II. Sisygambis’ Tent
(Arrian II.13)
Read the other posts in this series
Alexander… entered the tent accompanied only by Hephaestion… Darius’ mother, in doubt, owing to the similarity of their dress, which of the two was the King, prostrated herself before Hephaestion, because he was taller than his companion. Hephaestion stepped back, and one of the Queen’s attendant’s rectified her mistake by pointing to Alexander; the Queen withdrew in profound embarrassment, but Alexander merely remarked that her error was of no account, for Hephaestion, too, was an Alexander - a ‘protector of men’.
Hephaestion’s second appearance in Arrian’s text is, perhaps, one of his most famous. It is the moment when not only is he mistaken for Alexander, but is then confirmed as another Alexander by the king himself.
But note that the translator, J R Hamilton, has Alexander say that Hephaestion is ‘an Alexander - a ‘protector of men” (my emphasis). This is not quite the same as saying that Hephaestion is his alter ego.
When I noticed this, I immediately went to the other Alexander historians to see what form of words they used in their accounts of the same scene.
Justin records Alexander’s visit to the royal women’s tent (here) but does not mention Hephaestion. Plutarch quotes a letter from Alexander to Parmenion in which he says,
‘… I have never seen nor wished to see Darius’ wife… I have not even allowed her beauty to be mentioned in my presence’.
(Para 22)
So far, so unhelpful. Fortunately, Curtius’ and Diodorus’ accounts are of great interest. Not only do they record Alexander’s and Hephaestion’s visit to the royal women’s tent, but after Sisygambis’ mistake, they have Alexander say to her,
‘My lady, you made no mistake. This man is Alexander too.’
(Curtius III.12.17)“Never mind, Mother. For actually he too is Alexander.”
(Diodorus XVII.37)
Not ‘an Alexander’ but ‘is Alexander’. The difference is only two letters but they throughly alter the meaning of the phrase. Arrian represents Alexander as punning on his name; he does not tell Sisygambis that Hephaestion is him but that he - Hephaestion - is a protector of men like him. Curtius and Diodorus, however, have Alexander saying that Hephaestion is him - that he is his ‘second self’ as the note in Diodorus says.
***
The disparity between Arrian, Curtius and Diodorus leads us to ask which version of Alexander’s comment is correct? Actually, neither might be. In the passage preceding the above quote, Arrian tells us that the anecdote is not mentioned by Ptolemy or Aristobulos and that he does not record it as being ‘necessarily true’. However, he doesn’t give a reason for saying this.
In his notes to John Yardley’s translation of Curtius, Waldemar Heckel takes the matter a little further by suggesting that the anecdote was invented by Cleitarchus.
Livius would probably agree with him. They say that Cleitarchus,
… sometimes sacrificed historical reliability to keep the story entertaining and to stress the psychological development. Therefore, Cleitarchus’ History of Alexander contains many errors (some serious).
If the story of Sisygambis’ mistake is fictional, I imagine Cleitarchus invented it in order to show how good a man Alexander was in order to show how far he fell after replacing Darius III as Great King - all part of the story’s ‘psychological development’. Hephaestion’s appearance in it, therefore, is no more than a means to an end.
***
For us, it is a shame if one of Hephaestion’s (most famous) appearances in the histories must be considered a fiction. However, even if it is, the fact that Cleitarchus chose to use the chiliarch bears witness to the latter’s special status with Alexander. Bearing in mind that Cleitarchus was writing within living memory of both men, had Hephaestion been other than the man of the anecdote, it would have fallen flat on its face when Cleitarchus read his work to his audience.
For this reason, perhaps, after consulting other histories, Arrian says that though he doesn’t think Cleitarchus’ anecdote ‘necessarily true’, it does seem to him to be ‘credible enough’. For a moment, I feel as if we have come within touching distance of the historical Hephaestion son of Amyntor but held back from reaching him by the invisible chains of time and an Alexandrian writer’s literary conceit.
The Second Achilles 
Very good post, and I thank you for taking your time, again, to delve deeper into the person of the Chiliarch. As you know, Hephaestion is dear to me and I truly wish we knew more about him. I agree that if it had been any other man, I might have shrugged it off as fiction myself, but being Hephaestion, there is a great deal of credence to the story. I can easily see a magnanimous Alexander making a statement like that. If Hephaestion was the weak, inferior, inept sycophant that some try to portray him as, I doubt even a person as generous as Alexander would have made such a claim. I have said before, and will say again, that I think Hephaestion Amyntoros is possibly one of the most underrated men in history.
LikeLike
I always thought Hamilton’s translation of Arrian nonsense, because the obvious meaning is preserved by Curtius and Diodorus. Moreover I think Alex-ander has another, older, meaning, besides the one you mantioned, ie.’he who repels enemies’ (see the similar word ‘alexì - kakos’, surname of Herakles, that means ‘he who keeps away evil’).
As for the origin of this story, preserved by so many authors, I think it comes from a Hephaistion’s biography, possibly suggested by Alexander, after his friend’s death. Who else could ever hand down such a special status of Hephaistion since we know no other Macedonian was present during Alexander’s visit to Sisygambis?
LikeLike
In regards J R Hamilton, I took this up with a classicist who said that Hamilton’s translation is a legitimate one.
They added, however, if Arrian meant to say that Hephaestion as ‘an Alexander’ rather than ‘was Alexander’ then there was another way to say that in order to make it clear.
Therefore, I would agree with you and the translators of Diodorus and Curtius that Alexander is calling Hephaestion his second self, but not that Hamilton’s translation is nonsense.
If we accept the story as being true then, although it doesn’t appear that there were any other Macedonians present in the tent, there were still the Persian royal women and their attendants. Any of them could have passed the story along at a later date.
Having said that, we can probably rule out the Queens and princesses as I don’t suppose they would not have shared the story with the people from whom Cleitarchus got it - the Macedonian rank and file. That leaves the Persian attendants. I can’t think of any reason why one or more of them might not have spoken. On the whole, though, I’d be inclined to go along with Alexander and/or Hephaestion as the sources.
Before thinking too much about that, though, I would want to investigate further why Heckel believes the story is probably fictional. He doesn’t give a reason, but does cite an author who I have not read - E Kornemann “Die Alexandergeschichte”. It looks like I would need to learn German as well.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment.
I don’t think the ‘weak, inferior’ etc Hephaestion that you mention would have been a close friend of Alexander’s in the first place let alone in the tent with him. He would simply have been another member of the court who cropped up at inopportune times to flatter Alexander. In short, another Anaxarchus.
LikeLike