A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Vol. 2: Commentary on Books 7-18

9. S-10. 13. Description of New Carthage. For similar insistence on Reographical details see iii. 36-38, v. 21. 3-9; they are equally important for the general, cf. ix. 13. 8. Inn. 4, correcting the figure of 40 •tades given as the perimeter of the city, P. say that he has seen it himself. If he accompanied Scipio to Spain in 151 (cf. Vol. I, p. 4 n. w) he may have visited it then; he certainly need not have wnited until 133, when some scholars believe he was at the siege 205

SCIPIO'S CHARACTER AND

X. 9. S

\

Jf. Con ..'
Jf.

,)"til Fl

~

:;::

hiH of S~\turn

~hill

of Aktc~

S

P
(~

9 ::,:rr: Hll;;lJ r•;HJ in the: J[;ddle Ages 10 p,,;fH. rn'lrkcd h•· .i..:.Jla, j,J,\~m 1 l*/Jcnce E.H:rombrcJu.<; \l';'!n> [,:·

7·

!1kt:k thl! l"">OV

NEw CARTHAGE.

-·--- Sdpio's Disp. . r;;itknu Ti>e Site la Roman 'lim('S -

ace. to Sr.(3IlOYa.

- - - - ar:c~ to Strathan-Dav.idson ~

1\otnJnTown

--~ i)t.Jt/[u:: t'j'wodcrti !'Ulrl!

(Based on Scullard, Scip1:o African us in the Second Punic War, 29o)

of Numantia (Vol. I, p. 6 n. 3; below, IL 4 n.). But he probably composed his account of the capture of New Carthage before 151 (iii. 1~5 n., § 1), and it is not to be assumed that the whole description of the topography depends on P.'s autopsy. He does not claim that for more than the single point of the length of the walls; and it is relevant that his account of Hannibal's crossing of the Alps (iii. 49· 5-56. 4) depends on a literary source, despite a similar claim to have 'seen for himself' (iii. 48. a). The false orientation :first observed by Droysen (Rh. Mus. I8i5. 62 ff.) may be due to P. or may go back to his source ; for discussion of his suggested explanation see below, 10. 5 n. Without adequate maps errors of orientation are easily made; and despite his emphasis on directions (d. v. zr. 8) P. goes wrong 206

THE CAPTURE OF NEW CARTHAGE

X.

10.

5

elsewhere (d. iii. 47· 2-5 n., on the RhOne). Modem scholars are not without fault here; cf. Vol. I, p. 530 for a map of Alipheira in which Leake's original orientation had to be corrected from Frazer. The particular topographical points are discussed in the relevant notes. For general discussion see Droysen, Rh. Mus. 1875, 62 ff.; StrachanDavidson, 6z9-41 (with map); Hubner, RE, 'Carthago nova', cols. 1(m-4 (unconvincing); Cuntz, 8-zo (with map); Kahrstedt, AA, ~<;12, 225-35; Geschichte der Karthager, iii. 509 n. 2; Brewitz, 47-53; R. Laqueur, Hermes, 19:21, 17o--8o (bused on his 'layers of composition' theory); M. F.-V. Canovas, Estudios geogrdficos-hist6ricos de Carlil~ena desde los tiempos prehistdricos hasta la expulsidn de los Arabes

(Cartagena, 1905; non vidi); Scullard, Scip. 289-99 (with map), probably the best account; S. Witkowski, Bull. Intern. A cad. Pol. Suppl. s. 19+7. 1-12; A. Beltran, Arch. esp. de arq. 1948, 191-224, 'Topografia di Carthago noua'. 10. l. EV KOA'II'~ v10uovn '~~'poe; liv£JLOV M~a.: P. correctly describes the at the head of which Cartagena lies as facing south-west, or more strictly south-south-west (Cuntz, 12); but his dimensions are too great. If the entrance is measured from Punta de Ia Podedera, the southern point of the peninsula of Fort las Galeras, to Punta de S. Ana, west of Fuerte San. Julian, it measures only 96o m.; and from this line northwards to the ancient coastline north of the present-day Arsenal Harbour comes to only z,soo m. (Cuntz. 12-13). StrachanDavidson, 316, measures from Punta de !a Podedera to Punta de (~ate, further south, to get a figure comparable with P.'s; but he admits that 'the inner line from Navidad Point .·north of Punta de Ia Podedera] straight across (3i stades = 670 m.) is more truly the mouth of the harbour'. From the line taken from Punta de Ia Navidad across to the innermost part of the gulf is about xz stades, from Punta de Gate about zo (Strachan-Davidson, ibid.). See, for most of these measurements, Baedeker, Spain and Portuga/4, Leipzig, 1913, map facing p. 319. :J. viluos E'll'l Tou O'TOfla.Tos ••• KE~Ta.~: the island of Escombrera (d. Strabo, iii. 159) lies at the entrance to the Gulf of Cartagena, at a JIOint at which the distance across is not 10 stades (z km.) but r8 •tades (3. 5 km.); and since it is only 450 m. long, it comes nowhere near closing the entrance (Strachan-Davidson, 316). StrachanDavidson, who believes P.'s account to be based on his own observations, has discovered a point just off the quay by the Town Hall, from which the island seems to block the entrance to the gulf ; but there is no reason to think P. was ever at this point in a boat. The errors are probably those of his source. I. wt:p&t:XOflEVTJV 9a.AaTT!I fltv 0.'11'' Ava.ToAwv Ka.l flEO'TJJL~p£a.c;: sea surrounded the peninsula on which the city stood to the south and west

1-(Ulf

X.

IO.

5

SCIPIO'S CHARACTER AND

(not east and south, as P. states). Droysen (Rh. Mus. 1875, 62 ff.) suggested that P. sketched the site on the spot and later put in the compass bearings inaccurately from memory (making east north and so on); but Strachan-Davidson (839-41) points out that this hypothesis does not wholly explain P.'s account of the hills (below, §§ 7-n), which suggests that he has all his bearings 45° out in a clockwise direction, so that his north is the real north-east and so on (see Strachan-Davidson's map with the adjusted directions), an error not excessive, especially if he was calculating north from the polestar, which in his time was 12° east of true north. On this hypothesis, P. is here referring to the water of the harbour lying to the south and south-west (P.'s south), which came round further to the southeast (P.'s east) than it does now. However, Cuntz has some valid objections (1o ff.) to P.'s account, even accepting this hypothesis; and he may be right in suggesting that P. is following an earlier source. cnro S£ TWV SUaewv Alf1VTI: the lagoon 'to the west and extending to the north' will have occupied the site of the modern marshy plain of Almajar, to the north of the city. Its full extent can only be guessed at, but in the west it probably stopped short of Ramblar de Benipila, a waterway now running into the Canal de Algumeca, which drains the Almajar, and 'in the east it extended beyond the town proper and even beyond the line of the Castillo de los Moros (see Scullard's map, Scip. 290, correcting Strachan-Davidson). Here 'west' and 'north' can be corrected satisfactorily to 'north' and 'east'. 6. TOY Aonrov T01TOV ••• fltl 1TAEOV umipxew 11 Sueiv O'TaS(wv: the isthmus lay to the east of the town between the sea and the lagoon. It probably ran from a point east of Monte San. Jose to include the railway station on the north, and on the south along a line southwest from the modern barracks (see maps in Scullard or StrachanDavidson); and it included the Castillo de los Moros. The northern and southern limits of the isthmus are located further south by Kahrstedt (AA, 1912, 217-18); see, against this, Scullard, Scip. 297. P.'s width (approximately 2 stades = 400 yds.) is about correct. 7. tiS£ 1T0Al~ •.• f1EO'OKOLAO~ ean: it has hills all round (cf. §§ 7-II). KQTa Se Tt)v cnro

f1EO'TJf1~p(a~

1TAEupcl.v E1Tl1TESov

~xu

••• 1TpoaoSov:

the side between the cathedral and the Puerta de la Murcia, where the land now stretches considerably further west towards the Arsenal Harbour; there are no hills along this part of the coastline. This line (running in reality south-south-east to north-north-west, and facing west-south-west (not south), can be regarded as the 'south side', either on Strachan-Davidson's hypothesis or on Droysen's (cf. § 5 n.). 8. 0 .. ·J!EYLO'TO~ a1TO Toft~ civaToA-ft~: as Droysen saw (Rh. Mus. 1875· 208

THE CAPTURE OF NEW CARTHAGE

X.

IO. IO

65), Monte Concepcion, the hill on the south side of the town lying between the cathedral and the military hospital, and crowned by the ruins of a medieval castle. It extends further from west to east than Strachan-Davidson's map shows (see Cuntz, I I n. r, and Scullard's map) and it is 2or ft. high. P.'s description of it as lying to the east fits Droysen's hypothesis a little better than StrachanDavidson's. v1w~ )\o-KATpnoG: probably Eshmoun (d. vii. 9· 2 n., discussing 'lolaus'), who is usually equated with Asclepios; cf. Gsell, iv. 315 n. 4; Winckler, i. 445; W. W. Baudissin, Orientatische Studien Theodor Notdeke ... zum 70-ten Geburtstag gewidmet (Giessen, 19o6), 729-55. 9. o lmo Tfi~ SUa£w~ avT(KElTal: the second of P.'s larger hills (§ 7, clpm•ot> KaL Tpaxwtv) will be Monte Molinete, 123ft. above sea-level. Against Kahrstedt's attempt (AA, 1912, 230-2) to identify it with Monte Sacco, which in fact lies opposite Monte Concepcion, to the north of the city, see Scullard, Scip. 296-7. P.'s location of this hill in the west can be reconciled with the true orientation on StrachanDavidson's hypothesis, but not on Droysen's, for if the hill containing the temple of Asclepios was on the east side, Monte Molinete should lie to the south, not the west; see Cuntz, ro. llovapxlKfi~ opeyoll£vov £~oua£a~: P. gives no hint of such an ambibition in Hasdrubal in ii. 13 and 36; it may derive from Fabius' account (cf. iii. 8. 2, l7TLf3a>..€a8at ..• ds f.LOvapxlav mc:ptO"Tijaat To wo>..lTEVf.La nvv KapxYJ8ovlwv) if Fabius is the source here. See further Meltzer, ii. 594 n. 58. 10. at .•. Aomat Tpei~ Twv •.. ~ouvwv: the three remaining hills from west to east are Monte Sacro, Monte San. Jose, and Castillo de Despefia Perros, and can be identified with the hills of Cronos, Aletes, and Hephaestus respectively. On the assumption of a 45° deviation, they can be said to lie in the north part of the city; in reality the first two are in the north and the Castillo de Despeiia Perros in the east. On the assumption of a goo deviation Monte Sacro is on the west side. Kahrstedt (AA, 1912, 230-2) identifies Monte San. Jose with Cronos, Castillo de Despefia Perros with Aletes, and for Hephaestus he argues in favour of a hill where the Plaza de Toros stands and the Roman amphitheatre stood, to the eastern end of Monte Concepcion; but Scullard (Scip. 295-6) argues cogently that the eminence in this area is merely part of the long Concepcion hill, the intervening depression (Calle de Gisbert) being either modern or deepened in modern times. Hence, although Kahrstedt's identifications remove many of the difficulties (since Monte Sacro, Kahrlltcdt's arx Hasdrubatis, lies to the north (P.'s west) and San. Jose, Castillo de Despefia Perros, and the site of the bull-ring all lie to the east (P.'s north)), his treatment of Monte Molinete, which is scarcely to be eliminated as a mons testaceus, and of the bull-ring area, which 814178

p

X.

IO. IO

SCIPIO'S CHARACTER AND

is scarcely to be turned into a separate hill, is so violent that the traditional identifications seem preferable. 11. 'Hcf!a[aTou .•• J\A.f)Tou ••• Kp6vou: New Carthage was a Punic foundation (ii. 13. 1), and the place-names referring to godsmayoriginally have been Punic {d. 8 n.), unless they represent native deities assimilated to Carthaginian. Cicero (de nat. dear. i. 84) records that a god equated with Hephaestus was worshipped in Spain, and comments on the difference between the Italian Vulcan and the Spanish. He may be the god equipped with a conical hat and pincers on coins of Malaca, a Phoenician colony (d. A. Heiss, Description ginirale des monnaies antiques de l'Espagne, Paris, I8jo, pl. xlv). Herodotus (iii. 37) knows of prophylactic figures called llaTa~Ko~. which the Phoenicians set on the prows of their ships, resembling the Hephaestus of Memphis. This Hephaestus was equated with Ptah, and it has been suggested that Ptah ·was adopted in Phoenicia, and there identified with Kousor (cf. vii. 9· 2 n. discussing 'Ares, Triton and Poseidon'; Gsell, iv. 344 n. 4). Philo of Byblus (FGH, 790 F 2, § rr) identifies XouadJp (MS. XpuadJp) with Hephaestus. That Kousor is the Phoenician god worshipped here (whether or no he replaced an earlier Spanish god) seems probable {Gsell, iv. 344 n. 7). A letes is probably a local divinity, for Aletus and Aletea are fairly common Iberian names {d. Hubner, RE, 'Carthago nova', col. 1623); that he was originally a man and the discoverer of the silver-mines may be either an Iberian or a Punic belief, but would be a concept familiar toP. (d. xxxiv. z. 5 ff. on Aeolus). See Gsell, iv. 466. Pedech, Revue de l'histoire des religions, 1964, 44, suggests that Aletes was a local divinity, whom P. interprets as a man receiving divine honours in the Hellenistic manner. Cronos or Saturnus is the usual equivalent of Baal Hammon (cf. vii. 9· 2 n. discussing 'Zeus, Hera and Apollo'; Gsell, iv. 288-9o with 290 n. 3), and may well be the Baal indicated here; the same god gave his name to C. Palos, the promontory of Saturn (Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 19). 12. TTJV ALj.I-YT)\1 ••• atJppouv ••• xeLpo1ToLT)Tws: the artificial canal joining the lagoon with the sea must have lain to the west of the city; against Hubner's attempt {RE, 'Carthago nova', col. 1622) to locate it to the east see Strachan-Davidson, 317, who observes that the isthmus described in § 6 is 'of solid rock and at least 30ft. above sea level'; cf. Cuntz, 14; Scullard, Scip. 293-4, who drawing on the work of Canovas, describes its exact position. It ran from the eastern end of the Artillery Park, past a hill since levelled, but formerly standing on the site of part of this park to the west of the canal, and from here followed the line of the modern Calle de Santa Floren tina in a southwesterly direction until this opened out into the sea in the neighbourhood of the north-west corner of the Arsenal Harbour (see Scullard's 210

THE CAPTURE OF NEW CARTHAGE

X.

I I. I

sketch-map, Scip. 290). According to Canovas (Scullard, Scip. 294), the sea and lagoon were still linked in the sixteenth century, and a bridge at the Puerta de Murcia was repaired in r6oo-2. 13. yiq,upa. ~ea.no-~eeua.
Ka.1'u rijv tvTo~ t1n
X.

II. I

SCIPIO'S CHARACTER AND

for the camp, as explained above. Of these, the position described in 9· 7 is the more convincing; but it is risky to try to assign named sources to the two versions. Livy, xxvi. 42. 6, 'frons natura tuta erat'; 42. 9 'non obiecit uallum ... seu fiduciam hosti superbe ostentans siue ut subeunti saepe ad moenia urbis recursus pateret', follows P.'s account faithfully. 2. To 8£ j.I.ETa.~u TouTwv 8laaTlJj.I.O.: the isthmus proper which, according to the source followed at this point, faces only part of the west side of Scipio's camp, and can therefore be described as KaTd p.iUlJv imapxov rqv avToiJ UTpaTo7TEDElav (a meaningless phrase on the assumptions of 9· 7). 4. b •.• 1tEp(~oAoc; TTJS 1toA£wc;: a circuit of 20 stades (3,700 m.) for the Punic town corresponds reasonably well with the limits determined by Strachan-Davidson (cf. Cuntz, 19). CIL, ii. 3426 (= ILS, 5333/4) mentions a Porta Popillia at New Carthage, and Cuntz (17-18) argues that the building of this, presumably by M. Popillius Laenas, who went out to Spain as consul in 139 and was proconsul of Citerior in 138 (cf. Volkmann, RE, 'Popillius (22}', cols. 6o--61), was part of the reduction in size mentioned here. This would imply that P.'s visit to New Carthage fell after 138. But there were many occasions between Scipio's capture and the middle of the second century when minor modifications in the fortifications could have taken place; and there seems no cogent argument here for modifying the view that P. visited New Carthage in 15I-15o. \Vhich authors made the circuit 40 stades is unknown. ou ••• E~ aKOTJS' ••• O.A.A.' O.UTOlTTO.l: Cuntz (16) and Klotz (Hermes, 1952, 336) argue that since P. visited New Carthage in 134/3. his autopsy applies only to the point for which he quotes it, the length of the walls. The text is vague, perhaps intentionally so (for ButtnerWobst's argument (Klio, 1905, 1o2), that in this case P. would have written TOVTOV a7Torfmtv6p.dJa, carries no weight). If P. visited New Carthage in 151/o, Cuntz's conclusion could still be possible; on the other hand, P. may have revised his account of New Carthage on his return from Spain before publication, and autopsy may have led him to modify his account of the city. But on the whole, the limited character of the context in which he mentions his visit, together with the error of orientation, favours the view that his account mainly follows a literary source (cf. 9· 8-1o. 13 n.). \Vhatever the extent of the changes introduced after 151, P. had probably already written an account before then, in which the present passage (as a minimum) is a later insertion (d. iii. 1-5 n., § 3 (c) (ii) in Vol. I, p. 296). j.I.ET' EtmnaaEwc;: with ath67TTat Y"yov6us-, 'from my own careful observation' (Paton), rather than with a7Toatv6p.€8a (Mauersberger, s.v. a'TT'ocpalvw). See Schweighaeuser, ad loc., correcting his own text and translation. 2!2

THE CAPTURE OF NEW CARTHAGE

X.

12. 2

5. auva"'O.VTOS ••• TOU aToXou: according to Livy (xxvi. 43· I} Scipio drew up the ships in the harbour to share the blockade, and uttered a special warning to keep careful watch during the night. This detail, though not from P., may be reliable. u1rep i!lv ••• 1TE1TOL~j1E6a Myov: cf. 7. 1--8. 9· Livy (xxvi. 43· 3-8, with a lacuna at the end) gives a version of this speech, but postpones the reference to Poseidon (Neptune) until immediately before the crossing of the lagoon (Livy, xxvi. 45· 9) for rhetorical effect. 6. (Twv U1TEvavTU.,v, au~TJaLv): add. Ursinus; it has been generally accepted; cf. Livy, xxvi. 43· 7, 'quae cum magna ipsi habebimus tum dempserimus hostibus multo maiora'. xpuaous UTE.f>avous ••• TOLS 1TpWTOLS ••• civat3aaL: Livy, xxvi. 48. 5 ff., mentions a single praecipuum muralis coronae decus claimed by Q. Trebellius, a centurion, and Sex. Digitius, a socius naualis, and tactfully assigned to both by Scipio when a riot was imminent (Livy, xxvi. 48. 13). Tas Et6Laf.L£vas SwpEaS: cf. Livy, xxvi. 48. 14, 'reliquos prout cuiusque meritum uirtusque erat donauit'. 7. TOV noaEL8wva 1TO.paaTaVTO. KO.Ta TOV U1TVOv: cf. Livy, xxvi. 45· 9 (the next day), 'Neptunum iubebat ducem itineris sequi'. Livyechoes P.'s attitude in the words 'hoc cura ac ratione compertum in prodigium ac deos uertens'; but having postponed the reference to Neptune to the next day he makes no mention of the alleged appearance in a dream. This 'prophecy' and its fulfilment hold a central place in P.'s account of the taking of New Carthage and probably play a large part in the creation of the Scipionic legend. On the credibility of P.'s version see 2. 1-20. 8 n., on p. 196. auvEPYTJUELV £m.f>o.vws: i.e. in the crossing of the lagoon; see above, 2. 1-2o. 8 n. 8. Twv ••• KaTO. T~v 1TapaKXTJaLv Xoywv: 'his speech of exhortation'. 810U 1Tpovo(q.: cf. 14. II, XXiii. 17. 10; neither passage affords evidence for P.'s belief in 'divine providence', since in the second the phrase occurs in a speech, while here and in 14. 11 P. is committed to the theory of fraud. See Hercod, 98. Tols vEaviaKoLs: 'the soldiers'; cf. i. 36. 12 n.

12. 1. Sous ~v ~1TLTpo1T~V rat'l:l: i.e. to c. Laelius. rijs 1ToXLopKfas: 'the assault'; cf. viii. 7. s, ix. 3· 2 n. l. Mcl.ywv 0 TETO.Yf.LEVOS E1Tl TfjS 1TOXEWS: cf. rs. 7. 18.

I. Nothing is known of him beyond this episode. Appian (Hisp. 19 ff.) confuses him with Hannibal's brother. See Ehrenberg, RE, 'Mago(1o)', coL so6. ~1Tl riis aKpo.s ••• E1Ti. TOU 1Tpos civaToAO.s M.f>ou: d. Livy, xxvi. 44· 2, 'quingentis militibus arcem insidit, quingentos tumulo urbis in orientem uerso imponit'. As Laqueur points out (Hermes, 1921, r6r-2), neither the citadel, Monte Molinete, nor the 'hill towards the east'

213

X.

12. 2

SCIPIO'S CH.\R.\CTER AKD

(in fact the south : it is Monte Concepcion; 10. 8 n.) is vital for the defence of the walls; but it does not follow that there is a contradiction between this passage and the statement in § 8 that the best men were later fighting at the isthmus, for, as Scullard (Scip. 83) rightly observes, Monte Concepcion and Monte Molinete may have been these men's normal barracks, and Mago may have stationed them there at the outset to counter any movement from the fleet. Later they can well have been moved to the isthmus (d. 12. 6, ri)> ... i.mKovpla>). Hence no evidence can be drawn from this passage to sustain Laqueur's complicated theories of successive layers of composition. 3. TWV S€ AOL1TWV TOUS eupwaTOTQTOU'i: since Mago had to improvise a source of arms for these 2,ooo, Livy has probably drawn the right conclusion when he writes 'oppidanorum duo milia ab ea parte qua castra Romana erant opponit' (Livy, xxvi. 44· 2). Ti)v 'II'UATJV TT)v .•• €1rl. Tov ia9!J-6v: this lay probably between the Castillo de Despeiia Perros and San. Jose (cf. Scullard, Scip. 297). Kahrstedt locates it further south to fit his identification of the hills (AA, 1912, 232-3; above, 10. 10-11 nn.). To'Ls Se AoL'II'ois 'll'a.pt]yyeLAE ~oTJ9e'Lv ICTA.: cf. Livy, xxvi. 44· 2, 'multitudinem aliam quo clamor, quo subita uocasset res intentam ad omnia occurrere iubet'. 6. axeSov am) Sueiv UTa. Stow: nearly a quarter of a mile, about the distance of the Castillo de los Moros from the Puerta de San. Jose; see Scullard, Scip. 89 n. 1. 7. ~11:wv E1TEUTTJUE ••• 1ra.p' auTT)v TT)v aTpa.To1TeSe(a.v: Livy, xxvi. 44· 3, exaggerates for effect: 'Romani duce ipso praecipiente parumper cessere, ut propiores subsidio in certamine ipso summittendis essent'. otov et aTO!J-a. Tou ••• 'II'At]9ous: 'so to speak the steel edge of the population' (Paton). arop.,a is the point or edge of a weapon (Ael. Tact. 13; Asci. Tact. 3· 5, also comparing file-leaders to such an edge, otov ri)> p.axalpa<; • •• ro arop.a); and in Xenophon (Anab. iii. 4· 42, 4· 43, v. 4· 22; Hell. iv. 3· 4) it refers to the front of the battle. Schweighaeuser compares the Homeric phrase 7TToMp.ow or VCifLLVT)S" arop.a (Hom. Jl. X. 8, XX. 359).

13. 1. ~~:a.Ta Suva1.uv O.acf;a.Aws: cf. 3· 7 n. Livy omits this, presumably as discreditable. 3. Tous iJ1TepSe~(ous TO'II'ous: Livy's source, evidently supplementing P. from elsewhere (perhaps directly from Silenus), adds the detail that this was 'the hill of Mercury' (Livy, xxvi. 44· 6)-evidently the Castillo de los Moros. There is good evidence for the identification of a Phoenician god with Hermes, but his Phoenician name is uncertain; see Gsell, iv. 330. 11. Tijs i}!J-epas 'll'po~a.woua'Tls: 'as the day was now advancing' (d. ii. p. 5 of the Trebia, where the action had also begun in the early

THE CAPTURE OF NEW CARTHAGE

X. 15.5

morning). Livy (xxvi. 45· 8) has mediumferme diei, perhaps his own false deduction from this phrase in P., or perhaps derived by Coelius from a supplementary source. 8. 7 shows that P. believed it to be near evening (see next note). . TT)S - O.fl.ti'WTEWS , ' • 14• 2 • TOY KO.lflOV:

W h'lCh OCCUITed

, \ DHIITJV " ., '· 1·' O'I'WV

o1Tt

(8. 7l· 3. Ka.Ta ~v ALfl.VlJV: probably on the north side, near the modern Molino de Truchas, where a headland must have jutted into the water (Scullard, Scip. 298, following Canovas) ; from here there is a ridge across the lagoon. This would be less apparent to the men fighting on the walls and around the gate, as well as more spectacular when finally it was observed. But a route from the isthmus cannot be entirely excluded (see Scullard's map, Scip. 29o). vea.Xeis tron]oa.s Tous oTpa.TLWTa.s: 'massing fresh soldiers'. 8. Ta p.iv liKpa. TTjs ALfl.VTJS: 'the extremities of the lagoon' (cf. i. 42. 2) or 'the highest points of the lake-floor' (d. ii. IS. Io, etc.); the former is more probable, but in either case the edge of the lagoon is indicated. The meaning given in Mauersberger, s.v. aKpoc;, viz. 'the surface of the lagoon', cannot be right in the context of drriAeLrre ro VOWp KaTa {lpaxv. 11. lha Tou TEAfl.a.Tos &.f1aAAWf1EVwv: 'racing through the shallow water' (Paton). tuTO. TLVos 9eou trpovo(a.<;: recalling II. 8, as § I2 makes explicit. 13. Ka.Teoxov ••• To TEixos: the location of this point is clarified by Livy, xxviii. 36. 5 ff., where Mago later lands a force and leads it to the spot where the Romans had seized New Carthage. Hearing of this the Romans draw up their forces 'intra portam ad stagnum ac mare uersam' (Livy, xxviii. 36. 7). This will be the gate to the west, at the site of Puerta de Murcia, where the canal was bridged (above, Io. 12 n.); and presumably the wading party came ashore a little to the east of this point between Monte Molinete (the citadel) and Monte Sacco (the hill of Cronos; 10. Io-n nn.). T~v EopoSe(a.v: 'they marched along the top of the wall'; cf. viii. 37· 9· 2. trpos TTJV trUATJV: the eastern gate facing the Roman camp. SLeKotrTov Tous fl.OXAous: cf. vii. r6. 5 n. 3. Tov ••• Mov: Monte Concepcion. Its defenders (rove;
15. 1. EtretropeuoVTo Ka.Tfi

X. J5. 5

SCIPIO'S CHARACTER AND

account does not wholly hide his distaste; but he does not condemn the practice as going beyond what is permissible (d. von Scala, 3n). 10. Touo; ypoucpoJLO.xous: light-armed, ~~eWes; see vi. 21. 7 n.

16. 1. TWv woX~nKwv Kat Twv ipyaO'T~Kwv: the latter, the X£~poTt!xva.t. of 17. 6 and 17· 9, are taken by Lhry, xxvi. 47· 1, to be free men: 'liberorum capitum uirile secus ad decem milia capta'. But he may be wrong in this, as he is in limiting the captives to ~£irile secus (cf. 17. 6 n.). In 17. 6-12 P. distinguishes three categories of prisoners, citizens, xe~poT!xva.t, and 'the rest'. The last two categories lose their freedom for the duration of the war (r7. 9, 17. 14); but this in itself throws no light on their previous status. Kahrstedt (iii. sn) is probably right in describing the third group as a mixture of poor Carthaginians, Libyans, and Iberians, perhaps including slaves. But the X£LpoTt!xva~, though their enthusiasm at the hopes of eventual freedom (17. 15) might seem more appropriate to men at present unfree than to free men who are merely being promised the later restoration of the status of which they are being deprived, may nevertheless be free; for their fate was at any rate much better than that of being sold away. They were perhaps native Iberians, who were not citizens of the town; d. Aristotle, Pol. iii 5· 3, 1278 a 8, ~ o~ fJiATlaTT) 1ToAt> oo 1TOL~CT£4 fJd.va.vaov 1ToAlTT)V; Plato, Laws, viii. 848 A. Bickerman (A]P, 1952, 3 n.) also argues that the xt:tpo-rlxva.t are free, and compares the distinction between the Kvpwt Ka.px7J8av~o~ and ol Kapx7J8ovlwv V1TO.pxo' in viii. 9· 5; but the latter are probably Libyphoenicians and so afford no parallel (see notes ad loc.). -roio; U:Ho~<;; cnpa.T01T~bols: probably four in all, including the allies; for Scipio's forces at New Carthage see 9· 6 n.; cf. below, § 4· 16. 2-17. 5. Digression on the method of dividing booty in the Roman army. This is supplementary to P.'s account of the Roman army in vi. 19-42. l. EKcl<JTTj'i o'lJLata.s: Reiske's brilliant emendation of eKaaT7J> ~~-tipa.> (cf. vi. 34· 8 and vi. 40. I I for confusion between these words in the MSS.) ; Schweighaeuser comments : 'diuinum prorsus in hoc genere ingenium uiri elucere fatendum est'. 1TpOS TTjV 11'pii.~lV a1Top..EpitoVTa~! 'are told off for this duty'. 3. C.d 'lTPO!> TO &euc.vuE~v: Casaubon suggested OHKWf.tEVov, translating 'prout indicati periculi ratio postulauerit'; and Lipsius rendered the infinitive by 'ita ut semper tamen se ostendant', though it is doubtful if the active could have that meaning. The received text can hardly be right, and Casaubon's emendation is the most simple and satisfactory proposed; alternatively Wunderer (Phil. 1894, 68-69) readS 0'aKtll8VV€lJELll. 4. Suo oTpa.To1T€Ba. 'Pw11aXKci Kat SUo Twv O'UJLJLO.xwv: cf. Livy, xxxvii. ~16

THE CAPTURE OF NEW CARTHAGE

X. 17.

II

39· 7. 'duae legiones Romanae, duae socium ac Latini nominis erant'. P. is thinking of a normal consular army of two legions plus auxiliaries, here reckoned as another two legions; but the emphasis is on the separation (St!Jp1Jp.lvrr>) into legions and allies, a point missed by Paton, who renders 'their armies are usually composed of .. .'. 1'01'1; 8f: I(O.t 0'1TO.VlW') a&po~OjJ-f.VWV KT).,: 'all fOUr being assembled together only on a few rare occasions'. 5. 1rp0.0EVTWV TOU'TWV: so Casaubon, FS rrpa.x8€v-rwv 'TOVTWV. The Roman soldier had no legal right to a share in the praeda (cf. Livy, iv. 53· ro), but in practice normally received one, so that failure on the part of a general to make such a distribution was resented (cf. Livy, iv. 53· ro, v. 26. 8; contrast Livy, vi. 2. 12). Where immediate distributions were made, either the booty was divided and disposed of by the soldiers individually to dealers who followed the army (cf. xiv. 7· 3; Livy, x. 17. 6, 20, r6), or the quaestor sold it and divided the proceeds among the army (Livy, xxxv. 1. 12); cf. Marquardt, ii. 274-5. Despite its awkward character (for it is hard to «mvisage an equitable method of dividing miscellaneous plunder among a large body of men) the former method seems to have been more generally employed; cf. Livy, v. 22. r, vii. 27. 8, xxiii. 37. 13, xxiv. r6. 5. xxvii. 19. 2, xxxvi. 30. r, xxxvii. S· 3 (though not all these passages exclude sale and division of the proceeds, even though it is not mentioned} ; and since the MS. rrpa.xBiv-rwv Totlrwv, 'when this has been done', is no more difficult than Casaubon's emendation, which involves an awkward switch to the neuter after i1Jtj>£AEia> a line earlier, the text should be kept, with Schweighaeuser (see his note ad loc.). Alternatively, if rrpax8€V'Twv could mean 'required to hand over (sc. the booty)' (d. Thuc. viii. 5; Luc. ix. 21; Plato, Laws, xi. 921 c; SEG, ix. 8, L 99, xP~p.aTa ••• rrpa.xBivTE> (Cyrene edict)). TOti"Twv COU}d be 'these men', i.e. o{ 1rpdr; TTtV aprray~v aTrOj1.£ptcrfJiV'T€';. In either case, this passage should not be quoted as evidence for the u.le of booty before distribution of the proceeds to the soldiers. See further Vogel, RE, 'praeda', cols. r2oo-13. 7. U1rf:p 1'ou-rou ••• dp1J1'0.l Trpo-rEpov t1tt-iv: d. vi. 33· I n. (where 'Cincius Alimentus' is an error for 'Cindus') for the oath. 9. nis yO.p E).Trl8o<; ••• ouK G'lftO'TOUiJ-EV'flS Q.).).~).ol<;: 'since there is mutual distrust concerning their hopes of plunder'. 17. 3. ou 8uvap.c;vol Kpo.-rt:iv: i.e. those in authority. 6. JU~
X. IJ.

l[

SCIPIO'S CHARACTER

A~D

sailors and marines; for this meaning of -rrA~pwfLa cf. i. 29. I, 29. ro, v. 94· 8, etc. See Schweighaeuser ad loc. 12. ~ll~ot..ious ••• i\ 1Tpoa0Ev: 'half as many again as before'; the reference is to sailors (ToJ)s- mivTas vati-ras). hence Scipio can man half as many ships again (35 +r8): § 13. Strachan-Davidson's explanation that the new sailors (not the total) amounted to one and a half times the original number contradicts P.'s specific reference to Tov,; m:fVTas vavTas-. ~aTe Taus KvSpo.s ••• ~pa.xu T~ A.d'tl"ew ToG SmA.o.a(ous elva.~: in addition to increasing his sailors by a half, Scipio chose enough men from among the slaves at ~ew Carthage to enable the total complement of each ship, including both sailors and troops, to be increased to nearly twofold its former size. 13. a.: 8' E~ C.pxils 'll'tV-n KO.l TpL6.tcoVTn: d. iii. 56. 5 n., 95· 5 n.; Thiel, n I, 120. In 2o8 Scipio has a fleet of 8o (Livy, xxvii. 22. 7); this involves, in addition to the 35 ships used this .rear and the r8 captured at New Carthage, a further 27 ships. According to Livy, xxvi. 19. II, Scipio had taken 30 quinqueremes to Spain; but if it is accepted that the 20 ships sent out to Spain in 217 (iii. 97· r~2) had relieved the Massaliote squadron operating with Cn. Scipio (d. iii. 95· 5 n.), there will already have been a fleet of 35 quinqueremes in Spanish waters. Thiel (ru) suggests plausibly that Scipio beached the 30 ships he had brought with him, incorporated the socii nauales in his land forces (as in 209(8; d. 35· 5) and fought with the 35· These 30 would bring his total up to 83, which might well be rounded off in Livy to 8o. Livy's statement that he increased his fleet by 8 (Livy, xxvi. 47· 3) is probably the result of an error in the text. 15. vpo9uJJ.£nv ••• To is xetpoTEXvn~s: cf. r6. 1 n.

18. 1. SUo ••• TWV etc T~S yepoualClS KTA.: the )'Epovala will be the select council of thirty, the cn/ytcA7)To> the larger body of several hundred (cf. i. 27. 6 n.). They were no doubt representatives of the home government attached to the Spanish front; cf. vii. 9· I n. for the position of Carthaginian representatives who shared in Hannibal's treaty with Philip V. 6. tcovous ~eo.l +EXA.~n: 'trinkets and bracelets'. pnf-Lcf.6.s: 'curved knives': Toup restored the correct form from Hesychius. 7. rijs Mo.v8ov£ou yuvo.~~eos, bs i'jv O.SeA.cf.os :A.v8o~6.A.ou: on Andobales see ix. n. 3 n. For the desertion of both brothers to Rome see 35· 6-8. On the llergetes see iii. 35· 2 n. E'ti"IO'Tpocf.l]v ••• TllS o.uTWv el!axTJJJ.OcrllvTJs: 'a care for their honour'. 13. TWV :A.v8o~6.A.ou Ouyo.TEpwv: d. ix. I I. 4· Ti}v Tils vepun6.aews i11cf.naw: 'the character of the danger to which they were exposed'.

THE CAPTURE OF NEW CARTHAGE

X.

20. f

19. 1. napt:8l8ou To'Ls TaflLaLo;: the plural is inaccurate, since Scipio would have only one quaestor; Livy, xxvi. 47· 8, gives his name as C. Flaminius, who was later consul in 187 (Livy, xxxviii. 42. 2). Livy gives a more detailed list of booty: 276 gold paterae, nearly all a pound in weight, r8,3oo pounds of silver and many silver vessels. He also mentions many catapults and military standards, 4oo,ooo modii of wheat, 27o,ooo modii of barley, and 6.3 merchant ships with their cargoes. The source of this circumstantial account is unknown, and the details will not necessarily be accurate (Livy, xxvi. 47· s-ro). 3. tj>LA0YU\11lV iiVTa TOY nonALOV: this trait may be referred to in Naevius, fg. 108 (Ribb. com.). l8LWTTJS: 'a private soldier'; cf. v. 6o. 3; Diod. xix. 4· J. aTpa.Tl)yos 8' lmO.pxwv: cf. 40. 5 n. O"TpaT"?yO> here is 'general'; Scipio's rank was pro consule (cf. z. I-zo. 8 n.). 6. cl> noT' Ci.v 'ITpoa(pTJTilL TWV noALTWV: in Livy (xxvi. so. I-Iz) the same anecdote is elaborated and romanticized to include a young man Allucius who is in love with and betrothed to the girl. Scipio hands the girl over to him along with a large sum of money given by her relatives. 8. l~~1TEfllftE ra.LoV TOV AalALOV ••• t:to; Tiiv 'PWflTJV: cf. Livy, xxvi. 51. 2 (where the :\-ISS. mention only one ship). According to Livy, xxvii. 7· 1, Laelius arrived in l{ome exitt' ann£ huius (i.e. 210/09 according to his chronology). Klotz (Hermes, 1952, 339) thinks Laelius went twice to Rome, once immediately after the fall of New Carthage, and again at the year-end; but more probably De Sanctis (iii. 2. 469 n.) is right in suggesting that Livy found the account of Laelius' arrival in Rome in the consulship of Q. Fabius Maximus and Q. Fulvius Flaccus, i.e. A.U.c. 545 209 B.C., and having dated the fall of New Carthage to the previous year compromised by putting Laelius' arrival at its end, when the consuls for 209 were already designate. 20. 2. €n~ TplaKoVTa aTa8lous: cf. Livy, xxvi. 51. 4, 'in armis quattuor milium spatio decurrerunt'. Tfi S' £~-iio; 6.vcmauea9aL Ka.t pq.9ufLe~v: Livy, xxvi. 51. 4, reverses the order, assigning the third day to sword and javelin practice, and the fourth to rest. Since this is more logical, with a day spent cleaning arms interposed between active running and fighting, there is much to be said for E. Schulze's proposal (Rh. Mus. r868, 431) to transpose 'J"ff o' ~tfi> . .. pa8vJLEfv so that it follows tl~eoVTl~ew in § 3· 3. eatalpwv: 'covered in leather and fitted with buttons'. ypoatj>ols: hastae uelitares; cf. vi. 22. 4 n. for this weapon. 4. Touo; XllLpOT~xvao;: the 2,ooo workmen who were to be public slaves for the duration of the war in Spain. On their organization cf. 17. ro (Ka.8a1T!ip 1rpoet?Tov). 219

X.

20.

SCIPIO'S CHARACTER

7

TOA~!lOU: cf. Xen. Ages. i. z6, dglav of. Kat l5A7JV ' 7TOI\LV '\ , :1. , ' \ ayopa ' ' f.LiiO'T7J' ,J: ~ ~ TTJII EV l/ ,J: 'I" 0' EaS' I£7TOtTJO'f:ll. 7J., Tli yap 'IV 1TaVTooa1TW~' 1eal 07TAWV Kat '£7T7TWV J.w{wv, o'£ T€ XUAK0Tti1TO~ ICO:t Ol TeiCTOVES' Kai o/
7. epya.aT'IlPLOV •••

8. Ta.is Twv Tuxwv Ka.Ta.aKEua.ls: 'by repairing the walls'. 21-24. Philopoemen reforms the Achaean cavalry This fragment, from the res Graeciae of Ol. 142, 3 zro/o9 B.c. (in fact 209) concerns Philopoemen's hipparchia, to which he was elected in autumn no, when Cycliadas became Achaean general (zz. 6: cf. Plut. Philop. 7. 2; Paus. viii. 49· 7; Livy, xxvii. 31. 10 for Cycliadas). By this date entry upon the strategia, and with it the hipparchia, was in autumn; cf. v. Io6. I n., xi. Io. 9·

21. 1. EopuAEc.>v: presumably the Achaean general for zufro; he is not mentioned elsewhere (Xiese, ii. 483 n. s), but may be the father of Xenophon of Aegium (cf. xviii. r. 4 n.). The approach to Sparta in the late spring of 210 (ix. 28-39 n.) had brought her into the war, and under l\lachanidas (41. 2) she threatened Achaea. For the loss of Aegina the same year see ix. 42. TTJY O.pxi)v Twv c.>v: on Philopoemen see ii. 40. :z n. Since Sellasia (ii. 67. 4 ff.) he had served as a mercenary in Crete (Plut. Philop. 1· I-2; Paus. viii. 49· 7) for about ten years; he will have returned to Achaea in 210. P. is here thinking of his official career and so neglects his achievements at Sellasia (on 1rpage,s cf. § 6 n.). TCtS El< liaTwv 0. yc.>yO.s Ka.l cj>uai!LS: 'their training and character' ; similarly the account of Scipio's rrpaf€•> is preceded by a discussion of his atpea~s Kat ,Puat:;, and dm; 1ro£as -/>va<w:; ~ -rpt{3ij;; opp.7J0c£s he accomplished them (2. I-2). P. also emphasizes the aywyry of Xanthippus (i. 32. I), the elder Tarquin (vi. II a 7), and Chaeron (xx:iv. 7· I); cf. Pedech, REG, 1951, 91. Kat 'II'Ept TOUTou 'l!'o~ijO'a.L TO 'l!'a.pa.TAt]awv: for an attempt to analyse P.'s procedure in terms of the schemata laid down in late rhetorical manuals see 0. Schissel, Rh. Mus. ry:z6, 84-97; it fails because it assumes P. to be writing an encomium of Philopoemen, despite the clear indication that this is what he is not doing (§ 8). 3. T .•• O.yc.>yns Ka.;. tt]A.ous: 'the education and tastes'.

PHILOPOEMEN REFORMS ACHAEAN CAVALRY

X.

21.

5·

Ka.l. Ta.lha. ••• T~v SLa.cpopO.v: 'though such infonnation is more profitable' (Paton). 4. To~s EJLIJsuxous livSpa.~: Schweighaeuser's convincing emendation Of p e?J!Jnjxov<:; for the COntrast With a#xwv cf. Vi. 47• 10, {1Tpos) tva.vop&U>ow: for the didactic purpose see Vol. I, pp. 6 ff. S-8. Life of Philopoemen. When P. composed this is not recorded and has been the subject of much controversy. \Verner, 14, dated its composition to the period 18o-1p when, he argued, Lycortas' party was out of office (a dubious assumption). Lucas, 35 n. 2, assumed that P. composed it after 146 to defend the dead leader against Roman criticism (cf. xxxix. 3), a view that has been generally rejected, though not always for good reasons. Nitzsch, 137, for example, argued that if Lucas was right it was odd that the Philopoemen dealt only summarily with its subject's adult years; but in fact K€cpaAatwSwc; (§ 7) describes the general character of the encomium contrasted with the Histories, and does not imply that Philopoemen's adult years were given summary tre;).tment and his early youth developed at length (so Pedech, REG, 1951,82-88; contra Jacoby on FGH, 173). A stronger argument is that the Philopoemen was an elogium or encomium (§ 8), and that this was quite distinct in rhetorical theory from an apologia (Arist. Rhet. i. 3· 3· 1358 b; i. 9· 33· 1367 b; Pedech, REG, 1951, 89). Finally, it is certain that P. had written at least as far as xv {and probably xvi) by r46 (cf. iii. r-5 n.); therefore, since P. here(§ 6) says that the Philopoemen was an earlier work, to date it to 146 will involve the hypothesis that the account of Philopoemen in xis a later insertion, a view for which there is no evidence whatever. It is therefore unlikely that the encomium was written at the date and in the context assigned to it by Lucas. Recently Pedech (REG, 1951, 88-ro3), anticipated by Wunderer (i. 87), has argued that P. wrote his Philopoemen at Rome as an educational model for the young Scipio Aemilianus. But this view depends largely on the thesis that it was primarily concerned with Philopoemen's education and early years, a view not supported by the evidence (see below) ; and, as Ziegler observes (RE, 'Polybios (r)', cols. 1472-3 n.), Scipio's model and vade-mecum is known to have been Xenophon's Cyropaedia (Cic. T.D. ii. 62; ad Q. frat. i. 1. 23). Further, Philopoemen was hardly the figure to commend himself to the young Roman noble as a model ln view of his supposed hostility to Rome (d. Treu, Historia, 1954, 119 n. r). Altogether, then, the view that the Philopoemen was a youthful work written soon after its subject's death is the most convincing (Nissen, KU, 28o-r; Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (r)', col. 1472).

It is highly probable that Plutarch's Philopoemen is derived very largely from P.'s encomium (d. A. H. L. Heeren, De fontibus et auctoritate vit. parallel. Plut. commentationes quattttor (Gottingen,

X. 2r. 5

PHILOPOEMEN REFORMS ACHAEAN CAVALRY

r82o), 86-88; M. Haug, Die Quellen Plutarchs in den Lebensbeschreibungen der Gracchen (Tubingen, 1854), 84-86; Nissen, KU, 28o-7; contra Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (1)', col. 1472). The Life includes many details not in P.'s Histories, but not inconsistent with them; whether Plutarch used P.' s Life directly is another question, not relevant here. Pedech (REG, 1951, 8z-88) has tried to establish the detailed contents of the Philopoemen, but unsuccessfully. He argues that the phrase Tds t1rupavwnhas 1Tpafe.t> (§ 6) means Philopoemen's achievements prior to his holding the hipparchy (cf. § 7, Tr7w ve.wTe.ptKwv '~.\wv), and therefore that of the three books of the encomium, book i dealt with Philopoemen's birth and education (cf. § 5, Tls ~v Kat T{VWV Kat TlaLV aywyafs txp~aaTO v€o<; WV), book ii With hiS Career down to 2ro/o9, and book iii with his nKfL~· But the t1Tt<pav€aTaTat 1Tpafets seem to be the deeds of Philopoemen's prime; cf. § r, €1ri T~l' apx~v TWV ..• 1Tpafe.wv, which implies that the 1Tpafm began with his official career, and neglects what was done earlier, for instance ai Sellasia. Moreover, if Plutarch's Life is any indication, where only seven chapters out of twenty-one deal Vvith the period before the hipparchy, it is unlikely that two-thirds of the encomium was concerned with these early years. Equally unconvincing is Treu's attempt (Historia, 1954, 22o-4) to expand the Philopoemen to contain an excursus on the early history of the Achaean confederation (Plut. Philop. 8), inserted between Philopoemen's early life and the account of his prime~an excursus which he thinks served P. as a source in the Histories. In reality, the detailed contents and disposition of the Philopoemen seem to be irrecoverable. 5. TtS iiv Kal T(vwv ••• vEos wv: on the triple scheme here outlined see Treu, Historia, 1954, 221, who observes that T{s originally included a man's character or tf>urns, and only later came to point only to his name. In the Euagoras !socrates has only the first two points: 1rpwTov fLEv oov 1Tiipt T~S tf>uae.ws Tfjs E?!ayopov Kat Tlvwv ?jl' a1Toyovos • •• DOKiii [LOL 1TpE1TiitV • .. Ot~;.\lhtv (Isoc. Evag. 12). The third, dywy~. is found, however, in Xenophon's Cyropaedia (i. 1. 6), Tls 1TOT • wv y~;v~Edv KaL1Tolav nvd tf>uatv EXWV Kat 1rolq. nv11Tat8w1Jds 1Tat8Elg, TOIJ'OVTOV Ot~VIiYKf.V ds TO apx€tV dv!Jpdmwv. The whole scheme appears later in Nicolaus of Damascus' biography of Augustus (FGH, 90 F 126). Pedech (REG, 1951, 83) argues that this part of Philopoemen's career was treated in detail, and adduces the use of 8taaatf>ovvTES; but 8watf>dv means only 'to explain' (cf. ii. 19. r3, where it refers back to the cursory mention of Sena in ii. 14. II and ii. 16. 5). 6. TTJV TE 1Tat8tK~V 6.ywy~v •• , KO.L TdS t1Ttcf>avEO'TCLTO.S 1Tprl~EtS: th(' former is taken up as Tfjs ... vEwre.ptKfjs dywy~s Kat Twv v~SwT~EptKWI' ~~Awv

(§ 7), the latter are the achievements of his adult career (§ 7, Tof,

... KaTd TfJV aKfL~V athou ... epyoLS). On the view that the tmm· €ararat 1Tpaf~Et> are the same as o[ v~Ewre.ptKo1 ~ij.\ot see above, §§5-8 IL 222

PHILOPOEMEN REFORMS ACHAEAN CAVALRY X. 22.2

7.

~eo:rO.

p.Epos &.t¥EAELv: 'to abridge the details' (contrast 1Tpoa8Eivat KaTd. p.€po>, 'to add details'). Schweighaeuser quotes Reiske's view that KaT here means simply 'modo ... modo', 'on the ~ea~

one hand' and 'on the other' per compensationem; but this is already in p.iv • .• !5€. The account of Philopoemen's early youth and training is to be abridged, not because it has been described in greater detail in the monograph than have his later years, but because a detailed account of such matters is out of place in a general history. KftPa.Aa.I.WSws EKEL OEOTJAwp.€vo~s: summarily compared with the requirements of a history; but an encomium, P. adds (§ 8), a1r7lnt Tdv KerpaAaun87} .•• a1ToAoyu7p.ov.

TO 1rpt1rov ~I< a. TEp~ Twv O'UvT6.€ewv: cf. ii. 40. J, KaTll T6 1rpE1rov Tfj yparpfj, where P. makes the same contrast between history and biography (or encomium). 8. Encomium and history. It is a mark of the y€vo> €yKwp.taaTtKov that it requires avf'r/at> (amplijicatio), a feature stressed by Gorgias, who laid it down (Plato, Phaedr. 267 A) that the orator's task was to make Ta ap.tKpd p.qcD..a Kal Ta p.€ycf>.a ap.tKpa rpalv£:a8m. There was a clear line between history and encomium (also called €m8€tKTLKov undTTav'r}yvptKov; cf. Kroll, RE, 'Rhetorik', SuppL-E. vii, cols. u28~9) on the question of truth (cf. xii. 28 a 1). The distinction is developed in Lucian, Hist. conscr. 7; see Avenarius, IJ~I6, 159-60, also discussing the present pas..<;age. ~toLV6s l:Jv E1Ta.(vou Ka.t lJH)you: this is essential to the moral and didactic purpose of history (cf. Vol. I, pp. 6 ff.), and must therefore be firmly based on reasons (p.€7' a1To8dfEw>); see viii. 8. 7 n. Elsewhere Jl. criticizes Phylarchus (ii. 61. 6) and Timaeus (xii. 15. 9) for omitting l1rawo> in the proper place; and in i. 14. 5 he insists that personal friendship or hostility must not affect the historian's duty to apply praise and blame (cf. vi. rr. 10, xviii. 41. 1). Avenarius, 157-62, stresses the development of this by Ephorus and Theopompus. 'I'OV p.ET' a1T00eL~EWS KO.L TWV •.• O'UAAoyLO'p.wv: sc. a1ToAoytap.ov; 'an account supported by reasoning and the considerations accompanyIng each action'. This seems the most likely rendering, since, if av>.>.oytap.wv is translated 'calculation of results', 1rapmop.lvwv has no obvious sense.

::12. 1. e€ O.vSpwv TWV E1TLtPO.VE0'1'a1'wv: d. Plut. Philop. KpaiJytv, av8pa 1TcfVTwJJ EJJ€Ka Aap.1Tpov; Paus. viii. 49·

I. I,

1TaTlpa

2.

61ro KA.Ea.vSpov TOV Ma.v1'LVEa.: cf. Plut. Philop. 1. 1--2; Paus. viii. 49· :z, which however add nothing. Cleander was exiled from Mantinea about 273, which can be established as approximately the date of Philopoemen's birth. When Craugis died Philopoemen was 1rai:; ll!f1Tw> (Paus. viii. 49· :z). ::1. ,.,A.wT"I!s 'E~<Sitp.ou ~ea.t ATJp.ot¥6.vous: cf. Plut. A rat. 5· I; Philop.

X.

22. 2

PHILOPOEMEN REFORMS ACHAEAN CAVALRY

3-4; Paus. viii. 49· 2. In the Philopoemen Plutarch gives the names as Ecdemus and Megalophanes (some .MSS. Demophanes), in the Aratus only the former is mentioned, in the form Ecdelus; Pausanias has Ecdelus and Megalophanes. Ecdemus is unparalleled as a Greek name, and could be a corruption influenced by Demophanes; the variant M:egalophanes might then be due to confusion with Megalopolis, the city of the two men. But certainty is impossible. See Beloch, iv. r. 614 n. 4; Ziegler, Rh. Mus. 1934, 228-33 (Ecdelus and Demophanes) ; W. Capelle, RE, '.Megalophanes', col. 143 (Ecdemus and Megalophanes). 4»Euyov1'E<; 'Tolls 1'upuvvou<;: probably Aristodemus the Good, who seized the tyranny at Megalopolis at the time of the Chremonidean War (Paus. viii. 27. u). :A.pKEa£Aq. 1'~ 4»lAoao+'l:l: Arcesilaus of Pitane in Aeolia succeeded Crates as head of the Academy in c. 268-5 (Diog. Laert. iv. 32), and founded the sceptical middle Academy; he held this position until his death in 24r fo. au
1.

-rwv Ka-ra T~ll Tr
Magas' widow Apama brought in Demetrius the Fair, a son of Demetrius Poliorcetes, but he was murdered at the instigation of her daughter Berenice (v. 36. r n.). Some Cyrenaic federal coins overstruck on issues of Magas carry the monogram .6HM, suggesting that the organization of Cyrene as a koi1wn was the work of Demetrius. If so, the Megalopolitans were perhaps called in by Demetrius, who had been, like them, a student of Arcesilaus at Athens (though whether at the same time is not known); cf. Diog. Lacrt. iv. 41; Jones, CERP, 359, and Beloch, iv. I. 616 (who abandoned this view in iv. 2. under the false impression that the Ptolemaic l5td.ypa!J-!-I-a found at Cyrene (SEG, ix. r), and outlining an oligarchic constitution, belonged to this period; it belongs in fact to the fourth century; cl. Rostovtzeff, CAH, vii. I2i)· Alternatively they were summoned by the anti-Egyptian party after Demetrius' murder (d. Tarn, CAH, vii. 7u); this would better fit the references to disorder, but would leave the Liberators less to organize. On the whole the former view is more likely, but the evidence is indecisive. Jones (CERP, 359--6o} suggests that the creation of the federal Pentapolis (Pliny, Nat. hist. v. 3r) dates to the reorganization carried out by the Megalo polita.ns; on the Penta polis see Larsen, CP, 1952, 8.

PHILOPOEMEI'< REFOR}1S ACHAEAN CAVALRY X. 23. z

4. lhi,t:pE ••• TWv Ko.9' a.uTbv: 'he came to excel his contemporaries'. S. Ka.-r<'a. -rTjv 1rEpLKo1T"ftv: cf. vi. 53· 6 n. (where read Tr<EptKoTr~v). 6. Ka.-ra.O"Ta.IMs ••• twwupxT)s: for :uofo9; d. 21-24 n., 21. 2 n.; Aymard, ACA, 96 n. 1. The Achaean hipparch (cf. ii. 37· xo n. (e); Aymard, ACA, 323) was nominally concerned mainly with the cavalry; but Philopoemen was exceptional in treating these duties seriously (§§ 8-<)). 7. tftAov E1rL1't:UKTLKov: 'an enthusiasm which could not fail to bring success'. 9. Tftc,;; O'Tpa.TT)y'o.c,;; bpEyO!£t:voL: the hipparchy was normally merely a step in the Achaean cm·sus honorum. t~EpL9euov-ra.L -roue,;; vious: 'they canvass the soldiers'; cf. Arist. Pol. vii (v). 3· 9· IJ03 a 15, €~ atperwv yap J.TrolTjcrav KATjpw'Tds, on iJPoVJI'TO 1'0V> €pL8€uopivous (of offices at Heraea). For viot, 'soldiers', cf.

v. 26. 8 n. ds -rb fltAAov: the cavalry, being naturally taken from the wealthy, would be influential in the elections (cf. Plut. Philop. 7· 3), whether these were in the hands of a full citizen assembly (as in the third century) or in those of the Council (as seems to be the case in the second century; cf. Larsen, 7s-ror, and especially 98). Aymard (ACA, 2ro-n) argues that £ls r.l p.iX\ov envisages political support to be given by what are now young men when eventually they reach the voting age of 30 (Techeance ... lointaine'); but P. is thinking of the support a hipparch can expect when he stands for the cn-pa'TTJyla, which might be quite soon, as in Philopoemen's case. Some cavalry at least would be of voting age, and it is of these that P. and his hipparchs are here thinking (despite viot, 'soldiers': see last note). 10. To -rwv KmvQv &wEXEa9a.L: on corruption in Greek public life cf. Vi. 56. 1J. lhC.. -r..;v Ka.KotT)Awa(a.v: Suidas read KaKo{TJA{aJ•. Either will give the same sense, and what that is P. makes clear in xi. 8. 4~7, where in connexion with Philopoemen's reforms as general P. reverts to his criticism of the other Achaean slralegoi. KaKo{")AwO'la., 'affectation, bad taste', seems to be the equivalent here of 'i]A.os ovK dm'X~> arising EK ri'js 'TWII a:V.wv cL\a,ovt:lar Kat ri'js aKatplas, i.e. an excessive and inappropriate dandyism and affectation detrimental to military discipline. The effect of this on the cavalry is worse than on the infantry, probably because the former being richer are more likely to be infected.

23. 1-8. Specific cavalr:y manauvres. ;I, K~WELc.;; £'' TtVlC.V KO.t , •• ewt 86pu: 'facing round to left and to right'; the individual horseman turned through 90°; d. Asclep. ro. 2, I(AKrtS p.i':v oOv l.crnv ~ Kar' av8pa. Klli")Ut!>, br1 8&pv fLEV ~ I.Trl 0£~Lct, 8U17S

225

X. 23.

2.

PHILOPOEMEN REFORMS ACHAEAN CAVALRY

i1T' d(J'1Tloa 8~ ~ E1T. dptr.rrf.pci., E1Ti 0~ nvv t1T1TO'TUJV lrfo' ~v[av; Arr. Tact. 21 ; Ael. Tact. 28. I. For an example of the use of KAlcns by infantry cf. iii. 115. g-IO (Libyans at Cannae); vi. 40. !2 (Roman marching column). &vauTpo!fn1 ~eat I.I.ETa~o!.T): cf. iii. us. 3 (where, however, these terms are used vaguely). Here p.e7n{3oA~ means turning through r8o0 , and dvar.rrporfo~ a return to the original position; cf. Asclep. IO. 3. ~ o€ ois i1Tl 'Td avnl ytvop.lll"f) KAlaL<; Ka'Td. VWTOV Ta<; TWV &rrAtTWV o'fins fLETar.Oeiaa Kal..£i'Tat fLETaf3oA~; JO. 6, d~·ar.rrporfo~ lU EaTLV d1ToKaTcfr.rraaL<; 'Tfj<; emcrrporfofjs .. Oil 1TpOKa'TEtXE 7d ~ in relation to a whole body of troops; but just as ema7potf>~ (see below) can be used of an individual (cf. Plut. Philop. 1· s), so presumably can &.vaa7poif;~. Schweighaeuser, ad loc., took avaaTpoM to mean a return to the original position after the KAlats itj>' ~vtav or E1Tt oopv. But iii. IIS. 3 shows it to go closely with p.eraf3oA~. and the meaning will be 'facing about and returning to the original position', with hysteron prateron to avoid hiatus. 3. Ku.T' ouAU.tJ-OV 8' hrLuTpoq,T) KU.L 'I!'EpLa1Taup.O~: d. i. 76. 2--9 n .• xii. r8. 3· The tactical •vriters (Asclep. ro. 4-5; Arr. Tact. 21. 3; Ael. Tact. 25. 5) define imaTpo~ as a movement by which a whole body of troops swings round, pivoted on the left or right file leader, so as to finish at go 0 to its former position and further forward, e.g.

z,

b; right file leader First position Second position Third position

K

a b c d (a) b ( c)(d) [a] b [c) !dl

(cf. Asclep. 10. 7; Arr. Tact. 2I. 4; Ael. Tact. 25. 8) represents the same movement continued through a further 90°, so that the body now faces the direction opposite to its original one. 4. ETl 8' EK'II'Ej>LU1Tau~6s: cf. Asclep. ro. 8; Arr. Tact. 21. 5; AeL Tact. 25. 9· This movement represents yet a further 90° turn by the same body, so that the troops now face a direction to the left of their original position. A fourth turn through 90° would bring the troops back to this position, and such a turn was called imKaTci.aTaats. i~a.ywyat ~eaTd Xoxous Kat 81Xoxlas: 'dashing out in files or double files'. For Aoxos in this sense (rather than 'company'} see Asclep. z; Arr. Tact. S· 4; Ael. Tact. 4· 1-3, 5· 1-2; and for SL~oxla, 'double-file', Asclep. 2. 8; Arr. Tact. 10. 1; Ael Tact. 9· 1-4 a. LSJ rnistranslates 'double-company' (the sense in Arr. Tact. 15. 3), and Paton is also

'TI'E:pw·rraap.os

226

PHILOPOEMEN REFORMS ACHAEAN CAVALRY

X. 23.7

Wrong with 'in single or double companies' (duplicated four lines earlier as 'in sections and double sections'). C'UVQ.ywy(l,t ••• !'-ET' ~1Toxf\s: 'reining in to return ... '; El> t/..as is Scaliger's emendation of the MS. 0111111lAas. Eight {,\at are said to make one imrapxla {Asclep. 7· II; Arr. Tact. 18. 2-3; Ael. Tact. 20. 2), and an i,\71 to contain 64, a iTmapxla 512 horsemen (though variants are found). av:\ap.os is not used by these v.Titers, but is equivalent in P. to an £/..71; cf. 21. 3, xviii. 19. 9 (of Aetolians). Hence there is much to be said for Schweighaeuser's suggestion that 0111El/..as is a gloss (= O€s 111r/..lls) giving a technical equivalent for ov:\ap.ovs which has crept into the text. If that is SO, Ei> OVAU.j.I.OV>, ElS imrapx{a.> Will be 'to return to their squadrons and brigades'. But P. may have written 111ls tAils, indicating a general sense, 'they returned to their formations'. For a discussion of l!..llt and :."11'1Tilpxlllt in Alexander's army see P. A. Brunt, ]HS, 1963, 27-45 and G. T. Griffith, ibid. 68-74.

5. lKT6.€ElS ~ Tfj> "'l'a.pa Tovs ovpayous). This sense of "'l'apllyw'YI) (Scaliger's emendation of the MS. "'l'apa/..oyijs) can be illustrated from Xen. Lac. pol. II. 6-8, where the Spartan Jvwp.oTlat are advancing in column, one behind the other, and meet an enemy phalanx; whereupon Ttj} lvc,Jp.oTapxcp 1rapryyviiTat a.Aay~ iva.VTm KaTa.O'T'fi. This advance of each unit, by an oblique march forward,

so that it can take up position in line with the first unit, involves marching along the backs of the troops in front, since those furthest to the rear march furthest to reach their new positions in the front; and this is what P. means here by "'I'CJ.pa TOV') ovpayous. (In the tactical writers "'l'o.paywy~ has another meaning, tl1at of a phalanx advancing in line, rather than in column, like Alexander's at Issus (xii. 20. 1), cf. Arr. Tact. 28. 3; Asclep. II. 1; Ael. Tact. 36.) 6. TO.s ••• K(l.TO. 1TEp(KAa.ow: sc. EKTagn.,; cf. xi. 23. 2 ; 'deployment by wheeling round'. In this rnanceuvre troops advancing in column limply wheel at a given point and proceed at right angles to their former direction. This would be a simple method of converting an extended line into marching order ("11'opE£as .•• 8£Ci.8eatv) or vice versa. 7. TO.s (1TQ.ywy6.s: 'advances in column'; cf. Arr. Tact. 28. 2, Ka~ ~"'l'a.­ yw'Yl} 11-/.v E(}'TLV, brlli~Oav ntyli-a Tayp.an E"'l'' .:vfJv €"11'1]TaL. Cf. xi. rs. 7' xviii. 31. 12 (of a phalanx charge).

X. 23. 7 PHILOPOEMEN REFORMS ACHAEAN CAVALRY

autuyouvTnS Knt auaTo~xoOVTns: 'keeping in line and in column'. 'vyEiv, 'to stand in rank', and CFTotxeiv, 'to stand in file', are used by the tactical writers (cf. Asclep. 7· 4, of cavalry squadrons). 9. To is T£ '1I'OAAois Knt Tois &.'11'oTEAdo,s: 'to the troops and to the local commanders'. For ol ?Tol.l..ol in this sense see i. 33· 4, etc. (Paton has 'the people', wrongly); for ol ~'ITDTI!.eto' cf. xvi. 36. 3; IG, v. 2. 293 (i\1antinea); Bean, ]HS, 1948, 44~48, 11. 39--40, d?To-rll..t:,os wv Kat a7TOO'TaA£ls- E1T1. TWV ll€aVlUKWV (Araxa). An d?To-rE'>..ews was evidently

a minor local magistrate with military duties; in the Mantinean inscription he commands infantry, and Toup suggested that in Suidas, a'/TonfA€W'' ol KO.Til '/T!lA€tS ~Y€/.1-0VES' TWV 'IouSaiwv, the last word is an error for }ixattiJv induced by the reference to Jews in the previous article. Aymard (ACA, 1oz n. 1) observes that as hipparch Philopoemen had no access to a political assembly and so toured the towns making contact with the local cavalry contingents and their officers, and later (aoOts) paid a second visit to make sure all was going welL OL KtlTa '11'0AELS llpxovTES: the a?TO-ri'A£WI. and other officers. 10. Twv ~YEJLovwv: the word ~Yf/.1-dw frequently denotes a highranking infantry officer in the armies of this period, including Achaea (cf. Itm. Delos, 442 B, L 68; Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 3 (with Robert's additional bibliography); but here cavalry are involved, and fJYE/.1-0l!ES' must therefore be 'officers' in the general sense, as in 24. z and elsewhere (cf. Launey, i. 24-25).

24. 3. Tl yO.p ••• £ma!Jla.AEO'TEpov KTA.: cf. 3· 7 n. 4. aTpnTLWTLKTJS E:~oua{nc.;: 'the qualifications of an ordinary rank and file soldier'. Paton renders 'a display of his military rank', but this error is already noted by Schweighaeuser. On the contrast between CFTpanwn~nXTJpEus: the simile is perhaps from Demetrius' l)rpaT'7Y'Ka, a work in two books (Diog. Laert. v. 8o); so Ostermann, De Demetrii Phaleri uita, rebus gestis et scriptorum reliquiis, Progr. Hersfeld, 1847, and Fulda, 1857, fg. xxxix; Wehrli, Demetrios, fg. 123; von Scala, 154; Jacoby on FGH, 2z8 F 27; Martini, RE, 'Demetrios (85)', col. 2832 ; Wunderer has no good grounds for rejecting this view. Von Scala observes that Demetrius' comparison with building goes back to Socrates ; cf. X en. M em. iii. 1. 7, 1rol..v yd.p Star/>E'pH CFTp&.rw~.~-a -rero.yj.~.lvov d:raKTOv,

Wa1rep MOo,

TE Kat

?T>..lv8ot

~tal. ~vl.a ~tal. ~tlpaj.i.os

chrLK7'WS p€v EPP'!.I-1.1-lva ovS€v xf"latj.l.a lanll, E7TEtadv Kcll

i1Tt7ToAfjs nl. j.I.~Tii'.

c:Jrj7TOj.i.€Va

1.1-'47'£

T'I')KDj.i.€J!a,

8£

TaxBfl~taTw ~.~-£v

or T€ MOot

Kat

& Klpaj.i.OS',

PHILOPOEMEN REFORMS ..-\CHAEAN CAVALRY X. 25. t p.ea~.p S€ a£ TE. 7TAlv8oL Kal Td gt!>.a., wawE.p otKOOop.lq. uVVTtfiE.TaL, T(JT£ ylyvETaL wo.Uov tigwv KTijp.a, olKla. iws Myou: i.e. if not by practical ; there is an implied

Jv

criticism of Demetrius' theoretical approach to such a subject as tactics. Compare Cicero's criticism of the older Stoics in de leg. iii. 14, 'nam ueteres uerbo tenus acute illi quidem, sed non ad hunc usum popularem atque ciuilem de re publica disserebant'; Plut . •Wor. 1033 B, lv >..&yo~s-; von Scala, I 55· •Av .•. To 1rapa.n8€v: 'if one sets down a brick at a time and the construction receives due attention in each separate course'. Biittner\Vobst accepts Casaubon's TTAlvOov 8fis- for wA.f]Oov fiErs- F, or 7TATJVflov8Eis- or -'ITAlvOovfh£s- SE, and Schweighaeuser's 7TapaTEBev for wapappaylv Sand 1rapan8ev Parisinus B.N. Gr. 165I in app. There is some compression; expanded the full sense is: 'just as in building, if one sets down the bricks [carefully] one by one and each separate course of the construction receives due attention, [a firm structure results], so in an army the careful training of each man and each file makes the whole force strong'. >.&xos- gives a better point if taken as 'file' rather than 'company', since the file is to the individual what the course is to the separate brick.

25. 1-5. Fragment of a speech This fragment is probably from a speech delivered at Aegium in 209; see above, p. I 5· In spring 209 the Achaeans had appealed for help to Philip (Livy, xxvii. 29. 9), who had defeated an Aetolian force at Lamia, and then returned to Phalara to meet neutral ambassadors from Rhodes, Chios, Athens, Egypt, and Athamania. (Ferro, 7 n. 6, refers App. Afac. 3· 1-2, to this occasion; but see xi. 4· 1-6. Ion.} Philip agreed to a thirty days' truce, continued into Achaea, celebrated the Argive Herea towards the end of June (Livy, xxvii. 30. 3-9), and then proceeded to a conference which had been called to Aegium. Since the object was to coax the Aetolians out of the war, the Macedonians stressed that Pergamum and Rome were gathering all its fruits. This will be the context of this fragment. The conference proved abortive, since half-way through news came that a Roman fleet was at Naupactus and Attalus had reached Aegina; whereupon the Aetolians put forward unacceptable demands and Philip broke off negotiations (Livy, xxvii. 30, Io-15; Walbank, Philip, 89-90).

25. 2. Tel. 1Tpa.KTLKwTa.Ta. T7]s Suvn}LEWS: 'the most agile part of the force'. -rftv s· imypa.cJ>T]v: 'the credit' ; cf. i. 31· 4. ii. 2. 9 n.

FRAGMENT OF A SPEECH

X. 25.6

25. 6. Fragment of a speech This sentence in oratio obliqua probably comes from a speech delivered at the same conference as 2s. I-S; unless it is from a defence by Philip of his behaviour at Argos. The latter is rather unlikely. See p. IS on the position of the fragment. 6. OTJiJ.OKpa.Tu
26. Philip's behaviour at Argos After the breakdown of negotiations at Aegium (25. I-S n.), Philip hoped to make contact with a Punic fleet commanded by Bomilcar, and said to be on its way to Greece; but Bomilcar never passed Corcyra, and Philip returned to Argos to celebrate the Kemea in July (2o9); cf. Livy, xxvii. 30. IS-I7; Walbank, Philip, 91.

26. 1. j.I.ETd TO iKTEA~aa.t TOV ••• aywvo.: with the introductory words this is probably the excerptor's interpolation. From Argos Philip was called to repel a landing by P. Sulpicius between Sicyon and Corinth, and having done this he returned to Argos to complete the festival (Livy, xxvii. 31. I-J). a.OO~s ELS "'pyos t'ITa.viJAee: from repelling Sulpicius (see last note), though in its present context it suggests that Philip had held the Nemea elsewhere. At this time the Kemean festival took place at Argos, not at Nemea. 2. i€oua(a.v ••• iJ.Eltw Ka.t iJ.OVo.px~KwT£po.v: 'the greater and more monarch-like was the licence he displayed; for this sense of Jeova{a cf. § s. xxxii. 2. 1· 3. oll yAp lfn Tas xiJpa.s i'ITe(po. KTA.: for a typical incident cf. Plut. Mor. 760 A-B; see also Livy, xxvii. 31. s-8, xxxii. 21. 24. All this is characteristic of the tyrant (cf. vi. 7. 7' avavnppl)Tovs Bi KfJ.t7Tapd. TWJJ ~ p:r1 7rpOG7JKOVTwv Tas Twv a'l'poota~wv XPetas Kat avvova~as , an d contrasts with Philip's democratic bearing and costume. There is probably a hostile tradition behind this, exaggerating the extent of Philip's debauchery. 4. TWV 1.1.~v Tous u~Eis, Twv 8~ To us llv8po.s: Livy, xxvii. 31. 7, 'periculosumque et uiris et parentibus erat' ; but the variant does not warrant tampering with P.'s text. \

T

\

-

,).

I

I

'

I

)

PHILIP'S BEHAVIOUR AT ARGOS ~1Tl

X.

2]. I

1TpocjlaC7EOW aAoyolS OlEO'ElE: cf. iii. IS. 9; 'he terrified them on

groundless pretexts'.

5. XPWf1EVOS TTI KctTa TTJV 1TctpemOTJf1LC1V

E~OUO'Lc;_l ••• avEOTJV: Jfova{q.

Valesius for P Jfovmav. Biittner-Wobst assumes a lacuna to explain the hiatus and suggests 81)ptwOw> Kat dviOYJv (cf. xv. 20. 3), which may well be right. The adverb (or adverbs) must be taken with XPWJLEVO> (not with EAV7rE£, as Mauersberger, s.v. aJJEOYJV). Translate: 'through his display of excessive licence during his stay in the country'. 6. Ta 1rapa cjluow: whether P. means what is outrageous (d. xv. 36. 4) or what it is contrary to nature to endure is not clear owing to the break in the text.

26. 7-10. Philip's deterioration For earlier remarks on this subject see vii. II. IO, 13. 7 (comparison with a werewolf), I4. 6 (choice of friends)-Philip's first step in his f-£ETa{3oA~. P. does not see Philip's career as a gradual unfolding of his natural characteristics (cf. ix. 22. 9 n.), but treats these as part of the influences to which he was exposed (cf. xvi. 28. 5-6) ; his f-£ETa{3oA~ is caused by defects which he acquired in the course of his life (e.g. through listening to bad advice; cf. vii. I4. 6, ix. 22. 10). Von Fritz (Histoire et historiens, 103--6) derives this way of considering personal development indirectly from Aristotle, who (Eth. Nic. ii. I ff. IIOJ a 14 ff.) traces a man's character or ~8o>, not from his vat>, but from a series of decisions freely taken, which lead him in the direction of apET~ or 7rOV1Jp{a according to their tendency. This view of von Fritz is, however, to be qualified in as far as P., when he specifically criticizes the view that character is an unfolding of vm>, shows some influence from Stoic teaching; see ix. 22. ron.

26. 8. Ka.9cmep ev(ols ••• Twv 11r1rwv: a comparison perhaps derived from personal experience (cf. von Scala, 23 n. 8).

9. ev To is 1TpOOlf1LOlS: 'at the outset', i.e. when each character is first introduced, not 'in the preface of my work' (Paton) nor 'in prologues'; P. uses 7rpoypa~ for 'a prologue' (cf. xi. I a I). For P.'s practice in this matter see vii. II. 1 n., ix. 22. 7 n. See Leo, Biographie, 186 ff.; Bruns, 5 ff. 10. Ta.UTTJV ••• TTJV E1TlO"TJf1a.a(a.v: 'this method of indicating it'.

27. 1-31. 15. Antiochus' expedition against Arsaces Two contiguous, but not continuous, fragments-there is a break in F after 27-are from the res Asiae of 01. I42, 3 = 21o(o9; see above, p. IS· The Parthians had recently conquered western 231

X.

z]. 1

ANTIOCHUS' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES

Hyrcania, Comisene, and Choarene to the south of the Caspian; and further east Euthydemus of Magnesia had seized Aria (cf. Holleaux, CAH, viii. I4o = Etudes, v. 322). In autumn 2Io (probably; cf. ix. 43 n.) Antiochus had sailed down the Euphrates; in the spring of 209 he was in Ecbatana, in Media, preparing his expedition. There is no evidence that the Parthians had seized Media. P.'s sources for the whole of Antiochus' eastern expedition are obscure; against von Scala's argument (262) that he followed Zeno of Rhodes, who had information from Polyxenidas (29. 6 n.), see Ullrich, 3I-32. But either directly or indirectly P. seems to draw in part on an eyewitness (cf. 28. 3 n.), who took part in Antiochus' anabasis and subsequently published an account of it; he may be the 'mercenary source' detected earlier (cf. v. 40. 4-57. 8 n.). By this expedition Antiochus thoroughly re-established his position in Media, where recently-found inscriptions from Nehavend attest the position of the Seleucids there in I93 (Robert, Hellenica, 7, 1949, 5-22; 8, 1949, 73-75; Bull. ipig. I95o, no. 2I7; cf. Clairmont, Mus. Helv. I949. 2I8-26; A. G. Roos, Mnem. 1950, 54-63; I951, 70-72; Aymard, REA, I949, 327-45; Edson, CP, I954. II2-I8). 27. 1. ~ M1JS[a: see v. 44· 4-II on its character and extent; see now also Schmitt, Antiochos, 5o-6r. Tl7w KaTa TlJY ~a[av SuvaaTELWv: 'the principalities of Asia'. Historically Media had been a separate kingdom, though now it was a Seleucid province. TWV r1T1TWV: cf. v. 44· l n. for the N esaean horses of Media, and the location there of the royal herds. 2. Ta ~aaLALKa auanjllaTa Twv ivrroTpo~LWV: 'the royal herds for breeding'; cf. v. 44· I, Ta ••. imrorfo6p{3ta. The phrase is awkward; but £1T1TOTporfola is commonly used in the plural, and Casaubon's l-rrrroTporfoeiwv, 'stables', is no improvement. (SLQ. Tljv TWV Tovwv) eu~utav: so, convincingly, Biittner-Wobst, comparing ii. 68. 5, iii. 92. II, iv. 38. II, x. 40. II. 3. rrEplOLKELTCLL St voAeaLY 'EAATJVLUL: these, like the 1roAm· d[toAoyot, which Alexander founded among the Cossaei (Diod. xvii. III. 6; on the Cossaei see above, v. 44· 7 n.), will be military settlements, not full cities (d. Tarn, Bactr£a, 8-9; for P.'s loose use of 1r<:IAts- cf. i. 72. 2, iii. I8. In., iii. 6o. 9. vii. 9· 5, xxv. r). They were needed to secure what was to be the central province of the Seleucid realm (cf. E. Meyer, ElUte, I9 n. 2) and the usual headquarters of the GovernorGeneral of the Upper Satrapies (Bengtson, Strat. ii. 78 ff., and especially 86 n. 2). There were, of course, full Greek cities in Media, including Heracleia (Strabo, xi. 5I4; Ptol. vi. 2. r6; Amm. Marc. xxiii. 6. 39), Apamea Rhagiane (Strabo, xi. 524; Pliny, Nat. kist. vi. 43), which according to Isidore of Charax was in Choarene, east

ANTIOCHUS' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES X. 27. 7

of the Caspian Gates (Stath. Parth. 8), Laodiceia (Strabo, xi. 524; Steph. Byz. s.v.), now identified as Nehavend (see above, 27. I-JI. 15 n.) and Charax (Isid. Char. Stath. Parth. 7; Amm. Marc. xxiii. 6. 43) ; and the two native towns Ecbatana and Rhagae were refounded as Greek cities named Epiphaneia (Steph. Byz. s.v . .ityfJa-rava; i.e. a foundation of Antiochus IV) and Europus (Strabo, xi. 514; Ptol. vi. 2. 17; Amm. Marc. xxiii. 6. 39) respectively. But it is neither proved nor probable that any of these is earlier than Seleucus I, the attested founder of many. See Tscherikower, 99-ror; and, on Seleucus I's foundations, App. !3yr. 51· 1TA~v 'EK~a.-ravwv: the capital of Media, modern Ramadan; cf. Herod. i. 98 ff. on its foundation. Pliny's attribution to a Seleucus (Nat. hist. vi. 43) must be rejected in the light of the present passage; but Antiochus IV founded Epiphaneia here (see last note). Herodotus (loc. cit.) describes a sevenfold fortification, each ring a different colour (perhaps with astrological significance; How and Wells, Commentary, ad lac., quoting Rawlinson,}RGS, ro, r841, 127, for a parallel from the poet Nizami). Diodorus (xvii. no. 7) makes the circuit of the city 250 stades, an exaggeration. There has been no excavation. On its wealth see, besides Herodotus, Ps.-Aristotle, de mundo, 6. 398 A. Pedech, Methode, 568-7o, argues that P. drew his description of the city from Callisthenes. 4. iv liE 1'ois vpos 1'ns tipKTovs ~€pEaL: Hamad an lies on the main Baghdad-Teheran road, on the slopes of the Elvend range, which forms part of the ancient Mt. Zagros (cf. v. 44· 4-II n.); cf. § 6 n. Toil) vEpt ...,v Ma.u7!Ttv ~<:a.l1'ov Eil~ewov ~€peaL: true only in reference to P.'s distorted geographical picture of northern Media. See above, v. 44· 4, where the Elymaeans, Aniaracae, Cadusii, and l\iatiani are placed in the north of the province, i.mlpKELTaL o€ Twv avva'IT'T6VTwv 1Tpd> Ti)v Matumv Tov ll&vrou p.£pwv; cf. Schmitt, A ntiochos, 6o; Pedech, Methode, 568-9. 6. (11To ...~" 1Ta.pwpe~a.v T~v 1Ta.pn 1'ov 'Op6VTT)v: for the Orantes (mod. Elvend) cf. Diad. ii. 13. 7 Ctesias, FGH, 688 F I (rJ. 7)); Ptol. vi. 2. 4· Ammianus (xxiii. 6. 39) calls it Iasonius mons, but Ptolemy (loc. cit.) distinguishes between this and the Orontes. Pliny (Nat. hist. v. 98) calls it Oroandes, which Kiessling (RE, 'Hyrkania', col. 461) connects with the Iranian Arvant. 8a.u~a.crlw!; vpO!; oxvpOTt)1'0. KO.TEO'KEVO.O'~Evt}V: this casts doubt on Aelian's story (Var. hi st. vii. 8) that Alexander had the citadel and its wall dismantled as an expression of grief after Hephaestion's death. 7. To ~t\ynv Ka.TC. JlEpos: 'to say something' (not 'to go into details', as Paton) ; see ii. 40. 6 n. lxn 1'tv' 0.1Top1a.v: P.'s embarrassment is due to the fact that such -roTToypa.rf>iaL are part of the stock-in-trade of the rhetorical historian, who uses them to work up his material (e!£pya{eu8at) in an exciting 2 33

X. 27. 7 ANTIOCHUS' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES

way (cf. xxix. I2. 4; Avenarius, I47-8). \Vhere such accounts further the understanding of historical events, they form a valuable adjunct to the narrative (cf. i. 41. 7, iii. 36. I-S. v. 21. 6-7, x. 9· 8); but here their only justification lies in the details of§ IJ. 8. TUS EK1TA']KTlKUS TWV s~TJYTJUEWV: cf. XV. 36. I, where sensational accounts are also associated with ailf7Jat>; ii. 61. I, f-LET, avf~a<w> Kat StaiNa<w> (of Phylarchus)-hence Schweighaeuser's convincing correction of the MS. i5wf3aaEw> here (Lex. Polyb. s.v. i5ta8wt>; in text and commentary, following Ernestus, he had read owTaa<w>). See above, VoL I, pp. 8-g; ii. s6. II-12 n.; Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (I)', cols. 1So4-6. M. Hadas, Hellenistic Culture (New York, 1959), 168, instances the elaborate description of the palace at Ecbatana with which the book of Judith opens. To is s· EuAa.~ws 1Tpocr1TOpEUOJJ-EVO~S KTA.: i.e. himself. 9. axt:OOV ~1TTO. aTa.O(wv: nearly 6! furlongs. Twv Ka.Ta JJ-Epos Ka.Ta.crKeua.crJJ-aTwv: 'of the separate buildings'; the palace was probably a complex of structures. TTJV Twv E~ &.pxijc; Ka.Ta.~a.AAoJJ-evwv euKa.~p(a.v: 'the wealth of its original founders'. 10. Ta 4>a.TvwJJ-a.Ta.: 'the compartments of the ceiling' (Paton); cf. Callixenus, FGH, 627 F 2 (= Athen. v. 2s); IGR, iv. ss6. From the resemblance in shape the word is derived from ,PaTv7J, 'manger' (which also has this meaning; see references in LSJ). Ae1T£u~ 1TEjnE~AiJ4>8a.l: 'plated'. KEpa.JJ-(Sa.s: 'roof-tiles'. 11. Ka.Ta TTJV 1-.At:~O.vSpou Ka.l. Ma.KEOOvwv ~4>oSov: Alexander entered Ecbatana in 330 in pursuit of Darius after Gaugamela, and lodged the Persian treasure in its citadel (Arr. Anab. iii. I9. s-8). This Strabo (xv. 731) makes 18o,ooo, and Iustinus (xii. 1. 3) 19o,ooo talents; it was not, however, all from Ecbatana, though it may have included the metals mentioned here. Ka.Ta TTJV 1-.vnyovou Ka.i IeAeuKou Tou N~Kavopos Suva.oTE~a.v:

Seleucus I and Antiochus I (in reverse order to avoid hiatus; cf. ii. 2. 2 n.). The title Nicanor is found elsewhere (cf. Euseb. Chron. i. 249 Schoene, 'Seleukus autem aduersum barbaros profectus uicit, et rex declarabatur; atque inde Nikanor uocatus est, id est uictor'; the same reading is found in the Armenian version, 117 Karst); but it seems to be a manuscript error for the cult title Nicator (cf. Stahelin, RE, 'Seleukos (2)', coL I233), the usual form and the one known from inscriptions and papyri (e.g. OGIS, 233, L 2 from Antioch in Persis; Dura Parchments, 2s, 1. I9 from Dura; OGIS, 24s, 1. Io, from Seleucia-in-Pieria; cf. OGIS, 263, I. 4, 413; CIG, iv. 6856). The sanctuary around Seleucus' tomb was called the NtKaT6p<wv (App. Syr. 63), and apparently Seleucus was deified by Antiochus I (Tarn, Hell. Civ. so). On Seleucid cult see Bikerman, 236 ff.; for the meaning l34

ANTIOCHUS' EXPEDITIOX AGAINST ARSACES X. 28.

1

of the title, which obviously indicates a conqueror, cf. App. 5::;'1'. 57; Amm. Marc. xiv. 8. s. xxiii. 6. 3; Euseb. loc. cit. Paton has, inaccurately, 'Seleucus the son of Nicanor'. ll. o ... vo.os ••• Tfis Arvl]s: Anahita, the Persian goddess of the fertilizing waters, who was perhaps originally Babylonian, and whose cult was widely spread throughout the territories once under Persia. Her name was usually hellenized as :4.va.la. or :4.vai.'n>; cf. e.g. Plut. Artax. 27; Strabo xvi. 738. See Cumont, RE, 'Anaitis', cols. 2030-1; ERE, 'Anahita', 414-r5; S. \Vikander, Feuerpriester in Kleinast'en und Iran (Lund, 1946), 69, who suggests emending AtV'I)> to :4.vat,-,So, (contra Festugiere, Coniectanea neotestamentica, 12 (Lund, 1948), 48-49, who both here and in Strabo, xvi. 738, would read the goddess's name as Nava[a, found on inscriptions and in papyri). auvETt6EwTo: 'had been assembled' ; aw,-tOTJfi-' often means 'to put together in a construction', but this meaning, implying that they were therefore still in place, hardly fits here, where lv a.irrij; suggests rather that the silver tiles were being stored in the temple. 13. TO xa.pa.x8iv E~S TO ~a.cn'-~1<:0\1 T)8poUr8'1] VOJL~O'l«t: 'sufficient was collected to coin royal money amounting to .. :. The phrasing is awkward, and it is not wholly clear whether vofi-Ulfi-a. goes with xa.pax0€v (so LSJ, s.v. xapauaw) or with To{la.atAtKOV (Mauersberger, s.v. fla.u,Au.:6s); but the latter seems more probable (literally, 'from all the above-mentioned objects was collected the (metal) stamped to form royal money'). Most translations render f3a.atJ.,~<6v 'stamped with the king's effigy', and this was probably true of these coins; but {JaatAtKo;; does not have that meaning. Babelon, Rois de Syrie, lxxxi, tries to identify a gold issue of Antiochus with these coins, but hardly convincingly. The down-to-earth economic facts with which P. ends his account of the temple furnish him with some justification for the details of its magnificence, a subject which had aroused his qualms in § 8.

l8. I. ilws ••• TouTwv Twv Torrwv: the area east of the Caspian Gates, since the great desert (,-~v ... lpYJfi-ov) begins here and skirts the southern flank of Mt. Elburz (Alburz). relieved only by scattered OaSeS ; cf. V. 44· 4, Ta Ka.'Td. 7'~V ~P7Jfi-OV 7TEO{a T~V fi-ETaeu K£tfi-EVTJV TijS' Ilepaioo> Kal rij> IlapBuala> (with note). P. does not mention Rhagae and the Caspian Gates (the defiles of Sialek and Sardar, 7o km. south-east of Rhagae; cf. A. von Stahl, Geogr. ]ourn. 64, 1924, 318-20) again, presumably, because Antiochus has already passed them since leaving Ecbatana. See Pedech, REA, r958, 73-74. On the town of Calliope, mentioned just before this point, see JL 15 n. )l.pa6.KT}s: Arsaces II succeeded his father Arsaces I in 2IIj1o and ruled until 191; Arsaces I seized power in c. 238 and took the royal title in 231. See Justin. xli. 5· 7; Arrian, Parth. in FGH, rs6 F so and 235

X.

28. I

ANTIOCHUS' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES

31 (where Tiridates, Arsaces I's supposed brother and Arsaces II's supposed father, is to be dismissed as non-existent). Cf. J. Wolski, Historia, 1959, 222 ff.; 1962, IJS ff.; K.-H. Ziegler, Die Beziehungen zwischen Rom u. dem Partherreich (Wiesbaden, 1964), 13-14; Niese, ii. 398. SuvO.p.EL 'I'TIALica.oTTI: according to Iustin. xli. 5· 7 he had 1oo,ooo foot and 2o,ooo horse, almost certainly an exaggeration (Debevoise, 17 n. &) ; Pedech, REA, 1958, 73 n. I). 2. l:nroVOj.lOL •• , q,pt;Cl'!'(as rxov'I'~<S: 'underground channels linked with wells'. The underground channel, in Persian kanat, is still essential to the oases of Iran; some are so km. long (R. Blanchard, Giographie universetle, ed. Vidal de la Blache and Gallois, viii (Paris, 1929), I6I; cf. Pedech, REA, 1958, 74 n. 2}, and some seventy converge on the town of Yezd from the south-west. 3. &.1--TJ&T)s .•. Myos OLa 'I'WV eyxwp(wv: from P.'s source, either an eye-witness, or derived from an eye-witness in Antiochus' army. 4. 1'ou T aupou: here Mt. Elburz. P. is following the post-Alexandrian picture of the Taurus as a 'broad mountain-spine running due east, the Taurus-Elburz-Hindu Kush-Himalaya' (Thomson, 134; Eratosthenes' map of the East on p. 135}. This was the famous diaphragma of Dicaearchus, and various parts had various names, including 'Taurus'. For details see Ruge, RE, 'Tauros (5)', cols. 39-50, especially 44·

l~< p.a~<pou Ka.'l'aaKEua~ov'I'ES 'l'ous u1tovo1-1ous: cf. § 2 n. 6. '!'ous 1tEpl N~Kop.T)oytv: a mercenary captain from Cos (29. 6) ; on Coan mercenaries see Launey, i. 239-40. 7. 1tpos 'I'Tjv 'E~
236

ANTIOCHUS' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES X. zB. 7

KAVlR 8. ANTIOCHUS' ROUTE ACROSS MT. ELBURZ (Based on War Office Map of Asia, Sheets N-]. 40) Wien, 1o2, 1882, 223-4, following A. H. Schindler, ZGE, x8n, 217;

JRAS, 1877. 425-7; Pedech, REA, 1958, 74-5). This would fit the account of Alexander's march of 330, when he rested his men some days at Hecatompylus (Diod. xvii. 75· 1) before crossing into Hyr~ cania by two routes; he himself took the shorter, probably via Chehardeh and the Dorudbar. The remarkable spring (J.:n{Jol'T'Y]>, Diod. xvii. 75· 2; Ziobetis, Curt. vi. 4· 4), 150 stades from Hecatompylus, was identified by Marquart (51 ff.} with the Fountain of Ali (Chesmehi-Ali), which lies on this route (ct. Weissbach, RE, J.:n{Jot-rTJS', col. 2484); though A. F. von Stahl (Geogr. Journ. 64, 1924, 324) would identify the River Ziobetis with the modern River Dorudbar, which runs north-west fromMt. Shah-kuh, through the gorgeofShamshirkur. The bulk of Alexander's army and his chariots and baggage were sent under Erigyius by the longer and easier route, probably that over the Chalchanlyan Pass (29. 3 n.), which Antiochus now took. 237

X. 28. 7

A!-TTIOCHUS' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES

Tarn (Bactria, 13-14) has argued plausibly that 'Hecatompylus', like the names of several other Greek towns in Iran, was a nickname, taken from Homer's Thebes and signifying that it had 'more gates than the stereotyped four of Hellenistic tmvn-planning'. For the view (rejected here) that Hecatompylus stood at Shahrud see A. D. Mordtmann, 5.-B. Munchen, r86<), 497-536; Kiessling, 'Hekatompylos', cols. 279o-7; Tarn, Alexander, i. 56 n. ('more probable ... but there is no certainty'). A. F. von Stahl (Geogr. ]ourn. 64, 1924, 323-5) suggested a site west of Damghan, on some hills lying to the south of Gusheh; but he had not investigated this site, and it may in fact contain no ancient remains. f:v ll-E:an Tft napeu,vfl: d. Pliny, Nat. hist. vi. ll3; this implies that Choarene and Comisene, the regions as far west as the Caspian Gates, were now in Parthian hands. Twv 8~68wv ••. auli"'""rrTouawv: this has been used as an argument for identifying Hecatompylus with Shahrud; but Damghan, with the passes leading north over the Elburz to Astrabad and Sari, west to the Caspian Gates and east to Aria and Bactria, could easily fit this description. 29. 1. ofh' av ~1nT1)8E~OTE:pous TO'IrOUS ~t,;TE:~: for fighting a pitched battle the bare plains south of the Elburz would be preferable to the richly wooded valleys to its north. 2. Ets TfJV 'Yp~
A~TIOCHUS'

EXPEDITION AGAI:.<ST ARSACES X. 29.6

A. Conolly ,journey to the North of India, i {London, 1834), 212-16, who in 1829 rode over it on his way from Astrabad to Shahrud, in preference to the shorter Quzluq route, which was infested by Turkman brigands. Conolly's route is indeed the natural one for anyone travelling direct from Astrabad to Damghan via the Dorudbar and the valley of Chesmeh-i-Ali; and it gave him the impression that he was ascending 'a very steep Kotui over the main ridge of the Elburz', and clearly struck him more forcibly than the 'one steep but short hill' which must be the Pass of Chalchanlyan. If one calculates the beginning of Antiochus' 3oo-stade ascent from Shahrud or nearby (3o. 2 n.), the Pass of Labus will be either the Quzluq or Conolly's pass; which, cannot be determined with certainty. Kiessling (RE, 'Hyrkania', coL sor) agrees in making Labus a pass leading directly down to the coastal plain, but he is surely wrong to make Antiochus reach it so far west as Sari (cf. Pedech, REA, 1958, 79-Bo). TO 'ITAi}Sos ,.Wv ~ap~6.pwv: perhaps the Tapyri of v. 44· 5 (cf. Kiessling, RE, 'Hyrkania', col. sor). Tam (Bactria, 20) suggests that they were mercenaries in the Parthian army, but their admission into Sirynx (31. 2-3, 6) does not impose this assumption, which seems on the whole less likely. s,Md'I'THV TO ••• '1TAT}9os: 'to break up his light-armed troops into several bodies' (Paton). 5. TftV 1TPWTTJV ~8wKE T6.~w: 'he assigned the first position .. :. ALoyEvE~: the governor of Susa in 222/r (v. 46. 7, cf. 48. 14), later left to control ~ledia (v. 54· 12). Ta~w f.LEv ovK EVEJ.LOV: 'held no regular station (in battle)' ; Paton omits to translate. 6. Kpi}Ta.S aa1n8LwTa.<;: cf. v. 3· I n. noXusEV(8a.s 'Po8lOS: the fan10US Polyxenides, later Antioch us' navarch against Rome (193/r); d. Livy, xxxvi. 4r. s. xxxvii. 8-IJ, 29-30; App. Syr. 17, 22-27. He had been exiled from Rhodes, for reasons unknown (Livy, xxxvii. ro. I; App. Syr. 21, 24). See Lenschau, RE, 'Polyxenidas', cols. 185o-I; Launey, i. 243. &wpa.K(Tas Kat 9upEo~opous: like the Cretan da-m8twmt they are lightam1ed troops. For 8wpaK'i1'at in Achaean armies see iv. 12. 3 (neither light-armed proper nor phaJangites), Xi. II. 4-5, J4. I, 15. 5 (fighting beside lllyrians); cf. Plut. PMlop. 9· 1 ft.; Polyaen. vi. 4· 3; Paus. viii. so. I. Griffith (Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. I84. I9S6-'j' s-6) takes these 8wpatOpot cf. v. 53· 8 (where MSS. have 8vpeacf>6pot) ; and for the Ovpd,, cf. ii. 30. 3 n., iii. TI4. 2, •-1. 23. 2 (scutum). On 8vpw.cf>6pot in third-century Boeotia see Feyel, 47, 193. 209-10. 239

X. 29.6 ANTIOCH US' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES Nu
30. 2. To ••• &A.ov llilteoo; •.• 11'Epl. Tpta.teou(ous UTa.8i.ous: perhaps calculated from near Shahrud, where the forces began to ascend to the col, and not from Tagae. Pedech (REA, 1958, 77-78) quotes a Russian traveller, G. V. Melgunof, Das sudliche Ujer des Kaspischen Meeres oder die Nordprovinzen Persiens (Leipzig, r868), 132-45, for the distance of 10 farsakhs 52·5 km. from Shahrud to the Quzluq Pass, and thls is confirmed by the India Survey map. On the other hand, this journey does not form a single ascent, but from the Chalchanlyan Pass there is a drop of over 3,ooo ft. into the upper valley of Chasman-Sawer and a further ascent from there to the Quzluq Pass, a feature omitted from Pedech's map (REA, 1958, facing p. 74). This map also puts Tash only about 12 km. from Shahrud, whereas both Conolly (above, 29. 3 n.) and the India Survey map agree in putting it about zz miles away. According to Conolly the road from the Chalchanlyan Pass to Shahrud 'was level', i.e. it does not match the rough and narrow gorge here described. One may, however, suppose that the higher part of the route provided so many obstacles as to give the impression of being -ro 71'i\ ••• T!ls 'IT'op<(a.<;;: if the 300 stades are reckoned from Shahrud this is not true (see last note); but this may nevertheless have been the honest impression of the eye-witness from whom P.'s account ultimately derives, and who will have shared in the fighting in the higher reaches. 5. Ta ,.a.po.tedlleva. Twv opwv ••• 11'pou~o.AEi:v: 'to ascend the mountain slopes'; for this sense of 71'poaf3&.MHv (missed by Paton) cf. 39· I, iii. 94· r, and Schweighaeuser's note in Lex. Polyb. s.v. 'TI'poafM.A.i\etv. lh' o.lm'iiv Twv AEuteo'IT'ETpwv: 'over the bare rocks'; cf. iii. 53· s for a similar feature on Hannibal's ascent of the Alps. 6. aAAOWTEpa.v EAn~~a.vE 8u18EO'LV: despite Bothius' defence of the MS. reading (Polybiana (Leipzig, 1844), 63), a subject seems needed. Schweighaeuser reads ro 'TI'pii:yp,a. or -r
A~TIOCHL'S'

EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES X. 31. 8

engagement by ascending on the enemy's flank'. 'To postpone battle' seems a more appropriate meaning for {mlf.pTl8Ea8at here than 'to advance further' (cf. Paton, 'making a further flank movement up hill'); cf. iv. 30. 2, 87. I2; Schweighaeuser, Lex.Polyb. s.v. wlf.pTi8w8at. 9. TWV (o') ciam8u•.lTWV e<jleopEUOVT!IlV: 'with the Cretan shieldbearers as a covering force' ; for this sense of J4>"Spd€tv cf. iii. 53· s. and passim.

31. l. 1rpos Tas KaTa Tov Aa~ov u1repoxas: the wEp{3oA~ of 30. 9· The pass cannot be identified: see above, 29. 3 n.; but whether it is Quzluq or the pass (used by Conolly) above Ziarut, Antiochus' struggle against the barbarians will have occurred as he left the valley of Chasman-Sawer to push north. The discussion in Pedech, REA, I958, 78-jg, is hard to follow, since many places he mentions are not shown on his sketch-map, and he writes as though the valley of Chasman-Sawer lay immediately above the descent to Tambrax and Astrabad, whereas in fact it is divided from these places by the massif pierced by the Quzluq Pass, and that above Ziarut. 5. e1rt Tal-l~Pa.Ka: Marquart {62) sites this near Sari, I40 km. west of Astrabad, and suggests (63) emending TaJ.a.f3p6~<7J to TaJLf3paKa. in Strabo, xi. so8. Pedech (REA, I958, 79-8o) rightly rejects as improbable such a westward advance into Mazanderan, and suggests that Tambrax was the summer residence of the people of Sirynx (hence anlxtaTOV, § 6). It WOUld lie On the Upper Slopes Of the hills coming down from the Pass of Labus towards Astrabad. K«TEaK~vwae: 'encamped' (cf. xiv. 2. 8, xxi. I3. 7, xxxv. 2. 4), not necessarily in tents. On KaTaaKTJvoiJv see Welles, p. 344 and no. 30 l. 4· 6. rr)v 1rpoaayopeuo11EVTJV l:LpuyKa 1roAw: also located near Sari by Marquart (62). E. E. Herzfeld (Archiiologische Mitteilungen aus Iran (Berlin), i {I929), 109-Io; iv {I932}, 38, 62) seeks it at Sarakhs (Sirok) on the Tejend (Arius or Ochus), near the frontiers of Apavarticene and Margiana {cf. 49· I). The former is too far west, the latter too far east (Tarn, Bactria, I6 n. I), and perhaps the most likely view is that of B. Dorn ('Caspia', Memoires de l'Academie impiriale des sciences de Saint-Pitersbourg7, 23, I875, IJ4) who locates Sirynx on a hill near Astrabad. According to Arab itineraries (Dorn, ibid. 6o n. 3), lead, sulphur, and coal-mines are found hereabouts, which might explain the nickname 'Sirynx' (= Syrinx?) for a town whose real name is now lost (Tarn, Bactria, I3 n. 6). See Pedech, REA, 1958, 8o-8I.

8. EV Tais xwaTplal XEAWVO.LS: cf. ix. 41. I n. Tn<jlpoL .•• TPLTTat: a formidable fortification, parallel to that at Euryalus above Syracuse (cf. A. W. Lawrence, JHS, I946, IOJ-S; F. E. Winter, AJA, I963, 386; on the principles, Philo Mech. 84.47 ft.), and evidently built by Greek engineers for the Parthians to stand 814173

R

X. JI. S ANTIOCHUS' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES

up to a Seleucid siege-train (Tarn, Bactria, 2o-2r). The ditches are 45 ft. wide and 22 ft. 6 in. deep. xnpnKWiJ.C1Ta. OL'II'Aa: 'a double palisade'; cf. ix. 3· 2. Biittner-Wobst transposed ~7TiKe:£To from after C£7TAii to avoid hiatus. 11. Tous ••• "EAAT}va.s KaTa.a+O.~a.vTES: Greek settlers living in the Parthian town, but probably too few either to keep out the troops or let in Antiochus--if they so wished (Tarn, Bactria, 2o). 12. 'Y11'Epj30.aav: otherwise unknown. The MSS. give V7TEpf3d.aav FD and tnrEpf3a.a
32. 1-33.7. The death of }.1arcellus This fragment from F forms part of the res Italiae of Ol. 142, 4 = 209/8 B.C. The consuls for 2o8 were M. Claudius Marcellus (already consul in 222, 215, 214, and 210; cf. ii. .34· Iff., viii. r. 7, .37· 2, fg. 9) and T. Quinctius L.f. L.n. Crispin us (H. Gundel, RE, 'Quinctius (38)', cols. ro3s-8}, who had served as praetor at Capua the previous year (Livy, xxvli. 7· ro). Crispinus first undertook the siege of Locri (Livy, xxvii. :a6. u), but soon left it to join Marcellus at Venusia, where Hannibal faced him (Livy, xxvii. 26. 12-I4). The ambushing of the consuls is described in Livy, xxvii. 26. 1-27. I I and, dependent on him (Kahrstedt, iii. 304; contra, Klotz, Rh. Mus. 19.34, 314 ff.), Plut. Marc. 29; Eutrop. iii. r6. 4; Oros. iv. r8. 6, 18. 8; Val. Max. i. 6. 9; Sil. xv . .34.3 ff. Livy (xxvii. 27. 12-14) mentions three versions of the event recorded in Coelius, one given in the laudatio delivered by his son, another his own version and a third the traditional one (trad£ium Jama). Appian, Hann. so, has an independent account. See also, for passing references, Cic. Tusc. i. 89; Nep. Hann. 5· 3; Pliny, Nat. hi st.

THE DEATH OF MARCELLUS

X. 32.6

xi. r89; Plut. F ab. 19. 5; Flam. 1. 4; comp. Pel. et Marc. 3 ; au ct. de uir. ill. 45· 7; Zon. ix. 9· See also DeSanctis, iii. 2. 474 n. 49· 32. 1. ot

u-rra.To~:

Marcellus and Crispinus (see above). AO~ou: Hannibal was facing the combined camp at some point between Venusia and Bantia (Livy, xxvii. 25. IJ, 'inter Venusiam Bantiamque minus trium milium passuum interuallo consules binis castris consederant'). Between the Roman and Punic camps lay a tumulus siluestris, which neither side had occupied, Hannibal having preferred to use it for an ambush (Livy, xxvii. 26. 7). tAo.~ SUo: according to Livy (xxvii. 26. u; followed by Plut. Marc. 29. s-{)) there were 220 cavalry, of whom 40 were from Fregellae, the rest Etruscans. In Appian's divergent account (Hann. so) there are 300 cavalry. ypoCT~Oflaxous .•• Els Tp~aKoYTa.: 'about thirty uelites together with their lictors'; each consul would have twelve lictors. Schweighaeuser, who includes the lictors in the thirty, probably wrongly, suggests emending to Tpw.t, since so few as thirty are not worth mentioning; but they will have formed an immediate bodyguard for the consuls. No other source mentions the uelites, but Livy reports the capture of four lictors (see§ s n.). KO.TO.CTKE\jloflEYo~ Tous To-rrous: cf. Livy, xxvii. 27. 14, 'ita fama uariat ut tamen plerique loci speculandi causa castris egressum ... tradant'; but according to Appian (Hann. so) Marcellus rode out to intercept some Numidian plunderers. 4. Tou CTKo-rrou KTA.: cf. Livy, xxvii. 27. J, 'speculator ... signum dat ut ... exorerentur'. Ka.T' aKpOY TOY ~OUYOY: in Livy (xxvii. 27. s) the consuls are trapped in a valley. 5. TOY ~~~Y KAa.uo~oy EU0€ws ••• KO.TE~a.AoY: according to Livy, xxvii. 27. s-7. the consuls could have extricated themselves, had not the Etruscans fled. The Fregellani fought on until both consuls were wounded, and then made their escape carrying Crispinus and Marcellus' son, who was also wounded, but leaving Marcellus 'transfixum lancea prolabentem ex equo moribundum'. K
243

X. 32.6

THE DEATH OF MARCELLUS

Marcellus, military tribune this year (Livy, xxvii. z6. I2) and consul in Ig6 (cf. xviii. 42. I); see Munzer, RE, 'Claudius (zzz)', cols. 2755-8. 7. aKO.KWTEpov: 'more like a simpleton' {Paton). 8. 1t'oAAaK~S ••• 1Tt:pt Twv Toloi'!Twv: cf. 7 and the passages there quoted on the importance of discretion a general. 9. Twv KaT&. 1-l-~poc; Kw51'1vwv: in contrast to the battle when all is at stake; there the general must be prepared for disaster and, if it comes, to perish rather than live on in disgrace (xi. z. 4-I I). 11. tv Ka.pt Tttv 1TE'ipa.v: a proverb {cf. Eur. Cyc. 654; Plato, E uthyd. 285 B; Laches, I87 B, with scholia) derived from the use of Carians as mercenaries or, less probably, as slaves. See the explanations in Corpus paroem. graec. i. 70-71, ii. 404-5 with references; von Scala, 283; \Vunderer, i. 25, III; and, for the early equivalence of 'Carian' and 'mercenary' (d. Archilochus, fg. 24 Bergk), Launey, i. 451 and Griffith, 236. 12. 'oliK Civ ~Ot-L-TJv' KTA.: cf. Polyaen. iii. 9· u, 'Iif>tKpaTTW inrol.a{Iwv l¢'1 TO "Tls av 7}A'II'tat' TOiJT' ;at'a8at" ; 9· I 7' ov aTpa.T']ytKdV Td "OVK ~p:qv" ; there seems to be some dependence on P. here (d. Wunderer, i. 84--85). See also Cic. off. i. 81. 33. 4. KaV '!TOTE 71'E011 TO. oAa.: 'in the event of complete defeat'. Here and in the next section TVX'1 is little more than a figure of speech (see Vol. I, p. I6}. 5. 1 ath-ov Elaij>.Be Sui:TTvpo> l8E'i:v MdpKe>J.ov vEKp6v, and Hultsch and BiittnerWobst suggest that this comes from a passage in P. omitted between 32. 6 and 32. 7· However, Livy follows his verdict on Marcellus' rashness (Livy, xxvii. 27. n) by the burial of his body by Hannibal,

HA~NIBAL'S

ATTACK ON SALAFIA

X. 34·

2

and then by an account of the use of the ring to seal the false message to Salapia; this order of events suggests that the fragment from Suidas, if it is Polybian, falls between 33· i and 33· 8. 8. Ka.Ta.ppatcTa!) ••• &.V111Lil£vou!): cf. Livy, xxvii. z8. ro, 'earn (sc. cataractam) partim uectibus leuant, partim funibus subducunt, in tan tum altitudinis ut subire recti possent'. The sense of 6Atyov €tarrlpw is not clear, unless the top of the portcullis rose above the gate. Mauersberger s.v. Jew-rl.pw renders 'etwas auberhalb sc. -rofJ Tdxaus' and compares Trpo -roiJ rdxovs (which seems irrelevant); and Paton's version, 'which they had raised somewhat higher by mechanical means', contradicts Livy, who suggests that the gate was not raised to its full extent. 34-40. Consolidation in Spain: the battle of Baecula (2o8) This fragment, from F, is from the res Hispaniae for Ol. I42, 4 209/8 B.C.; see above, p. IS· An account of the same events in Lhry, xxvii. 17-20 is close to P., but has some details, especially for the battle of Baecula {cf. I8. 2 f., the introductory skirmish; 18. 6 ff., Hasdrubal's dispositions; I8, ro, posting of the Roman cohorts; 18. 20, number of Carthaginian dead), not to be found in P. The picture is similar to that for the capture of :\ew Carthage (above, 2. r2o. 8 n.), and probably P. had access to the same sources, viz. Silenus, Laelius, Scipio (if his account included more than the capture of New Carthage), and perhaps Fabius. Livy will derive from P., probably via Coelius, who may also have utilized other sources, to which the additional material in Livy (where it is not mere rhetorical elaboration) will go back; that these sources included those of P. himself, e.g. Silenus, is not to be excluded. See De Sanctis, iii. 2. 479 n. 59, 638-9; F. Friedersdorff, Livius et Polybius Scipionis rerum scriptores (Gottingen, 1869), 20; Kahrstedt, iii. 200; Scullard, Scip. Ioo-I n. I; Klotz, Livius, r8o--I. The coincidence between 34· I and . Livy, xxvii. 17. 1 suggests that the present fragment opens at the beginning of the res Hispaniae for 2o8. 34. 1. tca9a11'Ep ••• 5£5TJAWKa.jLEV: cf. 2o. 8, where Scipio approaches Tarraco; the passage recording his wintering there (2o9j8) is lost. 2. Aa~wv cruvaywvr.cn~v €~e ,.a.,hotLO.Tou: 'by chance gaining the help'; this phrase seems to be behind Livy's odd remark about Edeco (Livy, xxvii. q. 2): 'sed praeter earn causam (sc. the Roman capture of his family) etiam uelut fortuita inclinatio animorum quae Hispaniam omnem auerterat ad Romanum a Punico imperio traxit eum.' •E8Etcwva. Tov 'E810Ta.vwv 8uv0.0'1'1'Jv: cf. 40. 3· The Edetani appear here only as Schweighaeuser's emendation of F, -rov 8war6v 8vvticrrqv; 245

X. 34·

2

CONSOLIDATION IN SPAIN

this finds no support in Livy, xxvii. q. I, 'Edesco ad eum clams inter duces Hispanos uenit', but may none the less be right (d. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 406 n. z), for the MS. reading is unconvincing and avvaaT'l]S" asks for Some local qualification (cf. V. 4· 3, 34· 7, go. I, X. 35· 6, xxi. II. 2 and other examples in Mauersberger s.v. ovvaaT'l]S"). The Edetani (d. Livy, xxviii. 31. 7, Sedetani) lived on the east coast of Spain northwards from the Bastetani and the Oretani (cf. iii. 33· 9 n.), between the Sucro and the Ebro (Strabo, iii. 156, I62-3; perhaps Mela, ii. 92 (d. Pliny, Nat. kist. iii. 2o); Ptol. ii. 6. IS; CIL, ii. 3786. See Hubner, RE, 'Edetani', cols. I938-g. Tijs: a.uTijs: opJlijS:: there is much to be said for Schweighaeuser's emendation TijS" allTWV opp.:ijs-. 4. S1a.~EtJ1EVWV Et'i TTJV 1TO.pO.XEIJ10.17LQV: these winter quarters were not necessarily elsewhere than at Tarraco. 35. 3. TOu<; evTo<; "IPTJpos: 1ToTaJ1oO: cf. 7· 3 n.; 'north of the Ebro'. 5. ouS€v nVTL1TQAOV ••• KO.Ta 90.Aa.TTQV: on Scipio's naval superiority see q. I3 n. The Carthaginians had no fleet in Spanish waters and at New Carthage Scipio acquired materials intended for the construction of one (Livy, xxvi. 47· 9). See Thiel, I2o. e1ri n1.s: 17TJJ10.La<; EJ1Ep1ae: thus increasing his army by perhaps 3,ooo4,ooo men (Kahrstedt, iii. 517 n. I). 6. J\vSoPnAT)'i s~ KQL MavSovlO'i: see ix. I I. 3 n., X. I8. 7-IS (the womenfolk of these two princes in Scipio's hands). Livy, xxvii. q. 3, also relates their defection, but more briefly. Ka.8a1rep •.. ESTJAwaaJ1EV: in ix. 1 r. 4, where, however, only An do bales is mentioned and only the daughters are mentioned as hostages; see note there. 36. 1. w<; 1TAeovaKl'i ~11iv etpT)Tal: cf., for example, iii. 4· 5 on the exploitation of success. 3. To VlKijaa.l ••• Tas: 'Pwlla(wv Suvci11uo;: in 211 ; cf. viii. 38 n. TOl'i KO.Ta TTJV xwpav: the native population; cf. i. 72. J n. 5. of Sla.J1E[vavTEo; e1rl Twv auTwv 1rpoa1p€aewv: at first sight this clear statement of P.'s view on how hegemony should be maintained seems to rule out the view of Gelzer (Kl. Schr. ii. 64 ff.) that Diodorus is following and echoing P. when he writes (Diod. xxxii. z) on OL Tas ~y.op...l~ovmL o~ ,P6{3tp Ka~ KamTrl.-l}gn (cf. Diod. xxxii. 4). The examples

Diodorus quotes and his use of the verb da,Pa>.i~ovrat leave no doubt that he (or his source) approves the dictum. In fact there is no inconsistency, for the present passage is concerned with those whom one is governing, whereas the doctrine envisaged in Diodorus is of the sudden violent elimination of some state and all its population 246

THE BATTLE OF BAECULA

X. 38.3

as a punishment and an example to others. That P. was prepared to approve of this seems probable: see further on xxxvi. 9· 3-4. For the thesis expounded here cf. Sall. Cat. 2. 4, 'nam imperium facile is a.rtibus retinetur qui bus initio pa.rturn est'. 7. KaKws 'ITo~w(n ••• TWv U'ITOTETayJ1€vwv: as imperial states frequently, but misguidedly do; cf. 6. J, 7· 3·

37. 2. T1)v avn:rrapaywy1)v ••• 'l!'po<; (ToO;) QAAOU') O"TpO.TTJYOU<;: cf. ix.

(quarrel before the fall of New Carthage). P.'s account of Hasdrubal's plan has been dismissed as pure surmise derived from pro-Scipionic traditions. Kromayer-Veith (AS, iv. 514-15) argue that Hasdrubal had to try to get through to Italy, victor or no; and De Sanctis (iii. 2. 479 n. 59) sees a contradiction between Hasdrubal's recorded decision to fight (§ 4) and the defensive position he took up (38. 8). P.'s source is unknown; but his account is not unreasonable, for Hasdrubal may well have intended to invade Italy in any event, but to make the timing of his invasion tum on the result of the battle; success would reverse the process of Spanish disaffection and give a breathing-space for consolidation, whereas defeat must involve an immediate departure (cf. Kahrstedt, iii. 517). DeSanctis's objection is also unsubstantial. As Scullard (Scip. ros n. r) observes, 'Hasdrubal wanted a fight, not a fiasco'. There was nothing inconsistent in adopting a strong defensive position in the face of superior numbers (Kahrstedt, iii. srg, estimates Scipio's numbers at Js,ooo4o,ooo men compared with 25,000 in Hasdrubal's army) and hoping that Scipio would accept the challenge. In view of P.'s reference to the estrangement of the other two generals, DeSanctis's suggestion that Hasdrubal was awaiting their arrival seems improbable. 4. Kliv •.• ~ TUX'!) Sii) To v~Kiiv: a purely verbal use of TVX1J; cf. Hercod, 101; above, Vol. I, p. 16. 6. 'l!'poaSE~Of1EVO<; r awv TCIV AaO..~ov: cf. 19. 8 n. for Laelius' journey to Rome; he now returns to Spain in spring 208. 7. 'I!'QAQt ••• O~E'I!'E}l'I!'OVTO 'l!'pos TOV no'I!'ALOV: cf. 35· 7 for his desertion of Hasdru bal. Tch xpe£as Kat 71)v OATJV 'ITlO"TW: now a vail a blc to the Romans as they bad been to the Carthaginians (§ 10).

3.

II. r-2

i'll'( TWa<; hoy~af'oO<; ••• Tow•hou<;:

38. 3. 'l!'poo-tflwVtJunVTwv ~au~A.ea.: Edeco had already done the same (4o. J). On the significance of the salutation see 40. 2-9 n. ('l!'avrwv) is added by Biittner-Wobst to avoid hiatus. ol11iv 'l!'apovns t'I!'EO'TJJltlvavTo (To) pTJ9£v: 'those present applauded their words'; cf. iii. III. 3, 'TTavrwv • •• TO p1JfN:v ('TTWTJfl-'lJvap..!vwv (which is against taking l'TTtert}J1-aivEu8a~ here as 'to take note of', with Schweigbaeuser). Since To p'rJ8€v refers chiefly to the salutation as king 247

X. 38.3

THE BATTLE OF BAECULA

(cf. 40. 3), ot 1rap6vus: are probably not Romans (so Schweighaeuser), but the chieftains' Spanish retinue (Aymard, Retme du Nord, 1954, az). 1181 no'l!'A~05 EVTPCI.'li'E(<;: 'Scipio, moved .. :; the word need not imply embarrassment (so Aymard, Revue du Nord, 1954, rzz, 'rempli de confusion') ; cf. xxxviii. ro. 6. It is only later that Scipio feels it necessary to speak out; cf. 40. 3· TOT€ p.tv oov &vcmUTaTWS' aoT6v 1Tap€opap.£ To p1)8€v (not inconsistent with the present passage). 5. 'TO auv€xov TWV op.oAoyT)8EvTwv: 'the main clause of the agreement' ; there will also have been a reference to furnishing supplies (cf. Badian, rzo; contra T. Yoshimura, Historia, 490 n. 69). 6. aTPCI.TO'l!'&8Euaa.vTE<; op.ou TOL<; 'Pwp.a.lO~S: the Roman camp of P.'s time made provision for allies; cf. vi. 30. 2, 32. 2. But this was not invariably done, and to do it for the Spanish chieftains after the disaster of the Scipios was a notable mark of confidence. See \V. Fischer, Das romische Lager insbesondere nach Livius (Diss. Freiburg, Leipzig, 1913), 64-65; Scullard, Scip. ro3 n. r. 7-8. The site of the battle of Baecula. According to Appian (Hisp. 24), Hasdrubal after sending his two colleagues to raise new troops was preparing to besiege a revolted town ls T~v Aep(]a y~v when Scipio approached; whereupon Js BamJKTJV fmf!.XWPf!L. This adds nothing to P. The exact sites of Castulo and Baecula are not easy to establish; but it seems fairly certain that Castulo lay about 7 km. south of Linares on the north bank of the Guadalimar, a tributary of the Guadalquivir (Baetis), and that Baecula is the modem tov.'ll of Bailcn, which lies about 15 km. north-west of Castulo (d. xi. 20. 5) between the R. del Rumblar and the R. Guadiel (Scullard, Scip. 3oo-r). The silver-mines were probably in the hills north of Bail6n 'near La Carolina, the mining area of today' (Scullard, Scip. ro4) ; KromayerVeith (AS, iv. 504) place them between Bailen and Linares on both sides of the R. Guadiel. Livy, after relating an attack on Hasdrubal's cavalry outposts by Roman light-armed, which P. does not mention (Livy, xxvii. 18. 1-3), describes a new position taken up at night by Ha...<;drubal (Livy, xxvii. x8. 5-6) : 'in tumulum capias red pit plano campo in summo paten tern; fluuius ab tergo, ante circaque uelut ripa praeceps oram eius omnem cingebat. suberat et altera inferior summissa fastigio planities; earn quoque altera crepida haud facilior in adscensum ambibat'. This account agrees substantially with P.'s, but is somewhat fuller and describes the defensive features of the site as stretching round to the flanks, whereas P. speaks only of the front. Kromayer-Veith (AS, iv. soz-r6), utilizing notes by Lammerer, who visited the terrain in 1921, suggest a site for both camps, Roman and Carthaginian, on the assumption that Livy's account is merely a rhetorical elaboration of P.'s, which can be neglected wherever it appears to supplement or 248

THE BATTLE OF BAECULA

x. J8. 7-8

Site of '1 Ca•tulo ':'

9·

THE BATTLE OF BAECULA

(From Scullard, Scipio Africanus in the Second Punic War, no) modify P. (cf. DeSanctis, iii. 2. 479 n. 59). It seems more likely, however, that Livy has access (probably through Coelius) to a good source-perhaps P.'s owu-and that his account merits consideration (above, 34-40 n.). If that is so, the site which best fits the terrain described in P. and Livy is that proposed by Scullard, Scip. 3oo-3, with sketch-map on p. no indicating his own proposed position and Veith's; for the latter see also Kromayer-Veith, Schlachtenatlas, Rom. Abt., 8. r, and for the district generally AS, iv. 502 (where, however, Castulo should lie on the north side of the Guadalquivir). According to this view, Hasdrubal had his camp on a plateau to the east of Bailen, lying between the Arroyo de Canada Baeza and the Arroyo de la Muela, a more substantial stream adequate as a watersupply (photograph in Scullard, Scip. frontispiece); and Scipio's camp will have lain south-east of this across the R. Guadiel, perhaps in the neighbourhood of Tobaruela, which has a satisfactory watersupply. Tobaruelais just over 3 km. south-west of Linares. KromayerVeith's position is a little to the west of this, with Hasdrubal just below the height of ] arosa between the Arroyo de Canada Baeza 249

X. 38. 7-8

THE BATTLE OF BAECL'LA

and the Arroyo del Matadero, and Scipio a little north of Jabalquinto, south of the R. Guadiel. 8. 1TU96jJt:vos ••• IJ-f:TEaTpaTom\SEucrE: according to Livy, xxvii. 18. 1-3, after an attack on Hasdrubal's cavalry outposts, which ended in a victory for the Roman light-armed, who advanced almost to the gates of the Punic camp. This incident seems credible, but even without it Hasdrubal would have assumed his defensive position (Scullard, Scip. ros n. r). f:K jJEV TWV oma9Ev 1TOTO.jJOV O.crcpaA:T): not, as Kahrstedt (iii. sr8) supposes, the Baetis, but the R. del Rumblar, which runs into the Baetis west of Baih~n. The R. del Rumblar lies about 8 km. west of Hasdrubal's position. 10. S1aywvuiaas 1-'TJ ••• 1TEp~crTwaLV: not necessarily with good reason; and De Sanctis (iii. 2. 478) lacks grounds for his assertion that Hasdrubal was deliberately postponing a battle until the arrival of Mago and Hasdrubal son of Gisgo (cf. 37· 2, 37· 3 n.). Paton omits the words 'Hasdrubal, son of'. 39. 1. Tous SE ypocrcpol-'6-xous ••• €~a.cp~(s: cf. Livy, xxvii. 18. ro, 'ipse expeditos ... ad leuem armaturam infimo stantem supercilia ducit'; but it is clear from P. (§ 3) that Scipio did not take part in the battle until a later stage. According to Livy (xxvii. 18. 10) he had already dispatched two cohorts with instructions 'alteram tenere fauces uallis per quam deferretur amnis ... , alteram uiam insidere quae ab urbe per tumuli obliqua in agros ferret'. The river can hardly be the Rumblar (so Veith, AS, iv. 512; contra Kromayer, ibid. n. 2), but the Guadiel--probably about the point where the road from Bailen to Malaga now crosses it (Scullard, Scip. 106). The other detachment probably ascended the Guadiel valley to intercept the road which ran off east from Bailen in the Linares direction; but the exact line of this road is not known. 3. Tous ••• t:utwvous a1ravTas i1racpijKt:: the novel feature in Scipio's tactics at Baecula is his placing of the light-armed in the centre, and the use of the legionaries in two bodies to deliver the main attack on the flank, an adaptation of Hannibal's tactics which failed to achieve complete success because Hasdrubal was not sufficiently involved all along the line to be unable to extricate himself (cf. Scullard, Scip. 108-I2; Veith, AS, iii. 2. 685). TOUS jJEV ,jJLO't:IS auTOS ~xwv, ••• TOUS S' TJjJlO't:LS Aa.LM~ Sous: cf. Livy, xxvii. 18. 15, 'ceteras copias cum Laelio diuidit'. Scipio, advancing against the enemy's left, will have followed the Arroyo de la Muela, Laelius, advancing against their right, the Arroyo de Canada Baeza. Livy makes Scipio advance parte dextra and Laelius ab laeua, thus reversing the commands, an error which might arise from 'a careless reading of a Carthaginian source, from whose point 250

THE BATTLE OF BAECULA

X. 39· 8

of view ... Scipio would be on the left and Laelius on the right' (Scullard, Scip. roo n. r), but more probably springs from a careless reading of P. by Livy or an intermediary who interpreted Kant To Aatov TwP v-rrf.Pa;v,..[wv as 'to the left of the enemy' and lrrl ;a Segt.d fi.lp7J -rwv -rro.\f.fJ.lwv as 'against the sections of the enemy to the right', i.e. from the Roman standpoint. According to Livy the division of the forces was effected on the field, and this may be correct (Scullard, Scip. ro7 n. r). 6. Tous p.Ev a.im';'w 'll'poa'!f('lf-rovTa.s EK 1r"a.y£wv EcJloveuov: this, the MS. reading, is defended by Schweighaeuser, who translates, 'alios, a latere in ipsos impetum facientes, obtruncant'. But the situation demands that it shall be the Carthaginians who are attacked on the flank, since they are advancing to meet the Roman centre when Scipio and Laelius catch them from the wings; cf. Livy, xxv:ii. r8. rs, 'ipse (sc. Scipio) ab laeua ... in transuersos hastes incurrit'. Clearly (as Schweighaeuser sees) b< 71'.\aylwv must be taken with 1TpoiJ'1Tl'TT1"onaS' and not with ir$6vwov; cf. i. z2. 8, sr. 6. Hence the argument is overwhelmingly in favour of Scaliger's emendation 7Tpo1J'1Tl-rrr01rns (which both Paton and Shuckburgh translate, though Paton prints 1Tpocml71'rovraS'). The accusative may have crept in under the influence of 1Tap€fi.{3wVwnaS'. 7. ICO.'f'a TOUS E~ O.pxils s~a.Aoy~ap.ous: cf. 37· 5· 8. Aa.!)wv ••• -rO. Te xpt}p.a.Ta. Ka.l TO. 9TJp£a.: cf. Livy, xxvii. 19. r, 'Hasdrubal iam ante quam dimicaret pecunia rapta elephantisque praemissis, quam plurimos poterat de fuga excipiens praeter Tagum ad Pyrenaeum tendit'. This statement is not inconsistent with P. and may derive from his original source; for clearly Hasdrubal had envisaged the possibility of defeat (37· 5), and to send the cash and elephants ahead in case he had to set off at once for Gaul would be merely prudent. If this is so, Livy's reference to elephants in the battle (Livy, xxvii. I8. r8-zo), which does not appear in P., is probably from another, less reliable source (Veith, AS, iv. 513)-unless, which is less likely, some of the elephants had been sent north and some retained for the battle. 1ra.pG. Tov TO.yov noTa.p.ov: Hasdrubal evidently retreated north by the Pass of Valdepeiias to reach the Tagus Valley a little south of Madrid (cf. iii. 14. r n. for Hannibal's use of this route in reverse in zzo). ws t'll't TG.s nupt}vT)s V'II'Ep!)oAO.s: presumably he crossed over from the upper Tagus to the valleys first of the Douro, then of the upper Ebro, and so through Navarra to the western end of the Pyrenees, if one can trust App. Hisp. z8: -rrapil r6v {3ope,ov eDKEavdv r~v llup~VIJV €S' raAdTas V1T€pl{3ru.Y€V. This implies the coastal route via !run or, if {mep€{3awu is pressed, a pass slightly inland such as the Puerto de Otsondo or the Puerto de Roncesvalles. The Gauls will be north of the mountains.

X. 39· 9

THE BATTLE OF BAECULA

9. To ~v ••• E"'I'E0'9a.L ••. oux YJyEiTo <7U~~~pEw: P. does not discuss the merits of Scipio's decision, which has been much debated by modern historians (d. Brewitz, 64 f.; Kahrstedt, iii. 519; Veith, AS, iv. 515-16; Scullard, Scip. II4-19); it was already an issue in Scipio's own time, if we may accept the arguments of the critical speech recorded in Livy, xxviii. 4o-42, especially 42. 14-15). That Hasdrubal got away was clearly a strategic defeat for Scipio; but once it had happened, it is hard to see any practical alternative to what he did (Hallward, CAH, viii. 87--88). T~ 8ElhEva.L Twv liXXwv <7Tpa.Tlwwv (Tl}v) li~o8ov: cf. 38. 10. 40. 1. Number of prisoners. P.'s figure of 12,000 (cf. Livy, xxvii. 19. z) is probably exaggerated, if Hasdrubal's army was about 25,ooo (Kahrstedt, iii. 519; Veith, AS, iv. 514); unless it included the population of Baecula (so De Sanctis, iii. 2. 480 n.). Liv}r (xxvii. 18. 2o) also mentions 8,ooo Carthaginian dead; this could be plausible only as a combined figure for dead and prisoners from a Punic source such as Silenus (Scullard, Scip. 108). 2. K«Tc Tovo; "'l'poELP"l~vouo; T6"11'ouo;: presumably the area where the battle took place; those Spaniards north of the Ebro (35· 3) and most others besides (35· 8) had already joined Scipio before the battle. f:yxELpl~ovns .•• do; T~v ••• "'l't<7nv: cf. iii. I 5. 5 n. On deditio see A. Piganiol, RIDA, 5, 1950, 339-47, who argues convincingly that down to the end of the third century it carried no suggestion of dishonour for those offering it. 2-9. Salutation of Scipio as king: d. 38. 3; Livy, xxvii. 19. 3-6. This incident has been frequently discussed, most recently by A. Aymard (Revue du Nord, 1954, 121-8), who points out that the salutation may have had a different significance for the Spaniards, for Scipio, and for P. Regarding the Spaniards and Scipio one is reduced to surmise; but very probably the Spaniards either thought of Scipio as a Roman king or recognized his paramount status in Spain by the use of this word, while Scipio (as Livy adds from another but reliable source) was embarrassed by a title so hated at Rome, and likely to harm him in political life ('regium nomen alibi magnum, Romae intolerabile esse'). It seems clear that P., who interprets the incident against the background of Scipio's later career (§§ 7-9), took the salutation to mean not 'king of Rome' or even 'king of the Spaniards', but simply 'king' in the Hellenistic sense of a man with military, moral, and intellectual qualities of a kingly character; and he contrasts this d~Jop.aala. (§ 6) with the real kingdom which Scipio might have seized, but did not, in some other part of the world (§§ 7-9). This interpretation would commend itself to the hellenized circle of Aemilianus (Aymard, op. cit. 125); it was not necessarily that of the aged Laelius who may have been Scipio's informant {Haywood, 38). 25:2

THE BATTLE OF BAECULA

X. 40.7

3. 'TOTE ••• civEmi7'Ta1"ws aihov 1T«pEOpa.f'E ,.b pf19€v: cf. 38. 3 n.; P. means that Scipio had not paid much attention to the significance of the salutation (through he had been moved, €vrpa:rrElr;, by the expression of regard). 4. Ets E1TLI7'Ta.aav ~ya.yE ••• TO yavoi'EVov: 'the incident led Scipio to give some thought to it'; cf. ix. 22. 7, xiv. r a 1. 5. pa.alALKOS ••• AEyEa9a.L 1Ta.p0. 1TilaL: to Livy even this would give offence: d. Livy, xxvii. 19. 5, 'regalem animum in se esse, si id in hominis ingenio amplissimum ducerent, taciti iudicarent: uocis usurpatione abstinerent'. Cf. Aymard, Revue du Nord, 1954, 123-4. 'l!'a.f>'llyyELAE aTpa.TTJYOV a.~Tbv '11'poatflwvEiv: cf. Livy, xxvi. rg. 4, 'sibi maximum nomen imperatoris esse dixit quo se milites sui appellassent'. This is per haps the earliest known exam pie ofthe acclaiming of a general as imperator by his troops (the next being CIL, ii. 5041 (c. rgo B.c.), in which L. Aemilius Paullus calls himself inpeirator); cf. Mommsen, St.-R. i. r24 n. 5· P., it is true, says only that Scipio was called arparYJyck, 'general' (cf. rg. 4); but he was not always awake to Roman distinctions and in fact nowhere employs the later Greek equivalent of imperator, ain-oKparwp, in that sense. Hence there seems no reason to reject Livy's testimony here (cf. Aymard, Revue du Nord, 1954, 124). 6. TtlS TUXfiS o.u-r~ auveKOpa.f'OUCMJS: cf. § 9: here P. contradicts his usual thesis that Scipio's achievements were the result of prudence and foresight (cf. 5· 8; Vol. I, p. 22 n. 4). i'!l'( TE TGUT'JV •.• T~V OLaATJo/lV KO.l ~v ovo .... aa&av: 'to form this estimate of him and give him this name'. OPf'TJV Ka.t tflav-raata.v: 'this popular impulse and this show of dignity' (Shuck burgh). 7. Tll 1TAeiaTa ••• ...,EpTJ -rijs ALPuTJs ••• t)yayE: rhetorical exaggeration. Scipio's victory at Zama crushed Carthage, but did not subject North Africa directly to Rome. Aymard (Revue dH Nord, 1954, 126) argues that such 'ante-dating of the establishment of Roman power in North Africa and Asia' is only possible after 146 or even 133, and suggests that P. composed this passage after the earlier or even the later of these dates. But P. was a political realist, and can well have recognized that the wars against Hannibal and Antiochus made Rome the political arbiter in Africa and Asia. Hence no conclusions are to be drawn on the date of composition of this passage. Twv ~LAa.Lvou ~w ....wv ••• 'Hpa.~
X. 4o. 7

THE BATTLE OF BAECULA

CP, 1958, 153-70). Africanus was legatus to his brother Lucius for this campaign, but he was in effect its diplomatic and military director, and only illness prevented his being present at Magnesia (Livy, xxvii. I. 9-10, 37· 6-8). To KaAALaTov Ka.t flEYLaTov flEpo~ Ttl~ otKOUflEVT)~: viz. Africa and Asia. Suva.aTELa.v ~a.aLALKTJV: in contrast to the mere name (§ 6). As Scullard (Pol. 86) aptly observes, 'P. was a Greek, to whom the supreme political temptation was tyranny, and matters may have appeared slightly different in Roman eyes'. 9. ToaoGTov ~mepe9ETo flEya.AOIIIUXLCf: the tradition of his moderatio is well established; cf. Sen. epist. 86. 1, egregiam moderationem pietatemque. Tilv Ta.uTT)~ u(anv: 'his duty towards her'. 10. TOU~ "I~T)pa.~ ... &.ueAuae xwpt~ AUTpwv: cf. Livy, xxvii. 19. 2, 'Hispanos sine pretio omnes domum dimisit, Afros uendere quaestorem iussit'. 11. 8La T,V TWV T TWV Ilvp1)VULWV op€wv being merely P.'s formulation of the order as it was actually carried out. Scipio probably guessed that Hasdrubal was making for Gaul: what he could not know was by which pass. In these circumstances his instructions may well have been: 'Follow Hasdrubal as far as the Pyrenees, keep a close watch on him and block his way if possible.' P. has recorded the first part of the instructions, Livy's source emphasizes the second; but the hope of blocking 254

THE BATTLE OF BAECULA

X. 4r. 3

the way into Gaul with a detachment of this kind was always slight. Hallward (CAH, viii. 88) speaks of 'detaching troops from the Roman strongholds north of the Ebro' to block the eastern passes; this is not in the sources. 12. &.vexwpT)aE ..• et~ T a.ppcl.tcwva.: according to Livy (xxvii. 20. 3) he returned to Tarraco 'paucis post proelium factum ad Baeculam diebus'. DeSanctis (iii. 2. 48o n. 6o) prefers Livy's version. But some consolidation in the south was essential if the full advantages of the victory were to be secured, and to return at once to Tarraco would give small encouragement to the southern tribes. A firm decision as between P. and Livy is perhaps not possible; but in favour of a stay of some time is Scipio's adoption of Hasdrubal's camp (§ II) for greater security and amenity. 41-47. Philip V gives aid to his allies: fire-signalling

In autumn 209 Philip had returned to Macedonia to repel Illyrian and Dardanian attacks (Livy, xxvii. 32. 9-33. 3). Attalus, having crossed over to Greece (Livy, xxvii. 30. rr), had wintered on Aegina with P. Sulpicius (Livy, xxvii. 33· 4-5; Walbank, Philip, 92). From Livy, xxviii. S· I-4, based on the passage of P. immediately preceding the present fragment, it appears that in spring 208 Sulpicius and At talus sailed over to Lemnos with a joint fleet of twenty-five Roman and thirty-five Pergamene quinqueremes, and Philip came by sea to Demetrias and fixed a day for the Macedonian army to assemble at Larissa. Embassies from the various allies thronged to Demetrias. See also Justin. xxix. 4· 7-Io. ~11'€tceLvTo Ka.Ta yilv: cf. Livy, xxviii. 5· 4, 'finitimosque depopulabantur'. See Feyel, qr n. 2, against exaggeration by Flaceliere (3oi) of the extent of the Aetolian attack. l. Tov Ma.xa.v£8a.v: cf. Livy, xxviii. S· 5· Machanidas probably gained power as ward of Lycurgus' infant son Pelops (d. Diod. xxvii. r; Livy, xxxiv. 32. I; Wolters, Ath. Mitt. I897, I44 f.) after Lycurgus' death, which was some time before winter 2II/Io (above, ix. 28-39 n. ad fin.). His usurpation of the throne, though perhaps no different in essence from Antigonus Doson's assumption of the Macedonian kingship, caused him to be dubbed 'tyrant' (cf. xi. I3. 3, etc.; Plut. Philop. Io. I; Paus. viii. so. 2). For a dedication by him to Eleusia found in Sparta cf. Syll. 551. See Ehrenberg, RE, 'Machanidas', cols. I42-3. 3. T)~£ouv <~xELv) TLva 11'povOLa.v Twv 11'0AEf1Lwv: so Bothius, Polybiana, 65; Hultsch, with Schweighaeuser, accepts Reiske's TTottEI:a8at after TToAtEfL{wv. The sense is the same: 'they urged him to take precautions against the enemy'.

41. 1. 11'CiaLV

X. ·41'· 4

PHILIP V GIVES AID TO HIS ALLIES

4. Kal 1ro.p' 'H1rc;:~pw-rwv: implying that the Epirotes feared attack, not that an attack had necessarily been made already. For the theory that Epirus was covered by an agreement making her a de facto neutral in this war see ix. 38. 5 n.; any such agreement was perhaps negotiated after this date. l:K€plh.ho.t5o.v Kat n>.Eupo:rov: Pleuratus is Scerdilaidas' son (Livy. xxxi. 28. 1) and first appears beside his father in the Roman-Aetolian treaty of 211 {Livy, xxvi. 24. 9, d. xxvii. 30, 13; above, ix. 28-39 n.). Scerdilaidas probably made him joint ruler after Pinnes' death; but App. Ill. 8 is chronologically so confused on the date of Demetrius' death that it cannot be used as evidence that Pinnes survived him (so Lenschau, RE, 'Pleuratos (2)', cols. 237--8). The dates of both Pinnes' death and Pleuratus' elevation thus remain uncertain; but the latter was probably not long before 2n. TOU9 ••• ep~Ka.s, KO.t J.'aA~aTO. TOU9 Mo.LSous: cf. Livy, xxviii. 5· 7· According to Strabo (vii. 331, fg. 36), the Maedi inhabited the Strymon valley; but they probably stretched westward to include the Bregalnitza too (cf. Lenk, RE, 'Thrake', col. 434; 'Maidoi', col. 541 ). Immediately after the Roman-Aetolian treaty the Romans had attacked them (Livy, xxvi. 25. 6 ff.) and taken their main town Iamphorynna (d. ix. 45· J n.). 5. 1rpoKo.TEAafl~o.vov ••• ,.a, mpl9£pfLom}.ho.s anvO. •.. AhwAol: cf. Livy, xxviii. 5· 8. On this fortification see Bequignon, 47-48. Philip soon afterwards expelled the Aetolians and drove them into Heraclea (Livy, xxviii. 7. 3). 6. Ko.TO. ,.a.s ( TE +ux~~l.vTav: cf. Livy, xxviii. 5· ll, 'Polyphantam cum modica manu in Boeotiam ... mittit'. As Feyel has seen (152 n. 3, 171), only the Boeotians appealed to Philip as clearly independent allies. Phocis he already controlled (cf. v. 26. r n.), and § 7 suggests that Polyphantas (like Alexander in v. 96. 4) was th(' Macedonian officer in charge of Phocis, and that he was instructed to help Boeotia if necessary; cf. Bengtson, Strat. ii. 364-5. On Euboea see § 7 n. On his return to Macedonia in autumn 209 (Livy, xxvii. 256

PHILIP GIVES ATD TO HIS ALLIES

X. •P· i

32. 9~33. 3) Philip had left z,soo men 'cum l'vlenippo et Polyphanta

ducibus ad praesidium sociorum' in the Peloponnese. ct~ s~ Xo.AKtOo. I nZw Al-rwAwv), and the secretary of the council (ypa.p.p.o.TEV> -rwv avvl8pwv; cf. IG, ix 2 • I. 69; Flaceliere, 43 n. 2; Aymard, Melanges Iorga, 71-ro8; Larsen, TAPA, 1952, u n. 19), besides seven Tap..ia.l. See xxi. 32. ron.; Busolt-Swoboda, ii. I5Z4-JI. 'Hp
s

257

X. 42.4

PHILIP V GIVES AID TO HIS ALLIES

slopes of Oeta (Livy, xxxvi. 22. s-Io, 25. 2); on its situation see Bequignon, 243-54. TTJV uuvo8ov O.UTWV: the meeting of the apxovrE<;: see Larsen, 78 n. 20; TAPA, I952, I9. 5. Tov Atvuiva. KoA:rrov: cf. Steph. Byz. 51. I3 (s. v. Alvta), AlvtaKaaELS: 'to afford an open view'.

Philip's remaining campaigns of 208. These are described in Livy, xxviii. 5· r8-8. 14 from P. They included the loss and recovery of Oreus (cf. xi. 5· 8 n.), and a sudden attack on Attalus at Opus from which he barely escaped whole (xi. 7· I, which should follow x. 47). 258

FIRE-SIGNALLING

X. 44· 2

Philip then campaigned against Aetolian possessions and allies around Doris, and perhaps gained possession of all Epicnemidian Locris (§ 7 n.). After the Olympic games he helped the Achaeans by raids on Aetolia across the Corinthian Gulf; the rest of the season was occupied against the Dardanians. Sulpicius probably took Dyme this year (Livy, xxxii. 21. 28, 22. IO; Paus. vii. 17. s). See in general Walbank, Philip, 94-98.

43. 1. O.vepyuo-Tou 'ITj>OTEpov .:nrO.pxovTos: either 'which was formerly undeveloped' (Paton, Mauersberger), or 'which has never before been clearly expounded' (Schweighaeuser, Shuckburgh, LSJ). Both meanings are satisfactory, but 45· 6, -rvxwv S£ Tfi> ifepyaatas S£ ~p.wv, favours the former. 2. 0 JCa.,pos ••• IJ.EYUAf]V EX£' JLEp(Sa.: cf. ix. rs. r n. 3. ApT' XPfi rroil.topKovp./.vov;; av·Tixw' {the :\iS. Alil.t&vov is an evident error for Alve[ov). Internal evidence suggests that Aeneas \\
44. 1.

century before 36o, but his personal history is unknown: he may, as Casaubon thought, be the Aeneas of Stymphalus who was general of the Arcadian Confederation and expelled Euphron, the tyrant of Sicyon, in 367 (Xen. Hell. vii. 3· r). The .}IS. title may also be incorrect, for Aeneas mentions several of his own works under shorter titles; these, referred to here as -ra rrf'p1 Twv O"Tpanlyt~
To Ka.Ta TTJV E1T1vo,a.v: 'his invective'. l. Tp,wv 1Tl)XWV: 'three cubits', i.e. about 4! ft. 259

X. 44· 3

PHILIP V GIVES AID TO HIS ALLIES

3. cp~>AAou5: 'corks'. ic:ra. JlfPT! Tptli6.KTu:\a.: 'equal parts two and a quarter inches wide'. The cubit was divided into 24 80.Kn/>.o~. 1r£jnypa.cpijv £ilC71]JlOV: 'a clear dividing line'. 6. Tn 116.:\tc:rT' li.v ••• wpovo(a.s Tuyx6.vovTa. KTA.: 'the chief contingencies of which at present there is a reasonable probability in time of war'. 7. Tous a.uMc:rKous: 'the outflow pipes'. 9. KO.Ta T«)v X£LPLc:rJlOV: 'by experiment' (Paton). 10. ol c:ruvTETa.yllevot: 'those who have been ordered'. 45. 1. ~pa.xu JlEV TL ••• €;1\:\:\a.x~ov: 'is a slight advance on' (Paton). 4. uuv9ec:r9a.t wpo Tou: 'to make a previous arrangement'. 6. litO. KAeo;€vou Ka.t .t\T\IlOKAE,Tou: beyond a reference in Suidas (derived from P.) nothing is known of these writers. Hultsch, RE, 'Demokleitos', col. 132, plausibly suggests that their date will not much precede P.'s, and so dates them to the early second century. 8t' "f\11wv: when P. contributed to this technique is not known; but Schulten's connexion of it with the siege of Numantia (App. Hisp. 90; CAH, viii. 322) would imply that this passage was a late insertion, and of this there is no evidence. (w6.VTT\ w6.vTws) ••• wptc:rJlEVos: for Biittner-Wobst's convincing suggestion cf. iv. 40. 5· Ka.Ta ••• Tov xnptuJlov: cf. 44· 9 n. Here 'in practice'. 7. To Twv c:rTOtXE~wv wA1]6os: 'the alphabet'. 8. wAa.ni:a. •.• wevn: 'five tablets' (cf. vi. 34· 8). yp6.\jla.t Twv JlEpwv £s1]5 KTA.: 'write one of the sections on each tablet in turn'. The grouping will be: Tablets

r

Place :2. on 3· tablet 4· 5·

I

2

(1,

t

fJ y

4

5

>.

TT

~

'II

jL

p

X

(J

v

u

!{;

7'

w

s €

3

g

I(

0

v

46. 1. 8tow-rpa.v ••• M' a.uMc:rKous ixouc:ra.v: 'a telescope v:ith two tubes'. This concentrated the vision on the desired point, without of course magnifying. On the s~61TTpa see ix. r9. 9 n. wa.pa.w£cpp6.x8a.l: 'screened off'. 47. 1. litTTns .•• Tns wupc:r£la.5: 'a double signal', i.e. one on the left followed by a second on the right. 3. -rous X£~pt~ovTa.s: 'the operators'. 260

FIRE-SIGNALLING

6. TO YLVO!J.EVOV ivl. Tll~ ava.yvwcrew~: for the adducing of reading as an analogy in argument cf. Plato, Rep. ii. 368 D, iii. 402 A-B (use of large and small letters); Dion. Hal. de comp. uerb. zs; de Dem. ui in dicendo, 52. 8. Ta~ oljlns ... Ta~ SuvaJ.lEL~: 'the visual impression ... the sound value' of each letter. Tas vpos aAATJAa. CFUJ.l1TAOKas: 'their combinations with each other'' i.e. either the combination of sound value and visual appearance of each letter, or the combination of different letters. 9. U1TO TTjv ava.1TVoTjv .•. auveipov: 'reeling off five or seven lines in a single breath'. 10. TTjv um1KpLcrLv Ka.l. Tas liLa.Lp~crELs: 'delivery and proper spacing of words'. Sa.cruTTJTas Kal. lj!LAOTTJTa.s: 'the presence or absence of aspiration'. 11. 1rpocra.KT~ov Se Tijv lf~Lv: for P .'s confidence in the virtues of practice (€g,.,) cf. Diog. Laert. vi. 71 giving the view of the cynic Diogenes : ov<'Uv YE f.L'?" D•.:ye T6 1Tap6:rrav lv To/ {3{cp xwp~s auK~UEWS' KaTop8ouu8m, SvvaTi,v S€ TaiJT!Jv 1riiv EKVLKijaat. See von Scala, 5 n. 12, Ka.Ta Tijv i~ apxfls £1TayyEALa.v: i.e. ix. 2. s. where P. writes Ef.L1T.:tp{at Kat TE'X"a' in place of 8.:wp~f.LaTa. P. refers here to the beginning of this Olympiad, not (as Paton) to the beginning of his work. [xi. 7· r, on Attalus' escape from Philip, should be placed here; see commentary ad loc.J

48. The River Oxus As part of the res Asiae for 01. r42, 4 = 209/8 (above, p. 16) this account of the Oxus must refer to Antiochus III's campaigns. The fighting in Hyrcania (31. 5-13) apparently ended in Antiochus' victory and an alliance with Arsaces; cf. Iustin. xli. 5· 7, 'Arsaces ... mira uirtute pugnauit; ad postremum in societatem eius (sc. Antiochi) adsumptus est'. Antioch us then marched east towards Bactria, and P. evidently prefaced his account of his campaigns there with a description of some of the peoples and geographical features of the lands east of Hyrcania. It is to this that 48 belongs. P.'s source is unknown; but some of the traditions behind it can be identified. 48. 1. ot ... )\1TacrLaKal: probably identical with the Paesicae (Mela, iii. 42) or Pascae (Ptol. vi. 12. 4), a Scythian people living on the north shore of the lower Oxus, where it met the Caspian (see below). They were probably Sacas; Tomaschek (5.-B. Wien, 102, 1882, 218; RE, 'Apasiakai', col. 267o) suggests that their name was Apa--;aka, 'Water-sacas'; cf. Tarn, Bactria, 91 n. 2. According to Step. Byz.

THE RIVER OXUS

s.v . .M?TaO',c{Ka,, P. said they were an eBvo<; of the Massagetae. Strabo (xi. 513) records that Arsaces I of Parthia, who had seized Hyrcania during the War of the Brothers, was at first expelled and found refuge ·.vith the Apasiacae; this was in z28/7 (Tarn, CAH, vii. 722). But he soon asserted his possession of both Parthia and Hyrcania (Iustin. xli. 4· 6-IO). avO. jlEO'OV "Osou Kat T nva~6os: these rivers are best discussed separately. (a) Oxus: the Amu-darya, which today flows into the Aral Sea. A strong ancient tradition brings at least one branch into the Caspian. Of this the source of Strabo, xi. 512 f. (probably Hecataeus; d. A. Herrmann, Gott. Abh. 1914, 4, 14 ff.; RE, 'Oxos', cols. 2007-8, note) will be the earliest example, if indeed the Araxes here mentioned is the Oxus; one mouth is said to reach the Hyrcanian sea, i.e. the Caspian. Herodotus (i. :w8·-rr) also mentions an Araxes flowing into the Caspian, but he seems to confuse the Armenian Araxes with the Oxus; Aristotle's Araxes (Meteor. i. 13. 350 a) is probably the Oxus, though he does not say what it ran into. Probably according to Aristobulus (Arr. iii. zg. 2), the Oxus flowed ts T~v !Leyai\-'lv 8d).aTmv rT]v Ka.B· 'YpKa.vlav; and Strabo (xi. 509) says that he records, on the authority of Patrocles, Seleucus Nicator's admiral, who sailed the shores of the Caspian, that there was a regular trade route from India via the Oxus, the Hyrcanian Sea, and Albania to the Euxine. Both Ptolemy (vi. u-12) and Mela (iii. 42) bring the Oxus into the Caspian. The earliest writer to describe it as flowing solely into the Aral Sea (Oxia palus) is Ammianus (xxiii. 6. 59) ; though Hecataeus (Strabo, xi. 512 f.), Herodotus, and Aristotle all describe other branches of the Araxes which appear not to flow into the Caspian. The truth of this tradition bringing waters of the Oxus into the Caspian has been much debated; but recent investigation of the geography by W. Obrutschev (summarized in Peterm. Mitt. 1914, I. 87-88) and Feodorovitch, who led the Karakum Expedition in 192Bfg--conveniently summarized by A. Herrmann, RE, 'Oxos', cols. zoro-13, with map-suggests that in classical times a branch ran from the dried-up bed of the Kalif-Uzboi along the Ungus depression north-west to join the Sarg Kamish depression, and thence flowed westward along the Uzboi, to meet the Caspian at Balkan Bay, just south of Krasnovodsk. Tarn (Bactria, 488-93) attacks this theory, assuming that Patrocles confused the Oxus and the Atrek, which does run into the Caspian (and ignoring the references to the Araxes); he has since (Alex. ii. 5-15) suggested that in Alexander's time the Sea of Aral was known and that Polycleitus, a minor historian accompanying Alexander, who argued for the identity of the Caspian and the .Maeotid Lake (Strabo, xi. sog-1o), was in fact calling the Sea of Aral the Caspian. This argument is far from convincing; 26z

THE HIVER OX US

X. 48.4

for some pertinent criticisms see L. C. Pearson, CQ, 1951, 8o-84. But Tarn is right when he says that the question whether the Oxus (or a branch of it) once ran into the Caspian is one to be settled only by science. On present evidence probability seems strongly to favour the view that it did. For various suggestions see Thomson, 127-9· In any case, P. follows the normal ancient view. (b) Ta·nais: normally the Don, which was reckoned as the boundary between Europe and Asia (iii. 37· z-8 n.; xxxiv. i· 10). If this were so here, the Apasiacae would live around the northern shores of the Caspian through Kazakhstan to the Don. But in Alexander's time the Jaxartes (Syr-darya) was confused with the Tanais (quite independently of Strabo's assertion, xi. sog-ro, that flatterers deliberately promoted the confusion so as to suggest that Alexander had reached the north-east botmdaries of Europe), and this confusion has probably played a part here, despite the fact that P. makes his Tanais issue in the Maeotis and not (as Strabo, xi. sro, sr8, and Arrian, iii. 30. 7~8, vii. r6. 3) in the Caspian. See Herrmann, RE, 'Iaxartes', cols. II83-4· i~e6:n:poL ... '!I'Aw·mi: today the Oxus is navigable as far as the mountains at Patta-hissar, 90 km. above Kalif. In ancient times, when perhaps more water fed it, the same was apparently true of the branch running into the Caspian. This is confirmed by the reference to a trade-route from India mentioned on the authority of Aristobulus, Eratosthenes and ultimately Patrocles by Strabo (ii. 73, xi. 509); cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. vi. 52 (based on Varro). The Don, w-ith which P. confuses the Iaxartes, is navigable into its lower stretches. 3. Mo MyoL: their source is unknown, but the first (about the waterfall} recalls one told {nra E-1!8&eov (of Cnidus) Kai .L\.\wv (Strabo, xi. 510; cf. Mela, iii. 5· 40): in Hyrcania rivers flow over cliffs into the sea w-ith such violence that they leave an area on the shore where armies can pass, or natives bask at their ease, enjoying the sea, the waterfall and the shore. P. knows of Eudoxus (d. xxxiv. I. 3), who may be his source here {cf. 523) ; but there is no certainty about this and Pectech, Methode, s68-7o, suggests that here (and in v. 44· 3-u, ix. 43 and x. 27. 4-13) the source is Callisthenes. 4. EK TOU Ka.uK6.aou: d. Arr. iii. zg. z, lK Tov tfpov~ TofJ KaVJcacrov; Ptolemy (vi. 18. r) puts the source in the Paropamisus, Aristotle (Meteor. i. 13. 350 A) in Parnassus, but these must all be variants for the Pamir or Hindu Kush. The Pyandzh, the upper stream of the Oxus, in fact rises in the Pamir. For the extension of the meaning of Caucasus to include the Hindu Kush and western Himalayas cf. xi. 34· I I ; Arr. v. 3· z f.; Curt. vii. 3· 19, viii. 9· 3; Strabo, xi. 505 f., sn, xv. 688 f.; Justin. xii. 5· 9; Diod. xvii. 83. I; Herrmann, RE, 'KavKaao~ (3)', cols. 6o-6r. e'll't 'll'oAU 8' a.u€'1J9Et~ ev Tfi Ba.~eTpLavft: true as far downstream as 263

X. f8. 4

THE RIVER OXUS

Kalif, where the river enters the Turanian plain; below, there are no more tributaries (Herrmann, RE, 'Oxos', col. 2010 ). Bactria is the area around the Oxus, including southern Sogdiana on its left bank (cf. Tomaschek, RE, 'Baktriane', col. 28o5). For the form BaKrpufvTJ cf. 49· IS; Tarn, Bactria, 444-5, apparently overlooks this when he asserts that Bactriane is a mistake made by 'writers of the Roman empire' for Badria. It constitutes a further argument against his theory about eparchies (cf. v. 46. 7 n.}. 5. E1T( TLVaS 1TETpas a1Toppwyas: this, if anywhere, would be in the depression of Ungus and Uzboi rather than in the present bed of the Oxus; and Obrutschev discovered two dry waterfalls in the Sary Kamish and Uzboi channels, one at lgdy 3 to 5 metres high. But this is obviously too small for P.'s waterfall; and in any case P. regards the story as improbable (§ 3. 7Tapci.So~os, ov p,1}v d.Svvaros). See Tarn, Bactria, 491; Herrmann, RE, 'Oxos', cols. 2014-15. e€w9E~ TO pEUJJ-a ••• TWV U1TEpKElJJ-EVWV T01TWV E1TL TOO'OUTOV: 'it projects its stream ... so far from the point above'. WaTE ••• TTJV KaTacflopO.v auTou: 'that in its fall it takes a leap of more than a stade away from the rock at the lower level'. 7. Tou U1TOKELJJ-EVou To1rou: 'the spot at the foot (of the waterfall)'. 1TAaTaJJ-wvas: this word can mean a fiat area, a fiat reef or a rock ledge. Here the sense is most likely 'a fiat ledge of rock', since fiat ground would be washed away, whereas the point is that the river channels a way down under the rocks, which thus serve as a natural bridge. l11ro yi]v cflepEa9aL: sc. rov 7Tin-a11-ov. EtT' O.vacflalvEa9aL 1raALV: for similar examples see Strabo, vi. 27 5; Diod. xvii. 75· 1-2 (the Stiboetes: d. 28. 7 n.). 8. e1rt Twv t1r1Twv: 'on horseback', not merely 'with their horses' (Paton). 49. Ant£ochus in Bactria The date will be 2o8 (cf. 48 n.}. Bactria, earlier a Seleucid satrapy, was now an independent kingdom. 49. 1. Eu9USTJJJ-OV: Euthydemus, a Greek of Magnesia (probably the city underSipylus: cf. xi. 34· In.), had seized the Bactrian throne from Diodotus II, the second of the dynasty which originally revolted from the Seleucids in about 239 (Schmitt, Antiochus, 64 f.). Diodotus II's overthrow and the accession of Euthydemus I cannot be accurately dated, but may fall shortly after 230; lustin. xli. 4· 9 affords no evidence that Diodotus II was still on the throne in 228-7, as argued by Tarn, Bactria, 74 n. 2. For a portrait-bust of Euthydemus see R. Delbrueck, A n-tike Portriits (Bonn, 1912), pl. 29; ;!64

A::.-!TIOCHUS IN BACTRIA

X. 49· I5

see also Tarn, Bactria, plate, coins r and 2; ~arain, pl. I, coin 4· His origins are uncertain; he was perhaps one of Diodotus II's satraps. On his organization of Bactria see Tarn, Bactria, 7I-r28, a brilliant if somewhat imaginative study. TI'Epl Ta.TI'oup(a.v: Tayovplav, FS. Gutschmid (Geschichte Irans, Tiibingen, r888, 37 n. 4) emends to Ttl Fovpla.va., which is preferable to Reiske: Ta7rovplav. Kiessling (RE, 'Guriane', cols. 1945--D; 'Hyrkania', cols. 484, 493 f.) identifies Ttl Fovplava with Ghurian on the Hari-rud (Arius) west of Herat, cf. Wolski, Bull. Intern. Acad. Pol. Supp!. 5· 1947, 56. Tam (ap. Holleaux, CAH, viii, 141 n. and PBA, 1930, rzs--D), while accepting Gutschmid's emendation, identifies Ta Fovplava with the Guriane of PtoL vi. ro. 4 and, emphasizing that this is in Margiane, puts it much further north on the main road from Palestine into f3actria (leading to Merv rather than Herat). Tov~plov: the Hari-rud or Tedzhen, as it is called in its lower reaches; it probably formed the boundary of Bactria at this time. TlJV TI'OAlopK£a.v aTI'o)'Vous: the name of the town Antiochus was be· sieging, to the west of the Arius, has not survived. 4. oln< eAa.TTov eTKocn aTa.S£wv: about 2 ~ miles. 7. To us Tl'ept a.uTov ete~a""ivous ~ew8uveue~v: perhaps, but not certainly, the flaa£)wc~ LA1J (cf. v. 84. I n.). 11. TWV 1TAduTwY hTTI'EWY E.cnTO.YflEVwY 118TJ: 'when most of the cavalry were now in position' (omitted by Paton). Oa.va.(TwAos: cf. v. 6r. s. 62. 2; he was one of the mercenaries who deserted Ptolemy for Antiochus. 14. Tov ••. l1T1TOV: sc. f3aut.Mws; the epitomator has omitted some words. 15. ets 1TOA~v Za.puia1Ta.v: usually called Bactra (d. Eratosthenes ap. Strabo, xi. 514, ~ls Bat
BOOK XI 1 a. On the use of 7rpoypa¢at and 7rpoEKlMaEt<;

This discussion forms part of the 7rpolKfhat<; to 01. •43· 7rpoypaal or epitomes of books xii and xlvii of Theopompus' Philippica. Examples survive in Diodorus. ci}.}.Q. Ka.lvpou:OEO'US: on 7rpo£KfNan<; see above. Kat will be 'simply' (cf. J. Denniston, The Greek Particles 1 (Oxford, 1954), 320, quoting Herod. ix. 2i. 5; Lys. xxv. 13). 266

THE USE OF IIPOrPA
2. Eis

itr(O'Ta.O'LV

liyeL kTh.: cf. xiv.

TVYXctVDl'TCl.S' Ka1 Std.

To

rr).7j£Jos Kat

I

8ta

a

£1> Jrr[u7a0'£V &yovut TOV> fLiyeOoS' TWV yeyov6Twv.

I,

To

lv-

3. bf.,ywpo~JJ.Evov ~ea.t cJ!8ElpoJ1evov: 'they are held in little account and get destroyed'. This is a general characteristic of rrpoypwpa.l, and not something which has recently come about, as Paton's translation implies: 'as I saw that ... prologues were now neglected and had degenerated in style'. KaO' JKaUT7JV oAvfLmci8a to books i-vL i and ii were introductorv, vi was an account of the constitution, army, etc,, and iii-v dealt exceptionally with a single Olympiad. iii could have had a rrpo£Kfl<:ats to 01. 140, but instead P. chose to prefix an introduction to the whole work (cf. iii. I. s n.), just as he had included a rrpotKBEat> of the 7TpoKaTaaK€V~ in i. 13. r-s. The 1rpoypa.pa/., now lost, were a substitute, giving the contents of the first six books (cf. r a n.).

t

1-3. 6. Hasdrubal in Italy: the Metaunts This fragment is from the res Italiae of Ol. 143, I 207 B.C. After escaping from Baecula (x. 39· 8, 40. ro) Hasdrubal wintered in Gaul (2o8/7), crossing the Alps in the early spring. Livy (xxvii. 39· 7) and Appian (Hawn. 52) implytllat he used Hannibal's pass, but Varro (ap. Serv. A en. x. 13) denies it (see DeSanctis, iii. 2. 561~z). For the events between then and the battle of the "Y1etaurus see Livy, xxvii. 39· 1-49; Zon. ix. 9; Appian, Maced. 52-53; with Val. .Max. vii. 4· 4; Frontin, Strat. i. I. g, z. 9, iv. 7· rs; F!or. i. 22. so; Eutrop. iii. 18. :2; Oros. iv. 18. 9-15; Ampel. r8. n, 36. 3, 46. 6; auct. de uir. ill. 48. 2; Suet. Tib. 2, I; Hor. Od. iv. 4· 37-39; Sil. It. xv. 543 ff. Livy, the main source other than P., is closely related to P., but his version incorporates annalistic material, which occasionally contradicts P.; in the main his narrative may be accepted. To prevent the hrothers joining forces the Romans sent one consul, C. Claudius Nero, to watch Hannibal in the south, and the other, M. Livius Salinator, to oppose Hasdrubal in the north (Livy, xxvii. 40. 1). Hannibal moved north to Grumentum to make contact with Claudius; 'here and again at Venusia skirmishes took place which Roman tradition magnified into victories' (Scullard) (cf. Livy, xxvii. 41--42). Next Hannibal advanced to Canusium to await a message from Hasdrubal (Livy, xxvii. 42. I6); but Hasdrubal's envoys, four Gauls and two Numidians, were intercepted by the propraetor Q. Claudius, and so revealed to the Romans that Hasdrubal proposed to meet Hannibal in Umbria (Livy, xxvii. 43· 1~8). By now :M. Livius

XI. I-J. 6

HASDRUBAL IN ITALY: THE 1\IETAURUS

was encamped ad Senam about half a mile from Hasdrubal, who had followed the Via Aemilia down from Placentia (Livy, xxvii. 46. 4). Xero, taking 6,ooo picked infantry and r,ooo horse, meanwhile left a covering force against Hannibal and pressed north by forced marches to join Livius (Livy, xxvii. 46. 4; cf. so. I). Hasdrubal, learning from the double signal that both consuls were facing him and uncertain what had happened to Hannibal, attempted to retire by night, but missed the way and was eventually overtaken some distance up the river Metaurus, which he had failed to ford, his two guides having escaped. Here the battle took place. The battle-site and those of the Roman and Punic camps have been much discussed, but no theory fits all the evidence and avoids all the difficulties. It is clear that the Punic camp and the battlefield were both on the same side of the Metaurus. In favour of the right bank is the association of the camps in many of our sources with Sena, which lies about 10 miles south of the l\ietaurus (cf. Livy, xxvii. 46. 4, ad Senam; Eutrop. iii. 18. 2; and au ct. de uir. ill. 48. 2, apud Senam; App. Harm. 52, 1TEpi 1TOA
HASDRUBAL IN ITALY: THE METAURUS

XL 1-3.6

army including elephants would easily outweigh such difficulties of terrain (d. De Sanctis, iii. z. 564-5). These considerations seem to favour the view that the rival armies were encamped near Fanum, and perhaps (though not necessarily) one on either side of the Metaurus (if the flumen 1t.nde aqtt-abantur {Livy. xxvii. 4 7. z) is that river). But Hasdrubal's withdrawal creates difficulties on any hypothesis. Our sources are not agreed on its purpose. According to Appian, Hamt. 52, OU1TW J.LfLXEuBat l<€1
TaAG.-ras ava.xwpfiam Kai EKfL

TU

rre.p~

TOV

aD£Atfoov aKpt~c./;aacrOat;

but a retreat to the Po valley would be excessively timorous for a Barcid. Livy (xxvii. 47) does not refer to Hasdrubal's purpose at all. General considerations then seem to favour Appian's view, which implies a meeting with Hannibal in Umbria; but clearly the evidence hete is not decisive. More difficult is the detailed account of the withdrawal, when according to Livy (xxvii. 47· n) Hasdrubal was in search of a ford over the Metaurus. If his camp lay south of the river, he had already crossed it and it is not clear why he found it so hard to go back the way he had come, even if the ford lay some way upstream to avoid the marshes mentioned by Appian (Hann. 52). But if his camp was north of the Metaurus, it becomes impossible to reconcile the long march per tortuosi amnis sinus flexusque described by Livy (xxvii. 47· ro-n) and Appian (Hann. 52) with an advance up the left bank, where the Via Flaminia must have facilitated a night march, and where one may assume a bridge at Calmazzo. Kahrstedt's assertion (iii. 310 that the whole of Hasdrubal's nightmarch is an annalistic invention (cf. I. z n.) may appear drastic; but if Hasdrubal's camp stood on the left bank of the Metaurus, Livy's account is at least considerably embellished and worked over by annalists. The theme is typical of Hellenistic e~
XI. 1-3.6

HASDRUBAL IN ITALY: THE .METAt:RUS

several inaccuracies, may well be unreliable on the night march. :\loreover, if Hasdrubal proposed to meet Hannibal in Umbria, an advance as far as Sena is hard to accept. Hence on balance, it seems more likely that his camp lay north of the Metaurus. But the evidence is finely balanced and certainty not possible. Hence it seems futile to attempt to locate the exact site of the battle. The main sites proposed have been (a) north of the :Metaurus, moving westward: La Lucrezia, Borgaccio, l\L Sterpette, Calmazzo, and San Silvestro; (b) south of the Metaurus: San Angelo, Cerasa, :Monte Maggiore, Montebello, Tombacchia, and Vago Colle. Bibliography: Kromayer, AS, iii. I. 424-6 (full discussion, pp. 426-94), with Karten 4 and ro;; iv. 625; Schlachtenatlas, Rom. Abt., 7· 8 with commentary); Hallward, CAH, viii. 727; De Sanctis, iii. 2. 562-7. The folloV~-ing studies have been published locally in Italy (non vid£) : A. Bianchini, La battaglia del 111etauro (Pesaro, 1934) ; G. Bonarelli, La battaglia di Metaura, i. (Ancona, 1942); G. Boroni, Dissertazione sulla battaglia del1tf etauro (Fano, 1940); Le diverse tesi sulla battaglia del },fetaura (Urbania, 1953; cf. M. Fievez, Latamus, 1954, 494) ; N. Alfieri, Tapogra.fia della battaglia dellv[ etalHO (Fabriano, 1941; Rend. I st. Afarch. Sci. Lett. Arti, 15-16, 1939~40, publ. 1941, pp. 91-136; cf. Rend. Ace. Sci. I st. Balogna4, 5, 1942, cn-1o4); G. Rossi, La battaglia del lv[etauro, ricostruita sui luoga col testa di T. Livia (Fano, 1928); La battaglia del MeJauro combattuta jra i Romani e i Cartaginesi nell'anno 207 a.C. ricastruita sulluogo col testa di Tito Livia, xxvii. 43-51 (Pesaro, r939); Teatra della battaglia del Metauro ricostruito . .. col testa di Tito Livia e documentato da iscrizioni .. . , da moltc tambe ramane . .. e da carcami di elejanti ecc. (Fano, 1939). pa.O~ECM'epa.v Ka.t auvTOiJ.WTepa.v: cf. Livy, xxvii. 39· 6, 'Hasdrubali et sua et aliorum spe celeriora atque expeditiora fuere'. Paton translates 'much easier and more rapid than Hannibal's had been'; but the Livian parallel suggests 'easier and more rapid than was expected'. The reasons given by Livy are that the inhabitants proved more friendly than when Hannibal crossed, some even joinHasdrubal's army. Appian (Ham:. sz) says the crossing took two months. De Sanctis (iii. 2. 574-5) argues convincingly that Hasdrubal reached the Po valley in May, and that the battle of Metaurus took place at the end of June or early in July (allowing for the siege of Placentia (Livy, xxvii. 39· rr) and a march of just over 3oo miles from Turin to Fanum). Ovid, Fasti, vi. 770, refers to 22 June an occasion when cecidit telis Hasdrubal ipse suis. DeSanctis (loc. cit.) refers this to the defeat of Hasdrubal, son of Gisgo, at the battle of the Great Plains, but his arguments are unconvincing; and though it may seem difficult to apply these words of Ovid to

1. 1. 1ToM

HASDRt.;BAL I:\ ITALY: THE METAURL"S

XI. r. 4

Hasdrubal's death at the Metaurus, P. certainly uses this as a peg on which to hang what is really a sermon on the permissibility of suicide in certain circumstances. Moreover, if the calendar was running true to the sun in 207 (which we do not know), the date would fit general probabilities. For discussion of Ovid, Fasti, vi. no, see Scullard, Scip. 324-5. op91) KQ.l rrEptcpo~o~: cf. Livy, xxvii. 40. I ff. for tension at Rome on Hasdrubal's approach. 2. TOlJT(Il\1 flEV i)pEO'KEV ouSev: what displeased Hasdrubal is not clear. Kahrstedt's :1ssumption (iii. 3ro) that it is his realization that the enemy were reinforced is designed to support his theory that Hasdrubal's night march (Livy, xxvii. 47· 8-II; App. Hann. 52) is sheer annalistic invention. DeSanctis (iii. z. 562-3) suggests more plausibly that Hasdrubal was displeased at the drunkenness among the Celts (cf. 3· r). But ToVTwv . .• ov!5Ev implies more than one factor; and another may be the general disorder in which his troops now found themselves (cf. Livy, xxvii. 47· 9. 'fessique aliquot somno ac uigiliis sternunt corpora passim atque infrequentia relinquunt signa'). Hesselbarth (549) suggests that fg. 40 refers to the drunkenness of the Celts and should be inserted between 1. r and 1. 2 (cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 563). EKTETG.YflEVOU~ Ka.l. rrpoucl.yovTa.~: cf. Livy, xxvii. 48. 3, 'aduenit Liuius peditum omnibus copiis non itineris modo sed ad conserendum extemplo proelium instructis armatisque'. According to Livy (xxvii. 48. 2 and.=;) Hasdrubal was trying to fortify a camp in tumulo super fluminis ripam, but was forced to ab:mdon this on the Roman attack. TOU~ "I ~T}pa.~ KQ.LTOU ~ flET. a.lhou YEYOVOTG.<; r a.A.cl. TQ.~ :according to Livy (xxvii. 48. s-6) Hasdrubal put his Gauls on the left facing Nero, and himself took up station on the right (see below, § 3 n.) against Livius. 3. Ta 91)pla. ••• SiKa.: cf. Livy, xxvii. 48. s, 'in prima acie ante signa elephantos conlocat'. Livy places Ligurians in the centre, and the elephants in front of these, whereas according to P. there is only a deep-massed Punic right led by Hasdrubal, with the elephants in front, and the Gauls on the left. Livy thus fails to make clear the desperate character of Hasdrubal's formation (vtKav 1) BlnjaKnv), which was designed to stake all on the right ; cf. Kromayer, AS, iii. 1. 465

n.

r.

Ka.Ta TT)v Twv 91)plwv rrpouTa.uia.v: 'at the point where the elephants

formed the front'. 4. o ... N~lO~: M. Livius M.f. M.n. Salinator, consul for 207 and, previously, 219; cf. Munzer, RE, 'Livius (Salinator) (33)', cols. 89r-g. Livius had been out of politics since his condemnation for misuse of the booty in the Second Illyrian War (cf. iii. 19. 12 n.; Livy, xxvii. 34· 4). On the background of his election now see Scullard, Pol. 72-73. O.vTmTIEl To'L~ rroAEflLOl~ oo~a.pw~: cf. iii. 72. 13 (Sempronius at 2jl

XI.

I . .j.

HASDRUBAL Il': ITALY: THE METAURUS

Trebia), xv. 12. 17 (the phalanxes at Zama), xviii. 23. 7 (Flamininus at Cynoscephalae). 5. o S€ KA.a.uOLos: C. Claudius Ti.f. Ti.n. Nero, the other consul; cf. Munzer, RE, 'Claudius (296)', cols. 2774-6. By a slip Paton refers to him both here and in § 10 as Marcellus. 11'€pLK€pciv ... OUK eSUva.TO: i.e. advance into the gap between Hasdrubal's Gallic left and his advancing right, and strike the latter on its left flank. 7. Ka.Ta TCIV oma8€v T011'0V TtlS J.LC..XTJS: 'in the rear of the field'; P. probably means that Nero took men from the rear of the right wing, to hide his intentions from the enemy. Thus not all the right took part in this manceuvre. Kromayer, AS, iii. I. 471, translates: 'deshalb zog er seine Soldaten vom rechten Fliigel hinter der Schlachtreihe herum' : this is not easily extracted from 1rapaoEtawvo<; •.. KaTa Tov oma8Ev T61TOV Tij<; f.LUX1)'>·

To Aa.Lov urrEpapa.s TtlS tS(a.s 1Ta.p€J.L~oA.t1s: 'passing round the Roman battle-line to the left'. Claudius took men from the inactive right wing, assembled them in the rear and led them round (to the left of) the Roman left, which was now engaging Hasdrubal's main forces. Paton renders 1TapEf.Lf3oAij<> as 'camp', which is nonsense. Ka.Ta K€pa.s ... E1TL Ta a, pta.: i.e. he struck the front of the Punic line on its right flank; cf. Livy, xxvii. 48. 13-14, 'cohortes aliquot subductas e dextro cornu ... post aciem circumducit, et non hostibus modo sed etiam suis inopinantibus in sinistrum <euectus in dextrum) hostium latus incurrit' (where euectus in dextrum is Conway's addition, but the sense is clear, since the advancing troops subsequently reach the Gauls who are on Hasdrubal's left). 8. KoLvT)v ciJ.Lcpo'Lv 1Ta.p€CxovTo TTJV XP€La.v ev Tft J.Laxn: 'they contributed to the fighting an element which affected both sides equally'; XPE{a here is 'fighting' rather than 'use', for they were a disadvantage to both lines. 10. &J.La. S€ T~ ... 1Tp00'1f€0'€LV Ka.T' oupav: in § 7 they are attacking Hasdrubal's flank, now they have got round to his rear; cf. Livy, xxvii. 48. 14, 'tantaque celeritas fuit ut cum ostendissent se ab latere mox in terga iam pugnarent'. There is much to be said for Schweighaeuser's
3. 1foAA.a.'Ls S€ Ka.t 1fOLKLAa.L~ 11'€pLaTaa€aL 1fa.Aa.(aa.s: 'in his struggle against many embarrassing difficulties'. 272

HASDRUBAL lX ITALY: THE METAURUS

XI. 3· 2-3

SLa Tb ••• To us i1fa.1foan:AAollevous: Buttner-Wobst plausibly sug-

gests s~a. TO O"Ta(na~t:~l! 1Tpo<; a.Vrov<; U£t. On the hostility between Hasdrubal, son of Gisgo, Hasdrubal, son of Hamilcar, and Mago, the latter Hasdrubal's brother, see ix. II. I, x. 7· 3; Livy, xxvi. 41. 20. 4-11. The lessons of Hasdrubal's death; circumstances in which suicide is praiseworthy (cf. §ron.). 4. a~LOS E1fL Ttvos a1ropov Ka.l d{~iov fU!Ta>.a.xwv); Aiist. Eth. Nic. v. Ir. 3· n38 a. Approval of it is typical of Stoic doctrine (cf. Cic. fin. iii. 6o; Plut. Cleom. 3l (see above, ii. 69. Ion.); Hirzel, 3oo ff., 857-60; von Scala, 2I2-I3 n. 4); but others also accepted it and this passage is not evidence that P. was a Stoic (cf. Hercod, 90; Pedech, Methode, 419 n. 68). 11. cj>LAotwoGvn:<> 1ra.pa Tb Seov: cf. xxx. 7. 8, Tov 1ra.pa To Ka.BijKov 1/Jt>.o,wetv.

3. 2-3. Casualties. The consular armies of 207 had been reinforced to full strength or over strength (Livy, xxvii. 38. 9), and they probably had their full contingent of allies. Hence Livius' army can be put at 2o,ooo-2s,ooo men. He also had with him the forces of Porcius Licinus (Livy, xxvii. 46. s). described as imtalidus exercitus (Livy, xxvii. 39· z), and perhaps amounting to ro,ooo men. Hasdrubal was prepared to meet Livius and Porcius, but retired when they were reinforced by the 7,ooo men of Claudius Nero (Livy, xxvii. 43· n), which suggests that Hasdrubal's army was roughly equal to the forces of Livius and Porcius, i.e. 3o,ooo-3s,ooo. According to P. his casualties included ro,ooo dead. The prisoners (§ z, ~v >.om~v Twv a.lxJ.La.>.dnwv >.da.v) brought in 300 talents. In Achaea in 194 Romans were ransomed at soo dr. each (Livy, xxxiv. so. 6, quoting P.), perhaps a normal market price. Kromayer (AS, iii. L 492) estimates that the rate after Metaurus was perhaps a third of this, but admits that this may be a little high; it would imply about ro,ooo prisoners, or more. In addition some of Hasdrubal's army escaped, or never reached the battlefield (cf. Livy, xxvii. 48. 16, 49· 9). Though this gives no basis for detailed calculation, it does not exclude the possibility that Hasdrubal had 3o,ooo-3s,ooo men in all. Other sources give impossible figures. Livy (xxvii. 49· 6) has 56,ooo (or according to some MSS. 57 ,ooo : accepted by Conway in the Oxford text as being closer to the s8,ooo mentioned by Orosius, iv. I8. I4) dead and 5,400 814173

T

XI. 3· z

HASDRUBAL 1:::\ lTALY: THE METAURUS

prisoners; and Appian (Hamt. 52) puts Hasdrubal's total force at 48,ooo foot and 8,ooo horse s6,ooo in all, which perhaps supports 56,ooo casualties in the text of Livy). These are all far too high; with such an army Hasdrubal need have had no hesitation in facing even the reinforced Roman legions at Metaurus. Livy (xxvii. 49- 7) puts the casualties Romanorum sociorumque at 8,ooo, which does not necessarily clash with P.'s figure of 2,ooo Romans. For discussion see Kromayer, AS, iii. 1. 475-94; DeSanctis, iii. 2. 571-4. 3. o~ 8i Aonrot Ka.TE:t90.pt'Jaa.v: i.e. of the leading Carthaginians. 4. ~~ ... t~I-Lt'J~ &.t,Ko!lM-J~: cf. Livy. xxvii. so. 6, 'fama incerta primo accidit duos Narnienses equites in castra quae in faucibus Vmbriae opposita erant uenisse ex proelio nuntiantes caesos hostes'. 5. ti·rm8Tj 8i Ka.i. 'll'hdous 1jKov: cf. Livy, xxvii. so. 8, 'litterae deinde ab L. Manlio Acidino ex castris adferuntur de Narniensium equitum aduentu'. This was read out in the Senate and to the people. Soon afterwards legati arrived from the victorious army to confirm the news (Livy, xxvii. 51. I -6). 'II'EAavwv Ka.l 9up.O.Twv: 'sacrificial cakes and victims'. According to Livy (xxvii. 51. 8), 'senatus ... supplicationem in triduum decreuit'. 6. 1-1118' iv 'ITa.ALtt vo11t~Ew 1ra.pEI:va.~: cf. Livy, xxvii. sr. 10, 'statum quoque ciuitatis ea uictoria mouit, ut iam inde hand secus quam in pace inter se contrahere uendendo, emendo, mutuum dando argentum creditumque soluendo auderent'.

3. 7. Fragment concerning a speech This may belong to the same occasion as 4· r-6. ro; see p. r6.

4.

1~.

10. Speech of Thrasycrates of Rhodes

This speech belongs to the Greek events of 207 and implies a gathering of neutrals at an Aetolian congress; on the month, which is uncertain, see 6. I n. This neutral approach to the Aetolians has been convincingly identified with one mentioned in App. Mac. 3· 1-2, where the participants were Egypt, Chios, Mytilene, and Amynander of Athamania (cf . .Meloni, Valore storico, 9-24). Schmitt (Rom und Rhodos, 205; cf. Ferro, 7 n. 63, 139 ff.) argues that it is rather to be identified with a second neutral intervention mentioned in App. Mac. 3· 3-4, because the reference to Amynander in Appian's first intervention dates it before that king's desertion to Philip (Livy, xxxvi. 31. I I : his desertion preceded Philip's invasion of Aetolia; see below, 7· 2-3); but this argument has little weight, since Appian implies that the same powers took part in both interventions, and his association of the second gathering with the separate peace between Philip and Aetolia favours dating it to winter 207/6 and the

274

SPEECH OF THRASYCRATES OF RHODES

XI. 4· 5

peace to zo6 (cf. \Valbank, Philip, 305). Appian has nothing reliable to add. The name of the speaker is given in the margin (F 2 ) as Thrasycrates, and Schweighaeuser's suggestion (vol. viii. 7) that he was a Rhodian may be right, though it is not supported by very sound arguments. La Roche (6o) and Ullrich (34) defend the genuineness of the speech; and indeed the panhellenic note and the accusations against the Aetolians can have come from a Rhodian as easily as from P. himself (contra, Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 202}. But P.'s source is unknown; it may go back to a published version (which is unlikely) or to a version in some earlier historian such as Zeno. Moreover, general conformity to the original would not exclude some working over of detail; for a possible example see 6. I n. See further P£-dech, Methode, 268--9.

4. 1. nToAE .... o.ios 0 13o.atAEUS: Ptolemy I v. He had already tried to mediate between Aetolia and Philip in 209 (Livy, xxvii. 30. 4-10; cf. above, x. 25. I-5 n.) and 2o8 (Livy, xxviii. 7· IJ-·I5)· 1) Twv 'Pooiwv voA~s: the emphasis on Rhodes would support the identification of the speaker as from that city (Schmitt, Ram und Rhodos, 199). Tns 1'1...-ETEpas ••. 8to.AUaEtS: 'your ceasing hostilities'. 2. ou ••• vGv vpw1"ov ou8E O€u1"€pov: Thrasycrates speaks for the neutrals as a body. There had been interventions in 209 {by Ptolemy, Rhodes, Athens, Chios, and Amynander) and in 208 (by Ptolemy and Rhodes) ; see § I n. vpoaE8pd,ovTES Kai. nD.vTa Katpov 9EpanEuovTEs: 'looking out for and seizing every opportunity'. 3. T1\!l UJ'ETEpas •.• aToxatoJJ-EVOL ~ a1T6AAV11L shows. lS. ei.El~uawJ'Evos: 'constantly renewed and blown into a blaze'.

XI. 4· 6

SPEECH OF THRASYCRATES OF RHODES

6. TOO'S VT)atMTaS ••• Kat TOUS TTtV :A.aLaV KaTO~KOUVTaS "EAATJvas: cf. v. 105. 6, which shows the phraseology here to be P.'s. The V7la.Wnu are primarily the inhabitants of the large islands off the Asian coast, i.e. Rhodes, Lesbos, and Chios, which share in the negotiations; the sense is the same in v. 105. 6. Cf. Holleaux, 235 n. 2. 8. f1Eycl.AT)S ••• ~maTaaews: 'deep consideration'.

5. 2. a.l auv9i]Km •.• at wpos 'Pw!La.wus: d. ix. 28-39 n., 38. 5 n., 39· 3 n., xviii. 38. 9 n. 4. aUjLfLcl.xwv owa.pxovTwv: the 'majority of the Peloponnesians' are, of course, the Achaean Confederacy, since Sparta, Elis, and Messenia were allied with Aetolia (cf. ix. 30. 6 n.). On the position of Epirus in this war see ix. 38. 5 n., where that of Thessaly and Boeotia is also discussed. Phocis was at this time a Macedonian protectorate (cf. v. 26. 1 n., x. 42. 2 n.). For help sent by Philip to Euboea, cf. Livy, xxvii. 30. xxviii. 7· 2; to OpuntianLocris, d. Livy, xxviii. 7· 5-9; on the status of Opuntian Locris see ii. 54· 4 n. The list here is not complete, for example, the Acarnanians are omitted. 5. ~cp' ~ TO. jLEV awjLa.Ta. KTA.: cf. ix. 39· 3 n. 7. Kw 'fipELTWV Kal ••• Al.ywTJTwv: Oreus in northern Eu boca, the ancient Histiaea (which remained the official name; cf. Geyer, RE, Suppl.-B. iv, 'Histiaia', cols. 749-50), had been seized by the forces of the Roman general Sulpicius through the treachery of Plator, Philip's commander (Livy, xxviii. 5· 18-6. 7; cf. x. 42. 2 n.), in June 2o8, soon after Philip set up his system of fire-signals (x. 42. 7-8); Philip recovered it a little later (Livy, xxviii. 8. 13), perhaps in August (Walbank, Philip, 304-5). The plunder from Oreus seems to have gone to the Romans (cf. Livy, xxviii. 7· 4: 'Oreum ... ab Romano milite, expertibus regiis, direptum fuerat'), and it is not clear how its fate concerned the Aetolians, except inasmuch as it revealed the character of Roman warfare. Aegina was taken by Sulpicius in 210; see ix. 42. s~8 n., xxii. 8. 9-IO (where raAalTTwpo~ is again used). TllS TUXTJ'> •.• ETI'L TT)v l~WaTpa.v &.va.~L~a.tou~s TT]v ••• ayvOLO.V: see Vol. I, p. 21 n. 6 for Tyche envisaged as a producer of plays; to the passages there quoted add xxiii. Io. 16 (Philip V's tragedy). Similar phraseology occurs in Diod. xi. 24. 1 (Ephorus or Timaeus), xx. 70. 2 (Duris or Timaeus), rij~ rJx"'~ wcnr£p i7Tl77]8's: im8nKVVJ.LEV7]S: ~v l8lav ovvap.Lv iTTt TWV aTT7]A7TLUfdvwv; here it seems to reflect P.'s vocabulary rather than Thrasycrates' own words. 9. Ka.Ki;lv O.pxt)v f1£y0./..wv ••• To is "EAAT)O'W: cf. xviii. 39· 1. Apparently an echo of Herod. v. 97· 3, where the sending of twenty 276

SPEECH OF THRASYCRATES OF RHODES

XI. 7·

I

ships from Athens to the Ionians is characterized as &.px.iJ Ka.Kwv •• • -r£ Kat {Ja.p{Jd.potm. But perhaps the phrase had become proverbial.

"EXArwt

6. 1. uuytw
This fragment, from Suidas, should stand immediately after x. 47· In 2o8, warned of the fall of Oreus by fire-signals (cf. 5· 8 n.), Philip forced Thermopylae and reached Elatea, a 6o-miles march, the same day (Livy, xxviii. 7· 1-3; Dio, xvii. 57· 57). Attalus was busy at Cynus, the port of Opus, over the plunder granted him by Sulpicius (Livy, xxviii. 7· 4-6): 'adeoque improuisa res fuit ut, nisi Cretensium qui dam forte pabulatum ab urbe longius progressi agmen hostium procul conspexissent, opprimi potuerit'. Philip came up as Attalus got to sea: 'inde Opuntem rediit, deos hominesqne 277

XI. 7·

I

PHILIP AT CY!\t:S (2o8)

accusans quod tantae rei fortunam ex oculis prope raptam amisissef (Livy, xxviii. 7· 8), corresponding to this fragment. 7. 2-3. Philip's invasion of Aetolia

According to Livy (xxxvi. 31. u), Philip gave Zacynthus to Amynander of Athamania, 'ut per Athamaniam ducere exercitum in superiorem partem Aetoliae licerct, qua expcditione fractis animis Aetolos compulit ad petendam pacem'. Is this the expedition referred to here? A difficulty is the length of time between an invasion in 207 and the swearing of the peace which Livy (xxix. 1:2. 3) suggests was in 205. Accordingly several scholars have assumed two invasions (cf. Oberhummer, Akarnanien, 170; Niese, ii. 495, 500; Geyer, RE, 'Makedonia', coL i49; 'Philippos (10)', coL 23Io; Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 2II n. 1) and Walek-Czernecki (Rev. Phil. 1928, 2o) assumes three (see below,§ 2 n.). The gap can be bridged without this assumption. The invasion of Aetolia was in 207 (in dating it to 206 Oost, CP, I95i, 3, 13 n. 13, neglects its position in P.). Disheartened, the Aetolians continued to appeal to Rome but waited to see what help would arrive the next summer (cf. Livy, xxxii. 21. 17); when none came they made peace that autumn. Sempronius did not reach Greece until 205, but Livy's statement (xxix. 12. 3) that news of his arrival reached Philip uixdum pace facta may well be annalistic exaggeration. Balsdon'sview(]RS, 1954, 31) that Sempronius arrived in Illyria in 206 is hard to accept in view of Livy's statement (xxix. 12. r) that affairs in Greece were neglected for two years; it also involves (a) the assumption that Sempronius was appointed to Sulpicius' province after the elections of 2o7 (for 2o6), in which case his delay in going out is odd; and (b) too long a gap before the Peace of Phoenice, which was sworn in the latter half of 205 at the earliest. The chronology here accepted was proposed by De Sanctis (iii. 2. 430 n. 87, 444) and approved by Holleaux (253 n. 4) and Flaceliere (304) ; for a refutation of the objections raised against it by WalekCzernecki see \Valbank, Ph£lip, 305-6. 2. 1'1'op€u9ds f:1'1'l TTtY T p1xwvl8a. Mrt""l": 'marching towards Lake Trichonis'; if Philip came by Athamania (Oost, CP, 1957, 3-4, suggests that he entered it by the pass from Gomphi), he will ha\·e descended the Inachus to the Achelous, and the present passage suggests that he turned east along Lake Trichonis, as in 2r8 (cf. VoL I. p. 542 for map). Woodhouse, 26r, reasonably suggests that he again followed the easier southern shore of Lake Trichonis, a view supported by the mention of Ellopium and Phytaeum (§§ 4-5). The likelihood is that these towns were mentioned before Philip's arrival at Ther· mum and that the opening words of this fragment are due to compression by the excerptor. 278

PHILIP'S INVASION OF AETOLIA

XI. 8.

I

cls TOv G£pfLOv: cf. v. 8. 3 n. for the Aetolian federal centre and the temple of Apollo Thermios. aaa 1TpOT£pov a1TEAnn: 'TW\1 O.vaOt)fLaTWV: viz. in 2I8; cf. v. 9· I-I2. 4· Walek-Czernecki (Rev. phil. 1928, 20) bases his theory that there were three invasions of Aetolia (above, 7· 2-3 n.) on the mistaken belief that P. here refers to an invasion in 208. 3. TO yG.p ••• opy~tOfL£\10\1 ••. aa£{31!~\1: 'for to be guilty of impiety towards the gods because one is angry with men .. .' (Paton). For P.'s views on the inviolability of temples cf. iv. 62. 3 n. 4. 'Eft.AOmov: 'Woodhouse, 26r f., suggests that the ruins of Ellopium lie at Mesovouni, south-east of Morosklavon, at the eastern end of Lake Trichonis. 5. 4>uTatov: on the site of Phytacum at Palaiochori see v. 7· 7-8. 4 n.

8-18. The Achaean reforms of Philopoemen: the death of Mach.anidas This section still forms part of the res Graeciae of OL 143, I 208/7 B.c. (in fact 207). 8 deals with the faults of Philopoemen's predecessors in the Achaean aTpa:rryyta. Philopoemen certainly held his first aTpaT'T)yla in 208/7, for according to ro. 9 the battle of Man tinea, described by P. under 01. 143, r, was eight months after Philopoemen began his training of the troops; hence he entered office in autumn 208. This is confirmed by Plut. Philop. rr. r, which mentions the Nemean games held during his second aTpa77JYla, and speaks of him then as vt:vLK'T)KOTa p.€v ov rrdAat T~v Ev MaVTtvElff p.ax'1Jv; this must be in 205, as the Nemean games fell in 'odd' years {Julian) (cf. ii. 65-69 n., 70. 4 n., v. ror. 5), and consequently, since re-election was permitted only e\·ery other year (Piut. Arat. 24. 5, quoted at ii. 43· 7 n.), the first aTpaTryyta mnst fall in 2o8/7. See Niese, ii. 498; Nicolini, 286 n. 2; De Sanctis, iii. 2. 443-4; Holleaux, 254 n. I; CAH, viii. 133 (=Etudes, v. 3r4); Busolt~Swoboda, ii. 1571; Aymard, Assemblies, 95·

8. 1-2. Method of acquiring the general's art: compare the three methods here listed with the three mentioned in ix. q. 1-5 (see ix. 14. r n.). Systematic instruction from experts (§ 2, Tau p.~8oSvmiJ Ka~ Tijs- rrapa Twv £p.rrclpwv d1,Spwv 7Ta.pa8oat:ws) corresponds to £p.7Ttitpta 1!f8o~aK~, routine practice (§ 2, ToO 8,d Tfjs £7T' a&rwv Twv 7Tpayp.aTwv l[Ews ~
XI. 8.

I

ACQUIRING THE GENERAL'S ART

correspondence; xxiii. 2. s. memoranda), there is no reason so to restrict it here (with Paton, 'military memoirs'). 2. '~'il'> ••• 1ra.pa.S0uEws: P. seems here to envisage personal instruction by experts rather than the systematic study of expert treatisrs (so Shuckburgh, 'the use of scientific treatises composed by speci~ alists') ; cf. Schweighaeuser, 'per praecepta uirorum artis illius torum'. It is clear from ix. 14. 5 ff. that P. takes a very broad view of the subject-matter of such instruction. 4. bilXo;; ouK EUTuxt]s: cf. x. n. ron. on KaKo~-ql.wata; the d,\a{ov~da and aKatp{a, a SnObbish passion for extravagant Jiving, infected their troops, especially the cavalry. Twv O.II.Xwv: 'others'; presumably other leading citizens in Achaea. or perhaps other generals, each stri,·ing to outdo his predecessors. 5. Ka.AAW1TL<TI16;;: 'dandyism'; cf. 9· 7· 7. €pya. ••• 1rapepya: 'real achievements ... the unessential charac~ teristics'. ~K8Ea.Tp(bauut: cf. xxx. 9· r9 for the metaphor. Both Shuckburgh and Paton omit to translate p.€ra {Jl\d.fJrr;, 'to their detriment'. 9. 1-8. Philopoemen's speech. This was delivered in a {jovllwn/pto~· (9. 8), and afterwards his hearers dispersed to their cities (Io. 7). The site is uncertain, but probably Aegium; in that case dyopd (9. 8) will be simply 'public place' or 'the assembly' (cf. xxviii. 7· 3; xxix. 24. 5), and not 'the market-place', since the sanctuary of Zeus Homarios at Aegium lay outside the town (Aymard, Assemblies, 99 n. z, zn ff.). It is not clear whether Philopoemen addressed a primary assembly or a representative council, for the reference to {JovAwT~ptov is not decisive on this point (cf. Larsen, The precise date of the speech is also uncertain. 230 n. 2, argues that it was delivered at the
PHILOPOEMEN'S SPEECH

XI. 9· 5

with this view, since they must have begun as soon as Philopoemen entered office. 1. TfJV EK TTJS hno-K£uils O.p11oy~v: what is the meaning of imakEznl? There are two possibilities: (a) that tK Tfjs lmaKwfjs means (as Casaubon and Reiske supposed) 'as a result of accurate workmanship'; but imaKetn) should be 'repair' rather than 'construction' (cf. Lex. Polyb. s.v.); (b) Schweighaeuser suggests a meaning derived from lmaKwa~£w, 'harness a baggage animal', so that lmaK«:v~ would mean 'the putting on of arms' and the whole phrase 'and that arms should fit well when put on is of great help in battle (aw<'py<'iv • •• tds 'T~V xpda.v)'. Despite the absence of any clear parallel, the latter sense seems the more likely. In either case there is a parallel with apapvfat T<' Kai aT/Af3ovaat (§ 4). Paton's version, 'that arms should be so constructed as to be adapted to the purpose they were to serve', is banal and misunderstands £ls T~v XP£[av. Mauersberger renders J·muK£u~ by 'Herrichtung, Anfertigung'. 4. TUS KVTJ.U8a.ii: cf. Plut. Philop. 9· 2, o t1>£Ao-rrolfL'YJV • •• E1T£1m:v a!JTDVS dv'T~ fLtV Ovpwv Kat o6paTOS' darrioa Aa{3<:tv Ka£ qapmuv, KpavwL

8£ Kal Owpag, Kai 1T£ptKV'Y)fLiu• rr£payfL€vovs fL6vtpov Ka! avTt OpOfLI.Kfjs Kai 1T£ATaanl
f3~:{37]KVLav

opoiJv'TO.S' yap fLtt<pa oopdTta Kai lmfLTJK<'aTipa orr Aa Kani Toils K€ATLKovs 8vpwvs ~ ra yippa n:l Il€pawv, €rr"'a" OwpaKas TE lvovwOa.~. Kal ~1TL'TLOw0aG KV'Y)/LiOas, rrp6s o€ O.umatv J1pyoAtKa.is- xpfiaOat Kat o6paat fL"ya.Aots-. The substitution of heavier armour and the corresponding I'

phalanx tactics after the :Macedonian fashion will have been mentioned by P. in the lacuna between 8 and 9; see 9· r-7 n. In thus reforming the Achaean army Philopoemen was following a practice widely adopted in the third century; cf. ii. 65. 3 n., iv. 69. 4-5, v. 91. 7 for Megalopolis; Plut. Cleom. I x. 3, 23. 1; Poly b. ii. 69. 7 for Cleomenean Sparta; Feyel, I93 ff., 213-1 s. for Boeotia, where an armament based on the Macedonian peltasts' was substituted for the former type in 245; in general, Launey, i. 361-2. !5. ciO"T!'£Sn ••• Oti!pO.ICQ ••• ~epO.vos: the aarris- is a convex, circular, bronze shield about 20 inches in diameter, which took the place of the long oval Ovpd>s; cf. Plut. Philop. 9· I, lxpwvro fL~V ydp OvpEots fL~V £?11TETEGt ota AE1T'T6'TTJ'TO. Kat U7'€VWT€pots 'TDV 1T£poaTlAAW T
28!

XI. 9· 5

PHILOPOEMEN'S SPEECH

being worn by phalangites. See further G. T. Griffith, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. r84, Kpdvo<; is a general term for a helmet, and does not necessarily indicate a Macedonian Kwvos (on which see Launey, i. 356-8); it is mentioned in Plut. Philop. 9· 2 (quoted in § 4 n.), and appears to ha,~e plumes (Plut. Philop. 9· 5). 6. ,.a. 'IT pbs em~6.ve~a.v ••• TWV '~~'POS TTJV xp~:(uv: 'what is for show ... what is for use' ; but as so often xpf'la also implies battle. 8. eu'ITop~:u6fLEVOL TO ~ou"-euTfJpLov: 'on issuing from the councilchamber'; cf. 9· r-7 n. 10. 3. &.tfu;:AT]s Ka.t ALTOS: 'plain and frugal'; cf. x. 22. 5· Tas evn:useL<;: 'in meeting people, in approaches to him'. Should we read Kai (Ka'Ta> -.ds ;l,Tet5gEt, (d. xxii. 2r. 3, 22. 4)? £l,,.epUco'ITTos ~ea.i &.vm~9ovos: 'unpretentious and not given to standing on ceremony'. 7. TOTE auvTeAea9€vros Tou ~ha.~ou"-tou: 'when the discussion was over'. No account of any debate survives in the fragments, but there may have been some reference to this in the lost part where P. described the summoning of the ; d. Aymard, Assemblies, 97, 394-6, who suggests that Philopoemen's speech of exhortation followed the normal business and voting. ,.Q.v,.~:s E'ITa.vfjyov £,.j, Tus 'ITOAELS: a phrase equally applicable to a representative gathering or a primary assembly. 8. e'ITmop~:uero TO.s 'ITOAeL<;;: cf. Plut. Philop. 7. 4, for a similar policy during his year as hipparch. 9. ou8' oAous OICTW fLtlVO.S XPYJ0'6.[.LEVOS Tfi ••• j.I.EAETtJ: calculated from his entry into office in autumn 208, since his reforms will have begun at once. Eight months take us from November 208 to June 207; cf. DeSanctis, iii. 2. 443·4.

11. 1-18.10. The battle of Mantinea. (a) Sources. P. can be supplemented from Plut. Philop. ro, which is based on F.'s Life of Philopoemen (d. x. 21. s-8); as Nissen, KU, 283, points out, Plutarch's real interest was in the duel with M:achanidas, which is treated in greater detail than in F.'s Histories, and his account of previous events is rather careless. Paus. viii. so. r-2 is derived from Plutarch. \Vhere P. got his account from is unknown. (b) Numbers. The 4,ooo Lacedaemonian casualties (17. 10} are our only figure, but an estimate is possible. In r68 the Achaean League could raise Jo,ooo-4o,ooo men from the whole Peloponnese (xxix. 24. 8); in 207 it can hardly have raised above 1s,ooo-2o,ooo, and perhaps u.ooo-r4,ooo citizen troops fought at Mantinea. Thus with perhaps c. 8,ooo mercenaries (cf. v. 91. 6) the whole force will not have exceeded c. 2o,ooo. Under Cleomenes tbe Spartan army was less than 2o.ooo (d. ii. 6~. ron.), nnd under Nabis 18,ooo (Livy

THE BATTLE OF

l\1ANTI~EA

XL r L 5

xxxiv. 27. r, 29. 14). Since .Machanidas had more mercenaries than the Achaeans (13. 3 n.), his army was probably much the ;;;ame, and one can assume that the two forces were roughly equal ir. size. See Kromayer, AS, i. z89-9r; De Sanctis, iii. ::. 428 n. 79· (c) General. The fullest treatment is in Kromayer, AS, i. :z81-314; see also the criticisms of Roloff, u6-39; H. Delbriick, Geschichte der Kriegskunst, il (Berlin, r92o), 252-6; Griffith, 104; earlier bibliography in CAH, viii. 746. For Kromayer's reply to Roloff see BPW, 1904, 994-6; cf. 1310-12 (Roloff's answer). P.'s account does not justify as definite a reconstruction of the battle as Kromayer claims; in many respects it seeks to give a more favourable picture of Philopoemen's tactics than they deserve; see the notes. The site of the battle can be identified with certainty; but see 11. 5-7 n.

11. 1. Ma.xa.vl8a.s: cf. x. 41. z n. <:ruv1)1lpol<:rJLEvo~

••• Ets TTJV MavT(VE\a.V: the presence of catapults in Machanidas' army shows that he intended besieging Man tinea; and Philopoemen's position(§§ 5-7 n.) indicates that he wanted to prevent this (Kromayer, AS, i. 292}. But the fact that Machanidas left Tegea only when he heard that the confederate anny was assembled at Mantinea shows that he was seeking a battle first. His plan was clearly to defeat the Achaean levy and then march on Mantinea with his artillery, prepared for a siege if the town did not capitulate. 2. iv TEyEq.: the status of Tegea between the resumption of the 'lfd-.pws 1ToAt-.da in 222 (ii. 70. 4 n.) and 20j is not recorded; but if the coins inscribed l1xa<wv TEytHITiiv (Head, 418) and the decrees IG, v. 2. r6-r7, date to this period, she was a member of the Achaean confederation (cf. v. 17. In.). Hiller von Gaestrigen (RE, 'Tegea', col. u6) dates Machanidas' acquisition of Tegea to 210, but this is unlikely. Since Philip never tried to help the Achaeans recover it, they will hardly have lost it before summer zo8; cf. Kromayer, AS, i. 291 n. 4; De Sanctis, iii. z. 427 n. 75· 3. E; h:a.TEpou Tou f.LEpous: thus protecting the citizen troops. 'II'Aij9os opyavwv Ka.t J3~:hwv ••• KUTQ'ITEAnKWV: 'a large number of siege engines and ammunition for catapults'; opyava is a general term and may include ball£stae as well as catapults. oi. E;l}yEv EK TTJS MavTwe(a.s: Philopoemen's three columns left by three separate gates. These have been identified; see Fougeres, 13o-61 and pl. viii, where they are designated G, Tegea Gate ("~'iJv b.: 1'ov Iloanowvo> lf:poiJ ¢1povaa.v); H, 'Manthyrea' Gate (n}v lffjs ws wp6s TaS' o~a££>); l, Pallantium Gate (KaTa n}v tlxof-LEV'TJV). From the first of these a road led south to Tegea and Sparta; it is the A~:w
XL

r1.

4

THE BATTLE OF MANTINEA

third a road led south-west to Pallantium and Megalopolis, corresponding to the modern highway to Tripolis; cf. Paus. viii. I I. 5 ff. ; Kromayer, A.S, i, map z; Bolte, RE, 'Man tinea', cols. IJ02-J. The second Fougeres calls the Manthyrea gate, and assumes that it was

ACHAEANS

10. THE BATTLE OF MANTINEA, 207 B.C.

the beginning of a road lying between the other two, and of only local significance. Both Leake (Morea, iii. 98) and Kromayer (AS, i. 54· n. 1) take the same view; but, if it went far, such a road would lead straight into a swamp, and as it is never mentioned in Pausanias or elsewhere it is likely that the middle gate (H) and road leading through it were built to serve military purposes, such as that for which they were used now (cf. Bolte, RE, 'Mantinea', cols. IJ06, IJI4)• 284

THE BATTLE OF MANTINEA

XI.

II.

5

TOU noO'ElS(;Jvos lepoG: cf. ix. 8. II n. Tous 'll..l..upLous KaL 8wpa.~
by iv. 12. J, they were neither normal light-armed nor phalangites; and they evidently kept their distinctive name even after the Bwpag had become part of the normal Achaean equipment (9. 5 n.). P. regards them as distinct from the mercenaries (cf. 14. 1), and Griffith suggests that -rovs 'I>Jwp{ou;; ~eal 8wpa~el-ra;; may mean 'the cuirassed Illyrians' (cf. v. 36. J, 53· 3); the two occur together at 14. I and 15. 5, but § 5 is against this interpretation. Paton translates Bwpa~e£-ra;; as 'heavy armed cavalry' here and in § 5; this is impossible. TO SIEVLKOV (iorav KQ.L TOUS eutwvous: Griffith, 104, suggests that 'possibly his original phrase ... is loose writing for "the mercenary light infantry" ' (d. the last note). Plut. J>hilop. 10. 2 speaks of d~eov-rta-rat. But there seems no reason why some country districts of Arcadia should not have furnished eJ,wvot as part of the levy. O.va.Te£vwv lKavlw: 'rising to a considerable height' (cf. xviii. 22. 9, of Cynoscephalae). Tt\v :::ev£Sa: perhaps so called because it was the main route leading to non-Mantinean territory; there is a similar fEvl;; at Delphi (Syll. 636 1. 24). 5-7. Achaean dispositions. P. does not indicate clearly how far the phalanx stretched to the east, and so where the mercenaries and other troops stood on the left wing. Kromayer (AS, i. 295-7 and map) assumes that the ditch running across the valley stopped short well to the west of the temple of Poseidon, and that this marks the eastern limit of the phalanx; he places the bulk of the mercenaries, etc., in the plain between that point and the temple of Poseidon, only the light-armed (w,wvot) being stationed on the lower slopes of Alesion somewhat behind the main line. Roloff, n9, would put the Ev,wvot further up the slope, reaching to the summit of .'\lesion, and the rest of the lightarmed to the east of the temple of Poseidon. Concerning the eastern end of the ditch P. is ambiguous. -r~v -ra.) (ii. 54· 12) actually reached those places. Kromayer argues that the lie of the land is such that a drainage ditch need not come as far east as the temple; but if the ditch was to serve military ends (and this may easily have been intended), there would be good reason to carry it so far. P.'s statement (§ 6) that the phalanX lay irri Tijv EV810iav '.'.':Jth the 8wpa.KiTaL and the 285

XI.

II.

5

THE BATTLE OF MANTINEA

lllyrians does not imply that the latter were necessarily on the same level as the phalanx (cf. Kromayer, AS, i. 294 n. 3. 'auf gleicher Hohe'), and so does not exclude Roloff's view that they were stationed on the lower, gentle slopes of Alesion; and that this was the case seems indicated by 15. 3. where Philopoemen, having transferred part of his phalanx to the position vacated by the mercenaries, who have fled, {nu:pUgw;; €yey6vEL -rofi -rwv 1roAep.tWl• Kipa-ro!: (see note ad loc.). On the whole the evidence seems slightly to favour Roloff's interpretation. 5. Tiw Mcpov Tov 1rpo T1]S m)A~<ws: the hill A lesion (mod. Alog6vrachos), which rises to its first peak at 750 m. to the south-east of Man tinea. The Tegea road (Xenis) runs along its base, and the tempk of Poseidon lies beside this (cf. § 4 n., ix. 8. II n.). E1TL TTJV jL£<1TJJL~p(a.v: the 8wpaKC-ra~ are in contact with the eil,wYoL (avv&.mwv), but face south; this implies that the EV,wllot were not facing south, and if they were extended up the hill towards the summit, they would in fact be facing south-east. 6. E1Tl ~v a.uT-fJv f:ME'Lav: 'in the same straight line'; see 5-7 n. KO.TU T€ATJ (11T£~p1'}8ov iv s~a<JTl}jLO.CJW E'ITEO'TT}O"£: 'he stationed them in battalions \\ith inten·als between the companies'; according to the tactical writers a -r£Ao, consists of 2,048 men (cf. Asclep. 2. 10; Arr. Tact. 10. 5; Ad. 9· 7). The a7Toipa of 256 men was the tactical unit in Macedonian armies and had been adopted by Philopoemen (d. v. 4· 9 n.; Walbank, Philip, 293). In making his phalanx a more flexible unit, and not the usual Hellenistic monolithic block (cf. Kromayer-Veith, Hecrwesen, 136), Philopoemen was perhaps learning from the Romans, as Pyrrhus had done when he alternated phalangites and Italians in a1TEtpa• (d. xviii. z8. ron.; KromayerVeith, Heerwesen, 136). cruv6.1TTouo-a.v To'ls &pt;cr~: the mountains to the west of the plain, the edge of Maenalus, a range about goo m. high. The ditch may have connected with the katavothra of Milia, which lies at the foot of these hills about due west of the temple of Poseidon (d. Fougeres, ro6; Kromayer, AS, i. 293 n. 3). Shuckburgh's translation here suggests that the mountains are in the direction of the temple. Til TWV 'EX~o-cpa.o-LWV xwp~: a bronze coin with the legend [EAI}~ l:¢A!InN AX[AinN] (Gardner, BMC Peloponnesus, p. q) confirms the name. P.'s reference to -ro -rwv MaJ~TLvlwv m!ow11 suggests that thr territory of the Elisphasii stretched to the west of the mountains here mentioned. Though Bolte (RE, 'Man tinea', coL 1312) conjecture;; that the Elisphasii were one of the five original demes out of which Mantinea was synoecized (Strabo, viii. 337). there is no evidencr~ for this, nor that they formed part of Mantinea at all. Fougeres, 128, suggested that they were perhaps a community in Maenalus (located, he thinks, on the site of Capsia), who were incorporated in 286

THE BATTLE OF

MA~TIKEA

XI. 12. 3

Megalopolis in 371 and then established by Philopoemen as an autonomous member of the Achaean League. For the setting-up of such independent communities see Plut. Philop. 13. 5; though the date referred to is c. 190 (cf. Hiller von Gaetringen, RE, 'Arkadia', col. II35; W. Hoffmann, RE, 'Philopoemen', col. 88; R. Weil, ZN, 1882, 222 ff.; Dittenberger ad Syll. 6z3), this does not rule out such an explanation of P.'s reference to Elisphasian territory here, for he may be referring to the conditions of his own time. Plutarch (loc. cit.) records a tradition that Philopoemen acted from hostility towards Megalopolis, but he may have sought to strengthen Arcadian representation in the Achaean confederation (cf. Freeman, JJFG, 489; Niese, iii. 37). 7. :A.plaTO.liiETo<; ••• hufla.'los: since the MSS. read l4pw·raiveros where Aristaenus is meant at xviii. 1. 4, 13. 8 and xxiv. II. 4 (Suidas) (a confusion also to be found in Plut. Philop. 13. 4, q. 3), Aristaenus is probably indicated here (cf. Niccolini, Studi storichi peJ' l'antichitd. classica, 6,I9IJ, I94 f.). Plut. Philop. q. 4 and Paus. viii. 51. 4 attribute Aristaenus to Megalopolis, but Dyme is confirmed by the dedica.tion to Aristaenus quoted in the note to Syll. 702 (ct Aymard, PR, 68 n. 93). See, however, J. Deininger, Historia, I966, 376-8o. TO SEVlKOII a1TO.II: cf. § 4· Whether Philopoemen commanded the Illyrians and OwpaKi'Ta£ too is not clear. The apparent repetition arises because having mentioned the commander on the right P. reverts to the left wing to add that the mercenaries there were under Philopoemen's personal command. Paton translates 'the mercenary cavalry'; but arrav rules this out. iv ~1Ta.AA:rV,ol<; n1.gEal: 'in ranks close one behind another'. From I4. I it appear~ that the lllyrianS and ewpal
XI.

I2.

3

THE BATTLE 0 F :VI A!\ T I::\" E.\.

(ii. I25) with the invasion following Machanidas' defeat (I8. 8-Io) and attributed by him to Alcaeus of Messene. 4. we; ••• trpOUf.LtSWV trpoc; 'TO Ses~ov 'TWV troAEf.LtWV: this implies that Machanidas left the road from T egea, which came up the eastern side of the plain to pass the temple of Poseidon, and crossed over to the Pallantium road. His purpose (cf. Kromayer, AS, i. 3oo) was to get clear of the Pelagos oak-forest, which surrounded the Tegea road as far north as the temple, but only touched the Pallantium road at one point (Paus. viii. II. I, II. 5). trEpLeKAa ••• ktrl. Sopu: 'he wheeled his force round to the right'; cf. x. 23. 6 n., xi. 23. 2. trapeKn(vac;: 'extending his line'. From the course of the battle it becomes clear (cf. § 7 n.) that in deploying from a line of march to a line of battle Machanidas must have sent his mercenaries (cf. II. 3) forward to constitute the right wing facing the mercenaries on Philopoemen's left. Tm:Oc; ••• Ka'Ta.treATa.c; trpo 1T(lUTJ'> ktrEU'TTJueic; Xf>Eta.v: 'this would not exclude the land on the lowest slope of Alesion, immediately east of the temple of Poseidon (cf. II. s-7 n.), and does not necessarily imply that the fighting was west of it (as Kromayer supposes). 7. Touc; trap' a.u'Tou T a.pa.vT£vouc;: evidently stationed on his right (§ 4 n.). 13. 1. a.uTwv 'Tou'Twv: sc. and no others. 1Tf>OOTyLVOilEVWV ••• 'TWV eutwvwv: on both sides. The Achaean w~wvm were stationed on the upper slopes of Alesion, and would come down on the Spartan Tarentines from the flank; where precisely

288

THE B,\TTLE OF

MA~Tl:c\EA

XI. I4. 3

l\lachanidas' !v,wvo• were stationed is not recorded, but it may be assumed that they were behind his Tarentines. (To) Tra.p' iKa.Tipl.l)v sevU
14. 1. Tous EcpE8peuovTil<; To'Cs

814.175

u

XI. 14· 3

THE BATTLE OF :\IA:;\ T I X E.\

(sc. Philopoemen) retained control of his men, so that at the critical moment, when Machanidas had pursued far enough and his own centre and right were victorious, he could stand his ground and force the enemy mercenaries to fight between two converging lines'. This theory ignores the fact that Philopoemen was no longer in charge once the left had fled ; he side-stepped and took over the phalanx (rs. 2). Further, there is no evidence for two converging lines: the routed troops took no further part in the battle. Finally, Griffith's theory runs directly counter to everything P. says; and if the rout was a controlled retreat, it is odd that P. with his decided interest in defending Philopoemen, and with his excellent Achaean sources of information, had never heard of it. 4. 1TO.pn TTJV O.liTiaV nyx(votO.V: the papyrus ShOWS a gap Which \Vilcken restores TTapd -r~v -rwv TTpo€a-rw-rwv (or ~youJ-L€vwv) dyxtvowv; but he rightly prefers the MS. since -rovs 8' itself refers to those in command. 6. Kai 1Ta.pa.A€Auf1evou Tou Aa.toli KEpw~: including the Illyrians, lig!Jtarmed and BwpaKt'TUt (cf. rs. s). acpEf.LEVO~ TOU f.LEVELV E1Tl TWV U1TOKHf1EVWV: 'instead of keeping to his original intention'; cf. i. 40, s. EJ-LEVev JTT~ -rijs imoKHJ-LEVYJ> yvwJ-LYJ>· Paton misses the sense, translating 'instead of remaining on the field'. Tou~ f.LEV Ka.Ta KEpa.~ u1repa.£pew: 'to outflank the enemy on one side'. TOL~ Se ••• a1Ta.VTnV: 'to charge their front on the other'; dTTav-ra~· is Biittner-Wobst'splausible suggestion for the MS. ayELv (cf. iii. 65. 6, xviii. 3· 3). -rovs J-L~v • •. -rois 8€ refer to the Achaean troops; this Shuck burgh misses, translating ' ... with some of his troops, ... with others'.

15. 2. u'ITo To the phalanx'.

Tfj~

cpO.A.a.yyos Kepa~: 'under the shelter of the wing of

To'Ls 'ITPWTOLS TeAeaL Twv cpa.AayyLTwv: cf. rr. 6, Ka-rd -r€AYJ. Philo-

poemen detached several of the battalions on the extreme left of the phalanx, and marched them left into the place of the routed mercenaries and light-armed, not in the usual way, wheeling them round by sections, but giving the order 'left turn' and then having them advance; thus the files of the phalanx became ranks for the purpose of the advance. lTT'dcmioa KAiv
THE BATTLE OF MANTINEA

XL I6. 4

4· g, X. 30. 7, tl1repUg~o~ Twv rroAeJLlwv EylvoVTo. This implies that the Achaean left was originally on higher ground than the phalanx and so to the east of the Temple of Poseidon (cf. II. 5-7 n.). Unfortunately Schweighaeuser followed Casaubon in his translation, and has in turn been followed by Paton, who renders 'outflanked the Spartan •ving', and by Kromayer (AS, i. 312). According to Plutarch, Philop. 10. 4, Philopoemen initiated the next stage of the battle by a flank attack on the Spartan phalanx, with what troops we are not told; he does not mention the ditch at this point, and his account, which is much compressed, clearly misunderstands what he read in P.'s Life of Philopoemen, and cannot stand against the version here. 4. Taus f1EV 4>a.f..a:yyiTa.s: i.e. the main body; it is clear from the fact that the detachment was put under the orders of Polyaenus that Philopoemen must have returned at once to take charge of the phalanx now that the moment to charge was approaching (Kromayer, AS, i. 307 n. z). 'll'OI.E~aOa.t TTJY E'll'a.ywyYjv aVa.fl£~: 'to charge and engage hand to hand' (cf. 13. r). How imminent that order was we cannot tell, since Machanidas' phalanx anticipated it by advancing sua sponte across the ditch; Kromayer (AS, i. 307) outstrips the evidence when he assumes that Philopoemen was on the point of charging, for although he could not afford to wait very long with Machanidas liable soon to return, the ditch was still a considerable obstacle to whiche\•er side tried to cross it (cf. Roloff, r36-7). 5. nof..ua.tvlf ••• T4> MEya.A011'0Ahn: F(S) reads llo?..vfJlCf, which must be wrong, since P. had never heard of any other previous bearer of his name (xxxvi. I2. s). Lucht had suggested 'Poly bus'; but BiittnerWobst observes that since in I8. 2 Polyaenus (but not Sirnias) has his place of origin added, this must be to distinguish him from another Polyacnus recently mentioned, and so he reads llo)\vat.u.p here. This is a very plausible, though clearly not a certain, conjecture. Tous lha.KEKAu«l'l'a.s TTjv 4>uyljv: 'who had evaded the rout'. Twv eK Stwyf1<1Tos O.va.xwpovvTwv: Machanidas' men. 7. Su1 To TTjv Ka.T~~a.aLY ~XElY ~K 'll'OAAou: 'because the descent into it was gentle'. Ka.Ta TO TEAos: unparalleled in the sense 'at all', which is usually £lc; TlAos.. Casau bon's ~~:anl To (}.!.poe; is attractive. 6.yp£a.v u~TJV: 'scrub'. 16. :2. £v Tfi TTjs ni4>pou Ka.nL(j3aau 11'nAw ~va.)f3a.£vovTES: thi:s conjecture, a combination of suggestions by Reiske, Schweighaeuser, and Hultsch, may be abandoned since the Berlin papyrus reads iv Tfi T~> Tarj>pov Ka7'af36.a;;~ 7rpoa{JalvovTES' KTA. 4. oOK a.OTOf16.Tw!; ooS' h: TOU K
XI. I6. 4

THE BATTLE OF MANTINEA

was it even due to an improvization on Philopoemen's part. It was the culmination of a carefully thought-out plan (cf. Siegfried, 52-53). This plan P. indicates in §§ and Kromayer (AS, i. 297-9) discusses it; P. in fact does not consider what Philopoemen would have done had Machanidas attacked only his left wing, but Kromayer argues that in this case too Philopoemen had good hopes of success. But he assumes an Achaean preponderance of mercenaries, which is untrue (13. 3 n.). In fact, had Machanidas wheeled left after routing the Achaean left, and co-ordinated a :flank attack on the phalanx with a frontal attack by his own phalanx over the ditch, it seems likely that the Achaeans would have been decisively defeated. To this extent F.'s defence of Philopoemen's strategy is unconvincing. P. is inclined to interpret Philopoemen's successes as the reward of merit, and his ultimate downfall as the work of Tyche (xxiii. I2. 3); here writes the Achaean. For ~K Toil Ka.Lpoii cf. xviii. 24. 7. 5. ou <j>uyo~J-a.xwv, C!r;; nver;; ~nreA6.~J-13a.vov: P. echoes criticism that must clearly have been made of Philopoemen's defensive strategy at Man tinea; Pedech, liUthade, 347 n. 67, thinks it may have been found in the work of Aristocrates the Spartiate (FGH, 591). ou 1rpoi:86~evor;; TTJV Ta<j>pov: 'without reckoning with the ditch'; r.pol8w0aL does not here imply that Machanidas would not see the ditch, but merely that he would not be deterred by it; cf. Schweighaeuser, 'nil cauens fossam, non ueritus fossam' and his notes on i. 49· ro and on App. Samn. 5 (p. 52 of his edition). au~J-13l]ana.l 1ra.8eiv auT0 ... Tfjr;; a.x,ee£a.r;;: 'the phalanx would suffer the fate which I have just described, and which on that occasion it did suffer in reality'. The article To, added by Casaubon before r.poELp7Jpivov, is now confirmed by the Berlin papyrus (which also reads yevop.Evov for ym)p.evov three words later). 6. TTJV tiuaxpTJaTtav: so Ursin us for FS T~v 8Uaxp7JaTov; preference must now go to Td 8JJaxp7JaTov, conjectured by Casaubon and confirmed by the Berlin papyrus. l!~e 1ra.pa.TeTa.yfJ-evwv &.1roAuael: 'if after having drawn up his line of battle he were to retire'; &.r.o/..vO~aeTaL would be more usual, but the active can perhaps be justified in this intransitive sense: see Schweighaeuser, Lex. Palyb. s.v. cir.o/..JJew, for discussion. Ka.t ~a.~epO.v a.uTov l!v 1rope£~ tiltiova.L fJ-EAAn: 'and if he were to expose himself in a long marching column'; cf. § 8. F(S) reads Kal J.LO.Kpav m1T6v lp.r.opda liLa{M.MEL, and both EV r.opdq. and the suggested interpretation derive from Schweighaeuser's interesting note, in which he compares iv. 12. II and v. 22. 7 (he reads lp.r.eLp{as in his text, a reading usually ascribed to Casaubon, but, according to Schweighaeuser, 'habet eamdem scripturam etiam Hervagiana editio, cum qua consentit Mediceus'). The Berlin papyrus reads Kat p.a.Kpav a.unlv E/k TTopElaL &a.f3a./..Et, which confirms Schweighaeuser's EV r.opelr:, but 292

THE BATTLE OF MANTI::\EA

XI. r8. 4

shows that the corruption arose early. Madvig, Adv. cr£t. i. 483, reads Sta{3a.luo:i:, but Biittner-Wobst's suggestion remains the most acceptable. lhon ... Trep..Ecrra.~: after av>.>.oytudf.Levo> in § 5. 9. cruf1(3a.£vEL: the sentence is incomplete; an infinitive (e.g. Reiske's u.ea8at or {3M.TTTW8at, or Gronovius' &.f.LapTdvetv) is required.

<

17. 3. KO.Ta TfJV) TOU s~WYflO.TO~ Trapo:!fTUl<J'~V: 'in the excitement of his pursuit'; cf. iii. IIS. I I n. 4. 4>euyouaav: with T~v ••. SJvaf.LLV. TrpoTrETI'TWICE: 'had advanced too far' ; missed by Paton who renders 'that he had blundered'. auaTpa4>eC~: 'making them close up'. 6. TfJV €1rt T.j]~ Td.4>pou ye4>upav: presumably carrying the Tegea road. Kromayer (AS, i. 295 n. r), since he believes that the ditch did not extend to the Temple of Poseidon, has to assume that this bridge is on the Pallantium road to the west; but it would be natural for Machanidas to press back along the Tegea road towards Sparta, rather than to diverge to the west. Whether the Pallantium road had a bridge over the ditch is unknown; P.'s expression does not imply that there was only one bridge over it, for he means 'the bridge Machanidas was making for'.

18. 1. J\va~L8a.11ov: unknown. He is hardly the Anaxidamus mentioned in xxx. 30. I, 32. 1-12, xxxiii. 3· r, but may be a relative. By an oversight Paton calls him Alexidamus. TfJV 8Co8ov: i.e. by the bridge. TOUS auvau~OVTO.S a.tel TCtS EV Tij ITrdopTn Tupa.vv(8a.s: the use of mercenaries by Spartan kings began on a considerable scale with Leonidas II (Plut. Agis, 16. 3. 19. 3). By 226 Cleomenes was using 'Tarentines' and Cretans (Plut. Cleom. 6. 3. 21. 3) and he employed mercenaries for his coup d'etat (Plut. Cleom. 7· 3 ff.); for those at Sellasia see ii. 65. ro, 69. 3· Lycurgus' mercenaries are important: iv. 36. 4, So. 4, So. 6; and for those of N abis cf. xiii. 6. 3 xvi. 37. 3; Livy, xxxii. 40. 4, xxxiv. 27. 2, 28. 8, 29. I4, 35· 8, xxxv. 27. IS, 29. Iff.; perhaps IG, v. I. 724. For details see Griffith, 93-98. 2. noxua~V0\1 TOY Ku1T tPLAo1TOLfLEVL TTapijaav fLaXOJLEV

, has much to commend it (cf. § 5). TfJV aVTL1TO.paywyf)v: cf. iX. 3· IO ll. 4:. n)v LTI'TI'OV ETrayc:w teal 8La.m;p0.v: according to Plutarch (Philop. 293

THE BATTLE OF MANTll';'EA

XL rS. 4

10. 6}, the horse caught the edge of the ditch with its chest, and was trying to get out when Philopoemen and his attendants rode up. 1tpoa£vtyK~lV •.. EK ~ha.A~Ijiews: 'dealing him a second blow with a thrust of the spike at the butt end'; cf. ii. 33· 6 n., xvi. 33· 3, and, on the aavpwn}p, vi. 25. 6, 25. 9· According to Plutarch (Philop. 10. 7), a bronze statue erected by the Achaeans at Delphi depicted Philopoemen thrusting his spear (not the butt end) into Machanidas (the source may not be P.'s Life); cf. Daux, BCH, 1966, 283-9. 8. rijs l'ev T£yea.s ••• Kuptot Ka.TeaTTJaa.v: cf. u. 2 n. 10. ouK eAanous Twv Tupa.KtaxtALwv: on numbers in the battle see II. I-I8. IOn.

19 a. The importance of explaining causes

This fragment could belong equally well to the res Graeciae, the res ltaliae, or the res Hispan£ae of this year; see above, p. 17· Its theme, the study of causes if the reader is to derive benefit from history, is common throughout the work (cf. iii. 7· 4-7, vi. 2. 8). 19 a 1. e~a.v8pa1to5tap.ous KO.l1TOAtopKlO.S: 'the storming of cities and the enslavement of their inhabitants'; for the hysteron proteron to avoid hiatus cf. ii. 2. 2 n., viii. 14. 6 n., x. 23. 2, 27. II, xiv. 10. 9· 2. o/uxa.ywy£1: ... wcj>eAouat: for examples of this common antithesis see Vol. I, p. 7 n. 12. at 5e 1tpoa9ev Sta.A~o/ns TWV em~a.AAop.evwv: 'the previous decisions of those responsible'; Paton misses the sense and translates 'anticipation of what is to follow'. For P.'s concept of alTiaL as the events leading the individual to take certain decisions (here (naA-r]fw,;) see iii. 6. 3 n. e~uatop.€VO.l SeoVTWS: 'when adequately investigated'. Shuckburgh, less convincingly, takes 8E6vrw> with wEAovat; but an adverb would weaken the contrast with !JlvxaywyEi:. TOUS cj>lAop.a.OouVTa.S: 'students'; cf. ii. 56. II-12 n. for the contrast with TOV> aKOVOVTas; vii. 7· 8 n. 3. 0 KO."Tdo jlEpos X£lplap.os tKaC"TWV em5nKvup.evos: 'an exposition of the detailed management of each particular question'; cf. 4· 7, 35· 3· 19. Hannibal's generalship

This sketch seems prompted by the crisis in Hannibal's fortunes following Metaurus, and seems concerned with the specific question: why did Hannibal's attack on Rome fail (d. §§ 6-7)? This is in accordance with P.'s declared principle (x. 26. 9) of discussing the characteristics of those he is writing on as suitable occasions present themselves. Another such occasion is Hannibal's death (cf. xxiii. 294

HANNIBAL'S GENERALSHIP

XI. 19. 7

IJ. 1-2); see also ix. :22. 7-26. n for a fuller discussion of his character. Livy (xxviii. 12. I-<J) has a similar discussion of Hannibal at the corresponding point in his narrative (2o6).

19. l. TLS ouK Civ

~1TWTJf1t)VatTo:

cf. ix. 9· 5; and, on €ma7]pJJ.ivot.taL,

x. 38. 3 n. 2. TO.s Ka9oAou ••• 116.xas: such as Trebia, Trasimene, and Cannac, involving major forces on both sides. woAewv f1ETaf3oMs : 'defections of cities from one side to the other' ; hardly 'his movements from city to city' (Paton). Tfjc; OATJS em!'oAfjs Kat wp6.st:ws: 'his whole design and its execution'. 3. tKKa.£8ua. 1To>.el.l.t)c:ra.s ~TTJ: P. reckons from Hannibal's arrival in Italy in 218 (01. 140, z) to his departure in late autumn 203 (01. 144, z). xxiii. 13. 2, l7r-ra.Kai8€Ka l-rTJ, may be reckoned from the attack on Saguntum, or may go down to Zama, if it was fought in autumn :202 (01. 140. 3); but P. describes Zama in xv, which covers Ol. 144, 2 203{2 (cf. xv. 5· 3-14. 9 (b) on the date of the battle), so perhaps the former explanation is the more satisfactory. Livy, xxviii. 12. 3· 'cum in hostium terra per annos tredecim ... bellum gereret', calculates from 218 to :zo6. UCJ'TO.CJ'LO.CJ'Ta. ••• Ka.t 1Tpos mhbv Ka.t 1Tpos aAATJAa.: cf. Livy, xxviii. 1:2. 4, 'ut nulla nee inter ipsos nee aduersus ducem seditio exstiterit'. oux otov OfLOE9v~ow, aAA' ouo' OJ.LOci'uAOLS ••• fJAa. are the broad racial groups indicated in the next sentence (cf. ii. 33· 2, To Ta.AanKov fiAov; I. ro. 2, where the Mamertines claim the Romans as Jt.t6¢uAoL), whereas f:8V7] are the various peoples within a race, for example the Arcadians and Laconians (iv. 32. 3). or the Achaeans (ix:. 34· 6}. For useful discussion and references see H. A. Stier, Grundlage:n und S£nn der griechischen Geschichie (Stuttgart, 1945), 388 n. II3; cf. Walbank, Phoenix, 1951, 46 n. 24. 15. oux a1TATJ5 ••• TTJS 1T€p1c:rTaUEW5: 'though circumstances were by no means straightforward'. ).a.f11Tpiis E1T11T'IIEouO"I]s TTJS TUXTJS: the metaphor is of the wind of fortune, and there is no real personification; cf. xxv. 3· 9; examples from other authors in von Scala, 173 n. L On the variability of n}xTJ see Vol. I, pp. 16 ff. 6. Ev 1'0UT(jl T~ p.ept:l: in controlling his multifarious army. iw' /l)..Aa. J.LEPTJ TTJS olKouJ.LEYTJ<;: implying that Hannibal's aim, like that of Rome (cf. 6. 2 n.). was world-dominion. 7. TTJV apx~v ••• Knt TO TtAos : for the almost proverbial contrast of these t\'ITO words cf. vi. 6. 7 n., and other examples in Mauersberger, s.v. dpxfJ.

XL

Z0-24- 9

THE BATTLE OF ILIPA

20-24. 9. The battle of Ilipa After Baecula (x. 38. 7-40. 12) the Carthaginians sent Hanno to Spain to recruit new forces, but M. Silanus defeated and captured him in 207; Hasdrubal, son of Gisgo, retreated to Gades and evaded battle, while L. Scipio captured the rich city of Orongis. P. Scipio wintered 207/6 at Tarraco (Livy, xxviii. 1·-4}. The present extract deals with the early season of zo6; for the thesis, here rejected, that llipa was in 207 see above, pp. q-18. The sources for the campaign of Ilipa and its sequel are, besides P., Livy, xxviii. 12. J0-16. rs and App. H£sp. 25-27 (unreliable and irreconcilable with P. and Livy). It is clear that P. aud Livy draw on common material, and Kahrstedt, iii. 316-18, has argued that here, as in the account of the taking of New Carthagt- (x. 2. 1-20. 8 n.), Livy has drawn on P. but has supplemented his account from other sources; whereas Klotz, Livius, r85-7, thinks that the similarities are due to the use of a common source, Fabius who comes down to Livy through Coelius. It is less easy than in the case of the description of the taking of New Carthage to decide between these two theses; but the analogy of that narrative would suggest that Kahrstedt's theory is the more likely and that the relationship between P. and Livy is the same as for New Carthage and Baecula (cf. x. 34-40 n.). As in his account of the taking of N'ew Carthage, P. probably drew on several sources; but we cannot be certain either that Fabius' history went down to 206, or that Silenus dealt with Ilipa, so that P.'s sources must remain obscure. See also De Sanctis, iii. 2. 643~4 (valuable despite his belief that Livy, xxviii. r-4 and 12. ro-17. r are doublets). (a) Site of the battle. Hasdrubal's camp was not far from Ilipa (so Schweighaeuser convincingly for MS. l.\iyyas F (~Atyyas- S)). Ilipa is the same word as Livy's Silpia (Livy, xxviii. 17. 14; cf. Schweighaeuser and Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 4o6--7) for parallels for the 'S'); it can be located in the neighbourhood of Alcala del Rio, a village on the Guadalquivir 14 km. due north of Seville {cf. CIL, ii. roSs, rogr; Schulten, RE, 'Ilipa', col. ro66). From Livy, xxviii. r6. 3. it appears that Hasdrubal was able to retreat to the Atlantic without crossing the Baetis (Guadalquivir); hence the battle was on the right bank. The evolutions described by P. (22. 9-23. 7) limit the battle to the fairlj• level ground near the river, and Scullard (JRS, 1936, 19-23) proposes a plausible site lying from 6 to ro! km. north-east of Alcala del Rio, with the Roman camp on a hill 79 m. high called Pelagatos, 6 km. east of Burguillos, and that of Hasdrubal on an unnamed hill which rises from the plain 5 km. south-west of Pelagos. This site has been approved by Schulten (A A, r94o, II4 ff.; 1943, 51 ff.) and fits P.'s description of the battle. (b) Numbers. P. gives the Punic forces as 7o,ooo foot, 4,ooo horse, 296

THE BATTLE OF ILIPA

XI. zo. 3

and 32 elephants (2o. 2), whereas Livy gives so,ooo foot and 4,500 horse (Livy, xxviii. 12. q). adding (Livy, xxviii. rz. 14) that 'peditum ~eptuaginta milia quidam adducta ad Silpiam urbem scribunt'. Whether or no P. got his higher figures from an oral source (so Kahrstedt, iii. 318), they seem designed to save Scipio's reputation, and if nccepted make the course of the battle hard to follow. For a discussion of Carthaginian numbers in Spain at this date see Kahrstedt, iii. 531-2; it is inconclusive. For Jlipa the smaller number is to be accepted; it may go back through Coelius to Silenus (Scullard, Scipio, 125 n. r). App. 25 gives 7o,ooo foot (like P.) 5,ooo cavalry, and 36 elephants. Li,·y, xxviii. 12. I4, says that 'de equestribus copiis fcnne inter auctores conuenit'; it is indeed possible that his 4,5oo l1orse have been rounded off to 5.ooo by Appian's source and to 4,ooo by P.'s. Scipio, reinforced by J,ooo foot and 500 horse from the Spanish prince Colichas (2o. 3), had an army of 45,ooo foot and 3,ooo horse; Livy (xxviii. IJ. s) makes the whole force including cavalry 45,ooo, perhaps by an oversight. To Appian Scipio's force is less than a third the size of his opponents' (Hisp. 25), clearly a late annalistic version (Scullard, Scip. rz6 n. r). Here P.'s figures are acceptable; they give the Carthaginians a slight but not very substantial advantage. (c) Bz:bliography. DeSanctis, iii. z. 49B-9; Veith, AS, iii. 2. 685; iv. 517-26; Heem•esen, 295; Schlachtenatlas, Rom. Abt. 8. 2; Scullard, Scipio, r2o-38; ]RS, 1936, 19-23; Shuckburgh, The Ht'stories of Polybius, ii. 565-7 (giving Warre's views); Brewitz, 71 ff.; F. Taeger, Klio, I93l, 339-47; A. Neumann, Klio, I93Z. 255-6. 20. 1. ot p.£v oov -rrEpt Tov »..a8pou~o.v: Hasdrubal, son of Gisgo; cf. ix. rr. 3 n., x. 7· 5· I-ivy, xxviiL 12. IJ, calls him 'maximus clarissimusque eo bello secundum Barcinos dux'. lv o.ts ~-rro1ouvTo Tijv '11'apo.x£lp.aa£o.v: according to Livy (xxviii. 2. r6), Hasdrubal 'exercitum omnem in ciuitates diuisit' after the defeat of Hanno in 207 ; this was near Gades. /uro '~'tlS 'II'OAEws ..• 'IALtras: on the MS. reading see above, 20-24. 9 n. (a). According to App. Hisp. 25, the Punic army assembled Js Kap£wv1Jv 1ro.\w (cf. id. 27, Kap{Jwv']v), which Schweighaeuser emends to Carmona (cf. Livy, xxxiii. 2r. 7-9. Carmo); Carmona (the name persists) lay on the left bank of the on the road between Hispalis and Astigi, and Appian here seems to go back to a reliable tradition. wpbs To.'is u'll'wpeio.~s: 'close to the foothills', for the site suggested by Scullard see 20-24. 9 n.(a). wpo9ill£VOI -rre8£o.: 'with plains in front'. 2. wAi19os 8£ ••• eixov: see above, 20-24. 9 n. (b). 3. MapKov .•. 'louv1ov: .M. Junius Silanus had accompanied Scipio 297

XI. cao. 3

THE BATTLE OF ILIP A

to Spain (cf. x. 6. 7 n.), and his command had been extended each year since 210; in 207 he had defeated and taken Hanna (cf. Livy, xxviii. 1. 4-2. 14). '~~"PO'> Ko~£xa.vTa.: cf. Livy, xxdii. 13. J, 'praemisso Silano ad Cuicham, duodetriginta oppidis regnantem', thus adding a detail not in P. Culchas appears again in 197 in revolt against Rome (Livy, xxxiii. 21. 7), perhaps because his tmvns have been reduced from 28 to 17 (cf. Schulten, CAH, viii. 308). 5. T~ Ka.a-ra.~wvL 1ov;: on the low hill Pelagatos, if Scullard is right (20-24. 9 n. (a)). 21. 1. Mciywv: cf. ix. 22. 2 n. He was helping Hasdrubal; cf. Livy, xxviii. 12. 13, adiuuante M agone Hamilcaris .filio. MaaavvO.aa.v: cf. ix. 25.4 n.; Livy, xxviii. r3. 6, 'castra ponentes eos Mago et Masinissa cum omni equitatu adgressi sunt'. 2. u1r6 -rwa ~ovvov u1TEO"Ta~Ket To us i1T1Teis: cf. iii. 8.3. 3· According to Scullard (]RS, 1936, 2o-2r), the hill Pelagatos has a low spur, which sweeps round to the west to merge with the plain; this he suggests is the fJotm}, and the cavalry attack could have come either from behind one of the two saddles on the southerly part of the slope, or from behind the lower spur of this slope on the south-west side of the summit, probably the latter, although it affords less cover. 3. lmi11Teaov: the reading is quite dear in the MS.; but it is hard to bclieYe that surprise would cause Numidian horsemen to fall from their horses in such numbers as to make the fact worth mentioning. Hultsch's dmlppEov (cf. 17. 6) is attractive, 'they began to make off' (so Shuckburgh). tll6.xovTo yevvcdw;: Livy, xxviii. 13. 9, brings up the light-armed and eventually the legionaries, before the Punic cavalry eventually tum tail: but this may well be Livian elaboration to create suspense (contra, Kahrstedt, iii. 532). "'' 1TO.p0.\ TWY ~ fl ' • ' \ JUiV \ 4 • Tn~ OE tea.TO.t-O.LVOYTW\1 • • , COVXEtpt'l-: Cf . Vl.. 25. 4, 7TpD!> TO Ka.TafJa.lvELII ~~:a.l Ta.xiw> dvaTT1)0iiv l1rl TOO> t1T7TOV> eTolp.(tJ> OtEKEWTO Kai 7rpa.KnKws (though this refers to the period before the Romans adopted breast-plates). Brewitz, 70, suggests that the Romans dismounted in order to disable the enemy's horses. It is at any rate 298

THE BATTLE OF ILIP A

XI. 22. IG-2J. 9

likely that P. is referring to the horsemen themselves and not, as Reiske thought, to uelites carried behind them as at Capua (Livy, xxvi. 4· 4-8). rs. U1TO TTtV a.~hwv 1TO.f>EJ.L~OATJY: 'to the shelter of their own camp' ; on the preposition see Lex. Polyb. s.v. vmi. 7. aLa Twv L1T1Tewv Ka.i oLa Twv eu~wvwv: cf. Livy, xxviii. 13. 1o, 'nunquam per aliquot insequentes dies ab excursionibus equitum leuisque armaturae cessatum est'.

ll. 2. Til J.LEV wp'!- 1Tpoaa.va.Te(veLv: 'to delay his march out until a later hour'; for earlier misunderstanding of this phrase see Schweighaeuser, ad Joe. 4. O.J.La. yO.p T~ TWTL: Livy (xxviii. 14. 7) has the message com•eyed by tessera the previous evening, perhaps, as Kahrstedt (iii. 317-I8) suggests, a correction to comply with normal procedure (cf. W. Fischer, /)as romische Lager insbesondere nach Livius (Leipzig, I9IJ), u8). Brewitz, q, followed half-heartedly by Scullard, Scip. 129-30 n. 2, takes at-tn -r0 wTi with i~ayHv, so reconciling P. with Livy; but, as Scullard admits, this is forced, and at-tn -r0 cf><JJTi clearly means 'as soon as it began to be light', since the troops were already taking up position at sunrise (§ 6); hence there was adequate time for the order to be carried out. To give it the night before was to risk a 'leakage', for there must have been spies among the Spanish allies. 6. €va.vTLwS ii 1rp6a8ev: by reversing his order and putting his legionaries on the wings, Scipio scored two advantages: he made Spanish desertions less likely, since the Spanish auxiliaries were not in contact with their fellow countrymen nor were they to play an important part in the battle, and at the same time he prevented Hasdrubal from making the best use of his African troops, who were destined to be rolled up from the flank (Scullard, Scip. 13o). 8. ~TL VTJO'TELS ••• TOUS avopa.s: like the Romans at Trebia (iii. 72· J), though in very different weather. 1roA.u T"ls 1rapwpela.s: cf. 2o. 1.

ou

ll. 10-23. 9. Scipio's advance. The manceuvre carried out on the Roman wings (the second of the two stratagems mentioned in 22. 1) has been much misunderstood, but unnecessarily. Divided into stages it runs: 1. The skirmishers were arranged behind the infantry on the vtings so that from front to back of the line we find infantry, light-armed, and cavalry in that order (22. 1o). 2. The whole line advanced to within 4 stades of the enemy (z2. II n.). 3· The centre consisting of Spaniards continued to advance forward; the infantry and cavalry on the right wing wheeled to the right 299

XI.

22.10-23.

9

THE BATTLE OF fLlPA

by maniples and squadrons (and those on the left wing wheeled to the left) (zz. n). 4· On the right wing the cavalry (with light-armed in front) and infantry, led by three units of each (23. r), after advancing a little to the right no·w wheeled round to the left and marched towards the enemy line in column; those on the left wing did the same in reverse, i.e. advanced to the left and wheeled round to the right (23. 1-3). 5· On the right wing, the cavalry (and light-armed), who were now in column at right angles to both lines of battle, simultaneously turned half-right by squadrons and by an advance at 45° from their present direction gained a position in line parallel with the enemy, but in reverse order to that in which they started out, the squadron originally on the extreme right being now on the extreme left of the wing. 6. Simultaneously the legionaries (by cohorts) turned half-left and also advanced at 45° to form a line parallel to the enemy. Their order was thus identical with that in their original position (23. 5). On the left wing, once again, the infantry and cavalry both carried out the same manceuvre in reverse. The details are clearly shown in the plans in Scullard, Scip. 135, and Kromayer, Schlachtenatlas, Rom. Abt. 8. 2. For details see below. 10. €v Ta.i:s CTTJ!La.lnLs: 'between the maniples': cf. i. 33· 9 n. and passim; Livy, xxviii. q. IJ, 'patefactisque ordinibus equitatum omnem leuemque armaturam in medium acceptam diuisamque in partes duas in subsidiis post cornua locat'. EvL~0.AA411 TOU'i 11T'IT£LS: the MS. has £m{3aA~:i:v after d.pxds, and the present reading is due to Schweighaeuser, who did not, however, adopt it. 11. v£pt ( TETP"')aTC18Lov: cf. Livy, xxviii. 14· IJ, 'ubi iam haud plus quingentos passus acies inter se aberant'. Hence the emendation of P.'s rrEpt O"Tctbwv (though in Livy it is now that the light-armed are withdrawn, whereas in P. this occurs earlier and the whole line advances to this point before the outflanking movement begins). TTJV ErrnywyiJv ••• va.pt]yyEIAE: Hultsch fills the gap convincingly with (JK€/..wae, Tofs- 8J tdpa.cn). TUS O'TJ!Lt:lla.') KO.t TUS rxa.., EVLCTTpE<j!ELV trrt SOpu: this corresponds to the third movement listed in 22. 10-23. 9 n. The infantry, light-armed, and cavalry could gain the correct position for marching to the right either by wheeling in units, or by each individual's executing a right turn (Iaeger, Klio, I9JI, 342); but since P. specifically mentions the awLafa.t and lAa.t, he is probably indicating not merely that both infantry and cavalry were concerned, but that these units carried out the turn. O"r)fLa.ta.L are maniples (cf. § ro) and lft.a, are turmae (vi. 25. 1}. each of 30 horse. 300

THE BATTLl;"_ OF ILIPA

XI. 23.

I

l3. 1. AEuKtos ••. MapKI.OS: L. Marcius Septimus, a legatus; d. 33· 8. See also Livy, xxviii. q. 15-r6, 17· u, zr. r, 22.1-35· 2; App. Hisp. 26, .11-.34; Cic. Balb. 34, 39· As military tribune in :zn he had done much to rally the Roman forces after the deaths of the two Scipios. See M[inzer, RE, 'Marcius (Septimus)', cols. r59r-s. On M. lunius Silanus see zo. 3 n. TPELS iXas hTrr(111v Tas Tjyou11Eva,s: evidently the cavalry had been originally in a line three lurmae deep, and since the right wheel they were in a column three turmae wide. Scipio on the right (and the two other commanders on the left) now wheeled with these three turmae through an angle of 90° to the left (and in the case of the left wing to the right) to advance against the enemy. K(d 'ITpo TOUT111v ypoa~o11lixous Tovs £i.9LaJ.Livous: 'and in front of these the usual uelites'. Biittner-Wobst and Hultsch punctuate misleadingly, either put a comma after £Wwp.€vovs or omit that after ~yov!Ltva.s, since 1rpo -rothwv refers only to ypoa
0 ~ O~ ,Pj~

(a) Sculla:rc.l and Veith

lnfantrv 0 Ve!ites

D

LJ 0--------··-CJ D -• -

D

C.:::1 CJ-- ./ }

-

• ./"

Cal'alry !:oiiil Gil :;Ill COil IA -----------:A fA Giil iA !;iii-~

301

XI. 23.

I

THE BATTLE OF ILIPA

Tp~::i:s

CT'II'Etpa.s: d. Livy, xxviii. q. 17, 'cum ternis peditum cohortibus ternisque equitum turmis'. Similarly many modern scholars (cf. Veith, AS, iv. 523; Taeger, Klio, 1931, 340 n. 3) here assume that P.'s parenthetical remark that the Romans call •oiiTo To avVTa.yp.a a cohort refers to the individual a1Tfiipa, and that Scipio (and his two colleagues) led three cohorts, i.e. nine maniples. This was Reiske's view and Schweighaeuser rightly resists it. True, a1T€tpa is used in iv. 523) ; but in imperial inscriptions to translate cohors (Veith, P. (l1Tdpa is equivalent to a71p.aia and means maniple (see, for example, vi. 24. s. :14. 8, xv. 9· 7; Lex. Polyb. s.v. a1rEipa). The evidence for this is quite clear and runs contrary both to Veith's vie·w (AS, iv. 522--3) that Cl7)p.afa is 'maniple' and a1u.tpa. 'cohort', and that of Brewitz (74 n. 1) that am;ipa is 'maniple' and a1)p.afa. 'cohort'. The original infantry line would be in its usual triple order of hastati, principes, and triarii. On wheeling right it would be led by three maniples, one from each line, and it is these three which Scipio now wheels round to the left to advance against the enemy. As a tactical unit the cohort is a feature of the Marian army; but the present passage shows that probably by the late third century and certainly by P.'s time the word cohors was being used for the combination of three maniples, one from each line, standing one behind the other (cf. Delbriick, HZ, 51, r883, z6o; Meyer, /(l. Schr. ii. nz; H. Last, CAH. ix. 146 n. 4). There is no reason to treat Toiho 8~ ~ea.AetTat ••• Koopns as a non-Polybian interpolation (so A. von Domaszewski, Die Fa!men im riimischen Heere (Vienna, r885), 19-20; cf. Klotz, Livius, 187); for P.'s use of Ko6pns cf. 33· 1. For a plausible theory that the cohort was developed during the third and second centuries to meet the conditions of warfare in Spain seeM. J. V. Bell, Fhstr:rria, 1965, 404-19.

l.

o( p.€v E1T' a(J"'I't0a. 1T€pLKAaCTO.VTES TOUTOU'): 'wheeling them round in the one case to the left' ; as Schweighaeuser observes, o~ p./.v is Scipio and the plural to be explained in terms of the common periphrasis o~ 1T€pt .E~et1Tlwva.. Septimus and Silanus (ol 8l) wheel their left wing to the right. For 1T
THE BATTLE OF 1LIPA

XL 23. 9

wheeling round and approaching; he was banking on throwing the Spaniards on the Punic wing into confusion. P. here implies that Scipio actually attacked the wing while still in column formation; if so, the next movement (s in zz. 1o-2.3. 9 n.) must have followed immediately upon the impact, and indeed have formed part of it, the infantry and cavalry wheeling out and forward to align themHelves parallel to the enemy. 6p91cns Taio; ••. 8uva~J.e· 4. hn1ra.pep.(30.XXovTas (i1rl) TTJV aOTTjv e:o9e'Lav: 'falling into the same straight line'; cf. iii. us. 9-10 n.; xii. 19. 6. ol. ~yovp.evo4 are the three maniples and the three turmae which have led the columns, and now face the enemy. •va.vTlav ..• 8La9Eaw O.XXfJAaLs: P. correctly points out that the right and left wings did everything in opposite directions, and that the cavalry and infantry acted in opposite ways, inasmuch as the cavalry turned half right to advance into line, and the infantry half left (on the right ·wing). 5. CK 80pa.Tos: 'from the right' ; this refers to the side to which the cavalry turn before advancing into line, and not to the direction in which they will look to dress line once they are roughly in position (aS in iii. II$. 10); indeed in the thick Of the fight there Will have been no opportunity for such niceties. Scullard, Scip. 133. observes that the formation into line must have been effected by the wheeling of the separate units, and not by the whole column wheeling and advancing parallel to the enemy; certainly such a movement, exposing the flank of the units when they were already in contact with the enemy must have been unthinkable-nor would it have brought 11bout the reversal of order mentioned in§ 7· 6'11'~rpK£pav ..• Tou., lTOAEttlous: as they could hope to do if the attack of the right column was directed against Hasdrubal's extreme left. ol 8i lTE~ol ••• E€ aCT1Tt8os: 'while the infantry formed line coming up on the left', thus closing the gap between the wing and the centre. 6. ot p.ev iv TcUS a1T£tpa.~'>: 'those in the maniples', i.e. the infantry; but here too there may be an implication of advancing in maniples (d. 22. II n.). '1. iy£yovt:~ ••• To 8EsLov euwvu1-1ov: see 22. 10-23. 9 n. (5), and the plan in Scullard, Scip. 135. where this is clearly illustrated. o~ IJ.LKpov Myov 9£ttEvoo;: as \Varre observes (in Shuck burgh, ii. 565), 11nch an inversion of troops would be a 'clumsy mistake' on the parade ground, but P. with a soldier's realism sees that Scipio rightly ignored this point in battle, in view of the advantage if he rnuld outflank the enemy (Toil Ka·nl 'Ti]v VTToK~pacrw). 9. Ta'i:s 1rpos Tov Ka.~pov O.pp.o~o~aats Kw~aeaw: Neumann (Klio,

XI. 23. 9

THE B.\ TTLE OF ILl l' ,\

1932, 256) inquires why Scipio could not have obtained the same effect by marching his infantry forward after a half-left turn, and then when they had opened out into a single line advancing straight forward. This needs qualification: a march half-left would have taken the infantry in front of the centre unless it had advanced some distance to the right. But perhaps the real advantage of Scipio's formation was the advance in column, which exposed fewer men and horses to the enemy's long-distance missiles (e.g. the Balearic slingers mentioned in Livy, xxviii. IS. I) until they opened out at close quarters. Scullard (Scip. I34~6) discusses two further criticisms of Scipio's tactics: (a) WhatweretheCarthaginian caz,airydoing? He suggests plausibly that they were thrown into confusion by the retreat of the elephants (24. r). (b) Why did the Punic cmtre m;w charge? Here, Scu11ard argues. Scipio took a real risk, for his own centre was unreliable. But Hasdrubal, he thinks, hesitated to expose his wings still more b\ advancing when thej· were in trouble; lte thus lost any chance ol turning defeat into victory, but (24. 7-<J} he managed to withdraw them without catastrophic losses.

24. 1. TO. 9T)p1a.: the elephants were normally placed in front of the wings (22. :z), and Schweighaeuser suggests that Mago may have sought to counter Scipio's attempt to outflank by moving them out to the extremity of the wings. Veith, in his plan (Schlachtenatlas, Rom. Abt. 8. 2), places them forw·ard and beyond the two Punic wings from the beginning of the battle, but this is less likely. In either case, when they ,\·ere routed they may well have thrown the Punic cavalry into confusion (see last note). 2. To ••. f:A.Eaov: P. explains why the centre could not go to the rescue of the ~ings (lest it leave the way open for Scipio's centre), nor yet make contact with the enemy so long as they stayed where they were. On the third alternative, a vigorous charge against Scipio's Spaniards, see above, 23. 9 n. 7. Ka.n11!'60a. ••. .,.,v O.va.xwp11aw €1TOLouVTo: for discussion and other examples of such a controlled withdrawal (Xen. A nab. vii. 8. 8-19; App. Syr. 35; Caesar, BG, i. 26. 2) see Kromayer, AS, iii. I. 371-2. Livy, xxviii. IS. 10, describes an attempt to rally and face the Romans on the slope of the hill before the Punic camp. 8, el , .• (J.i} 9eos aUTOLS ns O'UVE1!'EAa~ETO TTJS O'v.lTT)pLa.S! a storm of unusual magnitude comes in the category of phenomena which may properly be referred €1r' -rov fh:ov • .• Kai T1JV Tl;Xl'lv {xxxvi. 17. 2); they include heavy and persistent rain or snow, the destruction of crop,; by drought or frost, or an outbreak of plague, in short 'acts of God'. See VoL I, p. q.

CAPTURE OF ILOURGEIA AXD ASTAPA

XI. :;q a 1-3

24. 10-11. Roman capture of Ilourgeia and Astapa After Ilipa Scipio visited north Africa to secure Syphax's allegiance (cf. 24 a 1-4 n.); and on his return he attacked Ilourgeia, the population of which had gone over to Carthage after the disaster of the Scipios and had massacred Romans fleeing from the battle. The town was razed and its population destroyed (Livy, xxviii. 19. 1-20. 7; App. Hisp. 32). Meanwhile L. Marcius took Astapa, where the Romans were thwarted by a population which made a holocaust of the town in a scene of fire and slaughter (Livy, xxviii. 22. 1-23. 5; App. Hisp. 33). On the placing of 24. 10-11, which should follow 24 a 1-4, see p. 18.

14. 10. 'IA.oupyELa: Livy, xxviii. 19. r ff., has instead Iliturgi; he also mentions a town Castulo which fell immediately after. For these towns Appian, Hisp. 32, has 'D.vpyia and KaaTag. Brewitz, 21 f., suggested convincingly that Livy's source, probably Coelius, has substituted the more familiar Iliturgis and Castulo, and that the forms in Appian are more trustworthy; if that is so, Dio-Zonaras (ix. 1o) followed Livy's source, since he has 'lALnpy'i:TaL. As Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 445 n.) saw, Ilourgeia will be the town Ilorci, described by Pliny (Nat. hist. iii. 9) as Scipionis rogum; but as this lay on the Tader (mod. Segura), it cannot be identical with Lorca on the Guadalentin, a tributary of the Segura, as Meyer (loc. cit.) and Schulten (Hermes, 1928, 288--Jo1) assume, and Scullard (Scip. 142-4 n. 2) is probably right in making it Lorqui on the Segura, a town 87 km. away from Cartagena, which has Roman remains. Against Livy's reading Iliturgi is the fact that Iliturgis, which Schulten (Hermes, 1928, 289 n. 4) has shown to lie on the left bank of the Baetis, west of Mengibar, and 30 km. west of Castulo, would have been 2oo km. in a straight line from New Carthage; yet Scipio marched there from New Carthage in five days (Livy, xxviii. 19. 4), an incredible speed for that distance. See Brewitz, 21 f.; Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 444-5 n.; Schulten, Hermes, 1928, z88-3o1; Scullard, Sc-ip. 142-4 n. z. 11. To SE TETTJKOS KTA.: d. Livy, xxviii. 23. 4, 'dein cum aurum argentumque cumulo rerum aliarum interfulgens auiditate ingenii humani rapere ex igni uellent, correpti alii flamma sunt, alii ambusti adflatu uaporis, cum receptus primis urgente ab tergo ingenti turba non esset'. The town is Astapa (cf. App. Hisp. 33), mod. Estepa, near Urso (Osuna); it is later Ostippo, from which the modern name is derived (Schulten, RE, 'Ostippo', col. 1665).

24 a 1-3. Scipio after Ilipa On. the placing of this fragment see p. 18. It corresponds to Livy, xxviii. 17. 2-3, 'et cum ceteri laetitia gloriaque ingenti earn rem uolgo suna

X

XI. 24 a 1-3

SCIPIO

A~D

SYPHAX

ferrent, unus qui gesserat, inexplcbilis uirtutis ueraeque laudis, paruum instar eorum quae spe ac magnitudine animi concepisset recepta.s Hispanias ducebat. iam Africam magnamque Carthaginem et in suum decus nomenque ueiut consummatam eius belli gloriam spectabat.'

24 a 4. Scipio and Syphax Scipio crossed to Africa and was at Syphax's court at the same time as Hasdrubal, and the two men shared a couch at dinner; d. Livy, xxviii. q. Io-r8. 12 (especially 18. 6--8); App. Hisp. 30. 4. T~ Io
MUTINY IN SCIPIO'S ARMY

XI. 26. 6

Schulten, RE, 'Sucro (z)', col. 561. As Kahrstedt (iii. 322 n. 2) notes, a mutiny north of the Ebro would have been dealt with from Tarraco rather than New Carthage (cf. Livy, xxviii. 26. Iff.); hence it looks as if the mutiny was at Sucro, but Livy has got its location wrong (cf. Scullard, Scip. 147 n. r). Our text of P. does not name Sucro, but the full text probably did, since the words on ... 'Pwp.a~Kcp look like a compressed phrase of the epitomator (see Biittner-Wobst ad loc.) to cover the details given in Livy, xxviii. 24. 5-25. 7· l. lf.ufla.Ta. ICtU VOCl'OU~: 'ulcerS and illneSSeS'; for the Comparison between bodily diseases and disorders in the community, whether political or as here in an army, see i. 8r. s-n n. 4. -rois €lf.~a-r6.voua~: 'for those who are alert'. 8. IC0.9n1TEp i~ apXTJS Ef'ITOV; cf. X. 3· I. -rous x~Junpxous: Livy, xxviii. 25. 3-7, shows that this refers to seven military tribunes who had been sent by Scipio to the camp at Sucro and had brought back the report. 9. &.vaSk~a.aea~ ••• TTJV TWV o+wv1wv imoSoow: 'give a firm pledge to pay the wages owing'; for d.va3ixea8m cf. v. r6. 8 n.; for 14t.!Jvm cf. i. 66. 3 n. Cf. Livy, xxviii. 25. 6, 'uolgo stipendium non datum ad diem iactabatur'. 10. -rO.s a~Ta.pxlas: 'their pay'; cf. 28. 3, i. 66. 3 n. 26. 1. eylvovTo 1Tepl Ti)v TWV XP'I'UJ.clTWV ~'1Tlf1EAELQV: 'they applied themselves to the collection of the money' ; the military tribunes collected it from the cities (cf. 25. 9). 2. -rO. S~:SoytJ.iva: there is clearly a lacuna after §I, in which P. described the decision of the army to come in a body to Kew Carthage to collect their pay; cf. Livy, xxviii. 25. Ij, 'ilia dubitatio erat singulaene cohortes an uniuersi ad stipendium petcndum irent, inclinauit sententia, quod tutius censebant, uniuersos ire' (cf. above, zs. ro). T~ auveSp£1tl: his council of war; on its composition see xiv. 2. I In. 5. Tois 1TpEa~o.dumat: 'who had been on the mission to them', i.e. the seven tribunes mentioned above (25. 8 n.), who were to be responsible each for five of the thirty-five ringleaders. }>aton's version, 'who had been deputed to him', makes no sense. Kat To~a.UT1JV auvoua{av: 'and similar entertainment'; Paton's version, 'and carouse afterwards' is too specific, though it may be implied; Livy, xxYiii. 26. 6, sopitosque uino, makes it explicit. 6. -r~ ••• ~J-E9' auTou aTpaT01TEO~t>: 'the army he had with him ; not 'the legion' (so Paton), for there were clearly more than one (§ 7); on this general sense of aTpaTt:Yrr<Sov see viii. L 4 n. t:ls ~,.i Tov :Av8o~O..A11v: cf. 29. 3 n. AuTwv flETa M6.p~
XI.

27. 2

MUTINY IN SCIPIO'S ARMY

27. 2. TOLS eml.pxoLS: praefecti sociorum (d. vi. 26. 5 n.). EKTTopwo11€voLs ..• flETa Toiho: €K71'opwofdvots J.Lera To 71'pwTas fL€v a71'oaKwas F. The sense is perhaps recoverable from Livy, xxviii. 26. 11: 'sub lucem signa mota, et ad portam retentum agmen custodesque circa omnes portas missi ne quis urbe egrederetur'. Hence Biittner-Wobst suggests for the lacuna OTaV €K71'0pWOfLEVOLS <71'p6 Tij> 71'6A<ws avJ.Lf3a£vn 71'apay{vw8at), fLETa TovTo KTA.

rva. 11TJ8el.s EK1TopEUT)TO.L: of the mutineers, who have meanwhile entered New Carthage. 4. lm' auTov Tov KaLpov: to be taken either with €pp~8YJ, 'at the same time (sc. that instructions were being given) they were told .. .', or with av>..>..aj3
28-30. Scipio's address to the mutineers: compare the rhetorical version in Livy, xxviii. 27. 2-29. 8, which contains a much more subtle appeal to loyalty than does P.'s threatening oration; but this perhaps throws more light on Livy than on Scipio. P.'s source is not known; but there is no good reason to regard the speech as his invention (so Pedech, Methode, 274-5). See the comments of R. S. Conway quoted in Scullard, Scip. 149.

28. 5. ou 8Lop9oiho: 'are not paid'; for this meaning of

8wp8ova8at

cf. Welles, p. 328. :A.v8o~6.An Kal. MavSovL't': cf. ix. 11. 3 n., x. 18. 7-rs, 35· 6-38. 3, 40. ro. Andobales was king of the Ilergetes (x. r8. 7), who lived between Saragossa and Lerida (iii. 35· 2 n.); it is by an oversight that Livy (xxviii. 24. 4) makes them Lacetani (cf. Kahrstedt, iii. 322). They had revolted from Rome on the false news of Scipio's

29. 3. 1rap'

death, which was a major factor in causing the Roman mutiny (Livy, xxviii. 24. 3-4; App. Hisp. 37; Zon. ix. ro). 6. TWV vOv 1TpoxeLpLa9€VTwv ~ye11ovwv: according to Livy, xxviii. 24. 13-14, the mutineers after expelling their officers gave th(' 308

MUTINY IN SCIPIO'S ARMY

XI. 31-33

imperium to two gregarii, C. Albius from Cales and C. Atrius, an Umbrian, 'qui nequaquam tribuniciis contenti ornamentis, insignia etiam summi imperii, fasces securesque, attractare ausi'. Kahrstedt (iii. 321) argues that the names are invented, and the provenance of the men an attempt to exculpate the Romans. Scullard (Scip. 148 n. r) also thinks that the 'coincidence of White and Black' weighs against these being real names, but admits that if one was called Albius, the other may have been nicknamed Atrius. Possibly; but such coincidences do occur, and the names may be genuine. 9. 1rns lixAos e{l1ra.pa.Aoy~o-To<; ~ea.t ••• el!cl.ywyos: for this sentiment, as natural to a Roman noble as to an Achaean landowner, see vi. 56. I I n. ; cf. vi. 44, xxi. 31. 9 ff. ; von Scala, 43 n. 4· To us oxAous K:a.l TTJV 9cl.Aa.TTa.v: cf. Livy, xxviii. 27. II ; this simile is developed and commented on for its aptness in a speech delivered before the Senate in defence of the Aetolians by Leon, son of Cichesias, after the war with Antiochus (xxi. 31. 6-rs). But this does not exclude its use by Scipio seventeen years earlier, for it is a rhetorical gambit of old standing. It first appears in Solon, fg. 12 Bergk,

ie aJJEJLWV 8€ BcL\aaaa TapaaaETat.

~IJ

01 ns ath¥

JL~ KWfj, 7rQIJ'TW11 EU'Tt 0tKaWTcL'T'1) 1

and it is used in Artabanus' speech to Xerxes in Herod. vii. •6 a; Livy, xxxviii. ro. 5 rightly calls it a uutgata similit1.,do.

30.1. yu11vol •.• oi.: Biittner-Wobst suspects a lacuna on account of the hiatus; and Li vy, xxviii. 29. ro, certainly has more detail: 'praeconis audita uox citantis nomina damnatorum in consilio ; nudi in medium protrahebantur et simul omnis apparatus supplicii expromebatur'. The reference to the praeco was probably not in P. since the condemned men are brought in as the shields are beaten (ap..a o£ TOJrots), but there may have been a reference to the apparatus supplicii after yvp..vol; but this too may have been added by Livy for effect, and Benseler's yvp..vol B' may be all that is needed. l. TWV jl~V jlO.O"TLYOUfLEVWV, TWV s~ 1TEAEICL~ojll!vwv: not alternatives; those now being flogged would be beheaded afterwards. The Latin phrase is uirgis laesi et securi percussi (Lhy, xxviii. 29. n). 3. a.t~eLa9l:vTEs : 'outraged'. 4. w11vuov: Livy (xxviii. 29. 12) adds that at the same time they received the money owing to them. 31-33. Defeat of A ndobales Also from the Spanish events of 2o6; see above, p. r8; Livy, xxviii. s-34; App. Hisp. 37; Zon. ix. IO; above, 29. 3 n. If P. followed the same order of events as that in Livy, between the last fragment

JI~

309

XL 31-33

DEFEAT OF ANDOBALES

12. BATTLE OF THE EBRO

(From Scullard, Scipio Africanus in the Second Punic War,

152)

and this one he recounted the unsuccessful attempt of Laelius and Marcius to take Gadcs (cf. Livy, xxviii. 30. r 31. 4).

31. 2. Twv 1TpoELPTJilEvwv 8uva.trrwv: clearly both Andobales and Mandonius have been mentioned in a lost passage corresponding to Livy, xxviii. 31. 5-7. 7. o1-1ovoe'iv 1Ta.pf1vn Ka.~ 9a.ppouVTa.s: cf. Livy, xxviii. 32. 4, 'laeto et erecto animo'. The reference to the mutiny hinted at in of.Lovo
DEFEAT OF ANDOBALES

XI. 33· 7

Tfl TETaPT!l Jl-ETU Ta.uTTJV: with rrprHJWTpaTorr,oonJaE. wpoO'EaTpa.Towk8EuO'E To~s uveva.vTLOLS: according to Livy, xxviii. 31.

s-i. Andobales and Mandonius had retired into their own territory on hearing of the mutiny; but when they heard of Scipio's severity towards the leaders, they reassembled their troops and marched into the land of the Edetani, Edeco's people (x. 34· 2 n.), with 2o,ooo foot and z.soo horse. The site of the battle cannot be fixed. The territory of the Edetani la:~• south of the Ebro (x. 34· 2 n.), but both P. and Livy (xxviii. 33· 1) are agreed that Scipio crossed the Ebro; hence it looks as though the chieftains had retired north of the river when they heard of Scipio's approach (cf. Scullard, Scip. 152-3}. Aa.f3wv a.uA.Gwa Ttva.: 'leaving a valley .. .'; on the meaning of at!Awv cf. iii. 83~85. 6 n. (i}. :2. Twv 'ITa.pevo~vwv T4_) O'Tpa.To'IT€8ce: not 'pecora rapta ... ex ipsorum hostium agris' (Livy, xxviii. 33· z); these would have been taken into safety (Scullard, Scip. I 54 n. I; Kahrstedt, iii. 323). Twv rrapErro1drwv is masculine plural (cf. iii. 82. 8) rather than neuter (so Paton). ,.~ r a.tte: Le. C. Laelius. 6. TO.UT1J XPtl0'0.0'90.L Tfj va.pEJl-f3oAfj: 'to take Up this position'. 7. Tils E~ b11oA6you Ka.l. O'uaTaliTJv 11-axa.s: c£. fg. I44. 33. l. Tous EV T'fi va.pwpe£~ TETa.y11ivous: 'those drawn up on the hill', in contrast to those who had come down into the valley. AvTETa.TTE: the object is missing; Schweighaeuser plausibly suggests rot!s ypoacpofLaxous or Tas- TW~' ypoacpof
XI. 33· 8

DEFEAT OF

A~DOBALES

8. To Is 1repi Tov 'loovLOv ~ea.i Map~eLov: i.e. M. Iunius Silanus and L. Marcius Septimus (cf. 23. In.), if Casaubon's correction of the MS. 'lmlvLOv Kal MapKov is accepted. But according to Livy, xxviii. 38. I, Spain was taken over by L. Lentulus and L. Manlius Acidinus as propraetors (in xxix. I3. 7 Livy calls them proconsuls), and his subsequent account of their activities supports this (Livy, xxix. 2. I ff.). P.'s epitomator may have misunderstood or incorrectly recorded the text, or Scipio may have handed over the command to Silanus and Septimus pending the arrival of Lentulus and Acidinus; their command can easily have fallen out of an annalistic account based largely on the official appointments made at Rome. ami1TAEUaE ... ets TfJV 'PWj-LTJV: cf. Livy, xxviii. 38. I, 'decem nauibus Romam rediit'. Twv aXXwv 4>tXwv: on the general's amici see xviii. 34· 3 n.

34. Antiochus in Bactria, India, Arachosia, Drangiana, and Carmania This fragment from F belongs to 01. I43. 2 = 207/6, i.e. 206. Presumably the siege of Zariaspa-Bactra had continued since 208 (d. x. 49· IS), which explains its popularity as a literary theme (xxix. I2. 8). Reiske remarks that this fragment must have been preceded by some such sentence as: 'Antiochus ad Euthydemum pacis conciliatorem miserat Teleam, Magnesia oriundum, qui amicus quondam fuisset Euthydemi, et eadem qua ille patria uteretur.' 34. 1. ~ea.i yap auTos ~v ... Mayv'l]s: i.e. like Teleas. From which Magnesia they came is not certain. Macdonald (CHI, i. 440) and E. T. Newell, The Coinage of the Western Seleucid Mints (New York, I94I). 274, argue from similarities between the coins of Euthydemus and those of certain cities near Magnesia-under-Sipylus; this may be right though, as Tarn observes, Mayv'f}> without further qualification suggests the better-known Magnesia-on-Maeander (xvi. 24. 6), which had a strong record of Seleucid colonization (Strabo, xii. 577, Antioch towards Pisidia; OGIS, 233, Antioch in Persis; Tarn, Bactria, 6, 74-75)1Tpos ov a1TEAOYL~ETO: the relative refers back to Teleas, mentioned in the sentence now lost (the words Kal yap ... Mayv'f}> being paren-

thetical). 2. hepwv tl.1TOaTaVTWV E1TO.VEAOj-LEVOS TOUS EICELVWV e~eyovous: cf. x. 4-9· In. The rebel was Diodotus I, the son whom Euthydemus had destroyed was Diodotus II; on Diodotus l's revolt about 239 cf. Iustin. xli. 4· 5, 'eodem tempore (sc. (probably) as the War of the Brothers) etiam Theodotus (sic), mille urbium Bactrianarum praefectus, de fecit reg em que se appellari iussit'. Diodotus II will have 3I 2

ANTIOCHUS IN THE EAST

XI. 34·

II

been overthrown shortly after 230; see x. 49· In. Tarn (Bactria, 74) suggests that Euthydemus' revolt had popular support and was allegedly in the Seleucid interest, because of Diodotus II's alliance with the Parthians (Iustin. xli. 4· 9, '(Arsaces) morte Diodoti metu liberatus cum filio eius, et ipso Diodoto, foedus ac pacem fecit') ; but the arguments here produced for Teleas are not necessarily true, and he may have acted solely from ambition (cf. Narain, I9-2o). On the Bactrian revolt see Schmitt, Antiochos, 64 ff. 3. TllS ovolla.ala.s ••• TtlS Tou ~aa~X€ws (~~:at) 1rpoO'Taa£as: 'his royal name and state'. !5. TWv Nof.La8wv: i.e. the Iranian peoples of the Steppes collectively known as Sacas, and including in particular the Massagetae, the Dahae, and the Sacaraucae (some of whom were only semi-nomadic) : see Tarn, Bactria, 79-81. The appeal to unity in the face of the barbarian danger recalls Agelaus' speech in 217 (v. 104). Tarn (Bactria, • 17) argues that the words biv f.Kdvov> TrpoaSixwvTat contain a clear threat to use the barbarians, 'as Nicomedes and Hierax had used the <;alatae', but Trpoa-six~;a-8at here means only 'to be attacked by' (cf. ii. 68. 8, iii. 42. 5); cf. Pedech, },Ifcthodc, 271 n. 82. S. Mazzarino, The End of the Ancient World (London, 1966), 24-25, sees here a prophecy ex eventu of the invasion of the Yueh-chi in 135-I3o, but unnecessarily. 8. AT)fl~Tp~ov Tbv uLov: now about 19 or 20 years old (d. § 9, vmviaKo>, which implies that age: Tarn, Bactria, 73 n. 7). See the coins featuring him wearing an elephant-scalp in Tarn, Bactria, plate, coin 3. and Narain, plate i, coins 5 and 6. Strabo, xi. 516, has been quoted as evidence that Demetrius invaded India; he does not say so, and the Demetrius, a contemporary of Eucratides, whom Iustin. xli. 6. 4 calls rex I ndorum, is not necessarily Euthydemus' son. Tarn (Bactria, 129-82) has reconstructed the history of this supposed invasion with great brilliance, but Narain, 23-45, has shown that he was misled concerning the Indian and Tibetan evidence, which gives his thesis no support. 9. KaTtt niv lfvTeu~LV (Kat) 1TpoO"Ta.a£av: 'in his dignified bearing and conversation'; but Schweighaeuser's emendation is attractive: Kat 1'~v KaTtt T~v €vT~;ugw TrpoaTaalav 'and in his dignified behaviour at interviews'. 1-1-£a.v TWv Ea.uTou Ouyan\pwv: whether this marriage took place is not known, Tarn (Bactria, 201 n. 1) thinks not; but see Schmitt, Antiochos, 23 n. 3· 10. aUflfla.xlav €vopKov: whether Euthydemus acknowledged Seleucid suzerainty, 'the thing that mattered' (Tarn, Bactria, 82), is not known. Tarn thinks that as the initiative came from Euthydemus (§ 3), and he gave up his elephants, he probably did, 'though it soon became a dead letter'. 11. ~1ro~aXwv 8£ Tbv KauKa.aov ••• ELS TTJV 'lvo~Kt1v: i.e. he crossed JIJ

XI. 34·

II

AXTIOCHt:'S IX BACTRIA, L.XDIA

the Hindu Kush into the Kabul valley (Holleaux, C AH, viii. 142 fitudes, v. 323-4). Ti]v ••• q~Lt..iav • , • 1rpo<; Tov Iocpayaaf)vov: Sophagasenus, here called nlv fJamMa -rwv 'Iv6wv, •will have been the ruler of one of the splinter kingdoms in north-west India, into which the Mauryan empire of Candragupta {321-297) and Asoka (269-232) had broken up. Gandhara was ruled by a descendant of Asoka named Virasena (d. A. Schiefner, T aranathas Geschichte des B~tddhismus in I ndien, St. Petersburg, 1869 ,so-sz); and it has been suggested that Sophagasenns (Subhagasena) was his successor (cf. V. A. Smith, Early History of India• (Oxford, 192-1-), 237 n. r; F. W. Thomas, CHI, i. 512; H. C. Raychaudhuri, Political History of Ancient 1ndia6 (Calcutta, 1953) 350 : Narain, 9), though there seems no evidence to support the view of Lassen and Bouche-Leclercq (Silmcides, i. 164) identifying him with Asoka's son Jalauka (cf. Geyer, RE, 'Sophagasenos', col. roo8). The rpJda. now renewed was that formed with Candragupta by Seleucus I through the embassy of Megasthenes (Strabo, xv. 724; FGH, 715 T z); it indicates that here Antiochus made no attempt to reassert but ·what it implied juriSeleucid suzerainty (Tam, Bactria, dically is hard to determine. 12. ~v8pocr&evTJv ••• TOV Ku~LKTJVOV: otherwise unknown. 13. ffJV ~paxwcriav: the province lying south and west of the Hindu Kush, around the valley of the R. Arachotus (modern Arghandab). According to Ptol. vi. 20, its neighbours were Drangiana to the west, Paropamisadae to the north, Gedrosia to the south, and the Indus plain to the east. See Tomaschek, RE, 'Arachosia', cols. 368---9. \Vhether Arachosia, Drangiana, and Carrnania (see below) had remained loyal is uncertain (cf. Schmitt, Antiochos, 82); but at least Antiochus had no fighting to do here. TOv 'Epuflav9ov 1ToTafloV: cL Arr. iv. 6. 6, 'E-rv-rt-tav6pos; Curt. viii. 9· ro, Ethymantus; Pliny, Nat. hist. vi. 92, Hermandus or Erymandus. The spelling in Arrian is nearest to the original, for this is the modern R. Helmand, a name derived through Pahlavi from the form haetuma1it of the Avesta. F.'s spelling seems influenced by the familiar Peloponnesian river-name. The Helmand flows south-west from the Paropamisadae through Arachosia into Drangiana, then westward into the depression of Hamun-i Helmand, to be largely spent in irrigation; cf. Kiessling, RE, 'Etymandros', cols. 8o6-7. 8L0. Ti}<; Apa YYTJVTJ r; els TTJV Kapflavtav: Drangiana is the basin of the Hamun-i Helmand, modern Seistan; Carmania is the province in southern Iran along the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean, today Kirman with part of Luristan and Moghostan (cf. v. 79· .3 n.). Antiochus' route was probably via Kabul, Ghazni, and Kandahar, that taken by Alexander in winter 330-29 in reverse (Strabo, xv. 724-5). and then along the route followed by Craterus on Alexander's return

ARACHOSIA, DRANGlANA, AND CARMANIA

XI. 34· 14

from India, down the Helmand and from Seistan south-west to the R. Halil-Rud and the Strait of Hormuz (Strabo, xv. 721; Arr. vi. ts. 4). '"'v vo.po.x~ Ta.is l.avTofJ ao.Tparrda.ts Kat avvopoiJVTO.S' 8vvd.r:nus Tw~· (3ap{3d.pwv) to prevent their furnishing any potential rebels with help (v. 55· 1); the first of these wasArtabazanes of :.V1edia Atropatene. Similarly, an inscription from Nehavend in Media from 193, containing two documents, refers to Menedemus 0 fTfL TWV avw ao.Tpa.nw'i:w, who is clearly a royal governor (Robert, Hellenica, 7, 1949, 5-22; 8, 1949, 73). If 'satrap' was no longer commonly used of a provincial governor in the Seleucid realm (so Bengtson), P. may nevertheless have so used it here, perhaps as a 'back-formation' from the usual phrase ai avw aaTpO.TfELaL (cf. 'Will, REG, 1962, 109-IO). These passages show clearly that although Ot avw T6rroL may be used loosely for 'the interior' (cf. v. 40. s n., 46. s, 55· 3, 55· 4, xi. 34· I4 (this sentence)), ·whether inside or outside the empire, by 'the upper satrapies' P. means those of the Euphrates and Tigris valleys (d. v. 48. 12), together with Media, Susianc, and Persis. One need not assume (with Will, REG, r962, I09-n) that he refers to satrapies further east (e.g. Margiane, Aria, Drangiana, or Gedrosia) which had been restored to Antiochus by Euthydemus. P. is in fact taking up "the point made in v. 55· r, where Antiochus first envisages an eastern expedition with the object of intimidating outsiders and so

XI. 34· 14

ANTIOCHUS IN THE EAST

reducing the danger of any further revolt. His expedition had two results: it had made the upper satraps--whoever they might be (and satrap-revolts were almost regular events from about 250 onwards (Bengtson, Strat. ii. s6-s7))-loyal servants (u1f1JK!lous .•. -rfjs iliias &pxi]s), because they were deprived of the materials of revolt from the kingdoms beyond, and it had confirmed his control even west ol Taurus. In short it had consolidated his prestige throughout tlw kingdom (§§ I5-I6). It seems therefore unnecessary to take o[ a••w aa-rpa:rrat in any but its normal sense. Tas £m0a.Xa.TT1ous 1roXE''i Ka.t To us ... Suv6.GTa.s: the former are such Greek cities in Asia Minor as were recovered by Antiochus afte1 Achaeus' defeat, and the dynasts are those of Asia Minor, such a;.; the donors of gifts to Rhodes in 227 (v. go. I n.). Dynasts in Asia Minor under the Seleucids are attested by OGIS, 229, in whicl1 Seleucus I I \\Tites Trpo> -roV> f3amAEi:s Kai mvs 8vvdr.r-ra> Ka1 Tro.\ec,· requesting dau>.ta from Smyrna (d. ix. I. 4 n.); and the dynast Lysias had fought for Seleucus III against Attalus (OGIS, 272, 277; d. iv. 48. 6 n.). That such dynasts, whose numbers probably multiplied after the War of the Brothers, continued to exist in the second centur:y. is clear from the references to Moagetes of Cibyra (xxi. 34· 1 ff.) and Philomelus, Lysias' son (xxi. 35· z). Many must br completely unknown, such as the Moagetes of Bubon known onh from an inscription of Araxa in Lycia (Bean, ]HS, 1948, 46-56)-unless he is Moagetes of Cibyra (cf. Larsen, CP, 1956, I65). From Hierax' revolt down to Achaeus' recovery of Asia Minor in 223-220 the Seleucid position here was weak (d. v. 34· 7), and Achaeus' defection had carried Asia Minor with it. What dispositions Antiochus made here during his 'anabasis' is not known; but it is reasonable to suppose that it was his victorious return that finally consolidated his position in Asia Minor (d. Walbank, ]HS, 1942, 9-10, where, however, the account of Olyrnpichus of Alinda is now superseded as a result of the new documents mentioned in v. 90. I n.; see also below, Addenda, p. 64,:;). It is not clear why Bengtson (Strat. ii. 6o) takes the 'dynasts this side Taurus' to be a reference primarily to Achacus, for, as he himself goes on to say, Achaeus had been executed before the 'anabasis' began. 16. li~LOS ... Tijs ~a.aLAda.s: it was probably on his return that he took the title piya!>; see iv. 2. 7 n., and below, Addenda, pp. 638-9.

BOOK XII In devoting this book to criticism of Timaeus P. digresses from his theme, but justifies this as preferable to several short digressions {II. 6-7). Since the account of the lotus (z) was v.Titten after P. had visited Africa (2. r n.), the composition of at least this part of the book was later than 151, and so probably later than r¢; and the reference to a historian who emulates Odysseus (z8. I n.) also suggests composition after 146. Pedech (Methode, 571-z) may therefore be right in putting the composition of xii as a whole after 146; but this is not certain, for an original draft can have had extensive revision. In any case, the book is not necessarily an afterthought; it can have been planned ab initio but written later. Lorenz (66 ff.) argues that in making xii a digression P. is continuing the hexadic arrangement of books already marked by the account of the Roman constitution tmd army in vi. But if the history as a. whole shows traces of such a hexadic arrangement, this is not pressed and is of no significance; and there are other reasons why xii should take its special form. As Schweighaeuser saw, the attack on Timaeus develops out of criticism of hi.-; mis-statements about Africa, which now comes to the fore as the scene of Scipio's forthcoming campaigns; it was part of his province for 205 (Livy, xxviii. 38. 12, 40-45; Plut. Fab. 25; App. Hann. 55; Lib. 7; Sil. It. xvi. 692-7oo) and he crossed over in 204 (cf. xiv. r; Livy, xxix. 24-36). True, Scipio's capture of Locri and subsequent troubles there (Livy, xxix. 6-9, r6-22) may have led P. to consider Timaeus' false statements about this town, where P. ha.d personal connexions (5. r n.); so Reiske (and cf. Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (r)', col. 1548). But Africa, not Locri, stands at the beginning of the book, and seems to have furnished the occasion for P.'s polemic. 1. Towns in Africa {from Steph. Byz.)

I. 1. Buto.KtSo. x
XII. r. r

TOWKS IN AFRICA

for the circuitus. On the fertility of this area, which may have inspired F.'s criticisms of Timaeus (3), see Pliny, N,vith Hippo Regiussee Gsell, iii. 207; Scullanl. Scip. r69 n. r. See in general Dessau, RE, 'Hippo Regius', cols. 2627-8. 3. Ilyyn: probably an error or \'ariant for Siga, Syphax's capital among the Masaesyli (cf. iii. 33· 15 n.), where Scipio met Sypha\ during his visit from Spain (xi. 24 a 4 n.); cf. Strabo, xvii. 82q Pliny, Nat. hist. v. 19. Alternatively it may be Sicca (probably Kef in Tunisia; cf. i. 66. 6 n.; though J. Juillet, Bull. de Ia soc. nat. des antiquaires de France, r948-9, 20_3-r3, proposes a site near Zaghouan, and identifies El Kef with Cirta; cf. Poocch, 58). Pedech. loc. cit., prefers the equation with Sicca on the grounds that P. j._, basing his comments on his own observations, which will have been limited to Tunisia; but the evidence is inconclusive. 4. TO.~pnKn: so Bochart and Pinedo for the MS. Taf1a.8pa. Tabraca was a coashll town, ea..'>t of Hippo Regius, on the R. Tusca, which separated ZPugitana from Numidia (Pliny, Nat. hist. v. 22; Mela, i. 33; Treidler, RE, 'Thabraca', cols. 1 r 78-<)). It is the modern Tabarca at the mouth of the Wadi El Kcbir, between Bizerta and La Calk (cf. Hannezo, Rev. Tunisiemu, 23, r916, 239-65, 365-92; 24, r917, 12-29, 123-3i; Pedech, ad loc. 5. Xa.>.~~:el:n KTA.: the reference to 'Demosthenes' is probably from Alexander Polyhistor, since Stephanus' reference to the latter is precise but to 'Demosthenes' vague; in that case F.'s criticism wa.~ probably recorded by Polyhistor (Jacoby, FGH. 273 F 46, 699 F q). who is the first-century freedman of Sulla, who had reached Ronw as a prisoner of war (d. FGH, 273 commentary) ; his Libyca contained three books. The reading 'Demosthenes' is dubious. He could lw Demosthenes of Bithynia (if indeed he was a third-century writer. and not from Roman imperial times, as is usually thought: JacobY, FGH, 699; Schwartz, RE, 'Demosthcnes (9)', cols. 188-<)); but Demu sthenes is an epic poet who is not kno>vn to have \'VTitten about Libya. and an improbable target for P.'s criticism.Various corrections ar" proposed: Ka.,\/..w8tJ'7}r:: \Vestermann, ~7]J..toxd.pTJ> L. Mueller, TLJ..to f)"O,£v71r:;Geier (cf. Gisinger, RE, 'Timosthenes (3)', cots. r32r-2; accepk•l by Pcdech, ad loc.). The last is very plausible, for Timosthen;·, was Ptolemy Philadelphus' admiral who wrote on the geography ol 3!8

TOWNS IN AFRICA

XII.

2

Africa (Strabo, ii. 92, ix. 421, tor his ll
2. The Lotus This passage from Athenacus (xiv. 65r n) will also come from a discussion of Africa, related to Timaeus' mis-statements: see above, p. 19. According to Theophrastus (liP, iv. 3· 2), Ophellas' army, marching to join Agathocles in 308, was reduced to eating lotus fruit. This incident may have been related by Timaeus and be the occasion uf P.'s criticism, especially if Timaeus, like Theophrastus at this point, made the lotus a olvopov •• . eiJp.lyurnal de Physique, q88, 287-99. Herodotus, iv. rn, has this account of the plant (which in ii. 96 he calls Kvp7]Vafoc; Aw·n/c;): 0 OE 'TOV AWTov !<:apmlc; lr:rn p.lya8o<; oaov Tl1 ri)c; UXLFOV (te. mastich)' yAv~<:th'T/'!'Cl. S£ TOV cpotv,Ko<; Tip Kaprr<{J rrpoaet~<:
a•

XII.

2

THE LOTUS

traits as they possess are merely due to their being concerned with the same plant. The suggestion made above (v. 45· 10 n.), that P. and Theophrastus both used Diodes of Carystus, is therefore to be discarded. See Stein, RE, 'lotos (2)', cols. 1526-3o, who quotes modern authorities for the continued use of the lotus as food by the inhabitants of north Africa; Walbank, Miscellanea Rostagni, 2o8-n. (For information about the lotus I am grateful to Professor V. H. Heywood and to Dr. G. Taylor.) 2. 1. .,.a. "'l'a.pa:rrA'I]o-~a. "To~s "'I'Epl. "Tov 'Hp68o.,.ov: Athenaeus is referring, not to Herodotus' passage on the lotus, quoted above (2 n.), but to his account (Herod. i. 193. 4) of date-palms in Babylon, which he has just cited, and which resembles P.'s account of the lotus only in as far as the dates are used to provide rnTia Kai olvov Ka11-d.At. This is Athenaeus' reference, not P.'s. a.u"To"'I'"TTJS yevol'evos: either in 151, when he visited Africa with Scipio (ix. 25. 4 n.), or when he was there during the Third Punic War (xxxviii. 19-22). Athenaeus evidently draws on a statement by P. contained in an introductory passage, and despite the doubts expressed above (Vol. I, p. 297) there is no reason to question its truth (cf. Pedech, REG, 1958, 442). Hence this passage, if not the whok book (above, p. 317), must have been written after 146. 2. ou flEya.: perhaps contradicting Timaeus, if he confused the lotus with Celtis australis like Theophrastus, who calls the former 8.!v8pm' £VflEYe8e;;; see above, 2 n. 0.Ka.v9w8es : Z izyphus lotus has thorns on the stem. ~uAAov xAwpov "'l'a.pa."'I'A'I]o-lov .,.ft paf'V':;l: 'a pale green leaf similar to that of the rhamnus'. Rhamnus is a name given to several prickly shrubs. Here P. probably means the box-thorn (Lycium europaeum) or stone-buckthorn (Rhamnus graeca). ~a.9unpov Ka.l. "'I'Aa."Tunpov: probably 'longer and broader'; cf. Theophr. HP, iii. 16. 2 for {3a8v~. 'long' of leaves. Schweighaeuser takes {3a86npov as 'deeper in hue', but, without a specific mention of colour, this seems less likely. Moreover, Zizyphus lotus has a light-green leaf. 3. "Ta.'Ls AwKa.i:s J-LUP"TLO'l: 'white myrtle berries', the berries of the murtus albus (Cato, de agricult. 133. 2) on which see Dios. i. 112. It is Myrtus communis uar. leucocarpa and grows widely in Italy and Greece. See Steier, RE, 'Myrtos', col. n76. 4. cflo~vlKous: 'red'; cf. M. de Lamarck, Encyclopidie mithodiqu,e: Botanique (Paris-Liege, q89), iii. 317. 'les fruits sont des drupes presque ronds, rousseatres dans leur maturite, de la grosseur des prunelles, et qui offrent, sous une chair pulpeuse, d'une saveur agreable, un noyau globuleux, osseux et biloculaire'. m'Ls yoyyuAa.lS EAa.Lals: i.e. the small round olives of Greece rather than the larger oval ones. 320

THE LOTUS To~s otK£Tals ... Tois EAEu9ipoLS: d. Xen. A nab. ii. J. IS (on dates). 0~ ai f36.Am•oL TWV .f;ou·lKWV •.. Tots OLKf7'U£<; amfKEWTO' ai o€ TOtS

mhat

a1ToJadfLI'YO.t ~aav am:JAE.KTOt. xovl>pov tu}lj!a.vTES: 'pounding it up with groats'; cf. Nepos, Exempla, fg. 30 Malcovati (=Pliny, Nat. hist. xiii. ro6), 'bacasque

8Ea1TOTO.LS

j.t.ETO.

concisas cum alica ad cibos doliis condi'. x6vopos (alica) is groats, prepared by pounding grain in a mortar; see L. A. Moritz, Grainmills and Flour in Antiquity (Oxford, I9S8), I4i-9· The stored mixture of groats and crushed lotus-fruit could be made into a kind of contains some natural subporridge, as required. Perhaps the stance that would counter the tendency of such a mixture to go mouldy or become contaminated by weevils. Paton translates xovapos 'salt'; but it is unlikely that salt would be added during the pounding, for its purpose would be as a preservative (in small quantities). This Paton realizes, for he translates 'pack it with salt in jars'; but fUTil xovopou goes with /(Q~JO.VTt£<;, not aaTTOUiJ'W. In any case, as Professor Moritz points out to me, it is unlikely that xovopo> without any qualifying word (such as mt<pos in Anth. Pal. vii. iJ6 1. 8) can mean salt; it is 'a lump' of salt, or later of anything else, especially grain. Mungo Park, Travels in the interior of Africa (London, Ii99). entry for r4 February 1796, records the conversion of the berries of Rhamnus lotus (= Zizyphus lotus) 'into a sort of bread' with the flavour of ginger-bread; but he refers to the mixing in of millet only to form a kind of gruel. The accuracy of Park's account is queried by J. L. M. Poiret in his Supplbnent to the Encyclopidie methodique: Botanique (Paris, r8r3), iii. 191-2; but it seems quite circumstantial and likely to be correct. 6. To ~pwjLa.: the comparison with figs or dates suggests that P. is referring to the lotus in its natural state rather than to the mixture of lotus and groats. 7. yivETO.l ••• KO.L otvos KTA.: cf. Herod. iv. l n (quoted in 2 n.) and Ps.Scyl. Peript. no; Xepos, Exempla, fg. 30 Malcovati, 'uinum quoque exprimitur illi simile mulso, quod ultra denos dies negat durare idem Nepos bacasque etc. (quoted in§ 4 n.)'. olvofLE.At is a mixture of xxxiii. 6. 9 distinguishes wine and honey, Latin mulsum (though olv6fl.eA~ as sweeter). It was made by mixing preferably old wine with honey which had been boiled; various proportions are found from one-third to one-eleventh honey. See A. Hug, RE, 'mulsum', cols. 513-14; Park (op. cit. in§ 4 n.): 'it furnishes the natives ... with a sweet liquor, which is much relished by them'.

3-4. Some errors of

TimaeJ~s

on the fauna of Africa and Corsica

From the excerpta antiqua (F). On Timaeus see i. S· r-s n.; to references there add T. S. Brown, Timaeus of Tauromenium (Berkeley814173

y

321

XII. 3-4

SOME ERRORS OF TIMAEUS ON THE

Los Angeles, 1958); \Valbank, ]RS, 1962, 1-12. P.'s remarks on Africa suggest personal knowledge of the country; and this would make the composition of these chapters later than q6 (see above, p. Jij). 3. L 't~V Tf\s xwpa.s lipET'f\V: clearly Africa (Libya). 2. 'lTmSa.pLwSTJ: cf. Anon. 1rep~ vt/>ot•s:, 4 ( FGH, 566 T 23), t\ml ()~ i!.pwTos -rov glvas vo~aEtS' d.l!'' KtV'f\!l0.1S nK!l~V Ev8E8f.!l~VOV: commenting 011 this passage (FGH, 566 F 8r) Jacoby suggests that P. has in mind Timaeus' reference to the proverb Jp1Jp.on.pa Tijs Atf3vTJs: in Timoleon's speecl1 (26 a 2). But in that passage Timaeus makes Timoleon speak of Africa as amiO"Y)S O'VV<'XWS olKoUp.Et''Y)> Kat r.)o.rJfJvoua'Y)S dvOpC:mwv, thu:'> rebutting P.'s allegation here (cf. Brown, 23-24). \Vhose is the 'ancient report' is not clear, for both Hecataeus (FGH I F 335) and Herodotu;, (iv. r63 ff.) wrote of agriculture and pastoralism in Africa, and Herodotus divided the zones as olKovp.lv'l'/ or rrapaOa.>..aaawt (Herod ii. 32. 4, iv. r81. r), OTJptwo'YJs (Herod. ii. 32. 4, iv. r8r. r), otppv'YJ lj>ap.p.'YJ,. (Herod. iv. r8r. r), and £p~p.1J (Herod. ii. 32. 4, iv. r8r. 2, rSs. 3). Possibh

then, in some part of his work (Jacoby that dealing witl1 Agathodes) Timaeus may have the desert character of the country. \\'hether he gave an overall account of Libya (as tlw phrase afLtJ.WOOVS' TTclG'TJ'i • •• -rfjs Atf3UTJS' suggests) is unknown. JacOb) thinks there was one in his rrpoKaTaaKw~. but Brown (2-i) does not· and Pedech, ad loc., suggests that Timaeus drew on the Tvp{wv imop.v;)f.'a.Ta. (28 a 3), which may have described Africa as barren before the Tyrians arrived (Diod. xiii. 8r. s). However, P. may well have exaggerated Timaeus' inaccuracy by applying his remark to the whole of Africa. 5. ~ou~O.Xwv: antelopes (not buffaloes: Paton, Shuck burgh). On the fauna of north Africa in classical times see Gsell, i. IoRz8, zr6-34; on the lions see J. Ayrnard, Essai sur les chasses romaines (Paris. 195r), 395-6; on elephants, ibid. 42r-3o. Tl<; oox iCTT6pTJCTEV: 'who has not read of ... ?'; cf. i. 63. 7 n. 6. oo8€v tCTTop~aas: 'has made no inquiries about this', 7. T~v ••• Kupvov: P.'s account may suggest that he had visited Corsica (so Pedech), but he does not say so and we cannot be sure: see also 4· 5 n. 8. ~v Tij s~wTep~ ~uJ3X~t~: of his main work (the exact title of which is not known : it was perhaps L'tKeAtKd or l:tKEAtKa.1 [fJToplat : cf. Jacoby on FGH, 566, iii b, p. 539). Book ii formed part of the introductory group, which P. (26 d 4) calls -rd. rrpwTa {mop.v~p.a-ra, and Which COntained Ta> a1TOtK[a)' KaL KTlaEL'i Ka~ O'VfiEVEtO.S (26 d 2 11.); Jacoby (FGH, iii b, pp. 542-3, commenting on 566} argues that this J22

FAUNA OF AFRICA AND CORSICA

XII. 4· 9

TTpoKaTaaKEtnJ included what was virtually a geographical description of the western Mediterranean. The present fragment is FGH, 566 F 3·

Timaeus' account of Corsica is represented by Diod. v. 13~14 (= FGH, s66 F 164, c. IJ/T4), where, however, the excerpt has little on the fauna and must represent the original most inadequately. a.tya.s aypia.s: Nymphodorus of Syracuse (FGH, 572 F Io} mentions long-haired goats in Sardinia, probably the musmones or ophiones of Strabo (v. 225) and I)liny (Nat. hist. viii. 199· xxviii. rsr, XXX. 146), and perhaps identical with the animals mentioned by Timaeus in Corsica; see Pedech, ad loc. 4. 4. Ka.Kws Ka.t 1ra.pipyws w1'opt)f1a.s: 'after careless and perfunctory inquiries' (Shuckburgh). laxEoia.cre: 'he made this random statement', i.e. that the animals were wild. Brown (roo) finds the point of P.'s criticism obscure; but it is not clear why he imagines that Timaeus 'had spoken of herds responding to the shepherd flute and that P. believes this is too commonplace to be worth recording in a history', for there is no evidence that Timaeus said anything about a flute; and indeed Diod. \". 14. I refers to Td. ••• 1Tp6f3aTa 1.TfJ!-L€Lotc; om:\1)/-1./-I.EVU, which Kav 1-LTJOEL> c}v:\aTTrJ a(gera• To[s KEKTTJ!-L~vot,. On the wild animals of Corsica in Timaeus' time see F. Ruehl, Rh. J.fus. 1907, 309. 5. olJK ian !la.up.6mov: Brown (roo) claims that 'P. would not have argued from the behaviour of Italian herdsmen, had he ever visited Corcyra (sic: read 'Corsica')'. This does not follow: P. may be simply quoting a similar practice falling within his knowledge. 8. ~hll ... TTJV 1ro?..uxnp£a.v: 'owing to the large labouring population' (Paton); cf. viii. 3· 3. 34· u, x. 30. 8. On the large population of north Italy cf. ii. rs. 7· Ka.t ~6.?..1aTa. [TTJV 1ra.Xa.&a.v] : so F, T~v 1TapaMav Schweighaeuser; T~v TTAaT<:i."av (i.e. the flat area of Lombardy and Tuscany) Wunderer. Neither is satisfactory. Biittner-Wobst, with Wachsmuth, omits T~JI TTaAalav as a corruption of TTJV 'lTilAlav repeated; alternatively one may read Tryv rllAaT{a.v and omit 1rapd. .•• FilAaTats as a gloss with PCdech (REG, 1954, 394-5. and in his edition), who points out that P. does not use TvppYJv~Ko> substantivally. T~v u[a.v ToK6.8a. x~A[ous E~
XII. 4· 9

SOME ERRORS OF TIMAEC'S

the pigs were weaned, which normally took place by tv,·o months after birth, they were separated from the sows (Varro, RR, ii. 4· 13); thus K<mi yevTJ will be 'according to breed' and KaB' ~A
4 a-4 d. More errors of Timaet~s That this follows the account of Timaeus' errors about Africa is clear from 4 c 2; see above, p. H). The points here criticized seem to be chosen arbitrarily bv P., but, as Pedech obsen·es, each chapter is devoted to a distin~t f~ult or faults, viz.: 4a, cavilling and fault-finding (1'6 •,\mlnp.ov Ko.t •Ai)'KATJp.ov, §6), 4 b and 4 c, and peda.ntic irrelevance (dtf;tp.aBla, 4 c r), 4 d, inaccuracy (t/JwSoltoy{o., § 4). 4 a 1. 8n Stom:.pa.s ••• 4>1JO"t: the epitomator's words. T~ 11'poa<J>uo(liV'f Tois aXXo~s: \vho severely criticizes others', lit. 'who clings to, adheres to .. .'. 11'o.pwvux(a.s: 'trifles' : lit. 'whitlows' ; cf. Plut. 1v!or. 43 B; Cic. Rose. Am. 128. 2. 9Eo1T
MORE ERRORS OF TBIAEUS

XII. 4a 3

surrendered the citadel of Syracuse to him within fifty days of his arri~ val ; according to Diod. xvi. 7o. r the surrender was in late summer .143 (see Beloch. iii. 2. 380-3; Westlake, Timoleon, 24). Theopompus' statement (FGH, rr s T 341) that Dionysius was sent in a single mer('hant ship to Corinth is also in Diod. X\"i. 70. 3, J yap ffx_wv -rerpaKoa:la-: Tpt~pw; fi.ET' 6.\[;·ov lv p.tKpo/ a-rpoyyvA

opou 8~ viH.. wliyvoLuv Ka.TuljrEuSETUL: so Biittner-Wobst forM 1TctA
MORE ERRORS OF TIMAEUS

but Jacoby (Marmor Parium, 184) had already pointed out that this hypothesis would also involve adjusting €LKoaL rpu'i:w to ELKOUL rrh>re. vVe know that Timaeus believed Dionysius to have been 25 when he seized power (Cicero, TD, v. 57, quoted above); but it is improbable that the copyist of Ephorus made two errors, and there are no grounds for thinking that Ephorus also accepted zs as Dionysius' age when he seized the tyranny. Clearly P. is right in detecting a fault in Ephorus' figures, whether this was due to a copyist's slip or to Ephorus himself (a possibility not to be excluded, despite P.'s scorn). Jacoby (Marmor Parium, 184) has made a con vincing suggestion as to where it lies. If Dionysius died in 368/7 at the age of 63, and seized power at the age of 23, this event was in 408/7, which is the date assigned to it by the Parian marble (A 6::: and A 74); hence it is likely that the words !Cat Svo have crept in~ correctly into Ephorus' figures, and it may be assumed that he assigned Dionysius' birth to 431/o, his seizure of the tyranny to 4o8/7 and his death to 368/7. The Marmor Parium will follow Ephorus (Schwartz, Hermes, 1899,486 n. 2). Timaeus, as we have seen, agreed in making him die at 63, but put his seizure of power at 25, hence probably in 4o6/5, the date to be found in Diod. xiii. 96. z (archonship of Callias) and Dion. Hal. vii. 1. 5; and if his death was in 368/7, this fits the generally accepted figure of 38 years for his tyranny (Diod. xiii. 96. 4, xv. 73· 5; Cic. T D, v. 57; ND, iii. 81; Val. Max. ix. 13 ext. 4; Helladius ap. Phot. Bibl. 279, p. 530 a 30 Bekker). The date 406/5 for the seizure of the tyranny probably goes back to Philistus (Jacoby, Marmor Parium, I84: Stroheker, I98 n. s6). In Plut. Afor. 7!7 c (= FGH, s66 F 105) Dionysius' seizure of power is synchronized with Euripides' death, which was in fact in 407/6; but here Timaeus seems to have forced the chronology for the sake of the synchronism (Jacoby ad loc. )-unless indeed this refers not to the year, but to the day (Stroheker, I98 n. s6). Thus the essential difference between Timaeus' chronology and Ephorus' lies in the date assigned to the seizure of the tyranny by Dionysius. This, however, does not justify Brown's assertion (77) that this was the only objection raised by Timaeus, and that P. has not understood what the criticism was really about; for the arithmetical error is real, and there is no reason to doubt that Timaeus dealt with it. Jacoby's more recent suggestion (commenting on FGH 566 F 109~12) that Timaeus may have counted only complete years, and so have begun his thirty-eight years with 405/4 and come down to 367/6 for Dionysius' death, seems unnecessarily hypercritical. For discussion see Jacoby, i1Iarmor Parium, 184, commentary on FGH, 70 F 218 and 566 F IIO; Beloch, ii. 2. zsB f.; iii. 2. 374-S; Stroheker, 196 n. Z9, 198 n. s6, 237 n. 83; Niese, Hermes, 1904, 99 n. 1; Ed. Meyer, v. 65, 78; Kahrstedt, Forsch. x6s ff. -r..:r-ra.paKovra;

326

MORE ERRORS OF TIMAEUS

XII. 4b r

4. Tou S~ ypa.4>~<»s bfoAoyoutt~v<»s: not necessarily true last note). In xxxiv. 3· n-1:2 P. similarly explains a difficulty in Homer as a textual error. 5. Tov K6poL~ov tca.l. Tov Ma.py(T'Ilv: proverbial names for fools; cf. ::15. 8 for Margites. Coroebus was a Phrygian, a suitor of Cassandra, who perished at the hands of Neoptolemus or Diomedes (Paus. x. 27. 1), or according to Virgil (Acn. ii. 425) at those of Peneleus. Servius remarks on Ae1t. ii. 341 : 'tunc autem Coroebum stultum inducit Euphorion' and Eustathius (ad Od. p. r66g. 46) says Coroebus came too late to help Priam. For the phrase Kopolftou ry)u8ufrrepo<: see Lucian, Arrwr. 53 (where, as in Aelian, Var. hist. xiii. 15, he is associated \Vith Melitides); and in general Lentsch, Corpus paroem. f!.Yaec. i. ro1, 58; Worterb1tch der griechischen Eigen~ namen, s.v.: \Vunderer, i. 98-99. Margites is the hero of the comic epic of that name, traditionally attributed to Homer; cf. Radermacher, RE, , cols. 17os-8; Rh. M1ts. 1908, 445 ff. (on lists of fools). 4 b 1. E\1 TOLS v~pl nuppou: that Timaeus treated Pyrrhus separately from his main history is attested by Cicero (ad Jam. v. 12. z} and Dionysius (i. 6. r} FGH, 566 T 9}; but in how many books is not known (cf. Jacoby, FGH, 566, commentary pp. 545-0). TOUS 'Pw ....a.(ous •.• K0.1'o::l.I
XII. 4b r

i\10RE ERRORS OF TIMAEUS

Plutarch (Oxford, 1924). zo8, regards the October horse as originally a spirit of the grain, and this gains some support from the alternative explanation in Festus s.v. 'Panibus' (p. 246, 2I Lindsay) · 'id sacrificium fiebat ob frugum euentum' (d. H. M. Hubbell, Yale Stud. 1928, 179-92). Timaeus here shows himself acquainted 'Nith the legend deriving the Romans from Troy and with a detail of Roman topography, the Campus .Martius. 8u1 T~v 'i'lr'lrov ••. Tov 8ouptov: on the tradition of the wooden horse seeR. G. Austin, J RS, 1959, r6-25. Timaeus' use of religious tradition as evidence for his belit>f in the descent of the Romans from the Trojans can be paralleled by his reference to the 'Penates' of iron and bronze and Trojan pottery preserved at Lavinium (FGII, F 59 = Dion. Hal. i. 67. 4). 2. ml.vTas Tous ~a.p~apous: not including the Romans, whom P. never calls barbarians except in reported speeches (d. ix. 37· 6 n.). 3. L'lr'li'OV ... acpaynitovTcu: Z7T1np M, L7T7TOl'Geel, alii. Pedech, ad loc., successfully defends the instrumental dative by adducing parallels, also the intransitive use of 1Tpo8vw0at, on the meaning of which see L. Ziehen, Rh. At'tts. 1904, 391 -4o6. Horse-sacrifices are widely attested from Scythia (Herod. h·. z), Persia (Herod. vii. 113; Ovid, Fasti, i. 385), Parthia (Tac. Ann. vi. 37), Massagetae (Herod. i. 216. 4), India, Germany, etc. (cf. Schrader, Reallcx. 2 , ii. 173 f.; Stier, RE, 'Pferd', col. 1443; Frazer's commentary on Ovid, Fast£, i. Dumezil, Rituds, 73-85 (with bibliography on p. 86, nn. 2-3). O'T)J.LELoup.Evm ••• tK TTJS ••• nndaEws: not elsewhere attested.

4 c 1. lnjnJ.La9la.v: Theophrastus' difnp.aO~, (Char. 2i) displays excessive zeal in inappropri
2. Ta 1T£pi. T~V At~UTJV: d. 3· r-
MORE ERRORS OE TIMAE'CS

XII. 4d 8

3. Til 1T£pi. Ta<; &va.to.ow EAKwv: 'emphasizes this at length'. 2. &.tcpl~W\l Ti]v aATj9u ~<:a.i. hpG.TJ T. it in to add ridicule to the story, is uncertain. On the Sicilian cf. L 42. 4 n. 8.lSv8ou TE 1TA~Bos &.va~M6ew: cL Strabo, v.i. zjo, Oo?..ofia8at a1Tb ;wv tv '0/..vjm(q. {3ov0vfnwv; Antig. Hist. mir. 140, ot3 KaOapdv elvat . .. d/..Act pE'i't! ovO(p.

+ul.ATJV xpuo-Tjv: cf. Strabo, vi. 270,

Ka!. y.lp r/>ufA1)1'

nva eKrre:aoDoav

XII. 4d 8

MORE ERRORS OF TIMAEUS

~:l;; TOV 1TOTUJLdV tVOJLmav OEvpo av<EvEx8fiva£ ed;; n}v Kp~t 1 1)t'; Antig. Hi st. mir. r4o, .fou1),T/V rroT' El;; Tov JL\,Pnov rroraJLOV lp..p.\1)8£iaav lv tKdvn

.foavfjva£.

8.v£iAovTo: 'they took it up' (Pedech) or 'they made of{ with if (Paton).

5-16. Timaeus' criticisms of Aristotle about Locri: his c1'itidsms of Callisthenes, Demochares, and Agathocles

P. now passes to a discussion of Timaeus' criticisms of his predecessors (cf. 23 . .S) and the polemic about Locri forms part of this section (cf. Pedech, p. xviii). On the view that Timn.eus' opinions about Locri furnished the occasion for P. to devote this book to criticism of him see the introductory note, above, p. 3I7. Aristotle's account of the origins of Epizephyrian Locri wa..<; probably contained in his Constitutions, which may well ha\·e dealt with foundations too, for Plutarch (Mor. 1093 c) refers to them as KT[a€tS Kat rroAtTEi'a' (cf. Sandys, Aristotle's Constitution of Athens 2 (London ,r9r2), xxix). In rr. 5 P. implies that Thcophrastus shared Aristotle's accountperhaps in his three books NoJJ,08ETwt• (Diog. Laert. v. 45), which seem to have touched on Zaleucus (d. Cic. de leg. ii. rs; ad Att. vi. 1. r8), or alternatively in his twenty-four books N,)wov Kant aTo<xdov (Dio~. Laert. v. 44; Cic. fin. v. n); and indeed in his treatise On Drunlumness Theophrastus mentioned Zaleucus' law punishing the drinking of wine without a doctor's prescription by death (Theophr. fg. 117 Wimmer Athen. x. 429). The reference is, however, merely to Tim:teus' rejection of Theophrastus and there is no positive evidence that P. was personally familiar with his account. All that P. quotes from Aristotle too (at least in surviving fragments) comes via Timaeus' criticism, and it is possible, despite 9· I, that P. merely took Aristotle's version from Timaeus and what he was told himself at Locri (d. von Scala, rz7; Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios {1)', col. r470; Brown, 127 n. 7, correctly observes, however, that this can be only a hypothesis). Timaeus' criticism of Aristotle was in his ninth book (FGH, 566 F n) and this digression arose either in connexion with Pythagoras or else out of his account of the history of Magna Graecia in the sixth century (so Jacoby, commentary on FGH, 566 F n-rz); Schwartz (Hermes, r899, argued that as the Locrhn laws were usually attr~buted to Zaleucus (r6. 4 n.), who was accounted a Pythagorean, Timaeus, who rejected Zaleucus' existence (FGH, 566 F r3o), rna~· well have passed from discussing this question in connexion with Zaleucus to a general account of early Locrian history, and this is possible (cf. Laqueur, RE, 'Timaios (2)', col. ro78). Aristotle's acceptance of the story that Italian Locri was founded by slaves from locris with whom free-born women had cohabited during their 33°

TIMAEUS'

CRITICIS~1S

OF ARISTOTLE

XII. 5· z

husbands' absence as allies of the Spartans during the Messenian War (cf. 6 b 5 n.) is rejected by Timaeus on eight grounds: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

(v) (vi) (vti) (viii)

the Locrians were not wont to have domestic slaves (6. 7-8); the inherited friendship of Locri with Sparta (6 a 2); the ravaging of Locri by the Athenians (6 b 3); the Spartans would hardly have stopped the Locrians of Greece from visiting their wives during the Messenian War (6 b sl; the existence of a treaty between Greek Locris and Italian Locri If.,;; J'OVEVO'L npos Tb::va. (g. 3) ' the existence of s;:mpolity between the two states (9. 4); the laws of Locri were those of a colony of free men (9. 5); the constitution of l.ocri and its cultural institutions are similar to those of Locris (n. 5).

P.'s answers to these arguments are partly but not wholly valid; they are discussed in the notes (see also Walbank, ]RS, 1962, I-tz). They fall in to two groups: those based on personal inguiry at Locri (s-6. 6), and those based on probability {6. 7-II. s). But as between the views of Aristotle and Timaeus, the latter seem to be the more convincing. The story of the slave origins of Locri parallels the similar story of the Partheniae at Tarentum (viii. 33· 9 n.); it seems to be implied in the version which made Locri also a Spartan foundation (Paus. iii. 3· 1). It probably arose in an attempt to explain the matrilineal customs of Locri (5. 6 n.) and may have been given additional prominence in democratic propaganda during the party atruggles at the time of Dionysius II (Arist. Pol. vii (v). 7· 1307 a 38, ~ AoKpwv no:\t) &nw:\ETO lK •fj;; npo;; L.lwvvawv KYfSeta;;), w·hich sought to bring the 'Hundred Houses' (5. 6) into disrepute (so Oldfather, RE, 'Lokroi', col. I,VS)· Timaeus' rejection of it would be explained if he drew some of his information about Locri from a Locrian emigre, Echecrates (to. 7 n.). Other points at issue between Aristotle and Timaeus are discussed in the notes. See in general Oldfather, RE, 'Lokris', cols. 1255--62; 'Lokroi', cols. 1314-15, 1345-6; Dunbabin, J6-37' I8J-s; Brown, 44-50; Berard, 201-6; Jacoby on FGH, s66 F r 1-12; Lerat, ii. 22-25; \Valbank, JRS, 1962, !-Iz. 6. 1. va.pa.~e~AlJK~Va.L ••• d<; T~v Twv /\oKpwv voALv: d. Vol. I, p. 4· If the Dalmatian campaign was that of xs6/5 {§ 2 n.), these visits took place while P. was technically an internee in Italy. 2. 1Tt1pa.Xu6Tjva.l ••• s,· ~Ill!: presumably through his influence with Aemilianus. Granted, Scipio had not in the 15o's the auctoritas he possessed after the fall of Carthage, but through him P. must have hnd- access to influential circles. The background and basis of his intervention escapes us; perhaps Locri, though it had indeed provided 33[

XII. 5·

2

Til\L\EUS' CIHTICISl\IS OF ARISTOTLE

two triremes against Perseus in qr (Livy, xlii. 7), was in a state of economic distress (so Oldfather, RE, 'Lokroi', col. 1341). Tijs ELS 'l~11plav uTpa.nia.s •.• Kai Tijs Eis AaAf4aTEic;: .:k\JLaTEiS', the reading ofF, is preferable, sir~t:e this was more common in P.'s time Pedech ad Joe.). The Iberian campaign will be the Spanish war which opened in 154 (App. Hisp. 56: Livy, ep. 47; Obseq. 17) against the Lusitanians, or that against the Celtiberians . r), which opened the next year, rather than the campaign of D. Junius Brutth in (Strabo, iii. 152), as Cuntz, 48-49, argues. P. may mention it first as the more important; the Dalmatian campaign need not he later (d. De Sanctis, iii. I. zro, Cuntz, 46-49; for ~"'"'"I"G~ where P. quotes events in reverse order see Aymard, 1937, 19 n. 7; Pedech, p. xi n. r). This Dalmatian campaign was almost certainly that of (cf. xxxii. 13, Livy, ep. 47; Flor. ii. 25; Zon. ix. 25; App. Ill. II ; Strabo, vii. 315; auct. de uir. ill. 44; Zippel. 130 ff.; De Sanctis, iii. 1. zro), not that against the Scordisci or Vardaei of IJS (Livy, ep. s6; App. Ill. ro). KaT a 9nAa.TTC.V •.• KO.Ta TUS auv9TjKa.S: Locri probably received it;; first Roman garrison in 282, with Rhegium (Beloch, iv. t. 545 f.); she deserted to Pyrrhus after Heraclea (z8o), returned to Rome while hP was in Sicily (Zon. ,·iii. 6), and again fell away on his return (when he plundered the temple of Persephone). Locri probably rejoined Rome in 275, and shortly afterwards issued a famous series of coins on which P!lMH was crowned with nJ:tTl:L. In the Hannibalic War Locri was in Punic hands from after Cannae until zos. The definitive joedus here mentioned may be from this date. On the obligation of thf' socii nauales to provide ships see i. 20. 14 n.; Badian, z8-3o, 292 ; and for the two triremes provided against Perseus see the last note but one. 3. rraulv ••. To'i:s Tlf41oLs Kai 4>LAav9ptimoLS: what these were is not known ; but the vocabulary is that of contemporary honorary decrees, where they refer to such things as grants of prox:eny, commemorative the vote of a crown, a place of honour at the theatre, etc. (see Pedech, ad loc.). (f. Syll. 564, 11. 12-q.; 669, L zr; 748, I. 46; Welles, 369-70. For Ta rfnAavOpwrra, 'favours' or 'privileges', d. iv. z6. 8; Syll. 502, L 20, 548, 1. 3 and commonly on inscriptions; \Yelles, 37 3· 4. f..l:yELV Kal ypaq.eLV: 'to affirm both in speech and writing' (Paton). The former must refer to some former occasion, and it is at least possible that P. means that he has written on this subject previously -unless he is thinking of an earlier statement above, now lost. TTJV u'll"' :AplaToTEAous •• , 1aTopia.v: cf. 8. 2. Aristotle's version (see above, s-·16 n.) is also in Dion. Per. 364-6 (GGll'f, ii. I2S): K€ t8n• 0' ~S {Joptf-ryv Z EtpVpOV 7Tapatpo.{JJI£TO.t lf.Kp'r'J Tfj o' imo AoKpo~ laatv, oao• TrpoT!/potr; iT'!iaatv l]Mov ~rr' Aoaovt1Jv, atpf.Tip!J> JL•xBivTEr; dvaaans. J32

TIMAEUS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE

XII. 5· 6

See the scholia and Eustathius' commentary on this. P. has evidently discussed Aristotle's version and Timaeus' criticisms to some exter{t before our fragment opens. !§. auvot8a ••• OfJ-OAoyooalv: see n. for Oldfather's suggestion that Aristotle and P. were misled by a version encouraged by the democrats to discredit the Hundred Families (§ 6 n.), who had supported Dionysius. 6. l!'cl.vTa Tel ~hO. lrpoyovwv ~v8o~n ••• &.ll'o Twv yuvaLKwv: this is an argument alleged by the Locrians to P., not (as far as vve know) one raised by Aristotle. It derives matrilineal descent at Locri from the special circumstances of its foundation, and so permits no condusions about matrilineal descent in the mother city. Indeed, if true, it would weigh against the view that descent in metropolitan Locris (eastern or western) was matrilineal. See Lerat, ii. 13840 and DeSanctis, Storiografia siceliota, 59, against Oldfather, RE, 'Lokris', col. 1257· There is some slight independent evidence that women were highly regarded in Locri. Pindar may hint at it when he \\Tites of Znpvpla .•. AoKph· 1Tap8€11o; (P.yth. ii. r8 19); and in A nth. Pal. vi. 265 Nossis names her mother and grandmother (but not her grandfather). Bachofen, in his controversial account of 'matriarchy' (Das Mutterrecht, Stuttgart, 186r, xvii ff.), suggests that matriarchal societies show certain erotic and licentious traits, and Oldfather (RE, 'Lokroi', col. 1345-6, claims to find evidence of these at Locri. He mentions the erotic poetesses Theano and Nossis, the erotic poems of Mnaseas and the famous AoKptK1r ~afLaTa, Iustinus' story (lust. xxi. 3· :z) of the vow of the Locrians to prostitute their daughters, and an obscure hint at something similar by Clearchus (Athen. xii. sr6 A). It is doubtful if Bachofen's 'matriarchy' ever existed in the form he describes; and though matrilineal descent might reduce the importance of chastity, the evidence which Oldfather quotes from Locri seems trivial and all easily paralleled from normal societies no less productive of and salacious anecdotes. However, this docs not mean that matrilineal descent did not exist at Locri. If that were so, the foundation legend would be hard to account for. Moreover, there are parallel cases of matrilineal customs in Lycia (Herod. i. 173· 4; N'ic. Dam., FGH, go F ro3 (k); cf. Hom. fl. vi. r86) and elsewhere (cf. Toepffer, RE, 'Amazones', cols. q68 ff.; Oldfather, RE, 'Lokris', cols. 1255 ff.; Kornemann, RE, SuppL-E. vi, 'Mutterrecht', cols. 557-71). \Vhy it appears at Locri is, however, unknown. Berard, 202-3, suggests plausibly that it was taken over from the indigenous population (despite the scanty nrchaeological evidence for any overlap in occupation). Toepffer, Alt. Geneal. 195, derives it from the Leleges, ancestors of the Locrians; but. no evidence connects it with mainland Gre.cce. ,.Ou<; avo TWV tKaTOV olklWV AEYOfJ-EVOU<;: the Hundred Families at JJJ

XII. 5· 6

TIMAEUS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE

Locri are derived by P., presumably still on the basis of local information, from the Hundred Families in metropolitan Locris, wherr they are the families from which the Locrian maidens were sent to Troy (d. § 7 n.). That they derived their pre-eminence from supplying the maidens is not stated; and Lerat (ii. 137 n. z) seems right in suggesting that the connexion between the Hundred Houses and the tribute is the reverse, and that it was because they already con~ stituted a nobility that the task was assigned to them. The tribute of the maidens appears to be already an established custom before the founding of Epizephyrian Locri. From which Locris Italian Low was colonized is a problem already debated in antiquity. Ephoru:; (FGH. 70 F 13R), followed by Ps.-Scymnus, ;pz-r6, favoured Opun tian Locris (so too Paus. iii. r9. IZ) ; and Roman v.Titers also associatr Locri with Naryca in east Locris (Virg. Georg. ii. 438; A en. iii. 39rJ with Servius' comments; Ovid, lt1et. xv. 704; Colum. x. 386), as d0 Solin. 2. 10 and the scholiast on Dion. Perieg. 366. Eustathius on th(' same passage, however, supports west Locris (confusedly), following Strabo, vi. 259. The name of the oecist, Euanthes, perhaps suggests a connexion with the west Locrian town of OeantheafEuantheo (though less certainly if Euanthes is an ancient name, since th1· older name of the town is Oeanthea: Lerat, ii. 23 n. 8). A join1 foundation is not impossible (Oldfather, RE, 'Lokroi', col. r3t3). but the weight of the evidence favours east Locris for two reasons· (a) West Locris is geographically the more likely, hence the per sistent tradition of an east Locrian origin must be taken seriously. (b) The association of the Hundred Families with those which furnished the Trojan tribute of maidens points clearly to east Locris, for this tribute links closely with the legend of Ajax (see below), whom incidentally the men of Italian Locri invoked in battle (Paus. iii. 19. 12). Although there is a little evidence for the cult of Ajax in west Locris (see the 'Maiden inscription' published by \\'ilhelm, ]ahresh. rgii, 163-256; Nikitsky's improved text in SchiN)'zec 366). the main centres of the worship were at Opus and Naryca (IG. iv. n36 ; scholiast to Pin d. Ol. ix. r66). Although P. nowhere, in survi\ring fragments, specif1cally indicates which Locris he is referring to (despite this being one of the complaints made against Timaeus in ro. r-3), the association witl• the Hundred Families suggests east Locris. The notion (Lerat, ii. 137) that some of the Hundred Families were situated in west Locris is not very convincing. Independent evidence for the Hundred Families in Greece is slight. But it has been held, perhaps rightly. that the roo hostages taken by Athens from the Opuntians after tlw battle of Oenophyta in 457 (Thuc. i. ro8. 3) were representatives ol the Hundred Houses (d. Oldfather, RE, 'Lokris', col. 1244); thn· were chosen as TOV<; 1rAovcnwT&rovs. The existence of a council ol 334

TLMAEUS' CRITICIS.:\IS OF ARISTOTLE

XII. 5· 7

a. Thousand at Locri and Opuntian Locris (d. 16. 10 n.) supports the same view; but there may have been such a council at west Locris too. See, besides Oldfather (locc. citt.), Busolt-Swoboda, ii. 1457; Berard, 199-202; De Sanctis, Storiograjia siceliota, 6z (favouring west Locris). 7. Tas a11'00'T
XII. 5· 7

TIMAEVS' CRlTICIS!\IS OF ARISTOTLE

custom is not, however, rele,·ant to P. and his discussion ol Timaeus. 8. i!lv TOUS a:rroyovous ••• EUYEVELS VOfLL~Eo-9aL: the circumstances would explain why nobility was in the first instance derived from the female side; the weakness of the argument propounded toP. by the Locrians is that it does not explain why nobility should continue to be so derived -why, for example, the sons of these women from the Hundred Families did not transmit their rank to their children. 9. Tf)s cj>La.A11cj>6pou ••• AEYOfLEV"lS: the cupbearer. This probably concerned with the cult of Persephone, the of Locri, whose sacred enclosure has been excavated in the of Mannella, to the north of the town; Diod. xxvii. 4· 2 calls it n; ir.upavopos with Loai; but nothing can be deduced from men· titles. 10. Ka.9' ov Kmpov Tous Iu<EAous EK~aAou;:v: d. Polyaen. vi. 22, Tov,· LtK€AOVS' avEtAov o( AoKpoi; below, 6. I-·s. The presence of Sicels in this area before the arrival of the Greeks is confirmed by Thuc. vi. 2. 4· They 'INere a people speaking a language with Illyrian affinities, and with a culture which showed Aegean elements. Though ancient tradition brought them from Italy to eastern (cf. Hellanicus, FGH, 4 F 79 b, making a distinction between and FGH, 556 Sicans which is not confirmed by archaeology; F 46) before the Trojan War, or (Thuc. vi. 2. 4) 300 years before the Greek colonies were founded, the Sicel sites among the Bruttii do not go back beyond the tenth century and suggest a movement from Sicily to Italy rather than the reverse (Dunbabin, 40-41). There are three prehellenic cemeteries on the site of Locri, probably associated with separate Sicel settlements; contain Greek geometric vases, but show no overlap with the occupation (Orsi, Not. d. scat•. 1902, 39 ff.; 1909, 319 ff.; suppl. 1912, 3 ff.; 'Appunti di protostoria e storia locrese' in Saggi di storia antica ... offerti a G. Beloch (Rome, 1910), rss ff.; Oldfather, 'Lokroi', col. r3ro). The Greek colonization is dated 'a little after that of Croton (7o8) and Syracuse (734)' by Strabo, vi. 259, and an association •vith the First Messenian \Var (whether the story of the slaves is true or not) would fit a date a little before 700 (cf. Oldfather, RE, 'Lokroi', cols. 13rr-12); but Eusebius makes it 673 (Armenian version) or (Jerome), and the archaeological evidence for the earliest Greek graves supports this date (so Dunbabin, 445, 4S2 ff.; but the matte1 remains controversial). 336

Til\IAEl.'S'

CRITICIS~lS

OF ARISTOTLE

XII. 6. 3

wJ\Elw Twv Iti
6. 1. auv9ijKat •.• wpos Toos 1
2. ItKEAOOS KQTEXOVTQS ..• Tt,v xwpav: cf. 5·

IO

n.

3. ol-'-oJ\oy(as ... TomuTas: the trick by which the settlers outwitted the native Sicels is also recorded (with slight variants) in Polyaen. vi. 22, and can be paralleled by the manner in which Leucippus, the founder of Metapontum, acquired his land from Tarentum (Strabo, vi. 265); Dion. Hal. xix. 3 (xvii. 4) attributes this story to the homonymous founder of Callipolis. A similar example is the cutting up of the ox-hide to enclose the Byrsa at Carthage (lustin. xviii. 5· 9; Virg. Aen. i. 367). Probably then we are dealing with an old folk-motif; the fact that the Locrians themselves related it is no evidence for its truth (as Oldfather, RE, 'Lokroi', col. 1315, is inclined to Greeks would admire a trick of this kind. 7. Purchased slaves: FGH, s66 F II. The passage of Timaeus (from his ninth book) which P. refuted, was clearly part of his attack on Aristotle and defence of the people of Locri; but the editors of P., by curtailing the extracts from Athenaeus, have obscured the argument by which, as Athenaeus tells us, P. attempted to refute Timaeus. Athenaeus vi. 264 c continues: ... TOLS" /loKpOtS", Of.LOLWS o€ avo€ cllt.t(KEvcnv oiJTE 8Epr1.1raivas- oiJn: oiKhas 1rA~v iyyvs- [iyyun I~umb] Twv xpovwv; he then goes on to say that the first Phocian woman to be 814173

z

337

XII. 6. 3

TIMAE US' CRITICIS:\lS OF ARISTOTLE

attended by two maidservants was the wife of Philomelus, and that Aristotle's friend Mnason, who had acquired I,ooo became obnoxious to the Phocians J;, Toao&rous- Twv 7ToAtTwv r~v dvo:y~ 7Tpwf3vT€pot>. Timaeus, then, countered Aristotle's allega-

tion that the colonists of Locri were sprung from slaves at Locris by asserting that the people of Locris (and Greek states generally, including Phocis) did not possess domestic slaves, hence the Locrian women could not have cohabited with them during their husbands' absence. The words 1rA~v lyyvs Twv xpovwv cannot be construed as they stand. With Lumb's reading lyyun the sense is 'except on a guarantee for an agreed time'; but the words may conceal something like lyylaTwv xp6vwv or Twv lyyvs XPovwv, meaning 'except in recent times', which links up with what follows. Phocis seems to have been brought into the picture by Timaeus so that he might make his damaging remark about Aristotle's friend Mnason. Timaeus' authority for his statement is the people of Locris, who are tl1c· subject of iJnwvm. The continuation of Athen. vi. 272 B makes dear the grounds on which P. attempted to refute Timaeus: ... 8ou.\ov' KTa(JOa,, cuhos d7Ti1V ••• on Mvaawv 0 (/)WKEV<; 7T.\dovs EKEI('T'T(T'O 8ouAovs Twv xtAtwv. P. then, ignoring the fact that Timaeus obviously attributed the Greek custom of having no domestic slaves only to earlier times (this follows from his argument, however 7TA~v i.yyvs Twv XPovwv is interpreted), quoted the case of Mnason (though he was a Phocian, not a Locrian) in the fourth century, whom Timaeus had himself mentioned, in order to refute him. Brown (49) thinks Athenaeus must have made a mistake; but Timaeus' statement that the Locrians had no domestic slaves could be countered only by denying its truth, and the fallacious argument (Athenaeus failed to see though it) is not inconceivable in P. See \Val bank, ]RS, 1962, 6. Timaeus' reference to dpyvpwV"'}ro' distinguishes bought slaves from captives and the descendants of captives; especially it ,.,.;n distinguish them from an enslaved subject population such as the Spartan helots or the Thessalian penestae, as in Theopompus, who (FGH, 115 F rzz AUten. vi. B-e) records that the Chians wert> the first Greeks to buy slaves in way, and Chios was an advanced state, economically and politically (cf. Finley, Historia, 1959, 163--4). On the absence of oidm~ from early Athens cf. Herod. vi. IJ7· J. The more backward states of central Greece, such as Phocis and locris, may well have been without chattel slavery to any extent until the fourth century. Lerat (ii. points out that west locrian manumission records t1rst begin in the third century (though this in itself is, of course, not decisive); the meaning of FO'K'ara.v in tht' fifth century 'colonial law' from Galaxidi (Tod, 24, 11. 43-45) is uncertain, but would not suffice to refute Timaeus, even if Hesychius' 33B

TIMAEUS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE

XII. 6b 5

gloss oba~•7Js.. WV7]Tos oovt\os- is accepted, and even on the assumption that west Locris was the original mother state (cf. 5· 6 n.).

6 a 1. To auvex€s TouT<:J: \vhat follows this', i.e. the last-mentioned argument in Timaeus. Since there are gaps in our version, we cannot be sure what it was. Paton, 'what follows in the latter', is inaccurate if he is taking •ov•q; as masculine. 2. Twv AaKeSa~t.~.ov(o~s uuf1f1aX11uavTwv: presumably in the First Messenian War. There is no independent evidence for this and it seems to fall down along with the story of the relations between the slaves and their mistresses, which was probably invented to explain traces of matrilineal descent in Locri (5. 6 n.). 3. oTav euTuxfJawuL: i.e. when they gain their freedom, as the word d:rret\€v8<:pot (§ 4) makes clear. 'TWV KaTa uow avayKaiwv t.~.iiAAov: 'more than those actually connected by blood (do)' (Paton; so too Pedech) rather than 'even more than the ties of nature' (Shuckburgh). Ex-slaves regard their masters' connexions as more important than real relatives do because the latter do not need these as much as do the slaves--a..c; § 4 makes clear. De Sanctis, Storiograjia s£cetiota, 55, thinks P. may be thinking of some Roman plebeian families who seek to hide their descent from a freedman. 6 b 1. auvepyov TOV xpovov: cf. 6 a 3· OlaV ... xpl.wos lrnylV1)TlU (a phrase omitted from Paton's translation). TauT' £·mT118Euuv: 'maintain such practices'. TWV ••• eAaTTW~-LaTWV: 'defects' (Paton) or 'low condition' (Pedech). 3. TO TOUS )\011vaious 1TOp0ftua~ TTJV xwpav aUTWV: in autumn 426 Laches landed an Athenian force in Locrian territory and defeated some 300 Locrians under Proxenus, the son of Caparon (on the correct form of this name cf. Keil, Hermes, 1915, 635--6) near the River Caicinus {Thuc. iii. 103. 3, cL 99). Locri wa.c; consistently on the side of Sparta and Syracuse in the Peloponnesian War (cf. Oldfather, RE, 'Lokroi', cols. IJJI-J). 4. d Kat SeKaKLS .qaav oi.KiTaL: on the colloquial cf. \Vunderer, i. 6r. oux o\lTwc;) •.• T6 yevQ<; &c; TTJV '!l'poatpEuw: cf. § 3 n. !5. vTj Af aA.M.: 'but, it may be objected .. :. P. passes to a new point: surel)r the Locrians would have been allowed home by the Spartans from Messenia (and so have avoided the risk of intrigues between their wives and the slaves)? Paton's version, 'How again, I ask .. .', misses the sense: this is not P.'s query, but his imaginary opponent's. i~tmEuTEAAov ••• TOU<; aKI.I.tl~OVTilS .•• TEKVO'ITOtLa.s xupw: Strabo, vi. 2i9, following Ephorus, records how the Spartans, who had taken

<

339

XII. 6b 5

TIMAEUS' CRITICIS;\IS OF ARISTOTLE

an oath not to return home until they had defeated the Messenians {d. vi. 49· 2), in the tenth year of the war dispatched home the young men who had not shared in the oath, to beget children by all the unmarried women; according to this version the Partheniae who settled Tarentum were the children of these unions and not of thos<' with helots. besides Strabo, Diod. xv. 66. 3; Dion. Hal. xix. 1 (xvii. I); Polyaen. ii. q. z; Eustath. ad Dian. Per. 376; Iustin. iii. 4· I-··7. There were other versions going back to Antiochus of Syracuse (FGH, 555 F IJ = Strabo, vi. 278) and Theopompus (FGH, IlS F 171 Athen. vi. 27r c~D). 6. 1-uopnv: F.'s argument, not easily grasped from Paton's translation, is: the Spartans would not be likely to pre\·ent the Locrians from sending home men to beget children, but the Locrians (not the curious marriage customs of the Spartans) would be unlikely to adr>pt this course merely at the instigation of the Spartans. In fact, not being bound by any oath, they sent their men on leave at intervals, but because these were long, the Locrian women lapsed and had relations with the slaves. The argument is logical ; but it concerns legendary matters and does not really affect the issue. 8. Polyandry at Sparta. This is our only evidence for polyandry, whether of a general kind, or between brothers (fraternal polyandry), at ; but the custom is found in various parts of the world, where there is a shortage of women or where the men absent themselves for long periods (e.g. the fraternal polyandry in Tibet; d. Ridgeway, Early Age of Greece, ii (Cambridge, 193r), IO;i·-.6). The truth of F.'s statement has been contested; but it finds some confirmation from other evidence that the Spartans modified the customs usual in monogamy. According to Xenophon (Resp. Lac. i. 7~ro) a Spartan would often lend his wife to bear another man children, sue:) offspring having no claim on the estate of the foster-father; and Plutarch (Lycurg. IS) confirms the custom (d. also Nic. Dam., FGH 90 F ro3 z). There seems therefore reason to acrept P. 's statement; but the origin and real significance of such polyandry is less easy to determine. Nilsson (Klio, 1912, J.v-s} sees in it a sign of the primitive character of Spartan institutions, polyandry being four.d mainly in less-advanced communities; but he admits that economic causes may have contributed to the specifically fraternal form. Ridgeway (op. cit. 135~6) thinks it is an ancient survival (so too den Boer, Laconian Studies, Amsterdam, 1954. 216ft.); but Ziehen (Hermes, 1933, who regards it as a reflection of the independent position of Spartan women (attested in the critical mmments of Aristotle, Pol. ii. 9· 5· 1269 b n ft.), believes it to bf:• a result of a shortage of women which arose in the fifth century as a consequence of the great earthquake of 4G6, the results of whiclt would be felt especially among women and children (Plut. Cim. 34°

TIMAE"CS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE

XII. 7· 3

16. 4-5; Diod. xi. 63, with exaggerated losses). To DeSanctis, Storiograjia siccliota, 55 ff., it indicates moral regression, the result of state intervention in family life and of economic pressures. Westermarck, History of Human Marriages, iii (London, 1921), 144, sets the Spartan evidence into a general sociological context but makes no attempt at further analysis. Michell (59-0o), who thinks a shortage of women improbable in settled times~hc discusses Ziehen's views but ignores the argument concerning the earthquake-suggests that Spartan polyandry may perhaps have been a legal fiction, the woman being the real wife of only the eldest brother, but the dowry being shared hy the other brothers in common; but this would hardly explain the cases of non-fraternal polyandry which P. envisages. The scanty evidence precludes certainty ; but even if specific conditions (shortage of women or economic dillkultics among the men) led to the custom, it can hardly be separated from the lax attitude towards monogamy indicated by the evidence for shared marriage. In that case, P.'s contrast behveen Locrian and Spartan mores is valid. iKSoo-9o.~ yuvo.i:Ka nvt -rwv lj>LAwv: this custom, not otherwise attested, is even closer to the 'shared mentioned by Xenophon and Jllutarch {see last note). The of Asia had a similar practice {Strabo, xi. srs, comparing giving of :Marcia to Hortensius Ka:rd '/Ta...\atOIJ 'PwfLa.{wv €8o;;)' cf. Michell, 55 n. 2. 9. -rfjs p.ev Ko.-rcl. -ro Kowov E€o.1roo--roM')s: 'the general dispatch of men home'; Paton has 'to their wives', but tradition assigned the young men a wider commission. Shuckburgh mistakenly renders 'had a fair pretext for not taking part in the common exp,cdition'. 10. ~ooo-o.v 6.va.cr-rpolj>~v -ro.i:s yuva.l~i . , . cruv118eo--repo.v ~ 1rpos -rous .•• li.vSpo.s: so Cobet for 01Jv~Oaav Ill (ilf11em. r86:z, r9, not l8i6, 256, as Buttner-Wobst) ; Hultsch avv1jOetav, fl-'>1· But the best reading is Bekker's (cf. Mauersberger, s.v. y{vofLat), a1MJ8eCFTI.pa;; 1}, for the sense must be: 'they gave their wives time to become more intimate with slaves than with their husbands.' Tfjs ~~o.vo.cr-rO.o-ews: the colonization of Locri.

7. 1. 8-ro.v ••. 11 ljieyEtv 11 ••. ~y~<wp.tO.tE.Lv -rwb. 1rpo8"1-ro.t: such censure or praise was a legitimate and indeed necessary part of historywriting (x. 21. 8 n.); it is Timaeus' lack of moderation that P. is criticizing. 2. -r(o-L 1rpoo-Exwv: 'relying on what authorities'; P. does not say what they were, in the surviving fragments, but 5· 5 suggests native Locrian traditions. 3. -roLavS;; nvb. .•. -r~v &.ml.vTTJO"LV: 'will meet more or less this reception'. P. envisages the possible defence a supporter of Timaeus may bring forward (§ 4}, viz. that both contestants, Timacus and Aristotle, base their argument on probability, but that although 341

XII. 7· 3

TIMAEUS' CIHTICISMS OF ARISTOTLE

Aristotle's version is the more plausible, in a case like this we cannot be sure. P.'s reply to this, after a short digression on Timaeus' abusiveness (7- s-8. 6), is to produce further arguments against Timaeus (9. Iff.). This seems more probable than Schweighaeuser's version, taken from Valesius and accepted by Shuckburgh and Pedech; 'occasionem hinc opportune nactus uideor, de tota Tima('i historia atque in uniuersum de Historici officio deinceps exponendi.' This rendering gives an unparalleled meaning to dmivT7Ja•s, and it fails to translate Tot6.v8o; nv6.. 4. &.A.,&ts j.lEVTm y£ Kal. Ka8cma~ ~iLaaTeiAm: 8taaTijvat MP, StaaTEiA'" Ernesti: 'but to assert absolutely what is the truth'. Pedech has a plausible alternative, StaaTijaat 'to sift out'. 5. EO'TW Tov Ttj.lawv etKoTa. AeyeLv j.laAAov: 'let us assume (for tlw sake of argument) that Timaeus' account is the more probable'. Tou<;; ••• ~nov etKoTa. A.f.yovTa.<;;: 'those whose version is (on this assumption) less probable', i.e. in this case Aristotle. The assumptio11 is of course purely hypotheticaL 6. €4>a.l-lev: for this distinction between deliberate and involuntan falsehood cf. 12. 4---{), xvi. I4. 7-8, 20. 8---9, xxix. 12. r2. It must haw been made already in some passage now lost (cf. xxix. I2. 12, 1TAwl'aKtS'). For an example of 8u)p8watS' EVf-tEVLK~ cf. xvi. :!0. s-7 (P.'s letter to Zeno).

8. 1. xapLTOS , KepSou<;; , ELa4>opas ~VEK€V: 'by partiality, corruption, or personal enmity' (Shuckburgh); alternatively x6.ptTos ••. EVEKEI' may be 'to curry favour'. mKpiq. ••• otq. KEXPllTa.L Tlj.ia.Los KaT' 1>.pLaToTeAou<;;: various reasons combine to explain Timaeus' dislike for Aristotle. His teacher Philiscus of Miletus (FGH, 566 T r) was said to have been a pupil of !socrates (Suid. s.v. 1J.AiaKoc;), and the Isocrateans were hostile to Aristotle. Aristotle had idealized the hated city of Carthage (Pol. ii. n. 1272 b 24 ff.)-though so for that matter had !socrates (d. vi. 43· I n.). But it was probably the attack on Locri that stirred him most. See Laqueur, RE, 'Timaios (3)', cols. II94-5; During, 386-;; De Sanctis, Storiografia siceliota, 57. 2, 8pa.O'UV EUXEPTJ> 1Tp01TETTJ: 'arrogant, Unprincipled and rash'. Ka.Ta.TETOAj.lllKEva.L: 'he had uttered an audacious slander against .. .'. 3. iva. T(;JV eaTpa.TllY1lK4hwv: 'one of (Alexander's) generals'. ev Ta.i<;; KLALKLaL'i 1ruAm<;;: at the battle of Issus; see 17. 2-22. 7 (Callisthenes' account of this battle). On the location of the Cilician Gates cf. Ij. 2 n.; Brown, 8, suggests that in calling the battle bv this title Timaeus 'reflects the confusion that would naturally prevail in Athens in the period not long after the battle and before the facts were properly known' (he believes that Timaeus was already in Athens by this date: see below, 25 dIn.); but the phrase is perhaps 1

34~

TIMAEUS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE

XII. 8. 4

being used in a very general sense to include the whole narrow plain of Issus (cf. Arr. ii. 7· 3, T(l. &rrM)oropa; Plut. Alex. 20. 3; Janke, Klio, I9Io, 14r). The reference to Issus is perhaps a hint at the story that Aristotle was a failure as a military man (below, § 4 n.). 4, uo
TOL td8ws- Kat 'Errf.Kovpov. - • ra!h' £L1l'(JI'TU Tr<::pt avrofJ Ell rfj 1TEpt fTTLTTJOEvp.chwv bnarokfi OTt Karaif>aywv ra 7Tarp(j;a E7Ti arparetav ~ > / > > ' I ,.1. \ • ,J:\8 Wj)P,T)O'£, Kat OTi Ell TUVTTJ KUKW<; 7Tparrwv C7Tt TO ~,ap/LUK07TWI\HV 'II\ EV, flra dva7TmTafdvov roiJ llA.drwvos 7Tcpmarov, ~TJat, 1rapaf3a.Awv €avrov wpoaEKr.f.8taE rots A.oyots ovK d a.sogov 6Jpa.s ' • • ' I ' '.1 ' rTJ> ~ •\ ' \ • (S, ee b e1ow, Avrov tarpttou KatI ras ruxovaa:; O
H

wv

i. 93--94 (Epicurus, fg. 235 Usener), 'Epicurus Aristotclem uexarit contumeliosissime ... tota commenticia, uix digna lncubratione anicularum'. Epicurus' attack on Aristotle derives partly from his different concept of philosophy and 7TilLOe{(t, and partly from personal animosity towards the contemporary Peripatetic school; and it has been convincingly suggested that his picture of Aristotle as aawro> is a reply to Alexis' Xawro8L8aaKaAas which caricatured Epicurus' concept of pleasure (Bignone, L'Aristotelc perduto (Florence, r936), ii. 57-sS, ; During, 385-6). The sole basis for the story was the fact that Aristotle's father, Nicomachus of Stagira, was a doctor, and his family traced descent from a Messenian god of healing with that name (Diog. Laert. v. I; \Vilamowitz, Arist. u. A then., i. 3II-12); and that he inherited some wealth from his father. Ideler's view that the story derived partly from his discussion of chemistry in Meteor. iv. 3· a 3-4 see During, 385; Acta univ. Gothob. I944. :a, p. 9· The anti-Aristotelian tradition is also represented by Cephisodorus, a pupil of !socrates, who defended his master in four books Kanl. Xptarorl.:\ovs (A then. ii. 6o D-E, iii. 122 B; cf. Aristocles ap.' Euseb. Praep. eu. xv. 2; During, 379 T 63), and by those who hated his pro-Macedonian sympathies and friendship with Hermias 343

XII. 8. 4

TBIAEVS'

CRITICIS~IS

OF ARISTOTLE

(d. Worrnell, Yale Stud. 1935, 57---<)2), such as Theocritus of Chios

(see next note) or Eubulides of Megara (Diog. Laert. ii. ro8 ff.; Aristocles in Euseb. Praep. ett. xv. 2. 5; Themist. orat. 23, p. z85 c). The fragments are assembled and discussed by During, 371---95. and Pedech, 81, argues that it is to this strand in the tradition that Timaeus goes back. But the iaTp<~ov is to be associated with Epicurus' cpapfLaKoTTwAo'i:v, and since Timaeus' polemics need not date to Aristotle's lifetime (Aristotle died in 322), it seems more likely that he drew on Epicurus. ELS ;rO.crav auATjv Kat O'KT}YTJY £fL"TT£1TT}OT}K4JTa: Timaeus' reproach that Aristotle frequented courts (the reference is to the courts of Themison of Cyprus (Stob. 95· 21 = iv . .V a zr Hense), Hermia.•; of Atarneu:-: and Philip II of Macedonia) in order to indulge his gluttony follo\YS the taunts of Theocritus of Chios, who, in reply to Aristotle's poems on the death of Herrnias (Diog. Laert. v. 6) and his erection of a cenotaph at Delphi to the dead tyrant, composed these verses: 'EpfL[ov ovvouxou n Kai Ev{JovAou ToO< Sov>.ov o-iJ!-'-a Kpwv OijK o<; yaUTpo<; TtJLWV aJ•OJLOV cpuatv f'tA
(Diog. Laert. \". 11; Aristocles ap. Euseb. Praep. eu. xv. 2. 12; variant readings in Didym. ad Dem. Phil. p. 6. 4~; that Borboros was a river near Pella is the improbable assertion of Plutarch, Jlrf or. 6o3 c). See von Scala, l27; Laqueur, RE, 'Theokritos (2)', cols. 2025---6; Dilling, 272---83. By O"K1Jl'>/ Timaeus meant 'camp' or 'general's tent' (so correctly Shuckburgh; Paton's version 'on to every stage' is nonsense); during the age of the Diodochi court and camp will often have been synonymous. Aristotle is treated as the typical flattering courtier; cf. Menander, CAF, iii, p. 235, fg. 897 (Kock), av>.ac; (J.pa7T
TIMAEUS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE

XII. ro. 3

was improbable that slaves would take over their masters' friendBhips (6 a z). or that the Athenians would have ravaged their land (6 b 3). or that the Spartans would not have prevented the men of Locris from sending their men home from :Messene (6 b s); avTOV refers back to 7. 4, 'the same test .. .'. /&}IX aXf]8tvws K-rX.: 'but actually visiting, etc'. 3. 'ITpos -rous £sa'ITEcr-raX!J-£vous: i.e. to the colonists in ~fagna Graecia. a.ts \moyEyp6.4>9al TTJV apxT]v TOlnVTf]V: Valesius' emendation Jmy€ypd.pOat, which Jacoby (FGH, 566 F u) accepts, is unnecessary; as Schweighaeuser notes, 1\eiskc quoted several passages from Demo:;thenes where i.rnoypapHv is eqni\·alent to rrpoyparf,£w: Dem. 23. 693. to \{nroypat/Jas A, avT6 ypd.t/Jar;; edd.); 37· 973· IS; epist. 3· T484. li; add P. Cair. Zm. I/3· ro (third century B.C.) where IWTd .,.a i.rrroy£ypaJ.LJ.L€va means 'as has been indicated (above)'. 'ws yov£ucrL 1rpos -reKva.': the dative following some such word as loo;e. This treaty may well have been a forgery, since the words
10. 3. ouSi:v •.. Stacraopet-raL -rou-rwv: Timaeus' failure to indicate whether he found the treaty among the eastern or western Locrians was careless, in view of the dispute as to which founded Locri (cf. 5· 6 n.). but he perhaps assumed that 'e\·cryone who had read 345

XII. ro. 3

TIMAEUS' CRITICIS::\.15 OF ARISTOTLE

Aristotle and Ephorus would know he meant East Locris' {Brown, 49). Pedech, on 5· 4, argues that if Timaeus admitted an alliance between Sparta and Locris during the Messenian War (d. 6 b s-ro) this must imply that the Locris in question was West Locris, the nearer state; this is not decisive. 4. tmi Ka.96Aou TftSi 'ITn Tfl<; lmoSoxi}s: there are various suggestions for the missing verb: nm1x•!K< or KaT'I/gtwTat Reiske, niTEVXE(v) Cobet, Pedech (cf. zs c r), dvn7Tot
TIMAEUS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE

XII. rr. r

This embassy probably links with Dionysius' attempt to win over the south Italian cities where there was a Pythagorean opposition (von Fritz, 75 ff.); cf. Diod. xiv. 105. 4; Polyaen. v. 2. zz. See Stroheker, 229 n. 139, who dates this after Dionysius' capture of Rhegium in 386. Timaeus mentions this detail as evidence for the repute, and so reliability, of his informant. 9, 8TJI..I.Oa(as avaypatf>fjs , , , ll1TapaOou(fLOU O'T~ATJS: 'public record or commemorative monument'.

11. 1. Timaeus' chronological u·ork: d. 10. 4· :Magistrates, kings, and priests were used for dating both in official lists and by historians, and of these the Spartan eponymous ephor, the Athenian eponymous archon and the years of the priestess of Hera at Argos, were among the best known; cf. Thuc. ii. 2. I, -rtji o€ 7T.ffL1T"T(J_J KaL 8EKd-rcp ETEL, i1rl Xpva£8os lv ;lpypov e-n ovo [Tlaaapas Kruger) p.fjvas apxoVTOS 14B7Jva.lots .••. For Sparta regnal years offered an alternative to dating by ephors, and this was later more popular (cf. Gomme on Thuc. ii. z. r); nor will dating by ephors have preceded the growth in the importance of that office in the mid-sixth century (cf. Jacoby, Atthis, 305 n. 24). The Athenian archon list was published on stone c. 425 (Meritt, Hesp. 1939, 59 ff. Agora Inv. no. I4uo; Jacoby, Atthis, IF-4), and a little before 400 Hella.nicus used it as the chronological foundation of his Atthis (Jacoby, FGH, 323 a, commentary in FGH, iii b (Supplement), vol. I, I ff.). As Gomme observes (on Thuc. ii. 2. r), it may have been available earlier. For the disadvantages inherent in even a composite form of reckoning by magistrates and the like, see Thuc. v. 20. 2-3. Hellanicus also published a work entitled 'UpHm ri)s uHpas ai Jv .tlpyn, a universal chronicle using the Argive priestesses as a chronological basis (FGH, 4 F 74-84) 'in the same manner as later writers used the list of Olympic victors' (Jacoby, Atthis, 357 n. 24); Plutarch (Mor. 1IJ2 A) mentions an U7Toypa¢~ ~ tv LU..vfL7TwvtKm such as Aristotle (Diog. FGH, 241 F 7), Eratosthenes (FGH, 24r F Laert. v. I. 26, viii. 51 4-8), and Philochorus, who wrote 'O,\vl-'-md8Es (FGH, 328, comrnento.ry on§§ 4-5 in III b (Suppl.), vol. 1, pp. 35r-2). For general problems connected with the list of Olympionicae see Jacoby's commentary In FGH III b, § xviii, pp. :;!21 8, 233-6. Timaeus' precise contribution carmot be clearly ascertained owing to the ambiguity of the present 1entence, which can be variously punctuated, with commas (i) after 347

Xll.

ll

1

TIMAECS' CRITICfSMS OF ARISTOTLE

Ao.K€So.t,u.mn and 6/..u,u.mov{Kas, (ii} after J40ryvl)ao and 6/..v,u.rrLov[lw:;, (iii) after 71pyn and 6/..u,u.mov{Kas. The first punctuation is that usually adopted (d. Laqueur, R F. 'Timaios (r)', col. II9'); Paton, Shuckburgh, and Schweighaeuser\.

it implies that Timaeus drew up one table correlating the Sparta11 kings and ephors, and another correlating Athenian archons, Argiyr· priestesses, and Olympic victors. The second punctuation (cl Jacoby, FGH, 566 T ro; Atthis, 126) assumes that Timaeus' first tabJ.related the Spartan ephors to the Spartan kings and Athenian archons, and the second the Argive priestesses to the Olympir victors. The third assumes a single comprehensive chronological system in which all four lists, Spartan ephors, Spartan king~. Athenian archons, and Argive priestesses are correlated and com pared with the Olympionicae; the object of Tro.po.fl&J../..wv must theu be understood from what has preceded (cf. D. W. Prakken, Studies itt Greek Genealogical Chronology (Lancaster, Pa., 1943), 56 n. 21, eu visaging this interpretation). According to Suidas, Timaeus wrot. '0/..u,u.mov[Kas 7}ToL XpovLKa llpa~ofwipov by inclusive reckoning; some editors accept Kruger's T€arm pas. Timaeus will not have this passage in mind; but it well illustrat("; the kind of error he is thinking of. Pedech, ad loc., suggests that th·· reference is to local chronicles and chronological tables like th,· Parian Marble (FGH, 239) and the Lindian Chronicle (FGH, 532). if in such tables there was an error of three months in the recordin1' of some event, it might in consequence be placed under a differen1 epm.ym and so in a different year. 348

TIMAEUS' CRITICISUS OF ARISTOTLE

XII.

tr.

5

l.

TGS OTno-8oOO!LOUS O"TTJhO.S: omaOobojL{Ou<; Reiske, omaOoypaif>ov<;? Wilamowitz (Arist. u. Alhen, i. 306 n. 24), ·n1s (KaTd TOU<;> oma8o"t:ljLOll) aT~Aa; Diels (Hermes, rgoo, zoo). P. means 'inscriptions on the backs of buildings' or, more probably, 'inscriptions in the inner Cellae of temples', for omo86bOjLOS, e}se•Nhere found only as a noun, is the inner cella (often of the old temple of Athene at Athens, used ItS the Treasury) . • " TO.LS Ata.l:s TWV vewv: 'on the doorposts of temples'; cf. IG, xii . .l· IjO, L 24, TO oJ ifl&.cf>wJLa ••• dvaypd.,paL Js TCtV cf>,\ulv (from Astypalaea); ibid. xii. 7· 237, I. 50 (Amorgos). For the Attic form •·ewv cf. XV. 29. 8. TCtll ••• trposev~a.ll: of proxenia, the right to represent the 11tate making the in one's own state; such proxenoi were originally not citizens of the state they represented, but during the lldlenistic age grants of proxenia and honorary citizenship were made together (cf. C. Phillipson, The International Law and Custom of Ancient Greece and Rome (London, 191 I) i. 147 ff.; J. A. 0. Larsen, OCD, 'proxenos'). 3. ou6' wpov-ra. tra.pa.Anreiv: but Timaeus did claim to have found it, IUld he did mention it (cf. 9· 3); hence P.'s polemic and argument are irrational. Timaeus had merely failed to specify which Locris he vh;ited. +•uo-a.!LEV£tl: cf. w. 6 n. 4. TTLKpos ••. KCl~ atrapa.hTJTOii ETTlTLILTJT~<;: cf. 4 a I, 6. This charge against Timaeus is common and led to his nickname 'Epitimaeus', given him by lstros (FGH, 334 F 59 Athen. vi. zp B}; see Diod. v. I. 3 (FGH, s66 T II); Plut. Nic. [ (FGH, 566 T r8); ::\epos, Alcib. 11. r (FGH, 566 F 99), Strabo, xiv. 6-to, quoting the criticism of Artemidorus (FGH, s66 F I50 b). P. d~arly hints at the nickname here. GTTapa.tT~Tou ••• KO.TTJyopla.ll: cf. 7· 6. 5. IL(Ta.('O.Il itrt To us £v 'ITa.Ai~ AoKpous: d. 9· 5 n. ,.~v T( troAtn£a.v ~~:a.t Ta Aoma LA0.v8pwtra. KTA.: d. Syll. 502, 1. zo. The existence of a lacuna after dJLrf>on!.potr; and uncertainty about its length help to make the of these words doubtful. If the lncuna is filled by some such phrase as {nrd.pxli.w OjLOLa, TOIJ o' (Hultsch) or <e:vp-r;KevaL 1Ta.p6jLOta, Tdll o' (Biittner-Wobst), the meaning will be 'the wnstitution and general culture' (Paton) ; for Til rf>U..&.v8pw1Ta In the sense of cf>•Aa.v9pw1Tta, 'humane behaviour, civilized practices', cf. x. 38. 3· In this case P. is Timaeus' rebuttal of the u.ccusations made against the Italian Locrians in 9· 5· But 1roAtnlav may refer to the i-aorroAmda bet\veen Locri and its mother t:ll\il1try (cf. 9· 4, Kae' a 1TOt\tTe{av {nrapxeu· JKaT/.pot<; 1Tap' JKa,T[pot<;) wit~ dJLr/>oTlpot> taking up the sense of lKaT€poLs 1ra.p' JKaTlpw;; In that case Ta cf>tAavOpw1Ta are the of privileges and 349

XII.

II.

5

TDL>\E US' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE

concessions granted between the two peoples (cf. 5· 3 n. for thic. sense, common in inscriptions). The lacuna could then be filled with {rrrdpxetv, Tov o', giving the sense: 'he says that common citizenship and similar mutual concessions exist between the two sets of Locrians, and that .. .'; but logically 1TpwTov fLI.v requires some corresponding phrase, and the lacuna may in fact be longer. Schweighacusr:1 favours the second meaning, but is surely wrong in interprctin~: J.pxpoTI.pots de 1
11. 1. €nt Twv Kavovwv: 'in the case of a carpenter's rule'. 1TAaT£L Tam;woT£po<.;: 'deficient in \Vidth'. Schweighaeuser takes it of thickness, stressing the meaning of Ta1THvos-; but for 'thickness' TcfJ f3a6n would be more usual. riJs 1rpbs TO.UTTJV otKE:tOTTJTOS: 'and all conformity to this', i.e. straightness. The verb lK1T€crn is Bi.ittner-Wobst's emendation for lyyt'TI (or Jyyl~<Et); though Pedech's criticism of its use with a plain genitive is not valid (cf. 14· 7), his own proposal, Jm8£v. is attractin· and is approved by Gelzer, Gnomon, r963, r6s. 2. )\£~LV • , , xe~plO'!-'Ov: 'style ... treatment'; cf. 28. 10. KaT' aAAo T~ ••• TWV 1.8(wv fUpwv: 'in any other detail'. civTEXTJTa~ 8~ TTjs ttrToptas: cf. Lucian, hist. conscr. 9 for the sam(· distinction ; A venarius, 27. 3. r]yel:a9aL 8E:i: ••. T~v AX,9£Lav: 'truth must play the main role iu works of this kind'. T~

TlMAEuS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE

XII. ua I-3

a.uTos rrou KEXP"lP.at: L 14. G, with unessential variation in the word-

ing,

s.

•J.~-vuxou awl:la"''OS: cf. L 14. 6, 'c[>ou; Diod. XX. L TfJ yap Ti)S laToptas ylvos d1TAoOv lan Kat avp.
If this prologue of Diodorus derives from Ephorus (Laqueur, Hermes, l9II, zo6; Jacoby on FGH jO F III), P. mas· have taken the metaphor from him (Avenarius, 107 n. 10). 4. Mo •.• Tporrous •.• ljt£u5ou<;: for the distinction see i. 6 n. The repetition in §§ 6-7 suggests that in the original text there was a substantial passage between the two.

12 a-12 b. The exact position of these two fragments from M can be determined only approximately; see above, pp. 19-zo.

12 a 1-3. The proverb AoKpot Tas avvO~Kas. The position of this passage in the book suggests that it forms part of the polemic against Timaeus and therefore that he and Polybius held different views nbout the meaning of the proverb. The view given in the text, associating it with the invasion of the Heracleidae and the treachery of the west Locrians, would ftt Timacus' general concern to free the people of Italian Locri from the charges made against them; and it may therefore be Timaeus' view. The Corpus paroemiographorunt knows two explanations of this proverb. One (Corp. paroem. graec. i. 116) refers it to a law of Zaleucus in Locri, auyypa
oi

disowning of debts at Locri or the treachery shown by west Locrians towards the Peloponnesians. But, as Wunderer (Phil. r897, 173) points out, P. would not have mentioned the matter had he agreed with Timaeus; and the view that the explanation in the text is that of P. implies that for some quite unexplained reason he was concerned to give publicity to a legend discreditable not to Locri but to western Locris. The argument of Pedech (pp. xxi-"xxii), that P. was trying to show that the bad bella vi our of the Italian Locrians was natural since their forebears in Greece were treacherous, seems a farfetched way of countering Timaeus and improbable in view of the other version of the proverb associating it directly with Locri. Hence it seems reasonable to assume that in the words l1Tt rwv d6ET.fWTwv -rds Jp.oAoylas P. is giving his own view that the proverb refers to the consequences of the law of Zaleucus, the disowning of

XII. rz a r

TIMAEUS' CRITICIS:\IS OF ARISTOTLE

debt-agreements; and certainly he goes on later to comment furthc1 on Zaleucus' legislation (ch. 16), in which Timaeus disbelieved (FG!l, s66 F I30). J. F. Lucht (Phylarchi historiarum fragmenta, Leipzi~ r836, p. ix) conjectured that for Tt> in § r we should read Ttf.Law, This was accepted by Wunderer (i. 26 n. 2; Ph£!. r897, q2) and Oldfather (Phil. 1908, 447-8) and has much to commend it; the beginninr·. and end of extracts were, of course, especially liable to textual cor ruption (d. Brown, 125 n. 8, who is not, however, very explicit). It is just possible that the association of the proverb with Zaleucus· law on contracts (Strabo, vi. 26o = Ephorus, FGH, 70 F 139; Diod xii. 2r. 3) goes back to Aristotle (so Wunderer, Phil. 1897, 177); but such an association is probably unhistorical, since it proceeds froJI1 what looks like a primitive refusal to recognize written debt contract·· to a general debt repudiation (d. Oldfather, Phil. 1908, 448; Rl:. 'Lokroi', col. 1322). Wunderer also argues (Phd. r897, 174-6) tb" 1 Timaeus' source was the Atthidographer Demon; he bases his argu mcnt on the strung-out participles of this chapter. But Demon·. style is hardly likely to have survived into P.'s paraphrase of what will itself have been a paraphrase by Timaeus. Pedech, ad loc .. refers the version given here to Ephorus, but gives no reasons. 01(1 father suggested (Phil. 1908, 448-9) that the proverb arose in connexio11 with Locrian piracy in the fifth century and Athenian attempts 1' · suppress it (d. Plut. Peric. q). But all explanations are hypothetical

1. E11'L n7lll a9ETOUIITWII TQ~ OfLOAoyia~: 'to those who set agreemenh at naught'; see the preceding note. TOLJTO of. TL~ e;eupl]ICE\1: JturropYJK€V M can be construed without Biittner-\\'obst's emendation; nor is Hultsch's reading, roiho s; r{c; JturropYJKrov; (followed by a lacuna), convincing. But Lucht\ TtJ.Lawc; for rtc; (see 12 a r-3 n.) is attractive (d. Jacoby on FGH. 566 F r62); translate, with this reading, 'But Timaeus' researclw~ have produced this account, that both historians and everyone e]~,· are agreed that .. .'. Jturropro£v is 'to search out' or possibly 'to set forth' (d. P. Oxy. iii, 486 1. 12, second century A.D.). ~eat 11'apa TOL!> cruyypa«j>eucrL .•. OfLOAoyoufLEVov: so Timaeus alleges. P. himself does not accept this view. 2. KaTa TlJII TWII 'Hpa~eAeLOwv ~«j>ooov: Greek legend represented till' Dorian invasion as the return of the Heracleidae, viz. Temenu,.. Cresphontes, and Aristodemus' sons, Eurysthenes and Proch- .. Tradition made them build ships at Naupactus (hence its name) and cross over from there to the Peloponnese at Rhium, advised I>\ Oxylus, a grandson of Thoas (Paus. v. 3· s--6, viii. 5· 6, x. 38. w. Strabo, ix. 426-7 ; Apollod. Bibl. ii. 8. 2-3; Eustath. ad Iliad. p. 276. · · f.); but according to Ephorus (Strabo, ix. 426-7 = FGH, 70 F 121) till' Locrians built the ships for the Dorians beforehand, and this seeu, .

TIMAEUS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE

XII. rz b

2

to be the view adopted here. The historicity of these events has been much discussed (cf. Oldfather, RE, 'Lokris', cols. rr87-8; 'Naupaktos', cols. 1983-4). Twv A01
12 b 1-3. Timaeus' criticism of Callisthenes: Brown, 8-9, argues that Timaeus' criticism reflects the current democratic attitudes in Athens at the time of Callisthenes' death, and that it therefore supports an early date for Timaeus' migration to Athens (cf. 25 d I n.); this seems forced. 1. ae~aG(p.ov OLa)aupeLV: 8eia<; EVpeiv M. Herwerden's emendation (Mnem. 1874, 73), adopted by Biittner-\Vobst, is attractive, though, as Pedech observes, 8Hacrpo<; is not found again in P.: 'to ridicule the frenzy .. .'. Twv 6ve~pwTTovnuv Kat 5a~p.ovwvTwv: 'who dream dreams and write like men possessed' (Paton). Wunderer (iii. 47) adduces x. 2. 9, and emends to OetcrtOatpovovvTwv; but unnecessarily. Despite the fragmentary character of the MS. at this point, it seems certain that P. is saying that Timaeus properly criticizes sensational writing, but being in the same case himself has no right to make such criticisms. 1roAXl]v TTJS TOLO.UTfJS ~f11T€1I'O(fJVTO.L ~Aua.p£as: 'who have produced a great deal of such nonsense'. Cobet (Mnem. r862, 21) suggests lp7rerf>&p1JVTat, 'who have stuffed themselves up with .. .'. But the text stands quite welL l. KOAa.Ka. ••• Tov Ka.XX~aaivf)v: on Callisthenes see iv. 33· 2 n.; T. S. Brown, AJP, 1949, 242; Pearson, 22-49. Timaeus evidently supported his accusation that Callisthenes was a flatterer (cf. 23. 3-8) by referring to his account of Alexander's visit to the oracle of Ammon at Siwah (see next note), which was described so as to create the impression that Alexander was the son of Zeus (below, 23. 4; Jacoby on FGH, 124 T 20; Strabo, xvii. 814 FGH, 124 F 14; Tarn, Alex. ii. 350, 357-8). ~t6p5a.€t Te 1rpo<1exovTa.: Kopagl Te is Bekker's certain emendation; cf. Strabo, x\·ii. 814 (FGH, 124 F I4). 1rAavil>w:vov S' (sc. Alexander on the way to Siwah) {mb TOV KOVLOPTOV crw8fjvat yevop€vwv opf3pwv 1Cal3vei'v KopaKwv ~yrjcrapivwv T~v ooov, ~STJ TOVTwv KoAaKEVTLKWS' AEyoj'E~>wv

(sc. by Callisthenes). The same story is attributed to Callisthenes by Plut. Alex. 27. 3. and it appears in Arrian, iii. 3· 6, as given by Aristobulus, Ka~ o1rAdwv l\oyo<; raVTI/ KaTIX"' (= FGH, 139 F q), in Diod. xvii. 49· 6, following Cleitarchus, and in Curt. iv. 7· 15. According to Ptolemy (Arr. iii. 3· 5 = FGH, 138 F 8) it was two snakes who guided Alexander; and there were other variants (Arr. iii. 3· 6). 1ea.l Kopu~avnwGaLs yuvaL$1: according to Strabo (xiv. 645, xvii. 8r4) 8U17S

Aa

353

XII. ub

2

TIMAEUS' CRITICISM OF CALLISTHENES

Athenais of Erythrae, perhaps a reincarnation of the Sibyl of that city, testified to Alexander's ;,vyb·E~a, i.e. his divine birth (Tarn, Alex. ii. 357); and at Branchidae the prophecies were given by a delirious priestess (Iamb!. de myst. iii. rr). Timaeus' reference is to these. un' ;6.A.E~avSpou T£TEUx£vm TLj.Lwp(ns: Callisthenes ensured Alexander's animosity by his opposition to proskynesis; but his execution followed the Pages' conspiracy, in which he was implicated either directly, or as tutor to Hermolaus, the chief conspirator (cf. Curt. viii. 8. 21-22; Iustin. xv. 3· 3-7; and other sources assembled by Jacoby, FGH, 124 T q-r8). According to Ptolemy (FGH, 138 F q), Callisthenes was hanged, while others, such as Aristobulus (FGH, 139 F 33), reported that he died in chains, having grown fat and diseased (so Charon, FGH, 125 F r5 = Plut. A lex. 55· 5), thus seeking to absolve Alexander. See below, 23. 3· Slecp8apKoTn Tl)v EKE(vou \jluxfJv: by representing Alexander as the son of Zeus, particularly in reference to the visit to Ammon (see above). Tam (Alex. ii. 365) quotes Alexander's refusal of the offer of deification in the Alexander-romance of Ps.-Callisthenes (A'), ii. 22. 12, Klvovvov yap ¢-lpn Tov 7TEpt rfvxfjs, and argues that the author wrote with this remark of Timaeus in mind. 3. PTtTopns ••• Tov Se cplAOcrocpov: the contrast is ironical, the mere rhetoricians, who take up an honest stand, with the so-called philosopher who connives at Alexander's deification. Callisthenes is called .P~J..ouoo> elsewhere; d. Plut. Alex. 52. 2; Iustin. xii. 6. 17, xv. 3· 3; Schol. Lucian, p. 258, 4 R; Philodemus, 7TEp1 KoAaK. i 2 • 4 (FGH, 124 T 7' 9, 18 (e) and (f), 21); Itin. Alex. 92; Suidas, NEocppwv. Ta.is TLJ..I.a'Ls Ta'is lcro8eol<; nvTeAeyov: according to Hyperides (c. Demosth. 3r. 15 ff.) Demosthenes nevertheless acquiesced with the words 'let him be the son of Zeus and Poseidon, if he wishes' (cf. Dinarchus, c. Demosth. 94), probably ironical even though they conceded the point (cf. Balsdon, Historia, 1950, 383). According to some late sources, Demades proposed that Alexander should be recognized as a thirteenth god (Ael. Var. hist. v. r2; Val. Max. vii. z, ext. 13; Athen. vi. 251 B); but this may exaggerate what was intended. There was certainly opposition from Lycurgus (Vit. X oral. 842 n) and Pytheas (lllut. Mor. 8o4 B). The context of the proposal and debate has been much discussed; see Bengtson 2 , 348 n. 1, for recent bibliography. Despite Hogarth's view (EHR, r887, 322 ff.; contra E. Meyer, Kl. Schr. i. 330 n. 2) to the contrary, recently revived by Balsdon, loc. cit., the fact that the matter was raised in several states seems to support the hypothesis that some expression of a wish had come from Alexander. The Spartans refused (Plut. !vi or. 219 E); for other states see Ael., Var. hi st. ii. 19. Aymard (REA, 1937, 26) has tentatively suggested that Hyperides, c. Demosth. r8. 13-16, may refer 354-

TD.fAEUS' CRITICISM OF CALLISTHENES

XII.

I3. I

to a similar wish conveyed to the federal assemblies of Achaea and Aetolia. Its form can be reconstructed. Hyperides, Ep£taph. 8. 21 (d. G. Colin, REG, rg38, 387), seems to establish that the question was linked with the cult of Hephaestion, and that in requesting the setting up of this cult Alexander made clear, without a definite request, that he wished for deification himself (De Sanctis, Riv. jil. 1940, 6; C. Habicht, Gottmenschentum und griccltische Stiidte (Munich, 1956), 28-36, 222--9). The demand rested on a consciousness o{ merit (Habicht, op. cit. 35; C. F. Edson, OCD, 'Ruler-cult', 783; CP, 1958, 63-64) and was not related to any political purpose. Tarn (Alex. ii. 370 ff.) has argued that as a god Alexander would 'have a juridical standing in the cities which he could not other\\·ise have had', and he links the request with the demand that the exiles should be returned; but this demand was made at the Olympic games of 324 by Nicanor, whereas the question of divine honours did not arise until after Hephaestion's death in October 324 (Habicht, op. cit. 3_3). Further 'no Greek god had a juridical standing in the cities which would allow him ... to act outside the legal norms' (Bickerman, CP, 1950, 43)·

ntyt8G KGl. KEpauvov vEpdlivTa. 9vlJTU +ucrEL: i.e. Callisthenes had made Alexander a god; so too Philodemus, 7Tt£pl KoAaK. i. 2 4 FGH, 124 T :u, Jv . .. Tat<; !uTop{ats a7To8,ov T6v )1Mga,,Spov. Apelles painted Alexander with a thunderbolt in the temple of Artemis at Ephesus (Plut. Alex. 4· r; Pliny, Nat. hist. xxxv. 92). Tarn, Alex. ii. 362, argues that Callisthenes never did more than claim Alexander as a son of Zeus, \Vhich was not in itself equivalent to divinity. The confusion belongs to the Hellenistic age. See further T. S. Brown, 9; A]P, 1949, 242-5, arguing that Callisthcnes was preparing the way for posthumous deification. U11'o Tou 8cuf1ov(ou: the divine force of retribution, which also punishes the sacrilege of Antiochus Epiphanes (xxxi. 9· 4) and Prusias (xxxii. 15. 14); cf. VoL I, p. zr. Timaeus shared this belief (cf. FGH, 566 F so, ro2, ro6; Diod. xvi. i8-8r, based on Timaeus). 13. l. allflox6.pT)v: Demochares of Leuconoe (c. 350-before 27r/o}, the son of Demosthenes' sister, was a democratic statesman and orator, active at Athens from the expulsion of Cassander's agents in 307 ; he was exiled himself for an uncertain period, returning in the archonship of Diodes (:z88/7?; Meritt, 286/5). Later he had a decree passed honouring Demosthenes (archonship of Gorgias, 28o/79). Demochares was famous for his freedom of speech (Seneca, de ira, iii. 23. z, 'Parrhesiastes ... appellatus'); he left behind published speeches and Histories, perhaps mainly concerned \>v'ith Athens, and written 'non tam hbtorico quam oratorio genere' (Cic. Brut. :z86). See FGH 75 with Jacoby's commentary; Susemihl, i. 552-8; Swoboda, .3.'15

XIL

I3- 1

TIMAEUS' CRITICISM OF DE:\IOCHARES

RE, 'Demochares (6)', cols. 2863-7 ;Tarn, AG,93-94;Ferguson, qr-3; Beloch, iv. 2. 445-52; and for more recent bibliography and discussion of his parrhesia, Momigliano, Riv. star. it. 1959, 537-8. But ZJ. 8, where he is coupled with other writers (especially Ephorus) whom Timaeus had criticized, perhaps indicates that P. regarded Timaeus' attack as levelled against Demochares as a writer rather than as a statesman ; and Pooech, ad loc., argues that the personal invective was intended to discredit the claims of his history. ftTa.tpT)Keva.t KTA.: commenting on this passage (FGII, 75 T z; cf. 566 F 35) Jacoby suggests that Timaeus' hostility may arise from views expressed by Demochares in those parts of his history which concerned the west. Tlus is possible, since Suidas (s.v. Td l€p6v rrfJp £gwn vaijaat} records that this attack was included in the thirtyeighth (and last) book of Timaeus' Histories, the last five books of which concerned Agathocles; and Demochares is known to have discussed Agathocles (FGH, 75 F 5). It is, moreover, significant that P. passes directly from Timaeus' criticism of Demochares to the details of his attack on Agathocles (15). De Sanctis, Storiograjia siceliota, 47, relates the antipathy to Timaeus' general recollection of his life at Athens; he assumes (so also Brown, 9-1o) that Timaeus wrote his attack on Demochares after returning to Syracuse. See also ~Iomigliano, Riv. star. it. 1959, 542. According to Suidas (see above), who may dra\v on a fuller text of P., Timaeus quoted as an authority for his accusation a speech against Demochares by Democleides, who may be the same as Democles, Theophrastus' pupil, who defended the sons of Lycurgus (Ps.-Plut., Vii. X orat. 842 E); cf. Susemihl, i. 555 n. J73 (v,rith an over-fanciful reconstruction of the whole polemic). That Timaeus' abuse was to be taken metaphorically (so Wunderer, ii. 66) is unlikely; such outrageous accusations were not unparalleled in political polemic, for Duris (FGII, 76 F 8) records a similar taunt against Demosthenes. Tu BlAa.w(Sos: Botrys of Messana was mentioned by the Sicilian historian Alcimus as the inventor of rra.tyvm, ·which are evidently the same a.c; the obscene {molivru:J.a.m referred to by Timaeus (FGH, 56o F 1); cf. Knaack, RE, 'Boti)'S (3)', cols. 793-4. Jacoby suggests a date in the fifth centUI)'. Philaenis is the alleged author of a work rr~:pt UX7]/-LaTwv uvvovata:;; mentioned by Clearchus of Soli (Athen. X. 457 E), Chrysippus (Athen. viii. 335 B-E). Aeschrion of Samos, the writer of dithyrambs (Athen. \'iii. 335 B--e; Anth. Pal. vii. 345) and Dioscorides, the writer of epigrams (Anth. Pal. vii. 450) ; but Aeschrion claims that the real author was an Athenian named Polycrates. Philaenis' date is unknown and her home is given variously as Leucas (Athcn. v. 220 F) and Samos (Dioscorides in Anth. Pal. vii. 450). See also Lucian, Amor. 28. Pseudo!. 24; Clem. Alex. Protrept. iv. 6r. 2; Priap. 63. 17; Paul

TDIAE C"S' CR TTICIS:\1 OF DEl\IOCH.-\RES

XIL IJ. 8

Maas, RE, 'Philainis', coL 2122. Brown (ro), like Markhauser (78). misunderstands the passage, which he takes to mean that P. accuses Timaeus of outstripping the pornographers; there is no evidence that P. was personally acquainted with the works mentioned by Timaeus (cf. von Scala, 83 n. r), indeed Botrys had probably only local fame, since he is known only through references in two other Sicilians. ouS<E T(dV a:rro T~you~ ••• ouSf.£~: 'not even any of the inmates of a brothel'; the words a1T6 TOV awj.LaTO> look like a gloss, and Jacoby, on FGH, 75 T 2, excludes them. With Elpyaaf.Livwv one would expect rather l1ri. Tiyovs, which Valesius proposed and Schweighaeuser prints {though Suidas, s.vv. Lhwoxap'YJ> and Ef-L-farns, has a1ro). Perhaps the whole phrase a1T6 TOV C!Wj.LQTOS Elpyaaj-tivwv should be bracketed as a gloss (so Castiglioni, 227). 3. 1TpouKaTe1fl€uO'Tcu TavSpos: 'has also told lies about him, dragging in the evidence, etc.' The force of 1rpoa- seems to lie in the adducing of evidence of Archedicus, rather than in the making of an additional charge (as Paton: 'has made a further false charge'); the only charge was that mentioned in § r. KWj-LLKOV nva •.• avwVUj-LOV: cf. § 7' J4pxiouws. The meaning of aVwVVf.LOS here is 'of nO repute'. G.SoEA4>LSouv ••• A"l!-Lou9£vou~: cf. Ps.-Plut. Vit. X orat. 847 c (= FGH, 75 T r), dxE 8€ Kai aOEA,P~v (sc. 0 Ll'Y)j.LOCFfJiV'Y)s), Jg ~- Kai. Aax'YJTOS (MS. Aaxov) AEvKovoiws aOE'A,P,})oiJ<; avTip Ll'Y)f.LOxap'Y]S" iy.!vETO; Cic. Brut. :z86 ( = FGH, 75 T 3), 'Demochares ... qui fuit Demostheni sororis filius' ; de or. ii. 95. 6. uTpaTTJy(as ••• TJ~Lwu9aL wap' J\OTJva(OLs: perhaps during the years 306 and following, when he played an active part in the arming of Athens in her war with Cassander (Syll. 334); cf. Swoboda, RE, 'Demochares (6)', col. 2865; Beloch, iv. z. 450-r. However, the chronology of Demochares' career, which depends largely on the decree recorded in Ps.-Plut. Vit. X orat. 85r E, is controversial. TOlauTals ~i.Tux£aL~ waAa(ovn: 'had he had such acts of shame to combat'; for this sense of aTvxia cf. iv. 2I. 7' xviii. rs. 6; Schweighaeuser on v. 67. 4· See below, 14. 2, aTVX'YJf.La. 7. ApxiSLKO~ b KW\.I-1f:1SLoyp6.4>os: cf. § 3; a writer of the new comedy, tWO Of WhOSe titleS are knO\VIl, the Lltaj.LapTaVWV and the 6J'Y)aavpo>; cf. Kock, CAF, iii. 276-8; Susemihl, i. 262 n. 93· The new comedy contained occasional polemic against contemporary statesmen, for example Philippides' attack on Stratocles (Plut. Dem. 26. 3) or the attacks on Chabrias' son Ctesippus by Menander (fg. 363 Kock) and Diphilus (fg. 38 Kock) ; cf. Susemihl, i. 248 n. 5· 8. 'II"€1Tapp'flu(a<JTaL: cf. Sen. de ira, iii. 23. 2 (quoted above, § r n.); Momigliano, Riv. stor. it. 1959, 537--S. a.u'I'Dv AVTi1TaTpov: Alexander's general in Greece; cf. v. ro. 4, ix. 29. I ff., 30. 3· 357

Xll. 13. ;3

TL\IAEt:S' CRITiCISM OF DE:\lOCHARES

AT)J.l,;Tp&os b q.a.AT)peus: the Peripatetic pl1ilosopher, appointed ab-

solute governor at Athens by Cassander, and stratcgos there from 317 to .307, when Poliorcetes took Athens and expelled him. See Jacoby, l (cf. Diod. xx. 45· 5, €mar~aas), but Diod. xviii. 74· 3 and xx. 45· 2 record that he was l1TL/LEArrn)s and this title (punned upon by Duris, FGH, 76 F IO, l1TE/LEAetTO 8J Kat Tij<; otpEw<;) was apparently his official one relative to Cassander and the Mace donian power, as laid down in the agreement. It is certain that for many years both before and after 3r8 Demetrius was also a.paT'f"Jy6;; (d. JG, ii2 • 2971, Syll. 319); but the only date for which this is actually attested is 308/7 (Polyaen. iv. 7· 6). That from the point oi view of the Athenian people at the time of his legislation (317 fl• 3r6/5) he bore the title of vo/LoOirT)> is cogently argued by S. DmY and A. H. Travis (Hesperia, 19-J-3, 144-65), examining IG, ii~. 12ot Syll. 318, a decree of the deme of Aixone in Demetrius' honour. On Demetrius' government generally see Ferguson, 38--9-1-; Pedech, ad loc., that the phrase used here is an ironical coinagt· of Demochares. em TOuTo&o; o-ep.vuveo-Oa.t KTA.: clearly Demochares was referring to some statement by Demetrius of Phalerum himself, probabl\ contained in his work of self-justification, entitled llEpi Tijs OEKaE-r{a;; (Diog. Laert. v. 8r FGH, 228 T r), or llEpi -rfj<; 1roA~-rdas (Strabo, ix. 398 = FGH, 228 T 3}. From§ 12 it appears that in some later work Demetrius replied to Demochares, without however mentioning tht, kind of accusations levelled by Timaeus (cf. von Scala, 153 n. 2, whose attempt to date these ripostes, however, outstrips HtL· evidence). 10. 1ToAAti. Ka.l Xuo-tnAws 1TWAeio-9a.&: cheap food and (see below) entertainments, panis et are the hall-mark of Demetriu< government at Athens; hence the comment of Strabo, ix. 398, or; j.L61'ov ou ~/;E 1T€pt Tijs 1roAmdas raUTTJS lJ<Ei:vos. \V ehrli. op. cit. 73 {on fg. 132) points out that both aspects of Demetriuc.' policy depended on peace (cf. Plut. Lye. 23. r FGH, 228 F 21 }. 11. KoxXla.s a.vTopO.-rws ~a.o{twv KTA.: for a possible reconstruction of this device see A. Rehm, Phil. 1937, 317-30, who thinks the motiw 358

TD.LU:.FS' CRITICIS:\I OF DEJ\iOCHARES

XII. r 3

Tl

power came from a treadmill concealed vri.thin the giant shelL This use of machinery for a toy is not unparalleled. For other examples of mechanically mobile creatures seeR. G. Austin,JRS, 1959, r7~r8, who mentions a bronze stag with feet that moved, the work of the sixthcentury statuary Canachus (Pliny, Nat. hist. xxxiv. 75), Archytas of Tarentum's flying dm·e, of wood (Aul. Gell. x. rz. 9). and a bronze eagle at Olympia which could fly into the air; also the wooden Hermes in the comic poet Plato (Kock, CAF, i, p. 654. fg. rl-l8) who announces 'EpfkfjS fiywyli, Llcuod,\av rpwvryv exwv, biAuJOS jjaflttwv (!.i'n-Ofk(!.TOS (,\~,\vOa. P reads (!.tr:·o/,W.Toc; here, and this may be right. 'TTpoT}yEi:To Ttjs '!TOj.L'TTTlS o.lm~: this is the procession which he gave during his arcbonship (309}8) at the Dionysia; cf. Duris in A then. xii. 542 E (= FGH, 76 Fro), iv 8~ ·rfi 1TOfk1Tfi TwvLlwvvatwv, ~v E1Tt:fL
The date of Demetrius' archonship is given by the Marmor Parium and Diod. xx. 27; he held the office only once (Diog. Laert. v. 77; cf. Dion. Hal. de Din. Such processions as this are a great feature of the Hellenistic courts; cf. the great procession of Ptolemy II (Callixeinus, FGH, 627 F 2 = Athen. v. r96 A-2o3 B) at Alexandria, or that of Antiochus EpiphanPs (xxx. zs. 2-r9). O'UV SE TOUTOLS bVOL OLE'!Ttp.'!TOVTO s,a. TOV 8EaTpou: O:voi:' P, av8pw170t Valesius, ovo• Toup. Jacoby (FGH, 75 F 4} accepts Valesius' expansion, and assumes a lacuna after O
XIL 13·

12

THIAEUS' CRITICISM OF DE:\fOCHARES

but not those made by Timaeus. The words ouT' aMos ovods are exaggeration, for P. could not have covered the whole literature of the time. Pedech, 96-97, indeed argues with some cogency that P.'s silence about Dcmochares' later career, when he creditably opposed Demetrius Poliorcetes and was forced into exile, shows that (a) Timaeus did not speak of Demochares' career after 307, and (b) P. knew of Demochares only from Timaeus and from Demetrius of Phalerum (above,§ 9 n.). 14. 2. TOtoi:JTov aTIJX1']fl-O.: 'any SUCh disgrace'; cf. 13. 5, aTv;:{as. 3. ,.£ 'lfa.lle~v ti~toc;;: for a specific illustration see Scipio's reaction to the Carthaginian breach of the treaty in 202 (xv. 4. ro: the comparison is drawn by PCdech). Tolho fla.A.Xov: the lacuna requires a verb: either B<wpoucnv (Hultsch: accepted by Pedech) or iv v
TaS'

a,

7TEJJT€ fJlf111ovs TOV CT!!')I"fpa<{>lws TOVTOI!, Ka8' 71'Ep~etA'f}• llya.OoKAEOVS: 1Tpd.£w;, oihc al' ns s~~eaiws a7To8£gai'1'0 FGJI.

s66 F x2.; (d)).

TIMAEUS'

CRITICIS~I

OF AGATHOCLES

XII. 15.7

ttoAoLov, TpLopxTJv: 'a jackdaw, a buzzard'; both words are used of a lecherous person. 3. TTJV yuva.I:K6. .f>TJaL ••• o!ITws 9pTJvE'i:v: presumably Theoxene (the daughter or stepdaughter of Ptolemy I Soter), Agathocles' third wife, whom, however, he sent back to Egypt witb his two sons to secure their safety just before he died (Justin. xxiii. 2. 1; Beloch, iv. 2. 179). Pedech takes the sense to be '\Vhy did I not keep you? And why did you not keep me?'; but P.'s sense of outrage can hardly be accounted for by the hypothesis that Timaeus should not have sunk to mentioning an exhibition of feminine grief, and the whole context suggests a more lewd interpretation-'in what form of sensuality did we not indulge?'-reminiscent of the epitaph of Sardanapallus (viii. ro. 4 n.). The story is probably apocryphal. b • .f>Euywv Tov Tpoxov KTA.: repeated in xv. 35· 2. Agathocles came with his father Carcinas from Thermae to Syracuse under Timoleon (Diod. xix. 2. 8) and that he >vas only r8 is perhaps confirmed by the story of his relations with Damas (Diod. xix. 3· r ; Beloch, iv. 2. 250 n. I). Ht: was born in 36o/s9. since he died at the age of 72 in 289/8 (Diod. xxi. r6. s. following Timaeus (FGH, 566 F 123), Callias (FGH, 564 F 6), and Antander, Agathocles' brother (FGH, s6s F I)). and his arrival in Syracuse was therefore in 342/r. For the story of his early years and his coming to Syracuse see Diod. xix. 2 ; on his work as a potter cf. Diod. xx. 63. 4; Caecilius of Caleacte, FGH, r83 F 2. Beloch arbrues convincingly (iv. r. r2t n. I) that Agathocles' family was of the upper class and that his father probably owned a ceramic business; his brother Antander held office as general under the oligarchy (Berve, S.-B. Miinchen, 1952 (5), :z:z). 7. Kupws ••• 'TniO'T]s Iu<EALa.s: after 304 Agathodes became master of most of eastern Sicily (7T(l.trrJs exaggerates) ; there is evidence for his acquisition at an earlier date of ::\!organtine (Diod. xix. 6. 2), Centuripa (Diod. xix. IOJ. 2), Abacaenum (Diod. xix. 6j. 6, no. 4), Galaria (Diod. xix. 104), Enna and Erbessus (Diod. xx. JI. 5), Tauromenium (Diod. xix. 102. 6), Camarina and Catana (Diod. xix. no. 3). See Beloch, iv. 1. 184; Roussel, Hist. grecque, iv. x. 394; Berve, S.-B. Munchen, r952 (s). 6x ff. pa.atAEus 11'po
XII.rs.8

TIMAEUS' CRITICISM OF AGATHOCLES

8. op' OOIC d.vayKTJ ••• :for a similar criticism of Timaeus' treatment of Agathocles see Diod. xxi. I7. wo1..1\0.s ••• po1ras tea.i 8uvO.J-1-€~1l: 'endowed vvith great gifts and capacity'. 9. Ta 1rpos Elml.lvov i]KovTa.: cf. ii. 6r. 6, where he calls this To Tfi<: l11Top£as t8,ov. See the criticism of Theopompus in viii. ro-Il ; but for P.'s inconsistency cf. 14. 4 n. 11. m;pi. TOU<; n1. yE"'(ov6Ta. KTA.: Schweighaeuser detected the lacuna. The general sense is clear and various supplements have been proposed: Kpv7TTovTas ~ nep< Ta -rovs Td oil yeyovoTa (with hiatus). Schweighaeuser; qnt..a;r<:xBws l;rtKplmTofdvovs ~ Tovs TaP-~ yEyovoTa., Hultsch; ~~~ that of Timaeus with the sense 'the part of the history therefor<' which was added by him for the gratification of his personal spik, I have passed over' (Shuckburgh); in this case the tense of i'TI'tfLETpouv affords some difficulty. But if -r6 imfLerpouv is that of P., variou.~ renderings are possible: (a) 'I have refrained from accumulating more details to render him odious out of consideration for him'; (b) 'I have refrained from developing this subject further because it is so odious' (an improbable meaning for a'IT'x8wr) ; (c) 'while refraining, in order to spare him, from giving full expression to my hostility to Timaeus' (Paton); (d) 'I have avoided excessive criticism which would tend to get Timaeus hated' (Pedech): (e) 'I have refrained from my views further because of his odiousness' (Gelzer. Gnomon, 1963, who argues that the odiousness is that of Timaeus cf. 8. r). Schweighaeuser prefers (b); but Pedech's version is the least unsatisfactory since xaptv in P. normally means 'with a view to'. However, one cannot exclude the possibility that the epitomator\ carelessness has resulted in corruption. Ta 5' otKeia. •.• ou 1ra.peAe(ljla.J-1-€V: Btittner-Wobst otl~< c/-,~e1)f.LEV OELV 'ITCLpaAt'ITEtV (cf. ii. 35· 4) for the last tWO sine~· this form of the aorist does not elsewhere appear so early. The mean ing is 'I have not omitted what was germane to my purpose'. Pedecll reads ;rapaAEtif;ofLEl•. For mhwv referring to the first person see tlw examples quoted by Mauersberger, s.v. a.~Twv, viz. i. 3· 5, iii. 1. 1. r. J, r. 7, 5· 9,iv. r. 9· 16. A legal dispute at Locri This extract from F (excerpta antiqua) concerns an incident which was evidently adduced in connexion with polemical discussio1;. 362

A LEGAL DISPUTE AT LOCRI

XII. r6. ro

almost certainly of Timaeus, though Ephorus cannot be completely excluded (cf. I7· 1 n.); for his discussion of Zaleucus' legislation d. FGH, 70 F 139 = Strabo, vi. :z6o. However, Timaeus disbelieved in Zaleucus' existence (FGH, 566 F 130), and P. had already taken issue on this, in connexion with the proverb AoKpoi Tds (J'l)JJO~Kas (12 a r-3 n.); hence it is likely that Timaeus is being attacked here too. Schweighaeuser's assertion that P. records the incident in this chapter from some previous writer rests on the assumption that r/>1Jat (S) should be read in §§ 9 and r2; but F has rf>a.at, and the anecdote appears to depend on an oral source. Pedech, ad loc., quotes sympathetically Wunderer's hypothesis (Phil. r8g4, 436-41) that the chapter is in fact a quotation from Ephorus; but in that case he should read rf>rwt in§§ 9 and u. 2. 1\iJ-~pa.~s Sua' trpoT€floV: sc. before the case came to court. tis TOv O.yp6v: 'into the country', where the slave was working. JA8ovTa is to be taken with rov ••• €npov, not with rov SoiiAov (so Shuckburgh). 3. ;\a.~ovT': sc. Tov ooi!Aov. 4. 'll"ap' oo Tifv iiywy~v O'U!J-~a.(ve\ yiv10a8a\: 'from whom the removal [of the person or thing) took place'. 6. Ti(l KOO"}l-otr6;\llh: probably the chief magistrate at Locri. The same title is found elsewhere· e.g. IG, xii. 8. 386, 459 (Thasos}; CIG, 2583 = IC i, Lyttos, 55 (Lyttus); IGR, i\·. 908 (Cibyra}; Th. Wiegand, Jfilet i, 7, index (title of d.pxmpuravts at Miletus). Several of these instances are from the Roman period, e.g. one from Thasos and those from Cib:yra and Lyttus; they may derive from Locri, but the Cretan KDafho. are relevant (cf. Oehler, RE, 'Kosmoi', cols. 14958; Willetts, index s.v.). See further Oldfather, RE, 'Lokroi', cols. 1346-7.

8. 001< dva~ TQUT11V ttup£av: SC. ay<.{ryl'}V: 'that is not abduction within the meaning of the law'. 9. Ka.nl. Tov Za.Aeuttou v6!l-ov: the custom here described is also mentioned by Demosthenes, xxiv. 139 ff.; cf. also Hierocles ap. Stob. iii. 39· 36 Hense; Bekker, A need. i, 220 s.v. f3poxo>. Diod. xii. 17 attributes it to Charondas. On the laws of Zaleucus, most of which rest on the unreliable evidence of Diod. xii. 20-21, see Dunbabin, 68-p. 10. n'dv Xt;\twv: the council of the Thousand, known in other states in Greece, including Opuntian Locris (cf. Tod, 24, 1. 39). There may have been a smaller committee for effective business, but a larger assembly is unlikely. Aristotle. Pol. vii (v). 7· 1307 a 38, implies that Locri had an &.p
CALLISTHE:\ES' ACCOU :-; T OF

17-22. Callislhenes' lack of skill in describing military mattets This extract, from the excerpta antiqua (F}, forms part of a criticism of Callisthenes and Ephorus (cf. zz. 7}. However, in 23 P. returns to Tirnaeus, so his discussion of these historians is evidently a digression, perhaps partly led up to by Timaeus' comments on Callisthencs (rz b 2-3); but the exact context is lost. Schweighaeuser suggests that P. may have been making the point that Timaeus criticized where criticism was unjustified, but left real faults unnoticed, as in the case of Callisthenes' battle descriptions. There is no reason, however, to think that P. rejected the criticisms of Callisthenes by Timaeus which he retails in 12 b 2-3. Even when all allowance is made for possible errors in copying and the manuscript tradition, this criticism of Ca]isthenes shows .P. at his worst. His points are almost all trivial or fallacious; and his mathematical calculations are marred by egregious errors of logical reasoning (cf. rg. 9 n.) and gross carelessness (cf. 21. 7 n.). Callisthenes could in fact produc<' quite adequate battle descriptions, for instance of Eurymedon (.Plut. Cim. r2-13), Tegyra (Plut. Pelop. r6--q), and Gaugamela {Plut. Alex. 32-33). See Beloch, iv. z . .355; Jacoby, RE, 'Kallisthenes', coL J7oo.

17. 1. 1'W\I 1'TJAlK01hWv nvlipwv: probably Ephorus and Callisthenes; cf. zz. 7· Ka.Ta.StO'II'LCM't:'i:oOm: so Dindorf for Suidas' Ka:ra/;unrta'1'EV~;a8a.t. Th~ sense appears to be 'to claim credence for oneself at the expense of someone else'. 2. Tfjc; tv KLALKLq. y.:voJ.fkvTJs .•• 'll'pos A.a.pELov: the battle of Tssus, fought in November 333· The other sources are Arrian, ii. 6-rz, Diod. xvii. 3z. 4-37. r ; Curt. iii. 7-r r ; Plut. Alex. zo. r-s; Tustin. xi. 9· r-ro; Strabo, xiv. 676. See Judeich in Kromayer-Veith, AS. iv. 354-ir (with earlier bibliography, p. 354); Schlachtenatlas, Gr. Abt. 6, 5 with commentary; for the topography, Janke, s-74· As .Pedech, ns, observes, the apologetic character of Callisthencs' account is shown by his narrow measurements for the battlefield (r7. 4, 21. 4), his exaggeration of the difficulties of the terrain (q. 5. zo. 4) and his attributing to Darius a reluctance to face Alexander (zz. z). ~>.ega.v8pov

i]8f} 8La.'!I'E'II'op.:Go0m: Sw.Trop£liw8a.t (FS) should be kept. with Pedech, though all previous editions accept Schweighaeuser's emendation. Alexander was indeed through the pass when he heard of Darius' position (r9. 4); but the passes may have been traversed simultaneously or Callisthenes may have thought them to have been. ,.a, O"TEVU Kat At:yo}Leva.s iv Tfj KLAudq. miAas: cf. 8. 3· This i;; one name for the pass between the sea and the mountains a litth· north of Alexandretta, the modern Pass of Merkes Su, perhaps

,.a,,.

364

THE BATTLE OF ISSUS

XIL 17. z

13. THE :11ARCHING BE!.'ORE ISSUS

(Based on Kromayer-Veith, Schtachtenattas, Griech. Abt. 6, 5) including the Pillar of Jonah pass adjoining it to the south; cf. Xen. A nab. i. 4· 4, m)Aat rf]s KLAtKlas Kat rf'js 2'vplas; Artemidorus in Strabo, xiv. 67o, 676. Arrian (ii. 6. I) calls it the Assyrian Gates or (Arr. ii. 5· 1) 'the Gates dividing the Cilician and Assyrian territories' (cf. Janke, 21-28). The Pass of Merkes Su is quite distinct from the Cilician Gates leading over Taurus (mod. Gtilek Boghaz; Janke, 97-III}, through which Alexander had already advanced to reach the Cilician Plain at Tarsus (Arr. ii. 4· 3). See Ruge, RE, KtAlKtat mAat, cols. 389--90; Treidler, RE, 1TV'Aat KtMKta.£, Suppl.-B. ix, cols. 1363-4; illustration in Janke, I 7. Tfl 8t0. Twv )\f1nv£8wv AEyof1evwv nuAwv: the more northerly of the two passes between Cilicia and Syria mentioned by Cicero, Jam. xv. 4· 4, and probably modern Toprak Kalessi. This Darius will have reached from Sochi (where Alex<J.nder believed him still to be) via the Arslan Boghaz, which contains the railway line between Islahije u.nd,Osmanije (see Schlachtenatlas, Gr. Abt. 6, s); cf. Arrian, ii. 7· I, .dapdos 'TO Kara r.is m5Aas ras AfLavucds KaAOVfLEVa<; WS i1T~ 'Iaaov

XII. 17.

2

CALLISTHENES' ACCOUNT OF

Curt. iii. 8, IJ, Amanicas Pylas. Darius' retreat will have followed the same route (Janke, 41-42). Strabo, xiv. 676, uses the same name, :41-'av!.Of:> m)Aat, to describe the Pass of Kara Kapu to the south-west of Toprak Kalessi, and in xvi. 751, for the Pass of Bailan south-east of Alexandretta, leading over into Syria. See Benzinger, RE, :41-'avlof:> 1T!l..\a•, cols. 1723-4; illustration in Janke, 3i; cf. 37-44· ~<<mipa.~ ... et<;; KV.~K(a.v : according to Arrian (ii. 7. r) he desccnderl to Issus, where he mutilated and murdered the wounded left there by Alexander. 3. 'IT'po6.yfw -rov :c\).€5a.v8pov ~'ll ~'IT'l. Iup(a.v: according to Arrian (ii. 6. 1-2) Alexander had learnt when at Mallus that Darius was across Mt. Amanus at Sochi, two days beyond the 'Assyrian Gates', i.e. probably the Pass of Merkes Su \\':ith the Pillar of Jonah. He marched with speed, passed through the Gates in two days and because of a storm had camped near Myriandrus (near Alexandretta: exact site unknown) when he received the news that Darius was in his rear {Arr. iL 6. z, 7· z). Miltner (Jahresh. 1933, 69-78) has argued that Alexander had no intention of crossing the Bailan Pass to Sochi, but meant to go south to seize the Syrian coast; but th€' ancient tradition makes it his object to force Darius to a battle, and this remains the most likely explanation of his movements. auv£yy,cra.v-ru -roi.'<;; a-rn
'ITpofjyf:;

366

THE BATTLE OF ISSl:S

XII. 17. 6-7

being the Jlinarus. For full discussion see Janke, 53-74; Klio, zg1o, r37 ff.; Judeich in Kromayer, ilS, iv. 368-71; Kromayer, HZ, rrz, 1914, 351-3; Ruge, RE, 'Pinaros', cols. r4o7-8. '· ou 1r~u:tw Twv Ti:TTapwv Ka.i 8iKa. aTa.O(wv: an esti;nate, and too narrow for a site on either the Deli Chai or the Payas; see preceding note. Janke (54) points out that the effect of a high mountain range (the Amanus reaches 6,ooo ft.) would be to induce underestimation of the width of the plain immediately beneath. This is a common phenomenon and may lie behind Callisthenes' figure here. 5. q,ipea&a.l ••• ivtKapaLov: i.e. at right angles to the hills and the eea; cf. i. 22. s. vi. 29. r, 30. 6. 'Kf»lyf'a.Ta. Twv vAeupG:Iv: 'with gaps in its banks' ; the lxp~yfLaTa.. are npparently the deep and precipitous beds of tributary streams which enter it (cf. 20, 4, where they are equated with Ko,J.wfLa..Ta.). O'II'DTOf'OU~ ••• Ka.t 5ua~aTous Aoq,ou~: cf. 22. 4; Arr. ii. 10. I, Tai<; &x6at<;, 7TOAAaxi) fill! &:rrOKprJfLVOt<; ovaa.t<;. Mrf>ov<; is Casaubon's correction of Ao{Jov<; FS. Callisthenes exaggerates (cf. 18. 12); the Mrj,ot are merely the river banks (cf. 22. 4, nw drf,pvv). 6. E'II"Et auvEyy(~oLEV ••• uTrouTpoq,Tj~ ••• &.va.xwpouvT£'>: 'when Alexander faced about and, retracing his steps, was approaching .. .';Alexander returned north from near Myriandrus (cf. § 3 n.) to meet Darius. 6-7. Darius' dispositions: cf. Arr. ii. S. s-8; Curt. iii. 9· r-6; the former gives Ptolemy, the latter's source is uncertain. Arrian and Curtius agree in the main. From right to left Darius' front consisted of (r) 3o,ooo cavalry under Nabarzanes (in the preliminary stages these were sent across the river to cover Persian preparations, together with 2o,ooo light-armed; these latter may be the 2o,ooo troops which Darius stationed on a hillside to the extreme left and almost in the rear of the Macedonian right); (2) 3o,ooo Greek mercenaries under Thymondas; (3) according to Arrian (ii. 8. 6) 6o,ooo Cardaces lvB~:v Ka.1 €v8J interpretation of Arrian (ii. 8. 6) that the Cardaces were on either side of the mercenaries, leaving Darius and his bodyguard of ,3,ooo horse (Curt. iii. 9· 4) in the middle (cf. Tarn, Alex. ii. r8o; Fuller, 158, with plan). The remaining troops were stationed behind the Greek mercenaries and the Persian phalanx ; though Curtius (iii. 9· 5) speaks as if Hyrcanian and Median cavalry and that of other peoples was placed on the wing. There were 6,ooo javelin-throwers and stingers in front.

is

XII. I7. 6-7

CALLISTHEKES' ACCOCNT OF H~SI.\NS

MACEDO,..lANS

I

6 7

8 9

Agri.anians

a CavY under :\aharzanes b Cardaces

Ma.::n Archers Comp;;nion Cav~ ~aeon ian l r Hur ..e

c

Archers

d

Greek !\{(·rceflarirs

I dl1C<:"f~

I!

Darnh :tnd Bod\- guard

l iypaspi,to. Phabnx CoenthPhaiJllX Pt·r,lj, ,_J;. PhJ:Ian\ (

tc .. ](•s

10 l'halanx ll l'halJ:liX 12 f'halanx l] (reran :\n·hen

14- THE BATTLE OF ISSUS

(From Fuller, The

Gen~>ralship

of Alexander the Great, 158).

According to Callisthenes Darius' front contained three elements. (1) cavalry, (z) mercenaries, (3) peltasts. The first two clearly

corre~

spond to the troops mentioned by Arrian and Curtius, and the peltast ~ must be Arrian's Cardaces (and Curtius' pedites barbari), though Arrian calls the Cardaces hoplites. On Cardaces see v. 79· I I n.; those of An tiochus may be different from those at Issus. We never hear again ol Cardaces in the Persian army, and Tarn (Alex. ii. r8o-r) accepts til<' evidence of Strabo, xv. 734, and makes them Persian ephebes. If that is so, Callisthenes may be right when he calls them 'peltasts' (so Tarn. Alex. ii. r8r; Fuller, rss). But this links with the view (which P., r8. I, combats fiercely and with some justice) that they were distinct from the Persian phalanx, which was stationed behind. Therefore it seem" more likely that Arrian (Ptolemy) is to be followed. He (Arr. ii. 8. (,) specifically calls the Card aces hoplites, and regards them as the Persian phalanx (Arr. ii. 8. 8, roiJ E1TL tf>O.A.ayyos rEray11-€vou {Jap{Japt~
THE BATTLE OF ISSuS

XII. rS. 3

The size of Darius' army cannot be ascertained owing to the exaggerated figures passed down. Plutarch (Alex. r8. 4) and Arrian (ii. 8. 8) reckon it at 6oo,ooo (though Arrian's €Myno implies some doubt); other figures are 4oo,ooo or more foot and roo,ooo horse (Iustin. xi. 9· r and Diod. xvii. 31. z), 3oo,ooo foot and roo,ooo horse (Oros. iii. r6. 6), 25o,ooo foot and 62,200 horse (Curt. iii. 2. 4-9). Tarn (Alex. i. 26 n. r) argues that Darius' army was no larger or even smaller than Alexander's; but Curtius, iii. 3· 28 and 7· 9, refers only to Darius' effective numbers (in a narrow space) and Curt. iii. ro. 2 conveys nothing about numbers at all. Arrian (ii. 8. 5-7) and Curtius (iii. 9· r-s) detail at least 143,ooo specified troops (3o,ooo Greek mercenaries, 3o,ooo cavalry, 6o,ooo Cardaces, 2o,ooo light-armed, and 3,ooo cavalry around Darius): and numbers on this scale could find a place on the ground available at the Deli Chai (Judeich in Kromayer, AS, iv. 355 ff.). Equally, they can have been exaggerated to the glory of Alexander, jusi as the totals certainly were. 7. exof.LEYous TOihwv Taus rreATaaAayyos: assuming that Darius' phalanx, which had been drawn up in the camp (q. 6), was distinct from the troops enumerated. This assumption is improbable (see preceding note), but it was apparently made by Callisthenes and is not simply a misunderstanding by P. of what Callisthenes wrote, since the description of the Cardaces as peltasts ties up with it. 2. TpLcrf.LupLoL ••• lrrrreis ••• , TpLcrf.LupLoL Se f1Lcr9oopoL: so too Arrian (ii. 8. s-6) and, for the mercenaries, Curtius (iii. 9· 2). The correspondence shows that these were the official Macedonian figures, not that they were necessarily true. P. himself appears to accept them (d.§ 8). 3. 'II'AELO'T0\1 •.. ~0.9os err' OKTW: 'at the most eight deep'. 'll'pos aAT)9LYTJY xpdav: 'in a regular engagement' (Shuck burgh); not, as Paton, 'to be really useful'. taov .•• Tois f.LETwrroLs: £aov {mapxHv Schweighaeuser for avvv7rapxnv FS; 'a space in the line equal to the front of a troop in length'. Pedech, ad loc., keeps avvv7rapxnv and assumes P. to be referring to the distance between the tips of triangular squadrons, which would, of course, be equivalent to the length of the base. But there is no evidence that this triangular formation, attested for the Macedonian cavalry (Asclepiod. 7· 3; Arr. Tact. r6. 6), was also used by the Persians, and P. specifically says that the space between the squadrons was intended for wheeling and mano:uvring. This gap is not elsewher.e attested, but corresponds to that between the maniples of a Roman army: cf. Veith, Heerwesen, 359· 814173

Bb

XII. 18.3

CALLISTHE:-JES' ACCOUKT OF

Ta.'Ls E1TI.
•

.ls

370

THE BATTLE OF ISSUS

XII. rg. r-2

Judeich, AS, iv. 363 n. 2). Once his phalanx was deployed, Darius recalled the cavalry sent forward across the river (I7. 6-7 n.) and posted a few of these on his left; but finding them useless for lack of space, he sent them round the rear to join the cavalry on his right (Arr. ii. 8. Io-u). Dittberner has suggested that Darius called on the mercenaries stationed on his right to come in closer to make room for these additional cavalry. Here again P.'s criticism is trivial. a.uTov ~ea.Ta lliaTtv tm6.pxovTa Tljv Tasw: cf. Arr. ii. 8. II, L1a.p.;:tos- T6 ~-tlaov Tfj> '1Taa'Y)s- 'Taf,;:ws- JrrEi'X"• Ka.8a'1TEP v6f.LoS" 'Toi:;; Ihpawv {3a.atAEva~ T£Tax8a~. Arrian quotes Xen. Anab. i. 8. n for the arrangement. 11. Tous chro ToO Seslou t
19. 1-2. Alexander's numbers. Callisthenes' figures for Alexander's army when he crossed to Asia in 334 are high, at 4o,ooo foot and 4,5oo horse. Compare Anaximenes (FGH, 72 F 29: 43,ooo foot and s.soo horse), Ptolemy (FGH, 138 F 4: 3o,ooo foot and s,ooo horse), Aristobulus (FGH, I39 F 4: 3o,ooo foot and 4,ooo horse)-these are all from Plut. Mor. 327 n-and the figures in Justin. xi. 6. 2 (32,ooo foot and 4,5oo horse); Diodorus, xvii. q. 4, gives 3o,ooo foot and 4,5oo horse (though the total of the individual sections adds up to J2,000 foot and s,IOO horse). See also Livy, ix. Ig. 5 (30,000 foot and 4,ooo horse) ; Frontinus, Strat. iv. 2. 4 (4o,ooo in all) ; Plut. Alex. 15. r (estimates vary between 3o,ooo foot with 4,ooo horse and 43,ooo foot with s.ooo horse); Arr. i. II. 3 (a little over 3o,ooo foot and over s,ooo horse). The discrepancy of over Io,ooo in the infantry and of r,soo in the cavalry figures has been variously explained, but no explanation is wholly satisfactory; see discussion in Beloch, iii. 2. 322 ff., Judeich, Klio, rgo8, 376 n. 2; Jacoby on FGH, 72 F 29, 138 F 4; Dittberner, Issos, 57; P. A. Brunt, ]HS, 1963, and tables on p. 46. Arrian's figure, based on Ptolemy, has the best chance of being accurate. As regards the reinforcements (s,ooo foot and 8oo horse) Arrian, i. 29. 4, records the arrival at Gordium in spring 333 of 3,ooo Macedonian foot and 300 cavalry along with 2oo Thessalian and rso Elean horse-a total of 3,ooo foot and 65o horse, compared with s,ooo foot and..Soo horse in Callisthenes. The discrepancy may be due to some contingent having fallen out of Arrian's account (so Beloch, iii. 2. 37I

Xll. rg. r-2 33r-2)~unless

CALLISTHEKES' ACCOUNT OF

Callisthenes' figure includes the vo:oyapm who had been sent back to Macedon, and now returned with the reinforc<· ments (Arr. i. 24. 2, 29. 4), which is improbable; cf. Parke, 197-8. Brunt, ]HS, r963, 36-37. 3. ~~ ns &~U..o& KTA.: 3,ooo foot and 300 horse is quite inadequate to cover the losses and garrisons left behind up to the time of Issn~. Recorded losses are negligible (at Granicus 85 horse and 30 foot Arr. i. 16. 4; lower figures from Aristobulus in Plut. Alex. r6. 1, slightly higher in I us tin. xi. 6. 12), though there will, of course, haw been some wastage from deaths, including those murdered b\ Darius at Issus (Arr. ii. 7. 1). But Arrian (i. 23. 6) records 3,ooo mercenary infantry and 200 horse left behind in Caria after t]w capture of Halicarnassus and r,soo men left in Phrygia the ne:-.1 spring to guard Celaenae (Arr. i. 29. 3); and troops were also left a1 ' the Hellespont, in Lydia (Arr. i. 17. 7), Lycia, and Cilicia. Even n some of these later joined Alexander, they must have amounted io many more than P. assumes (cf. Beloch, iii. 2. 332 .. 3). E'iTL TO 1TAf:lOV 'iTOLWV TTJV a1Touaia.v KTA.: 'making a liberal allowa!lCP for losses incurred in previous operations'; rather than Paton, 'a liberal allowance for those absent on special service' (which ignon·" yey£VTj{LEva<;). For YEYEVY){Llva<; xpela<; cf. i. 67. 12, TctTpa.K&O"fLOptoL 8taxtXLo>, <mwTa.KtaxLJuot 8' t,.rr,its): the lacuna \Va' observed by Casaubon (who, however, printed equitmn quattuor milia) and by Reiske. 4o,ooo+s.ooo-3,ooo 42,ooo foot; 4,sao +8oo-soo s,ooo horse. These figures are too large and the real ones can only be guessed at. Starting from 3o,ooo foot and 65o horse, Ptolemy's figures (cf. § 1-z n.), adding J,ooo foot and 65o horse (from Arr. 1. 29. 4). and allowing for losses and garrisons, Tarn (Alex. i. 2li\ makes Alexander's army at Issus between 2o,ooo and 24,000 infantn and 5,ooo cavalry; and others reach different figures (e.g. Rtistow Kocllly, 27,6oo; Delbrtick, 3o,ooo-4o,ooo; York von \Vartenburg. 35,ooo-4o,ooo; d. Janke, 65). 4. ~KO.TOY 6.1TEXDYTO. aTa.S{ous a'IT' cuhou: IOO stades I8·s km. Ar~ cording to Arrian (ii. 6. 2, 7· 2) Alexander heard of Darius' arrival i11 Cilicia while delayed by a storm at l\Iyriandrus. The site of this towo is not knovm, but it was apparently somewhere near modern .1\lexandretta; and r8·5 km. reckoned from here brings one rather tn the .Payas (21 km.) than the Deli Chai (31 km.); cf. Janke, Kliu. 19ro, 142. That the roo stades are to be calculated from the Pa~,. of Merkes Su (IJ. 2 n.), as Janke (63) suggests, seems improbable. This would involve either rejecting Arrian' s statement that Alexand('r had reached ~lyriandrus (for clearly he turned the moment the new. reached him) or else treating the roo stades as a recorded figure in dependent of the context in which J'. mentions it, for instance assum ing it to be the distance of Alexander's last halt before the batil(" 372

THE BATTLE OF ISst·s

XII.

20.

z

(Arr. ii. R. 2) from the battlefield (Judeich, AS. iv. 364 n. 1), which F. has misunderstood or misrepresented. \Vith this kind of assumption one can, of course, make anything fit, and the only safe conclusion is that Callisthenes' figure is wrong. The Pinarus, where Darius lay, must be the Deli Chai (above, q. 3 n.). Ta aTeva: the Pass of Merkes Su (Sarisaki), the Cilician Gates. 6. aJ-1<1 ... T~ n-pwTOV ets Tas eupuxwp[as £Kn-eaeiv: cf. Arr. ii. 8. 2, W<; 8£ 8tEXWPH Is 1TAa:ro;, QVE1TTV(1(1€V ad TO KEpa<; J, ,Pa.Aayya, UAA:>JV Kat aAA7JV TWV J1TAtTWV TatLV ?Tapaywv, Tfj f-tEV JJ, E1Tt TO opo<:, EV dpwupfj ~£ .11Tt TIJV 80..\aaaav KTA. 'mn-apefl~aAeiv Tljv TaAayya: 'to form the phalanx' ; Alexander brings his men from marching to fighting order: cf. xi. 23. 4 n. This manceuvre was begun 40 stades (i·4 km.) from the enemy (2o. 1). If Darius was on the Deli Chai, Alexander began to open out his army just north of the Kurudere (17. 3 n.). The Rabat Chai, which lies north of the Kurudere, would be no further hindrance to troops thus extended (Janke, 64). On Alexander's manceuvre see Kromayer Heerwesen, II3 n. 3· 7-9. F.'s criticism of Callis/henes' acwunt of Alexander's advance: given his data, P.'s calculations are accurate, but he makes the plain too narrow (q. 3 u.) and Alexander's army too large(§§ 1-2 n.). If Alexander had, say, 32,ooo foot and s.ooo horse, this, according to the calculations here and those for cavalry in r8. 3-4, would require: 2o stades = 3'i km. for infantry, and 6·zs stades = r·156 km. for horse: total, z6·25 stades = 4·856 km. The plain north of the Kurudere is 7 km. wide, an adequate space; and the surface of the land would permit an advance in this formation (Kromayer, Heerwesen, n3 n. 3), despite P.'s doubts (2o. 2 n.). Again, the criticism is tridal; P. assumes Callisthcnes' account of the march to be at fault, whereas it is the numbers and dimensions that are inaccurate. 7. ~KaaTou ... £~ m)Sas E'ITexovTos: cf. Asclep. 4· r, m/xn<: Tiaaapa<: (=6ft.); see on this Steinwender, Hermes, 1909, I79-9i; KromayerVeith, Heerwesen, 135-6. 9. avayKa'i:ov ~v E'LK011~ 11Ta8twv lmapxew: if a Stade holds t,6oo men, 20 stades holds 32,ooo. But P. believes the plain to be only 14 stades wide (r7. 4, 21. 4); hence it is not clear why (unless for ease of calculation) he states his argument in this way instead of saying that 14 stades would hold 22,400 men, leaving all the cavalry and nearly 2o,ooo infantry over; for this is what his figures imply, since there if no evidence nor suggestion that the plain south of the Deli Chai was precisely 20 stades wide.

20.2. flEl~OV aMyl]J-1<1 Suaxepes E'tt'IVOijam: for the difficulty of finding flat ground cf. xviii. 31. 7; but F.'s experience was mainly based on Greece and on the heavier phalanx of his own time. His statement is 373

XII. zo.

2

CALLISTHENES' ACCOUNT OF

hardly proof that he had visited the battlefield of Issus (so Pedecb, M ithode, 561). Callisthenes' account (like that of Arrian, ii. 8. 2--1) does not imply that Alexander advanced for 40 stades = i'4 kw. in full line of battle; the change over from line of march to line ol battle was carried out in stages, as described-first 32, then r6, and finally 8 deep; cf. Janke, Klio, 19ro, 148-sr. 3. TomuTTJV Ta~w Ka.i XP£Lav: 'the employment of such a formation'. 4. ~Kp~yfla.Ta Ka.Ta To 1r£8tov: cf. 17. 5, where, however, the referenn· is to tributaries of the Pinarus, not to the plain further south. Thos<· in which the Persians were caught in flight would lie to the north ol the Deli Chai. 01a.4>ea.pfjva.t A.€youcn .•. ~v TOL5 TotouTotc; KmAwfla.crt: Callisthenc~

only recorded this as a report (Myovat); our other sources do not make this the main cause of Persian losses. Arrian (ii. rr. 3) speaks of the cavalry being crowded together Kara a-nvas- doovs-. 6. Ot£crTafl€VT}5: so F; 8u;arpappiv1)> S is probably preferable, giving the sense 'thrown into confusion' (cf. ii. 30. 4) rather than 'driven back in various directions' (so Sdurw~.t: cf. x. 3· 6). See Pedech, ad lor. TTJV a.UTTJV £M£1a.v ciya.yEi:v: = E7mrapa.A.ayylav 11 T£Tpa4>a.AayyLav: this 'double or quadruple pha lanx formation' presumably means marching 16 or 32 deep, i.e. €mf>..A7JAov (d. ii. 66. 9 n.), not 1rapaAA7JAov (as in vi. 40. u). Th\' ~1Ti

formation suggested is double or quadruple (but not triple) for con· venience in converting to the extended phalanx. 8. ouo€ TOU'i L1T1TEi:5 1Tpo€eno: i.e. according to Callisthenes. ~~ 'Laou ••. TOL5 1TE~ol5: 'in line with the infantry'; the tense of 7Totd is awkward, and Hultsch's 7TponEL does not give an appropriatt· sense. Pedech reads Jt£aov 7Tom ro'is- 7T<,ois-; this is ingenious, though 7Taut has not great force. One should perhaps read Jg taov '1roin (de· spite the change of tense after 7TpoEfhro). 21. 2. ~1ri nTTa.paKOVTa. aTa.oiouc;: i.e. double the 20 stades of 19. q. but these 20 stades are an arbitrary figure (see ad loc.). 3. £L 8' oAwc; auv~amaav KQ.Ta TOV 1TOlT}T~V: i.e. if they closed up Stl as to occupy only 3ft. per man, by avvaa-maf-1-6> (or 1TVKvwuts-, cf. xviii. 30. 3: P.'s usage is inconsistent, cf. ii. ~- 9 n.). This 3ft. interval was usual in the phalanx during action. P. is thinking of the passag•· in Homer, Il. xiii. 131-3 = xvi. 215-17; see the note to xviii. 29. 1, (where P. quotes it in full) for its irrelevance to the hoplite phalam. 4. AEL1Tuv Twv O£KanTTapwv aTa8Lwv: cf. 17. 4, where, however, lw says ov 1rAdw rwv T€TTapwv Kat S£Ka araSlwv. 5. Lacuna: the sense must be more or less as indicated by Schweig haeuser: 'ex eisdem quattuordecim stadiis fere tria etiam stadi;l occupasse equitatum, cuius pars altera (Kai rovrov f-1-Epos- f-LEV n) a 374

THE BATTLE OF TSSUS

XII.

21.

7

marl, altera pars a dextro 1atere (TOVS (o') ~p.la~as brt TOU s~etofJ) erant locati'. But there may well be some phrase omitted between Oli\d.TT'[I and TDus ~p.lat:a:;, as Hultsch suggests. For Alexander's arrangement, with cavalry to left and right of his phalanx, cf. Arr. ii. 8. g, 9· 1 ff. Tots 'll'oAEj.LCots ••. To'Ls tta.TExoua~ Tas wa.pwptda.s: d. Arr. ii. S. 7, t1TITae.. S£ (sc. Darius) Kai To/ op<.t To/ tV aptaT~pif a,Pwv KaTa TO }1.\£gavOpov 0€etov is owp.vp{ous· Kat TOUTWJJ ~anv oi IWTU vd>TOU lylvovTO Tfjs :4A~gJ.vSpov a;paTtas; Curt. iii. 8. 27, 9· Io. These z,ooo, Arrian adds, were able to utiliz:e the spurs of this range to get to the rear of Alexander's right wing. The exact position of these troops is disputed. Janke (6o ff.; cf. Kl£o, rgro, 165-9) places them on a ridge which comes out to within zso m. of the Deli Chai; cf. Kromayer, HZ, 112, 1914, 350 ff. Judeich (AS, iv. 371) rejects this site and suggests another (Schlachtenatlas, Griech. Abt. 6, 7) further to the south-east. 6. '~~'pbs TOuTous Emttci.,.'l!'tov: cf. i. 27.4 n., v. 8z. 9 n. for this military term; it indicates troops stationed at an angle to the main line, in this case an angle backwards, d. Arrian, ii. 9· :2, Tovs lJ~ :4ypdivas . •• Kat TWV L1T1Tiwv nvas Kat TWV TOgOTWV its lmKap.Tri)v 7Tpos TO t5pos TO Kr:tTa vdrrov £TatEv, W(J'T£ KaTa TO S<'gtdv aVT

ToV a,Pwv T
ws

(Gabiene). Taos .,.vp(ous 1TE~ous: evidently the hypothetical 1o,ooo 'left over' if the infantry line extended for 20 stades; they have no independent existence (cf. 19. 9 n.). 'II'AoEtous ovTa.s Tijs ittEivou 1rpo8taEw'>: 'more than his plan required' (taking EK
epitomator may have omitted something here.

7. £tt TOuTwv: on the basis of these calculations. lv8etta. aTa.8£ous ..• 6.'1ToAet'ITt:a9a.t: 'eleven stadcs at the most are

left for the length of the phalanx'. This implies that three of the fourteen stades (§ 4) are occupied by cavalry. But P. allows only 8oo cavalry to a stade (18. 3 n.), yet P. and Callisthenes are agreed in giving Alexander s,ooo horse (19. 3 n.), which should occupy over 6 stades. One must therefore assume no space left between the l/.a.L (cf. 18. 4-5 n.), so that 8oo cavalry occupy only half a stade. Toos Tp~a.,.uplous ~ea.~ 8uJxlMous t'll'l Tpul.ttovTa. To ~6.9os: these 32,ooo are Alexander's force of 42,ooo (19. 3) less the Io,ooo which P. is igno,ring (§ 6 n.). At intervals of 3ft. (avv17am~<:oms), and arranged ,1o deep, 32 .ooo men would require a width of 3,2oo ft. (~j:"" X 3). ,375

XIL

21.

7

THE BATTLE OF ISSGS

Since a stade is 6oo ft., on this calculation Alexander's infantry would require, not II, but st stades. As Schweighaeuser detecte(i. P. is at fault in his calculations and is apparently allowing 6ft. per man, despite his use of aw11a'1w<6ms (cf. ii. 69. 9 n.). That he in tended to do this, however, is scarcely credible, for it makes nonsens(· of his criticism of Callisthenes. 8. d~ oKTW Tnayp.Evwv: cf. 19. 6. 9. To yap O.MvaTov KTX.: d. vi. 2. 11, where P. remarks that the im possible is wholly false and admits of no defence. a(m)Oev Efxet TT,v 'TI"iunv: 'forthwith convinces us that it must be so·. i.e. impossible; the phrasing is awk\vard, but TT{a-n<; means 'proof ol error' as in 20. 3 (as Hultsch points out). 10. u'T!"o9wu': sc. writers; but he means Callisthenes. 22. 1. 'TI"QVTQ 'TI"X~v TEXews oXLywv: an illogical phrase combining tlw ideas 'to tell all' and 'to tell more than a Yery few'. 2. uO"Tepov S£ fLE-ravo110'a.t: Callisthenes accepts a version discredit able to Darius. 3. 'TI"WS 8' E'TI"EYVWO'QV aXXTjXous KTX.: 'but how each learnt where tlw other etc.'; not, with Paton, 'how they intimated to each other . .P.'s criticism is again petty, at least respecting Darius, for, as Arria11 (ii. 8. n) points out, it was \vell known since Xenophon (A nab. i. l)_ 21) that the Great King normally took up position in the centn'. Alexander in fact led his right as at Granicus (Arr. i. I4· r, ii. ro. 3), but Darius had perhaps not yet sufficient information to anticipat<· this. Alexander no doubt calculated on folding up the opposing lefi and then turning to attack Darius, who may indeed have relishr< I a direct encounter-he was no coward-lJUt not whr·n Alexander \Va·. advancing fresh from
TIMAEUS' CRITICISM OF OTHER WRITERS

XII. 23. 4

23. Timaeus' criticism of other writers This chapter rounds off the section of the book in which P. discusses Timaeus' treatment of other historians (cf. § 8). 23. 1. 11'Ad0'711Y ••• KaTaSpoflTJY: not unnaturally, for Ephorus was especially concerned with the west (FGII, 70 F 129~41), Sicily, Italy, Spain, and north Africa (cf. Pedech, ad loc.). 2. ots aihos evoxos €crn: cf. I2 b I. The charge against Timaeus is made in reference to his criticism of Ephorus, but supported by comparing his attack on Callisthenes for flattering Alexander (cf. 12 b 2) with his own glorification of Timoleon (§§ 4-6)-a theme which is in turn twisted to buttress up a little self-glorification by P. himself (§ 7). TOiauTas n1To!f>acrEtS: the precise nature of Timaeus' abuse of Ephorus is not known, but its character may be guessed from the kind of things he said against Callisthenes (rz b 2), Demochares (r3~r4), and Agathocles (rs). P.'s remarks suggest something more than the accusation of falsehood mentioned by loscphus (Ap. i. 16 = FGH, 70 T 30), •.. Ttva TP07TO~ "E
3. KaAAicr9i:v11v •.. EtKoTws KOAacr6eVTa J-LnaA.A.u~at: for corrupting the mind of Alexander and attempting to deify him (r2 b 2 n.). According to Arrian (iv. ro. 2), Callisthenes claimed that ToiJ O"{ov T~v fLETova{av )l>..,gav8p~ ovK

Jg c1iv

if;eu8eTaL avrJpTfja8at, di\i\' Jg.;veyKTJ €, av8pdmovs. Tarn

c1i~· iiv

'OAvfLmds !mf:p yEvEaEwS' auTov mhos {nr£p }!i\.;gav8pou gvyypr:lif;as

(Alex. ii. 358) suggests that by his flattery he hoped to persuade Alexander to rebuild Olynthus, his native city, which, according to Plut. Alex. 53· r (= FGII, 124 T 7), he alleged to be his aim. P. approves of Callisthenes' execution, but mainly to concede Timaeus' point (12 b 2, OLKalws- •• • TETwx.!vaL To.v~;O'T(nwv 8£wv: 1TotE i: is Valesi us' suggestion for 1rol P; but Suidas' 7TOLEtv (i.e. after JpouA.~87J) gives a good sense and is read by .PCdech. On Tirnoleon of Corinth see 4 a 2 n. Our sources for his career all derive from Tirnaeus' flattering version; cf. Stier, RE, 'Timoleon', col. 1277; Westlake, CQ, 1938, 68 and 72· Marcellinus (Vit. Thuc. 27 FGH, s66 T IJ) asserts that Tim==teus praised Timoleon immoderately because he had not overthrown the fLOvapx[a of his father Andromachus at Taurornenium; and certainly Andromachus had supported Timoleon and let him use Tauromenium as a base (Plut. Timol. ro. 4-5 = FGH, 566 T 3 b). According to Plutarch (Timol. 36. r) Timaeus stated that, apart from Timoleon's munler uf his brother Timophanes (an act of tyrannicide 377

XII. 23.4

TIMAEUS'

CRITICIS~1

OF OTHER WRITERS

perpetrated on principle), otioe'v ~unv tJj /L~ roD l:orpoKMov,; .. . Em;, rts rJL€por; TOVOt' gwr]if;o.ro;" His praise of Timoleon was famous: Cicero (jam. v. r2. 7) asks L. Lucceius to compose a monograph on his own deeds, in which case 'ingenium mihi ... suppeditatum fuerit tuum, sicut Timoleonti a Timaeo aut ab Herodoto Thernistocli'. Sintenis (Phil. r847, 291-2), followed independently by Castiglioni (228-9), proposed ~pdJuw for (h:wv (cf. § 7), and Naber (Mnem. 1857. 233) B<wv Tro.lilwv; but lmala.v'; against this is the change in sense of ypaJL/L~ from 'a board division' to 'a line'. On the other hand '"o8La.lav would give a better sense to rpo1rov Twa, since it would not be used literally (cf. 24. 6, zS a w). 11"pos To J.LEy~:8oo; TTJS otKoUJ.LEV"I"JS: the contrast is not, as Wunderer (iii. 29) suggests, with the covering of the vvorld on the gaming-board, but with the distance Alexander covered and incidentally (see next note) with the area covered in P.'s own history. P. manages to hint that the difference between Alexander and Timoleon is similar to that between himself and the stay-at-home Timacus. •LS :Iupo.KovO"a.s: cf. 4 a 2 n. ; the date was 344· 7. Ka.e.l.mp ~v b€u~n+~: 'as if in a saucer'; perhaps proverbial (cf. von Scala, 283). 378

TIMAElTS' CRITICIS),I OF OTHER 'WRITERS

XII. 24.

I

u-rr~p '1Ta.A.£as !J.OYOY Ka.l ItK£A(as: Suidas ends his excerpt of the present passage with the words €ypm/J< 1T iJ1rep Tfj> olKovi-Lb"1"J> ••• 1T<'1TOt7]j.LEl'Dt<; Tas <1rprtf;;u;. 8. -mpl ..• J\puno-r.tA.oos Ka.l0Eo<j>pao--roo Ka.t Ka.XA.to-9€vous: naturally linked together. See s-r6 n. (cf. II. 5 n.) for Aristotle and Thcophrastus; r 2 b r-3 for Callisthenes. 'E<j>opou Ka.l ATJtJ.oxapous: cf. 4 a 3-6 (Ephorus), r3-r4 (Demochares). -rous l!.<j>LAO'T~!J.WS rrErrHatJ..tYoos &.A.TJ9£uuv: 'those who believe him to be unprejudiced and truthful', despite the word order d.cptAoT{/1-w'> goes better with dA7]8<JJEtY (so Schweighaeuser, Shuck burgh, Mauersberger, alii) than ;v:ith <1TE1TE ('through lack of spirit', Reiske, Paton, Pedech).

24-28 a. Timaeus' methods and the

q~talities

of the historian

Despite repetition and overlapping both here and in relation to earlier sections, this part of the work shows three divisions: (a) Timaeus' errors and lies (24-25 c), (b) Timaeus' political and military inexperience (25 d-26 d), (c) the cause of Timaeus' faults and the qualities of the good historian (27-28 a).

See the analysis of Pedech, pp. xxiii-xxYii. 24. 1. m:pL -r~s a.tpeo-£ws T LtJ.a.(ou: 'on the character of Timaeus' ; cf. § 4· Timaeus is to be judged by the principles he propounds. 'To us 'ITOLTJTas Ka.i auyypa.<j>ea.,: d. 25. 4 n. For Timaeus' use and interpretation of poets as well as historians cf. FGJI, 566 F 141-3. The present passage is FGJJ, s66 F I52. In an interesting discussion Pedech, ad Joe., points out that the kind of analysis here attributed to "!'imaeus contains the germs of a fruitful development, and he compares the interest in 'character' and 'biography' which appears in the Hellenistic period, exemplified by the works of Theophrastus and Ariston of Ceos on the one hand and Aristoxenus and Phaeneas of Eresus on the other; he also compares Timaeus' approach with the similar analysis of poems of Anacreon and Pindar by Chamaeleon 379

TOL\EUS' :\IETHODS:

XIL 24- r

of Heraclea. There is some truth in this, even though Timaeus' approach is somewhat crude. 8ul. Twv O'II"Epavw 'II"Aeovacrf1WV: 'by excessive repetitions'. 2. Tov "'I"OlTJTl\v: Homer, as usually in P. (d. iv. 45· 6, ix. 2r. r3, etc.). et< ToO tho.lTpeuew ••• yo.crTp(f1«pyov 'l!"apEfl.tf.o.lveLv: for the sentiment cf. Hor. Epist. i. 19. 6, 'laudibus arguitur uini uinosus Homerus'. oo/o,pniovTa. ••• ev TOLS cruyyp6.f1f10.0'lV: 'by frequently describing rich food in his writings': d¢~ap-ru€tv is 'to season food'. oo/otf.6.yov ••• KO.L Xlxvov: d. Athen. viii. 342 c, TtfLaLOS ... llpwTO-r.O. 'Y) Tov rjn>..6aolj>ov otjJOij>ayov 'Y)al y•yovivm. Theocritus of Chios had alSO referred to his ya<:npOS, , • aVOfLOV lj>umv (cf. 8. 4 0.). 3. Lacuna: the exact wording is lost but Buttner-Wobst's supplement gives the probable sense: TOV av-rov rp01TOl' lmaivw8m r~v if>uaw\ roD Ll wvualou -roiJ 'TUpa·wou, k'AtvOICO(]fLOVV'TOS ~ea1 TUS 'TWV u,Paa!LaKO.t 1TOL1Ct>..las .J~epya'OfLEl'OU flUV€XiiJS. (d.M') anfy~e1j TrOLELaOat StM'Y).jlw (Tr€pt Tt!Laiou) Kal &vaap•crrda8at (-roV"T~ was, however,

i6tOTI)'T'US

1"WV

-r~v d~e6..\ou8ov

contradicted: d. Nepos, de reg. 2. 2, 'id, quod in tyranno non facile reperitur, minime libidinosus, non luxuriosus, non auarus'; Cic. TD, v. 57, 'de hoc homine a bonis auctoribus sic scriptum accepimus, summam fuisse eius in uictu temperantiam'; [Arist.] Oec. i. 6. 1344 b 34; Plut. .M or. r76 A, 782 c. 792 c; Theophr. fg. 128 Wimmer. This alternative tradition probably goes back to Philistus and Ephorus (Jacoby on FGH, 556 F 40). That the outward grandeur of Dionysius' robes and court practice deliberately emulated that of eastern absolutism as a piece of statecraft is argued by A. Alfoldi, 'Gewaltherrscher und Theaterkonig', in Late Classical attd lviediae;;al Studies in honour of A. M. Friend Jr. (Princeton, 1955), 15 ff.; d. Stroheker, I6o, q6. 5. ~vurrv(wv t
Kat

'

.f

UKOUOVTES

'l

OUK

)

I

aKOUOVO~.

25. 1-5. Phalaris' bull: on Phalaris, the tyrant of Acragas (Agrigentum}, see "Vii. 7· 2 n., ix. 27. 7 n. The bull, devised by Perilaus, in which Phalaris' enemies are said to have been roasted alive, was probably copied from the brazen bulls on the top of 1\ft. Atabyrum 380

PHA LARIS' BULL

XII. 25. I-5

in Rhodes, which lowed when disaster threatened the city (Timaeus in schol. on Pindar, Ol. vii. I6o c: <:lcrt 8£ IWL f36<s xaAKot lrrt Ttfl opH -rii> 'P6oov, ot 6-rav p.IAA'[J n -rfi 7TOAH ylv<:cr8at KaKov p.vKwv-rat = FGH, 566 F 39 (b) ; Dunbabin, 320; Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 34 n. 3) ; see above, ix. 27. 7 n. The history of Phalaris' bull is obscure and the evidence on what Timaeus said about it is contradictory. According FGH, 566 F 28 (c)), he stated to a scholiast on Pindar, Pyth. i. r85 that the people of Agrigentum sank it in the sea after Phalaris' death, and that a bull exhibited at Agrigentum in his o•vn time represented the River Gcla. Both P. (§ 3) and Diodorus (xiii. 90. 4) are agreed that a bull was taken from Agrigentum to Carthage, and Diodorus this was done by Himilco after he captured the town in 4o6/s; P. date is vaguer. P. believes this bull to have been that of l'halaris, since it had a door at the joint of its shoulder-blades, through which victims could be let down ; accordingly he attacks Timaeus (§§ 4-5) for asserting (a) that the bull at Carthage was not from Agrigentum, and (b) that there had not been such a bull at Agrigentum. But there is no reason to question the scholiast's statement that Timaeus said that Phalaris' bull was thrown into the sea, and if that is so, P.'s second accusation, as it stands, is false. Perhaps then P. misunderstood Timaeus, who really said that there had been no such bull (i.e. no bull of Phalaris) at Agrigentum at the time when Himilco was said to have removed it (Lenschau, RE, 'Phalaris', col. I6So). Such a statement would not, of course, exclude the existence at Agrigentum of a bull representing the River Gela. (Pedech has an alternative solution. He argues that in § 4 the words iv -rfi 1Tpo£
XII. 25.

I

5

TIMAEUS' METHODS:

P. realizes that this point has to be established, and seeks to establish it by the argument that the bull had a trapdoor in the shoulders. The present extract from P. contains no reference to Scipio's restoration of the bull; and in CR, I945. 39-42, I argued that this was because P. composed this book before I So, and so before the sack of Carthage disclosed the bulL I am now inclined to accept Jacoby's view (on FGH, 566 F 28) that P.'s confident description of the trapdoor must rest on autopsy, and so be later than I46. The absence of any reference to Scipio's generous gesture remains a difficulty; but perhaps it was mentioned in an extension of the fragment which has not survived. It will, of course, have been related also in its proper place in xxxviii. If this view is right, the discussion of the bull could be an insertion in a book written before ISO (or 146) (cf. iii. 1-5 n.) ; or more probably the bulk of xii was composed after that date (see above, p. 317). Whatever the original purpose and significance of Phalaris' bull, Timaeus' statement that it was thrown into the sea (above) appears acceptable. Whether the bull discovered by Scipio (with a trapdoor in its shoulders) was the bull sent to Carthage from Agrigentum by Himilco, it is impossible to say. Nor is it certain whether P., like Diodorus, dated the sending of this bull from Agrigentum to Carthage in 4o6/s; he says merely 'during the Carthaginian domination', and it would be consistent with this statement if the bull >Vhich Timaeus knew of in Agrigentum and believed to represent the River Gela was transferred to Carthage at some date before the First Punic War. On the other hand, the original capture of the city was the most likely date for the removal of such an antiquity to Carthage. The trapdoor seen by P. certainly suggests either Phalaris' bull or some· thing intended to be taken for it; and Freeman (History of Sicily, ii. 463) thinks that it had been manufactured by the Carthaginians to show to visitors. P.'s words (§ 3) may imply that someone in antiquity had made this allegation, perhaps Timaeus, who said that the bull at Carthage was not from Agrigentum (§ 4). It is not impossible; but after 146 at any rate Scipio's prestige (and by implication that of P.) was involved in maintaining the genuineness of the bull brought from Carthage, since it had been sent back with moral exhortations to Agrigentum. Neither P.'s argument nor that of Diodorus is logically impeccable (though P.'s is stronger), and Timaeus comes out of the attack with his reputation undamaged. See for discussion (besides Richard Bentley's famous Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris (London, 1699), sn-12), Freeman, History of Sicily, ii. ; Jacoby, commentary on FGH, 566 F z8. Walbank, CR, 1945, 39-42 (with bibliography) ; Brown, 54-57; PMech, ad loc. On the relationship of Diodl)rus' account to P.'s see \Valbank, art. cit.; I am not convinced 38l

PHALARIS' BULL

XII. 25. 6

by the argument of R. Lauritano, KQKAAOE, 1956, ro-n, that both go back to Silenus of Caleacte. 2. ~K Tou KaTaaKeuaufla.Tos: 'from the way it was made'. 3. Ka.Tci n;v ~1TLKpaTeLa.v Ka.pxTJoov1wv: this could include any date within the period from 4o6/s to the First Punic War; see above, §§ 1-5 n. SL' T]v tv Ka.pxTJOOVL KaTEuKeuO.uSTJ ToLoi:iTos Ta.upos: the implication is that someone, probably Timaeus, had said that the bull at Carthage--its existence was evidently well known-was a forgery; see above, §§ r-s n. 4, 'Ta<; a1TocjlaaH<; 'TWV 1TOLTJ'T(;w KaL auyypacjlewv: the grouping together of poets and historians is perhaps taken from Timaeus (as in 24. 1). Phalaris' bull was a popular theme in poetry and history alike: early references are Pindar, Pyth. i. 185, Heracleid. Pont., fg. 37 (FHG ii. 223) and Callimachus, fgs. 25, u9, and 149 Schn. = 45-47 Pf. Timaeus could, of course, only refute these stories by denying the existence of Phalaris' bull; clearly therefore P. believes him to have done this (cf. §§. 1-5 n.). fl,;T• dva.L ••• ~~ :A.Kpaya.vToc; fl,;Te yeyoveva.L: probably a slight misrepresentation of what Timaeus really said; see §§ 1-5 n. ~v Tfi 1TpoELPTJflEvU m)AeL: Agrigentum; against Pedech's view that Carthage is meant see §§ r-s n. 5. 1roAAous ••. 8La.Te9ELTa.L Aoyous: this long discussion in Timaeus was probably introduced in connexion with his account of the capture of Agrigentum by Himilco in 4o6/s. and so in book xv of his Histories (Diog. Laert. viii. 51 ; Diod. xiii. 83). Ka.Ta Tils TLfLa.1ou: sc. alpiu£w> (unless this should be inserted with Pedech). Evidently a good deal is missing, however, and it is not even certain that the present criticism links with the discussion of Phalaris' bull. TL ••• ovoj..La Kai pfjfLa.: 'what language'; cf. 7. 5, 7riiv pijp.a Kal 11auav tf>wv..Jv. Pedech 'quel nom et quel verbe' is perhaps too explicit. 'II'UVTa. ycip t'II'L8exea9a.L ••• To yevos: 'for to me it seems to merit the bitterest expressions of their kind'. The words nl y.fvos- seem to go more naturally with Ta mKp6raTa and are so taken by Paton and Mauersberger (s.v. y.fvos-); but Schweighaeuser and Shuckburgh make Td y.fvos the subject of 8oK£i:, translating 'Timaei ratio, institutum quo ille usus est' (sc. iKElvou) or 'a man of his kind'. Schweighaeuser evidently felt the harshness of this, for in his Lex. Polyb., s. v. y.fvos-, he inadvertently printed Ta 7rtKpoTaTa ov6p.a.Ta l!mSEx€T(U TOVTO 'Td Y£VOS". 6. acjlLMuo.J.oc; •.• Kal .•• cl.vaywyos: cf. xxxvi. IS. 5 (of Prusias): fTaL8das 8i Kat
XII. 25. 6

TIMAEUS

0~

TIMOLEON

example quoted suggests that he is thinking of practical knowledge, viz. theory of geography rather than anything normally included in philosophy. See VoL I, p. 2 n. 9· 7. ~v Tfj ILL~ Kat ElKocn"fi ~u~Atot: this would imply that Timaeus dealt with Timoleon's career (344/3-337 /6} in books xxi-xxii (cf. 26 a r). Against this is (a) the fact that Athen. vi. zso A-D ( = FGH, 566 F 32) assigns events of the younger Dionysius' reign to book x.xii, which can hardly have contained these if the account of Timoleon was in xxi; (b) the fact~stressed by Jacoby, FGH, iii b, p. 545~that two books is very little for Timoleon's career, especially if this means that books xxili-xxxiii were all devoted to the two decades from his retirement to the rise of Agathocles (337 /6-Jlj /r6). Moreover, according to Athen. xi. 47I F (FGH, 566 F 33), book xxviii was still concerned with Timoleon. Jacoby therefore suggests {and his view is generally shared) that the excerptor has made a mistake (De Sanctis, Storiografia siceliota, 51, suggests less convincingly that the error is P.'s) and that Timoleon's career occupied books xxiii-xxviii, leaving xxix-xxxiii for the period down to Agatlwcles. Admittedly this theory has to contend with 26 a 1, where it is stated that Timoleon's speech belongs to the same book as events attributed (in 25 k 3) to book xxi: hence one must assume a similar scribe's error in 25 k 3· Since, however, the reading in this passage (q.v.) must certainly be wrong for quit€ independent reasons, this seems no bar to Jacoby's theory, which is therefore to be accepted. KcJ.Ta n]v Tou T~!LoA€oVTos 1TapaKATJow: on Timoleon cf. 4 a 2 n., 23. 4 n. Diodorus records two speeches made to his troops, one before they marched out against the Carthaginians (Diod. xvi. 78. 2) and another a little later (Diod. xvi. 79· 2, cf. FGH, F n8}; if that here referred to is the one discussed in 26 a I, it is the second of the t\vo mentioned by Diodorus (cf. 26 a I n.). Tfjs yfis TTJS imo T4i ~rJ>, Kal -rii• Jl~V 11afa.:;, Tfjs S' EupW11'1JS' Ka.i\ovp..fvTJ> •.• In both passages Koap.o-; means 'the heavens' (d. ix. 15. 6, rs. 12}; but whereas for rhetorical purposes !socrates adopts the old division of the earth into two continents, Europe and Asia, Timaeus makes Timoleon follow th(• more familiar triple division (d. iii. 37. 2·8 n.). Since the content and form of expression are both quite normal (Paton's suggestion that P. took exception to the phrase Li7To 'Ttf Koap. is refuted by the lsocratean parallel), the point of P.'s criticism is obscure. Pedech follows Valesius in thinking that P. is criticizing Timaeus' division of the whole earth, not merely the oiKovp.lv1J, into three con· tinents; but if this is a loose way of writing it is common, and found in !socrates (above), Onesicritus (FGH, 134 F 6 Arr. bid. 3· 6), Pliny (Nat. kist. iii. 3, 'terrarurn orb is universus in tres diuiditur J84

TIMAEUS

0~

TIMOLEO!\

XII. 25 a 5

partes'), and other writers. Pedech argues that the use of d(.Ja.r}s 'ignorant' in § 9 would support this view; but this is not certain, since the sentence breaks off short and does not make clear wherein the ignorance consists. The missing words may have meant 'so ignorant ... as to imagine that a soldier addressing troops would use such an expression'; and indeed Laqueur, RE, 'Timaios', col. I08o, suggests very plausibly that P. is ridiculing the introduction of such a piece of pedantry into a military harangue, a view supported by the argument of 25 a-b and the criticism of other speeches in 25 k, 26, 26 a, and 26 b. 8. oux ofov Ti11mov: \Vho composed the speech. \Vunderer's proposal (i. 9B n. 2) to read Ttf.WMoVTa. was anticipated by Reiske, but is superfluous. On Margites cf. 4 a 5 n. 25 a 1. EK T(;'lV 'lra.pOLf1LI';)v: probably, as Wunderer (i. s) suggests, a marginal note that has crept into the text : with cf>aa{ it is superfluous and even untranslatable. O"Ta.Aa.y11ov £va. .•• t:LS To yvwvcu To '!riiv £yxu11a.: cf. Corpus paroem. graec. ii. 644. That this piece of popular observation conceals Stoic doctrine (so von Scala, 283) seem improbable. 3. Toos cjlLAoTLf1oupov OLa.KELf1EVous:: cf. ix. 37· I: 'those who are disposed to be captious'. Orelli's cf>t.Aonf:Laton:pov is ingenious but unnecessary. P. refers, of course, to over-zealous champions of Timaeus, but no particular person is singled out. Kat f1EAET11';: so Hultsch and Biittner-Wobst for Kat f:La.\1\ov M; but f:La.\1\ov can have the sense of f:La./..taTa in P. (cf. v. 55· 8, quoted by Schweighaeuser, s.v. f:LaAtiOv), and the MS. reading should be kept with Pedech. Tas s111111 yop1a.s Ka.l Tas 1l'a.pa.KATJO'ELc;, £n S€ Toos 11'pEO'~euTLKous A6youc;: cf. 25 i J, Ut!f:LfJouAEUTtKi:JV •.. 1TapaKAT)TtKf7JV ..• TrpwfJwnKWV; Diod. xx. r. 2, Ka{Tot 'YE Tovs JmoE{Kvua8at fJoullof:Ltlvous Aoyou oJvaf:LLV l~w·n KaT' io[av OT)f:LT)Yoplas Kai TrpwfJwnKovs Aoyous-, ETt SJ lyKdJf:Lta Kal o/Joyous- Kat Taillla Td Totaih-a awTaTTw8at. See also Cic. or. 66 ; Dion. Hal. ep. ad Pomp. 3· 20, 5· 6; Ant. vii. 66. 3· OT)f:LTJ'Yopla.t, which P. claims to record frequently (xxxvi. r. 3), include not only harangues before popular assemblies but also speeches before councils; TrapaKA~aEtS' are in the main exhortations by generals to soldiers; and ,\oyot 1rpwfJEUTtKo{ are the speeches of ambassadors. But the distinction

is rather rhetorical (for instance Critolaus' speech to the Achaeans in xxxviii. I2-I3 has many elements of a mxpcl.KIIT)u•s-), and the words Kai. uu/J..~fJOTJV miv n1 TotovTo ytlvos are perhaps an indication that it is not to be pressed. Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (I)', cols. 1525-7. analyses P.'s own speeches under these three headings; see also Avenarius, ISO·~

5. Tn P116£vTa. ••• ouS' ws 814173

~ppfJ&"l

KnT'

cc

&.A-TJ6€~a.v:

'what was said, nor

XlL 25 a 5

TIMAEUS' METHODS:

the real sense of what was said' (i.e. neither a transcript nor an accurate resume of the actual speech) rather than 'what was said, nor the form in which it was actually said' (so \Velzhofer, jahrb. 188o, 54r); cf. Walbank, JRS, 1963, 10. 1r6.vTas ••• To(Js pfJOevTas Myous: 'all these speeches', i.e. all the speeches according to the historian's version, not the real speeches, which P. insists were not recorded {ov ... Ta pTJ(Uv-ra y€yparp€v •.. ouK l~~'YTJOW TWV KaT' G.>..~6€Lav ElpTJfi-Evwv); P. does not express the distinction very clearly. Ta 'll'apE'Il'OfLeva Toi:s '11'payfLacnv: cf. 28 a g. For the same criticism applied to Phylarchus see ii. 56. 10 n. ; as in iii. 32. 6 'Ta 1Tapmofi-n'a are the 'concomitant details'. As in tragedy they are used to produce lvapyEta and an emotional effect in the reader; d. Dion. Hal. v. 56. 1 : xi. 1. 3-4; Scheller, 59: Avenarius, 133. ws liv et Tt<; ~v s~aTp~~n 1rpos U'l1'69eow emxupO~Tj: 'as if one were exeron a set theme in the schools'. A lacuna is generally assumed after lmxe!polTJ (Ghelen, <Mym), Biittner-\Vobst, ..oyovs')); but lmxEtp€'iv in the sense 'attempt to prove, argue dialectically', is found in Plato and Aristotle, and may be used absolutely here (cf. JmxE'P~fi-ara and lmxE'p~crH>, 'rhetorical exercises', 25 b 4, 25 k 8, 26. g). li'll'oOe~sw TftS ~auTov 5uv6.fLews: 'to show off his rhetorical powers'; this characteristic of historians is frequently criticized: d. Joseph. Ap. i. 24; Dion. Hal. i. r. 3; Diod. xx. r. 2; below, xxxvi. r. 7·

25 b 1. Tfj<,; taToplas tS'wfLa: 'the special function of history', particularly in relation to speeches. To '11'pa.x9w ~ pTj9ev: Pedech, ad Joe., observes that Thuc. i. 22. r-2 also puts Ta AExBlvTa and ni 11po.xBlvra on the same level. 2. \jluxa.ywyEi fLEV, wcjleAEL 8' ou8ev: for P.'s emphasis on TO xp~aLfi-01-' in contrast to 'TO 'TEp'!Tvr!w see Vol. I, pp. 7-8; it is a commonplace in the Histories. '11'poTe9
Tn

386

QUALITIES OF A GOOD HISTORIAN

XII. :zsc 3

viously'; when an action in the past has been successful we may imitate it and so go ahead confidently, but when it has miscarried we learn to be more careful (e:{!Aap7JOijvcu). Tois ~11"LTJJLa); but here it seems to mean simply a rhetorical exercise (cf. zs a 5 n.). On Greek rhetorical exercises see F. Blass, Die attische Beredsamkeit7. (Leipzig, I887}, L 6r-63; E. Rohde, Der griechisclu: Roman 3 (Leipzig, 1914), 317 n. z. 8LEgo5uc:ous Aoyous : 'detailed speeches'. To Tils taTopia.s tSLov: 'the peculiar virtue of history'.

25 c L TOLCLOTTJS 1Tap' €vioLs li11"o5ox-fls ••• Kat wiaTEWS: P. himself gives further testimony to this reputation by the amount of space he has allotted to criticizing Timacus and by his own decision to begin his introductory books where Timaeus left off. After all his criticism P. admits his failure to account for Timaeus' reputation (z8. 6). 2. woAurrpayl-'oauvT)v ••• Kai vaLKb;;, applied to Strato; it recognizes his preponderant, though not exclusive, interest in physics-which includes psychology and physiology (d. Capelle, RE, 'Straton (r3)', cols. 284-5}. ~hav £yxupt]an ••• wc;u8owoLetv, Oau1-16.aLos eaTLv: von Scala, 189, assumes that P. is thinking of Strato's attack on Ephorus's llEpl fVP7JJLaTwv (d. Pliny, Nat. hist. vii, index: 'Stratonis qui contra Ephori dJp~JLaTa. scripsit'; Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 77· r). But the words & rf>vmK6<; perhaps suggest that it is of Strato's physical (including psychological) writings, in which he is also concerned with refuting his predecessors such as Plato (d. Capelle, RE, 'Straton (13)', cols. Jo8 ff.), that P. is thinking; his interest in one aspect of these is apparent from iv. 39· 7-42. 8. +aivc;TaL To'Ls E1TLaT~I-'oaLv ••. vwOpbTepos: this 'appeal to the experts' shows that P.'s criticism of Strato does not depend solely on his own opinion. How far he was capable of appreciating the subtleties of the points at issue between Strato and his predecessors is a moot point.

xn. ~sd

r

TUIAEUS AT

ATHE~S

25 d l. 6.1TOKa0laas ••. )\(l~VTJO'' axe6ov ETTJ 1TEV1'~KOVTQ: cf. 25 h 1 (without ax£S6v), 28. 6, FGH, 566 T 4· The dates of Timaeus' residence in Athens cannot be accurately determined, though the suggestion that he was already there when Agathocles banished him (Diod. xxi. J7. r) is not very probable plomigliano, Ri11. star. it. 1959. 531. against Bro'v\'TI, 2-3). Laqueur (RE, 'Timaios', cols. ron-8) suggested a date between 317 and 310 for the beginning of the exile, and] acoby (FGJI, ii b, pp. 53o-2) puts it a little before Agathocles' first campaign Messana in 316/rs, linking it with Agathocles' capture of Tauromenium (which Diod. xix. 65 omits to mention in its place). Whether Timaeus returned to Sicily is not recorded. Manni (KQKAAOE, r96o, 170 n. 7) suggests that he went back to Sicily in 266/s or 262. Brown (2-9), however, thinks he returned soon after Agathocles' death in 289, and that the fifty years fall within the period 339-278 (contra, Momigliano, Riv. star. it. 1959, 531). Not all Brown's arguments are equally cogent (cf. 8. 3 n., rz b r-3 n.), but Timaeus' lack of political and military experience (25 g r-3, 25 h r. 28. 6) and his inexperience in public speaking (Cic. de or. ii. 58) would match an early removal to Athens. On the other hand, the reference to fifty years presumably echoes Timaeus' own statement (25 h r), and it does not follow that he necessarily returned at the end of fifty (or 'nearly fifty') years. KaTa{3u..!Jaos {28. 6) may, if pressed, suggests that he lived out his life at Athens. 25 d 2-25 e 7. Comparison betzr:-een med£cine and history: for the schematic comparison with its triple arrangement cf. ix. 14. r-s. xi. 8. r-2, and the threefold constitution (Yi. 3· 5 ff.). The threefold division of medicine is traditional, but P's division differs from thai in Celsus, prooem. 9. 'in tres partes medicina diducta est, ut una esset quae uictu, altera quae medicamentis, tertia quae manu mederetur. primam 8tatT1JnK~v secundam ;/;apJ.LaKevnKf;v tertiam xctpovpylw· Graeci nominarunt'. P. compresses pharmaceutice and cheirourgia into one and adds the XoytKo{, who are to provide the parallel with Timaeus (cf. 25 e 4); but the division is not necessarily his own, and he may well be drawing on some handbook of medicine from th1· third or second century (d. Wunderer, iii. 104). The triple division recalls the empiricists' division of laTptK~ into three parts: U7Jf-L€t WHK6v p.tpOS, 8epau€l!TiKOII f-Ltpos {including XELpoupy{a, ;/;apf-LUKELa and sometimes Olatm) and Oytetvov f-Ltpos (d. IC Deichgraber, Die grieclr ische Empirikerschule (Berlin, I93o). 288-9r, and Galen, Sun .figuratio empirica, p. 53, ll. 13 ff. in the same work) ; of these the iirst corresponds to ,\oyt~eov, the second to xetpovpyLKov Kat ,Papf-La Ke-vTtdv and the third to otatT1JTLKav, if this means 'regime of life' (c f 25 d 3 n.). The two great names in Hellenistic medicine are those of Hero

sss

MEDICINE AND HISTORY

XII. 25d 3

philus of Ca!chedon (early third century), who discovered the rhythm of the pulse and developed the theory of humours as the cause of disease, and his contemporary, Erasistratus of Ceos, who contributed much to the study of anatomy and the nerves (cf. Jones, CAH, vii. 284-7). Because of their interest in the causes of disease they were regarded as Aoy•Ko{ and dogmatici, and they and still more their later followers were felt to be more interested in this aspect than in the curing of disease, cf. Galen, x. 184, ol 'll'epl Tov •Epaa{OTpa.T6v TE Kat 'Hpoaa 'TWV dpyavLKWV ;.an p.oplwv vom]p.a.Ta. Apollophanes belonged to this school. The empiricist

row

school, which held that medicine was concerned only with curing illness, and aligned itself with the Sceptics rather as the dogmatists did with the Stoics, began as a breakaway from the Herophileans by Herophilus' pupil, Philinus of Cos; cf. Galen, xiv. 68J, rijr; EJ.L'II'~rtptKij~

o

oi

(alpiaewr;} wpotaT7JK€ cP.Aivos Kijws, 1rpwTos at:h~v U1TO'TEJ.LPOJ.LEVOS UT/'0 TfjS AoyLKTjS alpiaHv<;, Tal) aopp.as J...apwv 'HpoO..ov, ali Kai ci.KOIJO'T~Ii" iyivEro. Cdsus (prooem. 10) makes Serapion of Alexandria (c. zoo) the founder of the lp.m.:tpLK~ dywY1/, but Galen treats him as Philinus'

successor. There is little doubt that when he praises pharmaceutice and clteirourgia as 'TI)V aA1)fhv~v wpoaEPOJ.LEVDV E~LV, P. is displaying his sympathy with the empiricists who developed these two branches; though the empiricists' tendency to reject research into the causes of illness (cf. Deichgraber, op. cit. 282; Beloch, iv. I. 475) may have caused him some embarrassment (d. iii. 7· s. ri yap o,Aor; larpoiJ Krip.vovaLV ayvooiivro<; rd.s alTla<;; 'T(VV 1TEpL rd awp.o.ra. a,aela£w11;). P. believed that one should study the causes of illness so far as this was necessary for the curing of it, but not for the salw of theoretical knowledge and mere display (cf. 25 d 4: ix. 20. 6). See further T. C. Allbutt, Greek }v!edicine in Rome (London, rgzr), IJI ff.; Deichgraber, op. cit. 253 ff.

25 d 3. 8w.LTT)1"1Kou: 'concerned with diet': the most famous representative of the school concentrating on this branch of healing was Asclepiades of Bithynia (first century B.c.). The empiricists regarded diet as one part of 8EparrEVTtK6v (see previous note) ; and Celsus regards the empiricists as a branch of that school quae uictu morbos curat, who, however, rejected rationalis discipHna (prooem. g-ro). It has been suggested by van Paassen (The Classical Tradition of Ceograph;• (Groningen, l957l. 294) that DLaLT1)rLKov here means 'concerning one's way of life' (cf. MaLTa in i. 59· 12, iv. r8. 2), in which case it would correspond to the empirical vymv&v (see previous note). yEvous ••• -roD E11'\Tl18Eu!J.o.-ros: Boissevain read KnL ToAp.a• Kat KaraI{IE&iwOat and Pedech proposes (as a pis-aUer) app.a.KeVTLKoiJ ' ,, - E '( IILOL<; ' ) ')'€V01JS, 01\0(l)(.f.pWS

,, .1. ·~ (} at TOIJ- €1TLTTjDEUJ.LU'TOS ' ~ ' 'TDIIJ.L?J KClL' KO.Ta't'€UoEa

XII. zsd 3

MEDICINE AND HISTORY

( av~-tf3alvn). roil lmrTJooJ~-taro;; will be the art of medicine, which is brought into contempt by some of its representatives in every branch. Against Wunderer's suggestion that P. here referred, in the lacuna, to Ota.LTTJTLK~ see below, § 7 n. 4. Tb 8€ Aoyuc.ov: the first aspect (taken up by Toii'To). n-o.pO. Twv 'HpotfaAe(wv Kat Ko.AALJLO.XE~wv: Herophilus' school were famous; Galen frequently mentions them. They included Andreas (v. 81. 6 n.), Baccheius of Tanagra (c. 25o), Demetrius of Apamea, perhaps a contemporary of Baccheius, Zenon (early second century), Mantias (c. 15o) and Callimachus (see below); cf. \Vellmann in Susemihl, i. 778, 8q--I8, Instead of the more usual reference to Erasistratus P. alone mentions the followers of Callimachus, a doctor of Herophilus' school who concerned himself with Hippocrates' writings and himself wrote 'de coronis •.. quae nocerent capiti' (Pliny, Nat. hist. xxi. 12); his date is uncertain. No conclusions can be drawn from P.'s reference to the names of the group as current in Alexandria (;K~ri 1TpoaayopEVoftlvwv) for we know neither P.'s source nor its date; see further Wellmann in Susemihl, i. 827. KaT a .. , T~v E'll"ltf>aow ~c.al Tf)v E'ITayyEAlav: 'in its ostentation and the claims it makes '; cf. ix. 20. 6 for a general rejection of knowledge for mere display. To~aUTTJV £tf>£AKeTill tf>avTaa(av: cf. xxii. 9· 12, xxiv. II. 5; themselves such an air of superiority'. 5. o~ JLTJS~v O.veyvw~c.ons ••• la.Tpl~c.bv u'11"6JLVTJJLa.: though they, the AoytKo{, lay so much weight on medical literature. 61n TYJV €v Aoy~ SuvaJ.lw: 'impressed by their rhetorical powers' (Paton); 'sur Ia foi de leur force dans le raisonnement' (Pedech). The latter suggests their published works; but the former fits better the reference to the speeches which they deliver (§ 6). On speeches made by doctors to attract custom see Xen . •vi em. iv. 2. 5· 6. TOt<; €K ~u~Mou teu~Epvwmv: Wunderer, i. 65, takes Kvj3.:pvwaw to mean 'governing a state', but the literal meaning gives the better simile. JUTQ cfla.vTaala.<;: 'with great eclat' (Shuck burgh); preferable to Pedech, 'environnes d'illusion'. ht.~Sa.v •.. €'11"' bvof'a.To<;: Hultsch, followed by Pedech, takes f.1r' ovowJ.ro> with what follows, and Pedech translates 'ils apostrophent par leur nom ceux qui ont donne .... la vraie preuve de leur valeur'; but f.rr' OVOftUTOS' goes awkwardly with ayovow. Various attempts have been made at correction, of which perhaps the most convincing is Biittner-Wobst's suggestion of a lacuna after oxAov-; (so Orelli for JI.IS. Myov-;), which he fills with
MEDICINE AND HISTORY

XIL

25

e

1

with Biittner-Wobst's reading, the phrase will go better with what follows: 'when they have collected a crowd, they reduce skilled doctors to confusion, virtually singling them out by name'. Taus .•• 8ESwtc6Tas avTwv: 'those who in actual practice have given proof of their skill' (Paton}; d. xviii. z8. 2. Shuckburgh misses the sense: 'they induce certain people to submit as a specimen to their practical treatment'. O refers to other doctors, not patients. 7. To S€ Tpi.Tov: 'the third branch of medicine', cf. § 3; P. refers to surgery and pharmaceutics. To T~v 6.A.YJ9LV~v 'lTpoaEpOJ.tEvov e~~v ~v €KaaTOIS Twv e