words, words, words

[dean]

Hi,

I just recently bought yet another edition of Shakespeare's Hamlet(yes I am quite a sucker for the old Bard). I know that no matter what edition I buy the basic play is going to be the same yet, I buy the books because it is very unusual that I don't get some new insights in the language used at that time given by some erudite Shakespearean in the notes or intro and thus further insight into the play.

It kind of got me thinking that Arrian was writing at similar distance in time to Ptolemy as to where we are now from Shakespeare.
His Elizabethan English, although there are many sentences that are clearly intelligible for me, there are nevertheless, countless that without my handy reference or internet connection would be in a grey zone.

Given that language, grammar and words come and go, it seems amazing that Arrian could fully grasp the meaning of the primary sources at his fingertips, if changes occurred in Greek as they did in English at the same rhythm.

Would there have been any major shifts in the Greek used by Ptolemy/Aristobulus and the Greek in the day of Arrian? As we don't have Ptolemy's original account I guess it might be difficult/impossible to know...

Also, as Arrian wrote after Plutarch, and Curtius it would be interesting to have known what he thought of their works and if in any way they might have shaped his....

“Alexander died, Alexander was buried, Alexander returneth into dust; the dust is earth; of earth we make loam; and why of that loam whereto he was converted might they not stop a beer-barrel?”
In Hamlet I get the overall gist but there are words, words words that I don't always get...

Cheers
Dean.

[Alexias]

Interesting question. I would suggest that Arrian wouldn't have had as much difficulty understanding the primary sources as we have understanding Shakespeare's idioms because his society was basically the same as in Alexander's day (apart from Roman dominance), especially in the Greek-speaking world of which he was a part. Our society has changed so rapidly in the last 2-300 years that necessarily our thought and language have changed as well.

The other question of course is, do we believe the ghost? How reliable were the original sources? How reliable was Arrian's judgement in selecting what version of events to record? You could tie yourself in knots trying to answer questions like this, all we can do is accept what we have and use our best and most probable judgement.

[dean]

Hi Alexias,

Thanks for your reply.

From what I can gather, Ptolemy was writing in early koine. Arrian, again from what I can gather, wrote in Attic Greek, the same variant that the classics used, Aristotle, Plato etc.

It appears that Arrian as Plutarch chose this register to communicate a more classical style, especially Arrian in homage to Xenophon.

So to sum up, there must have been some shifts over the years(we are talking about 500 years) but it obviously can't have got in the way of Arrian's understanding of Ptolemy's work for posterity, much as little old me trying to fathom out what Shakespeare is trying to say.

All the best,
Dean.