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

[Macedon]

Hmmm.. a third issue came up right now :

"ἀντὶ δὲ τῶν θωράκων Κιμμερικὰ χιτώνια, ἴσα καὶ ὅμοια τοῖς θώραξιν" (34.6.1.)

"instead of thorakae (they wear) Cimmerian chitonia, the same in appearance to the thorakae."

Can the Cimmerian chitonia look like a thorax?

Now the "isa kai omoia" part can also mean a more general "exactly the same", but the "in appearance" seems to me closer to Arrian's intention.

edit : What I failed to write was the fact that this was in the Tactica and NOT in the Ektaxis...

[Robert Vermaat]

(Roos probably discusses this in his excellent 1967 Teubner edition, which I think is the basis of the TLG version.)

Roos edition may be the origin of most modern editions, but he was also resonsible for a lot of emendations.
The Laurentius MS, damaged as it is, should be the source and all later editions should be regarded ith (at least a bit of) caution.

[Robert Vermaat]

I think that the translation should read as Arrian forbidding the archers to extend because the line will become weaker.

Why would that make more sense? He is writing a theoretical approach to a battle, and his words may be to the reader alons (I will extend the line, even though it may become weaker). As archers go, an extended formation does not make it weaker - archers are hardly a unit that can be stronger when densely packed. It's where they shoot that matters. It would make sense to extend a formation of archers, so as to cover every part of the enemy formation and thus support the troops in front of them.

[Macedon]

I think that the translation should read as Arrian forbidding the archers to extend because the line will become weaker.

Why would that make more sense? He is writing a theoretical approach to a battle, and his words may be to the reader alones (I will extend the line, even though it may become weaker). As archers go, an extended formation does not make it weaker - archers are hardly a unit that can be stronger when densely packed. It's where they shoot that matters. It would make sense to extend a formation of archers, so as to cover every part of the enemy formation and thus support the troops in front of them.

Because of the structure of the sentence and the Greek used.


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)

For example, the "ὡς οὐ δοκιμάζω" part sounds very strange and looks like a subordinate clause in need of an independent one. This is what makes me bet on the ano teleia being a mistake. The rest of the sentence is also very direct and allows little sense for someone to order exactly what it warns against ("μήποτε" / in case) without even mentioning any of the positives that such a maneuver would produce. Plus, I cannot even be sure that such a translation would be different than the one "normally" given to this part of the text. I admit of having used only 1 book and 1 internet source. This is why I think that we should look into other translations too.

[D B Campbell]

This is what makes me bet on that ano teleia being a mistake.

I cannot see your "ano teleia", George. :? That's what's confusing me.

[Macedon]

... τῆς ψιλῆς τοξείας· [<-- this is the "ano teleia"] ὡς οὐ δοκιμάζω μήποτε ...

It is the punctuation mark which would normally in English be a semicolon [;] which in Greek in turn is the sign of the questionmark. In all respects, it is as if after the word "τοξείας" there is a fullstop and the next sentence should be complete.

[Sean Manning]

I think we call that mark (·) an interpunct in English. In most editions, the punctuation is a product of modern or medieval editors rather than the author; you would have to look at the MSS or a history of Greek paleography to see whether its likely to be Arrian's.

[D B Campbell]

Roos edition may be the origin of most modern editions, but he was also resonsible for a lot of emendations.

You are right to be cautious, Robert. But the Teubner edition is usually trustworthy, and notes where variant readings are possible. At any rate, it is surely preferable to whatever internet source George has been using.

The Laurentius MS, damaged as it is, should be the source ...

Realistically, few of us have ready access to any medieval manuscript, especially such a prestigious one.

[Renatus]

Plus, I cannot even be sure that such a translation would be different than the one "normally" given to this part of the text. I admit of having used only 1 book and 1 internet source. This is why I think that we should look into other translations too.

The only English translation that I know is that of James G. DeVoto, published by Ares in 1993 and, I think, still available. Personally, I hate DeVoto's translations. He has a habit of inserting in square brackets words in English that are not reflected in the original. Often, this serves more to confuse than to elucidate. Anyway, for what it is worth, I set out below his translation as printed. As far as I am concerned, the last sentence is utter gibberish.

If, having wheeled about into [designated] areas, they wish to ride beyond the horns (=wings), [let them] extend the light archery's horns (=wings) even [more] into higher places. As I reckon, seeing our horns (=wings) weakened by upward extension, they (=the foes) would never thrust through them and cut down the infantry contingent.

[Macedon]

If, having wheeled about into [designated] areas, they wish to ride beyond the horns (=wings), [let them] extend the light archery's horns (=wings) even [more] into higher places. As I reckon, seeing our horns (=wings) weakened by upward extension, they (=the foes) would never thrust through them and cut down the infantry contingent.

Thx Michael, it seems that he also follows the "traditional" interpretation of the text... I cannot understand how he (and Pantelakes) come to this translation of the second sentence. As I see it, they add words and stretch meanings to make it conform to this interpretation in order to make sense.

I think it is established that this is the "traditional" interpretation... Anyone with a very good knowledge of ancient Greek to voice an opinion on my objections? Jass?

For example they treat the verb "dokimazo" as if it was "dokeo". It is the second one that means "reckon, think, seem". The "dokimazo" verb used by Arrian means "approve, test/taste". The "ou" (not) before the verb most probably (to me it seems certain but it is true that sometimes ancient Greek tends to be a bit too liberal...) goes to this very verb, since the "mepote" (another word that they seem to ignore) introduces a new sentence (and as such the sentence should start with "I do not approve", the "os" being an additional issue that points against the interpunct (thx Sean)). Under that prism Arrian clearly says that the Alans WILL (and not "will NOT" - or "will never") cut through his line...

-Some may wonder why I even bother, so this is the reason : I am currently compiling material for a study I make on tactics and I want to be certain as to whether Arrian actually orders/encourages an extension of the battle formation or argues against it, wishing to advise his officers against a maneuver that they would probably make if this order had not been issued endangering an enemy break-through in the wings.-

[D B Campbell]

The only English translation that I know is that of James G. DeVoto, published by Ares in 1993 and, I think, still available.

It's possible that this is the source of George's online translation. I'm surprised that there's no German translation. (Or is there?)

[MD]

There is a German translation. It was done by Franz Kiechle and published in the Report of the Roman Germanic Commission (Ber. RGK 45, 1964).

Also a translation of the part about the Hippika Gymnasia, based on Kiechle, is included in Marcus Junkelmann books "Die Reiter Roms" part 2 (1991) and "Reiter wie Statuen aus Erz" (1996).

[MD]

There is at least one German translation done by Christian Heinrich Dörner in 1833.

The book is out of copyright and freely available from Google books. The translation of the "Ektaxis kat' Alanon" begins on page 765.
Lin to Google book

[D B Campbell]

There is at least one German translation done by Christian Heinrich Dörner in 1833.

Thanks ... but I have always found that German black letter script almost unintelligible!

[Renatus]

The only English translation that I know is that of James G. DeVoto, published by Ares in 1993 and, I think, still available.

It's possible that this is the source of George's online translation.

I don't think so. The two are quite different. At least the online one is intelligible.