"Cenotaph", i.e. "an empty tomb." The word is interesting as occuring only in Xenophon, until we come to the writers of the common dialect. Compare "hyuscyamus," hogbean, our henbane, which we also owe to Xenophon. "Oecon." i. 13, see Sauppe, "Lexil. Xen." s.vv.
The word occurs when the Greeks go back to bury the dead from the encounter with the Thracians (who are not Greek, but Asiatic). They cannot find some of the bodies, so they erect a cenotaph to them which they cover with wreaths. This followed Xenophon's careful sacrifices to determine the right time for this, another demonstration of piety on his part that once again proved out for them.
The army meets and decides that it will punish any further suggestions that it should divide itself by death. It also restores its old officers. Cheirisophus, the former supreme commander, has died. I'll quote that note too, because it's curious.
This I take to be the meaning of the words, which are necessarily ambiguous, since {pharmakon}, "a drug," also means "poison." Did Cheirisophus conceivably die of fever brought on by some poisonous draught? or did he take poison whilst suffering from fever? or did he die under treatment?That's true: the word that is the root of "pharmacy" or "pharmaceutical" can mean either "drug" or "poison." And so it is often the case even with true drugs, where the right dosage is efficacious and the wrong one is fatal.
Now Xenophon's devotion to sacrifice causes the army to delay marching on for several days, though provisions are running out and do run out. Yet the victims of the sacrifices are not favorable to marching; and when a division goes out to seek provisions, it loses five hundred men, a quarter of its forces. The enemies that are now besetting them fall upon their camp in the night.
The Greeks move to a natural stronghold, which I gather was by the sea, and fence off the entrances. The next day a ship arrives and brings them some goods, including more sacrificial animals. The first one of these Xenophon sacrifices is favorable to moving again.
They meet and defeat a large enemy, dividing off 'flying columns' for flanking exercises. This enemy fights the cavalry and light troops gamely, but still is not capable of withstanding the heavy infantry. The phalanx breaks them and drives them off, and Xenophon's forces end up with the field.
Shortly thereafter Cleander of Sparta arrives with ships of war, and is anxious to become the leader of these men given their clear discipline. But again, the victims of the sacrifices do not support this, so he tells them that he can't take them home: but if they get home, to come see him.
7 comments:
I'm curious about two terms here.
First, do you mean something special by "astrological winter" as opposed to "astronomical winter"?
Second, the clause "the victims of the sacrifices are not favorable to marching" makes it sounds like the victims are alive and get a vote. Since that doesn't seem to make sense, is this basically saying "the interpretation of the sacrifices was not favorable to marching"?
I was intrigued by the term "astrological winter" enough that I had to look it up. It turns out (for those like me who didn't know) to be defined by Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces.
Astronomical winter begins (as we know) on the winter solstice, which is when the sun passes directly over the Tropic of Capricorn.
There is also meteorological winter. Meteorological seasons more closely align with climate and are apparently more useful for farmers, etc. Meteorological winter includes the three months of December, January, and February, beginning December first. In this system, we are already in spring, and that accords well with the climate here in Oklahoma.
I wonder if this idea of pharmacy was influenced by the Golden Mean / virtue ethics where too much and too little are both vicious.
Xenophon himself say “the sacrifices were not favorable.” I think he would have the same objection to calling it an interpretation that a Christian might have to having the story of Jesus described as “the myth of Jesus.” He believed that the animals held an objective fact from which he knew the best course.
It’s so important that one of the things their resupply ship brings is more sacrificial animals. Food, wine, and sacrificial beasts.
My question is more about the phrasing "the victims ... were not favorable." I'm not questioning their reality. I've just never seen this construction, I guess.
"The sacrifices were not favorable" doesn't seem odd at all to me and would have gotten no question from me. I think this is probably more of a language / expression issue than anything else.
He says both, and it means the same thing: the sacrifice is the animal, not the ritual. So the sacrifice is the victim is the animal.
It’s more than phrasing I think. It’s that they thought that the animal was telling them something. Its sacralized death in devotion to one of their gods let it speak, as it were, as a messenger from the god.
That makes sense.
Post a Comment