?

Log in

Thu, Oct. 14th, 2010, 11:04 pm
kizzikat: 1870 Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities ed W Smith

Part of the entry on Hephaestion:

‘For it is equally to the credit of Hephaestion and Alexander, that though the former undoubtedly owed his elevation to the personal favour and affection of the king, rather than to any abilities or achievements of his own he never allowed himself to degenerate into the-position of a flatterer or mere favourite, and the intercourse between the two appears to have been uniformly characterised by the frankness and sincerity of a true friendship.’

 ‘It was fortunate for Hephaestion that his premature death saved him from encountering the troubles and dissensions which followed that of Alexander, and in which he was evidently ill qualified to compete with the sterner and more energetic spirits that surrounded him. Even during the lifetime of the king, the enmity between him and Eumenes, as well as that already adverted to with Craterus, had repeatedly broken out, with a vehemence which required the utmost exertions of Alexander to repress them; and it is but justice to the latter to observe, that his authority was employed on these occasions without any apparent partiality to his favourite. (Plut. Alex. 47, Eum. 2 ; Arr. Anab. vii. 13, 14.) If, indeed, we cannot refuse this obnoxious name to Hephaestion, nor affirm that he was altogether exempt from the weaknesses and faults incident to such a position, it may yet be fairly asserted that history affords few examples of a favourite who abused his advantages so little.’

Mary Renault says something similar in The Nature of Alexander - "that so little is adduced against him is remarkable."  Perhaps she had read this.


Fri, Oct. 15th, 2010 06:03 pm (UTC)
kizzikat

I'd agree with you but I thought this was rather sweet, and in contrast to many historians' view of Hephaestion, especially from W Tarn (1948) to Mary Renault (1975). Tarn was very influential and he regarded Hephaestion as a competent cavalry officer but fundamentally stupid, and a boon companion rewarded for his dogged devotion - not very flattering!

Fri, Oct. 15th, 2010 06:30 pm (UTC)
gingerhead76

I have to say that I'm quite surprised that a great historian like Tarn thought that Alexander could have put his kingdom in jeopardy giving important responsibilities (or responsibilities whatsoever) and important positions to a stupid and unqualified person (even if this person was his favourite)... ;-P

Fri, Oct. 15th, 2010 08:25 pm (UTC)
kizzikat

True, but Tarn would probably argue that Hephaestion was never given a major battle command and his commands were shared with someone else such as Perdiccas to watch over him. I think he basically started from a position of disliking nepotism, probably from too many examples from the Roman Emperors, and failed to see whether it was justified in Hephaestion's case.

Sat, Oct. 16th, 2010 02:42 pm (UTC)
gingerhead76

I can't say I know Alexander as well as Tarn, but I can't imagine an Alexander so blindly in love to give his lover a position whatsoever in his army (even with Perdiccas watching over him) if this lover wasn't a qualified person.
I think Hephaestion just needed the king's favour to make his qualities shine.
And anyway, a historian shouldn't "like" or "dislike" historical facts: he/she should be neutral.

Sat, Oct. 16th, 2010 06:16 pm (UTC)
kizzikat

Completely agree with you, but since Mary Renault, influential people (Jeanne Reames, Oliver Stone) have come to appreciate Hephaestion more!