#sophrosune

[jeannereames]

Was Alexander in love with Roxane? As far as I understand, Plutarch, Diodorus, Justin and Arrian mention that Alexander was in love with Roxane, she is the only wife he is said to have been in love with. Is there any truth to that? I have seen people question it, but they are the same people who say that Alexander loved Hephaestion (romantically) when no such thing is said in any source.

So, here’s another “ask” that I’m not sure isn’t meant as trolling. That said, as before, I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt. The first part at least seems genuine enough. It’s only the second part that strikes as a bit dismissive.

That said, the question suggests both limited knowledge of who is arguing what (see the suggested reading near the end), as well as a disconnect between pop history online versus actual scholarship.

For historians, this is not about “We want to make Alexander gay!” versus “We want to make Alexander straight!” This is about understanding the HISTORIOGRAPHY of the ancient sources: what to believe and what not to believe, which in turn means understanding the agenda of ancient authors. That makes this question fundamentally problematic for two reasons:

It assumes one of these things cancels out the other. It doesn’t.

It assumes the ancient sources can be trusted, and all of them say the same things about Roxane, with the same motives. They don’t.

A colleague of mine is currently working on a paper about the role of “love” in stories of Macedonian kings (not just Alexander) and specific wives (who bear the heir). I’m not going to say more about that, as I don’t want to steal Borja’s thunder, but he let me read a draft of the paper and I found it very interesting. Yet we shouldn’t take these “love stories” at face value.

The asker must remember that our surviving sources are separated from Alexander by at least 300 years, or more. They have other (now lost) sources between them and Alexander—sometimes more than one source. I’ve talked about the problems with the sources and Alexander in these two TikTok videos:

ATG and the Sources, Part 1

ATG and the Sources, Part 2

I’d suggest watching those first, then returning here to finish reading this post.

So, assuming the asker (and other readers) have now seen those two videos, we must consider the “story” that lies behind reports of Alexander marrying Roxane for love … or not.

Plutarch is one of the main surviving sources for the “He fell in love with her story,” as well as the “He never laid eyes on Statiera,” as well as the “He turned up his nose at prostitutes (both male AND female).” It’s not about the “purity” of a love match, but CONTROL of his sexual impulses. E.g., sophronsunē. Please don’t conflate Plutarch’s point with later Christian moral lessons. Plutarch was not a Christian and would have emphatically disagreed with many aspects of Christian theology.

Plutarch is telling a story in his Life of Alexander about how Alexander rose above his semi-barbaric Macedonian origins (of which Olympias and Philip are symbols) due to his GOOD GREEK PAIDEIA (education). He was properly “Greekified.” He was therefore controlled and reserved and properly virtuous when he invaded Persia. After Gaugamela, however, he began to succumb to the alure of Evil Oriental Debauchery. Sadly, the Roxane story is part of that—she’s a barbarian girl—although marrying her for love kinda redeems it. This view of Alexander is part of the Second Sophistic more broadly, so we also find it in Arrian. Curtius and Justin are both Roman imperial authors, but with a similar message. Not the Greek education part, but the “corrupted by the Oriental East” part. Diodoros (writing earliest of all) also has it, but not as emphatic.

Marrying Roxane, especially for Curtius, is not a good thing. She’s a hillbilly barbarian tart! He marries (gasp!) her because he gives in to his impulses instead of controlling them with Roman discipline. It’s almost the opposite of Plutarch. Marriage makes it worse, not better, opening the way for half-barbarian heirs (shudder).

What really spurred Alexander’s marriage to her was a political alliance with important Baktrian and Sogdian families, so he could get the hell out of there after a 2+ year war against regional insurgency (which he actually caused). You can read about the whole thing in Frank Holt’s brilliant Alexander the Great and Bactria, from Mnemosyne (1993). And last time I checked, Frank wasn’t making any arguments at all about Hephaistion.

Sulochana Asirvatham has written several articles about Plutarch and Alexander, but “Plutarch’s Alexander” might be of the most use from Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Alexander the Great. Sulo isn’t making any arguments about Hephaistion either. I don’t think he even comes up in that paper.

Sabine Müller has also written about Alexander and women, including Roxane (“Stories of the Persian Bride, Alexander and Roxane,” in The Greek Alexander Romance in Persia and the East). She, too, not only doesn’t argue that Hephaistion was his lover, but (elsewhere) argues they weren’t. We agree on a lot about Hephaistion’s career and importance, but not on that particular point.

Finally, you might especially want to read a forthcoming book chapter “Alexander’s Polygamy: Remarks on Alexander the Great’s Relationship(s) with Women,” by Monica D’Agostini in Macedon and Its Influences, coming out either late this year or early next, from Colloquia Antiqua (#44). It deals with Barsine, Roxane, and his other women/wives.

There is also here the matter of what love and marriage meant in ancient Greece and Macedonia, versus now, but that’s a whole ‘nother discussion. As noted above, for the Greeks, loving a woman did not in any way, shape, or form preclude loving a boy/man. Even at the same time!

Ergo, the idea that people who argue he didn’t love Roxane are doing so because they (wrongly) want to believe he was in love with Hephaistion is, frankly, ridiculous, not to mention downright offensive to real scholarship. As if our opinions are driven by romantic wishful thinking instead of a careful evaluation of the sources and their reliability, in terms of both what is said, and what isn’t.

(Apologies for being a tad testy if this was not a troll, but I've fielded a few too many of these sorts of queries that are a backhanded attempt to "prove" that any claim Hephaistion and Alexander were lovers is just romantic claptrap by silly women who aren't "real" scholars. Ergo, my skepticism.)

[demeterspriestess]

The Pillars of Hellenic Worship

Timothy Jay Alexander says there are seven pillars of Hellenismos: Ethike Arete (ethics), Eusebia (reverence of the Gods), Hagneia (ritual purity by avoiding miasma), Nomos Arkhaios (observance of tradition), Sophia (pursuit of wisdom and truth), Sophrosune (control of self through deep contemplation), and Xenia (hospitality). I’ve seen people say there are nine pillars, some say four, some say “what pillars?” Personally, I think it can be simplified into two categories: ethics and reverence.

Ethike Arete means virtue of character. Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics lists several virtues by which to live. I think that Sophia, Sophrosune, and Xenia are perfectly encompassed within these virtues. Sophia (pursuit of wisdom and truth) by practical and theoretical wisdom, truthfulness, and science. Sophrosune (control of self through deep contemplation) by intuitive understanding, courage, temperance, and patience. Xenia (hospitality) by friendliness, liberality, and magnanimity. 

Eusebia means piety, duty, and respect. Observance of tradition (Nomos Arkhaios) is part of that duty to the Gods. One of those traditions happens to be ritual purity (Hagneia). I think a lot of people are concerned that the Gods will be angry with them for not cleansing miasma properly, or for having miasma in general (chronic illness, for example). I believe that Hagneia is a rule put in place to protect us, to let us get better; in sympathy for us, not in contempt for what we might bring before the Gods. What causes us to be unclean? Dirt and germs, illness and injury, childbirth and death, bodily fluids, negative emotions, etc. All of these instances can upset your entire life and can easily take your attention away from the Gods. But it is NOT sinful and you should NEVER be ashamed of it.

Physical miasma is just basic hygiene. Don’t come to group worship if you have the flu, wash your hands, the usual. Feeling depressed, been sick, etc. and haven’t made offerings in a while? Its okay! Take your time to heal and cleanse your miasma, the Gods will understand. There is no way that I, personally, can believe in the Gods of agriculture, medicine, justice, knowledge, and love, without believing that this time of purification isn’t self-care and so very much needed for our mental and physical health.

I know the ancient Greeks, themselves, have made us scared of miasma. But we must remember that much of what they considered miasma was political and changed with new leadership-- that the Gods themselves did not set miasma in stone like Yahweh did the Ten Commandments. If you need the set in stone guidelines there are only three. They were inscribed on the Temple of Apollo in Delphi and read thus:

Know thyself.

Nothing in excess.

Surety, then ruin.

[ryderedword]

Windex.

drawn and quarteréd

opaque JoHari window

pain cleans each pane clear

(IMG: Sasha Freemind / reSplash)

[jeannereames]

Was Alexander an emotional person? Did he cry easily? It seems that way. He definitely got angry easily, which reflects his emotional nature. It's interesting because we usually expect leaders & rulers to be stoic & not to be emotionally expressive, at least in public, in front of the people they lead, or rule.

Was Alexander an Emotional Person?

I'm unsure what the asker's ethnic-cultural background is, but the Greeks then, like Greeks now, were emotionally expressive. They did prize sophrosune, or self-control, but what they meant by that is different from, say, the classic British stiff upper lip. ;-) Greek men were not only allowed, but expected to cry at loss, or even in joy. Some emotions were more permissible than others, however, and distinctions were made between the genders. So women wailing at a funeral was one thing, but men weren't to do the same. That said, they could certainly cry and gesture in stylized ways (see below). At uncontrollable crying, however, they were expected to cover their heads with their cloak, for concealment.

Romans, later, were a bit more into the "don't be emotionally expressive" in their leaders, partly as a result of the influence of Stoicism--but again--to a point.

So, cultural expectations have a lot to do with it. Within the expected norms of Greek and Macedonian culture, Alexander seems to have been more expressive than average, although not of pain. But of joy and excitement, as well as (especially) anger, and even sorrow. He was noted for his hot temper and considered "choleric," but he also seems to have been moved to joy more easily, too. There's a cute little story of him at a concert, where he got so worked up by a martial melody, he hopped up to brandish his sword (or spear, I don't remember).

I don't see him (and didn't portray him in Dancing with the Lion) as emotionally reticent: he laughs easily, he cries easily, and he gets angry easily. (My Hephaistion is the emotionally reticent one.) the historical Alexander does seem to have gone overboard in terms of not expressing fear or pain, but also controlling any desire for food (and sex), and sleepiness, for that matter. That's more along the lines of sophrosune. Self-control over one's passions/desires. His weak spots were anger, and a love for obnoxious boasting when he got drunk--which appears to have been more frequent across time.

[jeannereames]

Greetings! I have been reading some Plutarch and came across a section that confused me. In Alexander 22.1 it says that Theodorus tries to sell Alexander two young boys, but he refuses and is disgusted by the offer. Why does Alexander make such a big deal out of this? Is it because he doesn't like boys or because he is against prostiution or sexual slavery? I'm not quite sure what to make of this.

Plutarch, Moralizing, Alexander, and akratía

The passage alluded to comes from Plutarch’s biography Alexander 22.1-5; below is the Loeb Perrin trans., but note I used a few different words, in brackets, and sometimes included the Greek because I want to address it. I’m quoting the whole thing because it needs to be read as a whole. Plutarch has a “message” in this text.

When we modern readers first encounter these ancient texts, it can be really tempting to do two things:

Take it all at face value (because we don’t know [yet] what’s problematic).

Take it apart into isolated anecdotes, and thereby lose the context.

The latter is especially easy when reading Plutarch, as he writes that way: anecdotally. But both ways of reading these texts lead to misunderstanding.

Remember, NONE of our surviving sources about Alexander were written during or even shortly after his life. Some use sources that were written by people who knew Alexander, including material from court historian Kallisthenes. But they aren’t doing “cut-and-paste.” They’re editorializing. Even those writing at the time or shortly after Alexander bent stories to match then-current politics.

Plutarch is an essayist. He has a MESSAGE. So, as you read the full chapter text below, see if you can pick out his message(s):

“Moreover, when Philoxenus, the commander of his forces on the seaboard, wrote that there was with him a certain Theodorus, of Tarentum (Greek colony in Italy), who had two boys (paides) of surpassing beauty, to sell, and enquired 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. And on Philoxenus himself he heaped much reproach in a letter, bidding him send Theodorus to [ruin] (eis ton olethron), merchandize and all. He severely rebuked Hagnon also for writing to him that he wanted to buy Crobylus, whose beauty was famous in Corinth, as a present for him.

“Furthermore, on learning that Damon and Timotheus, two Macedonian soldiers under Parmenio’s command, had [seduced] (diaphtheirō) the wives of certain mercenaries, he wrote to Parmenio ordering him, in the case the men were convicted, to punish them and put them to death as wild beasts born for the destruction of [human]kind. In this same letter he also wrote expressly concerning himself: “As for me, indeed, it will be found that I have not seen the wife of Dareios or desired to see her, but I have not even allowed people to speak to me of her beauty.” And he used to say that sleep and sexual intercourse (sunousiazienai), more than anything else, made him conscious that he was mortal, implying that both weariness and pleasure arise from one and the same natural weakness (astheneias tēi phusei).

“He had also the most complete mastery over his appetite, and showed this both in many other ways, and especially by what he said to Ada, whom he honored with the title of Mother and made Queen of Caria. When, namely, in the kindness of her heart, she used to send him day by day many viands and sweetmeats, and finally offered him bakers and cooks reputed to be very skillful, he said he wanted none of them, for he had better cooks which had been given him by his tutor, Leonidas; for his breakfast, namely, a night march, and for his supper, a light breakfast. “And this same Leonidas,” he said, “used to come and open my chests of bedding and clothing, to see that my mother did not hide there for me some luxury or [delicacy].”

It’s a bit ironic that this ask came in not long after the request for a director’s cut of that next-to-last chapter in Rise, as that chapter addresses (among other things) Alexandros’s fear of akratía. And akratía (or really astheneia tēi phusei—weakness of spirit) lies at the root of Plutarch’s moralizing here.

Even if you know zero about Greek morals, you can pick up on the basic message Plutarch is peddling: self-control is good, a lack of self-control—shown by the free reign of the passions—is bad.

It’s not complicated.

Yet this is ALSO part of a larger theme in Plutarch’s Life: Alexander started out good and moral and self-controlled (this chapter is about the Good Alexander). But as he grew more successful, success bred pride, which slid into hubris. And exposure to Oriental (used on purpose) Luxury undermined all his former self-control. YET, in other places, he presents a different message; in “On the Fortune of Alexander,” he sets out to argue that Alexander’s success wasn’t just luck, but due to being a “philosopher in armor,” beloved of the gods.

This is how Plutarch works: he’ll pick and choose the stories he relates, knitting them together in such a way as to make his point.

That means you should be asking ANOTHER question or three.

Can we trust these are real stories? Did they actually happen?

Or maybe they happened, but Plutarch bent them—tweaked the details—to suit his message?

And, if he did tweak them…how? What did he change? Did he perhaps put words in Alexander’s mouth?

With Plutarch, it’s not always clear which one of the above applies to which anecdote. Frustratingly.

We must pick them apart…see what we can figure out.

I want to start with the MIDDLE story about the two Macedonians from Parmenion’s command who were accused of seducing the wives of two mercenaries. The verb there (diaphtheirō) has a couple different meanings, but generally indicates “corruption.” When used of a woman, it’s specifically seduction, which was (to the Greek male mind) corruption.

I suspect this may be an actual event, which is why I chose to look at it first. We can make a guess as to what happened, and then see how Plutarch turned it to his own purposes.

Why would Alexander take an interest in what seems to have been a personnel matter, if these guys are under Parmenion’s command? This incident could result in significant unrest.

Philip and Alexander both ran a tight ship, especially when misbehavior owed to challenges to their authority or arrogance from one unit to another. What seemed to be minor infractions could earn major disciplinary action. We had a similar blow-up in Philip’s army in Thrace between mercenaries and Macedonians as well (c. 340/39); it resulted in a RIOT that almost got Philip killed. (I describe this in Rise, where Alexandros saves Philippos’s life.) Ergo, that may have loomed in Alexander’s mind. His letter to Parmenion let his Second know he’d back him if a guilty conviction should come down, to execute Macedonians for an offense against mercenaries.

Remember: Mercenary troops were typically looked down on; they fought for pay, not honor. Here, two uppity Macedonian soldiers seduced mercenary wives and figured they could get away with it. Apparently, this occurred while Parmenion was away from the main army, so we can set it post-Issos during the Levantine campaigns, Parmenion likely in Damascus.

In Greek society, adultery was an affront against a man’s timē, or personal honor, and might well result in an honor killing. Not to mention stir up a lot of bad blood between different army units. Alexander wants this taken care of, and an example made: execution if guilty. He’s sending two messages: justice is justice. But also, “Don’t fuck with me.” As noted, both he and his father were ruthless about army discipline. He cares far less about the women than about the potential for another riot between Macedonian and mercenary troops over a matter of honor.

Plutarch takes this event and re-fits it for HIS message. This sort of “snip-and-edit” was quite common in ancient narratives.

These Macedonian soldiers are negative foils for Alexander. Notice what immediately follows: Alexander included in the same “letter” to Parmenion that he not only didn’t seduce Darius’s wife, but he wouldn’t even look at her, and—even better!—he won’t let other people talk about her beauty to him.

See the parallel?

Ironically, it’s from Plutarch that we learn she later died in childbirth not long before the Battle of Gaugamela…well after the baby could have been Darius’s. (E.g., it was almost certainly Alexander’s.) But Plutarch doesn’t make any connections (of course), and merely says Alexander wept for her as if she were his own wife (well, duh), and gave her a splendid burial. There, Plutarch’s message is how valiantly he treated the wife of his enemy.

See how he tweaks and edits things to make them say what he wants them to say?

Now, let’s consider the refusal of the boys. Plutarch resolutely skates over Alexander’s sexual encounters outside of proper marriage, or mistresses. He even says in one place Alexander only “knew” Barsine before marrying Roxane, who he claims was a love match. If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

In another place, he claims Philip and Olympias were concerned about Alexander’s lack of interest in women, so they (together, note!…a hint they were hardly always at odds) hired Kallixena—a famous hetaira—to seduce him. He turned her away.

Plutarch isn’t implying he’s gay. He’s implying Alexander isn’t a slave to his passions. Don’t read that with modern eyes!!!

It’s not unlike ancient expectations for athletes. Unlike the shenanigans famous in modern Olympic villages, in the ancient Olympics (or any Contests), most athletes were encouraged NOT to have sex before competing. Why? Because a man’s vitality was believed to be released in his ejaculate. Sex therefore weakened a competitor.

Ergo, Alexander’s reluctance isn’t related to sexual preference, but to sexual continence. A philosophic ideal. Refusal of sex = self-mastery. To have sex weakens him…hence the “sleep and sex” line reminding him of his mortality.*

The boys mentioned here are (slave) male prostitutes. “Boy” (paides) means both literally a child but is also the common term for slaves. His refusal of them is similar (for Plutarch) to his refusal of Kallixena. Indulgence in beautiful boys is akratía, not because they’re boys, but because their sole purpose is pleasure. Whether beautiful Kallixena or beautiful Krobylos (Crobylus), indulging in pleasure is a weakness.

We do (sorta) find a thread of disapproval for male-male pairings in Plutarch, although it’s hard to know exactly what’s at its root. Nothing like modern Christian homophobia. Yet across his writings, Plutarch elevates marriage. He turns Alexander’s marriage of Roxane into a love story to justify it, but also to show that he was “overcome by love,” not lust, and so properly married the girl rather than raped her. It’s still part of the same theme.

More likely we’re seeing Romanizing in the ethics of the “Second Sophistic,” to which Plutarch belonged. We need to view these boy slaves through the lens of first century BCE Rome, which had imported a lot of Eastern luxury for the “debauched” upper classes—which Plutarch, et al., railed against. So, he’s not necessarily understanding them in a 4th century context, but a 1st century (BCE) context. Roman morals were always less accepting of “Greek love,” as they termed it. I’m no expert on Roman sexual mores compared to Greek, but you can read a little more here: Roman Male Prostitution. Some really icky things were done with young boy prostitutes in Rome, which wasn’t as prevalent in Greece earlier (or at least, we hear less of it). Such Roman indulgences are likely what came to Plutarch’s mind, regarding these “boys.”

So I hope that contextualizes a bit better what’s going on in this passage.

IN THE END: We shouldn’t ask what Alexander’s reaction to the offers tell us about him. We should ask what Plutarch’s rendition of the anecdotes tells us about how Plutarch wants us to see Alexander at this relatively early point in his rise to success.

———————————-

*This is part of a general line of reasoning that will connect to neo-Platonism and Gnosticism with the body as bad and sex as especially problematic, which eventually fed into early Christianity along with Eastern asceticism to produce particularly body-negative views. These aren’t just Christian. They can be traced pretty far back into Classical, and even late Archaic Greek philosophy.

[plato-charmides]

Argument for sôphrosunê as 'discipline'

Its opposite is akolasia:

 Prot. 349d7, Grg. 507c6: ὁ ἐναντίως ἔχων τῷ σώφρονι, ὁ ἀκόλαστος, Aristotle EN 3.10.1117b23-1119b18.

LSJ:

ἀκόλᾰσ‑τος, ον, undisciplined, unbridled, δῆμος Hdt.3.81; ὄχλος E.Hec.607; στράτευμα X.An.2.6.10, cf. Ar.Nu.1348, Pl.Prt.341e, etc. 2. esp. incontinent, licentious, S.Fr.744; opp. σώφρων, Pl. Grg.507c, Arist.EN1117b32, al.; περί τι Id.HA572a12; πρός τι 582a26. Adv. ἀκολάστως, ἔχειν Pl.Grg.493c: Comp. ‑οτέρως‑ ἔχειν πρός τι X.Mem.2.1.1, cf. Aen.Tact.26.2, dub. in Vett.Val.153.32, 271.12 (leg. ἀκοπιάστως).

κολάζω, fut. κολάσω And.1.136, Lys.31.29, X.Cyr.7.5.8, Pl.Lg. 714d, etc.: aor. ἐκόλασα Ar.V.927, Th.3.40:—Med., fut. κολάσομαι Theopomp.Com.27, X.HG1.7.19; twice contr. in Ar., 2sg. κολᾷ Eq.456, part. κολωμένους V.244: aor. ἐκολασάμην Th.6.78, Pl.Mx. 240d:—Pass., fut. -ασθήσομαι Th.2.87, etc.: aor. ἐκολάσθην Id.7.68: pf. κεκόλασμαι Antipho 3.4.8, D.20.139:—check, chastise, τὰς ἐπιθυμίας Pl.Grg.491e; τὸ πλεονάζον Plu.2.663e, etc.; τὴν ἀμετρίαν Gal.6.29:—Pass., to be corrected, τὸ ἐν μέλιτι χολῶδες ‑άζεται Hp. Acut.59, cf. X.Oec.20.12: pf. part. Pass., chastened, εὐπειθὲς καὶ κεκολ. Arist.EN1119b12; δίαιτα Luc.Herm.86; ῥήτωρ κεκ. Poll.6.149; ἰσχὺς κ. ἐς ῥυθμούς Philostr.VS1.17.3; also of an athlete, ἀπέριττος τὰ μυώδη καὶ μὴ κεκ. Id.Gym.31. 2. chastise, punish, τινα E.Ba.1322, Ar.Nu.7, etc.; τὰ σέμν’ ἔπη κόλαζ’ ἐκείνους use your proud words in reproving them, S.Aj.1108: c. dat. modi, λόγοις κ. τινά ib.1160; θανάτῳ E.Hel.1172, Lys.28.3; πληγαῖς, τιμωρίαις, Pl. Lg.784d, Isoc.1.50; ἀτιμίαις Pl.Plt.309a:—Med., get a person punished, Ar.V.406, Pl.Prt.324c, v.l. X.Cyr.1.2.7:—Pass., to be punished, etc., Antipho 3.3.7, X.Cyr.5.2.1, etc.; of divine retribution, Plu.2.566e; suffer injury, Ael.NA3.24. 3. of a drastic method of checking the growth of the almond-tree, Thphr.HP2.7.6:—Pass., Id.CP1.18.9; cf. κόλασις I.

[plato-charmides]

Xenophon on Socrates on Callias on sôphrôn Autolycos

Socrates says that Callias loves Autolycus who "is not marked by dainty elegance nor wanton effeminacy, but shows to the world physical strength and stamina, virile courage and sobriety" (X. Symp. 8.8)

οὐχ ἁβρότητι χλιδαινομένου οὐδὲ μαλακίᾳ θρυπτομένου, ἀλλὰ πᾶσιν ἐπιδεικνυμένου ῥώμην τε καὶ καρτερίαν καὶ ἀνδρείαν καὶ σωφροσύνην

[plato-charmides]

Xenophon on Socrates as teacher of sôphrosunê

X. Mem. 4.3.1: "Skill in speaking and efficiency in affairs, and ingenuity, were not the qualities that he was eager to foster in his companions. He held that they needed first to acquire sôphrosunê. For he believed that those faculties, unless with sôphronein, increased in their possessors injustice and power for mischief. In the first place, then, he tried to make his companions sôphrôn towards the gods..."

X. Mem. 4.2.6: "Euthydemus... thought that he assumed an air of sôphrosunê by remaining silent."