Genealogia Genealogia
Prior Page Page Up

English Translation Corrections

English Translation Corrections

Recommended Fonts

Special font requiredSpecial font required To ensure proper viewing of the Greek and transcription characters on these pages, you must use a Unicode font with the necessary characters; I recommend free fonts Doulos SIL, Cardo, Code 2000, and TITUS Cyberbit Basic. I now use the Doulos SIL font as the default font in my web browser, and recommend it to others.

First Round Comments - Closed.

The first round changes were based on Chris' edit of Vadim's original draft translation. It incorporated all the 2006 comments submitted by Vadim (29 & 30 May 2006); Renzo (1 June 2006); Agnes (30 May & 13 June 2006); and Mark (2 July 2006). All comments were consolidated into a new second draft published 8 Mar 2007.

Second Round Comments - Closed.

Second round addressed Chris' draft of 8 Mar 2007. Comments by Vadim, 29 & 30 May 2007; Renzo, 1 June 2007; Agnes, 30 May & 13 June 2007; and Mark, 9 April & 2 July 2007 were incorporated. All comments were consolidated into a new third draft published 23 Aug 2007.

Third Round Comments - Closed.

The third round of comments to the 23 Aug 2007 draft incorporated comments from Mark (10, 18 and 29 Sep 07 and 8 May 2008); Vadim (13 and 17 Sep 2007); and Agnes (7 May 2008). All comments were consolidated into a new fourth draft published 10 May 2008 .

Fourth Round Comments - Open

The fourth draft of 10 May 2008 is open for comments. All unresolved comments to the English translation are marked in red text for clarity; it becomes the new baseline for corrections. All previous changes have been reset to black. Thus far it includes the comments of Agnes (May & Jun 2008), Mark (May & Jun 2008), and Vadim (Jun 08).

If you suggested changes that have not been addressed, please resubmit! Earlier changes accepted or declined are marked with gray strike-thru text and are (hopefully!) to be ignored, but remain for reference so we don't plow that ground again.

Please focus on the open action item(s) on this page which are highlighted in red as [Editor's action] Open.

Open Item 1
Closed Item 2
Closed Item 3
Closed Item 4
Closed Item 5
Closed Item 6
Closed Item 7
Open Item 8
Open Item 9
Open Item 10
Open Item 11
Open Item 12


[Vadim] In addition, I think it would be beneficial to change the names of the kings on all drawings to make them consistent with the text itself. I will try to do it tomorrow.

[Editor's Action] Closed. Drawings incorporated.

[Agnes, Jun 08] Should the title be "The Genealogy..."? Any other adjustment of the title needed?

[Mark, Jun 08] I've no comment on the title nor any other aspect of the Russian grammar; that's up to Agnes and Vadim.

[Agnes, Jun 08] I think the wording is certainly OK as far as the Russian is concerned. I'm wondering about the English, i.e. whether it should not be "The Genealogy", and possibly "the Nisa ostracon". However, as Mark does not see a problem, it appears to be OK as it stands.

[Editor's action] Closed. I think it reads fine in English without the added articles.

[Vadim, Sep 07] (2) BRY ’ḤY BRY ZY (?) ’ršk. The '’' before rsk is not actually '’'. I checked both Russian text scans on and the scans I was working from and this 'object' has a shape of a simple dot, not comma.

[Agnes, May 08] Right, but this is clearly a typo (or maybe indeed only a partially printed letter). In the 1960 paper this is quoted from, there is ´ as it should be, and thus also in the 2001 edition of the ostraca. We should by all keep the same sign in both cases of ´ršk.

[Editor's action] Closed. The ’ (U+2019) character is retained.

[Agnes, Jun 2008] Fine. I'm not sure whether it's OK readable that there is a space each in front of the 2 instances of ´ršk? (if it is clear, then it's fine)

[Chris Jun 08] The problem may be that different fonts illustrate the character differently (serif fonts tend to use curls, san-serif not), and some fonts do not include all the possible marks. With the recommended fonts, our choices seem to be (enlarged for clarity):
  '  U+0027 APOSTROPHE : apostrophe-quote (1.0), APL quote
  U+2018 LEFT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK : single turned comma quotation mark
  U+2019 RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK : single comma quotation mark
  U+201B SINGLE HIGH-REVERSED-9 QUOTATION MARK : single reversed comma quotation mark

[Agnes, Jun 08] both ACUTE ACCENT and RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK are fine for our purposes. On my screen, the text now appears fine and OK. I also double-checked it again against the original.

[Chris, Jun 08] Also, looking closely at Line 1 in the Russian text photocopy, is there a middle-dot between the Y and the first question mark enclosed in parentheses? (There is none in the Italian translation, where Line 1 is missing many markings.) Should it be
  ...  Y  ·(?)  ....

[Agnes, Jun 08] no, the dot between Y and ? is there by mistake, or maybe indeed only a spot on the paper.

[Editor's action] Closed. Kept U+2019. There is no middle-dot.

[Vadim] 1. p.31: "(1) Year 157, Arsaces the king, grandson of Friyapatak," Original text "Aršak" has been changed to Arsaces, but "Friyapatak" was left as-is. Unlike elsewhere in the text, Koshelenko specifically gives the names here in phonetical transcription, so I would suggest "Aršak" and "Friyapatak" (long 'a' after p). On the next line (2), name should be changed to "Aršak" as well.

[Renzo] My opinion would be the names in the ostraka should be in the original language. So Arsak and Friapatak (with the diacritics which I cannot write), even though this vocalisation is conjectural.

[Agnes] I think as this is a translation of Koshelenko, it should tend to have what Koshelenko has. Moreover, on p. 31 Koshelenko quotes the translation of the ostracon 1760 by Diakonoff and Livshits and thus has to give what the original has.

It seems to me that the way with least problems, which I think also reflects Koshelenko's policy, is to go for names with diacritics in direct translation of ostraca (this applies I think only to the very beginning of the text and to the translation from Chaumont in fn. 2) and for plain language names (Arsaces etc.) elsewhere.

[Editor's Action] Closed. Corrected translation of the ostraca inscription to use phonetics. Implemented plain language names in common use throughout, consistently for all text other than inscriptions.

[Editor's action] Closed. We dealt with this issue early on the first draft, as I recall, and followed Agnes' advice for a mix of diacritics and common name following Kosh.

[Agnes, May 08] *delete 'a* on Friyapātak’a, and Aršak’a (i.e. it should be Friyapātak, Aršak). These are the Russian genitive endings! (Slavic languages fully inflect all names of whatever origin.)

[Editor's action] Closed. Changed as suggested.

[Vadim] 2. p.31,par.3: "A few years later, this ostracon was referred to by E. Bickerman [8..."
Here "referred to" should be changed to "addressed".

would suggest (trying to follow the Russian) "A few years later, E. Bickerman [8...] and M.-L. Chaumont [10...] dealt with (or: discussed, if dealt with is not nice English) this inscription."

[Editor's Action] Closed. Reworded.

[Agnes, May 08] the "addressed" seems odd to me (but if you say it's fine, so be it). The Russian has something like "turn one's attention to, devote oneself to".

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded as suggested.

[Mark] Page 31, 3rd paragr.:
"E.Bickerman also highlighted the thought which has already been expressed in the literature" -- this is clumsy English and not likely to represent what K. wrote. Perhaps "stressed a previously published idea". Agnes would know best.

[Editor's Action] Closed. Reworded.

[Vadim] 3. p.31,par.3 (next sentence): "Having agreed with the assumption of I. M. Diakonoff and V. A. Livshits that it really does mean an accession to the throne of Gotarzes" I would suggest changing "... it really does mean an accession to the throne..." to "... this ostracon indeed refers to an accession to the throne..."

suggest "Subscribing to (if possible English; otherwise:
Agreeing with) the assumption of I.M. Diakonoff and V.A. Livshits that this (add "text" or "document" if otherwise not clear) indeed refers to Gotarzes' accession to the throne"

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded.

[Mark] Page 31: Ditto the sentence beginning "Having connected this document.....".
At very least "of the period of late 90 - early 80 BC" ought to be rewritten:
"from (or: in) the late 90s - early 80s BC".

[Editor's Action] Closed. Reworded.

[Agnes, May 08] it seems to me Mark meant that it should be "Connecting" instead of "Having connected"?

[Mark, May 08] P.31, paragr.3, my main point concerned the expression for defining the period; "Having connected this document...." was quoted to identify the sentence.

[Editor's Action] Closed. Revision not required.

[Agnes, May 08] The text has now "refers to an accession to the throne of Gotarzes". If "Gotarzes' accession" is not good, shouldn't we have e.g. "refers to the accession to the throne by Gotarzes"? (it is not Gotarzes' throne, but his accession)

Also, we've 2 "agree" in this sentence at the moment. Maybe have "is consistent with" in the 2nd occurrence?

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded.

[Mark, Jun 08] I should have made it clearer that I'm in agreement with all the red text changes now on this page. Excepting only that Gotarzes' name immediately before fn.1 lacks the apostrophe of possession it clearly requires.

[Editor's action] Closed. Punctuated.

[Mark, Jun 08] Also in same paragraph the following black text still seems a little awkward: "the history of Parthia of the period from the late 90s - early 80s BC" At least "of the period" should be "in the period".  It would also be better English to simplify: "the history of Parthia in the period late 90s - early 80s BC".

[Agnes, Jun 08] yes, let's have that.

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded.

[Mark] Page 31: 2nd last line: "this contradict" has to be: "this contradicts"

[Editor's Action] Closed. Corrected

[Vadim, Sep 07] paragraph 4
("Phriapatius died, ...)
The oldest of them, Phraates, ...
Maybe it is better to say "The older of them, ..."?

[Agnes, May 08] I'd vote for "elder"

[Editor's action] Closed. I think older is more correct.

[Vadim, Sep 07] par 5 (It is explicitly said here ...) 2d sentence.
"And that inheritance from brother to brother is an extraordinary event, caused by some force-majeure, is stressed by the same Justin when explaining why the heir of Phraates I was Mithradates I (Just., XLI, 5, 10)."

I read "And that" as another reference to the Justin's text quoted in the previous paragraph. But the quote says nothing about the inheritance from brother to brother.

To preserve the meaning of original Koshelenko's text, I would suggest changing "And that" to "But the" and "is stressed" to "as stressed":
"BUT THE inheritance from brother to brother is an extraordinary event, caused by some force-majeure, AS stressed by the same Justin when explaining why the heir of Phraates I was Mithradates I (Just., XLI, 5, 10)."

[Agnes, May 08] agree, but would suggest "by Justin himself" instead of "by the same Justin"

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded as suggested.

[Agnes, Jun 08] Vadim suggested "But the...", but maybe "And the..." is indeed just as fine? Mark?

[Mark, Jun 08] "And the..." or "But the ...."  are both fine.  Whatever is closer to the Russian.

[Agnes, Jun 08] Strictly speaking, "but" might be a bit closer, but "And" does appeal to me, and conveys the same thing. I think it does not make a difference in terms of trueness to the original and don't have a strong opinion. Mark or Chris, you decide what sounds better.

[Editor's action] Closed. We'll use Vadim's "But the..." and "as stressed...".

[Mark, Sep 07] P.31, 2nd last paragr. "force-majeure" should be in italics as a French term.

[Editor's action] Closed. Italicized as suggested.

[Agnes, Jun 08] Translation note: * JUTAKE is an abbreviation for "South-Turkmenian Archaeological Comprehensive Expedition", 1946-1968.

This is not quite correct, as JUTAKE is of course the (not "a") abbreviation for a Russian expression, of which the English we have is the translation. Maybe have something like "... stands for "South-...."? Mark, what do you think? And let's have "South-Turkmenistan Archaeo...".

[Editor's action] Closed. Revised wording as suggested to read, "JUTAKE is a Russian abbreviation standing for "South-Turkmenistan Archaeological Comprehensive Expedition", 1946-1968.

[Editor's action] Closed. Added the following credit note after coordination with Vadim:

I am grateful to G. A. Koshelenko for his kind permission to translate his article into English and publish it on The original appeared as "Genealogia Pervykh Arshakidov" in Istoriya i kultura narodov Srednei Azii: drevnost i srednie veka, B. G. Gafurov and B. A. Litvinsky, eds., (p. 31-37): Moskva, "Nauka", Glav. red. vostochnoi lit-ry, 1976. I offer my sincere thanks to Agnes Korn (Frankfurt a.M.), Mark Passehl (Adelaide), Renzo Lucherini (Livorno), and Tom Mallon-McCorgray (San Francisco) for their advice and contributions to this translation; my special thanks to Mark Passehl for his translations of the original Greek sources and the translation footnotes.


[Mark] Page 32
the opening line seems impossibly convoluted, and again would be best to ask Agnes for a better translation.

[Editor's Action] Open 1. Reworded -- I think. Check it again, please.

[Agnes, May 08] maybe replace "one of his own" by "his own". The text has something like "his actual own", presumably meaning "the scheme he actually intends to suggest". Rest of sentence is fine.

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded as suggested.

[Agnes, Jun 08] Upon second thought, I wonder whether "his own and the scheme composed by him" is clear enough. Should we have "his own suggestion and...", after all?

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded as suggested.

[Vadim] 5. p.32, first paragraph following the diagrams: Here one of the needed assumptions was edited out. According to Koshelenko, "... we will need to assume that":
a) Phriapatius was born at the moment of coronation of Arsaces I.
b) (Son of Phriapatius = father of Gotarzes) was born when his father (Phriapatius) was 70 years old.
c) Gotarzes was born when his father was 70 years old.
d) And (It is known?) that Gotarzes was crowned when he was 17.
(c) was edited out. So, correct translation should be:
"... we will need to assume that Phriapatius was born at the moment of coronation of Arsaces I, his son, father of Arsaces-Gotarzes, was born when his father was 70 years old, Arsaces-Gotarzes was born when his father was 70 years old as well, and (but?) Gotarzes was crowned when he was 17 years old."

"one needs to assume that Phriapatius was born when Arsaces I was crowned, his son, Arsaces-Gotarzes' father, was born when his father was 70, and Arsaces-Gotarzes in his turn (or: for his part, any of this correct English?) was born when his father attained (reached?) the age of 70 years, but that Gotarzes was crowned at the age of 17."

[Editor's Action] Open. Reworded, but Vadim please reread the Russian for meaning and see if it matches.

[Agnes, May 08] I think the text is fine, apart from the first part of the sentence, where "then to fit within a 157 year interval" would be better as "in order to fit within the 157 years mentioned in the document".

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded as suggested.

[Agnes, Jun 08] 2nd § below stemma: His conception also cannot be accepted
I think this should be "His view is likewise inacceptable" (or so). And delete the space preceding the no. 3.

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded per Agnes, but changed word to "unacceptable". Unfortunately, the space is needed because in browsers with small fonts, the footnote 3 merges too closely with the preceding text.

[Vadim] 7. p.32, same par.: "It is still the more favorable because it does not require".
I would suggest "It is even more favorable ..."

[Agnes] maybe "This [add "scheme" if otherwise not clear] is all the more to be preferred since ..."

[Editor's Action] Open. Reworded: "Theirs is the more acceptable..." Read it in context and let me know if OK.

[Vadim, Sep 07] I would suggest changing "Theirs is the more acceptable ..." to "Theirs is the more preferable ...". The Russian word used here means "preferable".

[Agnes, May 08] "theirs" is fine if you think it is, but I still think it should be "is to be preferred, all the more since it does not require...". For "is to be preferred", "is preferable" is also fine, but I don't think "is more preferable" is good English.

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded per Vadim as I found "all the more" to be redundant.

[Agnes, Jun 08] I don't think it is. It expresses the logic that something follows from what has been said in the text above and is confirmed by what is said in the next sentence, while "since" says that something follows (only) from the logic noted in the next sentence.

[Editor's action] Closed. I kept Vadim's words to stay close to the Russian.

[Agnes, Jun 08] my boss confirms that my version is closer to the Russian (Ona tem bolee zasluživaet predpočtenija...).

[Editor's action] Closed. OK, Agnes' boss gets the nod.

[Agnes, Jun 08] This means we should have "Theirs is to be preferred *all the more* because it does not require" in the 2nd § below the stemma.

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded.

[Mark] Page 32, 2nd paragr.
I find both the English and the argument here difficult to follow, and wonder whether either of them are presented rightly.
At very least: "born at the moment of coronation of Arsaces I" has to be changed to something simpler like: "born at the time of Arsaces I's coronation".
And does he really say coronation? It seems so; although we know from the coinage that neither of the first two Arsakid rulers were kings, and K. should have known that.

[Editor's Action] Closed. Reworded.

[Mark, Sep 07] par 2 (Since I am not ...) Everything looks fine, except that Koshelenko's text says "... Phriapatius was JUST born when ...".

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded as suggested.

[Mark] Page 32, 3rd paragr.
"A particular interpretation" should probably be "unique" or "unusual"
and "conception" should be "idea" or "thesis" or the like. "It is still the more favorable" cannot be right, and should perhaps be "more likely", or "more acceptable".

[Editor's Action] Closed. Reworded per Agnes below.

[Mark] Page 32, 4th paragr.
"corresponds with other knowledge" seems very awkward too.

[Editor's Action] Closed. Reworded.

[Agnes, May 08] the sentence is fine in principle, but it would be nearer to the original to say something like "Naturally, the question arises how this scheme agrees with other data about the genealogy of the first Arsacid kings."

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded as suggested.

[Mark, Sep 07] 2nd last paragr.  The sentence beginning "The most difficulties" reads very awkwardly, with too many articles ("the"), and a close triple repetition of "of the" which is extremely ugly/hard reading. Simplification (if close enough to K.'s text) is in order, such as: "Most difficulties are created by the two irreconcilable versions in the sources concerning events at the time of the Arsacid state's emergence".

[Agnes, May 08] In fact, it's not "most" at all, but "biggest" If "The biggest difficulties" is not nice, let's have "The greatest difficulties" (or so). As for the rest, let's go with Mark's suggestion.

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded as suggested. I slightly disagree, as "greatest" is a singular comparative.

[Agnes, Jun 08] Please note that I said: if "biggest difficulties" is not nice English, we might have instead... 

[Chris says: Noted! I'm still not happy with a plural noun and singular adjective, but what to do while staying with the Russian?]

[Mark, Jun 08] "The greatest difficulties" issue;  perhaps "The chief difficulties".

[Agnes, Jun 08] ah, now I see the problem. If English can't have more than one biggest difficulty (grin), I think it is permissible to render the superlative by something expressing a high degree, so "chief difficulties" as suggested by Mark should be fine.

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded to chief difficulties.

[Agnes, Jun 08] Agree with all red text; except my own change "chief difficulties". I now think "main difficulties" reads best.

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded to "main difficulties".

[Mark, Sep 07] last paragr.  "there has long existed the tendency" is very turgid; "there has long been a tendency"  or sim. would be better. Same paragr. "have shown that by using such [article needed!]approach it is impossible to solve", ought to be simplified, e.g.:  "have shown that such an approach cannot solve" or similar.

[Agnes, May 08] if English-wise OK, we might have "with such an approach, the questions [delete "that arise"] cannot be solved"

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded as suggested.

[Agnes, Jun 08] We're still missing the "an" for "approach", and I still wonder whether "with such an approach" is indeed not nice(r) English.

[Editor's action] Closed. Added "an". But the "by using" is necessary to indicate a conditional.

[Agnes] hm. Koshelenko has the Russian translation of Chaumont's French, which I think means that we should have the English in fn. 2. It could have an asterisk (or a, or whatever), which then provides the French original. (also, place a full stop after the quote).

[Editor's Action] Closed. Done with secondary footnote a.

[Agnes, May 08] I think it should be the other way round than it is now: English text in fn. 2 (because Koshelenko has the Russian translation in his fn.), and French original in fn. a.

[Editor's action] Closed. Rearranged as suggested. French is now in the translator's note.

[Agnes, Jun 08] Yes, fine. But we want ’ḤY with the first letter being the same aleph that we have on the first page in the quote of the Parthian text.

[Editor's action] Closed. Fixed the aleph.

[Agnes, Jun 08] Is this indeed the same letter? (if so, everything fine)

[Mark, Jun 08] Also in fn.2  the aleph is fixed in the first appearance of BRY 'HY BRY, but not yet in the 2nd, later on in the same note.

[Editor's action] Closed. Fixed both alephs.

[Vadim, Sep 07] "... are also very vulnerable. M. L. Chaumont [10, p 16]; [9, p 148] translates...". [10, p 16] here is a typo, according to the original it should be [10, p 169]. [10, p 16] at the beginning of the paragraph is correct, however. Or is it a typo in Koshelenko? Prof. A. Invernizzi in his translation (p135) gives [10, p 16] in both cases. Unfortunately, I do not have access to this resource to check.

[Agnes, May 08] It can't be 169, as Chaumont's paper is on pp. 11-35; what we have is OK. I don't quite like the "vulnerable". Can we have something like "contestable", "controvertible" or so (the Russian has the whole range of these meanings)?

Also, 2nd § of fn. 2: "unavoidable" is not correct. Let's have "insurmountable" or something of this sense that appeals to you.

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded as suggested.

[Mark, Sep 07] P.32 fn.2: "Justin whom she refers" ought to be "to whom she refers".

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded as suggested.

[Vadim, Jun 08] 1. p.32, footnote 2 There is extra double quote between <follows: >and <""Year 157>.

[Editor's action] Closed. typo fixed.

[Mark] Page 32, fn.3: "The information.....belong to V.A.Livshits" cannot be right; should be "is that of"; or more likely the structure of the sentence should be reorganized.
"that they deal in the ostracon with" should be:
"that in the ostracon they are dealing with"
further down; "due to the consideration of chronology" has to be changed;
maybe "chronological considerations"
further on; "based on the wrong translation" has to be changed;
perhaps: "based on an erroneous translation"
likewise "the distorted interpretation; -- "a distorted".
This sentence is another example (there are others above I've not highlighted) of three "of"s in close succession which is unacceptably awkward (almost unreadable) English.

[Editor's Action] Closed. All reworded. I'll look for other sentence with too many "of"s, but point it out if you notice one.

[Mark, Sep 07] Page 32, fn.3 (addressing editor's rewrite):
the "concept" of Altheim reads oddly, and should perhaps be "theory" or "thesis", even "ideas" or "view".

[Agnes, May 08] I think both "view" or "theory" would be fine and consistent with the Russian.

[Mark, Sep 07] "The information.....belong to V.A. Livshits" cannot be right; should be "is that of"; or more likely the structure of the sentence should be reorganized.

[Agnes, May 08] we could have "derives from V.A.L", if that's proper English. Otherwise leave "is that of".

[Mark, Sep 07] further down; "due to the consideration of chronology" has to be changed; maybe "chronological considerations" "if considering chronology" isn't proper English; "if the chronology is considered(or: taken into account)", would be better.

[Agnes, May 08] I suggest "for reasons of chronology"

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded as suggested, but I used "for chronological reasons"

[Mark, Jun 08] fn. 3: "this work remained out of my reach";  should be "has remained" or "remains", according to whether the Russian tense is perfect or present.

[Agnes, May 08] it's simple past (lit: "situated itself beyond my reach"), since Russian does not have a present perfect, so let's have "has remained".

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded per Agnes.

[Mark] Page 32, fn 4: "not genuine Arsacid" --- has to be "not a genuine"
likewise "strict tradition" --- "a strict tradition"
"different struggling groups" --- "different contending groups/factions" would be better.
The end of the note should also be rewritten, if only changing "multiplicity" to "many ramifications".

[Editor's Action] Closed. Reworded, but think the intent is to indicate how numerous the Arsacid candidates.

[Agnes, May 08] maybe delete the "at all", which sounds a bit too colloquial to me for this context.

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded as suggested.

[Vadim] 4. p.32: "1. (according to E. Bickerman)" and "2. (according to I. M. Diakonoff and V. A. Livshits)". Koshelenko uses Roman numerals:
"I (according to E. Bickerman)"
"II (according to I. M. Diakonoff and V. A. Livshits)"
I think that to avoid confusion, it would be better to use original (Roman) numbering.

agree, specifically since later on, arguments get numbered, and
people might confuse this with the numbers here.

[Editor's Action] Closed. Corrected.

[Vadim] 6. p.32, next par.:
"A particular interpretation of the ostracon 1760 was proposed by F. Altheim [7, p 445-448]."
I would suggest:
"F. Altheim [7, p 445-448] proposed his own interpretation of the ostracon 1760."

[Agnes] this sounds a bit colourless. Of course, Altheim suggests his own interpretations (whose else should he suggest). Moreover, Altheim's ideas are as a rule rather strange, to put it very mildly, but submitted with surprisingly disproportionate confidence, or rather arrogance; he is probably wrong at least in every point where he disagrees with Henning, but nevertheless pours scorn on the latter (maybe also political background here).
Altheim's stuff is quite disgusting to read (had to check a bit of that for the calendar thing), also for its artificially archaicising language etc. - very strange figure, surely ghouloid.
I think the Russian text is slightly more, but not much more,
than Nikitin suggest (literally: "His own interpretation (object of the sentence) of... submitted also F. Altheim (subject)"), maybe
"Still another interpretation of the contents of ostracon 1760 was suggested by F. Altheim [7...]."

[Editor's Action] Closed. Reworded.

[Vadim] 8. p.32, note 4: "Tertius Parthis rex Priapatius fuit, sed et
ipse Arsaces dictus…"
My "ipsa" was correctly changed to "ipse". Original text clearly gives "ipsa",
Invernizzi gives "ipse".
If this is Koshelenko's typo, maybe it will be better to note that?

[Renzo] Justin’s text has clearly “ipse” but I would leave the correction without letting it notice. It would look like unfair to Prof. Koshelenko. Basically it is a slip which everyone might make.

[Editor's Action] Closed. Assumed its a careless typo and made no note of it.


[Mark, Sep 07] 1st line "of the Parthian history" -- no need for "the" here.

[Editor's action] Closed. "the" removed.

[Mark, Jun 08] "The stemma of events";  definitely the one locus where a stemma/family tree is not under consideration, and should be restored to; "The scheme (perhaps "pattern") of events".

[Agnes, Jun 08] "pattern" sounds more English to me (although the Russian does have sxema.

[Editor's action] Closed. "pattern" used.

[Vadim, Jun 08] p.33 just after the first diagram: "If we compare these two stemmata, the most striking difference between them is that according to Wolski, Phriapatius is the son of Arsaces II and grandson of Arsaces I" Technically, K says "the son of Arsaces II and (THUS, HENCE) grandson of Arsaces I" meaning that being "grandson of Arsaces I" is an implication of being "son of Arsaces II". I am sure that my original translation had "thus" and it was edited out at some point, but I don't see any traces in the list of corrections. This does not change the overall meaning, though, so if it is better English, so be it.

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded per Vadim to read "...son of Arsaces II and thus the grandson of Arsaces I, but according to...."

[Vadim, Jun 08] p.33 between the two schemas: "It seems to us that I. M. Diakonoff and V. A. Livshits are more correct precisely because the Nisa document is documentary evidence". "precisely because" has a meaning "the only reason". In Russian text, the meaning here is "one of the reasons". I would suggest "at least because". This is quite obvious deviation from the K's text and it looks really causeless. I would really insist on fixing this place. If "at least because" sounds weird in English, maybe it can be reworded somehow?

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded to read "...Diakonoff and V. A. Livshits are more correct because, for one reason, the Nisa document is documentary evidence...."

[Mark] Page 33, 4th line; does K. really say "assumption" as opposed to thesis or sim. ?
In any case the argument here is difficult to follow, seeing that the Gorgan inscription changed nothing in the nature of the evidence, only underlining the support of Justinus' version already provided by the Andragoras coinage.

[Editor's Action] Closed. I slightly changed punctuation, but see no need to change the wording unless there are objections.

[Mark] Page 33, 3rd paragr.
"it is natural to ask a question"
In English it is most unnatural to include "a question"; that and the question-mark at end of sentence ought to be removed.

[Editor's Action] Closed. Corrected.

[Agnes, May 08] there is no verb in the Russian sentence, but we should have something for the "naturally" that is there. I think this "In this situation it is natural to ask" could well be "Of course (or: Needless to say), under these circumstances, the question arises which" (and replace ? by full stop).

[Editor's action] Closed. I  kept the rewrite because Mark was playing with the word unnatural when referring to the redundancy "ask -- question". I did substitute a full stop for the q-mark.

[Mark, Sep 07] 3rd paragr. (between the two stemmata): "the nature of blood relationship of Phriapatius and Arsaces II". -- "the nature of the blood relationship between Phriapatius and Arsaces II" would be better. next paragr. "which permits making several deductions", should be "which permits several deductions to be made"; and later on "subjects" should be "matters".

[Editor's action] Closed.

[Mark, Jun 08]-- "the genealogical stemma proposed by Wolski"; a stemma is a genealogical chart, so "genealogical stemma" is a partial tautology;  better just "stemma" here or "genealogical chart". The latter would be better as a nice variation, since "stemma" is used immediately after the diagram.

[Editor's action] Closed. Used "genealogical chart".

[Agnes, Jun 08] The change does not appear on my screen.

[Editor's action] Closed. Sorry, I missed this one. Fixed now.

[Mark] Page 33, Final sentence: "assumptions on how and why" ---- "assumptions regarding"

[Editor's Action] Closed. Corrected

[Agnes, May 08] actually, reinsert "how and why".

[Editor's action] Closed. reinserted phrase.

[Mark] Page 33, fn.5: "absolutely does not take into account" is too awkward;
better: "fails to take into account".

[Editor's Action] Closed. Corrected.

[Vadim] 9. p.33, paragraph following the first scheme:
"(Just., XLI, 5, 8). This failure to mention it is even more significant because,"
From my point of view, "it" should be removed.

why not "This omission is all the more significant..."

[Editor's Action] Closed. Reworded per Agnes' suggestion.


[Mark, Jun 08] first new sentence begins with repetition of the article before red-text "only" by a slip; i.e. currently "The The only".

[Editor's action] Closed. Opps!

[Mark, Sep 07] still exhibits a few inconsistencies re Latin rendering of Greek names; this is my fault since I was using the "literal" style; thus Synkellos appears everywhere but should be Syncellus for consistency; and Translation note b still has my "Synkellos" and "Zosimos", also Arrian's "Parthika" there should be Parthica.

[Editor's action] Closed. Mark, I changed Synkellos -> Syncellus, Parthika -> Parthica, Zosimos -> Zosimus throughout.

[Mark] Page 34
The first paragraph is a mess and needs rewriting. Campaign is repeated unnecessarily, and again the three "of"s in close succession:
"the achievements of the period of the reign of Arsaces I" (ughh!)
-- why not: "the achievements (in the time) of Arsaces I's reign/rule" ?
Further on; "no more than just an assumption" is again repetitious:
"no more than an assumption", or "just an assumption" should be fine, unless K. himself is given to such tautologies.

[Editor's Action] Closed. Reworded.

[Agnes, May 08] let's replace "achievements" by "successes" (if that's OK English, otherwise leave as is). Also, let's also replace "offer" by "suggest" in the 1st line.

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded as suggested.

[Agnes, Jun 08] Fine. But is "successes made..." OK? "successes achieved"? Mark?

[Editor's action] Closed. Quite correct. I deleted "made".

[Mark, Jun 08] "successes achieved";  achievements _are_ successes achieved.

[Agnes, Jun 08] may quite well be, but I'm not sure that what we have is still clear. The point is not that successes wer achieved, but the text wishes to say something about those successes achieved by a certain person. I think we do need to refer to the "successes achieved / made / of during ... reign".

[Mark, Jun 08] in light of Agnes' comments on the Russian, I'd suggest either;  "successes achieved during the reign", or "achievements accomplished during the reign"

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded as "successes achieved".

[Vadim, Sep 07] par 1 (this happened. The natural explanation we can offer...) 1st sentence. "The natural explanation we can offer" should be changed to "The only explanation we can offer", this is exactly what Russian text says.

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded as suggested, except used Agnes' "suggest"

[Mark, Sep 07] 2nd line: "defeat of Parthians"; "defeat of the Parthians" would be better.

[Editor's action] Closed. Inserted "the"..

[Mark] Page 34, 2nd paragr.
"the question about substituting several of the unknown variables with real historical persons"; would be better as:
"the matter of filling in some unknowns with real persons", if compatible with K.'s text.

[Agnes, May 08] something is missing in the translation. It should be "several of the unknown variables in the suggested genealogical scheme (or how do we call the family trees in this article?) with real historical persons"

[Mark, May 08] In answer to P.34, paragr.2 query on family trees; either Latin "stemma" (pl.stemmata) or "genealogical chart(s)" are best in formal writing like a journal article. But in the specific context Agnes now points out, simply "the suggested genealogy" would be fine.

[Mark] Next sentence "come to mind" has to be: "comes to mind".
Next sentence "who is given by them the important role in", has to be:
"who is given the central/key role in"; or "an important role", depending upon K.'s text.

[Editor's Action] Open. Reworded. Vadim please tell us if it is the "leading role" or "an important role" from the context.

[Vadim, Sep 07] "... Tiridates, who is given the important role in creation of the Parthian state." I think the most precise translation I can come up with is "considerable role", or maybe "substantial role", but definitely there is nothing "leading" here.

[Mark, Sep 07] 2nd paragr. (red text): "is given the important role in creation of the Parthian state" reads awkwardly. Better something like: "is assigned the main(or: principal) role in the creation of the Parthian state".

[Agnes, May 08] "important" or "substantial" appear OK to me, but K. has "they" (the authors mentioned) as subject, so it should be "to whom they ascribe an important role in the creation..."

[Editor's action] Closed. Please see the rewrite as I combined suggestions.

[Vadim, Jun 08] p.34, par. 2, first sentence "... question about substituting several of the unknown variables in the suggested genealogy with real historical persons." "unknown variables" should be changed to "unknowns" as Mark suggested.

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded to "unknowns" per Vadim.

[Mark, Sep 07] first sentence after the stemma: "into this scheme"; has to be "in this scheme" "the Arrian's version"; obviously "the" has to go. Next sentence: "We think that it does not" is ok as it stands, but "We think not" would be better (if compatible with K.'s text).

[Agnes, May 08] I think "It seems to us that it does not." would fit the Russian better.

[Editor's action] Closed. Used Agnes' words.

[Mark] Page 34, Paragr. point 2.
The parenthesis should be simplified to: "according to Arrian (and Syncellus and Zosimus as well)"

[Editor's Action] Closed. Corrected.

[Mark] Page 34, Paragr.point 4.
"Arrian shows the ancestors"; should be "indicates" or "names", not shows.

[Editor's Action] Closed. Corrected.

[Mark, Sep 07] point 4: "Synkellos notes the Arsacid family connection with Achaemenids". The use of "the" here before "Arsacid" implies (in English) Synkellos is noting a well known fact, whereas K. is emphasizing what is in the Arrian/Synkellos tradition but missing from Justinus (and therefore probably invention, not fact at all). Therefore better: "Synkellos notes an Arsacid family connection with the Achaemenids".

[Agnes, May 08] Unless this is improper English, may we have "Synkellos notes a connection of the Arsacid family with the Achaemenids"

[Editor's action] Closed. Used Mark's words.

[Agnes, Jun 08] Mark's words are fine as they always are ;-) but please note that the present text has a "family connection ...", while my suggestion (and, I think, the Russian text) has "a connection of the family ...". Maybe the logic would be identical in English. In German, it would not, and I doubt that it would in Russian.

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded again. It is OK either way in English, with Mark's wording preferable. Now have used Agnes' logic re the Russian.

[Agnes, Jun 08] it seems I can't see the rewording (in spite of "reloading" the page). The text appears to have Mark's "Syncellus notes an Arsacid family connection with the Achaemenids through Artaxerxes", which I think is not exactly the logic implied here (but maybe I'm indeed splitting hairs).

[Editor's action] Closed. My slip; I failed to incorporate the rewrite. Done.

[Mark, Jun 08] "an Arsacid connection of the family with the Achaemenids", is  awkward to the point of meaninglessness (implying Syncellus' own family). Either "an Arsacid family connection with the Achaemenids", or Agnes';  "a connection of the Arsacid family with the Achaemenids",  would be fine. Better to go with Agnes' version;  even if it is hair splitting, better to split them on the side closer to the Russian.

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded.

[Vadim, Jun 08] p. 34, point 4 "A certain Arsaces and Tiridates, brothers, tracing their descent from the Persian Artaxerxes.…" There are four dots after Artaxerxes. I believe there should be only three.

[Editor's action] Closed. Fixed typo to three periods.

[Vadim, Jun 08] p. 34, point 4 again "Arsaces and Tiridates were brothers, Arsacids, descendants of Phriapatius the son of Arsaces…" In Russian text there is no ellipsis here, unlike in the previous quote. Could it mean that second quote is complete sentence and the first is not? Maybe Mark could clear this?

[Editor's action] Open for Mark to comment.

[Mark] Page 34, Paragr.point 5.
The parenthesis lacks the necessary article; should be "(it is A very characteristic detail)".

[Editor's Action] Closed. Corrected.

[Agnes, May 08] I think it should be "this is" or "which is a very characteristic detail", or omit both, and have "a very characteristic detail" as does the Russian.

[Editor's action] Closed. Used Agnes' words.

[Vadim, Jun 08] p. 34, point 5 "According to Arrian, the role of creator of the Parthian state is given to both brothers, Arsaces and Tiridates, ..." There are two brothers, but singular creator. In Russian text plural form of creator is used here. Maybe this is just beyond my understanding of the English grammar.

[Editor's action] Open.  How about "creator roles...?"

[Vadim, Jul 08] It is fine with me.

[Editor's action] Closed per Vadim's concurrence.

[Vadim, Jul 08] If 'creator roles' than 'are given', not 'is given' I think.

[Editor's action] Closed. Fixed.

[Vadim, Jun 08] p. 34, par. after point 5 "Besides, the literature (of both types) also points out that Arrian's version clearly aspires ..." I do not understand how "(of both types)" got there. In Russian it is "(in general form)". It is not a reference to (Arrian+Justin), but to some other, not specified, literature. And I think it is not ancient literature at all that is mentioned here, it is contemporary historical literature. "In general form" is used to highlight that the following statement is not a specific quotation, but just a general view shared by a number of authors. Reference [14] at the end of paragraph gives one example of such literature and confirms my reading.

[Editor's action] Open. Comments?

[Vadim, Jul 08] How about "(in general terms)"? If it is really bad English again, maybe we can just omit "(of both types)" ?

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded per Vadim.

[Mark, Sep 07] "the whole long reign"; in context "the sole (or: single) long reign" would perhaps be better.

[Agnes, May 08] it *is* "the whole long reign" in Russian. Can we have "all the long reign"

[Editor's action] Closed. I find "the whole long reign" satisfactory in English and it matches the Russian per Agnes.

[Mark] Page 34, The next paragraph (2nd sentence only) is extremely convoluted and difficult to follow, especially the parenthesis, and should be re-written entirely.

[Editor's Action] Closed. Rewritten.

[Agnes, May 08] it seems the parenthesis got lost. It should be "the literature (of both types)" or so. Also, replace "generally" by "also/likewise" "legitimacy" should be in inverted commas as in the original

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded as suggested.

[Mark] Page 34, Last paragr.
If "again review" is not actually a tautology (depending upon K.'s text), "to again review from this angle" should read:
"to review once more from this perspective".
"those of them"; any need for "of them" at all ?
Ditto "in this connection" terminating the paragraph.

[Editor's Action] Closed. Reworded.

[Vadim, Jun 08] "Again review" is not a tautology at all. What we are doing now is reviewing the translation for the fourth time, i.e. again.

[Editor's action] Open, but Mark suggested this wording if *not* a tautology. Is the wording OK as stands, or does it need revision?

[Editor's action] Closed per Vadim.

[Mark, Sep 07] last paragr. "this angle" should be: "this perspective".

[Agnes, May 08] agree. ("once more" is fine)

[Mark, Sep 07] "those of them"; any need for "of them" at all ?

[Agnes, May 08] no. (deleted by Chris in the meantime)

[Mark, Sep 07] Ditto "in this connection" terminating the paragraph.

[Agnes, May 08] I suggest to replace "connection" by "context"

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded as suggested.

[Vadim, Jun 08] p. 34, note 6 In Justin (Just., XLI, 4, 7) Arsaces "having attacked the Parthians with a band of raiders crushed their commander Andragoras and after disposing of him usurped dominion over the nation" In K's text it is "... their RULER Andragoras and after KILLING him usurped dominion over the PARTHIAN nation"
It was probably changed this way for a reason, I just want to make sure that this is correct. No records for this change in the log, so it happened long ago, I think.

[Editor's action] Open for comments, confirmation. I believe the G>E, not G>R>E rule applies.

[Editor's action] Closed. The G>E rule applies.

[Mark] Page 34:
My earlier argument with Renzo over the translation of "Antiochwn" is now decided in Renzo's favour. After recently seeing the genitive legends of civic coinage from Seleukeia and Susa, the endings are uniformly:
-EWN, never -WN. Therefore "Antiochoi" is probably meant after all, as an equivalent of "Seleukidai".
Please change the translation concluding the Synkellos passage (fn.7) from "and Antiocheis" to "and Antiochoi".

[Editor's Action] Closed. Corrected.

[Mark, Sep 07] Also fn.7 still has my "Antiochoi" (Lat.Antiochi), and Antiochos, as well as Synkellos again. In fn.7, the Syncellus reference "p248B" should have a stop between "p" and the number, i.e. p.248B.

[Agnes, May 08] I think we could even have (if possible in English) "Antiochians", since the Russian has the terms transferred into Russian, and to make it parallel to "Macedonians".

[Agnes, Jun 08] and a blank after "p."

[Editor's action] Open. I used Antiochians per Agnes. Is this acceptable to all? Mark, what do you want for Antiochos?

[Mark, May 08] My "Antiochos" should have the Latin spelling Antiochus, throughout. And yes "Antiochians" seems fine.

[Editor's action] Closed.

[Vadim, Jun 08] p. 34, note 7 "...and they made their nation revolt from the Macedonians and they ruled as they saw fit" a) In K's text it is "and they (ARSHAK AND TIRIDATES) LIBERATED THE PEOPLE from the Macedonians ..."
Once again, this was probably changed for a reason.
b) In K's text the ellipsis in both translation and original Greek is only at the end of quote. We have ellipsis at the beginning of translation and both at the beginning and at the end of Greek. Which is correct?
c) <... the Persians revolted from the dominion of the Macedonians and Antiochians" and in Zosimus>
Here closing parenthesis is lost between <Antiochians"> and < and in Zosimus>.
The structure of the sentence is: Syncellus is close (Syncellus, p. 248B ...) and in Zosimus (Zosimus I, 18 ...).

[Editor's action] Open for comments, confirmation. I believe the G>E, not G>R>E rule applies.

[Editor's action] Closed. The G>E rule applies.

[Vadim, Jul 08] Chris, you missed this one. It should be <... Antiochians") and in Zosimus ...>

[Editor's action] Closed. Vadim, nice catch. I fixed the parenthesis.

[Mark] Page 34, Note b:
please rewrite the second half as follows;
"which appears in Photius' text (cod.58 = fr.1 of Arrian's Parthika) as printed in Karl Müller's Fragmenta Historicorum Græcorum (FHG) and the Budé edition of Photius (ed. René Henry, vol.1, codices 1-84, Paris, 1959, p.51). The Arrian fragments and relevant excerpts from Synkellos and Zosimos appear in FHG vol.III, pp.586-7. Koshelenko's references to FHG II should all be corrected accordingly."

[Editor's Action] Closed. Text substituted.


[Mark, Sep 07] Also on P.35 (point 2) there is still "Pisistratos" (but Vadim's correction to Pisistratids should now replace the single name).

[Editor's action] Open. Mark, you'll have to be more explicit on what you want to do with Pisistratos here.

[Mark, May 08] P.35 point 2;  I meant that my "Pisistratos" should be replaced by Vadim's "the Pisistratids", as is now in the text in red.

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded.

[Mark, Jun 08] point 2:  "a quite common" reads easier as "quite a common".

[Editor's action] Closed. Unchanged. In this instance, I believe "quite" is an adjective.

[Mark, May 08] P.35 point 3; "by the means of analogy", surely doesn't need "the" here.

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded.

[Vadim] In the html source of p.35, note "h", the whole note is enclosed into <span class="GreekText"> ... </span>
As a result, the text of note "h" looks somewhat different in style (it is not black, its color is somewhat "greenish", I would say) than the text of other notes. I think <span> should apply to the Greek part of the text only, like this:
<p style="text-align: left">
    <sup><a name="noteh">h</a></sup> <font size="2">This is the same Arrian text as
    <a href="genealogia_en_34.htm#note7">p.34 n.7</a>,
slightly abbreviated. Koshelenko accidentally indicates words omitted before the</font> <span
    <font size="2">they are actually missing from immediately after.</font></p>

[Editor's Action] Closed. HTML fixed!

First paragraph of Page 35:

[Mark] Page 35, Section 1.
1st line: "by the right of conquest"; no need for "the"
2nd line: "in the period when" seems unnecessary repetition.

[Agnes, May 08] it may of course seem so, but Russian is quite plainly much more rhetoric-oriented than English. Indeed, the text says "in *this* period, when Arsacid power (...), in *a* period when local separatism..."

[Vadim, Sep 07] "special meaning must be given to the dispute about the question of whether the Arsacids represented the local dynasty," should be substituted with: "special meaning had the dispute about the question of whether the Arsacids represented the local dynasty,"

[Agnes, May 08] I think "meaning" does not fit. Let's have "special attention must be given to whether the..." (or whatever is good for this in English). Omit "the question" as per next comment.

3rd line: "the question of" seems entirely unnecessary and should be removed;

[Agnes, May 08] agree. It's not even in the text.

3rd line: also "heroes of the Iranian fight" should be "an Iranian fight"

[Agnes, May 08] but it is not. Checked with my boss, and what we have here is "whether the Arsacids represented the local dynasty, [i.e.] the heroes of the freedom fight of the Iranians against the Macedonian yoke". Lots of "of" here again, so maybe "the heroes of the Iranians' freedom fight"?

[Mark, Sep 07] P.35, sect.1 re "heroes of the Iranians' freedom fight"; "freedom fight" isn't used in English; "heroes of the Iranian struggle for liberation from the Macedonian yoke" might be better. But thanks for clarifying the context.

5th line: "are foreigners" should be "were foreigners"
5th line: "ascending to Sasanids"; I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, and at any rate should be "to the Sasanids"
7th line: "Arsacids" should be "the Arsacids"

[Mark, Sep 07] Next line "Arsacids" should probably be "the Arsacids".

8th line: "the very same ideas"; no need for "very", unless it is explicitly in K.'s text.

[Vadim, Sep 07] In the last sentence, there is some degree of emphasis, but it is not strong enough to justify "very" if it sounds awkward. I would agree with Mark's comment, it is better to omit "very".

[Editor's Action] Open. Weasel-worded to Mark's satisfaction, I hope! However, it seems "question" cannot be removed, and the reference is to a tradition *descending from* the Sasanids (I've worded it that way), but need Vadim to check it in context. In Russian, do traditions "go up to" (ascend to) our ancestors? And very gives emphasis which K. intended?

[Mark, Sep 07] "descending from Sasanids" is poor; something like: "issuing from the Sasanids" or "beginning with the Sasanids" would be better.

[Vadim, Sep 07] In Russian the traditions do ascend to the ancestors. If in English they can only descend from, this is fine.

[Agnes, May 08] replace by "descending from" by "going back to the Sasanids," (add "the" and comma after Sasanids).

Mark, May 08] P.35 1st paragr. rewording;  obviously I'm not qualified to say anything re K.'s intent, but the English of the rewrite now looks ok to me;  excepting only "Arsacids" on the 2nd last line, which should be "the Arsacids".

[Editor's action] Open. Entire first paragraph of page 35 reworded to make sense to me, choosing from your suggested wordings. Please review with a special emphasis on representing Koshelenko's intent.

[Agnes, Jun 08] Note that the logic of this is something like: "this period, when context A applied [Arsacid power was of this or that shape], and context B applied as well [there was some separatism]". The text we have now appears to link the two (which is not the intention of the original). If the text suggested in the yellow immediately above, or the logic implied, is indeed impossible in English, then let's have what Chris suggests now.


we now have "the dispute about". So can't we have "given to whether"?

[Editor's action] Open. Slight rewording to capture Agnes' logic issue and delete "the dispute about". Also, used "Iranian struggle for liberation". Please check for final.

[Agnes, Jun 08] I think this is fine now.

[Editor's action] Closed.

[Vadim, Jun 08] p. 35, point 1
> The discussion between Agnes and Mark starting May 08. I am sorry, but I have to repeat myself (see [Vadim, Sep 07]). Probably I failed to explain the problem clearly enough.
"...needed justification not solely by right of conquest, and when local separatism raised its head, special attention must be given to whether the Arsacids represented..."
This is clearly incorrect. Here first two events happen in the past "needed justification" and "raised its head", but the third - "special attention must be given" refers to the present. In Russian text all three things happen in the past. The third statement has a meaning:
"the struggle around the question of whether (...) HAD special significance". This is not the question we should give special attention now. It is a question which had special significance then.
So, I would suggest at least something like
"...head, special significance had the struggle around the question of whether the Arsacids represented..." But I am afraid that this is non-English to such extent that it would be better to omit the "struggle" altogether. > [Mark] 3rd line: "the question of" seems entirely unnecessary and should be removed; > [Agnes, May 08] agree. It's not even in the text. "the question of" is in the text: "борьба вокруг ВОПРОСА о том, ..."

Previous reading (saved for backup):
Undoubtedly in this period, when Arsacid power needed justification not solely by right of conquest, and when local separatism raised its head, special attention must be given to whether the Arsacids represented the local dynasty....

Chris' suggested rewrite:
Undoubtedly in this period, when Arsacid power needed justification not solely by right of conquest, and when local separatism raised its head, special attention had to be given to the question of whether the Arsacids represented the local dynasty....

[Editor's action] Open. Please comment.

[Vadim, Jul 08] It looks like reasonable compromise between verbatim meaning of Russian and readable English. I would go with that.

[Editor's action] Closed per Vadim's concurrence.

I do not see this change, it is still 'must be given', not 'had to be given'.

[Editor's action] Closed. Fixed. I failed to push the revised page out to the web.

[Mark] Page 35, Section 2.
1st line: "entirely common" should be "very common"

[Vadim, Sep 07] I think "quite common phenomenon" would be more precise translation, there is no "very" here.

[Agnes, May 08] hm. literally, the text has "fully common", so "very" is a bit colourless. Is there something we can say instead? "entirely normal" or so?

[Agnes, Jun 08] I think "quite" is as colourless as was the "very". But maybe it is not?

[Editor's action] Closed. I like Vadim's "quite common".

Point 2, second paragraph:

"regarding the fates of the Hellenistic East" doesn't seem right and should be redone -- preferably by Agnes. My preference would be: "dealing with the Hellenistic East", but obviously depends on K.'s text.

[Mark, Sep 07] Point 2. 2nd paragr. "the fates of"; no real need for the plural here, nor perhaps the whole phrase, depending upon what K.'s text has. (re Vadim's comment; "fate" is ok, it's just the plural which is awkward)

[Vadim, Sep 07] "fates of the Hellenistic East". The Russian word under "fate" could mean fate, fortune, destiny, lot. Maybe "destiny" will be better?

[Agnes, May 08] the text has "fates". So let's have "fate". We could also have "fortunes" if that's OK for English?

[Editor's Action] Open. Need Agnes' help on 5th line. Rest corrected.

[Editor's action] Closed. Fate.

[Vadim, Sep 07] #2, 2d par. last sentence. "to create the impression that Seleucus directly followed Alexander" Koshelenko's text does not say vague "followed", it explicitly says "Seleucus was direct heir of Alexander".

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded as suggested.

Point 2, third paragraph:

9th line: "the fall from power" should be "a fall"

[Vadim, Sep 07] #2, par 3. "reason for a fall from power" Russian text says "reason for a fall OF power". Power here means rule, regime, power.

[Agnes, May 08] I'm not sure our text is clear here at present. I think what is meant is the loss of power (the term could even mean "dethronement from power"). Can we say "loss of power"?

[Editor's action] Closed. Yes, "loss of power" fits well.

[Vadim, Jun 08] Unfortunately, we can not. Text does not speak about somebody's loss of power. The meaning here is "fall of the regime".

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded per Vadim to "...criminal love motif as a reason for fall of the regime (as it was brilliantly...."

[Vadim, Sep 07] "the fall of Pisistratos". Russian text speaks about the fall of Pisistratids (= the dynasty founded by Pisistratos), not only about the man himself.

[Editor's action] Closed. Since it is a dynastic reference, I prefixed it with "the": fall of the Pisistratids

[Mark] Page 35, Section 3.
1st-2nd lines: "purely literary technique" should be "a literary device"; but perhaps "purely" is in K.'s text.

[Agnes, May 08] It is.

[Editor's Action] Open. I changed "purely" to "pure" to read better. Vadim, is it "technique" in the Russian, or would "literary device" also work?

[Vadim, Sep 07] "pure literary technique". literary device is fine, pure is part of Koshelenko's text, so "pure literary device"?

[Mark, Sep 07] Vadim's suggestion "pure literary device" looks good; "technique" doesn't.

[Agnes, May 08] it is not a pure device, but a plainly literary device. Let's have "just a literary device".

[Editor's action] Closed, using Agnes' phrase.

[Mark] Page 35, Section 4.
The 1st line is bad English construction and should be rewritten. I'd suggest:
"Tracing one's genealogy to the Acahemenids to legitimize one's power", but depends on K.'s text obviously.

[Editor's Action] Open. Rewritten. Vadim, please check the Russian to see if it works.

[Agnes, May 08] it's fine.

[Editor's action] Closed.

[Mark, Sep 07] point 4. 1st line "for `legitimacy' "; needs to be "for the `legitimacy' ". The missing "the" here seems to have migrated to the following paragraph, which has "the the legitimacy" by a slip. I'd also question the propriety of "very minor dynasties" in this sentence. Unless K. is so explicit "minor dynasties" would be sufficient (and more accurate too). Or does he say "every minor dynasty" ??

[Vadim, Sep 05] I would say that "... power EVEN by very minor dynasties ..." would be more precise. what about "even minor dynasties"?

"antique period". Koshelenko explicitly says "Hellenistic period".

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded per Vadim.

[Mark] Page 35, The first two sentences of the next paragraph are seriously malformed and extremely difficult to read and understand, and have to be rewritten entirely. In the 2nd sentence "reconsidered" is an entirely inappropriate word for what amounted to rewriting and reinventing Parthian history (both in fact and in K.'s argument).
In the 3rd sentence "the document which records the events" should be:
"a document which records events".

[Editor's Action] Open. Rewrote first sentence which needs Vadim's approval. But K is saying that he reconsidered the history, so I think it appropriate usage. Agnes' opinion? Renzo?

[Agnes, May 08] I think we can replace by "having examined" by "examining" as we did at another point above (unless you think the present version is better). Also replace "legitimacy" by "lawfulness", as K uses 2 different terms as well. Otherwise I think the sentence is fine.

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded per Agnes.

[Vadim, Sep 07] #4, 2d par If everyone agrees that there is no other Neusner but Jakob, "Wolski and R. Neusner" should be corrected to "Wolski and J. Neusner".

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded.

[Mark, Sep 07] "all the occurrences" should be "each (or: every) occurrence".

[Agnes, May 08] hm. It is "all", but I'm not sure what "occurrences" is supposed to mean here. I think it should be "all events", if that does make sense.

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded per Mark. "Occurrence" refers to each peculiarity which differentiates Arrian from Justin

[Agnes, Jun 08] the Russian has plainly "all of them" in what appears to be the corresponding passage.

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded again. Now plural "every occurrence".

[Agnes, Jun 08] I wonder whether what we have is clear. Will readers get that the "occurrences" are the "peculiarities" earlier in the sentence, and would it not be clearer if we simply had (as does the Russian) "that all of them can be explained"? Mark?

[Mark, Jun 08] agree with Agnes that this is still confusing, and see no problem with her suggested: "that all of them can be explained".

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded per Agnes.

[Chris] But K is saying that he reconsidered the history, so I think it appropriate usage. Agnes' opinion? Renzo?

[Vadim, Sep 07] "reconsidered" refers to rewriting and reinventing Parthian history by Arrian, as was correctly noted by Mark.
Alternative translations of Russian word used are:
  revise, go over again, reconsider, review.
Anyone remembers what word was used in Orwell's 1984 to describe the process? I think it will be exactly the meaning we need. Unfortunately, the only copy I have is again in Russian. Everything else looks fine here.

[Mark, Sep 07] In view of Vadim's comments about the Russian here, "reconsidered" should be either "revised" or "reworked".

[Agnes, May 08] I think "revised" is best (which also avoids the stylistic trouble that we have "considered" in the next sentence). Also replace "widespread methods" by "common devices" (this is the same "device" term discussed above).

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded as suggested.

[Mark, Sep 07] Page 35, Last para. "based on the principles", should rather be "according to the principles". "Tiridates is praised" should perhaps be "is magnified".

[Agnes, May 08] indeed. I think this is talking about the role the sources give to the kings, reducing the importance of one and increasing that of another.

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded as suggested.

[Vadim, Jun 08] p. 35, last par. "In Arrian it is noted that they made their nation revolt from the Macedonians ... and they ruled". This is not a quote/translation, K just gives summary of Arrian's account. It is not enclosed in quotes as in all other places where translation is meant. Russian text says: "In Arrian it is noted that they (FREED, LIBERATED) THE PEOPLE from the Macedonians and STARTED TO rule". So, I am not sure that we should really change K's sentence to the best known translation, and ellipsis is not needed as well.

[Editor's Action] Open. Reworded per Vadim to "...they liberated the people from the Macedonians and started to rule..." Mark please check this instance to use the punctuation and Greek that actually appear in the Russian text, and please review Translation note h for any needed modifications.

[Mark, Sep 07] Page 35, last sentence. "the literary treatment .... Parthian history"; this passage has three "the"s, of which only the middle one is required. The first should be changed: "a literary", and the third (preceding "early Parthian history") should be removed altogether.

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded as suggested.

[Mark] Page 35, Last paragr.
1st line: "positively" is wrong and needs to be replaced, probably with "certainly"
4th line: "lowered" should be "reduced" or sim.
Ditto in the penultimate line: "lower" should be "reduce" or "minimize".
7th line: "Tiridates--37" should be "Tiridates 37", or "for 37".
8th line: "in creation" should be "in the creation"

[Editor's Action] Closed. Minor substitutions. I used "discounted" instead of lowered.

[Mark, Sep 07] Page 35, fn.8. fn.8: "the already mentioned passage of Synkellos", should be changed to:
"the passage of Syncellus already mentioned (or: noted)".

Also the subsequent sentence citing Stephanus on Raga: "when this city is mentioned it is said" is too awkward. Better "there is the following passage", or sim. One for Agnes or Vadim to fix up.

[Agnes, May 08] This could be "The passage where Stephanus of Raga mentions this city (or: town) says" Delete the hyphen after the first Greek quote. Russian uses hyphens a lot to indicate that something is equivalent to something else, but we can't have that in other languages.

[Editor's action] Open Reworded per Agnes, except I retained "Stephanus of Byzantium (s.v. Ῥάγα)" vice Stephanus of Raga thinking that it more closely follows Kosh -- correct?

[Mark, May 08] P.35 fn.8 Agnes evidently says Stephanus of Raga by a slip (I had said Stephanus on Raga);   "Stephanus of Byzantium (s.v. Ῥάγα)"  is certainly right, and certainly in K.'s text.

[Agnes, Jun 08] o yes, sure. Mea culpa. I think the colon would be better after "... mentions this city says:" (omit it after the Greek quote), otherwise the text is fine now.

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded per above.

[Mark] Page 35, Fn.8: "in the Suda" & etc. should be separated more clearly from the preceding Hesychius quote, whether by full stop and gap and "In the Suda", or by placement on the next line.

[Editor's Action] Open. Mark, you'll have to show me how to place the break.

[Vadim, Sep 07] Koshelenko's note says "in the "Suda" in both cases when the Arsacids are discussed ..." "in both cases" is missing in the translation.

[Vadim, Sep 07] In Russian, there is ';' before "in the "Suda"", which is missing in the translation. Will it solve the problem?

[Mark, Sep 07] Also, there is something missing between the Hesychius quote and "in the Suda" (perhaps only a full stop and "in" having a capital, perhaps "and" omitted). I now see from Vadim's note that it is a semi-colon which is missing.

[Agnes, May 08] No, please don't import the Russian punctuation into the English text! This would make a terrible mess of things. The footnote evidently lists different source. I think this whole sentence should be "Hesychius (s.v. Ἄρσακες) says "οἱ βασιλεῖς Περσῶν". In the Suda, ...". Also, add a full stop at the end of the 1st § of this fn., and join it to the next §. I think this footnote lists sources, so we should not break the list.

[Editor's action] Open. Reworded per Agnes, but needs confirmation.

This is fine now except for the next point: "in both cases" is missing in the translation. still missing. We might have "In both cases where the Arsacids are mentioned in the Suda..." (depending on which one is better in English).

[Editor's action] Reworded per Agnes and closed.

[Vadim, Jun 08] 14. p. 35, fn 8 "Hesychius (s.v. Ἄρσακες)" In K's text there are two diacritics before Arsakes. Is this a typo?

[Editor's Action] Open. Mark please comment. [NOTE: found that Doulos font has no coverage in the Greek Extended Range (1F00-1FFF). Bummer; I'll have to stop recommending it for Greek. I discovered this when Vadim used Ἄρσακες with Ἄ (U+1F0C GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI AND OXIA).

[Mark] Page 35, Fn.9 is dreadful English and needs to be rewritten entirely.

[Editor's Action] Open. I can't help here because the original intent is unknown to me. Can Vadim or Agnes' boss take another look?

[Vadim, Sep 07] This is a quote from certain Byzantine historian. The name of the author is Evnapij Sardiets (this is Russian spelling, Sardiets probably means "from Sardis"). His book is called "History". Koshelenko quotes from book published in Russian in 1858. The quote is used to illustrate page 35 #3. The only flaw in the translation I see is that in Russian text it is said "conspiracy with Darius against the Magi", but in the current text of the translation "against the Magi" did somehow disappear.
If someone could tell me what is the problem with English here I can try to fix it.

[Mark, Sep 07] fn.9 First word "The" should be removed.
Further on: "the same was number of people who"; here "was" and "who" must be omitted, or the sentence rewritten, e.g.; "the number of people who .......... was the same".

[Agnes, May 08] maybe "Time in its long windings (if this is not OK, let's have simply "run") often revives (probably not OK in English, so maybe "produces / brings about") similar incidents. So there were seven with Darius in the conspiracy *against the Magi*; and again there was the same number who much later rose (/ revolted) against the Macedonians with Arsaces".

[Vadim, Sep 07] It looks like I found the origins of Koshelenko's note 9 on page 35. This is a quote from "Universal History"(?) of Eunapius of Sardis which survived in some fragments in the Lexicon of Suidas (this info is from the introduction to 1961 LCL edition of Eunapius' "The Lives of the Sophists").

The English translation of the fragments of Eunapius' History is available in: Blockley, R. C., The fragmentary classicising historians of the later Roman Empire : Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus / by R.C. Blockley Liverpool : F. Cairns, c1981-1983


I tried to search in the "Lexicon of Suidas", but it seems that there is no entry for Eunapius (EYNAПIOY). Considering that the whole lexicon is several thousand pages long and written entirely in Greek I can not read, it does not look like I will be able to find the relevant quote there faster than Blockley's book will be returned to the library. This said, if anyone can copy two sentences ending with "those who conspired with Darius against the Magi numbered seven, and, at a much later time, those who rebelled with Arsaces against the Macedonians were in the same number." from: Blockley, R. C., The fragmentary classicising historians of the later Roman Empire : Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus / by R.C. Blockley

[Mark, Sep 07] The book is; R.C. Blockley The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus, vol.II: Text, Translation and Historiographical Notes (Francis Cairns, Liverpool, 1983) ISBN 0-905205-15-4

The relevant fragment (Greek text on p.32, English translation p.33 opposite) is marked as Eunapius frag.21.3:
"Therefore, it also seems that as time passes, over long periods the same phenomena recur. Thus, those who conspired with Darius against the Magi numbered seven, and, at a much later time, those who rebelled with Arsaces against the Macedonians were the same in number."

Greek text opposite (p.32)
Blockley II.32 Eunapius fr.21.3 ( Sent.14)
Ἔοικε μὲν οὖν καὶ ἄλλως ὁ χρόνος ἐν ταῖς μακραῖς περιόδοις καὶ κινήσεσι πολλάκις ἐπὶ τὰ αὐτὰ καταφέρεσθαι συμπτώματα, καθάπερ οἵ τε Δαρείῳ συστάντες ἐπὶ τοὺς μάγους ἦσαν ἑπτὰ καὶ οἱ πολλοῖς ὕστερον χρόνοις Ἀρσάκῃ κατὰ Μακεδόνων συνεγερθέντες ἴσοι τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἔτυχον.

Vadim, it's not from the Suda but from one of the Byzantine collections of historical excerpta, this one de sententiis; " Sent.14" is in Blockley's text (the source of each fragment is identified in this sort of abbreviated form).

[Editor's action] Open. Footnote 9 reworded to use translation from Blockley, and credit entered as translation note i at the bottom of page 35. This forced a renumbering of the existing note i on page 36 which became note j. Should the Greek text from Blockley I added to new note i be retained as an aid to scholars?

[Mark, May 08] It's certainly a good idea to add (now retain) the Greek text of the Eunapius fragment in fn.i;  it is made clear throughout that these lower case letter notes are additional translation notes, and not in K.'s text.

[Agnes, Jun 08] agree. I think it's nice to have the Greek as well, and can't do any harm.  

[Editor's action] Closed.

[Mark] Page 35, Fn.10: "along with Justin, the information", should be: "besides Justin, information", and "is present" should be "appears".

[Editor's Action] Closed. Corrected.

[Mark] Page 35, Fn.11: "high" should "highly",
while "evidence of" should be omitted or properly rewritten: "the evidence of the Suda".

[Editor's Action] Closed. Corrected.

[Vadim] 10. p.35, next paragraph after number 4.
"Hence, it is necessary to look upon the Arrian version as evidence of the development..."
"Arrian" should be corrected to "Arrian's".

[Agnes] rather "It follows that Arrian's version needs to be considered as testimony of the development..."

[Editor's Action] Closed. Rewritten.

[Mark, May 08] P.35 fn.10. I can see that K.'s text says "Justinus", just as in the translation; but this is evidently a slip by K. himself for Syncellus, since he has just cited the latter in the body of his text, and Justinus does NOT give a reign length for Arsaces I, which is the issue under discussion in the text and the footnote. Another lower case translation note should be added pointing this out (i.e. just that K.'s Justinus is a slip for Syncellus).

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded as suggested.

[Mark, Sep 07] fn.11: "referenced" should be changed to "referred to". The passage: "to take into account the later tradition also", should be rewritten; "to consider later tradition as well". Ditto "which we believe is necessary to quote here also because of some other original data given here", should be modified to: "which we believe should be quoted here because it includes some other unique information as well", or similar.

[Agnes, May 08] agree, but let's have "some other authentic data" (or so)

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded as suggested.

[Vadim, Jun 08] "Authentic" is certainly incorrect. "оригинальный" here means "new", "not available from other sources", maybe "original data" or "unique information", as Mark suggested. And actually the situation could be even worse, because often this word is used in sarcastic sense (weird, amusing, funny) which could well be the case considering fairitailysh (? :-) content of the quote. I think it would be safe to stick to Mark's "original data".

[Editor's action]. Closed. Reworded to "...other original data as well:"

[Mark, May 08] fn.11 translation:  "a very fine man" in red text is wrong.  It implies moral or spiritual qualities in English (which are dealt with further on in the passage as extremely regal). The Greek  connects "kallistos" with to so:ma in just the same way as the other superlative "peribleptotatos", so the passage should read: "and was a man very fine(or: very handsome) and most admired in body". Alternatively (and better English expression): "and was a man of extremely fine and most admired physique". I also now feel that this whole passage translates the Greek too literally at the expense of proper English punctuation and expression; especially the sequence of "and"s, which is typically Greek, but diabolical English. Here's a suggested revision of the whole passage, which Chris is free to change as he thinks reads best; "Arsakes, King of Parthians, who died in battle after being struck in the ribs by a spear. He was a man of very fine and most admired physique, extremely regal of spirit,

[Agnes, Jun 08] Koshelenko has "A man of most beautiful body (the Russian grammar is lit.: bodywise most beautiful) and famous and of royal soul (soulwise royal)"...

[Mark, May 08] (continued) and very experienced in deeds of war; very gentle towards every subject, and yet most vigorous in destroying opponents. The Parthians also longed for(pined for?) him in the greatest degree."

[Editor's action] Open. Requires review of Greek translation. I took Mark's translation in its entirety, thinking it is better that Greek-to-English should supplant a Greek-to-Russian-to-English translation.

[Mark, Jun 08] I see from Agnes' comment that K.'s translation of the Suda passage connects only kallistos with to so:ma;  but as I understand the Greek grammar, the insertion of "te" (linking with the subsequent "kai") between "to" and "so:ma" connects both kallistos and peribleptotatos with the physical appearance.  Furthermore, none of the other superlatives in this passage stand alone, so I don't think K.'s interpretation of only peribleptotatos doing so fits the structure of the passage. A question for Professor Gippert if Agnes is unsure.

[Agnes, Jun 08] I think this is partly due to the different structure that Russian needs to use to express  "XY is ..." [there is no copula for the 3rd sg.!]. Koshelenko tries to translate very literal here, so "A man very beautiful, bodywise, and famous, and royal, soulwise, ..." which leaves the middle adjective liable to coordination with the preceding or the following one. I think it's best to go with Mark's suggestion, since we opt for OK Greek-to-English in the first place.

[Mark, Jun 08] Thanks Agnes for clarifying what K. was doing with his Suda translation in relation to "to te so:ma ....kai". My translation reads ok now, and should do according to the Greek -> English policy.

[Editor's action] Open. You'll have to write out Mark's suggestion for me -- I'm confused.

[Mark, Jun 08] sorry for perpetuating the confusion; but the sum of my discussion with Agnes over translation of peribleptotatos and its relationship to "to so:ma" is; the current red text is fine and should remain as is.

[Agnes, Jun 08] Agree.

[Editor's action] Closed.

[Vadim, Jun 08] p. 35, fn 8 and 10 In fn.8 "Moses FROM Chorene", but in fn.10 "Moses OF Chorene". I would suggest changing fn. 8 to "Moses of Chorene".

[Editor's Action] Closed. The "from" changed to "of".

[Vadim, Jun 08] p. 35, fn. 11 "evidence of the Suda (s.v. Ἄρσακες, A)". Actually, in this case, in K's text there is no diacritics before Arsakes at all. Another typo?

[Editor's Action] Open. Mark please comment.

[Agnes, May 08] note f: Add full stop at and of note.

[Editor's action] Closed. Done.

[Mark, Jun 08] Incidentally re translation note g,  I've had confirmation from a local Greek expert (with PhD in Greek, Latin) that K.'s "plegeis" is indeed an error, and no variant spelling.  I still need to check the actual text of the Suda in the library here (Adler's standard 1930s edition), and will change this note a little (more emphatically against K.'s slip, citing Adler's text) at a later date when I've got all the details to hand.  Leave as is for now.

[Editor's action] Open. Waiting for Mark's update.

[Mark, Jun 08] unfortunately I've been ill for some time (can't shake a nasty flu bug) and spending my weekends and spare evenings in bed or eating chillis and lemons; which means, wont be going to the library in the foreseeable future and this update of note g may take some time to complete. In any case it will be brief, and the present note is ok for now.

[Agnes, Jun 08] Mark, you did say that plegeis is an error. So should we, for the time being, replace "is either a misspelling or unusual variant" by "is a misspelling"?

[Editor's action] Open. Waiting for Mark's update.

[Mark, Jun 08] translation note j:  "Koshelenko's says";  something amiss here.  Should either be "Koshelenko says" or "Koshelenko's note/text says".

[Editor's action] Closed. "Koshelenko says".



[Vadim] p.36: All pages except p.36 have [continued...]
link to the next page. It is not obvious that one
should hit "Next" button to move to the bibliography
page. I would suggest adding [continued...] or
[bibliography...] link.

[Editor's Action] Closed. Added.

[Mark, May 08] 3rd line:  "become king", should be "became king".

[Agnes, Jun 08] yes.

[Editor's action] Closed. Typo corrected.

[Mark, May 08] Also there is something wrong with the first new sentence on the page, beginning "However".  Line 2 "it is clear" does not gel with line 3 "it becomes clear".  It might be as little as changing the latter to a new sentence; "So it becomes clear".  But something for Agnes to sort out from the Russian.

[Agnes, Jun 08] I noticed that this sentence is probably a mess in English. It's an awfully long one. I need to consult my boss to sort it out. Will try to do so ASAP.

[Editor's action] Open. for Agnes to check.

[Agnes, Jun 08] The structure of the sentence is as follows (also mind the small adjustments of formulation):

[main clause:] "However,
  [(subordinate clause 1)  
  when we turn to the data of the Nisa memorial (commemorative?) inscriptions, and to the
  genealogical table (or: stemma) based upon them,   
    [(sub-subordinated relative clause 2, depending on "table")
    from which it emerges
      [(sub-sub-subordinated clause 3) that      
      [A, first part of clause 3]      
      after Arsaces II, the grandson of the brother of Arsaces I,      
      Phriapatius, became king and      
      [B, second part of clause 3, i.e. the 2nd thing that emerges]      
      all the following early Parthian kings were his descendants      
      (end of clause 3)]   
    (end of relative clause 2 on which clause 3 depends]  
  (end of clause 1 on which clause 2 depends]
[continuation of main clause:] it becomes clear that the creation of the new, fictional version
of the history of the rise of the Parthian state had one more aim, viz. to rewrite the history in
such a way that as-big-a-role-as possible in the creation..."

Mark, is there a way to transform this into acceptable English?

[Mark, Jun 08] Probably the best English strategy is to group sub clauses 2 and 3 inside a parenthesis indicated by dashes -- E.g. "When we turn to the data of the Nisa memorial texts, however, and to the stemma based upon them -- from which it emerges that after Arsaces II, Phriapatius the grandson of the brother of Arsaces I became king and that all the subsequent early Parthian kings were his descendents  --  it becomes clear that the creation of the new, fictional version of the history concerning the rise of the Parthian state had one more aim, viz. to rewrite the history in such a way that the largest possible role in the creation..."

[Agnes, Jun 08] great. Let's have that.  

[Mark, Jun 08] The two uses of creation (for different things) so close together should also be avoided if possible; perhaps the first one should become "invention", if compatible with the Russian.  But if K. repeats the same word, creation twice will have to do.

[Agnes, Jun 08] yes, it's the same word. Maybe indeed K wishes to indicate a parallelity here.

[Editor's action] Open. Requires review. I reworded per Mark's suggestion, but I question the substitution of "memorial text" for ostracon; we have used ostracon throughout. What does K. use in the original Russian? Also, I replaced viz. with a colon.

[Mark, Jun 08] My rewrite was concerned with expressing Prof. Gippert's analysis of the structure in reasonable English; if K.'s text has "Nisa ostracon (or: document)" where Prof. Gippert wrote "Nisa memorial texts", by all means revert to "ostracon" or "document", as per Chris' wish for consistency.

[Agnes, Jun 08] It *is* "the Nisa commemorative (if that's better than "memorial") inscription" (... nisijskoj pamjatnoj zapiski), referring to the text rather than to the object (ostracon), and to the fact that the inscription is assumed to record a certain event. If there's a way to say such a thing in English, I think it would be nicer that merely "ostracon" (which we otherwise have mainly where Koshelenko has "document" or another simple term).  

[Mark, Jun 08] I vote for "Nisa commemorative text"; but the meaning is now clear enough so anything similar is fine by me.

[Editor's action] Open. Reworded to commemorative texts (plural). Was that all that needed change? Requires review.

[Mark, Jun 08] "commemorative texts" is fine, and this expression was the only outstanding problem with this passage. The rest is fine.

[Agnes, Jun 08] agree.

[Editor's action] Closed.

[Vadim, Jun 08] K simply speaks here about the same ostraca 1760, calling it here "commemorative note". So, "texts" should be changed to "note" and "them" to "it".

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded to "...commemorative note, however, and to the stemma based upon it...."

[Mark] Page 36, 1st paragr.
8th line: "he had important services in the action of the conquest of Parthia" is too awkward. Maybe: "he had an important role in the conquest", depending upon K.'s text.
Ditto 10th line: "he is represented without name on it"; perhaps: "he is not named there"
No need for the comma after "Gotarzes".

[Editor's Action] Closed. Rewritten as suggested.

[Agnes, May 08] "significant" would be nearer to original than "important" (if not OK English, leave as is) Also, replace hyphen after "more aim" by ", viz." (or so).

Also, text still has "represented without name". Maybe have "is found without name on it"?

[Agnes, Jun 08] "significant" is fine, but we need to replace "an" by "a" preceding it, and please replace the hyphen by something else!

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded as suggested, except I preferred Mark's "not named here".

[Agnes, Jun 08] but this is not the point. The text has lit. "is represented anonymously". Is there some equivalent in English? Mark?

[Mark, Jun 08] "represented anonymously [on it]" ;   "represented unnamed there".

[Editor's action] Open. Reworded, but needs review. It makes little sense in English, especially with the reference to "all other ancestors of Gotarzes".

[Agnes, Jun 08] I see. This needs to be "and the same applies to...".

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded again per Agnes.

[Mark, Jun 08] In context: "represented anonymously there", + Agnes' "and the same applies to" reads ok to me. I.e. the red text is now fine.

[Vadim, Jun 08] p. 36, end of first par. " represented anonymously there, and the same applies to all other ancestors of Gotarzes..." To stay closer to the original meaning it would be better to say: " represented anonymously there like all other ancestors of Gotarzes..." K's argument here is: Since all non-regal ancestors of Gotarzes are represented anonymously in the ostraca and all kings are named, the fact that Tiridates is not mentioned by the name implies that he was not a king too.

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded per Vadim.

[Vadim] 11. p.36, par.2 will have to be reworked somewhat to retain it's
original meaning. I would suggest:
"If we accept this explanation, we think that all facts are in
agreement and mutually explain each other. After the death or
overthrow of Arsaces II, the power was transferred to the
descendants of Tiridates.
However, as is testified by the antique tradition, the glory of
Arsaces I was great, he was officially deified, and so it was
impossible to eliminate him from the Parthian history. Thus, the
history was gradually changed by complete elimination of Arsaces
II (probably a figure too odious for the Parthian nobles) and

[Agnes, May 08] add "also" by sharply shortening the reign of Arsaces I who supposedly died at the very beginning of the struggle. The time reserve of almost four decades created as a result of these changes was used for the reign of Tiridates which never, in reality, took place."

[Editor's Action] Closed. Rewritten as suggested.

[Agnes, May 08] replace by "which never took place in reality."

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded per Agnes (though I liked, in reality, Vadim's parenthetical version!)

[Mark] Page 36, 2nd paragr.
4th line: "the Parthian history", should be "Parthian history"
7th line: "that was used", should be "to be used", or omitted altogether.

[Editor's Action] Closed. Corrected.

[Mark] Page 36, Last paragr.
Should open: "Thus, as we believe, the Nisa ostracon allows us"
5th line: "the power" should be "power"

[Editor's Action] Closed. Rewritten.

[Agnes, May 08] this sounds odd to me. Could we have "So it seems to us that the Nisa ostracon..."

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded as suggested.

[Agnes, Jun 08] "the Nisa ostracon" is repeated in both red and black text.

[Editor's action] Closed. Eliminated duplicate words.

[Mark] Page 36, Fn 12: "ostracons"; should be "ostraka"
"it is said about the ascent to the throne of Sanatruq", should be: "appears the royal ancestry of Sanatruk"
"ascending to the Arsacid throne" should be "to ascend the Arsacid throne"
"in all documents which record the ascending to the throne and were up to this time discovered", should be: "in all the documents recording royal accessions that have been discovered"

[Editor's Action] Closed. Rewritten, but used "ostraca" spelling; used Sinatruces; reworded to "The document NOV 366, the publishers believe, discusses..."; reworded as suggested.

[Vadim, Sep 07] "The document NOV 366, the publishers believe, discusses the ascent to the throne of Sinatruces, brother of Mithradates II." I think "discusses" should be substituted with "deals with" or, even better, "tells about".

[Agnes, May 08] agree that "discuss" is very odd, with regard to the *extreme* shortness and very low degree of legibility of the ostracon. "tells" is I think grammatically not usable here. Let's have something like "The editors assume that the document Nov 366 mentions the ascent..." Also, let's replace "necessarily" by "inevitably".

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded per Agnes, but I eliminated two "the"s.

[Agnes, Jun 08] the "up to this time" appears to have got lost. Let's have "...discovered up to now...". And delete "the" in "the Old Nisa".

[Editor's action] Closed. Changed as requested (keeping the redundancy "until now")

[Agnes, Jun 08] it's not redundant in German (neither probably in Russian) since it stresses the fact that more ostraca may be discovered in the future. While this is obvious in principle, the author here wishes to underline the potentially preliminary nature of his statement.

[Editor's action] Closed. As I said, I am keeping it in the translation.

[Mark, May 08] fn.12, "conservation" should probably be "preservation".

[Agnes, Jun 08] yes.

[Editor's action] Closed. Changed.

[Vadim] 12. p.36, note 12:
"... it is said about the ascent to the throne of Sanatruq,
brother of Mithradates II." and
"... as the "connecting link" between Sanatruq and Arsaces."
I would suggest substituting "Sanatruq" with "Sinatruces". It
will make the spellings of the names more consistent.

[Agnes] agree. One wonders anyway what a -q does here (there is no such
sound in Parthian, Greek or whatever). The letter q is sometimes
used in Parthian in the same function as k.

[Editor's Action] Closed. Corrected.

[Mark] Page 36, Fn.13 at end: "common ancestor", should be "a common ancestor"

[Editor's Action] Closed. Corrected.

[Mark, May 08] fn. 13:  the translation of the Eusebius passage is bad; too long and inconsistent. Better would be: "The Parthians revolted from the Macedonians and Arsaces reigned first, whence Arsacids."

[Agnes, Jun 08] funny: the Russian does have "fell off" as does the Greek, and as would also be the German correspondence, but I suspect that is not OK in English. For the 2nd part of the sentence, we might have (as per Koshelenko's Russian) "and Arsaces was crowned as the first (add: one, if better English)". I think we should have "crowned".

[Editor's action] Open. Needs review.

[Mark, Jun 08] We have to agree on a policy decision about Koshelenko's translations of the Greek passages.  Since we have thus far used Greek -> English and Chris prefers this, I think we should stick with that, at least for the first edition.  After its "publication" is announced, Chris should also call for comments and corrections from readers, with a view to later more refined versions;  including questions like whether or not K.'s renderings of the Greek should be adopted more literally. In general my view is that the English reader should have accurate and readable translations of the Greek;  which excludes unfortunate mediaeval and modern formulations like Arsaces "was crowned", because Greek and Hellenistic kings did not wear crowns but diadems;  crowns/wreaths (stephanoi, Lat.coronae) were prerogatives of some urban magistracies and rewards for athletes and soldiers.  Plus of course the early Arsakids were not actually kings;  they were rulers who reigned without royal title.

[Agnes, Jun 08] strictly speaking, the Russian has stal tsarstvovat' ", which means "was king-ed" (with trarstvovat' made from tsar "king, emperor"). Would "made king" work?  

[Mark, Jun 08] Also, "fell away" certainly won't work in English (in this context), as Agnes has guessed.  Of course that's a pity seeing that it DOES work in Greek, Russian and German, but there's no need to resort to odd English even so.

[Agnes, Jun 08] OK.

[Editor's action] Closed. Let's agree to use direct Greek-to-English translation and only add translator's comments if it appears that K. took a different meaning into Russian. I like Agnes' "made king" and incorporated that change.

[Mark, Jun 08] I take Agnes' point that K.'s translation says "first was kinged"; but the Greek couldn't be more straightforward and is simply "first was king", or "first reigned". Btw-- the closing translation quote mark and brace is missing after Arsacids; i.e. should be: "....whence the Arsacids"), but after another Arsaces, etc.

[Agnes, Jun 08] Mark, so don't you like "made king"? "was king is also fine for me, though.

[Mark, Jun 08] "Arsaces was first king" renders exactly what the Greek says, and reads fine in English, so preferable to "was made king", which the Greek doesn't say.

[Editor's action] Open. Let me know which way to go.

[Mark, Jun 08] Go with "Arsaces was first king" for now unless Agnes objects (but I don't think she does any longer, owing to the Greek -> English > policy).

[Agnes, Jun 08] OK for me as stands.

[Editor's action] Closed. Used Mark's "Arsaces was first king".

[Mark, Jun 08] Btw-- the closing translation quote mark and brace is missing after Arsacids; i.e. should be: "....whence the Arsacids"), but after another Arsaces, etc.

[Editor's action] Closed. Fixed the punctuation.

[Vadim] 13. p.36, last sentence of note 14.
"... i.e. immediately after his subjugation to Antiochus III, which is in good agreement with our assumptions regarding the occasion of his overthrow."
The meaning of the original text was somewhat distorted here. I would suggest:
"... i.e. immediately after his subjugation to Antiochus III, which is in good agreement with our assumption that he might have been overthrown."

[Agnes] "... , which agrees well with our suggestion concerning the possibility of his dethronement (if that exists, or other word denoting being-subject-to-a-coup d'état: Mark, what to say?)."

[Editor's Action] Closed. Rewritten, combining the two suggestions.

[Vadim, Sep 07] note 14, last line A typo - "which" is typed twice: "which which agrees well"

[Editor's action] Closed. Deleted.

[Mark, May 08] fn.14:  "2 years long reign of Arsaces I";  no need for "long" here.

[Agnes, Jun 08] agree. Let's also omit the 2nd "reign" (if OK for English).

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded.

[Vadim, Jun 08] p. 36, fn. 14 "(37 years of Tiridates' reign and 2 years of Arsaces I)" Should it be "Arsaces I's" or maybe "Arsaces' I"?

[Editor's action] Closed. To avoid possessives, reworded as "(37 year reign of Tiridates and 2 year reign of Arsaces I)"

[Mark, May 08] fn.14:  "Arsaces II lost the power";  no need for "the" here.

[Editor's action] Closed. Deleted.

[Vadim, Jun 08] p. 36, translation note 'k'
"Ιn the earlier rendering (p. 34, paragr. 4, and in Karl Müller's text of Photius) it is correctly: " It should be either "is given correctly:", or "is correct:".

[Editor's action] Closed. Reworded per Vadim. I would argue it is OK as stands, but think adding "given" is fine.

[Vadim, Jul 08] I do not see this change. But if you think it is OK as stands, probably this correction is not needed at all.

[Editor's action] Closed. I missed this one.


[Agnes, Jun 08] no. 5: replace "ltiju" by "letiju"

[Mark, Apr 07] The two pieces by Mme. Chaumont (nos.9 and 10); "a Nisa" and "a l'histoire"; these "a"s should be accented grave; à I also seem to recall that the capital E beginning Etudes should be acute accented; É Accents missing from the two Wolski titles (17, 18) where "genealogie" should be généalogie (17), and "historicite d'Arsaces I" should be: historicité d'Arsace Ier (18).

no.12 Herzfeld's book title the "a" has slipped out of Archaeological; unless you yankies spell it with simple e

[Agnes, Jun 08] and let's have "Archaeological" in italics.

[Editor's action] Closed. All corrected.

[Mark, Apr 07] no.14 Neusner's first name; in confirmation of the change, Dobbins' 1974 _Antichthon_ paper "Mithradates II and his Successors" cites the same Neusner paper, calling him "J. Neusner" (p.63, n.2).

Louis Robert's paper appears to have the accent "hellénistique", and I see that you have tacitly corrected K.'s bibliography to Wolski J., where K. both times gives Wolski F.; J. is certainly correct; it's Jozef.

[Editor's action] Closed. All corrected. My Yankee spell checker dislikes it, but "Archaeological" is on the cover of Herzfeld's book....

[Agnes, May 08] Let's replace "t." and "Bd." by "vol." in all relevant items on this page. Also replace "SPb" by "St. Petersburg" un no. 6, and "M." by "Moscow" in nos. 1, 2, 5.

[Editor's action] Closed. All corrected.

[Agnes, May 08] On and on the link on bottom, I think it would be better to call this page "References", as it is not actually a biblio in the Western sense.

[Editor's action] Closed. Corrected.

[Agnes, Jun 08]  The latter link still has "Bibliography". Also, on the link "English translation published on (2007)" should go to

[Editor's action] Closed. All corrected.

[Agnes, May 08] still links to (maybe this version should be deleted anyway?).

[Editor's action] Closed. My mistake -- I missed the parthia.US vs. parthia.COM issue! The link is enbedded in the Bibliography database, and will be permanently corrected shortly; in the meantime, I fixed the link manually. I will also take Agnes' helpful observation to check the entire site for any possible links. Thanks. ( is a test site and no one should be going there but me!)

[Vadim] 14. bibliography, 11a
"11a. Eusebius, Chronicorum"
In original text the name is "Eusebi". I do not have access to this book/edition (Berlin, 1875).
Maybe this is how the name of the author is spelled there?

[Renzo] Yes, it is possible that the name of the author was given in Latin in the edition of 1875. It was the normal use in XIX century. “Eusebi” is the genitive form of Eusebius.

[Agnes] The whole title is in Latin, and only this makes sense (the commas and other signs within the title in the Russian Koshelenko are an error). Internet catalogues give:
"Evsebi Chronicorvm liber prior" (ed. Alfred Schöne (with o with trema), Berlin 1875).

[Editor's Action] Closed. Adapted Agnes' suggestion.

[Vadim] 15. bibliography, 14
"14. Neusner R.,"
In the original text the initial is given as "F", and in the text itself Koshelenko refers to him as J. Neusner (p.35). Both are probably typos?

[Agnes] According to and the rest of the internet apart from Koshelenko, it is Jacob Neusner.
As Nikitin says, has a typo R for F. of the original, which is an error for J.

[Editor's Action] Closed. Corrected to J. Neusner, as typo.

[Tom] the Invernizzi paper does not seem to have a bibliography, does it indeed not have one?

[Editor's Action] Open. I'm betting of the many journals named Mesopotamia, this one is the one from Università di Torino, Facoltà di lettere e filosofia. Unfortunately, our only nearby university is missing Mesopotamia 17. Agnes, do you have access to Mesopotamia 17 to check this?

[Vadim, Jul 08] References 2 and 5 got messed up.
2. Diakonoff I. M., Livshits V. A., "Peredne-asiatskij sbornik, II. Deshifrovka i interpretacija pismennostej Drevnego Vostoka", Novye nahodki documentov v Staroj Nise. Moscow, 1966, pp. 134-157 (abstract in English: pp. 169-173).

"Novye nahodki documentov v Staroj Nise" is the title of the article,"Peredne-asiatskij sbornik, II. Deshifrovka i interpretacija pismennostej Drevnego Vostoka" is the title of the book.

[Editor's action] Corrected titles.

[Vadim, Jul 08] The same in reference 5:

5. Koshelenko G. A., "Istorija Iranskogo gosudarstva i kultury. K 2500-letiju Iranskogo gosudarstva", Tsarskaja vlast' i ee obosnovanije v rannej Parfii. Moscow, 1971, pp. 212-218. "Tsarskaja vlast' i ee obosnovanije v rannej Parfii" is the title of the article,
"Istorija Iranskogo gosudarstva i kultury. K 2500-letiju Iranskogo gosudarstva" is the title of the book.

[Editor's action] Corrected titles.

[Vadim, Jul 08] And I do not think that the translation note on Refs. page is really needed. We already agreed to fix obvious errors without mentioning them, as Renzo suggested, so why stress out that K's refs. page also has some errors?

> [Agnes] agree in wondering whether we shouldn't add the pp. no. of all articles > as is common in Western Europe In Russia it is as common as in Europe. I do not really understand why K did not add them. It is certain that he did not do it on purpose, maybe he just did not have them at hand for some reason. Anyway, explicitly pointing that out sounds a little disrespectful,  I believe. But it is up to you, of course.

[Editor's action] Agreed. I removed the translation note.


[Mark, May 08] In answer to P. 34, paragr.2 query on family trees; either Latin "stemma" (pl. stemmata) or "genealogical chart(s)" are best in formal writing like a journal article. But in the specific context Agnes now points out, simply "the suggested genealogy" would be fine.

[Agnes, Jun 08] there are still several occurrences of "scheme" in the text. Let's replace them all by "stemma" (pl. stemmata) or "genealogy" as suggested by Mark.

[Editor's action] Closed. All instances changed to stemma or stemmata.

[Mark, May 08] Suda should be italicized at each appearance, rather than appearing inside quote marks ("Suda"), since it is the name of an ancient text. Even though Koshelenko doesn't do so, it is an English convention.

[Agnes, Jun 08] Koshelenko can't be reproached for not observing English conventions in a Russian text...

[Editor's action] Closed. Good point, but since we are creating an English document, we'll walk the fine line. <grin> Punctuated Suda to English convention.

Mark, Jun 08] Btw-- I wasn't reproaching K. for not using the English convention re italicizing Suda; merely observing that in our English version the English convention should be used.

[Agnes, Jun 08] with which I entirely agree, thence my insisting on removal of those hyphens.

[Editor's action] Closed.

[Vadim, Jul 08] I have one more suggestion. Maybe in the future we could convert the whole text into pdf format as sort of offprint from and make it available for download in addition to current web-pages? It is possible make it locked (not editable) and add nice cover page which will explicitly specify as a source and all needed copyright notices (or lack of), and any other necessary info.

The advantages of pdf are numerous. For example, all necessary fonts are embedded into pdf, which is nice because a) not all OSes have multi-language support, b) if someone uses public computer there is no way to install the needed fonts, etc. With pdf it is easy to print the article and take it with you anywhere. Actually, I print almost all papers I read because for me it is so much convenient to read from paper than from the screen. In addition, when you are working with more than source simultaneously you can arrange all of them nicely on the table (and on the floor, if the table is too small or the there are too many papers :-). What do you think?  

[Editor's action] Open. This is an excellent idea and I'll create it in early August.

This page last updated 19 Feb 2021

Page Up
Home Site Index Site Map Feedback New Items Tech Info Search

Online since 28 March 1998
Copyright ©1998-2021 Edward C. D. Hopkins, all rights reserved

Click button to support   Click button to validate this page as HTML 4.01 compliant Click button to validate this page as CSS 3 compliant