on results, and Green is ingenuous in pretending you can.

Sticking my nose in again, I agree that it isn’t always possible to judge on results, but I also think that the two basic emotional dynamics that you present are an over-simplification. The regret and self-condemnation could be genuine (and I think they were) but at some point Alexander HAD to begin to consider how his actions appeared to those who had not been present - especially the army - and what effect this might have on his leadership. I find it difficult to believe that only Alexander’s friends and philosophers plotted and calculated as to how they could make this go away whilst the thought never crossed Alexander’s mind. I do agree with Green on this, to a point, not because I’m judging by results, but because in such circumstances it is human nature to think not only “what I have done?” but also “what is going to happen (to me) now?” and “what will others think of me?” Plutarch has Alexander “lying on the floor weeping like a slave, terrified of the law and of what men will say of him.”

By the way, can you fake histrionics? I thought that histrionics is calculated, albeit exaggerated emotional behavior intended to produce a desired effect? Have seen quite a few episodes in my life, and I have to say that Alexander’s behavior does fit the description. However, it doesn’t follow that Alexander had no conscience.

I think that Green goes just a little “over the top” here, but I find your alternative that Alexander “doesn't really accept the absolution, but relents and continues on because they need him” not easy to digest. The army needed Alexander, but he needed the army also. And he certainly appears to have accepted the absolution, although technically that’s the wrong word, don’t you think? Alexander wasn’t exactly absolved of his sins - it was more a case of Alexander not having committed a sin in the first place! Anaxarchus convinced Alexander that he “represents the law and sets up the criterion of justice . . .” and that “Zeus has Justice and Law seated by his side to prove that everything that is done by the ruler of the world is lawful and just.” And when the army condemned Cleitus as a traitor, Alexander did not object. It doesn’t look like unaccepted absolution to me.

Best regards,

[Paralus]

Hi Karen - another quickie before work.

Amyntoros has taken the words off my keypad. It would seem, given his heartfelt and genuine remorse, regret and self condemnation at having murdered his erstwhile saviour and friend in fit of alcoholic pique that Alexander felt no concomitant desire to correct the army’s obvious error in condemning Clietus as a traitor.

Looks better all round I suppose. But I’d rather suspect the “one with a conscience” might have corrected the ultimate smear of a loyal general’s reputation

The fit of “histrionics”? Well, if it works once, why not give it another whirl? See three days at the Beas and three days at Opis.

I notice that when Alexander had people killed who had, or might have, conspired against him, he had no regret at all. They were no longer friends or allies. Kleitos, he realized, still had been, and that was the problem.

Indeed. And quite a neat distinction that. The reality is in the "might" and “no longer friends and allies” phrase. The “evidence” against Callisthenes was slight, not ever proved and, in the end, irrelevant. The real crime was choosing to not only disagree with the king but to do so very publicly and with intellectual arrogance writ as large as the error.

One can take it as read that, after the absolution of the army, Clietus too was posthumously “no longer a friend and ally”.

Drink is debatable, but let someone say that Alexander was addicted to boys and women, and anyone who values accuracy should raise a yelp!

Throwaway line Karen. The point being that Philip can have – and has had – any number of things written of him. The portrait we have, from an almost entirely hostile source tradition, is very much warts and all. Such is not possible with the son.

[karen]

Hi Amyntoros:

Sticking your nose in, nonsense! You're always welcome afaic.

They are an oversimplification, of course, for the sake of argument.

I think, however, that Alexander really didn't care what happened to him until he started to take sustenance again. Until that point it was by definition a suicide attempt. As well, by shutting himself away and weakening himself by deprivation he was allowing the perfect opportunity for whatever plots, coups or assassination attempts Kleitos's death might inspire.

As for what people thought, I would imagine that was much of what haunted him -- since in Greek culture, self-image and image to others were so bound together.

I find your alternative that Alexander “doesn't really accept the absolution, but relents and continues on because they need him” not easy to digest.

Well, I don't find it plausible that a man who is in such a state of self-condemnation that he's suicidal is going to be talked out of it by a philosopher telling him what he did was fine. --"I think you should reject the morals you've held sacred your entire life, right now." --"Oh, sure, okay. Great argument. Pass that bread." Not likely in my book.

I find it implausible that he'd even credit anybody's absolution, philosopher or army. I mean, this is Alexander we're talking about. He wasn't an idiot. He would have known perfectly well that they were trying to cut their losses and hang onto their king, and for that they'd swallow what in truth they deplored. So which is going to get through to him? A bogus absolution, or the true message, we want you to stay alive? (I suspect his body's message of wanting to survive played a major factor, too, and is not to be discounted.)

And when the army condemned Cleitus as a traitor, Alexander did not object.

Well, that's not entirely true, if we credit Curtius, which I tend to more when he writes something that doesn't support his "fortune-destroyed-him" moral:

To ease his feeling of shame over the killing, the Macedonians formally declared that Clitus's death was justified, and they would have refused him burial had not the king ordered it.

Being refused burial, in a culture that held burial rites so important, was suitably severe a punishment for traitors. That Alexander ordered that Kleitos be buried meant he didn't consider Kleitos deserving of it, or a traitor.

Now all this, I have to say, is based on me imagining Alexander reacting like someone of reasonably normal mental health who has done a terrible, irreversible thing in passion -- but who is in a position with such massive responsibilities that no one wants to remove him. For a while there, he genuinely does not know what to do. Maybe I'm crazy. But I see enough signs of that emotional process, in all the versions I've read, that this is what it looks like to me. And those who say that Alexander got away with it scot-free forget something he must have known well: that as long as the name Alexander would be remembered, Alexander murdering Kleitos would be remembered. His reputation would be tarnished as long as it endured.

And with that, I think I will step away from this argument. Thanks to you both.

Pax,
Karen

[karen]

Paralus I wrote that I was stepping away before I saw your last post. I'll say that you haven't persuaded me to alter my opinion of Peter Green's book, and leave it at that.

Warmly,
Karen

[Paralus]

Hi Karen.

Fine with that. Still wonder at the entirely different dynamics that apply to father and son. Oh well....