Ptolemaic Alexandria: volumes I-III

Table of contents :
VOLUME I: Text
Preface
Contents
Abbreviations
Corrigenda
Part I. The framework
1. Foundation and topography
I
II
Map
2. The population, its organization and composition
I
II
Period I: The third century down to about 215 BC
Period II: about 215 to after 145 BC
Period III: after 145 to 31 BC
3. City and sovereign
I
II
III
4. Industry and trade
I
a) Trade and industry in Alexandria
b) Internal trade
c) Foreign trade
1. The Italian and western trade of Alexandria
2. Aegean trade
Alexandria and Rhodes
Alexandria and Delos
3. Trade with South and East
II
5. Religious life
I
II
III
IV
V
Part II. The achievement
6. Ptolemaic patronage: the Mouseion and Library
I. Patronage
II. The Mouseion
III. The Library
7. Alexandrian science
I. Medicine
The practitioner and society
II. Mathematic and physical sciences
III. The false sciences
Conclusion
8. Alexandrian scholarship
I. The formative age: Zenodotus to Eratosthenes
II. The classical age: Aristophanes and Aristarchus
III. The period of decline
IV. The influence of Alexandrian scholarship
9. Alexandrian philosophy: the main phases
10. Aspects of Alexandrian literature
I. Historiography
II. Geographical writings
III. The epigram
IV. Narrative poetry and hymns
V. Secondary literature, Greek, Egyptian and Jewish
1. Greek and Egyptian secondary literature
2. Jewish-Alexandrian literature
11. The horizon of Callimachus
I
II
III
Epilogue
I
II
VOLUME II: Notes
Notes to the reader
Corrigenda
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 (i)
7 (ii)
8
9
10 (i)
10 (ii)
10 (iii)
10 (iv)
10 (v)
11
Epilogue
Some addenda
VOLUME III: Indexes
Contents
I. General index
II. Index of classical authors
III. Greek inscriptions
IV. Greek papyri and ostraca
V. Select index of Greek words
VI. Egyptian documents
VII. Arabic and other sources

Citation preview

PTOLEMAIC ALEXANDRIA P. M. FRASER

I· TEXT

OXFORD A.T THE

CLARENDON

PRESS

Oxford University Press, Ely House, London W. GLASGOW

NEW

CAPE

TOWN

DELHI

BOMBAY KUALA

©

YORK

IBADAN CALCUTTA

LUMPUR

OXFORD

PRINTED AT

THE

TORONTO NAIROBI

PRINTER

LUSAKA

MADRAS

HONG

UNJYERSITY

IN

TO

THE

LAHORE

KONG

DACCA

TOKYO

I

9i

2

BRITAIN

PRESS,

VIVIAN

ADDIS ABABA

PRESS

GREAT

I

WELLINGTON

KARACHI

SINGAPORE

UNIVERSITY BY

MELBOURNE

OXFORD

RIDLER UNIVERSITY

PREFACE years ago I began to feel the lack of a documented study of even the main aspects of Alexandrian life in the Ptolemaic period. This book is an attempt to provide it, and at the same time to bridge the wide gap between the different fields of Antiquity and the different types of source material. Literary texts of all sorts, inscriptions, and papyri all have their contribution to make to such a study, and the analysis and combination of these sources form the main element in this book. The aim explains both the scope and the method of the work. In the first part I have attempted to describe the framework of Alexandrian life, against which the real achievements of its civilization, discussed in the second part, can be seen. In this long second part I have had to walk almost entirely in paths more familiar to others than to me, and I have no doubt that I shall be assailed by specialists in those fields in which I have browsed along the way. Nevertheless, I do not regret my decision so to trespass, for these subjects, and the achievements in them, are the legacy of Alexandria to posterity, and until the achievements and the material background are in some fashion brought into one focus by the same pair of eyes, the former cannot be fully appreciated. I am sensible that there are omissions. It may very naturally be asked why, in view of the length of the book, I have not included a synthetic picture of social life, the Alexandrian 'daily scene', in the first part, and why, in the second, there is no chapter devoted to Alexandrian art. In regard to the first point, I must confess to scepticism as to the value of such synthetic pictures if copious and precise evidence based on a sound chronological framework (such as exists for the study of the social life of Imperial Rome) is not available. I confess further to a reluctance to adding to the length of this book, and to occupying the time of the reader by recounting social phenomena which were in any case largely common to the whole Greek-speaking world, and therefore have no especial significance for Alexandria. I have, however, attempted to portray in all possible lights what seems to me of lasting significance: the society and social milieu of the intelligentsia to which we owe the legacy of Alexandria. My decision not to include a study of Alexandrian art was based on two considerations. First, art criticism and art history are remote both from my competence and from my line of approach to Alexandria, which is essentially through literary and documentary (including archaeological) evidence. To have introduced a different type of criticism would,

M

ANY

viii

PREFACE

even if I had felt myself competent, have marred whatever unity of concept and technique the book may have. Secondly, in spite of progress in this field, it is evident that we are still far from knowing how much of what we call Alexandrian art was the work of Alexandrian artists, how much was imported, and how much was produced by foreign artists. It would, therefore, I think, be premature to attempt to assess the Alexandrian achievement in art. For both these reasons I decided that this subject was better left out of account. On the other hand it will be observed that lpave included some facets of the intellectual life of the city in which the achievement was, so far as I can see, slight: for instance, philosophy, historiography, and dramatic writings. I do not think that their inclusion is a paradox, for to view the achievement as a whole it is necessary to bring into focus the less significant items, and to see why they were not transplanted effectively to Alexandria. The omissions are, I am afraid, more than balanced by repetitions. I have had to accept the likelihood that the individual chapters may be consulted by those anxious for information on the particular topics dealt with in them, and my wish to make the relevance of each subject in the over-all picture intelligible, has, I am very aware, led to numerous repetitions, particularly of some basic generalizations, which will be a source of irritation to the continuous reader. The episodic reader will, I hope, be the gainer. It will be clear from what I have already said that this book is in no sense a political history of the Ptolemaic dynasty, or of Ptolemaic Egypt, or of Alexandria. I have only touched on political matters as and when they were relevant, particularly in Chapters 2 and 3. Again, I have not attempted to give a general sketch of the economic regime or conditions of Ptolemaic Egypt, though I have kept them in mind throughout, and hope that I have given them due weight in Chapter 4. Both the detailed work of Mlle Cl. Preaux and Rostovtzeff's brilliant picture in The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, though now thirty years old, will long provide unrivalled studies of this topic. I hope that the wearisome length of the notes is justified by the fact that they contain most of the ancient evidence, either in full or in partial quotation or in the form of references, together with some interpretative material and indications of opinions past and present. I have followed in essentials the doctrine of Jerome: 'Meum fuit citare testes, tuum est de fide testium iudicare'. Though I have done my best to record the most important contributions to the topics discussed, the bibliographies are inevitably incomplete, and here too experts will raise their eyebrows. In the modern flood of learned literature this incompleteness could only have been obviated by the employment of trained

PREFACE

ix

assistants, and even if such persons had been available, I believe that it is better to have prepared the entire material myself. I may add that the book has taken a long time to prepare for the press in its final stages, and that I have only very rarely been able to take heed of articles and publications published during and after 1967. Some more recent material and discussions are noted in the Addenda. My debt in writing this book is greatest to those scholars, mostly beyond reach of my gratitude, whose example has encouraged me to write it and whose nam~ are recorded repeatedly in the notes. I am also indebted to many inaividuals and keepers of Museums for information regarding objects, particularly inscriptions, in their custody; these obligations are for the most part noted individually in the appropriate places, but I must acknowledge some particular debts. First, I must express my gratitude to two successive keepers of the Musee grecoromain of Alexandria, M. Victor Girgis and Dr. Henri Riad, through whose friendliness I have been able over the years to work in the Museum under ideal conditions, untroubled by formalities, All who have had the privilege of working in the Museum, and enjoying the shade of its delightful garden, assisted by its faithful and good-humoured staff, will echo these thanks. To Lucas Benaki, whose unrivalled knowledge of the material remains of Alexandria, and of the history of archaeological discovery there, have been freely at my disposal both in Alexandria and elsewhere, and who has given me unrestricted access to his collections, I owe much of my understanding of the archaeology and topography of the city, and my debt to him for this and for many other acts of friendship is beyond repayment. The late Max Deb bane, editor of the Bulletin de la Societi archeologique d'Alexandrie,to whose friendship and hospitality I owe much, let me draw freely on his profound knowledge of the more recent history of the city, and was unfailingly helpful in answering my many questions; his death in I 965 deprived Alexandria of the most zealous guardian of her traditions. Others have obliged me greatly by reading some part or parts of the work. Mr. W. G. Forrest has borne the heat of the day in this respect, and there are few chapters which have not profited from his shrewd comments. Mr. C. H. Roberts also found time among the duties of a busy life to read and improve much undigested typescript, and his encouragement, as well as his advice on matters connected with papyri, have meant much to me. The late Professor J. Cerny, Mr. J. R. Harris, Dr. T. G. H. James, and Dr. A. F. Shore have all answered questions concerning hieroglyphic and demotic texts, and my colleague the late Dr. S. M. Stern helped me considerably by providing me with fresh translations and interpretations of Arabic texts referring to the topography of Alexandria. Miss Virginia Grace has more than once

X

PREFACE

read and corrected my observations on the stamped amphora-handles in Chapter 4, and put her unique knowledge at my disposal. If I have in one or two places differed from her I have done so with trepidation. Professor Rudolf Pfeiffer kindly read for me the chapter on Alexandrian scholarship and put me further in his debt by enabling me to read in advance of publication the proofs of his History of ClassicalScholarship (1968). To Mrs. Dorothy B. Thompson I am indebted for much stimulating discussion both of Alexandrian religion and of more general topics concerning Alexandria. Mr. Ivor Bulmer Thomas cast a critical eye on my section on mathematics, and numerous medical friends have corrected my primitive notions of human anatomy and physiology. In the long chapter on Alexandrian literature I have largely trusted my own interpretation: it is not intended as a philological treatment of the subject. I am also very grateful to Mrs. Dorothy Crawford and Mrs. Elaine Matthews, who consecutively and steadfastly endured the wearisome task of compiling the General Index. Finally, I owe a more material debt to three bodies which by their generosity enabled me to study Alexandrian antiquities at first hand. The Leverhulme Trustees awarded me a scholarship by which I was enabled to spend the summer and winter of I 955-6 in Egypt, collating the epigraphical material which plays a large part in this work; the Craven Committee of the University of Oxford and All Souls College both assisted me to revisit Alexandria on several subsequent occasions, and to All Souls College I am also indebted for numerous other subventions over the years. To the Delegates of the Oxford University Press and to their Secretary I am deeply indebted for their courage in undertaking the publication of this book, and for their exemplary display of patience while waiting for its delivery. A final word of apology is due to the reader for the many misprints which escaped the eyes of all concerned. The most conspicuous of these are noted at the beginning of Vols. I and II. P. M. FRASER

Oxford June 1970

f CONTENTS VOLUME

I

page xiii

.;.BBREVIATIONS

XVI

:ORRIGENDA ?ART

I. THE

FRAMEWORK

I.

Foundation and Topography

2.

The Population of Alexandria; its Organization and Composition 38

3

3. City and Sovereign

93

4. Alexandrian Trade

132

J·

The Cults of Alexandria

? ..\RT

II.

THE

189

ACHIEVEMENT

6. Ptolemaic Patronage: the Museum and the Library

305

7. Alexandrian Science I. Medicine II. Mathematics and Applied Sciences

336 338 376

8. Alexandrian Scholarship

447

g. Currents of Alexandrian Philosophy

480

1o.

Aspects of Alexandrian Literature I. Historiography II. Geographical Writing III. The Epigram IV. Narrative Poetry and Hymns v. Secondary Literature, Greek, Egyptian, and Jewish

495 520 553 618 674

r I. The Horizon of Callimachus

7I 7

EPILOGUE

794

CONTENTS

xii

VOLUME XOTES

TO THE

II

page vii

READER

CORRIGENDA :'.'.OTES

TO

IX

CHAPTER

I

I

2

II2 1 73 235 323 462 495 552 647 693 717 75° 79 1 870 943 1004 I 103

3 4 5 6 7 (i) 7 (ii) 8 9 (i) IO (ii) JO (iii) IO (iv) 10 (v) JO

II EPILOGUE SOME

ADDENDA

~

-

-

IIOg

VOLUME

III

INDEXES

General subject index II, Index of classical authors III, Index of Greek inscriptions IV, Index of Greek papyri and ostraca v. Index of Greek words discussed (a) Alexandrian institutions (b) Other words VI. Index of Egyptian sources VII. Index of Arabic and other sources I.

~

-

--. _

-·

-

f

ABBREVIATIONS Tms list of abbreviations contains works and individuals cited frequently throughout the notes, but excludes items exclusively concerned with topography which are ::escribed in detail in eh. 1, note 31. I have not included references to abbreviated ::escriptions of editions of ancient authors, which are mostly given in full when first quoted, and with many of which the reader's familiarity may be assumed. I have also -=.xcludednormal standard collections of texts, fragments, inscriptions and papyri, ~ncyclopaedias, etc., for the same reason. Items which occur in only one chapter are explained in that chapter, usually in the first note. _-\

Bernand, Alexandrie B-L Breccia, Iseri:;.

Cahen, Call. --,

Hynmes

:JU. Alex.

DC Ditt. Eichgriln, Kall. u. A. R. G-H Gow

Herter I and II

HGM

Adriani's map: see eh. 1, note 31, § 1. A. Bernand, Alexandrie la Grande (Collection Signes des Temps, Arthaud, Paris, 1966). A. Bouche-Leclercq, Histoire des Lagides (4 vols., Paris, 1903-7). E. Breccia, Iscrizioni greche e latine (Catalogue general des Antiquites egyptiennes du Musee d'Alexandrie, Cairo, 1911). E. Cahen, Callimaqueet son (Eui·repoetique (Bihl. ec. fram;. d'Athenes et de Rome, fasc. 134, Paris, 1929). -Les Hymnes de Callimaque, Comment. explicatif et critique (Bibl. ec. franc;:.d'Athenes et de Rome, fasc. 134 bis, Paris, I 930). CollectaneaAlexandrina, reliquiaeminoresPoetarum Graecorum Aetatis Ptolemaicae,edited by J. U. Powell (Oxford, 1925); the fragments are cited as 'Pow.'. H. Diels, Doxographigraeci (De Gruyter, Berlin, 1879). Wilhelm Dittenberger. E. Eichgriln, Kallimachos und Apollonios Rhodios (diss. Berlin, 1961). B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. The GreekAnthology:HellenisticEpigrams, edited by A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page (2 vols., Cambridge Univ. Press, 1965); cited by continuous numeration of lines. W. Peek, Griechische Versinschriften, i (Akad. Verlag, Berlin, 1955). H. Herter, in Bursian's Jahresbericht etc., 255, 1937 (Leipzig, 1937), pp. 65-217, 'Bericht uber die Literatur zur hellenistischen Dichtung aus denjahren 1921-1935: I. Teil' ( = 'Herter I'); ibid. 285, 1944/55 (Tiibingen, 1956), pp. 213-410, 'II. Tei!'(= 'Herter II'). Ivor Thomas, Selections Illustrating the History of Greek Mathematics (2 vols., Loeb Class. Libr., 1939).

r r

xiv

ABBREVIATIONS

Theod. Hopfner, Fontes Historiae Religionis Aegyptiacat,:, (Font. Hist. Rel. ex auct. Graec. et Lat. coll. ed. Car. Clemen, fasc. ii, 5 parts, Bonn, 1922-5). Ijsewijn, De Sacerd. J. ljsewijn, De SacerdotibusSacerdotiisqueAlexandri Magni et Lagidarumeponymis(Verhandelingenvande Koninklijke Vlaamse: Academie voor Wetenschappen,Letteren en SchoneK unsten van ; Belgie, Klasse der Letteren, Verh. 42, Brussels, 1961). Jae. Felix Jacoby. Launey, Recherches M. Launey, Recherchessur les Armees hellenistiques(2 vols., Bibl. ec. fram;. d'Athenes et de Rome, fasc. 169, Paris, i949-5o). Lenger M.-T. Lenger, Corpusdes Ordonnancesdes Ptolemees(Acad. royale de Belg., Memoires, !vii, 1964). Lepsius, Denkm. R. Lepsius, Denkmiileraus Agyptenund Jl'thiopien,Abth. VI, Bd. XII (Berlin, 1849). . Letronne, Ree. A.-J. Letronne, Receuil des Inscriptionsgrecqueset latines de , l'Egypte (2 vols., Paris, 1842-8, and Atlas, n.d.). ' .NB F. Preisigke, Namenbuch (Heidelberg, Selbstverlag des Herausgebers, 1922). 0-B, Niedergang W. Otto and H. Bengtson, Zur Geschichtedes Niederganges des Ptolemiierreiches(Abh. hayer. Akad., N.F. 17, 1938, Munich, 1938). Op. Ath. I and II P. M. Fraser, in OpusculaAtheniensia, iii (Skrift. Utgiv. av ' Svensk. Institut. i Athen, 4°, VII, Lund, 1960), pp. 1-54, . 'Two Studies on the Cult of Sarapis in the Hellen- ' istic World' ( = 'Op. Ath. I'); ibid. vii (XII, Lund, : 1967), pp. 23-45, 'Current Problems Concerning ; the Early History of the Cult of Sarapis' ( = 'Op. t Ath. II'). \ R. A. Pack, The Greek and Latin Literary Textsfrom GrecoPack 2 Roman Eg;pt, 2nd edn. (Ann Arbor, Univ. of Michigan Press, 1965). D. L. Page, SelectPapyri, iii, Literary Papyri, Poetry (Loeb , Page, GLP Class. Libr. 1941). · Ff. Rudolf Pfeiffer. pp Prosopographia Ptolemaica,i-vi (to date) (Studia Hellenistica, vols. 6, 8, l 1-13, I 7, Louvain, 195o-68). Regenbogen, Theophrastos RE, Suppbd. vii, s.v. 'Theophrastos (3)', cols. 1353-1562. Rob. Louis Robert. Robert Jeanne and Louis Robert. Rosto. Michael Rostovtzeff. Roussel, DCA P. Roussel, Delos, colonie athenienne (Bibl. ec. fran~. d'Athenes et de Rome, fasc. 111, Paris, 1916). -Les Cultesegyptiensa Delos du IIl 8 au J•r siecleav. J.-C. --,CED (Annales de !'Est, publ. par la Faculte des Lettres de l'Univ. de Nancy, 29• et 30• annees, Paris et Nancy, 1915-16). Hopf.

ABBREVIATIONS Rowe, Discovery

Susemihl Tarn, GB/2 IVB

Wehrli West. Wilam. --,AvK --,HD

Wilck.

xv

A. Rowe, Discovery of the Famous Temple and Enclosure of Serapis at Alexandria (Supplement aux Annales de Service, Cah. 2, Cairo, 1946); cf. eh. 1, note 31, § 2. F. Susemihl, Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit (2 vols., Leipzig, 1891-2). W. W. Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria and India, 2nd edn. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1951). F. Preisigke, Wiirterbuch der griechischenPapyrusurkunden (3 vols., Selbstverlag der Erben, Berlin, 1925; 2nd edn. [vol. iv] in progress, ed. by E. Kiessling: iv, 1-3, Selbstverlag des Verfassers, Marburg [iv, 1, Berlin, 1944]). F. Wehrli, Die Schute des Aristoteles (10 Hefte, Basel and Stuttgart, 1944-59; 2nd edn. in progress, 1967- ). A. Westermann, Bioypa,poi, Vitarum Scriptores graeci minores (Brunswick, 1845). Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff. -Antigonos von Karystos (Philolog, Untersuch., edited by A. Kiessling and Wilam., iv, Berlin, 1881). -Hellenistische Dichtung in der Zeit des Kallimachos (2 vols., Berlin, 1924). Ulrich Wilcken.

CORRIGENDA p.

::,.c- q: for 'Ibrahimieh' read 'Ibrahimiya', and so throughout. .;•:. para. 3, penultimate line: after 'and' add 'their names'. ++·last para .. line 7 : for 'demes' read 'demotics'. 82, nine lines from bottom: for 'Olympic' read 'Olympian'. r.;,, para. 2, line 10: read 'cargo-barges,'. 191, para 1, last sentence: 'In the Roman period dedications of the second type continue in ,·ogue'. 195, fifteen lines from bottom: for 'Hylatas' read 'Hylates'. 1 g6, para. 3, line 4: for 'Bladous' read 'Bla..6>..oyoi simply means 'men of culture' regardless of their particular interests, and is not restricted to literary scholars, grammarians, or philologists. 90 In the same way, in more general terms, Timon evidently has the entire menagerie in mind, and the passage cannot be pressed to support one branch oflearning rather than another; he is in any case less concerned with nice distinctions than with creating a lively image. We may thus conclude that Timon (and subsequently Strabo) does not really affect the problem of the studies carried on in the Mouseion one way or the other. To Timon's profoundly sceptical and contemptuous mind, they were all-scientists or men of lettersargumentative bookworms, and that was the sum of the matter. 91 There remains the question of the nature of the activity of the members of the Mouseion. In addition to their religious and communal activities, were the members mainly engaged in teaching or in scientific investigation? Here we must beware of thinking too much in terms of modern academic societies, where the dichotomy between these two activities has become almost complete. The members of the Mouseion were no doubt primarily concerned with the advancement of their subject by investigation, but it is natural to suppose that they also taught and gave lectures. A considerable amount of public teaching in the form of lectures of some sort was certainly carried on in the Ptolemaic period, for we hear of many distinguished figures who are described as having been 'the hearer', that is, the pupil, of another. It is nowhere stated that this teaching, either in general, or as it affected the studies embraced by the Mouseion, was carried on in that institution, but it would be very natural that it should be. The alternative is to suppose that, as teachers, the members of the Mouseion had their own private teaching establishments. That is possible, but it certainly seems more likely that Soter and his advisers, when creating the Mouseion, made provision for lectures to be given by its members on its premises. It is worth noting in this connection that many centuries later the teaching staff of the university at Constantinople were prohibited by Imperial edict from remunerative private teaching. 92 In any case it would be unwise, again under the influence of modern notions, to regard instruction as conducted by means of formal lectures. Much of it, if not all, would be effected by means of informal discussion and conversation, and it is indeed difficult to imagine that the Mouseion did not make provision for this. The history of the Mouseion in the Ptolemaic period no doubt followed the same course as patronage as a whole. With the departure of the immigrant intelligentsia of the third century, and the general transfrr of intellectual activity to the native Alexandrians, we need not doubt 89

PTOLEMAIC

PATRONAGE:

THE

MOUSEION

AND LIBRARY

319

that from the early second century the standard of scientific work fell rapidly. The causes of this need not be repeated here. It is enough to recall once more the passage ofMenecles ofBarce concerning the exodus of scientists, doctors, philosophers, and members of every branch of the intellectual classes to realize the effect this had on the Mouseion.93 Several notable men of letters and scholars are known to have fled at this time, and on the scientific side we find no distinguished scientists in the later second century,94 and only a few doctors in the first.95 Nevertheless it would be a mistake to assume that in the absence of outstanding talent the Mouseion declined as an institution. What Strabo says of the intellectual activity of Alexandria in his day, in a passage in which he compares it with that of Tarsus, no doubt reflects the activity of the Mouseion. He says:96 The enthusiasm of the Tarsians for philosophy and the rest of'encyclopaedic knowledge' surpasses even that of Athens and Alexandria and everywhere else where there are schools and philosophical establishments [note that l'ergamon need no longer be reckoned with in this connection]. The diflcrence is that in Tarsus those who come to learn are all local people, and that strangers do not take to the place easily. Nor indeed do the natives themselves stay there, but they complete their studies abroad, and when they have finished they gladly live abroad and only a few return home. The opposite happens in the other cities just mentioned, except Alexandria. For many visit them and reside there with pleasure, but you would not see many natives either studying abroad out of love of learning or eagerly pursuing their studies at home. At Alexandria both phenomena occur: for they receive many foreigners, and not a few of their own citizens are sent to complete their training abroad.

Thus, however much the general level of work had declined in Alexandria in the first century B.c., there is no doubt that it had preserved or recovered a good deal of the prestige which it had enjoyed as an institution before the darkest days of the mid-second century. However, the mere fact that it was much frequented as a centre of learning does not prove that the learning in itself was of a very high standard. This cannot l>emaintained in view of what we know of the life of Alexandria at that time. It can only be said that it may still have offered the best academic training that was available-but it was immeasurably below what was available in the third century, when the scientific work of the Mouseion in particular reached a level of achievement which was unique in antiquity. When we turn to study the history of literary scholarship, we shall note a different curve of development in the field of grammar and philology. The background for this lies not only in the Mouseion, as a teaching establishment, but also in the Library, to which we must now turn our attention.

320

PTOLEMAIC

PATRONAGE:

III.

THE

THE

MOUSEION

AND LIBRARY

LIBRARY

The other great organ and fruit of Ptolemaic patronage was the Library. Of this we know more than we do of the Mouseion, but still very little, and the interpretation of much of the material is highly controversial. As with the Mouseion, we may first consider the Library as an institution. There is, as might be expected, a considerable amount of evidence for libraries in Greece, or what at least may be loosely described as 'book collections' and 'book collectors', long before the age of Alexander. 97Most of this refers to private collections but, given the difficulties of the production and multiplication of texts, it does not seem likely that libraries, if they existed at all, were either extensive in themselves or particularly common.9 8 The fourth century certainly witnessed an increase in such collections, not least in the possession of tyrants, 99 and in the second half of it there is no doubt that Aristotle collected a very considerable library at the Lyceum.rn° Consequently, as with the Mouseion, there is a likelihood of direct Peripatetic influence in the establishment of the Library. Strabo, in fact, in his account of the lost library of Aristotle, says that he 'taught the kings of Egypt to establish a library', and this statement, which cannot be literally true, rnr is evidently to be understood as referring to a specific Peripatetic impetus. We shall consider this in greater detail shortly. Here it is enough to note that the Library, like the Mouseion, has unmistakable links with those traditions of the Lyceum which account for the nature and trend of much of the intellectual life of Alexandria, with its emphasis on the collection and comparison of material rather than on abstract philosophy in the tradition of the Academy, and which at a later date led to the use of the word 'Peripatetic' as equivalent to 'Alexandrian'.rnz The civic libraries of the Hellenistic age, like the later Mouseia, no doubt looked to Alexandria and Pergamon as models in some respects, though there is no evidence that they were centres oflearning in the same way. It does not appear that such libraries existed sufficiently early to have exercised an influence on the Alexandrian foundation.rn 3 However, though we can glimpse the early influences at work in the establishment of the Library, of its history as a public building in Alexandria we know next to nothing. Herodas, in his brief account of the wonders of the city in the third century B.c.,rn 4 does not mention the Library, and we possess no evidence relating to it earlier than the so-called Letter of Aristeas, which records the legend of the seventy Translators of the Hebrew Bible who worked in Alexandria in the reign of Philadelphus. In this story Demetrius of Phaleron is described as 'in charge of the Royal Library', and it was with a view to acquiring a copy of the I khrcw Bible in translation for that institution that Philadelphus

PTOLEMAIC

PATRONAGE:

THE

MOUSEION

AND LIBRARY

321

despatched his envoys to collect the Translators. Since however the /,etter was probably composed in the reign of Philometor ( 180-145), it is 11otreliable historically, and the information it provides must be used with caution. 10 s At a later date the silence ofStrabo in his account of the city is noteworthy. Thus, while we have reliable historical evidence for the Mouseion both in the lampoon ofTimon, 106 and in Strabo's description of it, such is wholly lacking for the Library as an institution. Our prime source both for the early organization of the Library and lrthe sequence of the early Librarians, and incidentally the only ..~µ,a-ra), the distinction between which exercised mathematical theorists continually; it is in a sense valid. 12 9 Proclus sums the matter up satisfactorily when he says: 'Deductions from first principles are divided into problems and theorems, the former embracing generation, division, subtraction, or addition of figures, and generally the changes which they undergo, the latter exhibiting the essential attributes of each' :130 or, as we may say more briefly, in problems we are asked to construct something, in theorems to prove something. This distinction was denied in antiquity for philosophical reasons, but was upheld by Proclus on grounds offact. 1 3 1 Nevertheless, although the books of the Elements can be classified on this basis (for example, Book iv deals wholly with constructions, that is problems, and v wholly with inferential proof, that is theorems), little is gained by so doing, since the method of procedure, that is, the parts of the demonstration, are the same, and in modern usage we are able to comprehend both categories conveniently under the general title of 'proposition'. The parts of a proposition are clearly stated by Proclus as consisting of enunciation (7rp6-raai,), exposition (EK0wi,), definition (oiopiaµ,6,), construction (Ka-raaKw~), proof (cb6oEtgt,), and conclusion (avµ,mfpaaµ,a), and a full proposition of maximum development contains all these parts; others, less complete, contain only the essential elements, namely the enunciation, the proof, and the conclusion. A full description of the functions of each part is given by Proclus, 132 but we may omit this, and consider instead one Euclidean proposition, the form of which holds good in essentials for all post-Euclidean propositions. The entire Elements proceeds synthetically, that is to say, each proposition is based on ground already covered, and it does not greatly matter what proposition we consider. Our purpose is best served by a simple example, so we may examine a plane geometrical proposition which has the additional interest of surviving also in a detailed preEuclidean proof, and the fact of which was already known to Thales, namely i, 5, the 'Pons Asinorum', the proposition the enunciation of which is that in isoceles triangles the angles at the base are equal to one another, and (secondly) that if the equal straight lines be produced further, the angles under the base will be equal to one another. 133 This proposition in fact contains two separate proofs and is therefore what 134 Proclus calls a composite theorem (avv0E-rov0Ewp'Yjµ,a). The exposition of the proposition, recording what is given, is introduced

ALEXANDRIAN

SCIENCE

395

by the simple imperative: 'Let ABI' be an isoceles triangle having the side AB equal to the side AI', and let there have been added in a straight line to AB, AI', the straight lines BL1, I'E.' 136 The enunciation is followed by the specification (8wpiaµ6s), which is commonly introduced by 'I say' (Myw, a formula also used in other contexts by subsequent mathematicians, for instance by Archimedes in his definitions) :137 'I say that the angle ABI' is equal to the angle AI'B, and the angle I'BL1equal to BI'E.' 138 Next comes the construction (Ka-raaKEv~) of the necessary figure: 'Let there have been selected on BL1any point Z, and let AH have been taken away from the greater part AE, equal to the lesser, AZ, and let the straight lines ZI', HB, have been joined together.' 13 9 With this we embark on the proof, which is too long to reproduce here. It proceeds by the application of the previous proposition (i, 4 'If two triangles have the same two sides equal to two sides respectively, and have the angles contained by the same straight lines equal, they will also have the base equal to the base, the triangle will be equal to the triangle, and the remaining angles will be equal to the remaining angles respectively, namely those which the equal sides subtend') 14° to the two sets of triangles thus constructed in a manner which is complicated by the fact that two propositions have to be proved from one construction. The proof is followed by the ·conclusion, introduced, as always, by the particle apa, which is much employed by the mathematicians: 141 'Therefore the angles at the base of isoceles triangles are equal to one another, and if the equal straight lines are produced further, the angles under the base will be equal to one another.' 142 This is followed by the final statement, 'which was to be proved' (orr1:p EOH81:t(ai). 1 43 The second part of this proposition, concerning the angles under the base, needs to be proved in the Euclidean manner, but the first, main, proposition can be proved in other ways, less complex, r44 and one such proof is given by Aristotle in the Prior Analytics,i4s a proof which he no doubt derived from Theudios, the author of Elements. His proof is entirely different from that of Euclid, and (whether it originated with Aristotle or Theudios) shows very well how original in this item Euclid's formulation was. Aristotle solves the problem (which he uses to illustrate the necessary properties of one premiss in a syllogism) by means of the equality of the two angles of a semicircle and of a segment, involving the use of 'mixed' angles. 146 Between this formulation and that of Euclid there is no point in common. This simple illustration has, it is hoped, served a double purpose: it has shown the simple linguistic framework and formula of the Enclidean proposition, and at the same time provided a very clear example of how, within the limitations of a given proposition, Euclid had the power to reconstruct the approach to a problem. 135

396

ALEXANDRIAN

SCIENCE

We have already seen that Euclid stands quite alone as a mathematician in the intellectual world of early Alexandria, and we have emphasized the apparent absence of links between him and subsequent Alexandrian mathematics. We shall shortly notice another significant point of difference connected with the general method of presentation in comparison with Archimedes and Apollonius of Perge. We may now consider the most important developments of this later period, which belong to the main stream of the great creative output of the third century. Proclus in his summary provides only the most vague chronological link between Euclid and his successors, when he tells us that he was older than Archimedes and Eratosthenes, who, according to the latter, were contemporaries. 147 Many arguments combine to show that Eratosthenes lived on into the early second century, while Archimedes died in 212 B.c., and was born in about 287 B.c. Consequently the lives of Euclid, whom we have assumed to have died about 270, and of these two just overlapped. If these dates are approximately correct it looks as if the period of Euclid's own teaching was followed by an interval in which, roughly between 270 and 250, no great mathematician was active in Alexandria. This is borne out by the fact that Apollonius of Perge, who flourished in the reign of Euergetes I, and was therefore probably a student in Alexandria about 260-250 B.c., is described by Pappus as a pupil of the pupils of Euclid-none of whom are specifically named. 14 8 This suggests that the immediate successors of Euclid were not men of great renown, whose names were household words. 149 Thus, though there was a tradition of mathematical teaching from Euclid onwards which no doubt continued throughout the third century, Euclid's direct influence, through his own teaching and that of his successors, was, it may be conjectured, far less than that of his written work. Similarly, the feeling one derives from the study of the generation of mathematicians who were students in the mid-third century is that, although their debt to Euclid is very great, it does not seem to be personal or pedagogic-even Apollonius is only said to have, as it were, imbibed the air of Euclid's teaching. Thus from this point of view, too, if we see correctly, Euclid appears as personally isolated from the main trend of the third century, even though intellectually he left an indelible mark on its mathematical development. One major figure belongs to the interval between the early third century and ihe middle of it, namely the astronomer Aristarchus of Samos, who, not being an Elementist, naturally receives no mention from Proclus. It will, however, be convenient to notice him here bec.111sc his work was essentially mathematical, and falls into the first half of' the third century. 150 The biographical tradition regarding Aris-

ALEXANDRIAN

SCIENCE

397

tarchus is lacunose even by Alexandrian standards, and all we know is contained in the brief remark ofStobaeus, 151 'Aristarchos the Samian, mathematician, the pupil of Straton, (who maintained that) light is the colour falling on intermediate objects', and the statement of Ptolemy that he observed at an unknown position the summer solstice of281/o. 1 s2 There is no reference to Aristarchus' residence in Alexandria (or indeed anywhere else) but it seems very likely that he was resident at least for a considerable time in that city, for Alexandria was the normal centre of residence and study for Samians in the third century, when Samos was part of the Ptolemaic empire. is3 He was moreover a pupil of Straton, and Straton was active in Alexandria 1s4 before he became scholarch of the Lyceum in 288, on the death of Theophrastus. Since Aristarchus' recorded observation was made in 281 he had by that time probably ceased to be a student, and therefore we may suppose that he was a pupil of Straton in Egypt, and probably born about 310 B.c. His observation of 281 may have been made at Alexandria, but there is no evidence that it was. 1 ss Aristarchus' fame among posterity depends on his heliocentric theory of the universe, which we know only at second hand. There survives a small work written by him, On the size and distances ef the 'HAtov Kat l:Ell~vry,), Sun and the Moon (llEpt p,Ey.f0wv Kat a1roUTYJf1,aTwv which by an adverse fate belongs to the period before he evolved this theory, and which still retains the framework of a geocentric universe. 1 s6 It consists of a series of eighteen astronomical propositions expressed (like the geometrical astronomy of Autolycus) rs7 in the traditional manner in geometrical terms, and preceded by a series of postulates or hypotheses entirely in the manner of Euclid. Such postulates are, for example, 'The moon receives its light from the sun ( 1)', 'The breadth of the earth's shadow is that of two moons (5)',1 58 and the propositions which follow are also Euclidean in style. 159 The complete absence of any prefatory matter such as we find in Archimedes and his successors 160 also associates him with Euclid and the earlier part of the century. This work on the size of the moon and the sun, and their distance from the earth, is of less immediate significance than Aristarchus' belief in a heliocentric universe, which is recorded in some detail by Archimedes in his Sand-Reckoner. 161 In this work Archimedes wishes to find a means of expressing an extremely large number, and in the prefatory letter to Prince Gelon of Syracuse he assumes a figure so br~c that the number of grains of sand needed to fill the ;sphere of the fixed stars of Aristarchus' would be insufficient to express it. The i Ih 1stration, and the detailed explanation, both seem forced, but that docs not alter their value for our purpose. Archimedes says that Gelon knows that Aristarchus issued a work containing some hypotheses from

398

ALEXANDRIAN

SCIENCE

which it follows that the universe is many times greater than it is commonly supposed to be. 162 He says: 'His hypotheses are that the fixed stars and the sun remain unmoved, that the earth revolves about the sun on the circumference of a circle, the sun lying in the middle of the orbit, and that the sphere of the fixed stars, situated about the same centre as the sun, is so great that the circle in which he supposes the earth to revolve bears such a proportion to the distance of the fixed stars as the centre of the sphere bears to its surface.' 16 3 'I say, then,' says Archimedes, 'that if a sphere were made up of the sand as great as the sphere of Aristarchus' fixed stars, nevertheless of the numbers named in the "Principles" some exceed in multitude the number of the grains of sand which is equal to the sphere referred to, provided that the following assumptions be made.' Archimedes then proceeds to make certain assumptions regarding the relative diameter of the sun, moon, and earth. 164 This is our main source of information on Aristarchus' heliocentric theory, and the fact that Archimedes introduces the theory as a simple illustration of his own argument serves to show the authenticity of the quotation. 16 5 Aristarchus' famous hypothesis remains rather obscure and vague, for we do not know how he reached this conclusion. 166 It can, however, be stated with some certainty that in spite of the considerable developments in cosmology in the fourth century, particularly associated with the names of Eudoxus of Cnidus, Callippus of Cyzicus, and Heraelides Ponticus, it was an individual achievement rather than the copingstone of a long endeavour. 167 Even though the last-named elaborated a theory according to which some at least of the planets were regarded as satellites of the sun, 168 this had never been extended to include the earth, whose fixed position as centre of the orbit of the sun and its satellites had never been questioned. In the future, moreover, apart from the adherence that Aristarchus won from Seleucus of Seleuciaon-Tigris in the mid-second century B.c., 16 9 the central position of the Earth remained an accepted basis of speculation. It is also to be observed that there are reasons for supposing that Aristarchus only emitted this as a hypothesis, and made no attempt to offer a proof. Archimedes, in the introduction to the passage already quoted, says that Aristarchus 'produced a book consisting of some hypotheses' and introduces the theory with the words 'It is supposed'. Again Plutarch makes it clear that while Seleucus purported to have proved the double motion of the earth, that is, rotation on its own axis and its revolution round the sun, Aristarchus only advanced it as a hypothesis. 170 Thus, siucc Selcucus has no connection with Alexandria, and it is not even clear that he owed anything to Aristarchus, and the connection of the latter with the same city, though probable, is not proved, it would

ALEXANDRIAN

SCIENCE

399

be extremely dangerous to assume that Aristarchus' heliocentric theory played any part in Alexandrian cosmology and astronomy as a whole. At the same time it is clear from the attack on him by the contemporary Stoic, Cleanthes, that the hypothesis he promulgated attained considerable notoriety. I7I To the middle of the century belong three figures of unequal distinction closely associated in their lives: Archimedes of Syracuse, Canon of Samas, and Dositheus. Archimedes, 172 whose life spanned much of the third century 173 ( 287-212 B.c.) is said by Diodorus to have visited Egypt; he says that the Egyptian screw (the 'Archimedean screw') was invented by Archimedes 'when he was in Egypt',1 7 4 and this meagre notice is the only direct reference to any residence of his in that country. On the other hand, as we shall see, he had extremely close contacts with the Alexandrian mathematicians, Conan, Dositheus, and Eratosthenes, and his figure looms large in Ptolemaic mathematics. Consequently, even if his actual residence there was brief, and our knowledge of his life is largely confined to Plutarch's moving, if panegyrical, account of the siege of Syracuse and the old man's death, he is nevertheless part and parcel of the Alexandrian scene, unlike most temporary residents. Archimedes was an original and far-seeing mathematical genius in a way that perhaps no other mathematician of antiquity was, 17 5 and his researches broke entirely new ground in more than one field, particularly in that of solid geometry, in which he far outstripped Euclid, and in mechanics, though of the applied branch of the latter he did not have a high opinion himself. 176 His most important surviving works are On the Sphere and Cylinder (IIEpl acpalpasKal KvA.lv8pov)in two books, On Conoids and Spheroids (IIEpl KwvoE£8wvKal acpaipoEL8wv) in one book, On Spirals (IIEpl J).lKwv)in one book, On the Equilibrium 1!f Planes (IIEpl i7TmE8wvlaoppomwv) in two books, On the Q,uadrature in one book, On Floatof the Parabola (IIEpl rerpaywviaµofJ 7Tapaf3oAfjs) ing bodies(IIEpl oxovµEvwv) in two books (Latin only), and the highly interesting Method ("Ecpo8os)in one book, containing an account of how Archimedes mechanically discovered (as opposed to mathematically formulated) the proof of his propositions. Minor works include the Sand-Reckoner(''Paµµ.lrYJs),already referred to, containing a means of finding indefinitely large numbers, On the measurementof the circle (IIEpl fi-ETp~aEwsKVKA.ov),and a book on Lemmata, preserved only in Arabic. 177 Although so much of Archimedes survives it is not possible to form a wholly correct appreciation of his work, for this has been basically modified in one respect-Archimedes wrote his work in Syracusan Doric, and this was removed in different degrees from his works at

400

ALEXANDRIAN

SCIENCE

a date earlier than that of the most ancient manuscript. 178 The Doric survives in some works to a considerable extent, including his epistolary prefaces. 17 9 These prefaces, discussed further below, are among the most important surviving records of post-Classic prose Doric writing, and possess considerable literary interest on that account. 180 It is difficult for the layman to follow all the varied achievements of Archimedes in different fields. We are, however, more concerned here with the light thrown by his writings on his character and method, and with his influence as a whole, in other words with the historical significance of his life-work. This may best be studied through the prefaces to his individual works, which usually contain, in epistolary form, his own historical survey of the particular problem he is investigating, as well as his own definitions for its solution. In general the prefaces are the most striking feature of his work (as are, in the next generation, these of Apollonius of Perge), and in direct contrast with the impersonal manner of Euclid's introductory definitions and postulates. Through prefaces of this type the great mathematicians of the third century (followed, no doubt deliberately, in later centuries by the mathematicians of the Alexandrian revival, Pappus and Diophantus) 181 and particularly Archimedes, stamped their personalities on their work, and enable us to see something of the personal relationship which existed between them. In the general structure of his theorems, Archimedes follows the classic form of exposition, but the several stages are less sharply articulated than in Euclid, and his systematization of his preliminary matter shows some variations from Euclid's rigid formulae. First of all the terminology of the Definitions and Postulates is altered. 182 In one work the opoi and Koiva/, lvvoiai of Euclid are called respectively dfuJJ,mrn and Aaµ,(3avoµ,Eva.183 In another Archimedes begins with a personal statement: 'I postulate that equal weights at equal distances are in equilibrium', 1 84 and here in any case this should really be an axiom. 18 s In other works, as we shall see, 186 he employs a seemingly novel formulation by embodying the definitions in the later part of the preface in such a way as to make the whole a consecutive narrative leading straight to the opening proposition. In this way he introduced a new and personal style into his work. We shall see that in the Method he is at great pains to stress the necessity of his preliminary work being available to others. 187 The same elasticity of outlook seems to govern his approach to the formulation of his preliminary matter. The prefaces are addressed to, or concern, three Alexandrian friends, Conon of Samos, Dositheus, and Eratosthenes, the first two of whom we now encounter for the first time. Conon is not actually addressed in any surviving preface-most are addressed to Dositheus-h11t Archimedes tells Dositheus that he had previously addressed such

ALEXANDRIAN

SCIENCE

prefaces to Conon in his lifetime, and also sent him unpublished material to scrutinize, and thus the role of Conon does not differ from that played subsequently by Dositheus. Conon was a Samian, and much of his life was apparently spent in Alexandria, 188 where, like other scientists of the day, he lived in the Court circle, and his discovery of the heavenly constellation to which he gave the topical name of'The Lock of Berenice', gave Callimachus the opportunity for a famous aetiology in verse. 18 9 He was primarily an astronomer, and as such finds mention in Virgil's second Eclogue,190 while Ptolemy records that he made astronomical observations in Italy and Sicily; and he probably also wrote a book on Italy. 191 Nevertheless, he wrote also on advanced geometry, and Archimedes himself in various passages warmly praises his grasp of mathematical problems. 1 9 2 He is said by Apollonius of Perge to have been the first to discover the principles of conics, to have produced imperfect theorems on that subject, and to have been 'moderately' attacked on that account by an otherwise unknown contemporary, the Cyrenaean Nicoteles. 1 93 We may observe that this note of controversy is without parallel in Alexandrian mathematics and serves to emphasize the contrast in this respect between the mathematicians on the one hand and the grammarians and physicians on the other. Such matters depend very much on the authority of individuals, and it appears that the overwhelming, if seemingly impersonal, authority of Euclid and the humane and modest influence of Archimedes created a more harmonious atmosphere than that which existed in other disciplines. Since Conon was firmly established in Alexandria by the time of Euergetes I's Syrian expedition (the occasion of the Coma Berenices), and since he evidently died in Alexandria,1 9 4 it is possible that he may have travelled in the west as a young astronomer, and established his bond of friendship with Archimedes at that time,195 though it is equally possible that they may have met first in Egypt, and kept up the friendship after the departure of Archimedes for Syracuse. At all events, the general tone of Archimedes' letters, and the lack of Alexandrian colour (such as is not lacking, for example, in the preliminary letters of Apollonius of Perge) seem to show quite clearly that Archimedes is writing from Syracuse to Alexandria. Conon died, apparently unexpectedly, at an early age, 1 96 and his place in Archimedes' correspondence was taken by Dositheus, his pupil, also an astronomer. Dositheus is not a common name as early as the third century B.c., and consequently the identification of this 1)ositheus with Dositheus of Pelusion, mentioned in a Life of Aratus as author of a work on astronomy, seems reasonable. Dositheus is quoted by Ptolemy for a number of astronomical observations (including some made on Cos), and was (to judge by Archimedes' method of 814278

D

d

402

ALEXANDRIAN

SCIENCE

address to him) an astronomer and mathematician of some distinction.197 The other person to whom Archimedes' Alexandrian letters are addressed is Eratosthenes, whose importance as a mathematician is but one of many aspects of his extraordinarily varied activity. It is to him that Archimedes addressed his very important Method ("Ecpooos) in which he reveals his personal modus operandi in solid geometry,19 8 and we learn from the introductory letter that he had also written to Eratosthenes on a previous occasion. There also survives under the name of Archimedes a lengthy elegiac poem containing the so-called Cattle Problem (Bo"iKov7rpofJAYJµa),in which the problem of indeterminate analysis is treated. This tour deforce has often been regarded as spurious, and may be so. However the lemma to the poem, which seems to preserve an authentic historical tradition, indicates that in any case the original work, on which the poem was based, was sent by Archimedes in Syracuse to Eratosthenes in Alexandria, apparently to be circulated among mathematicians in the city. 1 99As we shall see, Archimedes was very anxious that his work should be discussed and criticized after and even, if possible, before, publication, and evidently, with an unselfishness rare in the history of learning, he regarded it as natural to dispatch his precious rolls from Syracuse to Alexandria for this purpose. 200 The prefaces of Archimedes thus mirror very clearly higher mathematical activity in Alexandria, long after he had left the city and returned to Syracuse. Eratosthenes continued to be active until the turn of the century, and Dositheus, as a pupil of Conon, and yet of an age to be on equal terms with Archimedes, even though the latter had never met him, was very probably born about 250, and therefore, unless he died prematurely, probably he too lived into the second century. We may now turn to the individual prefaces themselves. They were originally written in Doric, and though, as we have seen, much of this has been removed by later editors and copyists, enough survives to give a rather incongruous impression of rusticity, at variance with the subtle and skilful arguments. The excellent quality of much nontechnical Greek mathematical writing has often been noticed, 201 and we find it at its best in the prefaces of Archimedes and Apollonius of Perge. The style is lucid, direct, and fluent, and in marked contrast to the rigorous laconism of the propositions, themselves couched in the traditional style. The content is mostly historical and personal-that is to say, it records the previous history of the problem and then develops at length the reasons which led Archimedes, with much toil, to undertake the difficult task of attempting a solution. Of the ten extant works of Archimedes (excluding the Cattle

ALEXANDRIAN

SCIENCE

Problem) five are addressed to Dositheus, one to Eratosthenes, and one to Prince Gelon of Syracuse. The earliest work seems to be the CJ. ... uadratureefthe Parabola, addressed to Dositheus very shortly after the death of Conon, whom Archimedes describes as 'a friend and a wondrous mathematician' .202 He explains that he has heard that Dositheus was a friend or pupil of Conon, and versed in geometry, and he therelore explains his new proposition to him. 203 This is, to square the area hounded by a straight line and a section of a right-angled cone. 20 4 Archimedes says that so far as he is aware no one has attempted to do lhis before, although he employs the lemma (assumption) regarding the properties of unequal areas which, he says, earlier mathematicians have used for proofs in the field of plane and solid geometry: 20 s he hopes his application of the lemma to conics will receive the same degree of acceptance as these previous demonstrations based on the same lemma. He says, finally, that he has written out the proofs and sends two versions of them-that investigated by means of mechanics, and that proved by means of geometry. 206 This last statement is of great importance, for it shows (as does the Method in greater dctail) 207 Archimedes' care for the nature of his proofs. He sends both his own method of reaching the proof by way of mechanical demonstra1ion, and then the re-formulation of the proofin terms of strict geometry. In this preface, as in others, Archimedes lets us, as it were, into his workshop, and allows us to see his mind working: the difficulties and 11ncertainties of his task are admitted and analysed to provide a true assessment of the finished geometrical proof. This personal note is :1pparently new, and evidently made a considerable impression on his successors; for we find it, not indeed at quite the same degree of intensity, in Apollonius and, as we have seen, it appears to have become ;1 permanent feature of mathematical exposition. 208 The problem itself is only one of several relating to conics enunciated I>y Archimedes. In general there is no indication that he wrote a specific work on conics, though he may be regarded as the most important predecessor of Apollonius in this field, particularly with regard to the parabola. 209 He thus stands in the study of conics, i II an intermediate position, between the older investigations of Aristaeus and Euclid and the final systematization by Apollonius. 210 One other preface to Dositheus may be considered by way of example, 1hat at the beginning of the On the Sphere and the Cylinder, i. 211 The cs his attitude in words which might recall the apologies of ;1 pmc mathematician today: 'Regarding the business of mechanics ,111d('.Very utilitarian art as ignoble and vulgar, he gave his zealous ,1,-,,ot ion only to those subjects whose elegance and subtlety are

ALEXANDRIAN

SCIENCE

untrammelled by the necessities oflife; these subjects, he held, cannot be compared with any others.' 394It is part and parcel of this attitude that, as Diels pointed out, so many of the great engineering achievements described by the ancient historians are left anonymous.395 In these conditions the application of mechanics to everyday life might not be expected to, and indeed did not, advance very far. Nevertheless, what limited advances were made on the foundations of ancient physics were primarily of Alexandrian origin, although the surviving versions mainly belong to the age of Roman Alexandria, when Heron produced a number of ingenious mechanical objects, including toys, based largely on Ptolemaic originals.39 6 Some more serious instruments, some of which we have already encountered, are undoubtedly Ptolemaic: the stopwatch for the pulse-count and heart-beats invented by Herophilus, 397 the pedometer described by Vitruvius (which goes back to an earlier version of that given by Heron),39 8 and other such instruments. Yet, even so, many of these inventions are but toys. This was clearly seen by Vitruvius, who said that though some of the inventions of Ctesibius, the third-century inventor, were useful and serviceable, others were simply amusing frivolities. 399The procession of the reign of Philadelphus described by Callixeinus provides an example of such an automaton, which, if not the work of Ctesibius, is contemporary with him: a statue of the personified Nysa, I 2 feet high, which rose and made a libation 'without anybody touching it' .400This is as far as mechanical invention for the most part went. The fact is surprising, since the situation in Ptolemaic Alexandria was probably more favourable to the application of mechanics than in any other part of the Hellenistic world, for the exigencies of the royal economy must have provided much scope for invention. To give but one example: the reclamation of land in the Fayyum in the reigns of Philadelphus and Euergetes I involved the employment of a large number of trained engineers, 401while a letter addressed probably to the former of these kings by a military cleruch in Apollonopolis Magna (Edfu), who is anxious to dispose of a machine which he has invented for regulating the flow of the Nile during the flood, suggests considerable popular interest in applied science.4°2 A more pedagogic interest is visible in the papyrus called the Laterculi Alexandrini,403which contains lists of persons and objects of note (the Seven Wonders of the World, the Largest Rivers, and so on). One section of the list is headed fLY/XaviKo{,4°4 and contains the names of Greek mechanics famous for the construction of weapons of siege warfare. It is of importance as showing the rather unexpected interest taken in such engineers and as indicative perhaps of a new prestige acquired by them; also as introducing us to an otherwise unknown figure in Alexandrian mechanics, Abdaraxus. 4os

ALEXANDRIAN

SCIENCE

There are at all events two branches of applied mechanics, the study of which certainly flourished in Alexandria, namely artillery construction, involving the science of pneumatics, and the art of siege warfare generally. Rather, then, than recount the tale of minor inventions of this period, we may consider these two topics in rather more detail. In this context we must consider one figure who lies behind most of the mechanical and physical speculations of third century Alexandria, Straton of Lampsacus, o vaiK6,, scholarch of the Lyceum from 288/7 to 269/8, and resident in Alexandria in the reign of Ptolemy I as the tutor of Philadelphus; he was no doubt one of that important group collected by Soter to assist in the foundation of the Mouseion. We have already encountered his name elsewhere, 406but this is the occasion to consider his influence on Alexandrian physical and scientific thought more closely. Of his teaching and writings only the smallest direct fragments survive. 407 The list of his writings in Diogenes Laertius4° 8 has a characteristically Peripatetic colour, and in many respects-especially in logical and ethical studies-he seems to have followed closely in the footsteps of Aristotle and Theophrastus.4° 9 Antiquity (at least from Polybius onwards) accorded him the title of vaiK6,,4io and there can be no doubt of his eminence in the physical sciences in the widest terms-as indicated by titles such as llEpL KEvoD,llEpL 1rvEvµ,aTo,,llEpL llEpL xpwµ,aTwv, and so on. In his role as ~) of Stations, which was certainly a product of Alexander's campaigns. 12 3 This work also no doubt contained much information on intermediate distances, like the Parthian Stations of Isidore of Charax of the first century A.D., 12 4 but probably little else. For fuller information he made some use of the three main authorities on Indian matters, Patrocles, Megasthenes, and Deimachus, the three Seleucid agents of the early third century, of whom the first was governor of the Caspian and Bactrian area under Antiochus I, the second Seleucus Nicator's envoy to the court of the Maurya king, Sandracottus, and the third ambassador to Allitrochades, the king of Palimbothra. 12 s Strabo had the highest opinion of Patrocles, and a very low one of Megasthenes and Deimachus, 126 while on the other hand Hipparchus thought well of both Megasthenes and Deimachus and had no faith in Patrocles. 127 Between these two extremes we have, as usual, to steer our own way to determine Eratosthenes' precise position. It is clear that he accepted Patrocles' measurements for the distance from the Indian cape to the Caucasus, I 5,000 stades, while rejecting the larger figure of Megasthenes and Deimachus, 128 who said that it varied between 20,000 and 30,000 stades-a figure approved by Hipparchus, who claimed that 'the ancient maps' agreed with the second figure. 12 9 At the same time he distrusted and rejected the romantic element in both Megasthenes and Deimachus, and regarded the latter at least as technically incompetent. 1 3° Strabo also says that he used other sources for his Indian figures, 1 J 1 but it may be doubted whether for internal measurements he had other means of checking the three authors than the Stations of which he made considerable use, though he may have had an occasional trading-record for the coast. It is noteworthy that there is no explicit statement that he used either Onesicritus or Nearclrns, though it seems likely that he did so on a small scale. 132 Another identifiable group of sources existed for the southern part of the known world, in other words Meroe and beyond, to Ethiopia. W c have already referred to the frequent elephant expeditions dispatched

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

by the Ptolemies, from Soter to Philopator, to the far South. 133 These expeditions or campaigns, which resulted in the foundation of a number of trading stations and garrisons all the way down the coast to Cape Guardafui, naturally led also to a considerable extension of geographical knowledge. We have seen that Philon, the first commander of such an expedition, made at least one important astronomical observation at Meroe, regarding the relation of the gnomon and the shadows both at the solstices and the equinoxes,1 34 a method which was used by Eratosthenes and may have suggested to him his own method of calculating the length of an arc of the meridian. 13s Apart from Philon, however, more than half-a-dozen other commanders are known to us, all of whom no doubt brought back valuable records of measurements and observation. 136 To these we must add the traders in this area, whose knowledge of both the African and the Arabic shores of the Red Sea was apparently substantial, even before Philadelphus' Arabian campaign, early in his reign. This is demonstrated by the detailed, graphic account given by Theophrastus, or by a contemporary of his, of the collection and disposal of frankincense by the coastal tribes of Arabia, in the course of which he reveals some knowledge of the conditions of husbandry (private estates are specifically mentioned), and the system by which the frankincense, collected by private individuals, is sold to traders by the priests of the temple of the Sun. 137 The author states that this knowledge derives from coastal voyages by merchants made from the 'Bay of Heroes', which is certainly Heroonpolis, the Egyptian Pithom. 138 In addition, as we have seen, Eratosthenes also had at his disposal the work on harbours by Timosthenes, which included the east coast of Africa. 1 39 Eratosthenes' relation to Timosthenes may be best considered in the context of his knowledge of the western Mediterranean. Strabo says clearly that both Eratosthenes and Timosthenes, 'whom Eratosthenes praises more than anybody else, though he disagrees with him a great deal', made so many mistakes regarding the promontories of the western Mediterranean that it was not worth while criticizing their work in this field,140 and he then lists the regions of western Europe of which both were ignorant. 141 This is in itself enough to show that when Eratosthenes himself said that for remote distances he gave 'traditional figures', 142 these were based, at least as far as the West was concerned, on those of Timosthenes, even if he from time to time criticized them. A later geographer, however, goes considerably further than this. Marcianus of Heraclea, in his epitome of Menippus of Pergamum's Periplus of the Inner Sea, claims that Eratosthenes 'in an inexplicable manner copied out Timosthenes' book, adding a few small points of his own, and even reproducing Timosthenes' preface in the original words' . 143

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

537

Whether the charge of deliberate plagiarism stands, or whether this passage merely reflects Erastosthenes' use of the method known as 'scissors-and-paste' when he had no precise figures of his own, we are hardly in a position to dispute Marcianus' charge that Eratosthenes' work was, for the West, essentially a reproduction of that of Timosthenes. Marcianus claimed to be very learned in periplus-literature and geographical writing as a whole, 144and the sober account that he gives of this writing inspires general confidence in his reliability. We must therefore regard Eratosthenes' work on the West as essentially representing the geographical knowledge of the middle of the third century, the date of the composition of Timosthenes' own work. Eratosthenes, nevertheless, also had other sources for the West, both for the regions north of Gibraltar and those to the south-west, in the Atlantic. For the seemingly illimitable seas and lands to the north he used Pytheas, the traveller and explorer of the age of Alexander or earlier, whose exploration of the north-west coasts of Europe and beyond gave rise to so much controversy. 145 It is clear from Strabo both that Eratosthenes' estimate of the length of the inhabited world was based, for the northern areas, on Pytheas' own figures, 146and also that he accepted, in part at least, his account of Britain and Spain, in spite of the immediate suspicion felt for Pytheas' claims by Dicaearchus. 147 Pytheas was himself interested in the astronomical foundations of geography, for he made observations on a gnomon in his native Massalia, which he placed on the same latitude as Byzantion, and also fixed a number of other northern parallels and meridians, which were accepted by Hipparchus.148 Eratosthenes no doubt felt that as a serious mathematical geographer Pytheas could be relied on for his distances of the uncharted world. Of the coastal region of the north-west of Africa between Carthage and the Pillars Strabo says that Eratosthenes knew nothing, and he censures him elsewhere for accepting the existence of an island Cerne, and other places, 'which are nowhere pointed out today',I 49a statement which suggests that Eratosthenes may have utilized Hanno's Periplus, in which that island occupies a prominent place. 150But beyond this it does not appear that in this region Eratosthenes' knowledge is in advance of that of Herodotus. It is evident that we are in no position to form any judgement on the regional geography of Eratosthenes, since few direct quotations survive, but it is possible to pass some judgement on his cartography as a whole.Just as the accuracy of his measurements of the globe and the method he employed to obtain them marked a new beginning in mathematical geography, so also in cartography his attempts to fix intersecting co-ordinates by astronomical observation were a great step

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

forward, even though his method and system were quickly improved by Hipparchus. Unlike Hipparchus, and still more the purely astronomical theorists of a later date, Eratosthenes in his use of astronomical material did not lose sight of the practical and human problems he was attempting to solve, and most of his successors are inferior to him as geographers, in spite of their greater mathematical skill. On the other hand his highly original notion of Seals, though attesting the essentially concrete nature of his genius-here was a practical way of creating order out of vague and chaotic information-was based on hopelessly inadequate information in the eastern regions, and came up against great difficulties of application in the better mapped Middle East, and in spite of its originality it cannot be said that it served a valuable purpose. Finally, there is the question whether Eratosthenes achieved his aim of incorporating the results of Alexander's conquests and subsequent voyages of exploration into a cartographical projection. This is difficult to answer in the absence of most of his own text, but it may at least be said that the information he was able to give about India came from recent accounts which resulted directly from the extension of Greek, and specifically Seleucid, influence eastwards, and that his knowledge of the area of Ethiopia and the South, both by land and sea, was a direct result of Ptolemaic initiative in dispatching expeditions and encouraging merchants to penetrate southwards. On the other hand, his inadequate geographical knowledge of the West, a region unaffected by Alexander and relatively untouched by other developments in the eastern Mediterranean, largely resulted, where it was not traditional, from reliance on Pytheas and on the work of Timosthenes on Harbours. It does not harmonize very well with the knowledge which Eratosthenes occasionally reveals of matters Roman, and it may suggest that the composition of some, if not all, of the Geographicadid not belong to the very last period of Eratosthenes' life, in the closing years of the third century B.c., 1 s1 for by that time he could hardly have been satisfied with Timosthenes' account of the western Mediterranean. His western horizon was, however, considerably more precise than that of Callimachus, whose interest in, and knowledge of, the West, was probably based largely on Peripatetic sources of the early third century and on Timaeus. 1 s2 In geography, as in all else, Eratosthenes seems to have had few pupils, and to have attracted little attention until his detractors arose, first Hipparchus on the mathematical side, and then Artemidorus of Ephesus on the side of physical geography. 1s3 One name must be mentioned here, however-that of Apollodorus of Athens. We have seen elsewhere that Apollodorus, who began his career as a scholar in Alexandria, and transferred to Pergamon, probably at the time of the

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

539

persecutions of Euergetes II, was responsible for the transmission and continuation of Eratosthenes' great chronographical work. 154 It appears that he also supported Eratosthenes' geographical theories, for Strabo tells us that he sided with Eratosthenes against Callimachus regarding Odysseus' wanderings, which the former regarded as having occurred in the realm of fantasy. 155 Acceptance of this view no doubt indicates that Apollodorus adopted in full Eratosthenes' theories regarding the unreliability of Homer as a geographer, and possibly (though this is obviously less certain) his views regarding the true aim of poetry. 1 s6 This no doubt occurred in Apollodorus' most important work, the On the Homeric Catalogue, in twelve books, which combined geographical and historical research in the tradition of Eratosthenes, with philological analysis of the Aristarchean type. 157 Strabo's evidence as to the agreement of Apollodorus with Eratosthenes provides an instance, perhaps the only certain one, of the way in which Eratosthenes' independent and unphilological arguments influenced the philological tradition of the second century. 1 s8 Apart from Eratosthenes Alexandria has one other geographer of note to boast, Agatharchides of Cnidus, whom we have encountered already as a historian. 15 9 His greatest claim on our attention is, however, as a geographer, though of a very different type from Eratosthenes. His two main works, the Events in Asia and Events in Europe, the historical contents of which we have already noticed, also contained much geographical material, and it is from the former that Diodorus, on his own testimony, drew his picture of Ethiopia and possibly of Arabia, and also his detailed account of the Nile. 160 Apart from these passages of Diodorus none of the surviving fragments of the Events in Asia are concerned with geography, and we are left largely in the dark as to the way in which the geographical sections were distributed, though it seems probable that the historical-ethnographical material was concentrated in the earlier books. 161 Compared with those works, his On the Red Sea in five books was probably a minor affair, but lengthy excerpts survive in Photius, and it was also used by Diodorus in his description of that area, so that we are well informed as to both the style and the content of this, the work of his old age, which both advancing years and the persecutions of Euergetes II in 145 (which apparently led to his departure from Alexandria) compelled him to abandon. 162 This work is written in a highly personal manner, and Agatharchides is a living personality for us in a way that no other Alexandrian after Eratosthenes is. Even if he himself regarded it as a work of lesser inportance than his Histories, he put into it, quite apart from the purely geographical and chorographical material, much personal writing on the subjects of most interest to him, notably mythology, the dangers of

540

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

excesses of Asianic prose style, a good deal of sententious moralizing, some rather loose Peripatetic philosophy (Strabo, be it noted, called him 'one of the Peripatos'), 16 3 and numerous other items. It is not possible here to give anything like a full discussion of this work, but we may summarize its contents, and then consider some passages and aspects of the work which enable us to enter into the spirit of the writer. We may preface this by a translation of the analysis of his style given by Photius, in a manner which itself recalls and exemplifies the criteria of Peripatetic literary criticism, and which supplements the picture we derive from the study of Agatharchides himself. 16 4 In so far as I have been able to understand the man from his writings, Agatharchides is magnificent and full of wise sayings, delighting more than others in scale and dignity of language, but neither particularly attached to choice phrases, nor making continual use of familiar language, but, though no neologist, pre-eminently an artist in the use of words, for without the use of new words he creates a phrase which produces a new image. And he effects this operation so aptly that the innovation does not appear to be such, and the clarity is no less than that of more familiar phrases. He also expresses sentiments which are both shrewd and forceful, and is supremely well equipped to introduce tropes, and he scatters through his entire writings what is sweet and bewitching and imperceptibly melts the soul, and whatever has been turned into a trope he expresses in a way that causes no offence. This element in his writing is achieved not by an actual change of words itself, but by a transition and transformation from one group of subjects to another, effected both subtly and unsensationally. But there is nobody of whom we know more talented at using a noun instead of a verb, changing a verb into a noun, expanding words into speeches, and compressing a statement into the mould of a word. He is an eager disciple of Thucydides in both the lavishness and elaboration of the speeches and, while not behind him in nobleness oflanguage, surpasses him in clarity. Such then is Agatharchides, who also has won great renown from his grammatical studies; and if an improvident vote did not bestow on him the title of Rhetorician, yet to me all the same he appears in no way at all inferior to the grammarians and rhetoricians in respect of his writings and teachings.

Photius gives of the work itself a short excerpt from the first book, and a longer summary of the fifth book, which also appears at still greater length in the third book of Diodorus, though the language has been diluted in Diodorus' manner, while Photius preserves that of the original very closely. 165 The preceding extract in Photius which appears as an anonymous Life efPythagoras,and which has been regarded as the general introduction of the book, or as an excerpt from it, is best disregarded in this connection, for its attribution to Agatharchides is very impro\Jable on grounds both of content and of style, though it contains certain parallels with his work. 1 66

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

54 1

The first book began with a discussion of the etymology of the muchdiscussed name 'Epv0pa 0aA.aaaa, in which Agatharchides attacked not only those who found a mythological etymology for it, but all those who invoked mythology to explain geographical terms. The offenders were the followers of Deinias, the author of an Argolica, who claimed that Perseus, after rescuing Andromeda in Ethiopia, had crossed over into Persia, which he named after one of his sons, Perses, while another son, Erythras, had given his name to the sea: 'Such', says Agatharchides, 'is the Argolic improvisation regarding the Red Sea.' 161 The true explanation, he claims, was given him in Athens by a Hellenized Persian named Boxos, who recounted the following story. A Persian named Erythras lost his herd of grazing horses in the sea (whither they had run to avoid lions), and in searching for them found a desert island, on which he built a city with distressed emigrants from the mainland, and then made further settlements on the neighbouring desert islands, and thus his fame spread and the sea was duly named after him. 168 The 'Argolic' view Agatharchides condemns factually on linguistic grounds: the descendants of Perseus were notlllpaas but llEpaa,. 16 9 He then proceeds to attack the whole method of mythological interpretation, in a discussion which, though its substance is slender, occupies more than a third of the entire epitome of Book i. It consists of a list of the myths which offend common sense or propriety, expressed in language clearly intended to strip the legends of their sentimental appeal. 1 1° The fault, he says, lies in the employment of these myths in the sphere of ascertainable knowledge; he has no quarrel with poets and dramatists, because they introduced falsehoods into their narratives, 'for the aim of every poet is delight not truth'. 1 1 1 The next section 172 of the epitome of Book i consists of a highly rhetorical and striking speech in which a regent of a youthful but unidentified Ptolemy-the regent is probably Aristomenes, the king Epiphanes-addresses the king on the need for vigilance and on the undesirability of an Ethiopian campaign. He points out the size of Ptolemy's heritage, and the effort that will be needed to preserve it: for the law preserves the property of individuals, but such an inheritance the sword takes from the weaker. 173 Occasion seals and destroys the friendships of kings, and makes your preoccupation another's opportunity! The man who gives welcome counsel by painting what lies beyond the limits of possibility tells many falsehoods, while he who shares counsel with his friends has no need at such times of crisis of the advice of those who urge him to action; for who is so foolish as to wish to learn from another what he knows for himself, and to make his counsellor in perplexity the minister of his desires ? 17 4 If the possessor of so many blessings is superior to the desires of those who extort [what they desire] by force, fortunate indeed is his

542

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

power who possesses these things, but I [says the speaker], for my part, cannot take away another's fortune by force of arms. \Vhy, therefore, announce an impossible task fruitlessly, and give heed to invisible hopes rather than to manifest dangers ? 175 The Ethiopians, you say, will astonish the Greek mercenaries with the colour of their skins and their size. Why? With us such fears are children's only. In war not colour and appearance but courage and skill count. 1 1 6 I, from the day that Fortune set me in your early youth as guardian of your person and of the kingdom, have carried a great burden, keeping evil counsellors at bay, controlling your lack of experience: this was my aim, exercising a father's good will which looked to the future, and not a flatterer's irony serving opportunity. I am an old man, and have wide experience, and I know that flattery at Court has destroyed utterly mighty empires-those of Cassander, ofLysimachus, of Alexander, and others, Medes and Persians. And --~wonder! For nothing is more dangerous than a young and inexperienced person who is praised for his errors: witness Alexander himself, invincible in arms, in council weak; praise snared him and when he was called Zeus he thought he was being honoured, not mocked, and desired the impossible, forgetting his mortal nature. 177 When the demagogue addresses the populace, in the role not of a friend but of a flatterer, the onrush of the mob, which has acquired the counsellor to confirm it in its crime thus destroys the city. For Blame strikes not only the guilty, but all those towards whom Envy has cleared the way. 178

This remarkable and rather contorted speech, loosely attached to its context though it now appears, was part and parcel of the description of Ethiopia, and the first book closes with a brief note on the equipment of the Ethiopians, particularly their poisoned arrows, and of Ptolemy's army of mercenaries with special leather armour, which also reflect preparations for a military operation. 1 19 Of the second, third, and fourth books of the De Mari Rubro nothing survives. 180 On the other hand Photius gives a longer summary of Book v than of Book i, and Diodorus in his third book also presents a version of the same narrative which is longer in some places than that of Photius, and shorter in others. Its contents are thus fairly well known to us. The book begins with another elaborate excursus, addressed to an unidentified person, on the best way of announcing misfortune to those not directly affected by a catastrophe. 181 This takes the form of an attack on Hegesias and to a less extent on one Hermesianax as chief exponents of the corrupt 'Asianic' prose style then coming into favour. Agatharchides accuses them of poverty of thought combined with a tortuous metaphorical style, and illustrates this by examples drawn from their descriptions of the fate of various cities, particularly Olynthus and Thebes. 182 He maintains that their purpose (and particularly that of Hegesias) is purely literary, and lacks genuine feeling for the theme. However striking their metaphors may be (and he allows considerable merit at least to Hermesianax in this respect) they never achieve the

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

543

true goal of a prose description-E1vapyELa, clarity and precision-and he contrasts Demosthenes' treatment of the same events. 18 3 Photius tells us that Agatharchides had considerably more to say on the same theme which he has omitted, and in the epitome we now pass directly to his description of southern Egypt and the lands beyond, beginning with the famous account of the workings of the gold mines in the Eastern Desert. 184 This brilliant picture is to some extent coloured by Agatharchides' own hostility to the regime which permitted the system to continue, and which, from a probable retreat in Athens, he described as a tyranny. 18 s In spite of the technical nature of his material he succeeds in producing an extremely lucid and graphic description of the sufferings undergone by the convicts and their families sent to work in the mines, which is one of the most remarkable pieces of Hellenistic prose. The description, however, cannot be effectively summarized, and is too long to be quoted in full. From this description Agatharchides apparently turned abruptlythough perhaps less sharply than appears in the excerpts of Photius and the version of Diodorus-to his description of the four races whom he conceived as occupying the regions south of Egypt: the riparian tribes, the lacustrine, the nomadic, and the littoral, of all of whose diets he describes briefly the distinguishing characteristics. 186 The first to be described are the Ichthyophagi, who occupied not only both shores of the Arabian Gulf, but were also scattered along the south Arabian coast and the shores of the Persian Gulf. 187 Agatharchides pictures them as naked, virtuous savages enjoying a community of method wives, 188 and describes their life and customs in detail-their of catching and cooking fish, their lack of artefacts, their curious ritual of drinking water-and also their Stoicism, and their simple open dealings with one another and with animals. 189 He finally asks himself how these inaccessible and savage people came to be where they are, without contact with the rest of the human race. 19° He decides that they are 'aborigines', who have been there since the world began, thus attesting his Aristotelian belief in the eternity of the human race / 91 and concludes with a moralistic account of their Utopian existence from which want (since they need only the bare necessities oflife), greed, and envy are absent: 'Needing little they suffer little, and having what is sufficient they seek no more.' 19 2 This Utopian element recurs elsewhere. 193 After the Ichthyophagi Agatharchides describes more briefly the inland tribes of the region of Meroe: the Hylophagi, who live on the soft wood of trees; the Spermatophagi, who live on nuts and the fruits of trees; the Cynegetae, who bivouac in trees and catch wild animals for sustenance, and are skilled in the bow; the Elephantotherae, elephant-hunters, who catch elephants by lassoing them from trees; the Struthophagi

544

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

or Ostrich-Eaters; the Acridophagi or Locust-Eaters; and the Cynamolgi, who keep dogs both to kill roving cattle, whose flesh they eat, and for the sake of their milk. 194 These semi-fabulous tribes are envisaged by Agatharchides as stretching in a southward direction from Egypt to Ethiopia, but their positions are not precisely recorded. 19s Finally he describes the Trogodytes, 196 the cave-dwellers, whose location, again, he does not indicate, but who were commonly regarded as inhabiting the whole of the east coast of Africa from the Heroonpolite Gulf to the entrance to the Arabian Gulf. 197 Their life, as he portrays it, is in contrast with that of the tribes previously described: far from living a harmonious, peaceful existence, the Trogodytes live under a 'tyranny' and fight each other for pasturage. 198 He describes their customs, particularly their burial customs, and their method of dispatching those who through age have become of no further use to the pastoral community.199 This section concludes with a detailed description of the wild animals of the region-lions, panthers, rhinoceroses, giraffes, apes, baboons and other monkeys, carnivorous bulls, hyenas, and snakes (including a first-hand description of the way a sacred snake was tamed by hunger). 200 At this point the narrative changes and becomes a periplus of the Arabian Gulf and the Red Sea and Gulf of Akaba. 201Agatharchides explains at the outset that this is not a detailed periplus with information about harbours, coastal cities, and so on, but simply a description of the curiosities to be encountered on the coast, based both on official documents and on first-hand information. 202Thus this part of the work at least was paradoxographical rather than geographical, and subsequent peripluses of the area give far more practical detail. The narrative as a whole does not call for much geographical comment, but it contains several noteworthy passages. A description of the isle of Topaz (Ophiodes), and of the wretched life of the natives who guard the stone on behalf of the Crown is of considerable interest both factually and for the further evidence it provides of Agatharchides' hostility to the Ptolemaic administration. zo3 His subsequent portrayal of the disasters encountered by elephant transports in the shallow and algous waters south of this, and the last agonies of the despairing crews, before they render up their spirit to Nature who gave it, is a fine piece of dramatic writing. 204 The most striking of all his descriptive passages in this section, however, is his account-the most important and complete surviving-of the Sabaeans, 205the wide-spread and wealthy Arabian tribe, who acted as middlemen between India and the Mediterranean world and Egypt. Agatharchides' account is of an El Dorado: the soil of the Sabaeans yields all the necessities of life, their physique is superior to that of others, their flocks are numberless. The coastal region is per-

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

545

vaded with the scent from three odoriferous plants, balsamum, cassia, and another which died out before the stock was exported, while inland stretch the forests of myrrh, frankincense, cinnamon, and other aromatic trees, the divinely fresh odour of which brings forgetfulness of mortal happiness, and makes those who smell it believe it to be ambrosia. 20 6 However, jealous fortune has mingled bane with her bounty. The poisonous serpent is not absent from this paradise, 207 and as a result of the abundance of odours around them the natives suffer from a form of asthma or breathlessness which can only be cured by the inhalation of a burnt mixture of bitumen and the beard of a goat. 208 A curious regulation governing Sabaean kingship, by which the king, otherwise possessed of complete power, was not permitted to leave his palace, and was stoned by the populace ifhe did, is described. 209 Agatharchides then says that, as a result of their position, which permits them to enrich both their neighbours and themselves, 210 the Sabaeans and their neighbours are the wealthiest of all races, and he describes the fabulous luxury of their domestic architecture and furniture-the gold and silver columns, the engraved and glass objects; 211 a wealth, he says, which has lasted until our own day, but he adds, 'did they not live so remote from that power which turns its arms in every direction, they would have become stewards of 1he wealth of others, instead of masters of their own rewards, for idleness is not able to preserve freedom for long' .212 In this significant observation the hostility of the Alexandrians to the Romans, which in the first century B.c. became so wide-spread, finds early expression in the words of one who may have come into direct contact with them through his superior, Heraclides. 213 In this he represents the other pole to his contemporary Polybius. In Agatharchideg' narrative, as preserved, the description of the Sabaeans is followed by a brief account of astronomical phenomena observed in the southern regions, with particular reference to the absence of a dawn, but he expressly excludes any technical discussion. 21 4 The excerpts close with a series of rather disjointed observations on miscellaneous natural phenomena. 21 s An estimate of Agatharchides is severely hampered by the absence of a continuous text, and also by the total loss of Books ii, iii, and iv. Nevertheless, his character, both as a man and as a writer, stands out clearly from what survives, and we are able to pass a fairly wellfounded judgement on one who (technical writers apart) is the most significant Alexandrian writer of the second century. He is a many-sided figure, and his achievement must be considered under various headings. We may first notice that he differs basically from most of the Alexan. drian historical and geographical writers whom we have considered, in that they seem to have concentrated on the simple narration of HI 427M

Nn

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

aetiological and antiquarian subjects of a limited range in a straightforward style. Although such writing had developed in the Peripatetic school, works in this tradition do not expressly embody any particular theory of a philosophical or historical nature; their aim is rather in accordance with the 'antiquarian' aspect of Peripatetic research, as developed subsequently by Callimachus, to record and explain obscure survivals in the old Greek world. 216 Elsewhere, however, throughout the Hellenistic age, some historians, whether composing oecumenical or regional history, had done so according to another principle of historical writing formulated by the Peripatetics and practised by such historians as Callisthenes, Duris, and (particularly) Phylarchus. It is to this tradition (closely associated with the Peripatetic theory of rhetoric, which survives in the Aristotelian Rhetorica)that Agatharchides belongs. There is no counterpart in third-century Alexandria to such work. Historical writing, as practised by Phylarchus and others, aimed at a highly emotional and richly coloured narrative, of the type that Polybius criticized so forcibly. 21 1 We may suppose that the historical works of Agatharchides contained some at least of this type ofwriting, 218 but the De Mari Rubro, as an essentially geographical work, does not provide specimens of emotional historical narrative. Nevertheless, it is clear that such accounts as the distress of the convicts in the gold mines (of which Photius says that it was composed as if it was part of a tragedy), 219 the semi-Utopian lives of the Ichthyophagi, and the wealth and contentment of the Sabaeans mirror this colourful, dramatic type of writing. Perhaps the best example of this style is the account of the disasters at sea suffered by elephant transports caught in the sandbanks. Here the whole narrative is highly coloured, and the sense of the enactment of a tragedy is very strong, for example, in the following passage: 220 The crew in the embrace of this misfortune first lament their fate in moderate terms to the unheeding desert shores, not having finally abandoned all hope. For often the wave of the flood-tide lifts their boat clear, and like a very deus ex machina preserves them in their last hour; and when the aforementioned aid from the gods does not come, and supplies run short, the stronger throw the weaker out of the ship so that the few supplies that are left may last for more days; but finally, all their hopes exhausted, they perish in a far worse plight than those who were the first to die; for they gave back their spirit in a brief moment to Nature who gave it, but the others divide up their death into many different acts of suffering, and after prolonged distress reach the end of their lives. And the ships, thus tragically deprived of their crews, like some cenotaph, remain forlorn, surrounded by sand on all sides.

Also to be noted in this context is the speech of the Regent to the young Ptolemy in Book i, in which the dramatic element is considerably

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

547

heightened by the rhetorical, antithetical, not to say obscure style, and the role of Tyche in determining human affairs is emphasized. 221 Agatharchides' style is in fact that of a rhetorician of the Peripatetic school. Photius' analysis of it is itself a rhetorical document, and reflects the Peripatetic doctrine: it has been observed that Cicero's praise of Demetrius of Phaleron in the De Oratore is very similar to Photius' praise of Agatharchides, and both reflect the rhetorical doctrines of the De Rhetorica,Books ii and iii. 222 Agatharchides established his own position as a theorist in his excursusat the beginning of Book v, in which he attacks the Asianic school of rhetoric, although he is certainly not the Atticist that Photius claims him to be. 22 3 His criterion in all writing is JvapyEia, 'clarity and appositeness', and in spite of his epigrammatic and contrasting style-very different from the strained metaphorical style of the Asiani-for the most part he lives up to his theory. 22 4 His style, sometimes expansive and periphrastic, sometimes compressed, is not easy because he always aims to express himself with point, but, though artificial, he is rarely obscure, and his digressions, dictated by rhetorical theory, are deliberate and clear-cut. 225 His vocabulary is large, even if he occasionally betrays a poverty of thought through repetition of vague adjectives-in particulardµJ017-ros, 'untold', which he uses some half-a-dozen times 226 -and an occasional otiose word,227 but, like his style, it is not particularly recondite, though his subject imposes on him the use of a good many technical and semi-technical terms. 228 As might be expected in the light of the foregoing, the philosophical affinities of Agatharchides are also Peripatetic. He certainly adopted that school's doctrine of the eternity of man, 22 9 and although elsewhere in his writings there are traces of Epicurean doctrine, 2 3° and we might on that account call him an Eclectic, Strabo's description of him as a Peripatetic must indicate his formal loyalty. 2 3 1 His philosophical observations in the main body of the work do not suggest that he possessed much originality in this field. Apart from the obvious moral reflections implied in his-and any other-account of the uncorrupted life of remote tribes, there is a certain amount of ethical observation scattered throughout the work, most of it very humdrum. The paraenetic philosophy of the speech of Aristomenes, though for the most part couched in very general terms, contains at least one sentence worthy of particular note: beside a summary statement of the dangers of demagogy there stands a most striking generalization apparently taken directly from Callimachus: 'When the demagogue addresses the populace, in the role not of a friend but of a flatterer, . the on-rush of the mob, which has thus acquired the counsellor to confirm it in its crime, destroys the city. For Blame strikes not only the guilty, hut also those towards whom Envy has cleared the way.' 2 3 2 Mostly,

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

however, Agatharchides is more platitudinous than this, as when he stresses the dominating role of custom in human affairs-in the simplest sense that people accustom themselves to a hard life. 2 33 Agatharchides is also credited by Photius with paradoxographical works, though no title of such a work survives. 234 In fact some of the contents of the De Mari Rubro certainly belong to the sphere of paradoxography (to which Photius assigns the work), and in the Roman and Byzantine periods composers of summaries of paradoxographical material made liberal use ofit. Nevertheless, although he was not always averse to recording wonder-tales,zJs his narrative in general is on a far higher level than that. We have seen that Agatharchides was familiar with Callimachus, and his indebtedness to Eratosthenes is perhaps even more striking. Eratosthenes' definition of the function of poetry was that every poet aimed at entertaining and not at instructing his readers or audience, and we have seen the consequences of this for Homeric criticism. 236 Eratosthenes, and after him Apollodorus, both opposed the belief of the philological school (including Callimachus) that Homer could be used as a geographical source-book. 237 To this same tradition of commonsense interpretation Agatharchides belonged. In his attack on mythology in the opening excursus of Book i he says that he does not quarrel with the mythology of the poets; he only quarrels with those who interpret it factually; he lists the great poets-Homer, Hesiod, Aeschylus, and Euripides-whose works contain improbabilities and impossibilities, and adds: 'Nor do I reproach the others, because they employ impossible props, for every poet aims at entertainment rather than truth.' 2 3 8 It is hardly possible to doubt that this conception of the poet's purpose is drawn from Eratosthenes himself, and that Agatharchides, who, as a geographer, no doubt owed much to Eratosthenes, or was at least very familiar with his work, should have absorbed his teaching in this respect. Eratosthenes' theory of poetry was apparently elaborated in his Geographyand not in a specific work on poetic theory, 2 39 and it is characteristic of his whole position that though he was at variance with his immediate predecessors in Alexandria, and had no philological disciples, he should in Apollodorus and Agatharchides have won the support of two of the most significant figures in secondcentury Alexandria (neither of whom was ofan age to have known him personally) outside the field of philology. Agatharchides' work, even in the epitomized form in which it survives, is so original and varied in content, that it is perhaps natural to question the contribution it made to geographical knowledge. However, a consideration both of his own sources and of the use made of him by others suggests that his work formed part of generally transmitted

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

549

knowledge on this subject. Regarding his sources we have only two statements in the De Mari Rubro, and of these one is of only limited use. He says in an interlude in the middle of Book v: 'The whole oikoumene is divided into four regions, namely east, west, north, and south; the western regions have been covered by Lycus and Timaeus, the eastern by Hecataeus and Basilis, and the northern by Diophantus and Demetrius, but the south, though the truth sounds arrogant, we have dealt with ourselves.' 2 4° This list of ethnographers, from which the name of Eratosthenes is conspicuously absent, no doubt because he was not concerned with detailed descriptions of habitats and customs, indicates that Agatharchides was familiar with the geographical and ethnographical writing of his day, and was prepared to stand comparison with these authorities on the ground here specified, that is, as a regional geographer.24 1 He does not, however, indicate in this passage what sources he used for his own work. At the end of Book v, however, he explains that increasing age, and his inability to extract accurate information from the 'hypomnemata,' have led him to reduce the scale of his work. A passage of Diodorus, which is taken from his work, reveals the nature of these hypomnemata: they were records preserved in the royal archives in Alexandria. 2 4 2 They were the official and unofficial reports submitted in the third century by the numerous explorers and leaders of elephant expeditions and others, documents which provided Eratosthenes with much of what he knew of the South and also enabled some astronomical observations to be made for the region. 243 These Agatharchides evidently used directly, as the foundation of much of what he wrote. In addition he says that he made use of the autopsy of contemporaries, merchants and others who had visited the South, which at least in the second half of the second century was fully open to Greek commerce. 2 44 Apart from the hypomnemata and accounts based on autopsy Agatharchides also used literary sources; he quotes Simmias, one of the Ptolemaic explorers, who elaborated his report into a periplus 245 and he evidently made some use also of Ctesias, his fellow citizen. 246 Nevertheless, he tells us that in general official documents were his main source, and we have no reason to reject this. The use of these sources, and the professional air with which Agatharchides addressed himself to the task, show that, however much he may have varied the texture of his narrative by excursuses, by paradoxography, and by semi-philosophical Utopian descriptions, his main purpose was to write a geographical work. The use made of it by his immediate successor Artemidorus points to the same conclusion. There . is no doubt that much of Artemidorus' account of Arabia and Ethiopia, preserved in large part in Strabo, Book xvi, derives, in part also verbatim, from Agatharchides. 247 It is extremely unlikely that so

55°

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

conscientious a writer as Artemidorus would have utilized Agatharchides if his work had at that time been regarded as largely paradoxographical rather than geographical. We may therefore be fairly confident that in spite of its present rather dilettante appearance the De Mari Rubro contained much serious geographical writing alongside its fantastic ethnography. 248 The liberal but indirect use of his far-fetched descriptions of customs made by Aelian and later by the author of the Constantinian excerpts of paradoxography (in which the Photian excerpts only are used) cannot be held against him. 2 49 Agatharchides was, we may believe, an outstanding man in the generation of Aristarchus-the last generation before the persecutions of Euergetes II scattered the Alexandrian scholars and scientists, among them Agatharchides himself. Long years of public service or, more precisely, private service to a public figure, Heraclides Lembos, made him the type of Polybius' ideal historian-the man of affairs with an eye to the past and the future. His view of the world in which he lived is no doubt coloured by the events which led to his removal from Alexandria, but, such as it is, it is clear and simple. Ptolemaic rule had become a tyranny,zso and no land, unless the remote Sabaeans, was now safe from the power of Rome. 2 s1 The conception of the rule of the Ptolemies as a tyranny, though certainly prompted by his own treatment, needs no defence, and reveals a side of the medal usually left face downwards. But the condemnation of Rome is more interesting, for there is at first sight something paradoxical in this view in an Alexandrian. Egypt had not suffered in the Roman wars, in which she had remained an influential neutral, and the most dramatic moment of Roman intervention at the Alexandrian Eleusis was made against Antiochus IV in the interests of Egypt. It might therefore be expected that an Alexandrian writer would have joined Polybius in regarding the intervention of Rome as a blessing. That he did not do so is probably to be explained not only by the less immediate consequences of the intervention of Popilius Laenas but also by the political situation in the Mediterranean. Rome's support of Euergetes II in the twenty years between his expulsion in 164/3 and his final accession in 145 by itself contributed much to the disintegration of the Ptolemaic kingdom. But over and above this the destruction of Corinth and Carthage in 146 B.c. -probably the year before the persecutions of Euergetes began-can have left little doubt as to the future of the eastern Mediterranean lands. Such feelings were of course widespread in the Greek world, but Agatharchides' attitude is of particular interest as foreshadowing the persistently anti-Roman attitude of the Alexandrian public in the first century B.c.2s2 The prominence of Eratosthenes and Agatharchides, and the conse-

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

55 1

quent detailed consideration given here to their work, must not obscure for us the general skeleton of Alexandrian historiography and geography, which we may now briefly summarize. In the third century Alexandria seems to have contributed little or nothing to the type of universal history, inaugurated by Theopompus and Ephorus, which found expression in the later third century in the work of Phylarchus, and was continued by Polybius (who differed from the others less in the scope of his work than in other ways). Such historical writing, which, for all its faults, constituted the main stream of Greek historiography from the fourth century onwards, is not represented in third-century Alexandria. Instead we find antiquarian writing on the subjects with which we are by now familiar: foundations, cults, and local history, ancient or recent. It is only in the second and first centuries that we find in Agatharchides and Timagenes truly universal historians. Similarly with geography. Once more, neither mathematical nor descriptive geography (of the type of Dicaearchus) seems to have been treated in Alexandria before Eratosthenes. In the third century fashionable geographical writing differed little from contemporary historical writing: we have noted the similarity of subject and treatment between, for instance, Istrus and Philostephanus, the two pupils of Callimachus. In effect the true provinces of both history and geography were usurped by the hybrid paradoxography: the so-called historians and the socalled geographers are distinguished rather by the type of 'wonder' that they discuss than by anything else, and both are truly paradoxographers. Such works have no claim as literature, and in general it must be granted that third-century Alexandria as a coherent intellectual unit contributed no more to historical or geographical writing than it did to philosophy. We are, in fact, here faced with the same situation in a different guise: the absence of speculative philosophical writing is matched by the absence of imaginative or comprehensive writing in these other fields. The cause was no doubt essentially the same as that which yielded in the field of scholarship a positive good: the concentration of so much written material in the Library, which enabled Alexandrian scholars to make their vital contributions to the understanding of texts, distracted their minds from speculation and historical reflection, and turned them towards the collection and explanation of obscure events and phenomena. Over and above this, the personal influence of Callimachus, with his overriding curiosity in regard to remote events in the past history of the Greek people, was decisive over a generation or more of writers, who, in each of the fields under consideration, seem at times to do little more than restate the views of Callimachus or expand the collections of material already made by him. To this whole topic we shall return later (Chapter 11, pp. 761 ff.).

552

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

In historical and geographical writing, then, the third century can be clearly distinguished both from the earliest generation in Alexandria, and from that of the second and first centuries B.C. In the first period a lively interest regarding Egypt, akin to, though more sophisticated than, that of Herodotus, still prevailed among the newly arrived Greeks, and this is reflected in the work of Hecataeus of Abdera, who composed a detailed description of the land and customs of the Egyptians-a chorography in the fullest sense-and, on the more geographical side, by the work of Amometus of Cyrene. The work of Manethon, which brought Egyptian records and legends into the purview of the Greeks, belongs to the same period, and is a product of the same situation as it affected the native, conscious of his age-old civilization. Compared with these works Alexandrian history, geography, and paradoxography of the mid third century appear parochial and academic, as indeed they were when their subject-matter was not transformed by Callimachus' own genius in his poetry. We do not need to summarize here again the work of Eratosthenes, at or towards the end of the third century; as we have seen, his geographical work as a whole stands alone in the history of Alexandria. On the other hand, the development of historical writing in the second and first centuries B.C. in the hands of Agatharchides and Timagenes, Alexandria's two main, if not only, exponents of universal history, probably had no particularly Alexandrian flavour. At this time Alexandrian intellectual life had greatly declined, particularly in the field of pure literature, the whole social life of the city had undergone profound changes, and the old immigrant intelligentsia had been replaced by a bourgeois intellectual class to whom the Classic Greek world, to which the poets and others in the third century had been umbilically connected, meant little. Agatharchides, if we have conjectured the main stages in his career correctly, lived largely before the final disintegration of the old Alexandrian society, but he nevertheless was considerably removed from the Alexandrian world of the third century, his vision already embracing Rome. Thus he reflects, more than anybody else of whom we know, the transition which began with the measures of Philopator, by which the power of the Egyptian in the land was increased, and ended with Euergetes II's persecutions, which ushered in a long decline. Timagenes, a child of the Alexandrian lower orders, writing in Rome in the reign of Augustus, took the whole Hellenistic and the Roman world as his theme. His treatment, so far as we can tell, was in the manner of a universal history, and he is even more remote from the antiquarian interests of third-century Alexandria than he is from the pre-Alexandrian universal historians. Thus, in historical writing, as in all other branches of literature, there is little

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

553

sign of a continuous tradition such as we have observed between the Alexandrian doctors and grammarians of the third century and those of the first. III.

THE

EPIGRAM

In general the study of Alexandrian poetry is much hampered by our ignorance of its relationship to the literature of the fourth century. It is a fatal defect of our evidence that, although on the one hand we know a great deal about Attic prose in the fourth century, prose composition outside the scientific and academic fields was not greatly cultivated in Alexandria, while on the other hand very little is known of Athenian and indeed of Greek poetry in the same century. A certain lack of focus is consequently inevitable in any exposition of the main trends of Alexandrian literature, and particularly of its poetry. Athens remained the centre of literary production in the Greek world in the fourth century, and even allowing for the loss of much poetic writing of that period, there can be no doubt that it was essentially the century of prose, and in particular of the triumph of Attic prose as opposed to prose written in the Ionic or Doric dialects, in the three great fields of philosophy, oratory and pamphleteering, and historical writing. Compared with the enormous output in these sectors poetry played an insignificant role. Of the two great branches of poetic composition, tragedy and comedy, the former lay under the shadow of the fifth-century tragedians, and apparently no new work of merit was produced, while the latter, under changed political and social conditions, found expression in a new style known conventionally as the Middle Comedy, which towards the end of the century gave place to the still further modified New Comedy, from which the elements both of broad comedy and of poetic fancy had largely vanished. The conquests of Alexander, and the subsequent loss of a fully independent political life in much of the Greek world, affected Athens, the leader of Greece for the preceding century and a half, more profoundly than most other Greek cities. The creative activity of Athens was in many respects shattered, and the city ceased to attract writers from other parts of the Greek world (save that, as we have seen, the attractive power of Athens as a centre of philosophical studies increased). Consequently, the provincial centres, which had produced much literature in the period before the intellectual supremacy of Athens, particularly in the field of personal poetry, in which the Attic genius, dominated by a highly developed civic loyalty, had shown itself deficient, now appear once more as the scene of new and important poetical activity. The seeds of this development were indeed sown before the conquests of Alexander, during the continuing reduction in

554

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

the magnetic power of Athens since the Peloponnesian War, and it would be a mistake to regard it entirely as the result of the loss of Athenian supremacy in the Macedonian period. It would be no less erroneous to suppose that no personal poetry was written in Athenswe shall see at least one very important exception to this. Nevertheless, in general it remains true that the provincial cities re-emerged as centres of poetry in the latter part of the fourth century, while Athens seems to have exercised little influence on poetry at any time after that century. These new centres are of particular significance for the student of Alexandrian poetry, for although in some respects this poetry is peculiar to the city itself, in many ways it is closely associated, through its exponents, with the poetry of these provincial cities (notably Colophon and Cos) and derives very little from Attic models. It is also important to bear these centres in mind as a contemporary phenomenon: Alexandria was not the only city to produce poetry in the third century, and in this, as in all other fields, it is essential to disentangle what is loosely called 'Alexandrian' from what is genuinely a product of that city. Only thus can we appreciate the unique qualities, whatever they may be, of the literature of Alexandria. In literature, as in science, Alexandria exercised an attractive power upon poets living outside Egypt, and above all in the cities of the Ptolemaic empire, and thus in a sense the various traditions of this provincial poetry are merged into the poetry of Alexandria in the same way as the scientific traditions of centres such as Cos and Samos are there continued or enhanced. 1 The importance of this non-Attic element demands that we should look at it a little more closely. Such is our scanty knowledge of Greek poetry as a whole in the fourth century that this must largely be undertaken in terms of individuals rather than of categories of poetry. The most important centre was probably the Ionian city of Colophon, which had a long, if not continuous, tradition of personal poetry, elegiac, lyric, and iambic, from Mimnermus in the seventh century B.c. to the didactic poetaster Nicander in the second. 2 Within this long span of time three names particularly concern us, Antimachus who apparently lived about 450-380 B.c., 3 and Hermesianax 4 and Phoenix,s both elder contemporaries of Callimachus; the first of these especially exercised considerable influence on the poetry of early Alexandria. Later Nicander in his turn revealed himself in language and style as a student and imitator of Callimachus. 6 The other important centres of poetry in the early Hellenistic world were Cos, which plays as significant a role in literature as in medicine/ and Samas. Although the poetic tradition does not seem to have been so continuous at either place as at Colophon, it does not appear likely

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

555

that the poetic activity of an island with as lively an intellectual history as Cos began with Philitas. 8 The other Dorian islands were also active at this time and slightly earlier. Telos, under the shadow of Rhodes, is probably represented by the figure of Erinna, the girl poetess of the later fourth century, whose few surviving lines place her on a level with Sappho, 9 and Rhodes itself is represented by Simmias, the author both of hymns and Technopaidiaand of grammatical works, 10 and by Antagoras, who was associated with the Academy, for some of whose most notable members he composed verses, and who later joined the circle of Antigonus Gonatas at Pella.II Apart from the local centres of poetry we must also bear in mind the important role played in the third century by the patronage of Courts other than the Ptolemaic. Antigonus Gonatas was no less anxious to recruit poets than philosophers, and there is no doubt that Aratus, Antagoras, and Alexander of Aetolia were all active in Pella in the early part of his reign. 12 Of Selei.:.cid patronage at Antioch we know very little at this time, but the career of Euphorion, who was librarian of the 'Public Library' there, reminds us that it too operated in the field of literature. 13 On the other hand the patronage of the Pergamene Court, though important in the second century, may be disregarded in the third. 14 Although the Colophonian poets and the other contemporary writers must be kept in mind to give our picture its due proportions, the importance of such specific external influences must not be exaggerated. There were also more general influences at work. We have already noted in other contexts that the ease of communication in the Hellenistic world led to much cross-fertilization in intellectual matters: we may recall the dominating influence exercised by Archimedes on Alexandrian mathematics in the third century (while he was living in Syracuse),is the polemics conducted in the second century between Pergamon and Alexandria, 16 and (in the first century) the contacts between Rome and Alexandria, represented by Philon of Larissa and Antiochus of Ascalon.17 It was an age in which, as Apollonius Rhodius said, 'No land is far away'. 18 Consequently we must beware of imagining the poets of Alexandria, in spite of the especial characteristics which they display, as isolated from general contemporary poetic development elsewhere; if they were isolated, it was of intent. On the other hand, although the traditional element in both Greek and Latin literature, and particularly Greek, was at all periods far stronger than in modern literature, no literature worthy of the name can be wholly . assessed in terms of influence and tradition; and Alexandrian poetry at its best, in the hands of a few epigrammatists and in the wide range of Callimachus' poetic output, is the fruit of a new approach to art.

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

How soon a literary society developed in the new city is not easily determined, for the chronology of early Alexandrian literature is nebulous. We have seen, however, that the creation of the system of patronage which formed the whole background of this literature, as also of contemporary science, probably belongs to the end of the fourth century, and the later years of the rule of Soter, when the main tasks of material construction and organization had been effected. 19 In the first movements in literature, as in other respects, Philitas seems to have played a decisive role during his period as tutor to the young Philadelphus. The general importance of the Coan scholar and poet in the encouragement of literary and philological studies in the early days of Alexandria has already been emphasized. 20 In poetry, too, his influence is profound, although there are no means of telling how much, if any, of his verse he wrote in Alexandria. His poems survive only in the smallest fragments, and he was not represented in the Garland of Mel eager. 21 Enough survives to show the main fields in which he worked, but of its quality little can be said. We have an elegiac poem greatly admired by Callimachus, the Demeter, of which twelve lines survive, 22 parts of nine lines of a hexametrical Hermes,2 3 some Paignia,2 4 and some epigrams. 25 Philitas certainly enjoyed a great reputation in later timeshe was included in the Canon of Elegists, 26 and was, along with Callimachus, at least the nominal model of Propertius, 27 but it is very difficult to form a judgement about his work. Of the mythological poems, the precise subject-matter of the Demeter cannot be determined, while the Hermes seems to have told among other things the story of the love affair between Odysseus and Polymele: the scanty fragments suggest only erudition, not poetry. 28 Perhaps more inspiration was evident in the lost poem or poems in which the poet sung his love for Bittis, 29 a love which his contemporary the Colophonian Hermesianax thought worthy of inclusion in his Catalogue of Loves.30 The title of this work, whatever its quality, reminds us of the Lyde of Antimachus of Colophon, whose influence on a succession of Hellenistic writers, and indeed (as we shall see when we come to consider some aspects of the poetry of Callimachus) on the theory of poetical composition at that time, was very considerable,31 Callimachus himself expressed admiration for at least some of the short poems of Philitas, 32 and Theocritus admitted him as master, 33 and it would be idle to dismiss him as a minor poet. We must be content with saying that in the few fragments there appears to be little trace of poetic feeling, and that they do not permit us to assign him a place as a poet in the development of Alexandrian poetry, though his influence as a teacher and pioneer is assured. The epigram itself is the earliest attested branch of literature in Alexandria. 34 To the end of the reign of Soter and the earlier years of

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

557

Philadelphus belongs a trio of closely associated epigrammatists: Asclepiades or Sicelides of Samas, Posidippus of Pella, and Hedylus of Samos.Js The chronology of the three and their relationship to each other is a complex matter, which is central to the literary history of early Alexandria, and it will be convenient to dispose ofit at this point. It is determined by the following considerations. Asclepiades refers to a 'Queen' Cleopatra,3 6 who cannot be plausibly identified with anybody except the daughter of Philip of Macedon, who was murdered in Sardis in 309 B.C., the year of the birth of Philadelphus.37 There is no reason to suppose that the poem was written in the year of Cleopatra's death rather than a few years earlier, and therefore Asclepiades is not likely to have been born after about 340. He was thus a coeval of Philitas,3 8 and an older contemporary of Theocritus and Callimachus, both of whom refer to him. 39 At the same time he was unmistakably imitated by Posidippus,4° whose chronology thus becomes relevant. Posidippus was evidently well known in Egypt by about 280, for he wrote a surviving group of dedicatory epigrams, which can be dated to this period. One commemorates the erection of the Pharos in the period 280-270; 41 two record the dedication of a temple to Arsinoe-Aphrodite on the promontory of Zephyrion between Alexandria and Canopus, by Callicrates the nauarch, apparently about 273 ;42 a third refers to a performer in the great 'Pompe' of Philadelphus, of approximately the same date. 43 It is however probable that subsequently, if not simultaneously, he had lasting contacts in central Greece. A list of Aetolian proxeni at Thermus, of 263 or 262, consisting largely of persons from northern and central Greece, a single Roman (the earliest known from the Greek mainland), and some scattered individuals from the islands and from Magna Graecia, includes the name of Posidippus the epigrammatist, described as a 'Pellaean' ,44 and it would be tempting to conclude that Posidippus had left Egypt and settled in central Greece at the time. This is possible, but it is to be noted that both he and Asclepiades may have been honoured with proxeny at Delphi in about 275 B.c., 45 when he was still composing epigrams for the Ptolemaic court, and therefore probably still resident there. In any case, his contacts with central Greece explain another of his poems, the text of which survives in a woefully illegible form on two wooden tablets found in Egypt, 46consisting of some twenty-five elegiac lines on the theme of old age. It appears to have been written in Thebes, and the background of the poem is entirely Greek. The old poet summons the Muses to 'Pimpleian' Thebes, seeks recognition from 'the Macedonians, the dwellers in the islands, and the neighbours of all the Asiatic shore', proudly expresses his Pellaean origin, and utters the wish that his statue, representing him in the act of reading a book, may be

558

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

set up in a, or the, crowded agora, and that he may go down to Rhadamanthys 'longed for by the demos and the people'-the people probably of Thebes, possibly of Pella. 47 The epithet apparently attached to Thebes in the poem, 'Pimpleian', is of uncertain significance, 48 but in any case, in view of the connection with the Greek mainland established by the Aetolian inscription, it looks as if the Thebes must be either that of Boeotia or of Phthiotis. Thus we may suppose that Posidippus spent an early, or earlier, phase of his career in Alexandria, about 280-270, during which he developed contacts with central Greece, and that subsequently he either returned to his native Pella to join the new circle of poets and philosophers which had grown up under the patronage of Antigonus Gonatas in his absence, or else resided elsewhere in mainland Greece. Nevertheless he was evidently a prominent figure in Alexandrian literary circles during the earlier years of Callimachus, whom he appears to parody in one passage with great skill, and who attacked him in the prologue to the Aetia;49 he was closely associated with Asclepiades, who, on the chronology here elaborated, was probably his senior by some twenty years. His date of birth may be assigned to about 320-310, hardly later.so The third of the group, Hedylus, is a more shadowy figure. He is described as a Samian or Athenian,s 1 and it is possible that this uncertainty (if it does not derive from his close association with Asclepiades) may reflect the fact that he was of the last generation of Athenian cleruchs on Samos. On the other hand his grandmother Moschine, who was an Athenian poetess, or his mother Hedyle, also a poetess, may have married a Samian. It is thus impossible to decide which of the ethnics is correct. 52 Of his residence in Alexandria in the reign of Philadelphus there is no serious doubt, for his preserved poems include reference to a well-known Chian female citharode of Alexandria, Glauce, and he wrote a dedicatory epigram for the drinkinghorn dedicated by Ctesibius, its inventor, in the temple of ArsinoeAphrodite at Zephyrion.sJ A preliminary question concerning the close relationship between these three poets is, where they were associated. We have seen that Posidippus and Hedylus are unmistakably connected with Alexandria, but Asclepiades is less tractable in this respect. His poems do not include dedicatory epigrams for known Alexandrian temples or works of art. Consequently, since Duris, the Peripatetic pupil of Theophrastus, was tyrant in Samos until some time in the period 290-280, 54 and both he and his brother Lynceus were active in literary work, 55 it has been supposed that the three epigrammatists collaborated in Samos, and that Posidippus and Hedylus subsequently moved on to Alexandria, leaving Asclepiades in Samos. 56 Samos was indeed a literary centre, for, apart

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

559

from Duris, Asclepiades, and Hedylus, there are other approximately contemporary Samian writers, Nicaenetus and Philetas (to be distinguished from the homonymous Coan), of whom the former, a minor epic poet and epigrammatist of authentic talent, wrote poems on local themes, to which he was deeply attached.57 However, though we may admit the existence of a Samian 'school', which in its earlier stages, even before the tyranny of Duris, may have owed something to the culture of the Athenian cleruchs, and which after the Ptolemaic acquisition of the island may naturally have developed close links in poetry with Alexandria, there is nothing in the writings of either Posidippus or Hedylus to connect them with Samas, while there is a considerable amount to connect them with Alexandria. 58 As for Asclepiades himself,though traces of his activity in Alexandria are slight, they are more substantial than any signs that he composed his poetry in his native Samas; his poems provide no indication of a Samian background as do those ofNicaenetus. In assessing the Alexandrian element in his verse we shall be advised to leave out of account the references to him and to Posidippus by Callimachus,s 9 and also the considerable influence exercised by him in one field, that of the epigram, on Callimachus; for we have already seen that such factors are not necessarily signs of residence in Alexandria.60 There are, however, one or two positive indications that Asclepiades' poems were written outside Samas, and therefore (since he was closely associated with Posidippus and Hedylus, whose Alexandrian residence seems beyond doubt) in Alexandria. First, he refers to some young Samian ladies as 'Samians', and this suggests as the place of composition, not Samas, where such an appellation would be peculiar, 61 but a city such as Alexandria, where there was a Samian colony. A reference in another epigram, to 'the harbour of the Samians', 62 would also more naturally be used by somebody writing outside the island, but the epigram is not certainly by Asclepiades. These are admittedly slight indications, and that they are so faint lies partly in the nature of Asclepiades' subjects, which reflect Greek society of the upper class everywhere. Nevertheless, seen against the much more precise indications regarding Posidippus and Hedylus, they permit the supposition that the association between the three poets occurred in Alexandria. Asclepiades, at an earlier stage of his career, before that association, no doubt also wrote verse in Samas. His epigram on the ring of Cleopatra, who lived in Sardis from 322 until her death in 309, may be assigned to this period, for Sardis was near enough to Samas for Cleopatra to be known there, whereas no connection can be established with Alexandria. 63 On the other hand Samas did not become Ptolemaic until 280, so Asclepiades was not among those who came to the capital as citizens of the Ptolemaic empire.

560

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

The link between the three men is attested in several ways, but it is not wholly clear what resulted from it. 64 Not all the indications alleged of this association are equally satisfactory, but the more striking may be stated thus. 65 ( 1) There is considerable confusion in the Palatine Anthology regarding the distribution of authorship between the three poets; some epigrams are headed as 'Posidippus or Asclepiades', others 'Posidippus or Hedylus', and one 'Hedylus or Asclepiades'. 66 (2) Aristarchus is recorded as having said that the reading in a line of the Iliad B~piaov for flfj p' laov (a not infrequent type of Alexandrian error) was not 'now' found in the epigrams of Posidippus but that it had existed 'in the so-called .Ewpos (Pile)'. 67 From this statement and from the confusion of attribution Reitzenstein inferred that the .Ewpo, was not the work of Posidippus alone, but that the three poets published a common work under this title in which the poems were not individually assigned to authors, and that the pieces in it were individually re-edited by their authors. 68 (3) The statement of Strabo, who quotes two lines of an elegiac poem and says, 'Whether this is by Hedylus or whoever it may be', 6 9 indicates an uncertainty which would arise very naturally in connection with a composite work. (4) It is also very probable that in some instances the epigrams of Posidippus and Asclepiades refer to the same individuals.7° This suggests intimacy, but not necessarily collaboration. (5) Callimachus evidently included both Posidippus and Asclepiades among the Telchines, his literary opponents (living and dead), 71 and there is no doubt that their taste coincided, and conflicted in some way with that of Callimachus. Such are the data, which clearly require an over-all explanation. The only one that has been offered as covering all the facts, is that of Reitzenstein already noted regarding the 'Soros'. 72 It is however quite evident from the passage ofStrabo containing the only reference to this work ((3), above) that it may have been by Posidippus alone, and the most that can be said of the explanation is that it offers a hypothesis. However, since such literary collaboration seems to be otherwise unknown in antiquity, it cannot be said to be very acceptable.7 3 Though it is evident that the three poets were closely associated, at present the matter must be left there through lack of further evidence. We may now proceed to consider in more detail the surviving epigrams of the three poets, commencing with Asclepiades, both the oldest and the most important of the three. Asclepiades is a figure of great significance in the history of the epigram, since it is in his hands that it liberates itself from its traditional bondage to epigraphical convention, and becomes the vehicle of personal feelings and of portrayals of the most varied and passing expcriences. 74 The development was indeed gradual, for it answered

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

the requirements of an increasingly sophisticated society, and scanty though our knowledge of the non-funerary epigram in the fourth century is, it is clear that the possibilities of the form as a vehicle of dedicatory and personal poetry were already appreciated. A few anonymous pieces attest the general development of the epigram at that time,7s and it receives its clearest stamp in the epigrams of Plato.7 6 Nevertheless, significant though Plato appears to have been in the development of the epigram, viewed from the standpoint of Alexandria, and particularly of Asclepiades, he is only an isolated forerunner who revealed how the restricted application of the epigram might be extended, and in style and outlook he is for the most part far removed from Asclepiades. 77 Another such forerunner was probably the girl Erinna, whose two poems on the death of her friend Baucis were admired and imitated by Asclepiades and Leonidas of Tarentum.7 8 Asclepiades, then, although not the originator, is certainly the main figure in that development of the epigram into an expression of personal feeling which is particularly characteristic of third-century Alexandria, and we shall see that he exercised a direct and substantial influence on the poets of the period, including Callimachus. There is, however, another type of epigram, particularly associated with the name of Leonidas of Tarentum, which matured at about the same time, at which we must glance for purposes of contrast with the Alexandrian. This type has been thought to represent a specific Peloponnesian treatment of the epigram, but in fact its main exponents seem to be natives of S. Italy,79 and its chief representative is certainly Leonidas, a contemporary of Asclepiades, 80 and perhaps even more an innovator than the latter-one whose influence on the whole future development of the epigram was far greater, and whose poetic merit was far less.81 It is unfortunately no easier to assess Leonidas' background, and the general poetical activity of Magna Graecia in the later fourth century, than it is that of Asclepiades. It is natural to set him alongside Nossis of Locri, his contemporary, but her epigrams are very different from those of Leonidas; they are brief, moving glimpses of the world of cult and domestic duties which made up the life of a Locrian matron. 82 (A mature and sensitive poetess, she evokes her environment with great skill and delicacy, and in this respect fundamentally resembles Asclepiades, though his point and verve and brilliance find no echo in her, just as her quiet, ordered life was foreign to him.) He has very close affinities of subject with another contemporary poetess, Anyte of Tegea, but his method of treating the bucolic subjects dear to Anyte is very different. 83 At the same time he shows some similarity in both language and metrical matters to Asclepiades and Callimachus, 84 while differing rntircly from them in subject and treatment. He is thus, if an uninspired Hle78

00

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

poet, a very individual writer, and his individuality must not be forgotten because of the plentiful and worthless poetry of his imitators. Leonidas' epigrams cover a wide field: epitaphs, largely or wholly imaginary, dedications, again largely fictitious, consisting of wearisome lists of tools of the dedicant's humble trade-fisherman, carpenter, weaver; and purely epideictic and reflective pieces on commonplace events, misfortunes based on coincidence, the release of death, and so on. Much of his background is pastoral, and dedications to Pan, Hermes, and the Nymphs abound. It is here that he resembles Anyte, but in contrast to her simple, direct verse his epigrams are overlaid with a thick varnish of rare and sophisticated expressions wholly foreign to the natural environment, and also quite alien to the graphic bucolic style of his contemporary, Theocritus. It is the object dedicated, the spade or the fishing-hook, on which the poet's interest is centred, and not the dedicator, the peasant or fisherman. His epigrams thus labour under a mass of recondite substantives describing these objects, propped up by lavish but unevocative epithets strung together in a polysyndetic manner. Their metrical movement is slow, with a heavy spondaic element, and they largely lack point. It would, no doubt, be unfair to dismiss Leonidas as simply an over-selfconscious craftsman, for although he lacks spontaneity, once in a while he communicates genuine feeling for his subjects. 8s We find, however, no trace of the deep emotion which many of the writers of the third century reveal in a distich, while his absence of 'point' is also in striking contrast to the great masters of the epigram. Asclepiades and, after him, almost the whole line of Alexandrian epigrammatists of the third century, differ profoundly from Leonidas in this, as in most other respects. The epigram in the hands of Asclepiades 86 is-indeed, as we have seen, we may almost say, becomes-a vehicle of personal poetry, and imaginary and epideictic elements are largely lacking. Absent, too, is the funerary epigram, which, whether real or imaginary, constitutes so large a part of the total of Greek epigrams, and which predominates in Callimachus' work in this field. The subject-matter is mainly either sympotic or erotic, and largely centred on the poet's own experience, though some pieces are purely satirical. There are also a few racy, brief, and humorous dialogues in the style of mime, in which the poet is the main party. In spite of the occasional antecedents glimpsed in the fourth century the introduction of most of these topics into the epigram seems to have been due to Asclepiades, just as the whole method of treatment is his, and in particular the introduction of the 'point'. The simplicity of Asclepiades' style is best seen in his erotic epigrams. In their extremely individual style these reveal a satirical,

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

witty, and urbane personality, and a master of his chosen form, to which, with outstanding metrical skill, he gives the widest possible range of feeling. This simplicity, which expresses an almost complete harmony of form and substance, is inherited especially by Callimachus who, as we shall see, adds his own richer gifts. It is perhaps not fanciful to say that in very different spheres the two contemporaries Euclid and Asclepiades express the same ideal, and the richer personalities of Archimedes on the one hand and Callimachus on the other, for all their greater achievement, do not dim the particular perfection of their predecessors. Erotic epigrams, and especially those reflecting his own affairs, form the largest single element in Asclepiades' work, and we may look at these first. The theme of most is heterosexual love, but a few addressed to boys also survive, and there is no distinction of manner between the two categories. In both respects we notice at once the absence of deep emotion, while lighter feelings are not lacking. The passion of single and exclusive love, which is the most significant element in the verse of Catullus and Propertius, is quite missing in Asclepiades, and also, as we shall see, in the rest of the Alexandrian epigrammatists, and it would be difficult to point to a Greek poet between Sappho and Meleager of whom this is not true. Asclepiades does indeed show occasional signs of what we may call a romantic approach to love, but only very rarely. We may note as an example the poem addressed to a girl unwilling to learn the joys of love, for whom Asclepiades contrasts the joys of life and love and the nullity of death 87-'the joys of the Cyprian are among the living, but in Acheron, maiden, we shall lie but bone and dust'but the theme was already conventional, and Asclepiades does not give it much new life. Less melancholy, but no less romantic, is the tetrastich in praise oflove. 88'Sweet is the snow to the thirsty in summer, sweet the sight of the Crown in spring to sailors, but sweeter than these it is when one cloak covers two lovers and they both sing the praises of the Cyprian.' Here the motive is not wholly new-indeed the possible dangers of the situation were made clear to Sophocles 89-but the epigram succeeds because it combines a clarity of image and a simplicity of language. In another, a girl's lament for her lost lover and hope for the rebirth of love ring convincingly true in its understanding of the pain of love:9° 'Of old I used to plague Archeades. But now, alas, he does not even turn to me in play. Indeed honey-sweet love is not ever sweet, but oftentimes when causing pain the god is sweeter yet to lovers.' But these are rare moments of feeling, and for the most part Asclepiadcs is concerned with the demi-monde, in particular with hetaerae, whose ways and whose power over men and over himself he illuminates

564

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

brilliantly. It is important to note here that although Asclepiades' poems of this type are often obscene in content, they are never obscene or crude in expression, and the peculiar elegance with which he describes the activities of the hetaerae sets the tone for much of the century. Callimachus, too, permits himself no licence of expression, though abundant licence of theme, and in third-century Alexandria only one epigrammatist offends in this respect-Dioscorides, whom we shall discuss later. 91 From this world of venal love, in which the young of both sexes refuse and grant their favours with equanimity and impartiality, on a cash basis, Asclepiades extracted the material for his epigrams along several channels. In the first place there was his own experience. He laments that Heracleia has not kept her appointment in his room, though she swore by his lamp to do so: so the poet calls on the lamp (or rather, we must suppose the lamp in Heracleia's room) to quench its light when Heracleia is occupied with another client. 92In a very similar piece, after waiting in vain late into the night for a famous hetaera who had sworn by Demeter to come, he dismisses the episode with a shrug: 93'Perhaps she meant to trick me. Put out the light, boys'. In another 94 he regrets good-naturedly the general cornpliancy of the docile Hermione, who wore a belt on which was embroidered in letters of gold: 'Love me always, and do not grieve if another love me.' Normally Asclepiades seems to have entertained these ladies at home, but once he accepted an invitation to the house of Niko, and she did not keep the appointment, so characteristically the poet prays:9s 'May she, like me, soon stand and curse the night on my doorstep.' More bitterly, and with admission of his suffering for a worthless woman, he says: 96 'The night is long and stormy, and the Pleiads sink(?), while I, rain-drenched, pace before her door, tormented by desire for that worthless piece. This is not love, which the Cyprian sent, but a searing fiery arrow.' Finally we may note his tribute to Archeanassa, an elderly hetaera from Colophon, whom he has secured :97 'On her very wrinkles love yet sits. Ah, ye lovers that cropped the first flower of her youth, through what fire ye came!' That is as good as it could be. In another mood Asclepiades is a malicious observer of the antics, professional and otherwise, of the hetaerae, and the pictures he draws, are brief and scandalous. In one,9 8 an imaginary dedication, a hetaera named Lysidice dedicates to Aphrodite a golden spur which, the poet fancies, she had used in her professional capacity when making love d cheval. The language of the race-course is maintained to the end, though Asclepiades seems to reverse the positions of Lysidice and her partner in the middle. This whole group of metaphors, like its physical reality, was popular with the Greeks ;99not only was Asclepiades' piece

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

with its metaphors carried further by Posidippus, 100 and too far by Dioscorides, 101 but a surviving inscription 102 from Attica contains a fragment of a very simple dedication in which the dedicant who calls herself 'a certain woman' records her many 'couplings' in just the same metaphor. This most unexpected dedication provides an authentic background for Asclepiades' verse and is important as showing, once more, that apparently literary genres may have an unsuspected background of daily life. In another piece 103 Asclepiades calls down in mockery the curse of the Cyprian upon two Samian girls who have deserted (av-roµoAoiJaw) to the Lesbian camp: 'Cyprian, hate these deserters from your way of love.' These pieces are not only effective in themselves; they are valuable social documents for a period and a place for which we possess little literature illustrating morals. In other fields Asclepiades shows himself an innovator in his adaptation of existing poetical genres to the epigram. This is clearly shown in his sympotic epigrams, which form a main category of his work. He apparently adapted this subject, for which the vehicle in the past had been either elegiac verse or, in Attica, a lyrical metre, and the content of his verses closely resembles, for instance, the sympotic Attic skolia and some of Alcaeus. 10 4 This expansion of the elegiac couplet to include subjects previously composed in different forms is characteristic of Asclepiades, and of Callimachus, who, with far greater originality than the older poet, composed epinician and epithalamial hymns in this metre. 10 s The sympotic poem is also naturally concerned with the sorrows of love, and thus we find Asclepiades mingles the two themes. One piece, 106 addressed to a wine-jug, makes the point that the jug began the night full and ended it empty, whereas the poet had done the reverse. This has point, and the string of affectionate, amusing epithets for the jug is effective, but the poem is surpassed by a similar piece of Posidippus. 107 In more serious vein, Asclepiades sees the wine-flask as the only consolation for his unrequited love, and he almost reaches to the heights of Archilochus and Catullus: 108 'Drink, Asclepiades: what tears are these? What sufferings are thine? Thou are not the only victim of love's ravishing: bitter Eros has not discharged his slings and arrows on thee alone. Why liest in the dust, whilst yet alive? Let us drink the lively drink of Bacchus. The dawn's but a finger's breadth away. Shall we wait the lantern to take us off to bed? Let us drink, for Eros has no place here. The time's not far, poor lad, when we shall sleep the long sleep.' This has a strength and robustness, for all its trite theme, which is uncharacteristic of Asclepiades, and shows him .capable of stronger feelings than his erotic pieces suggest. To the same category belongs an unusual and moving poem, sympotic in setting, hut erotic in theme: 109 'Wine is the test of love; the many toasts we

566

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

drank betrayed Nikagoras, who told us he was not in love; for he wept and hung his head and looked away downcast, and the wreath on his brow fell down.' The same motive was adapted and improved by Callimachus. 110 Two other aspects of Asclepiades' work also call for illustration. First is his dramatic talent, admirably expressed in an extended epigram of twelve lines containing a racy monologue in which a host, Bacchon, instructs his servant in preparation for a dinner-party.rn In spite of the difficulty and corruption of the poem, it gives a very lively impression of the needy host faced with the embarrassing combination of a servant of dubious honesty and an empty pocket. Confronted with the necessity of immediate purchases, he suspends further scrutiny of his housekeeping books and orders his slave to make the necessary purchases notwithstanding. This realistic epigram resembles a scene from a mime, from which, metre apart, it differs only in its length and by the fact that it is in the form of a monologue." 2 A similar, shorter piece, 113 in which a servant Demetrius is addressed, is a worthy companion to this, though here the picture is simpler; Demetrius is simply ordered to go out and buy the ingredients of a fish-supper for six, some chaplets of roses, and (as ifby afterthought) to invite Tryphera, no doubt a hetaera, on the way back. The fresh and realistic style is very similar to that of the more dramatic piece. Finally we must notice a class of epigrams in which Asclepiades (and after him Callimachus) excelled, the subject of which is the work of earlier poets. 114 In spite of the formidable obstacle of pseudepigraphy in respect of such poems in the Anthology, it seems quite clear that this type of epigram, in the form of a fictitious epitaph, existed already in the fourth century. 11 s As might be expected, from the third century onwards epigrams which are purely descriptive of the poet's work appear alongside the funerary, though the epitaphs remain the more popular. This development was no doubt due in part to the general expansion of the field of the epigram discernible in the fourth century, but once more it looks as if Asclepiades played a decisive role. The most significant of these poems is certainly that on Antimachus, 116 for the praise which Asclepiades bestowed on the Lyde was an important element in the literary cross-currents of the period. Callimachus, who owed so much to Asclepiades, here parted company sharply with him, over an issue which seems to have provoked the main disagreement between him and his opponents. 11 7 More moving is the other literary epigram, that on Erinna, which gives some indication of the deep impression that this girl genius made on her immediate posterity. Asclepiades' poem was the model, it may be supposed, for two other poems on Erinna, one by Leonidas, 118 and

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

one unfortunately anonymous, 11 9 both of which, though more derivative, yet still attest the power of her verse and the impact of her early death. Asclepiades' own poem is not funerary, but composed as an imaginary preface written by Erinna to her poems. It is very simple: 120 'This is the sweet work of Erinna; slight in volume indeed as being of a nineteen-year-old maiden, yet mightier than that of many others. If death had not come so soon to me, who would have had so great a name?' We who, long centuries after its disappearance, have had the privilege of reading again the torn fragments of her lovely Distajf, 121 which she wrote in memory of her girlhood friend Baucis, must feel the power of that final line and a half. Such are the main characteristics of the subject-matter of Asclepiades' verse. Before, however, turning to his successors in the field of epigram, we must also consider his achievement in style and language. Here, too, as in the wider use of the epigram as a whole, he appears as an individualist. His metrical practice calls for little comment. 122 In his construction of the hexameter and pentameter he seems to have held a middle course. His lines show a greater use of the spondee than those either of his contemporary Anyte or of his successor Callimachus, but far less than that of Leonidas, whose excessive employment of spondees causes his lines to labour. 12 3 In other respects he shows a greater laxity of metrical rule than either Posidippus or Callimachus. 124 In general his metre is freer than that of his successors, upon whom Callimachus' stricter practice seems to have imposed itself. This freedom, however, is combined with a careful control of the resources offered by the metrical form itself in respect of assonance, homoeoteleuton both between the halves of the pentameter and the ends of lines, and other devices. 12 s In the wider field of style, language, and structure, Asclepiades employs features which all lend lightness and a colloquial note to the verse: short sentences, asyndetic constructions, and ellipses, combined with a simple word-order and an absence of 'poetical' words. 126 These devices combine to produce the brevity and clarity which constitute Asclepiades' chief stylistic grace and, together with those mental qualities which we have already noticed-a lively wit, and a clear eye for his own follies and those of the world about him-produce the impression of a singularly harmonious artist, one to whom poor workmanship and spurious feeling were as unknown as were the deeps of feeling in which from time to time Callimachus found himself. The admirable qualities revealed by Asclepiades remain character. istic of all that is best in the Alexandrian epigram, and by thus dwelling on them here we have set the stage for what is to follow in the fruitful period from Posidippus to Dioscorides. We must now turn to his

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

collaborators and immediate successors, Posidippus and Hedylus, who though they are of less importance than Callimachus, and less interesting and curious than Dioscorides, show some noteworthy developments of the epigram. We have already seen that Posidippus was in some demand as a public epigrammatist in Greece proper. 127 He fulfilled the same role in Alexandria, and we have from his pen two or three formal dedicatory epigrams which show how this more traditional use of the epigram also developed in this period. These pieces are the more valuable in that epigrams of this type do not survive from the pens of Asclepiades and Callimachus. If they did compose such pieces, Meleager evidently did not think them worth including in the dedicatory section of his Garland. Three poems of Posidippus belong to this class. 128 The most striking is an epigram about the Pharos. 129 It is not clear that this is the actual dedicatory epigram of the lighthouse, which was probably completed early in the reign of Philadelphus, but there can be little doubt that it was commissioned by Sostratus,13° and it was presumably inscribed on it. It is a genuine dedicatory epigram to Proteus, to whom, as we have seen, the Pharos was apparently dedicated, and who was particularly associated with the island which, from Homer onwards, was regarded as his birthplace and residence. 1 31 The subject does not seem to have been particularly congenial to Posidippus, for it is a frigid and unpoetical composition. After the necessary exordium mentioning Sostratus, the poem consists of a contrast between the peaks of the Greek islands and the flat coast of Egypt, which necessitated the erection of the Pharos, 132and two couplets describing the visibility of the lighthouse, and the safety with which the pilot may run into the 'Bull's Horn', one of the channels of the harbour. 1 33 It is instructive to compare this dull poem with a contemporary, and very similar dedicatory epigram on the Rhodian colossus, by an unknown poet. 1 34 This has a genuine poetic quality, and also an impressive note of patriotism, both Rhodian and, more widely, Dorian. The contrast between the two pieces underlines that fundamental lack of civic feeling in Alexandria, for which, for example, learned attempts to provide cities of the Ptolemaic empire with mythological pedigrees provided no substitute.13s Two other dedicatory epigrams of Posidippus concern familiar historical personages. They are twin dedications for the temple built by Callicrates the nauarch for Arsinoe-Aphrodite on the promontory of Zephyrion, east of the city.136 In the first, 1 37 in accordance with an archaic tradition, 138 the dedicated object, the temple itself, speaks; in the second, the poet. It is very probable that both dedications were actually inscribed on or near the building. There is a considerable

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

difference in quality between the two pieces. The first has not only the charm of direct address, which gives the poem a rather unsophisticated air, but also contains genuinely poetical imagery: 139 'Midway between the shore of Pharos and the mouth ofKanopos among the encompassing waves, my site is this wind-swept breakwater of Libya rich in sheep, facing the Italian west wind. Here Kallikrates set me up and called me the shrine of Queen Arsinoe-Aphrodite. Come then, ye pure daughters of the Greeks, to her who shall be famous as ZephyritisAphrodite, and ye too, toilers on the sea; for the nauarch built this shrine to be a sure harbour from all the waves.' It is the notion of the little shrine both as a bulwark against storms, and as a religious centre for the young virgins of Alexandria, and for the seafaring man, which dominates the piece, rather than the concept of the worship of the queen as such; this, though not wholly suppressed, is not emphasized. The second, shorter piece,1 40 is perhaps less effective: 'By sea and on land make offering to this shrine of Arsinoe-Philadelphos-Aphrodite, she whom Kallikrates, the nauarch, first set to rule upon the Zephyrian promontory, and who will give safe sailing and will make smooth the wide sea for those who pray in the midst of the storm.' Here the figure of Arsinoe-Philadelphos bulks large as protectress while the shrine itself and its worshippers are entirely forgotten, and the language is conventional and slightly vague. However, interesting in themselves and significant though these pieces are, they do not form a representative specimen of Posidippus' work. His main achievement, at least as known to us, is in the same field as Asclepiades, that of the personal epigram with all its new-won variety of theme. The main elements of his work are primarily erotic and satirical or scoptic, but unfortunately a factor already mentioned, the uncertainty of attribution of some poems as between him and Asclepiades, makes it difficult to use some of the poems as evidence. It is especially the erotic group which reveals Posidippus' own qualities and also his particular indebtedness to Asclepiades. A few examples suffice to show this. In one epigram Posidippus addresses a docile hetaera: 141 'Think not thou deceivest me with docile tears; I know (thou wilt say) thou lovest none more than me, so long as thou liest by my side. If another were enjoying thee, thou wouldst say thou didst love him more than me.' This is a more direct statement of the epigram in which Asclepiades describes his play with the docile (the same word is used in both poems) Herrnione/42 but Asclepiades conceals his feelings-less deep, no doubt1111dcrthe pretty imagery of the gold-embroidered belt. Posidippus has I,orrowcd the theme and depicted it in harsher colours. So again, in a more obscene poem, Asclepiades' description of the hippopornic

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

Lysidice, who dedicated her spurs, 143 is adapted, elaborated, and immensely crudified by the portrayal of the dedication as made by the victor in such a 'Hectorean' race between two hippopornae, and Posidippus infuses the picture with savage wit by describing the erotic symplegma in a line borrowed from a sacred moment in Callimachus' Bath of Pallas. 14 4 Several other poems indicate that Posidippus has borrowed actual lines or parts of lines from Asclepiades as he did from Callimachus. 1 4s However, he also had his own particular talent, as may be seen from a few epigrams. In one 14 6 he describes the effect of desire on a literary man-himself: 'Desire bound the cicada of the Muses [that is, Posidippus' own soul] on a bed of thorns, and wished to quench its song, laying fire beneath its sides. And the soul, much exercised ere this in book-lore, reeks little of other things, laying the blame on the baleful god.' Here we have the same frivolity as in Asclepiades, but once more the language is stronger. In another, Posidippus boasts of his armour against love :147 'I am well armed', he says, 'and will fight thee, nor, mortal as I am, shall I give in. Love, do thou attack me no more. If thou catchest me drunk, carry me off a prisoner, but whilst I stay sober I have Reason drawn up against thee.' Here again it is the literary man speaking, secure-this time -in the armour of Reason. This, too, is an effective piece. Posidippus is, however, at his best and most characteristic in two sympotic pieces which also contain an erotic element. Of these the more striking is the exquisitely melodious 'hymn' to the Attic lagynos, or small wine-jug: 148 'Cecropian Lagynos, pour out the dewy juice of Bacchos, pour, and let our fraternal toasts be refreshed. Let Zenon the wise swan keep silent, and the Muse of Kleanthes, and let us concern ourselves with love the bitter-sweet.' This epigram, in which the various strands in Posidippus' creative activity are evident-the literary and philosophical interests of 'the soul in books much exercised', the colourful and emphatic use of language, and the genuine and absorbed delight in conviviality-shows a poetical power which is independent and individual, and owes nothing to Asclepiades. 1 49 The other, 1 so also very corrupt, combines love, wine, and literary reminiscence: 'Pour in two measures for Nanno and Lyde, and two for Mimnermos, the boylover(?), and sober Antimachos; pour in a fifth in my name, and, as you pour in the sixth, Heliodoros, say "For every one who ever chanced to love"; say that the seventh measure is for Hesiod, and the eighth for Homer, the ninth for the Muses, and the tenth for Memory. I drink the cup overflowing the brim, Cyprian .. .' This does not compare with the previous epigram. It is more artificially constructed as a literary piece, the list of the toasts is too long and has an unfortunate rescmhlancc to a metrical mnemonic, while the introduction of the poet

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

571

himself at two points does not seem particularly effective; he remains a colourless figure. Nevertheless the elements of which it is composed, though not in this instance very harmoniously blended, are very characteristic of the poet. In subject-matter and treatment Posidippus thus appears as a more vigorous and resourceful poet than Asclepiades, but he unmistakably lacks the wit and delicacy of the latter in erotic themes. Technically his style is freer than that of Asclepiades. His sentences, like his poems themselves, tend to be longer, and the epigrams, largely perhaps as a result of this, seem to run more smoothly, and he is at the same time able to develop a theme, as in his dedicatory pieces and in one or two scoptic pieces. 1s1 In his metrical practice he stands on the whole much closer to Asclepiades than to Callimachus. 1s2 The last of the trio, Hedylus, seems to have specialized particularly in scoptic epigrams on gluttons. 1s3 However, one genuine dedication survives, which we have already encountered in another context. In this Hedylus describes the rhyton or drinking-vessel fashioned by Ctesibius and dedicated, no doubt by him, in the temple of Arsinoe at Zephyrion dedicated by Callicrates and commemorated by Posidippus.1s4 The rhyton was a pretty gold toy of the mechanical type, fashioned in the form of the god Bes, and wine flowed from the mouth to the accompaniment of music. The young Alexandrians are invited to inspect it and to honour the 'clever discovery': Come, ye drinkers of unmixed wine, look too at this rhyton in the temple of kindly Arsinoe, lover of the ·west \,Vind, even the Egyptian Besas, the dancer; he utters a shrill trumpet note when the spout is opened for the flowing wine, no signal for war, but through his golden mouth he calls forth the signal for revelry and feasting, like the age-old melody which our lord Nile brought forth from his divine waters, dear to the initiates who bring their offerings. But come, youths, beside this temple of Arsinoe, if ye revere this clever discovery of Ktesibios. This poem, probably commemorates an offering made at the time of, or shortly after, the dedication of the temple. It links Hedylus closely with Posidippus and the Court circle of which Callicrates and Sostratus formed part, but as poetry it is flat, even if the subject was not particularly tractable. His other dedicatory pieces are imaginary. One concerns Callistion, 155 a heavy-drinking hetaera who makes a dedication in the manner reminiscent of Asclepiades' Lysidice and Posidippus' Plangon, but her dedication, though made, like those of the two others, to the Cyprian, is of a drinking-vessel, the so-called 'Lesbian'. The poem . concludes, however, with a prayer to Aphrodite to keep her safe, that once again the temple walls may carry the spoils of sweet desires; so a subsequent, more orthodox dedication is envisaged. The poem,

57 2

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

grotesque and without merit, almost qualifies for the scoptic group, since Callistion is described as 'a miracle, wholly genuine', who drank up three choai on an empty stomach. Another,is 6 also imaginary, records the dedication to Priapus by Niconoe, once victor in a beauty contest, of a fawn-skin and a golden jug. This is a mediocre and rather obscure piece, the interest of which lies not in its content or poetical quality, but in the fact that the dedication is made to Priapus, who was at this time emerging from his native obscurity, and winning popularity in Alexandria, where he appears in the 'Pompe' described by Callixeinus beside Dionysus. 1 s1 The field in which Hedylus excelled was that of the scoptic, satirical epigram. Several of his pieces in this field survive, the subjects of which 1 8 are gourmets (dipocpayoi). s Hedylus' book of epigrams apparently contained a list of such persons, with a poem for each one, and we must be thankful that only one or two survive. Those which do are mostly tedious, but they are very characteristic of the author, and cannot be wholly neglected. Three are preserved by Athenaeus in the section of his eighth book concerned with fish. 159 One castigates a certain Agis: 160 'The Beauty-Fish is cooked; now put up the bolt lest Agis come, the Proteus of the frying-pan, who turns into water and fire and whatever he likes, so lock him out ... For he will come perhaps thus transformed like Zeus in gold descending, to take this frying-pan of Akrisios.' Another is an attack on a notorious female gormandizer named Cleio, and is a good deal cruder and also obscure.I6I 'Eat your delicacies, Kleio, we shut our eyes. But eat on your own if you please. The whole conger costs a drachme. Put up either a belt or an ear-ring or some pledge like that. We cannot bear to look at you! ( ?) You are our Medusa. We are all turned to stone, poor wretches, not by the dreadful Gorgo, but by a dish of eels.' Two other poems are of far higher quality. The first is truly sympotic, and reflects the social life of the circle of Asclepiades. It is a masterpiece of its genre : 162 'From dawn to night, and from the night hours round to dawn again Sokles drinks from jars which hold four choes. Then of a sudden by chance he is away! Yet in his cups his playful verse is sweeter than that of Sikelidas-and what is more he is a tougher character-and how radiant is his charm! Wherefore, friend, write and get drunk.' This is a wonderfully sharp picture of a company of poets, and of la vie de boheme. The piece is certainly the most effective of Hedylus' epigrams and has an added interest in the introduction of an otherwise unknown poet Socles, whom some have chosen to identify with the like-named father of Lycophron, and of Sicelides whom we know better as Asclepiades. 163 Here we see an intimate circle of poets relaxing in one another's company and stimulating each other to

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

573

versify, to rival, and even to surpass the master. Such a picture well illustrates one aspect of that literary society to which the young Callimachus belonged, in which the epigram was so skilfully nurtured and polished by the early Alexandrian masters. The other poem 164 introduces us to another aspect of Bohemian life. It is an epitaph on Theon, a player of the single pipe (µovavAo,), a traditionally Alexandrian wind-instrument which was used to accompany musical recitations on the stage: Beneath this mound dwells Theon, the sweet monaulist, the flute-player, the charm of mimes on the stage. When blind and old he had indeed a son, Skirpalos, whom, when a baby, he called Skirpalos [the Jumper], the son of Eupalamos [the Inventive One], and sang at his birthday festival. For he bore this name to signify the sweetness of his tunes. And he piped 'The drunken frolics of the Muses', Glauce's piece, or about Battalus, the tippler of strong wine, or Kotalos, or Pakalos. Say then to Theon, with the pipe of reed, 'Farewell, Theon.'

This epitaph, be it real or imaginary, and obscure though it is in places, has a combination of picturesque realism and insight: there is no rhetoric and not a single conventional formula. The language is fresh, indeed arrestingly so, the picture of the father delighting in the son of his old age intimate and moving. The poem is also of great importance for the light it throws on a social level lower than that of the Alexandrian poets themselves. That Alexandria is the scene is proved by the fortunate mention of Glauce, the Chian harp-player who performed in Alexandria, is referred to by Theocritus, and achieved great fame in antiquity as one with whom an animal-a gander or a ramfell in love, an attention also said to have been eajoyed by a beautiful Achaean boy, and by the Academic scholarch Lacydes. 165 We may also note the use of the nicknames, 'Jumper', and 'the Inventive One'. Such nicknames are characteristic of Roman Alexandria, but they are much less frequently attested in the Ptolemaic period 166-partly no doubt because the social origin of the Ptolemaic writers was very different-and this is of interest as being an early example. The poem also gives some idea of the popular and sentimental musical pieces of the Alexandrian stage in the early third century. Glauce was evidently at the top of her profession, for Theocritus also refers to songs popularized by her. In the fourth Idyll, the scene of which is apparently Sicily, Corydon says: 16 7 'I am something of a flute-player, and I can strike up Glauke's songs, or Pyrrhos' well enough, I praise Kroton, "Zakynthos is a fair town".' These songs, 'The Drunken Muses', 'Kotalos', . 'Pakalos', and the rest, belong to the world of burlesque, and it is doubtful if fragments from analogous productions have survived. The essence of such pieces was musical and they are distinct both from

574

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

dramatic presentations such as mimes, and also from monologue laments such as the paraclausithyron. 168 There were many varieties of such musical and dramatic productions, and one link between them is provided by the audience aimed at-the lower class. The poem ofHedylus is thus particularly worthy of attention, as a rare example of an epigram composed by a member of the Alexandrian poetic circle drawing its inspiration in part at least from a lower social milieu. In the field of erotic verse one at least of the pieces which can be attributed to Hedylus with some certainty is an adaptation of Asclepiades. It runs as follows: 16 9 'Euphro and Thais and Boidion, the old women of Diomedes, the twenty-oared transports of ships' captains, have thrown overboard, one each, Agis, Cleophon, and Antagoras, naked and weaker than shipwrecked mariners. Flee with your ships from corsairs of Aphrodite, for they are worse than Sirens.' Compare this with the original by Asclepiades :1 1° 'Lembion and Kerkourion, the two hetaerae, are always moored at watch in the harbour of the Samians. Fly, ye youth, one and all from the corsairs of Aphrodite: he who joins battle is sunk, disabled and swallowed up.' Hedylus' epigram, clearly derived from that of Asclepiades, is weaker at every point: it is a general warning instead of a precise one directed where most needed, to the youth, and the metaphor of the pirate ships, so elegantly alluded to by Asclepiades in the names of the hetaerae, dominates Hedylus' poem with unnecessary and heavy detail such as 'the twentyoared transports of sea-captains', 'naked and weaker than sailors', and it is crowded with proper names. It is also slightly obscure. 1 1 1 In fact, the adaptation, like those of Posidippus already noted, is not a success, though it serves very well to bring out the masterly simplicity of Asclepiades. The only other erotic piece may also owe something to Asclepiades. It is a dedication by a girl Aglaonice of the sandals and breast-band worn on her first night of love, which she passed with Nicagoras, 'the moist spoils of her virgin longings'. 172 It has been thought that this Nicagoras is the same youth who is depicted by Asclepiades so movingly as confessing to love at a drinking-party. 173 The identification is likely enough, and there is some suggestion of borrowed phraseology, but the dedicatory motif itself is so frequent that the extent of the debt is uncertain. 174 Technically Hedylus' work shows in some respects a further development of the epigram in the direction of more varied composition. Both his scoptic epigrams and his admirable epitaph on Theon reveal wider horizons than those of Asclepiades and Posidippus. He is capable of sentiment and also, at times, of admirably spontaneous writing, but he shows no deep personal emotions, and his scoptic verse is grotesque. Much less of his work survives, as at present attributed, than of that of

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

575

Asclepiades or Posidippus, but even so it seems fair to say that, though the author of one or two excellent pieces, he was the least effective of the three. He is furthest from Asclepiades in manner and substance, and where he borrows from him he does not seem to have improved the theme. This analysis of the three poets who apparently worked together, and were probably members of the same literary society of early Alexandria, shows that each had his own characteristic features, in spite of derivative elements. In general, however, it is evident that although Posidippus and even Hedylus are capable of fine verse, neither of them has Asclepiades' remarkable and sustained gifts of insight, wit, and feeling, which give him pride of place among post-Classic epigrammatists, superior even to Callimachus. His output and range were both small, but his gifts were perfectly fitted for the medium that he chose and that he was able to develop so effectively. Three other major figures are associated with the history of the Alexandrian epigram, Theocritus, Callimachus, and Dioscorides, but for more than one reason the first of these need not detain us. In the first place Meleager does not mention Theocritus as an epigrammatist in the Garland, and if so important a poet had written many epigrams it is hardly likely that Meleager would have omitted him. Consequently, although a score or so of epigrams survive under the name of Theocritus either in the Bucolic manuscripts or in the Palatine Anthology, in respect of authorship each has to be judged essentially on its merits, and, so judged, it does not appear likely that more than one or two can be attributed to the poet himself with any probability; 11 s it is not surprising that anonymous epigrams with bucolic themes became attached to his name. Secondly, although Theocritus undoubtedly lived for some time in Alexandria during the time when Philadelphus and Arsinoe were married (c. 276-270) 176 there is nothing to connect any of the epigrams with that city; as compared with the work of Asclepiades and Callimachus the collection contains an unusually high proportion of epigrams both funerary and dedicatory, copied from stones, and gives an impression of poetry composed to order in different parts of the Greek world. 177 Thirdly, although some of them have undoubted poetic merit, the epigrams as a whole not only lack any positive indication of Alexandrian or Egyptian origin, but also do not exhibit those less easily definable qualities of simplicity, elegance, and detachment, which, if present, would lead us naturally to assign them to an Alexandrian milieu. Callimachus is the only epigrammatist whose work in this field can be set against the background of his major work-the longer works of Asclcpiades and Posidippus have vanished,17 8 and there is no evidence

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

that Dioscorides ever wrote any. His epigrams are rather detached from his major works, but they form a very important element in our over-all picture of the poet. His particular qualities-pathos, humour, and pride in his own achievement-are very evident, and are conveyed in his own unique, often abrupt, manner, and it would hardly be possible to dispute authorship between Callimachus and Asclepiades in the same way as it is between Asclepiades and Posidippus and Hedylus. His epigrams, over sixty in all, are the largest number assigned to any Alexandrian poet. i79 They cover most of the now familiar categories: the epitaph, the dedication, the erotic, the literary, the dramatic, and the moralizing. Two groups are absent: the sympotic and the scoptic. The absence of the former is surprising, and probably reflects a trait in the poet's character, for he seems to have found less pleasure in convivial life than the more Bohemian circle round Asclepiades. In this connection we call to mind the poet's own story, as told in the Aetia, of his meeting at a banquet in Alexandria provided by the Athenian Pollis on the anniversary of the Attic festival of the Aiora. 180 He recounts how he met an lcian, Theogenes, and being bored with the drinking he asked him various questions connected with the antiquities of his island. His language here reveals the tedium he felt at such symposia: 181 'For the lcian too hated the heavy drinking of Thracian wine, but enjoyed a modest glass ... let us then put the healing drug of converse in our glasses against our tedium.' This is a far cry from Asclepiades' lively sympotic pieces. We may perhaps reasonably regard it as a fair statement of Callimachus' moderate taste in conviviality, in spite of the words of the imaginary epitaph he composed upon himself, 182 in which he describes himself as 'equally conversant with sacred poetry and with combining wine and song at the right time'. Th:s latter daim contrasts with his practice, not only in his epigrams but throughout his verse, and probably simply expresses a literary convention. 18 3 Of the main categories we may notice first the epitaphs, a group of about eighteen pieces, in striking contrast, as already noticed, to the output of Asclepiades, from whose pen almost no epitaphs survive. Of this number only a few are demonstrably fictitious, and the largest proportion are probably composed for monuments, while others, though apparently not themselves the original epitaph, represent reflections raised by the original stone or its epitaph. The fictitious group need only detain us to enable us to note the two companion-pieces, the very simple distich on the poet himself, already noted,I 84 and the more elaborate imaginary epitaph for his father's grave, a counterpart to his epitaph on himself, in which Callimachus makes his father the vehicle for his own pride of achievement: 18 s 'Whoever passes by my tomb,

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

577

know me the son and father of Callimachus of Cyrene: thou wilt know them both. For the one was master of our city's armament, while the other sang songs beyond the reach of envy. No cause for anger here; for those on whom in youth the lviuses look with unflinching eye, they do not desert when their hairs are grey.' The note of pride in his own achievement, and the unmistakable reference to contemporary controversy, both so characteristic of Callimachus, seem irrelevant here, even in an imaginary epitaph, and in spite of its ingenuity the poem is not among Callimachus' most successful pieces. The epigrams commemorating a real death are for the most part extremely effective. They reveal a profounder pathos than his larger works, which are more ironic and personal in character. This pathos, often combined, in a brief compass, with Callimachus' highly coloured expressiveness, produces a series of very remarkable epitaphs. The distichs appeal by their brevity and simplicity, and in one at least, the famous couplet lamenting the death of a twelve-year-old boy, Nicoteles 186-'His father, Philippos, has here laid away his twelveyear-old son, Nikoteles, his great hope' -the bald expression transmits a deeply felt emotion. For the most part, however, Callimachus did not reach his highest level in these distichs, and seems to have found the tetrastich more congenial. Three examples of this group, all of which appear to be genuine epitaphs, may be quoted. First, the epitaph of Crethis: 18 7 'The daughters of the Samians often seek Krethis, so full of tales, so versed in pretty jest, their sweetest fellow worker, for ever talking: but she sleeps here the sleep that's due to all women.' This lovely piece portrays the early death of a Samian girl working in Alexandria, and living no doubt in a humble environment. Callimachus has invested this simple life with a great dignity and also sweetness. From the material point of view the piece serves to remind us of a humbler level of Samian immigrant than one normally encounters in Alexandria,I 88 where Samians play a leading part in the intellectual life of the city. It also recalls the two young Samian girls who took to Lesbian practices, and were rebuked by Asclepiades in a masterly tetrastich, 189 for these too, as we saw, were almost certainly resident in Alexandria. It does not seem particularly likely that Callimachus would have composed this piece to order, and consequently the epigram may belong to the class of derivative epitaph, but that it in any case laments a real event, the passing of a young Samian girl, is surely 11ot open to doubt. A second piece, more elaborate but less effective than this, is the epitaph ofan elderly priestess: 190 'Once I was priestess ol' Demeter and, again, of the Cabiri, sir, and then of the Dindymene '( :yl>cle, I the old woman, I now dust ... , the helper of many a young bride. Two sons I had, and in ripe old age I closed my eyes in their Pp

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

arms. Farewell, pass by.' This piece is less touching than the previous one but it is an extremely well-composed epitaph. The first two lines describe the long career of the dead woman as a priestess of three different cults; the next couplet, her status as adviser and protectress of young married women; and finally her full domestic life-the mother of two sons who were with her at the last. 1 9 1 It is perhaps significant that the three cults all have a connection with fertility in various forms; the priestess advised young brides and women in childbirth as intermediary between the deities and humans. 192 Another piece records the death of a faithful nurse: 193 'Mikkos cared for the Phrygian Aischra, his blessed nurse, in all good things while she yet lived, and he has erected this likeness of her now she is dead, that future men may see; thus the old woman has received her due reward for the milk of her breasts.' This epigram, which is paralleled very closely by a piece in the Theocritean Corpus of epigrams, 194 is perhaps less skilfully expressed than some other pieces, but, as an unmistakably authentic epitaph, it is not without interest in more than one way. First, we may note that the main verb, describing the action of Mikkos (which, meaning 'Baby', may be simply a nursery name), is 'dedicated' (avE07JKE). This is noteworthy, both because dedications are not made to ordinary mortals as a rule, and because the word is rarely used of the erection of a funerary monument, which is normally simply 'set up'. 1 9 5 Callimachus has evidently used the word here because the tombstone was not a simple stele, but bore a sculptured or painted representation of the dead nurse, in the Attic style. Secondly, the thought of the last two lines is noteworthy: that the relief represents a reward for the nurse for her nurture of Mikkos when an infant-a reward which future generations are to see and heed. 196 This rather material way of expressing remembrance corresponds to a very deep trait in the Greek character: that a beneficiary must make public statement of his debt. The same thought is expressed repeatedly in the honorific decrees of Greek cities which end with the formula: 'And, that all may know that the city rewards its benefactors, let the decree be inscribed and set up ... ' The idea appears trite for Callimachus, and we may perhaps conclude that the poet is echoing closely a motif presented to him by Mikkos, rather than composing freely on the subject of a relief seen by him bearing a simple funerary inscription, as in one or two instances which we shall now consider. This third class of funerary epigram is more in the nature of free composition. These poems were certainly not inscribed on the tombstones of the deceased; they are rather thoughts suggested either by the deaths of friends or, alternatively, by the bare text of an inscribed funerary epitaph itself. To the former category belong two of the

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

579

finest of Callimachus' short poems. One is the lament for his fellow poet Heraclitus of Halicarnassus, who is described by Strabo as 'the poet and companion of Callimachus' 19 7 and whose sole surviving poem is one of the most interesting funerary pieces of the third century. 1 98 He had died long ago, but somebody spoke of his death to the poet and thus opened a deep spring of sorrow. Callimachus says: 199 'Herakleitos, someone spoke to me of thy death and I was brought to tears; and I remembered how often we two had laid the sun to rest in converse. But whilst thou, 0 Halicarnassian guest-friend, art somewhere dust long since, yet thy nightingales live still; on them Hades, who grasps all things, shall not lay his hand.' The poem is on the whole an admirably harmonious combination of melancholy reminiscence and confidence in the immortality of poets. The imagery of the third line, 'we laid the sun to rest in converse', evokes a peaceful and tranquil picture, different indeed from the Bohemian environment of Asclepiades,200 and the personification of the poems of Heraclitus as nightingales, with the implication of free flight and escape from the grasping hand of Hades, is most effective. 201The poet's prophecy was brutally gainsaid by time, for of Heraclitus' nightingales but one has survived. The background of the second piece is Cyrene. 202'In early morn we buried Melanippos, and as the sun went down the virgin Basila died by her own hand; for she could not endure to live having placed her brother on the pyre. Thus the house of their father Aristippos saw a double grief, and all Cyrene bowed its head seeing that house of fair children so bereft.' Like the last, this is an elegy rather than an epigram, evoked by the immediate circumstance of the tragedy, and clearly not intended as an inscribed memorial. The poem reflects more than the tragic double death in youth; it reflects the particular grief felt by the poet as a Cyrenaean for the loss thus occasioned in a leading family, 203 and in noble, though possibly traditional language he brings all Cyrene to join in his grief. 204There is no reason to suppose that this was written by Callimachus while still a young man in Cyrene-the sombre and magnificent verse is surely the work of his maturity-but it is significant as one of many testimonies to the profound feeling that Callimachus always had for his 'mother Cyrene', 205 and, in more general terms to the affectionate pride that Cyreneans felt throughout antiquity for their unique city. 206 Epigrams such as these two point directly to the subjective elegy of the Romans. The mood of the elegy on Heraclitus is less richly developed than, for example, that of Meleager's elegy on the death of .Ilcliodora 207-'Tears I bring you, Heliodora, even beneath the earth, the relic of my love, even unto Hades, tears shed with pain; and on Lhal Lomb much wept I pour the memory of my desires, the memory

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

of my happiness'-or Catullus' elegy on his brother, and the feeling is less intense, but the additional notion of 'sorrow's crown of sorrow' gives Callimachus' poem an unsurpassed melancholy. The last category of funerary elegy is that which derives its text, its inspiration, from the actual funerary inscription, though it is apparently not the inscription itself. This sophisticated, epideictic form of quasiepitaph was probably not the invention of Callimachus himself. A very fine example is the single poem surviving from the pen of Heraclitus of Halicarnassus, whose death Callimachus lamented. This most attractive poem is more elaborate, though not necessarily more effective, than Callimachus' own poems of this type, for it describes the whole monument with its adornment of flowers, wreaths, and so on :208 'Freshly dug is the earth, and on the metopes of the stele the half-green garland's leaves are falling. Let us, 0 Wanderer, look on the stone and discern the words, whose are the pitiful bones it saith it encompasseth around: "Stranger, Artimmias am I, Knidos my home, to the bed of Euphron I came; and of the pains of childbirth I had my share. Twin babes I bore and one I left to support my husband in his old age, but one I take with me to remind me of my lord."' This is a sophisticated yet powerful composition. The first two lines describe the freshly built monument, 209 the following lines portray the author as spelling out the lapidary lettering of the inscription (a figure later most effectively employed by Cavafy), 210 and the last four lines reproduce what in essence or in detail is a genuine inscription, which closely resembles many epitaphs in which the deceased is addressed by, and answers, a stranger or passer-by. Callimachus' pieces in this category are less elaborate than this and also than those more elegiac poems which we have just discussed, and it is possible that one or two are in fact, for genuine tombstones. 211 One is extremely compressed, and the point is deliberately ambiguous: 212 'Scant of speech was the stranger, and therefore the verse which stands on me (the tombstone), little though it says, "Theris, son of Aristaios, Cretan", is long.' A wholly satisfactory explanation of this deliberately enigmatic piece is probably not possible, but in any case it seems likely that the quoted epitaph itself, 'Theris, son of Aristaios, Cretan', is genuine, and that Callimachus (who may have known him) improvised on that basis this little mock epitaph. Theris was apparently notably laconic, and Callimachus, suddenly struck by the not very conspicuous brevity of the inscription, has associated the two facts. 213 In the other the poet seems to be soliloquizing before a tombstone: 21 4 '"Timonoe"; who art thou? By heavens, I would not have known thee had not the 11;ime of thy father Timotheos and thy city Methymna been inscribed on the stclc. Ah, great indeed, I say, is the grief thy widowed husband

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

581

Euthymenes has suffered.' One may wonder why Callimachus should have thus elaborated on a tombstone which presumably bore a relief of the dead woman, and, as the tombstones of women who were the children and wives of citizens commonly did in Greek cities, the names of the deceased, her father, her city, and her husband. In these four lines he ingeniously gives all the information which the inscription contained, but the apparent point of the epigram, that Timonoe was such a common name that Callimachus needed the etat civil to decide who she was, seems unsuitable to us. We must however bear in mind that the Greek found nothing incongruous in suchjeux d'esprit and that this piece itself is closely paralleled by genuine epitaphs-and may indeed be one itself. 21 s vVe may summarize Callimachus' achievement as a composer of funerary epitaphs by saying that some of his genuine epitaphs-particularly the tetrastichs-exhibit a great talent in the portrayal of personal factors, that they are, in other words, very close to their subject and achieve their best results by emphasizing this individual element, which is as a whole rather lacking in Greek epitaphs. It is perhaps because of this sympathetic understanding of the individual, and of his wish to express it, that he is at his most successful in his 'derivative' epitaphs, which almost amount to elegies, particularly that on the death of Heraclitus and that on the deaths of the Cyrenaean brother and sister. The dedicatory epigram is well represented in Callimachus' pieces. It is, however, particularly difficult to draw a sharp line between the real and the imaginary. Only a few present the appearance of the normal dedicatory epigram; a larger group appears to be derivative: that is, to be inspired by a dedicatory inscription or a dedicated object; while a few are probably wholly imaginary or epideictic, that is, have been freely conceived, for the sake of some point or witticism expressed in them-though once more the exact attribution to this rather than to the preceding class is not always certain. As instances of real dedicatory epigrams we may note two very simple pieces, both distichs. The first scarcely calls for comment :216 'Artemis, Phileratis set up this statue for thee here: mistress, receive it and keep her safe.' It is the traditional dedicatory epigram, simple and bald, without a superfluous word, familiar from numerous inscriptions. So too is the dedication of Aischylis: 217 '[The statue ofJ Aischylis, daughter of Thales, stands in the temple of Inachian Isis [i.e. lo], in r11llilment of the promise made by her mother Eirene.' The dedication is presumably of a statue of a child. Both of these pieces, like the cor. responding distichal epitaphs, reveal Callimachus' mastery of a style far removed from the elaborate and allusive manner of the longer

582

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

epigrams in which his genius found more natural expression. Hardly more elaborate in theme or language, and surely no less genuinely dedicatory, is the dedication by a Cretan soldier of his equipment: 218 'The Lyktian Menitas dedicated his arrows, pronouncing these words: "Look, Sarapis, to thee I give my bow and quiver; but the arrows the Hesperitai have."' There is nothing here which argues against a genuine dedicatory epigram: the simple language of the dedication combined with the point in the last line, indicating the pride of the Cretan in his military achievement, has a very natural and authentic ring, and the deity chosen, Sarapis, in whom Callimachus seems to have had little interest himself, 21 9 also points to a private partiality. At the same time the elaboration seems hardly sufficient for a derivative piece. The little poem, to which the short iambic dimeters give a pleasing lightness/ 20 may possibly belong to Callimachus' early days in Cyrene, for the Hesperitai are the inhabitants of the city of EuesperidesBerenice (Benghazi), the colony of Cyrene, and the dedication probably refers in the last two lines to some expedition of Cyrene against her daughter city. 221 Slightly more elaborate is the piece in two lyric strophae commemorating the dedication of tithes by Timodemus of N aucratis to Demeter Pylaea and to Kore :222 'To Demeter of the Gate, to whom the Pelasgian Akrisios built this temple, and to her Daughter below, Timodemos of Naukratis dedicated these gifts, the tithe of his gains; for so he had vowed.' It is true that this contains a piece of irrelevant erudition, and an obscurity, but these do not necessarily argue against its being genuinely epigraphical. The erudition and the obscurity hang together. The temple of Demeter Pylaea, which, we are needlessly told, was built by the mythical king Acrisius of Argos, was at Anthela near Thermopylae, where the Amphictyonic worship of Demeter was centred, 22 3 and there is no likelihood of a similarly named cult having existed in Alexandria, or in Egypt at all. At the same time, it is not likely that Callimachus saw the temple of Demeter and felt moved to develop the theme of a dedication there. Consequently, we must assume that Timodemus persuaded Callimachus to write the dedicatory inscription of the offering (the nature of which we are not told) which he wished to make. As a Naucratite the centre of his mercantile activity may well have been in Alexandria, and the first fruits which he dedicated probably resulted from some profitable connection with the Aetolian League, for there seems no reason otherwise why a merchant should make a dedication at that particular shrine. One more elaborate piece is also probably a true dedicatory inscription, although it might be derived from, rather than actually be, a dedication. It records the dedication of a relief of the Rider-God, Heron or

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

Heros, who was identified with, or derived from, the Thracian RiderGod of the same name, and who was particularly popular with the Greek military settlers in Egypt at a later date. 22 4 The epigram runs thus: 22 s 'I, Heros, billeted on Aietion of Amphipolis, stand, a small figure on a small threshold, with my snake in one corner and my sword in my hand. Aietion in anger with a cavalryman has installed me, yes! me, on foot.' The main point of the epigrall} is that on the relief the god Heros (or Heron), commonly represented in Thrace on horseback and accompanied by a snake, was portrayed on foot, possibly leading his horse, as on one or two representations from his shrine in Theadelphia in the Fayyum ;226 and the explanation is given that Aietion, a native of Thrace, 'was angry with a cavalryman'. This is convincingly explained as referring to a cavalryman who had been billeted along with his horse, which also had to be fed, on Aietion, and who had proved himself troublesome or burdensome, as numerous persons so billeted are known from Ptolemaic documents, particularly of the third century, to have been. 22 7 From this it was but a short step to regard Heros himself as 'billeted' on Aietion too. At the same time the particular association of the god with the protection of houses, whence he derived his title 'Propylaeus', is fully expressed in the phrase 'a small figure on a small threshold' .228 This epigram is so brilliantly executed and sustained, the various strands so cleverly interwoven, that it is difficult to determine its material origin. Did Aietion, probably resident in Alexandria rather than in the Fayyum, 22 9 ask Callimachus to write a dedicatory inscription for the relief, or did the relief, with its rather unusual representation and the accompanying inscription, 230 catch AlETLWV(roiJ 8Etvos-) 14.µ,efn1TOALTYJS' "Hpwvi (0dvi p,Eya>.wi), Callimachus' eye quite by chance and lead to this poem? This rather ambiguous epigram leads on to the large group of derivative dedicatory pieces, which commemorate dedicated objects, but which are not likely to be the dedicatory inscriptions themselves. As already mentioned, it is not always possible to determine in each instance whether a piece is derivative or truly dedicatory, and the few examples given here will be restricted to those which are clearly derivative. We may begin with the poem commemorating the dedication by Callistion the daughter of Critias of a lamp with twenty spouts to the Canopic god, Sarapis or perhaps Adonis. 2 3 1 Such multiple lamps were common in Roman Egypt, but that described by Callimachus appears to be the earliest known instance. 2 3 2 In the epigram the lamp . speaks: 233 'Kallistion, daughter of Kritias, dedicated me, a lamp adorned with twenty nozzles, to the Kanopic god, praying for her daughter Apellis; looking at my beams, thou wilt say: "Hesperos, how

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

art thou fallen!"' It seems unlikely that this poem was actually associated with the humble dedicated object, but there is no reason to doubt that Callimachus had seen the lamp in a temple at Canopus, and the unfamiliarity of the type will have prompted the poem. The simplest interpretation of it is that the dedication is made to Sarapis the God of Canopus on some unspecified occasion in the life of the dedicant's daughter, and that the elegant conceit of the last line and a half, in which the lamp is conceived as outshining the evening star, has no further point than that. Another interpretation is however possible. Adonis, no less than Sarapis, was god of Canopus, and Adonis, as we know from the Adoniazusae of Theocritus and from epigrams of Dioscorides, was extremely popular in Alexandria at just that time ;z34 and the identification of Adonis with Hesperus, as the presiding deity of marriage, through his role as lover of Aphrodite, is also established. 235 It is thus possible to regard the lamp as dedicated by Callistion on behalf of her daughter Apellis to Adonis, in his role as god of marriage.236 The final words, 'Hesperos, how art thou fallen', will then mean that the dedicated lamp is regarded as superseding the function of the deity. That interpretation gives greater point to the poem, and is preferable for that reason. On the other hand, one such multiple lamp, of much later date, apparently represents a healing scene in an Iseum, which might seem an additional reason for regarding Sarapis as the deity here. 237 ·whichever interpretation be preferred, the poem seems a derivative piece. The words, 'Hesperos, how art thou fallen', have a wider interest, for they recall the Septuagint version of Isaiah, on the death of the Tyrant: 'O Day-Star, rising in the dawn, how art thou fallen from heaven!', 238 and it seems likely that Callimachus knew this version. 239 If so, it is an extremely early testimony to the existence orthe Greek version of that book. 24° Two other epigrams belong to a diflerent, quasi-literary world, and arc of particular interest as, showing how Callimachus developed a theme already treated more simply by Asclepiades. The first is somewhat obscure, but repays analysis. It runs: 24 1 'Simos, the son oflvfikkos, giving me to the Muses, sought ease in learning. And they, like Glaukos, gave a great gift in return for a small one. And I am set here, the tragic Dionysos, with mouth twice as wide agape as is the Samian's, listening to the children. And they recite "Sacred is the Lock", which is like my own dream to me.' Evidently a mask of the tragic Dionysus is speaking, having been dedicated by a schoolboy who wanted to make progress in his work. Dionysus, however, is so bored that he is 'gaping', that is, yawning, more than his own self in another dress, the 'Gaping Dionysus' of Samos, in regard to whose temple a curious aetiology existed ;z4z for he has to listen ad nauseam to what he had heard so often L

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

on the tragic stage, a too famous line of Euripides' Bacchae2 43-a line spoken by himself in a play about himself-and is thus paid back in his own kind. Masks of Dionysus are not uncommon, 2 44 and although this entertainingJeu is not likely to have been a true dedicatory inscription, the mask itself probably was actually dedicated, for the reason alleged, by some earnest schoolboy, and Callimachus improvises on this. It is tempting to suppose that the dedication was made in the school at Eleusis in which Callimachus taught in his early days, and that the poet thus whiled away a dreary school hour. It is in any case based very closely on a piece of Asclepiades. Before considering this adaptation, we may look at the second piece: 245 'Stranger, say that I have been set up as a truly comic witness of the victory of Agoranax of Rhodes-I, Pamphilos, not consumed by love, but the half of me like roasted figs and the lamps of Isis.' This describes a terracotta mask, which Callimachus had seen, dedicated in an unspecified shrine, commemorating the victory in a dramatic contest of an otherwise unknown Rhodian poet or actor, Agoranax; the mask represents a lovelorn character, Pamphilus, 2 46 and Callimachus derides it as not giving a true representation of the character and, by reason of its poor quality and its faulty firing, as like dried figs and the cheap smoky lamps dedicated by the devotees of Isis. 247 Callimachus here once again, as in the epigram on the lamp with twenty spouts and that on the mask of Dionysus, focuses the common objects of daily life in which he sees material for occasional verse. The contempt expressed for the mask probably extended to Agoranax also-he is otherwise unknown to us, but important nevertheless as evidence for the performance of comedy in Alexandria 2 4 8-whom Callimachus evidently thought an insignificant dramatist or actor. These two pieces are clearly an expansion of a single tetrastich of Asclepiades: 249 'Konnaros, who beat his form-mates in handwriting and won the prize of eighty knucklebones, to thank the Muses set me up here in the midst of the form-room's din, the old man comic Chares.' This piece provided the model for the two epigrams of Callimachus: the schoolboy's dedication of a comic mask, expressed simply but graphically, becomes in the first epigram a dedication of a tragic mask, to which Callimachus adds the literary reminiscence of the figure of Glaucus and the sophistication of the tragic recitation. In the second (which one is tempted to regard as about contemporary with the first) the comic mask is the object dedicated, and although the circumstances are entirely different, the same derivation seems likely. These two epi. grams thus show us how, apparently at an early stage of his career, Callimachus, while expressing his debt to Asclepiades, develops and elaborates his themes.

586

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

Two other epigrams which probably have no foundation in a genuine dedication may be noted here. The first, in lyric metre and unfortunately corrupt, is the dedication of a hetaera: 2 so 'Simon the much-frequented dedicated these gifts to Aphrodite: her own portrait, and the band which kissed her breasts, and the statuette of Pan ( ?), and the wands which she, poor lady, used to bear.' Quite apart from any genuine dedications of this type which may have existed, the fancy of the dedication of the courtesan's tools of her trade to Aphrodite was not new as a literary theme. Plato-if it was he-gave brilliant expression to the genre in his epigram commemorating Lais' dedication to Aphrodite of her mirror into which, her prime passed, she did not wish to look. 251 We have also seen that Asclepiades and Posidippus had already evolved obscene conceits on the theme of the dedication of the spoils ofhetaerae 2 s2 and at about the same time Leonidas had produced a rather diffuse version which both in substance and in metre closely resembles Callimachus' epigram. 2 s3 Yet again, an elegiac epigram of Hedylus 2 s4 also resembles that of Callimachus, while a pseudoSimonidean epigram, which has been conjecturally assigned to both Asclepiades and Hedylus, expresses the same idea with a clever point which is lacking in the other versions: 255 'Boidion, the flute-player, and Pythias, once hetaerae, dedicated to you, Cyprian, their girdles and their portraits. Trader and merchant, your purses know whence came these girdles and whence these pictures!' The theme was then conventional. Callimachus introduces a realistic touch with his own epithet 'the much-frequented' , 256 and varies the metre skilfully, but the piece, seen in the light of the earlier models, seems simply an exercise. The second piece is very different: 257 'Eudemos dedicated to the gods of Samothrace the salt-grinder by means of which, eating bare salt, he escaped great storms of debt; and said: "O people, saved from salt I dedicate this here according to my vow".' This brilliant epigram consists of a substantial pun on the fact that the word for 'sea' also bears the meaning 'salt'. 2 s8 The phraseology recalls very closely the language of surviving dedications made by those saved from peril at sea, 259 and in particular one made by a Ptolemaic military commander who dedicated a plaque at Coptus to the Samothracian Gods when saved from great peril in the Red Sea. 26 ° Callimachus is clearly parodying the form of these dedications, although he is not necessarily mocking the belief which inspired them. A note more critical of the ways of gods, sounded in another dedicatory epigram, 261 is unexpected, for Callimachus was devoted to the traditional deities of Greece. It reminds us that to the Greeks such devotion was compatible with considerable freedom of expression. Here it has resulted in a successful witticism of which probably the only historical feature is Eudemus and his debts. 262

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

587

One dedicatory epigram of Callimachus stands by itself both by reason of its length and on account of its great charm: that commemorating the dedication of a shell. The shell, which is dedicated in the temple of Arsinoe-Aphrodite on the Zephyrian promontory, speaks: 26 3 A shell was I, lady of Zephyrion, formerly; but now, 0 Cyprian, you have me, a first dedication from Selenaia [or Selene], even a nautilus which sailed on the seas, and if the winds blew I stretched my sails from my own halyards, but if calm, the shining goddess, prevailed, I rowed swiftly with my feet [so that my name matches my deeds?] until I reached the shores of Iulis, thus to become, Arsinoe, thy admired toy, so that the egg of the waterloving halcyon may not, as formerly, be laid in my recesses-for I am dead. But give grace to the daughter of Kleinias; for she knows good deeds and is from Aeolic Smyrna.

Whether this is a true dedicatory epigram it is difficult to say: its literary quality, in particular its length and elaboration, argues to the contrary. On the other hand, if not a real dedication, it must at least be derivative, for the details are obviously authentic: the name of the dedicant, Selenaia, the daughter of Cleinias of Smyrna, and the history of the shell-that it was washed ashore at Iulis, that is, presumably at Coressia, at the time called Arsinoe or Arsinoeia-an additional point. 26 4 We must also bear in mind the importance of the shrine of Arsinoe-Zephyritis near Alexandria. 26 s It is then by no means impossible that Selenaia, anxious to gain the favours of the queengoddess, had asked Callimachus to compose an epigram for her dedication. Ceos, the Cycladic island off the east coast of Attica, of which Iulis was the chief city, was at this time within the Ptolemaic empire, and garrisoned by Ptolemaic troops, 266 and we may suppose that some officer or administrative official-perhaps her father, mentioned in the poem-brought back the nautilus shell for Selenaia. 267 The dedication, in which the shell recount~ its life-history as a small vessel at sea, has two distinct elements of natural history in it: first there is the Aristotelian tradition that the nautilus was so called because it used two of its tentacles as masts, and two as rudders, and its intertentacular membranes as sails, and thus presented the appearance of a ship ;268 and secondly the fancy that the halcyon nested on the waves during the halcyon days, here elaborated into the notion that the nest is in the 'chambers' of the nautilus. 26 9 This epigram is of the highest quality, whether it be truly dedicatory or derivative. The central idea-the history of the shell-is developed smoothly and with great charm of language and skill in construction, while the significance of the dedication to the young girl is lightly touched on, and the poem ends with a tribute to her and (by implication) her father. But that is not all: we sec here, in miniature, one of Callimachus' outstanding qualities as

588

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

a poet, his ability to transform the material of his studies in other fields (in this instance, the paradoxography of natural history) into poetical material and, more than that, into poetry. 2 1° It is a rare quality, which gives especial value to much of his verse, as we shall see in due course. Callimachus' erotic epigrams differ from those of Asclepiades in two important matters of content: none is obscene, and those of personal experience are all concerned with homosexual love. These two features of his epigrams evidently correspond to fundamental traits in his character: his refinement of mind, and his unisexual and homosexual, as opposed to the common Greek bisexual, tendency. 271 They differ also from those of Asclepiades in being, with two exceptions, personal poems, whereas those of Asclepiades, both homosexual and heterosexual, are frequently merely descriptions of the emotion of love in others. Nevertheless, in spite of the difference in outlook of the two poets in this very important respect, Callimachus borrowed and combined notions from Asclepiades in these no less than in the dedicating epigrams. We may begin by looking at R piece which stands rather apart from the others, both because it has no direct personal application, and because it derives unmistakably from an epigram of Asclepiades. On both these grounds it may be assigned to the early period of Callimachus. Asclepiades' epigram runs as follows: 272 'Wine is the test of love; the many toasts we drank betrayed Nikagoras, who told us he was not in love; for he wept and hung his head and looked away downcast, and the wreath on his brow fell down.' That of Callimachus goes thus: 2 7 3 'The stranger was wounded but did not show it; what a painful sigh came from his breast-did you see ?-when he drank the third cup, and the roses dropped their petals and fell from the man's garlands all upon the ground. He has been badly burned; by the gods, my guess is not casual-set a thief to catch a thief!' The essential difference between the two pieces is that very characteristically Callimachus has introduced himself into the picture; and perhaps by so doing he has spoilt the clarity and simplicity of Asclepiades' piece and added nothing essential. Stylistically Callimachus' epigram is more colloquial and colourfulagain, characteristically; note the violent apostrophe in the second line; the bald, prosaic 'the man's' in the fourth line; and the homely metaphors, 'he's badly burnt', and 'set a thief to catch a thief'. 274 We may now look at a selection of Callimachus' personal erotic epigrams. The first describes the soul of the poet as half living, half lust: 2 1s 'Half of my soul yet breathes, and I know not whether love or Hades has seized the other half-save only that it has vanished. Has it perchance gone roaming among boys again? Yet often I said to them, "Youths, receive not the fugitive." ... Search! For I know that some-

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

589

where among them wanders that lustful one-death by stoning is its true desert!' The notion of the soul that has lost its habitation in the body and passed into that of the beloved occurs already, in a simple but exquisite form, in Plato's epigram regarding Agathon, 276 'When I kissed Agathon my soul lay on my lips; for the love-lorn one came as about to cross over away from me.' The amused, almost frivolous tone is characteristic of Callimachus' reflections on his love life, 277 but the speed and trenchancy of the whole, and especially of the last two couplets, are, in spite of the uncertainty of the text, redolent of the poet at his best. Another epigram is perhaps less effective: 278 'By Pan, there is something hidden here, yea indeed by Dionysos, some fire beneath the ashes. I lack courage: embrace me not. Often a quiet river unobserved undermines the wall! Wherefore now too I fear, Menexenos, lest this stealthy one cast me into love's snares again.' The poet here evidently says that his love, though dormant, is not extinct, and therefore prays his lover not to embrace him, lest the ashes spring to life. The rising tension of 'By Pan . . . by Dionysos' and the ominous note of 'Often a quiet river unobserved undermines the wall' express his danger very graphically, and in the last couplet he tells Menexenuswho may be either the boy he loves or a sympathetic friend 279 -that he fears a new and crafty onslaught of love. Another is in the form of a plea to Archinus, asking him to cease his displeasure with the poet, because he had compromised him by serenading him at night: 280 'If I voluntarily held revel at your door, Archinos, then blame me a thousandfold, but if I came willy-nilly, then cease thy rashness. Wine unsullied and love compelled me; the first drew me on, and the second did not permit me to abandon my rashness. And when I came I did not cry out your name or your father's: I kissed the doorpost. If this be a crime, I am at fault.' This is really an adaptation of a paraclausitlryron,a literary version of the lament uttered by an excluded lover at the threshold of his beloved, with the difference that Callimachus seems to be pleading with Archinus after the event. The main point of the poem has been thought to lie in the repetition of 7rpo1drEta, 'rashness', a possible term of contrast with cmpo7rrwa£a, a word used by the Stoics to mean 'deliberateness' , 281 but Callimachus is unlikely to have introduced such notions into this light-hearted epigram, the frivolity of which is emphasized by the continual verbal assonances and echoes in each couplet. 282 Finally we may note a piece which has the same theme as the previous poems-the unhappy lover of boys-but in which Callimachus has gained his objective-a youth named Menecrates. 28 3 · M cnckratcs, thou wilt be captured; "flee", I said on the twenty-sixth c,rPanamos, and on Loos the which ?-the tenth-the ox came willingly

590

ASPECTS

OF ALEXANDRIAN

LITERATURE

to yoke. Well done, well done, Hermes, my own; I blame only the twenty days' interval.' The poem as a whole is clear, the frivolity with the dates amusing, and the proverb about the ox tellingly introduced. 284 But the point of the last line is ambiguous. Is Callimachus saying, 'I make no complaint in respectof the interval of twenty days', or 'I censure nothing save the interval of twenty days'? The latter, indicating that Callimachus would have preferred the submission of Menecrates to have occurred at once, seems to give a stronger point than the former, which would presumably mean, 'since the submission occurred in the end, I do not mind the delay'. 285The poem seems to have been composed more because of the amusement Callimachus felt in playing with the dates than because of any genuine satisfaction he may have had in the submission of Menecrates. Two epigrams stand out in the erotic group, one on account of its elaboration, the other for wider implications. The first, which we have considered previously in the context of the medical metaphors it contains,286 is the epigram of ten lines addressed to Philippus, probably the Coan doctor. We may consider it again here for its literary quality: 287 'How good a charm Polyphemos found for the lover. By Earth, the Cyclops was not unskilled! The Muses, Philippos, reduce the wound of love: truly the poet's craft is cure for all ills. And hunger, too, I think, has this one good in regard to life's evils: it excises the disease ofloving boys. To remorseless love we speak thus (?): "Look, child, let me cut thy wings, we fear thee not a scrap; for there are at home both charms for thy cruel wounds".' Callimachus here seems to be echoing the thought of the opening lines of Theocritus' eleventh Idyll, the Cyclops, which was also addressed to a medical man, Nicias of Miletus, 288and, as we have seen, the piece sustains its medical imagery throughout. The poet lays considerable emphasis on hunger as a cure for his love of boys, and the epigram has often been regarded as an early production, 289on the ground that Callimachus is not likely to have been worried by the pains of hunger when under royal patronage. The poem seems to be personal, and it is difficult to deny the force of the argument, even if we may feel that Callimachus may have exaggerated his hunger. However, Theocritus' Idyll cannot be dated, and since there are grounds for believing that Philippus was still alive as late as 249 n.c., 290it would be unwise to accept an early date without more ado. 291 In the epigram we may notice once again the characteristic W.>.1>.ovs'. note 83, line I: for 'Op{aat' read 'Oplaas'. 767, note I 14, line 2: for "Eparoa0ev17s' read "Eparoa0,vovs'. 768, note 123, line 2: before '8,d' insert 'amanfv'. 770, note 142, line I: read '93 (IIIB 66 Berg.,'. 777, note 177, line I: after '.!yw' insert 'o". 778, note 181, line 4: for 'v1roarata,r" read 'v1roratair". 787, note 234, line 6: for '.!mroµ,➔v a>.>.17v' read 'd'.;\;\17v.!mroµ,➔v'. 793, note 22, at end: for '(ii)' read '(iv)'. 803, note 81, at end: read '(and app., pp. 145-52)'. 806, note 102, penultimate line: for 'says' read 'say'. 808, note 113, line 8 from end: for 'f9avf3oplov' read '8avf3oplov'. 813, note 145, end ofline 4: for '183' read '182'. 819, note 170: read 'v. 43 (4)'. note 171, line 8: for '10-29' read '1029'. note 172, line 5 of Greek: for 'µ,aAaKai' read 'µ,aAaKa,'. 833, note 255, line 1 : for '1 59' read '158 ( 159)'. 834, note 261, line 3 of Greek: delete query; line I beneath, for 'line 2' read 'line 3'. 845, note 324, end: delete quotation-marks round [See ADD.]. 847, note 339, antepenultimateline: for 'AP iv.' read 'AP!an.', and for '2.7 1' read '250(1)'. 859, note 407, line 6 of Greek: for '(C:imv' read '(w«v'; line 8 of Greek, for '[A17]µ,006Kov' read '[ Ll17]µ,006Kov'. 860, note 412, line 9 of Greek: for 'K{ovos ifoe 0,a,s•' read 'Kiovos-ifoe 0,a,,.' 862, penultimate line: delete 'in'. 865, last line: for '(Tusc. i. 8)' read '(Tusc. i. 84)'. 866, note 445, line 1: after 'pl.' insert 'L'. 869, note 464, line 2: for '1057' read '1957'. 872, note 6, 12 lines from end: read 'comm. on Heph.',. 880, note 44, line 2 : for '11. 12 I ff.' read 'II. 1211 ff.'. 882, note 52, line 6 of Greek: at end, read' '1r.vµ,mas'. 967, note 113, line 5: for 'iepov' read 'iepov'. 975, note 133, line 4: for 'Callixeinus' read 'Callixinus (sic)'. 977, note 147, line 1: for 'note 169' read 'notes 167-69'. I 027, note I 15, line 32 of Greek: for 'o,x0aolo,s' read '8,x0aolovs'. w:Jo, note 136, last line of page: for 'J1Kovaa0' read ')1Kovaa0' '. IO'.{B,not.an17,, Tfji o' 117ro Tfj, Alµv17,.The comparison of the shape of the city to a chlamys occurs also in Diod. xvii. 52, Plut. Alex. 26. 8, and Plin. NH v. 62. Tarbell, GP 1, 1906, pp. 283-9, esp. pp. 285 ff., shows that the form envisaged is that of an area with a semicircular lower edge with straight sides symmetrically inclined so that the top (i.e. the 'neck') was narrower than the bottom (see Tarbell's sketch, p. 284). He interprets the passage ofStrabo thus (p. 286): 'In this description Ta E'TTt µfjKo, 'TTArnpa are the long sides, AB and CDE, called Ta dµapos· IlpwTEVS 8J avTo0t KaTWLK7JUEV, (ov Kat) TOµvijµa TOVIlpwTEWS EUTlTO rrap' i]µ'tv 0p7JUKEVOµ€VOV E7TlTtVOSV1f7JAOTUTOV opov,." ifvEyKav aVTOVEl, TO vvv 1..Eµalov

w,

1rpo, -rov J4v-r{yovov{JaatAtKij, -rivo, EVEKaXPE{a,, KUKElvovElKat6TEpova1r0Kptvo1dvov, E1TETVXEV El1rwv (o 201) : OVTW0~ KEAEUt, yat~OXE KVavoxalTa; -r6voE..wv.

The occasion of this exchange has TaVTa ydp aKovaa, J4v-rlyovo, fl,ETE{Ja>..A.ETO. l,ccn much debated (see Wilam. AvK, p. 228; Perdrizet, loc. cit., p. 265; Tarn, 1lC:,p. 386; Beloch, GG2 iv. 2, p. 512; Ditt. OGIS 66, note 1; (both Beloch and

54

PTOLEMAIC

ALEXANDRIA

Dittenberger doubt the identity of this Sostratus with the famous one)); it evidently formed an episode during the naval wars between Egypt and Macedon, and the King is clearly Antigonus Gonatas. 122. For the early indirect references to it in the anatomical terminology of Herophilus see below, eh. 7 (i), p. 348, with note 58. 123.

For the dates of Posidippus see below, eh.

IO

(iii), pp. 556 ff.

124. Adler, op. cit. [note 97], cols. 174-5 regards Soter as mainly responsible for the whole work. 125. See in general Calderini, Dizionario, pp. 161-2. Although Alexander is said (Arr. iii. I. 5, quoted above, note 3) to have established a temple of"'lais Alyv1TT{a, there is no indication that this was the shrine of Isis Pharia, and the Alexandrian evidence for that cult, numismatic, epigraphic, and literary, is all of Roman date: see Bruneau, BCH 85, 1961, pp. 435-46, esp. pp. 444-5, and 87, 1963, pp. 306-8. For the coins see Thiersch, op. cit., pp. 8 ff., and pls. i-iii, passim, who rightly rejected the view of Poole, BMC, Alexandria, p. xciv, followed by Adler, op. cit., p. 9, and pl. 1, that the summit of the Pharos was surmounted by a statue oflsis, and held that the shrine must have been close to the lighthouse; cf. Bruneau, loc. cit. The epigraphical evidence is: ( 1) OGIS 706 (CIC 4683b; Letronne, Ree. i, p. 435, no. xlv; IC xiv. rn65; IGRR i. rn45), Ei'.aiot ap{q. / Elaiv T~V / €VMtvov0i / V1TEpaWTrJPlas/ TOVKvplov ~µ,wv / AvTOKp..EtavOpElasµEra rijs axpo7T6AEws (Progymn.,pp. 38 ff. Rabe; cf. below, eh. 5, note 636), which consists of a comparison between the Acropolis of Athens and the 'Acropolis' of Alexandria, see Botti, L' Acropule;id. Fouilles a la colonnetheodosienne,pp. 23-6 (text of Aphthonius and Latin translation), with pp. 34 ff., comparison of the information provided by Aphthonius, Rufinus, and Ps.-Call.; for the later Christian writers see Calderini, Dizionario, pp. 140 ff., s.v. J;apa7TEfov. These accounts of the Christian period, except in so far as they concern the structure of the hill itself, are best left out of account in any discussion of the Ptolemaic site. The account given by Ps.-Call. i. 33. 5, may, as elsewhere, contain local information of value; in particular the author speaks of two obelisks as follows (§ 6) Jv Jn Kat rovs df]EA[aKovsJ0daaro (sc. o)1Mtavopos) rovs µixpi viJv KELfdvovs EVTWt J;apamElwi iftw roiJ 7TEptf361tov roiJ viJv yEvoµivov, of ,jaav KExapayµivoi yp.ov KaTafiwaai 7TEpif36>.wv. for later references. Note pp. 147-8, and Calderini, op. cit., s.v. '17T7T6Dpoµ,o,;

particularly PFouad 8, the description of the reception ofVespasian in line ro: •.. o>.ovTov 'h7T6Dpoµ,ov; it is not clear whether this is the hippodrome of Nicopolis or that called the Lageion, probably near the Serapeum: see note 23r. 214.

See above, p. 15.

Arr. iii. r. 15 quoted above, note 3. Cf. in general, Calderini, Di;:,ionario, s.v. 'Ayopa, pp. 88-9; Martin, Rech. sur l'Agora grecque(Paris, 1951), pp. 412-15 (with discussion of earlier views). Martin follows Noack, Ath. Mitt. 25, 1900, pp. 269 ff., in supposing that there were from the outset two agorae: one centred round the tomb of Alexander in the centre of the city, the Mwo7TiDwv (cf. below, note 220), and the other a mercantile agora forming part of the emporion. It is certainly likely that some sort of agora (such as the Deigma at the Piraeus and elsewhere: see LS 9 s.v. ◊Efyµ,a, 2) stood in the port area, but Dikaiom., line 215 (see next note; the text was not available to Noack, and is not discussed by Martin or by Bernand, op. cit., pp.' 63-4, who follow him; cf. also Adriani, Topogr.,p. 204) shows that there was only one agora properly so called. 215.

Dikaiom., lines 194-5: OTaVn,; TWV El, TO aw[µ,]a a◊LKT)f-1,UT[wv] f-1,E0vwv~ VVKTWP~ EV lEpwi ~ EV dyopai a◊LK~UT)L, Sm>.aal[av] T~V ST)f-1,lav a7TOTEWUTW Tfjc; yEypaµ,µ,iv7Jc;(where the absence of the article seems to indicate a general sense 'in a shrine or a public place') ; ibid. 2 l 5: OTaVn,; opKls[T)Loµ,vv]Tw O opKis6[µ,]Evoc;EVT[fj], dyopai [i]7TtTOLSopKWTT)ploi,;K[a0' fr]pwv a7Tiv[Swv], K.T.A.

216.

217.

D.C. li. 5.

KAE07TUTpa]Ka,

l: T..EtavOpE{mKnµ.fvov xa/1.KOVKp{KoV EV Tiji 'TETpaywvwi 'TETYJPYJ/1-,!vwv Kai\ovµ.fvYJi aToai, K.T.A. For its location in Quarter B see the papyrus quoted in 221.

the next note. 222, BGU l 127, lines 7-9: [77apaxw]P.?JUELV TIr0~ g.yTip ~ Ol..>..af3a KVpta ~ Kal li.liaiovTa KaTa 1r6AEWV1rpo1rapofvTova i.lia Tfjs ELSi..{ovKal l:EA1vryc;,KUl KUTWTOripwwv. Js1TELOE Kat TO L'apamELov), and identified this with the 'stadium' discovered by the French, which thus became the Lageion. Maricq, loc. cit., accepts this emendation, and the topographical identification, and in support of it he quotes Philostr. Vit. Apoll., v. 26, and (more particularly) Apophth. Patr., PG 65, p. 164 (p. 665 Hopfner), both of which, he ingeniously argues, gain in point if the hippodrome (see above, regarding the dimensions of the 'stadium') mentioned in them is envisaged as close to the Serapeum. There is in my opinion little to be built on the passage of Ps.-Call., since the necessary emendation AEi'ov--Aawv is not justified on grounds of identity of pronunciation, the only likely source of error in this instance (as in Epiph. loc. cit.): other newly recorded MSS. of this recension (/3) offer a variant, dowAEi'ov: see L. Bergson, Der griech. Alexanderrom. Rez. f3 (cf. eh. ro (v), loc. cit.), p. 51. But Maricq's other arguments are acute and convincing, and I am inclined to accept them (cf. Adriani, Topogr., pp. go and 225, s.v. Lagheion). Finally we may note the documentary evidence. The Aayai:ov (sic) is mentioned in a letter concerning Alexandria, SB 6222 (late iii A.D.), in the context of athletic contests: lines 31 ff. : Kat Tfj K..Er TWV OV7TW[E1TTJY/LEVWVEl, oijµ,ov AvT ]oo{KELOV (see ibid., p. xii; Wilck's reading); for A.vopoµ,axEtos see ibid. I. col. 2, (237 B.c.), lines 19-20, KAEavopov TOV Movlµ,ov A.vopoµ,axElov; ibid. 14, line 1, )l_)..Ef. T[ WV OV7TWE1TTJY/LEVWV ds oijµ,ov A.vopo]cf. ibid. 19 (a), line 12. AvToOlKELDS must derive from Autodice, one of /J,UXEtOV; the Danaids, and Andromachus is therefore probably to be identified with one of the sons of Aegyptus (Andromache of Troy has no link with Egypt): see the list in Hyg. Fab. 170 (neither Autodice nor Andromachus occurs in the list in Apollod. Bibl. ii. I. 5, §§15-20) ; cf. Schubart, loc. cit., p. g 1, note 5. It is also possible that the demotic is of 'dynastic' origin, deriving from Andromachus, the father of Ptolemaeus, who was apparently a relative of the royal family, and active in the middle of the third cent.: see Ijsewijn, De Sacerdot., p. 72, no. (35);

122

PTOLEMAIC

ALEXANDRIA

CQ,44, 1950, pp. 117-18; Chr. d'Eg. 36, 1961, pp. 179 ff., esp. pp. 184-6. For the Danaids in Egypt see Hdt. ii. 171 and 172, and cf. Waser, AJRW 2, 1899, pp. 47 ff.; id. RE, s.v. Danaos, cols. 2095 ff.; bibliography in RAC, s.v. Danaiden (A. Hermann); cf. also Hicks, TAPA 93, 1962, pp. 97-100. LlavaEvs itself occurs as a demotic at Ptolemais in iii B.C. (OGJS 48, line 6, 'HAi68wpos NiKoµ,axov LlavaEvs, taken by Jouguet, and Dittenberger, ad loc., note 8, to derive from Danae, on the ground that Perseus, her son, was regarded by the Greeks as the god honoured at Chemmis (Achmim): see Hdt. ii. 91 (cf. Drexler, RL, s.v. Min, cols. 2980 ff.; Roscher, ibid., s.v. Pan, cols. 1372 ff.)); but Schubart, loc. cit., rightly says that the certain derivation of AvTolllKnos once more establishes the demotic as belonging to the Danaus-cycle. This is the main argument for the view that the demotics were distributed by a single act between Alexandria and Ptolemais (cf. Schubart, loc. cit., p. 92; Plaumann, Ptolemais, p. 24), for it is most unlikely that if the demotics of Alexandria had been chosen independently of those of Ptolemais, one deriving from Danaus would have been omitted. 55. For 'EMvnos see PCZ 59. 182 (255 B.c.), lines 10. 24, IwaTpaTos KMwvos 'EMmos (cf. ibid. 59. 173, line 38 (restored; 255 or 254)); ibid. 59. 666 (no date), lines 7-8, Llaµ,ts KA[EWVOS, IwaTpaTOS] KMwvos, o[ 8vo 'EMvnot (cf. PCol.,Zen.54, line 26, in which the same persons are mentioned), and ibid. 55, line 2, where a brother 'ETe'apxosappears. There is some dispute as to whether this is a demotic or a local Egyptian ethnic (see Westermann, Mem. Amer. Acad. 6, 1927, p. 154 and his note on PCol.Zen. 55, line 2) but the termination - - nos is that of a demotic, while Egyptian ethnics regularly end in -TYJS(there are a few exceptions to this, but none which forms a termination in -Etos; cf. Op. Ath. II, p. 32; see also below, note 82 (ZEcpvpws).Helenion, near Canopus, is said to be an island by Eustath. on Dion. Per. 13 (Kat TEfl,Evos1rEpl1rvaTov 14.µ,vKAa{oio Kavw1rov), recounting the death of Cano bus in Egypt : ov 06.if;as Jv7{µ,ws6 MEVE/1.aos avvoiKl/;n1r6AivJ1r1TWLµ,v~µ,an, TOVSaxpEtoT(J.TOVS TOVaT6Aov €77, mhwt Kavw{3ovJvoµ,a/;EL" J'v0a1TOV Kal vijaos TO acf,ds /J-EVELV EKEl,Kat T~V1r6>.iv 'EMvEtov, TY)L'EMvYJL1rapwvvµ,ov.Steph. Byz. s.v. 'EMvEtoVcalls it a 7(j770, 1rpos Twt Kavw{3wi (he quotes Hecat. Mil. for the name, but it is not certain that Hecat. called it a T61ros);cf. in generalJac.'s note on FGrH 1 F 307-9. 56. PPetr. iii. 21d (227+), line 6: N{Kwviliovva{ov 'IvaxELOS(omitted in WE).

57. PPetr. iii. 21b (MC/zr. 3(b) (227+ ), lines 4, 10, Ll1µ,e'asAaµ,1rwvos14.AEg. Twv ov1rw J1r1y. Els 8ijµ,ovTov 14.awme'a.For the ancient disputes as to whether the myth of Zeus and Aegina, the daughter of Asopus, referred to the Boeotian or the Phliasian river of that name, see Frazer's note on Apoll., Bib!. iii. 12. 6; cf. Wilisch, RL, s.v. Asopos.

58. PPetr. iii. I r (236/5 B.c.), line 7: Ai . . wv Avalov 14.>.Eg. TY)SJmy. Twv ov1rw J1rYJY·Els 8[ijµ,ovAl],;iK~§e'a;cf. ibid. l col. 2 (236/5 B.c.), line 14, :ApTEµ,{8wpos 14.pTEf1,t8wpov AlaKt8Evs; PRyl. 584 (late iii B.c.), line 13: Breccia, Iseri::,.131, IfroAEµ,afos 14.>.Egav8pov AlaKt8Evs. There is no evident link between Aeacus and the Ptolemies, or indeed Egypt, and since he was the son of Zeus and Aegina, the daughter of Asopus (Apoll., Bib!., loc. cit.), it seems natural to

NOTES

TO

CHAPTER

2

123

associate these two demotics. There does not seem to be any good reason for supposing that, even as a passing compliment to Pyrrhus (for whose sojourn in Alexandria see above, eh. 1, p. 20), a deme would be named after Aeacus as ancestor of the Molossians, who were not good neighbours of the Macedonians. Schubart, p. 86, note 2, has no explanation to offer of this demotic.

59. BGU 1050 (Aug.), lines 4-5: Ka1 napa ..dwvvalov ToiJ / ..dwvvalov 'laioElov.

60. PCZ 59. 347 (245 B.c.): Ev877µ,osE(J0vy/.vovs NELAEOS; SB 438 (no date; 'Le lettere sone belle e incise con cura. Le si direbbe di eta tolemaica' (Breccia, BSAAlex. 8, 1905, p. 123): A{f3v,L1wvoaov NELAEV, Ka1BEpEvlKTJ 'Y/yvvryBov/3ctaTEL see below, P· 263. Ka1)1voof3ioi. For the cult of NEtAOS 61. SB 3432 (late Ptolemaic; cf. below, eh. 5, note 576): l:apanlwv ..dwvvalov l:apanlono,. 62. For Satyrus see the passage from Theoph. ad Auto[. and POxy. 2465 discussed above, note 48. The papyrus version shows no variant beyond the presence, noted above, of Argaeus a son of Perdiccas, incorrectly omitted by Theoph. It breaks off at Aeropus, but Theoph. gives the following nine generations to Philopator. For the Macedonian descent from Temenus and Heracles see Theopomp. FGrH 1l 5 F 393 (Sync. 499. 5) : oVTo, o Kdpavos dml µ,iv 'HpaKMovs Ta ~i•, dml OE1'77µ,/.vovTOVfLETaTWV a/\1\WV'HpaK/\ELOWV KUTEA06vTES El, IlEAon6vv77aov E/380µ,os·yEvrn>.oyoiJai8' a(!Tov ovTw,, ws .rn8a£ov]TOV Y>.>.ov Beloch, GG 2 i. 2, pp. 191-2 and Jae. Komm. on F 393, who gives the variants of the genealogy in tabular form. The divergence between the Argead and the Ptolemaic genealogies occurs at Amyntas I (c. 500), whose son in the Ptolemaic line given by Satyrus is Bocrus (?), whose son was Meleager the father of Arsinoe, wife of Lagus and mother of Ptolemy Soter; while in the Macedonian link Amyntas' son was Alexander I, who was succeeded by Perdiccas II : cf. the detailed discussion by Beloch, GG 2 iii. 2, pp. 49-62. 0

63. See Schubart, loc. cit., pp. 86-7. 64. Schubart, loc. cit., thought that the two genealogies were both utilized in full, in spite of the resulting uncertainty: 'Es ware also z. B. der alexandrinische 1'77µ,ivELo,auf den Stammbaum Alexanders, der KapavEll, von Ptolemais dagegen auf den Ptolemaerstammbaum zu beziehen ; rein formal konnten beide als selbstandige Reihen betrachtet werden.' The known genealogical demotics from Ptolemais are Y>.>.rn,and Kapavd, in OGIS 48, lines 4-7. 0

65. Cf. Schubart, p. 87, note

1.

66. PMich.,Zen. 66 (245/4), lines 34-5: Tiµ,oKAijs)lplaTwvos )lpyE..ov TOV'ApxwviJoV cJ>i>..oµ.T}T9P.~iov [ Kat 1Tapd. 'A1ToAAwvlovTov] .Eapa'!T{wv[os...... ]vo ..... ·. 'A[>..]!'gi;t!'[OpE ... ] ; I 140, lines 1-3: I'a{wi Tvppavlwt . 1Tapd.'EMvov To(v) Tpv..EgavOpE({as) · ~y.fµwv [,BEi>..naTE] (corr.sup. Zin., µiytaTE)' WVEK1TaTposl4>..Egav8pEi( ws)' K.T.A.; I I 65, lines 1-5: IlpwTapxwi I 1Tapd. 'HpaKAd8ov Tov 'HpaKAEl8ov Tov 'HpaKAEl8ov Kat 7·fjs TovjTOv yvvatKOS @Epµov0ws Tfjs IlayKpriTov(s) / µETdKvp{ov avTOVTOVdvopos Kal 1Tapd..Em[v]/0fjpos

NOTES

TO

CHAPTER

2

129

TOV eu0wuav TU TE ov6µ,aTa / [avT]wv Kat TaS'7/'aTpiSas-Kat Efli>Vav rayµ,aTWVcLuw / [Ka, &]sav :ixwuiv EmL native Egyptians, the requirement to register place or city of origin must have affected Greeks as well as natives (for 1TaTpls-as meaning village of origin T.DV within Egypt see, in addition to UPZ 9 ( 161/0 ), I. 5, cp~ 1TaT[p,]s-1~EvlJ.'[K~~ 'H,o!z[K..\w]1To,\£Tov, BGU 1250 (ii B.c.), a fragment ofan instruction imposing the death-penalty on nome-officials who give a new name or 1TaTpls-to persons without higher authority; cf. Preaux, Bull. Acad. beige44, 1958, p. 200). This looseness of terminology may arise from the fact that the document does not, pace el-Abbadi, relate exclusively to Alexandrian courts and the population of Alexandria, but is a royal edict embracing the whole population of Egypt, including, for example, the citizen-bodies not only of Alexandria, but also of Naucratis and Ptolemais; cf. Wolff, Justizwesen, pp. 23-4 and below, eh. 3, note 123. In Dikaiom., lines 242 ff., regarding the transfer of land, where the parties concerned are required to register 1TaTpiauT,Ka, KaTa S~µ,ovs-,the phrase may also be loosely cast to cover all possible categories, but it is also possible that the law regarding the transfer ofland may concern demesmen only. (b) In J)ikaiom., loc. cit., on the other hand, where )l,\EfavSpEVS'is used as equivalent to 1ro..\lT17s-, the latter word may once again be used to include both the demesman

PTOLEMAIC

ALEXANDRIA

and the 'Alexandrian'. The danger of a similar ambiguity did not prevent the Rhodians, among whom the existence of a special class of partial citizens called 'Rhodians' is also attested (see note 102), from calling themselves 'P68wi as a whole. For the Constitution see SEC ix. 1, and the partial revision in Berytus 12, 1958, pp. 120 ff. (SEC xviii. 726). A bibliography is unnecessary here (see SEC ix, loc. cit., and the various articles referred to in my reports in]EA, 1952-62, on inscriptions from the Ptolemaic Empire, but I may quote the relevant lines (1-15): ,½l[ya0a Tvx]a (?). I [1ro.\]t'Tat EUOJ/7'atol Etva) are discussed by modern authorities in the same general context of Alexandrian citizenship as full citizenship, etc. The most important discussions are those of Schubart, Archiv 5, pp. ro5 ff.; Lesquier, Jnstit. milit., pp. 30 ff. (cf. Schubart, GGA 1913, pp. 613 f.); Dikaiom., pp. 91-2; Uebel, op. cit., pp. xvixx; el-Abbadi, op. cit., pp. 122 ff. I give here a list in chronological order of the persons so designated. The number in square brackets after the entry is that of the item in the list in Uebel, op. cit.; that in curved brackets, of the number in Oates's list of the 'Epigoni' in 18, 1963, pp. 33 ff. (cf. below, note IIO). (a) PHib. 32 (246/5), lines 2-3: 'Hpa.KAE£-ros 'HpaKAEl-rovKaa-r6pE£os-rwv o. E7T.[1352]. (b) PMich.Zen. 66 (245/4), line 16: 'H>.i68w[pos...... -rwv ov7TwJ7r]'Y)yµ,[.fvwv Els 8ij]µ,ov,il.AEfav?>pEils -rijs Jmyovijs [240: cf. note, ibid.]. (c) PPetr. iii. 6 (a) (238/7), lines ro-1 l : ..... ns Ll7Jµ,7J-rplov, il.AEf,T. J. -r. o. E7T.Eis 8ijµ,ov'Ja0µ,da [857]. (d) Ibid., lines 43-4: [E]a-rvpiwv Xa[p]µ,ov, il.AEf, [-r. J.] -r. o. E7T.Els 8ijµ,. Eovvda [863]. (e) Ibid., line 13: - - - - - - - - - - - - -, il.AEf,-r. J. - - - - - - -. (f) Ibid., 4 (2) (238/7), lines 7-8: KAE£v[{as- - - il'AEf, -r.] o. E7T.[Els 8ijµ,. - - -] [847]. (g) Ibid., I l (236/5), lines 6-7: Ai .. wv Avaiov i1AE[fav8p]nis, T. o. E7T.Els Orjµ,.iJ.iaK£?>€a [855] (9) • (h) Ibid., lines 27-8: ..... [Ll]ioKMovs,il.AEf,-r. J. -r. o. E7T.Els 8ijµ,. Kaa[888] (g). -r6pE£ov (i) Ibid., 14, lines 7-8 = Archiv 3, p. 513 (236/5): Ea[-rv(?)]posLl7Jµ,[7J-rplov] JHEf, -r. o. E7T.Eis 8ijµ. [Av-r]o8£rnov [903; cf. ibid., p. xviii] (8).

rcs

1 34

PTOLEMAIC

ALEXANDRIA

(j) Ibid., lines 2-3 =ibid.: - - Spov li/\Er T. o. E'T/', [ELS' D?)f1,0V liv8po]1-.uxxELov. [goo] (8). (k) Ibid., 55 (a) (235/4), lines 6-7. - - - - - - - - - - - - li/\Er T. e.T. o. E'T/', ELS' D?)fl,•KaaTopEwv [915]. (l) Ibid., 19 (f) (232/1), line 2: -----------------T. e.T. o. --. (m) Ibid.,21 (b) (MChr.3 (b); 227/6),lines 3-4, IO: [..:h7]µ,.fas-Aaµ,Trwvos-li/\Er T. e.T, o. €'TI'.ELS' D?)fl,• liawm.fa [929] (43). (n) PTeb. 815, fr. 1, recto, col. ii (228-221), lines 2-3: Novµ,71vws-Llwvva{ov li/\Er T. e.T. o. €'TI'.[607]. (o) Ibid., fr. 5, line 35; fr. 6, col. ii, line 32; [fr. 7, verso, described only] (228-221); NtKavwp M.fvwvos-li/\Eg, T. o. €'TI'.ELS'D?)fl,• 11µ,µ,wvt'l)a[328] (rn3). (p) PPetr. iii. 132 (no date; Ptol. III?), lines 19-21: 6Jpaav/\/\OS' NtKofiov/\ov li/\Er T. o. €'TI'.ELS' D?)fl,-'YTrEpfi6Awv. (q) PEnt. 88, line I (221): - - - - Llw[v]va[l]ov, MaK.f[Sw]v, li/\Eiav[8pEv]s-, T. o. E'T/', [974]. (r) PTeb. 970 (early ii B.c.), line 8: 11Miav8pos-T. o. eTr. ELS'D?)fl,•- - -. (s) Ibid., 822 (179 B.c.), line 8: - - - - - - - li/\Er TWJJ- - - - - - - - -. (t) PPrinc. ii.16. 2 (158 B.c.?); lines 1-2: -- 'lao8wpov TOV[ ... lill]EiavSp.fw[s-/ TWVovTrw] ETr7JYf1,EVWV [Els-D?)f1,0V 'H]cpatan.fa. 105. (a), (f), (i), (j), (o)-(t) in list in note rn4. 106. (a) in list ibid. 107. Ibid. (q). In addition to the variants, already noted, note also in the list (b), where the formula is badly out of joint, and (n), where ds- D?)fl,OI' Tov ◊Efva is omitted, whether by accident, or because the demc to which the person concerned was to be admitted was still undecided, or because the addition of the deme name was not, or had ceased to be, obligatory. 108. Cf. el-Abbadi, loc. cit. 109. See the list given by Oates, op. cit. next note, passim. 110. For the controversy regarding the meaning of the term T?)S'emyov'l)s-see in addition to the items listed above, note rn4, the study by J. F. Oates, YCS 18, 1963, pp. 5-129, 'The Status-Designation: IUpa7Js-T?)S'emyov'l)s. Oates points out correctly that the term T?)S'emyov'l)s-(without IUpa7Js-)is largely confined to contracts, wills, and petitions, and is not used when an individual has a further descriptive title, military or administrative. He concludes that the term can only be the designation (in such documents) of the simple civilian, with no other specific mark of identification. This original suggestion is attractive, but it is not clear that any further identification beyond that of father or TraTpts-or y.fvos-was necessary in such documents. PHamb. 168a, quoted above, note IOO, shows that it was not demanded for official records. However, Oates's study represents a fresh approach to this difficult problem, and his solution has the incidental merit of revealing how entirely uncertain the meaning of the term is. His discussion of the history of the problem (pp. 7-30) is rather sketchy, but brings out the main points at issue. Cf. also Pestman, Aegyptus 43, 1963, pp. 405-7. For the IUpaat T?)S'emyov'l)s-see below, pp. 58-9 and note 172.

NOTES

TO

CHAPTER

2

135

PEnt. 88, (q) in the list above; cf. el-Abbadi, op. cit., p. 114 (where for 'P Ent. 1' read 'P Ent. 88, line 1'). The full entry here runs (line 1): - - mE .. L1w[v]va[l]ov, M2'~.d8w]!:'.,Ti!Y [K]aTOtKoDvTwvlµ - - -, above which has been WV]o[v]1rw E7T'Y)Yfl-€J/WJ/ (cf. Gueraud, ad loc.). This item written )l.\.E5av[8pEV]ST[ enables us to dismiss the theory of Lesquier, op. cit., pp. 157-8, that the )l,\.EfavllpEf, Twv ov1rw l1rryy. were normal Alexandrian citizens resident in the Fayyum, who had not yet travelled to Alexandria for the purpose of formal enrolment in the citizen-body. 111.

112. This seems to be borne out by the fact that the prospective citizen in PEnt. 88 (see note 1 rr) who has a cleruch's title (Twv KaTotKoDvTwv)is not designated )!.\.Eg.T. l. Twv o. l1r. but simply )!.\.Eg.T. o. l1r. Ifwe accept Oates's contention that military and cleruchic persons are never Tij, lmy., then the absence of this formula in his new designation should indicate that he had not abandoned his previous cleruchic (catoecic) status. 113.

See below, pp. 65 ff.

>

114. PHal. 1, lines 156-65: TW))8J IlaµaTaTa, 1T6.\.w,;cf. Syll. 3 fLEVotKaT TETct.S 742 (Ephesus), lines 41-2: Kal Et TtJ/ES8J 1T€1TOAlTOYPaijaai av8pas 0€Ka1TEJ/TE OJJTa,df{ov, TOVT61rov,K.T..\..) 116. See for this view in addition to Dikaiom., Bickermann, Rev. Phil., loc. cit., p. 368, and cf. el-Abbadi, p. 113. It is doubted by Uebel, op. cit., pp. xviixviii, but his doubts arise from his adherence to the view that the )!.\.Eg.Tij, lmy. were the sons of soldiers, and not (like the 1rrno.\.iroypa..e-g. -rwv ov1TwE1T7JY· the span of time at present attested for the latter would hardly be affected, for the earliest date for them is 246/5 B.C. (c£ above, note w4 (a)), and Dikaiom. is dated by the editors to either the end of the reign of Philadelphus or the beginning of that of Euergetes (see pp. 11-12), with a slight preference for the former.

ug. For the identification of this class in the Augustan documents see Schubart, loc. cit., pp. 114-15. The absence of Alexandrian documents of an earlier period makes it particularly difficult to identify; epigraphical evidence, though abundant, is ambiguous: see above, note 22. 120.

See ibid.

121. For example in BGU IV, where the avyxwp~ans and other documents in general follow an identical pattern: at the opening of the contract the names of the parties to the agreement are given-husband and wife, woman and guardian-at-law, or unrelated persons-and in some instances the name of the man or men is followed by the demotic, and in others it is not. Since the whole formulation of these contracts is very rigid, it is difficult to accept a purely casual explanation of this particular variant: contrast, e.g., 1 I02: 1Tapa'A1To/\>..wvlas -rfjs L'af1,,8a0[l]/w[vo]s . . . Kat 1Tapa 'Epfl,oy/.vovs -roiJ 'EpfLo/y/.[v]ovs, 'Apxm:t-rov (c[ above, note 35) with 1103: 1Tapa Zwl/3os -rfjs 'HpaKA.e-l/3ov. .. KUL1Tapa'Avnmfrpov [-r]oiJZ~vwvos; cf. 1114: 1Tapa 'lfL/.pov 'TOVIl-ro/\Efl,alov Z71vc.lovK[a ]l 1Tapa / KoliJTov KaiKi/\lov Kaa-ropos; I I 20: 1Tapa L1w/3wpov 'TOV 'AKi.a-roposf971~e-lov(?; cf above, note 83) Kat 1Tapa '$[p ]r.ilov -roiJ'A1To/\Awvlov; I 154: 1Tapa'Jf~fo/3wpov 'TOV'H>..i[ o/3]wpovI 'TOVKat 'Aef,po/3n[ a]tov }:l[>..]f,;ifii+>:. I KUL 1163: 1TapaiAd.fLfLWVOS 'TOV 1TapaL1il3Df1,0V KULL'e-J0o[V .>.ovOE-rij,;dpxijs EKElVYJS 1TpOTEpov." l:-rpaf3wv µEv 0~ TaUTa Myn.

143. See below, p. 57. 144. BGU 1140 (WChr. 58; CPJ ii. 151), of 5/4 B.C., contains a petition to the Prefect, G. Turranius, 1rapa 'EMvov -ro(v) Tpv.Efavop,lw(s)], corrected supra lineam to 'lovoalov TWVa1T6)l_).EfavOpE(ta,;)... WVEK1TaTp6,;)l_).Efavop,l(w,;). This indicates clearly that Helenus' claim to citizenship, in spite ofhis paternity, was not regarded as valid, and also shows that such citizenship ad hominem was possible since (whatever significance we may give to )l).EfavopEv,;) it was possessed by his father. It also suggests that as a Jew without citizen-rights Helenus was liable to the poll-tax (>.aoypacpla);cf. the commentary ofTcherikover. The general status of the Jews as a foreign group is clearly indicated by the phrase 'lovo. TWV a1T6)l_).Ef. (cf. Bickermann, Archiv 9, p. 41); Preaux, op. cit., p. 161; Braunert, Binnenwanderung, pp. 86 ff. 145. Ps.-Arist. Ep. ad Philocr. § 3ro: Ka0w,; OEavEyvwa0YJTa TEVXYJ,GTUVTES oi iEpELSKaL TWV EpµYJVEWV oi 1rpwf3v-rEpotKaL TWV a1T6 TOV 1TOAtTEvµa-ro,; OL TE ~yovµEvot -rov 1r>.~0ovs,K.-r.>..This passage has caused considerable difficulty on account of the uncertain relation both of oi 1rpwf3v-rEpotand of oZ-rE 11yovµEvotto -rwv d1rd-rov 1roAtTEvµa-ro,;;see the discussion ofTcherikover, op. cit., p. 9, note 1, who follows Wilam. in making oi 1rpwf3v-rEpotgovern only -rwv EpµYJvEwvand in deleting TE, understanding oi ~yovµEvot -rov 1r>.~0ov,;as explanatory of -rwv The 'Elders' of the community (1rpw/3v-rEpot,i.e. yEpova_{a)who a1ToTOV1TOAtT. were in fact introduced by Augustus to take the place of the Ethnarch (see note r6o) thus disappear. Though the explanation of oi 1rpw/3vTEpotis convincing, the difficulty of the second phrase is probably best overcome by regarding -rov 1r>.~0ov,;as a gloss on -rov 1roAtTEvµa-ro,;,which has entered the text, perhaps bringing TE with it. Ifwe read OL(TE) ~yovµEvot, governing TWVa1T6TOV1TOAtT. the sentence has a satisfactory balance. This difficulty (ignored by recent editors of Ps.-Arist.) is irrelevant to the general point that the passage alleges the existence of the politeuma in the reign of Philadelphus. 146. See below, pp. 83-4. 147. See above, eh. 1, p. 35 and note 270. 148. See above, note 133. Ta 1TUVTa,Ka~yopos, Jx0p6,, 149· In Flacc. 54-6: av-rds (i.e. Flaccus) YEVOµEvo,; µap-rv,;, Ol/WGT~S,KoAaa~,;, ECTaovaL TOLS1TpOTEpot,; KaL-rpl-rov1rpoaE0YJKEV E.ovat1Top0ELV'lovoalot,;. oi OE>.af3ovTE,;a.onav -rt 1rpa.TTOVGt; 7TEVTE µo'ipat -rij, 1TOAEW.,JyovTatOta T6 1TAElGTOVS 'lovoa[ov,; EV TaVTatS -r[ovv E1TOLYJGav; EK-rwv KaTOtK€.[yota1ropa.OE,;.

PTOLEMAIC

ALEXANDRIA

-rwadpwv ypaµ,µ,..0iiJv Ta Kara KOtll.~V 1:vp{av KaL oiv{KTJV U7Tavra, avyxpwµ,Evo, EVTJfLEplai µ,ETa dvOpE{a,, TOVS fLEV oiJ, OEYJixµ,a>..wn1;,E, cpo{Jwi7T..laari,/ BEpEvlKTJS doE>..jvaKWV 1T/\EOVUKLS TOLS aTpaTLWTaLS l..>..a 0€ ovx ijaaov Efrqi f3ov>..oµ,E y[ EJyovoTES E.rn1raTpa µJv Kaiaaplwva, )l_VTWVW-.lapxoi-AoyxoiA]oµ,~Topt OTaVl8pv17iTa [- - - - ..ij, Bell, in his excellent discussion of this passage, is surely wrong in taking oiJK ,!xwv MyHv to mean, 'I do not know what to say', in the sense that 'Claudius was as ignorant as ourselves'. It clearly means 'I have no comment to make' (ostensibly, no doubt, because he deemed it irrelevant, even if in fact he was concealing his ignorance; cf. Jouguet's paraphrase, BSAAlex. 37, 1948, p. 75: 'Claude declare ici ignorer la politique des rois et il sous-entend qu'il ne s'en soucie guere; la seule tradition qui le lie est celle des empereurs, ses predecesseurs'). (ii) The statement of the Alexandrian envoy in PSI 1160 (Musurillo, I), Kar' iviavrov ywl.[a0a], Ka, lines 14-16: df,ovµ,[Ev oov ifEfvai] / TTJVf3ov/l.'Y)V f--1-E[ra TOIiiviavrov] dJ0vva, o,o6vai TWV Ota1Tmp[ayµ,l.vwv- - - -]. Whether this document records a historical audience given by the Emperor to the envoys, or whether it belongs to the semi-fictitious Acta is here immaterial, for even if the latter, the status of the {3ov>..~ is not likely to have been falsified. Unfortunately the text is in any case quite indecisive on the point at issue here, for although it seems to presuppose the non-existence of the Council there is nothing to show whether it was recently abolished. There is also very relevant uncertainty regarding the date of the papyrus, and consequently of the identity of the emperor concerned. See in addition to Musurillo's discussion the remarks of Rosto., SEHREZ, p. 560, note I r. 10. Jouguet's view, BSAAlex., loc. cit., pp. 71-94, 'Les Assemblees d'Alexandrie a l'epoque ptolemai:que', that the Council was abolished by one of the later Ptolemies, while the Ecclesia continued to exist, contradicts the evidence ofD.C., loc. cit.

II.

See in general, below, pp. 797-8.

12. PLond.

1912, loc. cit., lines 65ff.;PSI1160,

passim (cf. note g).

13. See below, pp. 120 ff. 14. See in general Levy, REG 8, 1895, pp. 231-50; Liebenam, Stadteverwaltung im riim. Kaiserr. (Leipzig, 1goo), pp. 565-6; Poland, Gr. Vereinsw. (Leipzig, 1909), pp. 98-102 and 577-87 (list of inscriptions); see also, for the distinction between the two types of gerousia, Turner, Archiv 12, pp. 179 ff. (publishing PRyl. 599). For Alexandria see especially San Nicolo, Ag.Vereinsw. i, pp. 30 ff., esp. pp. 40-2; von Premerstein, Alexandr. Gerontenvor Kaiser Caius, pp. 57-61 (to be used with caution; cf. above, eh. 1, note 22; eh. 2, note 358.fin.); Momigliano, JRS 34, 1944, pp. n4-15; Jouguet, BSAAlex., loc. cit., pp. 87-8; Musurillo, op. cit., pp. 108-10; el-Abbadi, JEA 50, 1964, pp. 164-9.

NOTES

TO

CHAPTER

3

15. For the gerousiai of Roman date see in general Jones, Greek City, p. 353, note 31; Oliver, Historia 7, 1958, pp. 471-81; for Egypt especially el-Abbadi, loc. cit. 16. Breccia, Rapport r912, p. 39, no. go (SB 2100): AvKaplwva Novµ71vlov / aOEA..oi VTEs·; PCZ 59. 034, lines l-2: Zwi>..os:4.amfv[o]wsT[- - - -] I BsaVVEUTaBri aoLV1TO Twv Tov{3aaiMwscplAwv.Atkinson, loc. cit., p. 206, note 4 suggests the supplement 1TPWTov [,piAov]in PMich.Zen. 31, line 2, but this seems highly improbable in the context. For literary references to cplAoiboth collectively and individually see Trindl, loc. cit. A good example is provided by Dern. Phal., fr. 63 Wehrli (cf. below, eh. 9, note 54) : a yap o[ ,p{>..oi TOL',{3aaLA€VaLV ov Bappovat 1rapatl'ELV, Tavra lv Toi:,;/3i/3Aioi,;y/.ypa1TTUL. 66. See the lists given in the various articles listed in note 62, especially those of Trindl, op. cit., pp. 162 ff., and Peremans, op. cit., pp. 132 ff. The first examples of the genitive usage belong to the reign of Epiphanes or later: Apollonius, son ofTheon, the dioecete, occurs as Twv cpi>..wv in two inscriptions, OGIS roo and SB 2637, the former of which is a dedication in honour of Apollonius by his half-brother Ptolemaeus, son of Apollonius, TWJIoiaooxwv, because of his EVl'olatowards Epiphanes and Cleopatra and their children, and may be dated 188-181, and the second a dedication by Apollonius in honour of Epiphanes and of his own brother, Ptolemaeus. (Apollonius is omitted from the list of diocetes given by Seider, Beitriigezur ptolemiiischenVerwaltungsgeschichte (Halle, 1938), p. 73.) The higher class, the Twv 1TpwTwvcpl>..wv, occurs only in the genitive form; the earliest instances are SB 7270 and OGIS 99, the former of the early second century, the latter of 188-181 (see above, on OGIS roo); cf. below, note 69. Trindl, op. cit., pp. 54-5, rightly rejects a third-century date

NOTES

TO

CHAPTER

3

for SB 6665 (SEC ii, 864), the dedication for AEw11{81711 l>..wv yvµvaaiapxovvTa To >..ETos;it belongs to the middle of the second is century (see below, note 69). The first known Twv dpxiawµaTo..~0ovs 'HpaKA.ELTOV )l>..Etav8pEVs, avyef,opwv;lnscr. Delos 1525 (OGIS rn4), XpVaEpf-LOS YEll~S {3aaiMws Ifro>..Eµalov(see above, note 31, for the full text; for the date see below, note 89) ; the fragmentary PTeb. 963, - - - avyyEviji 1rapa - - - is dated 'early second century B.c.', and may be the earliest surviving instance. For an isolated example of Twv avyyEvwv see the proskynema at Philae, Lipsius, Denkm., pl. 85, no. 223 (GIG 4903; SB 8402; probably late Ptol.): BEo8wpos Llw8wpov TWVGV):')!EIIW!' T)KW1rposT~JJKv[p ]lav.,,law; cf. Trindl, op. cit., p. 87. There is no very satisfactory explanation of this single example of a avyyEv~s

186

PTOLEMAIC

ALEXANDRIA

class. It does not seem to me likely that it is connected with the obscure avyYEVELS KctToiKoi{7nrds (see PP 2575-85; Lesquier, Instit. milit., p. 181, note 4; cf. Trindl, ibid.).

68. See, e.g., OGIS 138: {3aaiAEvsllToAEµ,afos Kai {3aalAiaaa KAEOj1TctTpa TJ aDEA..[>..]iµ,axov Kal TWVTEKVWV / ai.JTOV TOVavyyEvoiJsKai/ aTpaT17yoiJ T'ryS@17{3a{80,, I E7TlT'ryS, lvOtK'rySKa£ 'EpvBpiis I Kal lmaTpaT~yov I Kai @17/3apxov Ba>..aaa17s (cf. below, eh. 4, note 400); (c) ibid. 194 (43 B.C.; for the date see Hutmacher, pp. 28--9), a decree of the Theban priesthood in honour of his son (who was aTpaT17y6,of the IlEpt0~{3asnome, in which he (Callimachus II) (cf. Wilhelm, op. cit., is described (line 24) simply as avyyEv~, Kai E7TtaTpaT17yos T"ry, p. 30, for the reading). For the Callimachi, and for the office of E7TL 'EpvBpiis Ba>..aaa17, see further below, eh. 4, p. 182, and notes 398-400. § 2. The question arises whether the offices held by Lochus and Stolus were held cumulatively or successively. Common sense suggests that onerous offices such as that of hypomnematographos could hardly be combined with, for example, the epistrategia (cf. Collomp, op. cit., pp. 48-9), but, as 0-B, op. cit., p. 8, note 1, point out with reference to another case, that of Apollodorus, avyyEv~s Ka£Tpo._E(avopov TOVvioiJ Kai lmaTpClT?JYOS Kal 7TposTafs a.vaKplawi (SB 1568, on which see also Peremans and van 't Dack, Prosopographica (Louvain, 1953), pp. II-16, whose assumption regarding the order in which the offices held were recorded is entirely arbitrary; Eichgriln, Kall. u. A. R., pp. 185-7, with whose criticisms of 0-B's forced interpretation of this inscription, and of SB 8036, I fully agree; cf. below, eh. 4, note 398), the cumulation of precisely these offices is demonstrated by SEC viii. 666 (SB 7259; 95/4 B.c.), lines 36-8: 7TpoaTa{ai IlToAEµ,a[wi TWt / avyyEVEt Ka£ V7TOµ,v17µ,arnypacpwiKai lmaTpaT17ywi; it seems hardly possible that in a direct instruction such as this the previous offices held by the addressee would be mentioned. Mitford, op. cit., pp. 160-1, regards cumulation as very unlikely for Lochus ('it can hardly be supposed that one man can have done justice simultaneously to both offices' [i.e. hypomnematographos and strategos of the Thebaid]) while Peremans and van 't Dack, p. 13, state categorically that the two functions could not be held together (cf. ibid., pp. 40-5, for their reconstruction of the career of Lochus (based on unrevised texts of inscriptions,

NOTES

TO

CHAPTER

3

without access to Mitford), and it is certainly not easy to imagine that Stolus could have combined the duties of epistolographos and admiral. (It is noticeable that it is especially, though not solely, the two offices of hypomnematographos and epistolographos that seem to have been associated with military careers.) It seems clear that we must accept the possibility of cumulation of high office, though in many instances the matter cannot be decided. The offices held by the Callimachi, on the other hand, are in a different category, for they all form part of a single regional command, the title of which gradually expanded to correspond to the extension of the area of responsibility. An exception may lie in the civil offices held by Callimachus I, but these were probably honorary (see above§ I (a)), or at least not onerous.

83. Cf. above, pp. 96-7. 84. See Strack, op. cit., p. 178, note 2; B-L iii, p. II6; Trindl, op. cit., pp. 151-2. 85. I have already given most of the evidence for this family in Berytus 12, 1958, p. 111 (see also Mitford, ]EA 46, 1960, pp. 109-11) but I may bring it up to date here: for Pelops I, s. of Alexandros, see SEG i. 364 (cf. Habicht, Ath. Mitt. 72, 1957, p. 212; cf. also Hermann, ibid. 75, 1960, p. 113, no. 16 (a), a statue base of Hyperbassas, daughter of this Pelops); for Pelops II at Cyrene see Berytus, loc. cit., no. 4 (SEGxviii. 734; in 1961 I discovered in the epigraphical store of the Museum at Cyrene the top left corner of the inscription: read, line 1, init., ll{AoTTa; line 2, init., avE-); in Cyprus, JHS 12, 1882, p. 177, no. 7, and ibid. 57, 1937, p. 31, no. 6, and the new version of OGIS 84, ibid.; cf. also Zucker, Stud. ,zurNamenkunde (SB Deut. Akad. 1951 (1)), pp. 18-19; Habicht, ap. Hermann, loc. cit.; Mitford, Studi Calderini-Paribeni ii, p. 177. For the negotiations with Antiochus at which Pelops assisted see Polyb. xva. 25. 10 (cf. Holleaux, Rome, La Grece, etc., pp. 70 ff.). For Ptolemaeus, his son, at Rhodes, see Mitford, ]EA, loc. cit. (improved version of lnscr. Lind. ii. 139). A lllAoif, is mentioned by Galen, De propr. libr. (Ser. Min. ii) 97, 6 (cf. Welli"AlTTTTov mann, Hermes 35, 1900, pp. 383-4), who may belong to the same family. 86. I have dealt with questions of identification of some possible members of this family in various places: see particularly, ]EA 42, 1956, p. r 13, no. (43), apropos of Peremans and van 't Dack, Historia 3, 1956, pp. 338-45; ibid. 44, 1958, p. 114, no. (45), apropos of Mitford, Studi Calderini-Paribeni ii, pp. 16387; ibid. 46, 1960, p. 99, no. 27 (apropos of Ijsewijn, Aegyptus 38, 1958, pp. 165 ff.); cf. also below, eh. 7 (i), p. 361, and notes as indicated in note go. I restrict myself here to those relationships that do not rest on conjectural identification.

87. Vit. Ag. et Gleam. 57 (36), 2: llToAEµ,a'ios aXpvaipµ,ov rp[Aos{>.wv, EvxaptaT~aovTa 1TEptTWVEis UVTOVSYEYOVOTWV EVEPYETYJ/1-U.TWV;

articles referred to above. 93. OGIS 139, lines 14-15, the Egyptian priests request Euergetes II avvTa;m Novµ,Y)VLwtTWt avyyEvE[i:] Ka[t E1TtUTO ]>.oyparpw,, ypaipm Aoxwt TWt avyyEvEL Kat aTpaTY)yw,, K.T.A.For the date see Peremans and van 't Dack,Prosopograph.,p. 42. 94. Breccia, Rapport 1912, p. 39, no. go (SB 2100, from earlier editions): AvKaplwva Novµ,Y)vlov / aOEA.,s.This inscription, with its large round lettering (facs., Breccia, loc. cit., fig. 13), is probably of the middle of the first century B.c., and the attempt of Peremans and van 't Dack, Prosopogr.,pp. 46-54, to assign it to the middle of the second century cannot stand: see ]EA 41, 1955, p. 133, no. (II), fin. ; Berytus 13, I 960, p. 126, note I I. They claim (p. 46) that at the end of the dynasty the title of owtKY)T~sshould be joined to 1rp6s Tw, lolwi >.6ywi and/or 1rp6s1rpoaxElpms, but the prosopographical material to which they refer (PP, nos. 14 ff., the owtKY)Tal) does not bear them out: sometimes one or other of these titles is missing, and in other instances they may be used with other offices than ow,KYJT~s,or on their own (see, e.g., PP, no. 14, Athenaeus, avyyEVYJSKat owtKY)T~S,of BGU 1744 (SB 7408), line 3; 1747 (SB 7410), line 8; 1748 (SB 7411), line 7; 1749 (SB 7412), line 4, all of 64/3 B.c.; no. 39, Protarchus, of BGU 1760, lines 2-3,of 51 /o B.c.; 1 766, line 1). Their second claim, that the title l1r1Tijs 1roAEws,borne by Lycarion in the inscription (lines 6-7), was superseded in the late Ptolemaic period by aTpaTY)y6s Tijs 1roAEws,is based upon an unfortunate error deriving from Wilck., who argued exclusively on the basis ofOGJS743 (Breccia, Iscriz. 174), which he took to be Alexandrian, but which is from Ptolemais (see above, note 34), and therefore irrelevant. We have no record of any strategos in charge of the city (the strategoi given in PP l 51-2 are active military commanders): see note 97. At the same time Lycarion is the only person recorded with the official title of l1r1Tijs 1r6AEws: see ibid.

95. See above, pp. 96-7. 96. For the aTpaTY)y6s Tijs 1r6AEwsat Ptolemais see above, notes 34, 94. 97. Polyb. v. 39. 3: 1rpoayovTESOEKaLUVVTVXOVTES KaTd TYJV1TAUTELUV lITOAEµ,alwt TW£TOTE E1TL Tijs 1roAEWSd1roAEAHµ,µ,lvwi,K.T.A.; Plut. Ag. et Cleom.(58) 37. 9: T6v /LEVovv TOVXpvalpµ,ov lIToAEµ,ai:ovEKTijs av>.ijsl;i6vTa TPELSd0vs 1rpoa1TWOVTES TYJV1r6>.,vEAaVVOVTOS apµ,an a1TEKT€£Vav. ETEpovOEJlTOAEµ,alov TOVrpv>.aaaoVTOS 1rp6s avTovs, 6pµ,~aavTESEVUVTLOt TOVSµ,Ev V1TY)pETas Kat Oopvrp6povsOtWKEOaaav, Cf. in general Bengtson, UVT6VOEKaTaa1raaaVTESa1T6TOV apµ,aTO,;U1TEKTEtvav. f)ie Strategieiii, pp. 128-33. The individuals listed in PP 150-2 as 'Les Strateges' Diophy[to ]s, Hegelochus, and Marsyas, are not relevant. The first occurs on a tombstone, Breccia, Iscriz. 229 (Pagenstecher, Nekropolis 15), the reading of which is uncertain, but the letters - - paTYJ- -, conjecturally restored by Botti (followed by PP) as [aT]paTYJ[y6v?], no doubt belong to some such name as K14~78.2

0

1 94

PTOLEMAIC

ALEXANDRIA

[TiµoK]paT77[,]. 151, Hegelochus, and 152, Marsyas, both mentioned in Diod. xxxiv/xxxv. 20, in his account of an episode in the civil war between Euergetes and the Alexandrians (for the actual occasion see below, note 240), were probably simply the military commanders on either side. Theon (PP 155), TErny,ulvos-vTroTO,Uf3aaiMa llToAE/[,ua]fov lv 14,\E(av8pE{ai(JG xi. 4. 1042; Choix 26), is not stated to have had any military duties, and in the Nesiotic decree is cited solely for help to Nesiotes. His duties may then have been, broadly speaking, consular; cf. below, eh. 4, note 421, where this inscription is compared in this connection with JG xi. 4. 588.

98. See Diod. xxxi. 20, followed by ibid. 17c, recounting events in Alexandria before the restoration of Philometor in 164/ 3 : [on] TOV}4,\E(av8pov TatS' avayKatS' EVaTro0av6vTOS' 14aKA1)Trta877v TOVETrLTijS' Tr6AEWS' TErny,ulvov 71yayov f3owvTa 8i6n Ti,u60rn, TOVTOTO 8pa,ua UVVTE0EtKE KaL TO ,UHpaKWVTrPOKEKA1),UEVOS' EL1)TrpOS' a'.8iKovKat aaE{3ijn,uwp{av Ta8E,\cf,oiJ;for the reference here to events in Alexandria see Niese, GGMS iii, p. 209, note 3; cf. Otto, 6Ptol., p. 93 (Asclepiades is omitted from the list in PP 154 ff.). 99. In PBad. iv. 48 (126 B.c.), lines 6-7: EKp{877ovv ,uoi, Ka06n 8{rnia aov aTrOVTOS' µii,,\,\ov ~ Trap6vTOS'EVTVXELV TWt ETrLTijS' TrOAEWS', Bengtson, op. cit., pp. 131-2, discusses the place of the ETrtTij, Tr6AEWS' and the J(77y77T~S' in late Ptolemaic Alexandria, as reflected in the inscription ofLycarion (above, note 94) and the passage of Strab. (797, quoted above, note 28) regarding the J(77y77T~S'. He maintains that originally the ETriTij, Tr6AEWS' was more important and that this state of affairs was altered in the late Ptolemaic than the l(77y1)TTJS' period: 'sonst ware die Reihenfolge in den Titeln des Lykarion unverstandlich'. His remarks rest on a confusion: Strabo expressly states that the exegete was a civic official (see above, p. 96), whereas the ETrtTij, Tr6AEWS' ;was not. It is further very doubtful whether Lycarion's offices represent a sequence of appointments rather than a cumulation: for this problem see above, note 82. In this particular instance cumulation would be very possible, since some of the offices were no doubt sinecures. 100.

See above, p. 105, and note 94.

101. Compare the Ptolemaic ETrtTijS'Tr6AEw,,governors of Cypriot cities, listed by Mitford, Archiv, 13, p. 22, note 1, who follows Cohen, De Mag. Lagid, pp. 42 ff. in regarding the ETrtTij, Tr6AEWS' as a later version of the cf,poJpapxo,. Droysen's view (Kl. Sehr. ii, p. 398, followed by Ditt. on OGJS 113, note 3) that the two offices were independent of one another, and the former roughly equivalent to an JmaTaT1)S',with both civil and military powers, corresponds to my own impression (so also Bengtson, op. cit., p. 148, note 3). The list of ol ETrlTijS' Tr6AEw,in PP 154-7, is very confused.

102. In the passage of Polyb. quoted in note 97, the expression J T6TE ETrtTijS' Tr6AEWS' aTroAEAHp,µlvosmight refer to an extraordinary office, 'on that occasion' but I see no reason to suppose that it does. Schubart, Klio, 10, 1910, p. 68, note 1, followed by Bengtson, op. cit., p. 130, takes T6TEto indicate that Ptolemaeus was not the first incumbent of the office.

NOTES

TO

CHAPTER

3

195

103. For Ptolemaic lmanfrai in subject cities see JG xii. 5, rn61 (Arsinoe (Coressia) of Ceus, iii B.c.) ; OGIS 44 (JG xii. 3. 320, Thera, in honour of same Apollodorus as preceding inscription). The epistatai are uncommon in the Ptolemaic administration, by contrast with officials called simply Terayµivoi (l1rt - - -) imd (3aaiMa lfroi\.Eµa'iov, who conducted most of the civil business of the crown in the Ptolemaic dependencies in the Cyclades, and the l1rt TfjS' of Cyprus. Cf. in general Cohen, op. cit., pp. 83 ff. For other epistatai 1r6AEWS' see Holleaux, Etudes iii, pp. 233-4; Tarn, GBIZ, pp. 23-6. 104. Plut. (see note 97) describes Ptolemaeus as J cf,vM..aawv TYJV 1r6A.iv,which suggests at first sight that he was commander of the city (so Schubart, loc. cit., followed by Bengtson, loc. cit.), but the phrase can equally well refer more Polyb.'s l1rt TfjS'1r6AEWS' is loosely to the ultimate authority of the l1rt TfjS'1r6AEWS'; obviously more precise. Bengtson, loc. cit., claims that PBad. iv. 48 (quoted above, note 99) bears out the military nature of the office, for in it the l1rt TfjS' acts as judge in a suit brought by persons iv Tfjt a1roaKrnfji, i.e. con1r6AEWS' nected with military formations. However, as Wolff, Prozesswesen,pp. 94-5, shows, the l1rt TfjS'1r6i\.EwS' has no real judicial authority in this case; he merely enforces a temporary sequestration pending a judicial solution.

105. The inscriptions referring to the Alexandrian garrison (see above, eh. 2, notes 224 ff., 339 ff.) are dedications made by that body as a religious koinon, and thus mention, not their military commander, but the 'president' (1rpoan5.T7)S')of the Koiv6v: see Berytus l 3, l 960, pp. 149-50. 106. Cf. note IOI. It is to be noted that in the Parthian kingdom the royal representatives were called aTpaT7JY6S'Kal lmaTaT7)S', which suggests that the military and civil offices were here expressly combined : see, at Dura, SEC ii. 815; vii. 361; at Nineveh, vii. 37; at Babylon, OGIS 254. Ditt., ad loc., takes aTpaT7Jy6,.to refer to the government of a province ( = aaTpa1T1JS'), while Tarn, GB/2, p. 25, regards it as a civic office, to which the royal office of l1riaTaT1JS' was added; such a combination is surely very unlikely. It seems more natural to regard the combined title as embracing military as well as civil authority (so Holleaux, op. cit., pp. 217-18). The epistatai of the Rhodian subject Peraea had civil as well as (subordinate) military duties: see Fraser and Bean, Rhod. Peraea,pp. 86-94. 107. For garrisons in Ptolemaic subject cities see, e.g., Welles, RC 30, a letter concerning the billeting of troops in the Ptolemaic subject city of Soli, with Welles's remarks on p. 138; SEC i. 364 (Samos), 11.2 ff.: IUA.o,p'AA.Etavo[p]ov €7TlovvaµEw[s-]; OGIS !02 (Thera), 11.9 ff.: Elp7]VUtOv,\aK vac. /3,and a fragment of another law regarding sale, also of the third century B.C., BGU I 213, is headed EKr77,/3'Twv 0wµov(,\aKwv);whatever may be the precise relation of these two texts to one another (see Wilck. on BGU, loc. cit., and Pringsheim, Ck. Law of Sale, pp. 142 ff., esp. p. I 4 7), and whatever the exact role of the thesmophylakes in each case, it is difficult to imagine that the section did not come ultimately from the 1ro,\inK6, v6µo,: see below, note 165. On the other hand Wolff has shown (see above, note 12:3) that the section on perjury (lines 24-78) also forms part of

200

PTOLEMAIC

ALEXANDRIA

a royal edict valid for the entire country, and (p. 26, note 2) that cols. V, 11523 and VI-VII, 11. 124-65 (procedure involving military personnel) are also probably from an edict. A specific reference to the city-law regarding inheritances is given in UPZ 162, col. VII, lines 8 ff.: TOVavTOVoJ Tp01TOV KaL Ka-rd T~V TOVS1TOAtTtKOVS v6µovs Kat Tli 'fYJKowip· KVpw0lv-ros-rofi8E'TOV,f;aef,{a fµa-ros JMa0ai TO KOLVOV 1Tapaxpf]µa av8pa, & 8J alpE0ELS/ KaTaaKwa.aaa0w a-ra.AavAap-rlav KUL Aa{3..>..waiv ol alpe0.£vTES8tatT'Y)Tal;cf. Wolff, op. cit., pp. 34-5. 161. l

162. This is clear from Dikaiom., loc. cit. (note 154), where the functions of the daaywyei:s in respect of the 8iKaaT1pia correspond specifically and exactly to those of O11apaTOVvoµ,ocpvA.aKOS Ka0EaTlVSin respect of the 8tat'T'Y)Tal,and of the ypaµ,µ,aTELSin respect of the Kpt~pia. The same official occurs in PHamb., loc. cit., lines 12-13: [Kal O11apaTOVv]oµ,ocpvA.aKOS 11payµ,aTEVOfJ,EVOS elKovo/[ypa..a (see below, note 167), not reconcilable with the wording of BGU 1213 (above), which must surely refer to an extract of some sort, perhaps oflaws published by the thesmophylakes (cf. the aaTvvoµ,iKos voµ,os: see next note). For thesmophylakes in general see Schwahn, RE, s.v. eJwµ,o.wvE7T'ov8Evl TWV EYKA1JJ1,(J,TWV E7TavE{AETO, ci7To8avEtV;cf. Jos. Ant. 8oKW Si µ,718iTWV a/\Awv .'A>.Etav8plwvµ,718EvaSi' EKEtvOV xiii. 114 (Philometor in Antioch) : xp71a-rc\,Si u'iv ef,vaEt Ka1 8{Kaio, Ka1 -rwv 7Tp6.>.1vwv7TOllVXPYJfLUTOVS", T6 TE iepov T6 EVLJe>.cpoi'c; Kat 'Opxoµ,eviovs-. Ifroi\Eµ,ai'ov fLEVovv d>.{ywi TOVTWVVUTEpov E1TE1\afJE µoi'pa ~ Ka01Kovaa· J40Yjvafoi DEu77' auTov 1Ta06vTES" EV7Toi\i\aTE Kat ouK a'.(ia E(YJy1aEwc; ~ µ,6vYJyv'T)a{aoi -rwv 1Ta{8wv17v.See also xai\Kovv Kat av-rov Ka, BEpeviKYJVd.v.f0YJKav,

Just. xxxix. 3. 1: 'Inter has regni Syriae parricidales discordias moritur rex Aegypti Ptolomaeus, regno Aegypti uxori et alteri ex filiis quern illa legisset relicto; videlicet quasi quietior Aegypti status quam Syriae regnum esset, cum mater, altero ex filiis electo, alterum hostem esset habitura. (2) igitur cum pronior in minorem filium esset, a populo conpellitur maiorem eligere; cui prius quam regnum daret, uxorem ademit conpulsumque repudiare carissimam sibi sororem Cleopatram, minorem sororem Selenen ducere iubet, non materno inter filias iudicio, cum alteri maritum eriperet, alteri daret.'

252. See Porph. (FGrH 260) F 2 (8): 'Zugleich namlich nahm er noch des bruders zeit vom 4. jahre ..6µ,Evo,dvv1r68YJTOS avvToµ,wTEpa, avTa, TWV ~UKYJKOTWV 257. See Porph., loc. cit.: 'Im 19. entstand cine meuterei des militars, under scharte gegen dieselben ein heer nach Egiptos'; cf. Just. xxxix. 5. 1: 'sed nee Alexandro caedes tarn nefanda inulta fuit. Nam ubi primum conpertum est scelere filii matrem interfectam, concursu populi in exilium agitur revocatoque Ptolomeo regnum redditur, qui neque cum matre bellum gerere voluisset, neque a fratre armis repetere quod prior possedisset.' The story of his theft of the sarcophagus is told by Strabo, 794 (cf. above, eh. r, notes 79, 280), who is also our sole source for his having collected his troops in Syria: EaVAYJaE 8' avT~v o KoKKYJSKai IIapElaaKTOS E7TtKAY)0EtS IlTOAEµ,afos, EK Tfjs 1:vplas €7TE>..0ci.lv Kai €K7TEUci.lV EV0v,, waT' dv6v'T)TaaVTWt TU aiJ'AaYEVEU0at.That this refers to Alexan-

der seems clear (cf. ibid.), though Jones (Loeb edn.) understands it of Auletes.

258. See Porph., loc. cit. (in continuation of the passage quoted in the preceding note): 'jene aber verjagten ihn unter der heerfohrung des Tyrros, welcher war ein verwandter der konige. cine seeschlacht lieferten sie ihm und trieben ihn, den nur das nackte leben rettenden, in die flucht mit weib und tochter, bis er geriet in cine stadt der Lykier, nach Myra, von wo er nach Kypros sich wendend das weite suchte. Und ein kampf schlug ihm entgegen vom flottenfiihrer Cheros; er starb.' Cf. B-L ii, pp. 109-10; Hill, op. cit., p. 203, note 4. For a detailed study of the events and chronology of8g-88 B.C.

NOTES

TO

CHAPTER

3

221

see now Samuel, Chr. d'Eg.40, 1965, pp. 376-85. I cannot enter here into the details of his interpretation, according to which Alex. and Soter were in Egypt simultaneously in 88. I note only that it places a considerable strain on Porph.'s narrative of events (note that Samuel uses the Greek Exe. Euseb., and not Euseb. Arm. as the norm of Porph.'s version), and that it involves acceptance of the supposition that the equation 27= 30 of that year in PDem. Strassb. 8 refers to the distinct dating of the separate rulers. 259. For the possibility of Diod. xxxiv/xxxv. 20 referring to one of the returns of Soter see above, note 240, where the passage is quoted. 260. See below, note 264. B-L, ii, p.111, calls attention to the use of the laudatory epithet 7To0nv6, of Soter II in Chron. Pasch., p. 347, line 12: IlT011.Eµ,aw,o KaL)l.M[avopo,, vio, ll-ro/1.Eµ,alov'TOVOEVTEpovEvEpyfrov, Kat KoKKYJVijL UVVKvpovTWV fLYJDE 1rapd.TWVi3[ia]/ KO/l.1TtTEVOVTWV Twv (3a[a]ii\iKwv / 7rpaTYJpiwv.The sense of {3aaii\iKat xaprai is disputed. The editors evidently regard the term as an indication of a monopoly over papyrus as a whole, and they include li3iwnd. ef,opTiain the general category of 'illicit

NOTES

TO

CHAPTER

4

supplies'; but Rosto., op. cit., p. 311 rightly speaks of a 'partial monopoly', l8iwTLKa ,popTla being papyrus manufactured legitimately but privately; cf. Preaux, loc. cit., who would identify the 'royal paper' here mentioned with the fine-quality /3aai1ttK~ and [EpaTtK~ (see note 74). The information provided by PTeb. 709 is now supplemented by POsl. Inv., no. ro27 (SB 9629), of ii B.c., a petition by o[ EfELAT)-.6]yovKat UVT)llWfWTOS,apyvplov IlTDAEflalKOV 8paxflWV 1TEVTaKiaxi>-.lwv, K.T.ll. Little or

nothing is known of the localities here mentioned (cf. above, eh. r, note r 3), but they are evidently villages or agricultural areas close to the city. Evpv>-.6xov recurs in Ps.-Call. i. 3 r. 7 in the form Evpv>-.6xov Kat ME>-.av0lov·Etfas To i's apxlTEKTOUlVo )lMfav8pos E7TETPE'fEV aUTOlS ols /3ov1toVTaLflETpOlS T~V 1r61tiv a11·0TOVL1paKOVTOS TOVKaTa T~V KTl(nv. Ol 8Exwpoypa,povat TO flfjKOSTfjs 1r61trn.1s Ta1roatptaK~V Tatvlav flEXPl TOV llya0o8alflOVOS TOV KaTa TOV Kavw1rov, Kal Q1TO Kal KEllEVElTOLS TOV MEV8T)alov EWSTfjs Evpv>-.6xov Kal ME1tav8{ov TO 7TllUTOS, Jfw, XWPTJflaavToi's KaTOLKovaiKWflalois flETa/3a{vELVa1ro >-.'fLLAlwvTfjs 1r6AEWS xaptUUfLEVOS,1rpoaayopEvaas aVTOVS)l>-.Efav8pElS.-!iaav 8E apxE-.oxos Kal Mdav0ws· o0Ev Kai ~ dvoflaala EflElVEV(Schubart, BGU,

ad loc. says: 'Eurylochus Dorfist benannt nach dem aus Polyb. v. 63 bekannten Heerfiihrer', but even if the explanation given by Ps.-Call. may be fictitious, it is hard to believe that a Magnesian mercenary leader would have been thus commemorated). The neighbourhood in question is clearly in the south of the city, no doubt on the lake-side (cf. above, eh. r, note 182), and the small harbour referred to in line 46 of the papyrus, E7Tt To[D])lvoA[flE0lov(?)] (reading and supplement doubtful) opfLov, was probably one of several such jetties. The larger neighbourhood called K6>-.1ros(cf. line 17) may refer to an indentation in its coast-line. Strabo's remark does not exclude some local papyrus

252

PTOLEMAIC

ALEXANDRIA

marshes, including the localities mentioned here. The Kol\mnKov el\aiov of PTeb. 38, line 12 is Syrian: see Steph. Byz., s.v. c/Jow{K'YJ, and G--H ad loc. (Calderini in his Dizionario has failed to enter the topographical data furnished by this papyrus).

83. Pliny's list of the types of papyri includes (see note 73) in the fourth place the Amphitheatrica, later renamed Fannia, which refers to the location of the factory in (presumably) Alexandria. Whether the official called the E1T{Tpo1To, xaprYJpiis J1AEfavopEla, in BGU 277 (A.D.ii) was responsible for the supervision of production rather than of sale, or simply for the payment of a tax, cannot be decided in view of the uncertainty of meaning ofxapTT)pa (see above, note 75): see Zucker, Philo!. 70, 1911, pp. 79-105, esp. pp. 85 ff. (apropos of the inscription from Laodicea Combusta referring to this official); Preaux, op. cit., loc. cit. 84. For internal trade see Leider, op. cit., pp. 17-22; Rosto., Joum. Econ. Bus. Hist. 4, 1932, pp. 728 ff.; id. SEHHW i, pp. 381 ff. 85. 793 (i. 7, init.), quoted above, note 2. 86. On Lake Mariut see the excellent general work of A. de Gosson, Mareotis (London, 1935), and for its fertility, ancient and modern, the detailed study by A. L. P. Weedon, Cairo Scient. Journal, 6, 1912, pp. 201-46, esp. pp. 201-12. My own observations are based on numerous visits to the Lake over the years, frequently in the company of Mr. Lucas Benaki, whose intimate knowledge of the archaeology of the area was of great assistance to me.

87. The history of the lake itself is covered in the first half of de Cosson's book: see especially pp. 70 ff.; the second half deals with individual sites. 88. See de Cosson's map, op. cit., at end. 89. The course of these canals, and their identification with the various canals mentioned in the sources of late antiquity, are matters of great uncertainty. See, in addition to de Gosson, pp. 76 ff., Botti, BSAA!ex. 4, 1902, pp. 41-84; Calderini, Dizionario, p. 85. Strabo more than once refers to the canals from the Nile which empty themselves into the lake: see esp. 793, quoted above, note 2, 1TI\T)p0t0€ Tal)TTJV1TOl\l\at,Otwpvfw O NEt/1.os,avw0iv TE Kal EK 1Tl\ay{wv, and 803 (§ 22), of the journey by canal from Schedia to Memphis, where he speaks of oiwpvyE, 1TAEiov,El, T~v MapEiimv: these, of course, entered the lake on its eastern and south-eastern sides. For the eastern end of the lake, where it occupied the area subsequently covered by the Lake of Aboukir, in its turn subsequently drained, see note 96. The canals in the area of Schedia and the Canopic branch of the Nile (to be distinguished from the canals from Schedia and the lake to the City, discussed above, eh. 1, note 184) are referred to in two inscriptions of the reigns of Titus and Domitian: (i) Schiff, Festschrift Hirschfeld, pp. 374 ff., no. I (photograph) ( OGIS 672; /GR i. 1098), of A.D. 81/2, from Schedia, referring to a canal named J1ya0o, Llalµ,wv: eTov, Tpfrov / aVTOKpaTopo, Tfrov I Ka{aapoc; Ovw1Taatavov I EE/3aaTOu, €1TlI'atov I TETT{ov J1cpptKaVOV / Kaaatavov Ilp{aKOV ~yEp,6vo,, / ..etdv/opeiavWV aoi Kai [-r]?}vyparf,~v E1TLUTEA/A9µ.~[v cl1r ]9a-rl.~>..wv Kc.z[,]KaTaTOV!,/ Kaipo[v,, µ.~µ.]6vovapi0µ.6vixovaai / a>..>..a Ka[, o]~[oo]KLf.l,aaµ.l.vai Ka, Jm/~oe.~,pea0aiE~ EKda-rovv[0 ]µ.ov El, I Ta[,] EV'A>..etavOpELaL oia01.aEt,A71,p6µ.e[0]a 1Tap,av-rwv EVTW, voµ.wi, followed by the amounts; cols. 60 (lines 18 ff.) to 72 give a list of tht

NOTES

TO

CHAPTER

4

259

areas in each nome to be sown with sesame (and croton), and the amount of tax to be paid on each category: in each nome a region is set apart for cultivation of these crops Els r~v Jv )1,\Efav8pElai 8ia0eaiv, on which no tax is paid; cf. Bingen, op. cit., pp. 129 ff. 123. Cf. above, p. 108. There is a good deal of uncertainty regarding the actual regulations for the taxation of oil imported into Alexandria, which I cannot go into here (see Grenfell's note on Rev. Laws, col. 50, lines 6-13; col. 52, lines 7 ff. and 25 ff. (the 8u'ip0wµ.aquoted in the next note), and col. 54, lines 15 ff. (quoted ibid.); cf. also Preaux, op. cit., pp. 81-2). It looks as if oil imported from Syria for consumption in the capital was duty-free, though this disagrees on the face of it with col. 50, lines 6 f. ; see Grenfell, ad loc. 124. See col. 52, lines 25 ff. (added by the corrector): oaoi Si rwv Jµ.1r6pwvEK Il'Y)Aovalov fEVLKdVe,\aiov ~ Evpov 1rapaKoµ.£Uw]aw Els [)1,\]Efav8[p]eiav ClTEAEtS earwaav, avµ.,B[OAOV SF Koµ.i(I[TW]a[ av] 1rapd.[r ]ov Efl,II[ 7J]AovalwiKa0ea[T7]K6]TOS,\[oy]Evr[ou] Kat TOUolK[o]v6µ.[ov Ka]0a1rEp[J]v TWLvoµ.wi yly[pa]1rrai, K,T.A. cf. col. 54, lines 15 ff.: 1rapa[K]araar~aovai8€ ol1rpiaµ.EVOL r~[v w]v~v Kat av[ny]paq>Ei'sJv )1,\Efav8pElai Kat Il7JAovalwi [roil] J,\alov rov [JK E]vplas a1roa[r]EA• ,\oµ.lvov els Il7J,\o[vaiov] Kai )1)..Efa[vopEL]av,K.T.A. 125. See the articles of Reekmans quoted above, eh. 2, note 182, for the intensified shortage of silver, and the copper-inflation of the mid second century.

See Theophr. HP iv. 2. 9: Kat ydp ~ J,\aa 1TEptTOVTOV TdV r61rov (sc. TdV e7J,8aLK6Vvoµ.6v) Jar[, TWL1TOTUf1,WL µ.iv OVKapOEVOf1,€V'Y], 1r>-.elw ydp ~ rpLaK6aia araOLa Cl7T€XEL, vaµ.analois o' voaaw- Elat ydp Kpfjvai 1TOAAal·Td o' ei\aiov ov8iv xei'pov TOUJv0aOE1TA~vKUKW0€UTEpov Sid TOa1ravlois roi's aAal xpfja0ai· q>VUEL Si TO Kat 1rapa1TA~ULOV reµ.v6µ.evovT~Vxp6av TWLAWTLVWL. fv>-.ovTOU81v8pov Kat UKA7JpOV Cf. Rosto., SEHHW i, p. 355. It is evidently this Egyptian olive, and not imported stock, that Apollonius had in large numbers on his property at Memphis: see note 129 (PCZ 59. 184). 126.

127. Strab. 809 says that the olive trees of the Fayyum in his day bore fine fruit, but that this was carelessly collected, and the oil extracted consequently of poor quality: EUTLo' o voµ.6, O'OTOS(i.e. the Arsinoite) afio>-.oywraros TWV aTTaVTWV Kara TE T~V oipiv Kai T~V apET~VKai T~V KaTaUKEV~v·eAai6rpvr6s TE ydp 116vos EUTt fl,EyaAOLS Kat TEAElois olv8pEUL Kat KaAALKap1rois,el oi avyKoµ.l(o, KaAws ns, Kat EV€Aaios·oAiywpovVTES8€TOVTOV 1TOAV µ.Jv 1TOLOVULV EAaiov,µ.ox07Jpdv o, , , OOfl,'Y]V ,., , (,'YJO "' a",\>-. , ,, , EUTL , 1T>-., - KUT, r:l.'">-. c, " OE Kara T'Y]V 'YJA"iyv1rros aVEl\aLOS 7JVTWV Es avopeiav

K')1TWV,ot µ.lxpi TOUJ,\alav xop7Jyei'vLKavolelaw, EAaiovo' ovx imovpyouaw). Cf. also Plin. NH xv. 15: 'et in Aegypto carnosissimis olei exiguum'. For olive groves in the Fayyum in the Roman period see the references given by Rosto., /,arge Estate, p. 12, note r. The olive has been successfully replanted along the Taenia in this century, as elsewhere in Egypt: see de Gosson, op. cit., pp. 191-2.

See Strab., loc. cit. previous note, and cf. Dikaiom. 98; edv ol rarppov a1r]oAEl1reiv,Jdv Si (,,pvaa'Y]L}~ [,860vvov op]vaa7JL,[oaov av TOf3a0os ~L, TOUOUTOV

128.

PTOLEMAIC

ALEXANDRIA

cf>pl.ap,opyvdv, Ji\dav OE KUl [aVK?JVvTEVOV7"]a J[vvl.a 1r6oas-vTEVElV a1Tb TOV 1TEVTE [1r6]oas-; cf. further Schnebel, Landwirtdi\i\]oTplov, T[a o '] a'.i\i\aOEvOp7] schaft, pp. 202-3.

129. See, e.g., PCZ 59- 125 (256 B.c.): Jhoi\i\wvios- Z~vwv[i xalp]nv. opf[ws-] T?[v ~µE]TEpov T?JS-/ Kai\i\iEi\a{ovJi\alasE1TOl7JGUS/ avvrnfas- ds- T9V 1rapai\wTi>-..a etc., group], this would presumably be in his capacity as estate-owner in Egypt.' At an earlier stage Miss Grace suggested in conversation a connection with Zenon ofCitium, who had 1 ,ooo tal. invested in bottomry-loans: see D.L. vii. I 2: cpauto' avTOVV1TEp x{>-..ia TaAUVTaexovTa EA0€tV Eis T~v 'EX.M.oaKat Tavrn oavE{~HvvavnKw,. If indeed the two groups are distinct, and one or both are, as the figures suggest, of Egyptian origin, and if ZYJ(v)is correctly regarded as a suspension of Z~v(wvos), rather than of another name in ZY)v- (e.g. ZY/v6ooTo,, of which ZYJ appears as the abbreviation in the Pindaric scholia in POxy. 841; see eh. 8, note 34), the most natural candidate would be Zenon, the factor of Apollonius, who may have had substantial commercial interests before his attachment to Apollonius. 284. For the import of empty wine-jars into Egypt at an earlier period see Hdt. iii. 5-7, and cf. Grace (viii) [above, note 227], p. rn8. Reference should be made here to the items listed in papyri, especially the Zenon-papyri, as contained in amphorae and other vessels designated by localities: Chian (Xfa), Lesbian (Afo(3ia), Rhodian ('PoOtaKa),Samian (l:a1.ua),Thasian ( Bauia), etc. These denominations clearly refer to the capacity of the jar, and not to wine, etc., produced in the place named (see note 272): see, for example, PCZ 59. 012, line 17: [A€] OlVOVXi'[a]; 22. AS' OlVOVXi'a; 23, S' ri1.uxfa; 46, Kapvwv IlovTtKWVXfov a; ibid. 0 I 5, recto, col. ii, lines I 7 ff. : [ri]µidoia M[tA~uta ... I l:]aµia riµiKa[oia. .] (cf. Youtie, TAPA 76, 1945, pp. 141-2); cf. further PSI 428 and 535, passim. It is clear that these entries refer to specific measures, and that the amphorae of the places so designated were recognized as containing

NOTES

TO

CHAPTER

4

that measure. Wilck., Archiv 6, pp. 400-1, pointed out that the same nomenclature for vessels of a fixed capacity occurs also in Roman and Byzantine documents, in which we hear of Kvti'na, Kwa, Ko>..ocpwvia,etc. (cf. id. Gr. Ostr. i, pp. 764-6, and for the Byzantine period Casson, TAPA 70, 1939, pp. 3-16, esp. pp. 6-7 (Kv{8iov)), and that the possibility arises that the stamps of the amphorae represented a guarantee of capacity (cf. also Larsen, in Econ. Surveyiv, p. 394) : notice in this context Steph. Byz. s.v. J1aKa/l.wv·Ka1 KaTa T~V J1>..Efav8piwvavv~BELavJ1aKallwvEi'aKEpap.,ia.Miss Grace, Hesp., Supp. 8, 1949, pp. 180-1, discusses the variant capacities of known Thasian, Rhodian, and Cnidian amphorae (she does not refer to Wilck.'s important observations). It seems clear that by the Roman period the name of the locality was attached to a jar of a certain capacity, regardless of its actual place of origin, and since the usage was already current in classical Athens (Aristoph. Lysist. 195-7 (Myrrhine loquitur): 0Ei'aai µi>..awav KV/1.LKa µEya/1.Y)VIJ7TTlav,I µY)/1.0adaiov OLVOV arnµvlov I dµ6awµEv €oxds', refers to the seniority of the koinon, carrying with it some superiority ylipl>wi of status, see Poland, op. cit., pp. 171-2, who compares the TTpwf]vTEpoi ofJGRR i. 1122 (G-H, Fayyum Towns, p. 54, Theadelphia), and theolaTT[oTijs ?] IlTo [AJEp,atl>osTEiKT[ ovEsJ 7rpEa[,8VTEpot] ofBreccia, Iseri::,.54 (IGRR i. 1I 55), both of early Imperial date (for ol aTT6,simply 'of' and not 'from' see note 107 above, and cf. eh. 3, note 297); this view is accepted by San Nicolo, op. cit. i, p. 86, note 4; Ziebarth, op. cit., pp. 95-6. The view of Strack, ZfNTW 4, 1903, pp. 230 ff., apropos ofBreccia, Iseri::,.2 3 ( OGIS 729, an Alexandrian dedication by al TTpwfJvTEpoiTWVoAvpoKbTTWV, that the 7rpwf]vTEpoteyl>oxEtS,like them, are the Elders of a koinon, which also had among its members another group known as the VEWTEpoi,though widely accepted (see G-H, Fayyum Towns, ad loc.; Ditt.,

NOTES

TO CHAPTER

4

321

OGIS i, p. 654 (addendum to no. 194) Cagnat, IGRR, loc. cit., ad loc., and Roussel, DCA, p. 93), seems less likely, for the normal usage in koina is to express this class of persons as ol 1Tpw/3vnpoi, followed by the name of the koinon in the genitive: see the list given by Strack, pp. 230-1. Note the military units of the 1Tpw/3vn,poi and vewTEpoi def,frmreferred to in a Cypriot dedication, below, eh. 7 (ii), note 431.

432. See Inscr. Delos 1521 (Ziebarth, op. cit., p. 139, no. 1 o 1). The name of the body issuing this decree is lost, but a reference in lines 22-3 to a festal day celebrated on the 1 7th day of Mecheir points unmistakably to an Egyptian community, and therefore surely Alexandrian (cf. Roussel, DCA, p. 92; for the date see ibid., note 2, and id. CED, p. 205). The decree, passed by the assembly of a synodos, awards two benefactors very substantial material honoursa golden crown and a bronze statue for each, among other items-and also membership of the synodos without payment of the usual admission-fee; the day mentioned above was to be held sacred every year. 433. A copy of the decree was to be sent (lines 24 ff.) to the 1Ta-rpl,and Kow6v 'of our citizens in [place-name]'. The 1Ta-rp{,may refer to the native city of the honorands (for 1Ta-rp{,= 1T6Ai, in documents emanating from koina of merchants at Delos see Inscr.Delos 1 778, quoted above, note 429, 1.4; it also occurs (~ Kvpla 1Ta-rpl,)in the letter of the Tyrian merchants of Puteoli to Tyre, OGIS 595, quoted above, note 424; the usage is not adequately recorded in LS 9 ), in which case the line might include the supplement av-rwv; but in the other examples of 1Ta-rpl,in this sense it refers to the native city of the originating body, in this case, ex hypothesi,Alexandria. In line 26 the second copy of the decree is to be sent -rwi Kowwi -rwi [Jv - - - -rwv ~µ,E]-rlpwv 1T0Ai-rwv,presumably a reference to a koinon of Alexandrian traders in the city of which the honorands were citizens. This would ensure for the honorands a profitable link with that body also. 434. SB 7169 (Ziebarth, op. cit., p. 126, no. 24): cf. above, note 216. 435· Line 20: LJ"f/fLY)Tpio, )1_1TOAAwv{ov Kap[x'Y/]86vioV TOVlpyov, Kat avnls Tct U1Jf-1,€La Tiji 1TOAH Ell1JK€V, Zva T€ ayopdv EVavTiji DElµ.aa0mE◊H Kat iEpd oaa Kat 0diw wvnvwv, TWV f-1,EV 'EAA1JVLKWV, vlmoo, OEAlyv1rTlas, «a/, T6 T€fxos 'ryL1T€pt/3E/3Aija0ai. «a/. E7Tl TOVTOt,J0v€TO«at Tct. iEpd KaAd Jcpalv€TO.Cf. further below, pp. 248, 267. 14. FGrH 627 F 2, § 34 (Athen. 202 A): «at f-1,ETct mum Lhds 7/YETO 1roµ.1r~«a/. aA.Awv1raµ.1r6A.Awv 0€WVKal E7Tt miatv 'AAEtavDpov.In spite of the singular 7TOfJ,1T~, it seems to follow from the last words, 'and finally of Alexander', that aUwv 1raµ.1r6Uwv0Ewvrefers to a separate procession, and not to the one procession of Zeus. For the procession in general see below, note 97, and eh. 10 (i), note 152.

15. See below, pp. 202 ff. 16. See in general Visser, pp. 27-9.

17. Dikaiom., lines 214 ff.: "Op[«os] v[6]µ.iµ.os· OTaV ns 6p«ln1Ji, oµ.vv]Tw 6 6p«i(6[µ.]Evos / EVT[ij]i ayopfa [J]1r/,TOLS6pKWT1Jplms«[a0' iEp]wv amfv[owv], / oµ.vvrw DELila "Hpav / IIo[aEi]ow· aAAov o' r[a Dos]op«ia 1rap€xlrw d E7TLKaA.wv. op«ov µ.1]DEVa JgEUTWoµ.vvvm P.1J[D]E / dp«[{(]nv fJ,1JDE YEV€po8iT7JL. 52. Roeder, Hermoupolis, r929-r939 (Hildesheim, 1959), pp. 285-6, no. 230/vi (cf. ]EA 38, 1952, p. 121, no. 8) (SEC xviii. 674): 'Epµ,afos J1-rro/l.Awvtov Kai Ba1s Kat Ta / TI.KvaJ1,j>po8{T71t 0dii µ,EyiaT71i,/ AE.To judge by the lettering, the thirty-fifth year is probably that of Soter II (83/2), rather than that of Philometor, Euergetes II or Augustus. 53· SB 5863: 27apdm8i Llwvvawt I "latDLJ!,j>po8{T71t, 0wtS' I 27wTijpat Ka1 Tr0/1.V,f>opoLS' / NtKayopa-..w,,TOT€ KQl ~ Tij, Kop71, ap7rayri TE/1.ELTaL. This notice, of Roman Kl4:!7H,i

Z

PTOLEMAIC

ALEXANDRIA

date, may conceivably refer to an Alexandrian (Eleusian) mystery ofKore (see Roberts on PAntin. 18) but the probability is that it refers to a festival of the chora (7rap' AlyV1nio,c;): see especially A. Delatte, Bull. Acad. roy. belge 38, 1952, pp. 198-200, who regards the festival, or mystery, as that of Hathor indicated for the period 27 Epiphi- 8 Mesore in Edfu. The festival was in any case held in a summer month, while that described by Epiphanius was performed in mid-winter at the season of Epiphany.

80. It is hardly possible to disentangle the various reconstructions and hypotheses involving the alleged Alexandrian Eleusinia, many of which are due to the subtle and seductive pen of Ch. Picard. See especially Pringsheim, Archiiologische Beitrii.ge zur Ceschichte des Eleusis (Munich, 1905), pp. 11 ff.; Korte, AJRW 18, 1915, pp. 116 ff.; Picard, Rev. hist. rel. 95, 1927, pp. 220-55; id., Ant.Class. 20, 1951, pp. 351-81; id., Rev. hist. re!. 153, 1958, pp. 137-9; id., Sarapeion de Memphis, p. 32; Kern, RE, s.v. Mysterien, cols. 1250-1; Delatte, loc. cit., pp. 194-208; Nilsson, CCR iiZ, pp. 94-5; Mylonas, Eleusis and the Eleusinian Cult (Princeton, 1961), pp. 300-1 (superficial); further bibliography in Delatte, loc. cit., p. 197, note 1. Separate points are dealt with as they arise in the following notes. 81. See for the area in general eh. 1, p. 32, and, for Eleusis in particular, Schiff, RE, s.v. Eleusis (4), cols. 2339-42; Calderini, Dizionario, p. 110; Adriani, Topogr., p. 2 19, s.v. Eleusis.

82. See Strab. 800 (§ 16): Ean o' UVTYJ(sc. 1/'Ei\Evalc;) KUTOtKla7Ti\"}alovrijc; TE }J_i\EtavOpElac; Kat Tfjc; NiKo7Toi\Ewc;E7T'avrfji rfji Kavw/3iKfji oiwpvyi KHµlv"}, TOL.>.'a7TOAlfJ,EVOS El µ,~ T~V LJ~µ,"f}-rpav E7TlKaA.Eaaav-rovs f3oYJ0ov,ovSJ U7TE{povatvaAAw, oi a'.v0pw7TOl S' Epyov .wafvt, l8ov Kal lv06.8€. EKEliEpocpavTYJS" Kat Jyw 7TOt~awiEpocf,avTYJV. EK€l Kfjpvt Kat lyw K~pvKa Ka-raa-r~aw. EKEl SatSoiixos· Kayw Sat8oiixov. EKEl Sat8E,' kal Jv0a8E. ai cpwvat ai av-ra{· -rd ywoµ,Eva Tl Ota,,\01TaT6pwv KaL0€wv 'Em,pavwv Kal 0eov Eu1TctToposv.fov] I KaL 0€0v Eu€pyfrov KaL Kal 0eov If>,,\[0 ]µ.~Topos-Ka[l 0eov lf>,Ao1TctTopos0ewv lf>,Aoµ.'YjTOpwv I:wT~pwv, l€pov 1Tu)Aov"la,Sos-f1-€y6,,\71, f1-7JTpos0€wv, d.0,\o,p6pov B€p€vlK7JSEu€pylT [,]Sos-, Kav71

,,\a8.f,\,pov],l€pelas- .t1paw671, lf>LA01TctTopos-, TWV 71/Jat.Sos-, e,p'leplwv Kat l€p€LWVKaLKav71,p6p[o]vTWVo[vTWVKaLovawv, µ.71vos-]/ Ilaxu)v ,fi, K.T.A. A slightly different formula is provided by some documents using only the Alexandrian system; e.g., PTeb. rn4 (92 B.c.): fiaa,,\dowrosIlToAeµ.alov TPV [ Ka1 )1,\€fl~p[8pov 0eov lf>,]Aoµ.~ToposeTovs-8wTEpov / Kat elKoGTOV,e,p'[le]p[.fw, )1,\etdv.Spov Ka]1 Tw[v] a'.,\,\[w]vTWV [yp]a,,\o/1TaT6pwv, the latter: /Jaa,Aw6v-rwv K,\e[o]1TctTpa[s-] ws- EV/ .t1Aetav8pdm ypd..d8EAcpos, secl. Dubner; sed v. Wendel, ad loc.J cpYJULV OVTWS""wtKoD6µ,Y)UE DEKULTWV yovlwv aµ,cpoTEpwvvaov KULTats a◊EAcpai's )1paiv6YJiKat i>..wTlpai . .. ". The quotation is probably incomplete as it stands, and the joint 'temple of Arsinoe and Philotera' is very problematical (see below, note 314), but the first part of the quotation (wiKoDoµ,Y)aE . .. va6v) seems to be in order. 283. Wilck., op. cit., pp. 310-11 ( 15-16), regards the sequence of the evolution of the cult as falling into three stages: ( 1) building of a temple for Soter alone shortly after his death; (2) the establishment of the Ptolemaieia in 279/8 (Syll.3 390) ; (3) the establishment of the cult of the Theoi Soteres after the death of Berenice (Theocr. xvii). It does not seem necessary to assume that Philadelphus consecrated a temple to Soter before, and independently of, the celebration of the Ptolemaieia. 284. See above, pp. 217-18. 285. See in general Thiersch, ]DAI 25, 1910, pp. 58-9; cf. Wilck., op. cit., p. 307 ( 12). Wilck. assumes that Alexander was worshipped in the same sanctuary as Ktistes also, but it is more natural to suppose that, in the traditional manner, the shrine of the Founder lay in the market-place; cf. above, p. 212, and see Prehn, RE, s.v. Ktistes, cols. 2084-5 for examples of this (and, e.g., below, eh. JO (iv), p. 631). 286. See above, p. 16. 287. For Herodas' 0Ewv )18EAcpwvTEµ,Evos(i. 30), see further below, note 367, and c.h. IO (iv), note 30.

374

PTOLEMAIC

ALEXANDRIA

288. See Thiersch, loc. cit., pp. 59-60. 289. See below, p. 236, and note 367. 290. See Otto, PuTii, p. 267; Plaumann, RE, loc. cit., col. 1437; Bomer, RE, s.v. Pompa, cols. 1891-2 (to be used with caution: see Robert, REG 66, 1953, p. 118). The practice of carrying sacred objects in procession was of course common in Egyptian cults, and penetrated with them into the west; such are, e.g., thepastofori, the Anubeforus, and others (cf. in general, Bomer, col. 1947), but such processions are equally a feature of Greek cults (the ..wmfrpas (brolKwv); ..omfrwp 1..a{JEtV Jv )1>,.Egav8pE{ai, KaTE8E10'Y/ µ,ov, KULTOVL'Y}L JxELpoypa..aaaELv, ~vlKa €KElV'Y} ov i11.~µwv; i1fM8wi on Imperial dedications from Abydos: Milne, Cairo Cat. Ck. lnscr., p. li7, 110. 9211; ibid., p. 65, 9208; ibid., p. 63, 9213. Hl1~7H.~ D d

PTOLEMAIC

ALEXANDRIA

490. See Adriani, Annuairedu Musee, r935-r939, pp. 143 ff., and pls. lii-iii; id., Topogr., pp. 100-1, no. 56. 491. For 'Canopic Jars' and the identity of the deity see especially Weber Drei Untersuchungen,pp. 29 ff.; von Bissing, BSA Alex. 24, 1929, pp. 39-59 (cf. 25, 1930, pp. 87-8); Adriani, Annuaire, loc. cit.; Panofsky, Gazette des Beaux Arts, ser. 6, 57, 1961, pp. 193-216, '"Canopus Deus"; the iconography of a non-existent god'. For the origin of this type of vase see the amusing story in Rufin. Hist. Eccl. xi. 26 (pp. 629-30 Hopfner), translated and discussed by Panofsky, loc. cit. 492. See below, p. 263. 493. JG xi. 4. 1248, from Serapeum A: f3aaiAE'i'0aE{pi8i/ KT'ryalas)1770AA08wpov T-fivwsa1Tapxryv I 0.1TbT'rjSJpyaata, DEKa-r-fiv; cf. also ibid. l 234, a dedication KU"Ta 1Tp6a-rayµ,a 'Oadpi8os; Inscr. Delos 2052, from Serapeum C: Llwvvaios MT/vtov/ llaiavtEv,, iEpEil,/ yEv6µ,Evos,/ '0aE{pi8i; cf. Roussel, CED, p. 275. 494. See SB 169 from Abydos, J;apam8i '0aE{pi8i/ fl,Ey{a-rwt/ aw-rijpi/ Lli6aKopos EKAoyia-r~s-rouvoµ,ouwtKoDoµ,-/iaEv J77'dya0( wi); cf. Op. Ath. I, p. 5, note 6. 495. The priority of the Alexandrian cult, and its subsequent 'return' to Memphis follows from the nature of the origin of Sarapis, but Wilck., op. cit., p. 83, wrongly found evidence for it in OGIS 16: see Op. Ath. I, p. 34, note r. 496. Wilck., ibid., pp. 15-17; Guilmot, op. cit., [note 469] pp. 359-6r. 497. See below, p. 255. 498. SB 1934, on which see Lauer and Picard, op. cit., pp. 176 ff., where there is a photograph and a detailed discussion of the inscription. It played a considerable part in Wilck.'s discussions, though he had no opportunity of studying the original: see ]DAI, loc. cit., pp. 157-60; UPZ i, pp. 34-5. Wilck., and after him Picard, dated it to the reign of Ptolemy I, but on purely palaeographical grounds I would not exclude a later date, in the reign of Philadelphus (cf. ]EA 42, 1956, p. 109, no. (19)). The text does not admit of certain restoration, and I cannot discuss it in detail here. The essential fact lies in lines -rd 1-2, and is only expanded in the rest of the inscription: [e.g. )lpw-rv]"A"Aos "Avxva1TTLOV dvl[0TJKa0Epa1TEv/0EiS (? 1Tpoa-rax0Eis)] V1T6"TOU 0EOU'KaKWSDtaKd[µ,Evos yap Kai/ la-r(?)]pE{aisXPWfl,EVOS -roi:,1T- - - / [. , .. 0]vK ~Svvaµ,")VvyiElas [-rvxEi:v 1Tap'a"AjAov0EO]v(?[-rvxELV Elµ,~ 1Tapa/ "TOV 0Eo]u). For similar cases in which the god saves a patient after doctors had despaired of his life see Hippys of Rhegion's version (FGrH 554 F2) of the Epidaurian foµ,a of Aristagora of Troezen (JG, iv. i2 , 122, xxm, where the relevant clause is omitted),§ 3: yvVYJ E£XEV V,µ,w0a, Kai laaaa0at av-r~v0.1TEt1TOV oi "TWVla-rpwvOEEvo{, followed by the cure (cf. Weinreich, Antike Heilungswunder(RVV8. 1, 1909), pp. 81 ff.), and cf. the ostrakon discussed below, p. 375. 499. JG xi. 4. 1299, republished without revision of the stone by H. Engelmann, Die delischeSarapisaretalogie(Beitr. z. klass. Philo[. 15, 1964); cf. Op. Ath. I, p. 22, note 1, for further bibliography (the text is reprinted ibid., pp. 50-1, no. 1). For the date see ibid.

NOTES

TO CHAPTER

5

500. Lines 2-4: 0 yap 7TU7T7rDS ~µ,wv )l7roN\wvios, WV Alyv1rnos EKTWVlEplwv, T6V BE6Vlxwv 1rapqEVETOJ.g Alyv1rTov, K.T.A.

501. Lines 37-9: (1ra)T(p)ds 3' ol 3rivaia 1TaT~PJ.K6µ,iaaEVd1r' avT'rjS Mlµ,cpiDos,07T7TOTE VYJl7TOAvsvywi77Av8EvaaTV o{{3ov, 1..isEV ELKOULKaL EKaTOVa-ra8lois U7TO )1.>,.EgavDpElas 7TE(fjilovaw, E7TWVVfLOS Kavw{3ov TOV MEVEAaov KV/3EpV~Tov,U7T00av6vTOS avT60i, Jxovaa TO TOVI:apam8oc; iEpdv 7TOAAfjL dywTEfaL TLfLWfLEVOV Kat

NOTES

TO CHAPTER

5

BEpamda,; EKE{3aaiAevaat µeTa Ovpav6v, Ka1YYJp.,avTa "Hpav Ka1 IloaeiSwva. For ov . .. 1rpoaayopw8ijvai see Langer, loc. cit., who shows that the passage is probably an addition of Diodorus' own. I have omitted it in my paraphrase of the text. 817. Ibid. 9--IO: TDVSJ iJ{a SiaSegdµevov T~V f3aatAElavTOVKp6vov yijµai "Hpav Kat lJ1p.,YJTpaKa1 ..lyovs. Kal Eiai axo>..at7rap' aVTOlS'7TaVTO◊a7Tat TWV 7TEpt>..6yovsTExvwv, Kat TctllllaT, davDpEl Kat 7TllElUTOV ovvaTat, TOVT'Y)S' µ,rrrpo7T6AEWS' €7TExovaa>..6yov(the last clause, from Kal Elai, evidently also refers to Tarsus); cf. in general Bohlig, Geistesgeschichtev. Tarsos (Leipzig, 1913), pp. 109 ff.

97. See in general Wendel and Gober in Handbuch der Bibliothekswissenschajt2 • iii. 1 (1955), pp. 51-145, and F. Schmidt, Die Pinakes des Kallimachos (Klass.philol. Stud., ed. F.Jacoby i (1922)), pp. 4-8 (cf. pp. 29-31), in both of which the ancient evidence is reproduced in full. See especially Athen. 3 A-B, who gives a list of collectors of books from Polycrates and Peisistratus to Ptolemy Philadelphus. For the library of the Macedonian kings see Wendel and Gober, pp. 81 ff., F. Della Corte, inStudifilol. grec. (Bari, 1950, edd. V. Alfieri and M. Untersteiner), pp. 310 ff. Pf., op. cit., pp. 7--8, regards the evidence for these collections as suspect: 'we may still suspect that those early book-collectors were inventions modelled on the Hellenistic kings.' 98. Notice, for example, the collection ofEuthydemus,

the son ofDiocles, Xen.

Mem. iv. 8 (Schmidt, p. 6, T. 11; cf. PA 5520).

99. Clearchus, the bloodthirsty tyrant ofHeraclea Pontica, who was a pupil of Plato and Socrates, is described by Memnon (FGrH 434 F 1 ; Schmidt, T 21) as {3if3>..io0~K7JV fLEVTOt KaTaaKwaaat 7TpoTWVallllwv OVS'~ Tvpavvts ci7TE◊EttEvovoµ,a· ~w0ai; cf. also Athen. loc. cit., Nicocrates of Cyprus (Schmidt, T 14a). 100. The history of Aristotle's library after his death, described by Strabo 6089, is well known, and need not be repeated. When Strabo, who knew that the library was preserved by Neleus, who inherited it from his teacher Theophrastus, and by his heirs in Scepsis, said (see next note) that Aristotle taught the kings of Egypt how to collect books, he evidently did not mean by this that Aristotle's library was acquired by Soter or Philadelphus, as is actually stated by A then. loc. cit. : 1'1.ptaTOTEll7JV TE TOVef>i>..6aoov ( Kat tlE6ef>paaTOV) Kat TOVTa o ~µ,E◊U7TOS TOVTWVOtaT71p~aavTaf3if3>..la N71Ma· 7Tao' oi5 7TUVTa,71al, 7Tptaµ,EVOS' {3aatllEVS' IfroAEµ,atos; this is clearly without value against the circumstantial testimony of Strabo, which Athen. has evidently misunderstood, although it is sometimes accepted as historical: see, for example, Birt, Ant. Buchwes., p. 458, note 2; Irigoin, Le Texte de Pindare, p. 31; Gardthausen, Zeitschr. d. Deut. Vereins fur Buchwesen, 1922, p. 73. Wendel and Gober, op. cit., p. 61, seek to reconcile Athen. with Strabo by the compromise that Neleus only sold to Ptolemy the actual works of Aristotle and Theophrastus themselves. For the difficulties in the way of accepting the narrative of Strabo, in so far as it relates to the esoteric works of Aristotle, see P. Moraux, Les Listes anciennes des ouvragesd'Aristote (Louvain, 1951), pp. 1 ff., and pp. 31 l ff.; cf. also A. H. Chroust, Class. et Mediaev. 23, 1962, pp. 50-67 (whose main thesis, that the story was fabricated to explain the decline of the Peripatetic school in the

474

PTOLEMAIC

ALEXANDRIA

third century, seems very far-fetched). There can be no doubt that some of Aristotle's esoteric writings continued to circulate in Alexandria and elsewhere. IOI. 608 C: 0 yoiJv liptaTOTEA1)S' T~V EUVTOV Brnef>paaTWL 1rapl3wKEV,-.w0~K1JSaJvrativ. 1rpwTos-indicates that Strabo considered Aristotle's library on quite a different scale from the earlier collections.

102. See Leo, Gr.-rom. Biogr., p. 118, and cf. Brink, CQ. 40, 1946, pp. 11-12. The term lIEpt1raT17nK6, is used of Hermippus (see eh. 8, note 58) and of Satyrus (see ibid., note 57). 103. For public and gymnasia! libraries in the Hellenistic and Roman periods see F. Schmidt, pp. 17-18, who gives the literary and epigraphical evidence then available (mainly Roman; unfortunately Schmidt does not give any indication of the date of the inscriptions). Add to the evidence collected by him Maiuri, Nuova Silloge 4, a decree of a gymnasion (?), apparently concerning public donations to its (or the city's?) library (Rhodes, ii B.C.); ibid. 11, a list of books (cf. Segre, Riv. Fil. 63, 1935, pp. 214 ff.; Rob., BCH 59, 1935, pp. 421-5) (Cos, ii B.c.) ; for a collection and discussion of the epigraphical material s.ee M. Burzachechi, Rend. Line. viii. 18, 1963, pp. 75-96 (with quotation of relevant texts); cf. also Rosto., SEHHW iii, p. 1389, note 23; Tod, JHS 77, 1957, pp. 139-40. 104. Mim. i, lines 26 ff., quoted above, note 73; cf. below, eh. ro (iv), note 30. 105. See below, pp. 696 ff. 106. See above, pp. 317-18. 107. These texts are reprinted (with the exception of the Latin) in Kaibel's Com. Graec. Frag., pp. 17-33, and (including the Latin) in parallel columns in Schmidt, pp. 9-10, and in Cantarella, Aristofane i (Milan, 1949), pp. 41 ff., 53 ff. The relationship of the Greek versions to each other was established by Kaibel, Gott. Abh. 1898 (4), 'Die Prolegomena lIEpL KwµwiSlas', esp. pp. 3 ff. (see also Pf., Hist. Class. Schol., p. roo, note 1). There is a very clear summary of the whole matter by Wendel, RE, s.v. Tzetzes, cols. 1972-8, § 11. Pf. has shown that the Latin text is a humanistic translation, without value as a source. I therefore largely omit any further reference to it, and to arguments and discussions based on or involving it: seep. 100, note 2, and pp. 127-8. 108. The common view that Tzetzes' statement as to the total of books is a quotation from Callimachus, Com. Gr. Frag., p. 31 Mb, § 29: wso Ka>-.Alµaxos vrnvlaKos wv Tfjs avAfjs taTopE'i, os (so Dziatzko, loc. cit., pp. 350-1: VaTlpws MS.) fLETa T~V dv6p0watv TOVS1rlvaKas aVTWV 0.1TEypaif;aTO (cf. below, eh. 8, note 42), rests entirely on the emendation laTopE'i, os for VUTEpws, which Pf., loc. cit., has shown to be unacceptable, since VaTipws forms part of a sequence: it is followed in§ 30 by fLETa{3paxJv nva xp6vov, and finally in § 3 I by T6TESi. This is clearly correct, and we may abandon the idea that Callimachus was quoted by Tzetzes as a source. For the very dubious addition vrnvl(J"Koswv Tfjs avAfj, see above, note r 5.

NOTES

TO CHAPTER

6

475

109. See Kaibel, Gott. Abh., loc. cit., pp. 3 ff.; Wendel, loc. cit., cols. 1975-6. 110. These are conveniently collected in Westermann's Vitarum scriptores Graeci ( 1845), to which I refer (West.), although the text must be checked with Adler's edition. For Hesychius ofMiletus' 'Ovoµ,aT0116yossee H. Schultz in RE, s.v. Hesychios (JO), cols. 1322 ff., and Adler, ibid., s.v. Suidas, cols. 706 ff. The relationship between the two works is given by the Suda, s.v. 'Havxios Mi>-.~aws (p. 214 West.): 'Havxws Mi>-.~aws, VLOS 'Havxlov 0LK'Y)y6povKat iAoaocf,las, yEyovw, E7Tt.'AvaaTaalov {3aaiMw,. lypm/;E 'Ovoµ,a.ToA6yov~ II{vaKa but the Suda is Twv Jv 7TaLOElai >-.aµ,fa.vTwv,ov E7TLTOJ-I,~ Jan TOVToTO {3i{3A£ov, itself based on an epitome of much later date; see Schultz, loc. cit. 111. POxy. 1241 (Pack 2 2069; for bibliography op. cit., p. 74, note 1).

see Wendel and Gober,

112. See D.L. v. 78-9 (Hermippus fr. 69 Wehrli): c/>'YJa1 8' avTov "Epµ,m7To, J-1,ETa TOVKaaaa.vopov 06.vaTOV-.0EtV TOV J;wTfjpa. KUKEtxp6vov LKUVOV 0LaTplf3ovTaavµ,{3ovAEVELV TWLIhoAEJ-1,alWL 7TposTots a/\1\0LSKat T~V {3aaLAELUV TOtS Jg Evpvo{KYJS7TEpL0EtVaL 7TUWL.TOV0€ OU7TELa0EvTOS all/la 7Tapa86vTOS TOOLO.OYJJ-1,U TWLEKBEpEVLKYJS, J-1,ETa T~V EKELVOV TEAEVT~V dgiw0fjvaL 7Tpos TOVTOV7Tapaef>v>-.d.TTW0ai EV Trji xwpai J-1,EXPL n 86tn 7TEplaVTOV. EVTav0a v7r'aa7TL00ST~V XEtpa OYJx0EtSTOV{3£ov d0vµ,6TEpov oifjyc Ka£ 7TWSV7TVWTTWV /LE0fjKE.Kat 0a.7TTETai lv TW£BovaiplTYJLvoµ,wi 7TAY)alov Llwa7T6AEw,.From this it is evident that his death may be set c. 280. Cf. E. Bayer, Demetrios der Phalereer (Tiibingen Beitrage 36 (1942)), pp. 98-9.

u3. See further eh. JO (v), pp. 696 ff. for the passage of Ps.-Aristeas. Cf. also Tzetz., Proleg. p. 19, Pb, § 20, deriving ultimately from Ps.-Aristeas: o yap I froAEflULOSg>Lllol\oywrnTOS WV Sia LIYJJ-1,YJTPLOV TOV aAY)pEWS Kat ETEpwv EAAOy,µ,wv dvopwv Oa7TO.VaLS {3aaL/I.LKat,U7TUVTa.xo0Ev Ta, {3£[3>..ovs El, .'AAEta.vOpELaV Cf. below, p. 323. Pf., op. avv~0poiaEV Kal oval {3i{3Aw0~KaLS TUVTa, U7TE0ETO. cit., pp. 98-9, has emphasized that Euseb. HE v. 8. 11 ( = lren. Adv. Haer. :1, 21. 2) actually assigns the foundation of the one Library to Soter, in the rnntext of the story of the translation of the LXX: 7Tpoyap Tovs 'Pwµ,alovs ICf'UTVVaL T~V dpx~v aihwv, ETLTWVMaKE06vwv T~V.'Aalav KUTEx6vTwv,lITOAEJ-1,UtDS ,; Ao.you -.Etavdv0pw7TWVavyypa.µ,µ,aaiv oaa YE a7TOV0ataV7TfjpxEv, ()pdai Koaµ,fjaai Tots 7TO.VTWV 1JlT7JaUTO 7Tapa TWV 'hpoaol-.w0~K'YJ, lioncd, is not usually further described, but it seems likely that the early collections of which we hear (see above, notes 97 ff.) were housed in store-rooms and not in libraries properly so-called. There is consequently some ambiguity Twv {3if3Mwv: cf. below, pp. 334-5. in the phrase a1ro0~K'YJ 143. For the library at Pergamon see Conze, SB, Berl. Akad. 1884, pp. 125970; Alt. v. Perg. ii, pp. 56-71 (cf. RExix, Nachtrage (Pergamon), cols. 1258-9); I )ziatzko, Sammlung Bibliothekswiss. Arbeiten 1o, 1896, pp. 38-4 7; and the valuable discussion of Callmer, Opusc. Arch. 3, 1944, pp. 148 ff.; Wendel and ( :i'ibcr, pp. 86-8. 144. Cf. below, p. 325 and note 150. 145. Our sources (all late) agree in placing the library in the Royal quarter (r/;", dvaKT6pwv ivT6, and EKT6, in Tzetzes: see below, note 170). The view ,uloptcd in the text was already expressed by Parthey, Das alex. Mus., p. 21:

PTOLEMAIC

ALEXANDRIA

'Es ist aber nicht wahrscheinlich daB die Bucher in einem besonderen Gebaude aufbewahrt wurden, wahrend die Gelehrten in einem anderen [i.e. the Mouseion] wohnten.' Cf. also Li:igdberg, loc. cit., pp. 163-4, and Wendel and Gober, pp. 64, 66, etc. As already indicated (note 131) the position of the Library within the Mouseion can hardly be determined from the reference to rov Movaelov dgiw0ijvai. Apoll. Rhod. as rwv /3i/3Aio871Kwv 146. See the description of the Lyceum in Aristotle's will, quoted above, note 63. 147. Comm. in Hipp. Epidem. iii (xvii a 606-7; CMG v. 10. 2. 1, pp. 78 f.; Deichgraber, Die griech. Empirikersch. [cf. below, eh. 7 (i), note 184] F 343). Galen says that, since the work of Zeuxis is rarely to be found (l1reio~ ra rov SeJtioos 1!1TOfLV7JfLUTa f1,7JKITL a1rovoasop.,evaa1ravlset), he will repeat all the comments ofMnemon of Side: EVLOL JJ-EV yap cf,aaw aVTOV(sc. Mv7Jp.,ova),Aa/3ovra ws dvayvwTOrplrov TWV'Emo71p.,iwvEKrfjs EV11>.etavopetaip.,eyd:\71s{3if3>.w07JK7JS aop.,evov,Cl7TOOOVVat 1rapeyypaipavTaEVUVTWL KULp.,I.AaVL KULypdµ,µ,aai 1rapa1rA71alois rovs xapaKrfjpas roJrnvs. lvwi OE 1rap(eyyeypap.,µ,l.vov TO /3if3>.tov)avrov EK IIap.,cf,v>.las KEKOfLLKivai, cf,i;\onp.,ov0€ 1TEpL f3if3MaTOV( ro)TE {3aaiMa rfjs Alyv1TTOV llro"Aep.,afovOVTWyevl.a0ai cf,aa{v, ws KULTWV KaTa1TAEOVTWV U1TUVTWV Ta f3if3>.£a xapras ypaipavTa OiOovaL KEAevaat 1rpos UVTOVKop.,lsw0ai KULravr' Eis KaLVOVS fLEVTa ypacf,l.vra TOtS OW1TOTULS, WV KUTa1TAEVaaVTWV EKop.,{a071aav al {3{/3;\oi1rpos Cl1TOT{0w0ai Ta KOJJ,ta01.vra· KULelvai T~V lmypa..tov E1TEyEypa11TO (IVTOVypa,j,aVTOSUVTOTOVVO/La. 11piv yap TOVS EV J4),_Efav8pElatTE Kai lIEpyaµ,wi YEV€a0ai f3aaiAE'is E7TiKT'T)UEL 11aAaiwv f3if3>..{wv ..{ov TOV'8iov yparpEa8ia TOV11poypaµ,µ,aTOS 871>..oiJVTOS

quoted Wendel, Buchbeschr.,p. 66, note 2). (ii) Comm. ibid. ii, Proem (§ 109), Galen says that the second book of the Tltpi rp-JaEwsdv0pw11ov was by Polybus, the pupil ofHippocrates, and not by I Iippocrates, and adds: EV yap TWL KaTa TOVSJ4TTUA£KODS TE Kai lIToAEf.1,a"iKOVS (-foaiMas xp6vwi 11pos aAA7JAOVS Q,VTL.tov, f-1,Eya KaKov (fr. 465 Pf.) would then refer to large rolls, has not found support. 178. The latest and most authoritative account of the Alexandrian Library, that of Wendel and Gober, op. cit., claims, p. 68, that the Serapeum Library was a foundation of early Ptolemaic date for the use of native Egyptians to enable them to read Greek books, and thus acted as 'ein wichtiges Mittel der griechischen Kulturpropaganda'. This is entirely fanciful. F. Schmidt, Pinakes, p. 23, suggests that the distinction between the Great Library and the Serapeum Library lay in the fact that the former was not for public use while the latter was specifically designed for that purpose ('Sie war in Serapistempel Ev J;apa1rElwi, in der vorstadt Rhakotis untergebracht, und ihre hauptbedeutung besteht darin, daB sie im gegensatz zu der koniglichen schulbibliothek im Museion die erste wirkliche offentlich jedermann zugangliche griechische biichersammlung gewesen zu sein scheint. denn eine solche bestimmung ergibt sich aus der tatsache und der art der griindung von selbst, auch wenn es in unseren zeugnissen nicht ausdri.icklich gesagt wird'). This too is entirely conjectural, and I would question the underlying assumption of both views, that the two libraries did not form part of the same reading-complex. In spite of the distance between them the fact that, in the Roman period at least, the Serapeum Library was known as the 'daughter' Library (see note 132) suggests an administrative link between them, though it is impossible to be more precise. 179. Thus in the list of Comic victories, which probably reproduced in some measure Call.'s relevant pinacographical work (see below, eh. 8, note 49), the rubrics aVTat f-LDVatau'n[,Dvrni] or awi[ai] and awwi occur (JG xiv. 1097, line 9, and 1098a, line 7 as republ. by Wilhelm, UrkundendramatischeAuffuhr., pp. 195 ff.; cf. also Koerte, Rh. Mus. 60, 1905, pp. 425 ff.; Dittmer, The Fragments ef Athenian ComicDidascaliaefound in Rome (diss. Princeton, 1923), passim; Moretti, Athenaeum,38, 1960, pp. 263 ff.) Cf. also the list of works of ancient writers, Aegyptus2, 1921, p. 17 (Pack 2 2087; iii. B.c.), where the names 'Of-L~pDv, MEvavSpov, Evpl7T{8ov have against them the note oaa dp{aKDVTat. A notable instance of the same state of affairs is Athenaeus' comment, 336 D, on the alleged play 'AawTD8t8aaKaADS"by Alexis (CAF ii, p. 381): 1:1.AEtts S' EV'AaWTDSioaaKallwi, vyµ,wv lo{a, 7rpayµ,anlas (ibid. 431-549), and the two pseudo-Galenic writings, the JlEpl aef>vyµ,wv7rpos )lv-rwviov (xix. 629-42) and the opol la-rplKo{(xix. 404-12). Galen himself clearly regards Herophilus' work on the pulse as marking the beginning of a new era. In viii. 643 and 870 he uses the phrase oZ µ,E0' 'Hp6vyµ,wv yEypaef>6-rE, There is a good general guide to Galen's pulse-categories in the 'Hpo..rnrai7Tpoa0Ev,OVTWKal 7TEplTWVa>..Awvo>..wv,oaa Kara 743: WU7TEp 0 YE fl,~V 'Epv0pafo, 'HpaKAd8ri,, .!v8ot6raro..avoio, @i>..ofEvo,,whom Galen cites and evidently identifies with @iAofEvos-o XEtpovpy6,, presumably the Philoxenus of Heliodorus and Celsus (see Wellmann, in Susemihl ii, p. 445). In spite of Galen and the fact that all the fragments hang together, it is difficult to see how only one person can be involved (jiace Diller, loc. cit.). 231. See Ael. NA ix. 11 and 61 (two descriptions of the bite of the asp with reference to Cleopatra's death, and the detailed demonstration by Wellmann, Hermes 26, 1891, pp. 321 ff., 'Sostratos', esp. pp. 336 ff. (fragments ofS. ibid., pp. 346 ff.), that Aelian's source here is Sostratus (cf. also id. in Susemihl ii, pp. 444-5, and Gossen, RE, s.v. Sostratos ( 13)). There is no reasonable doubt that Sostratus the writer on Bites and Poisons is identical with the surgeon. Michler, op. cit., pp. 106 ff., accepts the chronological sequence given by Heliodorus [see note 207], and consequently places him before Heraclides of Taren tum. As pointed out ibid., I have little faith in the chronological sequence, quite apart from Wellmann's association of Sostratus with Cleopatra. I prefer to accept the natural sequence given by Celsus, loc. cit. 232. For Antyllus see Wellmann, Pneum. Schute, pp. 114 ff.; id. RE, s.v. Antyllos, cols. 2644-5; Allbutt, Greek Medicine in Rome, pp. 285, 408. On p. 28 All butt describes Antyllus as 'that evasive shade without local habitation', and there is no evidence as to where he practised. His dates are determined by the fact that he quotes Hcliodorus, Orib. xliv. 5 (cf. schol. Orib. iv, pp. 527-8, quoted in next note) whose Trajanic date is certain (sec ibid.), and is quoted

PTOLEMAIC

ALEXANDRIA

(anonymously) by Galen. Gal. xvi. 147-8 is an expanded version of Antyllus, ap. Orib. viii. 12-15: see Rose, Anecd. Graec.i, pp. 22 f. An Arabic description of his operation for cataract (by abasement, not removal) has been published by Meyerhof, Livre d'Or pour le Jubile du Prof. Papayoannou(1932), pp. 115-19, 'L'Operation de la cataracte du chirurgicn Antylle d'Alcxandrie', in which he describes Antyllus as 'le plus grand chirurgien de l'antiquite'. Such farreaching claims hinder objective study of such vague, though important figures. Meyerhof calls him 'Antyllus d'Alexandrie', but on what evidence? The claims made for Antyllus make an edition of his fragments very necessary. At present, like many others, he must be sought mainly in Oribasius. Nicolaides's extremely rare .'Avni.\.\ovTa .\e{,fmva (Halle, 1799) and the scarcely less rare work ofMatthaei, XXI Vet. et Clar. Med. Graec.Varia Opusc.. .. ex Oribasii codice mosquensi(Moscow, 1808), in both of which Antyllus is included, belong to the period when the text ofOribasius had not yet been published in full. There is a discussion of his date etc. and an analysis of his fragments in translation by R. L. Grant, Bull. Hist. Med. 34, 1960, pp. 154-74, 'Antyllus and his medical works', but the biographical section is wholly devoted to recording the views of modern scholars, without discussion of the ancient evidence; the analysis of the fragments is u,;efol, though based on Bussemaker and Daremberg's French translation of Oribasius (see above, note 5).

233. For Heliodorus' dates see Wellmann, Pneum. Sch., Ioc. cit.; Ilberg, Archiv 4, p. 279; Gossen, RE, s.v. Heliodoros ( 18), col. 41. They are fixed by Juvenal's reference to him, in Sat. vi. 373. Antyllus evidently used him: see the scholiast in Orib., vol. iv (Bussemaker-Daremb.), pp. 527-8, o 'H.\u58wpos iv Twi y' XELpovpy71µhwv 71a1v ws al xo{pa8es (scrofulous glandular swellings in the neck) E'TVfLWS VOfL0ai TOV' EVO..tov TOVZ'Y)VWVOS 1TEplTWI' xapaKT'Y)pwv,ElB' Toii Jµ,1rELptKoii (i.e. Apollonius of Antioch: see WellfrEpov µ,Efsov J41roi..i..wv{ov mann, in Susemihl i, p. 824) 1rposUUTOI' dvnypa,pavTos, ElB' VUTEpov 1TO.ALI' EKE{vwi TOVZ'Y)VWVOS Ul'TEL1TOl'TOS, J41roAAWVLOS oBv{3Ms E1TLKAT)0ELS (cf. ibid.) eypa..Aov ~ Toii XPT/a{µ,ov UTOXO.SEa0ai. The relation between the two Empirical Apollonii is given by Galen xiv. 683 [F 6], quoted above, note 185. The same pair are probably referred to in the passage of Gal. quoted in note 272, referring to T..Awviw. Michler, op. cit., pp. 119-20, argues against the identification of the various pairs, and it is obviously uncertain. 274. See the long passage, CMG v. 10. 2. 1, pp. 91 ff. (not in Kuhn); Wenkebach, Berl. Abh. 1925, pp. 30 ff. 275. For the court physicians of the other courts see Wellmann, 1930, pp. 322 ff.; Fraser, Rend. Lomb. 103, 1969, pp. 534 ff.

cf.

Hermes 65,

276. See above, p. 358. 277. See Gorteman, Chr. d'Eg. 32, 1957, p. 323, for some examples of corrupt physicians. 278. See above, p. 347, and notes 46 ff. On the event see Gorteman, pp. 322 f.

ibid.,

279. P Mich. Zen. 55 (of 240 B.c.), cf. Gorteman, pp. 325-6, Coppola, Cirenee il nuovo Call., pp. 44-5. Caphisophon is probably the honorand of OGIS 42, who appears as leader of a theoria from Ptolemy to the temple of Asclepius at Cos. He is there said to be a native of Cos, and this establishes the Coan origin of Philippus, even if he is not to be identified with the 'Philippus Cous' of the medical laterculuspublished by Wellmann, Hermes 35, 1900, p. 369; cf. Gorteman, op. cit., p. 328. For other Coan doctors named Philippus see JG, xi. 4. w78 (mid ii B.c.); Cl. Rhod. 10 ( 1941), pp. 37-8 (the same); Wellmann, Pneum. Sch., p. 19, note 2. 280. This inscription is mentioned p. 58, whence Gorteman, p. 328.

by Heichelheim,

Auswiirtige Bevolkerung,

281. APxii. 150 (46 Pf.; 11.1047 ff. Gow), quoted below, eh. 10 (iii), note 287. 282. Id. xi; cf. Gow, on Call. loc. cit.; Erbse, Mus. Helv. 22, 1965, pp. 232-6. 283. Couat, Alex. Poet., pp. 187-8, discussing the epigram in detail, has missed this. The medical terms are: KaTiaxva{vw, 'reduce' (cf. Hipp. Prog. 23); mwaKI, (cf. J,S9, s.v. 1ravaK'YJS n, where the numerous herbs known by this Hl4278.2

Nn

PTOLEMAIC

ALEXANDRIA

name are given); iKK61rrw,a word of general meaning but also with a specifically surgical connotation, as the verbal noun iKK01rrlovshows (Antyll. ap. Aet. vii. 74; Gal. x. 662). For further instances of medical vocabulary in Call. see above, notes 152 ff.

284. See Gorteman, pp. 332-4, who quotes the relevant papyri. The most notable is PCZ 59. 251, written by Artemidorus to Zenon on the occasion of his journey to Sidon with Apollonius in the train of Berenice, when she travelled to Syria to marry Antiochus II. 285. PCZ 59. 044, lines 5 ff.: Ka/\w, oiJv1T0£1JaEL, E1TWKE,paµ,Evo, µ,Er' )lpTEµ,£Owpov TOVlarpov El ..af36vTWV. X'ios, 'T6V 'TOVfJ,YjVlaKoVTETpaywi•taµ6v Evpwv, KUL 6k6owpos KvpYjVULOS 'TWVfJ,VYjfJ,OVW· EYEVOVTO 1TEplYEWfJ,ETp{avJmcpavE'i,. 1rpwTOSyap a 'I1r1ToKpltTY)S oµlvwv Kat aTOLXE'ia avvlypaipEv.

a

a

a

a

28. Two attributed to Oinopides of Chios the astronomer are an exception: see Heath, Glvl i, pp. 174-6; von Fritze, RE, s.v. Oinopides, cols. 2264 ff. 29. For Hippias' quadratrix-curve see Heath, GM i, pp. 225 ff., and also Bjornbo, RE, s.v. Hippias (13), cols. 1707-12 (with good discussion of the question of the identity of this Hippias with the sophist of Elis). 30. See Archim. Method. (Archim. op. ii, p. 430, lines 1-9; HGM i, pp. 228-30; Eudoxus D 61 C, Lasserre [see below, note 55]): ( ...... ~~9,TfP.~\lf -rwv ~fl/'P.TJ)fJ,ltTWV 'T00Twv, (J,v) Evoofos JtY)OpYjKEV 1rpwTO','TTj!'d1r60Ettiv, 1TEptTOV TOVKvA{vopov,~ OE1rvpaµ1s KWVOV KULT'ryS1rvpaµ{oos, OTL-rp{TOV µlpos afJ,EVKWVOS TOV1rp{aµaTOs,TWVf3d.atvlx6vTWV 'TTJV aUTTJV /CULvipos foov, OUfJ,LKpava1TOJJE{µai ( ai->TL71aw'Eparoa0.fv71s.The meaning of o i1pxiµ,1)07Js. . . rwi 7rpwrwi has been much disputed. The text of the best manuscript known to em(:3aAwvKaLTWL7TpWTWL Friedlein, M (Monacensis), has KaLyap oi1pxiµ,1)07JS µ,v71µ,ovEVEL rov EvKAElOov,while one (Z, represented only by the Latin translation of B. Zamberti (Venice, 1539)) omits em(:3aAwv('Archimedes quoque in libro primo'j. The version without em(:3a,\dwwas printed by early editors, and accepted by scholars before Heiberg, and given one of two meanings, either 'Archimedes also in his first book' or alternatively 'Archimedes in his first and in other books'. Heiberg, Litteriirgesclziclztliche Studien iiberEuklid (18-82), p. 26, accepted Friedlein's text and translated or paraphrased 'der kurz nach Ptolemaus lebte', and this is now the generally accepted interpretation; cf. Heath, Euclid i, p. 1, note 3 (cf. id. GM i, p. 354), where he translates 'who came immediately after the first (Ptolemy)'; so also Ivor Thomas, HGM, loc. cit.; Schoneberg and Steck, p. 213 'der kurz nach dem ersten Ptolemaios lebte'; Ver Eecke, p. 6r, note 5 (who wrongly gives em(:3aAAwv(sic)). shoukl clearly be retained, but I cannot believe either that Jm(:3aAwv Jm(:3aAcf)l/

PTOLEMAIC

ALEXANDRIA

(Kal) rwi 7rpwrwi either means 'who came after Ptolemy I' or that it refers to that king at all. (I) em/36).),w in the chronological sense of 'follow' usually

refers to real or supposed personal contact or overlapping of life-spans, e.g. Suda, s.vv. MayvYJ, and /1-7)8€ elKijt i\.a11-f3avw0ai,11-e068wi8ETLVLEUT7JKVLat KaL TaVT7JV8' E8EL E'1Tl7TO,VTWV TWV fLEYE0wv8vvafLEV7JL TO dvd i\.6yov 011-oLw,'TTOLEtV. OUKai\.i\.w, 0€ 1jv TaVT7JVi\.a{3Ei:v,di\.i\.a EK 'TTELpa,avgoVTa