pothos.org

Andrew I cannot find these words, nor anything similar in Latin or Greek can you let us know how you arrived at youir translations of 'greeter' and 'eunuch' as I am puzzled but sure you haven't made them up! LSJ has nothing from Arrian so I know the resources to hand are not perfect.

Reference the tail end of Fire from Heaven thread.

agesilaos wrote:Andrew I cannot find these words, nor anything similar in Latin or Greek can you let us know how you arrived at youir translations of 'greeter' and 'eunuch' as I am puzzled but sure you haven't made them up! LSJ has nothing from Arrian so I know the resources to hand are not perfect.

If there were such words, there would not have been a problem in translating the manuscript reading of excipinon. My approach is to suppose that this is an obscure noun derived from a similar verb, just as we might invent a noun such as hallucinater (one who hallucinates or perhaps causes hallucinations) from the verb to hallucinate. This is prompted by the fact that excipinon resembles the verb excipio, one of the meanings of which is to greet or welcome. It is also not far from the verb excido, one of the attested meanings of which is to castrate (literally it means to cut out, but various Latin authors have used it to mean castrate, when its object is a male person or animal).

Obviously, this is not "correct" Latin and the word may well have been corrupted from its original form.

Best wishes,

Andrew

I had suspected as much but you are forming the noun from the wrong stem the verb excipio would form a noun from 'exceptus' thus 'exceptor' (agent noun) and excido would probably become excitum -us (internal 'd's becoming 't') nor would Curtius use a Greek ending viz '-on'. Also 'excipio' is more commonly to except or take out rather the opposite of greeting though I suppose we might think of Usher which can be both in or out.

I concede that it may well be Bagoas Curtius means, but on balance we must write the phrase off as hopelessly garbled.

agesilaos wrote:I had suspected as much but you are forming the noun from the wrong stem the verb excipio would form a noun from 'exceptus' thus 'exceptor' (agent noun) and excido would probably become excitum -us (internal 'd's becoming 't') nor would Curtius use a Greek ending viz '-on'. Also 'excipio' is more commonly to except or take out rather the opposite of greeting though I suppose we might think of Usher which can be both in or out.

I concede that it may well be Bagoas Curtius means, but on balance we must write the phrase off as hopelessly garbled.

Yes, but you are reaching your conclusions by applying grammatical rules and spellings that were still a work in progress when Curtius wrote in the mid-first century AD. If you look at a manuscript of Curtius, you will find it is absolutely replete with dreadful grammatical errors and mis-spellings. Partly, these will have been introduced by the manuscript transmission process. But some of them are probably echoes of Curtius's original somewhat cavalier Latin, which was mostly corrected by later scribes to come into line with the grammatical rules as they became more de rigueur. The overall picture is highly complex. Shakespeare is a parallel case in English. If you look at the first folio spellings, you will be astonished, if you have naively supposed that spellings in the modern texts of his plays are his own/original

The case for Bagoas rests upon the meaning of the rest of the Latin context, for which Bagoas is the only feasible fit. This should inform the possible meanings of excipinon.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Taphoi wrote:The case for Bagoas rests upon the meaning of the rest of the Latin context, for which Bagoas is the only feasible fit. This should inform the possible meanings of excipinon.

That may be a possibility.

Interesting, though, that you felt no compelling need for the "rest of the Greek context" to "inform the possible meanings" of epiphoras tagmatika at Diodorus 17.94.4. Indeed you saw no need for the context in which the term was used to be considered at all.

This "Bagoas" context is a context of convenience perhaps...

Paralus wrote:Interesting, though, that you felt no compelling need for the "rest of the Greek context" to "inform the possible meanings" of epiphoras tagmatika at Diodorus 17.94.4. Indeed you saw no need for the context in which the term was used to be considered at all.

I thought we already agreed that the context for understanding Diodorus' terminology is Justin's remarks:

Justin 12.4.5-8 wrote:Alexander saw, too, that Macedonia would be less drained to supply the army, if the sons, as recruits, should succeed their veteran fathers, and serve within the ramparts within which they were born, and would be likely to show more courage, if they passed, not only their earliest days of service, but also their infancy, in the camp. This custom was also continued under Alexander’s successors. Maintenance (a statutory allowance of food) was provided for the boys, and arms and horses were given them when they grew up.

Hence Diodorus' words mean an allowance (paid in food and related maintenance) for the sons of veterans to be trained up to replace their fathers. Obviously, since Justin (with the same ultimate source as Diodorus, i.e. Cleitarchus) actually states this, there is no need for the point to be controversial.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Taphoi wrote: I thought we already agreed that the context for understanding Diodorus' terminology is Justin's remarks:

No, you had agreed that Justin provided "context" for remarks made by Diodorus, not I. Justin's remarks are clearly referring to events subsequent to Opis - especially the bringing up of the camp male children as both Arrian and Diodorus specifically note later in the correct context.

That aside, the passage in Diodorus from which the term is lifted constitutes 261 words in the Loeb translation (209 in the Greek). Those words, plentiful enough one suspects, form the immediate context and "inform the possible meanings of" epiphoras tagmatikas. You, however, have consistently and pointedly refused to consider them choosing, instead, to quote another author.

A context of choice no doubt.

19 Benigne igitur exceptis Sacarum legatis comitem excipi non dedit, adhuc admodum iuvenem, aetatis flore conciliatum sibi, qui cum specie corporis aequaret Hephaestionem, ei leporeº haud sane virili par non erat.

Curtius VII 9 xix

The MS variants viz excipinon in P and escipinon in the others are, in fact, the same word or rather group of letters. The earliest MSS for Curtius are Carolingian and my dear ancestors were in the habit of correcting the barbarous Latin of their Merovingian forebears, sadly not always correctly. In late Late 'x' becomes 's' and this is a frequent substitution in early MSS. But this works both ways, the tradition is now thought to be based on a single lost archetype so P being the earliest MS we have must be assumed to be preserving the original reading which was subsequently recorrected as excipinon is also meaningless.

A common fault, however is the incorrect separation of words, most miniscule and majescule (posh talk for capitals and lowercase [and this is chiasmus]) have the words all run together. So accepting the reading but separating the excipi from the non we can reach a version which translates as

So welcoming the Sacae ambassadors in a kindly fashion, he gave them an unwelcome companion, a still very young man that was his favourite due to being in the prime of youth but though he rivalled Hephaistion on good looks he could not match him in charm, since he was rather effeminate.

Yes there is still the problem that 'excipi' should agree with 'comitem' and be 'exceptem' but i and e can interchange in late Latin, as used by the Merovingian monks and a miniscule 't' though more often confused with an 'l' can also morph into an 'i' hence excipiemnon or even excipiimnon the merging of an 'i' with an 'm' and the 'm' with an 'n' is clearly feasible and are both attested slips.

This solution has the benefit of not creating bogus words from the wrong stems, and pace your protests Andrew WRITTEN Latin was undergoing a process of ossification rather than youthful exuberance, nor is Curtius 'cavalier' with his Latin, he MAY even have been a grammarian (or rhetorician, I forget, but am not too convinced with the identification in any case).

It also restores a counterpoint so beloved of Silver latin 'welcoming kindly' v an unwelcome kindness. also the Scythians are held up as models of Barbarian Virtue, why should they want a little pansy as an escort? Still doesn't discount it being Bagoas unless on grounds of age but I don't think we have any evidence for that.

And viz 'epiphoras tagmatikas' did you not read my fine exposition?

By the by I have dragged off most of a guide to emendations in latin MSS from Perseus and will e-mail any interested parties a copy if they care to PM me their address, it is good stuff, based on Plautus but he is a good example due to the various ages and types of MSS surviving. And it is share ware so it is legal honest, gov!

agesilaos wrote:

So welcoming the Sacae ambassadors in a kindly fashion, he gave them an unwelcome companion, a still very young man that was his favourite due to being in the prime of youth but though he rivalled Hephaistion on good looks he could not match him in charm, since he was rather effeminate.

Apart from your unnecessary grammatical gymnastics, I am surprised that you cannot see that you have reduced the meaning to self-contradictory gibberish by having Alexander welcome the ambassadors in a kindly fashion by giving them an unwelcome companion. Where are your examples of the same contradictory expression in "silver" Latin? There are certainly counterpoints in Latin, but not to the extent of producing self-contradiction and creating gibberish.

agesilaos wrote:[This solution has the benefit of not creating bogus words from the wrong stems, and pace your protests Andrew WRITTEN Latin was undergoing a process of ossification rather than youthful exuberance, nor is Curtius 'cavalier' with his Latin, he MAY even have been a grammarian (or rhetorician, I forget, but am not too convinced with the identification in any case).

You cannot possibly know this from evidence, so it is rhetoric. There are no contemporary manuscripts or even fragments of Curtius. Some of the irregularities in the extant manuscripts are very likely to be original (for various reasons). It is also ridiculous to imply (as you do) that Curtius' Latin was perfect and conformed precisely with grammatical rules which had not yet been written. The reality is that the manuscripts started out with irregularities and there has been an interplay between correction (towards later concepts of ideal Latin) and corruption ever since. That is what has always happened where we can see the whole process: where contemporaneous manuscripts survive (I have given the example of Shakespeare). Grammar will not help you in the case of the class of irregularities which derive from Curtius' own usages and it is preposterous to suggest that such a class does not exist.

agesilaos wrote:And viz 'epiphoras tagmatikas' did you not read my fine exposition?

You have said nothing that requires that Alexander changed his policy on children of veterans between India and Opis. Justin's remarks about Alexander's policy on the children of veterans are made before he treats India, so it should be inferred that the policy already existed in India. This is the evidence. Your gymnastics with the uncertain Greek expression is just rhetoric. If arguments from our knowledge of Greek could resolve the meaning, the translators would already have done so. There is still no reason why it should not mean Training Bursary. The pertinent evidence is Justin's remarks, which come from the same source as for Diodorus. Reading your "expositions" is like reading Agatha Christie: it always turns out that you go for the unlikeliest, most counter-intuitive conclusion after an improbable number of twists. Such does not conform with real life, where Occam's Razor applies.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Taphoi wrote:Justin's remarks about Alexander's policy on the children of veterans are made before he treats India, so it should be inferred that the policy already existed in India. This is the evidence [...] If arguments from our knowledge of Greek could resolve the meaning, the translators would already have done so. There is still no reason why it should not mean Training Bursary. The pertinent evidence is Justin's remarks, which come from the same source as for Diodorus.

Stripped of the derisory and sneering personal attacks on another poster, this smacks of cherry picking the evidence to conform to a pre-conceived view. “The evidence”, an excursus where events subsequent to Opis are anticipated, is inserted into a discourse on Alexander’s “Persianising” and the Macedonian’s resentment of such.

All our sources, bar a lacunose Curtius, report the announcement of this “policy”. These are:

Diodorus, 17.110.3
Since there were by now sons of the Macedonians born of captive women, he determined the exact number of these. There were about ten thousand, and he set aside for them revenues sufficient to provide them with an upbringing proper for freeborn children, and set over them teachers to give them their proper training

Arrian 7.12.2
If any of them had children by Asiatic wives, he ordered them to leave them behind with him, lest they should introduce into Macedonia a cause of discord, taking with them children by foreign women who were of a different race from the children whom they had left behind at home born of Macedonian mothers. He promised to take care that they should be brought up as Macedonians, educating them not only in general matters but also in the art of war. He also undertook to lead them into Macedonia when they arrived at manhood, and hand them over to their fathers. These uncertain and obscure promises were made to them as they were departing…

Plutarch. Alex. 71.8-9
So on the third day he came forth, and when he saw their piteous and humble plight, wept for some time; then, after chiding them gently and speaking kindly to them, he dismissed those who were past service with magnificent gifts, and wrote to Antipater that at all the public contests and in the theatres they should have the foremost seats and wear garlands. He also ordained that the orphan children of those who had lost their lives in his service should receive their father's pay

All these sources place the announcement of this “policy” at the time of the Opis “rebellion”; the only source who does not being Justin. Justin, as noted, anticipates this in his digression on the Macedonians’ anger at Alexander’s Persianising leading to the murder of Cleitus. No other source loctaes the announcing of this “policy” where Justin does.

You would have it that Justin, not exactly known for his accuracy and reliability and the one source out of step here, is to be preferred over the clear and consistent evidence of Plutarch, Arrian and Diodorus. Picking and choosing sources is common in religion: your apostolic nature is plain.

In “real life” it would be Justin’s “evidence” that would be questioned not the other three sources. In "real life", preferring Justin’s anticipatory insertion would amount to picking the evidence to suit a view.

In "real life" your last post might indicate the sneering and contemptuous tone of a zealot. I tend, rather, to think it shows the real person: one who lacks both manners and class.

Let me take each of your ‘points’, if such they may be termed in sequence.

I am at a loss where the grammatical gymnastics come in so there is no point to answer there [marginalia; expand].

I was under the impression that English was your first language but let me explain that unwelcome actions may spring from kindly intent; English comedy abounds in situations where people offer totally inappropriate hospitality, the family on rations who offer their Jewish refugee children what are to them precious pork sausages for instance. Thus no contradiction; not a smooth translation I’ll grant that comes from trying to keep the pun.

Speaking, as you were, of ‘self-contradiction’ creating ‘gibberish’; you aver that I cannot know that Curtius was not cavalier with his Latin because no contemporary MS exists YET You do know that he was! Presumably on the grounds of reason but that is ground upon which no reasonable man would stand, not even a rhetorician.

As to Curtius himself possibly being a grammarian or rhetorician, he appears in the preserved index of Suetonius’ lost De grammaticis et Rhetoribus or at least a Curtius Rufus does, and Tacitus and Pliny Minor mention one as active under Tiberius and dying in 55AD but they may or may not be the author.

As to the ossification or stultification I direct you to any book on the Latin language or better the opening of Petronius’ Satyricon.

Grammar may not help with Curtius’ own coinings, presumably you can produce a list of these, but it is a tool in textual emendation calling every strange group of letters a new word would not get us far; though it would make unseen translations a piece of the proverbial.

I find the comparison to Agatha Christie quite flattering, Poirot et al always arriving at the answer but I cannot believe my oevre to have even a moiety of her popularity. It is bizarre to then add that were the solutions easy they should already have been found, how dull were one not to venture an opinion; ah, but that’s only for our opinions isn’t it all the Editors seem to prefer ‘excipinon’ as the corruption of a name.

I would ask that you extend the same academic courtesy to the members of this forum as I do in future, ie show your workings and do not just make bald assumptions that may work for Dan Browne but we should aspire at least to the level of Euclid.

since this is mentioned in discretion thread I have promoted it