Chapter 12. Kingship and Bureaucracy: The Government of the Successor Kingdoms

1. δορίκτητος χώρα: cf. Rostovtzeff, SEH 1.267, CAH VII 113; and particularly A. Mehl, “Δορίκτητος χώρα: Kritische Bemerkungen zum ‘Speererwerb’ in Politik und Völkerrecht der hellenistischen Epoche,” AncSoc 11/12 (1980–81) 173–212. The existence of private land in no way invalidates the general principle of crown ownership. Cf. Turner, CAH VII².1 148–49; and Davies, CAH VII².1 296 ff.

2. Green, Alexander 156, 530 n. 7.

3. The fullest and most detailed account of the postclassical destruction of Greek freedom by the Greek propertied classes is that of Ste Croix 300 ff. Here the author’s doctrinaire preconceptions do less harm to his remarkable historical erudition than in other parts of this brilliant yet infuriating work. Cf. my review, TLS 4167, 11 Feb. 1983, 125–26.

4. Goodenough 55 ff., collects most of the key testimonia. Cf. also Préaux, Monde 1.183; Rostovtzeff, CAH VII 114.

5. E.g., by Cleanthes, Persaeus, and Euphantus of Olynthos: Diog. Laert. 7.174, 7.37, 2.110.

6. See in particular Isocr. 5 (Philip) 113–16; 2 (Ad Nicocl.) 5, 18, 29, 31, 35; 1 (Ad Demon.) 36.

7. Pol. 3.9.1284^b35–1288^b7. Note in particular 1287^b38 ff., where a defense is made of kingship on the grounds of exceptional excellence, something that finds a precedent in the famous Persian defense of monarchy advanced in the pages of Herodotus (3.82), and later in Plato’s claims for the ruler as a being superior to ordinary law: Polit. 293C–E, 294A, 296E ff. (cf. 300C); Laws 711E–712A, 875C. Elsewhere (Pol. 1310^b9 ff.) Aristotle gives the game away by defining kingship as the defense of the elite against the common people, whereas tyranny is the people’s protection against the elite.

8. Cic. Ad Att. 12.40, 13.28.

9. Plut. Mor. 189D, Stob. Flor. 4.7.27; cf. p. 88. The need for such advice is highlighted by the disillusioned comment of Polybius (15.24.4), who observes of kings that they begin with talk of freedom, but once in control treat even their loyal supporters as slaves.

10. Goodenough 59–61.

11. Aelian VH 2.20. Walbank, CAH VII².1 77, is perhaps too dismissive in his claim that “it is hard to detect any practical application of Stoic precepts in the realities of Antigonus’ government.”

12. App. Syr. 61: the speech is often said to be spurious (cf. Rostovtzeff, SEH 1.430–31, 434), but nevertheless, as Rostovtzeff says, it “goes back to an early Hellenistic source and accurately represents the ideas of the time.”

13. Préaux, Monde 1.181 ff.; cf. Rostovtzeff, CAH VII 162.

14. Préaux, Monde 1.183 ff.

15. Ibid. 1.202–9: she remarks that “la notion de philanthropia fut tellement galvaudée que l’index des OGIS renonce à en dénombrer les mentions” (p. 207). On the royal Friends, see now the excellent account by Walbank, CAH VII².1 68 ff.; and see ibid. 81–84 for an analysis of the qualities attributed to the ideal Hellenistic monarch: courage, justice, generosity, and, supporting all these, wealth.

16. Plut. Demetr. 42.

17. Fraser 1.505–10; Préaux, Monde 1.236.

18. The Hellenizing-mission argument was First given wide currency by Plutarch, in one of his rhetorical treatises, De Alexandri Magni Fortuna aut Virtute (Mor. 328E). For a penetrating study of this ideological confrontation in Asia see Eddy, The King Is Dead. Few things, also, are more remarkable than the near-total lack of interpenetration between Greek and Egyptian culture, literature above all, during the three centuries of Ptolemaic rule. In the introduction to vol. 3 of her remarkable series of annotated texts in translation, Ancient Egyptian Literature (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1980), Miriam Lichtheim claims that Egyptian civilization “continued to endure” (p. 4), which is true, but that it also “absorbed with surprising elasticity elements of Greek culture in art and literature.” The art is debatable (and much-debated); but as regards the literature, one need only examine the texts she prints to see how profoundly alien they are from anything that Alexandria would recognize. No accident that the Egyptians, yearning for a new σωτηρία, and oppressed by Roman exploitation, should have so readily, and violently, embraced Christianity.

19. Bagnall 235, Bowman 56 ff.; cf. Rostovtzeff, CAH VII 125. See also Koenen, in Van’t Dack et al. 149 ff.

20. Rostovtzeff, SEH 272–73. For the dating systems, see Turner, CAH VII².1 146.

21. H. Kees, Ancient Egypt: A Cultural Topography (London, 1961; repr.: 1977), chap. 2, pp. 52–61; J. E. Manchip White, Ancient Egypt: Its Culture and History (New York, 1970), chap. 1, pp. 1–7. Evidence on tenders for repairing the Nile embankments: Hunt and Edgar 2.346, pp. 406–9, dated to 257.

22. Rostovtzeff, SEH 1.386 ff.

23. C. H. V. Sutherland, Gold: Its Beauty, Power and Allure, 3d ed. (London, 1969), 74.

24. Rostovtzeff, CAH VII 116–18. On the crucial role of the Friends, see Walbank, CAH VII².1 70. Turner, CAH VII².1 123, stresses the reliance on foreign mercenaries. For a vivid glimpse of the life led by a cavalry officer stationed near Thebes in Upper Egypt, see Lewis, chap. 6, pp. 88–103.

25. For Alexander’s enthronement as pharaoh at Memphis see Ps.-Callisth. 1.34.1–2. Ptolemy III’s pharaonic status is clearly implied in OGIS 56.1–20 = Austin 222, p. 366. Cf. Préaux, Monde 1.259–60.

26. See, e.g., OGIS 56.8–12; and, for temple building under Ptolemy IV, Bevan, House of Ptolemy 238. The Rosetta Stone (OGIS 90) offers a detailed account of the kind of benefits for which the Egyptian priesthood was prepared to go along with, and honor, the Ptolemies: see Burstein, Translated Documents no. 103, pp. 131–36.

27. Bevan, House of Ptolemy 239; cf. Polyb. 14.12.3–4.

28. Rostovtzeff, CAH VII 112.

29. Sir Alan Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs (Oxford, 1961) 147–72; William C. Hayes, CAH II³.1 (1973) 54 ff. The domination of the Hyksos in Egypt lasted From ca. 1720 to 1567 B.C.

30. Uatch-ur: see E. A. Wallis Budge, An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary (London, 1920; repr.: 1978) 1.151a.

31. Hunt and Edgar 2.203, pp. 10–35 = Austin 236, pp. 400–407; Bagnall and Derow 95, pp. 153–60; cf. Préaux, Économie 65 ff., Rostovtzeff, SEH 1.302–5.

32. Austin p. 401. Efficient exploitation was, clearly, the object of an amazingly comprehensive land survey and census ordered by Ptolemy II in 258 for all Egypt: Turner, CAH VII².1 135–36: Burstein, Translated Documents no. 97, pp. 122–23.

33. Fraser, chap. 3, 1.93 ff.

34. Bagnall 238. The visit of a royal finance officer and his retinue seems (like all such peregrinations throughout history) to have been vastly expensive to those visited in the matter of entertainment and transport: for such a visit in 224(?), see Hunt and Edgar 2.414, pp. 562–63.

35. Bagnall 240.

36. Ibid. 213 ff., 251.

37. Ibid. 73.

38. Ibid. 236 with n. 38.

39. Ibid. 210–12.

40. Green, Alexander 268–70.

41. Rostovtzeff, CAH VII 181. For a grant of royal land to a citizen of Assos by Antiochus I, see OGIS = Burstein, Translated Documents no. 21, pp. 26–28.

42. Tarn and Griffith 130, 243–44; cf. Rostovtzeff, CAH VII 174–75; Bevan, House of Seleucus 1.164 ff.; Musti, CAH VII².1 184.

43. Habicht, “Herrschende Gesellschaft” 6 ff.; Heuss, Stadt, rev. ed., 294; Orth 181.

44. Cohen, Seleucid Colonies 87–88; Bar-Kochva 25 ff., esp. 37–39; S. M. Sherwin-White, JHS 100 (1980) 260; Musti, CAH VII².1 189–90.

45. Bagnall 248–51; Musti, CAH VII².1 185.

46. E.g., in the case of Mazaeus at Babylon: see Green, Alexander 304.

47. Bikerman, chap. 2, pp. 31 ff.; Musti, CAH VII².1 186 ff.

48. Bar-Kochva 39 ff.

49. Bar-Kochva 67 ff.; Rostovtzeff, CAH VII 169.

50. Strabo 16.2.10 (C.752); cf. Bar-Kochva 75–83; Scullard 121, 189.

51. Bikerman 250–53; Rostovtzeff, SEH 1.431; Musti “Stato” 95–98.

52. OGIS 212.

53. Bikerman 243–45.

54. Antiochus IV, for example, collected titles of deification piecemeal, after his victory over Ptolemy VI (p. 430) and his triumphal celebration at Daphne in 166 (Bikerman 239); he finally came to be known as “King Antiochus, God Manifest, Victorious” (Βασιλεὺς Ἀντίοχος θεὸς Ἐπιϕανὴς Νικηϕόρος), and it is significant that his godhead, as so often with Hellenistic rulers, was acquired in the first instance as a result of military merit.

55. Cf. Polyb. 15.2.4; Préaux, Monde 1.194: “Le roi défend les villes des attaques de ses ennemis. Il les ‘libère,’ ce qui veut dire qu’il les arrache à ses concurrents.” On the problem of the king’s relations with the poleis see Musti, CAH VII².1 204 ff. It should be apparent from my interpretation that I have very little sympathy with the Idealtypus of Greek polis independence promoted by Heuss, Stadt, in Weberian terms, as a kind of romantic wish fulfillment; the realism of Bikerman and Orth (above, p. 197) is considerably more to my taste, and, I believe, nearer to the truth.

56. DS 5.42.5; cf. Aalders 66–69.

57. Mastrocinque, “Eleutheria” 1–23; cf. Musti, CAH VII².1 207–9.

58. Badian, “Alexander” 37 ff., esp. 38.

59. Cf. A. H. M. Jones, Greek City 157–58.

60. Cf. Orth 179–80: “So gross die Bedeutung des Autonomie-Begriffes in der politischen Diskussion der Zeit sicher gewesen ist, so wenig wurde die politische Wirklichkeit von ihm geprägt.” E. Will, “Monde hellénistique” (1975) 456–57, similarly observes that “dans les choses grecques, il n’est pas plus recommandable de pousser le juridisme à l’excès que d’en faire litière. Or il est patent que les relations entre les vieilles cités et les souverains ont été essentiellement des relations de force et que le droit, qui n’a jamais été perdu de vue, s’est constamment plié aux faits.”

61. A. H. M. Jones, Greek City 95.

62. E. Will, “Monde hellénistique” (1975) 457.

63. G. Herman, “The ‘Friends’ of the Early Hellenistic Rulers: Servants or Officials?” Talanta 12/13 (1980/81) 103–49, a penetrating and original examination of the available evidence, which nevertheless underemphasizes the degree of readiness shown by Athenian officials to perform such duties.

64. I am reliably informed that in the American South the euphemism “visiting” serves an almost identical purpose.

65. Orth 53–55, 111–16; cf. ibid. 180 for Ilion’s “sklavischer Unterwürfigkeit” (OGIS 219).

66. E. Badian, “Hegemony and Independence: Prolegomena to a Study of the Relations of Rome and the Hellenistic States in the Second Century B.C.,” Actes du VII^e Congrès de la F.I.E.C. (Aug. 1979) (Budapest, 1984) 1.399–414. The quotation is from p. 403. R. M. Errington, JHS 95 (1975) 251–52, takes Orth to task in his review for not clearly distinguishing between Völkerrecht and Machtpolitik; but—except in the most pallid academic sense, never put into common practice—what was there, in effect, to distinguish them, throughout the Hellenistic period, throughout the Successor kingdoms? The first only existed on sufferance from the second; it could be, and was, regularly superseded—or, worse, exploited—in the interests of power politics.

67. W. W. Tarn, Alexander the Great (Cambridge, 1948) 2.370 ff., well refuted by J. P. V. D. Balsdon, Historia 1 (1950) 386–87: “If the Greeks said, ‘But you are not empowered to command the recall of the exiles,’ he [sc. Alexander] would be able to say, ‘Ah, you ought to have thought of that before you voted me a god.’ Is this really the kind of behaviour which fits at all with Tarn’s, or indeed with any historian’s, picture of Alexander?”

68. Cf. Orth 178 ff.; Musti, CAH VII².1 206 ff.

69. A. H. M. Jones, Anatolian Studies Presented to W. H. Buckler (Manchester, 1939) 103 ff.; cf. Préaux, 1.409–10.

70. Cf. A. H. M. Jones, Greek City 98.

71. Ibid. 270; Ste Croix 302–3.

72. Errington (above, n. 66), 251–52. Cf. Davies, CAH VII².1 304–15, in a section characteristically entitled “The Polis Transformed and Revitalised.”

73. Atkinson 32 ff.; cf. Musti, “Stato” 145 ff. Musti notes the tendency to favor “moderate democracies,” and a generally tolerant attitude to “le libertà cittadine, pur non immune da atteggiamenti autoritari” (p. 145).

74. Rostovtzeff, SEH 250.

75. Green, Alexander 47, 117, 159.

76. Cary 253.

77. Tarn, CAH VII 200 ff.

78. DS 16.8.6–7; App. BC 4.106; Strabo 2.7.4 (C.323), 7 fr. 34 Jones.

79. Plut. Aem. Paull. 28.

80. See the long fragment of Hippolochus preserved in Athen. 4.128a–130d for a graphic description of the kind of conspicuous consumption (confirmed now by the splendid artifacts: cf. Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times, ed. B. Barr-Sharrar and E. N. Borza [Washington, D.C., 1982]) indulged in by Macedonians of the late fourth and the third century.

81. Davis and Kraay 223–25 with pls. 119, 120, 122; Jenkins pl. 539.

82. Rostovtzeff, SEH 1.253–55.

83. See N. G. L. Hammond and G. T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2 (Oxford, 1979), chap. 11, pp. 383 ff.; cf. Cary 249.

84. Archytas of Taras, cited by Goodenough 59 ff.; cf. Diotog. ap. Stob. Flor. 4.7.61.

85. Plut. Mor. 360D; cf. 182C.

86. Suet. Div. Vesp. 23.4: “Uae, puto, deus fio.” For a similarly ironic comment on his own supposed godhead by Alexander, see p. 403.

Chapter 13. Armchair Epic: Apollonius Rhodius and the Voyage of Argo

1. I am suspicious of recent fashionable attempts to dismiss this famous quarrel as mere aetiologizing, or scandalmongering, on the part of bored, ill-informed, and depressingly literal-minded scholiasts, who raided the protagonists’ own works for promising titbits, historicizing the most casual or literary fancy into pseudobiographical pabulum. Most of this antibiographical movement rests on an argumentum ex silentio: the (probably nonsignificant) absence of Apollonius’s name from among the “Telchines” referred to in the scholion on Callimachus’s prologue to his Aitia (p. 180). See, e.g., Lefkowitz 1–19, esp. 13 (Apollonius was born a Rhodian!), or J. Smolarczyk-Rostropowicz, “Comments on the Controversy between Apollonius Rhodius and Callimachus,” Eos 67 (1979) 75–79 (no personal feud, and Apollonius’s choice over Callimachus as chief librarian was due to his Egyptianizing bent, which promised better implementation of an integrationist policy!), and Lloyd-Jones 58–60. Bundy, 39 ff., goes to great lengths to show that the epilogue to Callimachus’s Hymn to Apollo (2.105–13) is, though discontinuous, quite normal literary practice, a correct conclusion that nevertheless does not, per se, cast any doubts on the historicity of the quarrel. Hutchinson, pp. 86–87, is equally skeptical. His general survey of the poem (pp. 85–142) contains much valuable material, but is chiefly noteworthy for achieving the almost impossible result of making Apollonius sound dull.

2. Useful surveys of the evidence in Fraser 1.636 ff., 749 ff.; Pfeiffer, History 140–44; cf. Klein “Callimachus” 16 ff.; Lefkowitz 1 ff.

3. The authorship has been doubted, most recently by Lloyd-Jones 59, and is not accepted by Gow and Page (though Page included it in his posthumous Further Greek Epigrams [Cambridge, 1981] 53–54); but in the Palatine Anthology the epigram is attributed to Apollonius “the scholar” (γραμματικός), while the lemmatist specifically identifies him as “the Rhodian.” This may not be the best of evidence (Pfeiffer, History 143), but it is not necessarily on that account to be rejected. Here, it seems to me, the onus is on the disprover: what other Apollonius would be more likely, and for what reason, to produce an occasional squib of this sort?

4. AP 11.275 = Pfeiffer, ed., Callimachus, testim. 25; cf. A. Croiset, Histoire de la littérature grecque, 4th ed. (Paris, 1899), 5.211 n. 5.

5. Suda s.v. Καλλίμαχος; Ovid, Ibis 55–60; cf. R. Ellis, P. Ovidii Nasonis Ibis (Oxford, 1881) xxxi–xxxv.

6. Aristotle (HA 9.617^b29), Herodotus (2.75), Strabo (17.2.4 [C.823]), and Aelian (NA 10.29) all describe the ibis, and its habits, in some detail: as we might expect, Aristotle’s account is the most accurate, Aelian’s the most fanciful (though not on that account the least useful in the present context, since he embodies beliefs that, though fictional, were widely held). Cf. Schol. Ovid Ibis 3(C₁) La Penna.

7. Thoth, the god of the scribes, was ibis-headed; and Jaroslav Černý, in Ancient Egyptian Religion (London, 1952) 144, remarks that “the outstanding characteristic of the late Egyptian religion is the revival and extensive growth of the worship of animals,” due in great measure to “the endeavour of the priests and theologians to revert to the archaic state of the Egyptian way of life and thought.” There is an interesting analogy here to the Alexandrian passion for resuscitating ancient myth.

8. Aelian NA 2.35, cf. 10.29; Plin. HN 8.97.

9. Strabo 17.2.4 (C.823). Aelian’s description (10.29) is worth recording verbatim: πανταχοῦ δὲ καθιεῖσα ἶβις τὸ ῥάμϕος, τῶν ῥυπαρῶν καταϕρονοῦσα καὶ ἐμβαίνουσα αὐτοῖς ὑπὲρ τού καὶ ἐκεῖθέν τι ἀνιχνεῦσαι, ὅμως δ᾿ οὔν ἐς κοῖτον τρεπομένη λούει τε πρότερον ἑαυτὴν καὶ ἐκκαθαίρει.

10. Arist. Poet. 1459³3 (the translation is S. H. Butcher’s). Cf. Pfeiffer, History 143. The exact figures are: Bk. 1, 1,362 lines; Bk. 2, 1,285 lines; Bk. 3, 1,407 lines; Bk. 4 (the repository for much peripheral matter), 1,781 lines. The normal session in the Theater of Dionysus consisted of four dramas: three tragedies followed by a satyr play.

11. Callim. fr. 398 Pfeiffer; cf. Pfeiffer, History 146.

12. Callim. fr. 359 Pfeiffer = Athen. 3.72a; cf. Klein, “Callimachus” 21–23; K. Ziegler, Das Hellenistische Epos, 2d ed. (Leipzig, 1966), cited by Lloyd-Jones 58, with further confirmatory material.

13. The classic example in Theocritus is the rape of Hylas, briefly sketched in Id. 13, and developed, at greater length and subtlety, with graphic erotic detail absent in the Theocritean version, by Apollonius (1.1207–72), who fashions a consistent and credible narrative (so, rightly, Zanker 130–31 with nn. 20–22) out of “bewilderingly divergent traditions about Hylas’ fate”; cf. also the boxing match between Polydeuces and Amycus (Theocr. 22.27–134, Apollon. 2.1–97). If the essence of Hellenistic imitatio is to embellish, improve, expand (even this is arguable), then a good case can be made for the Theocritean versions having been earlier: well argued by Koehnken; see esp. pp. 17–25 (“Die Form der Kios-Episode”), 82; cf. Pfeiffer, ed., Callimachus 2.xlii, for the chronological difficulties involved in dating any poem of Theocritus later than 270.

14. Fraser 1.636–40. Though I basically agree with Fraser, Koehnken, and Pfeiffer against those—e.g., G. Serrao, “Problemi di poesia alessandrina, II,” Helikon 5 (1965) 541–65—who give chronological priority to Apollonius, I would readily concede that the final judgment must rest on circumstantial probabilities and a priori esthetic assumptions, so that (Beye 30) “nothing substantial can be proved or demonstrated.” On Callimachean echoes in Apollonius, see Lloyd-Jones 58.

15. Callim. frr. 7–21 Pfeiffer; Apollon. 4.1711–30. Cf. Fraser 1.722, with 2.1008–9 nn. 27–30.

16. Apollon. 3.927–37; Fraser 1.639 with n. 162.

17. For the testimonia see Vian and Delage 1.viii–xxv; cf. Lefkowitz 1–4, 12–16. See also Suda s.v. Ἀπολλώνιος and the two tantalizing vitae (1 and 2) printed on pp. 1–2 of Wendel.

18. Pfeiffer, ed., Callimachus, testim. 11a–19a.

19. Fraser, 1.330–32, argues that Apollonius became librarian at Alexandria before his departure for Rhodes (in F.’s view ca. 245), and never returned; but this involves too ruthless a discarding of such evidence as we have, on no very convincing grounds. I prefer the theory of Grenfell and Hunt, Oxy. Pap. vol. 14 pp. 100–101, which accepts the early rebuff and Rhodian sojourn; though I would, with Fraser, nevertheless place the date of Apollonius’s appointment as librarian ca. 270–265 rather than (as Grenfell and Hunt do) in 246/5, a date that probably in fact marks the appointment of Eratosthenes, by Ptolemy Euergetes III. Cf. Pfeiffer, History 124, 141.

20. The existence of an early draft (προέκδοσις) of the Argonautica is proved by the scholia to the poem, which note variant readings in the two editions. It is noteworthy that while there are six such instances in Book 1 (at lines 284, 515, 542, 725, 788, and 800), there is only one in Book 2 (963), and none at all in Books 3 and 4: see Mooney, app. 1, “The Double Recension of the Argonautica,” pp. 403–11; cf. Pfeiffer, History 141. This obviously does not prove that Apollonius in these latter books ceased to borrow from Callimachus, or indeed that Books 3 and 4 did not figure in the early draft (the former supposition, at least, is demonstrably untrue: see Fraser 2.1056 n. 272, and 1.638 ff.); but it does at least reveal a suggestive pattern. My own hunch (I would hardly call it more) is that a rough draft of Books 1, 2, and 4 existed from a very early period, perhaps including some matter now in Book 3, but that the working-up of Medea’s passionate committal to Jason, together with what one might call a general “Callimachizing” of the treatment to bring it into line with current literary fashion, constituted the main addition to the final revised version. It is interesting, and perhaps significant, that the invocation to Book 4 (1–5) balks at trying to describe Medea’s emotional state (“the mind within me flounders about in speechlessness”) and asks the goddess to help out, whereas in fact Book 3 has handled this precise problem with subtlety and aplomb.

21. Tarn and Griffith 176 and n. 3. Berthold, Rhodes 48 n. 36, observes that “there is no direct evidence on a Rhodian maritime code, but later Roman sources indicate that Mediterranean sea-law was commonly known as ‘Rhodian.’”

22. Book 4, which contains the most geographical and exploratory matter, is significantly longer than the other three books (in fact, 374 lines longer than Book 3, the next-longest). If this was the result, as it may have been, of revision and expansion, there can be no doubt that the context was a congenial one for the form that that expansion took.

23. Vita 2; POxy. 10.1241, ii.1; Suda s.v. Ἀπολλώνιος (though by a characteristic confusion this entry makes Apollonius succeed, rather than precede, Eratosthenes).

24. Pfeiffer, History 141; Fraser 1.452 with n. 38, citing schol. Ven. A on Hom. Il. 13.657.

25. Pfeiffer, History 140–42; Fraser 1.330–32. The reader should be warned that the dates, and sequence, of the first three librarians are still highly controversial, as is most of the evidence for Apollonius’s career, in particular that regarding the chronology of his withdrawal or withdrawals to Rhodes: see, e.g., Lefkowitz 1–2; and Pfeiffer, History 141, who writes despairingly of the testimonial: “This is a labyrinth of self-contradictory statements, and no thread of Ariadne leads out of the darkness.”

26. POxy. 10.1241, ii.

27. “Some maintain . . .” (Vita 2).

28. Fraser 1.625.

29. See, e.g., Fraser 1.626–34.

30. Carspecken 107; Lawall, “Apollonius’ Argonautica” 119 ff. This, as Klein, “Callimachus” 22 with n. 16, points out, is no new perception, but goes back at least as far as A. Gercke’s “Alexandrinische Studien,” RhM 42 (1889) 247; see also M. Hadas, “The Tradition of the Feeble Jason,” CPh 31 (1936) 166–69.

31. Fraser 1.627 ff.; Van der Valk 1.202–302.

32. Hurst 11 ff.

33. See E. Phinney, “Hellenistic Painting and the Poetic Style of Apollonius,” CJ 62 (1967) 147–49.

34. Apollon. 1.519–58.

35. Webster, Hellenistic Poetry 30.

36. Ibid. 80.

37. H. A. Shapiro, “Jason’s Cloak,” TAPhA 110 (1980) 268–86, though he goes too far in asserting that this passage is the only instance of true ekphrasis in the Argonautica. On pictorial realism in Apollonius, and the “use of aetiology designed to link mythological past and contemporary experience,” see Zanker 125–45, esp. 126–28.

38. Theocr. 15.78–86.

39. Herodas, Mim. 4.20–38, 56–76.

40. Hurst 21.

41. Cf. ibid.; Jenkins pls. 557, 558.

42. See, for an excellent example, his thumbnail sketch of the wretched Phineus (2.197–205), amid the stinking mess left by the Harpies (originally, I suspect, kites or vultures, which—as I have seen in India—have a knack of dive-bombing any exposed food with the speed and accuracy of a Stuka, snatching it on the wing as they go):

He struggled up from his bed, dreamlike, spiritless,

And tapped his way to the door on bony feet,

Huddling over a stick, feeling the walls, joints shaking

From weakness and age: his parchment flesh was cured

With dirt, only the skin cobbled his bones together.

Out of the house he came, knees buckling, and collapsed

On the courtyard threshold. Blood rushed to his head, the ground

Seemed to swim under his feet. He lay there speechless,

Unconscious, unstrung.

43. E.g., Hom. Il. 12.243, “One omen is best, to fight for your fatherland,” very popular among those who habitually paid mercenaries to fight for them.

44. Webster, Hellenistic Poetry 76; cf. Beye 152.

45. Apollon. 3.109–10.

46. Heracleitus ap. Hippolytus, Ref. 10.9.6 = fr. 242 Kirk and Raven.

47. Hom. Il. 24.129–31; cf. Beye 4–5, and Van der Valk, vol. 2 passim, which is, as Beye says (p. 179 n. 2), “a treasure house of examples of the execution of the theory of propriety by the Hellenistic textual critics of Homer.”

48. Lesky 734.

49. See, e.g., Ciani, “Apollonio” 80–81; Pfeiffer, History 105 ff.; Fraser 1.463 ff.

50. Carspecken 131; cf. Apollon. 2.541–46.

51. Ciani, “Apollonio” 82, sees this very clearly: “Nell’ ambiente culturale contemporaneo, se l’omerismo poteva esser fatto rivivere nella lingua e nelle forme esteriori, mancavano i presupposti fondamentali per la rinascita del genere epico, e cioé: il senso del grandioso, del meraviglioso, il senso del miracolo, del mito, la fede negli dèi, tutto il patrimonio di un’ epoca primitiva che non poteva più rivivere genuinamente al tempo in cui viveva Apollonio.”

52. Cf. R. Wyss, Die Komposition von Apollonios’ Argonautika (Zurich, 1931) 41, and Carspecken 110 ff.; see also Klein, “Apollonius’Jason” 117 ff. I cannot take overseriously H. Fränkel’s attempt to meliorize Jason’s ἀμηχανία as “reflectiveness” or “prudence”: see MH 17 (1960) 1–20, and Lloyd-Jones 70–71—or, indeed, Klein’s efforts (ibid.) to interpret Jason in existentialist or structuralist terms, or both; though Alexandrian pedantry would surely have rejoiced in such splendid claptrap as (p. 124) “an avalance [sic] of binary algorithms, paradigmatic oppositions, operating within the symbolic code but hopelessly unmediated,” etc. All of which seems to boil down to the not very extraordinary claim that Jason has elements in him of both hero and villain.

53. Ciani, “Apollonio” 84–85.

54. See J. R. Bacon, The Voyage of the Argonauts (London, 1925) chap. 9, “The Homeward Routes,” pp. 107–24, esp. 118 ff.

55. Callim. Hymn 1.4–9; cf. Hurst 32.

56. Aristarchus ap. Athen. epit. 1.12c–f; cf. Pfeiffer, History 112; Beye 5.

57. Apollon. 1.774 ff. The scholiast on 1.721–22 comments on Jason’s being presented in a cloak rather than armor because he is “unwarlike” (ἀπόλεμος), a quality also attributed to Paris (another erotic achiever) by Homer: cf. Il. 3.369–454. On Jason’s sexual component as a distinctively Hellenistic trait see Beye, GRByS 10 (1969) 49–54.

58. As the magic practiced by Simaetha in Theocr. Id. 2 (and an increasingly common phenomenon as the Hellenistic age proceeds) makes all too clear. Cf. pp. 597 ff.

59. For a good recent analysis see J. H. Barkhuizen, “The Psychological Characterisation of Medea in Apollonius Rhodius Argonautica 3.744–824,” AClass 22 (1979) 33–48, comparing Apollonius’s interpretation with that of Euripides in his Medea and Pindar’s in his fourth Pythian Ode.

60. Cf. also the account of Mopsus’s death from snakebite (4.1518–25), and Phineus’s fainting fit (above, n. 42), with Fraser’s comments (1.634). See also Zanker, 131–32, who connects the passage with Herophilus’s researches on the medulla oblongata (cf. p. 492).

61. G. Zanker’s thesis in “The Love Theme in Apollonius Rhodius’s Argonautica,” WS, n. F., 13 (1979) 52–75, that love forms the main theme of the whole epic, not merely of Book 3, can only be sustained by a carefully selective reading.

62. Cf. Apollon. 4.419–20: “Kill Apsyrtos, if you like,” Medea says, in effect; “I don’t care”: οὔτι μεγαίρω, “I don’t grudge it one whit.”

63. Schol. Apollon. 4.223–30; cf. Apollod. 1.9.24.

64. Apollon. 3.968–70.

65. Ibid. 4.693 ff.

66. Yet the charge is brought against him rather less often than one might suppose from Hadas’s remarks; cf. CW 26 (1932) 44, CPh 31 (1936) 167, and his History of Greek Literature (New York, 1950) 203; echoed by Carspecken 101–2: eight times in all, counting every cognate form of the term, as pointed out by John Collins, “Studies in Book One of the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius” (diss., Columbia Univ., 1967) pp. 43–45. It is also used to characterize the Argonauts generally, and even Medea herself (3.772, 951, 1157; 4.107, 1049). Yet its application to Jason is peculiarly apposite on each occasion, and lingers in the memory: see 1.460; 2.410, 623, 885; 3.336(?), 423, 432; 4.1318. Cf. also Klein, “Apollonius’Jason” 116 ff. with n. 3.

67. Apollon. 4.1141–43.

68. Ibid. 1381–92. Zanker, 132 ff., stresses Apollonius’s emphasis on surviving ancient landmarks to endorse the historical validity of myth: “The poet is nailing down the tradition with a vengeance.”

69. Apollon. 1.888–909.

70. Ibid. 1207–10, 1221–39, 1324 ff.

71. Ibid. 2.194–269, 293 ff., 317–23, 549–602.

72. Argo passes through an invented river or canal directly linking the Po to the Rhône: Apollon. 4.625–29; cf. Eur. ap. Plin. HN 37.32. There are further odd divagations at 4.634–44 (cf. p. 327). Zanker, 135 n. 41, argues that such errors are due to Apollonius’s reliance on trusted scholars to give him an authoritative account.

73. C. Day Lewis, Collected Poems 1929–1936 (London, 1954) 149.

74. Cavafy, Ποιήματα Α´ 23–24 = Collected Poems 66–69. “Always have Ithaca in your mind: / Arrival there is your destined goal / —But don’t hurry the journey at all . . . / Ithaca gave you the marvelous journey. / Without her you’d never have set foot on the road.”

75. Apollon. 2.516–27, 4.1641–88, 4.597–611, 620–26, 2.946–54.

76. Sirius, Apollon. 3.957–59, Hom. Il. 22.26–31; fleeing doves, Apollon. 1.1049–50, Hom. Il. 22.139–42; oxen, Apollon. 2.662–67, Hom. Il. 13.703–7; bees, Apollon. 1.879–82, Hom. Il. 2.87–90; boy in river, Apollon. 4.460–61, Hom. Il. 21.282–83. Cf. Carspecken 68 for other examples; and for an exhaustive compilation of all echoes from early epic, see M. Campbell, Echoes and Imitations of Early Epic in Apollonius Rhodius (Leiden, 1981).

77. Carspecken 70.

78. Callim. fr. 260 Pfeiffer, lines 64 ff. The final line is highly conjectural.

79. Apollon. 3.1020–21, Hom. Il. 23.598–99. Recent appreciations of Apollonius include A. W. Bulloch, in Easterling and Knox, eds., 586–98, and Hutchinson 85–142. For Bulloch, Jason is sinister rather than vacillating; what interests Hutchinson (in an otherwise plodding exposition) is the bizarre quality of Apollonius’s wit. Quot capita, tot sententiae.

Chapter 14. Events in the West: Sicily, Magna Graecia, Rome

1. Cf. Just. 4.2.3: “No land was richer in tyrants.”

2. DS 20.54.1; cf. 21 fr. 2.1 Walton: his assumption of the crown is here backdated to 307, during his African campaign. See also Just. 22.6.2.

3. Plut. Tim. 34; cf. Clearchus ap. Athen. 12.541d–e.

4. DS 16.65.1, Plut. Tim. 1.

5. Plut. Tim. 1, Just. 21.3.9–10.

6. Plut. Tim. 8–13, 20–21; DS 16.65 passim, 68.10–11, 69.3–6, 70.4–6; Nep. Tim. 2.1, 3.3.

7. Plut. Tim. 14–15, Just. 21.5 passim, Aelian VH 6.12, Clearchus ap. Athen. 12.541e, Cic. Tusc. Disp. 3.12.

8. Plut. Tim. 25–29 passim, DS 16.79–81, Nep. Tim. 2.4; cf. Freeman 4.324–30, Niese 1.422, Holm 2.208–10. The last-named remarks, probably correctly, that even if the river Halycus formed the boundary, “jedoch griechische Gemeinden, wenn auch westlich von ihm gelegen, frei waren.” For the site of the battle, see Holm 2.208, 470; Talbert 69–74.

9. Lévêque, “De Timoléon” 138–39 with n. 15.

10. Plut. Tim. 35.

11. Talbert 163–66; cf. Dem. 32 passim, 56.9–10; Theophr. HP 8.4.5.

12. DS 16.82.6; cf. Talbert 133; Lévêque, “De Timoléon” 137.

13. Finley, History 97.

14. Westlake, Timoleon chap. 1 and pp. 55 ff.

15. Plut. Tim. 36; cf. Westlake, Timoleon 4, 56; Lévêque, “De Timoléon” 139–40.

16. Cf. Holm 2.217, who still manages to overrate his virtues (as opposed to his virtuosity), comparing him to, of all people, Garibaldi.

17. Polyb. 12.23.4–7.

18. Cic. Ad Fam. 5.12.7, Marcell. Vit. Thuc. 27, Suda s.v. Τίμαιος; cf. Westlake, Timoleon 2.

19. DS 16.69.5, 82.6; Plut. Tim. 22; Nep. Tim. 3.3.

20. DS 16.70.5, Plut. Tim. 22, 35.

21. Plut. Tim. 36–39, DS 16.90.1, Nep. Tim. 4–5.

22. Plut. Tim. 39; DS 16.90, cf. 83.

23. For the much-debated question of whether Timoleon set up this council, only to have it change its political tune after his death (the likeliest explanation, adopted here), or, alternatively, did not set it up, the council as described in our sources being a revolutionary group that only seized power when he was gone (cf. Berve, Herrschaft 23–24 n. 17), or, again, did set it up, his own council thereafter being disbanded and replaced by a new group of the type Berve envisions, see the judicious discussion by Talbert, 139–43, and cf. DS 19.4.3, 5.6, 6.4.

24. DS 19.6.4; cf. 5.6.

25. Cf. the special issue of Kokalos, vol. 4 (1958), devoted entirely to the impact of Timoleon on Greek Sicily, and Lévêque, “De Timoléon” 138–39.

26. DS 16.83.1–2; cf. Nep. Tim. 3.1–2.

27. For the huge influx of Corinthian silver into Sicily under Timoleon, see Talbert 161 ff.

28. See H.J. W. Tillyard, Agathocles (Cambridge, 1908); Berve, Herrschaft, and Tyrannis 1.441–57, 2.728 ff.; Mossé, Tyrannie chap. 3, pp. 167–77; Cary, CAH VII chap. 19, pp. 617–37. For Agathocles’ coup, cf. Consolo Langher, “Agatocle” 382 ff.; and Lévêque, “De Timoléon” 141 ff., with bibliography there cited. See also K. Meister, CAH VII².1 chap. 10, “Agathocles,” 384 ff.

29. Polyb. 12.15; cf. DS 19.2.1–7.

30. DS 21.17.1–3, Polyb. 12.15. Cf. Meister, CAH VII².1 384 n. Among other slurs, Timaeus described the young Agathocles as “a common whore” (FGrH 566 F 124b).

31. DS 21.17.1, Marcell. Vit. Thuc. 46. The value, and sources, of Diodorus’s account (19.1.5–9.7, 65.1–6, 70.1–72.2, 102.1–104.4, 106.1–110.5; 20.3.1–18.3, 29.2–34.7, 38.1–40.1, 42.3–44.7, 54.1–57.3, 61.5–72.1, 77.1–79.5, 89.1–90.2, 101.1–4; 21.2–4, 8, 15–17.3) are much debated: see, e.g., Consolo Langher, “Strategato” 168 ff. Diodorus himself, though he severely censures Timaeus for a sustained campaign of lying vilification against Agathocles in Books 34–38 of his History (21.17.1–3; cf. 13.90 and Polyb. 12.25), nevertheless seems to share much of his bias. Since his other main source (apart from Duris of Samos?) was Callias of Syracuse, whom he also criticizes (21.17.4; but for precisely the opposite reason, i.e., that he was bribed by Agathocles into betraying the truthful function of history and “heaping continual unmerited praise on his paymaster”), it seems likely that he did little more than conflate the two accounts, using the one to trim the excesses of the other (e.g., over the matter of Agathocles’ personal courage, 21.17.2–3). Timaeus is elsewhere praised by Polybius for careful and honest historiography (12.10.4); it seems likely that his treatment of Agathocles was a special case. Agathocles’ supposed populist leanings (see p. 222) would automatically have ensured him a bad press with most contemporary historians.

32. Polyb. 15.35.1–6; cf. 9.23.2 and DS 20.63.

33. DS 19.1.7.

34. Just. 22.1.1–5, 12–14; DS 19.2, 3.1–2; Polyb. 12.15.2.

35. Just. 22.1.3–5: “forma et corporis pulchritudine egregius, diu vitam stupri patientia exhibuit. Annos deinde pubertatis egressus, libidinem a viris ad feminas transtulit. Post haec, apud utrumque sexum famosus, vitam latrociniis mutavit.”

36. E.g., Mossé, Tyrannie 167.

37. DS 19.8.1.

38. DS 19.4.3–9.7 passim, Just. 22.2.1–12. For the Acragas-based opposition, under Cleomenes II’s son Acrotatus, who proved himself a worse tyrant than most Sicilians, see DS 19.70.2–8, 71.1–5.

39. DS 19.5.5.

40. DS 19.5.6; cf. Just. 22.2.11.

41. DS 19.9.5–7.

42. Consolo Langher, “Politica” 29 ff., “Strategato” 117.

43. DS 19.106–10, 20.3–18, 29.2–34, 38–44.7, 54–70; Just. 22.4–7; cf. Niese 1.437–62; Will, HP²1.114–18 (with exhaustive documentation).

44. DS 20.5.1–4 describes how he took advantage of the Carthaginians’ preoccupation with an approaching grain convoy to get his squadron through the besiegers’ lines; then, when the Carthaginian fleet decided to pursue him, the grain ships slipped into the Great Harbor and relieved the beleaguered city.

45. Finley, History 104.

46. Lévêque, “De Timoléon” 143.

47. Niese 1.457–59; Manni, “Agatocle” 156.

48. Schmitt, Staatsverträge no. 437, pp. 52–53; cf. Lévêque, “De Timoléon” 143 with n. 38.

49. DS 20.71–72, 77–79, 80–90.2; Just. 22.8.

50. Will, HP²1.118–20.

51. Berve, Herrschaft 62–68, Tyrannis 2.730.

52. Manni, “Agatocle” 161. G. Marasco, “Agatocle e la politica siracusana agli inizi del III secolo a.C.,” Prometheus 10 (1984) 97–113, has some interesting observations on Agathocles’ anti-Carthaginian foreign policy, but exaggerates his influence in Magna Graecia and with the new dynasties of the Diadochoi.

53. Just. 23.2.6; cf. Will, HP²1.120.

54. DS 20.104–5, 21.2; cf. Piper 12–13.

55. DS 21.4, Plut. Pyrrh. 9.

56. Plut. Pyrrh. 10, DS 21.15.

57. DS 21.16.1–5, Just. 23.2.3–12 (more reliable for the events surrounding Agathocles’ death); cf. Niese 1.485–89. After he was dead his property was confiscated, his statues were pulled down, and by then, as seems clear, his popularity, even with the common people, had suffered considerable erosion: DS 21.18.1; cf. Meister, CAH VII².1 410.

58. Cary, CAH VII 636.

59. C. A. Gianelli, “Gli interventi di Cleonimo e di Agatocle in Magna Grecia,” CS 11 (1974) 353–80. Cf. the evaluation by Meister, CAH VII².1 409–11.

60. Polyb. 15.35.6; cf. Manni, “Agatocle” 162: “Della grecità egli è quasi l’ultimo rappresentante, di Roma fu uno dei modelli più celebrati.” Cf. Meister (above, n. 59) 411.

61. DS 21.16.1.

62. Plut. Pyrrh. 14: this all sounds remarkably like a reprise of the Athenian attitude to Sicily in 416: see Plut. Nic. 12, Alcib. 17; Thuc. 6.15.2, 90.2–4; cf. Kagan, The Peace of Nicias and the Sicilian Expedition (Ithaca, N.Y., 1981) 169 ff., and my Armada from Athens (London, 1970) chap. 3, pp. 37 ff.

63. Testimoma in Berve, Tyrannis 2.733–34: see esp. DS 22.13.1 ff., Polyb. 1.8.2–9.8, Just. 23.4.1–2.

64. Polyb. 1.11.7, DS 22.13.9.

65. Berve, König Hieron 70–71 with testimonia.

66. Athen. 5.206e, DS 16.83.2, Cic. II. Verr. 4.53.118; cf. Finley, History 119–21; Berve, König Hieron 71; Pollitt, AHA 281.

67. Polyb. 1.62.8.

68. Kraay and Hirmer figs. 140–42.

69. Polyb. 7.8.1–8.

70. Cic. II Verr. 2.13.32, 26.63, 60.147; 3.6.14–15; 5.21.53, and elsewhere.

71. Livy 21.49–51, 22.37, 23.21.

72. Lucian, Macrob. 10; Polyb. 7.8.7; Livy 24.4.

73. Berve, König Hieron chap. 5, pp. 86 ff.

74. Livy 24.4–7; Polyb. 7.2.1–5.8, 7.1–8.

75. Berve (loc. cit. n. 73) writes, apropos Livy 24.27.1 ff., of “den Zwiespalt zwischen römerfreundlichen Oligarchen und karthagerfreundlichen Demos,” which is perhaps too neatly symmetrical a division.

76. Livy 24.21 ff. passim; cf. Berve, König Hieron 95 ff.

77. Livy 24.29.4 ff.

78. Livy 24.30–34, Plut. Marcell. 14–19, DS 16.18–20.

79. Cited by Finley, History 122.

80. Arist. fr. 614 Rose, Just. 12.2.1–11, Livy 8.24, QC 8.1.37, Plut. Mor. 326B.

81. Plut. Pyrrh. 13–15; Just. 17.3.22, 18.1.1–3; Paus. 1.12.1–2; Zonar. 8.2.

82. Will, HP² 1.99, is worth quoting on this move: “P. retournait mettre son ardeur et ses talents au service de ses États héréditaires, en attendant que vînt l’en tirer sa grande tentation occidentale.”

83. There seems little doubt that his plans in the West always involved the idea of conquest and empire: see Plut. Pyrrh. 14; cf. Lévêque, Pyrrhos 262 ff.; and above, p. 228.

84. Plut. Pyrrh. 13–15; Paus. 1.12.1–2; Just. 17.3.22, 18.1.1–2; cf. Will, HP² 1.122.

85. Will, HP² 1.130, citing the conclusions reached by Lévêque, Pyrrhos chap. 4, pp. 245–84.

86. Will, HP² 1.122.

87. 20,000 infantry, 3,000 cavalry, 2,000 archers, 500 slingers, and 20 (or perhaps 50) elephants: Plut. Pyrrh. 15, Just. 18.1.3, Zonar. 8.2.12.

88. Bengtson, Griechische Geschichte 395: he points out that it had more momentous consequences still: “entzündet hat sich der Konflikt zwischen Osten und Westen, zwischen Rom und Pyrrhos, an dem tarentinischen Kriege.”

89. Zonar. 8.2–5; cf. Will, HP²1.122–26, with full documentation; Grimal 302.

90. App. Samn. 10.1; cf. Lévêque, Pyrrhos 345–50.

91. Plut. Pyrrh. 22.

92. Polyb. 3.25.1–5; cf. Lévêque, Pyrrhos 416 ff.

93. DS 11.10.5–7, Plut. Pyrrh. 23; cf. Vartsos, “Osservazioni” 95–97.

94. Plut. Pyrrh. 22–24; Just. 23.3.1–10; DS 22.8, 10; Paus. 1.12.5.

95. The debate over whether Pyrrhus was, in any juridical or substantial sense, king of Sicily at this time (see Will, HP² 1.129) seems to me a wholly unreal academic exercise. Who made the rules? Pyrrhus’s status was whatever he was capable, at any given point, of imposing by right of conquest, or eliciting by willing consensus.

96. Plut. Pyrrh. 25 ff.; cf. Lévêque, Pyrrhos 516 ff., with further testimonia.

97. Plut. Pyrrh. 26, Zonar. 8.6; cf. Will, HP²1.131; and above, p. 144.

98. Zonar. 8.6.13.

99. Livy, per. 14; Dion. Hal. 20.14; Dio Cass. 10, fr. 41 Cary (cf. Zonar. 8.6); Just. 18.2.9; Val. Max. 4.3.9; cf. Holleaux, CAH VII 823.

Chapter 15. Urbanized Pastoralism, or Vice Versa: The Idylls of Theocritus, the Mimes of Herodas

1. Virg. Ecl. 4.58–59; 7.4, 26; 10.26, 31–33; cf. Rosenmeyer 232 with n. 2.

2. F. Brommer, RE Suppl. 8 (1956) s.v. “Pan,” cols. 949 ff.; Rosenmeyer 239 ff. Pan was originally a local Arcadian deity; he only seems to have acquired more general currency in literature and art after 490, when he reputedly helped the Athenians at Marathon.

3. Hecataeus ap. Athen. 4.148e; Theopompus, Philippika 46 = Athen. 4.149d (both cited by Rosenmeyer 234).

4. Rosenmeyer 236.

5. Theocr. 1.1–2.

6. The point was made with telling force by Edward Abbey in his novel The Brave Cowboy (repr.: New York, 1977), and faithfully preserved in the film (retitled Lonely Are the Brave), with the eponymous hero, having rejected modern mechanized society, battling an ēthos that in the end destroys him.

7. Hesiod, WD 100 ff., 176 ff., 289 ff.

8. The classic work is J. K. Campbell’s Honour, Family and Patronage (Oxford, 1964), which studies the Sarakatsani: see esp. chap. 2, “Of Sheep and Shepherds,” pp. 19 ff., and appendixes 1 and 2, pp. 357 ff.

9. Theocr. 5.39–43, 87.

10. Theocr. 1.15; cf. Wernicke in Roscher’s Lexikon 3.1 (1897–1902) cols. 1397–1400, and R. Blum and E. Blum, The Dangerous Hour: The Lore of Crisis and Mystery in Rural Greece (London, 1970) 329–32.

11. Wernicke (above, n. 10) cols. 1396–97. Dio Chrysostom (Orat. 6.17–20) cites Diogenes the Cynic as saying that Hermes took pity on Pan when the latter was roaming through woods and fields in hopeless ithyphallic passion for Echo, and taught him the art of masturbation, which Pan then passed on to all goatherds (a proverbially lecherous group: cf. schol. Theocr. 1.86a Wendel, λαγνότατοι οἱ αἰπόλοι).

12. Holden 27.

13. Van Sickle 18 with n. 1.

14. Dover, Theocritus lxi ff.

15. Ibid. lxii.

16. Dover, ibid., cites Gavin Maxwell, The Ten Pains of Death (London, 1959) 49 f., for a modern Sicilian parallel, the botta e risposta, which is “fiercely abusive and obscene.”

17. Dover, Theocritus lxix.

18. Van Sickle 20. Hutchinson offers a competent, if unadventurous, literary survey of the poems (chap. 4, pp. 143–213). It is amusing that he, like some of the ancient critics, should be disconcerted by the “bizarreness” of Theocritus’s “extreme rusticity” (p. 208). See also Bulloch in Easterling and Knox, eds., 570–86.

19. Halperin 237.

20. Theocr. 14.34–35.

21. Ibid. 7.78.

22. Aristoph. Ach. 994 ff.

23. Cf. Victor Ehrenberg, The People of Aristophanes (Oxford, 2nd ed. 1951, repr. with add. 1962) 319–21, with reff. there cited.

24. This is very much the view taken by Aristotle’s student Dicaearchus of Messene (frs. 48–51 Wehrli; cf. Varro, RR 1.2.15, 2.1.3): he posits a sequence beginning with an underpopulated world of vegetarians, living off wild fruits and cereals, free from war and epidemics (the true utopian phase), and then moving on, via nomadism, the acquisition of property, stockbreeding, and population growth to the life of the settled farmer. Cf. below, p. 239; and Rosenmeyer 74 ff.

25. I remember once asking a classically educated farmer his opinion of the famous passage in the Georgics beginning O fortunatos nimium, sua si bona norint, / agricolas (2.458 ff.), and getting the diplomatic answer, “Well, I suppose it’s all right as poetry.”

26. Hesiod, WD 504 ff.

27. Arist. Pol. 1256^a 29 ff.

28. Peters 202.

29. In Modern Painters (London, 1856) 3.157–72.

30. See, e.g., Dick 27 ff., and, for a more balanced view, Buller 35 ff., Rosenmeyer 248 ff.

31. Text in A. S. F. Gow, Bucolici Graeci (Oxford, 1952) 140–45.

32. Text ibid. 153 ff.

33. Lines 31–38; cf. Buller 36.

34. Theocr. 1.71–75, 7.74–77; Bion, Lam. Adon. 18; cf. Rosenmeyer 249.

35. On the ἀδύνατον in pastoral, see Rosenmeyer 264 ff.

36. Theocr. 7.131–38.

37. Rosenmeyer 248.

38. N. K. Sandars, The Epic of Gilgamesh, rev. ed. (Harmondsworth, 1972), 91–92; cf. Dick 27–28.

39. Hom. Il. 21.200–382.

40. Ibid. 14.346–51.

41. Ps.-Mosch. Lam. Bion 102–4; cf. Nilsson 204, 278; and p. 586.

42. Cf. Buller 47–48; “Nature must have harmony with man in order to be concerned about him; each man must be mortal in order to give nature an occasion for her grief.”

43. Holden 13.

44. See J. Horowski, “Le folklore dans les idylles de Théocrite,” Eos 61 (1973) 187–212; and cf. pp. 597 ff.

45. Rosenmeyer, chap. 4, 65–97 (quotation from 67–68); cf. Edquist, “Aspects of Theocritean Otium,” in Boyle 19–32.

46. Rosenmeyer 42; cf. p. 243.

47. Rosenmeyer 77.

48. Aristoph. Clouds 46–50.

49. Rosenmeyer 71–72.

50. J. Ferguson, Heritage 83.

51. Testimonia and discussion in A. S. F. Gow 1.xv–xxii.

52. His floruit is variously placed in the 124th Olympiad (284–281: schol. Theocr. pp. 1, 135 Wendel = A. S. F. Gow 1.xv–xvi), or under Ptolemy I and Ptolemy II, which suggests a date around 280. Very little can be deduced from schol. Ovid Ibis 549, who claims that Hieron II had Theocritus strangled for lampooning his son and heir: the claim is almost certainly untrue, and is in any case no help in determining the date of death, except that it would create a terminus post quem of ca. 265 to allow the son, Gelon, to reach maturity.

53. Theocr. 11.7, 47 ff.; 28.16 ff.; Suda s.v. Θεόκριτος; cf. Dover, Theocritus xix.

54. Dover, Theocritus xix–xx.

55. Schol. Theocr. p. 1 Wendel = A. S. F. Gow 1.xv.

56. Lawall, Theocritus’ Coan Pastorals, esp. 3 ff., 74 ff.

57. A. S. F. Gow 1.xxv.

58. Dover, Theocritus lvi.

59. Polyb. 1.8.3–5, Just. 23.4.1–2, Zonar. 8.6, Paus. 6.12.2.

60. A. S. F. Gow 1.xvii, 2.305–7; Dover, Theocritus xxi–xxii.

61. The chronology here is difficult. I am assuming that immediately after Hieron became στρατηγός in succession to Pyrrhus (275/4: Paus. 6.12.2, Polyb. 1.8.3–5, Just. 23.4.1) he was placed in command of a campaign against the Carthaginians of western Sicily (274/3?: Just. 23.4.2), in which he was victorious (Just. 23.4.12). His subsequent defeat of the Mamertines at the Longanus River (Polyb. 1.9.3–8) was followed by his elevation to the kingship in 269 (Polyb. ibid., cf. 7.8.4; DS 22.4) and his treaty of alliance with Carthage (Zonar. 8.6); that treaty he was later to repudiate when he entered into a permanent relationship with Rome (263: see p. 224).

62. Cf. Theocr. 15 passim, 7.91–93.

63. Theocritus opens with the same invocation as Aratus in the Phaenomena: “From Zeus let us begin” (ἐκ Διὸς ἀρχώμεσθα)—though it is uncertain, as between two roughly contemporary writers, who was quoting whom, or whether both of them were availing themselves of a familiar formulaic tag.

64. A. S. F. Gow 2.325.

65. For other examples of court flattery see 7.93; 15.46 ff., 94 f. Arsinoë is clearly described as sponsoring the entertainment (23–24: ἀκούω χρῆμα καλόν τι κοσμεῖν τὰν βασίλισσαν) and we know that she was alive at the time of writing: her death is now securely dated to 1 or 2 July 268; see E. Grzybek, Du calendrier macédonien au calendrier ptolémaïque (Basel 1990) 103–12. I owe this reference to Prof. Christian Habicht. This gives Id. 15 a terminus ante quem of July 270. As we have seen (p. 240), though it is possible in this way to date one or two poems before 270, no work can positively be assigned to a later period (which of course does not rule out the possibility), and if Theocritus’s 280± floruit is correct, the bulk of his oeuvre was indeed probably completed during Arsinoë’s lifetime. It might help if we could date each version of Apollonius’s Argonautica more closely, bearing in mind that Apollonius seems to have reworked Theocritus’s treatment of at least two mythical themes (see Chap. 13 n. 13, p. 784); but the possible dates cover about two decades (ca. 285-ca. 265), and thus cannot be of significant use in this context.

66. See A. S. F. Gow 1.xxii–xxv. Lloyd-Jones, 66, remarks shrewdly that “English readers who can see little in Callimachus, Aratus or Apollonius frequently surrender to Theocritus, sometimes without realising that his aims and methods are a good deal more similar to those of his contemporaries than the bucolic poet’s affectation of simplicity allows the unsophisticated reader to perceive.”

67. Dover, Theocritus xviii–xix, lists Id. 8, 9, 19–21, 23, 25, 27, and Epigrams 23–27.

68. See, e.g., Theocr. 5.45 ff.

69. See Halperin, chap. 9, pp. 161 ff.; and the extensive literature there cited.

70. Athen. 11.476f–478e.

71. Homer, Od. 9.345–46; Athen. 11.481e; cf. Callim. ap. Athen. 11.477c = fr. 178.11–14 Pfeiffer.

72. Halperin 173.

73. Homer, Il. 18.483–603; Ps.-Hes. Scut. 139–317.

74. Webster, Hellenistic Poetry 160–61.

75. See, e.g., Charbonneaux et al. figs. 168, 273, 353.

76. Ibid. figs. 169, 171, 173, 174, 176, 178.

77. E.g., Epigrams 1–5, 8, 9, 17, 18, 21, 22.

78. Cf. Swigart 160: “The timelessness of the ‘purest’ pastorals is that of noon . . . a time when the world is drowsy with the humming of bees. This moment is extended for ever, and all the herdsmen of Theocritus are young.”

79. G. B. Miles, “Characterisation and the Ideal of Innocence in Theocritus’s Idylls,” Ramus 6 (1977) 139–64.

80. Webster, Hellenistic Poetry 83.

81. Villard, in Charbonneaux et al. 140–41, with figs. 139, 140.

82. Theocr. 1.151, 4.46; cf. schol. 1.151d Wendel.

83. C. Segal, Poetry 83.

84. The wit and irony of Theocritus’s treatment are well analyzed by Axel E.-A. Horstmann, Ironie und Humor bei Theokrit (Meisenheim, 1976) chap. 2, pp. 19–57.

85. Schol. Theocr. 15 arg. 8, p. 305 Wendel; cf. schol. Theocr. 2 arg. a, b, pp. 269–70 Wendel; cf. Van Sickle 30.

86. Plut. Mor. 712E (= Quaest. Conviv. 7.8.4).

87. Ibid. 712C (= Quaest. Conviv. 7.8.3).

88. Schol. Theocr. 2, arg. a, b, pp. 269–70 Wendel.

89. Page no. 73, pp. 328–31.

90. Mim. 8.77–79; the fragments of Hipponax are collected in M. L. West, Iambi et Elegi Graeci (Oxford, 1971) 109–71; cf. Knox 2–65 (somewhat outdated) for an eccentric but handy translation.

91. Ussher, “Mimiamboi” 65, 73–74.

92. Collected in G. Manteuffel, De Opusculis Graecis Aegypti e Papyris, Ostracis, Lapidibusque Collectis (Warsaw, 1930); many more easily accessible in Page 328 ff. Cf. Cunningham 7 ff.

93. Suda s.v. Σώϕρων, Duris ap. Athen. 11.504b, Diog. Laert. 3.18, Quintil. 1.10.17.

94. Cf. Cunningham 8–9.

95. This is probably the correct form of the name: other variants known in antiquity were “Herondas” and “Herodes.” See Ussher, “Mimiamboi” 65 and n. 1, with further reff.

96. When modern scholars are not huffing about his “kitchen sink” morality, they tend to overblow his literary skills (presumably in justification of the time and ingenuity they bring to his text): F. Will in his Herondas makes some inflated, not to say portentous, judgments on his work, e.g., (p. 52): “far from reproducing contemporary ‘reality’ Herondas pushes constantly towards a highly aesthetic strategy of historical reference, linguistic artifact-making, and general artistic distancing,” etc. This is ingenious: at one stroke it promotes artistic subtlety and sanitizes the alleged moral reek of the gutter. There is similar symbolic overkill in J. Stern, “Herodas’ Mimiamb 6,” GRByS 20 (1979) 247–54. The attitude of Zanker 128 is far preferable: “slices from the lives of ordinary housewives, brutal schoolmasters, brothel-keepers, dildo-stitchers and go-betweens.” Hutchinson’s literary survey (pp. 236–57) adds little of substance, and at times betrays a rather charmingly donnish prissiness of the old school (e.g., p. 243, “a certain shoemaker’s skill in making leather substitutes for the virile organ”).

97. Cunningham 10, 66, 84, 117–18; cf. also Ussher, “Mimiamboi” 67 and nn. 10, 15; Mastromarco, Public 2–5.

98. Plin. Ep. 4.3.4.

99. Cf. Fraser 2.878 n. 30.

100. Cf. Arnott, “Herodas” 122.

101. Mogensen 395 ff.

102. Lawall, “Herodas” 165 ff., against Cunningham 174; cf. Veneroni 319 ff., and Cunningham’s exposition in CQ, n.s., 14 (1964) 32–35.

103. Page no. 77, pp. 350–61; cf. Cunningham 8–9.

104. See Mastromarco, Public, for a summary of previous discussions and the latest restatement of what is now, in effect, the standard view: Herodas “designed his mimiambi for the social and cultural élite of the [sic] Hellenistic society” (p. 95).

105. In his review of Mastromarco, Pubblico, in JHS 101 (1981) 162.

Chapter 16. The Road to Sellasia, 239–222

1. Plut. Arat. 29: one is reminded of Admiral Lord Nelson’s recurrent bouts of seasickness.

2. Polyb. 2.43.4; Plut. Arat. 16, 18–24; cf. above, p. 151, and Polyaen. 4.3.6.

3. Polyb. 2.43.5–6.

4. Plut. Arat. 16, Polyb. 20.4.5–6.

5. Plut. Arat. 31–32, Agis 13–15.

6. Larsen, “Aetolian-Achaean Alliance” 171; Marasco, “Politica” 113. Larsen’s optimism perhaps does not take sufficient account of the unsavory reputation the Aetolians had as free-booters: in most of their alliances they were sought out, whether openly or covertly, as mercenaries.

7. Tarn, Antigonus 404.

8. Plut. Arat. 25–29, 33.

9. Cary l47 ff.

10. Arnold Toynbee, The Greeks and Their Heritages (Oxford, 1981) vii–viii, 65–72.

11. Cf. Pozzi 388–90, Piper 32–41.

12. Plut. Agis 12, Cleom. 10.

13. Plut. Cleom. 5, Polyb. 5.37.5; cf. Shimron, Late Sparta 36. On the demographic problems involved, see Davies, CAH VII².1 269. Polybius, whose prejudices on occasion get the better of his common sense, claims that it was Cleomenes who had Archidamus killed! Cf. Piper 51–52.

14. Shimron, Late Sparta 27: “In its first stage the Spartan movement would have looked askance at a general revolution in Greece or even in the Peloponnese; its aim was to rule over the other Greeks, and the Spartan tradition was one of support for the ruling classes.” Cf. Oliva 179–80; Walbank, CAH VII².1 252 (on Agis’s motivation).

15. Cf. Fuks, “Spartan Citizen-Body” 244 ff.

16. Plut. Agis 5; cf. Ollier 537; Fuks, “Spartan Citizen-Body” 254.

17. Rostovtzeff, SEH 1.191–211.

18. Cf. Ollier 536.

19. Shimron, “Polybius and the Reforms” 151, with further reff. Cf. Piper 33–34.

20. Plut. Lycurg. 31; cf. Diog. Laert. 7.172, Athen. 15.681c.

21. Ollier 548–50.

22. Plut. Cleom. 10. He specifically advised τῶν ξένων κρίσιν ποιεῖν καὶ δοκιμασίαν, ὅπως οἱ κράτιστοι γενόμενοι Σπαρτιᾶται σώζωσι τὴν πόλιν τοῖς ὅπλοις. Cf. below, n. 77.

23. Ollier 552.

24. Ollier, 538 (cf. 552–53), insists that “il y eut dans une telle entreprise une parte d’idéologie qui paraît incontestable,” a view caustically challenged by Africa, Phylarchus 17.

25. Just. 28.1.2; cf. Dell 98. Hammond and Walbank 317–18 argue persuasively in favor of Demetrius’s co-regency, but the motive alleged for his marriage to Phthia (the Aetolian rapprochement with Achaea) is less plausible.

26. Debate has centered on the possibility that the mother of Philip V was not Phthia, but the shadowy Chryseis—possibly a concubine, perhaps no more than a title of Phthia’s (though why one indissolubly associated with Agamemnon’s captive?)—who afterwards is said to have married Antigonus Doson. Historians are divided on this issue. Some identify Chryseis with Phthia; others see Chryseis as the mother (e.g., Will, HP² 1.360). S. Le Bohec, “Phthia, mère de Philippe V: Examen critique des sources,” REG 94 (1981) 34–46, has persuasively demonstrated that Antigonus Doson first married Demetrius II’s widow, Phthia, thus becoming the young Philip’s stepfather, and then, when Phthia died, married Chryseis, who gave up her own children in order to rear the heir apparent.

27. Polyb. 2.44.1, 46.1, 49.7; Plut. Arat. 33.

28. Plut. Arat. 30, Polyb. 2.44.5, Polyaen. 2.36.

29. Plut. Cleom. 4.

30. Plut. Agis 13–15, Arat. 31.

31. Gruen, “Aratus” 613–14; cf. Plut. Arat. 35, with 25; Polyb. 2.44.6, 60.5. A useful survey of the Achaean League’s position during this period is provided by P. Oliva, “Der achäische Bund zwischen Makedonien und Sparta,” Eirene 21 (1984) 5–16.

32. Polyb. 2.43.7.

33. Plut. Arat. 34; Polyb. 20.5.3; IG II² 808; cf. Ferguson, HA 201 with further reff., Hammond and Walbank 331 with nn. 4–6, and M. J. Osborne, Nationalization in Athens (4 vols. Brussels 1981–83) 1.185–87, no. D 87; 2.172–77. Contra, Alan Henry, “Bithys son of Kleon of Lysimacheia”, Owls to Athens, ed. E. Craik (Oxford 1990) 179–89, with a summary of earlier scholarship, identifies Bithys as a courtier of Lysimachus in the 280s.

34. Just. 28.3.4–8, Paus. 4.35.3, Polyaen. 8.52.

35. Hammond, Epirus 648 ff.; Will, HP² 1.349–51.

36. Polyb. 2.2.4–4.5.

37. Ibid. 2.4.6–9, 5 passim.

38. Ibid. 2.6.1–10, 8.4–5.

39. Gruen, HW 363–64.

40. Polyb. 2.6.7–8. Harris, 65, 195–97, overstresses the degree to which concern for Italian traders may have dictated Rome’s reactions to Teuta. Gruen, “Material Rewards” 69, is more to the point: though the Senate was well aware of the commercial importance of the Adriatic, intervention by Rome was in response to claims by her allies and amici rather than on behalf of Roman or Italian mercantile interests.

41. Polyb. 2.9.1–7, 9; 2.10.1–9.

42. Gruen, HW 366.

43. Most notably by Maurice Holleaux: see CAH VII 828–33, 837–47.

44. Cf. Dell 99 ff.

45. Polyb. 2.11.1, 7: the figures reported are 200 ships, 20,000 infantry, and 2,000 cavalry.

46. Polyb. 2.11.4–12.13, App. Illyr. 7–8. Cf. Hammond and Walbank 334–35. The Illyrians were forbidden to sail south of Lissos.

47. Polyb. 2.2.1–2, cf. 2.12.7: Walbank, HC 1.153 merely remarks that “this war is important to P.’s main theme . . . as it first brought the Romans east of the Adriatic.”

48. Livy 31.28; Trog. prol. 28; Just. 28.3.9, 14; Polyb. 4.5.3, cf. 2.44.2. Hammond and Walbank 335 seems to doubt that Demetrius died in battle, but Trogus clearly implies this.

49. Phylarchus ap. Athen. 6.251d; Livy 40.54.5.

50. Just. 28.3.11–16. He was also appointed strategos, military commander: Polyb. 20.5.7, Plut. Aem. Paull. 8.

51. Cf. Plut. Cleom. 16: ὑπὸ ϕθόης κατασηπόμενον.

52. Ferguson, HA 204–6.

53. Euseb. Chron. 2.120 Schoene, for the relaxation in 256; IG II² 775A 26, G. Dontas, Hesperia 52 (1983) 52–53, 57, IG II² 791.27, 788.29–30, for other fluctuations in strictness, based on the distinction between one comptroller or several (τὸν or τοὺς ἐπὶ τῆι διοικήσει), though study of the general phraseology in the various inscriptions (e.g., the use of the term κυρία ἐκκλησία with a single comptroller, and honorific references to Macedonian royalty with a plurality) suggests strongly that the distinctions, like most local privileges in this period, were merely titular and cosmetic.

54. Plut. Arat. 34, Paus. 2.8.6.

55. Polyb. 5.106.6, Plut. Arat. 41.

56. Patsch, RE 4 (1901) col. 2156, s.v. “Dardani,” cites the proverb τρὶς τοῦ βίου λέλουται ὥσπερ Δαρδανεύς. Cf. Tarn, CAH VII 747.

57. Just. 28.3.14, Trog. prol. 28.

58. For the dates, see Lenschau, RE 11.1 (1921) col. 702, s.v. “Kleomenes (6).” Phylarchus, “romanesque et spartophile,” perhaps a Stoic himself (Ollier 540) was Cleomenes’ advocate (Polyb. 2.56, 63; Plut. Arat. 38, cf. Them. 32), Aratus his opponent: material from both sources has found its way into Plutarch and Polybius. Pausanias (2.9.1–2, 7.7.4, 8.27.15–16) seems to have drawn exclusively on Aratus. See also the judicious assessment by Piper, chaps. 3, 4, pp. 43–74.

59. Plut. Cleom. 1 passim.

60. Ibid.; Paus. 2.9.1; cf. 3.10.5. On Leonidas as the culprit, see A. Solari, Ricerche spartani (Leghorn, 1907) 69, cited by Shimron, Late Sparta 28.

61. Shimron, Late Sparta 36 n. 66. We do not need to waste time over Gabba’s improbable theory, developed in Athenaeum, n.s., 35 (1957) 41 ff., and given a new lease of life by Shimron (ibid.), that Agis’s son was eliminated, at the age of thirteen or so, by the ephors, at the time of Archidamus’s recall.

62. Plut. Cleom. 2–4.

63. Marasco, “Polibio” 165 ff.

64. Polyb. 2.46 passim, Plut. Cleom. 6.

65. Polyb. 2.46.5–7; cf. Gruen, “Aratus” 614–15; Pozzi 390–91.

66. Plut. Arat. 35, Cleom. 4.

67. Plut. Cleom. 3.

68. Plut. Arat. 37, Cleom. 6; cf. Polyb. 2.51.3.

69. Polyb. 2.47.8–48.1, 48.5–7, 50.2.

70. Ibid. 2.50.10–51.1; cf. the excellent analyses by Gruen, “Aratus” 616; and Piper 59 ff.

71. Africa, Phylarchus 14 ff.; Ollier 548.

72. Will, HP² 1.371–72, puts it succinctly: “Cléomène III, ce ‘révolutionnaire,’ regardait en réalité vers le passé.” Cf. Walbank, CAH VII².1 459, who describes Cleomenes’ aims as being “practical and straightforward—to reimpose the ancient Spartan hegemony on Southern Greece.”

73. Plut. Cleom. 13.

74. Polyb. 2.47.3; Plut. Cleom. 7–8, 10–11; Paus. 2.9.1; for the large modern literature (which adds surprisingly little), see Will, HP² 1.375; Shimron, Late Sparta v–xiii. Forrest, A History of Sparta, 2d ed. (London, 1980), 144, regards it as an “unanswerable question” whether the “social programme” of Agis and Cleomenes was “devised by them for the greater good of the world at large, of Spartans, of Sparta, or of themselves.” This seems to me unduly pessimistic. Even those, like Fuks, who are prepared to take the propaganda about equality (ἰσότης) at its face value have to concede that it only applied to the Spartan citizen body. See Fuks, “Agis” 165.

75. Paus. 2.9.1, IG V.1 48 (and elsewhere), Plut. Mor. 795F. Cf. Pozzi 401 n. 144; P. Cartledge, A. Spawforth, Hellenistic and Roman Sparta (London and New York 1989) 51–52.

76. Plut. Cleom. 10–11. An admirable gesture, and first-class propaganda: however, it is by no means impossible that it enabled Cleomenes actually to increase his supporters’ holdings, if not his own.

77. Plut. Cleom. 10, 11: the key terms are οἱ κράτιστοι and τοῖς χαριεστάτοις. The former has a range of meanings from “strongest,” “most excellent” (LSJ s.v.), to a regular sense, in the plural, of “the aristocracy” (Xen. Hell. 7.1.42, etc.). The latter, more significantly, has a prime meaning of “graceful,” or “beautiful,” and in the plural comes to mean “men of elegance” (or of taste, or accomplishment): cf. Isoc. 12.8, Arist. Metaph. 1060^a25, Plat. Rep. 605B. The plural usage is contrasted by Aristotle to οἱ πολλοὶ καὶ ϕορτικώτατοι, which would seem to clinch the matter (Eth. Nic. 1095^b22; cf. Pol. 1267^a1).

78. Polyb. 2.47.3: τό τε πάτριον πολίτευμα καταλύσαντος καὶ τὴν ἔννομον βασιλείαν εἰς τυραννίδα μεταστήσαντος. Cf. Walbank, Aratus 84–86 and 165–66, and HC 1.245–46, where it is pointed out that Plutarch’s version reflects that Phylarchan tradition (Cleom. 7), whereas Polybius was drawing on Aratus. This does not in any way invalidate the truth of Polybius’s statement, as Walbank himself realizes (HC 245): “Behind all this was the ambition to establish a Spartan hegemony in Greece.” Even Plutarch criticizes the killing of the ephors (Cleom. 9–10).

79. Paus. 3.7.1; cf. Marasco, “Storia” 7 ff.

80. Marasco, “Cleomene” 45 ff.

81. Plut. Cleom. 11.

82. Plut. Agis 8, Cleom. 11, Arat. 38.

83. Plut. Cleom. 17; cf. Arat. 39.

84. Dudley, History 74 ff.

85. Cf. Oliva 180: “Nun konnte er zur Verwirklichung seines wichtigsten Zweckes schreiten, nämlich für Sparta sein altes Ansehen zurückzugewinnen und es zur entscheidenden Macht auf dem Peloponnes zu machen,” etc. Cf. Walbank, CAH VII².1 459.

86. Polyb. 2.51.1–2, Plut. Cleom. 22. Whether, as Polybius supposes, Ptolemy had been supporting Cleomenes from the beginning of the war (thus driving Aratus and the League to treat with Antigonus), or, alternatively, was only induced to do so by the Macedonian-Achaean entente, or, again, whether neither of these allegations is true, remains a problem on which much ingenuity has been expended and no final certainty is possible; it is also of relatively marginal importance. See Oliva 182–83 with n. 11 and bibliography there cited. Aratus had received an annual six talents since 251, when Ptolemy II visited Egypt and made the arrangement: Plut. Arat. 12, 41; Cleom. 19; Cic. De Offic. 2.82. Presumably Cleomenes now was allotted a similar amount. Cf. Walbank, HC 1.245–46, 250.

87. Plut. Cleom. 22.

88. “In Sparta” and “Come, O King of the Lacedaemonians”: Cavafy, Ποιήματα B’ 64, 80 = Collected Poems 290–91, 314–15. The first of these poems concludes with the following splendid stanza:

As for the humiliation, she couldn’t care less.

The Spartan spirit, of course, was something

No parvenu Lagid had the wit to understand,

So Ptolemy’s demand could not,

In fact, humiliate a manifest

Lady like herself, a Spartan prince’s mother.

89. Plut. Cleom. 11, 14, Arat. 39; Polyb. 2.51.3, 58.4; Paus. 2.9.2, 7.7.3.

90. J. V. A. Fine, AJPh 61 (1940) 140; E. Bikermann, REG 56 (1943) 295, 303.

91. Polyb. 2.51.4–7; cf. Gruen, “Aratus” 623–24, who argues, rightly in my opinion, that this move was not a piece of secret diplomacy on the part of Aratus, and that the presence of his son on the embassy was an attempt to block any really exorbitant demands on Antigonus’s part.

92. Plut. Cleom. 15, Arat. 39. Cleomenes “vomited a great deal of blood and lost the power of speech.”

93. Plut. Cleom. 15, based on Phylarchus, stresses Cleomenes’ dominance; Arat. 38–39 undercuts Phylarchus for gross prejudice in Cleomenes’ favor, gives Aratus the key role in blocking negotiations, and offers some interesting details about the personal feud between the two leaders. Piper 61 surprisingly characterizes Cleomenes’ demands as “moderate.”

94. Plut. Arat. 39–40, Cleom. 17–19; cf. Polyb. 2.52.1–3.

95. Plut. Cleom. 19, Arat. 41.

96. Both passages of Plutarch (ibid.) assert that Cleomenes offered Aratus, specifically, “double the contribution he was getting from King Ptolemy,” i.e., twelve talents. It would be unwise to take this anecdote as sure evidence that as late as 225 Aratus was still necessarily on Ptolemy’s payroll (though he may have been: Ptolemy could well have decided to hedge his bets for a while). What makes it peculiarly implausible is the unlikelihood of Cleomenes at any time disposing of sufficient funds to spare twelve talents as a bribe. Indeed, it is very unlikely (see n. 86, above) that his entire subvention from Ptolemy exceeded that originally bestowed on Aratus, and he had far more pressing uses for this (not least the payment of the mercenaries on whom he depended) than squandering it as a douceur, without any guarantee that this would have the desired effect. If Cleomenes made the offer at all, it could well have been with the object of making Aratus suspect to other League members. This would also explain his careful refusal to touch Aratus’s property in Corinth (Plut. Arat. 41; cf. Per. 33). That he had such a sum available is improbable; that he would actually have spent it in this way is incredible.

97. Plut. Cleom. 16: τὸ δεινότατον ὧν κατηγόρει Κλεομένους, ἀναίρεσιν πλούτου καὶ πενίας ἐπανόρθωσιν.

98. Plut. Arat. 39, 44, Cleom. 17–19, Polyb. 2.52.1–2. Piper 63 rightly stresses the prestige accruing to Cleomenes for his unprecedented success with Argos.

99. Plut. Cleom. 19, Arat. 41.

100. Polyb. 2.52.3–4; Plut. loc. cit. (n. 99). Cf. Hammond and Walbank 348–49: the terms of the agreement with Antigonus are in many respects demeaning to the Achaean League and indicate with some clarity just how desperate Aratus and his supporters had become.

101. Plut. Arat. 38.

102. Polyb. 2.47.4 ff., Plut. Arat. 38. By far the best analysis of these tangled events is that of Gruen, “Aratus” 609 ff., to which, as will be apparent, I am heavily indebted.

103. Plut. Cleom. 16, Arat. 38.

104. Gruen, “Aratus” 618–19; cf. Plut. Arat. 38.

105. The League: Polyb. 2.38.6, 42.3. The Aetolians: 2.45.1–4, 46.1–3. Antigonus Doson: 2.47.5, 64.6, 68.1–2, 70.1.

106. Plut. Cleom. 16, 18; Arat. 39.

107. Plut. Arat. 43–45, Cleom. 20–27.

108. Polyb. 2.52.2, 53.2 ff.; Plut. Cleom. 17–18, 20; cf. Oliva 184–85; Shimron, Late Sparta 46.

109. Plut. Cleom. 20. This argues against the otherwise sensible-sounding thesis of Urban, Wachstum 207 ff., that such alignments were more dependent upon traditional support for Sparta or Aetolia. Cf. Piper 65–66.

110. Will, HP² 1.400; cf. Plut. Cleom. 22. Phylarchus, in a passage rightly castigated by Polybius (2.63.1), but accepted by Walbank (CAH VII².1 471), dramatizes the cutoff by placing it only ten days before Sellasia, a characteristic Phylarchan embellishment.

111. Plut. Cleom. 23; cf. Macrob. 1.11.34; I. Didu, “Cleomene III e la liberazione degli iloti,” AFLC, n.s., 1 (1976/77) 5–39; Fuks, “Agis” 165–66 with n. 40; Africa, Phylarchus 65. The theory advanced by Daubies, Historia 20 (1971) 665–96, that no helots fought at Sellasia, has (rightly) found few takers: see the criticisms of Urban, “Heer” 95 ff.; Marasco, “Cleomene” 46 with n. 7. See also Piper, 71–72, who sees no problem in helots finding the sum of five minas “now that Laconian economy was based on money,” a not altogether convincing assertion. It is hard to estimate what this meant in terms of real money—perhaps between one and two years’ wages for the average working man: a plasterer on Delos, for example, now made 1½ drs. a day. See G. Glotz, Ancient Greece at Work, tr. M. R. Dobie (London, 1926), 359–61.

112. Schmitt, Staatsverträge no. 507, pp. 212–17, with full bibliography (= SIG³ 1.518); cf. Polyb. 4.54.3. See also Niese 2.335 ff.; Will, HP² 1.389–94; Larsen, Greek Federal States 324 ff.

113. Larsen, Greek Federal States 325.

114. Plut. Arat. 45.

115. Polyb. 5.39.6; 9.23.3, 29.10; 18.36.3; cf. Marasco, “Storia” 27.

116. Polyb. 2.37–71 passim, esp. 2.40.4; but cf. 2.47.11.

117. Paus. 2.9.1–2, 7.7.4, 8.27.15–16; cf. Ollier 539; Pozzi 388.

118. Plut. Cleom. 23–25, Philop. 5; Polyb. 2.55.1–7, 62.9–10.

119. Polyb. 2.65–69 passim; Plut. Cleom. 27–28, Philop. 6, Arat. 46; cf. Tarn, CAH VII 758–62; Hammond and Walbank 354–61 with fig. 11; and, for the site, W. K. Pritchett, “The Battle of Sellasia in 222 B.C.,” Studies in Ancient Greek Topography, part 1 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1965) 59–70; contra, J. D. Morgan, AJA 85 (1981) 328–30. Bearing in mind Polybius’s well-known insistence on autopsy of sites and, in general, personal experience (αὐτοπάθεια: Polyb. 12.25^h4–6 Paton; cf. Paus. 8.30.8), it is reassuring to examine the vindication of Polybius’s account of Sellasia that Pritchett (that peerless and highly critical topographer) provides, against much previous disbelief. He finds no error in P.’s version (p. 69); indeed, he concludes, “I know of no other ancient battle in which the account and the topography seem to accord so easily.”

120. Plut. Cleom. 29.31–32, Polyb. 2.69.10–11.

121. A friend—clearly acting on Stoic principles—is said to have counseled him to prefer suicide to Ptolemy’s patronage; but Cleomenes refused, on the grounds that all was not yet lost, and they should not give up hope: Plut. Cleom. 31.

122. For an anecdote of Sphaerus at the court of Philopator, showing the barely veiled contempt with which he was treated there, see Athen. 8.354e, Diog. Laert. 7.177; cf. Ollier 544–45.

123. Africa, Phylarchus 59, with testimonia; Piper 80–81.

124. Plut. Cleom. 36–37, Polyb. 5.39, Just. 28.4.10–11.

125. Plut. Cleom. 30; Polyb. 2.67.4–8, cf. 68.1–2. For the “Alexandrizing” of Doson’s fortunes, see Athen. 251d; and for his dedication of spoils to Apollo after Sellasia, SIG³ 518 = Burstein, Translated Documents no. 63, p. 86.

126. Polyb. 2.70.1; Paus. 2.9.1–3, 4.22.4; Plut. Cleom. 30; cf. A. H. M. Jones, Sparta 157; Shimron, “Polybius and the Reforms” 149–50, and Late Sparta 60–61.

127. Polyb. 4.6.4–7.

128. Polyb. 4.9.6, 15.4–6, 16.5, 19.1, 24.6. Cf. Shimron, Late Sparta 67–68. Piper 74 states, bleakly: “With the defeat of Cleomenes, Spartan history ceases to be a chronicle of greatness and declines into a story of petty tyrannies.”

129. Walbank, Aratus 112.

130. Ibid. 201. It is one of fate’s ironies that (Plut. Cleom. 27), had Cleomenes held off only another two days or so before giving battle, the news from Macedonia would have made it clear that Doson must evacuate the Peloponnese at once, and Sellasia need never have been fought. The situation is reminiscent of Perdiccas in Egypt, succumbing only a day or two before the news of Eumenes’ great victory would have secured his position beyond immediate challenge. See above, p. 14 with n. 76.

131. Plut. Cleom. 30, Arat. 46–47; Polyb. 2.70.4–7. See Walbank, CAH VII².1 473, for a balanced assessment of Doson’s achievements in stabilizing the Macedonian regime and restoring its dominance in central Greece and the Peloponnese. Cf. also Hammond and Walbank 362–64.

132. Polyb. 2.63.1; cf. Will, HP² 1.400.

133. Polyb. 5.34.6–9, a thumbnail sketch of the generally vigorous foreign policy of the first three Ptolemies (in pointed contrast to that of Ptolemy IV Philopator).

134. OGIS 56, pp. 93 ff. = Austin 222 (with omissions), pp. 366–68; cf. Bouché-Leclercq, HL 1.266 ff. On Berenice II, note the sensible remarks of Pomeroy, Women 20–23.

135. In the next year (23 Aug. 237) Ptolemy III laid the foundation stone of the colossal Horus temple at Edfu (Apollinopolis Magna), which was only completed nearly two centuries later by Cleopatra VII’s father, Ptolemy XII Auletes.

136. Polyb. 5.58.10 f.; cf. Will, HP² 1.255–59.

137. Tarn, CAH VII 720; questioned by Will, HP² 1.296.

138. Just. 27.2.6–11, Trog. prol. 27; cf. Will, HP² 1.295.

139. Testimonia conveniently assembled in Will, HP² 1.296–301; cf. Hansen 34–35. The date of Attalus’s assumption of the title of βασιλεύς is disputed: some (e.g., most recently Pollitt, AHA 81) postpone it until the defeat of Hierax; but the evidence, though sketchy, seems to me to indicate an earlier period.

140. Hansen 36–37.

141. Alcman 1.16–17 Page.

142. Bouché-Leclercq, HL 1.274–76.

143. Ibid. 277–78.

144. Tarn, CAH VII 722–23; Bevan, House of Seleucus 1.202–3.

145. Bevan, House of Seleucus 1.203–5, assembles the sketchy and scattered evidence for his career; further details in Will, HP² 1.313–14.

146. Polyb. 4.48.6–13.

147. The exact date, because of conflicting theories concerning Egypt’s two calendars, is uncertain: estimates vary from Oct.-Dec. 222 to Feb. 221. See Will, HP² 2.28, who also correctly observes (p. 27) that Ptolemy IV “fut à coup sûr le premier souverain médiocre de la dynastie et . . . c’est sous son règne que l’Égypte commence à connaître les difficultés internes qui vont ruiner irrémédiablement sa puissance.”

PART THREE. PHALANX AND LEGION, 221–168 B.C.

Chapter 17. Polybius and the New Era

1. For the concept of συμπλοκή, the interconnection of events, in Polybius’s opinion, from the time of the Naupactus conference (217) to Pydna (168), which marked the beginning of full Roman domination, see Walbank “Symploke” 197 ff. = Selected Papers 313–24.

2. Polyb. 1.3.1.

3. Polyb. 5.33.1–2, 15.36.8–9; cf. Sacks 214–17. Polybius claimed, mistakenly, that Ephorus had attempted something of the sort in the fourth century.

4. Polyb. 1.1.5, cf. 3.1.4–5; Eisen 13.

5. Polyb. 3.4–5 passim, esp. 3.4.1–2, 7–8; Shimron, “Polybius on Rome” 99 ff.

6. Ziegler cols. 1482–83.

7. See, e.g., Musti, “Polibio negli studi” 1116–17; Walbank, HC 1.292 ff., Selected Papers 280–82.

8. Walbank, HC 1.299 ff., Selected Papers 325 ff.

9. Walbank, HC 1.296, lists some of the apparent additions, including 3.32.2, 37.11, 39.6–8, 59.4, 61.11, 86.2; 12.3.1–6(?), 27 ff.

10. Eisen 31 with n. 37, Ziegler col. 1487.41; cf. Polyb. 3.5.7–8 and (for what is, in effect, a redactor’s obituary note) 39.5. The way in which the whole paragraph is cast suggests that there may well have been considerable spackling of historical gaps by an editor who was quite ready to assume, as Polybius himself did on occasion, first-person narrative. Indeed, the smoothness of integration here makes any second-guessing of other such patches the merest speculation: who would have suspected an editor’s intrusion here had reference to the author’s death not revealed it?

11. The uncompromisingly unitarian thesis of H. Erbse, “Zur Entstehung des polybianischen Geschichtswerkes,” RhM 94 (1951) 157–79, according to which the whole of the Histories was composed after 146, is hard to accept. Cf. other reff. in Musti, “Polibio negli studi” 1118; contra, Brink and Walbank, CQ, n.s., 4 (1954) 97–122.

12. Roveri 55.

13. Cf. G. Nenci, “Il motivo dell’ autopsia nella storiografia greca,” SCO 3 (1955) 14–46, esp. 38–40.

14. See Musti, “Polibio negli studi” 1122–24, for a useful breakdown of scholarship on these terms, and in particular Walbank, Polybius chaps. 2–3 passim.

15. Polyb. 1.14.6, 12.12.3; cf. 34.4.

16. Walbank, HC 1.16–26, Polybius 58–65; Ziegler col. 1532.

17. Polyb. 29.21.3–7.

18. Walbank, Polybius 68 (cf. 58–65), makes the perceptive comment: “Tyche and Polybius are shown as being in a sense complementary to each other: each is a creative artist in the relevant field, the one producing the oecumene, the other its counterpart in the unified work of history. . . . Tyche stands in an absolutely fundamental relationship to his whole conception—without her, the pattern collapses.” Cf. Polyb. 29.22.2–3.

19. Polyb. 36.17.1–2, 15, cf. 18.28.4–5; Roveri, “Tyche in Polibio,” Convivium 24 (1956) 275–93; Lesky 777.

20. Scholars on the whole concede Polybius’s basic rationalism in his handling of Tyche, “pur nella varietà delle sfumature nei giudizi dei vari studiosi” (Musti, “Polibio negli studi” 1126–27). Lesky, 777, observes that “in Polybius we find the multiplicity of notions which in the Hellenistic age had collected as the flotsam of religious thought.”

21. Polyb. 1.4.1–2.

22. Polyb. 1.4.5.

23. Polyb. 1.35.6.

24. Polyb. 2.35.4–6; 11.5.8, 6.5–7; 29.19.1–2.

25. Polyb. 16.12.3–11.

26. Pédech, “Idées” 35 ff., cf. Méthode 397 n. 296, tries to demonstrate that Polybius’s religious beliefs were (though he does not put it quite that way) as systematic and coherent as those of a French Catholic intellectual; the attempt is not convincing, and has been effectively demolished by A. J. L. van Hooff, “Polybius’ Reason and Religion,” Klio 59 (1977) 101–28, though the latter goes too far the other way in making Polybius an equally systematic Marxist atheist.

27. Polyb. 6.56.6–12.

28. Polyb. 16.12.9.

29. Fr. 25 Battegazzore and Untersteiner (I sofisti, vol. 4 [Florence, 1962], 304–15) = 88 B 25 D–K; cf. Walbank, HC 1.741–42.

30. M. Dubuisson, “Sur la mort de Polybe,” REG 93 (1980) 72–82, following Pédech, LEC 29 (1961) 145–56, repeated in Méthode 518 ff., argues for 208; but this conflicts with the very specific evidence of Lucian (Macrob. 23) that Polybius was 82 at the time of his death, if we also take into account Polybius’s own reference (3.39.8) to the Via Domitia, only constructed 120–118. This gives us a terminus post quem for his death, making 200 the earliest possible date for his birth, and agrees well with his still being a “boy” (παῖς) in 182 (Plut. Philop. 21). Attempts to treat Lucian’s figure as calculated merely on the basis of Polybius’s ἀκμή are, as Ziegler says (col. 1445), “Hyperkritik.”

31. The name and relationship are confirmed by an inscription of thanksgiving from the men of Elis: SIG³ 686; cf. Polyb. 22.3.6; Paus. 8.9.1, 30.8, 37.2, 48.8; Suda s.v. Πολύβιος.

32. Livy 38.33–34, Plut. Philop. 16.

33. Cf. Gruen, HW chap. 14, 481 ff., esp. 496–505.

34. Polyb. 31.14.3, 29.8.

35. Polyb. 22.19. The exact date is uncertain: it may have been either 187 or 184; cf. Ziegler col. 1446.45–46.

36. Polyb. 24.11–13; Plut. Mor. 790F; Walbank, in Gabba 7, and HC 3.264–65; Lehmann 240 ff.; Errington, Philopoemen 218 ff.; Gruen, HW 482–83.

37. Polyb. 22.7.7, 24.13.8–9; cf. Gruen, 482–83 with nn. 7–11.

38. Gruen, HW 500 with n. 85.

39. Plut. Philop. 21.

40. Polyb. 10.21, Ziegler col. 1472.

41. Polyb. 29.24.6.

42. Walbank, HC 3.258.

43. Polyb. 22.9.1–12; cf. 22.1.5–7, 3.5–9, 7.1–2.

44. But see Polyb. 12.25^g 1–2 Paton for a withering criticism of historians who presume to write about battles without the benefit of personal military experience.

45. Polyb. 28.6.9.

46. Ziegler col. 1448.

47. Polyb. 28.6–7.

48. Polyb. 28.13.1.

49. Polyb. 28.3 passim.

50. Polyb. 28.6 passim.

51. Polyb. 24.8.8–10.15 passim.

52. Polyb. 24.9.3–7, 10.14.

53. Gruen, HW 497 n. 70, and “Class Conflict” 50 n. 24, gives a representative selection. Gruen’s analysis of this vexed episode in the Histories is the most persuasive known to me, and my own account is heavily indebted to it.

54. Polyb. 24.8.6.

55. Polybius is reduced to arguing that Callicrates was supposed to present a different brief, but ignored his instructions (24.8.7–9)—and this in the presence of two fellow envoys! It has been left for Lehmann (287 n. 303) to get round this difficulty by suggesting that Callicrates spoke in Latin, which neither of the other two understood.

56. Polyb. 24.8.1.

57. Gruen, HW 498.

58. Polyb. 24.9.11–14.

59. Callicrates’ στρατηγία is generally dated to 180/79—e.g., by Walbank, HC 3.19, cf. 264—but 179/8 is also a possibility (Errington, Philopoemen 263 ff.; cf. Gruen, HW 499 with n. 80), and this would imply the customary alternation of parties in the Achaean leadership. In any case it is highly unlikely that Callicrates’ election was the direct result of his ambassadorial activities.

60. Gruen, HW 500 with n. 85; cf. “Class Conflict” 33 with n. 35.

61. P. S. Derow, “Polybios and the Embassy of Kallikrates,” Essays Presented to C. M. Bowra (Oxford, 1970) 12–23. On the restoration of the exiles, see Polyb. 24.8–10; SIG³ 634.

62. Polyb. 28.3.8–10.

63. Polyb. 28.6 passim.

64. Polyb. 28.3.6.

65. Polyb. 28.12.1–6, 13.1–6.

66. Polyb. 28.13.7–14.

67. Paus. 7.10.11, Livy 45.31.9; cf. Polyb. 30.13.

68. He did not, as has been argued from his assertion (29.21.8) that he personally witnessed the end of the Macedonian monarchy, ἅτε γεγονὼς αὐτόπτης τῆς πράξεως, himself take part in the battle of Pydna. On this theory Ziegler (col. 1450.28–32) had the last word: “Teilnahme auf römischer Seite wäre ein so grosses Verdienst, auf makedonischer Seite eine so schwere Verfehlung gegen die Römer gewesen, dass beides mit dem späteren Schicksal P.’s unvereinbar ist.”

69. Polyb. 3.4.2–3.

70. Polyb. 24.10.8, 13–15; cf. Shimron, “Polybius on Rome” 97–98; Marcellinus, Vit. Thuc. 46.

71. Polyb. 31.23.3–5. As Ziegler (col. 1451 n. 1) pertinently asks, “Wer lieh wem Bücher?” He concludes that it was Polybius who did the lending, and infers from this that he had been allowed to ship his books and papers from Megalopolis to Rome.

72. Polyb. 31.23 ff.; DS 31.26.5; Vell. Pat. 1.13.3; Plut. Mor. 659F, cf. 199F.

73. Livy 45.28, Polyb. 31.24.9; cf. Walbank, in Gabba 9.

74. Ziegler col. 1470; cf. Momigliano, “Polibio” 185; Walbank, Selected Papers 157–58.

75. Polyb. 31.11-15 passim.

76. Polyb. 31.25.5; cf. 31.25–29 passim. Shimron, “Polybius on Rome” 102–3, points out, acutely, that Polybius restricts his praise of Scipio to personal qualities, and is very careful to avoid all comment on him as politician or general. The clear implication is that there were elements in Roman policy of which Polybius did not approve, but which he knew better than to criticize directly (see p. 279).

77. Usher 121.

78. Polyb. 1.14.4–8, 8.10 passim, 29.12.3, and 16.14.6, where he remarks, with some equivocation, “I would concede that writers must be biased in favor of their own country, but not that they should make statements about it that are contrary to the facts.”

79. Walbank, HC 1.6–16 passim, Polybius 6 (the passage cited).

80. Walbank, Polybius 9.

81. Momigliano, Alien Wisdom 26 ff., Essays 74.

82. Momigliano, Alien Wisdom 26 ff., a brilliant analysis.

83. Polyb. 31.25.5; 35.6; 36.14; 39.1; Plin. HN 7.100; Plut. Cat. Maj. 15.

84. Polyb. 30.32.9. Attempts to get the detainees released were made in 164, 159, 155, and 153: see Polyb. 30.32 passim, 32.3.14–17, 33.1.3–8.3, and 33.14; cf. Walbank, HC 1.4 n. 11, and Ziegler cols. 1452–53.

85. Polyb. 35.6 = Plut. Cat. Maj. 9; Paus. 7.10.12 (and cf. 7–11 for a detailed account of Callicrates’ involvement in this unsavory episode, probably derived from Polybius).

86. Polyb. 36.11.2.

87. Shimron, “Polybius on Rome” 99.

88. Ziegler col. 1454 n. 1; Polyb. 9.25.1–4, cf. 3.59.7–8.

89. Plin. HN 5.9; cf. Carpenter 102, who argues that, like Hanno the Carthaginian, he sailed as far as the Senegal estuary.

90. Polyb. 36.11.1–2.

91. Polyb. 38.19–22 passim; DS 32.23–24; App. Lib. 132, 628–30; cf. Momigliano, Alien Wisdom 22–23.

92. Polyb. 38.1, 9–18, 19–22; DS 32.26–27; Paus. 7.14.5–16.8.

93. Polyb. 39.2 = Strabo 8.6.2 (C.381).

94. Polyb. 39.5 passim; cf. Paus. 7.16.9 ff., 8.30.9.

95. Cf. the shrewd comments of Musti, Polibio 145: “quando ci si trova di fronte a un documento così ampio e complesso come le Storie di Polibio, concepito in una condizione personale e generale così sfavorevole all’ espressione di una protesta o di una rivolta, anche les nuances (se afferrabili, se ricorrenti) contano.”

96. Polyb. 3.4.4–6, 36.9 passim (the most crucial passage), 38.19–22; cf. Momigliano, Alien Wisdom 29–30, Essays 74.

97. Polyb. 5.11.4–6; cf. Walbank, HC 1.549.

98. Polyb. 3.4.3; cf. Musti, Polibio 141.

99. Polyb. 39.3.11, 4.2; Paus. 8.30.8–9, 37.2.

100. Polyb. 38.3.10, 13; cf. Shimron, “Polybius on Rome” 108. Polybius is equally scathing about Hasdrubal’s self-indulgent obstinacy during the siege of Carthage: Polyb. 38.7.1, 8.7. On the Achaean War, cf. Polyb. 38.9.7, 10.8 ff.

101. Polyb. 34.14.1–6 = Strabo 17.1.12 (C.797).

102. Doubted by Walbank, HC 1.6, but by no means impossible: see Ziegler col. 1458, with reff. there cited.

103. Polyb. 3.48.12, 12.5.1–3.

104. Lucian, Macrob. 23.

105. Grant, Ancient Historians 156.

106. Walbank, OCD² 854.1, s.v. “Polybius.”

107. Walbank, in Gabba 27.

108. Polyb. 31.24.11, a revealing autobiographical fragment.

109. Ste Croix 307 ff.; Momigliano, Alien Wisdom 29–31; and esp. Shimron, “Polybius on Rome” 94–96, a particularly percipient discussion. Cf. also Walbank, in Gabba 3–38. Gruen, “Class Conflict” 29 ff., issues a salutary warning, backed up by close scrutiny of the evidence pertaining to the Third Macedonian War, against the practice of assuming that “aristocratic elements sided with Rome, the masses looked to Perseus.” For the lineup in this particular conflict he amply proves his point: as he says (p. 48), “security and survival were the dominant motives, not class consciousness.” But it is a long (and in my view unjustifiable) step from this conclusion to the further general rebuttal of the widely, and I think rightly, held opinion that “Rome put her weight behind the upper classes in Greece, the wealthy and the noble who would run their states in conformity with the social order in Italy.” For a recent survey of evidence supporting this claim see Ste Croix 307 ff.

110. Shimron, “Polybius on Rome” 96.

111. Momigliano, Alien Wisdom 30.

112. Grant, Ancient Historians 153–54. Polybius’s concern for Roman readers: Polyb. 6.11.3–8.

113. Cic. De Rep. 1.34.

114. Polyb. 6.11.11–12.

115. Walbank, HC 1.643–48, “Polybius and the Roman State” 239–60.

116. Walbank, Polybius 137 ff.

117. Römische Geschichte, 7th ed. (Berlin, 1908), 2.452.

118. Pédech, “Polybe” 195, notes the increasing power of the senatorial oligarchy, the impoverishment of the middle classes, the influx of slave labor and real wealth, with a consequent lowering of moral standards among the elite, and a simultaneous upsurge of demagoguery and electoral corruption.

119. J. S. Richardson, “Polybius’s View of the Roman Empire,” PBSR 47 (1979) 1–11; cf. Roveri 143–62.

120. Walbank, Polybius 8.

121. Shimron, “Polybius on Rome” 115 with n. 97.

122. Polyb. 6.2.9 f.; cf. Eisen 24: “Mit dieser Erklärung eines historischen Phänomens durch die Verfassung stellt sich Polybios in eine Reihe mit Herodot V,78 und Thukydides II,36,3.” See also Gelzer, Über die Arbeitsweise 25.

123. Polyb. 2.37.9–11, 38.6 f., 43.7; cf. Musti, “Polibio negli studi” 1120 with further reff.; Walbank, Selected Papers 296–97.

124. Polyb. 12.25^b 1–2 Paton.

125. Tapp 33 ff.

126. Polyb. 2.56.10.

127. Polyb. 1.35.1, 11.2.11.

128. Polyb. 22.19, and above, p. 274.

129. Polyb. 2.49.4–5.

130. Polyb. 31.24.9–10.

131. Polyb. 10.21.8.

132. Polyb. 6.57.4–10.

133. On Polyb. 12.25ⁱ5 Paton, see Walbank, HC 1.14 n. 2; cf. Polyb. 36.1.6–7. Contra, Ziegler col. 1527. Further reff. in Musti, “Polibio negli studi” 1125.

134. Polyb. 12.28.1–5.

135. He discovered a bronze dedication tablet set up by Hannibal on the Lacinian promontory, in southern Italy, which listed the Carthaginian’s battle units: 3.33.17–18, 56.1–4.

136. Polyb. 12.6.7–15.12; 12.23–28^a Paton passim.

137. Polyb. 6.27–42; cf. Momigliano, Alien Wisdom 25–26, with further instances, and the interesting comments of Margherita Isnardi, SCO 3 (1955) 102–10.

138. A. Momigliano, RSI 71 (1959) 544 ff.

139. Polyb. 2.56 passim, esp. §7.

140. Polyb. 15.25–33 passim, esp. 31 ff. (with a pious complaint at 34.1 about other authors who, in treating these events, “introduce sensationalism and various devices to amaze their readers”!); 38.20 passim; 38.1–3 (followed by an apologia at 38.4.1 for abandoning the style proper to historiography and launching into a “more ambitious and declamatory recital”); 38.15.8–16.10. See Walbank’s penetrating essay “Polemic in Polybius,” JRS 52 (1962) 1 ff. = Selected Papers 262–79. His final verdict strikes me as eminently just: “Nearly always Polybius’ motives are mixed; and his attitude towards earlier historians can usually be seen to reflect personal or political considerations no less than those of literary and historical merit.”

141. De Comp. Verb. 4.

Chapter 18. Antiochus III, Philip V, and the Roman Factor, 221–196

1. Polyb. 5.101.3–10, 102.1–2; cf. Hammond and Walbank 387–88.

2. Gruen, HW 369–73.

3. For a detailed account of it, with full testimonia, see Walbank, Philip V chap. 2, 24–67, not rendered entirely obsolete by his more recent version in CAH VII².1 473 ff.; see also Piper 76 ff. For the declarations of Philip and his allies with regard to cities under Aetolian control, see Polyb. 4.25.6–8; cf. Gruen, HW 141.

4. Polyb. 7.10.1 (= Suda s.v. ἰσηγορεῖ); cf. Mendels, “Messene” 246 ff.; Piper 76 ff.

5. See the remarkable, though fragmentary, inscription on this topic: Moretti, Iscrizioni 114, 2.108 ff. = Austin 74, pp. 136–38; and cf. Walbank, Philip V 289 ff.

6. Walbank, Philip V 45 ff., 54 ff., 63, 259; Hammond and Walbank 371–77.

7. Polyb. 4.4–37 passim, 57–97; 5.1–30.7, 91, 100.8.

8. Polyb. 5.10.10; Livy 27.30.9, 32.22.11.

9. Polyb. 4.87.8, 5.26–28.8 passim; Errington, “Philip V” 19 ff., esp. 31–35.

10. Polyb. 7.12.9; Plut. Arat. 49, 50, 51.

11. Polyb. 7.11.8.

12. Polyb. 5.100.9–105.2.

13. Polyb. 5.102.1 and elsewhere: e.g., 5.105.1, 5; 5.108.4–7. Cf. Walbank, Philip V 65.

14. Polyb. 4.16.6–21.12; Walbank, Philip V 28–29.

15. Polyb. 5.104.7, 10–11.

16. A good case has been made for treating it as a Polybian fiction, designed to confirm his thesis of “interweaving” (συμπλοκή) in Mediterranean affairs: see Mørkholm, “The Speech of Agelaus” 240ff., esp. 245, 251–53, and Walbank, HC 1.629–30, both of whom point out that neither the islanders nor the Greek cities of Asia Minor made any kind of appeal to Rome until 201 (if we reject the inclusion of Ilion in the treaty of Phoenice in 205: see p. 300). Hammond (Hammond and Walbank 390 with nn. 2–3) agrees: the cloud was a literary cliché. Contra, Deininger 26 ff., who argues for the speech’s authenticity “in ihrem wesentlichen Inhalt” if not “in ihrem Wortlaut”; and Walbank, Selected Papers 153, who regards the vivid metaphor of “the cloud in the west” as evidence for an actual turn of phrase that was long remembered.

17. Tarn, CQ 18 (1924) 17–23; Walbank, Philip V 258 with n. 1.

18. Gruen, HW 374.

19. Livy 23.33.1–4.

20. Badian, Foreign Clientelae 75.

21. Gruen, HW 440: full discussion 377–81.

22. Polyb. 5.41–42, 45.5–7, 49.1–7, 50 passim, 51.4, 53.6, 54.10–12, and, for Hermeias’s assassination, 56 passim: after his death his wife and children were stoned to death in Apamea. Cf. Schmitt, Untersuchungen 150–58, 175 ff., who argues (p. 156) that “er hatte sicher Fehler, wohl auch Verbrechen begangen, aber Verrat war ihm anscheinend nicht nachzuweisen.”

23. Polyb. 4.48.5–13, 5.40.5–7.

24. Polyb. 5.40.5–54 passim; cf. Schmitt, Untersuchungen 116 ff.

25. Polyb. 5.42.9, 45.5–46.5, 67.5–8. Cf. Huss, Untersuchungen 20 ff.

26. Polyb. 5.58–61.2. For a detailed account of the Fourth Syrian War prior to Raphia, see Huss, Untersuchungen 26–55; cf. also H. Heinen, CAH VII².1, chap. 11 §5, 433 ff.

27. Polyb. 5.62.7–8.

28. Polyb. 5.61–62 passim.

29. Polyb. 5.63.1–7, 66–67 passim; cf. Schmitt, Staatsverträge 447, pp. 80–81.

30. Polyb. 5.63.8–65.11.

31. A much put-upon lady, as Polybius, who talks of “the insults and contumely she had to bear all her life” (15.25.9), makes clear. She seems to have been personally fastidious (Eratosthenes ap. Athen. 7.276b)—not a helpful characteristic, one might have thought, in Philopator’s court. For a recently discovered near-contemporary bust of her, see I. Jucker, “Ein Bildnis der Arsinoë III Philopator,” HASB 5 (1979) 5–9; and in general Macurdy 136–41. Cf. Pollitt, AHA 9–10.

32. Detailed studies by E. Galili, “Raphia, 217 B.C.E., Revisited,” SCI 3 (1976/77) 52–126; and Huss, Untersuchungen 55–68. Cf. Bar-Kochva 128 ff. on Antiochus’s army.

33. Polyb. 5.84.

34. Polyb. 5.79–87 passim, Just. 30.1.6.

35. Jaehne, “Politische Aktivität” 406, observes aphoristically that “Raphia war nicht Ausdruck der Stärke, sondern Zeichen der Schwäche . . . eines ganzen gesellschaftlichen Organismus.”

36. E.g., by Huss, Untersuchungen, who tries to elevate overseas contacts into a coherent, dynamic foreign policy. On this, see Errington, JHS 99 (1979) 196–97; and Sherwin-White, CR 28 (1978) 308–10, who writes: “The force of Polybius’s criticism seems to be the lack of Ptolemy’s will to act, not his lack of power. In fact the results of Huss’s enquiry do not disprove Polybius’s underlying criticism, that the king abandoned policy-making to Sosibius and his other ministers; there is no new, or real, evidence to do so.”

37. Polyb. 5.34, 62.7–8.

38. Polyb. 5.62–63 passim.

39. Polyb. 5.87.3, cf. 14.12.3; Plut. Cleom. 33, 34; Strabo 17.1.11 (C.796); and, for Ptolemy’s three-month stay in Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, Polyb. 5.87.6.

40. Polyb. 5.34.1, 36.1–2; 15.25.1–2; Plut. Cleom. 33; Just. 29.1.5, 30.1.2.

41. Bevan, House of Ptolemy 230–31.

42. Polyb. 5.107.1–3; cf. 14.12.3–4.

43. Préaux, “Sur les causes” 475 ff., “Polybe” 364–65, 374–75; Reekmans, “The Ptolemaic Copper Inflation,” in E. Van’t Dack and T. Reekmans, Ptolemaica (Louvain, 1951) 61–118; Jenkins 245–46; further bibliography in Will, HP² 2.107–8. The year 210 was also when a senatorial delegation visited Alexandria, bringing gifts, renewing Rome’s friendship (amicitia) with Ptolemy, and urgently seeking supplies of grain, during a great Italian shortage, from Egypt, the one country (Polybius says) not then ravaged by war: Polyb. 9.11^a 1–2, Livy 27.4.10. It is noteworthy that Alexandria’s grain trade could not, apparently, ensure her an adequate reserve of silver. Cf. Fraser 1.150 ff.

44. See, e.g., Will, HP² 2.34–37, for a survey of conflicting views.

45. Polyb. 5.107.1–3; cf. 14.12.4.

46. Cf. Will, HP² 2.105–8.

47. Peremans 398.

48. OGIS 56, 90 = Austin 222, 227, pp. 366–68, 374–78; cf. C. Onasch, “Zur Königsideologie der Ptolemäer in den Dekreten von Kanopus und Memphis (Rosettana),” APF 24/25 (1976) 137–55.

49. Rostovtzeff, SEH 2.707–12.

50. Polyb. 4.51.4, 8.20.11: he was the son of Andromachus (whose sister, Laodice, married Antiochus’s father, Seleucus Kallinikos), and was thus a Seleucid both by marriage and by birth, in direct line of descent from Seleucus I and Apama.

51. Polyb. 5.57–58.1; cf. 4.48.9–13.

52. Badian, Gnomon 38 (1966) 714.

53. Polyb. 5.72–78 passim, 107.4, 7, 15–18; 8.15–23 passim; cf. B. A. van Prosdij, “De Morte Achaei,” Hermes 69 (1934) 347–50.

54. Schmitt, Untersuchungen 87, sees this clearly: “von nun an lässt sich nicht verkennen, dass der König sich ein grosses Programm gesetzt hatte,” etc.

55. Cf. Will, HP² 2.51–54.

56. Rostovtzeff, SEH 1.447, 546; cf. Tarn, Greeks 104 ff.

57. Schmitt, Untersuchungen 85 ff., and cf. chap. 2, part 1, “Das Territorialbestand des Seleukidenreichs,” pp. 32 ff., for a detailed survey of Seleucid territories at the time of Antiochus III’s accession.

58. Polyb. 8.23, Strabo 11.14.15 (C.531).

59. Polyb. 5.55; cf. Schmitt, Untersuchungen 148–50.

60. Polyb. 10.27.

61. Polyb. 10.28–31 passim, Just. 41.5.7.

62. Polyb. 10.49, 11.34.1–10. Inter alia, a daughter of Antiochus married Euthydemus’s son Demetrius I, thus reinforcing the Seleucid genes in this Indo-Bactrian dynasty (see genealogical table, p. 739).

63. Rostovtzeff, SEH 1.459.

64. Polyb. 11.34.11–12, 13 ff.

65. Polyb. 13.9.

66. Polyb. 11.34.13–16.

67. Will, HP² 2.66–68 with further literature. As Will points out, the title does not figure in official royal documents, or on coins, but solely in honorific decrees and private dedications. Cf. Schmitt, Untersuchungen 92–95.

68. Polyb. 2.10.8, 11.17, 12.13; App. Illyr. 7–8; cf. Gruen, HW 367 with n. 41. The actual extent of his territorial acquisitions is uncertain.

69. Polyb. 2.65.4, 3.16.3.

70. Polyb. 5.12.5–7, 101.7–8, 105.1, 108.5–8; 7.9.14, 13.3–8.

71. Polyb. 4.19.8.

72. Eutrop. 3.7.1.

73. Polyb. 4.29.1–7; 5.4.3, 95.1, 108.1–2, cf. 101.1–3; Ormerod 176 ff.

74. Polyb. 3.16.2 ff., 3.18–19 passim. Polybius argues that Demetrius, though technically Rome’s ally, was being punished for ingratitude and the abuse of friendship: the simple truth seems to have been that he was an unmitigated nuisance.

75. Polyb. 5.101.7–10.

76. Polyb. 5.101.8, 108.5–7.

77. Polyb. 5.109.1–4, 110; cf. Gruen, HW 375, who cites Livy 23.33.6–8 to show that “many Romans even in 215 were prepared to believe that Philip would make alliance with them,” and E. Will, “Monde hellénistique” (1975) 398. Hammond and Walbank 393 stresses Polybius’s prejudice against Philip over this episode.

78. Cf. Gruen, HW 375–76, with testimonia.

79. Cary l82.

80. Polyb. 7.9 passim; Livy 23.33.9, cf. 38.4, with Walbank, HC 2.42–56. Cf. Schmitt, Staatsverträge 528, pp. 245–50 (with full conspectus of testimonia) = Austin 61, pp. 119–21. The Roman version of this treaty (Livy ut supr., App. Mac. 1, Zonar. 9.4.3) has been generally rejected by modern scholars: see Will, HP² 2.84 (“unanimement et avec raison rejetée . . . ne mérite pas de discussion particulière”). Useful background material in A.–H. Chroust, C&M 15 (1954) 60–107; Walbank, Philip V 71–72; Hammond and Walbank 393–95.

81. Cf. Walbank, HC 2.44.

82. Polyb. 813–14 passim.

83. Gruen, HW 377, citing Livy 23.38.4–11.

84. Livy 24.40, Plut. Arat. 51, Zonar. 9.4.

85. Livy 24.40.17, Polyb. 8.1.6.

86. Moretti Iscrizioni 2.114, pp. 108–14 = Austin 74, pp. 136–38; cf. Walbank, Philip V 289 ff. This fragmentary inscription gives us a fascinating glimpse of Macedonian army regulations and discipline: the duties of patrols, the rules for surrendering booty, details of camp building, penalties for offenses ranging from losing equipment to sleeping on guard duty (a one-drachma fine, surprisingly lenient). Cf. Burstein, Translated Documents no. 66, pp. 88–90.

87. Livy 22.33.3. The historicity of the request has been doubted (cf. Gruen, HW 373–74 with n. 83), but on insufficient grounds.

88. Plut. Arat. 49.

89. Polyb. 7.12, Plut. Arat. 50.

90. But not, as is so often assumed, through a massacre conducted by Philip and Demetrius themselves: see, e.g., Errington, “Philip V” 36; and Walbank, Philip V 73, who further asserts that Philip seized Ithome instead of being allowed to sacrifice there under safe-conduct, as the Polybian tradition specifically states (Polyb. 7.12.1). The evidence of Pausanias, 4.29.1–5, 32.2, clearly refers to the subsequent attack on Ithome by Demetrius.

91. Polyb. 8.8.1, cf. 12.1; Plut. Arat. 51.

92. Polyb. 3.19.11; Paus. 4.29.1–5, cf. 32.2.

93. Polyb. 7.11.8.

94. Polyb. 7.11.10–12, 13.6–8, 14 passim; Plut. Arat. 49, 51; cf. Hammond and Walbank 397. We do not need to subscribe to Polybius’s psychological theory of μετάβολή in order to credit the picture of an ambitious and powerful Macedonian king giving rein to his latent savagery and turning, like so many of his predecessors, into a classic overreacher. At the same time he was still capable (in 215 or 214) of taking a personal interest in apparently unjustly disfranchised Thessalian citizens: IG IX.2 517; SIG³ 543.26–39 = Burstein, Translated Documents no. 65, pp. 87–88.

95. Polyb. 8.12.1–5, Plut. Arat. 52. Piper 88 appears, surprisingly, to believe this canard.

96. Livy 26.24.16; cf. Walbank, Philip V 80.

97. Livy 27.30.13; 29.12.3, 12–13; Polyb. 8.38. The capture of Lissos: Polyb. 8.13–14 passim, cf. Hammond and Walbank 398–99.

98. Livy 24.13.5; cf. Just. 29.4.4 for Tarentum as a possible bridgehead: accepted by Niese 2.475, and Holleaux, Rome 199–200, CAH VIII 123; contra, Walbank, Philip V 81–82.

99. Gruen, HW 377–78.

100. Schmitt, Staatsverträge 536, pp. 258–66; Moretti, Iscrizioni 2.87, pp. 45–48 = Austin 62, pp. 121–22, Bagnall and Derow 32, p. 65; also Livy 26.24.7–15 for what purports to be a somewhat fuller version, and 25.23.9, 26.24.1–8 for preceding negotiations. Translation and recent documentation in Sherk, Translated Documents 2, pp. 1–2, who stresses that the phraseology reflects a fairly literal translation of the original Latin text. See Hammond and Walbank 400–401, where it is well described as “a treaty of expediency between unscrupulous partners.”

101. Livy 26.24.1.

102. Polyb. 9.39.3; cf. Oost 39.

103. SIG³ 543; IG IX.2 517 = Austin 60, pp. 117–19.

104. Livy 27.29.

105. Polyb. 28.8, Livy 43.19.12–20.4 passim. For Mantinea, see Plut. Philop. 10, Polyb. 11.13–14.

106. App. Mac. 3.1.7; Polyb. 9.42.5–8, 11.5.6–8; Livy 28.7.4, 32.22.10.

107. The evidence for this period is scattered and confusing: well analyzed by Will, HP² 2.89–94. Cf. Holleaux, Rome 213–57, and CAH VIII 125–35; Walbank, Philip V 84–107; Hansen 46–48; Errington, Philopoemen 49 ff.; and, on Philopoemen’s army reforms, J. K. Anderson, CPh 62 (1967) 104 ff.

108. Polyb. 11.4–6, Livy 29.1.2; cf. Holleaux, CAH VIII 134–35, Rome 255 ff.

109. Polyb. 5.9; 9.30; 11.7.2–3.

110. Livy 29.12.1–4.

111. Livy 29.12 passim, cf. 31.18.4; Polyb. 16.34.7; Appl Mac. 3.2; Just. 29.4.11; Zonar. 9.11.7; cf. Schmitt, Staatsverträge 543, pp. 281–84; Badian, Foreign Clientelae 58–61.

112. Gruen, HW 381 with n. 130. Hammond and Walbank 409–10, 463 ff., argues for Philip’s retention of Lissos on the basis of numismatic evidence (Macedonian emblems on coins of the Selcë hoard), but the dating of these coins remains problematical.

113. Gruen’s reminder, HW 534, is salutary: “What matters is that rivalry and warfare, alignment and realignment among the Hellenistic powers proceeded almost without interruption after the peace of Phoenice; that western Asia Minor and the eastern and northern Aegean supplied deadly battlefields to settle or aggravate disputes; that cities and territory exchanged suzerains at an accelerated pace; that Philip, Rhodes, Pergamum, Prusias, and, to a lesser extent, Antiochus and Ptolemy embroiled themselves in dizzying quarrels. All this before anyone undertook to solicit the intervention of Rome.” The only exception known to me is the case of Scerdilaidas (see p. 296); and that was local and strategic rather than political in the larger sense.

114. See Shimron, Late Sparta 80–83; Piper 95 ff., 115–16; and cf. IG V.1 885, SIG³ 584. The literary sources all, almost certainly, derive from Polybius (see Polyb. 13.6–8; 16.13, 16.1–3, 17.1–3; Livy 29.12, 31–35 passim, esp. 34.3; Paus. 4.29.10–11; 7.8.4–5, 9.2; 8.50.5–51.2; Plut. Philop. 13–15, Flam. 13), and Polybius was flatly hostile to Nabis, whom he saw as the typical τϕύραννος. Modern writers, as Shimron points out, are almost all strongly partisan, either accepting the Polybian tradition, e.g., Aymard, Premiers rapports 33 ff., or else vindicating Nabis as an idealizing reformer, victim of unscrupulous propaganda: see J. Mundt, Nabis, König von Sparta (Münster, 1903), and Hadas, “Social Revolution” 65–68, 73–76, esp. 74 ff. For a more balanced view, see Texier, Nabis 103–5; and Piper 115–16. See also DS 27.1, 28.13. Evaluation of sources: Texier, Nabis 14–15, 19–20.

115. Texier, Nabis 17, who argues that he must have gone into exile with Cleomenes after Sellasia, and that it was only in Alexandria that he could have come into close contact with a Jewish intellectual community. Cf. Fraser 1.53–58, 84–86, 283–85, 805.

116. Homolle’s thesis, based on SIG³ 584 (see BCH 20 [1896] 504 ff., and Hdt. 6.67–70), has been widely, and I think rightly, accepted: see, e.g., Mossé, Tyrannie 183–84; Shimron, Late Sparta 83 n. 13 with further reff.; Texier, Nabis 16; Aymard, Premiers rapports 33 with n. 12; Piper 95 with n. 3.

117. Kraay and Hirmer no. 522, pl. 161. Nabis’s age is also determined by the fact that in 197 he had sons of marriageable age: Piper 95.

118. Polyb. 13.6.4.

119. DS 27.1, Polyb. 13.6–8, Livy 34.36.3, Paus. 4.29.10. Cf. Shimron, Late Sparta 73 ff.; and Texier, Nabis 19: “Sans doute Nabis procéda-t-il à son arrivée sur le trône à certaines épurations et fut-il obligé, sous peine d’être lui-même éliminé, de pratiquer une répression parfois brutale.” See also Aymard, Premiers rapports 36 n. 33, who points out that, for whatever reason, Nabis took no action against the exiled king Agesipolis (Livy 34.26.14).

120. Polyb. 13.6.3, 7.3–11; 16.13.1; Livy 34.26.12–13, 27.3–8, 32.12; cf. Aymard, Premiers rapports 34–35.

121. Livy 34.29.2–3, 35.5, 9, 36.3; 35.12.7; Polyb. 13.8.2. Nabis also made a treaty with Crete, thus winning ports of refuge on the island: Piper 99 with n. 28.

122. Polyb. 5.22.11, 23.10; Livy 34.34.2–4, 38.2; Paus. 1.13.6, 7.8.4–5, 9.5; cf. Shimron, Late Sparta 90–91 with n. 30.

123. Texier, Nabis 27.

124. Polyb. 21.9.1.

125. SIG³ 584. Cf. Homolle (n. 116 above).

126. Polyb. 16.13.1; Livy 34.31.11, 14; 32.9; 35.4; 36.6; 38.34.2; Piper 96–98; Aymard, Premiers rapports 35 with n. 25; cf. DS 27.1. As Piper pertinently asks (p. 98) “How many [helots] were freed and what was their status?” The answers seem to be: far from all of them, and highly dubious. The helot system in fact survived until Roman times.

127. Polyb. 13.8.2: Nabis apparently took a cut of their plunder. He also (Polyb. 13.6.6f.) employed them to carry out assassinations of exiled Spartans on his behalf; cf. Polyb. 13.6.4, 8.2; DS 27.1; Livy 34.35.6. Doubts have been cast by scholars on the validity of this evidence; but since the activities attributed to Nabis are commonplaces today—and indeed on ideological grounds—among a number of theoretically civilized countries, I see no reason to question our ancient testimony.

128. Polyb. 13.6–8, Plut. Philop. 12. Both Aymard, Premiers rapports 36–37 n. 33, and Texier, Nabis 19, reject the iron maiden out of hand, even though Aymard, for one, is well aware of “la fertilité d’invention humaine en matière de tortures,” which he characterizes, correctly, as “illimitée.” For Apia, cf. Walbank, HC 1.265.

129. Polyb. 16.13.3; Livy 34.32.16, 35.6; Plut. Philop. 12; Paus. 4.29.10, 8.50.5; cf. Errington, Philopoemen 80–81; Mundt (above, n. 114) 33; Niese 2.566; Piper 99–100.

130. Polyb. 16.36–37 passim; cf. Aymard, Premiers rapports 43 ff.

131. Plut. Philop. 13, Paus. 8.50.6.

132. Polyb. 16.36–37 passim; Paus. 4.29.10, 8.50.5.

133. The inhabitants are said to have run so short of food that they were reduced to growing wheat in the streets: Plut. Philop. 13.

134. Livy 34.40–43 passim.

135. Polyb. 13.8.2, Livy 34.32.18–36.3.

136. Activities of Antiochus are now attested both in Caria and at Teos: Polyb. 15.35.13; cf. Welles, Royal Correspondence no. 38, pp. 165–69 = Burstein, Translated Documents no. 33, pp. 43–44; Austin no. 151, pp. 253–54. It may have been about this time, too, that he proposed the peremptory removal of 2,000 Jewish families from Babylonia to Lydia and Phrygia (which had been in revolt) as a stabilizing influence: Joseph. AJ 12.148–53.

137. The discrepancy of a year between the date given by the Egyptian records (204) and the literary sources (all derived from Polybius?: 203) has provoked much discussion: for a summary see Will, HP² 2.108–11. In particular it has been suggested, on the evidence of the power struggle after Ptolemy IV’s death, that any announcement of that death was suppressed for a considerable time: see, e.g., Briscoe Commentary (1973) 36, and in CR, n.s., 16 (1966) 98–100, dating the death to 28 Nov. 205 and its announcement to 8 Sept. 203. Fullest and most convincing discussion in Schmitt, Untersuchungen chap. 4, 189–237 (summary of conclusions, p. 236), who places both Ptolemy IV’s death and Ptolemy V’s succession in the summer of 204. Cf. Walbank, Selected Papers 38–55, with the updated bibliography of n. 125.

138. Jaehne, “Politische Aktivität” 416 ff.

139. Ibid. 419 ff.

140. Polyb. 15.25–36 passim; cf. Just. 30.2.7–8.

141. Cf. Jaehne, “Politische Aktivität” 417 with reff.

142. Polyb. 15.25.13–15.

143. Schmitt, Staatsverträge 547, pp. 288–91; cf. Austin 152, pp. 254–55; Polyb. 3.2.8, 15.20.2–6, 16.1.8; Livy 31.14.5; Trog. Prol. 30; Just. 30.2.8; App. Mac. 4 (though he gets the wrong Ptolemy!).

144. Polyb. 15.20.6.

145. Polyb. 16.18–19 (largely devoted to a refutation of the historian Zeno of Rhodes), Just. 31.1.1–2, Joseph. AJ 12.130 ff.

146. The notion that Rome ca. 200 acquired some kind of tutelary control over Egypt’s young Ptolemy V through M. Aemilius Lepidus is an anachronistic fiction unknown to Polybius or Livy: see Just. 30.2.8, 3.1, 4; 31.1.2; Val. Max. 6.6.1; cf. Gruen, HW 680–82. See also Sherk, Translated Documents 3, pp. 2–3, who further cites the evidence of a denarius, minted in 61 B.C. by M. Aemilius Lepidus, the future triumvir, and describing his ancestor as “guardian of the king.” Even if the title was ever bestowed, its effective force must have been dubious, and in fact it is far more likely to have originated in subsequent retrospective propaganda.

147. Polyb. 16.27.5; App. Mac. 4; Just. 30.3.3–4, 31.1.2.

148. Livy 33.19.8 (Coele-Syria), 32.19.8–11 (coastal raiding), 32.8.9–16 (invasion of Pergamene territory); cf. Mastrocinque, “Osservazioni” 307 ff., esp. 322. Handouts (via Laodice III) to Iasos: Burstein, Translated Documents no. 36, pp. 47–48, with further reff.

149. Polyb. 18.47.1–4, Livy 33.34.1–4. The rebuilding of Lysimacheia: Polyb. 18.51.8; Livy 33.41.4, 36.7.15. Its use as a military base: Livy 36.33.6, App. Syr. 21.

150. Cf. Will, HP² 2.190–92.

151. Livy 35.13.4.

152. So Polyb. 28.20.9; cf. App. Syr. 5, but also Polyb. 28.1.2–3.

153. Errington, Dawn 160.

154. Polyb. 18.49–52 passim, Livy 33.39–41 passim.

155. The construction of such a fleet was in his mind as early as 207, when Livy (28.8.14), retailing an admitted rumor, reports that he was said then to be laying down a hundred warships in the naval dockyards at Cassandreia. However, there is no sign of their completion at that time. Cf. Holleaux, Rome 246 with n. 2.

156. See Polyb. 16.2.9 for the figures given for Philip’s fleet at the battle of Chios: 53 decked warships, 150 cutters (λέμβοι), and an indeterminate number of other fighting vessels. Walbank, HC 2.505, argues, on the basis of 16.6.4, 7.2, that his fleet “consisted mainly no doubt of quinqueremes and quadriremes,” which seems dubious. For Philip’s naval offensive in general see Hammond and Walbank 412–16.

157. DS 28.1; cf. Walbank, Philip V chap. 4, 108 ff., “Sea-Power” 228–33, Hammond and Walbank 411.

158. Polyb. 13.3–5, 18.54.8; DS 28.1–2; Polyaen. 5.17; cf. Errington, Philopoemen 34 ff.

159. Livy 31.15.8, Polyb. 18.54.8.

160. Polyb. 18.54.7–11.

161. Cf. Holleaux, Rome 284–85 with n. 5.

162. Polyb. 15.24.1–6; Livy 33.30.3; cf. Hammond and Walbank 413.

163. Polyb. 15.21–23 passim; 18.2.4, 3.11–12, 4.7, 5.4; Livy 32.33.15, 34.6; Strabo 12.4.3 (C.564).

164. Walbank, “Sea-Power” 229–30.

165. Polyb. 16.2.4, 9; Livy 31.31.4; App. Mac. 4.

166. Polyb. 16.10.1, 14.5–15.8; Walbank, HC 2.497–98, following Holleaux, Études 4.211 ff., and reversing his previous, more sensible judgment in Philip V 118–24, 307–8, places Lade after the battle of Chios. I am not convinced by their circumstantial arguments. Philip’s activities make far better strategic sense if the victory off Lade and the attack on Pergamene territory precede his crushing defeat off Chios: so, rightly, Berthold, “Lade.”

167. Polyb. 16.1, DS 28.5.

168. Polyb. 15.20.3, 22.3; 16.1.1–6, 24.4; and elsewhere.

169. See, e.g., Kraay and Hirmer no. 577, pl. 175; Head et al. V.B.5, p. 62 and pl. 35.

170. Cf. Cary 187.

171. Polyb. 16.2–8 passim; cf. 16.7.1–2, 8.6.

172. Polyb. 16.15.6, 24.9; cf. Walbank HC 2.512, 519.

173. Polyb. 16.24.1–8.

174. Polyb. 16.24.3, Livy 31.2.1–2, Just. 30.3.5; cf. Will, HP² 2.128–30. Berthold, Rhodes 126, remarks that “with Rhodes and Pergamum as allies the Romans could face Philip under a philhellenic banner, something all but impossible had they been allied with the Aetolians alone.” But how far would this have weighed with the Senate?

175. Polyaen. 4.18.12: he sent an Egyptian deserter to tell Attalus and the Rhodians that he was planning an attack for the following day, and then slipped out at night, leaving numerous campfires burning while his opponents were busily preparing their ships for battle, and to this end had called in the vessels guarding the harbor mouth.

176. Livy 31.14.9–10.

177. Livy 31.15.5, Polyb. 16.26.9–10.

178. Polyb. 16.25.9.

179. Polyb. 16.25.4 ff., 26.5 ff.; Livy 31.15.3–5.

180. Livy 31.15.8, Polyb. 16.26.10.

181. Livy 31.45.1–8.

182. Polyb. 16.27.1–5.

183. Livy 36.16.1–2.

184. Livy 31.16.4–6, 29.3.

185. Livy 31.16.6–17.11, 18.6–8; cf. 16.30–33 passim, 34.7–12.

186. Polyb. 16.34.1–7, Livy 31.18.1–5; cf. Gruen, HW 393 with n. 198.

187. Polyb. 16.34.7–12.

188. Livy 31.6.1–8.4.

189. Livy 31.18.9, 22.4.

190. Livy 31.18.9.

191. Badian, Foreign Clientelae 69.

192. Holleaux, Rome 306 ff.; cf. Gruen, HW 387 n. 162, for a list of further adherents to this thesis. Hammond and Walbank 419 is sensibly skeptical.

193. Polyb. 15.20.6.

194. For a cogent analysis of these and other theories, see Gruen, HW 382–98.

195. Livy 31.3.4–6 suggests this.

196. Walbank, Philip V 131–32.

197. Badian, Foreign Clientelae 66 ff.

198. Gruen, HW 397.

199. Badian, Foreign Clientelae 63–69.

200. Cf. Cary 189.

201. Polyb. 16.35.

202. Plut. Philop. 12, Just. 29.4.11, Paus. 8.50.4; cf. Deininger 42 ff.

203. Livy 32.19.2.

204. Livy 32.32.1–33.2, Polyb. 16.35; cf. Aymard, Premiers rapports 66–69, 78–102.

205. Livy 31.25.3–11, 32.19.6; cf. Gruen, HW 446.

206. Livy 31.32.5, 40.9–41.1. On Philip’s (understandable) upbraiding of the Achaean deserters to Rome for gross ingratitude and abuse of εὐεργεσἱαι, see Polyb. 18.6.5–7.

207. Livy 31.44.2–9; cf. Briscoe, Commentary (1973) 150 ff.; and, for archaeological evidence of these activities (e.g., the chiseling-off of names from inscriptions, and the destruction of statues: cf. above, pp. 48–49) Camp 167–68.

208. E.g., by Cary 190.

209. Polyb. 10.26.1–2; cf. Briscoe, “Rome” 3; Mendels, “Polybius” 55 ff.; Green, Alexander 17.

210. Livy 31.24.4–18, 26 passim.

211. Livy 31.22–46 passim, 32.3–6; cf. Walbank, Philip V 138–51.

212. Will, HP² 2.153.

213. Badian, Titus, an incisive and cogent dismissal of much romantic flimflam built up round the figure of Flamininus: see esp. 53 ff.

214. Livy 32.10.1–8, DS 28.11, App. Mac. 5, Plut. Flam. 3; cf. Hammond and Walbank 424.

215. Cf. Seager, “Freedom” 108.

216. Polyb. 18.9.1; cf. Badian, Foreign Clientelae 71–72.

217. Plut. Flam. 5, Livy 32.14.5–8. This was policy pure and simple: Flamininus could be brutal enough when it suited him.

218. Polyb. 18.1–12 passim, Livy 32.32.5–37 passim, Plut. Flam. 5–7.

219. Livy 32.37 passim, App. Mac. 8.

220. Livy 32.38.2–39.10 passim. As Shimron, Late Sparta 91, says, “one can hardly absolve Nabis of the charge of duplicity; even if he estimated Philip’s chances correctly, he acted treacherously.” See also Gruen, HW 446–47; Aymard, Premiers rapports 132 ff.; Piper 102–4; and esp. Texier, Nabis chap. 2, 45–66. It is interesting that Philip made no objection to the Roman demand that he abandon Argos (Polyb. 18.6.8): they can hardly have foreseen his giving the city away to Nabis. Clearly he wanted, at all costs, to keep it out of the hands of the Achaean League. Texier’s thesis (pp. 53 ff.) that Nabis was bent on exporting the Spartiate revolution to Argos is hard to sustain in detail. His main concern in Argos was not so much ideological as financial: what he needed was hard cash, and he relied on the propertied classes to supply it. Those who paid up avoided maltreatment, but (Livy 32.38.8; cf. 40.10–11) “quos occulere aut retrahere aliquid suspicio fuit, in seruilem modum lacerati atque extorti.”

221. Livy 32.33.1–2, Polyb. 18.42.6–7. As Gruen, HW 443, says, “the patres had no intention of binding their hands for the future.”

222. Polyb. 18.31.9–12.

223. Polyb. 18.18–27, 28–32 (tactical disquisition on legion vs. phalanx; cf. M. M. Markle, AJA 81 [1977] 323–39); Livy 33.3–10; Plut. Flam. 7–8. The irresistibility of the phalanx charge: Polyb. 18.29.1, 30.11; Plut. Aem. Paull. 20; Livy 44.41.6–7. For the topography of Cynoscephalae, see W. K. Pritchett, “The Battle of Kynoskephalai in 197 B.C.,” Studies in Ancient Greek Topography, part 2, Battlefields (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1969), 133–44. The campaign and battle: Hammond and Walbank 432–43, with figs. 14 and 15.

224. Polyb. 18.33.

225. As early as 198 Antiochus had been encroaching on the territory of Pergamon (above, p. 304): Livy 32.8.9–16, 27.1; cf. Gruen, HW 538–39 with n. 43, who rightly stresses the authenticity of this episode.

226. Will, HP² 2.161–64 with full testimonia; cf. Errington, Philopoemen 70 ff. See in particular Polyb. 18.33–34, 44, and Livy 33.11–13, 24, 30, for the rhetoric of the occasion.

227. Seager, “Freedom” 109.

228. Polyb. 18.46.5. For examples of individual decrees, see, e.g., SIG³ 612, 618 = Sherk, Translated Documents 14–15, pp. 13–15.

229. Sherk, Roman Documents 33, pp. 199, 211–13; Badian, Titus 54 ff.

230. Polyb. 18.46–47; Livy 33.32–34; App. Mac. 9; Plut. Flam. 10, 16–17. For a representative selection of honors to Flamininus, see Sherk, Translated Documents 6, pp. 6–7, citing instances from Chalcis, Corinth, Gytheion, Eretria, Delphi, Argos, and Thessaly (Scotoussa) in the form of commemorative inscriptions. Cf. Gruen, HW 167.

231. Livy 34.49.11 ff.; cf. Préaux, “Alexandrie” 1.158–59; Badian, Foreign Clientelae 73–74; Gruen, HW 172–73.

232. Polyb. 18.45.

233. Attalus’s death: Livy 33.1–2 passim, 21.1–5; Plut. Flam. 6; Zonar. 9.16; cf. Hansen 67. The succession: Polyb. 32.8.3.

Chapter 19. The Spread of Hellenism: Exploration, Assimilation, Colonialism; or, The Dog That Barked in the Night

1. The first coherent statement of Droysen’s thesis appeared in the preface to the first edition of his Geschichte der Diadochen (Gotha, 1836), and was not reprinted, either in the revised Geschichte des Hellenismus (Gotha, 1877) or later. See A. Bouché-Leclercq’s remarks in the introduction (pp. vii ff.) to his translation of the 1877 work (Paris, 1883); and, on Droysen and Hellenism in general, B. Bravo, Philologie, histoire, philosophie de l’histoire: Étude sur J. G. Droysen, historien de l’antiquité (Wroclaw, Warsaw, and Krakow, 1968), esp. 338–49. A convenient summary in Préaux, Monde 1.7 ff.

2. Diog. Laert. 6.63, 72; cf. Democr. fr. 68[55] B 247 D–K.

3. The later Stoics tried to get round this inherent contradiction by arguing that any good man, whatever his ethnic affiliation, was a citizen of the human world community, a dilution so vast that it became virtually meaningless, like Caracalla’s extension of Roman citizenship throughout the empire. Cf. Cic. De Div. 3.19.64 = SVF 3.333: “Mundum autem censent . . . ease quasi communem urbem et ciuitatem hominum et deorum.” See also Clem. Alex. Strom. 4.26 = SVF 3.327; and Philo, SVF 3.323: ἠ μἐν γἀρ μεγαλόπολις ὅδε ό κόσμος ἐστί.

4. Préaux, Monde 2.555–56; Launey 1.362 (only six known Macedonian terms, and five of them military!).

5. Avi-Yonah 138. See, e.g., Hdt. 1.60.3; and cf. R. Müller, Klio 60 (1978) 183 ff.

6. R. R. R. Smith, “Greeks, Foreigners” 24–25.

7. Arist. Eth. Nic. 1145^a30, 1149^a10; Pol. 1252^b8, 1327^b23 ff; fr. 658 Rose.

8. Aristoph. Ach. 100 ff., Thesm. 1001 ff.; Eur. Orest. 1369 ff.

9. Orat. 4 (Panegyr.) 50; cf. 9 (Evag.) 47 ff.

10. Bikerman 97; Mørkholm, Antiochus IV 128; Avi-Yonah 182.

11. Meleager, AP 7.417.5–6, 419.7–8. For an excellent analysis of the complex problems inherent in the Hellenization of Syria, see Fergus Millar, in Kuhrt and Sherwin-White, chap. 5, pp. 110–33.

12. PZenCol. 66 = Austin 245, p. 418; Peremans, in Reverdin 138.

13. PYale 46, col. 1.13; cf. Rostovtzeff, SEH 3.1644.

14. Polyb. 5.83.7; cf. Préaux, Monde 2.559; Avi-Yonah 160; Walbank, CAH VII².1 70. There are endless Egyptian texts extolling the scribe’s life as a refuge from hardship: see, e.g., Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. 2, The New Kingdom (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1976), pt. 5, pp. 167 ff.; CAH II³.2, chap. 25, §4. On marriage customs and citizenship, see Fraser 1.52 ff., 65 ff., 71 ff., 2.155 n. 239; Zanker 137–38, with nn. 48, 50, and further literature there cited. For an exhaustive survey of the evidence (such as it is) for bilingualism in Ptolemaic Egypt, see W. Peremans, “Le bilinguisme dans les relations Gréco-Égyptiennes sous les Lagides,” in Van’t Dack et al. 253–80; and, for the survival of pharaonic methods under the Ptolemies, L. Koenen, ibid. 149 ff. For a thorough refutation of the supposed early “Egyptianizing” policy of Ptolemy I as satrap, see Turner, CAH VII².1 125–27.

15. See, e.g., Fraser 1.70–85.

16. For a stimulating and informative introduction to this aspect of ancient music, which does its best with such evidence, direct or comparative, as is available, see H. Husmann, Grundlagen der antiken und orientalischen Musikkultur (Berlin, 1961).

17. Ptol. Georg. 6.12.6 Nobbe; Bernard, “Aï Khanum” 92, now confirmed by further excavation: see Leriche 252 ff. (terminus ante quem of 329), and Bernard, “Campagne” (1971) 452 (1975) 195 ff.

18. Bernard, “Aï Khanum” 71; Arr. Anab. 4.22.3.

19. Hdt. 2.50; Plato, Tim. 21E–23C; Arist. Pol. 1329^b.

20. Eddy p. vii and passim; Treloar 87; Ruben 1087: “Ihr kultureller Einfluss auf Indien war gering.”

21. Habicht, “Herrschende Gesellschaft” 1–16. A somewhat more optimistic picture is drawn by Samuel, From Athens 110–17.

22. This habit, so totally alien to Oriental feelings for physical pudeur, extended even to the Hellenizing Jews: see below, pp. 508–10.

23. Macedonian resentment at Alexander’s Orientalizing policy and personal behavior (Green, Alexander 333 ff.) was very far from being an isolated instance: see Plato, Laws 3.693A, Strabo 17.1.12 (C.797; = Polyb. 34.14.1–5), Livy 38.17.9–13, Athen. 4.131b–c (Anaxandrides satirizing Iphicrates’ marriage to the king of Thrace’s “savage” daughter). Good case histories of upward mobility among Egyptians in the civil service and armed forces are documented by Lewis, chaps. 7 and 8, pp. 104–52.

24. Strabo 1.4.9 (C.797); cf. Baldry, in Reverdin 191–92.

25. Even in this area we find ethnic prejudices. The author of the pseudo-Platonic dialogue Epinomis, though well aware (987A–C) of the debt Greek astronomy owed to Egypt and Babylon, nevertheless asserts (987D–E; cf. Plato, Tim. 24C) not only that the Greek physical environment is most propitious “for excellence” (πρὸς ἀρετήν), but that “whatever Greeks take over from barbarians, they finally make over into something better” (ὅ τί περ ἄν Ἕλληνες βαρβάρων παραλάβωσι, κάλλιον τοῦτο εἰς τέλος ἀπεργάζονται).

26. Préaux, Monde 2.562–65.

27. Cf. ibid. 2.550 ff.

28. Tcherikover 56 ff.; Fraser 1.57, 2.141 n. 162.

29. Fraser 1.283–84, 298.

30. Fraser 1.687–90: at least the Law and the Pentateuch will have been available, in Greek, for synagogue use, by the mid-third century. For an excellent English version of, and commentary on, the so-called Letter of Aristeas (mid-2d c. B.C.?) purporting to describe the genesis of these translations, see Bartlett 11–34.

31. Fraser (2.1000–1002 n. 255) can produce only one even remotely cogent echo, that between Callim. Ep. 55 (56) = AP 6.148, and Isaiah 14.12 on the fall of Hesperus (Lucifer), the Morning Star: Ἕσπερε, πῶς ἒπεσες = πῶς ἐξέπεσεν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὁ Ἑωσϕόρος. He argues that Callimachus may, in the course of his duties in the Library, have read a translation of Isaiah, which is possible. But the influence still remains minimal. It is also worth noting that the epigram concerns the dedication of a lamp to the “god of Canopus,” i.e., Sarapis (Paus. 2.4.6), a Graeco-Egyptian deity (cf. p. 406); so that Callimachus may be in fact making a sly syncretic joke at the expense of the notoriously separatist Jews. Koenen’s efforts, in Van’t Dack et al. 174 ff., to link Callimachus’s Hymn to Delian Apollo with the Oracle of the Potter (see p. 323) seems to me speculative at best.

32. Fraser 1.707–8, 2.987 n. 203; text in J. Wieneke, “Ezechielis Iudaei Poetae Alexandrini Fabulae Quae Inscribitur Ἐξαγωγή Fragmenta” (diss., Münster, 1931). See also The Exagoge of Ezekiel, ed. and tr. H. Jacobson (Cambridge, 1983). For Philo and Theodotus, see Lloyd-Jones and Parsons 688, 757–64; cf. Lloyd-Jones 61–62, who rightly describes Philo’s style as “involved and pretentious.” On the lack of cross-fertilization in literary matters between Greeks and Egyptians, see Samuel, From Athens 71 ff., who points out, inter alia, that, on the evidence of the papyri, Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt not only ignored Egyptian literature, but took very little heed of contemporary Greek writing either, preferring to concentrate on the established classics, from Homer through the fifth century B.C. (pp. 67 ff.)—“another aspect of the aversion to change and lack of any interest in growth.” Ludwig Koenen’s recent attempt to prove substantial cross-cultural influence (in Van’t Dack et al. 145–49) is a rather desperate exercise in barrel scraping. He throws in Manetho (see above, p. 190), the Isis aretalogies, Hermetic as well as Judaeo-Christian literature, and a far-fetched attempt to correlate the so-called Petubastis Cycle with Homeric epic. Most of this material is late; none of it affects my main point. Koenen’s claim (p. 151) that “die Griechen . . . bemühten sich . . . ägyptische Traditionen zu verstehen; dabei knüpften sie an Kunst, Literatur und Vorstellungen der Ägypter an und verglichen sie mit eigenen Traditionen” is, as a generalization, simply not supported by the evidence.

33. Hor. Epist. 2.1.156–57: the passage that follows testifies eloquently to the prevalent sense of inferiority among Romans confronted with Greek literature.

34. R. E. Smith, The Failure of the Roman Republic (Cambridge, 1955) 12.

35. Cato ap. Plin. HN 29.14, cf. 8.82, 21.178, 28.112, 29.11; Cic. Tusc. Disp. 2.60, De Rep. 1.5, Pro Flac. 16, 19, 24; and the famous tirade by Juvenal, Sat. 3.58–83; cf. Wardman 6–13.

36. Polyb. 31.25.4, 6–7; cf. 39.1.10; also, e.g., 39.1.1–4; and see Cic. Tusc. Disp. 2.27.

37. Cf. above, p. 309, with chap. 18 n. 207.

38. Livy 31.34.8, Pliny HN 29.14, Aul. Gell. NA 13.9.4. The Greeks also sometimes referred to the Romans as Ὀπικοί, i.e., Oscans, with the implication of uncouthness.

39. Cic. Tusc. Disp. 1.1: “meum semper iudicium fuit omnia nostros aut inuenisse per se sapientius quam Graecos aut accepta ab illis fecisse meliora—quae quidem digna statuissent in quibus elaborarent.”

40. Livy 38.17.11. The epithet μιξοβάρβαρος, known from the fifth century onwards (cf. Eur. Phoen. 138; Xen. Hell. 2.1.15; Plato, Menex. 245D), always recognized the possibility of assimilation, though it leaves a certain semantic ambivalence between the notions of a Greek going native and a Hellenizing barbarian. Cf. the corresponding epithet μιξέλλην (Polyb. 1.67.7).

41. Juv. Sat. 3.58–125.

42. Kreissig, “Landed Property” 5–26; Schiffmann 203 ff., esp. 209–10.

43. Fraser 1.54, 107–8; Zanker 139–40.

44. Arr. Anab. 7.4.4–8; cf. App. Syr. 5; Plut. Alex. 70, Mor. 329D–E; Just. 12.10.9–10; Chares of Mytilene ap. Athen. 12.538b–539a; DS 17.107.6.

45. Cf. Briant, “Colonisation” 91–92, analyzing “tout un processus qui tendait à fermer la communauté et à exclure les indigènes.” Sherwin-White (in Kuhrt and Sherwin-White, p. 30), while arguing that “there is more evidence of Seleucid promotion of Greek culture . . . in non-Greek contexts than is at present admitted,” nevertheless then goes on to speak of “the Seleucids’ imposition of specifically Greek cultural traditions to create a recognisably Greek cultural activity for Greek and hellenised inhabitants of their empire” (Italics mine).

46. Avi-Yonah 125.

47. Citizenship, in Alexandria and elsewhere, to avoid ethnic dilution was frequently restricted to the offspring of two full citizens (Avi-Yonah 131), and in any case was hedged about with checks and provisos, more often than not including a formal assembly vote (Avi-Yonah 132–33). Hence in part the prevalence of resident aliens (μέτοικοι, metics). Cf. also Bell, Egypt 71; Fraser 1.77, 2.160 n. 281.

48. Avi-Yonah 126–28. In Memphis, that ancient, multiracial city (Strabo 17.1.32 [C.8077]), the former pharaonic capital, integration seems to have come much more easily: see D. J. Thompson, Memphis chap. 3, pp. 82 ff.

49. See SEG 7 (1934) 38, 39, for “Aristeas, also Ardybelteios” (= “the minister Belit”), who served in this capacity at Babylon in 109.

50. Avi-Yonah 129. For Diotimus, see Burstein, Translated Documents no. 34, pp. 45–46, and J. K. Davies, CAH VII².1 258, who seriously overestimates the significance of non-Greek athletic victors in Greece.

51. Tac. Ann. 6.42: “Seleucenses . . . ciuitas potens . . . neque in barbarum corrupta sed conditoris Seleuci retinens.” Cf. Avi-Yonah 130.

52. Cavafy, ∏οιήματα A’ 37 = Collected Poems 72–73 (“Philhellene”).

53. Avi-Yonah 178.

54. OGIS 352, IG IV² 591.

55. Sedlar 66.

56. Narain 96 with reff.

57. As suggested by the Questions of King Milinda, ca. 150–100 (“Milinda” was the name by which Menander passed into Indian tradition); cf. Sedlar 64.

58. Narain 97–100; Woodcock, chap. 6, 94 ff.; Wheeler 163.

59. Cf. F. Maraini, Where Four Worlds Meet (London, 1964) 71, with pls. 4–5 between pp. 72 and 73.

60. Narain 11. Baldry, in Reverdin 184 ff., argues for the possibility that this general process of absorption, especially on the outer fringes of the Seleucid empire and in Alexandria, is reflected in the increasing popularity of “cosmopolitanism” in Greek thought (cf. p. 388), the idea of a morality transcending narrow ethnic boundaries; but since such symptoms began to appear much earlier, I suspect that the phenomenon, if not a case of cart before horse, may at least have been far more symbiotic than Baldry supposes.

61. Above, p. 312, with n. 1.

62. Eddy 328.

63. Eddy 307, 309–10, 315–16; Bowman 30–31. Text in L. Koenen, ZPE 2 (1968) 178–209 with pls. 3–6 = Burstein, Translated Documents no. 106, pp. 136–39. Cf. Koenen, in Van’t Dack et al. 174–89. For arguments in favor of a later date, see Koenen, ibid. 148 with n. 18.

64. Polyb. 34.14.1–6 = Strabo 17.1.12 (C.797) characterizes the Alexandrians as “not clearly polis-minded” in the mid-second century—even if preferable, on balance, to the natives and mercenaries—“but nevertheless, though a mixed lot, still Greek by origin, and mindful of the customs common to the Greeks.” His claim that Ptolemy VIII Physcon purged this group (ca. 145/4; cf. p. 538) indicates that what he had in mind was the top intellectual layer, since we know that these formed Physcon’s chief target (cf. Menecles of Barca ap. Athen. 4.184b–c = FGrH 270 F 9). Afterwards, he says, things got worse; and Strabo (17.1.13 [c.798]) confirms this for the Augustan period.

65. Fraser 1.71, 509, 683–84, 716; cf. Peremans, in Reverdin 137–42, 151. On the Sibylline Oracles, see Bartlett 35–55, esp. 38–39, 42 ff., discussing Bk. 3.

66. Eddy 335.

67. Eddy 59, 324.

68. Eddy 112–13.

69. Eddy 12–19; cf. in particular Oracula Sibyllina 3.388 ff., cited by Eddy, p. 12 n. 17.

70. Plut. Mor. 328E, in a fulsome essay “The Fortune or Virtue of Alexander.”

71. See chap. 4, “Barbarian Receptivity,” pp. 30–44 passim: the giveaway remark about the “upper classes” comes on p. 30. A similar admission is made by E. Will, “Monde hellénistique” (1975) 508, even for “l’Asie méditerranéenne urbanisée”; and cf. Préaux, Monde 2.250.

72. Cf. Avi-Yonah 157.

73. Cavafy, “A Prince from Western Libya” (∏οιήματα B’ 68) and “Returning from Greece,” Collected Poems 298–99, 368–69.

74. Hadas, Hellenistic Culture 45; cf. Avi-Yonah 181.

75. Cf. the interesting comments of Eddy, p. 334: “The serious struggle in the East was the fight against the Makedonian kings, and against their economic and military agents.” I am not so sure as he is, however, that “everywhere parts of Greek culture, economic innovations, bureaucratic organisations, the methods and styles of artists, even certain religious ideas, were borrowed by the Orient and made a part of its various cultures.” That this process on occasion took place is certain; that it was as pandemic as Eddy suggests I very much doubt. The aperçu about Arabs and Jews I owe (among many other substantial debts) to a percipient comment by Dr. August Frugé.

76. Peremans, in Reverdin 137.

77. Ibid. 135.

78. See Kuhrt, in Kuhrt and Sherwin-White 56. Greek texts of Manetho (no. 609) and Berossos (no. 680) in FGrH IIIC, pp. 5–112, 364–97; Manetho is also available in a Loeb edition (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1940), translated by W. G. Waddell.

79. Cf. Peremans, in Reverdin 138 ff.; Rostovtzeff, SEH 2.1096.

80. Ants: Hdt. 3.102–5. Hyperboreans: Pind. Ol. 3.14, 8.47, Pyth. 10.31, Isthm. 5.22; Hdt. 4.13; schol. Ap. Rhod. 4.28.6. Skiapods: Aristoph. Birds 1553 and schol. RV ad loc.; Suda and Steph. Byz. s.v. Σκίαποδες; cf. Plin. HN 7.23. Long penis: Ctes. Ind. 24 (ed. Henry). In general see Cary and Warmington, chap. 10 “Imaginary Discoveries,” pp. 194 ff.

81. Strabo 2.1.9 (C.70); cf. 15.1.36 (C.702).

82. Hdt. 4.42; cf. Cary and Warmington 87–95; Carpenter 71–74, 103–5. For Eudoxus of Cyzicus, see Strabo 2.3.4 (C.98–100); he had been commissioned to explore the Indian trade route by Ptolemy VIII Physcon.

83. Arr. Anab. 5.26.1–2.

84. DS 5.21–23 passim. On Pytheas in general see Carpenter, chap. 5, 143–98, and especially, on the problem of his date, pp. 145–51: Carpenter argues for 240, but does not dispose satisfactorily of all the evidence suggesting an earlier period.

85. Strabo 2.4.1 (C.104). On ice-sludge, see the report of Fridtjof-Nansen, cited by Carpenter, 179–80.

86. Ap. Strabo 2.4.2 (C.104).

87. Cary and Warmington 33. Carpenter, who believes Pytheas was sent to reopen Greek commerce in the Atlantic after Rome’s removal of the Carthaginian threat, is forced to ignore the evidence of Dicaearchus (cf. n. 86 above).

88. Pliny HN 6.100-106 passim. For Ptolemy VIII’s investigation of the eastern sea routes, see above, n. 82. Hippalos: Carpenter 242–44. Trade with India: Cary and Warmington 81. Periodicity of the monsoons: Fraser 1.181–84.

89. Tarn and Griffith 243 ff. give an excellent brief survey.

90. OGIS 86 = Austin 279, p. 459; cf. Scullard 123 ff. Fraser (1.175 ff., 2.299 ff.) and Scullard (126–37, with nn. 69–79) discuss the Ptolemies’ elephant hunting and conveniently tabulate the scattered evidence.

91. Polyb. 5.84.5.

92. J. O. Thomson, A History of Ancient Geography (Cambridge, 1948) 159–62; Tarn and Griffith 302. See also Dilke 31–35 with fig. 4.

93. Casson, Travel 117; cf. Samuel, From Athens 101 ff., confirming the Greek base of this “international” tradition. Examples of Egyptianizing of Greek art cited by Koenen in Van’t Dack et al. 144–45. Of such Vermischung he tells us “Sollen hier nur einige Beispiele aufgezählt werden”: the suspicion arises that this is because no other ones exist.

94. See, e.g., Will, HP² 2.350–52 for a fairly up-to-date summary; the most important theories will be found in Tarn, Greeks 82 ff.; Narain 21 ff.; Simonetta 154 ff.; Mørkholm, Antiochus IV 172 ff.; and, most recently, Holt, “Euthydemid Coinage” 19 ff., 31 ff., who revives (in my opinion with considerable plausibility) the currently unpopular theory that Diodotus I minted in Antiochus II’s name, whereas his son, Diodotus II, abandoned all pretense of Seleucid vassalage: cf. Tarn, Greeks 72. The parallel with Philetairos and his successors in Pergamon scarcely needs stressing. Holt, “Discovering the Lost History” 3–28, provides both an excellent survey of the scholarship and a very comprehensive bibliography. Particularly useful is the section on coins (including forgeries) and inscriptions (pp. 7–9). See now Pollitt, AHA, app. 4, 284–89.

95. Hdt. 4.204, 6.9; Strabo 11.11.4 (C.518), 14.1.5 (C.634); Plut. Mor. 557B; QC 7.5.28–35; cf. Narain 2 ff.

96. Tarn, Greeks 119–20.

97. DS 17.99.5–6, QC 9.7.1–11. See Holt, Alexander 82–86. The rebels actually seized the satrapal capital of Bactra.

98. DS 18.4.8, 7.1–9. As Holt, Alexander 85, stresses, “these events make it certain that Bactria-Sogdiana, indeed much of the east, was in turmoil by the time of Alexander’s death.” His excellent account of the 323 campaign (pp. 88–91) supersedes all others.

99. DS 18.39.6, 19.48.1; Just. 41.4.1; cf. Bevan, House of Seleucus 1.277–78.

100. Just. 15.4.11: “auctis ex uictoria uiribus Bactrianos expugnauit.”

101. Tarn, Greeks 72.

102. Just. 41.4.5, Strabo 11.9.2–3 (C.515), Trog. prol. 41.

103. Narain 11 in rebuttal of Tarn, Greeks xx. See also Holt, “Discovering the Lost History” 4, broadly in agreement with the view argued here.

104. Bernard, “Aï Khanum” 74.

105. Bernard, “Quatrième campagne” 354.

106. Bernard, “Aï Khanum” 89. See also the useful general summary by Bernard, “An Ancient Greek City in Central Asia,” Scientific American 247 (Jan. 1982) 148–59. For recent archaeological work at Samarkand, Old Kandahar, etc., see Holt, “Discovering the Lost History” 6–7. Text of the Delphic maxims translated in Burstein, Translated Documents no. 49, p. 67.

107. Polyb. 10.49.1; cf. Tarn, Greeks 82, 102, 124; Holt, “Euthydemid Coinage” 35.

108. Bernard, “Campagne” (1972) 608–25.

109. Bernard, “Fouilles” 285 ff.; cf. Bikerman 177–81; Briant, Actes du Colloque sur l’esclavage, Besançon 10–11 Mai 1971 (Paris, 1972) 93–133.

110. Bernard, “Campagne” (1975) 189 ff.

111. Bernard, “Campagne” (1976) 307 ff., figs. 14–18; cf. P. Leriche and J. Thoraval, Syria 56 (1979) 171–205.

112. Bernard, “Campagne” (1980) 435 ff.

113. Bernard, “Campagne” (1976) 314 ff., (1978) 421 ff.

114. Plut. Mor. 328D.

115. Bernard, “Campagne” (1978) 456 ff.; cf. Arist. Phys. 224–226^b.

116. Bernard, “Campagne” (1976) 299–302 with fig. 10; cf. Vitruv. 9.8.1; Plut. Mor. 410E.

117. Cf. Leriche, “Aï Khanoum: Un rempart hellénistique en Asie centrale,” RA (1974) 231–70.

118. Bernard, “Campagne” (1975) 175 ff.

119. Seltman 201–2 with pl. 47 nos. 8, 9; cf. B. Ployart, Choix de monnaies gauloises (Paris, 1980) passim, esp. pl. 1 fig. 10; pl. 2 figs. 19, 28; pl. 3 figs. 38, 42; pl. 4 fig. 55. I owe this reference to my colleague Professor J. H. Kroll.

120. Bernard, “Traditions” 245 ff.

121. Bernard, “Campagne” (1976) 303 ff.

122. Bernard, “Quatrième campagne” 339 ff. with pl. 31. For a thorough and perceptive analysis of this difficult but fascinating topic, see Malcolm Colledge, in Kuhrt and Sherwin-White, chap 6, “Greek and Non-Greek Interaction in the Art and Architecture of the Hellenistic East,” 134–62.

123. Narain 17.

124. Polyb. 11.39.1–2.

125. Strabo 11.11.1 (C.517), Polyb. 11.39.8–9.

126. Tarn, Greeks chap. 4, 129 ff., doubted by Narain 28 ff.

127. Davis and Kraay 243.

128. Plut. Mor. 821D–E. For the legend that developed concerning Menander, see Tarn, Greeks 264–68, 414–15, 432–36.