pothos.org

As this dropped off the bottom of the list, I've started it again...Agesilaos wrote: "Contra Marcus I prefer the namby-pamby removal of the pin solution since this is the story Aristoboulos tells he was probably there and as an engineer would be interested in such a problem. The sword-slashing one seems more like propaganda, either from Ptolemy - Alexander held Asia by right of his sword, just as the Succesors' kingdom are called 'spear-won land'- or from an anti-Alexander tradition which represents him as a simple thug whose answer to any problem is the sword."That might be right, but we must also remember that Aristoboulos is known to have been an apologist for Alexander in his history. Therefore, he might have preferred to assign to Alexander a more 'intellectual' solution than what actually happened. Yes, Ptolemy might have been writing a propagandist version of events, but in a matter such as this it seems to be a bit too subtle for it to be a Ptolemaic construct... Of course we'll never know for sure, but that's why I subscribe to the cutting rather than the unravelling theory.All the bestMarcus

Greetings Marcus!I have to agree with Karl. Alexander would not have cheated by cutting the knot - that would have invalidated the prediction. Things of that nature were considered quite grave in that time. Alexander certainly did not suffer from lack of grey matter, however, doubtless this little puzzle was probably rigged in such a way as to make sure the King 'won.' I don't buy the theory that everything Aristobulous said was 'apologist.' A careful reading of the pieces of his history embedded in Arrian shows quite the opposite at times.Regards,Tre

Hi Tre,It's a shame we shall never know for sure!I reckon you're probably right about Aristoboulos - he wasn't *always* an apologist... but he was where the drinking and murdering was concerned .All the bestMarcus

Greetings Marcus:You'd have to refer to specific instances regarding what you think he was being apologist about. There's a great deal of truth to be found in Aristobulos and I find him on certain things to be more reliable than Ptolemy, because Ptolemy had his own reputation to protect, i.e. the fate of Callisthenes. There's truth in both explanations, but that is for another post at another time Aristobulos has a different viewpoint than Ptolemy and does not have a personal reputation to protect, i.e. he was not involved in the major decisions, not being one of the principle friends as Ptolemy was and it appears to me he was trying to defend Alexander from what he felt were the unjust accusations of others. Considering the times in which he wrote which were extremely hostile to Alexander, this is hardly a great leap of historical study but apparently not many make it. This is after all, what friends do for each other. This train of thought can be very useful for fictional purposes Marcus How is your book going?Regards,Tre

Hi Tre,Probably the best overview of the Ptolemy/Aristoboulos differences that I've seen - thanks! :-)The book's getting on OK, although for various reasons I haven't had a chance to do much for a while. But I've written about 40,000 words so far... it looks as if it's going to be quite a bit bigger than I originally thought ('cos I've only written about a third of it so far!).All the bestMarcus

We can be relatively secure that Kleitarchos told the tale in the version preserved most fully by Justin 7. 16 and Plutarch 18.3 that Alexander slashed the outer thongs to reveal the ends which he then untied. Curtius 3.1.18 and Arrian 2.3.7 mention him merely slicing through the cords; of note is that Curtius says 'the desire to fulfill the prophecy came over Alexander..'.Now, we know that Arrian and Curtius both read Ptolemy and this pothos motif may well go back to him. One thing that we can be sure of is that Ptolemy wrote after Kleitarchos, thus I think what we have is Ptolemy improving on the flabby version of Kleitarchos. That Arrian was unsure of this version may be because he suspected most of what he had read in Kleitarchos and was shocked to find his preferred source agreeing with him! Meanwhile Aristoboulos had told a truer version, he may well have been there, Kleitarchos definitely was not. Perhaps Ptolemy was elsewhere too. Whether Aristoboulos wrote to correct Kleitarchos or Ptolemy is moot, though I plump for the order; Kleitarchos-Aristoboulos-Ptolemy.With the usual caveats, of course.