Efstathios wrote: 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.
Efstathios wrote: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.