American Journal of Ancient History (Vol 3.1) 9781463206666, 1463206666

Citation preview

American Journal of Ancient History

American Journal of Ancient History

3.1

The American Journal of Ancient History is a peer-reviewed academic journal covering ancient history and classical studies. It was established in 1976 and edited by Ernst Badian until 2001. It is continued by the American Journal of Ancient History: New Series, edited by T. Corey Brennan.

American Journal of Ancient History

Volume 3.1 Edited by

Ernst Badian

gp 2017

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2017 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in 1978 All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. ‫ܐ‬

1

2017

ISBN 978-1-4632-0666-6

Printed in the United States of America

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

PeterGreen: Caesarand Alexander:Aemulatio, Imitatio, Comparatio .........

1

Phyllis Culham:The Delian League:Bicameralor Unicameral?..............

27

J.M. Bigwood: Ctesias' Descriptionof Babylon ..........................

32

T.D. Barnes:Emperorand Bishops,A.D. 324-244: SomeProblems ..........

53

Duncan Fishwick:

76

Claudius $ubmersus

..................................

Marleen BoudreauFlory: Family in Familia: Kinship and Community in Slavery .......................................................

78

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

PeterGreen: Caesarand Alexander:Aemulatio, Imitatio, Comparatio .........

1

Phyllis Culham:The Delian League:Bicameralor Unicameral?..............

27

J.M. Bigwood: Ctesias' Descriptionof Babylon ..........................

32

T.D. Barnes:Emperorand Bishops,A.D. 324-244: SomeProblems ..........

53

Duncan Fishwick:

76

Claudius $ubmersus

..................................

Marleen BoudreauFlory: Family in Familia: Kinship and Community in Slavery .......................................................

78

CAESAR AND ALEXANDER:

AEMULATIO,

IMITATIO,

COMPARATIO

The elusivehistoricalrelationship betweenJuliusCaesarand AlexanderIII of Macedon is somethingmore often assumedthan defined. Stefan

Weinstock's treatmentof the problem • is typical:'Thereis no need', he asserts,'to askthe question why Caesarwantedto becomea successor of Alexander:everygreatconqueror, thenand eversince,was by necessity followingthe pathof Alexander.'The question is not asked;it is begged. Did Caesarin fact striveto emulateAlexander.*On thispointscholarlyopinion is sodividedthatthedogmatism of the viewsexpressed muststrikeany

uncommitted investigator as, at best,paradoxical. At oneextremewe find those,suchasMeyer2 or De Witt,3 whoseein Caesarthenaturalinheritor of Alexander's allegedroleascosmocrator, civiliserof theoikoumen•andunifier of mankind; 4 a similar attitudeis taken by writers who acceptthe much-debated propositionthat Caesarnot only soughtdeificationand monarchy in hisownlifetime,butmodelledhisbid for bothon Alexander's example.Lily RossTaylor 5 andDorotheaMichel6 are the mostprominent scholars in thiscategory--though thelatter'sclaimthatrecentresearch has, almostwithoutexception,confirmedCaesar'sAlexander-Nachahmung ? mustbetakenwitha largegrainof Atticsalt.It wasnottruewhenshewrote it: even shehad to concedeAdcock'sflat scepticism:'The likenessbetween

them', he wrote,s 'belongsto rhetoricratherthan to history.' Sincethen further critical attacks have been launched against the whole idea of Alexander-imitatio on Caesar'spart,mostnotablyby DietmarKienast(in an article devotedprimarily to Augustus9),and, above all, Otto Weippert, whoseWi•rzburgdissertation •ø represents the mostsubstantial contribution to this topic in recentyears.

Yet anyonesettingout to investigate the ancientevidenceandits conflictingmoderuinterpretations cannotget very far withoutbeingstruckby the total absence,in a very vigorouson-goingdebate,of any fundamental historiographical guidelines. Onelonereviewerof Weippert TM deserves credit for touchingon this problem:'Althoughgiving somebrief thoughtson the psychological phenomenon [of imitatio]he [Weippert]doesnot distinguish oftenenoughbetweentwo quitedisparate forms:(1) thereportthata particular individuallikenedhimselfto or comparedhimselfwith Alexander;and (2) the fact thatsomeparticularancientsourcelikenedsuchan individualto Alexander.'This is a pointof crucialimportance, whichcan, andshould,be refinedconsiderably further.Hithertono scholarinvolvedin the controversy ¸ 1979by E. Badian.All rightsreserved. 1

2

PETER

GREEN

seemseven to have been aware of it. Justwhy this shouldbe so is hard to determine;but one contributorycausemay lie in a prevalentacademicattitude to imitatio

as such.

With the possibleexceptionof forgery,thereis no characteristic that a modem scholarwill so readily attachto any figure from the ancientworld. When all due allowancehasbeenmadefor the necessarypursuitof existing role-models(particularlyvalid in educationand scholarship,perhapsless so in the world at large), imitatio does seemto be too widely and uncritically acceptedas a natural conditionof mankind. Due allowanceshouldalways be made for significant exceptions.Though Alexander himself undoubtedly took Achilles as his exemplar,•2 the assumptionthat Caesarin turn must have imitatedAlexanderis highly questionable.It underratesCaesar'sstubborn individualism; worse, it distracts attention from other sourcesof influ-

ence which may, in the long run, have affected him far more than the Macedonian

ever did.

Thus it becomesabundantlyclear, first, that the testimonyrelatingto Alexander-imitatio must be sorted into several distinct categories;second, that the natureand scopeof that imitatio requirethe mostcareful analysis; and third, that in all casesthe motive involved is a factor of prime importance. Let us first attemptto establishthe necessarycategories.The major

division, noted by J.S. Richardson, •3 is, as we have seen, that between imitatio describedby, or attributedto, the imitator himself, and imitatio perceivedor deducedby somethird party. This latter functionwe may more properlytermcomparatio,•4 and it accounts for by far the greaterpartof our testimonyconcerningCaesarand Alexander.is More important,far rarer, and a gooddeal moretricky to analyseare claimsmadeby, or on behalfof, the protagonisthimself. Here we have to test both his own assertions,and those statementsor actionsattributedto him, for credibility and motivation. Within this categorywe shouldalso make a sharpdistinctionbetweenimitatio proper--that is, a consciousattempt to copy some model of excellence,•6 whethermoralor practical,andaemulatio,an effort to rival or sur-

pass that model,not necessarily by meansof imitation.•7 Thereis, lastly,a difficult

no-man 's-land where it is hard to be certain which of these three

main categoriesapplies:in particular,where apparentimitatio may turn out to be basedon sedulousflattery--or, alternatively,hostilepropaganda--by somethird party with an axe to grind. In all suchcasesthe questionof motive looms large. We can no longer assumethat Alexanderwas a necessary or inevitable object of Caesar's emulation, any more than we can brackethim, for this purpose,with the very differentcases--differentfrom

eachotheras well as from him--of PompeyandMark Antony.•8 When we break down the evidence for conscious imitatio

or aemulatio

of Alexanderby Caesarit amountsto surprisinglylittle. In particular, Caesar'sown works--which, we shouldnot forget, consistexclusivelyof militarynarrativeand apologiathroughout--makeno referencewhatsoever, direct or indirect, to his great Macedonianpredecessor. •9 Furthermore, neitherAulus Hirtius, nor the competentofficer who reportedthe Bellum

CAESAR

AND

ALEXANDER

3

Africum,nor the charminglyilliteratecenturionwho, afterhis own fashion, did the same for the BellurnHispaniense,nor--most surprisingof all-whoeverit was that put togetherthat exercisein opdra bouffe, the Bellurn Alexandrinum,ever once thoughtof promotinga comparisonbetweenthe two commanders.This absenceof testimonyis in itself significant.Indeed, when we searchfor suchtestimonyin other writers, there is one anecdote, andoneonly, whichrepresents Caesaras consciously comparinghimself,in fame and achievement,to Alexander. During his quaestorshipin Further

Spain,in 69 Bc,2øat the age of thirty-one,CaesarvisitedGades,wherein the templeof Hercules-Melkarthe saw a statueof Alexander,perhapssetup therein 145 by FabiusAemilianus. TMAt the sighthe becamegreatlydepressed,sayingit was causeenoughfor sorrowthat, at an age whenAlexander had alreadysubduedthe world, he himselfhad still achievednothing

worthyof note.zzA varianton thisanecdote z3omitsbothtempleandstatue, and hasCaesarinsteadreadingan accountof Alexander,after which he was lost in thoughtfor a while, and finally burstinto tears. It makeslittle differencewhich versionwe chooseto follow: the essentialpoint is that in 69,

when, as Weinstockremindsus,TM'Pompeywas the risingman in Rome', Caesarhad yet to establishhimself--and invokedAlexanderas an emblem of the kind of successhe hopedto achieve.Perhapsinevitably,this anecdote has beensubjectedto severecriticismby the sceptics,and Weippert'scomment,thatit looksuncommonly like expostfacto propaganda, 25I find hard to gainsay.But it remainsthe only evidenceof its kind that we possess. Its authenticitybecomeseven more problematicalwhen we consider the second anecdote with which Suetonius and Dio associate it. 26 About this

time, they claim, Caesarhad what we would now describeas an Oedipal dream of intercoursewith his mother, which the soothsayersinterpretedto mean that he would achieve great power. Dio places this episode, very plausibly,before the incident in the temple, and indeed suggeststhat it caused Caesar's reaction to Alexander's statue. The version adopted by Suetonius reverses this order of events, so that Caesar's dream now comes

on the night following his experiencein the temple. Presumablywe are meantto regardthe sightof Alexander'simage as havingtriggeredoff in him, as De Witt inimitably suggests, 27 'a psychologicalphenomenonthat one might take the liberty of comparingto Saul's experienceon the road to Damascus'. In Suetonius,too, the soothsayersare far more emphaticand explicit: Caesar was, they said, fated to rule the world, 'since the mother whom he had seensubjectedto him was none other than Earth, regardedas the parent of all mankind'. Plutarch, however (Caes. 32.6), with a nice senseof dramaticoccasion,makes him have his dream in January49, in Ravenna,just before crossingthe Rubicon. What are we to make of this?

Balsdon z8 dismisses the whole traditionout of hand. Strasburger z9 finds Plutarch's version more credible, becausebetter adjustedto the historical march of events:who, he asks, would make sucha prophecyto an unknown quaestor?But the quaestorin fact was far from unknown--his brushwith

Sullaalonewouldsufficeto disprovethis3ø--andin any casethe prophecy

4

PETER

GREEN

was traditional and could have been given to anyone. Hippias before Marathon had an identical dream; and towardsthe end of the secondcentury

^r>it tumsup in the Oneirocriticaof Artemidoms--eachtime with a similar interpretation. 31 Whether in Gades, before the Rubicon,or in the mind of somepropagandist with hindsight,it wassimplya caseof oneclich• provoking another.

The specificliterary evidence,then, for Caesarhavingconsciouslyset up Alexanderas his model is very slim indeed, somethingthat shouldgive us pausefor thought.Equally suggestiveis the fact that the Gadesepisode, howeverwe look at it, clearly impliesaemulatio ratherthanimitatio: what concernsCaesaris the idea of rivalry and achievement,not, in the first

instance,themodusoperandi.32His reactionto Alexander'scareeris instructive, also, in that it so clearly delimitsthoseconsiderableareaswhere imitatio was impossibleeven if so desired.To begin with, we have the fact of Alexander'syouth--the main contrastbetweenthem in the Gadesepisode, and regularlyemphasised by Romanwriters as an integralelementof the Alexanderlegend. Cicero, for instance,stressesthe fact that the Macedonian not only achievedgreatnessab ineunteaetate, but also died ten years too youngto qualify for the consulship. 33Handsomein youth (Suet.Div. Jul. 45.1), Caesarcameon the scenetoo late to competewith Alexander'sboyish

goodlooks.In middleage, to judgefrom his bustsandcoin-portraits, 34he bore even less physical resemblanceto his supposedexemplar than did Pompey. Progressivebaldnessis a fatal handicapwhen trying to cultivate

theanasto[e. 35Further,whileCaesarat a relativelyearlyageclaimeddescentfrom both royalty and the gods,36and towardsthe end of his life may

well havesoughtrecognition, in somesense,of hisregalanddivinestatus, 37 he did not possessAlexander'sgreatestadvantage:that of conductinghis entire career, from the very first, as an acknowledged prince or reigning moilarch.Forthistheprolonged commands in Gaulcould,ultimately,be no substitute.Alexandermight toy, in his more skittishor paranoidmoments, with the notionof divine parentage, 38but when it cameto a crisishe was still capableof remindinghis mutinoustroopsthat he was Philip's son, an anointedking in whose veins there ran the blood of the ancient Argead dynasty.39 In severalsenses,then, Alexander was a dangerous,possiblyan embarrassing,model for Caesarto emulate.Neither the dangernor the embarrassmentwould be lessenedby the fact that Pompey,from adolescence onwards, had consciouslymodelled himself on the Macedonianconqueror,

bothphysicallyand, in particular,asregardshismilitarycareer. 4øImperator at twenty-three,hailed by his troopsas 'the Great' after a forty-daycampaign in Africa--a title confirmed,whetherironicallyor in genuineadmiration, by Sulla;41grantedhis first triumphshortlythereafter(12 March 81 }•c), thoughhe had neverservedas eitherconsulor praetor;victoriousin Spain, where, true to his exemplar,he erectedan inscriptioncommemorating the reductionof 876 cities;aboveall, the dazzlingconquerorof Mithridates,the

generalwho held the gorgeousEast in fee42--Pompey had withoutdoubt

CAESAR

AND

ALEXANDER

5

exploitedAlexander's militarylegendin a way thatmadehim a difficultact to follow. Caesarat thirty-onemightlamentthat he had donenothing;the samecouldscarcely be saidabouthisgreatrival, a factof whichhe wasall too well aware. At the same time so astute an observer as Caesar must by

nowhavenotedvariousfeaturesof Pompey'scharacter thatweredisquieting in an altogether differentsense,andsurelycausedCaesarto facethe future with greaterequanimity thanmightotherwise havebeenthe case.Despite hisglitteringsuccesses, whichreached theirclimaxin the greattriumphof 61, Pompeywasnevera truly formidablefigure.His personalvanity,his passion for theoutwardtrappings of glory,hispoliticalobtuseness andindecisiveness, hisfatalurgeto pleasethosein titularauthority--allcombined to make him, even in his momentof glory, a subtlyridiculousfigure. The

weakandpetulant mouth,thestudied anastolg, theself-complacent smirkof the Copenhagen bust,echoedin otherportraits, 43all hinteloquently at this sideof his character,whichthe literaryevidenceamplyconfirms.

Fromthe veryfirst, his sedulous apingof Alexanderearnedhim derisionamongmanyof hisRomanacquaintances. 44Crassus treatedhistitle of 'Magnus'as a joke.4sIt is probablyto his tameAlexander-style courthistorian, Theophanes of Mytilene, whomhe pickedup duringhis Easterncampaign,46 that we originallyowe suchingeniousexcusesas Pompeybeing turnedback, while on Alexander'sroutefor the Caspian,by a 'multitudeof deadlyserpents', 47andvariousothernaggingcomparisons with Alexander, sometimes indeedto the latter'sdisadvantage--e.g.,that Pompey,besides

repeatinghistoryby takingon a secondKing Darius,a Mede, had also defeated the Iberians of the Caucasus, which Alexander had never

managed--orfoundthe time--to do.48In his triumphof 61, whichoffered more than a hint that its celebrant was promoting himself as the New Dionysus, 49Pompeyeitherwore, or was saidby his enemiesto haveworn, Alexander'sown military cloak.so His partisans,presumablywith his ap-

provalif not at his expressdictation,reducedhis ageon this occasion,for obviousreasons, to thirty-three: in facthe wasalreadyforty-five? His conceit wasonlymatchedby hisfailureto appreciate the realitiesof power,the limitationsof his personal auctoritas.Monthsbeforehistriumph,on returning fromwhathadbeen,evenby Romanstandards, an immensely successful campaign,he voluntarilydismissedhis legionsoncethey were ashoreat Brundisium. s2Caesar,who tartly observedthat Sulla didn't know his ABC when he laid down his dictatorship, s3 was unlikely henceforthto show overmuchrespectfor a man who so demonstrably preferredthe baublesof power to its political substance.Most importantof all for our presentpurposes,he surelyreflectedthat Pompey,with his devotionto Alexanderand

his respectfor the constitutional formsof the Republic, s4 was, in the last resort, a follower rather than a leader, and that this, essentially,was what imitatio implied in thosewho practisedit. If Caesarin fact made sucha deductionin 61, nothingaboutPompey's

subsequent career--the ineptpoliticalvacillations,the constantwaveringbetween ambitionand duty--can have given him causeto alter his opinion.

6

PETER

GREEN

The fiascoof Pompey'sinitial role in the Civil War was only partially redeemedby themauvaisquart d'heure which, rallyinghis old military skills, he contrivedto give Caesarat Dyrrhachium. 55After the final defeatof Pharsalus it was, characteristicallyenough, in deferenceto the argumentsof Theophanes that he made his disastrous flight to Egypt,56where his brutal decapitation and wretchedobsequies 57long providedmoralistswith a handy toposon the mutabilitiesof fortune?8 Suchwas the man whomeveryonein Rome, during Caesar'slifetime, would instantlyassociatewith the practice of Alexander-imitatio.The comparison,if not wholly odious, could hardly be thoughtencouraging.During his early career--as the Gades incident clearly suggests--Caesarwould have thought twice before consciously emulatingAlexander, chiefly becauseof the immediatecompetition.As the Macedonian'sself-proclaimedmilitary epigonos,Pompey,at leastup to the year 61, enjoyed overwhelmingsuperiority.After Pharsalus,on the other hand, Caesarwas equallyunlikely to adopta poseso closelyidentifiedwith his now dead and discreditedopponent.At this point, moreover,he may well have felt that as general and statesmanhe could stand on his own uniquerecord,withoutthe needto emulateor imitateanybody?

We shouldalso consider,in generalterms, and quite apartfrom the special case which Pompeyrepresented,just what kind of prospectiveadvantage could be got by a Roman politician or soldier, in the 1st centuryBe, from deliberatelyassociatinghimself with Alexanderof Macedon. How was the Macedonianregardedin Rome at this time? To what extent had the historical Alexander already given way to a creationof myth? Here we must distinguish carefully between two interrelatedstrandsin the overall fabric. There is, first, the educatedGraeco-Romantraditionof scholarship,that dealt with Alexander in terms already laid down by Callisthenes,Aristobulus,Cleitarchus, and the otherearly Alexander-historians, 6øand which seemsto have been well-establishedin Rome by the time of the late Republic. When Cato of Utica wanted to denigratePompey'svictoriesin the East, he remarked that 'the whole Mithridaticwar had beenfoughtagainstmulierculae["mere women"]',6• an insultthe full effect of which can only be appreciatedwhen one knows that it was originally made by Alexanderof Epirus, contrasting his own hard-foughtItalian campaignwith that of Alexander the Great in Asia.62Which of the two Alexandersfacedgreateroppositionwas, in fact, a regular debating-point. 63 The tradition gave some scopefor moral and philosophicaldiscussion:Polybius,for instance,who had a somewhatambivalent distrustof kings in general, 64 made Alexander'sachievements one topic in a quasi-Thucydidean debate;his own attitudemay be judged from the fact that in the survivingportionsof the Histories he mentionsthe sack of Thebes no less than five times.6s As a Greek, nevertheless,he possibly saw in Alexander's achievementssomecompensationfor the subjugationof his own countryby Rome.66The morecasualallusionsin Cicero--to Alex-

CAESAR

AND

ALEXANDER

7

ander's birth and education, his relations with Callisthenes or Black

Cleitus, his destructionof Thebes, his portraitsby Apelles and Lysippus,his

supposed encounterwith Diogenes67--makeit quite clear that by the midfirst century }•c all levels of the historiographictradition were familiar to educated Romans. 68

This is as we might expect. It is when we begin to searchfor the emotional and symbolic impact of Alexander's achievements--thatheady phenomenon so familiar to us from all subsequentperiods of world history--that the evidence,quite simply, driesup. No subsequent investigations, howeverdetailedor learned,haveseriouslymodifiedthe bluntconclusionreachedby Franz Weberin 1909:that up to about50 }•c--that is, until the emergenceof Pompeyand Caesaras quasi-independent imperatores-Rome's attitude to Alexander remained one of bland indifference, which

subsequently turned,by and large, to one of activedistaste. 69In historical terms the second of these two reactions is much easier to understand than the

first. The Republicanoppositionto Julio-Claudianimperialism, backedby

Stoictheoryand numberingmany writersamongits adherents, TMnaturally bracketedCaesar and Alexander togetheras murderoustyrants. The most strikingexpressionof sucha theme is to be found in Book 10 of Lucan'sDe Bello Civili,TMwhereCaesar'sallegedvisit to the tomb of Alexander--here describedas felix praedo, 'a lucky condottiere', and proles vaesana Philippi, 'Philip's mad offspring'--leadsinto a vigorousrhetoricalcondemnationof the Macedonianas world-conqueror,insatiable,bloodthirsty,sidus iniquum / gentibus, 'a comet of disasterto mankind'. Lucan's habitual exaggerations aside,this is a perfectlytenableview of Alexander'scareer; TM more interestingfor us in this contextis the link with Caesar.If writers as diverse as Lucan, Plutarch, Appian, Velleius Paterculus 73 and, above all,

Cicero TMcouldseethe two conquerors' livesas parallelenoughto suggest comparatio(even if, as in Cicero's case, the projectultimately defeatedits

author),how strongan argumentis that for Caesarhavingmodelledhimself deliberatelyon his famouspredecessor? How far, alternatively,shouldwe discountthesecomparisons on the groundsof politicalprejudice,and the misleadinghindsightproducedby new conditionsunderthe Empire? Before attemptingto answersuchquestions,we must turn back to a period much nearer Alexander's own lifetime, and establish,if we can, the perspectivein which Caesarhimself would have viewed the Alexander tradi-

tion. Our evidenceis sparse,but suggestive. Livy (9.18.6), in an admittedly polemicalexcursus,doubtswhetherthe Romansof Alexander'sday had evenheardhis name.The claim is exaggerated, yet symptomatic. Therecan be no doubt that the news of Alexander'sconquestsspreadto Magna Graecia, and thence to Rome, well within his lifetime. It seems more than

likely, asWeippertargues, 75thata Romanembassy 76did, in fact,join those makingthe journeyto Babylonin 323:TMthe rumoursof a major Western expedition thencirculating TMwouldalonehavesufficedto makesucha diplomatic missionprudent. But in June Alexanderdied. We have no contemporary evidencefor Rome's attitudeto him in the yearsthat immediately

8

PETER

GREEN

followed.Pliny offersan argumentumex silentio:when, towardsthe end of the fourth century}•c, the Romanserecteda public statueto the bravest Greek,theirchoicefell on AlcibiadesratherthanAlexander.It is just possible, too, that the Livian tradition drew on an older stratum of annalistic

contempt.CertainlyLivy regardedPapiriusCursor,consulanddictator,hero of the Second Samnite War, as more than a match for the Macedonian.TM

Similarly,a speechattributed by Plutarchto AppiusClaudiusCaecus,urging the senateto furthermilitaryactionagainstKing Pyrrhus,afterthe battleof Heracleain 280, claimsthat had Alexandercometo Italy, he wouldhave endedup eitherdeador a fugitive,and in any caseminushis title of invictus.8øThe wholeof Livy'sAlexanderexkurs (9.17-19)may, as Breitenbach

argues, 8• havebeendesigned aspropaganda to promote Romanmilitaryvirtus, but the form suchpromotiontakesis in itself interesting.It suggests, onceagain,that the only aspectof Alexanderwith which Romansconcerned themselves was the invinciblemilitary adventurer: it also hintsat a selfconfident(and, as thingsturnedout, amplyjustified)faith in the superior militaryresources of the Republic. 82 Florusasserts 83 that the Romanswho foughtthe Macedonianwars (215-167 Bc) felt themselvesto be matchedagainstAlexanderrather than their titularopponentPhilip V--in otherwords,that they had to overcome the legend of Macedonianinvincibility. Though this evidenceis without valuefor what Romansof the third centuryBcactuallythought,it is in fact not likely thatthey wereover-impressed, andthe outcomemusthavegiven them considerable satisfaction.The victoriesof Cynoscephalae (197) and Pydna(167), won by legionarytacticsandlegionarydiscipline,dispelledfor everthe mythof the insuperable phalanx,just asa similarSpartanmythhad ended two centuries earlier at Leuctra;84 and in 146 Macedonia became a

Romanprovince.It is early in this period, c. 200 8c, that we find the first extantreferenceto Alexanderin Romanliterature,by Plautus; 8saswe might by now expect, it has an ambivalentedge to it. The slave Tranio, in the Mostellaria, remarks:'They sayAlexanderthe GreatandAgathocleswere a pair who did really big things. How about me for a third? Justlook at the immortaldeedsI performsingle-handed!' Fraenkel'sarguments 86that these words are Plautus's own, and not a mere translation of Philemon, have

found generalacceptance. 87 In any casethey mustrepresentthe kind of allusionto whicha Romanaudiencewouldrespond. The most remarkablething about the phrase, however, is its offhandedness. At a time whenRomewas engagedin a struggleagainstAlexander'smilitary legacy, her mostpopularand prolific playwrightreferredto

him onlyonce88--and thenin the samebreathasthatminor-league military despotandcondottiereAgathoclesof Syracuse. 89The hardtruthof the matter is that a Romanaudienceknew, and cared, moreaboutAgathocles,who had at leastoperatedin SouthItaly,9øthanthey did aboutAlexander,whose exploitshadtakenplacefar away, in unknownandunimaginable outposts of

Asia.9• We canhardlyargue,on thebasisof thisallusion,thatby theendof the thirdcentury8c Alexander'snameandfamehadexactlysettheTiberon

CAESAR AND ALEXANDER

9

fire. Yet Plautus'swords have, in one sense,a more than casualinterestfor

us, sincethey mark the first known occasionon which Alexanderis describedas 'the Great'.92Paradoxically,thoughsomeGreekslost no time in attachingthe title 'ho Megas' to DemetriusPoliorcetes and to Antiochus III, 93 it is not until the first centuryAt) that any survivingGreek text so describedAlexander. 94 As Sprangerremarks,they marvelledat his greatness,but refrainedfrom callinghim 'Great'.9s The Romans seem to have had no such reticence,96 and indeed most scholars97 assert that it was Rome that first bestowed on Alexander the title

by whichhe is bestknowntoday.This paradoxrests,however,on a highly fragileargumenturn ex silentio,notleastsincethetitle is moreoftenthannot associated with military achievement. 98 That distinguished Romansoldiers of the third centurycould, no lessthan their Greek or Macedoniancounterparts, providea focusfor myth and legendwe learn from the remarkable caseof ScipioAfricanus99--though how far Alexandercan be saidto have dictatedthe myth is very muchopento doubt.Most of our evidenceis late andretrospective, but Polybius,writingabout150, clearlywas familiarwith the myth, anddid his bestto discreditit.•øøScipio'smother,utfama est,•0• wasvisitedbeforehis birth by a divine snake,andhe was rumoured,accordingly, to be the son of Jupiter, so that when he visited the Capitol, the temple dogs never barked at him. The parallel with the legend of Alexan-

der'sbirthis obvious, •ø2thoughthe motif, it mustbe said,is world-wide, •ø3 and in Greece was also attached to Aristomenes and Aratus. •ø4 Numerous

other parallels have been adduced, most of them far-fetched, the bestknown--and leastconvincing--being that betweenthe ebb in the lagoonat Scipio's captureof New Carthage løs and Alexander'senjoymentof pros-

kynesisfrom the waveswhile circumventingMt Climax.•ø6We can get no real idea from this material whetherScipio--even with his admittedGreek sympathies•ø7--ever consciouslyattemptedto emulateAlexander:the evidence, taken overall, would suggestthat he did not.•ø8Though Polybius severaltimesrefersto him asho Megas,209it is quiteuncertainwhatimportance, if any, shouldbe attachedto this.•ø Perhapsthe mostwe can say is that a myth grew up aroundhim, to whichhe wasnot entirelyaverse,TMand in particular that he cultivated some kind of special relationship with Jupiter--which suggesteda home-grown rather than an imported legend. The rest can safely be ascribedto later Greek or Roman propaganda. III

Such, in brief, is the evidence for Alexander-imitatio in Rome before the

mid-first century Be. It amountsto very little. Though Alexander's career seemsto have been studiedwith someinterestby Greek-educatedintellectuals, it neverengagedthe passionsof any Republicanstatesmanbefore Pompey, or fired the creative imaginations of Roman poets at any period whatsoever•2--except,in Lucan'scase,to the furiousrhetoricof contempt (see n. 71 and p. 7 above). Two constantelements run through our tes-

10

PETER

GREEN

timonia. First, insofaras Alexandermeantanythingto a Roman audience,it was in the plain role of military conqueror,with no hint of intellectualor philosophicalpretensions,even in areasthat might have had advantagesfor Rome, e.g. the conceptof universalempire, if not the brotherhoodof man. Second,this attitudealmostinvariablycarriedthe corollarythat Rome could beat Alexanderat his own game. Even Cicero's wry commentto Atticus, 'a ratherbettergeneralthan you or me', thoughsincereenough,could hardly be termed fulsome. It was also made just after Cicero himself had been hailedImperator by his own troopsat Issus, in October 51 Bc (Att. 5.20.3, cf. 2.10.3). Verb. sap. Even Polybius,whoseadmirationfor Alexanderwas considerable(see n. 65), spendssome time depreciatingthe Macedonian phalanx at the expenseof the Roman legion (cf. n. 84). To the average Roman, Alexanderwas simply a lessfamiliar versionof Agathoclesor Pyrrhus, an unpredictableforeignautocratwho indulgedin conquestfor its own sake(a habitRomeostensiblydeplored),wasbothking andtyrant(termsof

abusein Romanpolitics),neglectedhis administrative responsibilities, ll3 had an un-Republicanhabitof murderinghis subordinates, and insisted,embarrassingly,on being worshippedas a god. Though a time was not far distantwhen the long-sufferingSPQR would enduremostof thesevagaries faute de mieux, no Republicanpolitician with an eye to his future career would ever--at least before 49 Bc--identify himself too closely with so un-Romana figure. Even Pompeywas careful, in his consciousimitatio,

neverto go beyondthe symbolsandtrappings of purelymilitaryglory,TM and even so it seemsclear that much of his enemies'criticism(e.g. that he was aiming at a dictatorship)sprangfrom a basic distrustof his selfprofessedresemblanceto Alexander.As an instrumentfor propaganda,in short, the Macedonian was a highly debatableasset. What, then, was Caesar's attitude to him?,•emulatio, as we have seen,

in the sensethat Alexanderhad achievedso much so young. But how far, and in what way, might he employthe Macedonianas a model for his own conduct,or to advertisehis own virtues?As our investigationhas shown, tangibleevidencefor suchconsciousexploitationis at best nugatory,and moreoften than not negativein its conclusions.Let us now seewhat can be gleaned from those essaysin comparatio provided by contemporaryor near-contemporary witnesses.Once again we are struck--not, I would argue, fortuitously--bya singulardearthof material.No imperatorof the late Republichasleft us an explicit assessment of Alexander,and what we learn abouthim from Caesar'scontemporaries can be--indeed, has been--listed in a footnotelessthanone moderate-sized pagein length.•5 The oneexception is Cicero, and Cicero, as we shall see, offers us little but hedging clich6s.Strabo,it is true, describingCaesar'sbenefitsto Ilium in the Troad,

arguesthathe actedthrough aemulatioof, or an affinityto, Alexander; 1•6he also, however, makes it amply clear that Caesar's main object was to strengthenhis own genealogicalties, throughthe gensIulia, with Aeneas and Venusll7--a significantact, but not linked, exceptin the most superficial way, to Alexander-imitatio.

CAESAR

AND

ALEXANDER

11

For direct comparisons,indeed--odious or otherwise--we are virtually limited to three not over-impressivesources,all too late for comfort: Lucan, Velleius, and Appian. We do not possessa formal comparisonby Plutarchfor his Lives of Alexander and Caesar:whether he ever composed

oneor not•8 remains,therefore,from our pointof view, a strictlyacademic problem. Cicero's evidenceis a specialcase, which I will examine separately. Lucan's attitude, alreadydiscussed, •9 which simply saw Alexander and Caesar both as extreme instancesof the ambitious tyrant, is heavily influencedby post-Augustananti-imperialistpropaganda.Anachronisticor not, however, its single-mindedassessment of both men exclusivelyin terms of militaryconquestis absolutelycharacteristic. BothVelleiusandAppian•2ø unintentionallyillustrateone obviouspoint that modem scholarshiptends, for whateverreason,to obscure:i.e. that a comparisonof two individuals,A and B, especiallyin mattersof characteror ethos, does not require that B shallhavecopiedall his habitsfrom A asthoughhe hadno mindof his own. After certifying Caesar'sdescentfrom Venus, and expatiatingon his courage, intelligenceand generosity,Velleiusconcludes:'In the magnitudeof his ambitions,in the rapidityof his military operations,and in his enduranceof danger,he closelyresembledAlexanderthe Great.,m He addsa caveat:this comparisonheld good only when Alexander was sober and otherwisein controlof his passions,sinceCaesarate and sleptno more than was necessary to preservelife, never for pleasure.• (What, one wonders, did he make of Caesar'sreputationfor sexualindefatigability? •23)Now obviously men do not acquirecourageand ambitionby irnitatio:theseare innatequalities. The one attributelisted here by Velleius, himself a soldier, which Caesar might indeed have derived from Alexander is that famousceleritas bellandion whichAppian,amongothers,comments. •4 I shallreturnto this later. Appian's prolonged comparison, in fact, like Velleius's brief one, yieldslittle in the way of conscious irnitatio.Bothmen, he says,are ambitious, reckless,hard on themselvesphysically,and dependentto a degreeon daringandluck, tolmpkai tychp.Both on occasiontake a cavalierattitudeto soothsayers and prophecy(õ5 636-46). Both are intellectuallyinquisitive(5 647), good-looking,of divine ancestry,generousin victory, and followed with fierce loyalty, despitemutinies,by their troops(55 632-4). Both died while planningfreshcampaigns(5 631). There is very little of substanceto be got from suchthreadbarestuff, and someof Appian's overdrawnparallels--such as that betweenAlexander

at Mt Climax (cf. p. 9 aboveandn. 106) and Caesar'sabortiveattemptto crossthe Adriatic in a storm--hardly inspireconfidence.Nor, I assume, wouldeven the mostdogmaticexponentof Alexander-Nachahrnung suggest that Caesarnot only set up his Parthiancampaign,but alsoarrangedto die beforeits inception,just to follow obedientlyin the stepsof the Master.TMIn fact, for our purposesthe differencesthat Appian notesare more important than the similarities.He remindsus, for example,that Caesar,in sharpcontrast to Alexander anik•tos, suffered several humiliating defeats in the

12

PETER

GREEN

courseof his career126--something that comparatiocould not fail to stress. Equally significantis Appian's observation(õ 635) that, whereasAlexander was a reigningking ab initio, Caesarpursuedhis star• ifitcoze(ctg, beginningas a privatecitizen,•27within the very differentframeworkandpolitical conventions--howeverhe might bend them--of the Roman Republic. IV

This would seeman appropriatepoint at which to introducethe testimonyof Cicero, which, as so often with Cicero, is at once prolix and elusive, articulate, yet hard to pin down to a consistentpoint of view. We are not, for the moment at least, directly concerned with what Cicero thought about Caesar--in particular,whetheror not he aimed at deificationor kingshipin his own lifetime•28--butsimplywith his views, if any, on Caesar'srelationship and attitudeto Alexander. Cicero refers to Alexander on about thirty occasions,sometimesin neutralterms,•29sometimesadmiringly,13øsometimeswith clear moraldisapproval,TM but almost always in the context of a stock rhetorical exemplum. 132Weber(pp. 43-44) arguedthat his attitudeunderwenta radical changefrom 48 Bc, clearly becauseof Caesar'sthreatto the Republic.This

theoryhasbeenchallenged, 133on the groundsthat the youngCiceroseems just as ready to damn Alexander (De Invent. 1.93) as the old Cicero is to praise him (Phil. 5.48). The objection does not convinceme. Literary topoi might go on without referenceto the realitiesof human life, but Cicero's correspondence vividly demonstrates the horror he felt at the prospectof a Romantyranny:this was somethingwhich, unlike a topos,hit homepersonally. Two key passages,both concernedwith Alexander,well illustratehis unhappystateof mind.TMAfter the victoryof Munda in March 45 Caesar was busy writing his virulentAnticato pamphlet,at least in part to counter the effect of Cicero'sCato.•3sHirtius had also produceda similarfeuilleton attackingthe hero of Utica, which Cicero read in May, and wrote of with contempt. •36It was preciselynow that Atticus,actingon behalfof Caesar's agentsBalbusand Oppius, invited Cicero to write Caesara symbouleutikos, a public letter of advice. Cicero tried, though such a task clearly went against the grain. 'I can think of nothing', he wrote Atticus on 9 May, 'thoughI have Aristotle'sand Theopompus's Letters to Alexanderbeside me. But where is the similarity?What they wrote was calculatedbothto do credit to the writers and to pleaseAlexander. Can you think of anything analogous? I can't.,137One sympathises. Cicero'sinstinct,I suspect,was to give the same advice that Juvenal'sstudentof rhetoricoffered Sulla (1.1617):privatus ut altum dormiret. At all events, a preliminarydraft went to Atticus on 13 May (Att. 13.26.2). It contained,as Cicero remarked (Att. 12.51.2), 'nothingunbefittinga loyal citizen--loyal, however,as the times permit'. Atticusrecommendedforwardingthe letter to Caesar.Oppiusand Balbuswantedsomethingfar more positive.The text cameback post-haste; Cicero was humiliated (Att. 13.2). On 25 May he gave up the project altogether, professedlygrateful to his critics 'for wanting so many changes

CAESAR

AND

ALEXANDER

13

that there is no point in writing the thing afresh' (Att. 13.27.1), and stating brutally:'What othermaterialhadI for my letterexceptflattery?'•38 Atticus must have urged him to reconsiderhis decision,and this produced the letter (Att. 13.28) which is most crucial for us. In mentem nihil

venit, he writes back: he can think of nothing. What was the advicegiven in Alexander'scase? 'A young man, fired by a passionfor true glory and desiringsomeadvicewhich wouldtendto his immortalfame, is exhortedto

honourable distinction.Plentyto saythere!'•39Butegoquidpossum?Cicero asksrhetorically:the clear answeris 'Nothing'. His draft, he suggests,was too morally high-mindedfor its audience;it could even have provokedreprisals. 'Are you not aware,' he asks Atticus, 'that even that most famous studentof Aristotle's, despitehis fine intellect and modestbehaviour,became proud, cruel and overbearing the moment he assumed the title of

king?'•4øWhat this letter may revealaboutCaesar'simmediateintentionsis a mootpoint.TMIn the presentcontextwhat we want Ciceroto tell us is at whoseinstigationAlexandergot into the symbouleutikos to begin with; and this, characteristically, we never learn. Weinstock m states,without argument, that Caesarnot only requestedthis literary exercisehimself, but insistedon the parallelwith Alexander.Werethis in fact true, we wouldpossess evidence, as rare as it was valuable, for Caesar's indeed having employedAlexanderas a modelin his politicalpropaganda campaign.Unfortunatelyfor us, and despitehis (in general)well-deserved reputationfor preferringtestimoniato theorising, •43Weinstockhad not one scrapof evidence on which to base such an assumption.We simply do not know whetherthe idea originatedin Caesar'sheador in Cicero's, thoughby now it shouldnotbe hardto guess.Ciceroemployedwhat,asa manof letters,he took to be a flatteringhistoricalcomparison;the politicianin Caesarwas not amused.But this remainsmere speculation.We cannoteven tell--since the letteritselfdoesnot survive--whetherAlexanderwas setup as a modelof heroismor an awful warning:Ciceroseemsto changehis mind on this score betweenone paragraphand the next. What Caesarhimself felt about Alexander remains as baffling as ever.TM We do not even know whether the symbouleutikos reachedCaesarin draft; it probablygot no furtherthan Balbus and Oppius.

By a processof eliminationwe are now reducedto that dim areaof merely circumstantial evidencewhere too many scholarsin the past have begun theirinvestigations ratherthanendingthem.Someof theprizeexhibitshere need not detain us long. These include Caesar's famous cloven-hoofed horse,paradedby the faithful--thoughnot by our ancientsources•4S--as a

caseof whatwe might, I suppose,call Bucephalas-Nachahmung; the Lysippan statueof Alexanderon whichCaesarreplacedthe originalheadwith one portrayinghimself,a notuncommon practice,andin thiscaseprobablydone at leastas muchout of admirationfor Lysippusas in_anyspiritof aemulatio towardsAlexander?6 and the ingenioussuggestion that Caesarwrote his

14

PETER

GREEN

commentarii in coy emulation of the Macedonian hypomnPmata and eph•merides, regardlessof the fact that Alexander did not composethese himself. 147

A good deal of extraneousdead wood can be cleared away in this fashion,but at the end we are still left with somemajor problems.If we take the Gadesepisodeat all seriously,then the first questionwe mustask ourselvesis this: in the light of the evidencewe have examined,and of Caesar's own life as we know it, how--if at all--might Alexander-imitatiohave helpedhim at each successive stageof his career? The debt-riddenCaesarwho gazedat Alexander'sstatue,and sighedto think how late he had left the achievementof his ambitions,was a very differentman from thedictatorperpetuus,wealthybeyondthe dreamseven

of a Crassus, •48showeredwith honoursby a subservient senatepackedwith his own nominees,whosecrowdedprogrammeof reform, self-promotion, and the final solution of the Eastern problem was only cut short by his assassination.As this investigationhas, I hope, demonstrated,there is no conclusive proof that either of these two Caesars actively exploited the Alexander tradition, and a good deal which suggeststhat they may have stayedcarefully clear of it; but one thing we can claim, with some confidence, is that if they did practiseAlexander-Nachahmung,it was for different purposesand in very different ways. It is hardly coincidentalthat by far the greaterpart of our circumstantial evidencerefersto the period at the very end of Caesar'slife, when his positionwas unique, and (except by assassins'daggers)virtually unassailable. I have no doubt, despite the ingenious counter-argumentsof my fellow-countrymenover the past half-century, m49 that from 45 at the latest

Caesarenvisageddeificationin his own lifetime,msø and some kind of monarchical status, whether or not this involved the ambivalent title of

rex.15•The detailsof this complexon-goingdebate, thoughfascinating,do not immediatelyconcernus here. What we have to determine,quite simply, is whethereither concept,deificationor kingship,can, on the evidence,be traced back to Alexander. Again, the evidence is largely negative. Indeed, muchof it pointsin quite anotherdirection,one which it would be far more reasonablefor Caesarto take, just as Scipio Africanusmay have done (see p. 9 above). Variouscommentators,from Lily Ross Taylor onwards, ms2 have remarkedhow carefully Caesarstressedhis Roman or Etruscanantecedentsas regardsany claim to royal or divine status:his associationwith Romulusand Quirinus, his descentfrom the Alban kings, his Etruscangold wreath, his scarletboots, his triumphaltoga.ms3 Here we see a sourceof ethnicand patrioticpropagandaimmeasurablysuperiorto any that couldbe derived from the achievements of a foreign conqueror.Caesarmay have

mixedsex and power-politics in his dealingswith Cleopatra, ms4 but thereis no seriousevidencethat he aimed to set up a Hellenistic-stylemonarchy based on Alexandria, mssand the violent opposition stirred up by mere rumoursof suchintentionson Antony's part•s6made it clear, in retrospect, how wise he had been.

CAESAR

AND

ALEXANDER

15

There is one area in which the influence of Alexander might still be claimed, with someshowof plausibility,for this final period, and that is the conceptof world-conquest,of military supremacyand universalempire (see p. 10 above).Yet evenherethe evidenceremainspatchy.DioIs7reportsthe erectionin the templeof Quirinusof a statue--probablyCaesar'slikeness, thoughthe text is ambiguouson this point--dedicated to 'the unconquered

god'. This, of course,was a title regularlyassociated with Alexander; •s8 within his lifetime the Athenians had probably dedicated a statue to him bearingan identicalinscription. Is9A caseofaemulatio?Perhaps.Even more puzzlingis anotherstatue,alsodescribedby Dio, 16øwhich portrayedCaesar standingon a bronze globe, symbolic of victory, and bore an inscription describinghim as h•mitheos--or whateverthe Latin equivalentof that may have been. There are good Roman antecedentsfor the victory globe; the nearestGreek parallel is not Alexander but Demetrius Poliorcetes;and in any caseCaesarhad the inscriptionerased--thoughwhetherbecauseit said too much or too little is open to doubt.16•

Examplesof this sort could be multipliedto little purpose. 162More importantis to ask whetherthe notion of world-conquestand world-empire

was one which Caesar,even at his mostmegalomaniac, 163and despitethe propagandaof his enemies, had any driving urge to embrace, much less justify by Greek precedents.Here the test case is his projectedParthian campaign.Perhapsin romanticreactionagainstMommsen, who saw nothing

more in the plan than a caseof 'frontier rectification',164Meyer, in his influentialstudyof Caesar'sriseto supremepower,16sarguedthatthisEastern expeditionrepresented'the renewal and completefulfilment of Alexander's world-monarchy',a view that dependedlargelyon one overblownpassagein Plutarch(Caes. 58.2-5), but neverthelessmanagedto convincea numberof scholars,includingLily RossTaylor.•66Yet in fact Mommsenwasonly stating a reductioad absurdurnof the truth. Parthiaand Armeniarepresented a very real danger to Rome's eastern frontiers that was never satisfactorily resolvedtill Trajan'sday.•67If Caesarplannedto take sixteenlegionsand 10,000cavalryon his Parthiancampaign, •68that was not in mereaemulatio of Alexanderor of anyoneelse; it was a tributeto a formidableenemy. The defeatof Crassusat Carfrae nine yearsearlier (53 BC)169had given him a warning he could not ignore, and a strongsecondarymotive for a punitive expedition.We can regardthe war as unjustified,if we choose; 17ø just as we can, with rather better reason, describeCaesar as 'the greatestbrigand of themall';TMthe fact remainsthatthe brigandwasa cannypragmatist,with well-definedobjectives,whose ambitionoperatedin terms of Realpolitik. Psychologicallyhe stoodpolesapart from Alexander. He had never dreamed of marchingto the world's end, nor would he have done so now. On the easternfrontier, as in Gaul, the most he aimed at--both Vogt and Gelzer demonstrate this with somecogency•72--wasa completionof the Roman orbis terrarum. For such a programmethe actual achievementsor, worse, the projectedletzte Pliine of Alexanderwould, as propaganda,embarrass rather than inspire.

16

PETER

GREEN

We see, then, that what we may term Alexander'sideology--for many modemstudentsstill his chief claim to fame--never caughton, certainlynot beforethe Augustanperiod, and then only to a very limited extent, with the Roman public. It is thereforehighly unlikely to have servedas a basisfor imitatio, and our remarkablelack of evidenceon this scoreshouldprovoke no surprise.Further, what holdsgood for Caesar'sshortperiodof supreme authoritymust be true a fortiori of his earlier career, when he was at least obligedto pay lip-serviceto themosmaiorumand the politicalidealsof the Republic. The only avenue for a legitimate exploitationof Alexander in political terms--through his military achievements--had already been monopolisedby Pompey. We might expect--a point no scholar seemsto have raised--that any commanderwho supposedlymodelledhimself with such devotion on Alexander

would at least take the trouble to familiarise

himselfwith the great Macedonian'sgeneralship,and profit by it himself. But not even this seems to have been the case. We have Plutarch's word for

it thatCaesarstudiedAlexander'scampaigns, •73but he musthavereadthem with other problemson his mind. Just how and where he did acquirehis military skills is one of history'smore tantalisingpuzzles.If he had really, as Russellsuggests,spenthis ten yearsin Gaul learning 'the trade of generalshipby passingslowly throughthe stagesof apprentice,journeyman,and master', the sheer luck involved in his bare survival, let alone his absolute

victory, would have been incalculable:tyche can only be creditedwith just so much. Another popular theory is that of the Instinctive Genius: Armstrong, for instance, seriouslysuggeststhat Caesar 'followed the rules of strategyunconsciously,much as M. Jourdainwrote prosewithout know-

ing it'. TMHe certainlydid not learnfromAlexander.The moststrikingand fundamentaldifferencebetweenthem lay in their use of cavalry.For Alexander this arm formed the key to every major battle, whereasCaesar-good horsemanthoughhe was•7S--reliedon auxilia for his cavalry, and treatedit in the main as a convenientmeansof rapid transportratherthan as a flexiblecombatunit.•76Domaszewski's attemptTMto demonstrate Caesar's strategical dependenceon techniquesemployed by Alexander with the phalanxis unconvincingand has won no acceptance.Alexander'smasterly control of commissariatand intelligencewas somethingthat Caesarcould have imitated to his profit;•78 even the speedand dash, the celeritas,•79 whichtheyshared--together, surely,with all first-class ancientgeneralsexcept FabiusCunctator--was hampered,in Caesar'scase, by that notorious legionaryaddictionto entrenchment which he had inherited,alongwith so much else, from Marius. •8ø VI

Let me briefly summarisemy conclusions.A studyof the availableevidence suggeststhat Alexander'shistoricalachievements,and indeedthe Alexander legend,nevermadeany appreciableimpacton the Romansof the Republic,

who foundthem not only alien and remote,but also in many ways fundamentally antipathetic.Such casesof imitatio as can be identified are excep-

CAESAR

AND

ALEXANDER

17

tions rather than the rule, and betray specialobjectives:Pompey'smilitary self-promotion,Mark Antony's propagandain favour of a Hellenistic-style kingdom,his own role as the New Dionysus. •81Caesar'scareerrevealsno preoccupationwith Alexanderwhatsoeverbeyondan urge to eclipsehim in terms of achievement--a case of aemulatio rather than imitatio--and possibly, at the very end, one or two promotionaldevicesborrowedto help secure a royal deificationthat was, in itself, an essentiallyRoman phenomenon. Even here it is doubtful whether conscious imitatio was involved, since

what we have to do with are astral symbols, radiate crowns, globes, diadems,and all the rest of that portentousflummery with which Ptolemaic

and Seleucidrulerswere so adeptat hedgingtheir kingship. 182Suchthings had little connection with the Alexander tradition, and none at all with the

historicalAlexander.•83Finally, as a field-commander Caesarshowsno clear signsof havingstudiedAlexander'scampaigns:he might havebenefitedhad he done so. He went his own way, and changedthe world in the process; that at least both men had in common.The moral that emergesis familiar and uncomfortable:men of genius--however perverted that genius may be--blaze trails and set trends, while lessermortalseagerly follow them, waving a bannerwith the strangedevice of imitatio. Adcock, in short, was right after all. This may be thoughtan unduly negativeconclusion;but as historianswe like to believewe are in the businessof explodingmythsrather thanpromotingthem.484 University of Texas

Peter Green

Austin

NOTES

1. 'Victor and Invictus', HThR 50 (1957) 236; in his subsequentbook, Divus Julius (Oxford 1971), Weinstockbackedoff from the kind of overt comparison

he had madein his article, and his referencesto Alexanderremainperipheral:see, e.g., 21, 86 if., 333 f. 2. Eduard Meyer, CaesarsMonarchie und das Principat des Pompeius: innere GeschichteRoms von 66 bis 44 v. Chr. (Stuttgart1922, repr. 1963) 465-473, esp. 472: 'Die Monarchie Caesars ist ihrer Idee nach die Wiederaufnahme und volle Durchfiihrungder WeltmonarchieAlexanders,'etc. 3. N.J. DeWitt, 'Caesar and the Alexander legend', CW 36 (1942-43)

51-52, cf. TAPhA73 (1942) 342-5, andJ. Gag6,REA 42 (1940) 425-438. 4. Often with explicit acceptanceof the views propagatedby W.W. Tarn (e.g. in PBA 19 (1933) 123-166,andAlexanderthe Great (Cambridge1948) II 399 if.): see DeWitt 52.

5. L.R. Taylor, The divinity of the Roman Emperor (Middletown 1931), esp. 74-77; stronglyinfluencedby Meyer (see 75 n. 42). 6. D. Michel, Alexander als Vorbildfar Pompeius,Caesar und Marcus Antonius (Brussels1967), esp. 67-107, 134. 7. Ibid. 67: 'Die modemeForschunghat die Frage nach der AlexanderNachahmungCaesarsbeinaheausnahmslos bejaht' (italics_mine). 8. CAH IX (1932) 718-740, esp. 739. Cf. also the soberjudgment ex-

18

PETER

GREEN

pressedby M. Gelzer in his Caesar: Politician and statesman,trs. P. Needham (Oxford 1969) 322 n. 7 (-323).

9. D. Kienast, 'Augustusund Alexander', Gymnasium76 (1969) 430455. See in particular440: 'Trotz der in der Literatur immer wieder ge•iusserten Auffassungeines besondersengen Verh•iltnisses geradeCaesarszu Alexander l•isst sich nicht erweisen,dasssich der Dictator den Makedonenk6nigzu seinemVorbild erw•ihlt h•itte. '

10. O. Weippert, Alexander-lmitatio und rOmischePolitik in republikanischerZeit (Augsburg1972), esp. 105-192. 11. J.S. Richardson,JRS 64 (1974) 238. 12. See my Alexander of Macedon (Harmondsworth1974) 40-41, 532 n. 29, 541 n. 58. 13.

See n. 11 above.

14.

Cf. Cic. De Orat. 1.60.257; 3.29.117, where the double function of

comparatio--to assess likeness, and judge probability--is stressed;De Offic. 1.43.152; Livy 22.8.2; Tac. Dial. 23.2. 15. See, e.g., Appian, BC 2.149-154.619if.; Strabo13.1.27, C 594-5; Veil. Pat. 2.41; Livy 9.16.9-19.17; and cf. p. 11 above. 16. Cf. Rhet. Her. 1.3, De Orat. 3.53.204, Phil. 14.6.17, De Offic. 3.1.1; Sen. Ep. 65.3 ('omnis ars naturae imitatio est'). 17.

Aemulatio can, of course, include imitatio as one of its methods (cf.

Cic. Tusc. Disp. 4.18.7), but need not do so: cf. Livy 28.21.4; Veil. Pat. 1.17.5 ('aluntur aemulationeingenia'). It can also often be competitive, even hostile: Cic. Tusc.Disp. 4.26.56; Livy 26.38.10, 44.25.2; Pliny,HN 13.70. 18. As Michel and Weippertboth to someextent do; cf. also J.B. Nadell, Alexander and the Romans (Diss. Univ. of Pennsylvania1959), chs. iii-iv. 19. This embarrassingomissionwas noted long ago by Franz Weber,Alexander der Grosse im Urteil

der Griechen

und ROmer bis in die konstantinische

Zeit

(Leipzig 1909) 45. Lucan, it is true, claims (10.19-20) that Caesarvisited Alexander's tomb in Egypt, a claim plausibleenoughper se; but no otheraccountof the Egyptian campaignrefersto suchan episode,and Lucan may have inventedit on the analogy of subsequentbetter-attestedvisits by Augustus(Suet. Div. Aug. 18.1, Dio Cass. 51.16.5) and Caligula (Suet. Cal. 52, Dio Cass. 59.17.3). Cf. Appian, BC 2.89.376, and the discussions by Nadell 82, Weippert118 with n. 1, and especiallyH. Christensen, 'Alexanderder Grossebei den r6mischenDichtern', Neue Jahrb. f. klass.Altert. 23 (1909) 122 with n. 2. Even if true, sucha visit would surelyhavebeendue to pure historical curiosity (both Augustus and Caligula seem to have had the tourist's--and the vandal's--instinct in suchmatters)rather than to any hypothetical urge for symbolicaemulatio. On Lucan's attitudeto Caesarsee pp. 7 and 11 above, with nn. 71 and 119.

20. Suet. Div. Jul. 7.1; Dio Cass. 37.52.2; Plut. Caes. 11.3. The last-named

sourceis sometimescited as dating the incidentto Caesar'ssubsequent proconsulship: see, e.g., H. Strasburger,Caesars Eintritt in die Geschichte(Munich 1938) 95-96, acceptedby Gelzer (n. 8 above) p. 32 and n. 2. In fact it does nothing of the sort. 6poitog •5•;n•tX,tv t;v 'I[3rlpi•, Plutarchbegins, which leavesthe date wide open; and in any case the whole point is lost if Caesaris portrayedas being considerably older than Alexander at the time of the latter's death. The sensibleremarksof H.E. Butler and M. Cary in their edition of Suetonius'sDivus Julius (hereafter Butler-Cary), p. 51, still have considerablecogency.Cf. T. Rice Holmes, The Roman Republicand thefounder of the Empire I (1923) 224-5 with n. 5; 440-1; W. Steidle, Suetonund die antikeBiographie(Munich 1951)18 with n. 5; P. Treves, 'Cesaree Alessandro', Cesare nel bimillenario della morte (Rome and Turin 1956) 69. On the

CAESAR

AND

ALEXANDER

19

date (69) see L.R. Taylor, 'Caesar's early career', CPh 36 (1941) 123-4; cf. Gelzer 31.

21. Gag6(n. 3 above)428-432. As he makesquiteclear,the entireepisode is highlyspeculative; but if a statueof Alexanderwas ever set up in thistemple--the existenceof which is itself well-attested--then Pydna (167) provides a reasonable terminuspost quem, and Fabius Aemilianus's sacrificeto Hercules of Gades (Appian, Iber. 65) a fitting occasion. 22. The story in this form is told by Suetonius(Div. Jul. 7.1) and Dio (37.52.2), the latter incorrectlyassignedto Caesar'spraetorshipby Butler-Cary51. 23. 24.

Plut. Caes. 11.3 (cf. n. 20 above). HThR 50 (1957) 232.

25. Weippert (n. 10 above) 108: 'Ueber ihre Historizitfit l•/sst sich schwer urteilen--an sichwird man sagendiirfen, dasssie sehrnacheigenerKonstruktionex eventu aussieht. '

26. 27. 28.

Suet. Div. Jul. 7.2; Dio Cass. 1.c. TAPhA 73 (1942) 343. Julius Caesar and Rome (London 1967) 35.

29. Strasburger(n. 20 above) 94-96; cf. Weippert109 if. 30. Suet. Div. Jul. 1.2-3; Plut. Caes. 1.1, 5.1-7; Gelzer (n. 8 above) 21. 31. Hdt. 6.107.1; Artemidorus,Oneirocr. 1.79 (pp. 91-92 Pack). 32. Confirmation,howeverslight, is suppliedby Strabo'saccount(13.1.27, C 594) of his treatmentof the Ilians: •o)•6 •)•/;ov [than Sulla] a6'r•v •pouv6rlO•,

•q)•cboaq0.ga •cai 'A)d;•aviSpov.For furtherdiscussion of this passageseep. 10 above and nn. 116-7.

33. Phil. 5.17.48: 'tertio et tricesimoanno mortem obiit, quae est aetas nostrislegibusdecemannisminor quam consularis.'Cf. Brut. 81.282; Sail. Hist. 3.88

M.

34.

See, e.g., F.S. Johansen,'Antichi ritratti di Caio Giulio Cesare nella

scultura',AnalectaRomana 4 (1967) 7-68; J.M.C. Toynbee,'Portraitsof Julius Caesar',G&R 4 (1957)2-9, furtherdevelopedin herRomanImperialportraits(London 1978) 30-39.

35. As Pompey did: see Plut. Pomp. 2.1-2, and R. Winkes, 'Physiognomonia:Problemeder Charakterinterpretation ri3mischerPortr•ts', Aufstiegund Niedergangder Ri•mischenWelt, 1 4 (Berlin-New York 1973) 903-4. Cf. Michel (n. 6 above)37, 55-56, and(on the handicapof Caesar'sbaldness) 103;alsoWeippert119. 36.

From Venus and Ancus Marcius: Suet. Div. Jul. 6.1, cf. Weinstock,

Divus Julius 17-18;Weippert120q, 163-5;Michel 69-71;and in particularElizabeth Rawson,'Caesar'sheritage',JRS 65 (1975) 152 if.; alsoT.P. Wiseman,'Legendary genealogiesin late RepublicanRome', G&R 21 (1974) 153-174. 37. 38.

See p. 14 above, with nn. 150-3. See my Alexander of Macedon (n. 12 above) 164-5, 269-70, 273-5,

with reft. there cited.

39. Arrian 7.9-10; QC 10.2.15-30; cf. Plut. Alex. 71.3. Appian, BC 2.151.635, makesthe samepoint. 40. Peter P. Spranger, 'Der Grosse: Untersuchungendes historischen Beinamensin der Antike', Saeculum9 (1958) 38 if., with reft. there cited. Cf. also Kienast(n. 9 above)437 if., Nadell (n. 18 above)30 if., Gelzer,Pompeius(Munich 1949) 59-60; Weinstock, Divus Julius37-39, Michel 37 if., Weippert56 if., 103-4.

The key referenceis in Sallust,Hist. 3.88 M: 'SedPompeiusa prima adulescentia sermone fautorumsimilemfore se credensAlexandroregi,facta consultaque eius quidemaemulus erat. ' 41. Plut. Pomp. 13.3-5, cf. Nadell 37.

20

PETER

42.

GREEN

For Pompey's achievementsin Asia see Gelzer, Pompeius ch. vi, pp.

87 if., andJ. vanOoteghem,S.J., Pomp•ele Grand,B•tisseurd'Empire(Brussels 1954) 204-253. The date of his first triumph: E. Badian, Hermes 83 (1955) 107-118, cf. Hermes 39 (1961) 254-6.

43. For a convenient conspectussee Michel, pls. xiv-xx, and Toynbee, Roman Imperial portraits 24-28.

44. Plut. Pomp. 2.2: AZ•avbpov. 45. Plut. Crass. 7.1, cf. Spranger(n. 40 above) 39 with n. 112. 46. Cic. Pro Arch. 10; Val. Max. 8.14.3; Plut. Pomp. 37.3 (with an allusion to his penchantfor making maliciouspropagandaon his master'sbehalf). Another historianwho wrote up Pompey'scampaignwas Posidonius:Strabo1.1.6, C 492.

47.

Plut. Pomp. 36.1:cf. 38.2-3 for his reputedgpc0g•ccti•fl)•og to extend

his conqueststo the shoresof Ocean. 48. Appian, Mithr. 103. 480 if.; 116. 568 if.; Vell. Pat. 2.40.1; Diod. Sic. 40.4; Plut. Pomp. 34. 49. G. Wirth, Alexandrele Grand: image et rdalitg (Entretienssur l'An-

tiquit6 classique,vol. 22, Geneva 1976) 187-8. Cf. Weippert93, and, in general, Pliny, HN 7.95-99. 50. Appian, Mithr. 117, 577. 51. Plut. Pomp. 46.1; cf. A.R. Anderson, 'Heraclesand his successors', HSCPh 39 (1928) 37-39.

52. Vell. Pat. 2.40.3; Plut. Pomp. 43.2; Appian,Mithr. 116. 566. The modem literature is immense:convenientaccountsin van Ooteghem(n. 42 above) 254 if., Gelzer (n. 40 above) ch. vii, 121if., and M. Cary in CAH IX 507 if. 53. Suet. Div. Jul. 77.1. The authenticity of this remark, attributed to Caesarby TitusAmpius, is often doubtedby modemscholars;but as an off-the-cuff utterance,sedulouslyreported, it strikesme as all too plausible. 54. See, e.g., Weippert102-4, Wirth 187. 55. An excellentbrief accountof this episodeis given by Gelzer, Caesar 233-7. 56.

Plut. Pornp. 76.5-6. van Ooteghem 633-7. 58. H.R. Breitenbach, 'Der Alexanderexkurs bei Livius', MH 26 (1969) 147-8; see in particularLivy 9.17.6, Plut. Pomp. 46.1, and Seneca,Consol.ad Marc. 20.4. Cf. L. Alfonsi, 'Pompeioin Manilio', Latomus 6 (1947) 345-351. 59. Weippert106, with characteristicforthrightness,is one of the very few 57.

scholars to appreciate this point. 'Wie welt', he asks,not altogetherrhetorically,'hat ein solcherMann ein Vorbild iiberhauptni3tig--sollte man nicht annehmendiirfen, dasser vi311ig auf eigenenF[issenstehenkann?' 60. See, e.g., Lionel Pearson,The lost historiesof Alexander the Great (New York-Oxford 1960), for a useful generalsurvey. 61.

Cic. Pro Mur.

62.

QC 8.1.37.

31.

63.

See, e.g., Livy 9.17.1647, 9.19.1041; QC, 1.c.; Gell. 17.21.33; cf.

Weippert 90, 236-7. 64. Rawson (n. 36 above) 151-2. 65. Hist. 9.28.8, 34.1-3; cf. R.M. Errington,Alexandrele Grand (n. 49 above) 175-7. 66.

Weber (n. 19 above) 41.

67.

See De Div. 1.23.47, De Nat. Deor. 2.27.69, De Oftic. 2.15.53, De

CAESAR

AND ALEXANDER

21

Orat. 3.35.141,/id/ittic. 12.40.2, 13.28.3(birthandeducation); De Orat. 2.14.58, Pro Rab.Post. 9.23, Tusc.Disp. 3.10.21(Callisthenes); Tusc.Disp. 4.37.79 (Black Cleitus);De Invent. 1.22.30 (Thebes);Verr.4.60.135,/Icad. 2.26.85, /id Fam. 5.12.17(ApellesandLysippus); Tusc.Disp. 5.32.92(Diogenes). Cf. Weippert 125-7. 68. The appearance of QuintusCurtiusRufus's HistoriaeAlexandri,and thecopious references in a worksuchasPliny'sNaturalHistory(seetheIndices. by L. Ian in his Teubneredition,vol. VI (Leipzig1875),p. 27), indicatea still wider andmoredetaileddissemination of matedhal by theendof theJulio-Claudian period: this is just as we might expect.

69. Weber45: 'Auf r6mischerSeite stehtman anfanglichgleichg•ltigdem

Makedonenkbnig gegen•ber. Erst um 50 v. Chr., gleichzeitig mit der politischen Wiedergeburt Alexanders auf griechischer Seite,beginntman, ihm grbssere Aufmerksarnkeit zu widmen.Im Gegensatz zu der gdhechischen Beurteilung Alexanders ist die rbmische eineungiinstige undkniipftin ihrerTendenz an die makedonische Oppositionan, wie sie zu LebzeitenAlexandersbestand.' 70. G. Boissier, L'Opposition sousles C•sars,3rd ed. (Padhs 1892)272 if. Cf. my Essaysin antiquity(London1960)163if. 71. 10.18-48:cf. Christensen(n. 19 above)121-130,with furtherreft., and P. Ceau•escu, 'La doubleimaged'Alexandre le Grandh Rome',StudClas16(1974)2

if., for a detailedsurveyof the traditionhostileto Alexanderduringthe imperial period.

72.

Cf. my/ilexander of Macedon(n. 12 above)487-8.

73.

Cf. n. 15 above.

74. 75. 76. 77.

Cf. pp. 12 if. above, with nn. 128-144. Op. cit. 1 if., esp. 4-5. Arrian 7.15.5-6; Pliny,HN 3.57 (citing Cleitarchus). Cf. Green (n. 72 above) 469-70 with n. 79.

78.

Breitenbach (n. 58 above) 152-4.

79. The statueto Alcibiades:Pliny,HN 34.26 (I am gratefulto Professor E.T. Salmonfor drawing my attentionto this passage).PapiriusCursor:Livy 9.16.11-19,cf. Amm. Marc. 30.8.5, with the commentsof Nadell (n. 18 above)4. 80. Reportedby Plut.Pyrrh. 19.1-3(theclaim19.1);for othersources referring to thisspeechseethe commentary by A.B. Nederlof(Amsterdam 1940)117-8, andcf. Weippert10 if. ProfessorBadianremindsme that Appius'sspeech,or somethingthat at leastpassedfor it, survivedto the ageof Cicero(seeBrut. 61). It seems very likely that Plutarchbasedhis own speech,'indirectlybut solidly', as Badian argues,'on that famousdocumentof Romangravitas'. 81. Op. cit. 156. 82. Weippert 16-17.

83. Epit. 1.23.2: 'quamvistumPhilippusregnopraesideret,Romanitamen dimicaresibi cum rege /ilexandro videbantur.'

84. Polybius(Hist. 18.28-32,with Walbank's commentary ad loc.), after describingthe battle of Cynoscephalae,insertsa lengthyexcursuson the relative meritsof the Macedonianphalanxand the Romanlegion,comingdown decisively (despitehis appreciation of Alexander'smilitary skills:see n. 85 aboveand Weber 41-42) in favor of the latter. Its specialvirtue, he argues,was its adaptabilityto any kind of terrain.

85. Most. 775-7:'/ilexandrum Magnumatque/igathoclemaiuntmaxumas/ duoresgessisse: quidmihifiet tertio,/ qui solusfaciofacinoraimmortalia?' 86.

Plautinisches im Plautus (Berlin 1922) 16-17.

87. E.g. by Spranger(n. 40 above)33; cf. Weippert18 if.

22

PETER

GREEN

88. Mil. Gh,: 777, 'isque,4h,xandripraestarepraedicat.[brmam suam', almostcertainly refers to Paris o[ Troy: see Weippert 17 n. 2. 89. H. Berve, Die Herrsclut./?des Agathokles (Munich 1952) 4 if., has a full conspectusof the sources:el'. also his shorteraccountin Die Tyrannisbei den Griechen (Munich 1967) 441 fl'., and H. Bcngtson, 'Die Wcstgriechenim Zeitalter desAgathoklesunddes Pyrrhos',Gricch. Gexch.4 (Munich 1969)391-9, with useful generaldocumentation. 90. Bengtson 394. 91. Weippert21, who adds that Agathoclcs'musstcihncn l i.e. the Romans] neben Pyrrhos als der eigentliche Verlr½ler des hc!!cnistischen Herrsorer(urns erscheinen,energisch,ruhelos', etc. etc. 92. Spranger(n. 40 above) 26-28, 36-37; Wcippcrt19-21,with I'urtherliterature: E Pfister, 'Alexander der Grossc: Die Gcschichlc seines Ruhms im Lichte seiner Beinamen', Historia 13 (1964) 37-79.

93. Demetrius's title is attested in an inscription el' 1'?) 302 ,c: see N. Kyparissisand W. Peek, MDAI(A) 66 (1941) 221 fl'.: A. Wilhelm, .10AI 35 (1943) 157 if., cf. Spranger26 with n. 26. For Antiochus,a century later. see Appian, Syr. l, I and Spranger 29-32. His career, as Professor BadJan reminds me. certainly suggestsA!exander-imitatio:was '6 Mi;¾t•c,'part o1'Iris': 94, [Longinus] Ht:pi WVovc, 4.2, cl'. Wcippcrt 19. 95. Spranger 32: 'Die Mitwelt hat zwar die Gr,3sscAlexandersstaunend anerkannt: "den Grossen" hat sie ihn deswegennicht gcnannt.' 96. See, e.g., Cic. Pro Rab. Post. 23, Pt'(, Arch. 24; Sueius,Cartn. fr. 4; Nepos, Eum. 8.2, 13.1.2. 97. See, e.g., Spranger33, Weippert20 (with n. 2 lbr further reft.). 98. This is certainly true of AntiochusIll: Appian, after describinghis victoriusprogress(Syr. 1, 1) says•ccti[ti:),ag'Av'riozog&•r6're,fit: •ckr10*:ig, etc. It also almostcertainlyappliesin the caseof DemetriusPoliorcetes,thoughWilhelm (n. 93 above)161n. 25, arguesfrom P!ut.Dem. 2.2 that the title referredto his largebuild and striking physical appearance. 99. H.H. Scullard,Scipio Africanusin the SecondPunic War (Cambridge 1930) [hereafterSA•] 13-31, 71 if., 282-3; id., ScipioAfricanus,soldier and politician (London 1970) [hereafter SA2] 18-25, 237; EW. Walbank, 'The Scipionic legend', PCPhS 193 (=n.s. 13) (1967) 54-69; Weippert37 if., Anderson(n. 51 above) 31-37; Nadell (n. 18 above) 17 if. 1130. Hist. 10.2passim, cf. Walbank(n. 99 above)59. 101. De Vir. l!lustr. 49; Die Cass. fr. 57.39; Gell. 6.1; Livy 26.19.3 if., etc. 102. Cf. Plut. Alex. 2.6, with Hamilton'scommentaryad loc.; also Cic. De Div. 2.135 (which rationalisesthe incidentby implication)and Justin11.11.3-6. 103. See Stith Thompson,Motif-indexoffolk-literature (rev. ed. 1955) I 462, no. B 604.1.

104.

Paus. 4.14.7, 2.10.3.

105. Walbank (n. 99 above) 64-68, with a full discussionof the sources.

Otherparallelsin Scullard,SA• 282, SA2 237, Weippert38 if. 106. Plut. Alex. 17.3-5; Arrian 1.26.1-2; Callisthenesap. schol. T Eustath. ad Hem. ll. 14.29 (=FGrH 124 F 31). Strabo, like Polybiusa realist, reportsan alternativeversion(14.3.9, C 666-7) in which Alexander'smen were forcedto march navel-deepin sea-waterall day. 107. Scullard, SAn 284 with n. 3. 108. Cf. n. 21 above;also Scullard,SA• 282, SA2 237; Nadell 25-26; Weippert 48-49.

CAESAR

109.

AND

ALEXANDER

23

Hist. 18.35.9, 31.26.1, 27.1, etc.

110. Weippertregardsthe phraseas a simpletranslationof 'Scipio Maior'; but see Walbank'sCommentaryon 18.5.39, and H.S. Versnel,Gymnasium81 (1974) 317 (in a review of Weippert). 111. Cf. Livy 26.19.8. 112. This is clearly broughtout by Christensen(n. 19 above): seeesp. 107-8, 130 if.; and cf. Weber (n. 19 above) 42 if.

113. Cf. Plut. Moral. 207 D 8: the surpriseevincedby Augustus,'that Alexanderdid not regardit as a greatertaskto set in orderthe empirewhich he had won than to win it', is characteristicallyRoman. 114. van Ooteghem(note 42 above)222, 283. Gelzer's notion(Pompeius59 and n. 115)that Pompeymay havebeenthoughtof (or haveeven consideredhimself) as a reincarnationof Alexanderis a pleasantPythagorean conceit,but not to be taken seriously. 115. Weippert123-4 with n. 1. He observesof this material: 'Was sie i]ber Alexanderzu sagenhaben,ist erstaunlichwenig und nichtssagend.'The only word I would query here is erstaunlich. By far the most useful item is Sallust,Hist. 3.88 (cited n. 40 above). Otherwise we are reducedto a fragmentaryencomium (Rhet. Her. 4.31), and casual references in Gellius (13.4.1-2), Sueius's Moretum (fr. 1 = Macrob. Sat. 3.18.12), and Nepos'sLife of Eumenes(1.6, 2.1-4, 3.1, 4.4, 6.1-3, 7 passim, 8.2, 13.1-3; cf. De Reg. 2.1, 3.1). Accordingto the Suda, s.v. Bdtppcov, 'Varro' wrote an 'Ent'rogt/1'r•v rct'r' •)•ctvSpov 'r6v Mctr•86vct, though

whetherthiswasthe work of the greatM. TerentiusVarrois impossibleto determine. 116. 13.1.27, C 594-5. The key phraseis •q)•docmg 0[tctrctt Ak•ctvbpov. Caesaris also describedas qot)•ct)•ctvfipoq. 117. Cf. Suet. Div. Jul. 6.1, and for modem interpretationsof the Strabo passage,Weippert117. 118. H. Erbse, 'Die Bedeutung der Synkrisis in den Parallelbiographien Plutarchs',Hermes 84 (1956) 403-4, arguesthat Plutarchnever attemptedthe comparisonbecauseit would have presentedpeculiar difficulties, a view with which I tend to sympathise.See also Alan Wardman,Plutarch• Lives (London 1974) 236-7. 119. Cf. pp. 7 and 11 and nn. 19, 71 above. 120. Veil. Pat. 2.41.1; Appian, BC 2.149.619-154.649.

121. Trs. F.W. Shipley: 'magnitudine cogitationum, celeritate bellandi, patientia periculorumMagno illi Alexandro ... simillimus'. 122.

Cf. Suet. Div. Jul.

53.

123. Ibid. 49-52 passim. 124. BC 2.149.621: •[tqoco... 'rdt 156•ctv'rct t•n•)•0•¾vmZv'rdt'rco.Cf. Suet. Div. Jul. 57. Cicero frequentlyrefers to Caesar'sspeedof movementin his correspondence:Att. 8.9.4, "r•pctghorribili celeritate', cf. ibid. 7.22.1, 10.9.1. 125. Weippert,115-6, justly observesthat 'wenn Appian diesebeide Stellen

in das Prokrustes-Bett seinerSynkrisisgezwungenhat, brauchenwir deshalbdarin nochnichtzu folgen'. Nadell, 58, in fact stresses the parallelbetweenCaesar'sdeath and Alexander's,as remarkedby Appian, a nice instanceof imitatio andcomparatio confused.

126. E.g. the rout of Q. TituriusSabinusand L. AurunculeiusCotta by Ambiorix, BG 5.24-37, and Pompey'sbreak-outat Dyrrhachium(BC 3.58.5-65.3). The

effectiveness of AfraniusandPetreiusin SpainAppianexaggerates for his own purposes:see Gelzer 214-7. It is, however,true that at one point in Africa the Caesarians, as Appiansays,)•ctgmp•ggqoev¾ov. Cf. hisBC 2.95.397-400; alsoBell. Afr. 3.18, Dio Cass. 43.2.3-4, Plut. Caes. 52.6-9.

24

PETER

127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132.

GREEN

Cf. p. 4 and n. 39 above. Cf. p. 14 above and nn. 150-1 below. Cf. pp. 6 f. and n. 67 above. E.g. Phil. 5.48. E.g. De Rep. 3.24, De Offic. 1.90, Tusc.Disp. 3.21, De Invent. 1.93. Cf. Weippert125 if., 142-3.

133. By R. Schtitz,CiceroshistorischeKentnisse(Diss. Giessen1913)44 and n. 32, cited by Weippert140.

134. Cf. Weippert135if., andBadian'sbriefbutpenetrating remarksin 'The Eunuch Bagoas', CQ n.s. 8 (1958) 155-6; also Weinstock(art. cit., n. 1 above) 233-6.

135. 136.

Suet. Div. Jul. 56.5, Cic. Orat. 35. Att. 12.40.1, 41.4, 44.1, 45.2, 48.

137. Trs. ShackletonBailey (V 138). For Theopompus's letter cf. Athen. 6.230 e and 13.595a = JacobyFGrH 15 F 251 (II 390). For the (spurious) letterof AristotleseeV. Rose,Arist. Fr. 408,414-5, cf. Wilamowitz,Aristot. u. Athen I 339 n. 39, andWeippert .136n. 2. 138. 'Atque etiam vereor,' he added, 'ne putet me hoc quasi Catonis [t•i)•t?gctessevoluisse': a very reasonablefear. 139. Trs. ShackletonBailey (V 169). 140. 13.28.3 (translationmine): 'quid?tu non videsipsumillum Aristoteli

discipulum, summo ingenio,summamodestia, posteaquamrexappellatus sit, superbum, crudelem,immoderatum fuisse?'

141. ThoughtakenwithPhil. 2.110 it is, clearly,of the greatestimportance and significance:cf. Rawson (n. 36 above) 149. 142. Weinstock,art. cit. (n. 1 above) 233. 143. See J.A. North's review of Divus Julius in JRS 65 (1975) 171 and 176 (esp. õ 5). 144. It would be hard to guessthis from even the more sensiblemodem

scholarship on the subject:see,e.g., Weippert135 if. Cicero'sfailureto mentionin hiscorrespondence anyhintof Alexander-imitatio on Caesar's partcouldpossiblybe treatedas an argumentum ex silentiofor its neverhavingtakenplace. 145. Suet.Div. Jul. 61makesno mentionof Alexanderin thiscontext;Pliny, HN 8.154-5juxtaposes Caesar'shorsewith Bucephalas in a generalcatalogueof famoushorses,but withoutsuggesting thatthe two werein any morespecificway connected.Cf. Weippert112-3, Nadell 48-49, and Anderson(n. 99 above)40-41. 146. Statius,Silv. 1.1.84-87.Michel (n. 6 above)102arguesthat 'die Person Alexandersf'tir Caesar(und seineUmwelt) den •,brranggegentiberdem Kilnstier

Lysipphabenmusste',a highlydebatableassertion. Cf. Weippert113-5,Anderson 1.c., Nadell 49 if., Weinstock 233 with n. 136.

The practiceof rededicating statues(by changingeithertheir headsor their inscriptions) goesbackat leastto Cicero'sday (Att. 6.1.26), andwasalsoknownin Greece(Paus.1.2.4, 1.18.3).It wascondemned at lengthby Dio Chrysostom (31.47, 87-9, 90 if., 154-5);according to Pliny(]-/N35.4) thehabitof puttingnewheadson old statueshadbecomea by-wordlongbeforehis time. Mark Antonyappropriated for himselfthetwocolossal statues of AttalusandEumenes thatformerlyadorned the so-called'Monumentof Agrippa'by the Propylaea(Plut.Ant. 60, cf. IG II 2 4122). GraniusMarcellusincurreda chargeof laesamaiestas by puttingTiberius's headon a statueof Augustus(Tac.,'Inn. 1.74, cf. Suet.27b. 58); Caligulahad his own head attached to a Greekstatueof OlympianZeus(Suet.Cal. 22.2). Cf. Pliny,HN 35.93,

CAESAR

AND

ALEXANDER

25

for ClaudiusreplacingAlexander'sheadwith that of Augustus.The entiresubjectis examinedin detail by Horst Blanck, Wiederverwendung alter Statuenals Ehrendenkmiilerbei Griechenund Rdmern (Rome 1969): see esp. 11 if., and (for the climateof opinionwhichmadesuchactionsa commonplace) 113-4. I am gratefulto ProfessorM. Gwyn Morganfor drawingmy attentionto this fascinatingmonograph. 147. N.J. DeWitt, 'The non-political nature of Caesar's Commentaries', TAPhA 73 (1942) 342-5.

148. See now Arther Ferrill, 'Caesar'sprivatefortune:Wealthand politics in the late Roman Republic',Indiana Soc. Stud. Quart. 30 (1977) 101-111. 149. Most notably F.E. Adcock, 'Caesar'spositionin the State', CAH IX (1932) 718-740, and J.P.V.D. Balsdon,in his long review of GerhardDobesch's CaesarsApotheose zu Lebzeitenund seinRingenum den K6nigstitel(Vienna1966),

Gnomon39 (1967) 150-6. For the divisionof opinionalongbroadethniclines see now Weippert189 n. 4. As early as 1961,reviewingthe 6th revisedGermanedition of Gelzer'sCaesar in Gnomon33 (1961)600, BadJansoundeda salutarynote of cautionagainstexcessive scepticism: 'Perhaps we havenowgonetoofar: attempts to deny Caesar'smonarchicand divine statusjust beforehis deathseemto me mistaken.'

150. Seenow Rawson(n. 5 above)148 if., andVictor Ehrenberg,'Caesar's

final aims',HSCPh 68 (1964) 149:both stressthe finalityof the key passage in Cicero, Phil. 2.110.

151. A usefulsurveyof recentscholarship is to be foundin Helga Gesche, Caesar(Ertfiigeder Forschung LI, Darmstadt1976)152if. Seein particularWeippert 155 ff., Weinstock,Divus Julius 70 fl.: the most valuable contribution is that of Rawson (n. 36 above).

152. Divinity (n. 5 above)38-77, cf. Weippert163 if., Rawson148 if. 153. Testimoniaassembledby Rawson,148. Cf. also A. Alf61di, 'Der neue Romulus', MH 8 (1951) 190-215. 154. Weippert175 if., cf. H. Volkmann,Cleopatra,trs. T.J. Cadoux(London 1958) 65-89.

155. Suet.Div. Jul. 79.3 makesit clear that this was a wild rumor only; disproved (Nic. Damasc.õ 20) by the contents of Caesar'swill. 156. John M. Carter, The Battle of Actium (London1969) 174-199;Volkmann152 if.; and in particularthe evidenceassembled by Ceau•escu(n. 71 above), 157-8.

157.

43.45.3; cf. Michel 84-85.

158. E.g. Plut. Alex. 14.4; otherinstances collectedby Tam, Alexanderthe Great (1948) II 338 if.

159. HypereidesI (In Demosth. ) col. 32: ;•[3o63.•z[o .... ] c•zflCmt•hc6[vct 7k•.•6tv]boov[3ctot3.[•t0g zoo &vt]K•lzOU 0•[ofi...] Whetherthe proposalwasin fact carriedout mustremainuncertain; the important thingis that it couldbe put forwardin thoseterms.Cf. Tam,op. cit. 342-3, with furtherreferences. 160. 43.14.6, 43.21.2, cf. Michel 85 if., Weippert160 ff., Balsdon(n. 149 above) 151.

161. Weinstock, art. cit. (n. 1 above)232-3, Taylor(n. 5 above)65; Dobesch (n. 149 above) 42.

162. See, e.g., Michel 86 if.

163. It is not necessary to subscribe to the theoryso ably arguedby J.H. Collins, 'Caesarand the corruptionof power', Historia 4 (1955) 445-465, that Caesartowardsthe endof his life wasprobablyin somesenseeithersenileor men-

26

PETER

GREEN

tally unbalanced,to perceive a fundamentalchange of personalityduring his last years.

164. Ri•m. Gesch.14Ill 467 (cited by Collins 458): '... nicht ungemessene Pl•ine der Weltiiberwindung,sondern bloss wohlerwogeneGrenzregulierungenins Werk zu setzen.'

165. CaesarsMonarchie (n. 2 above) 465 if., esp. 472-5. 166. Op. cit. 75. SeealsoH. Strasburger,Caesarim Urteil seinerZeitgenossen (repr. Darmstadt1968) 60; Collins (note 163 above) 458. 167. N.C. Debevoise,A political history of Parthia (Chicago 1938) 70 if., 213 if.; K.H. Ziegler, Die Beziehungen zwischenRom und demPartherreich(Wiesbaden 1964) 32 if., 100 if.; and M.A. Levi, 'La guerra contro i Parti', Cesare nel bimillenario della morte (Rome and Turin 1956) 117-128,esp. 124 if. 168. Appian, BC 2.110.460. 169. Debevoise(n. 167 above) 84 if. Cf. Nadell 55 n. 14; Weippert 172 if. 170. Cf. Ziegler (n. 167 above) 33. 171. E. Badian, Roman imperialismin the late Republic, 2nd ed. (Cornell U.P. 1968) 89-91, a crisply pungentsumming-up. 172. Caesar 322 n. 7 (323), cf. J. Vogt, Vom Reichsgedankender ROmer (1942) 65, 178 if. Weippert, 188 if., leans towardsthe view that he had no clearly formulatedplansat all. 173.

Plut. Caes.

11.3.

174. W.H. Russell, 'Caesarthe general', CW 50 (1956) 19; D. Armstrong, 'The "Blitzkrieg" in Caesar'scampaigns',CJ 37 (1941) 138-143.G. Veith, 'Caesar als "Vater der Strategie" ', repr. Caesar, ed. D. Rasmussen(Wege der Forschung XLIII, Darmstadt1967) 372-8, is a stylised,dogmatic, and ill-documentedeulogy which adds little of value. 175.

Suet. Div.

Jul.

57.

176. M. Rambaud, 'La cavaleriede C•sar', HommagesM. Renard (Paris 1969) II 650 if., esp. 663. 177. 'Die PhalangenAlexandersund CaesarsLegionen',SHAW 1926, 1 if., esp. 79-86. 178. J.F.C. Fuller, Julius Caesar (London 1965) 316 if. 179. For examplesofceleritas cf. n. 124 above;alsoBG 1.13, 72, 7.56, and cf. Armstrong(n. 124 above),passim. 180. Fuller (n. 178 above) 86 if. 181. Michel 109-132;Weippert 193 if. 182.

Michel

81 if.

183. E.A. Fredricksmeyer,CW 62 (1969) 225. 184. This paperwas originallydelivered,in a somewhatabbreviatedform, at the Annual Meeting of the Associationof Ancient Historiansat Boulder, Colorado (May 1978). It benefitedmuch from critical commentat the time, and sincethen has had the advantageof furthercriticismand suggestions from variousfriendsand colleagues.I am particularlyindebtedto ProfessorE. Badian and two anonymousrefereesfor AJAH, who in severalplacesgenerouslysavedme from my own carelessnessand ignorance,and whoseconstructivesuggestions I have, for the most part, gladly adopted.Any errorsthat appearto have escapedtheir closescrutinyshouldbe properly ascribedto my own sloth or obstinacy.

THE DELIAN N.G.L.

LEAGUE:

Hammond and G.E.M.

BICAMERAL

OR UNICAMERAL?

de Ste. Croix have done Greek historians a

serviceby forcingthemto reconsider thereceivedwisdomontheorganization of the DelianLeague. • Their mostsignificantrevisionof thisconventional wisdom,whichpositsa 'one state,one vote' unicameralleague,is their insistence thattheAthenians andtheirallies(oursources' termfortheorganizationwecalltheDelianLeague)metseparately. In thisview,theunitwhichwe calltheDelianLeagueconsisted of twoblocswhichvotedindependently and whoserespective decisions carriedequalweight,namely,(1) the Athenians, and (2) the allies.

BothHammondandde Ste. Croixresttheircasesfor a bicameralleague partly on arguments from historicalprobability.Hammondcites the most obviousarguments for a bicameral structure: thatAthensash•gernOn would neverhaveagreedto an arrangement whichleft it 'equalin votingpowerto Siphnos' (in Hammond's phrase) 2andthatAthenshadseentheweakness ofthe unicameral HellenicLeaguein thePersianWarsandwouldhaveconcluded that the Lacedaemonian bicameralstructure waspreferable?De Ste. Croix advancesthe argumentthat the SecondAthenianConfederacy,which was in-

tendedto insurethatAthenscouldnotagainconverta leagueto an empire, wouldneverhaveassigned Athensdecision-making powerequalto thatof the assembled allies,if Athenshadhadonlya singlevotein theDelianLeague. 4 Theseobvious arguments haveequallyobvious answers. Onecaneasilyreply thatAthenswouldmakea showof complete equalitywiththealliesto pointa contrast withbiaiosPausanias (resented by theIonians:1.95.1) andthatthose states thatwishedtocontinue theworkof theHellenicLeagueaftertheSpartans ceased campaigning (3.10.2) maywellhavewishedtopreserve theunicameral structure of the HellenicLeague;further,thatit is possiblethatthe Second AthenianConfederacy instituted a separate congress of thealliesasa change fromtheDelianLeaguein orderto insurethata non-Athenian wouldpreside overtheallies'deliberations? But a debateoverwhatis 'probable'cango on indefinitely. It is myintention in thispaper,notto discuss theseissues,butto confinethediscussion, asmuchaspossible,to thetextof Thucydides? Hammondarguesfor a bicameralorganization from Thuc. 1.97.1.7He translates, 'The Athenians havingthe hegemony andat firstthe alliesbeing autonomous anddeliberating in (theirown) commonCongresses.' The Greek maymeanthat,butThucydides'highlycondensed expression is equallylikely to mean, '(The Athenians)exercisinghegemonicauthorityover allieswho wereat firstautonomous anddeliberating in common congresses (alongwith them).' Thucydides is ambiguous here. De Ste. Croix suggests thatthe am-

biguitybeinterpreted inthelightofTodII, nr. 177(IG IF 236),whichgivesthe oathsexchanged in 338/7between Philipof Macedon andtheGreeks.If in that 27

28

PHYLLIS

CULHAM

inscriptionPhilip of Macedonis enteringinto a compactwith a correctly restored'commoncongress',it would, de Ste. Croix argues,show that the 'commoncongresses' of 1.97.1 werenot commonto the alliesandthehggemSn.8 We cannot,however,resolvean ambiguityin Thucydideanusageby referenceto mid-fourth-century oaths.Evenif we wereableto acceptPhilip's

relationship withtheGreeksasanalogous to Athens'relationship withitsallies, it isnotsafeto baseaninterpretation of Thucydides upona lineof aninscription in which the crucial word mustbe entirely restored.In short,the terseexpression of 1.97.1

cannot settle the debate.

An examinationof the languagedescribingthe relationshipbetween Athensandthe allies may be moreuseful.The centralpassageis 3.10-11, the speechof the Mytileneansbefore the Spartans.One word in that passage, isops•phos,has beenthe subjectof muchdiscussion; one phrase,&n6 'coil [(xov, has been neglected. In 3.10.4 the Athenians&n6 zoi [(xovflyOiWO. Then theybecomeless hostile towards the Persians but want to enslave the allies. In 3.10.5 the allies

are unableto unite becauseof the numberof their votes(St•t

They are all enslavedexceptfor the Lesbiansand Chianswho remainautonomoiandeleutheroibut no longertrustthe Athenians.In 3.11.1 the Athenianshavethemajorityof thealliesundertheirthumbbutstilltreatwith Lesbos andChiosindividually.The phrase&n6 'roi [(xovin 3.11.1 cannotreferto the alliescollectively,sincethe alliesareplacedin two groupswhoserespective fatesarebeingcontrasted; on theonehandthereare'co6qnXetovqandon the otherLesbosandChios.ThephrasecannotsetAthensequalto thealliedsynod, sincethe reducedstateswith whom Athensis no longer&n6 zoi i2xovwould still have beenin that synod? A progression is described here:Athensbegan&n6 zoi i•(xovwith all of thealliesindividually,butfinally was&n6zoi [(xovwithonlytwo of theallies individually.The pointof theprogression is lost,if thephraseis referredto the allied synodin the aggregate.In that caseno real changewouldhavetaken place:Athenswasalwayson a footingof equalitywith the synod;Athenswas stillona footingof equalitywiththesynod;thespeaker hasmadenopointat all. The phrase5t•t noXv•qq•iav in 3.10.5 deservesseparatenotice. An

alliedsynodwith onevoteequalto Athens'oughtnotto be unableto defend itselfagainstAthens5t•t no•,u•rlq)iav. If therewereno separateassemblyof the allies, then it would be understandablethat the malcontentsin a congress which includedAthenswould find it difficult to marshalthe votesof a majority

of the alliesagainstthehggem•n,giventhe influenceAthensmusthavehad over the smaller

states.

The debatehas also centeredon 3.11.3, where the Mytileneanssay the

Athenianscould claim that the participationof Lesbosand Chios in the reductionof the otherallies showsthat thoseotherallies musthave beenguilty

of wrong-doing or theisopsgphoi wouldnothaveparticipated. •øTheselines alsoare simplyambiguous. • 3.11.3 canbestbe interpretedin the light of de Ste. Croix's suggestion that the word isops•phosis not used here in the technicalsenseof votingwithinthe leaguebut in a metaphorical sense.If we

THE

DELIAN

LEAGUE

29

accepteitherof de Ste. Croix's translations of isops•phosin the metaphorical sense,'same weight in decisionmaking' or 'samepower of effectivedecision',•2then3.11.3 merelyrecognizes thatLesbosandChioswereinfluential maritimepowerswhichcouldnothavebeeneffectivelycoercedinto participationin anexpeditionagainstanally andwhichwereentirelycapableof deciding for themselves whetheror not they shouldparticipate. The significant wordisops•phos doesoccurin anotherpassage whichcan contributeto the discussion.In Thuc. 1.141.6 Periclesencouragesthe Athenians, saying, 'Althoughthe Peloponnesians and their allies are powerful enoughto opposeall the Greeksin a singlebattle, they are not able to fight againsta counter-preparation for war (&vztnctpctcncev/I) of anothersort,since having no singlebouleutgrionthey cannotput commandsinto effect immediately;andsincetheyareall isopsgphoi butnotall homophyloi,eachseeks after his own interest.As a resultof thesecircumstances,it normally happens that nothingis carriedthrough'. The referenceto the singlebouleutgrionshowsthat a comparisonbetween two bicameralsystemscannotbe meant. But can the comparisonbe betweenthe Peloponnesian League'sactivelybicameralsystemand Athens' total dominationof an allied synodwhich had a voice equalto Athensat one time, but hassincebecomevestigialor disappeared completelyby the time of Pericles'speech,sothatall commanddecisionscancomedirectlyfrom Athens' ownbouleutgrion ?Gommecitesin connection with thispassage 2.15.2, where Thucydidesusesthe phrase•v [3ov•,evz/Iptovto describethe resultsof Theseus'unificationof Attica.•aIt shouldbe noted,however,that the subjects of thatsentence arethePeloponnesians andtheirallies.They arenotcompared explicitlyto Athensbut to anothersortof &vztnctpctcncev/I. 1.141.7 describes at somelengththeinefficiencywhichresultsfrom the fact thattheseallieswho arenothomophyloipursuetheirseparateinterests to theneglectof thecommon good. As a result, ruin comesto z6 •cotvrv. The implicationis that the Peloponnesian Leagueis being comparedto anotheraggregate,not to the Athenianboul•. It is, in fact, difficult to see what point is made by the isops•phoi/homophyloi contrastif the Leagueis beingcomparedto the Athenianboulg.Onewouldalsoexpectthatif Athenshadactuallydispensed with an allied synodwhichhadoriginallyhada voiceequalto hers,the Mytileneans would have used that fact in their defense; it would be a much more effective

argumentthananytheyuse.Onewouldalsoexpectto hearof thisasanexcuse for revoltsof the allies.It is difficultto believethatan alliedsynodwith such authoritysimplydisappeared. 14 Could Periclesmeanthat Athenssoeffectivelydominatesthe alliesthat the allied synodcan be discounted,even thoughit still exists and meets, becauseits agreementcanbe assumed,composed asit is of puppetstates? No, thatis notthecomparison madehere.In 1.119theSpartans arenothamperedby difficulty in obtainingthe complianceof the allied synod.They have been delayedby the preservation of the formalityof the separatemeetingof the allies. The Corinthiansbecomeimpatientwith the process.They themselves summonedsomeof the alliesto Sparta(1.67.1). They complainthatthoseallies

30

PHYLLIS

CULHAM

whogatherto address a meetingof the Spartans havebeenconvenedg6•,tg. The summoningof thealliedsynodfor theofficial warvoteis yet a separatestep (1.87.4). Thosestateswhichhavenotbeeninvolvedin thepreparations for war all alongare, understandably, unprepared to starthostilities(1. 125.2). The problemis conveningthe alliedsynod,notobtainingits agreementonceit has

convened. •5Periclesclaimsthatnoquickdecision canbereached evenafterthe meetingis convened,thatthemeetingstendto be lengthy,sincethoseattending do not direct their attention to the common interest (1.141.7).

If Athens

preserveda separatemeetingof the allies even as a formality, it would be subjectto thesameproblems: Pericles'comparison wouldhavenopoint.While we see the Peloponnesians only in the formalitieswhich accompanythe declarationof war, we mustassumethatthe samedifficultieswill be presentin the conductof the war itself. That is certainlyPericles' assumption. If Periclesis notcomparingthePeloponnesian League'sbicameralstructureto any possibleDelian bicameralstructureor to Athensalone,he mustbe

comparing a bicameral to a unicametal structure. Thecomparison ispointedby the distinctionbetweenthe statesof the Peloponnesian Leaguewhich were isops•'phoi withoutbeinghomophyloi andthecitiesof theDelianLeaguewhich wouldbe considered both,in theideologyof theAthenianEmpire.•6 Subsequent discussion of the theoriesof Hammondandde Ste. Croix mayconcentrate eitherontheirargument fromhistorical probabilityor ontheir interpretation of thesources or mayevenattemptto dealwith both.Thispaper will haveserveditspurpose,if it successfully directsattentionbackto thetext of Thucydides, including1.141.6,a passage whichhasnotprominently figured in the discussion of this issuepreviously. •7 Phyllis Culham

Universityof Illinois Chicago Circle NOTES

1. Their mostcompletediscussions of this topic are, respectively,N.G.L.

Hammond,'The originsandnatureof theAthenianallianceof 478/7 B.C.', JHS 87 (1967) 41-61 (hereafterHammond):seeespecially5-52 and57-60; andG.E.M. de Ste. Croix, The originsof the PeloponnesianWar (London 1972), AppendixV, part C, 303-307 (hereafterde Ste. Croix). De Ste. Croix reviewstheliteratureon thistopic. See also J.A.O. Larsen, 'The constitutionand originalpurposeof the Delian League', HSCP 51 (1940) 192n. 5 for a historyof thetopicof theorganization of theLeague.It is interesting thatWalker,CAH V 41, seems to anticipate Hammond's anddeSte.Croix's arguments.

All ancient referenceswithout an author's name are to Thucydides. 2. 3.

Hammond Ibid.

51.

4.

De Ste. Croix

304.

5. M.N. Tod,,4selectionof Greekhistoricalinscriptions II (Oxford 1948)no. 133showsoneof thealliespresiding in thealliedcongress. It haslongbeenassumed that anAthenianpresided at meetings of theDelianLeague;de Ste.Croix(305) shares this

THE

DELIAN

LEAGUE

31

assumption. Evenif Athensdidnothaveformal'probouleutic' power(cf. ATL !II 141) thepresiding officialmusthavehaddefacto controlof boththetopicandthedirectionof discussion.

6. I do notconsiderDiod. 11.47.I, whichassumes a bicameralorganization, independent evidenceon thisquestion.As R. Meiggsnotesin TheAthenianEmpire (Oxford1972)460 (hereafterMeiggs),we haveno assurance thatthispassage doesnot representEphorus'understanding of Thucydidesin the light of the SecondAthenian Confederacy,which was bicameral:cf. Tod II, nrs. 124, 127, 133 et al. 7. •HyoGg•vot 8• u6zov6gcovz6 •p•)zov za)v•,t)laladtZcov •cu•dt•6 •cotv•)v •uv68covl•ouZ•u6v'rcov...

8. De Ste.Croix304 n. 19, whereheregards therestoration [&v8OK•lt'robt Kotvobtm)veS]pic0tas 'virtually certain'.

9. Cf.'deSte.Croix307;it wouldbeillogical forAthens todeprive itspuppets of a vote.

10. &gotla•vy&plactpzupi•;•ZpC0vzo g?l/iv zo6gy• ic•o•l/?lq•oug •Kovzctg,•i •tq •t •JtKOt)VO[• •:/I•C•ctV, •t)c•zpctzg0gtV ... 11. As Meiggs460-461 notes. 12. De Ste. Croix 306. In 1.141.6 the adjectiverefersto membersof the Peloponnesian Leagueandpresumably means'havingequalvotes';but in 3.79.3 it is

usedof Brasidas andAlcidas,and,asdeSte.Croixnotes,cannotmeanliterally'having equalvotes'. He citesthe similarusagein Laws 3.692a wherethe 86vctlatqof the twenty-eight Spartangerontesis {cy6q/qq)oq withthatof the Spartankings. 13. A.W. Gomme,Historicalcommentary onThucydides I (Oxford 1945)456. 14. Ibid. II 264. I cannotaccepttheanalysisof deSte.Croix,whobelievesthat 'the activecontribution of thealliesdwindled,untilthealliedsynods coulddisappear withoutany recordsurvivingof their cessation'. 15. A noteontheDelianLeagueis nottheplaceto discuss Meiggs'revivalof the theoryof a unicametalPeloponnesian League(Meiggs461-462). The theoryhad alreadybeenproposed by F. Hampl,Die griechischen Staatsvertr•ige des4. Jahrhun-

dertsvorChr. Geb.(Leipzig1938)125.Meiggs(461),citingThuc.1.141.6in another connection, says,'If thereweretwo separate bodieswhoseagreement wasnecessary, whyisnotthepointmadethatSpartacandonothingwithoutherallies'agreement.'?' The argument madein thetextaboveapplieshere.Meiggshimselfalsosupplies ananswer onthenextpage:'... in boththePeloponnesian andtheDelianLeagues themeetings of the allieswerepresidedover by the leaderswho, as in moderninternationalbodies,

couldrelyontheweakeralliesvotingastheirleaders wished.'Wecanallowa Spartan to presideat the allied assemblywithoutpostulatinga unicameralstructure. 16.

Not all of the allies, of course,were Ionian, but the Ionianswere the most

important singlegroupamong them;asMeiggs(50)comments, 'Predominantly it was anIonianLeague.'Othergroups, eventheAeolians, mightsimplybeforgotten when convenientandsubsumed into the Ionians:cf. 1.95.1, where'the Ioniansandthe rest

whowererecentlyfreedfromtheKing'asktheAthenians to acceptthehegemony •cctzdt 'r6•vyyev/;g. It wasnotunreasonable, then,fortheAthenians toattempt toestablish this ticriverelationship withtherestoftheLeague byenforcing participation in common cult practices; cf. R. MeiggsandD.M. Lewis,A selection of Greekhistorical inscriptions (Oxford1969)nrs.40, 46 and73;andMeiggs293-305.Thucydides reflects thislineof propaganda in 6.76.3, wherehe hasHermocrates refer to AthensashggemSnof the Ionians•ui, 6{xot dt•6 c•(p•)v.

17. TheauthorwouldliketothankProfessor MortimerChambers forencouragingherto workontheseproblems andfordiscussing themwithher.Anyshortcomings in thispaperare,of course,entirelytheresponsibility of theauthor.

CTESIAS'

DESCRIPTION

OF BABYLON

Our earliestGreekdescriptionof Babylonis that of the historianHerodotus, who musthavevisitedthis greatcity aboutthe middleof the fifth centuryBc andwho recordedhis impressions of it in a famouspassage of hisHistories (1.178-187). His account has often been discussed,and it is now generally

agreedthat, despitestatements which are erroneousor evenridiculous,many of his claims are strikinglyaccurate. • Very little attention,however, has beenpaidto a description of Babylonwhichwasperhapset.aallyinfluential in the Graeco-Roman world, that of the physicianof Arta•erxesII, Ctesias of Cnidus. How does this accountfit the facts?What is its relationshipto what Herodotusreports?Doesit tell us anythingaboutthe ingredients out of which Ctesias'historyas a wholewas composed? The verdictpassedon Ctesias'work in modemas in ancienttimeshas beenalmostuniversallyunfavourable.Indeed,it was the belief of one eminent scholarthat the entire earlier part of his Persica is little otherthan a concoctionof data borrowed from Herodotussupplementedby items providedby Ctesias'own vivid imagination. 2 The problemof the sourcesis a vexedone, sincefor very largepartsof the work, and particularlyfor the earlier parts, we lack the evidenceexternalto the historywhich would permit us to decidethe issue.In the caseof his descriptionof Babylon, however, we have the considerableresults of the excavationsof the city with which we may comparehis account.A detailedanalysis,which makesuse bothof Herodotus'versionandof the archaeological evidence,shouldallow us to distinguishwhat is borrowedfrom Herodotusfrom what cannothave beenborrowed,what may be fantasyfrom what is clearlynot the historian's own creation.

1. Some Problems

Thereis of courseno doubtthatCtesiashadspentsometime in Babylon. 3 He tells us, in fact, in his book on India that in this city he saw Indian elephants(F 45 b) and, althoughhere he is clearly strivingto impressthe reader with his first-hand knowledge, there is no reason to dispute his claim.4 After all, as physicianto ArtaxerxesII and his family, he was, in

401, part of the royal entourage at Cunaxa,not far from Babylon?In his history he carefully recorded his ministrationsto the wound which Artaxerxesallegedlyreceivedat this famousbattle (F 21). When, after his victory, Artaxerxesretiredto Babylon(F 27.69), Ctesiasmusthave accompaniedhim. His historydiscoursed at lengthon his vain effortsto alleviate the plight of the captiveGreek mercenaryClearchus,activitieswhich presumablybelongto Babylonalso(F 27.69 andF 28).6 32

CTESIAS'

DESCRIPTION

OF BABYLON

33

We do not, however, know how long Ctesias'visit lasted. Seemingly it was not a long one. And, althoughother visits to the city, either before

this dateor after it, are quite likely, we have no informationaboutthem.7 Moreover, the assessment of his descriptionof the city inevitably involves difficultiesand thesemustbe at least alludedto prior to the detailedinvestigationof the account. In the first place, we do not possessCtesias' original words. We have

only the summaryof themmadeby Diodorus(2.7.2-2.9.2 = F 1).8 Thereis, however, every reasonto believe that in that part of the Bibliotheca where Diodorusis basinghimselfprimarily on Ctesias(i.e. in 2.1-34), he adheres to his principal sourcevery closely indeed.9 He repeats, for example, Ctesias' blunder of locating Nineveh on the Euphratesinsteadof on the Tigris (2.3.2 etc. = F 1), whereas he is correct over the location when he is following a different authority(17.53.4, 55.3). •ø We can be confidentthat his renderingof Ctesias'descriptionof Babylon (it belongsto Ctesias'Persica Book I) is on the whole accurate. But he has obviously added some

materialfrom other sources TMand he has also considerablyabbreviatedthe original account.What Ctesiasstatedis not always clear. In addition to the difficulties presentedby Diodorus, problems are raised by the archaeologicalevidence. What we know of Babylon depends very largely on the excavationscarried out from 1899 to 1917 under the directionof Robert Koldewey.•2 But naturallynot everythingcould be explored. That part of the city which lies on the west bank of the Euphrates was, for example, virtually untouchedby Koldewey's team. The excavations, in fact, had to be abandonedunfinishedand very little work has been

donein Babylonsince1917.•3 There are many uncertainties,but, despitethem, the evidenceis sufficient for a detailedassessment of what Ctesiasreports.That there is much in

this accountthat is absurdwill be evidentparticularlyfrom section2. TMBut it is also clear that someof Ctesias' informationis the productof his visit to Babylon and this will be the subjectof sections3 and 4. 2. Walls, Temple and Tunnel

We begin with the great walls, so much admiredby Greek visitorsto Babylon. In Neo-Babyloniantimes (626-539 Be) a double rampart (the inner enceinte),formingroughlyspeakinga rectanglethroughthe middleof which flowed the Euphrates,surroundedthe entire city. But there were also outer defences.These, as is now generally agreed, encircledonly that part of the city which lies on the east side of the river; there is no evidence that this systemextendedover the territory west of the Euphrates,as Koldewey believed. •s

Nebuchadnezzar'scity was thus heavily fortified, but its appearancein the Achaemenidperiod could not have been the same. Berossustells us that Cyrus the Great destroyedthe outer rampart(680 F 9) and there is no evidence that it played any role in the city's defencesafter that date. By the

J. M. BIGWOOD

34

FIGURE

I

Principal Citadel Ishtar

Gate

Citadel

•o

ki '• Bride

•

Esagila

Babylonin the reignof Nebuchadnezzar (after Wetzel)

CTESIAS'

DESCRIPTION

FIGURE

OF BABYLON

35

11

?•% Babil \ \ \ \

\ \

\ \

Principal

\

\

Citadel

\ \ \

South Citadel

\ \

J

Bridg

J

i• Esagila

J J

J J J J

Babylon in the middle of the 5th century (after Wetzel)

36

J.M.

BIGWOOD

time of Herodotus'visit, aboutthe middleof the fifth century,it musthave beenin sorrycondition,althoughremainswouldhavebeenvisible. Even the inner system,althoughdoubtless in a betterstate,musthavebeenin poor repair.•6 It would have requiredcareful researchto produce,in the reign of Artaxerxes I or thereafter, an account of these defences which was accurate

in everydetail.Herodotus,who merelyalludesto the innerenceinte(1.181), but who describesthe outer systemat some length (1.178-180),provides some nonsensicaldata.•? How extensive is Ctesias' knowledge? In Diodoms'description (F 1[= Diod. 2].7.3-5) we mustagainbe dealingwith the outerrampart, •8 or at leastthisis whatthe enormous lengthof the wall suggests.

Not all of Ctesias'statements can be properlyevaluated.He claims, for example (and none of this is found in Herodotus),that the towers num-

bered250, that over largestretches therewere no towerssincethe city was adequately defendedby marshes, •9 thatbetweenthe wallsandbuildingswas a roadway 2 plethra (c. 60 m) wide.2øBut we do not know how true these statements are. Excavationsof the outerenceintewere severelylimited. Where Ctesias' descriptioncan be assessed,it is absurd. True, he re-

jectsHerodotus'fantasticlengthof 480 stadesor c. 86.4 km (1.78, a figure whichCtesiasappliesto the wallsof Nineveh,althoughhe tumsHerodotus' squareinto a rectangle:F 1.3.2-3). His Babylonianwallsmeasureonly 360 stades(c. 64.8 km), but this is still outrageous. The numberscarcelyrepresentsa confusionof the total circumference with the lengthof one side,as Koldeweybelieved, 2• andit is nota figurepickedat random.It is onewhich recursin Greekaccounts of the Eastand, whetheror nottraditionappliedit to the walls of Babylon,it musthavea connectionwith the numberof days in the year.22Cleitarchus statesthisexplicitly,as well as pedantically correcting the figure to 365 stades(137 F 10).23

But even more interestingthan the lengthof the walls is the fact that Ctesiasis contentto repeatuncriticallysomeof hispredecessor's errors.His defences completelyencirclethe city (F 1.7.3), i.e. he wronglyappliesthe shapeof the inner rampartto the outer one, a mistakealso made by Herodotus(1.178). Over the width of the walls he is lessimplausible.The total width of the system(i.e. the 2 walls and, in addition,the spacebetween them: neither Herodotus nor Ctesias realised that this was a double

wall) wasfoundon excavation to be 26.8 m.TMCtesiasmakesit wideenough for morethantwo chariots,althoughhe may be only tryingto improveon Herodotus'defences,which, at 50 royal cubits or c. 22.5 m, are wide enoughfor one4-horsechariot(1.178).But the allegedheight(50 fathomsor c. 90 m, very similar to Herodotus' 200 cubits) is ludicrous.The estimated

heightis 12-20m.25Clearlythis is not an accountwhichsuggests careful investigation or specialknowledge. If Ctesias'description of the wallsmakeslittle improvement on thatof Herodotus,is he any betterover Babylon'sprincipalsanctuary,the great templeof Marduk (Esagila)and its ziqqurrat(Etemenanki)?Here Diodorus

CTESIAS'

DESCRIPTION

OF BABYLON

37

preserves(F 1.9.5-8) only what Ctesiashad to say aboutthe furnishings"at the top of the ascent" (F 1.9.5), i.e. presumablyin the topmostshrineof the ziqqurrat.26 But the original accountmust have been more extensive. Herodotus,naturallyfascinatedby the novel architecture,describedthe ziqqurrat ("the temple of Zeus Belus", 1.181-182)at some length (and not entirelycorrectly),but he alsocommentson the main sanctuary ("the temple below", 1.183).27Ctesiasmay alsohave suppliedinformationaboutboth. What remainsof his accountscarcelyinspiresconfidence.There is, first of all, the blatant contradictionof Herodotus' claim that the topmost shrinecontaineda couch, a goldentable, but no statue(1.181). Ctesiasputs here a gold table, otherequipmentof gold and no lessthan three statues(F 1.9.5).28 Very little is known for certain aboutthe upper structureof the ziqqurrator aboutits contents.Herodotusmay not be entirelyright.29 But

statuesof threedeitiesin the topmostshrine(a shrineof Marduk)3øseem highly improbable.Ctesias(or his informant)has perhapsconfusedthe furnishingsof the ziqqurratwith some of the furnishingsof Esagila, which contained,in additionto its chapelof Marduk (and his consortSarpanitum), chapelsto a numberof other deities.3• Then there is the nature of Ctesias' description of the treasures. Characteristically, he parades his exact knowledge, but the details are fantastic--a statue of Zeus 40 feet high (c. 12 m) and weighing 1000 Babyloniantalents,a table 40 feet in length,which weighs500 talents:those itemswhich Diodorusspecificallystateswere of gold (the 3 statues,table, 3 mixing-bowls)togetherproducea weightof 5700 Babyloniantalents. Ctesiaswas not alone in marvelling at the untold wealth in Babylonian sanctuaries.His predecessor's accountof Esagila(1.183), which is not so much a descriptionas an accountof its treasures,reportsa goldenstatueof Zeus, a table, footstooland chair (weighing 800 talentsall told accordingto the Chaldaeans)andotherwonders.Still, in exaggerationCtesiasfar outdoes Herodotus.

Can Ctesias' absurditiesbe explained?As with the city walls (above 33, 36 ff.), accuratedescriptionwould not have been easy. The evidence suggeststhat the ziqqurratwas not in good repair even in the middle of the fifth century, that it had in fact sufferedsomedamagein Xerxes' reign. AlthoughHerodotusmerely recordsthat Xerxes removedthe statueof Marduk (1.183), later historiansreport differently, telling us that Xerxes tore down the ziqqurrat and that Alexander the Great found it in ruins and

plannedto rebuild it.32 There may well be someexaggerationhere; how much actual destructionwas done by Xerxes is unclear. But these accounts cannotbe dismissedas total fiction. They fit very well with what cuneiform sourcestell us of the revoltsin Babylonat the beginningof Xerxes' reign.33 Herodotus'errors (and Herodotussaysonly that theperibolus still existed, not that the ziqqurratstoodunharmed)may stem from the fact that it had beenpartiallydismantled. 34 At the end of the fifth century,when Ctesias was in Babylon,it would havebeenin a muchpoorerstateof repair. Ctesias,moreover,doesnot claim to write as a_neyewitness.Diodorus

38

J. M. BIGWOOD

states(and presumablyhis words are basedon Ctesias)that all the marvel-

loustreasureswerecarriedoff as spoilby the Persiankings(F 1.9.9).35The exaggerationsmay be partly due to his sources.Nebuchadnezzarboastedof the silver, gold and precious stones which he had lavished on parts of Esagila.36Its treasuresmusthavebeenfamed far and wide. Ctesias'fantasticdetailscan be explained,at any rate in part, although they cannotbe wholly condoned.At least someof the factscould have been ascertainedby seriousinvestigation,for which he shouldhave had the opportunity. But clearly his tastesdo not embracelaboriousresearch. When Ctesiasreciteshis list of temple-treasures, his aim is obviously to amaze the reader, and not here alone. This must be his intent when he

elaborateson the passagewaywhich Semiramisbuilds under the Euphrates so that shecan proceedfrom one palaceto the secondwithoutcrossingover the river (F 1.9.2-3), a passagewayat least2 km long, if the identificationof

the palacesgiven below (40) is correct? Here againCtesiasparadeshis detailed knowledge, although he did not necessarilyclaim to have seenthis tunnel. Possiblyin fact he statedthat the bronze gates at either end, which survived "until the periodof Persianrule", had beentaken away by the time he visited Babylon. The sevendays required for the constructionof this monumentsuggest

folk-tale.38 Indeed, the story as a whole recallsthe well-knowntale of Herodotus'queenNitocris,who divertsthe Euphratesinto a lake to buildthe great bridge (1.185-6). Ctesias' Semiramis diverts the river into a lake to build her tunnel (F 1.9.1-2). This looks very much like literary embroidery,a more dramaticversionof Herodotus'story. Does the tunnel owe its origin merely to Herodotus' account and to Ctesias' fantasies?Perhapsnot. This may be a tall tale which Ctesiashad

heardratherthanthe productof his imagination .39The remainingpartsof his descriptionof the city suggestthat his information, if not entirely correct, derivesat leastin part from what he saw or heardin Babylon. The storyof Semiramis' lake, in fact, which is so closely associatedwith the story of the tunnel, suggestshear-sayevidence. 3. The Lake and Bridge Over the lake (F 1.9.1) Diodorus is rather brief and imprecise. He merely recordsthat Semiramisselectedthe lowest-lyingspotin Babyloniaand built a reservoirof baked brick and asphalt,35 feet (c. 10.5 m) deep and 1200 stades(c. 216 km) in perimeter.In the tale recountedby Herodotus(1.185), Nitocris' lake, which was built at somepoint a long way above Babylonto serve as a defencefor the city as well as a reservoirwhen the channelat Babylon was drained, had a stonecopingand a perimeterof 420 stadesor c.

75.8 km.4øHas Ctesiasarbitrarilyalteredthe detailsgivenby his predecessor?Here we must look briefly at our other sourcesof information. In recountingthe building activitiesof Nebuchadnezzar,the historian

CTESIAS'

DESCRIPTION

OF BABYLON

39

Abydenus(as reportedby Eusebius),who is writing probablyin the second century AD and who is surprisinglywell-informed at this point in his narrative (the detailsprobablyderive ultimatelyfrom Berossus),describesa similar venture (685 F 6). 41 He attributesto Nebuchadnezzarthe constructionof a very large artificial lake north of Babylon, in the area above Sippar (or, accordingto the Armenianversion,nearSippar),a lake with sluice-gates for the purposesof irrigation. The statements of all three historians, as a number of scholars have

argued, must have some connectionwith the defence works which Nebuchadnezzarboaststhat he constructedto the north and northeastof Babylon, i.e. with the wall from the EuphratesnearBabylonto Kish (c. 16 km eastof Babylon) and the wall farther to the north, from the Euphratesat Sippar to

the Tigrisat Opis (nearthe later Seleucia,c. 28 km from Sippar), 42walls strengthened with asphaltand burnedbrick and associated,both of them, with an area of water or an area which could be flooded. 43

The precisenatureof thesedefencesis not at all certainand will never be certain without careful examination of the entire area and excavation. 44

However, we shouldnote that both Nebuchadnezzarand Abydenusrefer to Sippar,and alsothat Herodotus'lake is a long way abovethe city; his words suitthe neighbourhood of the Sippar-Opiswall, notthat of the Babylon-Kish wall. More interestingis the questionof the size of the lake. In connection with the northernwall Nebuchadnezzartalks of surroundingthe city with water "for 20 double-hours". 4sAbydenus'lake, which is muchlarger than that of Herodotus,has a circumferenceof 40 parasangs,which tallies very well with Nebuchadnezzar'sstatement. The double-hour, accordingto its standardmeaning,shouldbe twice the parasang,which is the distancecoveredin a journeyof one hour.The size alsotallieswell with the perimeteras given by Ctesias. 46 If the parasangis taken as the equivalentof 30 stades (and this is the value which Herodotusgivesto it),47Abydenus'lake hasa

perimeterof 1200stades,the size statedby Ctesias. 4* SeeminglyCtesias' huge reservoirpreserves,in howevergarbleda form, an echo of genuine Babyloniantradition. While in Babylon, Ctesiasmay haveheardsomethingof vastconstructionsto the north. With the greatbridge(F 1.8.2-3), where he is much more detailed than Herodotus (1.186), we have a much clearer reflection of his

visit to the city. Not everything is, of course, right. The alleged dimensionsof the bridge (theseare not given by Herodotus)are absurd. 49 In Ctesias(it is situatedwhere the river is narrowest)its length is 5 stades(c. 900 m), more than 7 times too long. The excavatorsfound it to measure115 m. The distancebetweenthe piersis not, as in Ctesias,12 feet (c. 3.6 m), but 9 m. The width of the passageway(Ctesiasgivesthis as 30 feet, or c. 9 m) could have beenno morethan5-6 m, sincethe mostwesterlypier is only 6 m long.so In the case of other details we have insufficient archaeologicalevidencefor a proper assessment.Ctesias,for example, showingan interestin

40

J.M.

BIGWOOD

techniquesof constructionwhich is worthy of his predecessor,claims (like Herodotus)that the bridge was of stone, and further that the stoneswere joined by iron clamps, the joints being filled with lead (Herodotusrefers only in generaltermsto the useof iron andlead)? The excavatorsfoundthe piers to be of baked brick cemented with asphalt, although Koldewey

thoughtit not impossiblethat thesewere onceroofedwith stone? The upperstructure,of which nothingis known from archaeology,was probably

of wood, as Ctesias(and also Herodotus)says? And the typesof wood which he specifies--cedar,cypressand palm--are at leasttypesfrequently employedat Babylon,whetheror not they were usedhere.s4 But Ctesiaswas also impressedby the shapeof the piers. To these,he says, were attachedcutwaters,pointedon the north and with sideswhich were rounded to turn off the current and which narrowed a little to conform

to the width of the pier. Thesecommentsat least, which have been fully confirmedby the findingsof the excavatorsil s surelybetraythe eyewitness. 4. The Palaces

Ctesias,then, made some use of the evidenceof his eyes. How far is this true of his accountof the palaces(F 1.8.3-7)?This is a subjecton which his predecessor has singularlylittle to report. Herodotusalludesto a palace (1.181)and he is clearlyreferringto the greatcomplexof palace-buildings of the Kasr, i.e. the SouthCitadel (in the westernpart of which the Persians erected an apadana) plus the Principal Citadel, the extension which Nebuchadnezzarbuilt immediatelyto the north. But he does not describe this great monument.Quite possiblyhe had no accessto an area which would havebeenthe head-quarters for the Persianadministration at the time of his visit. so

Ctesiashas not one palace, but two. About each he suppliesdetails, but his reportposesa numberof problemswhichmustbe disposedof before we proceedto the remainderof the description. By his largerpalaceCtesiassurelymeansHerodotus'palace,the Kasr, andthis is what Koldeweybelieved? Ctesias'smallerpalace,accordingto Koldewey, is the so-calledsummerpalaceof Nebuchadnezzar(Tell Babil), situatedroughly2 km to the northof the Kasr, and like the great palace, no doubt still in use in the Achaemenidperiod.s8 Koldewey'sidentification must be correct. But there is a confusion in the account which Koldewey does not note.

Accordingto Diodorusthe two palacesstoodone on eachbankof the river (F 1[: Diod. 2].9.3), but thereis no problemhere. TodayBabil and the Kasr are both on the east side of the river, as they were in the NeoBabylonianperiod. However, the excavatorsbelieved that at some point after 539 therewas a major changein the courseof the Euphrates,that in the Achaemenidperiod, insteadof flowing in its old channelwest of the Kasr, the river turnedeastwardsalong the bed of a former canal, then southand west around the Kasr and reentered its old channel north of the great

CTESIAS'

DESCRIPTION

OF BABYLON

41

bridge? This harmoniseswell with Herodotus'statement(1.181) that the palace and the ziqqurratwere on oppositesidesof the river; otherwise Herodotusis guiltyof a majorerror.It alsofits the evidenceof the historians of Alexander 6ø and has been generallyaccepted? Thus, at the time of Ctesias'visit to Babylon,the river, as Diodorussays,musthave separated the palaces. 62 Diodorus,however,alsosaysthatthe palacesstoodat eitherendof the bridge(F 1.8.3), a statementwhich is clearlyincorrect.Neitherpalaceis

adjacentto the bridge,whichlies well to the southof the Kasr.63Ctesias' memoryhasapparentlydeceivedhim; he seemsto have falselyremembered the two great buildings,one on either sideof the bridge, as the two palaces, whenthe realitiesare quite different.64 Besidesthe problemof location,thereare the giganticdimensionsattributedto the palaces.The smallerone (F 1.8.7) is given aperibolus of 30 stades(c. 5.4 km), about 7 times too long. Koldewey estimatedthat the

summerpalacewas roughlysquarewith a perimeterof c. 720 m.65 The palace-buildingsof the Kasr covereda much larger area, one measuring about 1700 m in circumference. Ctesias' outer circuit wall (F 1.8.4) of 60 stades(or c. 10.8 km) is more than 5 times too long. But one expects exaggerated dimensions.

Much more difficult are the alleged fortificationsof the greaterpalace. Three walls encloseit, not one, accordingto Ctesias(F 1.8.4-6), the middle one being 40 stadeslong (c. 7.2 km), incredibly thick (300 bricks) and enormouslyhigh (50 fathoms),with towersof 70 fathoms,while the inmost wall, 20 stadesin length (c. 3.6 km), is even thicker and higher. The palacebuildingsof the Kasr were indeedheavilyfortified;this is the point wherethe river entersthe city on the northandnaturallyit required strongdefences.The systemof fortificationsas it existedin the Achaemenid period(the Persiansmadesomealterations)is not entirelyclear66and there is considerableuncertaintyas to precisely which walls Ctesias' accountrefers to. But that the palace was encircledby three walls, one inside the other, cannot be correct. An advocate for Ctesias can at best claim that it

might haveappearedthat the palacearea was surrounded by a triple wall, if one approached the Kasr from the north.67 What Ctesiasreportsof the palacesis in somerespectsmisleading,if not downrighterroneous,but he also attributesto the palace-wallsmarvellous ornamentation,someof it coloured,and this part of his accountshould be lookedat closely.None of our otherGreekor Romanauthoritiesalludeto such wonders, apart from Philostratus(V.A. I 25), with his embroidered tapestriesdepictingscenesfrom the PersianWars and also scenes(Orpheus, Andromedaand their like) from Greek mythology--obviously an absurd Greekfantasy. 68But what Ctesiassayscannotbe dismissed quite so lightly. Some of the walls did bear remarkable decorations;Koldewey's team uncoveredfriezes in polychromeglazed brick which are indeed spectacular. What does Ctesiastell us about the d•cor of the smaller, less impressive palace (F 1.8.7), i.e. Babil, Nebuchadnezzar'rs summer palace? Its

42

J.M.

BIGWOOD

peribolus, he claims, was adornedwith statuesof the ruler (Semiramiswith her husbandNinus) and subordinatesand also with parataxeis, i.e. battlescenes(or doesDiodorusmean "lines of troops"?) and huntsof every kind. Diodorus' versionis meagreand very little aboutthis palace is known from archaeology. bøBut it shouldbe notedthathereCtesiasis not wildly fanciful. Althoughit is difficult to believein representations of Ninus and Semiramis, the artistic themesto which Diodorus alludes so briefly are certainly not inappropriatein the Near East, however they relate to the ornamentation which actuallyexisted? Moreover, the claim that this palacelackedthe striking glazed brick friezes of the greater palace (this is what Diodorus appearsto meanby his statementthat "the ingeniousportrayalof animals" was absent)may be correct. Koldewey believed it to be confirmedby the fact that the fragments of glazed brick which were found on Babil, and whichperhapsdid not originatethere, were very few.TM Much more is known aboutthe ornamentationof the great palaceof the Kasr, which is one of the most thoroughlyexcavatedparts of the city, and Diodorus is more informative. On its middle wall, we are told, were fashioned all kinds of animals in colour (F 1.8.4), while on the towers and sides of its inmost wall, also in colour, was a hunt scene--animals of all

types, and with them, Semiramison horsebackcastinga javelin at a leopard and nearby Ninus thrustinga spear into a lion at close quarters(F 1.8.6). Whatever Ctesias intended by his middle peribolus (above p. 41), some of the walls in very close proximity to the great palace (and perhapsin the Persianperiod part of the palace-complex)were certainlyembellishedwith colouredanimals. Rows of bulls and dragonsin polychromeglazed brick adornedthe IshtarGate72and glazedbrick lions decoratedthe walls of the Processional Way northof the IshtarGate? Parts of the palace-complexitself were also richly ornamented,al-

thoughnaturallynot everythingis known aboutthe d•cor.74 Glazed brick lions adornedtwo of the interiorgatewaysin the easternsectionof the South Citadel. Impressive glazed brick decorations(a row of ornamentalpillars with floral adornmentsabove and a row of striding lions beneath)covered one wall of the Throne Room? Multi-colouredpanelsin glazed brick also decoratedthe PersianBuilding? Accordingto Koldewey Ctesias'accountof the ornamentation of the inmostwall referredto that of the interior gateways,the Throne Room and the Persian Building. In addition, Koldewey believed that the fragmentsof glazed brick from the PersianBuilding were consistentwith Ctesias'hunt scene;indeed, one of the fragments, he maintained, was a fragment of a white female face.77 But these last claims, as Haerinck has shown in detail,

are very unsatisfactory. 78No fragmentswere apparentlyfoundbelongingto horses,lions or any of the other animalswhich one would expect in a hunt scene.The supposedlyfemale face must also be a male face. All the fragments in fact are consistentwith panels of "Guards", clad in rich ornamentedgarb, carryingspearand bow and strikinglysimilar to the famous glazedbrick panelsof "Guards" adomingthe Achaemenidpalace-complex at Susa. 79

CTESIAS'

DESCRIPTION

OF BABYLON

43

There is thus no archaeologicalevidencefor the existenceof a hunt sceneon the PersianBuildingor on any other part of the great palaceat

Babylon.Yet, despitethis, and despitethe namesNinusand Semiramis, thereis certainlya Near Easternring to Ctesias'description. Lion-hunting andleopard-hunting (andalsoof course thehuntingof •nanyotherspecies of animal)arepastimes characteristic of NearEastern potentates. søAmongthe manyhuntscenes of Mesopotamian art andPersianart of the Achaemenid andlaterperiods, lion-hunts areveryprominent, whether thehuntsman is in a chariot, on horsebackor on foot, whetherhe is armed with bow or with

spear. TMParticularlyfamousare the lion-huntfriezesof Neo-Assyrian palaces. a2But sceneswhichdepictleopard-hunting, althoughthis is a less common theme, also occur.a3

We do not know to which wall Ctesias'descriptionapplies? We do not know whetherhe was claimingto describea frieze which he actually saw or one which he was told existedin the past. Nor can we be surethat thereever were suchpanelsin the greatpalaceat Babylon.Ctesiascould

havetransferred to thepalacea friezewhichhe hadseenelsewhere, asor a scenedepictedon someartifact,on a sealimpression or evenon textiles. But his descriptioncertainlysuggests,in contrastto the descriptionof Philostratus referredto above(p. 41), something whichhe hadseenor heard aboutduringhis stayat the Persiancourt.And his account,eventhoughit maybe in partgarbled,doesgive someimpression of the undoubtedly magnificent decorations

which once existed. 5. Conclusion

There is much in Ctesias' descriptionof the city that is erroneous.As we have seen, almost all his estimatesof size are vastly exaggerated(as of

courseare manyof thoseof Herodotus).Ctesiastoo knowssingularlylittle aboutthe outer walls, preferringto accepthere someof his predecessor's errors,and singularlylittle aboutthe ziqqurrat,wherehe seemsto be preparedto repeatany nonsensewhich he was told. Still, not everythingis absurdor wrong. Althoughit is difficult to assess the descriptionas a whole sincewe do not possess it in the original, someof the details, as our analysishas revealed, indisputablyhave some relationshipto what was once there or to what people might have said.

Hear-sayevidenceseemsto be involvedin the accountof the lake northof Babylon.Eyewitness evidencehasobviouslycontributed to the description of thegreatbridge.Ctesiasagaincorrectlytalksof two palacesandalthough thereare manyproblemsin whathe saysof them,clearlyhisentiredescription, or at leastthe descriptionof the marvellousd•cor, cannotbe rejectedas total fantasy. We must not of course over-estimate Ctesias' concern for accuracy.

Althoughhe boastselsewherein the Persica of his Persianinformantsand native sources(T 8, F 5.32.4), there is little in the history as a whole which

suggests that he made significantuse of his remarkableopportunities for research. He claims to be a historian and no writer of romance,86 but we

44

J.M.

BIGWOOD

may well doubtthat he hadany enthusiasm at all for the labourthat genuine historicalinquiry might involve. When he describesBabylon, he is, it is clear, much lessconcerned,if he is concernedat all, with exactnessof detail than with impressingupon his readerthe unimaginablesplendoursof the great city. His interest, as it is throughouthis history, is in what is sensational and what will amaze. 87

But equally noteworthyis the questionof his preciserelationshipto Herodotus. It is obvious that in this section of his work he is striving to

correct his predecessorwherever he possiblycan and, where he has any opportunityat all, to supplementwhat Herodotushad said, an endeavour which doesnot alwaysenhancethe accuracyof his account.Herodotusis of coursehis literary model and Herodotushas also providedsome facts, but not many. It shouldbe emphasised that a very largepart of Ctesias'description is quite independentof Herodotus.It may containexaggerations and it may containerrors, but someof it clearly derivesfrom his personalknowledgeof the city. This conclusionobviouslyhasrelevanceto the whole difficult questionof the sourcesof the earlier part of his history. Ctesiasmay have been indebtedmuch lessto Herodotusand to his own imaginationthan has at times been believed. 88

J.M. Bigwood

Victoria College University of Toronto NOTES

1. The most importantrecentassessments are thoseof E Wetzel, "Babylon zur Zeit Herodots",Zeitschriftfi•r AssyriologieN.E 14 (1944) 45-68, O.E. Ravn, Herodotus'descriptionof Babylon (Copenhagen1942; the Danishtext appearedin 1939) and W. Baumgartner,"Herodots Babylonischeund AssyrischeNachrichten", ArchOrient 18 (1950) 69406 (henceforwardWetzelZA, Ravn, Baumgartner). 2. E Jacoby, "Ktesias", RE 11 (1922) 2032-2073 (the basic study of Ctesias), especially2047 if.; A. Momigliano in an importantarticle, "Tradizione e invenzionein Ctesia", A&R 12 (1931) 15-44 (=Quarto contributoalla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico (Rome 1969) 181-212)takes a more moderate stand.

For more recentbibliographyon Ctesiassee my "Ctesias' accountof the revolt of Inarus", Phoenix 30 (1976) 1-25, esp. p.1 n.1, and also my "Ctesias as historianof the Persianwars", Phoenix 32 (1978) 19-41. 3. The exaggerationsof his descriptioncausedP. Schnabel,Berossosund die babylonisch-hellenistische Literatur (Leipzig 1923) 45, to deny this. 4. Ctesiasdistinguishes,in the mannertraditionalto Ionian historiography, between hear-sayevidence and the evidenceof one's own eyes, which was felt to have greaterauthority:cf. E Jacoby,FGrHist III C 688 T 8. All referencesto the fragmentsof Ctesiaswill be to Jacoby'sedition, which is far superiorto the other editions.

5. Ctesias,who givesus the name Cunaxa, claimsthat it was 500 stades(c. 90 km) from Babylon (F 18). The exact site is disputed, but R.D. Barnett, "Xenophon and the wall of Media", JHS 83 (1963) 16, arguesfor Nuseffiat, about 80 km north of Babylon.

CTESIAS'

DESCRIPTION

OF BABYLON

45

6. Accordingto F 27.69, Clearchusand his fellow-generalswere taken to Babylonafter their capture.But whetherthey were put to deaththereis not certain. 7. The commentsof R. Drews, "Sargon, Cyrus and Mesopotamianfolk history",JNES 33 (1974) 391 and n.24, requiresomemodification.Ctesiasseemsto have arrived at the Persiancourt in 404 and he must have left Persia in 398/7 (T.S. Brown, "Suggestions for a vita of Ctesiasof Cnidus",Historia 27 (1978) 1 ff., again arguesunconvincingly that he spent17 yearsin Persia:on thisquestionseeJacoby, RE, "Ktesias", 2033 ff. and my commentsin Phoenix 32 (1978) 20). Our sources, however,tell usalmostnothingof hismovements withinPersia.After Cunaxa,when Parysatis(the queen-mother) arrangedthe murderof Artaxerxes'queenStateira, which is the first event after the deathof the Greek generalsthat we know Ctesias reported(F 27.70 and F 29 b), the royal family (andpresumably the historian)were perhapsin Susa,at any rate not in Babylon,sinceArtaxerxesallegedlybanished Parysatis to Babylonfor her part in the affair (F 29 b). It is not knownwhetherthe Greek belief that the Persianking spenta portionof every year in Babylonis true. We have no record of anothervisit of Artaxerxesto this city until 395 (Diod. 14.81.5). 8.

I discuss the closeness with which Diodorus follows Ctesias in a forth-

coming article. 9. There is no evidencethat he is summarising an intermediaryauthorwho

madeuseof Ctesias,andnot Ctesias'historydirectly,an old theorystill acceptedby G. Goossens,"L'histoire d'Assyrie de Ct•sias", AC 9 (1940) 25-45, F. Schachermeyr, "Alexanderin Babylon", SAWW 268.3 (1970) 60 fl. and W.F. KiSnig,Die Persika des Ktesias yon Knidos (Graz 1972) 31 if. He does of course make some additionsto his basicauthority. 10.

Cf. Phoenix 30 (1976) 24.

11. Diodorusrefersto Ctesiasby name three times in his descriptionof Babylon. In ch. 7 he addsa correctionof one of Ctesias'measurements which he found in Cleitarchus(sourcea), plus two other corrections(sourceb). In ch. 10, the accountof the HangingGardens,which I do not discuss,Diodorushas obviously abandoned Ctesias(seefor examplethe heightof the city-wall) in favourof a later account(sourcec). All thesecorrectionsclearly derive from one authority,sourcea, i.e. Cleitarchus,as Jacobybelieved(FGrHist on 137F 10). Note that sources b andc agreeon the heightof the walls and that all the informationprovidedby a, b andc is found in Quintus Curtius 5.1.24 if., whose accounthere derives presumablyfrom Cleitarchus.

On the additions to Ctesias which Diodorus

makes in ch. 9 see below

n. 26.

12. The following volumes,which will henceforwardbe citedby abbreviated title, are particularlyimportantfor the discussionof Ctesias'description:R. Koldewey, The excavationsat Babylon (London 1914), tr. Johns[Babylon];F. Wetzel, Die StadtmauernvonBabylon(Leipzig 1930)[Stadtm.]; R. Koldeweyand F. Wetzel, Die K6nigsburgenvonBabylon, 2 vols. (Leipzig 1931, 1932) [K6nigsb.I and II]; F. Wetzeland F. Weissbach,Das HauptheiligtumdesMarduk in Babylon (Leipzig 1938) [Haupth.]; F. Wetzel, E. Schmidt, A. Mallwitz, Das Babylon der Spiitzeit (Berlin 1957) [Spiitzeit]. There is also a large body of cuneiformevidencerelating to the topography:see in particularE. Unger, "Babylon", Reallexikonder Assyriologie 1 (1932) 330-69; Unger, Babylon, die heilige Stadt (Berlin 1931) and O.R. Gumey, "The fifth tabletof 'the topographyof Babylon'", Iraq 36 (1974) 39-52. But most of it has no bearingon the problemsdiscussedbelow. 13. Bibliography up to 1969 is listed by R.S. Ellis, A bibliography of Mesopotamianarchaeologicalsites (Wiesbaden1972) 9 ff. For the recent brief re-

46

J. M.

BIGWOOD

portson the programmeof restorationand limited excavationbeingcarriedout by the Directorate General of Antiquities see the loreword of Dr. lsa Salman in Sumer, xols. 26-31 11970-75)and alsolraq 34 (1972) 139 f., 35 (1973) 190, 38 (1976) 67. For the recentexplorationsof the German ArchaeologicalInstituteseeAOF 23 (1970) 147 (E.E Weidner) and 24 (1973) 164-66 (J. Schmidt).

14. Ctesiashas a marked interestin Babylonand Babylonians:there are, for example, three tales of Chaldaeanastrologers(F 1.24.1 fl., F 13.19 and Nicol. Dam.

90 F 66.9 if. [basedon Ctesias]),as well as the storyof the BabylonianAnnarus/ Nanarus(F 6 and 90 F 4). Also, what he relatesabout BabylonunderXerxes (below n. 33) has at least a connectionwith the facts. However, despitethis, he has singularly little knowledgeof Babylonianhistoryand fi'om a historicalpoint of view his descriptionof the city, which becomescanonical in the Graeco-Romanworld (see Baumstark, '•Babylon", RE 2 11896)2670), is of coursenonsensical.His Babylon is the achievementof the legendaryAssyrianqueenSemiramis,reigningbefore 2000 BC (on the historical queen of c. 900 Bc see most recently W. Schramm, "War Semiran'ilsAssyrischeRegentin'?",Historia 21 (1972) 513-521). But, althoughthe city was very ancient and althoughsome of the constructions existed in an earlier lbrm, the monumentswhich he describesare in fact Neo-Babylonian,many of them the work of Nebuchadnezzar i! 1605-562 Be), altl•,oughin somecasesthey havebeen modified to a limited extent by the building operations of the Persian kings. Herodotus, who ascribessome of them to an apocryphalqueen Nitocris (see W. R611ig,"Nitokris von Babylon", Beitriige :.ur alten Geschichte,ed. R. Stiehl and H.E. Stier (Berlin 1969) 127-135)in the generationbefore Cyrus the Great, is, in contrastto Ctesias, approximatelycorrect over the dating. 15. Babylon 2, but see Ravn 37 and Baumgartner74. The full report of the excavationof the walls is given in Stadtm. For a simplified plan of the city see Figure 1. 16. When Herodotus(3.159) statesthat Darius destroyedthe walls and took away all the gates,he must meanthe inner enceinte.On the stateof both systemssee Wetzel

ZA 48 if.

17. Discussedby Ravn 27 if., Baumgartner74 f. 18. Cf. Babylon 2, Stadtm. 77. 19. The outer enceinte was also a double rampart. Towers were found on its inner wall and were estimated to number about 90. None were found on the outer

wall of this system, although they are believed to have existed (Babylon I fl., Stadtm. 70 fl.). Arrian, Ahab. 7.17.6, following Aristobulus (FGrHist 139 F 54), commentson the marshesclose to Babylon. 20.

I have taken the "foot" as 30 cm, the '•cubit" (lV2 "feet") as 45 cm,

the "fathom" (4 "cubits") as !.8 m, the plethron(lO0 •'feet") as 30 m, the stade(6 plethra) as 180 m. But my modernequivalentsare intendedto be very rough and ready approximationsonly. Greek measuresof length vary in their value accordingto location(seeDer Kleine Paul•, under "stadion", "orgyia", "pechys" etc.). All of them may be somewhat"subjective" terms in Greek historians,as K.J. Dover has suggestedwith regard to the stade(A.W. Gomme et al., A historical commentaryon Thucydides IV (Oxford 1970) 468).

21. Babrlon 2. and believing that the outer enceinte surroundedthe entire city, he estimatedthe total length as 18 km. 22. Cf. the Cilician tribute of 360 white horses, "one for every day of the year" (Hdt. 3.90): the dividing of the river Gyndes into 360 channels(Hdt. 1.189190): 360 usesof the palm tree (Strabo 16.1.14, 743); Artaxerxes' 360 concubines (Plut. Artax. 27), whereas in Curt. 3.3.24 and 6.6.8 (no figure is given in Diod. 17.77.6) the Persianking has 365.

CTESIAS'

23.

DESCRIPTION

OF BABYLON

47

Cleitarchus (137 F 10 and Curt. 5.1.24 ff.: cf. above n. 11) exhibits better

knowledge than Ctesias when he attributes the Hanging Gardens, which Ctesias probably ascribed to Semirmnis, to a later "Syrian" king (Diod. 2.10.1, Curt. 5.1.35). But he has also been strongly influencedby Ctesias whose descriptionhe strivesto improveupon. His city is foundedby Semiramis(Curt. 5.1.24). Its walls are 50 cubits(c. 22.5 m) high with towersof 60 cubitsor c. 27 m (Diod. 2.7.4, the substitutionof cubitsfor Ctesias' fathomsis perhapsan intelligentguessat the approprimeheight). Like Ctesias' walls, they are wide enoughfor 2 four-horsechariots (Curt. 5.1.25). As in Ctesias,the buildingsare at somedistancefrom the walls (Curt. 5.1.26, althoughthe measurementdiffers). His "citadel" has a circumlkrenceof 20 stadesor c. 3.6 km (Curt. 5.1.31); cf. the peribolus of Ctesias' larger palace and muchtoo big (seep. 41). This is not a descriptionwhich suggeststhe familiarity with the far more knowledgeable account of Berossus(680 F 8) which L. Pearson, The lost histories of Alexander the Great (APA Monographs 20, 1960) 230 f., proposes,even if we accepta late date for Cleitarchus'history(on this vexed problemsee now P. Goukowsky(ed.), Diodore de Siclie XVII (Paris 1976) xx if.). 24. Stadtm. 70. The outer wall of this systemwas of bakedbrick, its inner wall of unbakedbrick. Herodotus(1.179), and seeminglyalso Ctesias, talk of baked brick only. 25.

Ravn 28.

26. At 9.4 Diodorus commentson the discrepanciesbetween the various authorities,and at 9.9 he statesthat the palacesand other buildingsare now in ruins (cf. Strabo16.1.5, 238, Pliny NH 6.122), a note which is inappropriateto the Babylon of Ctesias' lifetime. But the major part of his descriptionof the temple must be based on Ctesias.

The contradiction

of Herodotus

and the account

of the fabulous

treasures(cf. the stupendouswealth which the last Assyrian king, Sardanapallus, heapson his pyre--F 1 q) are very muchin keepingwith Ctesias' mannerof writing. 27. His description(Ravn 42 ff., Baumgartner75 if.) is very difficult to assess.Little more than the ground-plansof the temple and its ziqqurratare known

from excavation(Babylon183if., 214 ff.:Haupth. 1-36), andthe evidencepresented by our other principal source of information, the "Smith Tablet" (Weissbach, Haupth. 49 if.; A. Parrot,Ziggurats et Tour de Babel (Paris 1949) 22 ff., 73 if.), dated to 229 Bc, is very controversial. 28. Of Zeus (i.e. Marduk), Rhea and Hera. By Hera he presumablymeans Sarpanitum,the consortof Marduk. It is unclearwhich goddessis intendedby Rhea. The lions which Diodorussayswere at her side might suggestIshtar. But she is not the only goddessassociatedwith lions (U. Seidl, "lnanna/lgtar", Reallexikon der Assyriologie5 (1976) 88) and one might expectIshtarto be equatedwith Aphrodite. 29. Baumgartner77, Weissbach,Haupth. 84, and others believe that Herodotus'statementaboutthe couchis corroboratedby the "bed" and "throne" in the "house of the bed" of the "Smith Tablet" lines 30-34, but the interpretationof these lines is much disputed:see Ravn 53 and Parrot (above n. 27) 73, 78 f. For various reconstructions of Etemenanki

see Parrot 185 if.

30. S. Langdon, Die NeubabvlonischenKonigsinschriften(Leipzig 1912), Nbk no. 17 col. IV lines 1-4 (p. 149); cf. Weissbach,Haupth. 47. 31. Parrot(above n. 27) 75 if.: Haupth. 7 if., 72 if. 32. Strabo 16.1.5, 738: ArtJan 3.16.4, 7.17.2 (according to Art. other temples also were destroyed): Diodorus 17.112.3 (making the Persians guilty, not Xerxes). Ctesiasmay also have reportedthe destructionof the ziqqurrat. This is not statedin the very abbreviatedversiongiven by Photius(F 13.26), but it is reportedby Aelian VH 13.3 in a story based(probably indirectly)on Ctesias. 33. See F.M.Th. de Liagre B6hl, "Die babylonischenPriitendentenzur Zeit

48

J.M.

BIGWOOD

Xerxes", BO 19 (1962) 110-114, who dates the two short-lived revolts to 484 and

482. On the dropping, in 481, of "King of Babylon" from the titles of the Persian kings see G.G. Cameron, "Darius and Xerxes in Babylonia", AmericanJournal of SemiticLanguagesand Literatures 58 (1941), esp. 323 f. It shouldbe noted that Ctesias, for once getting thingsapproximatelycorrect, reportsa revolt of Babylon prior to Xerxes' Greek campaign(F 13.26). Cf. also Plut. Mor. 173 c (without date). 34. Cf. Baumgartner 71 n. 18 and B/Shl (above n. 33) 113. Weissbach, Haupth. 79, and Schachermeyr(aboven. 9) 56 believethe ziqqurratto have beenin good repair at this point. 35.

Cf. Hdt.

36. 37.

Langdon, Nbk no. 15 col. II, lines 30 if. (pp. 125 if). But, since Diodorus' account of the location of the palacesis confused

1.183.

(seepp. 40 f.), it is unclearwhich pointsCtesias'tunnelallegedlyconnected.For the passageway cf. alsoPhilostratus,Vita Apollonii I 25, which cannotbe independentof Ctesias. Note that this passageconnectstwo palaces, that asphalt and bronze are employed,that the queendivertsthe river and digsto a depthof 2 fathomsor c. 3.6 m (= 12 feet: Ctesias'tunnel is 12 ft high apart from its vault). For the influenceof Ctesiason the Vita Apollonii see Jacoby,RE, "Ktesias" 2073 and F. Grosso, "Gli Eretriesi deportatiin Persia", RF1C 86 (1958), esp. 365 f. On Philostratus'description of Babylon see also p. 41. 38. This figure occursrepeatedlyin Herodotus:seethe exampleslistedby D. Fehling, Die Quellenangabenbei Herodot (Berlin 1971) 160 f. 39. Cf. the undergroundpassage(Hdt. 2.150) to the palace at Nineveh, althoughHerodotus'story lacks the specificdetailsof Ctesias'tale. Was the latter suggestedby one of the covered, vaulted canals (KOnigsb.II 30 if.)? That metal gratingscould have been usedto close suchwater channelsis clear from an inscription of Nebuchadnezzar:Langdon, Nbk no. 5 col. II lines 1-10 (discussedby J. Laess0e,Journal of CuneiformStudies5 (1951) 23 f.). 40. Herodotusdescribesthe lake as navigable and also as a marsh(1.185-186: cf. 1.191).Presumablyhe meansthat it couldbe navigatedby vesselsof very shallow draught.In later daysCyrus (Hdt. 1.191)divertedthe river into it and by thusreducing the depthof the Eaphratesat Babylon, enteredthe city without a struggle. 41. What remains of his accountat this point does not suggestany knowledge of Ctesias' description,and it may be derived from Berossusvia Alexander Polyhistor(Schnabel(above n. 3) 164 if.). For Polyhistor'suse of Berossussee Jacoby,FGrHist on 273 F 79-81. 42. For the problemof the site of Opis seeBarnett(aboven. 5) 19. The wall from Sipparto Opis is usually identifiedwith the Median wall (Xen. Anab. 1.7.15, 2.4.12; in Strabo 2.1.26, 80 and 11.14.8, 529 the wall of Semiramis): see Weissbach,

"Mqbiaq '•Zoq", RE 15 (1931) 77 f.; Barnett18 if. 43. Langdon,Nbk no. 19 B col. VI lines60 if. (p. 167). A very similartext of Nebuchadnezzaris publishedby S.J. Levy, "Two cylindersof NebuchadnezzarII in the lraq Museum", Sumer 3 (1947) 448. 44. Barnett (above n. 5) 19-20 thinks that there might have been a lake north of Sippar. Ravn 39 if. thinks of a lake southof the Sippar-Opiswall (cf. E. Meyer, SB Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. 1912, 1096 if.). M. Gibson, The city and area of Kish (Miami 1972) 50 f., who made a surfacereconnaissanceof the area round Kish (he does not refer to the northernwall), considersthe possibilityof an artificial lake againsouthof the Sippar-Opisline. He notesthat betweenBabylonand Kish thereis a long, fairly wide artificial rise, which may be the remainsof Nebuchadnezzar's southernwall, and also that north of Kish there is an extensive basin, which in the

CTESIAS'

DESCRIPTION

OF BABYLON

49

past has been swamp, which might be connectedwith Nebuchadnezzar's claims. However,in "The archaeological usesof cuneiformdocuments: Patternsof occupation at the city of Kish", lraq 34 (1972) 113ff., he doubtswhetherNebuchadnezzar actuallyconstructed a lake in this area. An earlier surfacereconnaissance by R.M. Adamsand V. CrawfordsurveyedAkkad and includedthe wholeareaunderdiscussion,but the publishedfindings(seeAppendixV by Adamsin Gibson,The ciO'and area of Kish) containno allusionto the Sippar-Opis wall. More recentlyit hasbeen suggested thattheNeo-Babylonian constructions foundnearBaghdadin 1975maybe connectedwith the northernwall: see J.N. Postgate,"Excavationsin Iraq 1975", lraq 38 (1976) 67-68.

45. Weissbach(aboven. 42) 75 if. discusses the problemof whetherthis expression refersto thecircumference of thelakeor to itsareaetc.Forthevariousmeaningsof b•ru ("double-hour")seeThe ChicagoAssyriandictionam'2, pp. 208 if. Where it refers to actual distances,it is reckonedto be the distancecoveredon foot in 2 hours,or more than 10 km, althoughmany follow Thureau-Dangin(JA (1909) 98) in believingthat in the Neo-Babylonianperiodit couldhave half this value. 46. The depthdiffers. In Diodorusit is 35 feet (c. 10.5 m), in Abydenus20 fathoms (c. 36 m).

47.

2.6, butin realityit is a flexibledistance(W. Becher,"Parasanges", RE

18 (1949) 1375).

48.

On the correspondence of the 20 double-hours,40 parasangsand 1200

stadescf. Weissbach(above n. 42) 77.

49. The widthof the quays(F 1.8.3), whichhe claimswassimilarto thatof thecity walls(c. 22.5 m in Hdt., seeabovep. 36), is alsoexaggerated. The quay-wall on the east bank in front of Nabonidus' wall was in actuality 3.5 m wide (Stadtm.

49). Nothingis knownof embankments on the west sideof the river, althoughit seemsthat therewas no defensivewall like Nabonidus'wall (Spiitzeit22, WetzelZA 58 fl.).

50. For the archaeological detailsseeStadtm.55. Strabo16.1.5, 738, who claimsthat the river was 1 stadewide at Babylon (c. 180 m), is lessinaccuratethan Ctesias.

51. A standardGreektechnique(A.W. Lawrence,Greekarchitecture 2 (Harmondsworth1968) 225). Koldewey,Babylon 198 notesthat the limestoneblocksin the northwall of the Kasr werejoined with clamps,but theseare of wood (Babylon 177).

52. Babylon 197 f. Limestonewas found deep down in one pier (Stadtm. 55).

53. The bridgecould perhapsbe opened(Stadtm.55): cf. Herodotus'comment that the logs were removedat night to preventthe Babyloniansfrom crossing and stealingfrom each other. 54. For cedarandcypressseeLangdon,Nbk no. 15 col. 9 lines3 if. (p. 139) etc.; for palm seeBabylon 108 etc. 55.

Cf. Stadtm.

Tar. 51.

56. Cf. WetzelZA 50. To avoid confusionI have retainedKoldewey's names for the variouspartsof this palace. For the evidenceof Achaemenidoccupationsee E. Schmidt,PersepolisI (Chicago1953) 28 f., Sp•tzeit 25 f. and E. Haerinck, "Le palais ach•m•nide de Babylone", 1A 10 (1973) 108-132.The Persianapadanahas been dated to variousreigns, but the archaeologicalevidencepointsto the reign of Darius I (Schmidt 28, Haerinck 127 if.).

57. Babylon 129 if., KOnigsb.I 124 f. 58. Babylon 129, KOnigsb.II 48 f. The palaceis poorly known, but the red

50

J. M. BIGWOOD

flooring,of a type foundin buildingsof the periodof Darius1, presumablyindicates occupationby the Persians(Schmidt (above n. 56) 28: Haerinck (above n. 56) 112 fl.). Schachermeyr(above n. 9) 65 ff. arguesthat it was here that Alexanderwas broughtduring his last illness(cf. Spiitzeit 24 f.). 59. Babylon 16 if., SpStzeit1 f. See Figure II. 60. See Schachermeyr(aboven. 9) 65 if.

61. Baumgartner,n. 50 a (pp. 77-78). Schachermeyr(above n. 9) 56 if. thinks that the Persiankings diverted the river into its new course.

62. Ctesias'secondpalacecannotbe the secondpalaceof Berossus(680 F 8), who here refersto the PrincipalCitadel which Nebuchadnezzarbuilt directly to the north of his father's palace (the South Citadel). Weissbach,Zeitschriftfiir As-

syriologie N.F. 7 (1933)267f., refersto a cuneiform textwhichlocates a palace on the west side of the river (in the area southof the bridge,Spiitzeit22). But if the changeof courseof the Euphratesis accepted,Ctesiascannot mean any hitherto unlocatedpalacewest of the river, as this would be on the samebank as his main palace.Unidentifiedpalacesare alludedto in othercuneiformdocuments:seeUnger, Babylon (above n. 12) 223. 63. The fact that the palacesare allegedlyjoined by a tunnel (above p. 38) suggeststhat they are tolerably closeto each other, whereasin fact they are c. 2 km apart.

64. A majorerrorof this kind is not impossiblefor Ctesias,althoughit might be a mistakeof Diodorus', who has just describedthe bridge and could have introduced an erroneous comment on the relationship of the palaces to the bridge. Schachermeyr(above n. 9) 61 f. suggeststhat Diodorushasconfusedthe great bridge with a hypotheticalbridge connectingthe Kasr and the area of the chief sanctuary. But that Diodorus' sourcementioneda secondbridge seemsunlikely. 65. KOnigsb. II 48. 66. Tracesof a new Persianwall were found in severalplaces(Spiitzeit25). 67Y Koldewey, KOnigsb. I 124 f., suggestedthat by the outer peribolus Ctesias meant the northernfortificationsof the Principal Citadel, that the middle peribolus (describedas •cmc)•o'r•pr•,or "annular" accordingto Babylon 129) would be the walls of the ProcessionalWay and the area of the Ishtar Gate, and that the inmost wall would be the wall enclosingthe South Citadel. 68.

On Philostratus'

account cf. also above n. 37.

69. Babylon 6 ff., KOnigsb. II 41 if.; for the fragmentsof wall-painting which have beendated to the SeleucidperiodseeSpOtzeit24 and 46 f. 70. The themessuit an Assyrianpalace;cf. H. Frankfort,The art and architecture of the ancient Orient (revisededit. Harmondsworth1970) 143 ff. For battlescenesand huntsin Achaemenidart (they do not occur on the palacereliefs) seethe brief account of H. Luschey in K. Schefold, Die Griechen und ihre Nachbarn (Berlin 1967) 295. 71. KOnigsb.II 47.

72. R. Koldewey,Das Ischtar-Torin Babylon (1918) 18 if. 73. KOnigsb.II 38 f. and Taf. I: estimatedto have been c. 2 m long. The size given by Ctesias (F 1.8.6) for the animals of the inmost wall, "more than 4 cubits" or c. 1.8 m (no size is given for the animalsof the middle wall) is thus not unduly exaggerated. 74. Koldewey believed (Babylon 158) that the decorationsof the Principal Citadel were even more splendidthan thoseof the SouthCitadel. But it was not fully excavatedand little is known of the ornamentation.In the entranceswere probably

CTESIAS'

DESCRIPTION

OF BABYLON

51

hugebasaltlions (Babylon159). Koldeweystates(Babylon158-9:cf. 169) that remainswere foundof large reliefsconsistingof a blue paste,but his later account (Konigsb.II) fails to mentionthis. For the foreigntrophiesfoundhere seeBabylon 160 if., KOnigsb.II 19 fl. 75. Ki3nigsb.! 67--the gate betweenthe East and Middle courts:Kbnigsb. 1

71--the gatebetweenthe Middle andPrincipalcourts:KOnigsb.I 84 ff. andTar. 37 and 38--the

d•cor of the Throne Room.

76. KOnigsb.I 122 fl. To the PersianBuildingalsobelongfragmentsof stone relief-work(very few), which showthat humanfigureswere included:K?migsb.! 122, Haerinck (above n. 56) 118. 77. KOnigsb. I 122 fl. and Tar 39. His reconstruction(Tar. 28) includes a

hunt scene. Among those who accept these claims are C.H. Oldfather (ed.),

DiodorusI (Cambridge,Mass. 1933)378 f., J.G. Macqueen,Babylon(New York 1965) 220 and G. Goossens(above n. 9) 29 f. (for whom they demonstratethe veracityof Ctesiasand alsoAchaemenidfamiliaritywith Ninus and Semiramis). 78. Art. cit. (aboven. 56) 118fl. Four fragmentsof humanfaceswere found (Tar. 39 a,b,c,d). Two pieces(Tar. 39 c,d) are too small to permitdeductionsas to sex. Tar. 39 a, the supposed Ibmale, showsa face from eyebrowto upperlip only. Althoughthe skincolouris light, in contrastto someof the otherfragments,this is not an argumentfor femininity. There are light-skinnedand dark-skinnedGuardsat Susa (Haerinck 123). Tar. 39 a also lacks a moustache,but is too mutilated to show whether there was a beard. It resemblesin fact Tar. 39 b, which showsa face from

mid-noseto mid-chin,clearlybeardedbut withoutmoustache. 79. R. Ghirshman,Persiafrom the originsto Alexanderthe Great (Thames & Hudson1964), III. 190 (Dieulafoy'sreconstruction).Haerinck(aboven. 56) 123fl. discusses the similaritiesbetweenthe Susapanels(someof whichhavebeendatedto the reignof DariusI, othersto the reignof ArtaxerxesII) andthe fragmentsfoundat Babylon,as well as otheraspectsof the d6corof the PersianBuilding. 80.

Cf. Steier, "Liswe", RE 13 (1926) 978 fl. and F. Wotke, "Panther", RE

18 (1949) 752 if. For Semiramis'huntingof leopards(as well as lions) cf. Aelian, I/H 12.39(presumablyinfluencedby Ctesias). 81. For someMesopotamianand Achaemenidexamplessee W. Heick, Jagd und Wild im alten Vorderasien(Hamburg/Berlin1968) 13 fl. For lion-huntingin Greek art seeOrth, "Jagd", RE 9 (1914)595 fl. and K. Schauenburg, Jagddarstellungenin der Griechischenl/asenmalerei(Hamburg/Berlin1969) 9 fl. 82. For the scenewhich Ctesiasdescribes,but with a lion for the leopard,cf. the "Small Lion Hunt" of the 7th centurypalaceof Ashurbanipalat Nineveh(R.D. Barnett,Assyriansculpture(Toronto1975), plates119-134,especially128 and 130). Here we havethe king on horseback thrustinghis spearinto a lion and alsothe king on foot stabbinga lion at closequarters.The motifof the mountedhunterspearinga lion andthatof the figureon foot stabbinga lion bothoccuralsoin the Achaemenid period.For the first seeO.M. Dalton,The treasureof the Oxus2 (London1926), no. 22 and plate 9: gold scabbard,6th century,Median (?); for the secondseeGhirshman (aboven. 79), II1. 252: sculpturefrom Persepolis,5th century.Both motifsare common on Achaemenidseals:cf. BriggsBuchanan,Catalogueof ancientNear Eastern seals in the Ashmolean Museum I (Oxford 1966), nos. 688 and 673.

83. For leopardsin Mesopotamian art (but no leopard-hunts) seeE. Douglas Van Buren,Thefauna of ancientMesopotamiaas representedin art (Rome 1939) 10 fl. Leopard-hunts(sometimeswith mountedhunters)occur in the Persian-influenced art of Lycia, Cilicia and Phoeniciain the 5th and 4th centuries:see J. Borchhardt,

52

J.M.

BIGWOOD

"Epichorische, griiko-persischbeeinflussteReliefs in Kilikien", MDAI(I) 18 (1968) 166-171. Very occasionallyleopard-huntingappearsin Greek art: K. Schauenburg (above n. 81) p. l l, p. 30 nn. 19 and 20. 84. In F 1.8.7 there are 3 gates(presumablyin the inmost wall), two of them of bronze. DespiteKoldewey, KOnigsb.I 125, who makes 5 gatesout of this passage, it is not known to which gatesCtesiasrefers. 85. As notedabove (n. 70), we have no Achaemenidpalace-friezesdepicting hunt scenes.

86.

Jacoby,RE, •'Ktesias", 2045 f. and 2063, rightly emphasisesthis.

87.

Cf. Phoenix 32 (1978) 25.

88. For his attitude to Herodotusin generalseePhoenix 32 (1978) 23 f. I am very grateful to ProfessorsJ.R. Grant and C.I.R. Rubincam, and to ProfessorL.D. Levine (Departmentof Near EasternStudies, University of Toronto), for their criticisms of an earlier

version of this article.

EMPEROR

AND BISHOPS, A.D. 324-344: SOME PROBLEMS*

The extantecclesiastical historians of thefifth centurypresenta pictureof the reignsof Constantine andhissuccessors whichisobviously unrealistic in many details,andsometimes legendary or evenfictitious. • The principalcauseof theirignoranceandmisapprehensions hasbeenconvincingly diagnosed: although eachofthemaddsmaterial fromhisownknowledge, Rufinus,Socrates, Sozomenus, Theodoretus and Gelasiusof Cyzicusall derivetheir general interpretation andtheirmainnarrativefrom the lostecclesiastical historyof Gelasius of Caesarea. • Now Gelasius composed hiscontinuation of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical Historyin thereignof Theodosius, a andhe wrotefroma partisan viewpoint,tojustifythetriumphof theorthodox partyto whichhebelonged, andperhaps alsoto controvert thepaganthesisthatChristianity hadruinedthe RomanEmpire.4 Gelasius,therefore,was two generations removedfrom Constantine, sothatthetruthoftenalreadylay beyondhisreach,evenhadhe desired toproduce anaccurate anddispassionate account ofthereignof thefirst Chhstianemperor.Moreover,Philostorgius, whostandsapartfromthedominanttraditionof ecclesiastical historyandpresented a significantly different versionof thefourthcentury,fromanArianperspective, survives onlyin an epitomeandfragments, which,thoughextremelyvaluable,areperhapsleast helpfulfor the reignof Constantine himself? Any attemptto reconstruct eitherConstantine's ecclesiastical policiesor ecclesiastical politicsin generalduringtheyearsin whichConstantine ruledthe East (324-327) mustaccordinglydiscardthe narrativeof the ecclesiastical historians, andwith it the chronology whichit implies,andutiliseinstead evidence which,thoughit canlegitimately beemployed,rarelyprovidesa full andunbiassed account ofconsecutive episodes. Themostimportant category of validevidence comprises contemporary documents of varioustypesquotedby theecclesiastical historians themselves andby writersof thefourthcentury,or preserved in ancientcollections of documents. 6Admittedly,theauthenticity of almostalltheofficialdocuments (imperialpronouncements, lettersof officials, bishops,priestsandcouncils)hasat sometime beenimpugned. 7 But the challenges haveoftenprovoked a cogentdefence of genuineness, andvirtually all thedocuments quotedby writersof thefourthandfifth centuriesdeserveto

beaccepted asauthentic,S subject onlytotheproviso thattheirprecise wording may sometimes havebeenaltereddeliberately or corrupted in transmission? Next in valuecomethe survivingpolemicaland tendentious writingsof contemporaries--principally Eusebius'Life of Constantineand Athanasius'

lettersandapologetical works,themostimportant of whichwerewrittenabout twentyyearsafterConstantine died.Amongthe othersources of information availablemaybenotedpapyriwhichilluminate theeventsof 334 and335 (P. Lond.1913;1914)7oandtheintroduction andheading• whicha scholarly hand 53

54

T.D.

BARNES

has addedto the collectedEasterletterswritten •early fi'om 329 onwardsby

Athanasius to the churchesof the Egyptianprovinces. TM The tinhostdiscriminationis neededin assessing theecclesiasticalhistorians. Although their common narrative of Constantinc'sreign should be rejected,eachof them(with thepossibleexceptionof Rufinus)had accessto genuinedocumentsand to controversialwritingsof the fourthcenturywhich have not survived.Their reportsof such primar? evidencecan never be neglected,and their knowledgeof lost documentsand lost workssometimes

makestheirtestimony aboutspecificepisodes veryvaluable. •2 The lackof a satisfactory ancientnarrativeaccountof Constantine's later yearsrendersit difficultin theextremeto producea historicalreconstruction which will win generalacceptancefrom modernscholars,and the present articledoesnotattemptto do so.TMIt seeksratherto lay thefoundations for a reconstruction,by applying a realistic evaluation of the sourcesto some important problems in ecclesiastical historybetweenConstantine's conquest of theEastin 324 andtheCouncilof Serdica,whosedateisdisputed.The taskwas begunsomeseventy-fiveyearsagoby EduardSchwartzin hisninepapers,'Zur Geschichte desAthanasius' ,•'•to whichthepresentarticlemaybe regardedasa supplement: the problemsdiscussed are oneswhichSchwartzeitherdid not discussexplicitly or failed to solve adequately,or wherehis views require correction.The treatmentwill inevitably be discursive,even piecemeal:the subjecthas sufferedfrom too many prematuresyntheses. I. Constantine in 324/5

After Constantinedefeatedand deposedLicinius in September324, he was confrontedwith the theologicalcontroversiesraging in the East. He first attempted to solvethequarrelbetweenAlexanderandAriusb5 >endingOssius of Cordubato Alexandria on a missionof reconciliation(Eusebius,FC 2.63): •a the letter which Ossius carried survives in full (Eusebius,

VC 2.64-

72=Urkunden 17). Ossiuspredictablyfifiled to reconcilethe adversaries (Eusebius,VC 2.73): it is knownthat Ossiusthenpresidedover a councilof bishopsat Alexandria which demoteda certain Colluthusfrom bishopto priestand declaredhis ordinationsof priestsinvalid (Athanasius,Apol. sec. 74.3-4; 76.3), and it may be inferredthat this councilalso took someaction concerningArius and his followers. Ossiusreturnedfrom Alexandriato the i•nperialcourtby way of Antioch,wherehe presidedover a council,x•hose synodicalletter survivesin Syriac (Urkunden 18).l• Ossius' ntissionand Constantine's letter(VC 2.64-72) areconventionally datedto October324.27 That date is probablytoo early. Constantine'sletter to Alexanderand Arius containsan allusionwhich, interpretedin conjunctionwith otherevidence,can be arguedto prove that the emperorwrote it after visitingAntioch:

EMPEROR

AND

BISHOPS

55

The passagehas beentranslatedin two very differentways: Not long since I had visited Nicomedia, and intended forthwith to proceedfrom that city to the East. It was while I was hasteningtowards you, andhadalreadyaccomplished the greaterpart of thedistance,that thenewsof thismatterreversed my plan,thatI mightnotbecompelled to seewith my own eyesthat which I felt myselfscarcelyableevento hear. Openthenfor me henceforward by yourunityof judgementthat roadto theregionsof theEastwhichyourdissensions haveclosedagainstme.ls

YesterdaywhenI setfoot in Nicomedia,I waspressingimmediatelyto the Eastin my imagination.But asI hastened to you andwasall butwith you, the newsof thistroublereinedbackmy purpose,that I mightnot be compelledto seewith my eyeswhatI felt I couldnotbearto hearwith my ears.Opento me by your agreementthe roadto the East, whichyou have closedby your mutual discord.•" The secondrenderingentailsthat Constantinewrotethe letterin Nicomedia, evenwhenthecorrect'recently'issubstituted forthemistaken'yesterday'.But the first impliesthat Constantinesetout from NicomediatowardsAlexandria, andaccomplished muchof thejourneybeforehe changedhis mind andwrote the letter.Whichversionbetterrepresents whatConstantine originallywrote, presumablyin Latin? External evidenceis relevant.

Malalas,whosetestimonyon suchlocalmattersoftenmeritscredence statesthat Constantine visitedAntioch,apparentlyimplyinga datenot long after September324 (pp. 318/9 Bonn). Now an issueof coinsat Antioch, which must be dated to 324/5 on numismaticgrounds,bearsthe legend ADVENTVS AVGVSTI N (RIC 7.685, Antioch48), andtwo Egyptianpapyri revealthat preparations were beingmadefor an impendingimperialvisit in Januaryandin May 325 (P. Oxy. 1261; 1626). Constantinein factnevervisited Egypt, but the expectationof a visit indirectlyconfirmsthe statementof Malalasandthe implicationof the coinsthat he visitedAntiochin 324/5. 2 It

may alsobe relevantthat the poetPubliliusOptatianus Porfyrius,probably writingin the autumnof 324, appearsto alludeto Constantine's receptionof Persianambassadors(Carm. 14.25-27). "2

The letterto AlexanderandAriussurelyalludesto thisjourney:Constantine setout towardsEgypt, reachedAntioch,andthenturnedback.Hencethe dateof thelettercanbe deduced fromits attested or probablerelationto other events which can be independentlydated. Constantinefirst set foot in

Nico•nedia,the capitalof his defeatedrival Licinius,in late September 324 (Chr. min. 1.232;C1L 12,p. 272;OrigoConst.hnp. 27; Socrates, HE 1.4.2;

56

T.D.

BARNES

Zosimus2.26-28), and it is most improbablethat he travelled further east before 8 November,when he foundedhis new city of Constantinople on the shoresof the Bosporus (Themistius,Orat. 4,63d;Chr. min. 1.232;CIL 12,p. 276). The nextpreciseevidencefor Constantine's presencein a specificplace on a specificday is a law in the TheodosianCode, issued,accordingto the manuscripts,at Nicomediaon 25 February325 (CTh 1.15.1). Unfortunately, the recipient of the law is otherwise unknown and the consulardate has certainlybeenemended,at leastin form, sothatthesubscription cannotbeused with completeconfidenceto showthat Constantinewas in Nicomediaon that

day.2:•The subscription maynevertheless be accepted asconsistent with the other ascertainable facts. After Constantine turned back from Antioch, Ossius

wentto Alexandria,conducted a councilof bishopsthere,returnedto Bithynia by way of Antioch,wherehe convened andpresidedoveranothercouncilof bishopsfrom Syriaandneighbouring provinces(Urkunden18)--all beforethe Councilof Nicaeaopened,probablyc. 1 June325.24SincePhilogonius,the bishopof Antioch, died on 20 December324,2a while Ossiusconvenedthe councilof Antioch preciselyto put an end to disorderswhich followedhis decease(Urkunden18.3), it may reasonablybe conjecturedthat Constantine was in AntiochwhenPhilogoniusdied, and that it was perhapspreciselyhis deathwhichforcedthedisputebetweenAlexanderandAriusonhisattention.If that is so, Constantine will have written his letter to Alexander and Arius after he left Antioch to return to Nicomedia.

The following approximatechronologymay accordinglybe proposed: 324

Nov.

8

ConstantinefoundsConstantinople

Dec.

Constantine Constantine

Dec. 20 late Dec.

Death of Philogonius Constantineleaves Antioch for Bithynia

Nov.

325

Jan.

travels across Asia Minor in Antioch

Ossius sent to Alexandria

Feb.

25

Constantine

Feb.

or March

Ossiuspresidesover a councilat Alexandria

in Nicomedia

March or April

Ossius in Antioch

c. June

Council of Nicaea begins

II.

1

Constantine

at the Council

of Nicaea

Many modern writers assumethat Constantineautomaticallypresidedat the

Councilof Nicaea,just ashedid whenconducting routineimperialbusiness .26 From this initial assumptionseriouscorollarieshave sometimesbeendrawn. Schwartz,for example,boldlyassertedthatthedebatesat Nicaeahadthe form of a disputein civil law decidedby theemperor? Similarly,a recentstudywith thetitle 'Emperor'sCourtandBishops'Court'arguesthatthebishops at Nicaea acted as the emperor's consilium: Constantineformally presidedover the council as he did in his consilium, so that the decisions of the Council had the

samestatusas advice given in the consilium, which the emperorwas free to

EMPEROR

AND

BISHOPS

57

acceptor rejectashepleased?Moreover,if thislegaldefinitionwerecorrect,

thenConstantine wasinsincere whenherepeatedly asserted thatdecisions of church councils wereof divineorigin,givenbyGodandasbindingasGod's laws."" Theancient evidence, however, doesnotsustain themodern assumption.Oncetheformalopening ceremony isdistinguished fromthesubstantive debates, thenotionthatConstantine presided overthecouncilwhileit conductedits business becomes completely untenable. The Councilof Nicaeagatheredin the audience-hall of the imperial palace,theemperor entered, a smallstoolwasproduced andConstantine seated himself,afterfirstrequesting permission fromthebishops. Thebishops then seatedthemselves andEusebiusof Nicomediadelivereda panegyricto the emperor. aøConstantine repliedbriefly,in Latin,withaninterpreter translating intoGreek,andthengavethefloor'to theleaders of thecouncil'(Eusebius, VC 3.10-13.1).

In theactualdebates, Ossiuspresided. a• Thatis adequately attested by Athanasius andbythesignatures totheCreed.In thelistsofsubscriptions tothe Creed, Ossius'namealwaysstandsfirst, sometimes with the sentence'I believeasit is written')2AndAthanasius asserts bothgenerally thatOssius presided at everycouncilwhichheattended (Apol.deFuga5.2) andspecifically thathe 'put forwardthe Creedat Nicaea'(HistoriaArianorum42.3). Againstthebackground of ancientrulesof debate,thesefactsaredecisive.In

theRomanSenateandothersimilardeliberative bodies,proposals fromthe floorcouldonlybeputtothemeeting if theywerefirstadopted bythepresiding officerandincluded inhismotion.Tobesure,theviewsof anemperor carried very greatweight,whateverthe technicaldefinitionof his standing.But, if

Ossius proposed theCreedandsigned first,hepresided overthedebate which precededits approval.aa

At Nicaea,not only did Constantine not preside,he was not even technically a member of thecouncil.Thedecisions weretakenby theassembledbishops 'in thepresence of themostpiousemperor Constantine' (Urkunden23.2).WhenConstantine asserted thathewasatNicaea withthebishops 'justasif I wereoneof you',he waswritingto congregations of laymen (Urkunden 25.2;26.1):hewaspresent attheCouncilandparticipated in the debates(Urkunden27.13; 32.2), but his contributionwas to sit in a humble

position tryingto coolthetemperature of debate(Urkunden 27.13;Eusebius, VC3.13).Hisstanding atNicaea,therefore, corresponds tothatattested earlier forpriests, deacons andlaymenattheCouncil ofIliberris. a4NorwasNicaea(it may be noted)the first councilof bishopswhich Constantine attended: Eusebiusdescribeshow he attendedchurchcouncilsand sat 'in the middle as if

he wereoneof thecrowd'--ina contextwhichmustreferprimarilyto the Councilof Aries in 314 (VC 1.44.2)? III. Eustathius on the Council of Nicaea

Theecclesiastical historian Theodoretus quotes a passage of Eustathius, in whichthebishopof Antiochdescribes theCouncilof Nicaeaandits aftermath

in colorfulanddifficultlanguage: a6

58

T.D.

BARNES

( I ) From here I shall now turn to what was done. Well then, when because

of this a very grcatsynodarrivedat Nicaea, with perhapstwo hundred andseventyin numberhavinggatheredtogether(I cannotwritedownthe exactfigurebecause of theenormous throng,sinceI did notat all enquire afterit carefully),andwhenthedefinitionof thefaith wasbeingsought, thedocumentwasbroughtforwardasmanifestproofof theblasphemy of Eusebius?(2) Readin the presenceof all, it immediatelycausedimmeasurableoffenceto thosewho heardit becauseof its divergencefrom the truth, and gave irremediableshameto the writer. (3) When the gang aroundEusebiuswasclearlyexposed,thelawlessdocumenthavingbeen

torn up in the sight of all together,certainpersonsas a result of an intrigue,puttingfi,rwardthe nameof peace,reducedto silenceall those who normally spokebest. And the Arian madmen,fearing that they mightafterall perhapsbe ostracised, sincesucha greatsynodhadbeen gatheredin the sameplace,leaptforwardandanathematised theforbiddendoctrine,subscribing agreedupondocuments withtheirownhands. (4) And havinggainedtheirpositionasbishops :isby the utmostdishonesty, althoughthey deserveto be kneelingamongthe penitents,they advocatethe rejectedbeliefs, sometimessecretly, sometimesopenly, plottingagainsttheiroutstanding critics? So, wishingto makethecrops of tarestakefirm root, theyfear menof goodsense,corruptthe secular rulers4øand thusgo to war with the heraldsof piety. (5) But we do not believethatimpiousmencaneverthusovercomedivinepower.For even if they becomestrongagain, they will be defeatedagain, as the grave prophetIsaiah says(Is. 8.9) (Theodoretus, HE 1.8.1-5 = Eustathius, frag. 32). Theodoretusdoes not describethe context of this fragment, except to statethat Eustathiuswascommentingon the Arian proof-text,Proverbs8.22, 'The Lord createdme the beginningof his ways', on which he composeda whole treatise? Although scholarshave discussedthe passageat some length,42the historicalallusionswhich it containsremainproblematicaland obscure.

Eustathiusmakesthreedistinctallusions:to the readingat Nicaeaof a documentwrittenby Eusebiusandits immediateeffect(1-2), to the subsequent debateand the acceptance of the Nicenecreedby the Arians(3), and to the activitiesof the Ariansafterthe council(4). To which Eusebius,the bishopof Caesareaor the bishopof Nicomedia,doesEustathiusrefer?The bishopof Caesarea(it is known) arrived at Nicaea undera provisionalban of excommunication(Urkunden 18.14 f.), and he rehabilitatedhimselfby submittinga statementof his beliefs,whichConstantineendorsed,providedthat Eusebius would also admit that the Son was 'of one substance'with the father (Urkunden

22.2 ff.).4• Eusebius'orthodoxy,therefore,shouldhave beendiscussedand determined beforethecouncilbeganto seek'thedefinitionof thefaith'. On the other hand, a letter of Eusebiusof Nicomedia was certainly read out at the Council(Ambrose,De Fide 3.15. 125= Urkunden21). Hence it seemsnatural to identifyEustathius' targetasthebishopof Nicomedia,especiallysincethe

EMPEROR AND BISHOPS

59

phrase'thegangaroundEusebius' seems bettersuitedto thepoliticallymore importantandmoreinfluentialEusebius of Nicomedia. 44 The allusionto eventsafter325, however,suggests a doubt.Eustathius

wasdeposed fromhisseein327,bya council of bishops overwhichEusebius ofCaesarea presided, whilethebishop of Nicomedia wasinexile.Thetoneand contents of thepassage whichTheodoretus quotesimplythatEustathius was writingbeforehisdeposition: hisenemies appear to haveaccused himbefore the secularauthorities (4), but he is confidentthat the councilof bishops summoned to consider thecharges will vindicatehim(5). If thatis so,thenthe activeEusebius of Caesarea wouldbea moreappropriate targetfor Eustathius' invectivethanhis exiledhomonym.Moreover,the bishopof Caesarea had givena suspicious exegesisof Proverbs8.22 on probablymorethanone occasion(DE 5.1.21 if., cf. Urkunden8.4-6=Theodoretus,HE 1.6.4-6). Henceit is a tenablehypothesis thatEustathius mayherealludeto thedebate over whether Eusebius of Caesarea and others should be excluded from the

councilas heretics,with which the councilmusthave begunits substantive business. Eusebius himselfdescribes how his orthodoxywasvindicated:

Whenthiscreedwasproducedby me, therewasno occasionfor contradiction, butourmostpiousemperor himselfwasthefirsttodeclare that its contents were most correct. He confessed that he too believed the

same,andheencouraged all to agreewithit andto subscribe tothesevery doctrines,withtheadditionof onlythewordhomoousios...(Urkunden 22.7).

If Eustathiusand Eusebiusin fact refer to the sameepisode,it followsthat Eustathius mustincludeamongthosewho 'reducedto silenceall thosewho

normallyspokebest'theemperor whointervened to protectEusebius. 4• Neitheridentificationcanbe conclusivelyproved.Whicheveris correct,

however,Eustathius providesvaluableevidencefor thetheological compositionof thecouncil.He distinguishes threegroups: theEusebian gangor Arian madmen,the right-minded, andthosewho 'put forwardthe nameof peace'. That is not necessarily a completeenumeration, for it mayexcludea large numberof bishopstaking a passivepart in the Council.Accordingto Athanasiuslong afterwards,the vast majorityof bishopsat Nicaea were orthodox,thosewhosympathized withArius'viewsa small,disreputable and

ultimately inconstant groupof dissidents (Dedecretis Nicaenae synodi19/20; Ep. ad Aj?os5/6). The allusionsof Eustathius,and the wholecourseof ecclesiastical politicsunderConstantine,imply that the majorityof eastern bishops in 325, whileprepared to condemn someof Arius'opinions,did not regard him as irredeemablyheterodox. IV. Two Councils at Antioch

Eustathius of Antiochwasdeposedfrom his seeby a councilwhichmet at Antioch (Socrates,HE 1.24.1 ff.; Sozomenus,HE 2.19.1 if.; Theodoretus,

HE 1.21.3 if.). Subsequently, a synodat AntiochinvitedEusebius of Caesarea

60

T.D.

BARNES

to becomebishopof the city (VC 3.59-62, with index). Moreover,thecanons and subscriptions survivein Latin and Syriacof a councilheld at Antioch: althoughthe Syriacmanuscripts andsomeof the Latin attributethe canonsto the 'dedication-council' of 341,46it haslongbeenrecognized thatsomanyof the namesof the bishopscoincidewith the Nicenesubscriptions thatthedate mustbe muchcloserto 325.47There are, therefore,at leastthreeproblems:was there one council or two? if two, to which do the canonsand subscriptions belong?and what are the absolutedates? The first of thesequestions caneasilybe answered.The letterof Constantine to the council which had offered the see of Antioch to Eusebius invites the

bishopsto elect Euphroniusfrom Cappadocian Caesareaor Georgefrom Laodiceaor any otherequallyworthyperson(Eusebius,VC 3.62.2-3). Euphroniuswasdulyelectedandservedasbishopfor oneyearandsomemonths beforehediedandwassucceeded by Flac,'illus(Theodoretus, HE 1.22.1). But Euphroniuswas not the immediatesuccessor of Eustathius:there intervened Paulinusof Tyre, for six months,andthenEulalius(Eusebius,C. Marc. 1.4.2; Philostorgius,HE 3.15; Theodoretus,HE 1.22.1). There were, therefore,two

councilsat Antioch,separated by at leasta year. The othertwo problemshaveessentiallybeensolvedby H. Chadwick, whosesolutionrequiresonly a minormodificationin detail.48Chadwickdrew attentionto threefacts:that Asclepasof Gaza wasdeposedby a councilat Antioch over which Eusebiusof Caesareapresided(CSEL 65.118.3-6 = Athanasius,Apol. Sec. 45.2), that the letter of the easternbishopsat Serdica statesthatAsclepas'antedecemet septemannosepiscopatus honorediscinctus est' (CSEL65.56.19-20), andthatoneof thechargesagainstEustathius wasof offensive behavior to Helena (Athanasius,Historia Arianorum 4.1). Chadwick, therefore,assumingthatthe Councilof Serdicamet in 342, attributedthe

depositionof bothEustathiusandAsclepasto a councilwhichmet in autumn 326, and he arguedthat it wasthis councilwhich issuedthe extantcanons:for the name of Aetius of Lydda, who certainly attendedthe secondcouncil (Eusebius,VC 3.62.1), is lackingfrom the subscriptions (EOMIA 2.312-315; Schwartz,Ges. Schr. 3.219-221). This reconstruction is convincing,exceptin one detail: sincethe Council of Serdica met in the winter of 343/4, the date of

thefirst councilshouldbe 327.49Itmay be addedthatthiscouncilprobablyalso deposedother bishopsof Syria, Phoeniciaand Palestinewhom Athanasius namesas ejected from their sees--Euphrantionof Balaneae, Cymatius of Paltos, Cymatius of Gabala, Carterius of Antarados and Cyrus of Beroea (Athanasius,Apol. de Fuga 3.3; Hist. At. 5.2). 50 V. The Council of Nicomedia (327/8)

Eusebiusof Nicomediaand Theognisof Nicaea, who had beendeposedand exiledin autumn325 for failing to complywith the Niceneresolutions(Urkunden 27, esp. 16), wererestoredto theirseesaftertheysubmittedanapologyand recantationto a councilof bishops(Urkunden31). Hence (so Schwartzand

othershaveargued)a secondcouncilmetat Nicaealatein 327.5• Admittedly,

EMPEROR

AND

BISHOPS

61

thisconclusion hassometimes beenrejectedor pronounced fragile.a'-'Butit is illegitimate to pronounce therecantation of Eusebius andTheognisspurious merely becauseit contradictsthe narrative sources.The documentdeservesto

be accepted as genuine) a and, sincethe two bishopsspeakof •yourholy council',it attestsa councilto whichtheyaddressed theirpetition:the only problemwhichremainsis to establish the dateandplaceof the council. A seriesof argumentsconvergesto situatethe councilat Nicomedia duringthe winterof 327/8. First,Constantine attended the councilin person (VC 3.23): hispresence is attested at Nicomediaon 30 July327 and I March 328(CTh 12.5.1Seeck;14.24.1)andhemaywellhaveresidedtherecontinuouslyfrom summer327 to spring328. Second,Constantine summoned Arius to court on 27 Novemberof an unspecifiedyear (Urkunden 29), while the

councilwhichEusebius andTheognisaddress hadalreadyrehabilitated Arius (Urkunden31.4). Third, Philostorgius reportedthat Eusebius andTheognis were restored'after threeyears' and in the samecontextrecordeda councilat

Nicomedia whichtwohundred andfiftybishops attended (HE 2.7; 7a).Fourth, a problematical passage of Athanasius statesthattheMelitianswerequiescent for lessthanfive months,duringwhichAlexanderof Alexandriadied(Apol. sec.59.3).54Now Alexander diedon 17April328, andAthanasius waselected bishopon 8 June 328 (Festal Index, preface;Chr. min. 1.292; Historia acephala17) in opposition to the Melitians(Apol.sec. 6.4-5; 59.3), who electeda counter-bishop of theirown(Epiphanius, Pan. 68.7.3). On thebasis of thisevidence,it mayreasonably be inferredthatthecouncilwhichrehabili-

tatedArius,Eusebius andTheognis metin Nicomedia duringDecember 327or January 328.

VI.

Dalmatius

the Censor

When Athanasiuswas accusedof murder, Constantinewrote to Dalmatiusthe

censor,whowasthenresidingin Antioch,instructing him to investigate the charge,and the censorthenwroteto the bishopof Alexandria(Athanasius, Apol. sec. 65.1-2; Socrates,HE 1.27.19-21). The lettersof Constantineand

Dalmatius areregrettably knownonlyby report,butthefactthattheystyled Dalmatiuscensorhelpsto datethem.A papyrusdated9 April 333 (P. Oxy. 1716) gives the namesof the consulsas follows:

The descriptionof Dalmatiusas Constantine'sbrother, but not as censor, impliesthathe hasnotyet acquiredthetitle censor.55HenceeitherAthanasius

is mistaken in stylingDalmatius censoror theletterswhichhereportswere writtennoearlierthanc. February333.56Of thetwopossibilities, theformer canbe excluded,sinceAthanasius receiveda letterfrom Dalmatius,whichhe

62

T. D. BARNES

presumabl,•kept for future reference.The title censor, thoughotherwise unknownatthisperiod,is plausible andreadilyexplicable: liketherevivedtitle of patricius conferredon the consulsof 334 and 335 (Zosimus2.40.2), it enabled Constantineto confer abnormally high statuson his half-brother •'ithout admittinghim to the imperial college. Constantine'sletter to Dal-

marius,therefore,cannotbelongto 332, as Schwartzbelieved?The title of ce•sor impliesa date in 333 or 334. An apparent discrepancy betweenAthanasius andtheecclesiastical historianscannow be exploited.In his accountof his career,Athanasius nowhere mentionsexplicitlythe councilof bishopswhich Constantine summonedto meet at Caesareain the summerof 334 (Sozomenus,HE 2.25.1; Theodoretus, HE 1.28, of. P. Lottd. 1913). On the other hand, Athanasiusspeaksof 'the courtof thecensor'in a contextconventionallyconstruedasattestinga council

at Antiochwhichis unknowntotheecclesiastical historians (Apol.sec.65.4).•8 The hypothesismay be advancedthat Athanasius''court of the censor' is identical with the attestedcouncil of Caesarea.This hypothesispainlessly

removesthe strangeandcomplementary silencesof the differentaccounts of Athanasius' career,andthemisrepresentation hasanexactparallel.Athanasius andhis alliesstatecategoricallythatthe imperialcomesDionysiuspresidedat the Councilof Tyre in 335 (Apol. sec. 8.3 (a synodicalletterof 338); 86.1)--a

chargewhichstill takesin theunwaryandinaccurate?In thiscase,however, Athanasius alsoquotesletterswrittento andby Dionysiuswhichconvicthim of lying (Apol. sec. 78; 79; 81).

The story of Arseniusnow makesperfectsense(Apol. sec. 65-69). Athanasiuswasaccusedof murderingArseniuslate in 333 or early in 334. The accusationreached Constantine, who instructed Dalmatius to investigate. Dalmatiuswrote to Athanasius,who could not at once disprovethe charge. HenceConstantineconvenedtheCouncilof Caesarea,instructingDalmatiusto supervise itsconduct.Eusebius of Nicomediaandotherbishops fromfar afield cameto Caesareato condemnand deposetheir enemy. Beforethe council convened,however, Athanasiusand his allies succeededin finding Arsenius alive. The bishopof AlexandriainformedConstantine,who dissolvedthe Council('the courtof thecensor')andbadethe bishopsto returnto their sees. VII.

The First Exile

of Athanasius

The index to Athanasius'Festal Letters statesthat Constantinedespatched

Athanasius from Constantinople to Gaul on 10 Athyr, i.e. 7 November335 (FestalIndex8). Morethana centuryago,G.R. Sieversemendedthedateto 10 Mechir, i.e. 5 February336--an emendationwhich has been widely accepted.6øIn two articlespublishedin 1944 and 1945, however, P. Peeters defendedthe transmitteddate, basingon it a brilliantelucidationof the events precedingAthanasius'departurefor Gaul? Unfortunately,thesearticlesare oftenignored,asin recentstudiesof theCouncilof Tyreandof theactivitiesof Eusebius of Caesarea in 335/6, which advocate theories which Peeters'

t:,MI'EROR

AND

BISHOPS

63

analysisof theevidencedisproves."'-' His mainconclusions, thcrcfore,deseryc to be rescued from an unmerited oblivion.

The indexto Athanasius'FestalLettersprovidespreciseand precious information about Athanasius' movements in the late summer and autumn of

335 (FestalIndex 8): he left Alexandriato attendthe Council of Tyre on 17 Epeiphi(li July), he fled from Tyre in an openboatandarrivedin Constantinopleon 2 Athyr (30 October),wasunableto seeConstantineuntil the eighth day(i.e. 9 Athyr,or6 November),anddeparted for exilein Gaulon i 0 Athyr(7

November335). The detail aboutthe open boat or raft (which Schwartz regrettably failed to understand)is vital: it indicates that Athanasius fled

secretly,usinga raft or openboatto escapetheprobablyblockaded harbourof Tyre.":• WhenAthanasius arrivedin Constantinople, theemperor chanced to be absent:a law attestshispresence at Nicopolisa weekearlier,on23 October335 (CJ 1.40.4)fi 4 Athanasiusaccostedhim in the streetas soonas he returnedto

the capital(Gelasiusof Cyzicus,HE 3. i 8.4) The index implicitly distinguishes two audienceswith Constantine,on successivedays (6 and 7 November). The first occurredwhen Athanasius hailedtheemperorashe rodethroughConstantinople, afterwhichhe wroteto thebishopswhohadtakenpartin theCouncilof Tyre(Athanasius, Apol. sec. 86.2-12 (partiallyabbreviated) -- Gelasiusof Cyzicus,HE 3.18. i-13). At the secondaudienceAthanasiuswasconfrontedby a groupof six bishopswho had alreadyarrivedfrom Tyre:Athanasiusnamesthemas Eusebiusof Nicomedia, Theognis,Patrophilus, Eusebius of Caesarea,UrsaciusandValens,andspecifically asserts thatonlytheycame,whilethe restremainedin Palestine(Apol. sec. 87. l-2). Athanasius'enemiespromptlyaccusedhim of treason:he losthis temperwiththeemperor,whodespatched him to Gaul(Athanasius, Apol. sec. 9.1-4; Epiphanius,Pan. 68.9.4-6). To call this 'exile' in the normal senseis perhapsmisleading.For Athanasius wasnotdeposed from hissee:he wasnot even tried, but sentto Gaul without either condemnationor trial.•6 Hence, when

Constantine died,theCaesarConstantinus wasableplausiblyto claimthathis fatherhadsentAthanasius to Gaulto savehim from hisenemies,intendingto restorehim to his formerpositionas soonas possible(Apol. sec. 87.4-7). This reconstruction bothdoesfull justiceto the primaryevidenceand explainswhy the narrativesourcesall err in makingAthanasius'exile consequentuponhis condemnation by the Councilof Tyre(Rufinus,HE 10.17-18; Socrates,HE 1.28-35; Sozomenus, HE 2.25-28; Theodoretus, HE 1.29-31; Gelasius, HE 3.17-18).Constantine did indeedsummon thebishops whotook part in the Councilof Tyre to cometo Constantinople, andthe ecclesiastical historians knewAthanasius' versionof hisletterto thiseffect,thoughwithout realisingthattheletterimplicitlyannulsthedecisions of thecouncil.6*But the summonswasovertakenby the courseof events:the day afterit was written, Athanasius' enemies accused himof treason beforetheemperorandsecured his removal,if not from his see, at leastfrom activeexerciseof his episcopal functions--and hisabruptdeparture removedtheneedfor thebishops from Tyreto reconvenein Constantinople.

64

T.D.

BARNES

VIII. The Depositionof Marcellus

The ecclesiastical historianSocratesdatesthe depositionof Marcellusof Ancyrato late 335 or early 336 (HE 1.35-36). AlthoughSocrates'date has traditionally beenaccepted, it restsupontheassumption thatthecouncilwhich Constantinesummonedon 6 November 335 (Athanasius,Apol. sec. 86.212= Gelasiusof Cyzicus,HE 3.18.1-13) metin Constantinople shortlythereafterils ButConstantine's summons provedabortiveandthecouncilnevermet: therefore, the inferred date is invalid. Can the correct date be established from other evidence'? Schwartz

discarded thetraditionaldatelongago,onthedifferentbutstillcogentgrounds that Socrates'opinioncarriesno weight,unlesssupported by documents: at firstheproposed to dateMarcellus'deposition to 328, butlaterpronounced the evidenceinconclusive. noSimilarly, W. Schneemelcher, thoughregarding

330/1 and334aspossible, declared theproblemalmosthopeless. TM G. Bardy inferreda precisedate, but by a priori reasoningfrom a false premiss:he associated the exile of Marcellus with that of Eustathius and dated both to

330.TMThe correctdate is summer336. It can be deducedconfidentlyfrom a neglectedpassagein the most obviousof all sources.

Marcelluswasdeposed fromhisseeby a councilheldin Constantinople which Constantineattendedin person(CSEL 65.50-51), and the charges againsthimincludedhisbehaviour duringtheCouncilsof TyreandJerusalem in latesummer335 (Sozomenus, HE 2.33.2). TMEusebiusof Caesareatookpartin thecouncil,andafterwards produced a denunciation of Marcellusin twobooks. The conclusionof the work alludesto the Counciland employsa significant phrasewhendescribinghow Constantineconvenedit (2.4.29): ptov