[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: orion Solinus, Dio, Pliny, M. Agrippa

     Stephen Goranson asks why no ancient writer discusses the Nicolas date
and the Essenes together.  Pliny and Solinus associate the Essenes and dates,
and all their other references to dates appear to refer to the highest quality
kind, at Jericho and Ein Gedi, as would be expected from the presumed sources,
whether Aprippa or (behind him) Nicolas.  
    SG writes, "The putative influence of Nicolas on Pliny's text is quite
improbable.  Further, much of the writing of Nicolaus took place after M.
Agrippa died."  In my postings I have suggested that Nicolas was a (possibly
unattributed) source for Agrippa on the Essenes, and that Agrippa was a source
for Pliny.  As I recall, Wacholder dates Nicolas' book on remarkable customs
rather earlier than Agrippa's death.
    SG proposes the Ant. 13.171-73 association of the Essenes with the Stoic
position on Fate as counter-evidence that Nicolas was a source for Josephus on
the Essenes.  I agree with SG that Ant. 13.171-73 derives from the Stoic
Strabo, as does the parallel material in Wars 2.162-65.  This has no bearing
on the other longer passages on Essenes in Josephus, which show no traces of
Stoic outlook, and which arguably derive from Nicolas.  

>  	More importantly, and in direct contradiction to Russell Gmirkin's
>  last two posts, the Nicolaus fragment (FGH 90 104) does *not* mention the
>  Ctistae. 

    We went over all this last summer, in the posts in which I showed your
claim in JJS that Posidonius wrote a book on the Essenes was without basis.
To refresh your memory, I wrote:
    "On the celibate Ctistae, a Dacian tribe mentioned both by Strabo 7.3.3
(quoting Posidonius) and Josephus Ant. 18.22, Stephen Goranson wonders why I
attribute the comparison to Nicolas of Damascus rather than Posidonius.
    "(1) In the Posidonius quote in Strabo, the context is a discussion of
Homer (both in Posidonius and Strabo), not a discussion of Essenes.
Posidonius goes on the discuss the Mysians, and their subgroups (for
Posidonius) the Hippemolgi,  Galactophagi, and Abii (cf. Iliad 2.858).  
    "(2) Nicolas of Damascus, FGrH 90, F104, contains a similar discussion,
and Nicolas' comment on the vegetarian Galactophagi probably derives from
Posidonius on the vegetarian Mysians, i.e. this same Posidonius passage.  This
implies Nicolas read the very passage where the celibate Ctistae are
mentioned, and since Nicolas is widely regarded as a major source on the
Essene account at Ant. 18, it is reasonable to suggest he made the connection
between the Ctistae and Essenes, not Posidonius."
    Let me add that FGH 90 104 appears to be a brief summary of the passage in
Nicolas (as are the other fragments of his _Collection of Remarkable
Customs_).  We may reasonably propose that the Ctistae appeared in the
original text, since Nicolas appears to draw on the passage of Posidonius in
which the Ctistae were mentioned.

>  [Gmirkin's] allusion to Homer (not mentioned
>  two posts ago), is correctly identified in the book by Wacholder...

    My allusion was to Strabo 7.3.3, in which Posidonius mentions the Ctistae
in connection with Homer, not the Essenes.  Goranson's opinions regarding a
purported account of the Essenes in Posidonius is unproved and highly
conjectural IMO.  However, the Orion archives already contain a full
discussion of this topic, and I have no desire to resurrect it.

Russell Gmirkin