Hephaestion – Omnium Amicorum Carissimus

Hephaestion

Hephaistion Amyntoros (Hephaestion, or Hephaistion, son of Amyntor)

Curtius calls him “omnium amicorum carissimus” to the king: dearest of all the friends. Alexander himself named him “Philalexandros”–friend of Alexander–in contrast to his great rival, Craterus (Krateros), who was merely “Philobasileus”–friend of the king. By the time of his death in Ecbatana in 324 BCE (only eight months before Alexander’s own) he was the second man in the empire (Chiliarch), married to the sister of Alexander’s own wife.

He and Alexander were coevals, and had shared their education under Aristotle at Mieza. They may have known one another before that. He was not a great military leader, and Alexander seems to have kept him away from important commands in actual battle. But this does not make him the incompetent or sycophant which he has sometimes been painted. Curtius stresses that he had great freedom to speak his mind to the king. And snatches of evidence in the extant sources suggest his real gifts were diplomatic and logistical, not military. It would be wrong to dismiss him as unimportant, and unnecessary to assume him a mere yes-man in order to get along with the king. His skills and those of Alexander were complimentary, not competitive.

We know little about his looks or personality. He was tall and, apparently, handsome. He also seems to have had a reputation for both charm and quarrelsomeness by turns. Later speculation whispered that he and the king had been lovers. While this is nowhere stated plainly, it is entirely possible. Nonetheless, it would be reductive to characterise their relationship solely in this way. Our model of friendship is not consonant with theirs. Within these ancient societies where homoerotic desire was freely, sometimes emphatically, expressed, intense friendships might well develop a sexual expression even while that expression was not the focus of the friendship.

Perhaps in the end, Alexander’s own name for Hephaistion is best: Philalexandros. And so he has been known down through history: dearest of all the friends of the great Alexander.

Article by Jeanne Reames-Zimmerman , The Pennsylvania State University.

Aleksanteri kirjallisissa lähteissä osa II – Kallisthenes, Ptolemaios, Aristobulos ja Kleitarkhos

Nuori Aleksanteri metsästää leijonaa. Mosaiikki Pellassa sijaitsevasta talosta.

Kallisthenes

Kallisthenes oli Aristoteleen veljenpoika. Ennen Aleksanterin sotaretkiä, Kallisthenes oli kirjoittanut kymmenosaisen, Kreikan historiaa vuosina 387-356 eaa. käsittelevän teoksen, sekä kolmatta pyhää sotaa käsittelevän teoksen, joka oli kolmeosainen. Aleksanteri otti Kallistheneen mukaan sotaretkelleen, koska halusi tämän kirjoittavan kirjan omista teoistaan. Plutarkhos kirjoittaa:

“Mytileneläinen Khares kertoo lisäksi, että Aleksanteri oli eräissä pidoissa ojentanut maljan, josta oli juonut, eräälle ystävälleen; tämä oli sen otettuaan kääntynyt uhrilieteen päin, juonut siitä ja kääntynyt takaisin; sen jälkeen hän oli ensin laskeutunut kuninkaan edessä maahan, sitten suudellut häntä ja vasta sen tehtyään istunut paikalleen. Samoin tekivät kaikki muutkin kunnen tuli Kallistheneen vuoro. Otettuaan maljan ja juotuaan siitä tämä astui suutelemaan kuningasta maahan laskeutumatta. Kun Aleksanteri nyt epäsi suudelman, Kallisthenes kovalla äänellä kajautti: “Siispä minä saan lähteä täältä suudelma köyhempänä”

-Plutarkhos, Kuuluisien Miesten elämäkertoja, Aleksanteri Suuri-

Kallistheneen teos ei ole säilynyt nykyajan lukijoille. Teoksesta tiedetään sen verran, että se oli hyvin imarteleva ja siinä verrataan Aleksanteria mm. Akhilleukseen. Teos julkaistiin mahdollisesti osissa. Tämän tarkoitus oli saada kreikkalaiset suostumaan yhteiseen Persian sotaretkeen. Luultavasti Kallistheneen teos päättyi Bessoksen kuolemaan vuonna 329 eaa. Tämän jälkeen Kallisthenes joutui Aleksanterin epäsuosioon ja menetti siksi myöhemmin henkensä. Kallistheneen teoksesta on säilynyt nykypäivään vain tusinan verran katkelmia mm. Plutarkhoksen teoksessa.

Ptolemaios

Ptolemaios oli Aleksanterin henkivartija, ja Aleksanterin kuoltua hänestä tuli yksi diadokeista, jotka jakoivat Aleksanterin valtakunnan. Ptolemaios hallitsi Egyptiä ja perusti Ptolemaiosten dynastian. Kuninkaaksi tultuaan Ptolemaios kirjoitti Aleksanterin elämäkerran, ehkä noin vuoden 285 eaa. tienoilla. Arrianos pitää Ptolemaioksen elämäkertaa suuressa arvossa.

Ptolemaios.

“Ptolemaios Lagoksen poika kertoo että Perdikkas, joka yksikkönsä kanssa vastasi leirin puolustuksesta ja joka oli lähempänä vihollisen palisadia, ei odottanut Aleksanterin taistelumerkkiä, vaan oli ensimmäinen joka hyökkäsi palisadia vastaan, mursi sen ja hyökkäsi thebalaisten esivartiota vastaan. Hänen perässään seurasi Amyntas Andromeneen poika, koska hän oli lähimpänä Perdikkasta, ja kun hän näki tämän päässeen palisadien sisälle, käski hän miestensä hyökätä”

-Arrianos, Anabasis 1.8-

Ptolemaioksen maine on hyvä vielä tänäkin päivänä, vaikka tutkijat ovatkin osoittaneet, että Ptolemaios vähättelee vihamiestensä saavutuksia ja suurentelee omiaan. Ptolemaios ja Aristobulos kirjoittivat samoihin aikoihin, ja molempien teoksia voidaan pitää eräänlaisina hovihistorioina. Ptolemaioksen teos kertoo tapahtumista v. 335 eaa. alkaen, mahdollisesti jo aiemmista. Hänen teoksensa käsitteli pääasiassa sotatoimia. Ptolemaioksen kuva Aleksanterista oli hyvä ja positiivinen.

Aristobulos Kassandreialainen

Aristobulos kulki Aleksanterin mukana sotaretkillä, ja toimi arkkitehtinä ja insinöörinä. Aristobulos sai mm. tehtäväkseen jälleenrakentaa Kyyros Suuren vaurioituneen haudan. Aristobulos, samoin kuin Ptolemaios, kirjoitti teoksensa vanhalla iällä, ns. Pseudo-Lukianoksen mukaan 84-vuotiaana. Aristobuloksen teos sisälsi runsaasti maantieteeseen liittyviä yksityiskohtia, mutta hän jätti mainitsematta monia negatiivisia asioita Aleksanterista. Arrianos, ja myös useat nykytutkijat kuten esim. Tarn, pitävät häntä arvossa.

Aristobuloksen teos oli Aleksanteria imarteleva, ja siitä syystä Aristobulos saikin lisänimen “Kolax”, imartelija. Aristobulos korosti erityisesti Aleksanterin tapaa kohdella vangiksi jäänyttä Persian kuninkaan perhettä. Aristobulos väitti teoksessaan myös, ettei Aleksanteri juonut paljon alkoholia.

Kleitarkhos

Aleksandrialainen Kleitarkhos kirjoitti Aleksanteria käsittelevän teoksen pian tämän kuoleman jälkeen. Kleitarkhos ei luultavasti ollut mukana Aleksanterin sotaretkillä. Plinius vanhemman mukaan Kleitarkhos oli Babyloniassa kun Aleksanteri otti vastaan roomalaisten lähetystön. Todennäköisesti Kleitarkhos kirjoitti teoksensa ennen Ptolemaiosta, sen jälkeen kun Ptolemaios oli antanut tuoda Aleksanterin ruumiin Aleksandriaan. Kleitarkhos luultavasti käytti päälähteenään Kallistheneen historiaa, joka päättyi vuoteen 329 eaa. Hän käytti myös lähteenään Nearkhosta, joka oli Aleksanterin laivastopäällikkö ja lapsuudenystävä. Nearkhos kirjoitti teoksen merimatkasta Intiasta Persianlahdelle. Aleksandriassa asui paljon kreikkalaisia ja makedonialaisia, jotka olivat olleet mukana Aleksanterin sotaretkillä ja Kleitarkhoksen uskotaan haastatelleen heitä.

Kleitarkhoksen teoksen on sanottu olleen viihdyttävä, mutta jossain määrin sensaatiohakuinen. Rooman valtakunnassa se oli suosituin Aleksanteria käsittelevä teos. Diodoros ja Curtius käyttivät Kleitarkhosta lähteenään ja siteeraavat Kleitarkhosta melkein sanatarkasti. Diodoroksen ja Curtiuksen välityksellä on säilynyt Kleitarkhoksen kuvauksia tapahtumista, jotka muuten olisivat hävinneet. Kleitarkhoksen teosta ja sitä lähteenään käyttäneitä Diodorosta ja Curtiusta kutsutaan yleisesti “Vulgataksi” eli yleiseksi versioksi.

Kleitarkhos kuvasi Aleksanterin nuorena kuninkaana, joka jatkuvan hyvän onnensa vuoksi muuttui tyranniksi, alkoholistiksi ja murhaajaksi. Kleitarkhoksen mukaan Dareioksen kuoleman jälkeen Aleksanteria ei pidätellyt enää mikään. Nykyhistorioitsijoiden mukaan Aleksanterin käytös muuttui pääasiassa siitä syystä, että hänen oli käyttäydyttävä kuin persialainen kuningas, jotta hän voisi hallita uusia alamaisiaan. Kleitarkhos halusi kertoa hyvän ja viihdyttävän tarinan ja unohti joskus historialliset tosiasiat.

Delfoista löytynyt patsas, jonka uskotaan esittävän Plutarkhosta.

Gordionin Solmu

Aleksanteri Suuri leikkaa Gordionin solmun Giovanni Paolo Paninin maalauksessa.

Gordionin solmu oli Zeuksen temppelissä Fryygian Gordionissa sijainnut monimutkainen solmu, jonka avaajasta legendan mukaan tulisi Aasian kuningas. Aleksanteri Suuri ratkaisi solmun vuonna 333 eaa. lyömällä sen rikki miekallaan.

Perimätiedon mukaan oraakkeli julisti tilapäisesti vailla kuningasta olleille fryygialaisille, että seuraavasta kaupunkiin härkävaunuilla saapuvasta miehestä tulisi heidän hallitsijansa. Paikalle saapui vankkureillaan Gordias-niminen köyhä talonpoika, joka kuninkaaksitulonsa kunniaksi pyhitti vankkurit Zeukselle ja sitoi ne paaluun mutkikkaalla solmulla. Oraakkeli ennusti edelleen, että solmun avaajasta tulisi Aasian valtias. Tarinan mukaan Aleksanteri kuoli kesken sotaretkensä, koska ei aidosti ratkaissut solmua, vaan halkaisi sen miekallaan. Tämä tarina saattaa olla myöhempää keksintöä.

Gordionin solmuun liittyvä tarina mainitaan neljässä antiikin aikaisessa Aleksanteri Suurta käsittelevässä lähteessä. Näistä neljästä Arrianos kertoo tapahtumista kaksi eri versiota, joista toinen perustuu Aristobulokseen. Solmun taustakertomus eroaa myös eri versioissa. Arrianoksen versiossa kyseessä on Midaksen vaunu ja kuningas valitsee Midaksen uudeksi kuninkaaksi. Justinuksen versiossa Midaksen tilalla on Gordias. Curtiuksen versiossa vaunu on Midaksen, mutta Gordiaasta tulee kuningas. Plutarkhoksen versiossa Midas on kuningas, mutta vaunun omistajaa ei kerrota. Tarinat eroavat myös muissa yksityiskohdissaan. Esimerkiksi Arrianos kertoo että kyseessä oli yksi solmu, Justinus ja Curtius taas että kyse oli useammasta solmusta. Aristobulos saattoi olla silminnäkijä tapahtumille. Arrianoksen Anabasiksessa on säilynyt kuvaus Aristobuloksen versiosta. Hänen mukaansa Aleksanteri veti kärryn aisaa niin että solmun päät tulivat näkyviin ja ratkaisi solmun tämän jälkeen. Justinuksen ja Plutarkhoksen mukaan Aleksanteri löi solmua miekallaan niin että sai solmun päät näkyviin ja ratkaisi solmun tämän jälkeen. Curtiuksen versiossa Aleksanteri lyö solmun rikki miekallaan ja tokaisee “olen ratkaissut sen”. Tarn pitää Aristobuloksen versiosta luotettavimpana. Solmun “ratkaiseminen” miekaniskulla perustuu luultavasti Kleitarkhoksen kirjoittamaan Aleksanterin elämäkertaan.

Gordionin solmua käytetään myös metaforana ongelmanratkaisusta. Se kuvaa vaikeaa ongelmaa, johon ei löydetä ratkaisua. Kun Aleksanteri avasi Gordionin solmun miekallaan, hän asetti ongelman uuteen kontekstiin, jossa oli mahdollisuus löytää ratkaisu.

Lähde: William Woodthorpe Tarn: Alexander the Great, Volume II, Sources and Studies. Cambridge University Press, 2002

Hephaestion´s relationships

Hephaestion

Little is known of Hephaestion’s personal relationships, beyond his extraordinarily close friendship with Alexander The Great. Alexander was outgoing, charismatic man, who had many friends, but his dearest and closest friend and confidant was Hephaestion. Theirs was a friendship which had been forged in boyhood. It endured through adolescence, through Alexander’s becoming a king, through the hardships of campaigning and the flatteries of court life, and their marriages.

Their tutor, Aristotle, described such a friendship as “..one soul abiding in two bodies”. That they themselves considered their friendship to be of such a kind is shown by the stories of the morning ater  the battle of Issus. Diodorus, Arrian and Curtius all describe the scene, when Alexander and Hephaestion went together to visit the captured Persian royal family. Its senior member, the queen Sisygambis, knelt to Hephaestion to plead for their lives, mistaking him for Alexander, because he was taller, and both young men were wearing similar clothes. When she realised her mistake, she was acutely embarrassed, but Alexander reassured her with the words, “You were not mistaken, Mother; this man too is Alexander”. Their love for each other was no secret, as is borne out by their own words. Hephaestion, when replying to a letter to Alexander’s mother, Olympias, said “..you know that Alexander means more to us than anything”. Arrian says that Alexander, after Hephaestion’s death, described him as “..the friend i valued as my own life”. Paul Cartladge describes their closeness when he says: “Alexander seems actually to have referred to Hephaestion’s as his alter ego”. 

Alexander and Hephaestion enter the tent of the captive royal family of Darius. From a 1696 edition of Curtius.

Their friendship was also a working partnership; in all that Alexander undertook, Hephaestion was at his side. They worked well together; it is possible to discern a pattern, when studying Hephaestion’s career, of Alexander’s constant trust in, and increasing reliance on Hephaestion. By the time of the advance into India, after the deaths of senior generals from the older generation, there had been worrying instances among senior officers of their own generation, of treachery, a lack of sympathy with Alexander’s aims of further integration of Persians into the army, and of sheer incompetence. Time ater time, when Alexander needed to divide his forces, he entrusted half to Hephaestion, knowing that in him he had a man of unquestionable loyalty, who understood and sympathised with his aims, and above all, who got the job done.

Personal relationships of Alexander The Great

Alexander and Hephaestion

Alexander the Great’s lifelong companion was Hephaestion, the son of a Macedonian noble man Hephaestion was Alexander’s closest friend, and held the position of second-in-command of Alexander’s forces until his death, which devastated Alexander. Alexander married at least two women, Roxane, daughter of a minor noble and the Persian princess Stateira, daughter of Darius III of Persia. His son by Roxane, Alexander IV, was born after Alexander the Great’s death and was killed before the boy reached adulthood.

Alexander was admired during his lifetime for treating all his lovers humanely. Plutarch has argued that Alexander’s love of males took an ethical approach, inspired by the teachings of his mentor, Aristotle. He gives several examples of Alexander’s morality in this domain:

When Philoxenus, the leader of the seashore, wrote to Alexander that there was a youth in Ionia whose beauty has yet to be seen and asked him in a letter if he (Alexander) would like him (the boy) to be sent over, he (Alexander) responded in a strict and disgusted manner: “You are the most hideous and malign of all men, have you ever seen me involved in such dirty(sexual) work that you found the urge to flatter me with such hedonistic business?

Plutarch also wrote:

When Philoxenus, the commander of his forces on the sea-board, wrote that there was with him a certain Theodorus of Tarentum, who had two youths of surpassing beauty to sell, and inquired whether Alexander would buy them, Alexander was incensed, and cried out many times to his friends, asking them what shameful thing Philoxenus had ever seen in him that he should spend his time in making such disgraceful proposals.

His moral approach towards sexual relations also extended to relations with prisoners of war: But as for the other captive women, seeing that they were surpassingly stately and beautiful, he merely said jestingly that Persian women were torments to the eyes. And displaying in rivalry with their fair looks the beauty of his own sobriety and self-control, he passed them by as though they were lifeless images for display.

The above quotations would be in line with the thoughts laid about before him by Aristotle, who regarded relationships based purely on carnal relations to be shameful.

Diodorus Siculus writes, “Then he put on the Persian diadem and dressed himself in the white robe and the Persian sash and everything else except the trousers and the long-sleeved upper garment. He distributed to his companions cloaks with purple borders and dressed the horses in Persian harness. In addition to all this, he added concubines to his retinue in the manner of Darius, in number not less than the days of the year and outstanding in beauty as selected from all the women of Asia. Each night these paraded about the couch of the king so that he might select the one with whom he would lie that night. Alexander, as a matter of fact, employed these customs rather sparingly and kept for the most part to his accustomed routine, not wishing to offend the Macedonians “

Curtius reports, “He scorned sensual pleasures to such an extent that his mother was anxious lest he be unable to beget offspring.” To encourage a relationship with a woman, King Philip and Olympias were said to have brought in a high-priced Thessalian courtesan named Callixena.

There is no evidence that Alexander sought intimacy with women outside of marriage, however he did marry three times: to Roxane of Bactria, Stateira and Parysatis, daughter of Ochus. He fathered at least one child, Alexander IV of Macedon, born by Roxane shortly after his death in 323 BC. There is speculation that Stateira could have been pregnant when he died; if so, she and her child played no part in the succession battles which ensued after his death. There is speculation that he may have fathered another child, (Heracles), of a woman said to be his concubine Barsine (the daughter of satrap Artabazus of Phrygia) in 327 BC. Mary Renault’s rebuttal of this theory is worth quoting: “ No record at all exists of such a woman accompanying his march; nor of any claim by her, or her powerful kin, that she had born him offspring. Yet twelve years after his death a boy was produced, seventeen years old…a claimant and shortlived pawn in the succession wars…no source reports any notice whatever taken by him of a child who, Roxane’s being posthumous, would have been during his lifetime his only son, by a near-royal mother. In a man who named cities after his horse and dog, this strains credulity.

Hephaestion

Alexander had a close emotional attachment to his companion, cavalry commander (hipparchos) and childhood friend, Hephaestion. He studied with Alexander, as did a handful of other children of Macedonian aristocracy, under the tutelage of Aristotle. Hephaestion makes his appearance in history at the point when Alexander reaches Troy. There the two friends made sacrifices at the shrines of the two heroes Achilles and Patroclus; Alexander honouring Achilles, and Hephaestion honouring Patroclus. Aelian in his Varia Historia recounts that Hephaestion “thus intimated that he was the eromenos “beloved” of Alexander, as Patroclus was of Achilles.”

No contemporary source states that Alexander and Hephaestion were lovers; historian Paul Cartledge writes that: “Whether Alexander’s relationship with the slightly older Hephaestion was ever of the sort that once dared not speak its name is not certain.” Alexander and Hephaestion were, in Fox’s words, “exceptionally deep and close friends” until Hephaestion’s death, after which Alexander mourned him greatly and did not eat for days. Alexander held an elaborate funeral for Hephaestion at Babylon, and sent a note to the shrine of Ammon, which had previously acknowledged Alexander as a god, asking them to grant Hephaestion divine honours. The priests declined, but did offer him the status of divine hero. Alexander died soon after the receipt of this letter; Mary Renault suggests that his grief over Hephaestion’s death had led him to be careless with his health.

Campaspe

Campaspe, also known as Pancaste, may have been the mistress of Alexander, if so one of the first women with whom Alexander was intimate. She was thought to be a prominent citizen of Larisa in Thessaly; Aelian surmised that she initiated the young Alexander in love.

One story tells that Campaspe was painted by Apelles, who enjoyed the reputation in Antiquity for being the greatest of painters. The episode occasioned an apocryphal exchange that was reported in Pliny’s Naturalis Historia: seeing the beauty of the nude portrait, Alexander saw that the artist appreciated Campaspe (and loved her) more than he. And so Alexander kept the portrait but presented Campaspe to Apelles. Modern historian Robin Lane Fox says “so Alexander gave him Campaspe as a present, the most generous gift of any patron and one which would remain a model for patronage and painters on through the Renaissance”.

The story is memorable, but may have been invented: Campaspe does not appear in the five major sources for the life of Alexander. Robin Lane Fox traces her legend back to the Roman authors Pliny the Elder, Lucian of Samosata and Aelian’s Varia Historia.

Campaspe became a generic poetical pseudonym for a man’s mistress.

Barsine

Barsine was a noble Persian, daughter of Artabazus, and wife of Memnon. After Memnon’s death, several ancient historians have written of a love affair between her and Alexander. Plutarch writes, “At any rate Alexander, so it seems, thought it more worthy of a king to subdue his own passions than to conquer his enemies, and so he never came near these women, nor did he associate with any other before his marriage, with the exception only of Barsine. This woman, the widow of Memnon, the Greek mercenary commander, was captured at Damascus. She had received a Greek education, was of a gentle disposition, and could claim royal descent, since her father was Artabazus who had married one of the Persian kings daughters. These qualities made Alexander the more willing he was encouraged by Parmenio, so Aristobulus tells us to form an attachment to a woman of such beauty and noble lineage.” In addition Justin writes, “As he afterwards contemplated the wealth and display of Darius, he was seized with admiration of such magnificence. Hence it was that he first began to indulge in luxurious and splendid banquets, and fell in love with his captive Barsine for her beauty, by whom he had afterwards a son that he called Heracles.”

The story may be true, but if so, it raises some difficult questions. The boy would have been Alexander’s only child born during his lifetime (Roxane’s son was born posthumously). Even if Alexander had ignored him, which seems highly unlikely, the Macedonian Army and the successors would certainly have known of him, and would almost certainly have drawn him into the succession struggles which ensued upon Alexander’s death. Yet we first hear of the boy twelve years after Alexander’s death, when a boy was produced as a claimant to the throne. Especially since Alexander’s own half brother Philip III Arrhidaeus (Philip II’s illegitimate and physically and mentally disabled son) was Alexander’s original successor. Alexander’s illegitimate son would have had more rights to the throne than his illegitimate half-brother. Heracles played a brief part in the succession battles, and then disappeared. It seems more likely that the romance with Barsine was invented by the boy’s backers to validate his parentage.

Roxane

Ancient historians, as well as modern ones, have also written on Alexander’s marriage to Roxana. Robin Lane Fox writes, “Roxane was said by contemporaries to be the most beautiful lady in all Asia. She deserved her Afghan name of Roshanak, meaning ‘little star’, (probably rokhshana or roshna which means light and illuminating). Marriage to a local noble’s family made sound political sense. But contemporaries implied that Alexander, aged 28, also lost his heart. A wedding-feast for the two of them was arranged high on one of the Sogdian rocks. Alexander and his bride shared a loaf of bread, a custom still observed in Turkestan. Characteristically, Alexander sliced it with his sword.” Ulrich Wilcken writes, “The fairest prize that fell to him was Roxane, the daughter of Oxyartes, in the first bloom of youth, and in the judgment of Alexander’s companions, next to Stateira the wife of Darius, the most beautiful woman that they had seen in Asia. Alexander fell passionately in love with her and determined to raise her to the position of his consort.”

Roxane accompanied Alexander all the way to India, and bore him a child also named Alexander (Alexander IV), 6 months after Alexander the Great died.

Bagoas

Ancient sources tell of another favorite, Bagoas; an eunuch “exceptional in beauty and in the very flower of boyhood, with whom Darius was intimate and with whom Alexander would later be intimate.” Plutarch recounts an episode (also mentioned by Dicaearchus) during some festivities on the way back from India) in which his men clamor for him to kiss the young man: “We are told, too, that he was once viewing some contests in singing and dancing, being well heated with wine, and that his favourite, Bagoas, won the prize for song and dance, and then, all in his festal array, passed through the theatre and took his seat by Alexander’s side; at sight of which the Macedonians clapped their hands and loudly bade the king kiss the victor, until at last he threw his arms about him and kissed him tenderly.” A novel by Mary Renault, “the Persian Boy”, chronicles that story with Bagoas as narrator.

The modern historian Robin Lane Fox, claims that both direct and indirect evidence suggest a “sexual element, this time of pure physical desire” between the two, but as for the consummation of that passion he comments that later gossip presumed that Bagoas was Alexander’s lover. This is uncertain.”. Whatever Alexander’s relationship with Bagoas, it was no impediment to relations with his queen: 6 months after Alexander’s death Roxane gave birth to his son and heir, Alexander IV.