Thanks for your reply. One of the things I was trying to say in these essays was that the traditional model for male/male relationships of an older, dominant male and a younger, submissive male, in Classical Greece may not have been relevant in Macedon, especially as in Alexander and Hephaestion's case as they were about the same age. I'm quite sure they did take turns being dominant when they were younger, but maybe less so if they continued to be lovers later on.
As for the idea of Hephaestion being Alexander's emotional bedrock, and the 'after sadness' Alexander felt after sex, I'm sorry to disillusion you, but these are complete inventions on Mary Renault's part and have no historical basis. Having said that though, Mary Renault's portrayal of Alex and Heph was what made me fall in love with them, but over the years since, I've come to realise that her portrayal of them had more to do with Mary Renault and the times she was writing in than the historical Alex and Heph.
Mary Renault was, I believe, a lesbian and though lesbian activity was not illegal in Britain at the time she was writing, male homosexual activity was illegal, and lesbians were of course not open about their affairs, because most people didn't believe women did such things. Male homosexuality was intellectually more acceptable to her audience because of the romance of ancient Greece and Rome, and I believe that this 'sadness' may have been Mary Renault's own reaction, and one she may have felt other homosexuals also experienced, to living a lie. I may be imagining this, but she might also have felt the essential emptiness of male or female homosexuality in that it cannot result in new life. Perhaps she regretted being childless.
However, I believe the ostensible reason she made Alexander experience this 'sadness' after sex was because he was meant to feel that by making his relationship with Hephaestion physical rather than spiritual, he was betraying Plato's ideal of sublime love which transcended physical gratification and concentrated on what was best for the development of the young man's character. Presumably Aristotle, as Plato's pupil, taught this ideal to Alexander and Hephaestion, but I don't think it works in Mary Renault's novels because she is just not explicit enough about it, and because she is associating guilt with sex, which is a Christian notion, not an ancient Greek one.
Perhaps she expected her (classically) educated audience to implicity understand what she was hinting at in her idea of platonic love, but this is part of her class snobbery (which I have issues with, but I won't go into it here). However, she may also be referring to Plutarch's view of Alexander's 'chastity and self-control'. Alexander was (to quote a historian who's name I can't remember at the moment) no prude. He didn't have sexual hangups, but he was very conscious of his reputation. He wanted to be seen as a king who was setting an example for others to follow, not as just a conqueror.
One of the reasons I also disagree with Mary Renault's protrayal of Alex and Heph's characters is that in her novels, she is attempting to justify homosexuality through psychoanalysis. She trained as a nurse in the 1930s when psychoanalysis was very popular and, as I've said elsewhere, is trying to 'explain' homosexuality by childhood experiences. This isn't necessary in an age when homosexuality was both fashionable and acceptable, and she ends up making Alexander appear emotionally damaged and, especially in The Persian Boy, ends up making Hephaestion nothing more than an emotional prop for Alexander. As a Hephaestion fan, I find that very difficult to accept!
I agree with you that they must have experimented with switching the erastes/eromenos roles between them when they were young because just from sheer curiosity you would think that'd be a fun thing to do. I read in an article once that Alexander didn't refer to Hephaestion as either, but simply Philalexandros, friend of Alexander, which makes perfect sense for the deep bond of friendship they shared throughout their lives together, all physical aspects aside.
No worries, I was too confused to be illusion-ed in the first place so I guess I shouldn't be surprised to learn that the supposed after sadness was a literary liberty taken by an author who had her own repressed opinions on how same-sex couplings must inevitably feel internally for different people, and I can imagine that, more for women than men, that is a logical lament to have.
But I have read in several places that Alexander did associate sex and sleep with his own mortality (which I see you mentioned above, Plutarch is probably the one I read about), which is why he strove so hard to cement his immortality before his time was due so that his legacy would live on in the same glorious fashion as Achilles. I have no doubt that he had no sexual hangups, he probably loved Hephaestion even more around the time his mother sent round that courtesan whose name I can't spell, because Hephaestion was a calm oasis in a desert of passive-aggressive melodrama then and later.
As for Hephaestion being used as an emotional prop for Alexander in The Persian Boy, I'm right there with you, how rude! I have always felt sorry for him once Bagoas came around, but of course now that we've been talking I'm coming to realize that I've probably been operating under a bunch of false assumptions and facts, which kind of annoys me because I am a big Hephaestion fan too and don't like being mislead by sources who profess to be stating the facts when there is sometimes very little way to ascertain their veracity (but I guess part of it has to be my fault for blindly believing them upon first glance).
Guess that's the dangers of reading historical fiction. It's hard to distinguish the historical from the fiction sometimes. That's why fanfic is so fun. You pretty much start out with the historical part and then create your fiction any way that pleases you and just have to remember to remind your readers to take it all in with a grain of salt.
As for the idea of Hephaestion being Alexander's emotional bedrock, and the 'after sadness' Alexander felt after sex, I'm sorry to disillusion you, but these are complete inventions on Mary Renault's part and have no historical basis. Having said that though, Mary Renault's portrayal of Alex and Heph was what made me fall in love with them, but over the years since, I've come to realise that her portrayal of them had more to do with Mary Renault and the times she was writing in than the historical Alex and Heph.
Mary Renault was, I believe, a lesbian and though lesbian activity was not illegal in Britain at the time she was writing, male homosexual activity was illegal, and lesbians were of course not open about their affairs, because most people didn't believe women did such things. Male homosexuality was intellectually more acceptable to her audience because of the romance of ancient Greece and Rome, and I believe that this 'sadness' may have been Mary Renault's own reaction, and one she may have felt other homosexuals also experienced, to living a lie. I may be imagining this, but she might also have felt the essential emptiness of male or female homosexuality in that it cannot result in new life. Perhaps she regretted being childless.
However, I believe the ostensible reason she made Alexander experience this 'sadness' after sex was because he was meant to feel that by making his relationship with Hephaestion physical rather than spiritual, he was betraying Plato's ideal of sublime love which transcended physical gratification and concentrated on what was best for the development of the young man's character. Presumably Aristotle, as Plato's pupil, taught this ideal to Alexander and Hephaestion, but I don't think it works in Mary Renault's novels because she is just not explicit enough about it, and because she is associating guilt with sex, which is a Christian notion, not an ancient Greek one.
Perhaps she expected her (classically) educated audience to implicity understand what she was hinting at in her idea of platonic love, but this is part of her class snobbery (which I have issues with, but I won't go into it here). However, she may also be referring to Plutarch's view of Alexander's 'chastity and self-control'. Alexander was (to quote a historian who's name I can't remember at the moment) no prude. He didn't have sexual hangups, but he was very conscious of his reputation. He wanted to be seen as a king who was setting an example for others to follow, not as just a conqueror.
One of the reasons I also disagree with Mary Renault's protrayal of Alex and Heph's characters is that in her novels, she is attempting to justify homosexuality through psychoanalysis. She trained as a nurse in the 1930s when psychoanalysis was very popular and, as I've said elsewhere, is trying to 'explain' homosexuality by childhood experiences. This isn't necessary in an age when homosexuality was both fashionable and acceptable, and she ends up making Alexander appear emotionally damaged and, especially in The Persian Boy, ends up making Hephaestion nothing more than an emotional prop for Alexander. As a Hephaestion fan, I find that very difficult to accept!
Reply
No worries, I was too confused to be illusion-ed in the first place so I guess I shouldn't be surprised to learn that the supposed after sadness was a literary liberty taken by an author who had her own repressed opinions on how same-sex couplings must inevitably feel internally for different people, and I can imagine that, more for women than men, that is a logical lament to have.
But I have read in several places that Alexander did associate sex and sleep with his own mortality (which I see you mentioned above, Plutarch is probably the one I read about), which is why he strove so hard to cement his immortality before his time was due so that his legacy would live on in the same glorious fashion as Achilles. I have no doubt that he had no sexual hangups, he probably loved Hephaestion even more around the time his mother sent round that courtesan whose name I can't spell, because Hephaestion was a calm oasis in a desert of passive-aggressive melodrama then and later.
As for Hephaestion being used as an emotional prop for Alexander in The Persian Boy, I'm right there with you, how rude! I have always felt sorry for him once Bagoas came around, but of course now that we've been talking I'm coming to realize that I've probably been operating under a bunch of false assumptions and facts, which kind of annoys me because I am a big Hephaestion fan too and don't like being mislead by sources who profess to be stating the facts when there is sometimes very little way to ascertain their veracity (but I guess part of it has to be my fault for blindly believing them upon first glance).
Guess that's the dangers of reading historical fiction. It's hard to distinguish the historical from the fiction sometimes. That's why fanfic is so fun. You pretty much start out with the historical part and then create your fiction any way that pleases you and just have to remember to remind your readers to take it all in with a grain of salt.
Reply
Leave a comment