![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Them's fighting words!
Jan. 14th, 2005 03:44 pmPicked up my copy of Alexander the Great - the Hunt for a New Past by Paul Cartledge today, acquired by special order at some inconvenience and expense. Was less than impressed then, less than enamoured certainly, when I opened it randomly and the first paragraph to catch my eye, a pseudo sortes virgilianae, long standard operating procedure with me, was:
Huh???
I *hate* that sort of snobbish dismissal. Leaving romance entirely to one side - don't laugh, I *can* do it! - people with phenomenally gifted friends can actually be competent, nay even above average, individuals themselves. Opposites may attract, but like also attracts like, and I can't imagine geniuses enjoying primary affective bonds with morons.
Bucephalus was no Mr Ed, certainly, *g*, but Hephaistion was extremely good at what he did. Logistics and diplomacy were less revered in the ancient world than generalship, but they're both pretty damn important. I think it says something about our own biases that modern writers still tend to denigrate them. I think it also says something about smallness of spirit that it's easier to believe a powerful man would want a toady, and a chancer would latch onto a meal ticket, than that two intelligent, attractive, gifted individuals would be drawn to each other and form a lasting relationship.
I hope the rest of Cartledge's analysis is better than this!
It is tempting, indeed, to say that the two greatest loves of his [Alexander's] life were both dumb brutes.
Huh???
I *hate* that sort of snobbish dismissal. Leaving romance entirely to one side - don't laugh, I *can* do it! - people with phenomenally gifted friends can actually be competent, nay even above average, individuals themselves. Opposites may attract, but like also attracts like, and I can't imagine geniuses enjoying primary affective bonds with morons.
Bucephalus was no Mr Ed, certainly, *g*, but Hephaistion was extremely good at what he did. Logistics and diplomacy were less revered in the ancient world than generalship, but they're both pretty damn important. I think it says something about our own biases that modern writers still tend to denigrate them. I think it also says something about smallness of spirit that it's easier to believe a powerful man would want a toady, and a chancer would latch onto a meal ticket, than that two intelligent, attractive, gifted individuals would be drawn to each other and form a lasting relationship.
I hope the rest of Cartledge's analysis is better than this!
