Showing papers in "Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies in 1985"

A Survey of Greek Defixiones Not Included in the Special Corpora

Abstract: Es gibt zwar zweifelsohne noch sehr viele klassische Philologen und Kulturforscher, die es absonderlich finden, dass man solchen abstrusen Dingen Zeit und Arbeit opfere. Aber gewiss muss die Forschung das Inferno der Magie und des ganzen Zauberwesens durchwandeln, damit einmal der Kulturforscher des Altertums die Richtungslinien der religiosen Entwieklung scharf und sieher zu ziehen imstande sei. Man mag es vielleicht bedauern, aber es geht nun einmal nicht anders. S. Eitrem (Gnomon 3 [1927] 176)

Casualties in Hoplite Battles

Abstract: OW MUCH RISK did a Greek hoplite run of losing his life in a set battle? The consensus of recent writers on Greek warfare is that casualties were light unless and until one side re­ treated. I "Greek armour gave reasonably good protection," explains G. Cawkwell, "hence the small number of casualties on the victori­ ous side in set battles-there were a mere 159 on the Greek side at Plataea in 479 B.C." Oswyn Murray finds the battle of Plataea illustra­ tive of hoplite battles in general: "It is typical of the nature of hoplite warfare that in this greatest of hoplite battles the Greeks lost only 159 men." A. J. Holladay also cites Plataea, along with Mantinea, Delium, and Marathon-where 6,400 Persians died, but only 192 Athenians-to support his contention that "the total casualties in hoplite battles where we have reliable figures are remarkably light." But Plataea and Marathon were not battles between two hoplite ar­ mies. Were their casualties typical or exceptional? An answer may lie in the casualty figures supplied by our sources for set hoplite battles in the classical period between Plataea and Leuctra (479-371).2 There are good grounds for taking these data se­ riously. For religious reasons, the Greeks regularly retrieved corpses and saw to their proper burial. In classical Athens the names of the dead were normally inscribed on stone; the custom is known in other Greek cities as well. Many fragments of these lists survive.3 They can­

Polybius, Syracuse, and the Politics of Accommodation

Abstract: P OLYBIUS' INTENDED audience was made up of political men; his avowed purpose was to prepare such men for political action in the real world; his theme was the expansion of Roman power. 1 Despite the simplicity of these basic principles of the Histories, there remains considerable disagreement about Polybius' attitude towards Rome. This is the result partly of the fragmentary nature of the extant text, partly of the obscurity of some of Polybius' own remarks.2 There is particular debate over whether Polybius' view of Rome gradually became more accommodating over time. Walbank strongly favors this hypothesis, while others (Musti, Shimron) have recently asserted that Polybius always remained \"a loyal Greek.\"3 Any new material would be useful in this dispute. There is in fact evidence that has not yet been brought to bear. In the surviving text of the Histories there are four encomia of 'good kings' of the third and second centuries B.C.: Hiero II of Syracuse (in Books 1 and 7); Attalus I of Pergamum (Book 18); Eumenes

Valens’ Recall of the Nicene Exiles and Anti-Arian Propaganda

Abstract: Principaux documents examines : les chroniques en syriaque| Jerome et Rufin| le moine Isaac, ermite de Constantinople, chez Sozomene et Theodoret| le rappel des exiles sous Valens et sous Gratien

The Peripatetic Interpretation of Plato’s Tripartite Psychology

Abstract: T HE PERIPATETIC author of the Magna Maralia begins his account of moral virtue with a doxography in which he criticizes Pythagoras for referring virtue to number, and Socrates for identifying the virtues with E1nUTfjl-Wt and ignoring the alogical part of the soul, thus doing away with 7Ta8o~ and ~8o~ (l182alO-30).1 He then attributes to Plato bipartition of the soul, of which he approves (l182a26), and proceeds to criticize him for confusing investigation of moral virtue with that of the good. The passage begins as follows: IJ-ETa TavTa 8£ TIA£hwJI 8tEtAETO T-ryJl tjJvx-ryJl Er~ TE TO AO'YOJl EXOJl Kat EtC:; TO aAO'YOJl op8w~, Kat a7TE8wKEJI EKauTCy [Tac:;] apETac:; Tac:; 7TPOO"TlKOV

Vanished Players: Two Classical Reliefs and Theatre History

Abstract: I T IS UNFORTUNATE that for the fifth century, the most fertile period of Greek drama, we have scarcely any reliable information about actors and acting conditions. According to traditional accounts it was in this period that poets ceased to act in their own plays.1 The men who replaced them, though little more than a handful of names to us, represent the first step towards the great guilds of the Artists of Dionysus in the Hellenistic period. I propose here to use two pieces of Attic relief sculpture, both from the end of the fifth century, as a window into the social history of the theatre in this formative era. Only one of these pieces has received full publication and discussion. I shall therefore deal in some detail with questions of style, date, and iconography to provide the basis for further observations on the changing role of theatre and the people of the theatre in fifth-century Athens. The first is the well-known actors' relief from the Piraeus (PLATE 1).2 The relief is usually interpreted as a dedication by three actors to Dionysus, represented on the couch, after a successful performance. More specifically, in view of such Bacchic features as the tympana held by two of the actors, it has been suggested that this is a dedication for the successful first Athenian performance of Euripides' Bacchae.3 There are, as we shall see, difficulties with these interpretations. The relief, 55 cm. by 93 em., lacks upper and side molding.4 Proceeding from the left we encounter the first of five figures, a standing actor holding an upraised tympanum and presumably wearing his

On the God Cronus

Abstract: T HE CHARACTER OF CRONUS seems to be made up of contrasting qualities. He is known especially as the archetypal antagonist of Zeus and the Olympian gods, and his ultimate defeat and relegation to the depths of Tartarus are an important and vivid episode in Hesiod's Theogony. Now, in the Iliad, Zeus is described by two very different epithets. He is often called 1Tarr,p av8pwv TE (JEWV TE, inasmuch as he is the supreme god and source of all beings. On the other hand, he is called Kpovov 1Tai~ aYKVAo/J:rITEw no less than seven times.1 That Zeus was Cronus' son was of course a fact not to be denied; but given the ill fame of Cronus, why does the poet put forward this identification of Zeus so often?2 We might rather have expected him to pass over the matter in silence. Elsewhere, Greek tradition preserves distinctly favourable aspects of Cronus. The first race of men, the golden race, depicted by Hesiod as the best, lived under the rule of Cronus (Op. 109-25). In Pindar and in Aeschylus, moreover, Cronus is represented as ruling afterwards in the Isles of the Blessed.3 Finally, in the song of the Muses that begins Hesiod's Theogony, Cronus finds a place among the several gods selected for praise (I8). Of these indications of a more positive regard for Cronus, the first might well have a merely chronological explanation: the first race, the golden one, will naturally have been placed under the reign of the earlier god. On the other hand, the opposite can be found among those who viewed the earliest race as primitive: thus Aristophanes uses the contemptuous expression Kpoviwv o~wv (Nub. 398, cf 1070), and the abusive epithet KPOVOA'7)pO~ appears elsewhere in comedy (Adesp. 1052 Kock, cf 510).4 In the Iliad, moreover, Cronus and the Titans

Kedrenos, Pseudo-Symeon, and the Last Oracle at Delphi

Abstract: Sur divers temoignages a propos de l'oracle de Delphes prononce pour l'empereur Julien: Philostorge (V s.)| Georges Kedrenos (XII s.)| et entre ces deux siecles la Passio Artemii (BHG 170), attribuee a un certain Jean de Rhodes, mais qui pourrait etre de Jean Damascene| l'Epitome perdue qu'utilise le pseudo-Symeon (Logothete alias Metaphraste).

Apophasis and Eisangelia : The Rôle of the Areopagus in Athenian Political Trials

Abstract: oVrw yap r,p.Wv oi 7TpOYOVOt ucpOBpa 7TEpi TT,V uwcpp0uVvrw , '~y" "/: ''A' , f3).'" EU7TOVuao:,0v werTE Trw E~ pEWV 7Tayov OV~'YIv E7TEUT'YIuav • \" 8 """ I " "'" '\' E7rt/-LE~EtU at T'YI~ EVKOU/-LW~ .... E7TtTl./MP"'1" ... TOt~ O~t'Y~ 7TPO r,p.Wv TT,V 7TOAtV BwtK7}uautv. EKEtVOt yap 'ljuav oi '". ", "\ ' , \ ' 7TpOTpEo/aVTE~ E7Tt TaVTa~ Ta~ O~t'YWpta~ Kat KaTa~V

Lucian in Egypt

Abstract: E'YW 'YOVV, El UKEt/Jaw, SO~atJ..L' av uoe. Oll 'TO UJ..LI.KpO'Ta'TOv 'T71'> Al:YV'Tr'TUx8 'Tav'T'TJ'> apX71'> E'YKEXEe.pW-au(Jae., 'Ta,> StKa,> , , \"t;''''''' , '(J' \\ El.Ua'YEl.V Kat 'Ta\",w aV'Tat'> 'T'TJV 7TpOU'TJKovuav E7Tt'Tt, EVat Kat 'TWV 'Trpa'T'TOJ..LEVWV Kat AE'YOJ-LEVWV a7Ta~a7TCiv'Twv V7TOjLVi]J..La'Ta 'YPChPEu(Jat Kat. ni,> TE P'TJTOPEia,> 'TWV 8e.KawAo'Y0Vv'TWV • (J .. :Y \\ \\ \"'\" , \\ \\ .l..J. pv ~EtV Kat 'Ta,> TOV apXOVTO,> 'YVWUEe.,> 7TpO'> 'TO ua~U'Ta~ \" a' \",....\" 'TOV aJ..La Kat aKptfJEUTa'TOV UVV 'Tr1.U'TEI. 'T\"{I jLE'YI.U'T\"{I Sta.l..\\' \\ s:,s:,' s:, , \\ \\ .1 , o/v~aT'TEtv Kat 'TrapautuOvm, u'TJJ..LOU~ 7TPO\" 'TOV aEl. x.pOVOV a'TrOKHUOf..d.va,> .... (Lucian, Apology 12)

Blemmydes’ Debt to Euthymios Zigabenos

Abstract: I N 1929 H. I. Bell pointed out that there is evidence that Nikephoros Blemmydes (I197-1272) relied heavily on the commentary on Psalms composed more than a century earlier by Euthymios Zigabenos.l Since Bell, it appears that Blemmydes' reliance on Zigabenos has been transformed into virtual plagiarism. Referring to Blemmydes' commentary, H.-G. Beck tells us that \"was PG 142.1321-1622 bringt, ist (abgesehen von dem genannten Prooimion) identisch mit dem Psalmenkommentar des Euthymios Zigabenos.\"2 To the contrary, comparison of the two commentaries makes it clear that what is striking about Blemmydes' work is not the extent to which it resembles Zigabenos', but the ways in which his purported exploitation of the earlier commentary differs from it. In what follows I hope to show that Blemmydes' debt to Zigabenos was considerably smaller than either Bell or Beck represents it as having been. To begin with, Beck should have known, if only because Bell was so very clear about it,3 that Blemmydes' commentary, as it is published in Migne and as most of the manuscripts have it, is a compilation of three different versions. The first is comprised of full commentaries on Psalms 1-10 that differ significantly from those of Zigabenos on the same psalms. The second section, dealing with Psalms 11-23, is, as Bell (297) points out (and as at least one scribe seems to have noticed), copied nearly verbatim from the commentaries of Zigabenos. The third section, covering Psalms 24-150, is a set of (for the most part) brief notes, often on the same verses, phrases, or words commented on by Zigabenos, but again different from them in both scope and focus. Yet if Beck was incorrect to suggest that Zigabenos' influence on Blemmydes was pervasive, Bell was also mistaken in many of the con-

Notes on Some Manuscripts of Euripides’ Phoenissae

Abstract: Together with Vaticanus graecus 1825, the manuscript Vaticanus graecus 1824 contains a miscellany of poetic texts, some of which apparently derive from a single scriptorium.1 Vat. gr. 1824 figures in A. Turyn's great work on Euripidean manuscripts2 in two places. On p.359 he lists the contents of folios 8Jr-87v, pages from a fourteenthcentury3 codex unrelated to other portions of the miscellany: Or. 1385-1557 and 1558-91 are extant with a single leaf of Phoen. (lines 802-42) bound among them (f.86r-v). For Phoen. this page is a worthless witness, showing no consistent affinities with any of the families identified by Mastronarde and Bremer, 4 and carrying no new readings of interest. Turyn (254 n.238) menti Dns the Aeschylean portion of the manuscript {ff.54r-80v = Fb)5 to record that Triklinios himself seems to have worked briefly with this codex. What is not reported in either of Turyn's studies is the fact that on ff.3Jr-53 r, on the same paper and written by some of the same hands as the Thomano-Triklinian Aeschylus that follows, is a copy of Phoen. 296-673 and 937-1766 (between 37V and 38r five leaves containing 674-936 have been lost), which is also Thomano-Triklinian. This section of the manuscript was recorded by K. Ziegler in 18826 but not by others

Two Notes on the Pnyx

Abstract: Of the scanty sources describing the opening of an ecclesia, two enigmatic passages refer to 'YEppa, viz. the famous passage in Demosthenes' speech On the Crown, describing the ecclesia held after Philip's capture of Elatea in 339, and a passage from the Neaera speech describing the procedure adopted for ratification of citizenship decrees: D 18 169 " \ \ ... '" 1::" '\. \. • \ em. . : EU7TEpa J.UV yap 71V, 71KE u ayyElV\.wv TtS" WS" TOVS" 7TpvrclVELS" ~ 'EAclTELa KaTEiA717TTaL. Kat J.l,ETa TaVO' Ot p.Ev EU()VS" E€avaUTaVTES" J.l,E':"a€V BEL7TVOVVTES" TOVS" T' EK TWII UK71I1WII TWII Kanl ~V ayopav E~ELPYOV Kat Ta y£pp' EVE7Tij.L7TpaUall, oi BE TOVS" UTpaT71'YO-VSJ.UTE7TEIL7TOVTO Kat TOil UaA7TLYK~1I EKaAOVII" Kat ()OpV{30v 7TA~P71S" -rill 'lj 7T()ALS". rfi B' vUTEpa0, aJ.l,a rfi 'ljIL£P~, Ot p.E1I 7TpvTavELS" rT,1I {3ovA7,1I EKaAovv EiS" TO {3oVAEVTT,PWII, VJ.ULS" B' EiS" rT,V EKKA71Utall ETTOpEVEU()E, Kat 7Tptv EKeLlI71V XP71J.l,aTiuaL Kat 7TPO{3ovAEvuaL 7TC1S" 0 BijlLOS" allw Ka()ijTO. Dem. 59.89f: E7TELT' E7TELMII 7TELU8fj 0 BijlLOS", Kat ~ ~II &.upEa II, OUK Ef!. KVPtall YEII£u()aL rT,1I 7Toi'YIUtII , €all IL7, rfi I/J~

Chabrias at Corinth

Abstract: S AFTER DESTROYING the Spartan mora Iphicrates was replaced as leader of the mercenary corps in Corinth by Chabrias.1 On the basis of the scholia to Aelius Aristides, Kirchner has written that Chabrias then led his army to victory at Phlius and Mantinea,2 but Parke, regarding the scholia as a \"doubtful source,\" says that \"we find no positive references to successes on Chabrias' part, unless the garbled references of the Scholiast ... can be trusted. \"3 Paradoxically, I would argue that the scholia do provide valuable information, but that Kirchner's account is without foundation. After describing Athenian victories in the Corinthia during the Corinthian War, Aristides continues: ,ryA(JOll 8e Eis 'ApKa81.a1l Kat J.LExpt Ti1~ AaKWlItKi1~, KaTEKAEurall 8e TOV~ Ell AwVlITI., Kat TWlI , l: (J' ,,, \\ M ' , \\ ~ E7TE~EA OllTWlI Tp07TaWlI EUTTJuall, Kat allTl.lIEWlI 7TaAtll Kat LtKVWlILwll a~(Jt~ Ell T4J 1TE8icp Kat TWlI UVJ.LJUXXWlI.4 The scholiast's explanation of this passage has come down to us in two versions, only one of which (A C) ascribes the victory at Phlius to Chabrias. By printing this text in full while mutilating the other (B D), Dindorf has misled Kirchner. 5 The two traditions agree up to a point but then diverge. Here the two versions need to be juxtaposed: