1870 Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities ed W Smith

Oct 14, 2010 23:04


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 ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

gingerhead76 October 15 2010, 08:17:16 UTC
Well, I don't agree that his elevation was due to the personal favour and affection of the king, rather than to any abilities or achievements of his own...

Reply

kizzikat October 15 2010, 18:03:44 UTC
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!

Reply

gingerhead76 October 15 2010, 18:30:34 UTC
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

Reply

kizzikat October 15 2010, 20:25:09 UTC
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.

Reply

gingerhead76 October 16 2010, 14:42:42 UTC
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.

Reply

kizzikat October 16 2010, 18:16:20 UTC
Completely agree with you, but since Mary Renault, influential people (Jeanne Reames, Oliver Stone) have come to appreciate Hephaestion more!

Reply


Leave a comment

Up