Arrian\'s \"Ektaxis kat\' Alanon\" transl issue

[Macedon]

This night I scrutinized Arrian's "Ektaxis kat'Alanon", the source of many an issue translationwise... I came up with two issues. The first being the following :

1. καὶ λόγχας οἱ λογχοφόροι ἀκοντιζέτωσαν οἵ τε ψιλοὶ καὶ οἱ †θειασταί. (25.5.)

For some reason, the word "θειασταί" (I had 2 translations at hand, one to modern Greek in hard copy the other to English from the net, probably the one most have read, one that I looked up when I was not content with A. Pantelakes' interpretations) seems to be translated as "heavy" or "shielded" or something like that. I also read somewhere on the net (of course not the best resource) that there is a reading of this word as "thureophoroi". The original is corrupt here, so any word would be a guess and I cannot voice an opinion not having a scan of the original manuscripts but all three ancient Greek texts I have (2 from TLG) all have the word "theiastae" in this position. Now if this word means anything, it surely has nothing to do with armor or shield. From other texts I looked up it seems to mean "those who enthusiastically shout/exclaim" although for some reason LSJ only translates it as "worshiper" which is not that different but still.

The next issue is :

2. εἰ δὲ ἐπιστραφέντες ἐς κύκλους ὑπὲρ τὰ κέρατα παρελαύνειν ἐθέλοιεν, ἀνατείνεσθαι μὲν <ἐς> τὰ ὑπερδεξιώτερα ἔτι τὰ κέρατα αὐτῆς τῆς ψιλῆς τοξείας· ὡς οὐ δοκιμάζω μήποτε ἀσθενῆ τῇ ἀνατάσει τὰ κέρατα γινόμενα ἰδόντες δι’ αὐτῶν ὤσαιντο καὶ διακόψαιεν τὸ πεζικόν. (30.3)

Now, this is translated (in the translations that I have) as an order of Arrian to the light archers to extend onto the higher ground whereas I read the exact opposite. The thing here is the "ano teleia (·)". If it really is there, then this order really is so and the rest of the instruction is strange to outright bull. If not, then the whole thing makes sense...

"Now, if, by wheeling about in circles, they decide to ride about the wings, extending (this is by others translated as "should extend") the light archers to yet higher ground of the wings. I do not approve, lest with the extending the wings become weak and upon their seeing it they force through them and cut down the infantry."

This is an almost word by word translation that makes the dilemma obvious. Take out the full-stop and you have a coherent text, Arrian NOT approving the extending of the wings because... Leave it there and the translation becomes problematic.

(edit) I added the first part of the sentence in the second issue,so that you have a more complete picture.

What do your translations say? If you know ancient Greek, what is your opinion?

[Vindex]

FWIW Liddell and Scott's translation of the verb "theiazdo" (sorry, no Greek letters on my system so the last "o" is of course omega) is "to practice divinations", the future tense (as I read it) would have the sigma omega stem. The source for this is given as Thucydides but no reference to which book or verse. The noun is "theiasmos, -ou" with the practice of divination as the translation and again Thucydides is cited.

That's a slightly different context to worshipping but still nothing to do with armour or shield. :?

As for the second part, I think you have an erroneous full stop and would agree with you.

I hope that helps but someone will come up with something more scholarly I'm sure

[Lyceum]

Interesting, I've a small idea but I'll go check the critical texts and a semantic dictionary or two first just to make sure since I rarely look at these sorts of texts.

The first aporia is interesting since were I to see that word out of context depending on how the vowel quantity is ascribed I'd have come up with two or three variant meanings (watcher, worshipper, etc). I suspect the problem is either textual (not TOO likely) or linguistic (e.g Arrian's usage of Greek, native version compared to stylistic register) but I'm not too up on A's style. This looks fun.

[D B Campbell]

For some reason, the word "θειασταί" seems to be translated as "heavy" or "shielded" or something like that. I also read somewhere on the net (of course not the best resource) that there is a reading of this word as "thureophoroi". The original is corrupt here, so any word would be a guess ...

Hercher (1885 Teubner text) already suggested that this was a corruption of πελτασταί, to balance the λογχοφόροι. In my opinion, this is more likely (i.e. I can see how a copyist might have made this error) than Müller's θυρεαφόροι (which, in my opinion, would require a far more convoluted sequence of miscopying).

[Macedon]

Hercher (1885 Teubner text) already suggested that this was a corruption of πελτασταί, to balance the λογχοφόροι. In my opinion, this is more likely (i.e. I can see how a copyist might have made this error) than Müller's θυρεαφόροι (which, in my opinion, would require a far more convoluted sequence of miscopying).

Anyone happens to have a scan of the point in question in the manuscript? Why the heck would anyone suggest "theiastae" if there is no (or little) clue as to the word missing? I guess that something in some manuscript has survived in order for anyone to propose such a word.

[D B Campbell]

Anyone happens to have a scan of the point in question in the manuscript? Why the heck would anyone suggest "theiastae" if there is no (or little) clue as to the word missing? I guess that something in some manuscript has survived in order for anyone to propose such a word.

I have not studied the manuscript tradition of the Ektaxis, but -- as far as I am aware -- all extant copies go back to a single archetype, the tenth-century codex Laurentianus. (Roos probably discusses this in his excellent 1967 Teubner edition, which I think is the basis of the TLG version.) It is this archetype that carries the reading θειασταί. The word has clearly been garbled at some point prior to the tenth century. I like the idea that some poor Greek-less scribe was attempting to copy the word "πελτασταί", but made a mess of it.

[Macedon]

I am not sure regarding the probability of the word actually having been "peltastae". It is remarkable how few times Arrian uses any derivative of this word in any of his surviving works. He mentions "peltastikon" twice and a handful of times (4) the word "pelte" as a shield! I hadn't really noticed that fact until I looked it up in an effort to see how probable it would be and the result practically shocked me. I would suggest a term that would not denote their "heaviness" but something that would place them within the ranks of the legion like "hoplitae", assuming that the main battle-line would also partake in the hurling of javelins. Hmmm.... who knows... What about the other issue?

[Paralus]

It is remarkable how few times Arrian uses any derivative of this word in any of his surviving works. He mentions "peltastikon" twice and a handful of times (4) the word "pelte" as a shield!

Indeed. Infuriatingly he most often uses kouphos and its derivatives. This is often - especially in his Anabasis - taken as describing "light armed". The context in which the words are used more generally fit "most active" or "the fittest".

[D B Campbell]

It is remarkable how few times Arrian uses any derivative of this word in any of his surviving works.

I regret not having a concordance to Arrian. It would be very handy. When I wrote about his use of the term μηχανή (many moons ago!) I was forced to read through the Greek text searching for the word. Old-school scholarship!

What about the other issue?

I confess that I didn't fully understand your problem. I shall re-read your post (again).

[D B Campbell]

I am not sure regarding the probability of the word actually having been "peltastae".

You may be interested in the theory of Maurizio Colombo, in Historia 60.2 (2011) -- which I have just noticed! -- that the correct reading is ὁπλῖται. Regarding Müller's θυρεαφόροι, he makes the same point as me (namely, that there is no palaeographic logic to such a corruption). However, he believes that Müller's version better captures the sense of the passage -- some kind of heavy infantry -- than Hercher's πελτασταί, while noting (as I did, above) that Hercher's makes better palaeographic sense.

Colombo argues that the legionary and auxiliary infantry are routinely called ὁπλῖται in Arrian and other sources, and that the term is used here to designate "legionaries armed with the pilum". (He thinks that it makes sense palaeographically, too, if the original had been written in uncials.)

[Macedon]

I am not sure regarding the probability of the word actually having been "peltastae".

You may be interested in the theory of Maurizio Colombo, in Historia 60.2 (2011) -- which I have just noticed! -- that the correct reading is ὁπλῖται. Regarding Müller's θυρεαφόροι, he makes the same point as me (namely, that there is no palaeographic logic to such a corruption). However, he believes that Müller's version better captures the sense of the passage -- some kind of heavy infantry -- than Hercher's πελτασταί, while noting (as I did, above) that Hercher's makes better palaeographic sense.

Colombo argues that the legionary and auxiliary infantry are routinely called ὁπλῖται in Arrian and other sources, and that the term is used here to designate "legionaries armed with the pilum". (He thinks that it makes sense palaeographically, too, if the original had been written in uncials.)

Exactly my thinking... thx. I wasn't aware of M. Colombo's theory! Darn he got me there by a year it seems...

[Macedon]

I confess that I didn't fully understand your problem. I shall re-read your post (again).

The translations I have read write of Arrian giving orders to the archers on the wings to actually extend the line, even though it will make it weaker. I think that the translation should read as Arrian forbidding the archers to extend because the line will become weaker.

[Macedon]

Indeed. Infuriatingly he most often uses kouphos and its derivatives. This is often - especially in his Anabasis - taken as describing "light armed". The context in which the words are used more generally fit "most active" or "the fittest".

I think that the word "kouphos" actually means mobile/agile and although usually it truly goes with light armed/armored troops, it can actually be used to differentiate those that were more agile/mobile/had more stamina, from equally armed hoplites. I admit it was a bit difficult to find proof for Arrian does not describe the armament of those pezhetaeroi that were most "kouphoi" in the Anabasis but I found a very good example in his Tactica where he writes that an orderly army is more "mobile" on the march than one that is in disorder. The word he uses there is "kouphoi"!

[Paralus]

Tarn once described taxis as the handmaiden of all work in the Anabasis. Perhaps we should add kuophos to that as well??

I agree: more mobile/agile is by far the best fit - and related to fittness and/or abilities. It hardly seems sensible to have the most lightly armed of the archers!(Were they to leave their bows, arrows or quiver behind??)3

Usain Bolt might be the definition of kouphos...

[Macedon]

What is funny to us Greeks is that nowadays the word "kouphos" (albeit stressed on "o" instead of "ou") means "deaf"... You can imagine how many times I had to explain myself when talking about the "kouphoi" :???: :???: ... The word we use that is "closer" to the ancient meaning is "kouphios" which means "hollow" and does have some lightness in it, doesn't it?

Oh! And of course I was talking about the definition of "kouphos" when related to people, which is what we are interested in here. When used with objects it has most always a clear "light in weight" meaning.