#Sisygambus

[jeannereames]

Do you think alexander considered hephaistion his alter-ego?

"He, too, is Alexander"

Did Alexander think of Hephaistion as his alter-ego? Quite possibly—but not by that term. For one thing, “alter-ego” is Latin, and we find it first used in writing by Cicero, although it may have been (quite possibly was) in common parlance prior.

The concept did appear to exist in Greek, but the tendency to apply it to Alexander and Hephaistion owes chiefly to two attestations. The first is the recorded meeting between Alexander, Hephaistion, and Sisygambus, wherein he supposedly said, of Hephaistion, "He, too, is Alexander." The other concerns a quip attributed to Aristotle, mentioned in Diogenes Laertus that friendship is one soul in two bodies—but this not found Aristotle's surviving works, despite a longish passage on friendship in his Nikomachian Ethics.

Without being unduly cynical, we must always take exact phrasing with a grain of salt. I think there's very little we can be certain Alexander said. Same problem with Aristotle, unless you're reading his actual writings, and even some of those are dubious, such as the infamous Ath Pol, or Constitution of the Athenians. We typically distinguish these as “pseudo-Aristotle.” (So if you see “pseudo-”some-name, that means the work is attributed to that person but almost certainly not actually written by him/her.)

So, as part of my usual ‘Let me ‘splain you why you can’t trust that story/saying…,’ let’s play some dating games here.

First, Cicero is our initial attested use of “alter ego,” in a letter to his friend Atticus, that dates the phrase to somewhere between 68-44, or middle of the first century BCE. Maybe we can push it back a little earlier to the early first century, but I’d be uncomfortable pushing it further without solid evidence. Popular terms change. Anybody call a fashionable (male) person, “That cool cat…” these days—except as a bit of a joke? I didn’t think so. 😉 But “cool” itself is otherwise still in common use. So we have to be careful about when terms are popular.

Now, the story of Alexander before Sysigamgus is best known from Curtius (3.12.16-17), but Diodoros also relates it (17.37.5-6), and so does Arrian (2.12.3-8)—although with a caveat. He says it doesn’t appear in his trusted sources (Aristoboulos or Ptolemy) but he tells it anyway, apparently because he approves of the actions in it.

We don’t know where it comes from. Maybe Kleitarchos? Possibly Kallisthenes? It does not appear in either Plutarch’s bio of Alexander or his Moralia, although normally he loved these sorts of anecdotes. There’s a good reason, however, that Plutarch doesn’t tell it (see below). Justin is just too short. (It also appears in abbreviated form in a couple of later Roman sources, Valerius Maximus and Dio Chrysostom. So it was clearly popular in the rhetorician crowd.)

So, what are the words attributed to Alexander? Diodoros’ Greek is kai gar kai outos Alexandros estin: “and for also this [man] Alexander is” (6). Arrian renders it kai gar ekeinon einai Alexandron: “and for that man is Alexander” (7). Curtius puts it, albeit in Latin, nam et hic Alexander est: “for he also Alexander is” (17). Yes, I rendered those into English pretty exactly, even if it sounds a bit funny. First, it helps show how every translation is an interpretation, but also allows us to watch the parsing itself.

None of them is exactly the same, even if the meaning is the same. That’s a good reminder we don’t have his exact phrasing!

Assuming the event even happened.

Why should we doubt it? Aside from Arrian’s skepticism?

This story feels a LOT like a classic lesson in proper clemency. I’ve talked about the importance of clemency before. The bulk of this tale is meant to show a chivalrous Alexander early in his career, before he fell victim to divine aspirations and the lure of that nasty Oriental Luxury <tm>. See what a good guy he was?! Plutarch, in his take, insists not only did Alexander not rape the royal women, he wouldn’t even look at the women. That’s probably why he doesn’t tell this story, because going to their tent absolutely IS looking at them, donchaknow. It’s even funnier because it’s Plutarch who tells us Statiera died in childbirth well, well after that baby could have been Darius’s. (Consistency? What consistency? Pfff.)

My point here is that the story may very well have been fabricated to make a MORAL point of how to be an honorable victor—whether in the era of the Successors (which grew increasingly bloody and vicious), or in the later Roman period. It would also provide a perfect example for Curtius to contrast with Alexander’s later Asian debauchery.

You may be wondering, But why would they make up an entire story like that? Wouldn’t people know?

Um, to prove my point I give you…Twitter, QAnon, and whatever quote is being attributed (wrongly) to Samuel L. Jackson this week. The more often people hear something, even a lie, the more likely they are to believe it’s true. Arrian’s other stories of after-Issos events has Leonnatos going to talk to the women, not Alexander (and Hephaistion). Of course, it’s entirely possible Leonnatos went the first evening, while Alexander and Hephaistion went the next morning. It even makes a certain amount of sense that he’d visit the royal women. So, the bare-bones of the encounter may be true, but mistaken identities and all those speeches were likely put in people’s mouths later.

Incidentally, there’s a pun in the line, as alex-andros translates to “protector of men.” So Hephaistion is also a protector of men. Romans and Greeks ate up that sort of word-play.

As for the Aristotle titbit…Diogenes Laertus reports a list of “sayings” (aphorisms) attributed to various philosophers. For Aristotle, one is: “To the query, ‘What is a friend?’ his reply was, ‘A single soul dwelling in two bodies’” (5.20). I’ve seen people claim he was referencing Alexander and Hephaistion. There’s absolutely no reason to assume that except romanticism and an Alexander-centric view. In our surviving writings by Aristotle, he barely mentions Alexander.* Shock, I know. 😂 But Alexander wasn’t at the forefront of his mind.

Additionally, as I said above, we have a longish bit on friendship in the Nikomachian Ethics, where that definition doesn’t appear, although nothing he says about true friendship in it contradicts the quote, either. But “Sayings of…” were a popular form of literature in antiquity, and sometimes a clever quip got attributed to more than one person! Maybe Aristotle did say that, but it’s not in actual writings about friendship by Aristotle. Aristotle’s writings on friendship are rather more complex; he lists three types of friendship in Book VIII.

Anyway, this little in-depth study is meant to help folks see how complicated it can be, to get back to what ALEXANDER himself said, thought, or even did.

Yet one thing ALL the sources agree upon: Hephaistion was Alexander’s favorite, not just (or even primarily) as a commander, but as a person. I’ve never read any claim to the contrary, and I have (quite literally) read everything in the ancient sources that concerns Hephaistion (and most everything that concerns Alexander too).

So, while it’s impossible to say that Alexander considered Hephaistion an “alter-ego,” or ever called him “Alexander too,” you can rest assured that every ancient source agrees that Hephaistion was dearer to Alexander than anybody else, maybe even including his own mother.

—————-

* 391a2: his “On the Universe” treatise opens with a reference to “Alexander,” who I think it’s safe to assume is the king. And 1420a5, is “Rhetoric to Alexander”--except that treatise is widely understood (even in the medieval world) to be bogus: e.g., a "pseudo-Aristotle" text. Plus Alexander is mentioned in a couple fragments.

[blogdemocratesjr]

The Family of Darius before Alexander by Paolo Veronese

This painting is full of activity. The main attention goes to the two groups of life-size people in the foreground. The painting shows how the family of Persian King Darius (in the center) appears in front of King Alexander the Great and his following (on the right) to ask for mercy. The man on the right, dressed in red and gold, is Alexander the Great. To his right, with the orange cape, is his good friend and advisor Hephaistion who is pointing to himself. Alexander is further surrounded by other high-ranked officers in his army, some of which a carrying a weapon called a halberd. The woman in blue in the center foreground is the mother of Darius, Sisygambis. She is pleading for mercy on behalf of her family. To her left, dressed in gold is the wife of Darius, Stateira, and to her left are their two daughters in beautiful identical dresses. To the right of Sisygambis is a small figure. Some say that this may be a son of Darius and Stateira, but most consider this to be a random dwarf.

[jeannereames]

I read DWTL, both Becoming & Rise. Loved it! You've brought Alexander's world to life in such a relatable manner that it doesn't seem it's based on an era dating back more than 2,000 years ago. I really wish you continued the series, telling the story of Alexander after he became King. Is there any account of Alexander's relationship with, or treatment of commoners? I'm a big fan of Alexander. Crush on him! And here's my next question. Would he fall in love with, or marry a commoner?

First, thank you. 😊 I’m glad you both enjoyed the novels and felt they brought that world to life. I do hope to continue the story but Riptide is not (at least at present) interested in publishing the rest, as they aren’t even remotely Romance. (They took the first two, which is really one novel, because it did have a love story even if it’s really a coming-of-age historical.) I’m currently working on a monograph about Hephaistion and Krateros (non-fiction), so that’s eating up a lot of my time.

As for your question…. First, let’s separate “love” from “marriage,” as those two things did not necessarily go (in fact, very rarely went) together. The notion of marrying for love is really quite recent, (almost) all over the world. Marriage was, for Macedonian kings, a deeply political act. So, he wouldn’t marry a woman who didn’t serve a political purpose; 99% of the time, that would be a “royal” or other high-born woman.

Sorry there’s not a more romantic answer to that, but it’s honest.

Love it something different, although there, recall the Greeks recognized different sorts of love, and separated eros (desire) from philia (true love/deep friendship). Eros was assumed not to last, whereas philia of the best sort was long-standing, even lifelong. Greek men generally didn’t assume they’d feel philia for the women for whom they felt eros; that’s typical Greek misogyny of the time. Alexander was somewhat different from other men, in that he did seem to value the opinion of the women around him (certainly the older women from his mother to Ada to Barsine to Sisygambus)…but he still wouldn’t necessarily put them on a level with the men in his life.

Could he learn to? Perhaps. He might be better positioned than most, so I wouldn’t necessarily put it beyond the scope of possibility. Yet it would take a radical realignment of his world, one where he’d be around a woman long enough to learn to respect her enough to feel philia for her, not merely eros.

A time-travel situation is most likely, although the one example of that I’ve seen wasn’t (to me) at all convincing—in part because it put the (modern) woman in the past. Pull Alexander into the present, with Hephaistion already dead, and you might get something more believable ... because that removes two of the biggest problems. First, a world where men interacted very little with women, especially men on military campaign. And second…

Hephaistion.

Whether or not they remained physical lovers, Hephaistion was the dearest person in Alexander’s personal orbit. While certainly Alexander had flings with both women and teens/young men, Hephaistion remained central. I find it unlikely that would change while he was alive.

There have been a few attempts in novels to do an opposite-sex romance with Alexander, and all had to deal with the Hephaistion Problem. 😉 One could argue that even Mary Renault’s The Persian Boy grappled with this, and also had a Hephaistion Problem.

So, the first more recent one, and arguably the most successful, was a trilogy by (Alison) Spedding from the mid/late-80s (The Road and the Hills, A Cloud over Water, and The Streets of the City), wherein Ailixond (Alexander) meets Aleizon Ailix Ayndra (an Alexander-Hephaistion mix). They fall in love and conquer the world, then she takes over after he dies. Despite the way it sounds, it’s a fun read. It’s also not an historical, so she can play with the facts as she wishes.

Another by Jennifer Macaire (Time for Alexander Series) has Ashley, a professional journalist (and essentially a self-insert), time travel from the present into the past to interview Alexander. She falls in love with him, and with Hephaistion too (who’s inexplicably not called Hephaistion, but Plexis). The research is slap-dash with multiple problems from odd spelling choices (what is Seleucos? Seleukos or Seleucus—pick Greek or Latinized, please), to confusion on details. The one plus is more time to some of the women surrounding Alexander.

A late ‘60s trilogy by Helene Moreau (penname), reprinted as one long novel in the early ‘70s (by Playboy, no less), was called Roxana. Although, quite shockingly for the time, she did depict Alexander and Hephaistion as lovers, it's kinda-sorta a Roxana-Alexander love story. Except Roxana doesn’t love Alexander, who’s not a good guy; her true love is a Jewish fellow called Mordechai. Hephaistion, although a “rival” for Alexander, isn’t especially negative even thought he's a problem for Roxana’s plans to bind Alexander to her via desire.

Last, Stephanie Thornton flipped the script in her The Conqueror’s Wife, with the romance being Drypetis and Hephaistion. Alexander is a Bad Guy (as is Roxana, btw). While Thornton also makes ATG and Hephaistion lovers, she inadvertently paints same-sex relationships as negative by framing. (Or at least, I will hope it was inadvertent.) It’s a traditional m/f Romance, so Drypetis will win--and as Alexander is bad/evil, the message is that opposite-sex love “saves” Hephaistion from Alexander. Not sure she actually meant that, but it’s not queer-friendly. (There are no other positive gay people; Roxana's brother is a minx.) I think she used the same-sex affair to appear edgy and hip, but just wound up seeming homophobic.

Anyway, all of these try to foreground a female in Alexander’s life, or in Hephaistion’s—but must then deal with the problem of the Other. Spedding simply makes her main (female) character a Hephaistion analog. Macaire turns it into Threesome; Ashley falls for both men. Moreau and Thronton adopt more traditional love triangles, although Moreau’s is really a quadrilateral with Mordechai; Roxana is only using Alexander. And Thronton has her lead (Drypetis) “win” by making Alexander evil.

I will note that in all the novels I’ve read about Alexander, I have yet to see a woman author portray Hephaistion as evil/the bad guy, even when Alexander is evil/the bad guy. Even Moreau’s Hephaistion is neutral/nice to Roxana. It’s only male writers who depict him negatively. Make of that what you will. 😉

Of these four books, Spedding might be the only one to succeed because it’s epic (quasi-historical) fantasy; she’s not trying to be historical. After that, Thornton’s is perhaps the least inaccurate historically, but that doesn’t make it particularly good.

So, the biggest issue with giving Alexander a true (female) love is … Hephaistion.

I'll add that I don't like love triangles when they involve Alexander and Hephaistion, but not because I ship the two. I just don't like love triangles period. Too often in fiction, they become a quick way to inject drama because the author can't think of something more realistic. *roll of eyes* There are PLENTY of real-life problems that couples face that have nothing to do with a third (human) party. A love triangle can be interesting in a long-standing relationship like a marriage on the rocks (which is where they're most likely to occur in real life). But generally, I find love triangles in Romance (as opposed to lit fic) trite in execution, tbh.

(For the curious, my article on presentations of Alexander and Hephaistion in novels, “Alexander the Great and Hephaistion in Fiction after Stonewall,” is available on academia.edu; I go into more detail there, breaking down how different authors treat the relationship according to when it was published, gender of the author, and genre of the novel. But two of the novels mentioned above are not in that chapter because they fall outside the parameters I set for examination.)

[jeannereames]

Hi Dr. Reames, sorry to disturb you. I remember somewhere you mentioned how many times ATG was associated with each gods and heroes in the ancient sources ?But I can't find the blog now. If my memory is correct and you still have such records, could you please send me a link to it? Thank you so much!

Besides, when I read curtius 'Beside her sat one of her granddaughters, mourning for the recent loss of Hephaestion, whom she had married, and in the general sorrow was renewing her own reasons for grief. But Sisigambis alone felt the misfortune that had befallen all her family.....', I wonder if there is anything reliable in this account, does it try to imply that Hephaestion might have been nice to this girl?

Answering the second question first, he probably was nice enough to her. She was a royal princess, and her grandmother was fond of Alexander. And he himself seems to have been in favor of Alexander’s policy of integrating Persians, so he wouldn’t have been predisposed to treat her badly. And she’d have been inclined to make him happy, as her life more or less depending on it. Which brings me to the rest of the story.

The details are likely an exercise in ancient Roman “creative non-fiction.” Curtius does that a lot, embellishing on the historical record, which itself was embellished. So we shouldn’t give a lot of attention to the details, but Curtius was almost certainly correct in the general sorrow-fear these women felt when Alexander died. He’d been their protector. Without him, they’d have no idea about their futures. What Curtius gives to Sisygambus was almost certainly the alarm of every woman in Alexander’s harem: what will become of us now? That would probably generate a lot of tears, and also, perhaps, some cut-throat plans—as we see with Roxana.

The harem was, itself, a political hothouse, especially for those closest to the top. For the novels, I’ve given some thought to how I’ll be portraying the women/girls in the novels, just as I did to the sisters and wives in the women’s rooms in Macedonia.

Returning to your first question, I can find a bunch on Achilles in blogs [asks + Achilles] but none with exact numbers. BUT I do have the original article itself, of course, so below is my footnote that lays it all out:

Footnote 14 from “Philip’s and Alexander’s Use of Religious Cult in Our Extant Sources”:

In Plutarch, Herakles is referenced only twice in relation to Alexander, Achilles three times and Dionysos three. Justin, although shorter, references Herakles four times, Achilles two, and Dionysos only once. Diodoros mentions Herakles six times, Achilles three, and Dionysos two. Predictably, Curtius and Arrian have more. Curtius references Herakles nine times, Achilles once, and Dionysos seven, but Curtius is missing the first two chapters, which would have included the Troy visit, and has a large lacuna including the death of Hephaistion, both of which would likely have involved references to Achilles, and probably more of Herakles as well. Arrian shows the same disproportion: Herakles has twelve mentions, Achilles four, and Dionysos seven.

No, I’m not sure yet when this Companion is coming out, but probably in 2024. Edward Anson is the editor, and the title will be Brill's Companion to the Campaigns of Philip II and Alexander the Great.

[jeannereames]

The general consensus is that Darius' wife, Staitera I died in childbirth. But the timeline and circumstances change from historian to the next. Robin Lane Fox asserts that she died bearing Darius' son not long after Issus, whereas Peter Green claims that she died right before gaugamela (aka 2 years after her capture). He also follows up with a weirdly matter-of-fact assumption that Alexander must have raped her and that she died birthing his child. Which view is more plausible?

This comes from testimony in Plutarch. Below is a titbit preview of my Chapter 11 (“Changes and Challenges at Alexander’s Court”) in the forthcoming (new) Brill’s Companion to Alexander the Great:

If he had acquired Darius’s tent, servants, and family following Issus, these were spoils of war, the charming story of his meeting with the royal family notwithstanding (Plutarch Alexander 21.4-5; Curtius 3.12.13-26; Arrian Anabasis 2.12.3-8; Diodorus 7.37.4-38.2). Stripped of moralizing and omens (Baynham 1998:117), the tale of his use of Darius’s dining table as a footstool while seated on the throne may best represent his attitude (Diodorus 17.66.3-7; Curtius 5.3.13-15). And whatever Plutarch says of his respect for Darius’ wife (Alexander 22.3), she died not long before the Battle of Gaugamela, supposedly in childbirth—also related by Plutarch without apparent irony (30.1). Given the timing, the babe could not have been Darius’.

Robin Lane Fox rejects Plutarch’s timing of the birth because he subscribes to Plutarch’s (et al.) assertion that ATG didn’t touch the women (Barsine excepted)…never mind that Plutarch himself reports a pregnancy that seems to contradict his own assertion. The anecdotes about Alexander and the royal women are part of a “Chivalrous Alexander” trope that, in turn, belongs to a larger moral arc.

Plutarch and Curtius, and to a lesser degree Diodoros, want to show how power and Asian luxury (and wine) debauched Alexander, turning him from a model of moral rectitude into a hubristic, tyrannical Asian-style king. Justin is even more unforgiving, while Arrian attempts to contradict it all. (Mostly.) We must remember our primary sources all have themes of their own; they aren’t just reporting events or copy-and-pasting their (now lost) sources. Chivalrous Alexander early in his career contrasts Alexander post-court Persianizing mid-330, who adopted a harem, a eunuch, and married multiple barbarian women (although Plutarch tries to redeem the match with Roxana by making it love-at-first-sight).

In any case, this led Lane Fox (and whoever wrote the Wiki article about Statiera) to decide the baby had to be Darius’s and the timing of the delivery and death earlier than Plutarch places it. Yet Plutarch states clearly she died “soon” after Darius’s second peace overture to Alexander, while ATG was preparing to cross the Euphrates (Alexander, 29)—following his departure from Egypt.

Darius basically suggested, “Hey, keep what you already have, marry one of my daughters, take 10,000 talents, and we’ll call it even, the Euphrates our new boundary.” This offer results in the famous exchange: “I’d take that if I were Alexander,” from Parmenion, and ATG’s reply, “So would I, if I were Parmenion.” That exchange is totally invented, btw, although the letter from Darius almost certainly isn’t.

That was spring of 331…a year and a half after the Battle of Issos. So…um. Oops? Even if Darius had got her pregnant literally on the night before the battle in early November of 333, she would have had that puppy by late summer of 332…while Alexander was besieging Gaza or had just entered Egypt. Yet she died c. spring/summer of 331. Justin and Curtius confirm the timing of her death, although they differ on the causes, but Justin also connects it to pregnancy (11.12.6).

The tale of the escaped eunuch reporting to Darius how nice Alexander had been to his poor wife (30.2-7) is total bunk—part of the Chivalrous Alexander trope, which, in turn, feeds Plutarch’s argument that Alexander “deserved” to be King of Asia…something he went on at length about in his “On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander” (De Fortuna Alexandri).* He even has Darius name Alexander his true successor (!! 30.7). Plutarch relates this story right in the middle of—situationally—admitting-via-math that the baby couldn’t be Darius’s. That’s pretty funny, or at least ironic, when you think about it. (Curtius tells a similar tale [4.10.18-34], also stating Alexander should be his successor--and both likely stem from Kleitarchos' original.)

Anyway, Peter Green is not the only one to note the problem with an 18+ month pregnancy. Yet as Green regards Alexander as a ruthless, pragmatic conqueror, he assumed post-battle rape.

I think the truth probably less violent. As suggested in my quoted bit above, the anecdotes of Alexander’s actions following the Battle of Issos have been heavily doctored to fit whatever that author’s thematic agenda. That doesn’t make the stories wholly untrue, but they cannot be taken at face value.

That said, Alexander does seem to have treated women better than usual custom (something the Chivalrous Alexander trope may have then inflated). Consistent testimony suggests, for instance, that the queen mother, Sisygambus’s affection for him was real, and he had friendly relations with Ada of Karia, as well. Ergo, I don’t think we should assume he barged into the tent and forced himself on Darius’s wife. It seems out of character.

Yet…we have a gestational math problem. If Plutarch doesn’t say the babe was Alexander’s, whose else could it be? I suppose one could argue she got pregnant by some other Persian in Alexander’s train, or even one of Alexander’s other officers…but that’s constructing a house of cards from no evidence in order to exonerate ATG. She was the highest-ranking “war prize”; she couldn’t go to anyone but the king.

As for when he took her to his bed, I doubt it immediate. After the battle, while at Marathus in Phoenicia (before Tyre), he received the first letter from Darius trying to cut a deal, to which he responded in effect: if you want your family back, come surrender to me and I’ll give them to you (Arrian, Anabasis2.14.1-9). Below is the last bit (8-9):

“Approach me therefore as the lord of all Asia. If you are afraid of suffering harm at my hands by coming in person, send some of your friends to receive proper assurances. Come to me to ask and receive your mother, your wife, your children and anything else you wish. Whatever you can persuade me to give shall be yours.

In future whenever you communicate with me, send to me as king of Asia; do not write to me as an equal, but state your demands to the master of all your possessions. If not, I shall deal with you as a wrongdoer. If you wish to lay claim to the title of king, then stand your ground and fight for it; do not take to flight, as I shall pursue you wherever you may be."

We can question if Arrian reproduced the actual letter, but perhaps he did; a copy or dozen were likely floating around. Did he tweak it? Hard to say; it’s the only version we have. In any case, after that exchange, it would have been clear to Statiera (and Sisygambus) that they wouldn’t be ransomed unless Darius surrendered—which he would hardly do.

Did Statiera decide to make the best of a bad situation, perhaps to secure the safety of her children? She’d proven fertile with three living children, Darius’s half-sister (Sisygambus was not her mother), of pure aristocratic Persian ancestry. If not as good a marriage match as her daughter (Statiera II), she was still of royal blood.

Perhaps she (or her mother-in-law) cut a deal with Alexander and he took her to bed. If he did get her pregnant, and she had a son, Alexander could (as “King of Asia”) divorce her from Darius by decree and marry her, or at the very least, he’d have a useful bastard. (Even if the babe were born out of wedlock, Macedonia had a long history of royal polygamy and legitimacy seemed more tied to being claimed by the king than to marriage contracts.)

It’s even possible—if the tale of Barsine and Herakles is true (something I personally doubt)—that Barsine was already pregnant, and Alexander switched out the women in his bed. Greek men were uber-reluctant to have sex with pregnant women. Again, I’m highly dubious of the claims that Herakles was ATG’s son (as I’ve explained HERE), but I’ll toss out the possibility anyway.

Even if Alexander didn’t take her as a mistress or rape her immediately after Issos (as Green implies), we should note that Statiera probably acted in what she believed to be the best interests of her family. That’s a far cry from saying she wanted to have sex with her conqueror. It can be counted at least as coercion-by-circumstance, if not violent rape. Maybe she actually liked him (as her mother-in-law seemed to), but I don’t want to romanticize what was, no doubt, a difficult decision—and lessen the trauma on her part.

----------------------------------------------

*This treatise (both halves, but especially the first) is a gag-worthy collection of Conquest Elevates the Benighted Asian Barbarians with a side-helping of Slavery Is Good for the Uncivilized that will make you ready to loose your lunch. It’s a great example of the sort of moralizing pap Plutarch spreads a bit thinner in his Lives. And yes, this sort of Roman-era philosophy, along with earlier works including Aristotle, directly fed the justification of Early Modern colonialism and slavery. Plutarch was popular reading in Europe post-Renaissance. I recommend Benjamin Isaac’s The Invention of Racism in Antiquity (2006); it’s long, but quite thorough.