pothos.org

Jona:"Thanks for your suggestions. They are really valuable."You're quite welcome. Sorry it took me so long to get around to it."I have already made some changes; about the possibility to read the text of the A.D. as referring to desertion AFTER the battle, I still have to think about a brief and clear way of expressing myself."Ain't it the truth? You've encapsulated the writer's challenge quite nicely!"'Next, your contention that Callisthenes "ordered" the translation of the Diaries is unsupported by any citation from the (Greek!) sources.'""It is mentioned by Simplikios' Commentary on Aristotle's *De Caelo* II 12 [Arist. 293a4]. This is a very late source, but the truth of Simplikios' words is established because he correctly translates the Babylonian title of the Diaries, massartu, as t+»-+-+r+»-+-+seis, which is illogical in Greek ("ephemerides" would be better) but keeps the double meaning of 'guarding' and 'observing' implied in the original."I stand (partially) corrected. However, the fact that Simplikios wrote nearly a thousand years after the events - and that no previous commentator states the translation was at Callisthenes' orders - tends to make me view his assertion with corresponding skepticism. It's entirely possible that Aristotle received an accurate translation of the Diaries. My question (and I apologize if I failed to make this clear) is whether it's necessary to attribute that translation to Callisthenes' efforts? It seems equally likely that Alexander himself could have ordered such a translation made and a copy sent to Aristotle.Again, were it me, I'd use qualifying language to make the attribution, so that it's clear from context that an alternative attribution is possible."I also found this information in the work of the Arabian scientist Ibn Khaldun, who used other sources."Once again, Ibn Khaldun's work is even later than that of Simplikios - he wrote more than 1600 years after the events on which he comments - and I'd hesitate to call that firm corroboration.But, hey, it's your article and your decision. I'm just trying to anticipate the NYRoB editors' potential objections to some of your assertions.Regards,Thom Stark

Thanks again.I am a little bit more confident that we can rely upon Simplikios. He is believed to have had access to a good library, including the works of Alexander of Aphrodisias; there's no reason to invent the role of Callisthenes; and -what gives me real confidence- no one would have used the word "tereseis". A careless author would have written "ephemerides". Yet I agree that the involvement if Callisthenes can be dounted; but personally, I think that one can be a bit too skeptical.At the moment, my article is resting for a week. Then, I will look at it with a fresh mind and think about the improvements you've suggested.Jona

Dear friends,I have read and thought about all your comments. At the moment, the article is 'sleeping'; next week, I will look at it anew, with a fresh mind, make some final corrections, and will send it to the NYRB. No doubt, they will reply that they already have a decent article on the wave of Alexander books, but maybe my piece will be published. Then, one of my biggest dreams will have come true. Thanks for helping me!Jona

Dear friends,I have read and thought about all your comments. At the moment, the article is 'sleeping'; next week, I will look at it anew, with a fresh mind, make some final corrections, and will send it to the NYRB. No doubt, they will reply that they already have a decent article on the wave of Alexander books, but maybe my piece will be published. Then, one of my biggest dreams will have come true. Thanks for helping me!Jona