Log in

No account? Create an account

Mon, Mar. 22nd, 2010, 09:40 pm
kizzikat: Essay on Hephaestion

I don’t know if anyone will be interested but I’ve written a very long, and doubtless boring, essay on Alexander & Hephaestion’s early years. 


1.                  Age(1) http://kizzikat.livejournal.com/15767.html#cutid1

2.                  Mieza http://kizzikat.livejournal.com/16317.html#cutid1

3.                  The Pages http://kizzikat.livejournal.com/16640.html#cutid1

4.                  The Older Pages http://kizzikat.livejournal.com/17258.html#cutid1

5.                  Age (2) http://kizzikat.livejournal.com/17813.html#cutid1

6.                  Erastes/eromenos (1) http://kizzikat.livejournal.com/18109.html#cutid1

7.                  Erastes/eromenos (2) http://kizzikat.livejournal.com/18197.html#cutid1

8.                  Amyntas http://kizzikat.livejournal.com/18546.html#cutid1

9.                  Alexander of Epirus http://kizzikat.livejournal.com/18884.html#cutid1

10.              The women of Alexander’s family (1) http://kizzikat.livejournal.com/19169.html#cutid1

11.              The women of Alexander’s family (2) http://kizzikat.livejournal.com/19375.html#cutid1

12.              Ages of Alexander’s associates http://kizzikat.livejournal.com/19543.html#cutid1


Tue, Mar. 23rd, 2010 02:44 pm (UTC)

By that token, is there ever such a thing as history?

Tue, Mar. 23rd, 2010 02:56 pm (UTC)

The nature of history is another discussion, I think. If you wish me to define my terms, then I mean history as the study of the human past (rather than cultural heritage).

Tue, Mar. 23rd, 2010 03:06 pm (UTC)

But all writers are influenced by 'the wider context of politics and philosophy for the period'. That is the purpose of source criticism: to analyse the texts within those contexts and to try to understand why they are saying what they are saying - obviously, a massively imprecise science. But to throw it all out as fundamentally 'unreliable' is pointlessly reductive, imo.

Tue, Mar. 23rd, 2010 03:29 pm (UTC)

Thank you for expanding on your point. My description of Rufus as unreliable applies to him as a source for the 4th century and Alexander. What he was saying is important, though in a different context, in my opinion.

Tue, Mar. 23rd, 2010 04:00 pm (UTC)

Fair enough. I would certainly agree, to a point. However, to my mind there is a difference in disputing the validity of cultural/political attitudes (such as the erastes/eromenos template kizzikat treats in her essay, or Curtius' portrayal of plots), and in doubting the statement of basic facts such as age. That doesn't make it a certainty - given that no other sources address it, and that, as you point out, we do not have the ultimate source for Curtius' information - but it doesn't mean we should dismiss it entirely.

Edited at 2010-03-23 04:00 pm (UTC)