07-22-2006, 12:21 PM
In another thread, Conon394 wrote the following, and I open a new topic because I am digressing too much.
Of course you are right, not everyone is a polymath and one can ask a colleague. My point is that everybody knows this, and nobody actually does it. That is like writing about Judaism in the first century, and ignoring the Scrolls of the Dead Sea.
Cartledge is not the only one who ought to have done better. Here is a review of an Alexander book, in which I have summarized some discoveries from the past thirty years. (The Macedonian language part has been challenged, but I understand that some Greek linguists, although reasonably denying my first conclusion, have accepted the proposal to study cuneiform sources for the pronounciation of Greek and Macedonian/Macedonian Greek, and now agree that there is something odd.)
The main conclusion of the cuneiform studies must be that the battle of Gaugamela never was a real battle. If this sounds bold, read this. I also think that is now possible to describe the final days of Alexander from a Babylonian perspective.
If you are interested in Hellenistic history, this Babylonian tablet will tell something new about Ptolemy III.
I admit that I have a bias. I wrote a book about Alexander myself, for which I traveled all the way to Pakistan, and learned myself the relevant languages. Then there was this Oliver Stone movie, and I had to see that academics writing bad books took over the field. Worse, I received a hostile review from a man about whom I learned that he had wanted to write a book on the subject himself, and whose own writings not only betray ignorance about cuneiform, but also ignorance of articles published after 2000.
There is no denying that I feel frustrated. It is not a disaster that I am not employed by the university; although I would have like to, I can live with it, for many academicians know a lot more than I will ever know. A man like our Jasper, who has the job I have been dreaming about, also has the necessary patience and is obviously more qualified than I am.
But what I do not accept is that people in that beautiful, privileged position, make a mess of it. So finally, here are some thoughts about Robin Lane Fox, who, more than Paul Cartledge, has something to explain.
Quote:To use the English expression I learned today, from your message: "I’m of two minds on that score."Quote:and if you can not read cuneiform (and even ignore translations), you must not publish about the ancient Near East.That seems a tad harsh, not everyone is a polymath; perhaps just make sure you have a collaborator who can; and acknowledge and address or deal with the relevant scholarship?
Of course you are right, not everyone is a polymath and one can ask a colleague. My point is that everybody knows this, and nobody actually does it. That is like writing about Judaism in the first century, and ignoring the Scrolls of the Dead Sea.
Cartledge is not the only one who ought to have done better. Here is a review of an Alexander book, in which I have summarized some discoveries from the past thirty years. (The Macedonian language part has been challenged, but I understand that some Greek linguists, although reasonably denying my first conclusion, have accepted the proposal to study cuneiform sources for the pronounciation of Greek and Macedonian/Macedonian Greek, and now agree that there is something odd.)
The main conclusion of the cuneiform studies must be that the battle of Gaugamela never was a real battle. If this sounds bold, read this. I also think that is now possible to describe the final days of Alexander from a Babylonian perspective.
If you are interested in Hellenistic history, this Babylonian tablet will tell something new about Ptolemy III.
I admit that I have a bias. I wrote a book about Alexander myself, for which I traveled all the way to Pakistan, and learned myself the relevant languages. Then there was this Oliver Stone movie, and I had to see that academics writing bad books took over the field. Worse, I received a hostile review from a man about whom I learned that he had wanted to write a book on the subject himself, and whose own writings not only betray ignorance about cuneiform, but also ignorance of articles published after 2000.
There is no denying that I feel frustrated. It is not a disaster that I am not employed by the university; although I would have like to, I can live with it, for many academicians know a lot more than I will ever know. A man like our Jasper, who has the job I have been dreaming about, also has the necessary patience and is obviously more qualified than I am.
But what I do not accept is that people in that beautiful, privileged position, make a mess of it. So finally, here are some thoughts about Robin Lane Fox, who, more than Paul Cartledge, has something to explain.
