pothos.org

Xenophon wrote:To answer Andrew's question, by "here" I meant here on this forum, which he has chosen to misquote as "here on this thread", thus narrowing the scope of what I was actually referring to. Even then, on this thread, on Mon 1 April, P.2 there are no less than two edits/deletions in a single post of his.

Those edits were made by me to correct minor spelling or typographical errors. As I said and they have confirmed, the moderators have not edited or deleted any of my posts since last October and before that single instance (a post which contained only a photo and no text) I think not for years, if at all. You were completely wrong to imply that the moderators have been busily editing/deleting my posts.

Best wishes,

Andrew

amyntoros wrote:Please excuse the reiteration of what has already been said by others. The above claims that there were four levels - the only thing possible on a pyramidal structure using 30 chambers in total – with each stage split into two bands except for the top level. Usually I prefer not to make assertions, but unless one tries to argue that Diodorus was wrong it just isn't possible. His description is quite clear. "Upon the foundation course … Above these, on the second level … On the third level … The fourth level carried … while the fifth showed … The next higher level … On top of all stood …" That makes seven levels and to try and interpret Diodorus otherwise requires denial.

Firstly, Diodorus describes the location of a band of decoration as a chora (station/position/place = Latin locus) or a periphora (circuit). Modern translators have used "level", which is not entirely incorrect (Diodorus does indicate that the bands occurred one above the other), but the Greek terminology is actually more ambiguous and does not seem to me necessarily to imply an inward lateral displacement of each successive band (as the English word "level" might). Indeed "band" or "tier" might be better English renderings of the terms Diodorus uses. I have used these terms for the decorations on the pyre in my Reconstruction of Cleitarchus. Do you still have a problem, if the correct translation is band or tier?
Secondly, as I said in my original publication of the 30-chamber 4-stage pyramid structure, the lower band of the pair of bands of decoration on each stage may well have been projected outwards relative to the upper band of each pair. Hence an appearance of 7 steps may easily have been created despite the underlying structure having only 4 stages.
There is much in the English and French translations of Diodorus to obfuscate a 30-chamber 4-stage step pyramid design, but nothing to cause a problem for it in the original Greek as far as I can see. Even the Greek is ambiguous, but it must be remembered that Diodorus was probably severely epitomising a rather technical description in Cleitarchus.
Best wishes,
Andrew

Taphoi wrote:

Xenophon wrote:To answer Andrew's question, by "here" I meant here on this forum, which he has chosen to misquote as "here on this thread", thus narrowing the scope of what I was actually referring to. Even then, on this thread, on Mon 1 April, P.2 there are no less than two edits/deletions in a single post of his.

Those edits were made by me to correct minor spelling or typographical errors.

Congratulations on your appointment! I was unaware you were a moderator.

This, though, is not the point under discussion and is, as has been made clear, verboten. What is under discussion is Diodorus' pyre and your multiple, unsubstantiated assertions of supposed fact and the manipulating of source material to fit your speculation. Nothing has changed.

Taphoi wrote:There is much in the English and French translations of Diodorus to obfuscate a 30-chamber 4-stage step pyramid design, but nothing to cause a problem for it in the original Greek as far as I can see.

"As far as I can see" being the pertinent phrase. There is much in your speculation and translation of Diodorus to obfuscate what the Sicilian was describing. You see only what suits. As usual.

Taphoi wrote:Firstly, Diodorus describes the location of a band of decoration as a chora (station/position/place = Latin locus) or a periphora (circuit). Modern translators have used "level", which is not entirely incorrect (Diodorus does indicate that the bands occurred one above the other), but the Greek terminology is actually more ambiguous and does not seem to me necessarily to imply an inward lateral displacement of each successive band (as the English word "level" might).

Diodorus uses the following in his description:

1 krepida / foundation
2 deuteran epaneikhon khōran / second supported (held) place
3 tritēn periphoran / third circuit
4 tetartē khōra / fourth space / level
5 hē de pemptē / fifth (there being four others)
6 d' anōteron meros / next higher part
7 epi pasi de epheistēkeisan / above all was set

The LSJ gives periphoran as level giving this passage as the example. But of course I forget: Taphoi decides when the LSJ is correct on the basis of whether it agrees with him or does not. The LSJ gives chora as "space or room in which a thing is" and Taphpoi's lexicon of choice - Thayer's - renders it as "the space lying between two places or limits". What is clear is that Diodorus is describing seven distinct sections. Modern translators render these sections as levels, the only "modern translator" who doesn't, to my knowledge, being Taphoi (aside from Schachermyer who erroneously gave five. See McKechnie). Indeed, as can be seen, Diodorus is consistent in defining sections. Despite the differing words used the meaning is plain. The Sicilian is either using these terms to describe speculative "bands" or he is using them to denote levels. Taphoi, though, will have it both ways: he will decide which usage means a level and which means a "band" and when he will apply it.

Taphoi wrote:Secondly, as I said in my original publication of the 30-chamber 4-stage pyramid structure, the lower band of the pair of bands of decoration on each stage may well have been projected outwards relative to the upper band of each pair. Hence an appearance of 7 steps may easily have been created despite the underlying structure having only 4 stages.

That is utter speculation and a speculation of convenience which, according to your own logic, finds no support in the text whatsoever ("the Greek terminology is actually more ambiguous and does not seem to me necessarily to imply an inward lateral displacement of each successive band"). If the "ambiguous text" cannot support inward lateral displacement it cannot support outward lateral displacement of lower levels - no matter apparent or real. This is an extremely frail attempt to somehow harmonise your imaginary pyre with Diodorus' seven stage ziggurat.

Taphoi wrote: [...] but it must be remembered that Diodorus was probably severely epitomising a rather technical description in Cleitarchus.

That presumes Diodorus lacked the wits to summarise a purported "highly technical" description in his source - whether or not it is Cleitarchus (please, no diversionary red herrings on your "reconstruction" of Clietarchus, if you wish to pursue circles - hermeneutic and logical - start another thread). A far sounder view, with less violence done to the source, is that Diodorus well knew what a zigguarat looked like and summarised a seven level version. It is only a "modern translator" who thinks he does not.

Other questions remain to be answered. If no answers are forthcoming, I can only assume Taphoi has none. In which case, I think I might back Xenophon's call.

Taphoi wrote:

Those edits were made by me to correct minor spelling or typographical errors.

How odd, then ! It says quite distinctly "edited by Moderator", twice !

We have now reached the stage that Taphoi can refer to what can only be fictional matters about the completely lost work of Cleitarchus ( which was evidently a source for parts of Diodorus XVII and Curtius), and tell us that Diodorus, who did have access to the lost work and read it, got his 'description' wrong....

but it must be remembered that Diodorus was probably severely epitomising a rather technical description in Cleitarchus.

....whist he, Taphoi, is able to 'reconstruct' Cleitarchus better than Diodorus, when he doesn't have access to him, and hasn't read Cleitarchus !! The absence allows Taphoi to come up with a fictional 'technical description' entirely of his own imagination.....

And that assumes Cleitarchus was the source of this description, when many scholars hypothesise that Epihippus was, or even that someone else was the source....in short, we don't know!!

Taphoi's 'reconstruction' of Cleitarchus' lost work can only be an exercise in guesswork, a thin disguise for Taphoi's own imagination, probably by referring 'second-hand' to parts of Diodorus and Curtius, guessing what might have come from Cleitarchus, ( and stuff that probably didn't, like the description of the pyre) and filling in the rest with his own prose.....it can be very convenient that the 'real thing' is not around, for a writer gets to compose a fictional account and dress it up as a 'reconstruction' of an author's work which in reality is a blank page !

Or as Pooh-Bah put it in Gilbert and Sullivan's "Mikado":
"Merely...intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative."

Moderators, we have moved completely away from evidence based comment to imaginative fiction, at least on Taphoi's part....it is surely time to close this thread !

Xenophon wrote:....whist he, Taphoi, is able to 'reconstruct' Cleitarchus better than Diodorus, when he doesn't have access to, and hasn't read Cleitarchus !! The absence allows Taphoi to come up with a fictional 'technical description' entirely of his own imagination....

It is wonderful what one can do with a source that has not survived.

Xenophon wrote:Moderators, we have moved completely away from evidence based comment to imaginary fiction, at least on Taphoi's part....it is surely time to close this thread !

I would tend to agree though perhaps we might sit a little to see if the modern editor and translator of Tà perì Aléxandron has any answers to my outstanding questions. On the evidence of the above post, where he argued against himself, I'm not holding my breath though.

Xenophon wrote:Moderators, we have moved completely away from evidence based comment to imaginative fiction, at least on Taphoi's part....it is surely time to close this thread !

But this is so much fun!

Seriously, gents, I don't think it's possible to 'close' a thread. I know what you mean, but surely the thread will die if it has run its course?

I see that Paralus is still looking for answers; otherwise, I think the only way to move on is to ... well, move on.

Cheers

Marcus, I see that it is possible to "Lock" a topic. That said, here's what I wrote earlier but hadn't posted yet.

Paralus wrote:

Xenophon wrote:Moderators, we have moved completely away from evidence based comment to imaginary fiction, at least on Taphoi's part....it is surely time to close this thread !

I would tend to agree though perhaps we might sit a little to see if the modern editor and translator of Tà perì Aléxandron has any answers to my outstanding questions. On the evidence of the above post, where he argued against himself, I'm not holding my breath though.

In the years I have been a moderator I have never locked a topic, nor do I recall any other mod having to do so. We've never been, or needed to be, excessively controlling about the contents of a thread as long as the topic is related to Alexander and <sigh> the debate is civil. "Evidence based comment" is obviously encouraged but the measure of said evidence and any comments related to such rest with the members who may respond, or not, as they wish.

And now I'm going to diverge from the subject. A New York City high school lunchroom in a school containing four and a half thousand students in a building meant to hold only two thousand is a place to be viewed with awe. Despite staggering the lunch times and beginning the first one at 10 A.M. the lunchroom is severely crowded and the volume level is not be believed and can only be endured. Insufficient staff exist to monitor the lunchroom so parent volunteers are utilized as well. These individuals can only stand and watch because any attempt to actually communicate with the students is in vain. They simply cannot be heard over the racket, and none of the students care what they say anyway.

With a view to the above, I have changed my signature.

A 'ziggurat' reconstruction is a modern imposition on the Greek, despite its attraction the Greek has nothing to suggest the author is describing anything but a monstrous cube, and at least one paper has been written describing it as such. The impossibility of such a structure is no barrier to its being imagined.

And there is no getting away from the fact that the Greek says the base was divided into thirty chambers, nothing says they have to be square.

Yes LSJ gives this instance of 'periphoran' as tier, but since it offers no other instance of the usage I would tend to think the translation is affected by the supposed context when the normal rendering of 'the thing running around' would serve. This would make the translation of 'tier' superfluous, we know it was on a higher level because we are told it is the fourth and the numbering is clearly moving up the structure. What is not stated is that any stage is smaller than any other. We are all imagining something not in the Greek, which does not purport to be a technical description it is merely a 'word-picture' intended to convey the grandiose extravagance of Alexander. And narratively to prefigure the King's own death with this quasi-divine funeral. The description of the pyre is incidental to the main themes not central.

agesilaos wrote:A 'ziggurat' reconstruction is a modern imposition on the Greek, despite its attraction the Greek has nothing to suggest the author is describing anything but a monstrous cube, and at least one paper has been written describing it as such. The impossibility of such a structure is no barrier to its being imagined.

That is not something I'd disagree with. As I wrote earlier, one needs to interpret the sequential levels (and the terms Diodorus uses) one way or the other. The modern interpretation as ziggurat is based on the fact that it is in Babylon and that this is really the only way it can - to paraphrase McKechnie - be made somehow plausible. If not, were are to imagine a cube over twenty stories high.

agesilaos wrote:And there is no getting away from the fact that the Greek says the base was divided into thirty chambers, nothing says they have to be square.

Absolutely. Excuse the repitition but topon, in 115.1 and the first usage in 115.2, is used alone. The rendering in the Loeb as "area" is correct and simply means the base was so divided. The actual pyre is referred to by Diodorus as puran or kataskeuasma as Diodorus makes plain when he says the the overall height of the kataskeuasmatos was 130 cubits.

amyntoros wrote:Marcus, I see that it is possible to "Lock" a topic.

Now you come to mention it, I remember seeing that function, but have never used it.

I don't believe it is our job as moderators to 'shut down' a thread. If we are able to curb the excesses of the 'scholarly debate', then all well and good; but to shut a thread down smacks of censorship, which is not our job.

amyntoros wrote:With a view to the above, I have changed my signature.

I like that!

I totally agree that threads should not be closed; not only does it smack of totalitarianism (which as a King of Sparta I generally approve) but it prevents anyone making cogent points later in the day when the venom has dissipated.

As an elitist, however, I think we should agree a few rules amongst those of us who do aspire to the name of scholar; people like Delos, who started this thread have a right to have their question responded to in a serious way, which means citing sources, preferably with links and as many articles as possible; this is impossible if one is away and working from memory, but how hard is that admission?

I do understand the frustration others(?) feel about certain people's posts, but if we had some set standards this might dissipate. It might be conveyed via the ranking system, instead of just reflecting the number of posts the site might indicate their quality - moderators excepted

Obviously, my posts are the example to which everyone should aspire