Showing papers in "Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies in 1975"

Reflections on Titus and Josephus

Abstract: N a well-known passage in the Babylonian Talmud1 (Sabbath 33b) Rabbi Judah is quoted as having praised the deeds of the Romans in Judaea. He spoke with appreciation of the marketplaces built by the Romans, of their bridges and their bath installations. A mod­ ern study on Roman provincial administration, intending to empha­ size the benefits of Roman rule, could easily use a quotation of this kind in order to prove that the story of fostering peace and progress in backward provinces is not based only on Roman propaganda. Provin­ cials themselves appreciated the benefits of the pax romana. Rabbi Simeon Ben Jochai, however, grossly contradicted the opin­ ion expressed by Rabbi Judah (ibid.):2 HAll they have instituted, they (the Romans) have instituted only for their own needs. They have instituted marketplaces to place harlots in them, baths for their own pleasure, bridges to collect toll." Modern historians who criticize the writings of Asian and African history from a European or American point of view and who deplore the failure of the ancient Gauls, Illyrians or Cappadocians to write their own history could make use of this passage to prove the

Xenophon and Epaminondas

Abstract: T PRESENTATION ofEpaminondas by Xenophon is very remarkable, even in a work so unmethodically and capriciously written as the Hellenica. Epaminondas is mentioned for the first time as leader of a Theban expedition to Achaea in 366 B.c. (7.1.41)1 when his achievements already included his celebrated defiance of Agesilaus at the Peace Congress of 371, his defeat of the Spartans at Leuctra, and his first two invasions of the Peloponnese, which resulted in the devastation of Laconia, the liberation of Messenia and the foundation of Messene and Megalopolis. 2 The suppression of his name up to that point has rightly been attributed to the notorious antipathy of Xenophon towards the The bans, which causes him to deny to their principal leader the credit due for all these achievements.3 It is, therefore, astonishing to find that when Xenophon deals with the fourth The ban invasion of the Peloponnese culminating in the battle of Mantinea (7.5.4-27), Epaminondas dominates the narrative: the course of events is recorded almost exclusively from his point of view; his plans and motives are carefully analysed; he is credited with having shown foresight and boldness throughout the campaign; some of his actions are explicitly praised. It is tempting to interpret the presentation of Epaminondas in the last pages of the Hellenica as a palinode; to conclude that Xenophon, conscious of having done him less than justice hitherto, now wishes to

The Emperor Michael III and the Battle of Bishop’s Meadow (A.D. 863)

Abstract: T FOUR BOOKS of Genesios deal with Byzantine history from the accession of Leo the Armenian to the death of Basil I. In the fourth book Genesios includes an account of the defeat by Petronas, uncle of the emperor Michael III, of the redoubtable cOmar cUbaid Allah al AqtaC of Melitene.1 According to the historian, cOmar (\" Af'EP, C Amr) invaded the Armeniak theme and advanced as far as the coast at Amisos where, because he could progress no further, he ordered the sea to be beaten with rods (Genesios here compares the behaviour of Xerxes at the Hellespont). The emperor, being dismayed at the number of prisoners taken by cOmar, appointed Petronas to command the tagma of the Schools with orders to attack the enemy. When news of the coming attack reached cOmar, his subordinates urged him to retreat to his own territory and to fight only if the Byzantine forces overtook them; but the emir, declaring that he was no coward, decided to advance towards Petronas and his army. The opposed forces drew close together in the Abisian district on the borders of the Paphlagonian and Armeniak themes, with a mountain between them, at a place called Porson (ll6pcwv). Both sides tried to occupy the mountain, and in the ensuing battle COmar was killed. His troops were put to flight, and his son with one hundred men retreated across the Halys river, but Machairas the merarch (hypostrategos) in Charsianon intercepted them, so that there was no survivor to bring news of the defeat to the Saracens of Melitene. Except for one detail the narrative of Genesios is internally consistent (it may well come from a lost Vita ofPetronas2). 'Omar advances westwards from Amisos and engages Petronas on the borders of Paphlagonia and Armeniak-at a place, therefore, somewhere to the west of the lower course of the Halys river. The place was called Porson. After the defeat at Porson 'Ornar's son retreats eastwards or

Agathemerus, Sketch of Geography

Abstract: T LITTLE SUMMARY OF GEOGRAPHY that goes under the name of Agathemerus is one of the texts in the corpus of Minor Greek Geographers.1 It was near the beginning of codex A (Pal.gr. 398) of the IX century and was lost with the first five quires of that codex. But it had been copied from A in codex B (Vatop. 655) of the XIV century. From Bit was copied in MS. C (Cantab.Gg. ll.33) ca 1540 and was brought to Italy and broadcast in over a dozen apographs. From these it has been edited or printed six times.2 It needs to be edited now from B itself, which presents several right readings hitherto unknown. Several leaves of codex B were stolen in the last century and found their way to the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris and the British Museum in London. Agathemerus is now found in London Add.ms. 19391 fol. 3 and Paris. suppl.gr. 443A fol. 2; these were folios 4 and 5 in codex B. Some excerpts (J) from Agathemerus were interpolated at an early time in Joannes Damascenus, De fide orthodoxa, and other excerpts (K) occur in MSS. ofDionysius Periegetes.3 These excerpts appear to be independent of A B C and offer some valuable readings. The treatise was composed probably in the first or second century.4 The author Agathemerus son of Orthon is otherwise unknown. 'Agathemerus' and 'Orthon' are Hellenistic names, but 'Agathemerus' lived on in late Roman times. The use of patronymics declined in the third and fourth centuries. A definite earlier limit is the citation (§20) of Menippus of Pergamum, who was of the Augustan age.

Pindar’s Olympian 2, Theron’s Faith, and Empedocles’ Katharmoi

Abstract: I N 476 B.C. Theron, tyrant of Akragas, won a victory in the Olympic games. In celebration of this victory Pindar, visiting the court of the tyrant, composed Olympian 2, incidentally providing us with one of the earliest literary expressions of a belief in transmigration of souls by his mention of the beliefs of Theron concerning the life of the soul after death. While many scholars identify these beliefs as Pythagorean,! the ode seems to me to contain clues which point to an independent, non-Pythagorean origin for the Akragantine cult. Before we turn to the ode itself, however, we should first review the ancient evidence which supports a Pythagorean origin. This evidence goes back only as far as the scholium (Drachmann I 92) on Olympian 2.234a, which may derive from Aristarchus (third century B.C.),2 or perhaps from Crates of Mallus, head of the school at Pergamon (slightly later than Aristarchus), who seems to have had a special interest in Sicilian affairs; five of the six Pindar scholia specifically attributed to him deal with Sicily or Sicilian history.3 At any rate, there seems no reason to believe that the scholiast was basing his statement on anything more than the appearance of the 'Pythagorean' concept of metempsychosis in the ode itself.4 Another possible bit of evidence lies in the fact that Clement of Alexandria calls Pindar himself a Pythagorean;5 aside from the fact, however, that in Olympian 2 we are dealing with the beliefs of Theron and not with those of

The Mysterious 3000 Talents of the First Kallias Decree

Abstract: F MANY PEOPLE the orthodox dating of the two Kallias Decrees (434/3 B.c.) has become an article of faith.1 Geoffrey Woodhead lately deprecated attempts to shift what he regards as a central element in any sound reconstruction, to dislodge "so vital a piece of evidence." He was disturbed by my persistent efforts "to bring demolition tackle to bear" on the impressive building reared by the architects of The Athenian Tribute Lists. Above all he feared that such demolition, if it were allowed to succeed, could only leave us with "fallen and jumbled pieces of haphazard masonry." This reaction is entirely understandable.2 But what we badly need is solid argument. Donald Bradeen typically deployed this in a vigorous counterattack on such heretics as Fornara and myself.3 More recently Meigg's reasoned reply has also appeared.4 Bradeen showed conclusively that both decrees were inscribed by the same mason-a view already cautiously advocated by Pritchett, who provided some excellent new photographs of both sides of the stele. 5 Were the decrees passed on the same day, as Wade-Gery insisted? Bradeen took this for granted, like most modern scholars, but Pritchett has usefully reminded us that it

A New Poem of Archilochus: P.Colon. inv. 7511

Abstract: A RECBNTLY DISCOVERED second-century papyrus of Archilochus in the collection at Cologne (inv. 7511) has received its first publication by R. Merkelbach and M. L. West in ZPE 14 (1974) 97-113 with plate v (= M-W).l It is of great importance since it comprises the first known almost complete poem by Archilochus (35 lines), in addition to the beginning of another (5 lines). The text presents some difficulties, but clearly the content and the literary value of the poem deserve the closest attention. The meter of this epode is a hemiepes sandwiched between an iambic trimeter and an iambic dimeter, and was imitated by Horace in his eleventh epode. The poem contains a dialogue between the younger sister of Neobule, daughter of Lycambes and Amphimedo (lines 1-5; the beginning of the girl's speech is missing), and the young Archilochus (lines 6-27), and ends with a selective description of a love-affair between them (lines 28-35). Merkelbach saw in the poem a story of hate, of vengeance by Archilochus on Lycambes and Neobule. I am in strong disagreement with his interpretation. I think we have to do with a fresh and naive love story. The main purpose of this paper, however, is to improve our text of the poem by offering a somewhat different edition of the papyrus and to provide it a literary-philological commentary. The time for a definitive literary assessment of the poem has not yet come.

P.Oxy. 2820: Whose Preparations?

Abstract: I N Chiron 3 (1973) M. Treu offers an ingenious reconstruction of P.Oxy. XXXVII 2820 which would make it an account of autocratic measures, one of them verging on the treasonable, taken by Cornelius Gallus as Prefect of the newly annexed province of Egypt. One reads Treu's paper with growing excitement, for it appears to throw light on the reasons for Gallus' subsequent fall from imperial favor, reasons heretofore shrouded in our sources-as with Ovid a generation later-in allusive language conformable with Augustus' puritanism. l It is hardly necessary to emphasize the self-evident historic importance of such information; what must be emphasized. unfortunately, is that no such information is at hand. Treu's interpretation collapses under the weight of two objections. The first is merely logical: Gallus' disgrace and suicide occurred in 26 B.C., after his return to Rome. If treasonable or arrogant actions committed in 30-29 B.C. were the cause of his downfall, why was he kept in office for another three years? The second objection is utterly fatal: the key point in Treu's interpretation is highly dubious, and the textual reconstruction on which it rests is simply wrong, as will shortly appear. The following is the transcription of the text as it appears in the edition (P.Oxy. 2820 col. i):

The Speech of Teutiaplus (Thuc. 3.30)

Abstract: I N THE SUMMER OF 427 B.C. the Peloponnesian fleet under the Spartan nauarch Alcidas reached Ionia too late to aid the Mytilenaean rebellion against the Athenians. At Embaton in Asia Minor the commanders discussed their options. Teutiaplus, a commander from Elis otherwise unknown, is reported by Thucydides to have urged that the fleet sail immediately on Mytilene and surprise the Athenian occupation forces. His speech is brief, to the point, and without result. How does one explain this 119-word speech in the literary plan of Thucydides? Speeches report 'T

The Remarkable Christmas Homily of Kyros Panopolites

Abstract: A N IMPORTANT piece of evidence for the life and times of Kyros of Panopolis is a most unusual sermon which the ex-prefect gave on a Christmas Day in the 440' s before a hostile congregation. I Many observers have cited this sermon and used it to support their views concerning the personality and religious persuasion of Kyros; in addition, the interpretation one puts on this sermon and its reception by Kyros' audience has significant implications for any understanding of the nature of popular religious feeling in the midfifth century. Nevertheless, the remarkable character of this homily, and its wording in particular, have not received the close analysis they deserve. K yros, a poet of some repute, came to Constantinople from his native Egypt and used his literary ability and the patronage of the empress Eudokia to become praefectus urbi about 435 and praefectus praetorio by 439.2 He held both offices simultaneously for about four years, but his career was ruined when Theodosius II accused him of being a pagan, removed him from power, and confiscated his property.a Whether paganism was really the issue is difficult to say, as