different Arrian translations and editions.

[Paralus]

And even if we have only one manuscript there will have been many more in existence in antiquity; initially these were copied by people who understood them later not. The most common reason for 'falling out' is just the copyists eye skipping over a word and the editor, who generally checked the copy missing the error.

Oh indeed. And this translation is not bereft of silliness. One need only turn turn to 5.13.1 to find the note (b) "The qualification attached to Seleukos' name is odd because both Lysimakhos and Ptolemy also had themselves crowned at about the same time as Seleukos". This misunderstands what Arrian is writing. The delineation is between those who accompany Alexander and are his somatophylakes. These are those named: Ptolemy, Perdikkas and Lysimakhos. Seleukos is simply hetairoi, not somatophylax, as commander of the agema of the hypaspists.

That is a small pick. A larger one is the constant reference to the hypaspists as "light armed".

[agesilaos]

And here we have an example of copyist error; Paralus, 15 ?? You mean 5; the note is referring to the qualification 'ho basileusas hysteron' who later became King; the point being that Lysimachos and Ptolemy did too; it is no great mystery though given the profusion of Seleukoi Arrian or his source felt the need to further differentiate the hetairos, the somatophylakes were specific enough, there being no other Lysimachoi or Ptolemeis among the Seven. Brunt finds it odd too. The bad phrasing in the note reflects today's over-reliance on spellcheck, tantae religio suaderet malae

[Paralus]

And here we have an example of copyist error; Paralus, 15 ?? You mean 5; the note is referring to the qualification 'ho basileusas hysteron' who later became King; the point being that Lysimachos and Ptolemy did too; it is no great mystery though given the profusion of Seleukoi Arrian or his source felt the need to further differentiate the hetairos, the somatophylakes were specific enough, there being no other Lysimachoi or Ptolemeis among the Seven. Brunt finds it odd too. The bad phrasing in the note reflects today's over-reliance on spellcheck, tantae religio suaderet malae

Err... yeah. Perhaps I long for "Events after Alexander". Big finger...

Aside from the fact that Arrian at times indiscriminately uses "somatophylakes" for the seven or the agema of the hypaspists. The term hetairos here separates him from the seven which is the point of Arrain's "aside". There is a Ptolemy who appears as a member of the agema at 1.24.1

[agesilaos]

Ah, yes Ptolemy the Royal Bodyguard, son of Seleucus an international man of mystery; dies at Halikarnassos and Issos, commands hypaspists at the former and a taxis at the latter but falls among the hypaspists. One of the best examples of Arrian's sure grip on his material !

[spitamenes]

Well I've barely scratched the surface of the landmark Arrian and I already have a small question. Penguin classics refers to the peoples Alexander encountered at mt. Haemus as "a large force of natives under arms and the free Thracians." According to Pamela in the Landmark "he was met by many armed […] ". And it states that a name of the tribe of people has.. an I quote.. "fallen out" of the manuscripts. So how does a name "fall out" of a manuscript? Is it just not recognizable? Like I said... small question. And if I had the loeb then maybe I could track it down myself.
But I am very pleased with the Landmark so far. Maps and all the extra explanations are great!

Lacunae can occur for many different reasons. It might just be because the original manuscript is damaged; or if it is a palimpsest, then some words can remain unreadable. Anyway, for what it's worth, this is what the Loeb edition says:

[6] where he was met in the defile of the approach to the mountains by many of the [local barbarians?] in arms and by the independent Thracians; prepared to bar his advance, they had occupied the height of Haemus on the line of the army’s march.

So basically we don't know whether it was the name of the tribe, although it probably was; so the translators have to make educated guesses as to what the lacuna might have said.

ATB

So does the Loeb edition still have the lacuna in the original text half? Or are they corrected before printed? And what language did Arrian write in for his campaigns of Alexander? Thanks everyone.

Spitamenes.

[agesilaos]

Arrian wrote in an affected Attic Greek for the Anabasis, Koine was the Greek of his own day; it is like someone like Martin Amis pretending to write in Shakespearean English.

The note it appears was wrong about the word 'falling out' of the text it has just been corrupted; the MS has empyron - merchants, traders. The latest edition leaves a blank.

[Efstathios]

oh, don't get me started on "misstranslations". It would be interesting to see what is the current and newer translation of that dreadful paragraph with the Greeks versus Macedonians, and with that old rivalry thing and all that. The ancient Greek text talks about both sides fighting with great determination to impress their Kings, and the translation talks about old rivalries. Whatever... It is sad to see history being altered like this, with little phrases, that make a huge damage nevertheless. And whoever thinks that this isn't the deal, let's analyse the paragraph bit by bit in ancient and translate it.

Arrian tried to write in Attic, but he did mistakes. Nevertheless, it isn't of much importance as one can read it just fine, and i suppose they would too back at his time.

[Paralus]

The ancient Greek text talks about both sides fighting with great determination to impress their Kings, and the translation talks about old rivalries.

It (the Landmark translation) does indeed do that but, it does so in two discrete sentences - not one. The first deals with the attack of the Greek mercenaries who attempt to win the day for their allies and the struggle of the Macedonians to preserve their honour under Alexander's eyes and that of their (up to that time) unbeaten phalanx. The second sentence deals not with this at all but "also" of a struggle rooted in genos. The word is used to describe origin either familial (parentage, royal line - cf Neoptolemus at 2.27.6) or ethnic origin / race (the Telmissians at 1.27.5). Arrian is here speaking of an identity-based colour to the struggle: the Macedonian identity and the Greek.

Not to mention a good number of these Greeks may likely already have suffered at the Macedonians' hands in the motherland before this battle.

Whatever... It is sad to see history being altered like this, with little phrases, that make a huge damage nevertheless.

It is a serous charge to claim that translators are somewhow deliberately "altering history". I cannot see that here at all.

[Efstathios]

Let's make a word by word translation.

"ταύτῃ ἐμβάλλουσιν οἱ Ἕλληνες τοῖς Μακεδόσιν ἧ μάλιστα διεσπασμένην αὐτοῖς τὴν φάλαγγα κατεῖδον. καὶ τὸ ἔργον ἐνταῦθα καρτερὸν ἦν, τῶν μὲν ἐς τὸν ποταμὸν ἀπώσασθαι τοὺς Μακεδόνας καὶ τὴν νίκην τοῖς ἤδη φεύγουσι σφῶν ἀνασώσασθαι, τῶν Μακεδόνων δὲ τῆς τε Ἀλεξάνδρου ἤδη φαινομένης εὐπραγίας μὴ λειφθῆναι καὶ τὴν δόξαν τῆς φάλαγγος, ὡς ἀμάχου δὴ ἐς τὸ τότε διαβεβοημένης, μὴ ἀφανίσαι. καί τι καὶ τοῖς γένεσι τῷ τε Ἑλληνικῷ καὶ τῷ Μακεδονικῷ φιλοτιμίας ἐνέπεσεν ἐς ἀλλήλους. καὶ ἐνταῦθα πίπτει Πτολεμαῖός τε ὁ Σελεύκου, ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς γενόμενος, καὶ ἄλλοι ἐς εἴκοσι μάλιστα καὶ ἑκατὸν τῶν οὐκ ἠμελημένων Μακεδόνων."

The part in bold is what interest us. And it says: "καί τι καὶ τοῖς γένεσι τῷ τε Ἑλληνικῷ καὶ τῷ Μακεδονικῷ φιλοτιμίας ἐνέπεσεν ἐς ἀλλήλους"

Translation word by word:

καί = and.
τοῖς γένεσι = the genus (the born)
τῷ τε Ἑλληνικῷ καὶ τῷ Μακεδονικῷ = the Greek and the Macedonian
φιλοτιμίας = conscientiousness, dutyfulness
ἐνέπεσεν = dived in (as in "i dive in to work), or "came" (as in "and then came dutifulness")
ἐς ἀλλήλους = to one and the other

So, the accurate translation is:
"And to the born of the Greeks and the Macedonians dutifulness came to one and the other.

There is no indication of old ethnic rivalries in this sentence, or in any other sentence of the paragraph. Or in the whole book. You can take the time if you want and find an online word by word translator from ancient greek to english and see for yourself. And judging by the meaning of the sentence as translated to english, there is clear intend for deceit, about the very controversial subject of the Greek and Macedonian nationalities, with the translated text indicating that they were 2 seperate nationalities, which is nowhere to be found in the ancient texts. And it is clear what purpose this thing serves.

[Efstathios]

By the way, the history lesson at schools in Greece is becoming optional, if that tells you something...

[marcus]

By the way, the history lesson at schools in Greece is becoming optional, if that tells you something...

Really? At what age? Surely children will continue to have compulsory History teaching up to a certain point?

ATB

[spitamenes]

By the way, the history lesson at schools in Greece is becoming optional, if that tells you something...

Jeez ... I don't even know what to say about that one.

[Paralus]

And judging by the meaning of the sentence as translated to english, there is clear intend for deceit, about the very controversial subject of the Greek and Macedonian nationalities, with the translated text indicating that they were 2 seperate nationalities, which is nowhere to be found in the ancient texts. And it is clear what purpose this thing serves.

You would have it that translators from Chinnock (1893) through De Selincourt (1976) and Pamela Mensch (2010) (I do not have the Loeb but imagine that P A Brunt is little different) are deliberately mistranslating this passage to a purpose. Odd that all seem to want to "serve this purpose". I'm afraid Stathi that your accusations smack of paranoia.

So, the accurate translation is:
"And to the born of the Greeks and the Macedonians dutifulness came to one and the other.

That is a rather "inoccuous translation" of the line and I disagree with it. The key words are genesi, philotimias, enepesen and allelous.

The first I have already addressed and your view is exceedingly restrictive. Yes this word can mean "origin" or "descent" (from) but Arrian clearly uses it elsewhere to denote groups based on identity (as with the Telmissians). In any case, here the word clearly qualifies the two groups: Helleniko and Makedoniko and it does so by their identities.

The other three put that usage into perspective.

Your view of enepesen is rosy. It would appear that the Celts of 1.4.8 had a fear of the sky "diving in" or "coming" at them. Clearly it means to fall on. The unfortunates who climbed the Soghdian rock (4.19.2) clearly did not die by "diving in" or "coming" to the snow from a great height, they "fell" onto it from a great height. Just as here the two combatants fell onto / upon (enepesen)one and other (allelous).

The crucial word, though, is philotimias. You would have it as "conscientiousness, dutilfulness" - even rosier than enepesen. This is not how Arrian uses it. The other attestations clearly refer to "rivalry". For example, the two hoplites of Perdiccas' taxis attack the breach at Halicarnassus clearly as a result of alcohol fueled rivalry (philotimia) rather than alcohol fueled "conscientiousness, dutyfulness". At 3.3.2 Alexander visits Siwa due to his "conscientiousness, dutyfulness" to Pereus and Heracles? Hardly, rather it was his rivalry - his desire to emulate and better them. The pages (at 4.13.1) clearly aren’t the king’s companions in the "conscientiousness, dutyfulness" of the hunt but the rivalry of the hunt. It seems the insolent boasting of the barbarians on the Soghdian rock (4.18.6) also threw Alexander into a state of "conscientiousness, dutyfulness" rather than an obstinate ambition to best his rivals. Lastly, Alexander (at 7.14.4) acts "from a desire to imitate Achilles", to whom he can hardly be said to have had a "conscientiousness, dutyfulness" since boyhood rather than an "ambitious rivalry" (philotimia).

It is clear, then, that the meaning of the passage is that the two combatants fell upon / came against each other in a manner fueled by rivalry. It is in this context that Arrian uses genesi to inform the nature of that "ambitious rivalry": one of the combatants was Hellenic and the other Macedonian. Whether it is used as "origin" or "race" is irrelevant: the rivalry sprouted from either side's descent or identity.

[marcus]

And judging by the meaning of the sentence as translated to english, there is clear intend for deceit, about the very controversial subject of the Greek and Macedonian nationalities, with the translated text indicating that they were 2 seperate nationalities, which is nowhere to be found in the ancient texts. And it is clear what purpose this thing serves.

You would have it that translators from Chinnock (1893) through De Selincourt (1976) and Pamela Mensch (2010) (I do not have the Loeb but imagine that P A Brunt is little different) are deliberately mistranslating this passage to a purpose.

Brunt's translation is (with my italics, obviously):

Arrian 2.10.6-7
[6] There the action was severe, the Greeks tried to push off the Macedonians into the river and to restore victory to their own side who were already in flight, while the Macedonians sought to rival the success of Alexander, which was already apparent, and to preserve the reputation of the phalanx, whose sheer invincibility had hitherto been on everyone’s lips. [7] There was also some emulation between antagonists of the Greek and Macedonian races. Here it was that Ptolemaeus son of Seleucus fell, after showing himself a brave man, and about a hundred and twenty Macedonians of note.

I have to agree with Paralus, Efstathios - I don't think any of these translators sat down and deliberately tried to make some sort of political issue out of it all. Not least because most translations of Arrian were performed before Yugoslavia split up, and the issue, as far as I know, never came up before then!

ATB

[spitamenes]

Efstathios,
Are there any other lines in the translations that you believe were deliberately misleading through the translators text?