Policy of Fusion

This moderated forum is for discussion of Alexander the Great. Inappropriate posts will be deleted without warning. Examples of inappropriate posts are:
* The Greek/Macedonian debate
* Blatant requests for pre-written assignments by lazy students - we don't mind the subtle ones ;-)
* Foul or inappropriate language

Moderator: pothos moderators

User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Policy of Fusion

Post by marcus »

Taphoi wrote:
marcus wrote:
Taphoi wrote:Actually, I don't think I've asked you to "accept" Lucian.
Actually, Andrew, that is exactly what you have done… Otherwise, why bring him into it at all?
It is a small point Marcus, but you have essentially put the word “accept” into my mouth, when I did not actually use it and it is not the word that I would have chosen to use myself in this particular context. For the record, I would ask you to acknowledge the source evidence, but not necessarily to accept it.
Oh for goodness' sake ... (deep breaths, Mr P) ... all right, for what it's worth, I assumed that you were asking me to accept Lucian as a legitimate source because, to be honest, that is what you appeared to be saying. Clearly the semantics caused some crossed wires somewhere along the way. I shall not presume to point out the obvious inconsistencies in your posts again. Humble apologies.
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Policy of Fusion

Post by amyntoros »

Taphoi wrote:
amyntoros wrote: Personally, I find it a little too coincidental that Perdiccas, the ultimate power seeker, should have appointed Ptolemy as governor of Egypt if Alexander had already requested that Ptolemy take his body there. And even if Ptolemy told no one of Alexander's supposed words, the coincidence is still huge.
This point is well made, so it deserves a response. It is the logic of the source evidence that Ptolemy was a loyal comrade and distraught brother of the dead Alexander, who bargained with Perdiccas to secure Egypt just because it was where Alexander had asked for his body to be sent. The evidence of Diodorus 18.3.5 suggests that it was the intention of the commanders to send the corpse to Egypt at the time of the First Division of the Satrapies and that Perdiccas only later changed his mind. It would indeed have been a strange coincidence if Perdiccas had arbitrarily assigned Egypt to Ptolemy when it was already the proclaimed destination of the corpse!
And there's also Justin 13.4 who says "In the first place Egypt, with part of Africa and Arabia, fell by lot to Ptolemy, whom Alexander, for his merit, had raised from the condition of a common soldier ..." and there's Aristander's prediction in Aelian 12.64 that the land which received his body would enjoy the greatest fortune, a prophecy which caused the Macedonians to fight over where the body should be sent. But you know all this, of course, and you have your own interpretations. As for "logic of the source evidence" I still don't buy into "distraught brother of the dead Alexander". My reasons are already stated in this thread and the other one so there's no need for me to repeat myself again.
Taphoi wrote:
amyntoros wrote:Then there's the line of Alexander's that the "barbarians were terrified of me, and nobody resisted me any more; they thought they were fighting against a god, so that I conquered them the more easily." Now if that were purported historical fact from any other writer than Lucian my immediate response would be “Huh?”
Bur it is “purported historical fact” from Curtius:
Alexander the Great said and Curtius 8.8.15 wrote: As for Hermolaus’ assertion that I should spurn Zeus, whose own oracle acknowledged me, that almost merited mirth. Is it even in my power to determine what deities ordain? Zeus presented me with the sobriquet of son. Nor was accepting it at odds with the activities in which we are engaged. Would that the Indians should believe me to be a god, for warfaring feeds on fame and often even a false faith has gained the tribute of truth.
Well, questions are often raised when direct speech is quoted, but there isn't anything here that screams fantasy to me so I'd accept that he could have said it, though perhaps not in those exact words. I find it credible that Alexander would wish the Indians (and others) to believe him a god. And it's equally credible that Alexander would believe himself to be (or at the very least want to believe he was) the son of Zeus. My suggested "Huh?" response to Lucian is because of "nobody resisted me any more; they thought they were fighting against a god, so that I conquered them the more easily." I ask you, which of Alexander's enemies believed they were fighting against a god? And didn't resist him for that reason? Whenever Alexander took a city or territory without resistance it was because they had surrendered following his defeat of Darius, or because he'd besieged and/destroyed other cities thereby clearly demonstrating what would happen if they stood against him, or because they believed him to be a liberator from Persian rule. As for conquering the barbarians "more easily," I wonder when that happened? I doubt that his army, once it returned to Babylon, collectively thought "Well, this has all been a piece of cake. Thank goodness the barbarians thought Alexander was a god!"

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Policy of Fusion

Post by Paralus »

Taphoi wrote:No. The actual Greek at Diodorus 17.94.4 appears to mean “cadet bursary” just as in the case of the mention of the same at Opis. The translator may not have had the Opis example in mind, so gave a rather literal translation of words that were actually technical terminology.
No. The Greek at 17.94.4 is epithoras meaning a donative or gift of money. It is not linked to any education or training. On the other hand, the word used at 17.110.3 is arithmon and is specifically used in conjunction with providing a teacher to instruct the children.

Do you propose to deal with the context of the two passages?
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: Policy of Fusion

Post by Taphoi »

amyntoros wrote:And there's also Justin 13.4 who says "In the first place Egypt, with part of Africa and Arabia, fell by lot to Ptolemy, whom Alexander, for his merit, had raised from the condition of a common soldier ..."
The Latin is Prima Ptolomeo Aegyptus et Africae Arabiaeque pars sorte venit, quem ex gregario milite Alexander virtutis causa provexerat Whereas sors can literally mean by lot, Cicero and Livy use it to mean an official duty (as allotted) and I suspect that that is the correct translation here, since it is a bizarre idea that the commanders literally drew lots for their provinces. Hence: "In the first place Egypt, with part of Africa and Arabia, fell as an official duty to Ptolemy, whom Alexander, for his merit, had raised from the condition of a common soldier ..."
Paralus wrote:The Greek at 17.94.4 is epithoras meaning a donative or gift of money. It is not linked to any education or training. On the other hand, the word used at 17.110.3 is arithmon and is specifically used in conjunction with providing a teacher to instruct the children.
The term at Diodorus 17.94.4 is epiphoras tagmatikas. Your translator, C. Bradford Welles, actually has a footnote on this term, writing “[Service bonus] is only one possible translation. The meaning of epiphoras tagmatikas… in this connection is quite unknown.” Whereas epiphoras probably refers to a gift of money, a bursary is also a gift of money. The other word tagmatikas probably refers to the purpose of the gift and may be derived from tagma in the sense of a body of soldiers. Elsewhere in the sources (e.g. Justin 12.4.5-11) these donations from Alexander to his soldiers’ sons by foreign wives are for the purpose of training them up as army recruits. Hence my suggestion is Cadet Bursary for the correct interpretation of the technical terminology.

Best wishes,

Andrew
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Policy of Fusion

Post by Paralus »

Taphoi wrote:The meaning of epiphoras tagmatikas… in this connection is quite unknown.” Whereas epiphoras probably refers to a gift of money, a bursary is also a gift of money.
A bursary is a "gift of money" to a purpose - almost always education of one sort or another. Nothing in the text defines the gift as such. Which is entirely different to 17.110.3 where the money will provide for teachers.
Taphoi wrote:The other word tagmatikas probably refers to the purpose of the gift and may be derived from tagma in the sense of a body of soldiers.
And it just as easily might not. Syntagma is the more general word word for a body or 'battation' of soldiers (or their formation) The word (tagmatikas) is used only this one time and so we have no other useage of the word to compare with. As with any language the next derterminant, after usage, is context - something you resolutely refuse to countenance and one can only suggest that such is the case because it does not support your assertions.

The words are used in the context of what is clearly a bribe from the king to win the wives to his wishes. Diodorus makes plain he did this whilst their soldier husbands were away. He offers them extra rations (wheat, barley, etc) and offers them money - in the same sentence. The balance of probability that this money is a "bursary" is not very high; the probability it is a bribe is far more likely. That bribe money was likely assessed (syllogismous)according to their father's status or unit and his level of pay.
Taphoi wrote:Elsewhere in the sources (e.g. Justin 12.4.5-11) these donations from Alexander to his soldiers’ sons by foreign wives are for the purpose of training them up as army recruits.
The other sources, Justin aside, all relate this to Opis. Justin includes it in a discourse on Alexander having adopted the comportment and customs of the conquered Persians. In your above reference Justin, although he explains that Alexander wished to provide for sons of the soldiers, makes absolutely plain why:
...he permitted his soldiers also,if they had formed a connexion with any of the female captives, to marry them; thinking that they would feel less desire to return to their country, when they had some appearance of a house and home in the camp, and that the fatigues of war would be relieved by the agreeable society of their wives. He saw, too, that Macedonia would be less drained to supply the army, if the sons, as recruits, should succeed their veteran fathers, and serve within the ramparts within which they were born, and would be likely to show more courage, if they passed, not only their earliest days of service, but also their infancy, in the camp.
As can readily be seen, there is absolutely nothing here that espouses a "policy of fusion". It is, though, overwhelming evidence for a "policy of practicality". Arrian confirms this absolutely when he describes the fathers as having to leave the sons (and mothers by implication) behind when they are discharged so as they do not "introduce into Macedonia a cause of discord".
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Policy of Fusion

Post by agesilaos »

One should not ignore Curtius either IX i 6,
He gave each of his generals a crown plus 1,000 gold pieces, and the rest of the men were rewarded according to the degree of their friendship with Alexander or the service they had rendered.
These donatives come at the same juncture in the narrative, prior to the attempt on the Gandaridae and are clearly bribes, as Paralus says. Since, both Curtius and Diodoros used Kleitarchos as these passages are similar it is plain how Curtius interpreted epiphoros tagmatikos, 'cadet bursaries' is far too specific. Justin introduces Roman practice speaks not of a 'gift' but of a stipend at a different point in the story I do not believe these passages are related. Justin is retrojecting the story of the Epigoni from Opis, presumably because it suited Trogus' plan of his book.

Tagmatikos does appear once more in in a papyrus PThebBank 82 where it describes a lower tier rower, and may mean no more than 'regular' or ''trained' unfortunately I cannot access the text and thus find the context.

It is always galling to be lectured about the sources but there are really crucial rules when assessing their evidence.

If the sources agree on a point it is only significant if they are getting their information independently; thus, if writer A is using the same source as writer B theie agreements are a cumulative sign of that dependency not any reinforcement of matter presented.

When an author is using a near contemporary source that does not make him a contemporary. All of our sources for Alexander are late.

The second part of the Metz epitome, the Liber de Morte is probably the closest to being contemporary dating to 309 probably, possibly earlier. BUT we have to consider the nature of the source as well as its proximity to the events described. This is a Ptolemaic propaganda sheet so its evidence is tainted to say the least, if you wish to accept its story of Alexander consigning his corpse to Ptolemy for burial in Egypt the you really ought to accept its list of satrapal appointments. Even Curtius was not that naive X x 5
Some have believed that the distribution of the provinces was prescribed by Alexander's will, but I have ascertained that this report, though transmitted by our sources, is without foundation.
Every source has an agenda, before accepting their version of events one has to discover that and assess whether it is colouring their treatment.
Secondary source re-model their sources in different ways and that affects how they transmit their primary sources. Everything tends to modify original statements and alter their value.

Ancient History is not like making a patchwork quilt where each story has equal weight, it is more like cooking; it is essential to work with the best ingredients and to exclude the rotten ones
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Policy of Fusion

Post by Paralus »

agesilaos wrote:It is always galling to be lectured about the sources but there are really crucial rules when assessing their evidence.
Absolutely.

Amongst those rules is that one should never translate a text to accomodate a preconceived view. Another is that to remove a line or passage from its context renders it maleable in terms of its meaning. Both are poor method.

That this is a "technical term" is unlikely: Diodorus uses it only the once in his extant corpus. As a writer Diodorus is not known for his variation in phrases and terms; once they appear they tend to do so in close clumps. Diodorus knows the technical term agema and uses it five times: four of these are in book 19. If this (epiphoros tagmatikos) were a "technical term" for a "bursary" one might expect it to be used at 17.110.3. That it is not used here - and that Diodorus feels the need to explain the "upbringing" and the engagement of teachers - indicates otherwise.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: Policy of Fusion

Post by Taphoi »

agesilaos wrote:One should not ignore Curtius either IX i 6,
He gave each of his generals a crown plus 1,000 gold pieces, and the rest of the men were rewarded according to the degree of their friendship with Alexander or the service they had rendered.
These donatives come at the same juncture in the narrative, prior to the attempt on the Gandaridae and are clearly bribes, as Paralus says. Since, both Curtius and Diodoros used Kleitarchos as these passages are similar it is plain how Curtius interpreted epiphoros tagmatikos, 'cadet bursaries' is far too specific. Justin introduces Roman practice speaks not of a 'gift' but of a stipend at a different point in the story I do not believe these passages are related. Justin is retrojecting the story of the Epigoni from Opis, presumably because it suited Trogus' plan of his book.
The difference between a donative and a bribe does not interest me, because they are labels for the same thing used by different audiences.
agesilaos wrote:Tagmatikos does appear once more in in a papyrus PThebBank 82 where it describes a lower tier rower, and may mean no more than 'regular' or ''trained' unfortunately I cannot access the text and thus find the context.

It is always galling to be lectured about the sources but there are really crucial rules when assessing their evidence.

If the sources agree on a point it is only significant if they are getting their information independently; thus, if writer A is using the same source as writer B theie agreements are a cumulative sign of that dependency not any reinforcement of matter presented.

When an author is using a near contemporary source that does not make him a contemporary. All of our sources for Alexander are late.

The second part of the Metz epitome, the Liber de Morte is probably the closest to being contemporary dating to 309 probably, possibly earlier. BUT we have to consider the nature of the source as well as its proximity to the events described. This is a Ptolemaic propaganda sheet so its evidence is tainted to say the least, if you wish to accept its story of Alexander consigning his corpse to Ptolemy for burial in Egypt the you really ought to accept its list of satrapal appointments. Even Curtius was not that naive X x 5
Some have believed that the distribution of the provinces was prescribed by Alexander's will, but I have ascertained that this report, though transmitted by our sources, is without foundation.
I have not and do not ask you to accept that Alexander was the author of his Will, but one was obviously created and much that was in it was founded in truth: it had to be, because its origins were close to the events. I have analysed the First Division of the Satrapies in some detail in The Death of Alexander the Great and the great majority of the satrapal appointments in the Liber de Morte are correct. Most of the rest are explicable as textual corruptions or even modern misinterpretations. For example, modern versions of the Metz (including Karl Soundy’s translation) give Greater Media to “Craterus”, but this is a corruption and misreading of the text, which must have read “Pithon Crateuae” (Pithon the son of Crateuas) thus agreeing with the other lists. It is quite likely that ALL the lists for the First Division have a common origin in a document published by Perdiccas in Babylon.
agesilaos wrote:Every source has an agenda, before accepting their version of events one has to discover that and assess whether it is colouring their treatment.
Secondary source re-model their sources in different ways and that affects how they transmit their primary sources. Everything tends to modify original statements and alter their value.

Ancient History is not like making a patchwork quilt where each story has equal weight, it is more like cooking; it is essential to work with the best ingredients and to exclude the rotten ones
Whereas I have not and do not disagree with most of your lecture, it is not apposite to my argument. I have specifically not asked you to “accept” the alternative evidence that I have listed, but instead to acknowledge it. My argument has been and remains that, notwithstanding its flaws, there is no alternative dish to the evidence that I have noted on the various points in question. The alternative cookery has no ingredients whatever and therefore has no material existence: it is in fact fiction. Apart from the absence of evidence, the attempt to explain away Alexander’s Policy of Fusion as merely a long string of discrete and independent pragmatic decisions requires us to believe that Alexander was a robot, which is pure Asimov. Before we start to improve our cookery, some of us obviously need to pay some attention to making sure that they have some ingredients to start with. To do otherwise would be not just rotten, but also spurious and tasteless.

Best wishes,
Andrew
Last edited by Taphoi on Mon Jul 05, 2010 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Policy of Fusion

Post by marcus »

Taphoi wrote:... the great majority of the satrapal appointments in the Liber de Morte are correct. Most of the rest are explicable as textual corruptions or even modern misinterpretations. For example, modern versions of the Metz (including Karl Soundy’s translation) give Greater Media to “Craterus”, but this is a corruption and misreading of the text, which must have read “Pithon Crateuae” (Pithon the son of Crateuas) thus agreeing with the other lists. It is quite likely that ALL the lists for the First Division have a common origin in a document published by Perdiccas in Babylon.
Rather going off the topic here, but your post reminded me of something, Andrew.

All my books are now in Nottingham, so I don't have any access on a daily basis, but a short while ago I was actually trying to establish the date of the Metz Epitome / Liber de Morte. Agesilaos says 309 in his post - can you (perhaps in other thread, or even a PM) just quickly give us the run-down on the date and the evidence for its date? I have a list of the dates of pretty much all the sources, but that is one of my glaring gaps!

Cheers

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Metz Epitome

Post by Taphoi »

marcus wrote:Rather going off the topic here, but your post reminded me of something, Andrew.

All my books are now in Nottingham, so I don't have any access on a daily basis, but a short while ago I was actually trying to establish the date of the Metz Epitome / Liber de Morte. Agesilaos says 309 in his post - can you (perhaps in other thread, or even a PM) just quickly give us the run-down on the date and the evidence for its date? I have a list of the dates of pretty much all the sources, but that is one of my glaring gaps!
Hi Marcus,

It is easiest to reply here, since as a moderator you are in a better position to transfer this to a new thread.

The manuscript that we refer to as the Metz Epitome is one of the most interesting, neglected and misunderstood of the ancient sources. Sadly, it no longer exists, having been incinerated in an Allied bombing raid in 1944. The first complete edition by Otto Wagner was published in 1900 and now has manuscript authority (though Volkmann published sections 1-86 in 1886). The title in the manuscript was Alexandri Magni Macedonis Epitomae Rerum Gestarum Liber II (Epitome of the Deeds of Alexander the Great of Macedon, Book 2). Book I is missing, but it looks as though it gave events up to the death of Darius (well Wagner gives Liber II, but it looks like this was a correction from a manuscript reading of Liber I by Reitzenstein). The manuscript itself (Metz Codex 500) was probably 10th century AD, perhaps with some later additions/corrections. Ruggini analysed the text in 1961 and found that the Latin dated to the late 4th to 5th centuries AD, as suspected also by Wagner.

The interest, however, lies in the obvious construction of the text itself from two early and important sources. Sections 1-86 are uncontroversially Cleitarchan in origin and I would tell you that they look to me like a direct and pure epitome of Cleitarchus, although highly episodic in nature and suffering from severe textual problems. The remaining sections 87-123 are considered the most authentic version of the so-called Liber de Morte (Book of the Death [of Alexander]). Other versions appear in the various recensions of Pseudo-Callisthenes. Agesilaos was being slightly disingenuous in citing a date of 309BC for the source pamphlet. He is asserting Bosworth’s theory that Ptolemy was its originator as fact. I do not accept Bosworth’s theory on this. I prefer (with some caveats) Heckel’s view that it was produced in Macedon circa 317BC as propaganda for Polyperchon. Although the central postulate that Alexander was poisoned is probably false and although Alexander himself probably did not publish a Will, nevertheless, the Liber de Morte has much detail in it that would appear to be essentially true.

Hoping this is helpful,

Andrew
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Policy of Fusion

Post by Paralus »

Taphoi wrote:The difference between a donative and a bribe does not interest me, because they are labels for the same thing used by different audiences.
Such sophistry. Your confection that "they are labels for the same thing" is nothing more than a comforting convenience. There is a world of difference between a donative and a bribe as any charity and crooked cop can tell you. That such a distinction does not interest you is plain to understand: it does not suit your view.
Taphoi wrote:the attempt to explain away Alexander’s Policy of Fusion as merely a long string of discrete and independent pragmatic decisions requires us to believe that Alexander was a robot, which is pure Asimov.
And here are straw men and either/or distractions. Nothing at all requires us to see Alexander as a "robot". This again is a construct of convenience to marginalise an alternate view.
Taphoi wrote:Before we start to improve our cookery, some of us obviously need to pay some attention to making sure that they have some ingredients to start with.
More so that those "ingredients" have the benefit of of a recipie; in this instance a context.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
susan
Somatophylax
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 5:41 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Metz Epitome - for Agesilaos

Post by susan »

Hi Karl

A few years back you kindly sent me sections of the Metz Epitome and the Liber de Morte which you translated, for my site alexander-sources.org .
I've had a query about them, can you send me your email address then I can speak to you directly.
I tried a private message on this site but for some reason it's not been sent

Best regards

Susan

contact@alexander-sources.org
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Metz Epitome - for Agesilaos

Post by marcus »

susan wrote:Hi Karl

A few years back you kindly sent me sections of the Metz Epitome and the Liber de Morte which you translated, for my site alexander-sources.org .
I've had a query about them, can you send me your email address then I can speak to you directly.
I tried a private message on this site but for some reason it's not been sent

Best regards

Susan

contact@alexander-sources.org
Hi Susan and Karl - I remember that as well, and if I recall correctly Karl had only translated part of the Metz Epitome at that point. If we can ever get the rest of it done, that would be great, because I have been unable to locate a single translation of the whole thing - in source books, such as Heckel's, there are fragments, but much of the second half is missing. I do think I have all of the Liber de Morte, though, Susan, if you want it - but not sure what the copyright position is.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Metz Epitome

Post by marcus »

Taphoi wrote:The interest, however, lies in the obvious construction of the text itself from two early and important sources. Sections 1-86 are uncontroversially Cleitarchan in origin and I would tell you that they look to me like a direct and pure epitome of Cleitarchus, although highly episodic in nature and suffering from severe textual problems. The remaining sections 87-123 are considered the most authentic version of the so-called Liber de Morte (Book of the Death [of Alexander]). Other versions appear in the various recensions of Pseudo-Callisthenes. Agesilaos was being slightly disingenuous in citing a date of 309BC for the source pamphlet. He is asserting Bosworth’s theory that Ptolemy was its originator as fact. I do not accept Bosworth’s theory on this. I prefer (with some caveats) Heckel’s view that it was produced in Macedon circa 317BC as propaganda for Polyperchon. Although the central postulate that Alexander was poisoned is probably false and although Alexander himself probably did not publish a Will, nevertheless, the Liber de Morte has much detail in it that would appear to be essentially true.
Thanks, Andrew. So, basically, it is reckoned to be fairly early, late 4th century, but no clear evidence of exactly when? I did remember that the previously extant copy (in Metz, of course) was late - but had forgotten that it was destroyed, so thanks for the reminder.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Policy of Fusion

Post by agesilaos »

Working on the rest of Metz now, (though it has to have second place to an extended spoof for a lady friend's birthday; nothing like a deadline). I did the LdM, but make no exagerated claims for my skill as a translator; once it is translated if copyright permits I would like to transcribe the Latin to allow others to correct any schoolboy errors of my own, but that is a legal issue.
The second part of the Metz epitome, the Liber de Morte is probably the closest to being contemporary dating to 309 probably, possibly earlier
Not so much disingenuous as taking the weaker position in support of my point. 'Krateuea' for Krateros is a suggested emendation but it is not in the manuscript tradition so given the other anomalies seems an unwarrented edit.

Everyone has a recipe, Taphoi, lets say its an omlette; I, and others are just trying for a good plain one with fresh eggs. I will address your points more fully later, probably in fresh threads, which will mean that they will be long. Beware! :twisted:

PS I have read your piece on Sellasia, Paralus but nothing much screamed at me as wrong, it is a long time since I've read Polybios though; keep up the good work.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
Post Reply