Myth, Genesis and Sexuality by Daniel Ogden

[Alexias]

I have just finished reading this and I am afraid I would struggle to recommend it to anyone. There is a lot of erudition in it (by which I mean references to source texts etc), particularly in the Myth and Genesis sections, which I found interesting in terms of Alexander's background, but not particularly enlightening about Alexander. The Sexuality section though left me dissatisfied.

For example, there is a long, convoluted discussion about Hephaestion laying a wreath on Patroclus's tomb when Alexander laid a wreath on Achilles' tomb. The upshot appears to be that Ogden is saying that Hephaestion is saying to the observers 'you work it out' about his and Alexander's relationship. This is because, at the time, there was doubt about the nature of Achilles and Patroclus's relationship - Homer doesn't specify a sexual relationship, Aeschylus portrays Patroclus as the younger eromenos in The Myrmidons, whereas the prevalent view portrays Achilles as the younger. Yet Ogden doesn't examine why Hephaestion and Alexander would want, if indeed they did, to leave people guessing after making such a public declaration of their affection. He eventually seems to be opting for a co-eval relationship in which, presumably, there wasn't a dominant partner, but this is not made clear.

In the Bagoas section there is a throwaway remark that Bagoas is 'an owned slave'. Ogden fails to consider whether Bagoas actually was a slave. The vizier Bagoas, who was also a eunuch, who put Darius III on the throne, wasn't owned by anyone. He may once have been, as Alexander's may have been, but Ogden doesn't consider whether Alexander would have had a public relationship with a slave, having angrily rejected having beautiful boys bought for him.

There is also a section in which Ogden argues that Philinna, Arrhidaeus's mother, was a witch - in that she practiced spells and concocted potions - in a 'war of the witches' with Olympias. This may well have been true, but he doesn't examine Olympias's witch credentials, other than the alleged maiming of Arrhidaeus, and her Bacchic activities.

Finally, the Conclusion seems a little 'amateurish', being simply a synopsis of the individual chapters. I was expecting some kind of unifying conclusion and insight, but all that is offered is a couple of sentences stating that Alexander's sexual habits, rather than being unusual, mirrored Philip's. He seems to be saying that Alexander's noted 'restraint' was just smoke and mirrors, but again this isn't fully developed. There is more emphasis on the derivation and usage of the word 'gynnis' than there is on how it related to Alexander.

[dean]

Hi there,

The topic is interesting and certainly has been explored by several writers.
With the source material we have, I am amazed he was able to pull out of thin air a book.

With regards to sexuality, Philip had a fresh wedding with every campaign- Philinna of Larissa, mother of Arrhidaeus. There was a slander she was a prostitute however I have read in Heckel's book- that in all likelihood she was a woman of the Aleuadae,the Larissan aristocracy.

From early youth, as we know, despite Olympias intentions, he displayed little interest in sex and tries to avoid it- Olympias had sent the hetaira Callixena to Alexander to no avail. It was said also, that Apelles fell in love with the concubine of Alexander Pancaste.

His anger at being offered "handsome youths" as slaves and also after finding out that the Macedonians Damon and Timotheus, serving under Parmenion had "debauched" women he sent orders that if they were found guilty they were to be executed as wild animals certainly gives us a morally virtuous Alexander.

One really interesting comment in Renault's work is how somehow Alexander was able to channel his sexual energy into his other goals.
The seemingly chivalrous attitude towards women is unusual given the time he was living in and what models would he have had of such an attitude?
From his father?

With regards to genesis just one thing I found out recently a curiosity- (read it on the internet so mabye not 100% true) in 356 the temple of Artemis burns down, Alexander had offered to rebuild it but was not taken up on his offer. In 323 the temple is rebuilt or at least work is started on it.

Best regards
Dean

[Alexias]

Hi,

With the source material we have, I am amazed he was able to pull out of thin air a book.

The thing is, a lot of what Ogden quotes isn't directly about Alexander, or from the Alexander sources. A lot of the 'Myth' section for example, is about identifying which aspect of Zeus (Meilichios) is connected with Alexander's serpent-siring myth (which appears to have been in place within the first few years of Alexander's reign), as opposed to Ammon being the siring serpent (as the animal identified with Ammon was the ram), despite Nectanabo allegedly taking on the form of a serpent to have sex with Olympias, and the Agathos Daimon being associated with the founding of Alexandria (yes, I had never heard of this before either).

All of this is very interesting, but it doesn't add a lot of insight into Alexander's character or motives.

With regards to sexuality, Philip had a fresh wedding with every campaign- Philinna of Larissa, mother of Arrhidaeus. There was a slander she was a prostitute however I have read in Heckel's book- that in all likelihood she was a woman of the Aleuadae,the Larissan aristocracy.

An interesting, throwaway comment hidden in the notes, is the Philinna appears to have been married before she married Philip, and had a son by her previous husband. This may be the garbled reason she was thought to be a prostitute, but it is a point Ogden fails to make.

As for Alexander's sexuality, Ogden appears to be making the point though he doesn't make it very cogently or forcefully, that Alexander was probably not as chaste as is sometimes made out, particularly once he has invaded Asia and we know more about his reign and life. His respect for women does appear to warrant comment as being different from his contemporaries, but Ogden doesn't discuss this, or where it might have derived from. Aristotle? Olympias? Romantic notions of honourable conduct? Concern for his reputation? Reluctance to engage with women? It is difficult to psychoanalyse Alexander, and we are not supposed to do it because of the time distance, bias of the sources etc, and Ogden doesn't attempt it, but it would have been satisfying for some comment on this.

With regards to genesis just one thing I found out recently a curiosity- (read it on the internet so mabye not 100% true) in 356 the temple of Artemis burns down, Alexander had offered to rebuild it but was not taken up on his offer. In 323 the temple is rebuilt or at least work is started on it.

This appears to be true. According to Strabo, the Ephesians refused Alexander's offer to rebuild the temple and rebuilt it at their own expense.

[dean]

hi there,

With regards to genesis the story of Nectanebo paying a visit to Olympias to engender Alexander it is unusual as you say given the Siwah background.
Pharoah's were living gods in the eyes of their subjects and no doubt Alexander was keen to propagate this idea as that of his invencibility.
Hence the visit to Siwah, the coins minted and the slip of tongue by the priest at Siwah all point to divinity.

As we know, Alexander´s model par excellence was Achilles and, in the Iliad, we have scant information as to anything regarding his sexuality- BRISEIS Cilician princess. Daughter of the King of Lyrnessus was taken captive by him and was the cause of dispute between Agamemnon and himself. She mourned the death of Patroclus and Achilles. The abduction of Briseis mirrors the cause of the Trojan war- the carrying off of Helen.
Barsine mentioned in Plutarch and Justin in similiar style was captured and taken to Alexander. The death of Hephaestion also mirrors homerically how Achilles felt at the loss of Patroclus, perhaps a clear indication of how they felt towards each other.

Not sure if I will get round to reading the book subject of your review but the topic is fascinating

regards
Dean

[Alexias]

Ogden doesn't really discuss the implications of any of these themes. He is more interested in the origins of the themes, not their application to Alexander. For example, there is a lot on the founding Macedonian myths of Caranus, Perdiccas, Archelaus, Macedon and Midas, and nothing on how Alexander's contemporaries received his founding and siring mythology, though plenty on how the Successors (and their successors) appropriated Alexander's imagery and invented their own founding mythology.

If you are looking for background information on Alexander and his world, this book is worth reading, but not if you are looking for detailed discussions of Alexander himself.

[emma5]

your criticisms of the book you have just finished. indeed that the author has failed to explore in depth several crucial aspects of the life and relationships of Alexander the Great, which may make the reading less satisfying and informative than intended.
The section on the relationship between Alexander and Hephaestion seems particularly lacking. The implications of their actions and public statements deserve in-depth analysis, particularly with regard to the social perception of their mutual affection. Likewise, the remark about Bagoas as a slave could have benefited from deeper reflection on his actual status and its potential impact on his relationship with Alexander. Philinna's characterization as a witch seems to be presented without enough context or comparison to Olympias, which detracts from the overall understanding of the family and political dynamics of the time.

[Alexias]

Hi Emma, and welcome to pothos. I don't have time to consider a reply to your post just at the moment, but will get back to you!

[Alexias]

The section on the relationship between Alexander and Hephaestion seems particularly lacking. The implications of their actions and public statements deserve in-depth analysis, particularly with regard to the social perception of their mutual affection.

Yet, in the book I reviewed here https://pothos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7262, Ogden's essay makes it clear that he thinks Hephaestion is Alexander's eronomos. Yet might this have been the public perception designed to protect Alexander's authority, as he could hardly be seen to be under someone else's guidance. If this were the public perception of Hephaestion as well, he would have incurred enormous resentment, and might likely have been eliminated fairly early on. It would seem likely therefore that Hephaestion was the eronomos, particularly given Alexander's known predilection for handsome youths - Bagoas, Euxenippus, someone offering to buy boys for him, and, interestingly, in several of the Alexander Romances, Alexander is depicted with a young male companion on his deathbed.

[hiphys]

On the relationship between Alexander and Hephaestion I found a passage particularly interesting in James Davidson, The Greeks & Greek Love, London 2007 (Phoenix), pp. 373-379. I like above all this quote: "Alexander's relationship with Hephaestion really does stand out. The combination of same-sex love and politics was already well established in the court of his predecessor Archelaus, both in domestic policy and in international relations, but these royal relationships were always unequal. We hear of Philip having a relationship with Pausanias, who fought as his bodyguard, and with his wife's brother, the Molossian Alexander of Epirus, but not with Parmenion or with Antipater. This would be another thing entirely. What is unusual about Alexander's love for Hephaestion, his coeval and someone he had been brought up with, first of his friends to be given a place close to the centre of power, is that it evolved from an unequal relationship, perhaps quite comparable to Philip relationship with Pausanias, into a true partnership, as Ephippus acknowledged by writhing his unique joint history of the couple. This was an extraordinary thing for a king as all-powerful as Alexander to allow one man to become his other half. It is also perhaps a reflection of the great political change in the course of Alexander's reign, the replacement of the 'Old Guard', with its independent power blocks and resources, by 'New Men' and a new style of politics in which power derived from closenes to the king. Hephaestion exemplifies that change.
But perhaps we could also see that development as the replacement of one model of Greek Love derived from Alexander's ancestor Heracles and Iolaus his helper, who looks after Heracles' business and his interests when his friend is no longer around, by a more passionate and intense model of Us-two-against-the-world, together in life, together in death, which looks instead to Achilles and his mother's side."(p. 379).

[Alexias]

That is interesting, thank you, although I think it borders a little too closely on the notion of Hephaestion being Alexander's 'wife' or spouse, a notion which is far too modern, and judging by Ogden's comments in the chapter in A New History, he would agree with that. Their relationship must have evolved over time and probably had two distinct, but not totally separate, facets: the public and the private. In the private Hephaestion may have been foremost in Alexander's mind, but in the public, he was only one among many who would have considered themselves his equal, and Alexander would have had to play very careful politics here.

[hiphys]

You are right, for this reason Alexander rebuked openly Hephaestion, but "in private" Crateros, when they quarrelled (Plut. Life of Alex. 47, 11). But there is another school of thought suggesting that subsequent or Roman writers have erased the sexual partnership between Alexander and Hephaestion because their relationship did not fit the norm of acceptable pederasty as practiced in Greek and Macedonian culture (expressed by the words 'erastes'/'eromenos' ), or was no longer acceptable in the Roman contexts of the ancient historians.

[marcus]

But there is another school of thought suggesting that subsequent or Roman writers have erased the sexual partnership between Alexander and Hephaestion because their relationship did not fit the norm of acceptable pederasty as practiced in Greek and Macedonian culture (expressed by the words 'erastes'/'eromenos' ), or was no longer acceptable in the Roman contexts of the ancient historians.

That's certainly an interesting notion.

I tend to the view that the writers didn't make more of it because they didn't think it was particularly important. Whether or not they had a sexual relationship was not really of interest, rather the depth of their bond, shown by the two events that demonstrated it: the foot-race at the graves of Achilles and Hephaestion, and Alexander's grief at Hephaestion's death. Greek and Roman writers were not particularly interested in the intimate details of men's (or women's) relationships, unless they served to illustrate a point they wished to make, or resulted in an amusing/instructive aphorism.

[hiphys]

Right, writers weren't interested in intimate details of men's relationship, but they were very interested in royal behaviour and who exercised power. Hephaestion was taller and more handsome than Alexander and it might have appeared that he held the power in their relationship. Therefore ancient writers may have conducted censorship to conceal any implication of femininity or submissiveness by Alexander in this relationship. Remember what Curtius says of Hephaestion: "No other person was privileged to advise the king so candidly as he did, and <yet he exercised that privilege in such a way that it seemed granted by Alexander rather than claimed by Hephaestion>" (Curt. 3, 12, 16). He tries all efforts to persuade his readers that Alexander wasn't dominated by Hephaestion.

[marcus]

Right, writers weren't interested in intimate details of men's relationship, but they were very interested in royal behaviour and who exercised power. Hephaestion was taller and more handsome than Alexander and it might have appeared that he held the power in their relationship. Therefore ancient writers may have conducted censorship to conceal any implication of femininity or submissiveness by Alexander in this relationship. Remember what Curtius says of Hephaestion: "No other person was privileged to advise the king so candidly as he did, and <yet he exercised that privilege in such a way that it seemed granted by Alexander rather than claimed by Hephaestion>" (Curt. 3, 12, 16). He tries all efforts to persuade his readers that Alexander wasn't dominated by Hephaestion.

Yes, indeed, although none of this implies that the two had a sexual relationship - to ancients or moderns. As you say, for those historians it was about behaviour, power, and the appearance of power. Alexander's relationship with Hephaestion, as you note here, also provides an interesting juxtaposition to the corruption of Alexander into tyrannical behaviour, which was also a major theme!