The Perseus website makes a great point on Diodorus 17.103.7-8. Arrian doesn't mention at all this episode very favorable to Ptolemy. How can this be if Arrian used Ptolemy as a source? (Again, I am not so sure Arrian did not use Ptolemy, but the question on the Perseus website is not answered, and I am curious as to how we here can address this question.) Thanks
Bob
Arrian & Ptolemy
Moderator: pothos moderators
-
marcus
- Somatophylax
- Posts: 4871
- Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
- Location: Nottingham, England
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: Arrian & Ptolemy
I haven't got time to check out the episode, but of course Arrian didn't necessarily follow Ptolemy for *all* of the Anabasis. Also, depending on what the incident was, it might be that Ptolemy didn't have a choice and had to present it exactly as it happened, good light or not.ATBMarcus
Re: Arrian & Ptolemy
I was wondering how to answer this as there seems to be an underlying theme running through many of your current posts - that the validity or importance of the author/source depends on whether *you* believe the events reported are fictional, fact, or propaganda. Historiography isnGÇÖt that simple. While taking some time to gather my thoughts I opened my email and happened upon this review.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2006/2006-03-16.html
Sara Raup Johnson, Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish Identity: Third Maccabees in Its Cultural Context. Hellenistic Culture and Society, 43. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. Pp. 271. ISBN 0-520-23307-7. $49.95.
Obviously, the book is about Jewish history and identity and isn't relevant to Pothos (except for her chapter on Josephus which sounds well worth reading). However, what IS relevant is the following remark from the reviewer:
"But throughout her work, not least by classifying these writings as fictions, J.'s study falls under the sway of two anachronistic assumptions: that untrue works (mostly defined in terms
of their errors in historical fact) are often the conscious and deliberate productions of knowing fabricators, and that all literary deliberate untruths should be classified as fiction, regardless of how they were actually and typically received in antiquity. Moreover, it is difficult to agree that all errors and distortions located here by J. were "readily apparent to the alert [ancient] reader"
I want to consider the tale of Alexander's dream of the snake and the cure for Ptolemy's wound in Diodorus 17.103.7-8 (and also Strabo 15.2.7) in this light. First of all, it doesn't necessarily follow that the story wasn't included in Ptolemy's history (although the Loeb editor thinks that this might have been the case). Arrian may have decided not to include it - his history isn't simply a reworking of Ptolemy. Even if Ptolemy didn't write the tale down in his history of Alexander, it was obviously known in antiquity and I suspect that it originated in Alexandria, (perhaps recorded by Cleitarchus?) and may still have been told verbally by Ptolemy - serpents have both a literary and iconical presence in Alexandrian *Greek* religion, dating back to Ptolemy, his cult of Alexander, and the first titular god of the city. Continued
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2006/2006-03-16.html
Sara Raup Johnson, Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish Identity: Third Maccabees in Its Cultural Context. Hellenistic Culture and Society, 43. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. Pp. 271. ISBN 0-520-23307-7. $49.95.
Obviously, the book is about Jewish history and identity and isn't relevant to Pothos (except for her chapter on Josephus which sounds well worth reading). However, what IS relevant is the following remark from the reviewer:
"But throughout her work, not least by classifying these writings as fictions, J.'s study falls under the sway of two anachronistic assumptions: that untrue works (mostly defined in terms
of their errors in historical fact) are often the conscious and deliberate productions of knowing fabricators, and that all literary deliberate untruths should be classified as fiction, regardless of how they were actually and typically received in antiquity. Moreover, it is difficult to agree that all errors and distortions located here by J. were "readily apparent to the alert [ancient] reader"
I want to consider the tale of Alexander's dream of the snake and the cure for Ptolemy's wound in Diodorus 17.103.7-8 (and also Strabo 15.2.7) in this light. First of all, it doesn't necessarily follow that the story wasn't included in Ptolemy's history (although the Loeb editor thinks that this might have been the case). Arrian may have decided not to include it - his history isn't simply a reworking of Ptolemy. Even if Ptolemy didn't write the tale down in his history of Alexander, it was obviously known in antiquity and I suspect that it originated in Alexandria, (perhaps recorded by Cleitarchus?) and may still have been told verbally by Ptolemy - serpents have both a literary and iconical presence in Alexandrian *Greek* religion, dating back to Ptolemy, his cult of Alexander, and the first titular god of the city. Continued
Amyntoros
Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
Re: Arrian & Ptolemy
. . . Continued
The story may or may not be GÇ£truthGÇ¥ as we understand it, but there was a reason for its existence. IGÇÖm using it as part of some evidence IGÇÖve been gathering (although my work is incomplete) to hopefully explain a greater historical aberration which Arrian records.
Considering that Ptolemy is viewed as a less sensational raconteur than those of the Vulgate tradition, has anyone ever wondered why, when recording the trek to Siwah (Arrian III.3.5-6), he tells that "two serpents preceded the army giving voice, and Alexander told his leaders to follow them and trust the divinity; and the serpents led the way to the oracle and back again."? Arrian writes that Aristobulus told the more common (and, to us, believable) version of two crows flying in advance of the army. Why would Ptolemy, of all people, write the above? IMO, both serpent tales are connected with religion in Alexandria and are much more than propaganda which is too simplistic a term and too modern an attitude. One has to try and think as an ancient polytheist to understand why these stories existed and why they were invented (if they were) and believed. And most important of all, when the stories are later recorded by historians it doesn't make the writers less credible than those who chose not to include them.
Best regards,
Amyntoros
The story may or may not be GÇ£truthGÇ¥ as we understand it, but there was a reason for its existence. IGÇÖm using it as part of some evidence IGÇÖve been gathering (although my work is incomplete) to hopefully explain a greater historical aberration which Arrian records.
Considering that Ptolemy is viewed as a less sensational raconteur than those of the Vulgate tradition, has anyone ever wondered why, when recording the trek to Siwah (Arrian III.3.5-6), he tells that "two serpents preceded the army giving voice, and Alexander told his leaders to follow them and trust the divinity; and the serpents led the way to the oracle and back again."? Arrian writes that Aristobulus told the more common (and, to us, believable) version of two crows flying in advance of the army. Why would Ptolemy, of all people, write the above? IMO, both serpent tales are connected with religion in Alexandria and are much more than propaganda which is too simplistic a term and too modern an attitude. One has to try and think as an ancient polytheist to understand why these stories existed and why they were invented (if they were) and believed. And most important of all, when the stories are later recorded by historians it doesn't make the writers less credible than those who chose not to include them.
Best regards,
Amyntoros
Amyntoros
Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
-
Heraklia
Re: Arrian & Ptolemy
Fascinating post, and great quotes, including your quote about the
historian who pre-judges what is fact and what isn't.I always had trouble with Ptolemy and the two snakes Siwah story -
and wondered if, as you note, there is a religious context there that
everyone THEN would have 'gotten' in a second, and we're in the
position of scratching our heads because the cultural/religious
context is gone.
historian who pre-judges what is fact and what isn't.I always had trouble with Ptolemy and the two snakes Siwah story -
and wondered if, as you note, there is a religious context there that
everyone THEN would have 'gotten' in a second, and we're in the
position of scratching our heads because the cultural/religious
context is gone.
Re: Arrian & Ptolemy
You're quite right - the ancient cultural/religious context can be the most difficult to identify and understand. I wonder sometimes what the Macedonians thought about the monsoons in India (or the lack of rain in other territories), considering that they believed that rain came from Zeus. Did they equate the weather with local gods as they traveled, otherwise it might appear that Zeus was angry with them? Here it is immaterial to our understanding of the histories, but still intriguing. . . Well, to me, anyway. :-)Best regards,Amyntoros