For full information on authors and titles cited in short forms in these notes, see the Select Bibliography, pp. 909–28. Abbreviated names and titles of ancient authors, standard modern works of reference, and scholarly journals are given in general in the forms listed in the front matter of H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, eds., A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed., rev. H. Stuart Jones (Oxford, 1968; abbreviated herein as LSJ); of N. G. L. Hammond and H. H. Scullard, eds., The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 2d ed. (Oxford, 1970; abbreviated as OCD2); of P. G. W. Glare et al., eds., The Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1982); and of the annual issues of L’Année Philologique. Other abbreviations used in this volume are as follows:
| Bouché-Leclercq, HL | A. Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire des Lagides |
| Bouché-Leclercq, HS | A. Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire des Séleucides |
| Ferguson, HA | W. S. Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens |
| Gruen, HW | E. S. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome |
| Pollitt, AHA | J. J. Pollitt, Art in the Hellenistic Age |
| Rostovtzeff, SEH | M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World |
| Walbank, HC | F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius |
| Will, HP2 | E. Will, Histoire politique du monde hellénistique, 2d ed. |
1. Perdiccas’s rank while Alexander still lived was that of chiliarch, literally “commander of a thousand,” and thus the rough equivalent of colonel or brigadier, in either the cavalry or the infantry: in Perdiccas’s case, commander of the Royal Bodyguard, a Persian-derived and highly honorific post (Arr. Succ. 1.3A, Dexippus FGrH 100 F 8.4), to which Alexander had appointed him when it fell vacant on the death of the king’s favorite, Hephaestion. He “thus controlled the apparatus of empire”: Badian, “Treaty” 381.
2. DS 18.2.4, cf. Just. 13.4.5.
3. The question whether Perdiccas or Craterus was made regent at Babylon I, like Badian, Gnomon 34 (1962) 383, am tempted to regard as an unproblem created by Beloch’s perverse ingenuity; however, for a judicious discussion of what Badian terms “one of the most vexed questions of Hellenistic scholarship,” see Bosworth, esp. 129–34, who comes down, decisively and irrefutably, in favor of Perdiccas.
4. Arr. Anab. 7.26.3; DS 17.117.4, cf. 18.1.4; QC 10.5.5; Just. 12.15.8.
5. DS 17.117.4. If Alexander in fact died without naming a successor, as is often held—see, e.g., Hammond and Walbank 100—then the likelihood of Perdiccas’s having manufactured both these famous apothegms becomes a near-certainty.
6. Arr. Anab. 7.4.4–8; DS 17.107.6; Plut. Alex. 70, Mor. 329D–E; Just. 12.10.9–10; Chares of Mytilene ap. Athen. 12.538b–539a; cf. Green, Alexander 447–48.
7. QC 10.6.13. The same objection applied to Heracles, Alexander’s bastard by Memnon’s widow, Barsine: cf. p. 28.
8. Satyrus ap. Athen. 13.557d, Plut. Alex. 77, DS 18.2.2. A useful survey of what is known or can reasonably be deduced about Arrhidaios’s general background and mental condition is provided by W. Greenwalt, “The Search for Arrhidaeus,” AncW 10 (1984) 69–77.
9. Badian, “Treaty” 382, sums up the case against Arrhidaios well: “Not only was A. the only male Argead left alive by Alexander (which is strong evidence), but we always find him, in his brief reign, in someone else’s power. He never acts independently of a noble or of his own ambitious wife; in fact, someone is always in charge of him.”
10. Will, HP2 1.27–28, repeated in CAH VII2.1 29.
11. Hornblower 158. For the age and status of these veterans, see DS 19.28.1, 30.5–6, 41.2; Plut. Eum. 16; cf. Hammond, “Alexander’s Veterans,” 51 ff.
12. Plut. Eum. 18.
13. QC 10.6.9, 16–18, 21 ff.
14. QC 10.6.10–12.
15. The proverbial saying “All Cretans are liars” was attributed to Epimenides, and cited by Callimachus, Hymn 1.7–8, and St. Paul, Titus 1.12. A somewhat fanciful explanation of the proverb by Athenodorus of Eretria (preserved by Photius, p. 150 Bekker) is that Idomeneus of Crete, called upon to adjudicate between Thetis and Medea in the matter of beauty, favored Thetis—whereupon Medea, the enchantress, laid a curse on all Cretans, so that they could never tell the truth.
16. QC 10.6.16–18, Just. 13.2.13. On the essential distinction between the old Macedonian concept of monarchy and the new Hellenistic absolutism, see Leon Mooren, “The Nature of the Hellenistic Monarchy,” in Van’t Dack et al. 205 ff., esp. 231–32.
17. QC 10.7.2 ff.; Arr. Succ. 1.1A, B; Just. 13.3.1–2; DS 18.2.2. I am suspicious of analogies alleged by some modern scholars in Curtius from early Roman imperial history, and supposedly designed to minimize such competence as Arrhidaios is here credited with: see Bosworth 128 and other reff. there cited. Curtius, here and later (10.8.2, 6, 8, 15–22), represents Arrhidaios as both moderate and decisive, Meleager as the infantry’s spokesman ab initio, in contrast to both Diodorus and Justin.
18. QC 10.7.4–10; Just. 13.2.8, 3.1; Arr. Succ. 1.1; cf. DS 18.2.4.
19. QC 10.7.16–21, 8.1–23; Just. 13.3.5–7, 4.1–3; Arr. Succ. 1.1.
20. Arr. Succ. 1.4A, Just. 13.4.7–8, QC 10.6–10 passim (elephants, 10.9.11–19); cf. DS 18.4.7.
21. QC 10.9.19–21.
22. Not surprisingly, our sources tend to equivocate over the precise nature of Perdiccas’s office: QC 10.10.1, 4 leaves it open, as does Just. 13.4.5; Arrian and Dexippus (above, n. 1) claim that he was still chiliarch; only DS 18.2.4, probably based on Hieronymus of Cardia, identifies his title as ἐπιμελητὴς τῆς βασιλείας. That this is correct we can at once deduce from DS 18.48.4–5, where the relative status of the two offices is made all too clear. Antipater, on his deathbed, appointed his son Cassander chiliarch, but Polyperchon ἐπιμελητής, which Cassander found so great an insult (DS 18.49 passim) that he at once raised a revolt (see pp. 8 ff., 70).
23. DS 18.3 passim, Arr. Succ. 1.5–8, QC 10.10.1–6. Just. 13.4.9–25 is so garbled as to be virtually useless here.
24. Cf. Green, Alexander 459 ff.
25. Arr. Anab. 7.12.3–4, DS 18.4.1.
26. Arr. Anab. 1.29.1–4, QC 3.1.1–13.
27. Plut. Demetr. 2, 3, 18, 19; Eum. 10, 15.
28. Arr. Succ. 1.3A, B; cf. 1.7–8A (where the office is to be shared with Craterus; see n. 31 below), and DS 18.3.2, 4.1 ff.
29. Arr. Succ. 1.3–4B, Dexippus FGrH 100 F 8.8.
30. Bosworth, 133, doubts this appointment, but it could well have been made, for its propaganda effect and to play for time, while Craterus was still in Cilicia.
31. Badian, “Treaty” 384, cites with approval Schwann’s theory that Perdiccas may well have let Alexander’s appointment of Craterus stand (cf. Arr. Succ. 1.7–8A), leaving him and Antipater to argue things out in far-off Macedonia. But not even Perdiccas, though he lacked finesse as a conspirator, would have failed to appreciate the obvious danger inherent in such a move, i.e., that Antipater and Craterus might well form common cause against him—as indeed happened all too soon (see p. 13).
32. DS 18.3.1, Arr. Succ. 1.6, QC 10.10.2, App. Syr. 53.1–2. Paus. 1.6.2 attributes the main initiative in this division of the satrapies to Ptolemy; but though he may well have pressed his own claims to Egypt, it seems clear that the prime mover throughout was Perdiccas.
33. Walbank, CR 26 (1976) 93; cf. Engel 5 ff.
34. DS 18.4.1–6 passim.
35. Arr. Succ. 1.5A.
36. DS 18.7 passim.
37. DS 18.8.1; cf. Berthold, Rhodes 36–37 with n. 58.
38. DS 17.111.1–3, 18.8.6–7, 9.1; Hypereid. Epitaph. 10–23; Arr. Succ. 1.9, 12–15, 17, 22–23; Plut. Phoc. 23 ff. Spartan neutrality: DS 18.11.2, Paus. 1.25.4. Will, CAH VII.2.1 30, argues inconsistency in Diodorus’s explanations of the Lamian War; but the availability of mercenaries and the fury generated by the Exiles Decree are not mutually exclusive. Rather they form complementary elements in a general impulse to rebellion stimulated by Alexander’s death. The impulse had in fact been there for some time, arguably since before the arrival of Harpalus in 324: see N. G. Ashton, “The Lamian War: A False Start?” Antichthon 17 (1983) 47–63.
39. Lepore, 161 ff., sees two distinct sources, and two motives for war, in DS 17.111.1–4 and 18.8–9, one a nationalist war of liberation, the other a mere venture by freebooters. That nationalism played a powerful role should be clear from the alternative title, the “Hellenic War,” as it was officially known in Athens: see N. G. Ashton, “The Lamian War—stat magni nominis umbra,” JHS 104 (1984) 152–57. But what, surely, we have here is rather a case of historical serendipity: an ill-prepared but financially secure Athens was eager to strike a blow for freedom, and could pay others to fight for her, while at the same time large numbers of professional mercenaries were easily available, and, because of Alexander’s death, out of a job. For a well-documented narrative of the war see Hammond and Walbank 107–17.
40. DS 17.111, 18.9–17 passim; Plut. Phoc. 23 ff.; Paus. 1.25.4–5; cf. Ferguson, HA 14 ff., with further testimonia, and, on Leosthenes, Lepore 178 ff. For his death, see Suda s.v. Λεωσθένης, and Just. 13.5.12.
41. Plut. Eum. 3.
42. DS 18.15.1–4, Just. 13.5.14, Plut. Phoc. 25.
43. Ashton 1–11. Will, CAH VII2.1 32, writes: “Salamis had laid the foundation of Athenian naval power, which now sank for ever in the waters of Amorgos.”
44. DS 18.16.4–17.5, Plut. Phoc. 26. Will, CAH VII2.1 32, correctly emphasizes the policy (borrowed from Philip II) by which Antipater and Craterus refused to deal with their enemies en bloc, thus provoking further defections.
45. SIG3 317, esp. 15–23.
46. Ste Croix 301, 609–10; cf. SIG3 317.10.
47. DS 18.48.2; cf. Errington, “From Babylon” 62.
48. DS 18.18.1–6.
49. Lepore 183–84, with testimonia there cited.
50. For the campaign, see DS 18.24–25 passim.
51. Plut. Eum. 3.
52. DS 20.37.3–6.
53. DS 18.16.1–3, 23.1–3. Just. 13.6.4–7 suggests that Perdiccas kept both women in play and finally married neither of them. Arr. Succ. fr. 25 Roos §§8–12, 16–18, is too fragmentary to be of real help. Cf. Plut. Eum. 3–4, App. Mithr. 8.
54. DS 18.8.7, Paus. 1.6.8, App. Syr. 62; cf. Seibert, Historische Beiträge 12–13, 16.
55. DS 18.23.3.
56. Arr. Succ. 1.22, 23 Roos; DS 19.52.5; Polyaen. 8.60.
57. DS 18.16.1–3; Plut. Eum. 3, 6; Just. 13.6.1–3.
58. DS 18.23.3–4, 25.3–4.
59. Arr. Succ. fr. 25 Roos §§2–8; cf. Hauben, “First War” 91–93.
60. DS 18.25.6, 29.1–3; Arr. Succ. 1.26, cf. fr. 25 Roos §§10–18.
61. Arr. Succ. fr. 26 Roos; cf. Hauben, “First War” 107–8. Hornblower 161–62 toys with the idea that Eumenes may have been involved with Cleopatra himself, and “played Tristan to Perdiccas’ King Mark.”
62. DS 18.29.1, 33.1.
63. Arr. Succ. frr. 17, 18 Roos; DS 18.19–21 passim; cf. Seibert, Untersuchungen 91–95. For Ptolemy’s constitution for Cyrene (of uncertain date), see SEG 9 (1944) 1.1–46, pp. 1–3; corr. ibid. 18 (1962) 726, pp. 228–29 = Harding 126, pp. 159–61.
64. QC 10.5.4.
65. DS 18.26.3, 28.2–4, Paus. 1.6.3, Strabo 17.1.8 (C.794); Ael. VH 12.64, cf. Fraser 1.15–16 and n. 79 (2.31–32); Hammond and Walbank 120. The coffin was probably the same anthropoid Egyptian-style gold shell described by Diodorus. For the Orientalization of Greek art in Alexander’s funeral cortege, see Pollitt, AHA 19.
66. Arr. Succ. 1.28.
67. On Cleomenes, see Seibert, Untersuchungen 39–51, who, however, whitewashes him beyond what either our sources or human probability allow; for a less favorable estimate, see Green, Alexander 278–79, 440, 466.
68. Ps.-Arist. Oecon. 1352a–53b.
69. Plut. Eum. 5, DS 18.29.2–4.
70. Errington, “From Babylon” 65, citing DS 18.33.2 f. and Arr. Succ. fr. 28 Roos.
71. DS 18.33.5–36.5; Arr. Succ. 1.29; Just. 13.6.18–19, 8.1–2, 10; Plut. Eum. 5–7. For a close analysis of this episode, see Seibert, Untersuchungen 122–26.
72. Hauben, “First War” 86–87.
73. DS 18.36.6, Arr. Succ. fr. 29 Roos; cf. Just. 13.6.20; Seibert, Untersuchungen 126–28.
74. DS 18.36.6–7, Arr. Succ. 1.28–30.
75. Plut. Eum. 5–7 passim, DS 18.29–32 passim, Nep. Eum. 4.
76. DS 18.37.1; cf. Plut. Eum. 8.
77. Plut. Eum. 8, DS 18.37.2; cf. Errington, “From Babylon” 67.
78. Arr. Succ. 1.30–38 passim, DS 18.39.1. The exact location of Triparadeisos remains uncertain: it may have been somewhere in the fertile Beqaa plain, between Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon; cf. Schlumberger, BMB 22 (1969) 147–49.
79. DS 18.39.2.
80. DS 18.39.5–7, Arr. Succ. 34 ff.; cf. Engel 16–28.
81. DS 18.39.5.
82. DS 18.37.3–4; cf. Niese 1.225–26.
83. DS 18.39.7, 40.1.
84. Plut. Demetr. 14, DS 19.59.3–6; Errington, “From Babylon” 71; Seibert, Historische Beiträge 12–13.
85. DS 18.39.7; cf. Hauben, “First War” 118–19.
86. Plut. Eum. 11.
87. Hornblower 154 ff.
88. Westlake, “Eumenes” 322–23 and n. 41, with reff.; Anson, “Discrimination” 55–59.
89. Plut. Eum. 3. Cf. p. 11.
90. E.g., Anson, “Eumenes” passim.
91. Plut. Eum. 1.
92. Plut. Eum. 9, 14; DS 18.40 passim; Just. 14.2.1–3.
93. Arr. Succ. 1.39–41, DS 18.41.1–3, Plut. Eum. 9–11 passim, Nep. Eum. 5.3–7, Just. 14.2.4.
94. Arr. Succ. 1.39; DS 18.44.2–45, 50.1.
95. DS 18.49.4. The dying Antipater had warned him against just this move: DS 19.11.9.
96. DS 18.48.4–5.
97. DS 18.49 passim.
98. DS 18.41.6–7, 42.1; Plut. Eum. 10.
99. DS 18.53.5, 54.3; cf. 18.44.2, 50.1–2; Anson, “Siege” 251–56.
100. DS 18.57.3–4, 58.1–4, 59.1; cf. Hornblower 161. In Plutarch’s account of this episode, Eum. 12, echoed by Nepos, Eum. 5.7, Eumenes cunningly changes the terms of the oath he had to take at Nora, so that he swears allegiance, not to Antigonus alone, but also to the kings, and to Olympias as dowager queen. The local Macedonian commander sanctions this (to him) harmless and pious(?!) addition, and releases Eumenes, who is safely away by the time Antigonus finds out what has happened. Anson, “Siege” 251–56, argues convincingly that Plutarch probably got this version of events from Duris of Samos, who in turn may have used self-exculpatory propaganda put out by Eumenes himself, in his anxiety to avoid the stigma of being a turncoat, and stressing his overriding loyalty to the kings (cf. DS 18.58.4). After all, if Eumenes took what amounted to a simultaneous oath of loyalty to both sides, what did it matter which side he finally chose to serve?
101. DS 18.58.1, 59.3; Plut. Eum. 13.
102. DS 18.56; cf. Bengtson, Strategie 1.84 ff.; Hammond and Walbank 133–34.
103. DS 18.56.1; cf. Heuss, “Antigonos” 143 ff. Cf. also Will, CAH VII2.1 42–43: Polyperchon’s “proclamation was an amnesty, which reminded the Greeks of their fault only to pardon it.”
104. QC 10.6.4 (Perdiccas); DS 18.60 passim, 19.15.3–4; Plut. Eum. 13; Nep. Eum. 7.2–3; Polyaen. 4.8.2.
105. DS 18.72 passim.
106. DS 18.49.4, 57.2, 58.2–4, 19.11 passim.
107. Duris ap. Athen. 13.560f. Cassander’s regency: Just. 14.5.1–3.
108. DS 19.11.8; cf. Plut. Alex. 77. The propaganda could cut both ways. After Alexander’s death the Athenian orator Hypereides moved a decree—perhaps ironically, perhaps not—to honor Iolaus as his murderer. Antipater did not forget or forgive this gesture. When the Lamian War was over, Hypereides either bit his tongue off, or had it cut out, before execution (probably in Corinth, though both Macedonia and Cleonae are recorded as variants), and his body was not returned to Athens for burial: Ps.-Plut. Vit. X Orat. 849B–C; cf. Plut. Dem. 28, Bosworth 113.
109. DS 18.74–75 passim; cf. Niese 1.247.
110. DS 19.35–36 passim, 49–51 passim; Paus. 1.25.6; Just. 14.6.1–12.
111. DS 19.11.1–9, 52.5, 53.2, 54.1; Diyllus ap. Athen. 4.155a; Just. 14.5.1–6. Thessalonike was the daughter of a Thessalian, Nicesipolis, who may herself have been the niece of Jason of Pherae, ruler of Thessaly ca. 385–370.
112. Cf. Bengtson, Strategie 1.109–10, and, for the campaign in general, Niese 1.258 ff.
113. DS 18.57.3–63 passim, 73, 19.12–34 passim, 37–44.2; Plut. Eum. 12–19 passim; Just. 14.2–4. Hammond, “Alexander’s Veterans,” argues that the Silver Shields “regarded Eumenes now as a false Alexander; for the great Alexander had not only brought them victory but had safeguarded their possessions” (p. 61).
1. DS 19.46.1–5; cf. 18.7.4.
2. DS 19.48.5–6.
3. DS 19.46.6, 48.7–8.
4. Plut. Eum. 19, DS 19.48.3–4, Just. 14.4.20. Cf. Hammond, “Alexander’s Veterans” 61 with n. 31.
5. DS 19.55.2–9. Will, CAH VII2.1 46, writes of a “surprise attack on Babylonia” by Antigonus, but this seems to be a fiction, with no basis in Diodorus’s text.
6. DS 19.56 passim.
7. DS 19.48.1, 57.1; cf. 56.5; Bengtson, Strategie 1.111; Niese 1.273–74.
8. DS 19.57.1, 85.3; Just. 15.1.2. Wesseling at DS 19.57.1 reads ’Ασάνδρῳ rather than Κασάνδρῳ.
9. DS 19.58–59 passim.
10. DS 19.58.5; cf. Berthold, Rhodes 61.
11. DS 19.59.1, cf. 79.5; Arr. Succ. fr. 24 Roos §§15–19.
12. DS 19.60.1.
13. E. Will, “Monde hellénistique” (1975) 356, says that by so doing Antigonus “affirma des prétentions européennes,” surely an overstatement.
14. DS 19.57.5.
15. DS 19.61.1–4; cf. Just. 15.1.3; Austin 29, pp. 54–56; Manni, Demetrio 99–106.
16. DS 19.53.2, 52.2; Paus. 9.7.4; IG VII 2419 (donations for the rebuilding of Thebes in 316) = Harding 131, pp. 164–65.
17. Austin, pp. 54–55, states the problem with great succinctness. Cf. Heuss, “Antigonos” 146–52; Simpson, “Antigonus the One-Eyed” 389 ff.
18. Polyb. 18.46.5.
19. Cf. Simpson, “Antigonus the One-Eyed” 385; also Mastrocinque, Caria 206: “La polis si avvia a diventare municipium; le libertà contano ancora, ma solo perché significano esenzioni, soprattutto delle tasse; non più perché permettono al demos di far politica.” This is an unfashionable view today; characteristic is Hornblower’s review of Mastrocinque, JHS 101 (1981) 202–3, which extols “a more interesting approach, which takes the Hellenistic period to be the time when the polis triumphed as a form of social life,” citing, among other scholars, Claire Préaux, Monde 2.401, who I suspect would have been surprised to hear this view attributed to her. A cynic might perhaps argue that Hornblower is actually saying the same thing as Mastrocinque, Simpson, and myself, but views the emasculation of political life in the polis as a blessing rather than a disaster.
20. DS 19.62.1.
21. Will, HP2 1.56–57; Simpson, “Antigonus the One-Eyed” 390.
22. Simpson, ibid. 391.
23. Evidence for the League of Islanders, τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Νησιωτῶν, is exclusively epigraphical: see, e.g., SIG3 390 = Austin 218, pp. 359–60. See also Merker, “Ptolemaic Officials” 141–42, 156–58, with further refs.; and Simpson, “Antigonus the One-Eyed” 395. According to Merker (p. 158), “most if not all of the islands of the Cyclades” belonged. Cf. IG XI 4.1036 (= Harding 136, pp. 170–71) for the League’s establishment of the Demetrieia festival on Delos, ca. 306/5.
24. DS 19.61.5.
25. DS 19.79.1–3; cf. Will, HP2 1.60.
26. DS 19.59.3–6. Demetrius was also very partial to pretty boys: Plutarch, Demetr. 19, tells a nice story of how his father, visiting him when he was supposed to be sick, met one such young beauty just coming out of the bedroom. Antigonus went in and took his son’s pulse. “The fever’s gone now,” Demetrius said, defensively—to which Antigonus retorted, “Yes, I just met it outside.”
27. L. C. Smith, AJPh 82 (1961) 288 with n. 18; cf. Hauben, “On the Chronology” 257.
28. DS 19.80.3–86.5, App. Syr. 54; cf. Seibert, Untersuchungen 164–75. Paus. 1.6.5 and Just. 15.1.6 add little of value. As Seibert says, “beruht jede Darstellung allein auf der kritischen Auseinandersetzung mit Diodor,” and his discussion largely vindicates the Diodoran account.
29. DS 19.91–92, Plut. Demetr. 7, App. Syr. 54; cf. Marinoni 579–631.
30. DS 19.105.1; cf. Austin 30, pp. 56–57; Wehrli, Antigone 52 ff.; and Simpson, “Historical Circumstances.” As Niese remarks (1.303), “Der Vertrag war im wesentlichen eine Anerkennung des damaligen Zustandes.” See also Will, CAH VII2.1 50–52.
31. The Greek verb is ἀϕηγεῖσθαι, which basically means “to be in front” or “to lead the way”: where it implies actual leadership, it is seldom political or military in the strict sense; the examples cited by LSJ s.v. include a colony, an embassy, a school, and a herd of cattle.
32. Simpson, “Historical Circumstances” 30–31.
33. OGIS 5; Welles, Royal Correspondence 1; Schmitt, Staatsverträge 428, pp. 40–44 = Austin 31, pp. 57–59; Bagnall and Derow 6, pp. 11–13; Harding 132, pp. 165–67. As Harding says, it is unlikely that Scepsis, an unimportant town, was the only recipient of this exercise in propaganda.
34. OGIS 6 = Austin 32, pp. 59–60. These and similar surviving inscriptions, no less surely than the Linear B tablets from the Mycenaean era, show us something about which our literary sources remain silent: the ubiquitous bureaucratic infrastructure that accompanied even the most convulsive political upheavals in the Greek world.
35. Will, HP2 1.62.
36. DS 20.19.3–4.
37. DS 19.105.2; cf. DS 19.52.4, Paus. 9.7.2, Just. 15.2.3–5. Cf. Gruen, “Coronation” 253–54. Egyptian records and Assyrian cuneiform tablets maintain the fiction of a living Alexander IV until 305/4—i.e., until fresh dynasties were established to replace that of the Argeads. It is not necessary to explain the hiatus by the assertion that the boy-king in fact survived another five or six years after 310, as is argued by B. Z. Wacholder, “The Beginning of the Seleucid Era and the Chronology of the Diadochoi,” in F. E. Greenspann et al., eds., Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel (Chico, Calif., 1984) 183–211 and supported by Hammond and Walbank 162–68 on the basis of a late execution combined with efficient concealment of the deed.
38. DS 19.105.3–4. Cassander’s Macedonian balancing act is an interesting one. He was working toward a Macedonian policy in deliberate opposition to Alexander qua world conqueror—his restoration of Thebes (DS 19.53.2 ff.) was a calculated affront to Alexander’s memory—yet at the same time consciously nationalistic and dynastic in its emphasis on local pietas, as his marriage to Philip II’s daughter Thessalonike, and the honorable burials he had given Philip Arrhidaios, Eurydice, and Cynane, all demonstrate; cf. Errington, “Alexander” 151–52. It is as though he were attempting to cash in on Argead sympathies without reference to the dynasty’s most famous member; and since Alexander, in his new role as Lord of Asia, had in fact shifted his center of power from Macedonian Pella to Babylon, Cassander’s policy was not so paradoxical as it might at first sight appear. His actions could well appeal to that fundamental irredentism that remains a major factor throughout Macedonian history.
39. Cf. Brunt 22–34.
40. DS 20.20.1–4, 28.1–4; Just. 15.2.3.
41. DS 20.37.3–6. Though now in her mid-forties, Cleopatra had been making a hopeful play for Ptolemy. Antigonus, we are told, “took care that she got a royal funeral.”
42. DS 19.92, App. Syr. 55; cf. Will, HP2 1.66–67.
43. Bevan, House of Seleucus 1.52; cf. Will, HP2 1.67.
44. Strabo 15.2.9 (C.724), Just. 15.4.12–21; cf. Will, HP2 1.264–66; Musti, “Stato” 87–88; Narain 8; Woodcock 47 ff. For Seleucus’s eastern campaigns, and his conscious aemulatio of Alexander as conqueror, see Holt, Alexander 99–103.
45. Arr. Ind. 43.4; cf. Bouché-Leclercq, HL 1.55–56; Niese 1.311.
46. DS 19.58.2–5.
47. DS 20.37.1–2; Suda s.v. Δημήτριος; Schmitt, Staatsverträge 433, pp. 49–50 = Harding 133, pp. 167–68. Cf. Will, HP2 1.69–71; Bengtson, Strategie 1.142–43.
48. Ferguson, HA chap. 3 passim; cf. Mossé, Athens 108–14. The main sources are DS 20.45–46.5, Plut. Demetr. 8–14 passim, Suda s.v. Δημήτριος. For the stockpiling of artillery on the Acropolis (307–6), see IG II2 1487 fr. A = Harding 135, pp. 169–70.
49. DS 20.46.5, cf. 46.2; Plut. Demetr. 10 ff.; Ferguson, HA 108–9; Simpson, “Antigonus the One-Eyed” 402; Meiggs 364, citing IG II2 1492.
50. DS 20.47–52 passim, Plut. Demetr. 15–16, Just. 15.2.6, Polyaen. 4.76; cf. Seibert, Untersuchungen 190–206, and, on the fleet strength of each side, Hauben, “Fleet Strength” 1–5.
51. DS 20.73–76 passim, Plut. Demetr. 19, Paus. 1.6.6; cf. Seibert, Untersuchungen 207–24, who rightly stresses (222) “der ganze defensive Charakter der Aussenpolitik des Lagiden.” Hauben, “Antigonos’ Invasion Plan,” while acknowledging the strategical excellence of Antigonus’s plan, gives Ptolemy credit for well-concerted defense measures. In fact, opportune storms and the Nile flood also contributed.
52. DS 20.76.7.
53. Jenkins 536, 537, pp. 224–25; cf. Kraay and Davis 146.
54. DS 20.53.2–4, Plut. Demetr. 17–18, Just. 15.2.10, App. Syr. 54; cf. Austin 36, pp. 65–67; Bengtson, Strategie 1.119, Hammond and Walbank 172–75. For an excellent analysis of the Macedonian kingship and its fundamental difference from these new dynasties, see L. Mooren, “The Nature of the Hellenistic Monarchy,” in Van’t Dack et al. 205 ff., esp. 231–32.
55. Argued by Mueller 87 ff.; challenged by Errington, JSH 95 (1975) 250. Will, CAH VII2.1 57, 63, endorses Mueller with some confidence; but the problem remains elusive. At the time perhaps even Antigonus himself did not see his role with complete clarity.
56. Funck, 505–20, argues that Seleucus’s dynastic ambitions long antedated his official declaration of kingship; this is probably true of all the Successors. Cf. Just. 15.3.10–12. Gruen, “Coronation” 257–58 with n. 37 (p. 267), suggests that Ptolemy may not have assumed the diadem till well on in 304, and then as a celebration of his support for Rhodes against Demetrius Poliorcetes. I do not find this convincing. The tradition that Ptolemy assumed the diadem before his rivals (Plut. Demetr. 18, App. Syr. 54) is not to be impugned without solid evidence; and as Gruen admits (n. 39, with evidence), Seleucus became king in April 304 (cf. Gruen, pp. 258–59 with n. 41).
57. Plut. Demetr. 18. Cf. Gruen, “Coronation” 259 with nn. 42, 43.
58. Seltman 218–19 and pl. L.3; Gruen, “Coronation” n. 43 (p. 268). A. Pandermalis’s Dion (Thessalonike, n.d.), a guidebook to the site, reproduces the (dedicatory) inscription in full: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΚΑΣΣΑΝΔΡΟΣ ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ ΑΝΤΙΠΑΤΡΟΥ ΔΙΙ ΟΛΥΜΠΙΩΙ. I owe this reference to Professor E. N. Borza. Cf. SIG3 332.
59. Plut. Demetr. 25 (Demetrius mocked the other Successors’ pretensions by allotting them subordinate titles: e.g., Seleucus he referred to as the master of elephants, Ptolemy as admiral, and Lysimachus as treasurer |γαζοϕύλαξ|, a jibe that cut Lysimachus to the quick, since the office was normally held by a eunuch). On the Argead claim, see C. F. Edson, HSCPh 45 (1934) 213–46; cf. Austin p. 66.
60. On this, see the sensible remarks of Cohen, “Diadochoi” 177–79. The rivalry in prestige with Antigonus is clear from DS 20.53.4 and Plut. Demetr. 18.
61. See the shrewd comments of Bouché-Leclercq, HL 1.71: “Pour apprécier la portée de la royauté par des parvenus, il faut tenir compte de la magie des mots. Sans le titre de roi, on pouvait commander; on n’avait pas le droit, un droit inhérent à la personne et inaliénable, d’exiger l’obéissance.”
62. Suda s.v. βασιλεία, tr. Austin 37, p. 67 (cf. p. 66), and Samuel, Ptolemaic Chronology 4–11. For Antiochus IV’s attitude to territorial conquest as the best justification of sovereignty, see Polyb. 28.1.6, cited by Walbank, CAH VII2.1 66.
63. SIG3 332: βασιλεὺς Μακεδόνων. Cf. above, n. 58.
64. DS 20.81.2. See Berthold, Rhodes 38–58, esp. 56 ff.
65. The assertion that Alexander had shown Rhodes especial favor, and had even deposited his will there, seems to be a fictional interpolation in an otherwise reliable passage (DS 20.81.3); cf. Hauben, “Rhodes” 318–19; and Berthold, Rhodes 37 n. 58, who argues that the Rhodians, at some uncertain point, themselves created (or at least embellished) the forgery.
66. DS 20.46.6.
67. DS 19.57.4, 58.5, 61.5, 62.7, 64.5, 77.3; cf. Hauben, “Rhodes” 322 ff.
68. See Berthold, Rhodes chap. 3, “The Diadochoi and the Great Siege,” passim; cf. Niese 1.324 ff., Hauben, “Rhodes” 317 ff.
69. Vitruv. 10.16.4; cf. DS 20.91.2.
70. DS 20.81–88, 91–100 passim; Plut. Demetr. 21–22; cf. Marsden, Greek and Roman Artillery: Historical 105–8; Meiggs 165–69.
71. DS 20.88.9, 96.1–3, 98.1, 100.3–4; Paus. 1.8.6; Athen. 15.696f–697a (Gorgon of Rhodes).
72. Strabo 14.2.5 (C.652); Plin. HN 34.41; Plut. Demetr. 20, Mor. 183B; Vitruv. 10.16.8; cf. Berthold, Rhodes 80 with n. 42. A head of Helios now in the Rhodes Archaeological Museum (Pollitt, AHA fig. 48) may have been modeled on the Colossus. Its appearance is otherwise unknown.
73. Bouché-Leclercq, HL 1.79–80. For an interesting Athenian inscription recording details of this campaign, see Moretti, Iscrizioni 1.5, pp. 8–10 = Harding 137, pp. 171–72.
74. DS 20.100.5–7, 102–3; Plut. Demetr. 23–27; Moretti, Iscrizioni 1.12–15.
75. SIG3 344; Welles, Royal Correspondence 3–4, pp. 15–32 = Austin 40, pp. 70–75 = Bagnall and Derow 7, pp. 13–17; cf. DS 20.107.5.
76. Schmitt, Staatsverträge 446, pp. 63–80; Moretti, Iscrizioni 44, 1.105–18; Plut. Demetr. 25; Austin 42, pp. 76–78; Bagnall and Derow 8, pp. 17–20; Harding 138, pp. 172–74. Cf. Will, CAH VII2.1 58–59 = Will, HP2 1.77–79.
77. DS 20.102.1; cf. Will, HP2 1.77–79; Simpson, “Antigonus the One-Eyed” 397.
78. Préaux, Monde 1.134.
79. DS 20.106.
80. Schmitt, Staatsverträge 447, pp. 80–81, with reff.; DS 20.106.1–5; cf. Seibert, Untersuchungen 231 ff.
81. DS 20.113; cf. Seibert, Untersuchungen 231–33, esp. 232: “Der Lagide trieb sein eigenes Spiel, während seine Verbündeten das Risiko einer Niederlage gegen Antigonos trugen.”
82. DS 20.107–9, 21.1.2–4b, Just. 15.4.22, Plut. Demetr. 28–29, Polyaen. 4.7.4, Lucian, Macrob. 11 (Hieronymus of Cardia, FGrH 154 F 8).
83. Scullard 97–98.
84. Plut. Demetr. 30; cf. Will, HP2 1.80–83.
85. DS 21.1.5, a crucial passage often neglected.
86. Most recently by Edouard Will; see HP2 1.80: “En un certain sens, la disparition d’Antigone le Borgne marque le fin d’une époque. . . . nulle politique désormais ne tentera plus sérieusement . . . de ressusciter l’empire d’Alexandre.” Cf. CAH VII2.1 61.
1. Plut. Dem. 28, Ps.-Plut. Vit. X Orat. 849B–C.
2. Cf. Mossé, Tyrannie 157, 166.
3. Plut. Demetr. 23, 24, 26.
4. See Agora Inv. I 6524; Thompson and Wycherley 61 n. 173 with pl. 53a.
5. See Plut. Cim. 14 for his construction of the southern retaining wall of the Acropolis, and the various parks he built in Athens.
6. IG II2 417, cited by Mackendrick 30.
7. R. H. S. Crossman, Plato Today (Oxford, 1959) 367 ff. For Aristotle’s obviously ad hominem defense of monarchy, see below, p. 779; and for the association of the Lyceum under Aristotle and Theophrastus with oligarchy and pro-Macedonianism, cf. Ferguson, HA 104–5.
8. Ps.-Plut. Vit. X Orat. 841D, IG II2 351; cf. Ferguson, HA 8; Romano 442 ff.; Camp 154–59.
9. Arist. Ath. Pol. 42.3–5, with Rhodes, Commentary 493 ff.
10. Ferguson, HA 9.
11. O. W. Reinmuth, The Ephebic Inscriptions of the Fourth Century B.C. (Leiden, 1971) 133 ff.; cf. Rhodes, Commentary 494–95.
12. Arnott, Menander (Loeb) xiv–xv.
13. Diog. Laert. 5.79.
14. Isagoras and Cleisthenes: Hdt. 5.66, 69; Arist. Ath. Pol. 20.1–4, 21.1–4, Pol. 1275b 34–38. The Mytilene revolt and debate: Thuc. 3.36–50 passim. The Arginusae episode: Xen. Hell. 1.7 passim.
15. E.g., Lys. 22; Dem. 34, 37, 38. On deme activity, see David Whitehead, The Demes of Attica, 508/7-ca. 250 B.C. (Princeton, 1986) 358–60.
16. Ste Croix 609 n. 2.
17. Plut. Phoc. 25.
18. Ibid. 23 passim.
19. Ibid. 34–36 passim. L. A. Tritle’s biography of this odd political figure, Phocion the Good (London, 1988), fills a long-standing gap, but somewhat overvalues him on the basis of Platonic δικαιοσύνη, a good excuse for authoritarianism in any age.
20. Quintil. 2.17.12, Suda s.v. Δημάδης.
21. Demetr. De Eloc. §283, Plut. Phoc. 22.
22. Bribes: Davies 100. Fine: Athen. 6.251b, Ael. VH 5.12.
23. DS 17.62.6–63.4, QC 6.1, Just. 12.1.6–11; cf. Badian, Hermes 95 (1967) 178–81.
24. DS 18.18.1–2, Paus. 7.10.1.
25. Plut. Phoc. 1.
26. Plut. Dem. 28.
27. Plut. Phoc. 30.
28. DS 18.48.1–4; Arr. Succ. 1.14–15; Plut. Phoc. 30, Dem. 31.
29. Ste Croix 300 and elsewhere.
30. See Pol. 1261a 5 ff., 1264a 11 ff., and elsewhere.
31. DS 18.18.4–5, 66.5; Plut. Phoc. 27–28.
32. Plut. Phoc. 28; DS 18.18.5 reads 22,000, probably a textual error, since it seems likely that the figure of 12,000 was obtained “by subtracting the 9000 registered citizens from the total of 21,000 ascertained at the census of Demetrius of Phalerum” (Ferguson, HA 22 n. 3).
33. DS 18.18.4.
34. DS 20.40.6–7.
35. Plut. Phoc. 28: οἵ τε μένοντες ἐδόκουν σχέτλια καὶ ἄτιμα πάσχειν, a phrase often mistranslated: see, e.g., the Loeb version, “appeared to be suffering grievous and undeserved wrongs.” I am grateful to Prof. F. W. Walbank for discussion of this phrase.
36. Suda s.v. Δημάδης; cf. Ferguson, HA 23.
37. DS 18.18.5.
38. SIG3 317 = Austin 26, pp. 48–50: the key phrase in Greek is οἱ ἐν τεῖ ὀλι[γ]αρχίαι πολιτευόμενοι.
39. Plut. Phoc. 27, 30.
40. DS 18.56 passim; cf. Plut. Phoc. 32.
41. Plut. Phoc. 31.
42. DS 18.64–65, esp. 65.6; Plut. Phoc. 31–38 passim; Nep. Phoc. 3–4.
43. Cleisthenes, similarly, was accused by his political enemies of enrolling slaves and foreigners in the new tribes: Arist. Pol. 1275b37.
44. Plut. Phoc. 34–37 passim; DS 18.66.3–67.6.
45. DS 18.67.3–5.
46. DS 18.67.6, Plut. Phoc. 36; Nepos, Phoc. 3–4. The executioner underestimated the amount of hemlock needed, and (with Phocion still to drink) refused to prepare more unless he first got the price of it, 12 drachmas. In the end Phocion asked one of his friends for the money, complaining that in Athens it was impossible even to die unless you paid for the privilege.
47. DS 18.68.1.
48. DS 18.74 passim; cf. Strabo 9.1.20 (C.398). Nicanor himself did not long survive the surrender: Cassander, suspicious of his growing arrogance and ambition, had him assassinated (DS 18.75.1).
49. Ferguson, HA 36.
50. Diog. Laert. 5.80–81 lists nearly fifty titles by him, on subjects ranging from Homer through marriage to the Athenian legislation.
51. Mackendrick 31–34; Mossé, Tyrannie chap. 2, pp. 155–66; Ferguson, HA chap. 2, pp. 38–94; RE 4 (1901) cols. 2817–41, s.v. “Demetrios” (85). I have not seen E. Bayer, Demetrios Phalereus der Athener (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1942).
52. Athen. 14.620b.
53. DS 18.74.3: ἓως ἂν διαπολεμήσῃ πρὸς τοὺς βασιλεῖς. Mossé, Tyrannie 161–62; RE 4 (1901) col. 2827.
54. Cf. Arist. Pol. 1295a25 ff. For a typically sedulous vote of honors to Demetrius (by the deme of Aixone, soon after his installation), see IG II2 1201 + (= Harding 129, pp. 163–64).
55. DS 20.27.1.
56. Ctesicles ap. Athen. 6.272b.
57. See, e.g., Finley, ed., Slavery 57–60, citing Lauffer.
58. Ferguson, HA 40 ff. For a good legislator Demetrius seems to have been oddly cavalier about his own title. ἐπιμελητής is the best and most formally attested: DS 18.74.3, 20.45.2; Paus. 1.25.6; Plut. Demetr. 8. But Strabo (9.1.20, [C.398)), and Diodorus elsewhere (20.45.5), imply that his title was ἐπιστάτης, “overseer,” “governor”; and Polybius called him προστάτης, “champion” (20.13.9), though it is not clear just whom the historian took him to be championing. But since his power ultimately derived from Cassander, and everyone knew this, it could be argued that the label he wore was of relative unimportance.
59. Duris ap. Athen. 12.542b–e; Carystius of Pergamon ibid. 542e–543a.
60. Duris ibid. 542c.
61. Philochorus ap. Athen. 6.245c.
62. Demochares ap. Polyb. 12.13.9–11.
63. Diog. Laert. 5.75.
64. DS 19.54.1–3.
65. Ferguson, HA 49–51; Will, HP2 1.56–58.
66. DS 20.45–46.5, Plut. Demetr. 8–14 passim, Suda s.v. Δημήτριος.
67. Plut. Demetr. 10. Thus was ushered in a period of considerable instability: between 307 and 261 there were seven changes of government.
68. DS 20.45.4–5, Diog. Laert. 5.77–78, Strabo 9.1.20 (C.398).
69. Favorinus ap. Diog. Laert. 5.77, DS 20.46.1–2, Plut. Demetr. 11; cf. W. S. Ferguson, HA 101 ff., cf. “Demetrius” 114. Remains of a gilded bronze equestrian statue of Demetrius have been found in a well down which they were thrown in 200 B.C.: see Camp 164–65 with fig. 138, and Chap. 18, p. 307.
70. Thus, as Hypereides observed, Epitaph. 21 f., doing of their own free will what they had done for Alexander by coercion.
71. DS 20.46.2–4. Since Imbros had broken away from Athens precisely in the hope of a return to a more democratic regime, this was a cheap concession. Cf. Camp 163–64: as he points out, the creation of two new tribes “meant an increase in the Boule to 600 members and a reassigning of demes among twelve rather than ten tribes.”
72. Ferguson, HA 101.
73. Cf. Will, HP2 1.69: “L’oligarchie patronnée par Cassandre cédait la place à la démocratie restaurée—mais patronnée par les Antigonides.”
74. DS 20.46.5, 50.3, Plut. Demetr. 15.
75. Pollux 9.42, Diog. Laert. 5.38, Athen. 13.610f.
76. Text ap. Athen. 13.610e = Kock 2.327. The name of the play is uncertain: it may have been The Horseman, or The Knight (Hippeus).
77. The best account of this complex episode is still that of Ferguson, HA 103–7, which I largely follow.
78. Demochares ap. Athen. 11.508f–509b, cf. 610e; Diog. Laert. 5.38; cf. Ferguson, HA 106–7.
79. Diog. Laert. 5.38, 10.2.
80. DS 18.67.6, Nep. Phoc. 4.4, Ps.-Plut. Vit. X Orat. 850B.
81. Plut. Demetr. 23, Polyaen. 4.11.1, Paus. 1.35.2; cf. Ferguson, HA 115–17.
82. Plut. Demetr. 23–24, 26 passim; DS 20.100.5–6.
83. Cf. Head et al. 54, with pl. 29 nos. 8–10.
84. Plut. Demetr. 25; cf. W. S. Ferguson, “Demetrius” 122.
85. Ferguson, HA 131 with n. 3.
1. See Plut. Mor. 841B–D for Lycurgus’s public-works schemes: Plutarch reports that he “carried out renovation work all over the city.” See also Paus. 1.3.4, and cf. Thompson and Wycherley 21–23; Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary 96, 537–38; Wycherley, Stones 66–67, 210–11. On Lycurgus’s benefactions to Athens in general see F. W. Mitchel, “Lykourgan Athens 338–322,” University of Cincinnati Classical Studies 2 (1973) 163–214. Romano 441 ff. suggests, very convincingly, that the Lycurgan theater and Panathenaic stadium did not underlie the later Roman stadium, but were associated with the Pnyx.
2. IG II2 2318, 2320; cf. A. W. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, 2d ed. (Oxford, 1968), 99–101.
3. Ps.-Plut. Vit. X Orat. 841F.
4. Poetics 1452a24 ff., and elsewhere.
5. Thompson and Wycherley 21.
6. See my Essays in Antiquity (London, 1960) 87; the phrase is Edwyn Bevan’s.
7. Sandbach 23; Welles, “Alexander’s Historical Achievement” 227.
8. Paus. 1.29.1; cf. Edwards, Hesperia 26 (1957) 320–49.
9. Hesiod, WD 176–292.
10. Cited by Polyb. 29.21.1–9; cf. Ferguson, HA 87 and n. 3.
11. Fr. 2 Nauck, TGF2 p. 782: τύχη τὰ θνητῶν πράγματ’, οὐκ εὐβουλία. Cf. Plut. Mor. 104D: ἄσκοπος γὰρ ἡ τύχη, ϕησὶν ὁ Θεόϕραστος.
12. Hypobolimaios fr. 417 Sandback = fr. 482 Kock.
13. Festugière, Epicurus 13.
14. Athen. 6.253b–f; cf. Austin 35, pp. 64–65.
15. DS 6.1.2–10, Euseb. Praep. Evang. 2.2, Sext. Emp. Adv. Math. 9.17; cf. Fraser 1.289 ff., Nilsson 283–89. It is amusing, and instructive, to note how critics in antiquity took Euhemerus’s fable au pied de la lettre, and then attacked him for presenting such patently invented travels as truthful autobiography: see, e.g., Polyb. 34.5.8–9; Strabo 1.3.1 (C.47), 2.3.5 (C.102), 7.3.6 (C.299).
16. Cicero, ND 1.42, Varro, RR 1.48.
17. Aristoph. Kn. 261; Thuc. 6.18, cf. 2.40; Plat. Rep. 620C; Hdt. 1.59; Andoc. 1.84.
18. Eur. Hipp. 732–51; Aristoph. Birds 27 ff.; Eupolis frr. 90, 94, 96, 100, 116, 117 Kock.
19. K. J. Dover, Aristophanic Comedy (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1972) 202.
20. Plato, Ep. 7.324B–326B (ed. Souilhé); relevant passages translated by H. D. P. Lee in his introduction to the Penguin Classics Republic, 2d ed. (Harmondsworth, 1974), 14.
21. Diog. Laert. 6.23 (cf. Sen. Ep. 99), 38 (cf. Plut. Alex. 14), 41, 54; Ael. VH 14.33.
22. Rankin 229, 232; Diog. Laert. 6.20–81 passim.
23. Diog. Laert. 6.63, 69; Pollitt, AHA 10–11.
24. The Arbitration (Epitrepontes) 1084–91 (ed. Sandbach).
25. Metrodorus ap. Diog. Laert. 10.1; Kirchner 4855. On Epicurus’s life in general, see Rist, Epicurus chap. 1, pp. 1–13; Sedley 121 ff.; De Witt chaps. 2–4, pp. 36–105; Festugière, Epicurus 19–26.
26. Cf. SIG3 312, recording the return to Samos of certain Samian refugees (321/0), and Diog. Laert. 10.1.
27. Hesiod, Theog. 116. The anecdote is related by Diog. Laert. 10.2 (citing the Life of Epicurus by Apollodorus) and Sext. Emp. Adv. Math. 10.18.
28. Diog. Laert. 5.5.
29. Plut. Mor. 1095C, where he is cited as feeling sickened by the prospect of studying Theophrastus on musical theory; cf. De Witt 50–51; Rist, Epicurus 2–3.
30. Demetr. Magnes. ap. Diog. Laert. 10.13.
31. Plut. Mor. 1128B–1130E. Plutarch entitled this essay “Is Lathe Biōsas Proper Advice?” (Εἰ Καλῶς Εἴρηται τὸ Λάθε Βίωσας), and concluded that it was not, completely misrepresenting Epicurus’s intentions in the process. Cf. De Witt 188. The aphorism, not found in Epicurus’s surviving fragments, is listed as fr. 551 Usener.
32. See Harding 128, pp. 162–63, and further evidence there cited.
33. Though perhaps not so sharp as hostile propagandists alleged: see Sedley 122 ff., who, however, cannot (and does not) make Timarchus the exclusive villain in this matter. Enough evidence remains to suggest that Epicurus was at least as talented a polemicist as St. Thomas More.
34. Diog. Laert. 5.38, 10.2; cf. Ferguson, HA 106–7.
35. Diog. Laert. 7.1 ff. passim; cf. Long, Hellenistic Philosophy 109–13; Sandbach 20–27; and esp. von Fritz, “Zenon (2) von Kition,” RE 10A (1972) cols. 83–88, who discusses (cols. 83–85) the vexed problem of Zeno’s chronology. I accept 262/1 as the date of his death (Hieron. Chron. Ol. 129.1, corrected by PHerc. 339 col. iv 9–14 = SVF 1.36a), 334/3 as the year of his birth, and 312/1 as the year of his arrival in Athens (Persaeus ap. Diog. Laert. 7.28). Evidence against this—e.g., his claim to have been eighty at the time Antigonus Gonatas invited him to Pella (Diog. Laert. 7.8–9), or Apollonius of Tyre’s statement (Diog. Laert. 7.28) that he presided over his school for fifty-eight years, and died aged ninety-eight (cf. Lucian, Macrob. 19)—I take to have been manufactured to fit in with the assumption that he founded his school at his canonical ἀκμή, i.e., when aged forty. Von Fritz points out that other conflicting figures, e.g., that Zeno arrived in Athens aet. 30, and studied in Athens for ten years prior to setting up his pitch in the Stoa Poikile, are suspiciously rounded to decades (Diog. Laert. 7.2; at 7.4 it is also claimed that his period of apprenticeship lasted 20 years). The invitation from Antigonus Gonatas is almost certainly historical, and Zeno may well have given age as an excuse for refusing it; it is therefore logically to be dated after Antigonus’s final acknowledgment as king (276), or even after the defeat of Pyrrhus (272; see p. 144).
36. Diog. Laert. 7.1–3, Demetr. Magnes. ap. Diog. Laert. 7.31. Pohlenz, 1.164 ff., is one of the most recent scholars to argue for Eastern/Semitic influences on Zeno’s thought.
37. Diog. Laert. 7.26–27.
38. Diog. Laert. 7.5, 13, 15, 19, 22, 25. Sen. De Tranq. Anim. 14, and Plut. Mor. 87A, as well as an alternative version of the story recorded (and clearly not believed) in Diog. Laert. 7.5, claim that he lost everything at the time of his shipwreck, and that this turned him to philosophy; Diog. Laert. clearly prefers the more prosaic, but less romantic, variant, according to which “he first disposed of his cargo in Athens, and by this means was able to devote himself to philosophy” (ibid.). On balance this seems to me by far the likelier account.
39. Diog. Laert. 7.6–9, 13–15. The exchange of letters between Zeno and Antigonus, cited by Diog. Laert. from Apollonius of Tyre, is clearly a late rhetorical exercise (cf. above, n. 35), though the central fact it enshrines—that Antigonus invited Zeno to his court, and that Zeno refused, but sent two of his disciples instead—is probably true.
40. Diog. Laert. 7.6.
41. Diog. Laert. 7.12, Plut. Mor. 1034A; cf. Burstein, Translated Documents 59, pp. 81–82.
42. OCD2 1145b.
43. Diog. Laert. 7.32–34, 121, 129, 131; cf. Plut. Mor. 653E for Zeno’s use in his Republic of the graphic term διαμηρισμός, “thigh spreading.”
44. For an excellent analysis of the testimonia citing or referring to this remarkable work, see H. C. Baldry, “Zeno’s Ideal State,” JHS 79 (1959) 3–15.
45. Diog. Laert. 7.4.
46. Baldry (above, n. 44) 14. Cf. Plut. Mor. 329A.
47. Diog. Laert. 7.10. The Greek, much debated in translation, is ἀρετὴν καὶ σωϕροσύνην.
1. Cf., e.g., Poetics 1447a16, 19, 28; 1448a1, 20–24; 1448b7, 22; 1449b24–28; 1451a30; Plato, Rep. 595A ff., etc.; and see also the sensible remarks of F. L. Lucas in his edition of the Poetics (Oxford, 1968), app. 1, 258–72. Early references to μίμησις are, as he says (p. 268), rare, and well into the classical era realism of depiction was not the artist’s prime concern (see below, p. 108).
2. Fraser 1.619–20 with reff.
3. See B. Snell, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta vol. 1 (Göttingen, 1971) 189–312 passim, and the conspectus of names listed on pp. vi–viii.
4. Arist. Rhet. 1413b13.
5. Plut. Mor. 674B–C. A very similar story is told of the Victorian actor-manager Sir Henry Irving, who during a rehearsal upbraided his props manager for not producing sufficiently realistic thunder to accompany a storm scene. “But Sir Henry,” protested the props manager, “that’s a real thunderstorm, outside.” “No matter: the Almighty’s thunder is not necessarily good enough for the Lyceum.”
6. The best-known example is Menander’s reworking, in the Sikyonioi, of Euripides’ Orestes 868 ff. Cf. Arnott, Menander (Loeb) xli–xlii with further reff.
7. E. Segal 129–36, where it is pointed out, correctly, that a concern with private, as opposed to public, solutions can be traced back at least as far as Aristophanes’ Acharnians and Knights.
8. Cf. Treu, “Menanders Menschen” 213: “es ist bei M. immer noch sehr wichtig, ob jemand Polisbürger ist oder nicht. Wie er sich aber als Polisbürger im einzelnen betätigt und bewährt, interessiert sehr viel weniger.”
9. Handley 3.
10. Arist. Eth. Nic. 1128a.
11. Webster, Introduction 94–99.
12. Nor do they always have quite the meaning popularly ascribed to them: take, e.g., the most famous of them all, “Whom the gods love die young.” As Arnott, Menander (Loeb) 169–70, points out, Byron quietly changed the original singular to a generic plural (Don Juan, canto 4.12); in the Dis Exapatōn (Double Crook) of Menander (fr. 4 Arnott = 125 Kock) the line, “far from being a sentimental sigh about the Schuberts of this world,” formed part of a slave’s acid comment to an old man on his gullibility.
13. Quintil. 10.1.69, 71; Plut. Mor. 854B–D; Aristoph. Byz. ap. Syrianus on Hermogenes 2.23 Rabe = Körte and Thierfelder testim. 32.
14. Körte and Thierfelder testim. 49, 61, 41 (= Plut. Mor. 854D).
15. Cf. J. D. Denniston’s edition of the Electra (Oxford, 1939), pp. xi–xii.
16. Körte and Thierfelder testim. 51, 55 = Euseb. Praep. Evang. 10.3.12.
17. Diog. Laert. 5.37–38, Strabo 13.2.4 (C.618), Suda s.v. Θεόϕραστος.
18. Hermippus ap. Athen. 1.21a–b.
19. Diog. Laert. 5.42–50 passim, fr. 114 Wimmer; Hieron. Adv. Jovin. 1.47.
20. Diog. Laert. 5.39, 51–58 passim; Cic. Tusc. Disp. 5.9.
21. Diog. Laert. 5.38.
22. Ussher, Characters 12–14.
23. See ibid. 5–12 for a conspectus of theories.
24. Jebb 16–17.
25. Polycles, the dedicatee, may have been the adviser of that name in the entourage of Philip Arrhidaios’s wife, Eurydice (DS 19.11.3); but the whole introduction is, in any case, almost certainly a spurious late addition, and valueless as evidence.
26. Jebb 58; Ussher, Characters 13, citing Cichorius.
27. Cf. Sandbach, Gnomon 39 (1967) 240, who emphasizes the undoubted truth that “by relieving the rich of liturgies and abolishing general payments from state funds, Demetrius must have fostered the growth of wealth and worsened the lot of the poor.”
28. Ussher, Characters 5.
29. Ussher, ibid. 23–27, gives a useful breakdown of topics treated or referred to.
30. Soph. ap. Arist. Poetics 1460b35.
31. Soph. Ant. 361–73.
32. Diog. Laert. 5.36.
33. Barigazzi 13; cf. Pollitt, AHA 4 ff.
34. Körte and Thierfelder testim. 2 [= Anon. De Com. §§15, 17], 3 [= IG XIV 1184], 4 [= IG2 II 1926.19]; Suda s.v. Μένανδρος.
35. Körte and Thierfelder testim. 23a–c; for the problems regarding the date see Arnott, Menander (Loeb) xiv–xv: the most plausible date for the Orgē, on the evidence at our disposal, is 322/1, in the archonship of Philocles. Cf. Barigazzi 19, with n. 1.
36. E.g., frr. 116, 178, 179, 201, 202 Kock.
37. E.g., frr. 146, 216, 219, 228 Kock.
38. Frr. 65–67 Kock.
39. Fr. 90 Kock. For Alexis’s grittily derisive attitude toward sophists, Pythagoreans, and Platonists, see frr. 1, 25, 220, 221 Kock. Cf. below, n. 84.
40. Suda s.v. Μένανδρος; Körte and Thierfelder testim. 2 (= Anon. De Com. §17); Aul. Gell. 17.4.4, citing Apollodorus.
41. Körte and Thierfelder testim. 15a–c; Aul. Gell. 17.21, 42; Schol. Ovid Ibis 591–92; Mart. 5.10.9; Paus. 1.2.2.
42. Richter, Portraits 2.224 ff. with figs. 1514–1643.
43. Suda s.v. Μένανδρος; for an excellent reproduction, in color, of the Mytilene mosaic, see L. Kahil, in S. Charitonidis, L. Kahil, and R. Ginouvès, Les mosaïques de la Maison du Ménandre à Mytilène, Antike Kunst, Beiheft 6 (Bern, 1970), 27 ff. with pl. ii; and for another likeness of Menander, a miniature bronze bust, which also shows a squint, see Ashmole, AJA 77 (1973) 61 with pls. xi–xii. Cf. Arnott, Menander (Loeb) xviii–xix with n. 1.
44. Körte and Thierfelder testim. 9 (= Phaedrus 5.1); cf. Diog. Laert. 5.36, 79. The Phaedrus fable is very seldom quoted, and Körte for one (ibid.; cf. RE 15 [1932] col. 709, s.v. “Menandros [9]”) has no time for it at all, arguing that “im J. 317 war M. noch nicht nobilis comoediis, und die beiden kannten sich zweifellos längst aus dem Peripatos.” But by 317 Menander had at least two victories to his name, including, most recently, the Dyskolos (unless we are to place this audience very early indeed); and if Theophrastus’s lecture audience ran into the thousands, it is more than likely that Menander and Demetrius had not yet met.
45. Suda s.v. Μένανδρος: ὀξὺς δὲ τὸν νοῦν καὶ περὶ γυναῖκας ἐμμανέστατος.
46. Diog. Laert. 5.79. Menander had trouble later (301/0) with Lachares, who stopped his play The Imbrians from being put on, presumably on political grounds: Körte and Thierfelder testim. 28; cf. p. 124.
47. Sandbach, Gnomon 39 (1967) 239.
48. Cf. Arnott, “Moral Values” 215–17.
49. Cf. Plut. Alcib. 23.
50. The similarity has often been remarked; cf., e.g., Arnott, “Young Lovers” 2–4, 11.
51. Welles, Alexander 203.
52. Handley 123–24 with testimonia.
53. Arnott, “Moral Values” 215.
54. Handley 4 and n. 1, with reff.; cf. E. Segal 129 ff.
55. Sikyon. 150–57 Sandbach, where the speakers are tentatively identified as Smikrines and Blepes.
56. Cf. Goldberg 45–46.
57. Handley 13. For the unpleasant reality of itinerant mercenaries, see Ferguson, HA 74–75.
58. Webster, Introduction 15–18.
59. Treu, “Menanders Menschen” 213, who observes that “der Bürger ist in Geschäften unterwegs, geht in die Stadt, über Land, reist ins Ausland, ohne dass die Art der Unternehmungen gewöhnlich näher bestimmt wird.”
60. For the constant operation of Tyche in the Dyskolos, see Casertano 258 ff.; Pollitt, AHA 5–6; and for Tyche in the Aspis, both as prologue speaker (qua post-Euripidean goddess), and as a plot device, to control action throughout (to the detriment of any character development), cf. Konet 90–92. Fr. 355 Kock (cited by Pollitt, AHA 2) is typical: “Fortune observes no rule by which she decides human affairs. Nor is it possible, while still alive, to say, ‘I will not suffer this fate.’”
61. G. Lefebvre, Fragments d’un manuscrit de Ménandre (Cairo, 1907); cf. Papyrus de Ménandre (Cairo, 1911).
62. This to-and-fro vernacular chattiness makes it almost impossible to excerpt significant quotations from Menander, and I have not attempted to do so.
63. Webster, Birth 3.
64. R. Kassel and C. Austin, Papyrus Bodmer XXV, XXVI (Geneva, 1969).
65. Menandri Reliquiae Selectae, ed. F. H. Sandbach (Oxford, 1972).
66. Cnemon may rail (743–45) against the evils—war, imprisonment, lawsuits—brought about by greed (cf. Handley 7–8), but this fine old bromide is hardly specific in its application.
67. Dicaearchus ap. Soph. OT arg. §5.
68. Sandbach ap. Turner, ed., Ménandre 116; cf. Webster, Introduction 105.
69. Cnemon’s animadversions (447–53) on worshippers who guzzle all the sacred meat except what is completely inedible are a stock topos of comedy (cf. Handley 214–15), and should not be taken as a veiled contemporary allusion to the new Athenian sumptuary laws (as, e.g., by Arnott, Menander (Loeb) 255 n. 2). If there is any kind of reference, which remains dubious, it is more likely to be to Theophrastus’s treatise On Piety: see Webster, Introduction 45–46.
70. Handley (13) finds it “striking” that this speech parades ethical principles but “leaves the old man’s emotions almost entirely to the audience’s imagination.” “Striking” is not the epithet that occurs to me.
71. Webster, Birth 13.
72. Clifton Fadiman, Party of One (New York, 1955) 98–125.
73. Tarn and Griffith 273.
74. C. Préaux, “Ménandre et la société athénienne,” CE 32 (1957) 84–100.
75. Jaekel 257–65.
76. Turner, “Menander” 106–26, a direct counterattack on Tarn.
77. Goldberg 121.
78. Arnott, Menander (Loeb) xxx–xlv.
79. Arnott, “Moral Values” 215–16.
80. Arnott, “Young Lovers” 2. Cf. nn. 78 and 79 above.
81. Aspis 79–83, stressed by Arnott, “Young Lovers” 17–18.
82. Cf. Theophr. Char. 2.12.
83. Goldberg 3–4.
84. See, e.g., his blistering account of the tricks of dress and makeup that prostitutes employ to turn themselves out to best advantage (ap. Athen. 568a–d = fr. 98 Kock), a forerunner of the advice in Ovid, AA 3.135 ff., 261 ff., and 771 ff. The following lines are particularly striking:
If her teeth are really pretty, then of course she has to laugh,So the company can notice what a fine old mouth she’s got;But if laughing’s not her forte, then she spends the whole day throughShut indoors, just like those goats’ heads on display in butchers’ shops,Mouth held open by a wooden sliver jammed between her lips,Till in course of time her grin is, willy-nilly, fixed for good.
85. Plut. Mor. 347E.
86. Arist. Poetics 1450a38.
87. See, e.g., Handley 10 ff., Goldberg 44 ff.
88. Cf. Aspis 404–18.
89. Cf. M. Poole, “Menander’s Comic Use of Euripides’ Tragedies,” CB 54 (1977/78) 56–62.
1. Cf., e.g., Alcib. I 127B, Protag. 313A, Phaedr. 247A, Polit. 307E, Rep. 433D.
2. Odes 3.29.12: “fumum et opes strepitumque Romae.”
3. Cf. Plut. Alex. 26, DS 17.52.4, Polyb. 39.14, Dio Chrysost. Orat. 32.35–36. A useful general survey is Heinz Heinen’s “Alexandrien—Weltstadt und Residenz,” in Hinske 3–12. For the general Nilotic background during our period, see Bowman, chap. 1, “The Gift of the Nile,” pp. 12–20; and Lewis, chap. 1, “The Background: Eldorado on the Nile,” pp. 8–36. For Alexandria, see Bowman 204 ff.
4. Strabo 17.1.8 (C.794).
5. Fraser 1.687–90 with reff.; Pfeiffer, History 99–102.
6. Dio Cass. 42.38.2, Aul. Gell. 7.17.3, Sen. De Tranq. Anim. 9.5, Plut. Ant. 58; cf. the excellent discussion by Fraser 1.334–35, 2.493–94. See also below, Chap. 37, n. 151.
7. “In an Asia Minor Municipality”: Cavafy, Ποιήματα Β´ 50 = 2.264–65.
8. Forster 49–50; Rostovtzeff, Encyclopaedia Britannica14 (rev. 1965) 1.584, s.v. “Alexandria.”
9. Plut. Mor. 11A, Hegesander ap. Athen. 14.620f–621a. Sotades is also reported to have attacked Lysimachus. The line quoted is even more effective in Greek: εἰς οὐχ ὁσίην τρυμαλίην τὸ κέντρον ὠθεῖς.
10. Herodian 4.9, Dio Cass. 77.22, Spartian. Caracalla 6.
11. Forster 52–54.
12. Rostovtzeff (above, n. 8) 1.584–85. For the later history of Alexandria, see P. M. Fraser, “Alexandria from Mohammed Ali to Gamal Abdul Nasser,” in Hinske 63–74.
13. Cf. Fraser 1.8–11, 2.18–25.
14. DS 17.52.1–7; Arr. Anab. 3.1.5–2.2; Plut. Alex. 26; Strabo 17.1.6–10 (C.791–95); QC 4.8.1–2, 5–6; Just. 11.11.13; Val. Max. 1.4.7 ext. §1; Plin. HN 5.11.62–63. Cf. my Alexander 269–71, 275–76 with reff.; and see Pollitt, AHA app. 3, 275–77.
15. Strabo 17.1.7 (C.793).
16. Martin 116–17.
17. For tributes to Alexandria’s size, favorable climate, beauty, and commercial prosperity, see, e.g., Strabo 17.1.7 (C.792–93), 17.1.13 (C.798); DS 17.52.5; Dio Chrysost. Orat. 32.35–36.
18. Diog. Laert. 1.53, schol. Aristeid. p. 323 Dindorf, Cic. De Orat. 3.34, Ael. VH 13.14, Paus. 7.26.14.
19. Ael. VH 2.21, 13.24, 14.17; schol. Aristoph. Frogs 85; Arist. Rhet. 139a8.
20. Fraser 1.305.
21. See R. B. Lewis, “Lifelong Learning as an Ideal in Fourth-Century Greece,” (diss., Univ. of Toledo, 1980), and the abstract in DA 41 (1980) 1469A, from which my citation is taken.
22. Fraser 1.312 ff.
23. Diog. Laert. 5.37.
24. Ael. VH 3.17.
25. Fraser 1.306.
26. See my Alexander 54–62, with reff.
27. Diog. Laert. 5.58.
28. Fraser 1.322–23, with reff.
29. Strabo 14.2.19 (C.657): ποιητὴς ἅμα καὶ κριτικός. It should be emphasized that much of what follows is necessarily speculative: not only is virtually all Philetas’s poetry lost, but it did not even survive into Roman times. Bracketed with Callimachus as one of the two canonical elegists from the Hellenistic period, Philetas remains one of those legendary and seminal figures whose influence has to be taken entirely on trust.
30. Pfeiffer, History 88.
31. Athen. 2.72a.
32. Hermesianax fr. 7.75–78 Powell (Coll. Alex. p. 100). The glossary: Athen. 9.383a–b.
33. Plut. Mor. 1095D, Strabo 17.1.8 (C.793–94).
34. Pfeiffer History 97. He asserts, oddly, that there were no philosophers: this is directly contradicted by Athen. 1.22d, and in any case the distinction between categories of research was not as precise then as it is today. If Strabo’s ϕιλολόγων ἀνδρῶν can include scientists (Fraser 1.317–18), there is no reason why Athenaeus’s ϕιλοσόϕους, “maintained” (τρεϕομένους) in the Museum, should not refer to any kind of intellectual.
35. Fr. 191 Pfeiffer, dieg. 6.2 ff.
36. Ap. Diog. Laert. 9.6, = fr. 43 Diels.
37. Ap. Athen. 1.22d = fr. 12 Diels.
38. W. J. Slater, “Aristophanes of Byzantium and Problem-Solving in the Museum,” CQ, n.s., 32 (1982) 346–49.
39. Diog. Laert. 5.78–79.
40. Plut. Mor. 189D; cf. Fraser 1.485.
41. Fraser 1.93 ff.; cf. Rostovtzeff, SEH 261–67, 1079–81.
42. Fraser 1.108, 134–35, 141–42, 150; Rostovtzeff, SEH 313, 389, 392, 926, 928.
43. Fraser 1.133 ff.
44. Diog. Laert. 5.58.
45. Though still not nearly as much as we would like: see Strabo 17.1.8 (C.793–94), and cf. Vitruv. 5.11.2, Suda s.v. ἐξέδρα, with the discussion by Fraser, 1.315 ff. What does seem clear is that the Museum was indeed planned in the direct Peripatetic tradition.
46. The figure is given by Tzetzes, probably derived from Callimachus’s Pinakes: texts in Kaibel, CGF 17–33; cf. Fraser 1.320 f.f (esp. 328–29), 2.474, 484–85; Pfeiffer, History 98 ff.
47. Evidence well analyzed by Pfeiffer, History 99–104; cf. Suda s.v. Ζηνόδοτος. Wilamowitz’s claim (Hellenistische Dichtung 1.22) that Demetrius was the first librarian may have been a mere slip, since later in the same work (1.165) he correctly identifies Zenodotus as the original holder of the office.
48. See L. D. Reynolds and N. G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, 2d ed. (Oxford, 1974), in particular chaps. 2 and 3, pp. 38 ff.
49. Plato, Apol. 26D6–9; cf. Eupolis fr. 304 Kock.
50. Diog. Laert. 9.6.
51. Cf. Athen. 1.3b.
52. Galen 15.105.
53. Known as “the salvaged material” (τά σῳζόμενα). Galen, Comm. in Hipp. Epid. 3, remarks that the rolls were not delivered directly to the libraries, but consigned in the first instance to warehouses, where they were stored “in heaps” (σωρηδόν), a description that should be instantly recognizable to anyone who has examined, say, the accessions basement of the Humanities Research Center in the University of Texas at Austin.
54. Galen 17(1).607.
55. Galen, Comm. in Hipp. Epidem. 3, reprinted in extenso by Fraser, 2.480–81, cf. 1.325.
56. See Reynolds and Wilson (above, n. 48) 7–15; Pfeiffer, History chap. 2, pp. 105 ff.; Fraser 1.320–35; and in particular E. G. Turner, Greek Papyri: An Introduction (Oxford, 1968) 100 ff.
57. Pfeiffer, History 24 ff., 103.
58. A. Carlini, in Bianchi Bandinelli 5.9.341. contrasts the fourth-century papyrus of Timotheus’s Persians (“una scrittura rigida, con lettere angolari ancora strettamente legate a modelli epigrafici”) with the third-century Flinders Petrie fragments of Plato’s Laches and Phaedo, which “rivelano ormai l’affermazione di una scrittura libraria sciolta ed eleganté.”
59. See the excellent and sympathetic summary in Pollitt, AHA 13–14.
1. M. Robertson 292–94. Aristotle had apparently advised Apelles to commemorate the deeds of Alexander because of their aeternitatem: Plin. HN 35.106.
2. Plin. HN 35.90, Quintil. 2.13.12.
3. Ael. VH 2.3; Plin. Nat. Hist. 35.85–86, 92, 95. Alexander, still unsatisfied, had himself painted instead as Zeus, complete with thunderbolt.
4. See, e.g., Plato, Soph. 235E ff.; Arist. Pol. 1281b10; Cic. Inv. Rhet. 2.1.2–3; Vitruv. 7.5.4–7; other testimonia collected by Pollitt, Ancient View 170 ff.
5. Plin. HN 35.65–66.
6. See, e.g., the Boscoreale wall painting reproduced in Charbonneaux et al. as fig. 170, with Villards comments ad loc. (pp. 166–67). For the general obsession with theatricality, see Pollitt, AHA 5–7.
7. Strabo 14.2.5 (C.652).
8. Protzmann 186: “Die Perspektive verbindet illusionär Bildwelt und Realraum.”
9. Plato, Soph. 234B–236A, 268C–D; cf. Pollitt, Ancient View 46–47.
10. Cf. Plato, Theaet. 156A–157C.
11. Plin. HN 34.65, “ab illis factos quales essent homines, a se quales uiderentur esse,” a distinction that has caused considerable scholarly debate; cf. Pollitt, Ancient View 180–82.
12. Ct. Protzmann 169: “Schien es stets klar zu sein, dass auch der Formenwandel in der Kunst als Ausdruck der gesellschaftlichen Krise, als Verfallssymptom der Poliskultur zu gelten habe.” I am well aware of the baffling chronological problems confronting historians of Hellenistic art, in the history of sculpture especially: see Pollitt, AHA app. 1, 265–71. Dating on stylistic grounds is peculiarly hazardous: “what seems pathetic or realistic to one person may seem comic or rococo to another” (ibid. 270).
13. Pollitt, Art 136.
14. Brown, Anticlassicism chap. 5, “Polis and People,” 44–63. Coming across this work only when my own book was in draft, I was encouraged to find so many of my own hypotheses confirmed by it.
15. Dem. 20.70, Paus. 1.24.3.
16. Plut. Lys. 18, Paus. 6.3.14–15, Duns ap. Athen. 15.696e, Hesych. s.v. Λυσάνδρια.
17. Ferguson, HA 8–9.
18. Dinsmoor 233, 240, 244.
19. Ibid. 246–49. Dr. Paul Cartledge reminds me that the height of the water table and consequent flooding are also relevant to the height of the base.
20. Dinsmoor (247) observes, “Comfort was slightly increased by hollowing the face of the seat by 3½ inches to permit the feet to be withdrawn as others passed by, and also by depressing the back half of each seat by 1½ inches for the feet of the occupant above; but even so it must have been necessary to bring cushions.” Experience in the theater of Herodes Atticus in Athens, and in the theater at Epidaurus, suggests that this is, if anything, an understatement.
21. Ibid. 240–41.
22. Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary 348–51, 562–65; Dinsmoor 236–40 with pls. lix–lx and fig. 87.
23. Dinsmoor 239–40.
24. Ibid. 236 with fig. 86.
25. Dem. 3.29, Paus. 5.20.9; cf. Brown, Anticlassicism 52–53.
26. Dinsmoor 251.
27. Ibid. 241–42.
28. See D. J. Blackman in J. S. Morrison and R. T. Williams, Greek Oared Ships 900–322 B.C. (Cambridge, 1968) chap. 8, pp. 181–92.
29. Martin, in Charbonneaux et al. 4. There is no denying the vigor, or, indeed, the innovations. Winter, CAH VII2.1 383, asserts that “probably no other period, either of Greek or of Roman architecture, can advance as impressive a claim to originality as the centuries from c. 350 to 100.”
30. Vitruv. 7 praef. 12, 1.1.12.
31. Dinsmoor 221–23, D. S. Robertson 147–49.
32. Dinsmoor 223–29.
33. Strabo 17.1.43 (C.814), Dinsmoor 229–33.
34. Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary 402–11.
35. Finn and Houser 58–69 with the relevant (unnumbered) plates, by far the best color reproductions of these bronzes available.
36. Plin. HN 36.20–22, cf. Lucian, Amor. 13–14; Bieber 18–19; Pollitt, Art 157 and n. 9.
37. R. A. Higgins, Greek and Roman Jewellery (London and Berkeley, 1961) 155: the whole chapter on Hellenistic jewelry (chap. 15, 154–70) is of the greatest interest and value.
38. Bieber 124–25, 133, 146–47; Havelock 123, no. 89, which reproduces the late, predominantly feminine, reclining type. See Marie Delcourt, Hermaphrodite: Mythes et rites de la bisexualité dans l’antiquité classique (Paris, 1958) 86–103, for an analysis of the surviving representations. Cf. F. R. Walton, OCD2 502: a cult of Hermaphroditus existed in Attica in the fourth century. It is just as we would expect that “fourth-century art portrayed Hermaphroditus as a beautiful youth with developed breasts; later art as an Aphrodite with male genitals.” The Stockholm and Paris statues portray Demeter-like matrons proudly lifting their peplos to reveal an erect penis (Delcourt 99), a development that should appeal to Freudians. Perhaps this was what Martin Nilsson had in mind when he asserted (1.491 n. 2), “Der Hermaphroditismus ist den ursprünglichen griechischen Vorstellungen so fremd, dass es nicht nötig ist, hier darauf einzugehen.” His aversion proved to be so great that he found it “nicht nötig” in vol. 2 as well, where the omission is far less excusable. For a still useful survey of the hermaphrodite in ancient art, cf. P. Herrmann in Roscher’s Lexikon, 1.2319–40, s.v. “Hermaphroditos.”
39. Finn and Houser 92–133 passim.
40. Bieber 16–17, figs. 11–12; M. Robertson 386 ff., pl. 125b. As Prof. A. F. Stewart reminds me, “opinion now inclines to a Hellenistic date for the Hermes,” though he adds that such a copy (if copy it be) is “probably after a Praxitelean bronze(?) of c. 330.”
41. M. Robertson 466.
42. If this head is, in fact, by Silanion: Paus. 6.4.5 says that he made a portrait of Satyros, a five-time Olympic boxing champion; the head is very much in his style, and it is very tempting to identify it as Satyros, but certainty is impossible. Cf. Caroline Houser’s sensible remarks in Finn and Houser 36–37.
43. Charbonneaux, in Charbonneaux et al. 212.
44. Plin. HN 34.65.
45. Havelock 119; cf. Pollitt, Art 174–76, Ancient View 14–22; M. Robertson 464.
46. A much-debated work: see Protzmann 182 for conflicting judgments. Cf. Pollitt, AHA 47–48.
47. Protzmann 202.
48. Paus. 1.43.6, Plin. HN 36.25, Bieber 26 with n. 118.
49. See, e.g., M. Robertson 277 with pl. 60b (Corinthian terra-cotta sculpture), and, for a thorough discussion, H. Sichtermann, Ganymed: Mythos und Gestalt in der Antiken Kunst (Berlin, n.d.) 39–52.
50. Mus. Berl. (W)7928, well reproduced in J. Marcadé, Eros Kalos (Geneva, 1965) 15. With this compare the very different (and much less erotic) sculpture selected by Bieber, 62–63 and pl. 198. Pliny, HN 34.79, describes the eagle in Leochares’ work as “conscious of what he was carrying off in Ganymede, and to whom he was taking it, and going easy on the lad with his talons, even through his clothes,” which suits the mirror relief peculiarly well.
51. See, e.g., Marcadé (above, n. 50) 13–14, 16–17; Johns 107–9 with color pl. 21.
52. Roman copy in the Capitoline Museum, excellently illustrated in J. Boardman et al., Art and Architecture of Ancient Greece (London, 1967) pl. 246.
53. Paus. 1.8.2, 9.16.1–2, cf. Plin. HN 34.50, 87; Bieber 14–15; M. Robertson 384–85 with pl. 125a.
54. Bieber 125–26 with nn. 13–16, Charbonneaux et al. 287–88 with pl. 311. M. Robertson 535–36 is hesitant both about the ascription and in ascribing any social significance to changes in the iconography: “This is the grandest of Greek victories, and reminds one of the rashness of such generalisations as that the old themes had lost their power in the new age; but it is true that Victory is always well thought of, certainly not least at this epoch.” Unexceptionable in itself, this statement seems to me to sidestep the crucial considerations of context, provenance, and special circumstance.
55. Plin. HN 34.58.
56. Protzmann 178–79.
57. Xen. Mem. 3.10.1–8.
58. Pollitt, Art 143 ff.
59. Webster, Art 41 ff., esp. pls. 47, 52, 63.
60. Havelock 19; cf. M. Robertson 504–7.
61. Thuc. 1.132, Hdt. 8.82, Nep. Paus. 1, Ps.-Dem. 59.97–98, Plut. Mor. 873C–D, Suda s.v. Παυσανίας; cf. Meiggs and Lewis no. 27, pp. 57–60.
62. Stewart 121–26.
63. Lullies and Hirmer 58 with pls. 24–25. The name of the dedicator, partially lost, was probably Rhombos.
64. Plin. HN 34.83.
65. Ibid. 36.11–12, Suda s.v. Ἱππῶναξ.
66. Richter, Portraits 1.97–99, 102–4, with figs. 405–8, 429–41; M. Robertson 187 ff., 335 ff., pl. 62d. For a general, and generally judicious, introduction to Greek portraiture, see Pollitt, AHA 59 ff. His notion of early portraits as generic “role-model” evocations is plausible, but debatable.
67. Plin. HN 34.76, Lucian, Philops. 18–20; cf. M. Robertson 504–5, 712 nn. 4–5.
68. Protzmann 177; Pollitt, Art 166–68.
69. E.g., by Seltman 221–22, Jenkins 218–21. Cf. R. R. R. Smith, Hellenistic Royal Portraits 12–14.
70. Kraay and Hirmer figs. 562, 563, 568 (Philip II), fig. 560 (Amyntas), pl. XVIII (Alexander), fig. 559 (Archelaus), fig. 561 (Perdiccas III); and cf. pp. 348–52. See also Pollitt, AHA 25–26.
71. DS 16.92.5.
72. Adams and Borza 119–20, 132, 149–50, 165 ff., with reff. to earlier literature. For Leochares’ group in the Philippeion (338/7?), see Paus. 5.20.9.
73. A convenient conspectus is provided by M. Bieber, Alexander the Great in Greek and Roman Art (Chicago, 1964): cf. in particular pls. 2.3, 3.5, 6.6–7, 8.13–16, 9.17, 11.19, 15.26–27, 16.28, 17.31, 18.34a–b and 35, 22.43, 29.57, 36.71, 38.114, 42.83–85, 46.92. For the generic “Lysippan” portrait, see Plut. Alex. 4, cf. Plin. HN 7.125; other sources in F. P. Johnson, Lysippos (Durham, N.C., 1927) 301–6. Cf. Pollitt, AHA 20–22.
74. Our iconography of the whole Ptolemaic dynasty is, indeed, restricted for the most part to realistic, and often unflattering, coin portraits: once the Successors had established their own royal dynasties, the prejudice against self-representation in most (though not all) cases soon vanished. Ptolemy, Seleucus, and Demetrius Poliorcetes all availed themselves of this excellent medium for self-advertisement. Portrait busts, on the other hand, are rare: for possible exceptions see M. Robertson 515, 523; and I. Jucker, “Ein Bildnis der Arsinoë III Philopator,” HASB 5 (1979) 5–9 (a bust of Arsinoë III dating from ca. 200).
75. M. Robertson 510–11.
76. Pollitt, Art 183. The original Demosthenes was by Polyeuktos; the Aristotle may be Lysippan. Pollitt, AHA 63, argues on the basis of these two examples that “psychological portraiture” probably originated in Athens.
77. M. Robertson 497. See Quintil. 12.10.6.
78. This assessment of red-figure I owe very largely to correspondence with Prof. A. F. Stewart.
79. Including by Andronikos himself: see The Search for Alexander: An Exhibition (Boston, 1980) 30–31.
80. A useful general survey of these Macedonian tombs is provided by Stella G. Miller, “Macedonian Tombs: Their Architecture and Architectural Decoration,” in B. Barr-Sharrar and E. N. Borza, eds., Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times, Studies in the History of Art, vol. 10, (Washington, D.C., 1982) 153–71: see in particular pp. 164–66 for the connection of illusionist architectural painting with the Roman Second Style. On the Great Tomb of Lefkadia, see the fundamental publication by its excavator, Ph. M. Petsas, Ὁ Τάϕος τῶν Λευκαδίων (Athens, 1966), and the discussions by M. Robertson 568–72, with further reff., and V. J. Bruno, Form and Colour in Greek Painting (London, 1977) 23–30 with pls. 5b–9. The Tomb of the Palmettes is referred to briefly by M. Robertson 571, but the only full discussion remains the original publication by K. Rhomaiopoulou, “A New Monumental Chamber Tomb with Paintings of the Hellenistic Period Near Lefkadia (West Macedonia),” AAA 6 (1973) 87–92 with color pl. 1. She remarks of the painting on the roof of the antechamber that the “huge polychrome anthemia among other water flowers and plant motifs on a faded water-like blue ground show a remarkable command of the principles of perspective and the use of transitional tones of colours.” On the Vergina tombs, all earlier studies and photographs have been superseded by Manolis Andronikos’s sumptuous Βεργίνα: Οἱ Βασιλικοί Τάϕοι καί οἱ ἄλλες Ἀρχαιότητες (Athens, 1984). For the paintings in the main tombs, see pp. 86–95, 100–117, with pls. 46–54, 57–71. For the 1981 excavation and tomb paintings, see pp. 22–24, 35–37, with pls. 12–16 (pl. 16 in particular is an excellent reproduction of the young dead warrior from the second tomb, in a perennial heroic pose, one arm supporting a vertical spear, the other akimbo).
81. Havelock 242–44 pls. VI-VII; Webster, Art 23, 66, 89, and pl. 19; M. Robertson 486–89.
82. P. Ducrey and I. R. Metzger, “La maison aux mosaïques à Érétrie,” AK 22 (1979) 3–21, cf. Arch. 32 (1979) 34–42; D. M. Robinson et al., Excavations at Olynthus, vol. 8, The Hellenic House (Baltimore, 1938) passim; M. Robertson, JHS 85 (1965) 73 ff., 83 f., with pl. 18.
83. K. Dunbabin, “Technique and Materials of Hellenistic Mosaics,” AJA 83 (1979) 265–77; Pollitt, AHA 21–12.
84. Webster, Art 38, 41, pls. 9–10, app. pl. 26; Havelock 191–92 with pls. 150–52; M. Robertson 481 ff. with pls. 151a–c.
85. J.J. Coulton, “Hellenistic Royal Architecture,” PCA 77 (1980) 21–22.
86. Various attributes of Aphrodite, e.g., passion (ἔρως), desire or yearning (πόθος), longing (ἵμερος), had been represented on Greek vases from the late fifth century; see Brown, Anticlassicism 58 with n. 200.
87. See, e.g., the quotations, from Cleidemus and others, gathered by Athenaeus, 14.660d–62d.
88. E.g., by Praxiteles (Plin. HN 34.69) and Pausias (Paus. 2.27.3), who portrayed Methe sipping in style from her crystal goblet.
89. Quintil. 12.10.4.
90. Plin. HN 35.67–69; cf. Pollitt, Ancient View 30–31.
91. M. Robertson 414.
92. Vitruv. 7.5.2–3.
93. “Nature Morte,” Collected Poems (London, 1966) 21.
94. All three of my chapters on Hellenistic art were written before Pollitt’s AHA became accessible to me. I was therefore encouraged by the degree to which our conclusions coincided. In particular, Pollitt’s tripartite division of the period (p. 17), into the Age of the Diadochoi (ca. 323–275), the Age of the Hellenistic Kingdoms (ca. 275–150), and the Graeco-Roman Phase (ca. 150–31), agrees almost exactly with my own.
1. Seibert, Historische Beiträge 72, argues that Ptolemy was the first Hellenistic ruler who consciously exercised a policy of solidifying alliances through well-placed marriages. In one sense royal incest might be regarded as this policy carried to its logical extreme.
2. Bouché-Leclercq, HL 1.101; cf. Joseph. AJ 12.2.
3. A good, if in places dated, account of her is provided by Macurdy 104–9. Schol. Theocr. 17.61 Wessner is crucial for establishing her genealogy.
4. Not his first, however: Ptolemy had played his part in the Susa mass marriages of 324 by taking to wife Artabazus’s daughter Artacama (Arr. 7.4.6), only to repudiate her soon after Alexander’s death. He married Eurydice in 321, in the wake of the Triparadeisos settlement: cf. Seibert, Historische Beiträge 16 ff., 72.
5. Theocr. 17.38–40.
6. Longega passim; Macurdy 111–30; Burstein, “Arsinoe” 197 ff.
7. Seibert, Historische Beiträge 74.
8. Plut. Demetr. 30, DS 21.1.4; cf. Manni, Demetrio 42 ff. Will, CAH VII2.1 101, stresses (perhaps overstresses) the total dependence of Demetrius on his father’s cool-headed strategy and long-term planning.
9. Shear 72.
10. Demetrius’s marital record is interesting. His first wife, who remained loyal through all her husband’s political vicissitudes (not to mention his various polygamous and extramarital excesses), only to kill herself in despair after the retreat to Cassandreia (see p. 127), was Antipater’s daughter Phila, fifteen years Demetrius’s senior, and the widow of Craterus: Plut. Demetr. 14; cf. Wehrli, “Phila” 140 ff. She clearly loved this beautiful and narcissistic young man a good deal more than he did her, since his father, old Antigonus, had to push him into the match with a quotation from Euripides’ Phoenician Women (396): “Where gain lies, wed one must, against the grain.” Subsequent wives included the Athenian Eurydice, Ophellas of Cyrene’s widow and a Philaid aristocrat (307), who was clearly linked with Demetrius’s ambitions in Greece, and, if Seibert, Historische Beiträge 28, is right, in North Africa too; Deidameia, the sister of Pyrrhus (303: Plut. Demetr. 25, Pyrrh. 4; cf. Lévêque, Pyrrhos 104), whose value lay in her connection with Alexander the Great’s line, and who died in 298, in Cilicia; and Lanassa (see p. 126), Agathocles of Sicily’s daughter and the ex-wife of Pyrrhus, who brought her husbands the key islands of Corcyra and Leucas as a much-coveted dowry. Demetrius also planned to marry Ptolemaïs, Ptolemy I’s daughter by Eurydice, but political circumstances changed too fast, and he broke with Ptolemy (p. 122) before the wedding could take place. This was in 299. However, in 287, Demetrius, who was clearly not the man to forget unfinished business, married Ptolemaïs after all, in curious circumstances (p. 129). Seibert, Historische Beiträge 31–33, comments shrewdly on the ad hoc, improvisational quality of Demetrius’s political marriages, contrasting them with those of Pyrrhus, who practiced a genuine Heiratspolitik.
11. Plut. Demetr. 31.
12. The number of nubile daughters that these rulers, Antipater in particular, had permanently available for such contingencies never ceases to amaze one. Whoever else might expose unwanted female infants in the ancient world (Pomeroy, Goddesses 68 ff., 127), the Successors most assuredly did not.
13. Seibert, Historische Beiträge 93–95; Burstein, Outpost 82–85; after her repudiation Amastris continued to rule Heracleia in her own right, as well as setting up an independent fief in Paphlagonia; a few years later she was drowned, perhaps on her son’s orders (284).
14. Seibert, Historische Beiträge 74.
15. Just. 15.4.23 ff.; Plut. Demetr. 31–32; Paus. 1.9.6, 10.3; Memnon FGrH 434 F 9.
16. OGIS 10.
17. Lévêque, Pyrrhos 107; cf. n. 10 above.
18. Ibid. 94–105.
19. DS 19.88 ff.; Paus. 1.11.5; Plut. Pyrrh. 4, Demetr. 31.
20. Lévêque, Pyrrhos 107: he “se méfiait de la versatilité bien connue déjà de Démétrios.”
21. Plut. Demetr. 6.
22. Jacoby, RE 10 (1917) col. 2312, s.v. “Kassandros (2)”; Will, HP2 1.93.
23. Plut. Demetr. 5; Paus. 1.6.8, 11.5; cf. Niese 1.361–62.
24. Plut. Pyrrh. 6.
25. Plut. Demetr. 36; Just. 15.4.24; Euseb. Chron. 1.231 Schoene, whose version of Cassander’s death tabido morbo (line 16) is more convincing than Pausanias’s tale of dropsy and phthiriasis (9.7.2–3, a fate clearly seen, if not invented, as a just retribution from heaven for his alleged hatred of Alexander), especially since Pausanias himself admits consumption (νόσος ϕθινώδης) as the cause of Philip IV’s demise, and the complaint seems to have been hereditary.
26. Plut. Demetr. 36, Pyrrh. 6; Just. 16.1.1–9; DS 21.7; Paus. 9.7.3.
27. Justin’s comment (16.1.3) is revealing: this crime was found all the more abhorrent, he alleges, “because there was no evidence of deception on the mother’s part” (quod nullum maternae fraudis vestigium fuit): a little fraus, one feels, would have been felt to go a long way toward justifying matricide.
28. The parallel is true in more ways than one: SIG3 362 and 374 suggest, despite the polite disclaimers, discreet politicking by the Athenians with Demetrius’s opponents, in particular Cassander and Lysimachus.
29. POxy. 17.2082 = FGrH 257a F. Translation in Burstein, Translated Documents no. 5, pp. 5–6. The papyrus, of the second century A.D., has been identified tentatively as an Olympiad chronicle by Phlegon of Tralles.
30. Paus. 1.25.7.
31. Paus. 1.25.7, cf. 29.10; Plut. Demetr. 33; Polyaen. 4.7.5, cf. 3.7.
32. Ferguson, CPh 24 (1929) 1–20; others listed by Shear 52–53 n. 144.
33. Shear 52 ff.; Habicht, Untersuchungen 1–33.
34. POxy. 17.2082, combined with Paus. 1.25.7; cf. M. J. Osborne, JHS 102 (1982) 273.
35. POxy. 10.1235 lines 105–12 = Körte and Thierfelder testim. 28. Ferguson, CPh 24 (1929) 12–14, argues convincingly for dating this production to 301/0. Habicht’s efforts (Untersuchungen 16–21) to downdate as far as 295 are ingenious to a degree, but seem dictated by his main thesis: I do not find them convincing.
36. Plut. Demetr. 33: during the siege of Messene he got a crossbow bolt through his jaw.
37. Habicht, Untersuchungen 2–13, would postdate all these events by a year, placing Lachares’ coup in the spring of 295, and Demetrius’s entry into Athens in the spring of 294. I am not persuaded that what Demetrius at first imposed, whatever he may have done later (see p. 126), was the oligarchy referred to in IG II2 646, on which Habicht (pp. 5–8) relies for a firm date in Elaphebolion (roughly, March) 294.
38. Cf. Habicht, Untersuchungen 66.
39. His subsequent fate is uncertain: according to Pausanias (1.25.7) he was soon murdered for his ill-gotten gains, but Polyaenus (3.7.1–3, 6.7.2) has him alive as late as 279, when we find him being expelled from Cassandreia after an unsuccessful attempt to betray the city to Antiochus I.
40. Plut. Demetr. 34.
41. DS 21.9.
42. Plut. Demetr. 34, Paus. 1.25.8; cf. Habicht, Untersuchungen 103–4 with n. 51.
43. E.g., Shear 53 ff.; Habicht, Untersuchungen 22 ff.
44. Shear 53 ff., and Habicht, Untersuchungen 4 ff., discussing IG II2 643, 646, 647. It hardly needs pointing out that the decree honoring Herodorus (of Cyzicus or Lampsacus) for his part in the negotiated peace is not necessarily (as Habicht seems to assume) coterminous with the peace itself; indeed, it may well have postdated it by months: compare, say, the English Honours List. Thus there is no reason to suppose that IG II2 646 of Elaphebolion 294 could not refer to a peace made in 295; indeed, the likelihood lies in that direction.
45. Plut. Demetr. 34: κατέστησεν ἀρχὰς αἳ μάλιστα τῷ δήμῳ προσϕιλεῖς ἦσαν.
46. IG II2 644, 645, 682.21–23; cf. Habicht, Untersuchungen 3 ff.
47. Plut. Pyrrh. 5; cf. Vartsos, “Ἀκμή” 93 ff.
48. Plut. Demetr. 35, cf. 38; SIG3 368.1–9; cf. Will, HP2 1.92, who also points out (CAH VII2.1 108) that Ptolemy—a point seemingly lost on Demetrius—had no intention of resting content with Cyprus, and indeed, at some point between 291 and 287(?), gained control of the League of Islanders.
49. Plut. Pyrrh. 6.
50. Paus. 2.10.1–2; Plut. Demetr. 36, Pyrrh. 6. Cf. Hammond and Walbank 214–15.
51. Plut. Demetr. 35, Polyaen. 4.7.9–10, Paus. 1.13.6; cf. Piper 14.
52. Just. 16.1.7–8; Plut. Demetr. 36–37, cf. Pyrrh. 5.
53. Just. 16.1.10–17.
54. Plut. Demetr. 37: βελτίονος δὲ ἀπορεῖν.
55. Plut. Demetr. 41–42, Pyrrh. 7; cf. Wehrli, “Phila” 144.
56. Plut. Demetr. 41; cf. Newell passim. On Demetrius’s Hellenistic theatricality, see the excellent analysis by Pollitt, AHA 6–7; for his probably having been the first ruler to portray himself on his coinage, see Seltman 222.
57. Plut. Demetr. 39, Strabo 9.5.15 (C.436).
58. Plut. Demetr. 39–41.
59. DS 21.14.1–2, Plut. Demetr. 40.
60. Plut. Demetr. 43, Pyrrh. 7, 10, with Lévêque, Pyrrhos 142 ff. See also Schmitt, Staatsverträge no. 463, pp. 96–99, for an Aetolian-Boeotian alliance which may belong to this period, but could also possibly fit in the context of 301/299, after Ipsus.
61. Plut. Pyrrh. 10, cf. 9; Lévêque, Pyrrhos 139–42.
62. Macurdy 66–67, and see above, p. 763 n. 10.
63. Plut. Demetr. 40.
64. Shear 53–55; Habicht, Untersuchungen 28–30.
65. Dion. Hal. Deinarch. 3 = FGrH 328 F 67.
66. Habicht, Untersuchungen 29, analyzes this situation with great percipience: “Auch danach [i.e., after the recall of the oligarchs in 292] war Athen nicht eigentlich ein oligarchisches Staatswesen, aber es gab doch genügend Erscheinungen in diesem Staat, die so bezeichnet werden konnten. Von Demochares und Laches ist ja auch nicht die Terminologie von Verfassungsrechtlern zu erwarten; sie formulierten und schrieben in der politischen Sprache der radikalen Demokraten, und von ihrem Standpunkt aus hatten sie durchaus Grund, die Jahre zwischen 294 und 287 als eine Periode der Oligarchie zu bezeichnen.”
67. Demochares ap. Athen. 6.253c–d.
68. Cited by Duris of Samos, ibid. 253d–f. = FGrH 76 F 13. Translation, with further refs., in Burstein, Translated Documents no. 7, pp. 8–9.
69. Cf. DS 21.9.
70. Mossé, Athens 124.
71. Plut. Demetr. 43. Plutarch’s claim that Demetrius was planning a large-scale invasion of Asia is not perhaps so fanciful as some scholars have assumed. Cf. Walbank, CAH VII2.1108 with n. 26; and Hammond and Walbank 226–27, with a percipient analysis of the numismatic evidence.
72. Plut. Demetr. 44; Just. 16.2.1–2, cf. Plut. Pyrrh. 11.
73. Will, HP2 1.94–96; Shear 78 with n. 217.
74. Plut. Pyrrh. 11–12, Demetr. 44, Paus. 1.10.2, Just. 16.3.1–2. Oros. 3.23.54–55; Cic. De Offic. 2.26. The date is disputed. Hammond and Walbank 229 n. 1 argue for an invasion in 287 rather than 288. But the earlier date is supported by the narrative of Plut. Demetr. 45–46; and Habicht’s argument, Untersuchungen 60 n. 63, that Athens could not have delayed nine months after Demetrius’s defeat before revolting (the date of the revolt is independently secure at June 287) I find less than convincing. The Athenians at this point were quite capable of such nervous wait-and-see procrastination.
75. Plut. Demetr. 42: there is a telling anecdote here of his collecting written petitions from his subjects, only to dump them contemptuously in the Axius River as he crossed it.
76. Plut. Demetr. 44–45, Pyrrh. 11; cf. Cavafy, Ποιήματα Α´ 27 = Collected Poems 40–41: “Behaving like an actor / Who, the show once over, / Changes his clothes and leaves.”
77. Plut. Demetr. 45; cf. Agora Inv. I 7295 (the Callias Decree) lines 16–18, with Shear 16 and n. 25. For the Callias Decree in general, see Burstein, Translated Documents no. 55, pp. 74–76.
78. Plut. Pyrrh. 12, Paus. 1.10.2.
79. Plut. Demetr. 46; Paus. 1.26.1–3; IG II2 666, 667; the Callias Decree (above, n. 77), esp. lines 11–15; cf. Shear 14 ff., 19 ff., and chaps. 3–5, pp. 61–86; Habicht, Untersuchungen chap. 4, pp. 45–62.
80. Habicht, Untersuchungen 51–60, against Shear 52 ff. and chap. 3, arguing for 286.
81. Callias Decree (above, n. 77) lines 24–27, IG II2 682 lines 35–36; cf. Habicht, Untersuchungen 52.
82. IG II2 682 lines 32–35; περιστάντων τεῖ πόλει καιρῶν δυσκόλων. . . .
83. Plut. Demetr. 46; cf. Shear 54 with nn. 150–53.
84. Paus. 1.26.1–3, cf. 29.13; IG II2 666 lines 9–15, cf. Shear 15. Pausanias’s reference to Olympiodorus recovering Piraeus and Munychia is clearly separate from this account, and must refer to a different occasion: Habicht, Untersuchungen 102–7, plausibly assigns it to an occasion in the Four Years’ War (307–304). Cf. Ferguson, HA 144–45.
85. Cf. IG II2 650.
86. Plut. Demetr. 46; cf. Pyrrh. 12.
87. Callias Decree (above, n. 77) line 30.
88. Shear 75.
89. Callias Decree (above, n. 77) lines 34–37, IG II2 682 lines 36 ff.
90. IG II2 682 lines 21–22. Note that his appointment, even under Lachares, involved him in being ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου χειροτονηθείς, a patent rubber-stamp formality that tends to support those (e.g., Shear 70 with n. 199; Tarn, Antigonus 46; Mackendrick 39) who take a cynical view of the realities behind such democratic phraseology under a restrictive regime. Contra, Habicht, Untersuchungen 55 ff.
91. Habicht, Untersuchungen 58–60, with a highly convincing supplement of the erased matter; and Studien 147–50, relating this act to the general damnatio memoriae of Philip V and his ancestors described by Livy, 31.44.1–9. Cf. above, p. 309.
92. Ibid. 62 ff., against Shear, chap. 4, pp. 74 ff., who regards it rather (cf. below) as a quadripartite agreement between Seleucus, Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and Pyrrhus.
93. Shear 76–78.
94. Plut. Mor. 851E.
95. Demetrius, perhaps as part of the agreement, did nevertheless retain his naval base at Miletus: Plut. Demetr. 48; cf. Shear 78.
96. Shear 78 with n. 217.
97. Plut. Pyrrh. 12.
98. Plut. Demetr. 46 ff.
99. This identification, however, is highly speculative. The figures have also been identified as, e.g., Phila and Antigonus Gonatas (Villard, in Charbonneaux et al. 134–35): the sex of the left-hand figure is ambiguous. M. Robertson, 572–73, thinks rather in terms of allegorical figures.
100. So Ferguson, HA 151; Tarn, Antigonus 100 with n. 21; and others; contra, Shear 86 with n. 235, whose dating of the Athens revolt in 286 necessitates a wholesale revision of the chronology relevant to Demetrius’s final campaign and end.
101. Plut. Demetr. 50: μιαρὸν . . . καὶ βάρβαρον.
102. Ibid. 52. As Will says (HP2 1.95), “Plutarque ne manque pas de philosopher sur cette triste fin.”
103. Cf. the summing-up by Manni, Demetrio 61 ff., who observes: “ardito e audace, non sempre seppe misurare le proprie possibilità.” A similar estimate by Will, CAH VII2.1 101–3, 108–9.
104. Plut. Dem. Ant. Comp. 6. Cf. Will, CAH VII2.1 109.
105. Ps.-Plut. Vit. X Orat. 851E; IG II2 650, 651, 653, 654, 655, 662, 663; cf. Habicht, Untersuchungen 51–52, Shear 79–82. Ferguson, HA 146–47, though outdated in some respects, is still useful: see, e.g., 147 n. 4 for the interesting suggestion that gifts sent by Demetrius of Phaleron from Alexandria to Athens (Plut. Mor. 601F) belong to this period.
106. Polyaen. 5.17.1, Paus. 1.29.10; cf. Shear 82–83.
107. IG II2 add. 5227a, lines 5–6.
108. Plut. Pyrrh. 12, Paus. 1.10.2, Just. 16.3.1–2, Polyaen. 4.12.3, SIG3 361; cf. Lévêque, Pyrrhos 164 ff.
109. Paus. 1.12.1, Just. 25.4.8.
110. Lévêque, Pyrrhos 178 ff.
111. Just. 16.2.4–5; cf. Shear 82 n. 225.
112. Tarn, Antigonus 113–14 with n. 4.
113. Ael. VH 12.25; cf. Tarn, Antigonus 34–36.
114. Will, HP2 1.96–97.
115. Plut. Demetr. 52–53.
116. Just. 17.1.3–6, Memnon FGrH 434 F 5–6, Paus. 1.10.3–4, Strabo 13.4.1 (C.623); cf. Longega 44–54, who regards Memnon as the most reliable of our sources; Macurdy 55–58, 113–14; and Heinen, Untersuchungen 7 ff.
117. CAH VII 97; cf. Antigonus 123.
118. Paus. 1.10.3, citing various (unnamed) writers for his information (ἤδη δὲ ἔγραψαν, etc.).
119. Memnon FGrH 434 F 5–6; cf. Tarn, Antigonus 125. App. Syr. 62 does not, as is sometimes claimed (e.g., by Macurdy 57 with n. 145), mean that Keraunos accompanied his sister to Seleucus, in the circumstances a wholly illogical step for him.
120. Just. 17.1.7–12, 2.1; App. Syr. 62, 64; Memnon FGrH 434 F 5.7; Paus. 1.10.5. For the date, see Will, HP2 1.103.
121. Paus. 1.10.5.
122. Polyaen. 8.57; cf. Macurdy 114.
123. App. Syr. 62.
124. Tarn, Antigonus 129 with n. 39. The murder was widely recorded in antiquity; see, e.g., Memnon FGrH 434 F 8.3; App. Syr. 62; Strabo 13.4.1 (C.623); Paus. 1.16.2, 10.19.7. Cf. Hammond and Walbank 243 with n. 4.
125. Just. 17.2.4–8, 24.2–3.
126. Trog. prol. 24.5.
127. Tarn, Antigonus 131–33.
128. Ibid. 139 ff.; Will, HP2 1.105–7, and see CAH VII2.1 114–15. For the Gauls’ crossing into Asia, cf. Memnon FGrH 434 F 11.1–7 = Burstein, Translated Documents no. 16, pp. 21–22. Honors to a citizen of Priene for mobilizing defenses against the Gauls’ depredations: OGIS 765 = Burstein, Translated Documents no. 17, pp. 22–24.
129. Just. 24.5.1–7, DS 22.3.4, Paus. 10.19.7.
130. Tarn, Antigonus 147; cf. above, p. 134; Heinen, Untersuchungen 58 with no. 217.
131. Paus. 1.4, 10.19–23; Polyb. 4.46; Memnon FGrH 434 F 8, 11; cf. Tarn, Antigonus 155–59. See also DS 22.3–4, 9; Just. 25.1–2.
132. Just. 24.1.2, 7; Plut. Mor. 850F. On Areus’s activities, see Piper 15; Hammond and Walbank 249–50, with reff.
133. Tarn, Antigonus 161. Antiochus I’s anti-Macedonian stance won him instant popularity among the Greek cities of Asia Minor: see, e.g., the honorific decree of Ilion, shortly after his accession, OGIS 219 = Burstein, Translated Documents no. 15, pp. 20–21; OGIS 223 = Burstein, Translated Documents no. 23, pp. 30–31, an acknowledgment by Antiochus I (or II) of honors paid him by Erythrae.
134. Euseb. Chron. 1.235–36 Schoene, Just. 24.5.12–14, DS 22.4. Cf. Hammond and Walbank 254–55, and for the date of Sosthenes’ death, app. 2, 580–81.
135. Polyaen. 2.29.1, Front. Strat. 3.6.7.
136. Just. 25.1.2–10, 2.1–7; Diog. Laert. 2.141; cf. Tarn, Antigonus 165.
137. Will, HP2 1.110 with reff.
138. Tarn, Antigonus 137 ff.
139. Merker, “Silver Coinage” 39 ff.; Tarn, Antigonus 174 and n. 20.
1. See, e.g., Tarn, Antigonus 412 ff.; Préaux, Monde 1.88–89; Bengtson, Griechische Geschichte 399–400. A judicious general survey of sources is now offered by Walbank, CAH VII2.1 chap. 1, pp. 1–22. As he says, “only the literary sources can furnish a consecutive narrative,” adding, “but this is often flat and jejune.” Verb. sap.
2. Paus. 1.9.8, 13.9; cf. Hornblower, chap. 5, pp. 180–233.
3. Africa, Phylarchus chap. 1, pp. 1–13; cf. Tarn, Antigonus 413–14; E. Gabba, “Studi su Filarco: Le biographie plutarchee di Agide e di Cleomene,” Athenaeum, n.s., 35 (1957) 3–55, 193–239.
4. Polyb. 2.56–63 passim; cf. 2.40.4 for his defense of Aratus.
5. Plut. Dem. 3, Demetr. 18, Cleom. 13, 16; cf. Austin 3.
6. Cf. A. E. Wardman, Plutarch’s Lives (London, 1974) 194.
7. E.g., Strabo 8.7.3 (C.385) on the Achaean League; Paus. 2.9.1–3, 8.49.4–6 on Cleomenes III.
8. Polyb. 2.37–71 passim.
9. Most useful general collections: SIG3 and OGIS; Hunt and Edgar, vols. 1, 2; Page; Welles, Royal Correspondence; Schmitt, Staatsverträge; Moretti, Iscrizioni; and, in translation, with a valuable up-to-date commentary, Austin. Turner, CAH VII2.1 118–19, rightly stresses the patchiness of the papyri, their local limitations, and the fact that a great deal of what has been found still remains unpublished.
10. Préaux, Monde 1.106–10; Davis and Kraay passim; Jenkins 211 ff.; Hadley 50–65; Newell passim. Specialist studies are innumerable. For the Indo-Bactrian literature see p. 818.
11. Welles, Alexander 75.
12. Will, HP2 1.135 ff. For a revealing treaty between Antiochus I (or perhaps II) and the strategic city of Lysimacheia in Thrace, see Burstein, Translated Documents no. 22, pp. 29–30, with further documentation. Satraps in the east had been showing signs of independence ever since Eumenes’ defeat in 316: see Holt, Alexander 96 ff., for local coinage issues minted by, and in the names of, the satraps themselves.
13. Bouché-Leclercq, HL 1.141 ff.; Bevan, House of Ptolemy chap. 3, pp. 56 ff. Both these accounts are obsolete in many respects, but have yet to be superseded as overviews of Philadelphos’s reign.
14. Jaehne, “Syrische Frage” 501 ff.: “Der eigentliche Konfliktstoff der ‘syrischen Frage’ lag im Bereich des Ökonomischen.”
15. Larsen, Greek Federal States 80, 196.
16. Memnon FGrH 434 F 7; App. Mithr. 9; DS 20.111.4; Rostovtzeff, SEH 1.26–27, 566 ff., 571 ff., 585 ff.; Magie 1.177 ff., 302 ff.
17. Livy 38.16, Strabo 12.5.1 (C.566–67), Paus. 10.23.14, Just. 25.2.8–11; cf. Will, HP2 1.143–44, for epigraphic evidence and the copious modern scholarship; also CAH VII p. 702.
18. Tarn, Antigonus 144–46.
19. For Antigonus’s appearance, and the meaning of the epithet “Gonatas,” see Sen. De Ira 3.22.4; cf. C. Edson, CPh 29 (1934) 254–55, CAH VII p. 94, and E. L. Brown in Arktouros (Berlin and New York, 1979) 299–307, esp. 304 ff. For the connection with Pan, in particular on Antigonus’s coinage, see Merker, “Silver Coinage” 39–52; Tarn, Antigonus 174 with nn. 19–20; Theocr. 7.111–12; and above, p. 141.
20. Just. 25.1.1; cf. OGIS 219 lines 13 ff.; Tarn, Antigonus 168; Will, HP2 1.143. Phila was also Antigonus’s niece, since his sister, Stratonice, Antiochus’s wife, was formerly married—one more family complication—to Antiochus’s father, Seleucus Nicator.
21. Tarn, Antigonus 175–76.
22. Ibid. chap. 8, pp. 223 ff.; cf. CAH VII 203 ff.
23. Diog. Laert. 7.6–9: though the exchange of letters between king and philosopher is clearly a late rhetorical forgery, there is no reason to doubt that the invitation was in fact issued and refused. See also Chrysippus ap. Plut. Mor. 1043C.
24. Paus. 2.8.4, 7.8.3. An alternative version of events has him escape: Hermippus ap. Athen. 4.162d.; cf. Polyaen. 6.5, followed by Tarn, Antigonus 398 n. 9.
25. Ael. VH 2.20; cf. Tarn, Antigonus 254–56 with n. 122; and Béranger 3–16, who suggests that this concept also reflects the vicissitudes suffered by city-state rulers determined (in however limited a form) to preserve their freedom in the new world of the Macedonian conquistadors.
26. Stob. Flor. 7.20, 49.20; cf. Plut. Mor. 360C.
27. Diog. Laert. 2.141–42.
28. Cf. Hornblower chap. 1, pp. 5–17; chap. 3, pp. 76 ff.; chap. 5, pp. 180 ff.
29. Diog. Laert. 4.46–57 passim; cf. Tarn, Antigonus 234–39; Dudley, History 62–69, 89–92. Bion, who made sharp comments on Pyrrhus qua tomb robber, was not above jeering at Gonatas’s flight on that occasion: a more than usually privileged court jester, it would seem. See Teles’ diatribe on poverty, cited by Walbank CAH VII2.1 224.
30. Quoted by Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 3.26. Bion’s homely bromides (e.g., “Don’t blame fate, blame yourself,” the direct ancestor of “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars / But in ourselves”) inevitably gave rise to the charge that he was a mere charlatan, peddling platitude as diatribe; much of this animus seems to have come, as we might expect, from the pretentious intellectuals whom he ridiculed: cf. Dudley, History 91–92.
31. DS 16.92.5; cf. p. 403.
32. Suda s. v. Ἀντίπατρος.
33. Plut. Pyrrh. 26, Paus. 1.13.2, Just. 25.3.1–5; cf. Niese 2.54 ff.; Tarn, Antigonus 259 ff.; Lévêque, Pyrrhos 557 ff.
34. Just. 25.3.7–8.
35. DS 11.2.12; Plut. Pyrrh. 26; cf. Lévêque, Pyrrhos 508–9, Hammond and Walbank 262.
36. Just. 25.4.4–10, Plut. Pyrrh. 26.
37. Just. 25.4.4.
38. Plut. Pyrrh. 26–30, Paus. 1.13.6–7, Just. 25.4.6–10, Polyaen. 8.49; cf. Lévêque, Pyrrhos 592 ff.
39. Paus. 1.13.7; cf. Tarn, Antigonus 271 ff.; Lévêque, Pyrrhos 606–8.
40. Plut. Pyrrh. 30, Polyaen. 8.68, Just. 25.5.1.
41. Plut. Pyrrh. 32, Polyaen. 8.68. The evidence for these events is highly confused and contradictory; the best analysis is still that of Lévêque, Pyrrhos 613 ff.
42. Plut. Pyrrh. 32–34, Paus. 1.13.8, Polyaen. 8.68, Just. 25.5.1–2; cf. Lévêque, Pyrrhos 622 ff. The incident may also have created a topos. Hornblower 104 observes that “the victor weeping over the vanquished is a motif of Hellenistic historiography of which this is apparently the first instance,” and cites later parallels: Antiochus and Achaeus, Scipio at the burning of Carthage, Octavian lamenting Antony, Aemilius Paullus moralizing over the downfall of Perseus, etc. (Polyb. 8.20.10, 29.20.1–4, 38.20.1, 21.1–3, 22; Plut. Ant. 78).
43. Tarn, Antigonus 277.
44. IG II2 683, 677 (= SIG3 401). For the date (in Hieron’s archonship) see Habicht, Studien 70; for the erection of stelai I accept A. N. Kontoleon’s supplement [στήλ]ας replacing Lolling’s [γράϕ]ας. Cf. Habicht, Untersuchungen 71 with n. 18.
45. Cf. Habicht, Untersuchungen 68, 108.
46. Grimal 133.
47. Longega 71 ff.; Burstein, “Arsinoë” 200 ff.; cf. Just. 24.1.3, Paus. 1.7.1. Good reproductions of the coins in Jenkins nos. 558, 564; and in Davis and Kraay nos. 15, 18, 20, 21, 22.
48. Fraser 2.367 n. 228; cf. Burstein, “Arsinoë” 202 n. 27.
49. Theocr. 17.128–30; cf. Koenen, in Van’t Dack et al. 157–58.
50. For a sensible modification of the extreme views taken, e.g., by Macurdy 118–19, Bevan, House of Ptolemy 60–61, Tarn, Antigonus 262–63 (cf. Tarn and Griffith 16–17), and Longega passim, see Burstein, “Arsinoë” 203 ff., and Pomeroy, Women 17–18, who, while confirming Burstein’s assessment of the evidence, reminds us that “older siblings often maintain their authority over younger ones, even if the older one is female and the younger one male.” For a renewed (but not generally convincing) vindication of Arsinoë’s supposed influence on foreign policy (itself here excellently analyzed for the period of Ptolemy II’s reign), see Hans Hauben, “Arsinoé II et la politique extérieure de l’Égypte,” in Van’t Dack et al. 99–127.
51. Paus. 1.7.3; F. Koepp, “Über die syrischen Kriege der ersten Ptolemaër,” RhM 39 (1884) 209–30, followed by Bouché-Leclercq, HL1.171 ff., and Jaehne “Syrische Frage” 501 ff.; cf. Heinen, CAH VII2.1 416–17. His argument that the great procession described by Callixeinos (Chap. 10, pp. 158–60) was to celebrate the successful conclusion of the First Syrian War has been disproved by Foertmeyer (see below, Chap. 10, n. 19).
52. Will, HP2 1.139–42.
53. He may already have had control of Miletus at the time of Demetrius Poliorcetes’ move there from Athens (above, Chap. 8, with n. 98). In the confused circumstances of 262, with Antigonus Gonatas operating in the Aegean, we find Ptolemy at some pains to reward, and prolong, the loyalty of key ports such as Miletus: see Welles, Royal Correspondence no. 14 = Burstein, Translated Documents 95, pp. 120–21.
54. Paus. 1.7.2, Polyaen. 2.28.
55. Theocr. 17.85–94.
56. CAH VII 653, 823.
57. Will, HP2 1.220–21.
58. While economic considerations may have had some weight in bringing about the Chremonidean War—so, e.g., Rostovtzeff, SEH 1.215 ff; Tarn, Antigonus 219 ff.: Ptolemy wanted to make Piraeus “his main clearing-house,” while the Athenians were anxious to safeguard their grain imports—it seems clear that the immediate motivation, on all sides, was political and diplomatic: cf. Will, HP2 1.219 ff., esp. 222. But both on economic and on political grounds, Macedonian control of Piraeus, then as always, was a standing invitation to direct intervention. See Habicht, Untersuchungen 108–9.
59. In 282/1 an honorific decree referred, hopefully, to a time when “Piraeus and City shall be one again”: Moretti, Iscrizioni 1.14, p. 28; cf. Meritt, Hesperia 7 (1938) 100–102, no. 18, lines 28–31; and Habicht, Untersuchungen 99.
60. Cf. Hegesander ap. Athen. 6.250f.
61. Heinen, Untersuchungen 97–100; Walbank, CAH VII2.1 236 ff.; Hammond and Walbank 276–89. Main sources: Paus. 3.6.4–6; Just. 26.2.1–8.
62. IG II2 686–87 = SIG3 434–45; Schmitt, Staatsverträge 476, pp. 129–33; Austin 49, pp. 95–97; Bagnall and Derow 19, pp. 39–41; Paus. 3.6.4–8. See also Burstein, Translated Documents no. 56, pp. 77–80.
63. Mossé, Athens 127.
64. Tarn, JHS 54 (1934) 37, cited by Habicht, Untersuchungen 112. On the war in general, see Heinen, Untersuchungen 97–202; and Will, HP2 1.219–28.
65. Burstein, “Arsinoë” 208; Rostovtzeff, SEH 1.215 ff.; Walbank, CAH VII2.1 237–38.
66. Plut. Agis 3; cf. Paus. 3.6.6.
67. Plut. Mor. 183C, 545C; Mosch. ap. Athen. 5.209e. For the date, cf. Walbank, CAH VII2.1 239–40. Hammond and Walbank 291, and app. 4, “The Battles of Cos and Andros” 587–600, esp. 595 ff., now suggest 255 as an alternate date, but their arguments are not conclusive. Gonatas is said to have asked, on learning that Ptolemy’s fleet outnumbered his own, “How many ships is my presence worth?” The Ptolemaic capture of Ephesus (lost again ca. 258): Orth 130 ff.; cf. Heinen, CAH VII2.1 418.
68. Similarly Stalin, with equal lack of compunction, let the Greek Communists go to their doom in 1949. For such help as Ptolemy offered Athens (mainly through the agency of his admiral Patroclus), see Walbank, CAH VII2.1 238–39.
69. Paus. 3.6.6; Apollod. FGrH 244 F 44. For the date of surrender “in the archonship of Antipater,” see Walbank, CAH VII2.1 238 and n. 32. Cf. Burstein, Translated Documents no. 58 (pp. 80–81).
70. Will, HP2 1.228–31, with further literature; Habicht, Studien 55–59.
71. Habicht, Studien 34–47, who argues strongly that Athens retained the right to mint her own coins; Hammond and Walbank 286–87. The quotation is from Louis MacNeice, “Autumn Journal,” in Collected Poems (London, 1966) 118.
72. Rostovtzeff, SEH 1.37.
73. The Borsippa inscription, in cuneiform, on a cylinder seal: translated by L. Oppenheim in J. B. Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 2d ed. (Princeton, 1955), 317. It is noteworthy that Seleucus had never styled himself “Great King.” Cf. Musti, “Stato” 100.
74. Strabo 13.4.1 (C.623; cf. Paus. 1.8.1) claims that Philetairos, as a baby, was so crushed in a crowd while being carried by his nurse as to be maimed or castrated (πηρωθῆναι), a peculiarly implausible story, in all likelihood no more trustworthy than Carystius’s claim (ap. Athen. 13.577b) that he was the son of a prostitute. He was eighty at the time of his death: Lucian, Macrob. 12.
75. Strabo 13.4.1–2 (C.624); cf. Hansen 21–22.
76. Euseb. Chron. 1.249 Schoene.
77. Bouché-Leclercq, HS 1.72–73; Bevan, House of Seleucus 1.169.
78. Phylarchus ap. Athen. 10.438c, Ael. VH 2.41.
79. Tarn, Antigonus 315–17.
80. Will, HP2 1.234–39; Préaux, Monde 1.141–42, with further literature; Jaehne, “Syrische Frage” 506. See also Heinen, CAH VII2.1 418–19.
81. Tarn, Antigonus 364 ff.
82. Trog. prol. 26; Suda s.v. Εὐϕορίων; cf. Will, HP2 1.316–17. On the disputed date, see Walbank, CAH VII2.1 247, with n. 69 and further literature there cited, esp. Urban, Wachstum 14 ff.
83. OGIS 226, App. Syr. 65.
84. Hieron. In Dan. 11.6; cf. Will, HP2 1.239–42.
85. OGIS 225 = Welles, Royal Correspondence 18–20; Burstein, Translated Documents no. 24, pp. 31–32; Austin 185, pp. 305–7; Bagnall and Derow 25, pp. 48–49.
86. App. Syr. 65, Phylarchus ap. Athen. 13.593c–d.
87. Jaehne, “Syrische Frage” 508. On the Third Syrian (or Laodicean) War, see Heinen, CAH VII2.1 420–21.
88. Just. 27.1.7; Polyaen. 8.50; FGrH 160 = Austin 220, pp. 363–64; Bagnall and Derow 27, pp. 50–52.
89. Just. 27.2.1, Euseb. Chron. 1.251 Schoene.
90. OGIS 54 = Austin 221, pp. 365–66; Bagnall and Derow 27, pp. 50–52; Hieron. In Dan. 11.7–9. See also Burstein, Translated Documents no. 98, pp. 123–25; no. 99, pp. 125–26.
91. Jaehne, “Syrische Frage” 507; Will, HP2 1.235–38. The sources are Trog. prol. 27 and Plut. Pelop. 2, neither of which permits us to date this naval battle with precision. Other suggestions (see Will ibid.) range from 259/8 (Momigliano) to Manni’s theory that there were two battles of Andros, the second during the reign of Antigonus Doson. Walbank, CAH VII2.1 248–49, adds nothing new to the debate. On the insurrections and financial problems of the 240s in Egypt, see Turner, CAH VII2.1 158–59.
92. Polyb. 5.58.10 ff. The strategic and commercial value of Seleucia-in-Pieria was enormous: Jaehne, “Syrische Frage” 509 ff. It had, indeed, originally been Seleucus’s capital: Musti, “Stato” 106.
93. Will, HP2 1.294–95.
94. Hansen 28. For Eumenes I’s support of the Platonic Academy and the Peripatetics in Athens see Diog. Laert. 4.38, 5.67; cf. Pollitt, AHA 79.
95. Diog. Laert. 4.38, 5.67; cf. Pollitt, AHA 79.
96. Livy 38.16, Polyb. 18.41.7–8, Strabo 13.4.2 (C.624).
97. Plut. Pelop. 2.
98. Plut. Arat. 17, Polyaen. 4.6.1; cf. Walbank, Aratus 42–43; Tarn, Antigonus 372–73. Gonatas arranged a marriage between Alexander’s widow, Nicaea, now threatened by the Aetolians, and his son, Demetrius. While the festivities, attended by most of the garrison troops from the fortress, were at their height, he slipped away, strode up to the top of Acrocorinth (no mean feat for a knock-kneed septuagenarian, as anyone who has done the climb can testify), banged on the gates, and was admitted by the bemused guards, so that the almost impregnable fortress fell into Macedonian hands once more. The citadel once secured, Gonatas went back down into town, understandably cheerful, and joined in the celebrations with some abandon, shaking hands and drinking toasts all round.
99. Plut. Arat. 9, Polyb. 2.43.3; cf. Tarn, Antigonus 362–63; Walbank, Aratus 32 ff., 176–77. For the League’s earlier history, cf. the useful summary by Walbank, CAH VII2.1 243 ff. A full account, somewhat marred by excessive skepticism as regards the admittedly sparse evidence, is provided by R. Urban, Wachstum und Krise des achäischen Bundes: Quellenstudien zur Entwicklung des Bundes von 280 bis 222 v. Chr. (Wiesbaden, 1979). See the review by Briscoe, CR, n.s., 31 (1981) 89–90.
100. Plut. Arat. 16, 18–24; Polyaen. 6.5; cf. Tarn, Antigonus 396 ff.; Walbank, Aratus 45 ff., and CAH VII2.1 251, where he observes, correctly, that “at one blow Aratus had thus wholly reversed the balance of power in southern Greece.”
101. Larsen, Greek Federal States 215–40, 305 ff.; cf. Polyb. 2.43.4–6.
102. Plut. Arat. 15. Ptolemy’s arrangements to establish himself as Aratus’s paymaster are described ibid. 13: 40 talents down, a further 110 by installments. Cf. Walbank, CAH VII2.1 246–47.
103. Will, HP2 1.325–28.
104. Polyb. 2.43.10, 9.34.6, and esp. 18.4.8–5.2.
105. Polyb. 2.45.1; 9.34.7, 38.9. On the falsity of this claim see Urban, Wachstum 97 ff.
106. Plut. Arat. 24.
107. Tarn, Antigonus 403–4; Plut. Arat. 31–32, Agis 14–15.
108. Tarn, Antigonus 403–4.
109. Plut. Arat. 25.
110. Ibid. 33: τοὺς . . . Ἀθηναίους σπουδάζων ἐλευθερῶσαι.
111. Ibid.: ὥσπερ οἱ δυσέρωτες.
112. On the period before Agis’s accession, see Plut. Agis 3; cf. Piper 23 ff. For Agis’s reign: Plut. Agis 13–21 passim; cf. Shimron, Late Sparta 14–27; Fuks, “Spartan Citizen-Body” 244 ff.; Walbank, CAH VII2.1 252 ff., who makes the realistic assessment that “Agis’ primary aim was probably to win power for Sparta and glory for himself.” The best account of these events is now that by Piper, chap. 2, pp. 25–41, with full documentation: note in particular her judgment on Agis (pp. 40–41), that his experiment was “a revolution from the top,” and that he “was no more a socialist than Lycurgus.”
1. Giuliano, Urbanistica 129. The available evidence for study of such conurbations in antiquity covers a wide field, ranging through on-site topographical and archaeological exploration (including aerial photography) to inscriptions, coins, and literary references, both contemporary and late-antiquarian (in the latter category notably Strabo and Pausanias).
2. Rostovtzeff, CAH VIII 600–601.
3. Daphitas, a third-century satirist, described the Attalids (probably in the person of Attalus I) as “purple clots, filed scraps from Lysimachus’s treasure,” a clear reference to Philetairos’s embezzlement of 9,000 talents entrusted to his care (p. 132): he was crucified for his pains. See Strabo 14.1.39 (C.647), and, for a variant version of the incident, Suda s. v. Δαϕίτας.
4. See, e.g., André Parrot, Nineveh and Babylon (London, 1961) 170 ff.; and esp. A. L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia (Chicago, 1964) chap. 2, pp. 74–142.
5. J. Boardman, The Greeks Overseas, 3d ed. (London, 1980), 38–54, 130–31, 165–66; CAH II3.2, chap. 21(b), pp. 130 ff.
6. E.g., Hdt. 1.45–56 passim; 6.37, 125.
7. Canonized by Philo of Byzantium in his De Septem Mundi Miraculis (ed. Hercher: Paris, 1858).
8. Giuliano, Urbanistica 131–32.
9. Herodas, Mim. 1.26–35.
10. Theocr. 17.13 ff., 77 ff., 106 ff.
11. A. T. Olmstead, A History of the Persian Empire (Chicago, 1948) 297–99.
12. Theocr. 17.116–17: τί δὲ κάλλιον ἀνδρί κεν εἴῃ / ὀλβίῳ ἢ κλέος ἐσθλὸν ἐν ἀνθρώποισιν ἀρέσθαι;
13. In a mosaic signed by the late third-century artist Sophilos: J. Ferguson, Heritage 29 with fig. 16; Villard, in Charbonneaux et al. 159–60 with fig. 162; Pollitt, AHA 222.
14. Theocr. 17.125: πάντεσσιν ἐπιχθονίοισιν ἀρωγούς.
15. Nilsson 689 ff.; A. D. Nock, Conversion (Oxford, 1933) 204 ff.
16. H. Thiersch, Pharos, Antike Islam und Occident (Leipzig and Berlin, 1909) 7–34, gives the ancient testimonia; cf. Fraser 1.17–20, with further literature.
17. Strabo 17.1.8 (C.793).
18. Fraser 1.147.
19. Callixeinos ap. Athen. 196a–203b passim. See also Rice, Grand Procession; Pollitt, AHA 280–81. The date has been accurately calculated, on astronomical grounds, by Victoria Foertmeyer, “The Dating of the Pompe of Ptolemy II Philadelphus,” Historia 37 (1988) 90–104; see esp. p. 103.
20. Pollitt, AHA 255, 280–81.
21. Ibid. 281.
22. He might have taken some slight comfort from the fact that the greatest piece of gigantism conceived in this period, the twenty-bank vessel Lady of Alexandria (Athen. 5.206–9 passim) was a present from Hieron of Syracuse rather than a home-grown monster; even so, Ptolemy IV Philopator soon outdid Hieron, with a forty-bank flagship 420 feet long (Callixeinos ap. Athen. 5.203e–204d; cf. Meiggs 138–39). Turner, CAH VII2.1 139, nicely remarks that the procession described by Callixeinos “could be illustrated only by combining elements out of the Parthenon frieze with frescoes in the tombs of the Nobles of the New Kingdom.”
23. Wycherley, How the Greeks Built 35.
24. And not only in Asia: for the use of the grid by Cassander in Thessalonike (316), see M. Vickers, JHS 92 (1972) 156 ff., with figs. 3 and 4.
25. Downey, History 15–23, Ancient Antioch 11–20.
26. Downey, History 62–64.
27. “Greek from the Year Dot,” Cavafy, Ποιήματα Β´ 60 = Collected Poems 282–83; Downey, History 50–51.
28. Arr. Anab. 2.13.7–14.1.
29. Liban. Orat. 11 (Antioch.) 72–77, 87, 250.
30. DS 20.47.5.
31. Wehrli, Antigone 79–93, has an excellent general discussion of Antigonus’s foundations.
32. Downey, History 63–64.
33. Cohen, Seleucid Colonies 16–17; Downey, History 54. See also Pollitt, AHA app. 3, p. 277.
34. Downey, History 67 ff.
35. Arr. Anab. 3.2.1–2, Plut. Alex. 26, QC 4.8.6, Liban. Orat. 11 (Antioch.) 90.
36. DS 17.52.2, Liban. Orat. 11 (Antioch.) 222–26, Vitruv. 1.6.12; cf. Downey, History 70–71.
37. Downey, History 73–75, Ancient Antioch 35 ff.; Havelock 133–34 with pl. 117; Charbonneaux et al. fig. 251. Praxiteles executed a statue of Tyche for Megara (Paus. 1.43.6), but it was from Eutychides’ figure that a standard format for images of Tyche was derived (Pollitt, AHA 3).
38. Downey, Ancient Antioch 36.
39. Malalas 201.18–202.6, Liban. Orat. 11 (Antioch.) 92; cf. DS 20.47; Downey, History 79–80.
40. Downey, History 85 with n. 142; Plin. HN 34.73.
41. Phylarchus ap. Athen. 6.254f–255a, App. Syr. 63; cf. Bikerman chap. 7, esp. p. 248.
42. Habicht, Gottmenschentum 164 ff., 171.
43. Bikerman 157.
44. Downey, History 112–13.
45. Knaack, RE 2 (1896) cols. 392–93, s.v. “Aratos (6).”
46. For the transfer, see Downey, History 87: from 280 onwards there is a significant rise in activity of the Antioch mint, matched by a corresponding decline in that of Seleucia-in-Pieria.
47. Downey, History 89–90.
48. Strabo 16.2.4 (C.750).
49. Polyb. 30.25 ff.
50. Cf. Martin 127–28, which I can confirm from personal inspection of the terrain.
51. Hansen 1–4.
52. Xen. Anab. 7.7.57, 7.8.8 ff.; cf. Hansen 8–10.
53. Hansen 12 with reff.; cf. above, p. 28.
54. For a portrait of him on a tetradrachm, minted by Eumenes I, see Jenkins no. 557, p. 242.
55. Strabo 13.4.1 (C.623).
56. OGIS no. 748; cf. Hansen 18–19 with n. 26.
57. Hansen 17, 216 ff.
58. Davis and Kraay 250–52, with figs. 50, 51, 53.
59. Hansen 203 ff.
60. Varro ap. Plin. HN 13.70; cf. N. Lewis, Papyrus in Classical Antiquity (Oxford, 1974) 9.
61. Eur. fr. 627 Nauck2, Hdt. 5.58.3, Ctesias ap. DS 2.32.4; cf. G. R. Driver, The Judaean Scrolls (Oxford, 1965) 407–8, cited by Lewis, loc. cit. (above, n. 60).
62. Hansen chap. 7, pp. 234 ff.; Martin chap. 3, pp. 127 ff.
63. SIG3 666; cf. Hansen 396.
64. Hansen 253–59.
65. Hansen 433.
66. Ibid.
67. M. Collignon and E. Pontrémoli, Pergame (Paris, 1898) 229.
68. Theocr. 15.44 ff.
1. On Kazantzakis’s Odyssey, see my Essays in Antiquity (London, 1960) 44–51.
2. Callim. Epigr. 28 Pfeiffer = Gow and Page 2, p. 57. It is characteristic of Callimachus that an epigram leading off with a rejection of epic and common literary cliche, an assertion of discriminating taste, should wind up as a reproach to a promiscuous boy lover, the prostitution-of-art metaphor in reverse:
I hate the cyclic poem, no path gives me any pleasureThat’s trodden by many, to and fro—I loathe, too, a gadabout lover; not from the common fountainDo I drink: I abhor all public things.You’re lovely, lover, yes, lovely; but quicker than Echo,“He’s another’s lover,” someone says.
The last two lines, it has been suggested (Gow and Page 2.156–57), may be a later addition. I doubt it. The bittersweet twist is entirely appropriate, not only for Callimachus, but for Hellenistic love epigrams as a whole: cf. Garrison 66, and Ireland in G&R 26 (1979) 196. See also pp. 175 ff.
3. Callim. Hymn 2.108–9.
4. Juv. Sat. 3.61 ff.: “Iam pridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes / et linguam et mores . . . / . . . secum / vexit.”
5. “Poeta Fit, Non Nascitur,” The Collected Verse of Lewis Carroll (London, 1932) 202–5. For the Alexandrian aetiologizing passion, see Zanker 131 ff.
6. Cf. Sale 163.
7. Callim. Aet. 4 fr. 110 Pfeiffer (pp. 112 ff. = Trypanis 80 ff.). Cf. Zanker 129 ff.
8. Cf. J. S. L. Tarán, The Art of Variation in the Hellenistic Epigram (Leiden, 1979), with the reviews by Arnott, G&R 28 (1981) 94–95; Cunningham, JHS 101 (1981) 173–74; and Schmiel, Phoenix 35 (1981) 170–72. Cf. Hutchinson 20–24.
9. Epigrams in Gow and Page 1.44–56; commentary 2.114–51; cf. Wilamowitz 1.146 ff.; Garrison chap. 4, pp. 48–61; Fraser 1.560 ff.; Hutchinson 264–76. Lesky 739 with old-world charm describes his work as risqué but acquits him of prurience.
10. Epigrams in Gow and Page 1.107–39; commentary 2.307–98; cf. Wilamowitz 1.139 ff.; Webster, Hellenistic Poetry 217–21; C. M. Dawson, “Some Epigrams by Leonidas of Tarentum,” AJPh 71 (1950) 271–84. Wilamowitz’s harsh judgment (“Er aber war nur ein formales Talent, spielte mit alten Motiven und hat die Nachfolger in diese Bahnen getrieben”) completely misses his black humor and striking originality.
11. Gow and Page 93 = AP 7.715:
Far from Italy I lie and my homeland of Taras: this isMore bitter to me than death.Such is a wanderer’s life, no life: yet the Muses loved me;No sorrows now are mine, but honey sweet,For the name of Leonidas is not forgotten, the Muses’ bountyTrumpets my name to every sun.
12. Gow and Page 23 (= AP 12.162) 22 (= AP 12.105); cf. Garrison 54–56.
13. Bieber 38 with figs. 87–89.
14. Charbonneaux et al. figs. 272, 273, 353.
15. See, e.g., Gow and Page A 1 = AP 5.168.
16. Gow and Page 19 (= AP 12.153), 42 (= AP 5.188).
17. Garrison 57.
18. Gow and Page 4 (= AP 5.157), 7 (= AP 5.206).
19. Fraser 1.588.
20. Gow and Page 15 = AP 12.46.
21. Cf., e.g., Diog. Laert. 5.11 (Aristotle), 5.51 (Theophrastus): ἐάν δέ τι συμβαίνῃ, συμβῇ.
22. Gow and Page 87 (= AP 6.226), 50 (= AP 6.296), 36 (= AP 6.300), 37 (= AP 6.302), 39 (= AP 6.355).
23. Gow and Page 77 = AP 7.472.
24. Gow and Page 31 = AP 16 (= Anth. Planud.) 306. Cf. Paus. 1.25.1 for a statue of Anacreon on the Athenian Acropolis that fits Leonidas’s description.
25. Gow and Page 5 = AP 9.326. Cf. Zanker 128 for other examples.
26. Gow and Page 31 = AP 7.524.
27. The Greek is αἱ δ᾿ ἄνοδοι τί; which does not, pace Paton and others, simply mean “the upward way”: the plural implies those ascents from Hades accomplished, e.g., by Heracles and Persephone. Cf. Gow and Page 2.189.
28. Juv. Sat. 2.149–52.
29. Louis MacNeice, Collected Poems (London, 1966) 530. Cf. above, Chap. 3 n. 46 (p. 751).
30. See K. Ziegler, RE 13 (1927) cols. 2316–81, s.v. “Lykophron (8)”; S. Josifovič, RE Suppl. 11 (1968) cols. 888–930 (downdating the Alexandra, not in my opinion convincingly, to 197: see cols. 925–29); G. W. Mooney, Lycophron: The Alexandra (London, 1921); Mair and Mair 477 ff.; Wilamowitz 2.143 ff.
31. Pfeiffer, History 119–20, and Fraser, 1.449, 2.649, give the essential testimonia: cf. Athen. 4.140a.
32. Suda s.v. Λυκόϕρων; for other reff., cf. Mair and Mair 480.
33. Suda ibid.: τὸ σκοτεινὸν ποίημα. Analysis in Hutchinson, 257–64, who, oddly, compares Lycophron to Lucan.
34. Unless Josifovič is right in dating the poem to 197 (above, n. 30), in which case Rome’s intervention in the Balkans was already a fait accompli (see Chap. 18, pp. 299 ff.). Stephanie West’s ingenious article “Lycophron Italicised,” JHS 104 (1984) 127–51, posits an interpolator, a “deutero-Lycophron,” for the Roman passages: I find her arguments stimulating, but remain unconvinced.
35. Wilamowitz, 2.148–49, argues that “es ist auch sprachlich und metrisch die Form keineswegs tragisch,” mainly on the ground that Lycophron does not employ the resolutions available to fifth-century dramatists; Wilamowitz prefers to regard the poem as oracular literature in iambic form (“wichtig, dass es auch iambische Orakelsprüche gab”).
36. E. A. Barber, OCD2 628a, s.v. “Lycophron.”
37. Ciani, “Scritto con mistero” 132–48.
38. George Orwell, “Benefit of Clergy: Some Notes on Salvador Dali,” Collected Essays (New York, 1968) 3.156–65.
39. Cedric H. Whitman, Aristophanes and the Comic Hero (Cambridge, Mass., 1964), chap. 5, “The Anatomy of Nothingness,” pp. 167–99.
40. Cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. 5.8.50 = Pfeiffer, ed., Callimachus, testim. 26, p. xcix.
41. Pfeiffer’s great edition of 1949 has been reprinted (Arno: New York, 1979); it also forms the basis for the excellent Loeb volume by C. A. Trypanis (Cambridge, Mass., 1978). The bibliography on Callimachus is enormous. I list here only one or two recent studies that I have found of particular use. Some of the most intelligent discussions will be found in P. M. Fraser’s Ptolemaic Alexandria: see in particular chap. 11, “The Horizon of Callimachus,” pp. 717–93, and, for other references, his general index, pp. 17 ff. Cf. also Wilamowitz 1.169 ff., 2.1–161; C. M. Dawson, YCIS 11 (1950) 1–168 (on the Iambi); Pfeiffer, History chap. 3, pp. 123 ff.; Webster, Hellenistic Poetry chap. 5, pp. 98 ff.; Meillier, Callimaque, passim; and, for general up-to-date reference, H. Herter, RE Suppl. 13 (1973) cols. 184–266, s.v. “Kallimachos (6) aus Kyrene.” A useful introduction, more sympathetic than the assessment here, and seeking to isolate Callimachus’s “elegant vitality” in the widest sense, has been written by Hutchinson, pp. 26–84. Equally enthusiastic is Bulloch’s survey in Easterling and Knox, eds., 549–70. Pedantry is justified by a comparison with Dante: the Aitia has a “polychromatic surface” (p. 43); Hymn 1 reveals “the lurking scholar” (p. 65). The judgments are enjoyable—at times perversely so—and intermittently persuasive.
42. Mart. 10.4.11–12.
43. Suda s.v. Καλλίμαχος.
44. Pfeiffer, ed., Callimachus, testim. 14c, p. xcvii.
45. See, e.g., Lesky 702.
46. Frr. 392, 228, 110 Pfeiffer (pp. 322, 218 ff., 112 ff.) = Trypanis pp. 242–43, 163 ff., 80 ff.
47. Fr. 191 Pfeiffer (pp. 161 ff.) = Trypanis 105 ff.
48. This project must, among other results, have vastly increased Callimachus’s already encyclopedic knowledge in every area: it has, for instance, recently been shown that his description of Leto’s birthing position (Hymn 4.205–11), which significantly changes (by 180°!) that in the Homeric Hymn to Delian Apollo (3.117), reveals knowledge of the theories of Herophilus (see p. 209): G. W. Most, “Callimachus and Herophilus,” Hermes 119 (1981) 188–96.
49. Including one epigram (Pfeiffer 8, p. 83) in which his urge for concision finds witty and paradoxical expression in a final six-syllable word: βραχυσυλλαβίη.
50. Hymn 2.113.
51. Text in Pfeiffer, ed., Callimachus 1.1–160 = Trypanis pp. 2–99.
52. Klein, “Role” 217 ff.
53. Xenophanes fr. 169 Kirk and Raven = Sext. Emp. Adv. Math. 9.193. Cf. Guthrie, History 1.370–73, and, for a late fifth-century concern with the same problem, Eur. HF 1341 ff.
54. Fr. 178 Pfeiffer, lines 13 ff. (pp. 150 ff.) = Trypanis pp. 94–97.
55. His name for them is Τελχῖνες: aptly enough, since the Telchines in legend were a group of chthonian dwarves, skilled in metalworking, and somewhat akin to Teutonic Kobolds, with equally maleficent habits: DS 5.55, Strabo 14.2.7 (C.654); Callim. Ait. 1 fr. 1 Pfeiffer, with schol. Flor. ad loc. (= Pfeiffer, ed., Callimachus p. 3; cf. Trypanis pp. 4 ff.).
56. Frr. 230–377 Pfeiffer (pp. 226–303) = Trypanis pp. 176–225.
57. G. Zanker, “Callimachus’s Hecale: A New Kind of Epic Hero?” Antichthon 11 (1977) 68–77.
58. Schol. Callim. Hymn 2.106.
59. Cf. Plut. Thes. 14, with Trypanis p. 176.
60. Hymn 1.78 ff.
61. Fr. 384 Pfeiffer (pp. 311 ff.) = Trypanis pp. 232 ff.; cf. Meillier, Callimaque 225 ff.; Wilamowitz 2.87 ff.
62. Polyb. 5.34–39, 15.24–25, 34; Plut. Cleom. 33–35.
63. Fr. 384.54–55 Pfeiffer.
64. Lloyd-Jones 67.
65. The wit, too, can be problematical. McKay, Erysichthon, assumes that in Hymn 6, to Demeter, lines 24–115, Callimachus is exercising mischievous and double-edged humor. The story of Erysichthon certainly lends itself to such a supposition. According to the myth, Erysichthon cut down a poplar in Demeter’s grove to roof a banquet hall, and was afflicted by the vengeful goddess with an appalling and insatiable hunger that, far from increasing his weight, left him mere skin and bone, so that when he had eaten his family out of house and home, he was reduced to begging for crusts at the crossroads. There are certainly flashes of black humor in Callimachus’s account, not least the bright social excuses by which Erysichthon’s parents explain his absence from other people’s dinners (lines 66–86: since it took twenty cooks and twelve wine waiters to satisfy him, he might have proved an embarrassing guest); but this is the old Euripidean trick of highlighting archaic primitivism by setting it without comment in an up-to-date social context. As an example of Demeter’s divine wrath (cf. lines 116–17) the anecdote is horrific, and nicely illustrates the ambivalence of Callimachus’s attitude to myth: civilized mockery will keep breaking in, but the search for roots is strong too, despite the embarrassment at primitivism and amorality that such archaic material so often produces. Fraser, in a different context (1.592), isolates as one of Callimachus’s “fundamental literary habits . . . the combination of deep feeling and frivolity in one and the same context.” Reading Callimachus’s levels of irony and wit is, clearly, a chancy business: reviews of McKay ranged from delighted panegyrics—Waters, Phoenix 18 (1964) 88–89; Parker, CW 57 (1964) 358—to the hysterical and furious assault by Brooks Otis, AJPh 85 (1964) 423–26, and Levin’s more moderate comment, CPh 59 (1964) 296–98, that while “subtle erudition and highly charged emotion need not be mutually exclusive,” there is by the end reason to suspect that “the real purveyor of ‘mischief’ is not the subtle and erudite author of the Hymns, but his even more subtle and erudite latter-day explicator.” Cf. Lloyd-Jones 67–68.
66. Cf. Fraser 1.790.
67. See, e.g., Plato, Charm. 154A–155E, Phaedr. 256A, Symp. 180D–184A; cf. Dover, Greek Homosexuality 5–9, 153–67; T. Africa, “Homosexuals in Greek History,” Journal of Psychohistory 9 (1982) 401–20, esp. 404–14.
68. Epigr. 28, Iamb. 4, 5; cf. Fraser 1.739–40, 741 ff., 790–91.
69. Aeschin. 1 (In Timarch.), esp. 160 ff.; and cf. Dover, Greek Homosexuality, chap. 2, pp. 19 ff.
70. Biographical testimonia assembled in Maass, Commentariorum . . . Reliquiae 76–79, 146–51, 323–26; cf. Suda s. v. Ἄρατος; Mair and Mair 359–63; Wilamowitz 2.274 ff. Hutchinson’s evaluation of Aratus (pp. 214–36), though enthusiastic, tends—an endemic fault of Hellenistic literary criticism—to lose itself in detailed exegesis; and it is remarkable, though symptomatic, that he manages to complete his analysis without once mentioning Stoicism.
71. Gow and Page 56 = AP 9.507: Callimachus praises the Hesiodic qualities of the Phaenomena, which, again, suggests a reaching-back to older patterns of thought and belief. Cf. Sale’s penetrating comment (p. 163): “When he calls the Bear fearful and Cassiopeia hapless and Cetus a great terror, he is filling the sky not just with life, but with gigantic men, and violent and frightening animals. There is a poetic vision here intermingled with the scientific vision, a poetic vision recalling a time more naive, when men might actually believe that the sky contained such life as this.” Aratus was also praised by Leonidas of Taras (see pp. 175–76): Gow and Page 101 = AP 9.25.
72. This ascription was challenged by Erren 192 ff., but his arguments were refuted by Pingree, Gnomon 43 (1971) 347–50.
73. Vit. 1 Maass, 77–78.
74. Maass, Commentariorum . . . Reliquiae 3–24, 143, 149–50.
75. Cic. De Orat. 1.69, De Re Publ. 1.(14)22.
76. Damagetos, Gow and Page 9 (= AP 7.497), cf. 10 (= AP 7.735); Hegesippus, Gow and Page 7 (= AP 7.276); Leonidas of Taras, Gow and Page 60 (= AP 7.264); Phaidimos, Gow and Page 4 (= AP 7.739); Phanias, Gow and Page 5 (= AP 7.282); and, for later epitaphs of shipwreck, AP 7.263–79, 282–94.
77. As Wilamowitz says (1.201), “Astronomie zu lehren, wie sie etwa in Platons Schule getrieben ward, war Arat nicht imstande.”
78. Hesiod, WD 105–200.
79. Gow and Page 56 = AP 9.507: but this was pot calling kettle black, since Callimachus himself elsewhere claimed, in true Hesiodic style, to have been given the Aitia by the Muses on Mt. Helicon (Ait. 1 fr. 2 Pfeiffer, with schol. ad loc., pp. 9–11).
80. Hesiod, WD 256.
81. Webster, Hellenistic Poetry 38; Wilamowitz 2.265.
82. Webster, Hellenistic Poetry 34.
83. Clem. Alex. Strom. 5.3.17 = SVF no. 559, 1.127–28: οὐ γἀρ πλῆθος ἔχει συνετὴν κρίσιν . . . ὀλίγοις δὲ παρ᾿ ἀνδράσι τοῦτό κεν εὕροις.
84. Plut. Mor. 923A, Archimed. Sand-Reckoner 4–5.