Hephaestion Amyntoros

[kizzykat]

2.            MIEZA

 

 

Plutarch says that Philip gave the temple of the Nymphs near Mieza to Aristotle and his pupil.  This is presumably so that they could study undisturbed, but it is unlikely that they were secluded here all year round or Alexander would not have had enough experience to assume the regency of Macedon at sixteen.  It’s very likely he would have spent some of his time at Pella, and, in order to learn the art of war, might have spent part of the summers campaigning with his father.

 

One proof that Alexander did not spend all his time at Mieza is in the Alexander Romance, which says that Alexander at 15, and his friend Hephaestion, went to the Olympic Games, a 4 day event in the heat of summer.  It must have been at these games that it was suggested that Alexander, an excellent runner, also compete.  He refused, saying he would only run if he had kings as competitors, perhaps fearing others would let him win.

 

The Alexander Romance says that he wanted to compete in the chariot race. He went for a walk from Pisa, the port of Olympia, with Hephaestion, and encountered Nicolaus, son of Andreas, and king of Acarnania, west of Delphi.  Alexander quarrelled with Nicolaus, who assumed that Alexander had come to compete as a wrestler or boxer – an indication of Alexander’s sturdy stature? – and Nicolaus spat in his face.  Alexander “to whom it came naturally to control his temper” wiped the spittle away with a “murderous smile” and promised to defeat Nicolaus.

 

Alexander’s chariot had four horses, two dappled horses, “while the outriders were chestnuts, Bucephalus on the right, Petasios on the left.”  Nicolaus was “less keen to win than to destroy Alexander” because his father had been killed in battle by Philip.  Alexander “was intelligent enough to realise this”, let Nicolaus overtake him, came up behind and clipped the axle of his chariot.  Nicolaus’s chariot was overturned and he was killed.

 

Whatever the truth of this story, it shows Alexander’s competitive spirit and that, even if he was still under Aristotle’s tutelage, he was no child.

 

Plutarch does not say that anyone else was educated with Alexander at Mieza, but it is generally assumed that Alexander would have been accompanied by some of the Royal Pages, and would there have formed some of the friendships that influenced the rest of his life.  Not all of his friends though were school-fellows; many he would have known all his life.  Haraplus, for example, was too old to have gone to Mieza, but as the nephew of one of Philip’s wives, would have been known to Alexander since childhood.

 

Whilst at Mieza, it is probable that Alexander received special instruction from Aristotle in politics, for he later complained that Aristotle had written down and thus made public things he had taught him, lessening Alexander’s edge over other men.  This shows an interesting distrust of the written word, even by a literate man, in an age when the transmission of most knowledge would have relied on memory.  It also shows Alexander’s competitiveness rather than his elitism, but his complaint smacks of jealousy that he was no longer Aristotle’s special pupil.

 

However, given that Aristotle’s nephew Callisthenes was tutor to the Royal Pages in Alexander’s reign, it seems likely that Aristotle would also have tutored the Royal Pages during part of their education alongside Alexander, and even after Alexander ceased to be his pupil.  Aristotle returned to Athens in 335 BC, the year after Alexander had become king and turned 21, and he may have continued to act as Alexander’s advisor.

 

It is generally accepted that Hephaestion would have been amongst Aristotle’s pupils, but given that Aristotle was in Macedon for 7 years, Hephaestion could have been younger than Alexander.  Even if he were the same age as Alexander, youth alone could account for his comparatively late emergence as one of Alexander’s main commanders.  We tend to forget how extraordinarily young Alexander was, most generals need 30 or 40 years experience to reach his level of competence on a battlefield, and if Hephaestion was the same age as Alexander it is hardly surprising that he wasn’t as competent a general as he was.  But if Hephaestion was younger than Alexander, then his rise to be Alexander’s second in command would be even more spectacular.

 

One of the proofs for Hephaestion having been a pupil of Aristotle is that both Aristotle and Xenocrates, the Athenian philosopher who in 338 BC became head of Plato’s Academy at Athens, a post Aristotle also desired, wrote volumes of letters to Hephaestion which they made publicly available.

 

We do not know what subjects these letters were on, or when they were written, but presumably they had half an eye on Hephaestion’s friendship with a prince, and probable future king, or with a king if they were written later.  This implies that Hephaestion had considerable influence with Alexander, and that their relationship was not just based on the physical.  They also imply that Hephaestion was not “fundamentally stupid” (the historian Peter Green), but that he at least had pretensions towards being a philosopher.  One set of letters might indicate sycophancy by the writer, but two sets indicates that perhaps he wasn’t unintelligent and that he would at least have paid some attention to them.  Aristotle would have known him well, and whilst he might have hoped to influence Alexander through Hephaestion, that he dedicated the letters to Hephaestion rather than to Alexander appears to indicate that Hephaestion was the more philosophically minded of the two.  Hephaestion’s intelligence must have made an impression upon Xenocrates too, unless he was being very pushy and dedicating letters to someone he had never met in the hope of currying favour, for he presumably met Hephaestion on Alexander and Parmenion’s visit to Athens after the battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC.  Xenocrates was known to be on good terms with Alexander too.

 

© 2010