Athena Richardson (Elliot School of International Affairs) You Can Also Manually Change the Color of Your Background by Going to VIEW > SLIDE MASTER
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Alexander the Great and Hephaestion
2019-3337-AJHIS-HIS 1 Alexander the Great and Hephaestion: 2 Censorship and Bisexual Erasure in Post-Macedonian 3 Society 4 5 6 Same-sex relations were common in ancient Greece and having both male and female 7 physical relationships was a cultural norm. However, Alexander the Great is almost 8 always portrayed in modern depictions as heterosexual, and the disappearance of his 9 life-partner Hephaestion is all but complete in ancient literature. Five full primary 10 source biographies of Alexander have survived from antiquity, making it possible to 11 observe the way scholars, popular writers and filmmakers from the Victorian era 12 forward have interpreted this evidence. This research borrows an approach from 13 gender studies, using the phenomenon of bisexual erasure to contribute a new 14 understanding for missing information regarding the relationship between Alexander 15 and his life-partner Hephaestion. In Greek and Macedonian society, pederasty was the 16 norm, and boys and men did not have relations with others of the same age because 17 there was almost always a financial and power difference. Hephaestion was taller and 18 more handsome than Alexander, so it might have appeared that he held the power in 19 their relationship. The hypothesis put forward here suggests that writers have erased 20 the sexual partnership between Alexander and Hephaestion because their relationship 21 did not fit the norm of acceptable pederasty as practiced in Greek and Macedonian 22 culture or was no longer socially acceptable in the Roman contexts of the ancient 23 historians. Ancient biographers may have conducted censorship to conceal any 24 implication of femininity or submissiveness in this relationship. -
INTRODUCTION in the Late Fourth Century, Athens Came Under The
INTRODUCTION In the late fourth century, Athens came under the spell of one of the more colourful and complex fi gures of her history: Demetrius of Phalerum. A dilettante who bleached his hair and rouged his cheeks, a man whose luxurious banquets were conducted in perfumed and mosaic-clad rooms, Demetrius was also a product of Aristotle’s philo- sophical establishment, the Peripatos, and a remarkably accomplished scholar in his own right. Th is erudite and urbane fi gure rose from political obscurity to rule his native city for the decade 317–307. His regime occupies a vital transitional period of Athenian history. In temporal terms, it provides the link between the classical Athens of Lycurgus and the emerging Hellenistic city of the third century. It was a time at which Athens was still held fi rmly under the suzerainty of Macedon, the dominant world power of the day, as it had been already for three decades, but the very nature of that suzerainty was being re-defi ned. For much of the previous three decades, Athens had been but one of numerous Greek states subordinated to the northern super-power by a web of treaties called the League of Corinth. By the time of Demetrius, both Philip and Alexander, the greatest of the Macedonian kings, were gone and the Macedonian world itself was fragmenting. Alexander’s subordi- nates—the so-called Diadochoi—were seeking to carve out kingdoms for themselves in Alexander’s erstwhile empire, and in the resulting confusion, individual Greek states were increasingly becoming infl u- ential agents and valued prizes in the internecine strife between war- ring Macedonian generals. -
Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.E.) by Louis Godbout
Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.E.) by Louis Godbout Encyclopedia Copyright © 2015, glbtq, Inc. Entry Copyright © 2004, glbtq, inc. Reprinted from http://www.glbtq.com An ancient bust of Alexander the Great. Photograph by Andrew King of Macedonia and conqueror of a kingdom extending from Greece to Persia, Egypt Dunn. and India, Alexander the Great is one of the most fascinating men of all times. He was Image appears under the not only a great soldier, but he was also renowned for his love of his comrade-in-arms Creative Commons Hephaestion. Attribution ShareAlike License. The handsome and courageous Alexander was already, in antiquity, the subject of many histories, some written by people who had known him, most unfortunately lost. The irrefutable achievements of his short life are so extraordinary that they seem almost legendary. It is therefore difficult to distinguish the truth from the many myths that coalesced around such an appealing figure. Alexander's father Philip was himself a brilliant general who had greatly strengthened his kingdom and brought it to dominate the Greek city-states; his dream was to lead them against the Persian Empire, the arch-rival under whose rule Greek colonies on the coast of Asia had fallen. Philip undoubtedly felt very early on that his son, who was born in 356 B.C.E., had exceptional potential, for he hired Aristotle to be the boy's tutor, even though the cost incurred was the rebuilding of Stagira, the philosopher's hometown, which had been razed and its population sold into slavery. Examples of Philip's trust in Alexander's abilities abound. -
Eumenes by Plutarch
Eumenes By Plutarch (legendary, reigned 197 B.C.E. - ca. 160 B.C.E.) Translated by John Dryden Duris reports that Eumenes, the Cardian, was the son of a poor wagoner in the Thracian Chersonesus, yet liberally educated, both as a scholar and a soldier; and that while he was but young, Philip, passing through Cardia, diverted himself with a sight of the wrestling matches and other exercises of the youth of that place, among whom Eumenes performing with success, and showing signs of intelligence and bravery, Philip was so pleased with him as to take him into his service. But they seem to speak more probably who tell us that Philip advanced Eumenes for the friendship he bore to his father, whose guest he had sometime been. After the death of Philip, he continued in the service of Alexander, with the title of his principal secretary, but in as great favour as the most intimate of his familiars, being esteemed as wise and faithful as any person about him, so that he went with troops under his immediate command as general in the expedition against India, and succeeded to the post of Perdiccas, when Perdiccas was advanced to that of Hephaestion, then newly deceased. And therefore, after the death of Alexander, when Neoptolemus, who had been captain of his life-guard, said that he had followed Alexander with shield and spear, but Eumenes only with pen and paper, the Macedonians laughed at him, as knowing very well that, besides other marks of favour, the king had done him the honour to make him a kind of kinsman to himself by marriage. -
Court Intrigue and the Death of Callisthenes Lara O’Sullivan
Court Intrigue and the Death of Callisthenes Lara O’Sullivan MPLICATED IN A PLOT by the Royal Pages (the basilikoi paides) against Alexander’s life in Bactria in 327 B.C.E., the historian I Callisthenes was condemned as a traitor and died—either tortured and hanged, or imprisoned and carted about with the army until disease brought about his death.1 His demise marks something of a nadir in Alexander’s reign; indeed, centuries after the fact, Curtius could claim that no one’s execution incited greater resentment of Alexander among the Greeks (nullius caedes maiorem apud Graecos Alexandro excitavit invidiam).2 The reason for that resentment is not difficult to discover. Despite the avowals of the Alexander-apologists that the Pages had implicated Cal- listhenes, his supposed involvement in the plot was unsupported by evidence. Arrian concedes as much, observing that most traditions had no indication of Callisthenes’ guilt, while Plutarch cites a letter purportedly written by the king himself in the im- mediate aftermath of the conspiracy, in which the Pages were said to have confessed under torture that the conspiracy was en- tirely their own, and that nobody else was cognizant of the plot.3 The underlying cause of Callisthenes’ downfall is, instead, 1 For Callisthenes’ fate Arr. 4.14.3 cites divergent accounts by Ptolemy FGrHist 138 F17 (put to death; so too Curt. 8.8.21) and Aristobulus FGrHist 139 F 33 (died while imprisoned). Aristobulus clearly based his account on Chares (FGrHist 125 F 15 = Plut. Alex. 55.9). 2 Curt. 8.8.22. -
Interpreting Alexander III of Macedon's “Sexuality” in the Ancient Greco
Interpreting Alexander III of Macedon’s “Sexuality” in the Ancient Greco-Macedonian World By Mikayla Kitchen Western Illinois University Alexander III of Macedon’s reign (336-323 BCE) over Macedon and conquest of the Persian Empire and India defined Alexander’s career as a leader and military commander. Scholars tend to focus on the leadership and military brilliance of Alexander III of Macedon, also known as Alexander the Great, and not on Alexander the Great as a man.1 Within the last few decades, scholarship has emerged raising questions about Alexander’s sexuality. Alexander had maintained a united Greece, conquered the Persian Empire and India, but had anyone conquered Alexander’s heart? Questions about Alexander’s sexuality took a turn after the release of Oliver Stone’s historical epic, Alexander (2004), that portrayed Alexander as bisexual.2 However, applying the terms, “sexuality,” “homosexual,” “bisexual,” or even “heterosexual” is anachronistic at best because the ancient Greeks had little to no understanding or concept of these terms. The terms do not carry the same connotations as they do in the modern world. This paper, therefore, offers a way to re-examine modern interpreters’ preconceived notions of sexuality in order to better understand Alexander’s sexuality. Considering Alexander’s encounters with elite women and marriages, primarily with Roxane, and his relationship with the eunuch Bagoas, Alexander’s sexuality was typical of the time. It is the enigma of Hephaestion, Alexander’s closest friend and commander, where scholars debate Alexander’s lust versus brotherly affection the most.3 However, even with this enigma of Hephaestion, Alexander’s relationship corresponded with traditional ancient Greek relationships. -
The Macedonian Patriot: the Diadoch Craterus Edward M
The Macedonian Patriot: The Diadoch Craterus Edward M. Anson Much has been written concerning the man whom Alexander “honored most” (Plut. Alex. 47. 10) who was described as the king’s “most loyal follower” (Arr. Anab. 7. 12. 3), generally recognized as his closest companion after Hephaestion (Diod. 17. 114. 1-2), and among Alexander’s commanders “arguably the best” (Heckel 1992: 107), but who in the final analysis failed to become one of the major players in the aftermath of Alexander’s death. He has been termed “the right man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time” (Ashton 1993: 131); proclaimed that he “lacked that fine edge of ruthlessness necessary for supreme power” (Green 1990: 8). This paper will suggest that Craterus was not the victim of being in the wrong place at the critical time, caught between Macedonia and Babylon, nor did he lack the ability to be ruthless, but was in the final analysis a Macedonian patriot (as noted by Heckel 1992: 107), who was content to serve the royal family and his kingdom. As Plutarch (Alex. 47. 10) comments, Craterus was “king loving.” It was in defense of his king and country that Craterus could be quite ruthless. While Waldemar Heckel’s claim that the oft termed “Philotas Plot” against the life of Alexander was in reality a plot against the life of Philotas orchestrated by Craterus and others in part due to their personal ambitions (Heckel 1977: 9-21; 1992: 115-118; 2006: 27-33, 218-19), this is too strong an indictment of Craterus’ personal ruthlessness, but it is a clear example that the friend and Somaphylax was capable of savagery in defense of the crown. -
Becoming Macedonian: Name Mapping and Ethnic Identity. the Case of Hephaistion*
Karanos 3, 2020 11-37 Becoming Macedonian: Name Mapping and Ethnic Identity. The Case of Hephaistion* by Jeanne Reames University of Nebraska at Omaha [email protected] With the Digital Assistance of Jason Heppler and Cory Starman ABSTRACT An epigraphical survey (with digital mapping component) of Greece and Magna Graecia reveals a pattern as to where Hephais-based names appear, up through the second century BCE. Spelled with an /eta/, these names are almost exclusively Attic-Ionian, while Haphēs-based names, spelled with an alpha, are Doric-Aeolian, and much fewer in number. There is virtually no overlap, except at the Panhellenic site of Delphi, and in a few colonies around the Black Sea. Furthermore, cult for the god Hephaistos –long recognized as a non-Greek borrowing– was popular primarily in Attic-Ionian and “Pelasgian” regions, precisely the same areas where we find Hephais-root names. The only area where Haphēs-based names appear in any quantity, Boeotia, also had an important cult related to the god. Otherwise, Hephaistos was not a terribly important deity in Doric-Aeolian populations. This epigraphic (and religious) record calls into question the assumed Macedonian ethnicity of the king’s best friend and alter-ego, Hephaistion. According to Tataki, Macedonian naming patterns followed distinctively non-Attic patterns, and cult for the god Hephaistos is absent in Macedonia (outside Samothrace). A recently published 4th century curse tablet from Pydna could, however, provide a clue as to why a Macedonian Companion had such a uniquely Attic-Ionian name. If Hephaistion’s ancestry was not, in fact, ethnically Macedonian, this may offer us an interesting insight into fluidity of Macedonian identity under the monarchy, and thereby, to ancient conceptualizations of ethnicity more broadly. -
The Alexander-Achilles Connection: the Historical Dimension
UCLA UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title The Best of the Macedonians: Alexander as Achilles in Arrian, Curtius, and Plutarch Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/76s9x3jv Author Vorhis, Justin Grant Publication Date 2017 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles The Best of the Macedonians: Alexander as Achilles in Arrian, Curtius, and Plutarch A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Classics by Justin Grant Vorhis 2017 © Copyright by Justin Grant Vorhis 2017 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION The Best of the Macedonians: Alexander as Achilles in Arrian, Curtius, and Plutarch by Justin Grant Vorhis Doctor of Philosophy in Classics University of California, Los Angeles, 2017 Professor Kathryn Anne Morgan, Chair This dissertation concerns the connection between Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.), the famous Macedonian king, and Achilles, the preeminent Greek hero of the Trojan War. As scholars have long recognized, Alexander’s connection to Achilles represents both a historical and a literary phenomenon: Alexander not only portrayed himself as a second Achilles, but was also portrayed as such by those who wrote about him. While scholars have traditionally concentrated on the connection’s historical dimension, I concentrate in this study on its literary dimension (the Achilles motif), taking Arrian, Curtius, and Plutarch, the three extant Alexander historians -
Philia Networks in the Macedonian Court and the Long Accession of Alexander the Great*
Karanos 3, 2020 59-83 Philia Networks in the Macedonian Court and the Long Accession of Alexander the Great* by Julius Guthrie University of Exeter [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper revaluates key moments in the court politics of Alexander the Great’s reign through the introduction of philia-networks governed by gift-exchange as a template for explaining the relationships between key participants. This approach makes it clear that Alexander initially held a passive role in the political life of his own court and was dependant on others for his succession. These dynamics shifted in the opening years of the Asian expedition as Alexander sought to break these philia- networks, building his own and surrounding his person with philoi of his own choosing. KEYWORDS Alexander the Great, philia, Aristotle, court politics, conspiracies. To be a ruler in the ancient world was to be involved in a never-ending game of political chicanery with the elite. The Argead family of Macedonia, although the ruling house from at least the turn of the sixth into the fifth century, were no exception, and neither was the household’s most famous name: Alexander III the Great.1 Alexander, when his father, Philip II, died in 336 was by no means assured of succession to the Macedonian kingship. That Alexander did succeed was due to his support from prominent men – especially Antipater and Parmenio– who controlled vast networks of philoi. The recognition of the role played by prominent political factions in Alexander’s court is itself nothing new and most recently Waldemar Heckel has argued for the existence of political factions centred on both Antipater and Parmenio at Alexander’s court2. -
Bogdan Burliga Μέγιστον Τῶν Μετὰ Ἀλέξανδρον Διαδεξαμένων Τὴν Ἀρχὴν Βασιλέα : Arrian’S Judgment of Seleucus I Nicator (Anab
Bogdan Burliga Μέγιστον τῶν μετὰ Ἀλέξανδρον διαδεξαμένων τὴν ἀρχὴν βασιλέα : Arrian’s Judgment of Seleucus I Nicator (Anab. 7. 22. 5) Miscellanea Anthropologica et Sociologica 15/4, 92-99 2014 Miscellanea Anthropologica et Sociologica 2014, 15 (4): 92–99 Bogdan Burliga1 Μέγιστον τῶν μετὰ Ἀλέξανδρον διαδεξαμένων τὴν ἀρχὴν βασιλέα: Arrian’s Judgment of Seleucus I Nicator (Anab. 7. 22. 5)2 The article deals with Arrian of Nicomedia’s high estimation of the king Seleucus (called Nicator), a former officer in Alexander the Great’s army. Seleucus had created the great- est – second to Alexander, in fact – empire and this is the main criterion by which he is appreciated by the Bithynian historian and philosopher. It is the same criterion that Arrian had adopted in evaluating Alexander’s achievements. ‘Greatness’ constituted thus, to put it briefly, an old measure by which kings, commanders and eminent men were rated by Greek historians. Key words: Arrian, Seleucus, kingdom, kingship, Anabasis In what now constitutes perhaps one of the most intriguing passages in his Ana- basis Alexandrou Arrian, a Roman citizen from Nicomedia, expresses a highly laudatory estimation of Seleucus, known from history as ‘he who wins’3, who is ‘the Victorious’ (also Appian, Syr. 57)4. The Bithynian historian (Anab. 7. 22. 5) is sure that after the death of Alexander it was Seleucus who emerged the wor thiest of his successors;5 this became especially evident when Seleucus had defeated Lysimachus in the battle of Kuropedion in Lydia, 281 BC (Porphyry in Eusebius, 1 Uniwersytet Gdański; [email protected]. 2 The translation of the title sentence is that of P.A. -
Eunuchs As a Narrative Device in Greek and Roman Literature
How the Eunuch Works: Eunuchs as a Narrative Device in Greek and Roman Literature Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Christopher Michael Erlinger, B.A. Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2016 Dissertation Committee: Benjamin Acosta-Hughes, Advisor Carolina Lopez-Ruiz, Co-Advisor Anthony Kaldellis Copyright by Christopher Michael Erlinger 2016 Abstract Until now, eunuchs in early Greek and Roman literature have been ignored by classical scholars, but this dissertation rectifies that omission. In the ensuing chapters, eunuchs in literature ranging from the Classical to the early Christian period are subjected to a scholarly analysis, many of them for the first time. This comprehensive analysis reveals that eunuchs’ presence indicates a breakdown in the rules of physiognomy and, consequently, a breakdown of major categories of identity, such as ethnicity or gender. Significantly, this broader pattern manifests itself in a distinct way, within each chronological and geographical period. ii Dedication Pro Cognationibus Amicisque iii Acknowledgements Every faculty member of the Classics Department of the Ohio State University has contributed in some way to this dissertation. During my time at Ohio State University, each has furthered my intellectual growth in their own unique way, and my debt to them is immeasurable. I owe especial thanks to Tom Hawkins and my dissertation committee: Carolina Lopez-Ruiz, Anthony Kaldellis, and Benjamin Acosta-Hughes. iv Vita 2005............................................................ Webb School of California 2009............................................................ B.A. Classics, Northwestern University 2010............................................................ Postbaccalaureate Program, University of California, Los Angeles 2010 to present..........................................