#alkibiades

and isn't that convenient? as it is alcibiades writing this narrative and arguing for his innocence, we never get a glimpse at any true events. like the best of unreliable narrators, every historical event is framed in such a way that alcibiades' intentions brush away his mistakes, his explanations reframe his crimes, and his ends justify his means. an alert reader might wonder at the truth of it all, but will never be satisfied. the façade never falls, the puppetmaster never reveals the strings.

i see the mastery of this novel. i think i see what pfeijffer intended to do with it. a magnum opus that sweeps up the reader into alcibiades' worldview and seduces them to take his side, to glorify him and desire him and admire him, knowing it is a game he is playing with us. at certain points, this works. but the voice of the historian so often swallows up alcibiades' own voice that i was taken out of the apologia and into just a straight up history book, and not in a good way. the long explanations of classical greek political history or descriptions of persian gardens or recounted conversations about democracy and monarchy with persian officials just felt like i was being lectured to rather than immersed.

and that was the takeaway for many readers and even many longtime pfeijffer fans (shoutout to @hoeratius), that he had put so much into it that it had become bloated, weary, and unenjoyable. i agree to some extent, but for two different reasons: as a classicist, i feel like i might as well be reading the primary sources, since the style is so close to them anyways, and as a reader of historical fiction, the book is indeed too long and tedious to really fascinate or entertain me. in the one role i crave the real shit and in the other role i crave more novel, more spectacle, more cinematics, so to speak.

i think a good counter example is mary renault's the king must die duology (and much of her other ancient greek novels), as she also tends to do eyewitness narratives. the theseus duology is fully from the perspective of theseus, and often resds like an apologia as well, since he recounts his rise to greatness. but renault is much better at knowing when to leave things unexplained, alienating the reader but immersing them in an ancient storyworld, and when to explain things without breaking the fourth wall. moreover, theseus' narrative voice is so clearly not renault's, and so full of personality, that the reader can grasp the irony in statements that so clearly clash with our own worldview, or are theseus reframing things to his benefit. pfeijffer's alcibiades, on the other hand, sounds like he was intended as a loveable prick, but mostly just comes across as prick. the long explanations and reconstructed dialogues don't help in this regard, as they make him sound like a mansplainer. or like. athensplainer. while his fictive audience is the citizens of athens.

-> going through parts i highlighted i realize that another thing that bothered me is alcibiades constantly veering between condemning populist tactics and using them for his own (noble) ends, like reducing truth to opinions in public debate so as to devalorize absolute truth, riling up the mob, and outright lying:

Als ik in het politieke debat word geconfronteerd met een onwelkome waarheid die ik onmogelijk kan weerleggen, beweer ik toch het tegenovergestelde van die waarheid, hetgeen dus een leugen is, en om mijn bewering kracht bij te zetten zal ik niet pretenderen dat mijn leugen de sacrosancte waarheid is, maar dat mijn versie van de waarheid nu eenmaal mijn mening is. Niemand zal durven te ontkennen dat ik recht heb op een mening. En door jouw gelijk te bestrijden met mijn mening reduceer ik ook jouw onweerlegbare waarheid tot een mening, waarover men kennelijk kan discussiëren gezien het feit dat we dat al aan het doen zijn. Over contrasterende opinies kan vervolgens een meerderheidsbesluit worden genomen.’

'when, in a politicat debate, i am confronted with an unwelcome truth that i can't possibly disprove, i nevertheless claim the opposite of that truth, which is therefore a lie, and to support my claim i will not pretend that my lie is sacrosanct truth, but that my version of the truth is just my opinion. no one would dare to deny that i have a right to my opinion. and by fighting your truth with my opinion i reduce your irrefutable truth to an opinion as well, about which people can apparently debate because of the fact that we are already doing that. about contrasting opinions, then, a majority decision can be made.'

and

Niet slaafse onderworpenheid aan de waarheid bewijst de vrijheid van de mens, maar zijn wonderlijke talent om de werkelijkheid naar believen te vervormen door te liegen. 'not slavish submission to the truth proves the freedom of a man, but his wondrous talent to bend reality as he desires by lying.'

it's clear that pfeijffer wants to comment on modern (dutch, american, western) politics, but he's not always consistent and therefore also using alcibiades as a sock puppet, sometimes even against the testimony of his primary sources imo. it feels like pfeijffer himself couldn't decide whether to exonerate or condemn alcibiades, and not in a nuance way but in an uncommitted to the bit way.

so, like, do we really need thucydides to spell it out like this while he and alcibiades share honey cakes in exile in thrace:

Het mag verleidelijk zijn Sparta te prijzen vanwege de martiale efficiëntie van zijn van hogerhand afgedwongen collectivisme en Perzië te bewonderen om haar macht en rijkdom, maar je zult mij niet tegenspreken wanneer ik zeg dat het veronderstelde succes van beide modellen gebaseerd is op onderdrukking. Sparta is een militaristische dictatuur en Perzië een rijk van slaven die zwoegen in dienst van een bovenmenselijke gebieder.’

'it may be tempting to praise Sparta for the martial efficiency of its collectivism that's dictated from above, and to admire persia for her power and wealth, but you will not contradict me when i say that the presumed success of both models is based on oppression. sparta is a militaristic dictatorship and persia an empire of slaves who struggle in the service of a divinized master.'

and the stupid thing is!!! this isn't even all that historically accurate!!! pfeijffer's depictions of sparta and persia especially follow the (unreliable) primary sources to the letter and reflect scholarship from like 50 years ago, falling head first into the spartan mirage of blood soup and military training (stuff i've debunked elsewhere on this blog) and straight up orientalism. and he tries to get away with that by his ever present exuse of alcibiades' rhetorics! oh well it's FINE to show a distorted view of the ancient world that trips over every athenian bias ever wrongfully propagated by victorian scholars because we are READING the account of a prejudiced athenian perspective. that's such a missed opportunity if you ask me. like okay last but not least i take personal offence to the way pfeijffer i mean alcibiades pits theodote's curvy beauty against timandra's lean beauty:

als Theodote Aphrodite is, die haar seksualiteit in schaamteloos opbollende vormen opdient aan de ademloze wereld, dan is Timandra Artemis, die zich met lenig raffinement hult in ongenaakbaarheid. Theodote is met zoveel overdreven wellust uit marmer gehouwen, dat zij bijkans een parodie vormt op vrouwelijkheid, terwijl Timandra als een mysterieus en enigszins androgyn droombeeld in brons is gegoten

'if Theodote is Aphrodite, who offers her sexuality in shamelessly voluptuous forms to the breathless world, then timandra is Artemis, who with her supple refinement clothes herself in unapproachability. theodote is carved from marble with such exaggerated carnality, that she almost becomes a parody of femininity, while timandra was cast in bronze as a mysterious and somewhat androgynous dream vision.'

speaking as a shameless beauty with big tits i fucking despise men calling curvy women frivolous and promiscuous and shameless because of their form. damn dude too much to handle for you? my epicurean big naturals vs. her stoic microtitties etc etc. like the author legit didnt have to make his unreliable narrator say this what do the brave and noble citizens of athens gain from this tidbit. it could've been a wonderful commentary on how our modern beauty standards in part are formed by classical misogyny and aesthetics but this just goes nowhere. at some point timandra gets tattoos in thrace and alcibiades thinks she looks like a fierce thracian warrior queen even though (thracian )tattoos on women were, in ancient greece/athens, a clear sign of slavery and sex work. lol. lmao even.

if he had committed to either bit (alcibidias Did All That and for selfish reasons and is trying to exonerate himself. clearly.) (OR alcibiades Did All That BUT we don't have the whole truth and here is the peloponnesian war and the ancient world the primary sources, by way of their own bias, WON'T show you (but historians have been able to reconstruct)) then this novel could indeed have really made an impact and formed a commentary on modern politics, society, and the classical athenian legacy. and been wildly entertaining. but alas pfeijffer himself submitted himself to the divinized master of the Primary Sources. and forgot to read scholarship that constextualizes them apparently.

meanwhile for SOME reason one of the major refrains of the entire novel is 'Geen man zal ooit een groot man zijn als hij niet ook een vrouw durft te zijn.' (no man will ever be a great man if he does not dare to also be a woman), something he learns from his wife hipparete and comes down to learning empathy and examing others' persepctives. so alcibiades, by his own (sometimes embarrassed) admittance, uniquely abandons his male athenian chauvinism in order to better serve the interests of. his male athenian chauvinism. again, pfeijffer seems to want to yassify alcibiades' politics without actually committing fully to the bit because he still Does Do All That. but since he alone can envision a Greater Athens than ever before it's fine actually???? i do NOT understand what the point is anymore. but of course this is an apologia written by alcibiades and thus not reliable so who's to say.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ glad we built in that defense mechanism

so yeah, i have extremely mixed feelings about this book. it's a juggernaut and a behemoth, and i massively appreciate the work that went into it, and appreciate a comprehensive account of alcibiades' entire life in novel form, but i don't think that pfeijffer was fully succesful in making that novel have meaning or mean something to the reader. alcibiades is colourful and glittering and grandiose, but ultimately feels too hollow. and i think this is partially due to the framing device, because he keeps his audience at arms' lenght. where oratory should have been a stylistic asset, it turns out to be an obstacle.