Brill's New Pauly Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World (Phi-Prok) [11] 9789004142169, 9789004122598

Citation preview

Tn 01586

155

rill’s Encyclopédia of the Ancient World

New Pau

ANTIQUITY

Pui-PROK

UNIVERSITY

of NEW

HAMPSHIRE

LIBRARY

Lap BS

oe

ew

EDMUND G. MILLER

petle

del

pupae

z

LIBRARY

FUND

Brill’s

New Pauly

ANTIQUITY VOLUME II

PHtI-PROK

Brill’s New Pauly SUBJECT

EDITORS

Dr. Andreas Bendlin, Toronto

History of Religion Prof. Dr. Gerhard Binder, Bochum

History of Civilization

Prof. Dr. Johannes Niehoff, Berlin Judaism, Eastern Christianity, Byzantine Civilization

Prof. Dr. Hans Jorg Nissen, Berlin Oriental Studies

Christianity

Prof. Dr. Vivian Nutton, London Medicine; Tradition: Medicine

Prof. Dr. Hubert Cancik, Tubingen Executive Editor

Prof. Dr. Eckart Olshausen, Stuttgart Historical Geography

Prof. Dr. Walter Eder, Bochum Ancient History

Prof. Dr. Filippo Ranieri, Saarbriicken European Legal History

Prof. Dr. Paolo Eleuteri, Venice Textual Criticism, Palaeography and Codicology

Oriental Studies; Tradition: Ancient Orient

Dr. Karl-Ludwig Elvers, Bochum Ancient History

Tradition: Education, Countries (II)

Prof. Dr. Rudolf Brandle, Basle

Prof. Dr. Johannes Renger, Berlin Prof. Dr. Volker Riedel, Jena

Linguistics; Tradition: Linguistics

Prof. Dr. Jorg Rtipke, Erfurt Latin Philology, Rhetoric

Prof. Dr. Fritz Graf, Columbus (Ohio)

Prof. Dr. Gottfried Schiemann, Tubingen

Religion and Mythology; Tradition: Religion

Law

PD Dr. Hans Christian Gunther, Freiburg Textual Criticism

Prof. Dr. Helmuth Schneider, Kassel Executive Editor; Social and Economic History, Military Affairs, History of Classical Scholarship

Prof. Dr. Bernhard Forssman, Erlangen

Prof. Dr. Max Haas, Basle Music; Tradition: Music Prof. Dr. Berthold Hinz, Kassel Tradition: Art and Architecture

Dr. Christoph Hocker, Zurich Archaeology Prof. Dr. Christian Hiinemorder, Hamburg Natural Sciences Prof. Dr. Lutz Kappel, Kiel Mythology

Prof. Dr. Dietrich Willers, Bern

Classical Archaeology (Material Culture and History of Art) Dr. Frieder Zaminer, Berlin Music

Prof Dr. Bernhard Zimmermann, Freiburg Tradition: Countries (1)

ASSISTANT

EDITORS

Dr. Margarita Kranz, Berlin Tradition: Philosophy

Brigitte Egger

Prof. Dr. André Laks, Lille

Jochen Derlien

Philosophy

Susanne Fischer

Prof. Dr. Manfred Landfester, Giessen Executive Editor: Classical Tradition; Tradition:

Dietrich Frauer

History of Classical Scholarship and History of Civilization

Ingrid Hitzl

Prof. Dr. Maria Moog-Griinewald, Tiibingen Comparative Literature Prof. Dr. Dr. Glenn W. Most, Pisa

Heike Kunz Vera Sauer

Christiane Schmidt

Greek Philology Prof. Dr. Beat Naf, Zurich

Tradition: Political Theory and Politics

Dorothea Sigel Anne-Maria Wittke

(GERMAN

EDITION)

Brill’s Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World

New Pauly Edited by Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schneider

English Edition Editor-in-chief Christine F. Salazar Assistant Editors Jon S. Bruss, Tina Chronopoulos, Susanne E. Hakenbeck, Annette Imbausen,

Sebastiaan R. van der Mije, Michiel Op de Coul, Antonia Ruppel, Ernest Suyver and Barbara Vetter

ANTIQUITY VOLUME II

PHI-PROK

LEIDEN - BOSTON 2007

© Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill Nv, Leiden, The Netherlands

ISBN (volume) 978 90 04 14216 9 ISBN (set) 978 90 04 12259 8

Koninklijke Brill Nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, roc Publishers, Martinus Nihoff Publishers and vsp.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

Originally published in German as DER NEUE PAULY. Enzyklopadie der Antike. Herausgegeben von Hubert Cancik und Helmuth Schneider. Copyright © J.B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung und Carl Ernst Poeschel Verlag GmbH 1996ff./r999ff. Stuttgart/Weimar Cover design: TopicA (Antoinette Hanekuyk) Front: Delphi, temple area Spine: Tabula Peutingeriana

reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.

Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Data structuring and typesetting: pagina GmbH, Tibingen, Germany

PRINTED

IN THE

NETHERLANDS

Table of Contents Notes to the User . List of Transliterations List of Abbreviations .

List of Illustrations and Maps List of Authors List of Translators Entries

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2022 with funding from Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/brillsnewpaulyenO0O02unse_c1ly9

Notes to the User Arrangement of Entries

Abbreviations

The entries are arranged alphabetically and, if applicable, placed in chronological order. In the case of alternative forms or sub-entries, cross-references will lead to the respective main entry. Composite entries can be found in more than one place (e.g. a commentariis re-

All abbreviations can be found in the ‘List of Abbreviations’. Collections of inscriptions, coins and papyri are listed under their sigla.

fers to commentariis, a).

Bibliographies

Identical entries are differentiated by numbering. Identical Greek and Oriental names are arranged chronologically without consideration of people’s nicknames. Roman names are ordered alphabetically, first accord-

ing to the gentilicium or nomen (family name), then the cognomen (literally ‘additional name’ or nickname) and finally the praenomen or ‘fore-name’ (e.g. M. Aemilius Scaurus is found under Aemilius, not Scau-

Most entries have bibliographies, consisting of numbered and/or alphabetically organized references. References within the text to the numbered bibliographic items are in square brackets (e.g. [ 1.5 n.23] refers to the first title of the bibliography, page 5, note 23). The abbreviations within the bibliographies follow the rules of the ‘List of Abbreviations’.

rus).

However, well-known classical authors are lemmatized

according to their conventional names in English; this group of persons is not found under the family name, but under their cognomen (e.g. Cicero, not Tullius). In large entries the Republic and the Imperial period are treated separately.

Texts and maps are closely linked and complementary, but some maps also treat problems outside the text. The authors of the maps are listed in the ‘List of Maps’.

Spelling of Entries

Cross-references

Greek words and names are as a rule latinized, follow-

ing the predominant practice of reference works in the English language, with the notable exception of technical terms. Institutions and places (cities, rivers, islands, countries etc.) often have their conventional English names (e.g. Rome not Roma). The latinized versi-

ons of Greek names and words are generally followed by the Greek and the literal transliteration in brackets, e.g. Aeschylus (Aioybioc; Aischylos). Oriental proper names are usually spelled according to the ‘Tiibinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients’ (TAVO), but

again conventional names in English are also used. In the maps, the names of cities, rivers, islands, countries etc. follow ancient spelling and are transliterated fully to allow for differences in time, e.g. both Kanmad0xia and Cappadocia can be found. The transliteration of non-Latin scripts can be found in the ‘List of Transliterations’. Latin and transliterated Greek words are italicized in the article text. However, where Greek transliterations do not follow immediately upon a word written in Greek, they will generally appear in italics, but without accents or makra.

Maps

Articles are linked through a system of cross-references with an arrow ~ before the entry that is being referred to.

Cross-references to related entries are given at the end of an article, generally before the bibliographic notes. If reference is made to a homonymous entry, the respective number is also added. Cross-references to entries in the Classical Tradition volumes are added in small capitals. It can occur that in a cross-reference a name is spelled differently from the surrounding text: e.g., a cross-reference to Mark Antony has to be to Marcus + Antonius, as his name will be found in a list of other names containing the component ‘Antonius’.

ru

an

=we

,

—

tes Le

ee ee

-

:

ee ee

ater

Peat

-

ae

ee

pt

:

cin lige

:

SawSal

—

va

Ste sate 4 Gere:

eat

tele) a bee ticestug suey pe ae? etna > Cate Madilyy Mang air igre shes b ye eee, |e ee re

_ tere 4 oe mine * CHEM

wal

ell Gi eth

Ot if Genk oh

ee

TES colt uf) fenol ab hy enc heuea ©. - ND

ATER! ay apnea OD. Spee

D-tein 2 a) ] D

k | m n S

kaf lamed mem nun samek

la(m)bda

y

‘

ayin

m n

mu nu

5 x

p/f s

pe tsade

N

ul Vv

alpha

beta gamma; y before y, x, &, x: n delta epsilon

=

x

xi

p

q

gof

fe) OL ov I Q OG T U

oO ol ou p r s t y

omicron

a v 7] n

f S s t

resh sin shin tav

tau upsilon

>

ph

phi

x yW wo : a

ch ps 6 h al

chi psi omega spiritus asper iota subscriptum (similarly y, )

pl rho sigma

In transliterated Greek the accents are retained (acute ’,

grave’, and circumflex ~). Long vowels with the circumflex accent have no separate indication of vowel length (makron).

Pronunciation of Turkish Turkish uses Latin script since 1928. Pronunciation and spelling generally follow the same rules as European languages. Phonology according to G. Lewts, Turkish Grammar, 2000.

French a in avoir b jin jam ch in church d French é in étre f g in gate or in angular lengthens preceding vowel h in have iin cousin

French i in si

French j c in cat or in cure

lin list or in wool AO PEN OO, OIC eee ees te San m. Co Gy LOm Os SS eG) te

LIST

OF TRANSLITERATIONS

n oO

O

6

P

Pp

R

r

Pp ‘

S

s

s in sit

9

§

q U

t u

sh in shape t uin put

U

i

V

V

RE

y

VE,

Z

Transliteration Turkish

tologie are used. The transliteration of Indo-European follows Rix, HGG. The transliteration of Old Indian is after M. MayrHOFER, Etymologisches Worterbuch des Altindoarischen, 1992ff. Avestian is done according to K. HOFFMANN, B. ForssMAN, Avestische Laut- und Flexionslehre, 1996. Old Persian follows R.G. KENT, Old Persian, *1953 (additions from K. HOFFMANN, Aufsatze zur Indoiranistik vol. 2, 1976, 622ff.); other Iranian languages are after R. SCHMITT, Compendium linguarum Iranicarum, 1989, and after D.N. MACKEN-

German u Vv y in yet Z

of Arabic,

Persian,

ue

b

b p

b P

S

t

t

t

S

t

c

8

s :

s 8

(e

Cc

h h d zZ

hamza, alif

ia

=

Ee

h

>

d

5

d

h bh d zZ

: 3

r Zz

tte

Nig

Zz

Z

i

Z

S

Ss

s s d

3 s d

C

C

z

zZ

g

g

k

k, g, fi

g

8) A

m

m

s §

vu?

s

a

d

+ 4

t Zz

C

:

and

Ottoman

ziE,

A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary, 31990. For Arme-

nian the rules of R. SCHMITT, Grammatik des Klassisch-

a

o vt

Akkadian (Assyrian-Babylonian), Hittite and Sumerian are transliterated according to the rules of RLA and

TAVO. For Egyptian the rules of the Lexikon der Agyp-

ait

4

Transliteration of other languages

n French o in note German 6

N ©

©

g

re)

f

3 5 aks

q k =

J ‘

| m

)

n

n

n

°

h

h

h

5

w, U

Vi

v

GS

Wey tl

y

y.

f q I

f q, k |

ba

Armenischen, 1981, and of the Revue des études arméniennes, apply. The languages of Asia Minor are transliterated according to HbdOr. For Mycenean, Cyprian see HEUBECK and Masson; for Italic scripts and Etruscan see VETTER and ET.

List of Abbreviations 1. Special Characters =>.

see (cross-reference)

i, u

consonantal i, u

< a

originated from (ling.) evolved into (ling.)

V *

root born/reconstructed form (ling.)

m,n Le | #

vocalized I, r syllable end word end

transliteration

vocalized m, n

©

married

cS

a

short vowel

feel

phonemic representation

a

long vowel

[

apocryphal

ii

deceased

]

2. List of General Abbreviations Common abbreviations (e.g., etc.) are not included in

the list of general abbreviations.

col.

column acta concilii Cologne, Cologne, Romisch Germanisches MuseRGM um comm. commentary Congr. Congrss, Congrés, Congresso contd. continued Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek NCG Copenhagen, Copenhagen, National Museum conc.

A. a.u.c. abl. acc. aed. cur. aed. pl. Ap(p). Athens,AM Athens,BM_

Athens,NM_ Athens, NUM b. Baltimore, WAG Basle, AM Berlin, PM

Aulus ab urbe condita ablative accusative aedilis curulis aedilis plebi Appius Athens, Acropolis Museum Athens, Benaki Museum Athens, National Museum Athens, Numismatic Museum born Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery Basle, Antikenmuseum Berlin, Pergamonmuseum

Dees:

consul consul designatus consul ordinarius consul suffectus curator Decimus died dative decretum, decreta dissertation edidit, editio, editor, edited (by) ediderunt epistulae falsa lectio

Gaius circa

Cambridge,

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum

fem.

feminine

carmen, carmina

fig(s). fla.

figure(s) flamen

Florence, MA Florence, UF

Florence, Museo Archeologico

Gag cent. ch. Cn. Cod.

Bulletin, Bullettino

Catalogue, Catalogo century

chapter Gnaeus Codex, Codices, Codizes

d. dat. decret. diss. ed. edd. epist. fall

Copenhagen, Thorvaldsen Museum

Berlin, SM bk(s). Bonn,RL Boston, MFA Bull. GC: ce FM carm.

Berlin, Staatliche Museen book(s) Bonn, Rheinisches Landesmuseum Boston, Museum of Fine Arts

NM

Copenhagen, ™ cos. cos. des. cos. ord. cos. suff. cur.

Florence, Uffizi

GENERAL

XI

ABBREVIATIONS

fr. Frankfurt, IUsl gen. Geneva, MAH

fragment Frankfurt, Liebighaus genitive Geneva, Musée d’Art et d’Histoire

German Greek

Hamburg, Museum fiir Kunst und Gewerbe Hanover, Kestner-Museum

HS ill(s). Imp. inventory no. Istanbul, AM

Old Testament Oxford, Ashmolean Museum page Papyrus Publius Palermo, Museo Archeologico Nazionale

:

recto

leges liber, libri

rev.

revised

Rome, MC Rome, MN

Rome, Museo Capitolino Rome, Museo Nazionale

Rome, MV Rome, VA Rome, VG_ S: Ser.

Rome, Museo Vaticano Rome, Villa Albani Rome, Villa Giulia Sextus Serie, Series, Série, Seria

8.V. SE Sc: schol.

sub voce senatus consultum scilicet scholion, scholia

line Lucius

linguistic(ally) locative London, British Museum

N. n.d. Naples, MAN neutr. New York, MMA no. nom. N.S.

OF Oxford, AM p. Ip 1p. Palermo, MAN Paris, BN Paris, CM

Latin

Istanbul, Archaeological Museum itineraria

Mus.

optative

loco citato

inventory number

Kassel, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen lex

PM MS(S) Munich, GL Munich, SA Munich, SM

Opus, Opera

opt.

Ps.@; qu.

illustration(s) Imperator

Kassel, SK

Moscow,

New Testament

Op.

Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale Paris, Cabinet des Médailles Paris, Louvre plate plural _pontifex maximus praefatio praefectus proconsul procurator propraetor Pseudo Quintus quaestor

sesterces

itin.

M. Madrid, PR Malibu, GM masc.

NT

Manius Marcus Madrid, Prado

Malibu, Getty Museum masculinum, masculine Moscow, Pushkin Museum manuscript(s)

Munich, Glyptothek

Munich, Staatliche Antikensammlung Munich, Staatliche Miinzsammlung

Paris, LV

pl. plur. pon. max. pr(aef) praef procos. procur. propr.

Ser.

Servius

serm. s(in)g. Soc. Sp.

sermo singular Society, Societé, Societa Spurius

St.

Saint

St. Petersburg, Hermitage

Museum, Musée, Museo Numerius

St. Petersburg, HR Stud. qe

Titus

no date Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale

The Hague, MK

The Hague, Muntenkabinet

neutrum, neuter, neutral

New York, Metropolitan Museum of Arts

number nominative Neue Serie, New Series, Nouvelle Série, Nuova Seria

Studia, Studien, Studies, Studi

Thessaloniki, National Museum Thessaloniki, NM

ieee lhibe tit. transl. tr. mil.

Tiberius titulus translation, translated (by) tribunus militum

tr. pl.

tribunus plebis

XI

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

ABBREVIATIONS

tate Univ.

terminus technicus Universitat, University, Université, Universita

ABr P. ARNDT, F. BRUCKMANN (ed.), Griechische und r6-

v.

verse

Text vol., 1958 ABSA Annual of the British School at Athens AC L’Antiquité Classique Acta

‘

verso

Vienna,KM_

Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum

vir clar. vir ill.

vir clarissimus vir illustris

vir spect.

vir spectabilis

vol(s).

volume(s)

mische

Portrats,

1891 —

1912;

E. Lippoxp

(ed.),

Acta conventus neo-latini Lovaniensis, 1973

AD Archaiologikon Deltion 3. Bibliographic Abbreviations

ADAIK

Abhandlungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts Kairo Adam J.P. ADAM, La construction romaine. Matériaux et techniques, 1984

A&A Antike und Abendland A&R

Atene e Roma

AA

ADAW

Archaologischer Anzeiger AAA Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology AAAlg S. GsELL, Atlas archéologique de |’Algérie. Edition speciale des cartes au 200.000 du Service Géographique de Il’ Armée, 1911, repr. 1973 AAHG Anzeiger fir die Altertumswissenschaften, publication of the Osterreichische Humanistische Gesellschaft AArch Acta archeologica AASO The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research AATun o50 E. BABELON, R. CacGnaT, S. REINACH

(ed.), Atlas

archéologique de la Tunisie (1 : 50.000), 1893 AATun 100 R. Cacnat, A. MERLIN (ed.), Atlas archéologique de la Tunisie (1: 100.000), 1914

AAWG Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse AAWM Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und Literatur in Mainz. Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftliche Klasse AAWW Anzeiger der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Philosophisch-historische Klasse ABAW Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse Abel F.-M. ABEL, GéographiedelaPalestinezvols.,193 3-38 ABG, Archiv fiir Begriffsgeschichte: Bausteine zu einem historischen Worterbuch der Philosophie

Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Klasse fiir Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst ADB

Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie

AdJ Annali dell’Istituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica

AE L’Année épigraphique AEA Archivo Espanol de Arqueologia AEM Archaologisch-epigraphische Mitteilungen aus Osterreich AfO Archiv fiir Orientforschung AGD Antike Gemmen in deutschen Sammlungen 4 vols., 1968-75 AGM Archiv fur Geschichte der Medizin Agora

The Athenian Agora. Results of the Excavations by the American School of Classical Studies of Athens, T1953 ft AGPh Archiv fiir Geschichte der Philosophie AGR Akten der Gesellschaft fiir griechische und hellenistische Rechtsgeschichte AHAW Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse AHES Archive for History of Exact Sciences AIHS Archives internationales d’histoire des sciences AION Annali del Seminario di Studi del Mondo Classico, Sezione di Archeologia e Storia antica

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

XIV

ABBREVIATIONS

AJ The Archaeological Journal of the Royal Archaeological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland AJA American Journal of Archaeology AJAH American Journal of Ancient History AJBA Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology

AJN

American Journal of Numismatics

AJPh American Journal of Philology AK Antike Kunst AKG

Archiv fur Kulturgeschichte AKL G. MEISSNER (ed.), Allgemeines Kiinsterlexikon: Die bildenden Kiinstler aller Zeiten und Volker, *1991 ff. AKM

Abhandlungen fiir die Kunde des Morgenlandes Albrecht M. v. ALBRECHT, Geschichte der romischen Literatur, *1994

Alessio G. ALEssio, Lexicon etymologicum. Supplemento ai Dizionari etimologici latini e romanzi, 1976 Alexander M.C. ALEXANDER, Trials in the Late Roman Republic: 149 BC to 50 BC (Phoenix Suppl. Vol. 26), 1990 Alfoldi A. ALFOLDI, Die monarchische Reprasentation im romischen Kaiserreiche, 1970, repr. 31980 Alféldy, FH G. ALFOLDy, Fasti Hispanienses. Senatorische Reichsbeamte und Offiziere in den spanischen Provinzen des romischen Reiches von Augustus bis Diokletian, 1969 Alfoldy, Konsulat G. ALFOLDY,

Konsulat und Senatorenstand

unter

den Antoninen. Prosopographische Untersuchungen zur senatorischen Fuhrungsschicht (Antiquitas 1,

27), 1977 Alféldy, RG G. ALFOLDy, Die romische Gesellschaft. Ausgewahlte Beitrage, 1986 Alfoldy, RH G. ALFOLDY, Romische Heeresgeschichte, 1987 Alfoldy, RS G. ALFOLDy, Romische Sozialgeschichte, 31984 ALLG

Archiv fiir lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik Altaner B. ALTANER, Patrologie. Leben, Schriften und Lehre der Kirchenvater, 91980

AMI Archdologische Mitteilungen aus Iran Amyx, Addenda C.W. Neert, Addenda et Corrigenda to D.A. Amyx, Corinthian Vase-Painting, 1991 Amyx, CVP

D.A. AMyx, Corinthian Vase-Painting of the Archaic Period 3 vols., 1988 Anadolu Anadolu (Anatolia) Anatolica Anatolica AncSoc Ancient Society Anderson J.G. ANDERSON, A Journey of Exploration in Pontus (Studia pontica 1), 1903 Anderson Cumont/Grégoire J.G. ANDERSON, F. CUMONT, H. GrécorreE, Recueil

des inscriptions grecques et latines du Pont et de |’Arménie (Studia pontica 3), 1910 André, botan.

J. ANDRE, Lexique des termes de botanique en latin, 1956

André, oiseaux J. ANDRE, Les noms d’oiseaux en latin, 1967

André, plantes J. ANDRE, Les noms de plantes dans la Rome antique,

1985

Andrews K. ANDREWS, The Castles of Morea, 1953 ANET J.B. PRircHaRD, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, +1969, repr. 1992 AnnSAAt Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene ANRW H. TEMporINi, W. Haase (ed.), Aufstieg und Nie-

dergang der rémischen Welt, 1972 ff. ANSMusN Museum Notes. American Numismatic Society

AntAfr Antiquités africaines AntChr Antike und Christentum AntPI Antike Plastik AO Der Alte Orient AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament APF

Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete APh L’Année philologique Arangio-Ruiz

V. ARANGIO-RuIZ, Storia del diritto romano, °1953

XV

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

Arcadia Arcadia. Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft ArchCl Archeologia Classica ArchE Archaiologike ephemeris ArcheologijaSof Archeologija. Organ na Archeologiceskija institut i muzej pri B’lgarskata akademija na naukite ArchHom

BaF

Baghdader Forschungen Bagnall R.S. BAGNALL et al., Consuls of the Later Roman Empire (Philological Monographs of the American Philological Association 36), 1987 BalkE Balkansko ezikoznanie BalkSt

Balkan Studies BaM

Archaeologia Homerica, 1967ff.

Baghdader Mitteilungen

ArtAntMod

Arte antica e moderna ARW Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft AS Anatolian Studies ASAA Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni italiane in Oriente ASL Archiv fiir das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen ASNP

Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Classe di Lettere e Filosofia ASpr

Bardenhewer, GAL O. BARDENHEWER, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, Vols. 1-2, *1913 f.; Vols. 3-5, 1912-32;

repr. Vols. 1-5, 1962 Bardenhewer, Patr.

O. BARDENHEWER, Patrologie, ?1910 Bardon H. Barpon, La littérature latine inconnue 2 vols., 1952-56 Baron

W. Baron (ed.), Beitrage zur Methode der Wissen-

schaftsgeschichte, 1967 BASO Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bauer/Aland

Die Alten Sprachen ASR B. ANDREAE

(ed.), Die antiken

W. Bauer, K. ALAND

(ed.), Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testamentes und der frithchristlichen Literatur, °r988

Sarkophagreliefs,

1952 ff. Athenaeum Athenaeum ATL B.D. Meritt, H.T. WapE-Gery, M.F. MCGRECOR, Athenian Tribute Lists 4 vols., 1939-53 AU Der altsprachliche Unterricht Aulock H.v. Autocx, Miuinzen und Stadte Pisidiens (MDAI(Ist) Suppl. 8) 2 vols., 1977-79 Austin C. AusTIN (ed.), Comicorum graecorum fragmenta in papyris reperta, 1973

BA Bolletino d’Arte del Ministero della Publica Istruzione BAB Bulletin de Académie Royale de Belgique. Classe des Lettres BABesch Bulletin antieke beschaving. Annual Papers on Classical Archaeology Badian, Clientelae E. BapDIAN, Foreign Clientelae, 1958 Badian, Imperialism E. BADIAN, Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic, 1967

ABBREVIATIONS

Baumann, LRRP

R.A. BAUMAN, Lawyers in Roman Republican Politics. A study of the Roman Jurists in their Political Setting, 316-82 BC (Munchener Beitrage zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte), 1983 Baumann, LRTP

R.A. BauMAN, Lawyers in Roman Transitional Politics. A Study of the Roman Jurists in their Political Setting in the Late Republic and Triumvirate (Miinchener Beitrage zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte), 1985 BB

Bezzenbergers Beitrage zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen BCAR Bollettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma BCH Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique BE Bulletin épigraphique Beazley, ABV J.D. Braziey, Attic Black-figure Vase-Painters, 1956

Beazley, Addenda* TH.H. Carpenter (ed.), Beazley Addenda, *1989 Beazley, ARV* J.D. Braziey, Attic Red-figure Vase-Painters, *1963

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

XVI

ABBREVIATIONS

Beazley, EVP J.D. Beaz.ey, Etruscan Vase Painting, 1947

Beazley, Paralipomena J.D. BEazLey, Paralipomena. Additions to Attic Black-figure Vase-Painters and to Attic Red-figure Vase-Painters, *1971 Bechtel, Dial.’

F. BecHTEL, 1921-24

Die griechischen

Dialekte

3 vols.,

Bechtel, Dial.*

F. BECHTEL,

Die griechischen

Dialekte

3 vols.,

41963

Bechtel, HPN F. BecuTEL, Die historischen Personennamen

des

Griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit, 1917

Belke K. BeLke, Galatien und Lykaonien (Denkschriften der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 172; TIB 4), 1984

Belke/Mersich K. Berke, N. MersicH, Phrygien und Pisidien (Denkschriften der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 211; [IB 7), 1990

Bell K.E. Bett, Place-Names in Classical Mythology, Greece, 1989 Beloch, Bevélkerung K.J. BELOcH, Die Bevélkerung der griechisch-rémischen Welt, 1886 Beloch, GG K.J. BELocH, Griechische Geschichte 4 vols., *1912-27, repr. 1967

Beloch, RG K.J. BELocH, R6mische Geschichte bis zum Beginn der Punischen Kriege, 1926 Bengtson H. BenctTson, Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit. Ein Beitrag zum antiken Staatsrecht (Minchener Beitrage zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 26, 32, 36) 3 vols., 1937-52, ed. repr. 1964-67

Berger E.H.

BERGER, Geschichte der wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde der Griechen, *1903 Berve H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage, 1926 Beyen

H. G. Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration vom zweiten bis zum vierten Stil 2 vols., 1938-60 BFC Bolletino di filologia classica BGU Agyptische (Griechische) Urkunden aus den Kaiserlichen (from Vol. 6 on Staatlichen) Museen zu Berlin 13 vols., 1895-1976 BHM Bulletin of the History of Medicine

BIAO Bulletin de l'Institut frangais d’Archéologie Orientale BibIH&R Bibliotheque d’Humanisme et Renaissance BiblLing Bibliographie linguistique / Linguistic Bibliography BIBR

Bulletin de l’Institut Belge de Rome Bickerman E. BICKERMANN, Chronologie (Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft III 5), 1933 BICS Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London BIES

The Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society BiogJahr Biographisches Jahrbuch fiir Altertumskunde Birley A.R. Birney, The Fasti of Roman Britain, 1981

BJ Bonner Jahrbiicher des Rheinischen Landesmuseums in Bonn und des Vereins von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande BKT

Berliner Klassikertexte 8 vols., 1904-39 BKV Bibliothek der Kirchenvater (Kempten ed.) 63 vols.,

*I19II-31 Blansdorf J. BLANsporg (ed.), Theater und Gesellschaft im Imperium Romanum, 1990

Blass F. Brass, Die attische 34887-98, repr. 1979

Beredsamkeit,

3

vols.,

Blass/Debrunner/Rehkopf F. Biass, A. DEBRUNNER, F. REHKOPF, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, "1979 Blimner, PrAlt.

H. BLUMNER, Die rémischen (HdbA IV 2, 2), 3x91 Blimner, Techn.

Privataltertiimer

H. BLUMNER, Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Kiinste bei Griechen und Romern, Vol. 1, *1912; Vols. 2-4, 1875-87, repr. 1969 BMC, Gr

A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum 29 vols., 1873-1965 BMCByz W. WroTu (ed.), Catalogue of the Imperial Byzantine Coins in the British Museum 2 vols., 1908, repr. 1966

BMCIR Bryn Mawr Classical Review BMCRE H. MarTING_y (ed.), Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum 6 vols., 1962-76

XVII

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

BMCRR

H.A. GRUEBER (ed.), Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum 3 vols., 1970 BN

ABBREVIATIONS

Bruun C. Bruun, The Water Supply of Ancient Rome. A Study of Imperial Administration (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 93), 1991

Beitrage zur Namensforschung Bolgar, Culture 1

R. BoLgar, Classical Influences on European Culture A.D. 500 - 1500, 1971 Bolgar, Culture 2 R. Boucar, Classical Influences on European Culture A.D. 1500-1700, 1974

Bolgar, Thought R.

Boxcar,

Bryer/Winfield A. Bryer, D. WINFIELD, The Byzantine Monuments and Topography of Pontus (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 20) 2 vols., 1985 BSABR

Bulletin de Liaison de la Société des Amis de la Bibliothéque Salomon Reinach BSL

Classical

Influences

on

Western

Thought A.D. 1650-1870, 1977 Bon A. Bon, La Morée franque 2 vols., 1969

Bonner S.F. BONNER, Education in Ancient Rome, 1977 Bopearachchi O. BOPEARACHCHI, Monnaies gréco-bactriennes et

indo-grecques. Catalogue raisonné, 1991 Borinski K. BorinskI, Die Antike in Poetik und Kunsttheorie vom Ausgang des klassischen Altertums bis auf Goethe und Wilhelm von Humboldt 2 vols., 1914-24, repr. 1965

Borza

E.N. Borza, In the shadow of Olympus. The emergence of Macedon, 1990 Bouché-Leclerq A. BOUCHE-LECLERQ, Histoire de la divination dans Pantiquité 3 vols., 1879-82, repr. 1978 in 4 vols. BPhC Bibliotheca Philologica Classica BrBr H. Brunn, F. BRUCKMANN, Denkmiler griechischer und rémischer Skulpturen, 1888-1947 BRGK Bericht der Romisch-Germanischen Kommission des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts Briggs/Calder W.W. Briccs, W.M. Caper III, Classical Scholarship. A Biographical Encyclopedia, 1990 Bruchmann C.F.H. BRUCHMANN, Epitheta deorum quae apud poetas graecos leguntur, 1893 Brugmann/Delbriick K. BRUGMANN, B. DELBRUCK, Grundrif$ der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, Vols. 1-2, 1897-1916; Vols. 3-5, 1893-1900 Brugmann /Thumb K. BRUGMANN, A. THUMB (ed.), Griechische Grammatik, 41913 Brunhdlzl F. BRUNHOLZL, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters 2 vols., 1975-92 Brunt P.A. BruNT, Italian Manpower 222 B. C.—A.D. 14, 1971

Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris BSO(A)S Bulletin of the School of Oriental (from Vol. ro ff. and African) Studies

BTCGI G. Nencr (ed.), Bibliografia topografica della colonizzazione greca in Italia e nelle isole tirreniche, 1980 ff. Buck A. Bucx (ed.), Die Rezeption der Antike, 1981 Burkert W. BurKERT, Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche, 1977 Busolt/Swoboda G. Buso.t, H. Swosopa, Griechische Staatskunde (HdbA IV 1, r) 2 vols., 31920-26, repr. 1972-79 BWG Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte BWPr Winckelmanns-Programm der Archaologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin Byzantion Byzantion. Revue internationale des études byzantines ByzF Byzantinische Forschungen. Internationale Zeitschrift fiir Byzantinistik ByzZ Byzantinische Zeitschrift

Caballos A. CaBALLOS, Los senadores hispanoromanos y la romanizacion de Hispania (Siglos I al III p.C.), Vol. 1: Prosopografia (Monografias del Departamento de Historia Antigua de la Universidad de Sevilla 5), 1990 CAF T. Kock (ed.), Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta, 3 vols., 1880-88 CAG Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 18 vols., 1885-1909

CAH The Cambridge Ancient History 12 text- and 5 ill. vols., 1924-39 (Vol. 1 as 2nd ed.), vols. 1-2, 34970-75; vols. 3,1 and 3,3 ff., *1982 ff.; vol. 3,2, *T991

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

XVIII

ABBREVIATIONS

Carney

T.F. Carney, Bureaucracy in Traditional Society. Romano-Byzantine Bureaucracies Viewed from Within, 1971 Cartledge/Millett/Todd P. CarRTLEDGE, P. MILLETT, $. Topp (ed.), Nomos,

Essays in Athenian Law, Politics and Society, 1990

Christ, RGW K. Curist,

Casson, Trade

L. Casson, Ancient Trade and Society, 1984 CAT Catalogus Tragicorum et Tragoediarum (in TrGF

Wissen-

GIG Corpus luris Canonici 2 vols., 1879-81, repr. 1959 CID Corpus des inscriptions de Delphes 3 vols., 1977-92 CIE C. PAutt (ed.), Corpus Inscriptionum Etruscarum, Vol. 1-2, 1893-1921; Vol. 3,1 ff., 1982 ff. CIG Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum 4 vols., 1828-77

Vol. r) CatLitPap

H.J.M. Mine (ed.), Catalogue of the Literary Papyri in the British Museum, 1927

ECAG F. CumMonrt et al. (ed.), Catalogus Codicum trologorum Graecorum

und

A. KircHHOoFF et al. (ed.), Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum, 1873; Suppl.: 1877-91

M. Cary, The Geographical Background of Greek and Roman History, 1949

Geschichte

K. Curist, A. MomIcLiaNno, Die Antike im 19. Jahrhundert in Italien und Deutschland, 1988 CIA

Cary

Casson, Ships L. Casson, Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, 1971

Romische

schaftsgeschichte 3 vols., 1982-83 Christ/Momigliano

As-

CuL, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, 1863 ff. CIL Ill Add. M. SasEt-Kos, Inscriptiones latinae in Graecia repertae. Additamenta ad CIL III (Epigrafia e antichita

5), 1979

12 vols. in 20 parts, 1898—

1940 Gr Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina, 1954 ff. CE Cronache Ercolanesi CEG P.A. HANSEN (ed.), Carmina epigraphica Graeca

CIRB Corpus Inscriptionum regni Bosporani, 1965 CIS

(Texts and Commentary 12; 15), 1983 ff. CeM

Cr

Classica et Mediaevalia CGF G. KarBEL (ed.), Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, *1958

CGL G. Gotz (ed.), Corpus glossariorum Latinorum, 7 vols., 1888-1923, repr. 1965

Chantraine P. CHANTRAINE, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque 4 vols., 1968-80

CHCL-G E.J. KENNEY (ed.), The Cambridge History of Classical Literature. Greek Literature, 1985 ff. CHCL-L E.J. KENNEY (ed.), The Cambridge History of Classical Literature. Latin Literature, 1982 ff. Chiron Chiron. Mitteilungen der Kommission fiir alte Geschichte und Epigraphik des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts Christ K. Curist, Geschichte der romischen Kaiserzeit von Augustus bis zu Konstantin, 1988 Christ, RGG

K. Curist, Romische Geschichte und deutsche Geschichtswissenschaft, 1982

Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum 5 parts, 1881-

1951

CJ Classical Journal

Cultura Neolatina Clairmont C.W. CLAIRMONT, Attic Classical Tombstones 7 vols., 1993 Clauss M. Crauss, Der magister officiorum in der Spatantike (4.-6. Jahrhundert). Das Amt und sein Einfluf auf die kaiserliche Politik (Vestigia 32), 1981 CLE F, BUCHELER, E. LOMMATZSCH (ed.), Carmina Latina Epigraphica (Anthologia latina 2) 3 vols., 1895-1926

CM Clio Medica. Acta Academiae historiae medicinae CMA Cahiers de l'Institut du Moyen Age grec et latin CMB W.M. CALper III, D.J. Kramer, An Introductory Bibliography to the History of Classical Scholarship, Chiefly in the XIXth and XXth Centuries, 1992 CMG Corpus Medicorum Graecorum, 1908 ff. CMIK J. CHADWICK, Corpus of Mycenaean Inscriptions from Knossos (Incunabula Graeca 88), 1986 ff.

CML Corpus Medicorum Latinorum, rors ff.

XIX

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

CMS

Curtius

F. Matz et al. (ed.), Corpus der minoischen und

mykenischen Siegel, 1964 ff. CodMan Codices manuscripti. Zeitschrift fiir Handschriftenkunde Coing H. Cornea, Europaisches Privatrecht 2 vols., 1985—

89 CollAlex

CollRau J. v. UNGERN-STERNBERG (ed.), Colloquia Raurica, 1988 ff.

Conway/Johnson /Whatmough R.S. Conway, S.E. JOHNSON, J. WHATMOUGH, The

Prae-Italic dialects of Italy 3 vols., 1933, repr. 1968 Conze ‘ A. ConzeE, Die attischen Grabreliefs 4 vols., 18931922 Courtney E. CourTNEY, The Fragmentary Latin Poets, 1993 CPE

F, ADORNO (ed.), Corpus dei Papiri Filosofici greci e latini, 1989 ff. CPG M. GEERARD (Vols. 1-5), F. GLoRIE, (Vol. 5), Clavis patrum graecorum 5 vols., 1974-87 CPh Classical Philology Ce E. Dekkers, A. GAAR, Clavis patrum latinorum

(CCL), ?1995

CQ Classical Quarterly

CR Classical Review CRAI Comptes rendus des séances de |’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres CRF Romanorum

Frag-

menta, 1871, repr. 1962

CSGE Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition CSE Corpus Speculorum Etruscorum, 1990 ff. CSEL Corpus Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 1866 ff. SCIR Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani, 1963 ff. Cumont, Pont

F. Cumont, E. Cumont, Voyage d’exploration archéologique dans le Pont et la Petite Arménie (Studia pontica 2), 1906

Cumont, Religions F. Cumonrt, Les Religions orientales dans le paganisme romain, +1929, repr. 1981

E.R. Curtius, Europaische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter, ''1993 CVA Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, 1923 ff. CW The Classical World D’Arms J.H. D’Arms, Commerce and Social Standing in Ancient Rome, 1981

I.U. PowE1 (ed.), Collectanea Alexandrina, 1925

O. RrpBeck (ed.), Comicorum

ABBREVIATIONS

D’Arms/Kopff J.H. D’Arms, E.C. KopFr (ed.), The Seaborne Com-

merce of Ancient Rome: Studies in Archaeology and History (Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 36), 1980 Dacia Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne Davies J.K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families 600-300 BG ova DB F. ViGourovwx (ed.), Dictionnaire de la Bible, 1881 iat DEPP E. LiprNski et al. (ed.), Dictionnaire de la Civilisation Phénicienne et Punique, 1992 Degrassi, FCap. A. Decrassi, Fasti Capitolini (Corpus scriptorum Latinorum Paravianum), 1954

Degrassi, FCIR A. DecrassI, I Fasti consolari dell’Impero Romano,

1952 Deichgraber K. DEICHGRABER, Die griechische Empirikerschule, 1930 Delmaire R. DELMarrRE, Les responsables des finances impériales au Bas-Empire romain (IV‘-VI s). Etudes prosopographiques (Collection Latomus 203), 1989 Demandt A. DEMANDT, Der Fall Roms: die Auflosung des r6mischen Reiches im Urteil der Nachwelt, 1984 Demougin S. DEMouGIN, Prosopographie des Chevaliers romains Julio-Claudiens (43 av.J -C.-70 ap.J.-C.) (Collection de l’Ecole Francaise de Rome 153), 1992 Deubner L. DEUBNER, Attische Feste, 1932 Develin R. Deven, Athenian Officials 684-321 B.C. 1949 Devijver H. Devijver, Prosopographia militiarum equestrium quae fuerunt ab Augusto ad Gallienum (Symbolae Facultatis Litterarum et Philosophiae Lovaniensis Ser. A 3) 3 vols., 1976-80; 2 Suppl. Vols.:

1987-93 DHA Dialogues d’histoire ancienne

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

XX

ABBREVIATIONS

DHGE A. BAUDRILLART,

R. AUBERT

(ed.), Dictionnaire

d’Histoire et de Géographie Ecclésiastiques 1912 ff. DID Didascaliae Tragicae/Ludorum Tragicorum (in TrGF Vol. r) Diels, DG H. Diets, Doxographi Graeci, 1879 Diels/Kranz H. Diets, W. Kranz (ed.), Fragmente der Vorsokratiker 3 vols., 91951 f., repr. Vol.1, 1992; Vol. 2,

Dulckeit /Schwarz /Waldstein G. DutcxeiT, F. ScHwARz, W. WALDSTEIN, Romische Rechtsgeschichte. Ein Studienbuch (Juristische Kurz Lehrbicher), 1995 Dumézil G. DuméziL, La religion romaine archaique, suivi d’un appendice sur la religion des Etrusques, 1974 Duncan-Jones, Economy R. DuNcAN-JONES, The Economy of the Roman Empire. Quantitative Studies, 1974 Duncan-Jones, Structure

Dierauer U. DieraueEr, Tier und Mensch im Denken der An-

tike, 1977 Dietz K. Dietz, Senatus contra principem. Untersuchungen zur senatorischen Opposition gegen Kaiser Maximinus Thrax (Vestigia 29), 1980

Dihle A. Dine, Die der Kaiserzeit: DiskAB Diskussionen 1974 ff. Dixon S. Drxon, The

DJD

:

R. DuNCAN-JONES, Structure and Scale in the Ro-

1985; Vol. 3, 1993

man Economy, 1990

DVjs Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift fir Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte EA Epigraphica Anatolica. Zeitschrift fiir Epigraphik und historische Geographie Anatoliens EAA

griechische und lateinische Literatur von Augustus bis Justinian, 1989

R. BIANCHI BANDINELLI (ed.), Enciclopedia dell’arte antica classica e orientale, 1958 ff. EB

zur archaologischen

Bauforschung,

G. Camps, Encyclopédie Berbére 1984 ff. Ebert F. EBERT, Fachausdricke des griechischen Bauhand-

Roman Family, 1992

werks, Vol. 1: Der Tempel, 1910

EC

Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, 1955 ff.

Essays in Criticism

Eck

DLZ

Deutsche Literaturzeitung fiir Kritik der internationalen Wissenschaft DMA

W. Eck, Die Statthalter der germanischen Provinzen vom 1.-3. Jahrhundert (Epigraphische Studien 14), 1985

J.R. STRAYER et al. (ed.), Dictionary of the Middle Ages 13 vols., 1982-89 Dmic F. Aura Jorro, Diccionario Micénico, 1985

Eckstein

Dorrie/Baltes H. Dorrig, M. Bates (ed.), Der Platonismus in der Antike, 1987 ff. Domaszewski

Edelstein, Asclepius E.J. and L. EDELSTEIN, Asclepius. A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies, 1945 Eder, Demokratie

A.V. Domaszewskl,

Aufsatze zur romischen Hee-

resgeschichte, 1972 Domaszewski /Dobson A.V. DoMASzEwWSskI, B. Dosson, Die Rangordnung des romischen Heeres, *1967 Domergue

C. DOMERGUE, Les mines de la péninsule Iberique dans |’Antiquité Romaine, 1990 Drumann /Groebe W. DRUMANN, P. GROEBE (ed.), Geschichte Roms in seinem Ubergange von der republikanischen zur monarchischen Verfassung 6 vols., 1899-1929, repr. 1964

W. Eber

(ed.), Die athenische

Demokratie

im 4.

Jahrhundert vy. Chr. Vollendung oder Verfall einer Verfassungsform? Akten eines Symposiums, 3. — 7. August 1992, 1995 Eder, Staat W. EpDER (ed.), Staat und Staatlichkeit in der friihen

romischen Republik: Akten eines Symposiums, 12. — 15. Juli 1988, 1990 EDM

K. RANKE, W. BREDNICH (ed.), Enzyklopadie des Marchens. Handwérterbuch zur historischen und

vergleichenden Erzahlforschung, 1977 ff. EDRL

DS C. DAREMBERG,

F.A. EcxsTEIn, Nomenclator philologorum, 1871 Edelstein, AM L. EDELSTEIN, Ancient medicine, 1967

E. SAGLIO (ed.), Dictionnaire des

antiquités grecques et romaines d’aprés les textes et les monuments 6 vols., 1877-1919, repr. 1969

A. BERGER, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (TAPhA N.S. 43,2), 1953, repr. 1968 EEpigr

Ephemeris Epigraphica

XXI

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

EI Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1960 ff. Eissfeldt O. EIssFELDT (ed.), Handbuch zum Alten Testament, 31964 ff. Emerita Emerita. Revista de linguistica y filologia clasica Enclr E. YARSHATER (ed.), Encyclopaedia Iranica, 1985 Entretiens Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique (Fondation Hardt) EOS Atti del Colloquio Internazionale AIEGL su Epigrafia e Ordine Senatorio: Roma, 14-20 maggio 1981, 2 vols., 1982 EpGF M. Davies, Epicorum graecorum fragmenta, 1988 EpGr G. KarBEL (ed.), Epigrammata Graeca ex lapidibus conlecta, 1878 Epicurea H. USENER (ed.), Epicurea, 1887, repr. 1963 EPRO Etudes préliminaires aux religions orientales dans Empire Romain, 196r ff. Eranos Eranos. Acta Philologica Suecana Er-Jb Eranos-Jahrbuch Erasmus Erasmus. Speculum Scientiarum. Internationales Literaturblatt der Geisteswissenschaften Eretz Israel Eretz-Israel, Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies Ernout/Meillet A. Ernout, A. MEILLET, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine, +1959 Errington R.M. ErRRINGTON, Geschichte Makedoniens. Von den Anfangen bis zum Untergang des K6nigreiches, 1986

ESAR T. Frank

(ed.), An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome 6 vols., 1933-40 Espérandieu, Inscr. E. Esp£RANDIEU, Inscriptions latines de Gaule 2 vols., 1929-36 Espérandieu, Rec. E. EspERANDIEU, Recueil généneral des bas-reliefs, statues et bustes de la Gaule Romaine 16 vols., 190781

ET H. Rix (ed.), Etruskische Texte (ScriptOralia 23, 24, Reihe A 6,7) 2 vols., 1991 ETAM Erganzungsbande zu den Tituli Asiae minoris, 1966

ff.

ABBREVIATIONS

Euph. Euphorion EV F, DELLA Corte et al. (ed.), Enciclopedia Virgiliana 5 vols. in 6 parts, 1984-91 Evans

D.E. Evans, Gaulish Personal names. A study of some continental Celtic formations, 1967 F&F Forschungen und Fortschritte Farnell, Cults L.R. FARNELL, The Cults of the Greek States 5 vols., 1896-1909

Farnell, GHC L.R. FARNELL, Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Im-

mortality, 1921 FCG A. MEINEKE (ed.), Fragmenta Comicorum Graeco-

rum 5 vols., 1839-57, repr. 1970 FCS Fifteenth-Century Studies FdD Fouilles de Delphes, 1902 ff. FGE D.L. Pace, Further Greek Epigrams, 1981 FGrH

F. Jacosy, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 3 parts in 14 vols., 1923-58, Part 1: *1957 FHG C. MULLER (ed.), Fragmenta Historicorum Graeco-

rum 5 vols., 1841-1970 Fick/Bechtel A. Fick, F. BECHTEL, Die griechischen Personennamen, *1894

FiE Forschungen Filologia La Filologia Finley, Ancient M.I. FInLey, Finley, Ancient M.I. FinLey,

in Ephesos, 1906 ff. Greca e Latina nel secolo XX, 1989 Economy The Ancient Economy, *1984 Slavery Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology,

1980

Finley, Economy M.I. Frntey, B.D. SHaw, R.P. SALLER (ed.), Economy and Society in Ancient Greece, 1981

Finley, Property M.I. FINLEY (ed.), Studies in Roman Property, 1976 FIRA S. RiccoBono, J. BAviERA (ed.), Fontes iuris Romani anteiustiniani 3 vols., *1968 FIRBruns K.G. Bruns, TH. Mommsen, O. GRADENWITZ (ed.), Fontes iuris Romani antiqui, 1909, repr. 1969 Fittschen/Zanker K. FirrscHEN, P. ZANKER, Katalog der r6mischen Portrats in den capitolinischen Museen und den anderen kommunalen Museen der Stadt Rom, 1983 ff.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

XXII

ABBREVIATIONS

Flach D. Fracu, Rémische Agrargeschichte (HdbA III 9), 1990 Flashar H. FLasHar, Inszenierung der Antike. Das griechische Drama auf der Buhne der Neuzeit, 1991

A. FURTWANGLER, K. REICHHOLD, Griechische Va-

senmalerie 3 vols., 1904-32 Fushdller D. FUSHOLLER, Tunesien und Ostalgerien in der RO-

Flashar, Medizin H. FLASHAR (ed.), Antike Medizin, 1971

merzeit, 1979

FMS Friihmittelalterliche Studien, Jahrbuch des Instituts fiir Friihmittelalter-Forschung der Universitat Minster

G&R Greece and Rome GA A.S.F. Gow, D.L. Pacr, The Greek Anthology, Vol. 1: Hellenistic Epigrams, 1965; Vol. 2: The Garland

Fossey

J.M. Fossey, Topography and Population of Ancient Boiotia, Vol. 1, 1988

FOst

Fow er, The Roman Festivals of the Period

of the Republic. An Introduction to the Study of the FPD I. Piso, Fasti Provinciae Daciae, Vol. 1: Die senato-

rischen Amtstrager (Antiquitas 1,43), 1993 IDE

in 6 vols., 1891-1904

Latinorum epicorum et lyricorum, *1982 FPR Poetarum

P. GaRNSEY, Famine and Food Supply in the GraecoRoman World. Responses to Risk and Crisis, 1988 Garnsey/Hopkins/Whittaker P. Garnsey,

W. Moret, C. BUCHNER (ed.), Fragmenta Poetarum

(ed.), Fragmenta

Gardthausen V. GARDTHAUSEN, Augustus und Seine Zeit, 2 parts Garnsey

Religion of the Romans, 1899

A. BAHRENS

of Philip, 1968 Gardner P. Garpner, A History of Ancient Coinage, 700300 B.C., 1918

L. VIDMANN, Fasti Ostienses, 1982

Fowler W.W.

der Steinschneidekunst im klassischen Altertum 3 vols., 1900 Furtwangler/Reichhold

K. Hopkins,

C.R. WHITTAKER

(ed.),

Trade in the Ancient Economy, 1983 Garnsey/Saller P. GARNSEY, R. SALLER, The Roman Empire, Econo-

Romano-

my, Society and Culture, 1987

Frazer

GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten

J.G. Frazer, The Golden Bough. A Study in Magic and Religion, 8 parts in 12 vols., Vols. 1-3, 5-9, >t911-14; Vols. 4, 10-12, 1911-15 Frenzel E. FRENZEL, Stoffe der Weltliteratur, St992 Friedlander

Gehrke H.-J. GEHRKE, Jenseits von Athen und Sparta. Das Dritte Griechenland und seine Staatenwelt, 1986 Gentili/Prato B. GENTILI, C. PRATO (ed.), Poetarum elegiacorum

rum, 1886

L. FRIEDLANDER, G. Wissowa (ed.), Darstellungen

aus der Sittengeschichte Roms 4 vols., ‘°1921-23 Frier, Landlords B.W. Frier, Landlords and Tenants in Imperial Rome, 1980

Frier, PontMax

B.W. Frrer, Libri annales pontificum maximorum. The origins of the Annalistic Tradition (Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome

27), 1979 Frisk

H. Frisk, Griechisches etymologisches Wérterbuch (Indogermanische Bibliothek: Reihe 2) 3 vols., 1960-72

FRLANT

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Fuchs/Floren W. Fucus, J. FLorEN, Die Griechische Plastik, Vol. t: Die geometrische und archaische Plastik, 1987 Furtwangler A. FURTWANGLER, Die antiken Gemmen. Geschichte

Jahrhunderte, 1897 ff.

testimonia et fragmenta, Vol. 1, *1988; Vol. 2, 1985

Georges K.E.

Georces,

Ausfiihrliches

lateinisch-deutsches

Handworterbuch 2 vols., Sr912—-18, repr. 1992 Gerard-Rousseau M. GERARD-RoussEAvu, Les mentions religieuses dans les tablettes mycéniennes, 1968 Germania Germania. Anzeiger der R6misch-Germanischen Kommission des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts Gernet L. GERNET, Droit et société dans la Gréce ancienne (Institut de droit romain,

Publication

13), 1955,

repr. 1964 Geus K. Geus, Prosopographie der literarisch bezeugten Karthager (Studia Phoenicia 13 Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 59), 1994 GGA Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen

XXII

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

GGM C. MULLER (ed.), Geographi Graeci Minores 2 vols., Tabulae, 1855-61 GGPh' F. Uperwec (ed.), Grundrif der Geschichte der Philosophie; K. PRACHTER, Teil 1: Die Philosophie des Altertums, **1926, repr. 1953

GGPh7* W. Otro, U. HAusMaANN

(ed.), Grundrif$ der Ge-

schichte der Philosophie; H. FLASHAR (ed.), vol. 3: Die Philosophie der Antike, 1983, vol. 4: Die hellenistische Philosophie, 1994 GHW 1 H. Benetson, V. MiLojcic et al., Grofer Historischer Weltatlas des Bayrischen Schulbuchverlages 1. Vorgeschichte und Altertum, °1978

GHW 2 J. ENGEL, W. Macer, A. BrrkEN et al., GrofSer His-

torischer Weltatlas des Bayrischen Schulbuchverlages 2. Mittelalter, *1979 GIBM C.T. NEwTon et al. (ed.), The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum 4 vols., 1874-1916

Gillispie C.C. GILispi£ (ed.), Dictionary of scientific biography 14 vols. and index, 1970-80, repr. 19813 2 Suppl. Vols., 1978-90

GL H. Kerr (ed.), Grammatici Latini 7 vols., 1855-80 GLM

A. Riese (ed.), Geographi Latini Minores, 1878

Glotta Glotta. Zeitschrift fiir griechische und lateinische Sprache GMth F. ZAMINER

(ed.), Geschichte der Musiktheorie, 1984 ff. Gnomon Gnomon. Kritische Zeitschrift fiir die gesamte klassische Altertumswissenschaft Gobl R. G6sL, Antike Numismatik 2 vols., 1978 Goleniscev I.N. GoventsCev-Kutuzoy, I] Rinascimento italiano e le letterature slave dei secoli XV e XVI, 1973 Gordon A.E. Gorpon, Album of Dated Latin Inscriptions 4 vols., 1958-65 Goulet R. Gou tert (ed.), Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, 1989 ff. Graf F. Grar, Nordionische Kulte. Religionsgeschichtliche und epigraphische Untersuchungen zu den Kulten von Chios, Erythrai, Klazomenai und Phokaia,

1985 GRBS Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies

ABBREVIATIONS

Grenier

A. GRENIER, Manuel d’archéologie gallo-romaine 4 vols., 193 1-60; vols. 1 and 2, repr. 1985 GRE H. Funalout

(ed.), Grammaticae

Romanae

Frag-

menta, 1907

GRF(add)

A. Mazzarino, Grammaticae Romanae Fragmenta aetatis Caesareae (accedunt volumini Funaioliano

addenda), 1955 GRLMA Grundrifg der romanischen Literaturen des Mittelalters Gruen, Last Gen.

E.S. GRUEN, The Last Generation of the Roman Republic, 1974 Gruen, Rome

E.S. GRUEN, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, 1984, repr. 1986 Gruppe O. Gruppe, Geschichte der klassischen Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte wahrend des Mittelalters im Abendland und wahrend der Neuzeit, 1921 Gundel W. and H-G. GuNDEL, Astrologumena. Die astrologische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte, 1966

Guthrie W.K.C. Guturig, A History of Greek Philosophy 6 vols., 1962-81 GVI W. PEEK (ed.), Griechische Vers-Inschriften, Vol. I,

1955 Gymnasium

Gymnasium. Zeitschrift fiir Kultur der Antike und humanistische Bildung HABES Heidelberger althistorische Beitrage und epigraphische Studien, 1986 ff. Habicht C. Hasicut, Athen. Die Geschichte der Stadt in hellenistischer Zeit, 1995 Hakkert A.M. Haxkert (ed.), Lexicon of Greek and Roman Cities and Place-Names in Antiquity c. 1500 B.C. — c. A.D. 500, 1990 ff. Halfmann H. HaLeMann, Die Senatoren aus dem Ostlichen Teil

des Imperium Romanum bis zum Ende des 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. (Hypomnemata 58), 1979 Hamburger K. HampurGer, Von Sophokles zu Sartre. Griechische Dramenfiguren antik und modern, 1962 Hannestad N. HaNnNesTAD, Roman Art and Imperial Policy, 1986

Hansen, Democracy

M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes. Structure, Principles and Ideology, I99I,

repr.

1993

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

XXIV

ABBREVIATIONS

Hild

Harris

W.V. Harris, War and Imperialism in Republican Rome 327-70 B.C., 1979

Hasebroek J. HaseBrokk, Griechische Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftsgeschichte bis zur Perserzeit, 1931 HbdOr B. SPULER (ed.), Handbuch der Orientalistik, 1952 tte HbdrA J. MarquarptT, TH. Mommsen, Handbuch der rémischen Alterthiimer, vols. 1-3, +1887 f.; vols. 4-7,

F. Hip, Kilikien und Isaurien (Denkschriften der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 215; TIB 5) 2 vols., 1990 Hild/Restle F. Hitp, M. Restie, Kappadokien (Kappadokia, Charsianon, Sebasteia und Lykandos) (Denkschriften der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 149; TIB 2), 1981

H. BACHTOLD-STAUBLI

Hirschfeld O. HirscHFELD, Die kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten bis auf Diocletian, *1905 Historia Historia. Zeitschrift fiir Alte Geschichte HJb Historisches Jahrbuch

repr. 1987

HLav Humanistica Lavanensia

*1881-86 HBr

P. HERRMANN, R. Hersic, (ed.), Denkmaler Malerei des Altertums 2 vols., 1904-50

der

HDA

et al. (ed.), Handworterbuch des deutschen Aberglaubens 10 vols., 1927-42,

HdArch W. Orro, U. HausMAnN (ed.), Handbuch der Archaologie. Im Rahmen des HdbA 7 vols., 1969-90

HLL

HdbA I. v. MULLER, H. BENGTSON (ed.), Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 1977 ff. Heckel W. HECKEL, Marshals of Alexander’s Empire, 1978 Heinemann K. HEINEMANN, Die tragischen Gestalten der Griechen in der Weltliteratur, 1920 Helbig W. HE sic, Fuhrer durch die 6ffentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertiimer in Rom 4 vols., +1963-72 Hephaistos Hephaistos. Kritische Zeitschrift zu Theorie und Praxis der Archaologie, Kunstwissenschaft und angrenzender Gebiete

HM

Hermes

Hermes. Zeitschrift ftir klassische Philologie Herrscherbild Das romische Herrscherbild, 19369 ff.

Herzog, Staatsverfassung E. v. HerzocG, Geschichte und System der rémischen Staatsverfassung 2 vols., 1884-91, repr. 1965 Hesperia

Hesperia. Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens Heubeck

A. HEvBECK, Schrift (Archaeologia Homerica Chapter X Vol. 3), 1979 Heumann/Seckel H.G. HEuMANN,

E. SECKEL (ed.), Handlexikon zu den Quellen des romischen Rechts, "'1971 Highet G. HiGHET, The Classical Tradition: Greek and Roman Influences on Western literature, 41968, repr. 1985

R. Herzoa, P.L. Scumipt (ed.), Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike, 1989 ff. A History of Macedonia, Vol. 1: N.G.L. HAMMOND,

Historical geography and prehistory, 1972; Vol. 2: N.G.L. HaMMonp, G.T. GRIFFITH, 550-336 BC, 1979; Vol. 3: N.G.L. HAMMOND, F.W. WaLBANK, 336-167 BC, 1988 HmT H.H. EGGEBRECHT, Handworterbuch der musikalischen Terminologie, 1972 ff. HN B.V. HeEaD, Historia numorum. A manual of Greek numismiatics, *1911

Hodge T.A. Hopce, Roman Aqueducts and Water Supply, 1992 Holbl G. HOLBL, Geschichte des Ptolemderreiches. Politik, Ideologie und religidse Kultur von Alexander den Grofen bis zur romischen Eroberung, 1994 Holkeskamp K.-J. HOLKEsKAMpP, Die Entstehung der Nobilitat. Studien zur sozialen und politischen Geschichte der Romischen Republik im 4.Jh. v. Chr., 1987 Hoffmann D. Hormann, Das spatrémische Bewegungsheer und die Notitia dignitatum (Epigraphische Studien 7) 2 vols., 1969 f. = (Diss.), 1958 Holder A. Hoxper, Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz 3 vols., 1896-1913, repr. 1961 f. Honsell H. HONsELL, Romisches Recht (Springer-Lehrbuch), 31994 Hopfner T. Hopener, Griechisch-agyptischer Offenbarungszauber 2 vols. in 3 parts, 1921-24, repr. 1974-90

XXV

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

Hopkins, Conquerors K. Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves. Sociological Studies in Roman History, Vol. 1, 1978 Hopkins, Death K. Hopxins, Death and Renewal. Sociological Studies in Roman History, Vol. 2, 1983 HR

History of Religions HRR H. Perer (ed.), Historicorum Romanorum quiae, Vol. 1, 1914; Vol. 2, 1906, repr. 1967 HrwG H. Cancik,

B. GLapiGow,

M. LauBscHER

Reli-

ABBREVIATIONS

IEG M. L. West (ed.), lambi et elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati 2 vols., 1989-92 IEJ Israel Exploration Journal IER Illustrierte Enzyklopadie der Renaissance IEry H. ENGELMANN (ed.), Die Inschriften von Erythrai und Klazomenai 2 vols., 1972 f.

IF Indogermanische Forschungen (from

Vol. 2: K.-H. Kout) (ed.), Handbuch religionswis-

senschaftlicher Grundbegriffe, 1988 ff.

IG

Inscriptiones Graecae, 1873 ff. IGA

HS

H. Roeut

Historische Sprachforschung HSM Histoire des sciences médicales

mae praeter Atticas in Attica repertas, 1882, repr.

HSPh

Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Hiilser K. Huser, Die Fragmente zur Dialektik der Stoiker. Neue Sammlung der Texte mit deutscher Ubersetzung und Kommentaren 4 vols., 1987 f. Humphrey J.H. Humpurey, Roman Circuses. Arenas for Chariot Racing, 1986 Hunger, Literatur H. Huncer, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner (HdbA 12, 5) 2 vols., 1978 Hunger, Mythologie H. Huncer (ed.), Lexikon der griechischen und r6mischen Mythologie, °1969 Huss W. Huss, Geschichte der Karthager (HdbA III 8), 1985

HWdPh J. Ritrer, K. GRUNDER (ed.), Historisches Worter-

buch der Philosophie, 1971 ff. HWdR G. UEpInNG (ed.), Historisches Wérterbuch der Rhetorik, 1992 ff.

HZ Historische Zeitschrift

IA Iranica Antiqua IconRel T.P. v. BaareN (ed.), Iconography of Religions, 1970 ff. ICUR A. FerruA, G.B. DE Rossi, Inscriptiones christianae urbis Romae, 1922ff. IDélos Inscriptions de Délos, 1926 ff. [Didyma A. Rem (ed.), Didyma, Vol. 2: Die Inschriften, 1958

(ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae antiquissi-

LOT7.

IGBulg G. MrmaiLov (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae 5 vols., 1956-1996 IGLS Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie, 1929 ff. IGR R. Caenat et al. (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes 4 vols., 1906-27

IGUR L. Moretrt1, Inscriptiones Graecae urbis Romae 4 vols., 1968-90 1)Gai International Journal of the Classical Tradition lsewijn J. Usewryn, Companion to Neo Latin Studies, *r990 ff. IK Die Inschriften griechischer Stadte aus Kleinasien, 1972 ff. ILCV E. Drent (ed.), Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres orientis 3 vols., 1925-31, repr. 1961;J.MoREAU, H.I. MarrOu (ed.), Suppl., 1967 ILLRP A. Decrassi (ed.), Inscriptiones Latinae liberae rei publicae 2 vols., 1957-63, repr. 1972 ILS H. Dessau (ed.), Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae 3 vols. in 5 parts, 1892-1916, repr. 41974

IMagn. O. KERN (ed.), Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maander, 1900, repr. 1967

IMU Italia medioevale e umanistica Index Index. Quaderni camerti di studi romanistici InscrIt A. Decrassi (ed.), Inscriptiones Italiae, 1931 ff. IOSPE V. LatyscHEw (ed.), Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis ponti Euxini Graecae et Latinae 3 vols., 1885-1901, repr. 1965

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

XXVI

ABBREVIATIONS

IPNB

M. Mayruorer, R. Scumitt (ed.), Iranisches Personennamenbuch, 1979 ff. IPQ International Philosophical Quaterly IPriene F. HILLER VON GARTRINGEN, Inschriften von Priene, 1906

Irmscher J. IRMSCHER (ed.), Renaissance und Humanismus in

Mittel- und Osteuropa, 1962 Isager/Skydsgaard S. ISAGER, J.E. SkKYDSGAARD, Ancient Greek Agriculture, An Introduction, 1992

JMRS Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JNG Jahrbuch fiir Numismatik und Geldgeschichte JOAI Jahreshefte des Osterreichischen Archdologischen Instituts Jones, Cities

A.H.M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, *1971

Jones, Economy A.H.M. Jones, The Roman

Ancient

Isis

Isis IstForsch Istanbuler Forschungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts lura IURA, Rivista internazionale di diritto romano e antico

IvOl W. DITTENBERGER, K. PURGOLD, Inschriften von Olympia, 1896, repr. 1966 Jaffé P. JAFFE, Regesta pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum 1198 2 vols., *1985—-88 JBAA The Journal of the British Archaeological Association JbAC Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum es Journal of Cuneiform Studies JDAI Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts

JEA

The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Jenkyns, DaD R. JENKyNS, Dignity and Decadence: Classicism and the Victorians, 1992 Jenkyns, Legacy R. JENKYNS, The Legacy of Rome: A New Appraisal, 1992

Economic

and

Economy. Studies in Administrative History,

1974 Jones, LRE

A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284-602. and Administrative Survey,

A Social, Economic 1964

Jones, RGL

A.H.M. Jones, Studies in Roman Government and Law, 1968 Jost M. Jost, Sanctuaires et cultes d’Arcadie, 1985

JPh Journal of Philosophy JRGZ Jahrbuch des Romisch-Germanischen seums

Zentralmu-

JRS

Journal of Roman Studies Justi

F. Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch, 1895

JWG

Jahrbuch fiir Wirtschaftsgeschichte JWI Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes Kadmos Kadmos. Zeitschrift fiir vor- und friihgriechische Epigraphik KAI

Journal of the History of Biology

H. Donner, W. ROLLIG, Kanaanaeische und aramaeische Inschriften 3 vols., 31971-1976 Kajanto, Cognomina I. Kajanto, The Latin Cognomina, 1965 Kajanto, Supernomina I. KayanTo, Supernomina. A study in Latin epigraphy (Commentationes humanarum litterarum 40,

Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences

Kamptz H. v.

JHAS

Journal for the History of Arabic Science

JHB

JHM

JHPh

Journal of the History of Philosophy

JHS

Journal of Hellenic Studies

JLW

Jahrbuch fiir Liturgiewissenschaft

1), 1966

Kamptz, Homerische Personennamen. Sprachwissenschaftliche und historische Klassifikation, 1982 = H. v. Kamptz, Sprachwissenschaftliche und historische Klassifikation der homerischen Personennamen (Diss.), 1958

Karlowa O. KarLowa, Rémische Rechtsgeschichte 2 vols., 1885-1901

XXVII

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

Kaser, AJ

M. Kaser, Das altromische Jus. Studien zur Rechtsvorstellung und Rechtsgeschichte der Rémer, 1949 Kaser, RPR M. Kaser,

Das rémische Privatrecht (Rechtsgeschichte des Altertums Part 3, Vol. 3; HbdA ro, 3, 3) 2 vols., 31971-75

Kaser, RZ

M. Kaser, Das romische Zivilprozessrecht (Rechtsgeschichte des Altertums Part 3, Vol. 4; HbdA 10, 3, 4), 1966

Kearns E. KEARNS, The Heroes of Attica, 1989 (BICS Suppl.

57) Keller O. KELLER, Die antike Tierwelt 2 vols., 1909-20

’

repr. 1963

Kelnhofer F. KELNHOFER, Die topographische Bezugsgrundlage der Tabula Imperii Byzantini (Denkschriften der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 125 Beih.; TIB x, Beih.), 1976

Kienast D. KrenastT, Romische Kaisertabelle. Grundziige einer rOmischen Kaiserchronologie, 1990 Kindler W. Jens (ed.), Kindlers Neues Literatur Lexikon 20

vols., 1988-92 Kinkel G. KINnKEL, (ed.), Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta,

1877 Kirsten /Kraiker E. Kirsten, W. KRraAIKER, Griechenlandkunde. Ein Fuhrer zu klassischen Statten, 51967 Kleberg T. Kieserc, Hotels, restaurants et cabarets dans antiquité Romaine. Etudes historiques et philolo-

Kraft K. Krart, Gesammelte Aufsatze zur antiken Geschichte und Militargeschichte, 1973 Kromayer/Veith J. KRomayer, G. VerrH, Heerwesen und Kriegfiihrung der Griechen und Romer, 1928, repr. 1963 Krumbacher K. KRUMBACHER, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur von Justinian bis zum Ende des ostrémischen Reiches (527-1453) (HdbA 9, 1), *1897, repr. 1970 KSd J. FrrepRicH (ed.), Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmaler (Kleine Texte fiir Vorlesungen und Ubungen 163), 1932 KUB

Keilschrifturkunden von Boghazk6i Kiuhner/Blass R. KUuner, F. Brass, Ausfiihrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Teil 1: Elementar- und Formenlehre 2 vols., 1890-92 Kuhner/Gerth R. KUHNER, B. GERTH, Ausfiihrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Teil 2: Satzlehre 2 vols., 31898-1904; W. M. CaLper III, Index locorum, 1965

Kihner/Holzweifig R. KUHNER, F. Hotzweissic, Ausfuhrliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache. Teil I: Elementar-, Formen- und Wortlehre, *1912 Kuhner/Stegmann R. KUHNER, C. STEGMANN, Ausfihrliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache. Teil 2: Satzlehre, 2 vols., 41962 (revised by A. THIERFELDER); G.S. SCHWARZ, R. L. Wertis, Index locorum, 1980

Kullmann/Atlhoff W. KULLMANN, J. ALTHOFF (ed.), Vermittlung und Tradierung von Wissen in der griechischen Kultur,

1993

giques, 1957 Klio Klio. Beitrage zur Alten Geschichte KIP K. ZIEGLER (ed.), Der Kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike 5 vols., 1964-75, repr. 1979 Knobloch J. KNosiocu et al. (ed.), Sprachwissenschaftliches Worterbuch (Indogermanische Bibliothek 2), 1986 ff (xst installment 1961) Koch/Sichtermann G. Kocu, H. SicHTERMANN, Romische Sarkophage, 1982

Koder J. Koper, Der Lebensraum der Byzantiner. Historisch-geographischer AbrifS ihres mittelalterlichen Staates im Ostlichen Mittelmeerraum, 1984 Koder/Hild J. Koper, F. Hixp, Hellas und Thessalia (Denk-

schriften der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 125; TIB r), 1976

ABBREVIATIONS

Kunkel

W. KunxeEL, Herkunft und soziale Stellung der rémischen Juristen, *1967 KWdH H.H. Scumitt (ed.), Kleines Worterbuch des Hellenismus, *1993 Lacey W.K. Lacey, The Family in Classical Greece, 1968

LA

W. Heck et al. (ed.), Lexikon der Agyptologie 7 vols., 1975-92 (1st installment 1972) LAK H. Brunner, K. FLesset, F. HILLer et al. (ed.), Lexikon Alte Kulturen 3 vols., 1990-93 Lanciani R. LANCIANI, Forma urbis Romae, 1893-1901 Lange

C.C.L. LANGE, Romische *1876-79; Vol. 3, 1876

Altertiimer, Vols.

1-2,

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

XXVIII

ABBREVIATIONS

K. Latre, ROmische Religionsgeschichte (HdbA 5,

LIMC J. BoaRDMaN et al. (ed.), Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, 1981 ff. Lippold G. Lirro.p, Die griechische Plastik (HdArch III), 1950

4), 1960, repr. 1992

Lipsius

Langosch K. Lancoscu, Mittellatein und Europa, 1990 Latomus

Latomus. Revue d’études latines Latte

Lauffer, BL S. LauFFER, Die Bergwerkssklaven von Laureion,

J.H. Lipstus, Das attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren. Mit Benutzung des Attischen Processes 3 vols., 1905-15, repr. 1984

*1979 Lauffer, Griechenland S. LAUFFER (ed.), Griechenland. Lexikon der histo-

rischen Statten von den Anfangen bis zur Gegen-

Lloyd-Jones H. LLtoyp-Jones, Blood for the Ghosts — Classical Influences in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, 1982 LMA

wart, 1989

Lausberg H. LausBercG, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik.

R.-H. Bautier, R. Auty (ed.), Lexikon des Mittel-

Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft, +1990 LAW C. ANDRESEN et al. (ed.), Lexikon der Alten Welt,

alters 7 vols., 1980-93 (rst installment 1977), 3rd

1965, repr. 1990

GI Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie LdA J. IRMSCHER (ed.), Lexikon der Antike, ‘1990 Le Bohec Y. Le BoHEc, L’armée romaine. Sous le Haut-Empire, 1989 Leitner

H. LertNer, Zoologische Terminologie beim Alteren Plinius (Diss.), 1972 Leo F. Leo, Geschichte der romischen Literatur. I. Die archaische Literatur, 1913, repr. 1958 Lesky A. Lesxy, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, 31971, repr. 1993 Leumann M. LEUMANN, Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre (HdbA II 2, 1), 1977 Leunissen P.M.M. LEuUNISSEN, Konsuln und Konsulare in der Zeit von Commodus bis zu Alexander Severus (180-235 n. Chr.) (Dutch Monographs in Ancient History and Archaeology 6), 1989 Lewis/Short C.T. Lewis, C. SHort, A Latin Dictionary, *1980 LFE B. SNELL (ed.), Lexikon des friihgriechischen Epos, 1979 ff. (1st installment 1955) LGPN

197975

menta, 1955, repr. 1968 Loewy E. Lorwy (ed.), Inschriften griechischer Bildhauer, 1885, repr. 1965

LPh T. SCHNEIDER, Lexikon der Pharaonen. Die altagyptischen K6nige von der Friihzeit bis zur ROmerherrschaft, 1994 LRKA

Friedrich Libkers Reallexikon des Klassischen Altertums, *1914 LSAG L.H. JEFFERY, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece. A Study of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and its Development from the Eighth to the Fifth Centuries B.C., *1990 LSAM

F. SoxoLowsk1,

Lois sacrées

de |’Asie mineure,

1955 LSCGE F. SoKoLowsk1,

Lois sacrées des cités grecques,

1969

LSCG, Suppl F. SOKOLOWSKI, Lois sacrées des cités grecques, Supplement, 1962 LSJ H.G. LippELL, R. Scott, H.S. Jones et al. (ed.), A Greek-English Lexicon, °1940; Suppl.: 1968, repr. 1992 LThK*

P.M. FRASER et al. (ed.), A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, 1987 ff. Liebenam W. LigEBENAM, Stadteverwaltung im rémischen Kaiserreich, 1900 Lietzmann H. LierzMann,

vol. repr. 1995 Lobel/Page E. Loser, D. Pace (ed.), Poetarum lesbiorum frag-

J. HOrer, K. RAHNER (ed.), Lexikon fiir Theologie und Kirche 14 vols., *19 57-86 LThK*

W. Kasper et al. (ed.), Lexikon fiir Theologie und Kirche, '1993 ff. LTUR

Geschichte

der

Alten

Kirche,

E.M. Sreinsy (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, 1993 ff.

XXIX

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

LUA Lunds Universitets Arsskrift / Acta Universitatis Lundensis Lugli, Fontes G. LuGLt (ed.), Fontes ad topographiam veteris urbis Romae pertinentes, 6 of 8 vols. partially appeared b) 1952-62

ABBREVIATIONS

Matz/Duhn F. Matz, F. v. DUHN (ed.), Antike Bildwerke in Rom

mit Ausschluf der gré8eren Sammlungen 1881 f. MAVORS

3 vols.,

M.P. SpripEL (ed.), Roman Army Researches 1984

ff.

Lugli, Monumenti G. LuGut, IMonumenti antichi di Roma e suburbio ~ 3 vols., 1930-38; Suppl.: 1940 Lustrum Lustrum. Internationale Forschungsberichte aus dem Bereich des klassischen Altertums M&H Mediaevalia et Humanistica. Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Society MacDonald G. Macponatp, Catalogue of Greek Coins in the Hunterian Collection, University of Glasgow 3 vols.

’

1899-1905

MDAI(A) Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung MDAI(Dam)

Damaszener Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts

MDAI(Ist)

Istanbuler Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts

MDAI(K)

Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts (Abteilung Kairo)

MDAI(R)

MacDowell D. M. Macpowe1, The law in Classical Athens (Aspects of Greek and Roman life), 1978 MaAey. Medium Aevum Magie D. Macaig, Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ, 1950, repr. 1975

Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts, Romische Abteilung MDOG Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin MededRom Mededelingen van het Nederlands Historisch Insti-

MAI

Mediaevalia Mediaevalia Mediaevistik Mediaevistik. Internationale Zeitschrift fiir interdisziplinare Mittelalterforschung

Mosaici Antichi in Italia, 1967 ff MAMA Monumenta Asiae minoris Antiqua, 1927ff. Manitius M. Manitius, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur

des Mittelalters (HdbA 9, 2) 3 vols., 1911-31, repr.

1973-76 MarbWPr Marburger-Winckelmann-Programm Marganne

M.H. MarGANNg, Inventaire analytique des papyrus grecs de médecine, 1981 Marrou H.-I. Marrou, Geschichte der Erziehung im klassischen Altertum (translation of Histoire de l’éducation dans l’antiquité), *1977 Martinelli M. MarrTINeELLI (ed.), La ceramica degli Etruschi, 1987

Martino, SCR

F. De MartTINo, Storia della costituzione romana 5 vols., *1972-75; Indici 1990 Wirtschaftsgeschichte des alten

Rom, *1991

Masson

O. Masson, Les inscriptions chypriotes syllabiques. Recueil critique et commenté (Etudes chypriotes 1), *1983

MEFRA

Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Ecole Francaise de Rome. Antiquité Meiggs R. MeicGs, Trees and Timber in the Ancient Medi-

terranean World, 1982 Merkelbach/West R. MERKELBACH, M.L. West (ed.), Fragmenta Hesiodea, 1967 Mette H.J. Metre, Urkunden dramatischer Auffihrungen in Griechenland, 1977 MG Monuments Grecs MGG*" F. BLumg (ed.), Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Allgemeine Enzyklopadie der Musik 17 vols., 1949-86, repr. 1989

MGG*

Martino, WG

F. De Martino,

tuut te Rome

L. FINSCHER (ed.), Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart 20 vols., *1994 ff.

MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historica inde ab anno Christi quingentesimo usque ad annum millesimum et quingentesimum, 1826 ff.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

XXX

ABBREVIATIONS

MGH AA Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Auctores Antiquissimi MGH DD Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Diplomata MGH Epp Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Epistulae MGH PL Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Poetae Latini medii aevi MGH SS Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores MGrecs Monuments Grecs publiés par |’Association pour lEncouragement des Etudes grecques en France 2 vols., 1872-97 MH Museum Helveticum MiB Musikgeschichte in Bildern Millar, Emperor F.G.B. Mrtiar, The Emperor in the Roman World,

1977 Millar, Near East F.G.B. MiLiar, The Roman Near East, 1993 Miller

Mnemosyne. Bibliotheca Classica Batava MNVP Mitteilungen und Nachrichten des Deutschen Palastinavereins

MNW H. Meier et al. (ed.), Kulturwissenschaftliche

bliographie

zum

Nachleben

der Antike

Bi2 vols.,

1931-38

Mollard-Besques S. MOLLARD-BESQUES, Musée National du Louvre. Catalogue raisonné des figurines et reliefs en terrecuite grecs, étrusques et romains 4 vols., 1954-86 Momigliano A. MomIGLIANO, Contributi alla storia degli studi classici, 1955 ff. Mommsen, Schriften TH. MomMseEN, Gesammelte Schriften 8 vols., 1904-13, repr. 1965

Mommsen, Staatsrecht TH. Mommsen, Romisches Staatsrecht 3 vols., Vol.

1, 31887; Vol. 2 f., 1887 f. Mommseen Strafrecht TH. Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht, 1899, repr.

1955

K. MILLER, Itineraria Romana. Romische Reisewe-

ge an der Hand der Tabula Peutingeriana, repr. 1988 Millett

Mnemosyne

1916,

P. Mirietr, Lending and Borrowing in Ancient Athens, 1991 Minos Minos

MIO Mitteilungen des Instituts fiir Orientforschung MIR Moneta Imperii Romani. Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Ver6ffentlichungen der Numismatischen Kommission Mitchell S. MITCHELL, Anatolia. Land, Men and Gods in Asia Minor 2 vols., 1993 Mitteis L. Mirrets, Reichsrecht und Volksrecht in den 6stlichen Provinzen des rémischen Kaiserreichs. Mit Beitragen zur Kenntnis des griechischen Rechts und der spatrdmischen Rechtsentwicklung, 1891, repr. 1984

Mitteis/Wilcken L. Mirreis, U. WILCKEN, Grundziige und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, 1912, repr. 1978 ML R. Meices, D. Lewis (ed.), A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C., *1988 MLatJb Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch. Internationale Zeitschrift fiir Mediavistik

Mon.Ant.ined. Monumenti Antichi inediti Moos P. v. Moos, Geschichte als Topik, 1988 Moraux P. Moraux, Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias (Peripatoi 5 und 6) 2 vols., 1973-84 Moreau J. Moreau, Dictionnaire de géographie historique de la Gaule et de la France, 1972; Suppl.: 1983 Moretti L. Moretti

(ed.), Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche 2

vols., 1967-76 MP

Modern Philology MPalerne Mémoires du Centre Jean Palerne MRR

T.R.S. BROUGHTON, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic 2 vols., 1951-52; Suppl.: 1986 MSG C. JAN (ed.), Musici scriptores Graeci, 1895; Suppl: 1899, repr. 1962

Miller

D. MULLER, Topographischer Bildkommentar zu den Historien Herodots: Griechenland im Umfang des heutigen griechischen Staatsgebiets, 1987 Miiller-Wiener W. MULLER-WIENER, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls, 1977 Minzer* F. MUnzeER, ROmische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien, 1920

XXXI

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

Munzer*

F. MUNzER, ROmische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien, *1963 Murray/Price O. Murray, S. Price (ed.), The Greek City: From Homer to Alexander, 1990 Museéon Muséon Revue d’Etudes Orientales

MVAG Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft

(Agyptischen)

ABBREVIATIONS

Nock A.D. Nock, Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, 1972 Noethlichs K.L. Noeruiicns, Beamtentum und Dienstvergehen. Zur Staatsverwaltung in der Spatantike, 1981 Norden, Kunstprosa E. Norpben, Die antike Kunstprosa vom 6. Jh. v. Chr. bis in die Zeit der Renaissance, °1961 Norden, Literatur E. Norben, Die romische Literatur, °1961 NSA

MVPhW

Mitteilungen des Vereins klassischer Philologen in Wien MythGr Mythographi Graeci 3 vols., 1894-1902; Vol. 1, *1926

Nash E. Nasu, Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken

Notizie degli scavi di antichita NTM

Schriftenreihe fiir Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften, Technik und Medizin Nutton V. Nutron, From Democedes to Harvey. Studies in the History of Medicine (Collected Studies Series

Rom, 1961 f.

277), 1988

NC

NZ

Numismatic Chronicle NClio La Nouvelle Clio NDB Neue Deutsche Biographie, 19 53 ff.; Vols. 1-6, repr. 1971 NEAEHL

E. STERN (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 4 vols., 1993 Neoph. Neophilologus Newald R. Newatp, Nachleben des antiken Geistes im Abendland bis zum Beginn des Humanismus, 1960 NGrove The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ®1980 NGrovelnst The New Grove Dictionary of Musical Instruments,

1994 NHCod Nag Hammadi Codex NHS Nag Hammadi Studies Nicolet C. Nico.et, L’ Ordre équestre a l’epoque républicaine 312-43 av. J.-C. 2 vols., 1966-74 Nilsson, Feste M.P. Nixsson, Griechische Feste von religidser Bedeutung mit Ausschluss der attischen, 1906 Nilsson, GGR,

M.P. Nitsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion (HdbA 5, 2), Vol. 1, 31967, repr. 1992; Vol. 2, 41988 Nilsson, MMR M.P. Nitsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and its Survival in Greek Religion, *1950 Nissen H. Nissen, Italische Landeskunde

1902

2 vols., 1883-

Numismatische Zeitschrift

OA J.G. Barrer, H. Saupre (ed.), Oratores Attici 3 vols.,

1839-43 OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis OCD N.G. Hammonpn,

H.H. Scutiarp

(ed.), The Ox-

ford Classical Dictionary, *1970, 31996 ODB A.P. KazHDAN et al. (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, rg9q91 ff. OF O. KERN (ed.), Orphicorum Fragmenta, 31972 OGIS W. DiITTENBERGER

(ed.), Orientis Graeci Inscripti-

ones Selectae 2 vols., 1903-05, repr. 1960 OLD

P.G.W. Gare (ed.), Oxford Latin Dictionary, 1982 (rst installment 1968)

OIF Olympische Forschungen, 1941 ff. Oliver J.H. Oriver, Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri, 1989 Olivieri D. Ortviert, Dizionario di toponomastica lombarda. Nomi di comuni, frazioni, casali, monti, corsi d’acqua, ecc. della regione lombarda, studiati in rapporto alle loro origine, *1961 Olshausen/Biller/Wagner E. OLSHAUSEN, J. BILLER, J. WAGNER, Historischgeographische Aspekte der Geschichte des Pontischen und Armenischen Reiches. Untersuchungen Zur historischen Geographie von Pontos unter den Mithradatiden (TAVO 29), Vol.1, 1984 @EZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

XXXII

ABBREVIATIONS

OpAth Opuscula Atheniensia, 1953 ff. OpRom Opuscula Romana ORF E, MAtcovati, Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta (Corpus scriptorum Latinorum Paravianum 56-5 8); vols., 1930 Orientalia Orientalia, Neue Folge Osborne R. OsBorng, Classical Landscape with Figures: The Ancient Greek City and its Countryside, 1987 Overbeck J. OverBeck, Die antiken Schriftquellen zur Geschichte der bildenden 1868, repr. 1959

Kiinste bei den Griechen,

Pfeiffer KPI R. PrerrFerR, Die Klassische Philologie von Petrarca bis Mommsen, 1982 Pfiffig A.J. PrirFic, Religio Etrusca, 1975 Pflaum H.G.PFLauM, Les carriéres procuratoriennes équestres sous le Haut-Empire Romain 3 vols. and figs., 1960 f.; Suppl.: 1982 Pfuhl E. Prunt, Malerei und Zeichnung der Griechen, 1923 Pfuhl/Mobius E. PrunL, H. Mosius, Die ostgriechischen Grabreliefs 2 vols., 1977-79 PG J.P. Miene (ed.), Patrologiae cursus completus, se-

PA

ries Graeca 161 vols., 1857-1866; Conspectus auc-

torum: 1882; Indices 2 vols.: 1912-32

J. KircuHner, Prosopographia Attica 2 vols., r9g01-

PGM

03, repr. 1966

Pack R.A. Pack (ed.), The Greek and Latin Literary Texts

from Greco-Roman Egypt, *1965 Panofsky E. Panorsky, Renaissance Western Art, 1960

and

Renaissances

K. PREISENDANZ, A. HENRICHS (ed.), Papyri Graecae Magicae. Die griechischen Zauberpapyri 2 vols., 71973 f. (1928-31) Philippson /Kirsten A. PHILIPPSON, A. LEHMANN, E. KirsTEN (ed.), Die

in

Pape/Benseler W. Pare, G.E. BENSELER, Worterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen 2 vols., 1863-1870 PAPhS Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society Parke H.W. Parke, Festivals of the Athenians, 1977 Parke/Wormell H.W. Parke, D.E.W. WorMELL, The Delphic Oracle, 1956 PBSR Papers of the British School at Rome PCA Proceedings of die Classical Association. London PCG R. Kassex, C. AusTIN (ed.), Poetae comici graeci,

1983 ff. PCPhS Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society PdP La Parola del Passato PE

griechischen Landschaften. Eine Landeskunde vols., 1950-59 Philologus Philologus. Zeitschrift fir klassische Philologie PhQ Philological Quarterly Phronesis Phronesis PhU Philologische Untersuchungen Phw

Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift Picard CH. Picarp, Manuel d’archéologie grecque. La sculpture, 1935 ff. Pickard-Cambridge/Gould/Lewis A.W. PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE, J. GouLp, D.M. LEwis, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, *1988 Pickard-Cambridge/Webster A.W.

1978

T.B.L.

WEBSTER,

A. PIGLER, Barockthermen. Eine Auswahl von Ver-

zeichnissen zur Ikonographie des 17. Und 1 8. Jahrhunderts. 2 vols., *1974; Ill. Vol.: 1974 PIR

D.P.S. Peacock, Pottery in the Roman World: An

Ethnoarchaeological Approach, 1982 PEGI A. BERNABE (ed.), Poetae epici graeci. Testimonia et fragmenta. Pars I, 1987 Pfeiffer, KPI R. PFEIFFER, Geschichte der Klassischen Philologie. Von den Anfangen bis zum Ende des Hellenismus,

PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE,

Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy, *1962 Pigler, |

R. STILLWELL et al. (ed.), The Princeton Encyclo-

pedia of Classical Sites, 1976 Peacock

4

Prosopographia imperii Romani saeculi, Vol. I-II, *1933 ff.

AL J.P. Micnk (ed.), Patrologiae cursus completus, se-

ries Latina 221 vols., 1844-65 partly repr. 5 Suppl. Vols., 1958-74; Index: 1965 PLM AE. BAEHRENS (ed.), Poetae Latini Minores 5 vols.,

1879-83

XXXII

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

PLRE

QSt

A.H.M. Jones, J.R. MARTINDALE, J. Morris (ed.),

The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire 3 vols. in 4 parts, 1971-1992

PMG D.L. PAGE, Poetae melici graeci, 1962 PMGEF

M. Davies (ed.), Poetarum melicorum Graecorum fragmenta, 1991

PMGTr H.D.

Berz

(ed.), The

Greek

Magical

Papyri

in

Translation, Including the Demotic Spells, *1992 Poccetti D. Poccetti, Nuovi documenti italici a complemento del manuale di E. Vetter (Orientamenti linguistici

Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums und des Mittelalters Quasten J. QuasTEN, Patrology 2 vols., 1950-53 RA Revue Archéologique RAC

T. KLauser, E. DassMANN

(ed.), Reallexikon fiir Antike und Christentum. Sachworterbuch zur Auseinandersetzung des Christentums mit der antiken Welt, 1950 ff. (1st installment 1941) RACr Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana Radermacher

8), 1979 Pokel W.

ABBREVIATIONS

POxEL,

L. RADERMACHER, Artium Scriptores. Reste der vor-

«Philologisches

Schriftstellerlexikon,

1882, repr. *1974 Poetica

Poetica. Zeitschrift fiir Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft Pokorny J. Poxorny, Indogermanisches etymologisches Worterbuch 2 vols., *1989 Poulsen F. POULSEN, Catalogue of Ancient Sculpture in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 1951 PP

W. PEREMANS (ed.), Prosopographia Ptolemaica (Studia hellenistica) 9 vols., 1950-81, repr. Vol. 1-3,

1977 PPM

Pompei, Pitture e Mosaici, 1990 ff. Praktika Tloaxtixd ty ev AOrvais agyatohoyixrs etarpetas Préaux C. Préaux, L’économie royale des Lagides, 1939, repr. 1980

Preller/Robert L. PRELLER, C. RoBerT, Griechische Mythologie, 51964 ff. Pritchett K. PrircHett, Studies in Ancient Greek Topography (University of California Publications, Classical Studies) 8 vols., 1969-92 PropKg K. Bitte et al. (ed.), Propylaen Kunstgeschichte 22 vols., 1966-80, repr. 1985 Prosdocimi A.L. Prospocimi, M. CrisTOFANI, Lingue dialetti dell’Italia antica, 1978; A. MARINETTI, Aggiornamenti ed Indici, 1984 PrZ Prahistorische Zeitschrift PSI G. ViTELLI, M. Norsa, V. BARTOLETTI et al. (ed.), Papiri grecie latini (Pubblicazione della Soc. Italiana per la ricerca dei pap. grecie latini in Egitto), 1912 ff.

aristotelischen Rhetorik, 1951 Radke G. RapkKgE, Die Gotter Altitaliens, *1979 Raepsaet-Charlier M-T. RAEPSAET-CHARLIER, Prosopographie

des

femmes de l’ordre sénatorial (I. — II. siécles) (Fonds

Reneé Draguet 4) 2 vols., 1987 RARG

H. Bonnet, Reallexikon der agyptischen Religionsgeschichte, *1971 RAL Rendiconti della Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche dell’ Academia dei Lincei Ramsay

W.M. Ramsay, The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia 2 vols., 1895-97 RAssyr Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale Rawson, Culture

E. Rawson, Roman Culture and Society. Collected Papers, 1991

Rawson, Family B. Rawson (ed.), The Family in Ancient Rome. New Perspectives, 1986 RB P. WirTH (ed.), Reallexikon der Byzantinistik, 1968 ff. RBA

Revue Belge d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art RBi

Revue biblique RBK K. Wesset, M. RESTLE (ed.), Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst, 1966 ff. (1st installment 1963) RBN Revue Belge de numismatique RBPh

Revue Belge de philologie et d’histoire RDAC Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus RDK O. Scumitrt (ed.), Reallexikon zur deutschen Kunstgeschichte, 1937ff.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

XXXIV

ABBREVIATIONS

RE G. Wissowa et al., (ed.), Paulys Real-Encyclopadie der classischen

Altertumswissenschaft,

Neue

Be-

arbeitung, 1893-1980 REA Revue des études anciennes REByz

Revue des études byzantines REG Revue des études grecques Rehm W.

Reum,

Griechentum

und

Goethezeit,

+1952,

47968

Reinach, RP S. REINACH, Répertoire de peintures grecques er romaines, 1922

Reinach, RR S. REINACH, Répertoire de reliefs grecs et romains 3 vols., 1909-12 Reinach RSt S. REINACH, Répertoire de la statuaire greque et romaine 6 vols., 1897-1930, repr. 1965-69

REL Revue des études latines Rer.nat.scr.Gr.min O. KELLER (ed.), Rerum naturalium scriptores Graeci minores, 1877

Reynolds L.D. REYNOLDs (ed.), Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics, 1983 Reynolds/Wilson L.D. REYNOLDs, N.G. WiLson, Scribes and Scholars. A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, 31991 RFIC Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica RG W.H. WADDINGTON, E. BABELON, Recueil général des monnaies grecques d’ Asie mineure (Subsidia epigraphica 5) 2 vols., 1908-1925, repr. 1976 RGA H. Beck et al. (ed.), Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, *1973 ff. (1st installment 1968); Suppl.: 1986 ff. RGG K. GaLuinc (ed.), Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Handworterbuch fiir Theologie und Religionswissenschaft 7 vols., 31957—65, repr. 1980 RGRW Religion in the Graeco-Roman World RGVV Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten RH Revue historique RHA Revue hittite et asianique RhM Rheinisches Museum fiir Philologie

Rhodes P.J. Ruopes, A commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia, *1993 RHPhR Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses RHR Revue de l’histoire des religions RHS Revue historique des Sciences et leurs applications RIA Rivista dell’Istituto nazionale d’archeologia e storia dell’arte RIC H. Marttincty, E.A. SYDENHAM, The Roman Im-

perial Coinage ro vols., 1923-94 Richardson L. RicHarDSON (Jr.), A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, 1992 Richter, Furniture G.M.A. RicuTer, The Furniture of the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans, 1969 Richter, Korai G.M.A. RicHuTER, Korai, Archaic Greek Maidens, 1968

Richter, Kouroi G.M.A. RicuTer, Kouroi, Archaic Greek Youths, 31970 Richter, Portraits

G.M.A. RICHTER, The Portraits of the Greeks 3 vols. and suppl., 1965-72 RIDA Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquité RIG P-M. Duvat (ed.), Recueil des inscriptions gauloi-

ses, 1985 ff. RIL

Rendiconti dell’Istituto Lombardo, classe di lettere, scienze morali e storiche Rivet

A.L.F. Rivet, Gallia Narbonensis with a Chapter on Alpes Maritimae. Southern France in Roman Times, 1988

Rivet/Smith A.L.F. Rivet, C. SmitH, The Place-Names of Roman Britain, 1979 RLA E. EBELING et al. (ed.), Reallexikon der Assyriolo-

gie und vorderasiatischen Archdologie, 1928 ff. RLV

M. Epert (ed.), Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte 15 vols., 1924-32 RMD

M.M. Roxan, Roman military diplomas (Occasional Publications of the Institute of Archaeology of the University of London 2 and 9), Vol. 1, (1954-77),

1978; Vol. 2, (1978-84), 1985; Vol. 3, (1985-94),

1994 RN

Revue numismatique

XXXV

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

Robert, OMS L. RoBerT, Opera minora selecta 7 vols., 1969-90

Robert, Villes L. Ropert, Villes d’Asie Mineure. Etudes de géographie ancienne, *1902

Robertson A.S. ROBERTSON, Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet, University of Glasgow 5 vols.

’

1962-82

Rohde E. Ronpk, Psyche. Seelenkult und Unsterblichkeitsglaube der Griechen, *1898, repr. 199% Roscher W.H. Roscuer, Ausfiihrliches Lexikon der griechischen und roémischen Mythologie 6 vols., 31884-1937, repr. 1992 f.; 4 Suppl. Vols.: 18931921 Rostovtzeff, Hellenistic World M.I. Rostovtrzerr, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, *1953 Rostovtzeff, Roman Empire M.I. RostovtzerrF, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, *1957 Rotondi G. RoTonpl1, Leges publicae populi Romani. Elenco cronologico con una introduzione sull’ attivita legislativa dei comizi romani, 1912, repr. 1990 RPAA Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia di Archeologia RPC A. Burnett, M. AMANDRY, P.P. RIPOLLEs (ed.), Ro-

man Provincial Coinage, 1992 ff.

RPh Revue de philologie

RQ Renaissance Quarterly

RQA Romische Quartalsschrift fiir christliche Altertumskunde und fiir Kirchengeschichte RRC M. CrawForpb, Roman Republican Coinage, 1974,

repr. 1991 RSC Rivista di Studi Classici Rubin B. Rusin, Das Zeitalter Iustinians, 1960 Ruggiero E. De RuGctero, Dizionario epigrafico di antichita romana, 1895 ff., Vols. 1-3: repr. 1961 f. Saeculum Saeculum. Jahrbuch fiir Universalgeschichte Saller R. SALLER, Personal Patronage Under the Early Empire, 1982 Salomies O. SaLomiEs, Die romischen Vornamen. Studien zur romischen Namengebung (Commentationes humanarum litterarum 82), 1987

ABBREVIATIONS

Samuel A.E. SAMUEL, Greek and Roman Chronology. Calendars and Years in Classical Antiquity (HdbA I 7), 1972 Sandys J.E. SaNpys, A History of Classical Scholarship 3 vols., *1906-21, repr. 1964 SAW W Sitzungsberichte der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien SB Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Agypten (Inschriften und Papyri), Vols. 1-2: F. PREISIGKE (ed.), 1913-22; Vols. 3-5: F. BILaBEL (ed.), 1926-34 SBAW Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften SCCGF J. DEmrANczuK (ed.), Supplementum comicum comoediae Graecae fragmenta, 1912 Schachter A. SCHACHTER, The Cults of Boiotia 4 vols., 1981—

94 Schafer A. SCHAFER, Demosthenes *188 5-87, repr. 1967

und seine Zeit 3 vols.,

Schanz/Hosius M. ScHanz, C. Hosius, G. KRUGER, Geschichte der romischen Literatur bis zum Gesetzgebungswerk des Kaisers Justinian (HdbA 8), Vol. 1, 41927, repr. 1979; Vol. 2, 41935, repr. 1980; Vol. 3, 31922, repr. 1969; Vol. 4,1, *1914, repr. 1970; Vol. 4,2, 1920, repr. 1971 Scheid, Collége J. ScuED, Le collége des fréres arvales. Etude prosopographique du recrutement (69 —304) (Saggi di storia antica 1), 1990 Scheid, Recrutement J. ScHEID, Les fréres arvales. Recrutement et origine

sociale sous les empereurs julio-claudiens (Bibliothéque de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes, Section des Sciences Religieuses 77), 1975 Schlesier R. SCHLESIER, Kulte, Mythen und Gelehrte — Anthropologie der Antike seit 1800, 1994 Schmid/Stahlin I W. Scumip,

O. STAHLIN, Geschichte der griechi-

schen Literatur. Erster Theil: Die klassische Periode der griechische Literatur VII 1) 5 vols., 1929-48, repr. 1961-80

Schmid/Stahlin I W. Curist, W. ScHMiD, O. STAHLIN, Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur bis auf die Zeit Justinians. Zweiter Theil: Die nachklassische Periode der griechischen Litteratur (HdbA VII 2) 2 vols., ®1920-24, repr. 1961-81 Schmidt K.H. ScumipT, Die Komposition in gallischen Personennamen in: Zeitschrift fiir celtische Philologie

26, 1957, 33-301 = (Diss.), 1954

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

XXXVI

ABBREVIATIONS

Schonfeld M. SCHONFELD, Worterbuch der altgermanischen Personen- und Volkernamen (Germanische Bibliothek Abt. 1, Reihe 4, 2), r911, repr. *1965)

Scholiall H. Ersse (ed.), Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem (Scholia vetera) 7 vols., 1969-88 SChr Sources Chrétiennes, 1942 ff. Schrotter F. v. SCHROTTER (ed.), Worterbuch der Miinzkunde,

Sezgin F. Sezcin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, Vol.3: Medizin, Pharmazie, Zoologie, Tierheilkunde bis ca. 430 H., 1970 SGAW Sitzungsberichte der Gottinger Akademie der Wissenschaften SGDI H. Cotuirz et al. (ed.), Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften 4 vols., 1884-1915 SGLG K. Avrers, H. Ersse, A. KLEINLOGEL (ed.), Samm-

*1970

Schurer E. SCHURER, G. VERMES, The history of the Jewish people in the age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. - A.D.

135) 3 vols., 1973-87 Schulten, Landeskunde

A. SCHULTEN, Iberische Landeskunde. Geographie des antiken Spanien 2 vols., 195 5-57 (translation of the Spanish edition of 1952) Schulz F. ScHuLz, Geschichte der romischen Rechtswissen-

schaft, 1961, repr. 1975 Schulze W. ScHuizeE, Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen, 1904 Schwyzer, Dial. E. SCHWYZER (ed.), Dialectorum Graecarum exempla epigraphica potiora, +1923 Schwyzer, Gramm. E. ScHwyZeER, Griechische Grammatik, Vol. 1: All-

gemeiner Teil. Lautlehre (HdbA II x, 1), 1939 Schwyzer/Debrunner

Wortbildung,

E. ScHwyZER, A. DEBRUNNER,

Flexion

lung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker 7 vols., 1974-88

SH H. Ltoyp-Jones, P. Parsons (ed.), Supplementum Hellenisticum, 1983 SHAW Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften Sherk R.K. SHeRK, Roman Documents from the Greek East: Senatus Consulta and Epistulae to the Age of Augustus, 1969

SicA Sicilia archeologica SIFG

Studi italiani di filologia classica SiH Studies in the Humanities Simon, GG

E. Srmon, Die Gotter der Griechen, 41992 Simon, GR

Griechische Gram-

matik, Vol. 2: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik (HdbA II 1,2), 1950; D. J. Gzorcacas, Register zu beiden Banden, 1953; F. Rapt, S. RapT, Stellenregister, 1971

Scullard H. H. ScuLiarp, Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic, 1981 SDAW

Sitzungsberichte der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin SDHI

Studia et documenta historiae et iuris

SE Studi Etruschi Seeck O. SEECK, Regesten der Kaiser und Papste fiir die Jahre 311 bis 470 n. Chr. Vorarbeiten zu einer Prosopographie der christlichen Kaiserzeit, 1919, repr. 1964

SEG Supplementum epigraphicum Graecum, 1923 ff. Seltman C. SELTMAN, Greek Coins. A History of Metallic

Currency and Coinage down to the Fall of the Hellenistic Kingdoms, *1905

E. Srmon, 1 Die Gotter der Romer, 1990 SLG D. Pace (ed.), Supplementum lyricis graecis, 1974 SM Schweizer Miinzblatter SMEA Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici Smith W.D. SmitH, The Hippocratic tradition (Cornell publications in the history of science), 1979 SMSR Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni SMV

Studi mediolatini e volgari SNG Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum SNR Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau Solin/Salomies H. Soin,

O. Satomies,

Repertorium

nominum

gentillum et cognominum Latinorum (Alpha Omega: Reihe A 80), *1994 Sommer F. Sommer, Handbuch der lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre. Eine Einfiihrung in das sprachwissenschaftliche Studium des Latein (Indogermanische Bibliothek 1, 1, 3, 1), 31914

XXXVII

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

Soustal, Nikopolis P. SoustaL, Nikopolis

und

Kephallenia

(Denk-

schriften der Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philo-

sophisch-Historische Klasse I 50; TIB 3), 198 Soustal, Thrakien

P. SoustaL, Thrakien. Thrake, Rodope und Haimimontos (Denkschriften der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 221; TIB 6), 1991

Sovoronos J.N. Sovoronos, Das Athener Nationalmuseum 3 vols., 1908-37 Spec. Speculum Spengel L. SPENGEL, (ed.), Rhetores Graeci 3 vols., 1853-56

’

repr. 1966

SPrAW Sitzungsberichte der PreufSischen Wissenschaften SSAC Studi storici per l’antichita classica SSR

Akademie

der

liquiae 4 vols., 1990 Staden H. v. STADEN, Herophilus, The Art of Medicine in Early Alexandria, 1989 Stein, Prafekten A. STEIN, Die Prafekten von Agypten in der rémischen Kaiserzeit (Dissertationes Bernenses Series 1, I), 1950

Stein, Spatrom.R.

des spatromischen

Syme, AA R. SyMz, The Augustan Aristocracy, 1986 Syme, RP E. BapDIAN (Vols. 1,2), A.R. BIRLEY (Vols. 3-7) (ed.) R. SyME, Roman Papers 7 vols., 1979-91 Syme, RR K. SyMg, The Roman Revolution, 1939 Syme, Tacitus R. SyME, Tacitus 2 vols., 1958 Symposion

Symposion, Akten der Gesellschaft fiir Griechische und Hellenistische Rechtsgeschichte Syria Syria. Revue d’art oriental et d’archéologie TAM Tituli Asiae minoris, r9o0r ff. TAPhA Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association Taubenschlag R. TAUBENSCHLAG, The law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the light of the Papyri: 332 B. C. - 640 A. D.,

BEOSS

G. GIANNANTONI (ed.), Socratis et Socraticorum Re-

E. STEIN, Geschichte

ABBREVIATIONS

TAVO H. BRuUNNER, W. ROLLIG (ed.), Tiibinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Beihefte, Teil B: Geschichte, 1969

ff. TeherF Teheraner Forschungen TGF A. Naucx (ed.), Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, *1889, 2nd repr. 1983 ThGL

Reiches,

H. STEPHANUS, C. B. HAsE, W. uND L. DINDORE et

Vol. 1, 1928; French version, 1959; Vol. 2, French

al. (ed.), Thesaurus graecae linguae, 1831 ff., repr.

only, 1949 Stewart A. STEWART, Greek sculpture. An exploration 2 vols., 1990 StM Studi Medievali Strong/Brown D. Strona, D. Brown (ed.), Roman Crafts, 1976 Stv Die Staatsvertrage des Altertums, Vol. 2: H. BENGTSON, R. WERNER (ed.), Die Vertrage der griechischromischen Welt von 700 bis 338, *1975; Vol. 3: H.H. ScumittT (ed.), Die Vertrage der griechisch-romischen Welt 338 bis 200 v. Chr., 1969 SVF J. v. ARNIM (ed.), Stoicorum veterum fragmenta 3 vols., 1903-05; Index: 1924, repr. 1964 Syll.* W. DirTENnBERGER, Sylloge inscriptionum Graecarum 3 vols., *1898-1909 Syll.3 F. HILLER VON GAERTRINGEN et al. (ed.), Sylloge inscriptionum Graecarum 4 vols., >191 5-24, repr. 1960

1954 ThIL Thesaurus linguae Latinae, 1900 ff. ThIL, Onom. Thesaurus linguae Latinae, Supplementum onomasticon. Nomina propria Latina, Vol. 2 (C— Cyzistra), 1907-1913; Vol. 3 (D —- Donusa), 1918-1923

ThLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung Monatsschrift fiir das gesamte Gebiet der Theologie und Religionswissenschaft Thomasson B.E. THomasson, Laterculi Praesidum 3 vols. in 5 parts, 1972-1990 Thumb/Kieckers A. Tuums, E. Krecxers, Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte (Indogermanische Bibliothek 1, 1, r), *1932

Thumb/Scherer A. THumB, A. SCHERER, Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte (Indogermanische Bibliothek, 1, 1, 2),

“1959. ThWAT G.J. BoTrerWECK, H.-J. Fapry (ed.), Theologisches Worterbuch zum Alten Testament, 1973 ff.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

XXXVIII

ABBREVIATIONS

ThWB G. Kirrex, G. FrrepRIcH (ed.), Theologisches Wor-

Trendall, Paestum

A.D. TRENDALL, The Red-figured Vases of Paestum, 1987

terbuch zum Neuen Testament 11 vols., 1933-79,

repr. 1990 TIB H. Huncer (ed.). Tabula Imperii Byzantini 7 vols.,

1976-1990 Timm

S. TMM, Das christlich-koptische Agypten in arabischer Zeit. Eine Sammlung christlicher Statten in Agypten in arabischer Zeit, unter Ausschluf von Alexandria, Kairo, des Apa-Mena-Klosters (Der Abu Mina), des Sketis (Wadi n-Natrun) und der Sinai-Region (TAVO 41) 6 parts, 1984-92

TIR Tabula Imperii Romani, 1934 ff. TIR/IP Y. TsAFRIR, L. D1 SEGNI, J. GREEN, Tabula Imperii

Romani. Iudaea — Palaestina. Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods, 1994 Tod M.N. Top (ed.), A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century BC, Vol. 1: *r951, repr. 1985; Vol. 2: *1950 Tovar

A. Tovar, Iberische Landeskunde 2: Die Volker und Stadte des antiken Hispanien, Vol. 1 Baetica, 1974; Vol. 2: Lusitanien, 1976; Vol. 3: Tarraconensis, 1989 Toynbee, Hannibal A.J. ToyNBEE, Hannibal’s legacy. The Hannibalic

war’s effects on Roman life 2 vols., 1965 Toynbee, Tierwelt J.M.C. ToynBEE, Tierwelt der Antike, 1983 TPhS Transactions of the Philological Society Oxford Traill, Attica

J. S. TratLi, The Political Organization of Attica,

1975 Traill, PAA J. S. TRAILL, Persons of Ancient Athens, 1994 ff. Travlos, Athen

J. Travios, Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Athen, 1971 Travlos, Attika J. Travios, Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Attika, 1988 TRE G. Krause, G. MULLER (ed.), Theologische Realenzyklopadie, 1977 ff. (1st installment 1976) Treggiari S. TREGGIARI, Roman Marriage. Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian, 1991 Treitinger O. TREITINGER, Die Ostrémische Kaiser- und Reich-

sidee nach ihrer Gestaltung im h6fischen Zeremoniell, 1938, repr. 1969 Trendall, Lucania A.D. TRENDALL, The Red-figured Vases of Lucania, Campania and Sicily, 1967

Trendall/Cambitoglou A.D. TRENDALL, The Red-figured Vases of Apulia 2 vols., 1978-82 TRE O. RrpBeck (ed.), Tragicorum Romanorum Fragmenta, *1871, repr. 1962

TRG Tijdschrift voor rechtsgeschiedenis TrGF B. SNELL, R. KANNICHT, S. RapT (ed.), Tragicorum graecorum fragmenta, Vol. 1, *1986; Vols. 2-4,

1977-85 Trombley F.R. TROMBLEY, Hellenic Religion and Christianization c. 370-529 (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 115) 2 vols., 1993 f. TU Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur TUAT

O. Kaiser (ed.), Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, 1985 ff. (1st installment 1982) TurkAD

Turk arkeoloji dergisi Ullmann M. ULLMANN, Die Medizin im Islam, 1970 UPZ U. WitckeNn (ed.), Urkunden der Ptolemderzeit (Altere Funde) 2 vols., 1927-57 v. Haehling R. v. HAEHLING, Die Religionszugehérigkeit der hohen Amtstrager des ROmischen Reiches seit Constantins I. Alleinherrschaft bis zum Ende der Theodosianischen Dynastie (324-450 bzw. 455 n. Chr.) (Antiquitas 3, 23), 1978

VDI Vestnik Drevnej Istorii Ventris/Chadwick M. VenTRIS, J. CHADWICK, Documents in Mycenean Greek, *1973 Vetter E. VeTTER, Handbuch der italischen Dialekte, 19 53 VIR Vocabularium iurisprudentiae Romanae 5 vols., 1903-39

VisRel Visible Religion Vittinghoff F, VITTINGHOFF (ed.), Europaische Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte in der romischen Kaiserzeit, 1990 VL W. STAMMLER, K. Lancoscu, K. RUH et al. (ed.),

Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters. Verfasserslexikon, *1978 ff. Vogel-Weidemann U. VoGEL-WEIDEMANN, Die Statthalter von Africa

XXXIX

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

und Asia in den Jahren 14-68 n.Chr. Eine Untersuchung zum Verhaltnis von Princeps und Senat (Anti-

Wieacker, PGN

quitas I, 31), 1982

*1967 Wieacker, RRG F. WIEACKER,

VT Vetus Testamentum. Quarterly Published by the International Organization of Old Testament Scholars Wacher

F. WIEACKER,

A. WALDE, J. Pokorny

(ed.), Vergleichendes Wor-

terbuch der indogermanischen 1927-32, repr. 1973 Walz

Sprachen

3 vols.,

C. Waxz (eds), Rhetores Graeci 9 vols., 1832-36, repr. 1968

WbMyth H.W. Haussie

(ed.), Worterbuch der Mythologie,

Teil 1: Die alten Kulturvélker, 1965 ff. Weber W. Weser, Biographisches Lexikon zur Geschichtswissenschaft in Deutschland, Osterreich und der Schweiz, *1987 Wehrli, Erbe F. WEHRLI (ed.), Das Erbe der Antike, 1963 Wehrli, Schule F. WEHRLI (ed.), Die Schule des Aristoteles ro vols., 1967-69; 2 Suppl. Vols.: 1974-78

Welles C.B. WeLiEs, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period: A Study in Greek Epigraphy, 1934 Wenger L. Wencer, Die Quellen des rémischen Rechts (Denkschriften der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse

2), 1953 Wernicke I. WernickeE, Die Kelten in Italien. Die Einwanderung und die fruhen Handelsbeziehungen zu den Etruskern (Diss.), 1989 = (Palingenesia), 1991 Whatmough J. WHaTMouGH, The dialects of Ancient Gaul. Prolegomena and records of the dialects 5 vols., 194951, repr. in r vol., 1970 White, Farming K.D. Wuite, Roman Farming, 1970 White, Technology K.D. Wuite, Greek and Roman Technology, 1983, repr. 1986

Whitehead D. WHITEHEAD, The demes of Attica, 1986 Whittaker C.R. WHITTAKER (ed.), Pastoral Economies in Classical Antiquity, 1988 Wide S. Wipe, Lakonische Kulte, 1893

Privatrechtsgeschichte der Neuzeit,

R6mische

Rechtsgeschichte, Vol. 1,

1988

Wilamowitz U. v. WiLtAMow1Tz-MOELLENDORFF,

R. WACHER (ed.), The Roman World 2 vols., 1987

Walde/Hofmann A. Wa.pe, J.B. HOFMANN, Lateinisches etymologisches Worterbuch 3 vols., 31938—56 Walde/Pokorny

ABBREVIATIONS

Der Glaube

der Hellenen 2 vols., *1955, repr. 1994 Will

E. WILL, Histoire politique du monde hellénistique (323-30 av. J. C.) 2 vols., *1979-82 Winter R. KEKULE (ed.), Die antiken Terrakotten, III 1, 2: F.

WiInTER, Die Typen der figiirlichen Terrakotten, 1903 WJA Wurzburger Jahrbicher fiir die Altertumswissenschaft WMT L.I. Conran et al., The Western medical tradition. 800 BC to A.D. 1800, 1995

WO Die Welt des Orients. Wissenschaftliche Beitrage zur Kunde des Morgenlandes Wolff H.J. Woxirr, Das Recht der griechischen Papyri Agyptens in der Zeit der Ptolemaeer und des Prinzipats (Rechtsgeschichte des Altertums Part 5; HbdA

10, 5), 1978 Ws Wiener Studien, Zeitschrift fiir klassische Philologie und Patristik WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament WVDOG Wissenschaftliche Ver6ffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft WZKM

Wiener Zeitschrift fiir die Kunde des Morgenlandes GIS Yale Classical Studies ZA Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archdologie ZAS Zeitschrift fiir agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde ZATW Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zazoff, AG P. ZazorF, Die antiken Gemmen, 1983 Zazoff, GuG P. Zazorr, H. Zazorr, Gemmensammler

und

Gemmenforscher. Von einer noblen Passion zur Wissenschaft, 1983 ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

XL

ABBREVIATIONS

ZY Zeitschrift fiir deutsche Philologie Zeller E. ZELLER, Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung 4 vols., 1844-52, repr. 1963

Zeller/Mondolfo E. ZELLER, R. MONDOLFO, La filosofia dei Greci nel suo sviluppo storico, Vol. 3, 1961 Z{N Zeitschrift fiir Numismatik Zgusta L. ZcusTa, Kleinasiatische Ortsnamen, 1984 Zimmer G. Zimmer, Romische Berufsdarstellungen, 1982

AG

Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte ZNTW Zeitschrift fiir die Neutestamentfiche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der alteren Kirche ZpalV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins ZPE Zeitschrift fiir Papyrologie und Epigraphik

Aeschin. In Ctes. Leg. In Tim. Aesop. Alc. Alc. Avit.

Alex. Aphr. Alci. Alcm.

Alex. Polyh. Am

Ambr. Epist. Exc. Sat. Obit. Theod. Obit. Valent. Off. Paenit. Amm. Marc.

Anac. Anaxag. Anaximand. Anaximen.

And. Anecd. Bekk.

ZKG

Anecd. Par.

Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fir Rechtsgeschichte. Romanistische Abteilung ZRGG Zeitschrift fiir Religions- und Geistesgeschichte ZVRW Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft

Anon. De rebus

ZVS

Zeitschrift fiir Vergleichende Sprachforschung

4. Ancient Authors and Titles of Works Abd Acc. Ach. Tat. Act. Ary. Act. lud. saec. Acts Aet. Aeth. Ael. Ep. NA VH Aen. Tact. Aesch. Ag. Cho. Eum. Perse PV Sept. Supp.

Abdias Accius Achilles Tatius Acta fratrum Arvalium Acta ludorum saecularium Acts of the Apostles Aetius Aetheriae peregrinatio Aelianus, Epistulae De natura animalium Varia historia Aeneas Tacticus Aeschylus, Agamemnon Choephori Eumenides Persae Prometheus Septem adversus Thebas Supplices

bell.

Aeschines, In Ctesiphontem De falsa legatione In Timarchum Aesopus Alcaeus Alcimus Ecdicius Avitus Alexander of Aphrodisias Alciphron Alcman Alexander Polyhistor Amos Ambrosius, Epistulae De excessu Fratris (Satyri) De obitu Theodosii De obitu Valentiniani (iunioris) De officiis ministrorum De paenitentia Ammianus Marcellinus Anacreon Anaxagoras

Anaximander Anaximenes Andocides

Anecdota Graeca ed. I. Bekker Anecdota Graeca ed. J.A. Cramer Anonymus de rebus bellicis (Ireland

1984)

Anth. Gr. Anth. Lat.

Anthologia Graeca Anthologia Latina (Riese

Anth. Pal. Anth. Plan.

Anthologia Palatina Anthologia Planudea Antiphon Antisthenes Apocalypse Apollonius Rhodius Apollodorus, Library Appianus, Bella civilia Celtica Hannibalica Iberica Illyrica Italica Libyca Macedonica Mithridatius Numidica Regia Samnitica Sicula

*1894/1906)

Antiph. Antisth. Ape Apoll. Rhod. Apollod. App. B Civ. Celt. Hann.

Hisp. Ill. its

Lib. Mac.

Mith. Num.

Reg. Sam. Sic.

Syr. App. Verg. Apul. Apol. Flor. Met. Arat.

Archil. Archim.

Syriaca Appendix Vergiliana Apuleius, Apologia Florida Metamorphoses Aratus Archilochus Archimedes

XLI

ANCIENT

Archyt. Arist. Quint. Aristaen. Aristid.

Aristob.

Aristoph. Ach. Av.

Eccl. Equ. Lys. Nub. Pax Plut. Ran. Thesm.

Vesp. Aristot. An.

An. post. An. pr.

Ath. pol. Aud. Cael. Cae Col. Div. Eth. Eud. Eth. Nic. Gen. an. Gen. corr. Hist. an. Mag. mor.

Metaph. Mete. Mir. Mot. an. Mund. Oec. Part. an.

Phgn. Ph. Poet.

Pol. Pre

Rh. Rh. Al. Sens. Somn.

Soph. el. Spir. Top. Aristox. Harm. Arnob. Arr. Anab. Cyn. Ind.

Peripl. p. eux. Succ. act:

AUTHORS

AND

TITLES

OF

WORKS

Archytas Aristides Quintilianus

Artem.

Ascon.

Artemidorus Asconius (Stang! Vol. 2, 1912)

Aristaenetus

Athan. ad Const.

Athanasius, Apologia ad Constan-

Aelius Aristides Aristoboulus Aristophanes, Acharnenses Aves

Ecclesiazusae Equites Lysistrata Nubes Pax

Plutus Ranae

Thesmophoriazusae Vespae Aristotle, De anima (Becker 183 170) Analytica posteriora Analytica priora Athenaion Politeia De audibilibus De caelo Categoriae De coloribus De divinatione Ethica Eudemia Ethica Nicomachea De generatione animalium De generatione et corruptione Historia animalium Magna moralia Metaphysica Meteorologica Mirabilia De motu animalium De mundo Oeconomica

De partibus animalium Physiognomica Physica

tium GAr, Fuga Hist. Ar.

Ath.

Aug. Civ. Conf. Doctr. christ. Epist.

Confessiones De doctrina christiana

Epistulae

Soliloquia De trinitate

Aurelius Victor Ausonius, Mosella (Peiper 1976) Ordo nobilium urbium

Urb. Avell. Avien. Babr.

Avienus Babrius

Bacchyl.

Bacchylides

Bar Bas.

Baruch Basilicorum libri LX (Heimbach) Basilius

Basil.

Collectio Avellana

B Gall. Callim. Epigr. fc lek Calp. Ecl.

Batrachomyomachia Bellum Africum Bellum Alexandrinum Bellum Hispaniense Boethius Caesar, De bello civili De bello Gallico Callimachus, Epigrammata Fragmentum (Pfeiffer) Hymni Calpurnius Siculus, Eclogae

Cass. Dio Cassian.

Iohannes Cassianus

Batr.

Bell. Afr. Bell. Alex.

Bell. Hisp. Boeth. Caes. B Civ.

Cato Agr. Orig. Catull. Celsus, Med. Celsus, Dig. Censorinus, DN Chalcid. Charisius, Gramm. mGhr2 Chr Chron. pasch. Chron. min. Cic. Acad. 1

Tactica

of books, pages, letters) Augustinus, De civitate dei

Solilog. Trin. Aur. Vict. Auson. Mos.

Problemata Rhetorica Rhetorica ad Alexandrum De sensu De somno et vigilia Sophistici elenchi De spiritu Topica

Periplus ponti Euxini Historia successorum Alexandri

Athenaeus (Casaubon 1597) (List

Retractationes Sermones

Cassiod. Inst.

Aristoxenus, Harmonica

Historia Arianorum ad monachos

Retract. Serm.

Poetica Politica

Arnobius, Adversus nationes Arrianus, Anabasis Cynegeticus Indica

Apologia contra Arianos Apologia de fuga sua

Var.

Acad. 2

Cassius Dio Cassiodorus, Institutiones Variae

Cato, De agri cultura Origines (HRR)

Catullus, Carmina Cornelius Celsus, De medicina Iuventius Celsus, Digesta Censorinus, De die natali Chalcidius Charisius, Ars grammatica (Barwick 1964) Chronicle

Chronicon paschale Chronica minora Cicero, Academicorum posteriorum liber 1 Lucullus sive Academicorum priorum liber 2

ANCIENT

AUTHORS

Ad Q. Fr. Arat.

Arch. Att. Balb. Brut.

Caecin. Cael. Gat Cato

Clu. De or.

AND

TITLES

Epistulae ad Quintum fratrem Aratea (Soubiran 1972) Pro Archia poeta Epistulae ad Atticum Pro L. Balbo Brutus Pro A. Caecina Pro M. Caelio In Catilinam Cato maior de senectute Pro A. Cluentio

Pro rege Deiotaro De divinatione Divinatio in Q. Caecilium De domo sua

Fat. Fin.

Epistulae ad familiares De fato De finibus bonorum et malorum Pro L. Valerio Flacco

Flac. Font.

Democr.

Tusculanae disputationes In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio In Verrem actio prima, secunda Claudius Claudianus, Carmina (Hall 1985) De raptu Proserpinae Clemens Alexandrinus Codex Gregorianus Codex Hermogenianus Corpus Turis Civilis, Codex Iustinianus (Krueger 1900) Codex Theodosianus Letter to the Colossians Mosaicarum et Romanarum legum collatio Columella Commodianus Consultatio veteris cuiusdam iurisconsulti Constitutio Sirmondiana Letters to the Corinthians Corippus Curtius Rufus, Historiae Alexandri Magni Cyprianus Daniel Dinarchus Demades Democritus

Dem. Or.

Demosthenes, Orationes

Dig.

Corpus luris Civilis, Digesta (Mommsen 1905, author presented where applicable) Diodorus Siculus

Tusc. Vatin.

Werme 12 Claud. Carm.

Rapt. Pros. Clem. Al.

Cod. Greg. Cod. Herm. Cod. lust.

De oratore

Div. Dive Gaec:

Deiot.

XL

OF WORKS

Cod. Theod. Col Coll. Colum. Comm.

Cons.

Har. resp. Inv.

De haruspicum responso

Const. t Cor, 2 Cor

De inventione

Coripp.

Lael. Leg. Leg. agr. Lig. Leg. Man.

Laelius de amicitia

Curt.

De legibus De lege agraria Pro Q. Ligario Pro lege Manilia (de imperio Cn.

Marcell. Mil. Mur. Nat. D. Off. Opt. gen. Ornate

Pompei) Pro M. Marcello Pro T. Annio Milone Pro L. Murena De natura deorum De officiis De optimo genere oratorum Orator

P. Red. Quir. P. Red. Sen. Parad:

Oratio post reditum ad Quirites Oratio post reditum in senatu Paradoxa

Part. or.

Phil.

Partitiones oratoriae In M. Antonium orationes Phi-

Philo.

lippicae Libri philosophici

Dionys. Per.

In L. Pisonem Pro Cn. Plancio

Dion. Thrax DK

Pro M. Fonteio

Cypr. Dan Din.

Demad.

Diod. Sic. Diog. Laert. Diom. Dion. Chrys.

Edict. praet. dig.

Diogenes Laertius Diomedes, Ars grammatica Dion Chrysostomus Dionysius Halicarnasseus, Antiquitates Romanae De compositione verborum Ars rhetorica Dionysius Periegeta Dionysius Thrax Diels /Kranz (preceded by fragment number) Donatus grammaticus Dracontius Deuteronomy = 5. Moses Edictum perpetuum in Dig.

Rep. Rosc. Am. Scaur. Sest. Sull.

De re publica

Emp.

Empedocles

Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino Pro M. Aemilio Scauro Pro P. Sestio

Enn. Ann.

Ennius, Annales (Skutsch 1985) Saturae (Vahlen *1928)

Tim.

Timaeus

Top.

Topica Pro M. Tullio

Pis.

Planc. Prov. cons.

Q. Rosc. Quinct.

Rab. perd. Rab. Post.

Tull.

De Pro Pro Pro Pro

provinciis consularibus Q. Roscio comoedo P. Quinctio C. Rabirio perduellionis reo C. Rabirio Postumo

Dion. Hal. Ant.

Comp. Rhet.

Donat. Drac.

Dt

Sate Scaen.

Pro P. Sulla

Fragmenta scaenica (Vahlen *1928)

Ennod. Eph Ephor.

Ennodius Letter to the Ephesians Ephorus of Cyme (FGrH 70)

XL

Epict. Eratosth.

ANCIENT

Epictetus Eratosthenes Esra Esther Etymologicum genuinum Etymologicum Gudianum Etymologicum magnum

Gp. Gn Gorg.

Euc.

Euclides, Elementa

Eunap. VS Eur. Alc. Andr. Bacch. Beller. Cyc El.

Eunapius, Vitae sophistarum Euripides, Alcestis Andromache Bacchae Bellerophon Cyclops Electra Hecuba Helena Heraclidae Hercules Furens Hippolytus Hypsipyle

Greg. Naz. Epist. Or. Greg. Nyss. Greg. Tur. Franc.

Hec.

Hel. Heracl. HF Hipp. Hyps. Ion

Phoen.

Rhes. Supp. Tro. Euseb. Dem. evang. Hist. eccl. On. Praep. evang.

Epist. Past.

Mart. Vit. patr.

Hab

Hagg Harpocr.

Hdt. Hebr Hegesipp.

Heracl. Heraclid. Pont.

Sim.

Vis.

Praeparatio Evangelica Eustathius Eutropius

Geoponica Genesis = 1. Moses Gorgias Gregorius Magnus, Dialogi (de miraculis patrum Italicorum)

Epistulae Regula pastoralis Gregorius Nazianzenus, Epistulae Orationes Gregorius Nyssenus Gregorius of Tours, Historia Fran-

corum De virtutibus Martini De vita patrum Habakkuk Haggai Harpocrates

Hermas, Mandata

Hen Heph.

Onomasticon (Klostermann

Hermog. Hdn. Hes. Cat.

Op. Se

Similitudines Visiones Hermogenes

Herodianus Hesiodus, Catalogus feminarum (Merkelbach /West 1967) Opera et dies Scutum (Merkelbach /West1967)

Fest.

Evangelium Veritatis Exodus = 2. Moses Ezechiel Fasti Festus (Lindsay 1913)

Theog. Hsch. Hil. Hippoc.

Firm. Mat.

Firmicus Maternus

H. Hom.

Flor. Epit. Florent. Frontin. Aq.

Florus, Epitoma de Tito Livio Florentinus Frontinus, De aquae ductu urbis Romae Strategemata Fulgentius Afer Fulgentius Ruspensis

Hom. Il. Od.

Homerus, Ilias

Hor. Ars P. Carm. Carm. saec.

Horatius, Ars poetica Carmina Carmen saeculare

Ez Fast.

Str. Fulg. Fulg. Rusp. Gai. Inst. Gal Gal. Gell. NA Geogr. Rav

Gaius, Institutiones

Letter to the Galatians Galenus Gellius, Noctes Atticae Geographus Ravennas (Schnetz

1940)

OF WORKS

Herm. Mand.

Hell. Oxy.

Historia Ecclesiastica

TITLES

Herc. O. Herm.

Hecat.

Iphigenia Aulidensis Iphigenia Taurica Medea Orestes Phoenissae Rhesus Supplices Troades Eusebios, Demonstratio Evangelica

AND

Herodotus Letter to the Hebrews Hegesippus (= Flavius Josephus) Hecataeus Hellennica Oxyrhynchia Henoch Hephaestio grammaticus (Alexandrinus) Heraclitus Heraclides Ponticus Hercules Oetaeus Hermes Trismegistus

Ion

1904) Eust. Eutr. Ey. Ver. Ex

Greg. M. Dial.

AUTHORS

Epist.

Epod. Sat.

Theogonia Hesychius Hilarius Hippocrates Hymni Homerici

Odyssea

Epistulae Epodi Satirae (sermones)

Hos

Hosea

Hyg. Astr.

Hyginus, Astronomica (Le Boeuffle

Fab. Hyp.

Fabulae Hypereides Iamblichus, De mysteriis

1983) Iambl. Myst.

ANCIENT

AUTHORS

Protr.

VP lav.

Inst. Iust.

Ioh. Chrys. Epist. Hom. ...

Ioh. Mal. lord. Get. Iren.

AND

TITLES

XLIV

OF WORKS

Protrepticus in philosophiam De vita Pythagorica Tavolenus Priscus Corpus Juris Civilis, Institutiones (Krueger 1905) Iohannes Chrysostomus, Epistulae Homiliae in ... Iohannes Malalas, Chronographia Iordanes, De origine actibusque Getarum Irenaeus (Rousseau/Doutreleau

Lactant. Div. inst. Ira

De mort. pers. Opif.

Lex Malac. Lex Rubr.

Lex municipii Malacitani Lex Rubria de Gallia cisalpina Lex municipii Salpensani

Lex Salpens. Lex Urson.

Isaiah

Lex Visig.

Isid. Nat. Orig.

Isidorus, De natura rerum

Isoc. Or. It. Ant.

Isocrates, Orationes Itinerarium, Antonini

Lex XII tab. Lib. Ep. Or.

Burd.

Augusti Burdigalense vel Hierosolymita-

Plac. Tul. Vict. Rhet.

num Placentini C. Iulius Victor, Ars rhetorica

Iuvenc.

Iuvencus, Evangelia (Huemer

1891) Jac

Jdg Jdt Jer Jer. Chron. Comm. in Ez.

Ep: On.

Letter of James Judges Judith Jeremiah Jerome, Chronicon Commentaria in Ezechielem (PL 25) Epistulae

Jon

Jona

Jos. Ant. Iud. BI Ap. Vit.

Josephus, Antiquitates Iudaicae Bellum Iudaicum Contra Apionem De sua vita Joshua Letter of Judas Julianus, Epistulae In Galilaeos

Jud

Julian. Ep. In Gal. Mis. Or.

Symp. Just. Epit. Justin. Apol. Dial. Juv. 1 Kg, 2 Kg KH KN

Lk ees

Lucil. Lucr.

Lucian. Alex. Anach. @al!

Lucilius, Saturae (Marx 1904) Lucretius, De rerum natura

Lucianus, Alexander Anacharsis Calumniae non temere credendum

Catapl.

Cataplus Demonax

Dial. D. Dial. meret.

Dialogi deorum Dialogi meretricium Dialogi mortuorum

Her.

Hermot. Hist. conscr.

Ind. Iupp. trag. Luct. Macr. Nigr.

Philops. Pseudol. Salt. Somn. Symp. SyireD?

Misopogon Orationes Symposium

Lex coloniae Iuliae Genetivae Ursonensis Leges Visigothorum Lex duodecim tabularum Libanius, Epistulae Orationes Livius, Ab urbe condita Periochae Luke Lucanus, Bellum civile

Demon.

Dial. mort.

1904)

De viris illustribus rst — 3rd letters of John John

Jos

Liv. Per

Onomasticon (Klostermann

Vir. ill. I-3 Jo Jo

De opificio dei Lamentations Lex Irnitana

Is

Aug.

De ira dei De mortibus persecutorum

Lam Lex Irnit.

1965-82)

Origines

Lactantius, Divinae institutiones

Trag.

Ver. hist. Vit. auct.

Herodotus Hermotimus Quomodo historia conscribenda sit Adversus indoctum Iuppiter tragoedus De luctu Macrobii Nigrinus Philopseudes Pseudologista De saltatione Somnium Symposium De Syria dea

Tragodopodagra Verae historiae, 1, 2 Vitarum auctio Leviticus = 3. Moses Septuaginta

Justinus, Epitoma historiarum Philippicarum Justinus Martyr, Apologia Dialogus cum Tryphone Juvenalis, Saturae I, 2 Kings Khania (place where Linear B tables

Lv

were discovered) Knossos (place where Linear B tables were discovered)

M. Aur.

Lysias Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augus-

Macrob. Sat.

Macrobius, Saturnalia

LXX Lydus, Mag. Mens. Lycoph. Lycurg. Lys.

Lydus, De magistratibus De mensibus Lycophron Lycurgus

tus

XLV

In Somn.

t Macc, 2 Macc

Mal Manil.

ANCIENT

Commentarii in Ciceronis som-

nium Scipionis Maccabees Malachi Manilius, Astronomica (Goold

1985) Mar. Vict. Mart. Mart. Cap. Max. Tyr.

Ov. Am. Ars am. Epist. Fast. Ib. Medic.

Marius Victorinus Martialis

Met.

Rem. am. Abe,

Mimn.

Martianus Capella Maximus Tyrius (Trapp 1994) Pomponius Mela Melanippides Menander, Dyskolos Epitrepontes Fragmentum (K6rte) Perikeiromene Samia Micha Mimnermus

Min. Fel.

Minucius Felix, Octavius (Kytzler

Mela Melanipp. Men. Dys. Epit. ie Pk Sam. Mi

Pont.

FPL) Neh Nemes.

Nep. Att. Hann. Nic. Alex.

P Abinn.

Ther. Nicom.

Nm Non.

PiGZ

P Hercul.

P Lond.

Nemesianus

P Mich

P Oxy.

Nonnus, Dionysiaca

Notitia Notitia Notitia Corpus

dignitatum occidentis dignitatum orientis dignitatum et episcoporum luris Civilis, Leges Novellae

(Schoell/Kroll 1904)

Obseq.

Opp. Hal. Cyn. Or. Sib. Orib.

Orig. OrMan Oros.

Orph. A. fr. Ele

Julius Obsequens, Prodigia (Rossbach 1910) Oppianus, Halieutica Cynegetica Oracula Sibyllina Oribasius Origenes Prayer to Manasseh Orosius Orpheus, Argonautica Fragmentum (Kern) Hymni

OF

WORKS

Ovidius, Amores Ars amatoria Epistulae (Heroides) Fasti Ibis

Medicamina faciei femineae Metamorphoses Epistulae ex Ponto Remedia amoris Tristia

Papyrus editions according to HI. BELL et al. (ed.), The Abinnaeus

1962

P Bodmer

1888)

Nonnus Dion. Not. Dign. Occ. Not. Dign. Or. Not. Episc. Novy.

TITLES

Archive papers of a Roman officer in the reign of Constantius II,

Nahum Nehemia Cornelius Nepos, Atticus Hannibal Nicander, Alexipharmaca Theriaca Nicomachus Numbers = 4. Moses Nonius Marcellus (L. Mueller

AND

Papyrus editions according to E.G. Turner, Greek Papyri. An Introduction, 159-178

1982,*1992)

Mark Herennius Modestinus Moschus Matthew Mycenae (place where Linear B tables were discovered) Naevius (carmina according to

AUTHORS

Pall. Agric. Laus.

Pan. Lat. Papin. Paroemiogr. Pass. mart. Paul Fest. Paul Nol. Paulus, Sent. Paus.

Pelag. Peripl. m. eux. Peripl. m.m. Peripl. m.r. Pers. t Petr, 2 Petr Petron. Sat.

Papyrus editions according to V. MakrrIN, R. Kassex et al. (ed.), Papyrus Bodmer 195 4ff. Papyrus editions according to C.C. EpGar (ed.), Zenon Papyri (Catalogue général des Antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire) 4 vols., 192 5ff. Papyrus editions according to Papyri aus Herculaneum Papyrus editions according to F.G. Kenyon et al. (ed.), Greek Papyri in the British Museum 7 vols., 1893-1974 Papyrus editions according to C.C. Epear, A.E.R. Boak, J.G. WINTER et al. (ed.), Papyri in the University of Michigan Collection 13 vols., 1931-1977 Papyrus editions according to B.P. GRENFELL, A.S. Hunt et al. (ed.), The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 1898 ff. Palladius, Opus agriculturae Historia Lausiaca Panegyrici Latini Aemilius Papinianus Paroemiographi Graeci Passiones martyrum Paulus Diaconus, Epitoma Festi Paulinus Nolanus Julius Paulus, Sententiae Pausanias Pelagius Periplus maris Euxini Periplus maris magni Periplus maris rubri Persius, Saturae

Letters of Peter Petronius, Satyrica (Muller 1961)

ANCIENT

AUTHORS

Phaedr.

AND

TITLES

Phaedrus, Fabulae (Guaglianone

1969) Phil Phil. Philarg. Verg. ecl. Philod.

Phlp. Philostr. VA Imag. VS Phm Phot.

Phryn. Pind. Fr. Isthm. Nem.

Ol. nace

Pyth. Pl. Alc. 1 Alc. 2 Ap. Ax. Chrm. Clit. Crat. Grits Criti. Def.

Demod. Epin. Ep. Erast.

Eryx. Euthd.

Euthphr. Grg. Hp. mai. Hp. mi.

Hipparch. Ion

XLVI

OF WORKS

Letter to the Philippians Philo Philargyrius grammaticus, Explanatio in eclogas Vergilii Philodemus Philoponus Philostratus, Vita Apollonii Imagines Vitae sophistarum Letter to Philemon Photius (Bekker 1824) Phrynichus Pindar, Fragments (Snell/Maehler) Isthmian Odes Nemean Odes Olympian Odes Paeanes Pythian Odes Plato, Alcibiades 1 (Stephanus) Alcibiades 2 Apologia Axiochus Charmides Clitopho Cratylus Crito Critias Definitiones Demodocus Epinomis Epistulae Erastae Eryxias

Euthydemus Euthyphro Gorgias Hippias maior Hippias minor Hipparchus Ion Laches Leges

Thg. Tht. Ti. Plaut. Amph. Asin. Aul.

Bacch.

Capt. Cas. Cist. Curc.

Epid. Men. Merc.

Mil. Mostell. Poen. Pseud. Rud. Stich. Trin. Truc.

Vid. Plin. HN

Plin. Ep. Pan.

Plot. Plut. Amat.

Res publica Sisyphus Sophista Symposium

Mercator

Miles gloriosus Mostellaria Poenulus Pseudolus Rudens Stichus Trinummus Truculentus Vidularia Plinius maior, Naturalis historia Plinius minor, Epistulae Panegyricus Plotinus Plutarchus, Vitae parallelae (with the respective name) Amatorius (chapter and page numbers)

De def. or. DeE

De Pyth. or. De sera De Is. et Os. Mor.

Quaest. Graec.

Quaest. Rom.

Lysis

Menon Minos Menexenus Parmenides Phaedo Phaedrus Philebus Politicus Protagoras

Theages Theaetetus Timaeus Plautus, Amphitruo (fr.according to Leo 1895 f.) Asinaria Aulularia Bacchides Captivi Casina Cistellaria Curculio Epidicus Menaechmi

De defectu oraculorum De E apud Delphos De Pythiae oraculis De sera numinis vindicta De Iside et Osiride (with chapter and page numbers) Moralia (apart from the separately mentioned works; with p. numbers) Quaestiones Graecae (with chapter numbers) Quaestiones Romanae (with ch. numbers)

Symp. Pol. Pol. Silv. Poll.

Polyaenus, Strat. Polyc. Pompon. Pomp. Trog. Porph. Porph. Hor. comm. Posidon.

Quaestiones convivales (book, chapter, page number) Polybius Polemius Silvius Pollux Polyaenus, Strategemata Polycarpus, Letter Sextus Pomponius Pompeius Trogus Porphyrius Porphyrio, Commentum in Horatii carmina Posidonius

XLVII

Priap. Prisc.

Prob. Procop. Aed. Goth. Pers.

Vand. Arc. Procl. Prop. Prosp. Prov Prudent. Ps (Pss) Ps.-Acro Ps.-Aristot. Lin. insec.

Mech. Ps.-Sall. In Tull.

Rep. Ptol. Alm. Geog. Harm. Tetr.

PY

4 Q Flor 4 Q Patr

1 Q pHab

4 Q pNah 4 Q test 1 QH 1 QM EOS t QSa

1 QSb Quint. Smyrn.

Quint. Decl. Inst.

R. Gest. div. Aug. Rhet. Her. Rom Rt Rufin. Rut. Namat.

S. Sol.

Sext. Emp. Sach Sall. Catil. Hist.

lug. Salv. Gub. 1 Sam, 2 Sam

ANCIENT

Priapea Priscianus

Pseudo-Probian writings Procopius, De aedificiis Bellum Gothicum Bellum Persicum Bellum Vandalicum Historia arcana Proclus Propertius, Elegiae Prosper Tiro Proverbs Prudentius Psalm(s) Ps.-Acro in Horatium Pseudo-Aristotle, De lineis insecabilibus Mechanica Pseudo-Sallustius, In M.Tullium Ciceronem invectiva

Epistulae ad Caesarem senem de re publica Ptolemy, Almagest Geographia Harmonica Tetrabiblos Pylos (place where Linear B tablets were discovered) Florilegium, Cave 4 Patriarch’s blessing, Cave 4 Habakuk-Midrash, Cave x Nahum-Midrash, Cave 4 Testimonia, Cave 4 Songs of Praise, Cave 1 War list, Cave x Comunal rule, Cave r Community rule, Cave 1 Blessings, Cave 1 Quintus Smyrnaeus Quintilianus, Declamationes minores (Shackleton Bailey 1989) Institutio oratoria Res gestae divi Augusti Rhetorica ad C. Herennium Letter to the Romans Ruth Tyrannius Rufinus Rutilius Claudius Namatianus, De reditu suo Song of Solomon Sextus Empiricus Sacharia Sallustius, De coniuratione Catilinae Historiae De bello Iugurthino Salvianus, De gubernatione dei Samuel

Schol. (before an author’s

AUTHORS

AND

TITLES

OF WORKS

Scholia to the author in question

name)

Sedul.

Sedulius

Sen. Controv.

Seneca maior, Controversiae Suasoriae

Suas.

Sen. Ag. Apocol. Ben. Clem. Dial.

Ep. Herc. f. Med. Q Nat.

Oed. Phaedr. Phoen. Thy. Tranq. Tro. Serv. auct.

Serv. Aen.

Ecl. Georg. Sext. Emp. SHA Ael. Alb. Alex. Sev. Aur. Aurel. Avid. Cass. (Cars Carac: Clod. Comm. Diad. Did. Tul. Gall. Gord. Hadr.

Seneca minor, Agamemno Divi Claudii apocolocyntosis De beneficiis De clementia (Hosius *1914) Dialogi

Epistulae morales ad Lucilium Hercules furens Medea

Naturales quaestiones Oedipus Phaedra Phoenissae Thyestes De tranquillitate animi Troades Servius auctus Danielis

Servius, Commentarius in Vergilii Aeneida

Commentarius in Vergilii eclogas Commentarius in Vergilii georgica Sextus Empiricus Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Aelius Clodius Albinus Alexander Severus M. Aurelius Aurelianus Avidius Cassius Carus et Carinus et Numerianus Antoninus Caracalla Claudius Commodus Diadumenus Antoninus Didius Iulianus Gallieni duo Gordiani tres Hadrianus

Heliogab. Max. Balb. Opil.

Heliogabalus Maximus et Balbus Opilius Macrinus

Pert.

Helvius Pertinax

Pesc. Nig.

Pescennius Niger

Pius

Antoninus Pius

Quadr. tyr.

Quadraginta tyranni

Sev. Macs

Severus Tacitus Triginta Tyranni Valeriani duo

Tyr. Trig. Valer.

Sid. Apoll.Carm. Epist.

Apollinaris Sidonius, Carmina Epistulae

Sil. Pun.

Silius Italicus, Punica

ANCIENT

AUTHORS

Simon.

Simpl. Sir

Scyl. Scymn. Socr. Sol. Solin. Soph. Aj. Ant.

El. Ichn. OC OT Phil. Trach. Sor. Gyn. Sozom. Hist. eccl.

Stat. Achil. Silv.

Theb. Steph. Byz. Stesich. Stob. Str. Suda

Suet. Aug.

AND

TITLES

Simonides Simplicius Jesus Sirach Scylax, Periplus Scymnus, Periegesis Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica Solon Solinus Sophocles, Ajax Antigone Electra Ichneutae Oedipus Coloneus Oedipus Tyrannus Philoctetes Trachiniae Soranus, Gynaecia Sozomenus, Historia ecclesiastica Statius, Achilleis

Silvae Thebais Stephanus Byzantius Stesichorus Stobaeus Strabo (books, chapters) Suda = Suidas Suetonius, Divus Augustus (Ihm

1907) Calig. Claud. Dom.

Gram. Tul. Tib. Tit. Vesp. Vit.

Sulp. Sev. Symmachus, Ep. Or. Relat.

Synes. epist. Syne. Tab. Peut. TaceAgr. Ann. Dial. Germ. Hist. Ter. Maur. Ter. Ad. An. Eun. Haut. Elec Phorm.

Tert. Apol. Ad nat.

XLVIII

OF WORKS

Caligula Divus Claudius Domitianus De grammaticis (Kaster 1995) Divus Iulius Divus Tiberius Divus Titus Divus Vespasianus Vitellius Sulpicius Severus Symmachus, Epistulae Orationes Relationes Synesius, Epistulae Syncellus Tabula Peutingeriana Tacitus, Agricola Annales Dialogus de oratoribus Germania Historiae Terentianus Maurus Terentius, Adelphoe Andria Eunuchus H(e)autontimorumenos

Hecyra Phormio

Tertullianus, Apologeticum Ad nationes (Borleffs 1954)

TH Them. Or. Theoc. Theod. Epist. Gr. aff. Cur. Hist. eccl. Theopomp. Theophr. Caus. pl. Char. Hist. pl. 1 Thess, 2 Thess Thgn. Thuc. TI Tib. 1 Tim, 2 Tim Tit Tob Tzetz. Anteh. Chil. Posth.

Thebes (place where Linear B tables were discovered) Themistius, Orationes Theocritus Theodoretus, Epistulae Graecarum affectionum curatio Historia ecclesiastica Theopompus Theophrastus, De causis plantarum Characteres Historia plantarum Letters to the Thessalonians Theognis Thucydides Tiryns (place where Linear B tablets were discovered) Tibullus, Elegiae Letters to Timothy Letter to Titus Tobit Tzetzes, Antehomerica

Varro Ling. Rust. Sat. Men.

Chiliades Posthomerica Ulpianus (Ulpiani regulae) Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica Valerius Maximus, Facta et dicta memorabilia Varro, De lingua Latina Res rusticae Saturae Menippeae (Astbury

Vat.

Fragmenta Vaticana

Veg. Mil.

Vegetius, Epitoma rei militaris Velleius Paterculus, Historiae

Ulp. Val. Fl. Val. Max.

1985)

Vell. Pat.

Ven. Fort. Verg. Aen. Catal. Ecl. G. Vir. ill. Vitr. De arch. Vulg. Wisd Xen. Ages. An. Ap.

Ath. pol. Cyn. Gyre

Romanae Venantius Fortunatus

Vergilius, Aeneis Catalepton Eclogae Georgica De viris illustribus Vitruvius, De architectura

Vulgate Wisdom Xenophon, Agesilaus Anabasis Apologia Athenaion politeia Cynegeticus Cyropaedia De equitandi ratione De equitum magistro Hellenica Hiero Respublica Lacedaemoniorum Memorabilia Oeconomicus

XLIX

Symp. Vect.

Xenoph. Zen.

Zenob.

ANCIENT

Symposium De vectigalibus Xenophanes Zeno Zenobius

AUTHORS

Zenod.

Zenodotus

Zeph

Zephania

Zon. Zos.

Zonaras

Zosimus

AND

TITLES

OF WORKS

.

rae

d

‘

a

auntaa>

é e

aimee} wo

:

-

®

Ache

oy

ue, Capel,

Vr

:

=

°

:

a

7

1?

‘

= -_

oa

Cha

Oy -

ee

=

Gunja Pe

4

4

a

_

_

wed

a

14 »

: >

.

« 7

i

% é

List of Illustrations and Maps Illustrations are found in the corresponding entries. ND means redrawing following the instructions of the author or after the listed materials. RP means reproduction with minor changes. Some of the maps serve to visualize the subject matter and to complement the articles. In such cases, there will be a reference to the corresponding entry. Only literature that was used exclusively for the maps is listed.

Phigalia Phigalia (Bassae). Temple of Apollo Epikoureios (c. 420 BC), ground-plan ND after: H. Berve, G. Gruben, Griech. Tempel und

Planets fig. 1 Hippopede fig. 2 Dynamic (three-dimensional) representation of the movement of planets according to Eudoxus fig. 3 Epicycle fig. 4 Excenter fig. 5 (no title) ND after originals by A. Jori fig. 6 Planet names fig. 7 Symmetry of the astrological planet system fig. 8 Quincunx of the five true planets fig. 9 Heptazonos of the planet houses fig. 10 Exaltation and dejection of the planets fig. rt The planets of the dodekatropos ND after originals by W. Hubner

Heiligtiimer, 1961, 152, fig. 45. Phoenicians: {1] The Phoenician cities in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 12th—7th cents. BC) ND: H.G. Niemeyer/W. Rollig/Editorial Team Tiibingen [2] The Phoenician-Punic world of the Western Mediterranean ND: H. G. Niemeyer/Editorial Team Tiibingen

Plough Roman plough (schematic drawing) ND after: M. S. Spurr, Arable Cultivation in Roman Italy, 1986, 31, fig. 1. Plutarchus [2] The writings in Plutarch s Moralia ND: M. Baltes/Editorial Team Tiibingen Poliochni

Piazza Armerina Piazza Armerina, (ground-plan).

Poliochni: significant settlement phases (c. 3200Imperial Villa; AD

305-325

ND after: H. Kahler, Die Villa des Maxentius bei

2100 BC)

ND after: L. Bernabo 1964, plate 22.

Brea, Poliochni

vol. 1.2,

Piazza Armerina, 1973, fig. 3. Pigments Ancient pigments in Pliny: ND: M. Haase

Pilgrimage Centres and approximate routes of Christian pilgrimages (4th—-7th cents. AD; selection) ND: A. Merkt/Editorial Team Tubingen Pins Components of an ancient fibula (example of a Hallstatt period fibula) ND after: G. Mansfeld, s.v. Fibel und Fibeltracht, RGA 8, 1994, 436, fig. 76. Piraeus Piraeus, the ancient port ND after: K.-V. von Eickstedt, Beitrage zur Topographie des antiken Piraus, 1991, app. 1.

Pompeii Pompeii (col. Veneria Cornelia Pompeianorum, 80 BC to 62/ 24.08. AD 79) ND: Editorial Team Tiibingen (after H. Eschebach, Die stadtebauliche Entwicklung des antiken P., 1970, app.).

Pompeius Restructuring of the Near East by Pompey (67-48

BC) ND: W. Eder/Editorial Team Tiibingen (after: TAVO B V 7, Autor: J. Wagner, © Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, Wiesbaden).

Pontic vases Vessel types in Pontic pottery ND after: M. Martelli (ed.), La ceramica degli etruschi. La pittura vascolare, 1987, 144,n0. LOI.1;

146, NO. LOL.5; 150 NO. 103; 154, NO. 107 L. Hannestad, The Paris Painter, 1974, plate r. I. Wehgartner, CVA Wirzburg (3), 1983, plate 38,1.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

AND

LII

MAPS

Pontos Euxeinos II Black Sea area: ethnic groups, cities and significant archaeological find spots (until c. 6th/7th cents. AD) ND: N. Boroffka

Presses

Trapetum according to Cato ND after: H. Schneider, Einfihrung in die antike Technikgeschichte, 1992, 229, fig. 7. Roman presses

Portus [1]

Portus, the harbour district of Ostia ND after: O. Testaguzza, Portus. Illustrazione dei porti di Claudio e Traiano, 1970. Poseidonia, Paistos, Paestum

Poseidonia (Paestum)

ND after: J.G. Pedley, Paestum. Greeks and Romans in Southern Italy, 1990, 13, fig. 3.

Pottery, production of Greek pottery kiln ND after: A. Winter, Die Antike Glanztonkeramik, 1978, fig. 9. Potter s kiln of the Imperial period at La Graufesenque (Aveyron), rst—2nd cents. ND after: A. Vernhet, in: Gallia 39, 1981, 38.

Pottery, shapes and types of Vessel shapes in Greek pottery (8th-znd cents. BC) ND after originals by I. Scheibler

ND after: H. Schneider, Einfiihrung in die antike Technikgeschichte, 1992, 230, fig. 8; 231, fig. 9. Priene Priene

ND: Editorial Team Tiibingen (after: F. Rumscheid, Priene, 1998, fig. 30).

Princely graves, princely seats Princely graves and princely seats in Central Europe (late Hallstatt and early La Téne periods) and their trade connections with the Mediterranean world, 6th—4th cents. BC ND: V. Pingel (after: F. Fischer, Frihkeltische Furstengraber in Mitteleuropa, 1982, fig. 2)

List of Authors Albiani, Maria Grazia, Bologna Albrecht, Ruth, Hamburg

Alonso-Nujiez, José Miguel, Madrid Alpers, Klaus, Lineburg Ambihl, Annemarie, Basle Ameling, Walter, Jena Andreau, Jean, Paris Antoni, Silke, Kiel Auffarth, Christoph, Bremen

Ax, Wolfram, Cologne Babler, Balbina, Gottingen Badian, Ernst, Cambridge, MA

Baltes, Matthias, Minster Barcelo, Pedro, Potsdam Bartels, Jens, Bonn Baumhauer, Otto A., Bremen

Beck, Hans, Cologne Beck, Jan-Wilhelm, Regensburg Becker, Andrea, Berlin Bellen, Heinz, Mainz Benedetti Conti, Marina, Pisa Berger, Albrecht, Munich Berschin, Walter, Heidelberg Berti, Enrico, Padova

Binder, Carsten, Kiel Birley, A.R., Diisseldorf Biskup, Jan, Kiel

Blansdorf, Jirgen, Mainz Bleckmann, Bruno, Bern Bloedhorn, Hanswulf, Jerusalem Bovon, Frangois, Cambridge, MA

Bohr, Elke, Wiesbaden Bonfante, Larissa, New York Borm, Henning, Kiel Bowie, Ewen, Oxford

Brachtendorf, Johannes, Tubingen Brandt, Hartwin, Bamberg von Bredow, Iris, Stuttgart Bremmer, Jan N., Groningen Brentjes, Burchard, Berlin Bringmann, Klaus, Frankfurt/Main Brisson, Luc, Paris

Brock, Sebastian P., Oxford Brodersen, Kai, Mannheim Bruni, Stefano, Florence Biichli, Jorg, Zurich Burford Cooper, Alison, Ann Arbor Burian, Jan, Prague Calboli, Gualtiero, Bologna Calboli Montefusco, Lucia, Bologna Campbell, J. Brian, Belfast

M.G.A. R.A. J.M.A.-N. K. ALP. A.A. W.A. eA. SI.A. CLA. W.AX. B.BA. E.B. M.BA. PB. J. BA. O.B. HA.BE. J.-W.B. AN. BE. H. BE. M.B.C. AL.B. W.B. E. BE. CA.BI. A.B. jal: JU.BL. Babe Eiap le F.BO. E.BO. a: HE. B. E. BO. JO.BRA. sey leveb:

J.B. Bee: K.BR. ESBR: S.BR. K.BRO. ST. BR. J.BU. A.B.-C. aBOs GiG. AGN ir JsGA.

Camporeale, Giovannangelo, Florence Chase, Michael, Victoria, BC Cobet, Justus, Essen

Courtney, Edward, Charlottesville, VA

Damschen, Gregor, Halle/Saale Daverio Rocchi, Giovanna, Milan de Libero, Loretana, Hamburg Decker, Wolfgang, Cologne Di Marco, Massimo, Fondi (Latina) Distelrath, Gotz, Konstanz Docter, Roald Frithjof, Gent Donohue, Alice A., Bryn Mawr Dorandi, Tiziano, Paris Doring, Klaus, Bamberg Drager, Paul, Trier Drecoll, Volker Henning, Miinster Dreyer, Boris, Gottingen

Dyck, Andrew, Los Angeles Ebner, Constanze, Innsbruck Eck, Werner, Cologne Eder, Walter, Bochum

Ego, Beate, Osnabriick Eiben, Susanne, Kiel Eigler, Ulrich, Trier

Elvers, Karl-Ludwig, Bochum Engels, Johannes, Cologne Erler, Michael, Wurzburg Errington, Robert Malcolm, Marburg/Lahn Fakas, Christos, Berlin Falco, Giulia, Athens Fantuzzi, Marco, Florence

Fell, Martin, Minster Fellmeth, Ulrich, Stuttgart Ferrary, Jean-Louis, Paris Folkerts, Menso, Munich

Forg6, Nikolaus, Vienna Fornaro, Sotera, Sassari

Franke, Thomas, Bochum

Frede, Dorothea, Hamburg Freitag, Klaus, Minster

Frigo, Thomas, Bonn Fundling, Jorg, Bonn Funke, Peter, Munster Furley, William D., Heidelberg Galsterer, Hartmut, Bonn Gamauf, Richard, Vienna Garcia-Ramon, José Luis, Cologne Gartner, Hans Armin, Heidelberg Gatti, Paolo, Triento Geppert, Karin, Tubingen Giaro, Tomasz, Frankfurt/Main

GUC, MI.CH. pCO, ED.C. GR.DA. G.D.R. iad. W.D. M.D.MA. GDL R.D. A.A.D. T.D. K.D. P.D. V.DR. BO.D. A.DY. C.E. W.E. W.ED. BE. SU. EL. ULE. KsL.E. J.E. M.ER. MA.ER.

CH.F. GLF. M.FA. M.FE. UL. FE. ERE. M.F. N.F. S.FO. TSE. D.ER. K.F. T.ER. JO.F. PF. W.D.F. H.GA. R.GA. i. Gak. H.A.G. P.G. KA.GE. nes

LIST OF AUTHORS

Giesen, Katharina, Tubingen K. GIE. Gippert, Jost, Frankfurt/Main eG: Goffin, Bettina, Bonn B.GO. Goldberg, Christiane, Berlin CHG: Gottschalk, Hans, Leeds H.G. Goulet-Cazé, Marie-Odile, Antony M.G.-C. Graf, Fritz, Princeton, NJ EsG: Grafton, Anthony, Princeton, NJ AN.GR. Grafl, Herbert, Salzburg H.GR. Grofs +, Walter Hatto, Hamburg W.H.GR. Grof-Albenhausen, Kirsten, Frankfurt/Main K.G.-A. Gulletta, Maria Ida, Pisa M.1.G. Gunther, Linda-Marie, Bochum L.-M.G. Gutsfeld, Andreas, Miinster A.G. Haas, Volkert, Berlin Wolake Hadot, Pierre, Limours Haebler, Claus, Miinster Hahn, Johannes, Munster Harder, Ruth Elisabeth, Ziirich Harich-Schwarzbauer, Henriette, Basle Harmon, Roger, Basle

P.HA. GaH. J: R.HA. HE. HA. RO.HA.

Heimgartner, Martin, Basle

M.HE.

Heinemann, Gottfried, Kassel Heinze, Theodor, Geneva Henderson, Jeffrey, Boston

GO.H. ‘ak Fla:

Hengstl, Joachim, Marburg/Lahn Herzhoff, Bernhard, Trier Hidber, Thomas, Gottingen

Hild, Friedrich, Vienna Hocker, Christoph, Ziirich Hoesch, Nicola, Munich Holkeskamp, Karl-Joachim, Cologne Holzhausen, Jens, Berlin Hruska, Blahoslay, Prague Hiibner, Wolfgang, Minster Hilden, Oliver, Tiibingen Hiinemorder, Christian, Hamburg Hurschmann, Rolf, Hamburg Huf, Werner, Munich Inwood, Brad, Toronto, ON Jansen-Winkeln, Karl, Berlin Johne, Klaus-Peter, Berlin Kappel, Lutz, Kiel Karttunen, Klaus, Helsinki Kearns, Emily, Oxford Kierdorf, Wilhelm, Cologne Kinzl, Konrad, Peterborough Klodt, Claudia, Hamburg Klose, Dietrich, Munich Knell, Heiner, Darmstadt Knorr, Thorsten, Hamburg Koch, Nadia Justine, Tubingen Kockel, Valentin, Augsburg Kolb, Anne, Ziirich Kowalzig, Barbara, Oxford Kramolisch, Herwig, Eppelheim Krasser, Helmut, GiefSen Kuchenbuch, Ludolf, Hagen

JO. HE. B. HE. ALJel

F.H. GHO: N.H. K.-J.H. SEO;

BL.HR. W.H. O. HU. Gael: R.H. W.HU. B.I. K.J.-W. Kea)

Ke Keke Bak,

W.K. kek

Citk DI.K. H.KN. TH.KN. N.K. V.K. A.K. B.K. HE. KR. H.KR. LUSK:

Kuhn, Christina, Kassel Kulzer, Andreas, Vienna Kunst, Christiane, Potsdam Lafond, Yves, Bochum Latacz, Joachim, Basle

Le Bohec, Yann, Lyon Lefévre, Eckhard, Freiburg Leppin, Hartmut, Frankfurt/Main Lesky, Michael, Tubingen von Lieven, Alexandra, Berlin Linderski, Jerzy, Chapel Hill, NC Liwak, Rudiger, Berlin Lohmann, Hans, Bochum Lohwasser, Angelika, Berlin Liitkenhaus, Werner, Marl Maharam, Wolfram-Aslan, Munich Manthe, Ulrich, Passau Marek, Christian, Ziirich Markschies, Christoph, Heidelberg Matthaios, Stephanos, Nikosia Maul, Stefan, Heidelberg May, Gerhard, Mainz Mehl, Andreas, Halle/Saale Meier, Mischa, Tubingen Meiser, Gerhard, Halle/Saale

Meister, Klaus, Berlin Mennella, Giovanni, Genova Merkt, Andreas, Regensburg Miller, Martin, Berlin Mommsen, Heide, Stuttgart Montanari, Ornella, Bologna Morciano, Maria Milvia, Florence Moritz, Anja, Potsdam Muggia, Anna, Pavia Miller, Christian, Bochum Muller, Hans-Peter, Miinster Miller, Walter W., Marburg/Lahn Miller-Kessler, Christa, Emskirchen Nadig, Peter C., Duisburg Narcy, Michel, Paris Naso, Alessandro, Udine Neschke, Ada, Lausanne Nesselrath, Heinz-Ginther, Gottingen Neudecker, Richard, Rome Neumann, Hans, Berlin Niehoff, Johannes, Berlin Niehr, Herbert, Tubingen Nielsen, Inge, Hamburg Niemeyer, Hans Georg, Hamburg Nippel, Wilfried, Berlin Niinlist, René, Providence, RI Nutton, Vivian, London Oakley, John H., Williamsburg, VA Obermayer, Hans-Peter, Munich Olshausen, Eckart, Stuttgart Onken, Bjorn, Kassel Ozyigit, Omer, Izmir Paci, Gianfranco, Macerata

LV

Panayides, Aliki Maria, Bern Parker, Robert, Oxford

Patzek, Barbara, Essen

LIST

AL.PA. R. PA.

BePs

Paulus, Christoph Georg, Berlin Pelling, C.B.R., Oxford

GPA. CaBary

Peter, Ulrike, Berlin Phillips, C. Robert III., Bethlehem, PA Pingel, Volker, Bochum

Wee. GERAP: V.P.

Plath, Robert, Erlangen Plontke-Liining, Annegret, Jena Polleichtner, Wolfgang, Wiirzburg

Rabe ACP ele. W.PO.

Pollmann, Karla, St. Andrews Portmann, Werner, Berlin

Kee W.P.

Prayon, Friedhelm, Tubingen Price, Simon R.F., Oxford Quack, Joachim, Berlin

BaRRe SI.PR. JO. QU.

von Reden, Sitta, Bristol Renaud, Francois, Moncton, NB

S.v.R. BSS

Renger, Johannes, Berlin Rhodes, Peter J., Durham Richmond, John A., Blackrock, VA Riedweg, Christoph, Ziirich Rist, Josef, Wurzburg Rix, Helmut, Freiburg

s esaon PajeRs RAG GRE J.RL nate

Robbins, Emmet, Toronto, ON Roberts, Michael, Middletown

E.R. M.RO.

Rollig, Wolfgang, Tubingen Ruffing, Kai, Marburg/Lahn Rumscheid, Frank, Berlin Runia, David T., Melbourne Rupke, Jorg, Erfurt

W.R. K.RU. FR.RU. 1D SIR Jee

Rutherford, Ian C., Reading Saffrey, Henri D., Paris Sallmann, Klaus, Mainz

ERO: LaaSAG KL.SA. A.SA.

Sartori, Antonio, Milan Sauer, Vera, Stuttgart

Sawvidis, Kyriakos, Bochum Sbardella, Livio, L’Aquila Schanbacher, Dietmar, Dresden

Scheibler, Ingeborg, Krefeld Schenke, Hans-Martin, Berlin Schiemann, Gottfried, Tubingen Schlapbach, Karin, Ziirich Schmidt, Peter Lebrecht, Konstanz Schmitt, Tassilo, Bielefeld Schmitz, Winfried, Bielefeld Schneider, Helmuth, Kassel Schéllgen, Georg, Bonn Schon, Franz, Regensburg Schottky, Martin, Pretzfeld Schulzki, Heinz-Joachim, Freudenstadt Schwertheim, Elmar, Minster Sehlmeyer, Markus, Rostock Siebert, Anne Viola, Hannover

Wise

K.SA. EEsSB: DESGEe

TS: H.-M. SCHE. Gs: Keo CHIE PUSSY AGS: W.S. H.SCHN. G.SCH. ESCH: M.SCH. Iphlbos E.SCH. M.SE. Awe:

Simons, Roswitha, Diisseldorf

OF

AUTHORS

R.SI.

Smarezyk, Bernhard, Cologne B.SMA. Sonnabend, Holger, Stuttgart FSO: Speyer, Wolfgang, Salzburg WO.SP. Spielvogel, Jorg, Bremen JO. SP. Stanzel, Karl-Heinz, Tubingen Kee bdeos Stegmann, Helena, Bonn eS: Steimle, Christopher, Erfurt GELST. Stein-Holkeskamp, Elke, Cologne E. S.-H. Steinbauer, Dieter, Regensburg DASE Steinhart, Matthias, Freiburg M.ST. Stenger, Jan, Kiel JaSIE. Stoevesandt, Magdalene, Basle MA.ST. Strauch, Daniel, Berlin DAS: Strobel, Karl, Klagenfurt Kes Stumpf, Gerd, Munich GE. S: Suerbaum, Werner, Munich W.SU. Szlezak, Thomas A., Tubingen TAR. Takacs, Sarolta A., Cambridge, MA S. TA. Temporini — Grafin Vitzthum +, Hildegard, Tubingen H.T.-V.

Thur, Gerhard, Graz Thurmann, Stephanie, Kiel Tieleman, Teun, Leeuwarden Tinnefeld, Franz, Munich Todd, Malcolm, Exeter Tomaschitz, Kurt, Vienna Toral-Niehoff, Isabel, Freiburg Touwaide, Alain, Madrid Tsochos, Charalampos, Erfurt Uggeri, Giovanni, Florence von Ungern-Sternberg, Jiirgen, Basle Vassis, Ioannis, Athens

Végh, Zoltan, Salzburg Volkl, Artur, Innsbruck Volpi, Franco, Vicenza

Gals Sale DESoE Bele M.TO. Kelis I.T.-N. A.TO. Xeule Gaus J.v.U.-S. AW

Z. VE.

Wagner-Hasel, Beate, Darmstadt Walde, Christine, Mainz

A.VO. F. VO. B. W.-H. C.W.

Waldherr, Gerhard H., Regensburg

G.H.W.

Waldner, Katharina, Erfurt Walter, Uwe, Cologne Wandrey, Irina, Berlin Wartke, Ralf-B., Berlin Weeber, Karl-Wilhelm, Witten

Wehgartner, Irma, Wurzburg WeifSenberger, Michael, Greifswald

Wermelinger, Otto, Fribourg Wiegels, Rainer, Osnabriick Wiesehofer, Josef, Kiel Will, Wolfgang, Bonn Willers, Dietrich, Bern Zahrnt, Michael, Kiel Zimmermann, Bernhard, Freiburg Zwierlein-Diehl, Erika, Bonn

K. WA. U. WAL. I. WA. R.W. K.-W. WEE. LW. M.W. O. WER. RA. WI. J. W. W.W. DI. WI. M.Z. Bez E. Z-D:

List of Translators Simon Buck Rolf Bueskens Annette Corkhill

Dorothy Duncan Karoline Krauss David Levinson Brian Murdoch Michael P. Osmann

Charlotte Pattenden Maria Schoenhammer Barbara Schmidt-Runkel Duncan A. Smart

Barbara Souter Diana Theohari

Suzanne Walters

p Phi (linguistics). In Greek, the letter ® originally denotes a voiceless aspirated labial stop p’, which, in inherited words, can be traced back to PIE b’ or— before a oi

— to g"” (péew < *b’er-e/o-; povog < *g6n-0-; 'OIC < *2,0(n)g"i- for Latin anguis, Sanskrit ahi-, Young Avestan. azi-?) [1. 297; 2. 84, 88]. As an ‘additional character’ to the earliest Greek alphabet (— Alphabet C.) it is missing in the archaic alphabets of Crete, Thera and Melos; ITH (Pi + Heta) [3. 35] appears for this if necessary. Its sound value in the Etruscan alphabet (— Etruscan) is uncertain; cf. for instance ®erse ~ Tegoetvc as

opposed to bapenas (ET Cr 2.31, 7th cent. BC) ~ Fabii, which definitely cannot be interpreted as proof of contemporary spirant pronunciation of ® as /f/ in Greek: evidence for this exists only from the Hellenistic period onwards [r. 205f.]. In Latin loanwords, Greek @ is initially reproduced by p (purpura < Greek noepvea) or ph (amphora for Greek Gudogets, with diminutive ampulla < *amp'or-la-), from the end of the Republic also by f (Fedra CIL I? 1413, Greek ®aidoa) [4. r60162]. — F (linguistics); > P (linguistics) 1 SCHWYZER, Gramm.

2 Rix, HGG 3 LSAG

4 LEUMANN.

GE.ME.

Phiale (@1d)n; phidlé). In Homeric times, the term for a kettle (> Lebes), basin, vessel in general. Later it was

used only for a bowl without a foot and handle, which — in contrast to the Ancient Near Eastern model — was equipped with an omphalos, for better handling. An omphalos was a central concavity of the base into which a finger could be inserted from below. The use of the term phiale to indicate this shape is attested as early as the 7th cent. BC. According to literary and pictorial evidence, it was primarily used as a sacrificial bow! for liquid offerings and as a ritual drinking vessel, but also as a victor’s prize and a wedding present. The large number of sanctuary finds and mentions in temple inventories indicates its popularity as > votive offering. Iconographically, it can indicate heroic and cultic contexts, in the latter it can also be a divine attribute. Its profane use remains questionable. Phialai made of clay are relatively rare; most were made of bronze and precious metals. The high regard in which they were held is evident from the many and varied relief decorations, from the Hellenistic period also on emblems and busts instead of the omphalos, a splendidly decorative shape that continued to exist right through to the Imperial period (silver find from Boscoreale). The ritual functions of phialai were taken over in Rome by the > patera. H. Luscuey, Die Phiale, 1938; Id., s.v. Ph., RE Supplement 7, 1026-1030; N. HIMMELMANN, Zur Eigenart des klassischen Gotterbildes, 1959; P. H. G. Howes-SMITH, Bronze Ribbed Bowls from Central Italy and Etruria:

(continuation) Import and Imitation, in: BABesch 59, 1984, 73-112; B.

FPREYER-SCHAUENBURG, Eine attische rotfigurige Phiale in Kiel, in: E. BOuR (ed.), Studien zur Mythologie und Vasenmalerei, FS Konrad Schauenburg, 1986, 115-120; S. Woxr, Herakles beim Gelage, 1993, 83-87; C. M.

STIBBE, Laconian Drinking Vessels and Other Open Shapes, 1994, 94-95; 225-227; M. Vickers, D. GILL, Artful

Crafts,

1994,

37-69

(phialai in treasure

inventories);

A. V. SIEBERT, Instrumenta Sacra, 1999, 40-44.

ie:

Phiale Painter. Attic red-figured and white-ground vase painter, active c. 450-425 BC, named after a redfigured > phiale (Boston, MFA 97.371). He painted vessels of very different shapes, but preferred the medium formats, especially Nolan amphorae and lekythoi (> Pottery, shapes and types of, fig. A 5 and E 3), like his teacher, the > Achilles painter. They worked together in the same workshop along with four important potters and several minor vase painters. More than 200 vases are attributed to the PP. The freely flowing lines of his drawings, which appear sketched and seem quickly jotted down, show a spontaneity not often recognizable in the work of other vase painters. They give his work a special charm. The spectrum of themes in his drawings is remarkable. Characteristic of the PP are his love for music and dance, documented by his scenes of girls dancing, as well as his interest in the theatre — some of his best mythological pictures were influenced by > Sophocles’ tragedies. There are noticeable differences in the quality of his red-figured work. Two decorative patterns that he used more often than all other painters are two picture zones, one on top of the other, on his kalyx kraters and pictures on the shoulders of his lekythoi. His white-ground works are rightly known for their high quality and their rare and interesting subjects, but he did not use this technique often. Three of his works are particularly noteworthy: his two white-ground kalyx kraters — one with Perseus rescuing Andromeda

the other with Hermes Papposilenus (Rome, ground lekythos with for a woman who is (Munich, SA 6248).

(Agrigento, AG7),

bringing the child Dionysos to VM 16586) — and the whiteHermes Psychopompos waiting attaching a wreath to a grave

BeazLey, ARV’, 1014-1026, 1678; BEAZLEY, Paralipom-

ena 440-441, 516; J. H. Oaxtey, The Phiale Painter, 1990; Id., Attisch rotfigurige Pelike des Phiale-Malers und weitere Addenda, in: AA 1995, 495-501; Id., The Achilles Painter, 1997, 100. J.0.

PHIDIAS

3

Phidias (®eiSiac/Pheidias, Latin Phidias). I. GENERAL REMARKS Ill. Zeus oF OtympiA SCULPTURES/STATUES

II. STATUES OF ATHENA JV. OTHER

I. GENERAL REMARKS Son of Charmides, Athenian sculptor. In Antiquity, + Hegias [1] was named as P.’ teacher, others suggested + Ageladas. P.’ artistic efforts were seen as closely associated with the Athenian statesman > Pericles [1] and lasted from about 460 to 430 BC; main period of productivity: 448-445 BC. Ancient reports of P.’ life and work are rife with scandal (sources in [1]). Between 438/7 and 433/2 BC, P.’ connections with Pericles resulted in charges of having misappropriated gold meant for use in the statue of > Athena Parthenos. Reports that he died in an Athenian prison (Plut. Pericles 31) are false, but it is certain that he was in Olympia following the charges raised against him. Stories of other accusations and his subsequent murder in Elis are suspect. Notes on P.’ pupils include homoerotic references: He is said to have been the lover of > Agoracritus, who was often permitted to sign P.’ works, while > Alcamenes [2] was alleged to have been P.’s personal as well as artistic rival. Accordingly, the authenticity of certain signatures was already disputed in Antiquity. Other pupils and assistants included > Colotes [1] and > Theocosmus, in sculpture; his brother or nephew — Panaenus, in painting; and for toreutic pieces > Mys [2]. Like > Polyclitus [1], P. is mentioned time and again as one of the very best sculptors. In ancient literature, Ph. was considered inspired in his portrayals of the gods, creating works whose magnitude and splendor evoked religious fervor. P.’ colossal statues of Athena Parthenos and Zeus in Olympia, executed in the + gold-ivory technique, were regarded as embodying the idea of art itself, more so than his relatively few other works. Il. STATUES OF ATHENA One of P.’ early works was a votive statue depicting Miltiades [2] surrounded by gods and heroes in Delphi, which has been dated to shortly before 465 BC, based on historical information. Many ideas have been put forth regarding the identity of certain figures; however, the work itself is unknown today. Depictions on coins and later descriptions allow us to image the bronze statue of > Athena Polias, later called Promachos, which was created by P. for the Acropolis in Athens in about 465-456 BC. The statue, which measured at least 7 metres in height, held a raised spear, and on its shield was a relief of the Centauromachy that was designed by ~ Parrhasius and executed by > Mys [2]. There is disagreement as to whether the statue should be identified with the ‘Medici’ type — copies of which have been preserved (Paris, LV) — which has also been connected with an Athena Areia in Plataeae that P. created in the goldivory technique. An Athena by P. in Pellene, a colossal ~+ akrolithon, is otherwise unknown to us. On the

4

Acropolis in Athens, Pausanias saw the so-called Athena Lemnia, which was dedicated after 451 BC when a cleruchy was dispatched to Lemnos. The assumption that this exceptionally beautiful and highly praised statue was identical to an Athena shown without a helmet led to FURTWANGLER’s reconstruction of the statue using copies of a body type and head, a reconstruction that despite serious reservations is still largely considered accurate. The best-known Athena by P. is the chryselephantine statue of Athena Parthenos found at the > Parthenon on the Athenian Acropolis, which was created between 447 and 438 BC. The 12.7 metre tall statue was copied in a variety of formats and described by a number of writers. It is noted for its richness in secondary figures, from a Nike in its right hand, to sphinxes and griffins on its helmet, to a Centauromachy on the soles of its sandals. On the interior of the shield was a painted Gigantomachy, on the exterior a battle of the Amazons, in which it was later believed that a portrait of Pericles or P. was hidden. On its base are reliefs depicting the birth of Pandora, surrounded by gods. All of the reliefs were copied, individually and as excerpts. RN. Ill. ZEus OF OLYMPIA Already in Antiquity, P. was believed to have played a steering (though hard to define) role in the Periclean design of the Acropolis (> Athens II. 1.), particularly in creating the > Parthenon (Plut. Pericles 13) which has led archaeologists to attribute certain parts of its architectural sculpture to him. By 437 BC however, P. was probably already in > Olympia, where he created what was, in Antiquity, his most celebrated work: the cultic figure of > Zeus. Excavations of the workshop in Olympia have confirmed this chronology and uncovered fragments shedding light on the production of this technically demanding work, which was carried out with the help of > Panaenus and > Colotes [1]. What this seated figure, which measured 12 m in height, must have been like is now indicated only by pictures on coins and gems, and by literary descriptions (Paus. 5,11,1, among others, cf. [1. 692-754]). This statue included even more decorative figures than did the Athena Parthenos, with Nike in its right hand, a scepter with an eagle in its left, and the birth of Aphrodite depicted at the base. Sphinxes formed the base of the throne’s armrests, Nikai knelt at the legs of the throne, Charites and Horae made up part of its back, while Niobids, athletes, Hercules’ Amazonomachy and paintings of myths decorated the bracings. The footstool was adorned with lions and the Amazonomachy of Theseus. Some of the Niobids and the sphinxes have been identified in later reproductions. There have been numerous reports of repairs, maintenance work and thefts in connection with this cultic work, which was later moved to Constantinople as one of the seven > Wonders of the world. Ph.’ renown as the creator of a god’s portrait that aroused religious feelings is based largely on this statue of Zeus.

6

IV. OTHER SCULPTURES/STATUES Other statues of the gods created by P. in the goldivory technique included one of Zeus in Megara, a Meter Theon (+ Cybele; - mother goddesses) in Athens, a Hermes in Thebes, an Aphrodite Ourania in Athens and a similar one in Elis, which has also been attributed to + Colotes [1]. Of disputed origin even in Antiquity were the Nemesis of Rhamnus, which was in fact the work of — Agoracritus, and the so-called Aphrodite in the Gardens of + Alcamenes [2]. Pausanias (1,29,8) regarded as uncertain the attribution to P.

of the Apollo Parnopios on the Athenian Acropolis. In Rome, an Aphrodite in marble, an Athena in bronze and an athlete were later attributed to P. On an anadoumenos and a so-called kleidotichos by P. we have no further information. P. is said to have been involved in a competition with other sculptors in connection with the Amazon statue in Ephesus, but the identification of his statue with the Mattei type is uncertain, as is the authenticity of the anecdote itself (Plin. HN 34,53). P.’ fame also resulted in fanciful attributions to him that even included toreutic pieces, and inspired the creator of an Egyptianizing statue of a baboon as late as the 2nd cent. AD to assume his name. In Antiquity, the significance of P. in shaping classical depictions of the gods earned him acclaim as a visionary artist. Scholars thus long regarded P. as a symbol of the elevated spirit of the Classical era. More recently, greater emphasis has been placed on the iconography of his works, including the architectural sculpture at the Parthenon. 1 OVERBECK (s. Index).

Loewy, Nr. 382, 532, 536, 548; A. FURTWANGLER, Mei-

sterwerke der griechischen Plastik, 1893, 3-45; N. HimMELMANN, Phidias und die Parthenon-Skulpturen, in: A. LippoLp (ed.), Bonner Festgabe fiir J. Straub (BJ, Beih.

39), 1977, 67-90; B. S. Rtipeway, Fifth Century Styles in

PHIGALIA

Hierocles, Synecdemus 647,13), near present-day Figalia, and with close geographic and historical connections to Messana [2]. The town has a well-preserved ring wall of about 5 km in circumference (5th/4th cents. BC; [x]) and is protected to the east and west by deep ravines. It lies at a height of between 420 and 720 m above the Neda which flows through an almost inaccessible rocky ravine. The temple of Apollo Epikoureios is situated at Bassae (present-day Vasses; [2; 3]), a komé of P., about 6 km to the northeast at a height of 1130 m. The remains of two temples to Artemis and Aphrodite (6th/4th cents. BC) are preserved in the northwest of Bassae on Mt. Cotylium. The town was an ideal refuge for Messenian freedom fighters on account of its almost inaccessible mountainous location [4. 262-268]. P. was therefore occupied twice by — Sparta (Paus. 8,39,4f.; 41,1; Polyaenus, Strat. 6,27,2). After the battle of Leuctra in 371 BC, there was also violent unrest in P. (Diod. Sic.15,40,2). P. was involved on the side of Sparta in the > Chremonidean War (Syll.3 434, 25). In the 3rd cent. BC, P: signed a treaty of ~ isopoliteia with the Aetolian League (> Aetolia, with map), and even accepted an Aetolian garrison. In 219/8 BC, P. switched to the Achaean League (Pol. 4,3,5ff.; 6,10f.; 31,1; 79,5f. minting of coins: HN 418; > Achaea, with map). In the period from Septimius Severus (AD 193-211) up until Geta (AD 209-212) P. minted coins again (HN 453). Inscriptions: IG V 2, 420-430

[5]. 1F. A. Cooper, J. W. Myers, Reconaissance of a Greek

Mountain City, in: Journal of Field Archaeology 8, 1981, 123-134 2F.A. Cooper (ed.), The Temple of Apollo Bassitas, vols. 1-4, 1992-1996 3N.J. KeLtty, The Archaic Temple of Apollo at Bassai, in: Hesperia 64, 1995, 227-277. 4W.K. Prircuett, Aetiology sans Topography, in: Id., Thucydides’ Pentekontaetia and Other Essays, 1995, 205-279 5G.J. Te RIELE, Inscriptions de Pavlitsa, in: BCH 90, 1966, 248-273. Y.L. and E.0.

Greek Sculpture, 1981, 161-171; A. LINFERT, Athenen

des Phidias, in: MDAI(A) 97, 1982, 57-77; B. ConrTICELLO et al. (eds.), Alla ricerca di Fidia, 1987; A. STEWART, Greek Sculpture, 1990, 150-160, 237-239, 257-

263; W. SCHIERING, Die Werkstatt des P. in Olympia, 2. Werkstattfunde (OIF 18), 1991; C. HOcKER, L. SCHNEIDER, Phidias, 1993; A. DELIVORRIAS, s.v. Fidia, EAA, 2nd

Suppl., vol. 2, 1994, 644-658; E. B. Harrison, P., in: YCIS 30, 1996, 16-65; H. Meyer, Athena Lemnia, in: G. EraTH (ed.), Komos. Festschrift T. Lorenz, 1997, 111117; R. KRuMEICH, Bildnisse griechischer Herrscher und

Staatsmanner im 5. Jahrhundert v.Chr., 1997, 93-102. RN.

Phigalia (®wydAev/Phigdleia, Pvyadia/Phigalia, from the Hellenistic Period ®idieva/Phidleia). I. LOCATION AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Il. THE TEMPLE OF BASSAE

I. LOCATION AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Town in southwest Arcadia on a very remote mountainous site above the north bank of the > Neda (Pol.

4,355 ff.; Str. 8,3,22; Paus. 8,39,1-42,13; Ptol. 3,16,19;

Il. THE TEMPLE OF BASSAE The Doric > peripteros temple to Apollo Epikoureios, with its 6 x 15 columns from the period around 420 BC, is located in territory belonging to P., 6 km from the town. It is built on a very inaccessible site close to present-day Bassae; Pausanias’ ascription of the temple (8,41,8-9) to the Athenian architect — Ictinus has been questioned on various occasions. According to the most recently excavated finds, the building which is made from local dark limestone has an archaic predecessor whose late-Classical successor is historically significant as a building. Here, for the first time, a combination of all three Greek orders (~ Columns) can be observed: Doric order on the outside, spur walls in the cella interior in Ionic order and an inset Corinthian column (framed by two spur walls, equally with a Corinthian capital). Currently the Corinthian capitals of Bassae are the oldest in Greek architectural history; they were discovered during a survey of the building in 1811/2 by Charles COCKERELL and Carl HALLER VON

PHIGALIA

a7

& ]

Phigalia (Bassae). Temple of Apollo Epikoureios (c. 420 BC), ground-plan.

& e

1 Pronaos

2 Cella 1 3 Columns engaged in spur walls 4 Cella 2:'Adyton' wn Opisthodomos

& 6 HALLERSTEIN and are missing but recorded in fairly precise drawings. The sculptured frieze which ran all the way round the interior of the cella was dismantled in the course of the survey and was brought to the British Museum in London in 1814. GENERAL: P, BROUCKE, s.v. Figalia, EAA 2. Suppl. vol. 2, 1994, 660-662; JOST, 82-98; MULLER, 830; S. GRuNAUER VON HOERSCHELMANN, S.V. P., in: LAUFFER, Grie-

chenland, 538. ON THE TEMPLE: H. Bauer, Korinthische Normalkapitelle des 4. und 3. Jahrhunderts v.Chr. (suppl. vol. 3 MDAI[A]), 1973; CH. COCKERELL, The Temple ofJupiter Panhellenius at Aegina and of Apollo Epicurius at Bassae near P. in Arcadia, 1860; F. FELTEN, Die Friese des Apollontempels von Bassai und die nacharchaische arkadische Plastik, in: O. PaLacia, W. CouLson (ed.), Sculpture from Arcadia and Laconia (conference Oxford 1992), 1993, 47-56; N. T. DE GRUMMOND, s.v. Bassai, Encyclo-

pedia of the History of Classical Archaeology, vol. 1, 1996; CH. HorKEs-BRUKKER, A. MALLWITZ, Der Bassai-

Fries in der urspriinglich geplanten Anordnung, 1975; H. KNELL, Grundziige der griechischen Architektur, 65-71.

1980, CHO,

Phila (ido; Phila). [1] According to Satyrus in Ath. 13,557c, one of the wives of — Philippus [4] II, sister of Derdas [3] and Machatas [1]. [2] Oldest daughter of Antipater [1] and probably the wife of Alexander [7], born therefore around 355 BC. She later married Balacrus [1] and, in 322 BC, Craterus [1] by whom she had a son Craterus [2]. In 321/320 BC her father married her to Demetrius [2], the father of her children Antigonus [2] and > Stratonice. Despite his disdain she remained loyal to him, and in 299 BC supported him in the negotiations with > Seleucus and tried to reconcile him with her brother > Cassander. As the daughter of Antipater she bestowed a semblance of legality on his seizure of the Macedonian throne. She committed suicide after Demetrius was driven out of Macedonia. Main sources: Plut. Demetrius 14; 27; 3 1f.; Diod. Sic. 18,18; 18,30; 19,59 (encomium).

EB.

[3] Daughter of + Seleucus and > Stratonice, married to her uncle Antigonus [2] around 276 BC, by whom she had a son Demetrius [3]. She was honoured in Delos. W. HOFFMANN, s.v. Ph., RE 19, 2088.

EB.

Philadelphia (®iAadé\peva/Philadélpheia). [1] Lydian town founded by Seleucus I (cf. SEG 35, 1985, 1170 [2. 180%; 3. no. 20]) or by Attalus [5] II Philadelphos (who definitely gave the town its name). It lay at the northeast foot of Mt. > Tmolus in the fertile valley of the river Cogamis (cf. the coins in HN 655, present-day Alasehir Cay:), a southern tributary of the Hermus, in southern > Catacecaumene [1] on the road from Sardis to Laodicea [4]. It was greatly at risk from earthquakes (Str. 12,8,18; 13,4,10; cf. the earthquake in AD 17 in Tac. Ann. 2,47; [1. 982f.'7, 14083"]). There are ruins in present-day Alasehir. Under the Roman Empire, P. belonged to the conventus of > Sardis (Plin. HN. 5,111). Numismatic evidence shows that P. was renamed Neocaesarea under Caligula und Claudius {III x] (HN L.c.). Under Caracalla, P. was awarded a neocory (Syll.> 883; SEG 35, 1985, 1365). P. was part of the Byzantine province of Lydia (Hierocles, Synecdemus 669,3) and a suffragan diocese of Sardis (cf. Not. Episc. 1,163; 3,96). As the last Byzantine bastion in Asia Minor P. was conquered by the Turks under Bayezit lin AD 1391. 1Macie

2 MircHett1

3/J. Ker, A. v. PREMERSTEIN,

Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen schaften in Wien 57,1, 1914. T.S. MACKAY, s.v, P., PE, 703.

Akademie

der WissenE.O.

[2] Town in > Isauria, situated by Ptol. 5,7,5 in Selentis in the west of Cilicia Tracheia; according to archeological and numismatic finds (coins-legend ®uradsekpewv ts K[t}nwdoc/Philadelpheon tés K[i]étidos) probably present-day Imsi Oren, 70 km north-northeast of + Anemurium [1. 216f.; 2. 378]. cf. Hierocles, Synecdemus 710,4; Not. Episc. 1,849; 3,737; 10,795. 1G. E. Bean, T. B. MitFrorp, Journeys in Rough Cilicia 1964-1968, 1970 2 HILD/HELLENKEMPER. K.T.

[3] see > Rabbath-Ammon KJ-W. [4] Village in the northeast of the > Faiyum (presentday Kaum al-Girza), founded as a military settlement

under Ptolemy II (282-246 BC) and named Philadelphia after Queen Arsinoe [II 3]. Good roads connected it with the Faiyum and with Kerké (Girza) in the valley of the Nile. In 259 BC, the > dioikétés Apollonius received a country estate of 10, 000 aruras (= 2756 hectares; ~ arura) at P., which was looked after by his adminis-

9

Io

trator Zeno. Around 3000 papyri were found in Zeno’s archives — one of the most important sources for Ptolemaic Egypt (+ Zeno papyri). The deified Arsinoe and Egyptian deities such as Amun, Anubis, Isis und Osiris were amongst the gods worshipped in P. We find dated

Philae

evidence until the 4th cent. AD; after that time the vil-

lage was deserted. A. CALDERINI, Dizionario dei nomi geografici e topografici dell’Egitto greco-romano, vol. 5, 1987, 74-78.

KJ.-W.

PHILAGRIUS

(®thai/Philai,

Egyptian

P-Jrk,

probably

a

Nubian name). Small island at the southern end of the

first Nile cataract, with a famous temple of > Isis and a number of smaller sanctuaries. Blocks incorporated in the buildings, which show the names of kings, prove that there was a sanctuary under Taharka (690-664) at the latest, and a temple of Isis from the time of > Amasis [2] at the latest. The earliest still visible buildings date only from > Nectanebus [1] I, however, and most of the buildings were erected by the Ptolemies. In the Roman period only a few smaller chapels were added and finally a fortification under Diocletian (AD 284-

Philadelphos (®raderdoc/Philddelphos, literally ‘One

305). P. and its abaton (cult site of Osiris) on the island

who loves his/her brother/sister’). (Cult-) epithet of Hel-

of Bigeh are frequently mentioned by Greek and Latin authors [3; 4]. In the main temple, a divine falcon was worshipped as the ‘soul of the > Sun god’ (cf. Str. 17,1,49), but Isis was the principal goddess, whose cult was popular until some time into the Byzantine period. There, the last dated hieroglyphic (AD 394) and demotic (AD 452) inscriptions were found. The temple was not closed until the reign of Emperor Justin [1] | around AD 535 (Procop. Pers. 1,19). The island of P. was flooded in 1910 by the (former) reservoir and between 1972 and 1980 (almost) all the buildings were relocated to the nearby island of Agilkia.

lenistic kings. It was borne first of all by Arsinoe [II 3] II. (Philadelphos is only documented from 165/4 BC with referenceto her brother and husband Ptolemy II.).

The name is very frequently used in the dynasty of the + Ptolemies (Cleopatra [II 9] Berenice III, Ptolemy XII and Cleopatra [II 10] Tryphaina; Cleopatra [II 12] VII and her brothers became theoi néoi phildadelphoi during the lifetime of Ptolemy XII; cf. also > Ptolemaeus Philadelphos). Philadelphos was likewise used in other dynasties: e.g. Attalus [5] II [r. 156], Mithradates [4] IV and Laodice [II ro], Demetrius [8] II, the children of Antiochus [ro] VIII, lotape [1] VI of Commagene, Artabanus [5] I] and Ariarathes X. Arsinoe’s love for her brother is compared in literature with that of Zeus and Hera (Callim. in SH 25 4,2; Theoc. Epigr. 17,130-137), and, in addition, has the relationship of > Isis and > Osiris as a model. However, some other examples show that the epithet is not necessarily part of the dynastic > marriage between brothers and sisters; rather, it frequently expressed the respect of a younger brother for an older. It was also said to attest to the unity of brothers and sisters between themselves or even to dynastic continuity and the evocation of a great past. Philadelphos was also used in the East in the sense of the brotherly > concordia between Drusus [II 1] and Germanicus [2] (BMC, Lydia p. 251f.; Caria p. 167), and between Marcus [2] Aurelius and Lucius > Verus (IG II/III* 3405; SEG 23,109).

Plutarchus [2] wrote a treatise Peri philadelphias (‘About the love between siblings’; Plut. Mor. 478492), which almost completely excludes the dynastic aspect. Thus Philadelphos can also be applied to private individuals in epitaphs [2. 189]. ~ Marriage between brothers and sisters; > Philometor [1]; > Philopator 1R. ALLEN, The Attalid Kingdom, 1983 ABSA 45, 1951, 118-122.

L. CriscuoLo,

2M. Top, in:

Philadelphos nella dinastia lagide, in:

Aegyptus 70, 1990, 89-96; L. KoENEN, The Ptolemaic

King as a Religious Figure, in: A. W. BuLLoc# et al. (ed.), Images and Ideologies, 1993, 61-66; F. MuccioLt, Considerazioni generali sull’ epiteto Biddedgoc nelle dinastie ellenistiche e sulla sua applicazione nella titolatura degli ultimi Seleucidi, in: Historia 43, 1994, 402-422. W.A.

1 E. Winter, LA 4, 1022-1027, s.v. P.

2E. VASSILIKA,

Ptolemaic Philae, 1989 3 TH. HOPENER, Fontes Historiae Religionis Aegyptiacae, 1922-1925, 891 4PH. DERcuain, A propos de Claudien, in: ZAS 81, 1956, 4-6.

KJ-W.

Philaeus (®iActoc; Philaios). [1] Legendary first ancestor of the famous Attican — Philaidae [2] family [1. 37 Anm. 1]. Son of > Ajax [1] and — Lysidice [3] (Hdt. 6,35). According to Pausanias (1,3 5,2) he was the son of > Eurysaces, a grandson of Ajax. Plutarch (Solon 1o) states that P. handed over the island of Salamis to the Athenians. For this act he and his brother Eurysaces received Attican citizenship. Ph. lived in Brauron, his brother in Melite. [2] Son of > Munichus [3]. 1 WILAMOWITZ, vol. I.

J.BI.

Philagrius (®iAdyouos; Phildgrios). Doctor from Epirus, fl. 3rd—4th cents. AD; he practised in Thessalonica and was the author of more than 70 books: treatises on -» dietetics, gout, dropsy and rabies as well as a commentary on Hippocrates [1]. He is often cited by later authors, especially in Arabic, for his treatment of diseases of the liver and spleen. Doctrinally, he often follows >» Galen, but pays particular attention to pneuma (+ Pneumatists) as the co-ordinating force in organisms. His name appears often in garbled form as Filaretus (e.g. frr. 131-133: Rhazes, Continens, Venice 1509, folios 493r-494Vv), though it is uncertain whether he is the author of the treatise on the pulse which is attributed to > Philaretus [1]. 1 R. Masut1o (ed.), Filagrio. Frammenti, 1999.

V.N.

PHILAGRUS

Philagrus (®iiayeoc; Philagros). Sophist from Cilicia, regarded as arrogant and irritable (Philostr. VS 2,8), possibly related to Q. Veranius Philagrus of Cibyra [1]; pupil of > Lollianus [2], probably at Athens, where he quarrelled with > Herodes [16] Atticus and his pupils. He may have been Lucian’s ( Lucianus [1]) target in the latter’s Lexiphdnés (cf. [2]). Offered the chair of Greek rhetoric at Rome (in the 170s (?) AD), he died either in Italy or at sea (Philostr. VS 2,8). His pupils included Phoenix (ibid.). Artem. 4,1 (p. 242,11-13 Pack) recounts a dream in which P. was told that he was

no longer capable of declamation. ~» Second Sophistic

achievements of their forefathers in their public selfportrayal, that does not mean that the Philaidae would have pursued a certain political course consistently over generations. On the contrary, they were typical Greek aristocrats, that is to say, every single one of them tried to make use of his chances under the prevailing conditions at the time and optimize his individual opportunities for influence. ~ Nobility [2] Davies 8429; M. STAHL, Aristokraten und Tyrannen im

archaischen Athen, 1987, 1o6ff.; E. STEIN-HOLKESKAMP, Kimon und die athenische Demokratie, in: Hermes 127, 1999, 145-164.

1IGR 4, 914f. 2 C. P. Jones, Two Enemies of Lucian, in:

GRBS 13, 1972, 475-487. PIR P 348.

I2

AG

E.BO.

E.S.-H.

Philammon (®iGuuwv; Philammon). [1] Mythical singer and lyrist of Delphi, a son of + Apollo (Pherecydes of Athens FGrH 3 F 120); his mother is variously given as Philonis (ibid.), > Chione

Philaidae (®ukatdou; Philaidai).

[2] (Ov. Met. r1,316f.) and > Leuconoe [1] (Hyg. Fab.

[1] P. was an Attic mesogeia deme of the Aigeis phyle with three bouleutai on the east coast of Attica. The shrine of Artemis at > Brauron was on its territory. ~ Peisistratus [4] came from P. (Pl. Hipparch. 228b; Plut. Solon ro,2). It is unsubstantiated that > Cleisthenes [2] did not therefore name the deme Brauron [4. rr with fn. 30, 24 with fn. 83]. The location of the deme centre of P. to the west of the early Christian basilica of Brauron [1. 41; 2. 127] is hypothetical [3. 56].

161). His sons — for whom there are also other genealogical backgrounds — were Thamyris (Eur. Rhes. 916; 925) and > Eumolpus (Theoc. 24,108). At Delphi, P. is said to have introduced choirs of virgins (Pherecydes

1 TRAILL, Attica, 41, 68, 112 no. 111, table 2 2J.S. TraILL, Demos and Trittys, 1986 3 Trav_os, Attika 4 WHITEHEAD, II, 24, 32, 210, 370.

loc. cit.) and choirs within the temple (Plut. De Musica 3), and is also said to have been one of the oldest victors in the artistic agon there (Paus. 10,7,2). P. is also coun-

ted among the > Argonauts (cf. [1]). He fell fighting for the Delphians against the Phlegyans (Paus. 9,3 6,2). 1A.

Kossatz-DEISSMANN,

S.yY.

Pe

IMG

850.

O52. TH.KN.

H.LO.

[2] Name used now for an Athenian noble family which produced a series of prominent army commanders and politicians in the 6th and 5th cents. BC. The Philaidae traced their descent back to > Philaeus [1], the son of the mythical hero Ajax. The knowledge about their genealogy is based on —> Pherecydes’ list{1] (FGrH 3 F 2) from the period around 550 BC. > Miltiades [1] and [2] and > Cimon [2] are among the most important members of the Philaidae. The family resided in the deme of > Laciadae. The numerous victories of their family members at Olympic chariot races as well as their marriage connections to the Corinthian > Cypselides and the Thracian royal family suggest that the Philaidae had a considerable fortune at their disposal and were held in high regard in Panhellenic society and corresponding connections. It is not known whether the power, (arché), which the family exerted on the Thracian Chersonesus [1] after the time of Miltiades [1], was based on the ownership of large estates in this region. In older scholarship the Philaidae’s domestic policy was always characterised as ‘conservative’ and ‘antidemocratic’. Such a classification of entire families is however incompatible with our knowledge of the political scope for action by Athenian aristocrats and their transformation in the 6th and sth cents. While there is evidence that individual Philaidae, such as Cimon, [2], deliberately emphasized their family tradition and the

[2] Responsible along with Deinon, son of Deinon (Pol. 15,26a), for the murder of Arsinoé [II 4] II], after which he was removed from Alexandria by > Agathocles’ [6] appointing him Libyarch of Cyrene (AiBudeyns tov xata Kvernvynv tomwv). Discovered in Alexandria at Agathocles’ demise, P. was killed along with his wife and child (Pol. 15,25,12; 33,11f.). PP VI 15082. H. Scumitt, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Antiochos’ des Groen, 1964, 204-206; K. ZIMMERMANN, 1999, 160-162.

Libyen, W.A.

Philanthropa (pidvOgoxa/philanthropa, neuter? pl. ‘philanthropic (decrees)’). Specific, publicly announced measures by the Ptolemaic kings on economic and/or political preferential treatment (e.g. tax reduction, amnesty) for the population of the kingdom or certain groups (see > Ptolemaeus [9] VI. Philometor; > Ptolemaeus [12] VIII. Euergetes II.). As a rule, the philanthropa’s aim was to prevent unrest which was threatening or had already arisen, and of also increasing the favourable reception of the respective ruler. On inscriptions in Hellenistic towns in honour of citizens and people from other areas, philanthropa means ‘benefactions’ and ‘friendly disposition’, both on the part of the benefactor and also of the recipient town, which replied on its part with philanthropa ([1. nos. 25 and 35]; cf. Pol. 29,24,11-16).

13

14

1 K. BRINGMANN, H. von STuBEN (ed.), Schenkungen hel-

lenistischer Herrscher an griechische Stadte und Heiligtimer, vol. 1, 1995

2 M.-TH. LENGER, Corpus des ordon-

nances des Prolemées (repr. with suppl.), 1980.

W.ED.

PHILEMON

(Adversus haereses), and was used by Augustine (> Augustinus) (De haeresibus).

> Heresiology F. HEYLEN (ed.), Filastrii Episcopi Brixiensis Diversarum

Philaretus (®iAdeetoc; Phildretos). [1] Greek writer on medicine. A text which bears P.’s name and ultimately goes back to - Galen’s theories about the pulse, is a Byzantine revision (from the 9th cent.?) of the text De pulsibus ad Antonium (= Gal. 19,629-642 K.) which was influenced by pneumat (— Pneumatists). Whether or not P. was the author of

the original text or the revised version, is a matter of controversy. A connection with — Philagrius cannot be ruled out as his name is occasionally misrepresented in P. The revised version contained diagrams which originate from > Theophilus Protospatharius or a shared source and may ‘have undergone still further changes before it reached its preserved version. Its significance lies in condensing Galen’s text on the pulse to a concise hand book, and in its impact on history: in this easily usable form the classical material was passed on to Byzantium; it reached Salerno in the form of a Latin translation from the 11th cent. As a component of the so-called Articella the revised version became one of the most important standard texts in the context oftraining doctors in the Middle Ages. J. A. Prruts (ed.), Die Schriften EPI S®YIMQN 1983 (with German trans. and comm.).

des P., VN.

[2] Ph. Eleemon (®. Edetywv/Eleémon, ‘the compassionate’). Born in AD 702 in Amnia (Paphlagonia), died on 1.12.792 in Constantinople. He was a wealthy

owner of large estates who sold his property for charitable purposes (cf. his epithet). Following Arab raids in the 780’s, he became completely impoverished. In AD 788, the emperor > Constantine [8] VI. married P.’ granddaughter Maria, and so the entire family moved to Constantinople. Once there, he devoted himself to charitable works and after his death was buried in the Andreas monastery év ti xoloeV/en téi krisei. In AD 821/2 his grandson Nicetas of Amnia wrote P.’ vita. EpiTIons: M.-H. Fourmy, Maurice Leroy (ed.), La vie

de S. Philaréte, in: Byzantion (Brussels) 6, 1934, 111-167. SECONDARY LITERATURE: J. W. NessitT, The Life of St. Philaretos (702-792) and its Significance for Byzantine Agriculture, in: Greek Orthodox Theological Review 14, 1969, 150-158.

K.SA.

Philargyrius see > Iunius [III 2] Filagrius Philastrius (mostly Filastrius or Filaster). After long journeying as an anti-heretical preacher (+ Gaudentius [5] of Brescia, Sermo 21), P. became bishop of > Brixia (Brescia) before AD 381. He met Augustine between 383 and 387 (Aug. Epist. 222) and died on the 18th July of a year before 397. The surviving Diversarum hereseon liber on 156 heresies is based on > Epiphanius [1] of Salamis (Pandrion) and > Irenaeus [2] of Lyon

Hereseon Liber, in: CCL 9, 1957, 207-324; G. BANTERLE,

San Filastrio di Brescia, Delle varie eresie (Ital. transl. and comm.; Scrittori dell’area santambrosiana 4), 1991; H. Kocu, s.v. P., RE 19, 2125-2131. M.HE.

Phileas (®iAéac; Philéas). [1] Greek geographer from Athens (cf. Marcianus, Epitome peripli Menippei 2 = GGM 1, 565; Avien. 43f.), middle of the 5th cent. BC. His 13 directly preserved fragments have not been edited (sources and contents: [1. 2134f.]). As probably the first Attic successor to the early lonian periegesis (> Periegetes), P., in his Description of the Earth (yi\g megiodoc¢/gés periodos, Harpocr. 152,2), probably discussed the entire Mediterranean region, not only the coasts, as in a > periplous. He knew of three continents: Asia, Europe and (separated from the latter by the > Rhodanus: Avien. 691-696) Libya. He included pure geography, but also historical and mythological descriptions. ~ Geography 1 F. GISINGER, s.v. P. (6), RE 19, 2132-2136.

H.A.G.

[2] In 212 BC, P. of Tarentum organized the unsuccessful escape from Rome of the hostages from the cities of Tarentum (> Taras) and Thurii, and was executed to-

gether with them (Liv. 25,7,11-14). This led to a shift of opinion at Tarentum, orchestrated by Nicon [3] (Liv. 25,8,1-11,8), in favour of Hannibal [4] [1. 37]. 1 D.A. Kuxorxa, Krieg, 1990.

Siditalien

im Zweiten

Punischen L.-M.G.

Philemon (®uquwv; Philemon). [1] Husband of > Baucis. ieip [2] Son of Damon of Syracuse [1. test. 1, 11], became (before 307/6 BC; cf. [1. test. 15]) an Athenian citizen [x. test. 2-12. 15]. Important writer of Attic New Comedy with his stage debut several years before ~» Menander [4] (before 328: [1. test. 2]); it is uncertain whether this somewhat earlier chronology or the different nature of his plays led to P. once being called a ‘writer of the Middle Comedy’ [1. test. 7] [2. 62]. P.’s first Dionysian victory is attested for 327 BC [t. test. 13]; the list of the victors at the Lenaea [r. test. 14] attributes three victories to him and places him chronologically behind > Timocles, - Procleides, Menander [4] and before > Apollodorus [5] of Carystus, > Diphilus [5] and > Philippides [3]. P. is said to have written a total of 97 plays [1. test. 1, 2, 4] — 63 titles (four of them uncertain) are extant —and to have lived to the age of 97 [z. test. 5], 99 [1. test. 1,4] or even ror [1. test. r, 6]. At least two versions of his death were in circulation: he was said to have died of a violent laughing fit [1. test. 1, 5] or on the other hand to have passed away peacefully in his sleep while still writing a play [1. test. 6, 7; cf. test.8].

PHILEMON

hy

16

Of P’.s extensive creative works only a few remnants are extant; of the total of 198 fragments, 4 are doubtful and 103 can no longer be attributed to any particular work. Three plays survive in versions by > Plautus ("Eusogoc/Emporos/‘The Merchant’ became the Mercator, Onoavedsd/Thésauros/‘The Treasure’ became the Trinummus and ®édoua/Phdsma/‘The Ghost’ became the Mostellaria), although the extent of the Plautinian revision is debatable (cf. [3] and the opposite view in [4]). The extant titles refer to the usual repertoire of the New Comedy; individual fragments still provide some information on content with regard to only the following plays: In the ‘AdeAdot (Adelphoi, ‘The Brothers’), a brothel owner praised great Solon for his far-sighted founding of brothels (fr. 3); in the "E@nfoc (Ephébos, ‘The Ephebe’), an old husband probably lamented his harsh fate (fr. 28). Of the AvWoyAvoos (Lithoglyphos, ‘The Sculptor’), part of a vivid report from a messenger is extant (fr. 41), of Metuov 7} Zwuiov (Metion é Zomion, ‘The Suitor or: Little Soup’; the second part of the title is a nickname for a > parasite) part of an equally vivid scene in which a host complained about a fish dish that turned out badly (fr. 42). A self-confident cook (cf. fr. 63f.) appeared in the Magewoubv (Pareision, ‘The One Slipping in Beside’, probably a parasite again). In IItegvywov (Pterygion, ‘The Tail of the Garment’), someone obviously complained about demanding wives (fr. 69); in IIveeog (Pyrrhos; was this a reference to King Pyrrhus?), philosophical mockery was ingeniously linked with a song of praise to peace (fr. 74). In Ldedvov (Sardion, “The Cornelian’, perhaps a requisite important for an —anagnorisis), a likeable slave attempted to comfort his sad master (fr. 77). Of the LTtoatudtng (Stratidtés, ‘The Soldier’; Meineke wanted to attribute the play to the younger Philemon [3]), a cook’s long rhésis is still extant (fr. 82) that initially parodies the nurse’s first appearance in the Euripidean Meédeia (cf. Eur. Med. 57) and climaxes in impressive hyperbole. The “YroBokumatog (Hypobolimaios, ‘The Supposititious Infant’) was obviously a recreation of Kokalos by Aristophanes (cf. [1. test. “YroBoAwmotoc] and [r. test. 32]). In the Bidoodor (Phildsophoi, ‘The Philosophers’), derision was directed (among other things?) at the Stoic Zeno (fr. 88). There were allusions to contemporary history in BaBvAdwvoc (Babylonios, ‘The Man from Babylon’; in fr. 15, Alexander [4] the Great’s treasurer > Harpalus and his mistress Pythio-

In his lifetime, P. was considerably more successful on the stage than Menander [t. test. 7, 23, 24]; later, however, he was paradoxically regarded as being more suited to reading than to performance ([I. test. 22]; epigraphically only one re-performance of 262 or 258 BC is attested that won third place: [1. test. 16]) and he was by then only regarded as the second best writer of New Comedy ([1. test. 23] Quintilian; [1. test. 27] Velleius Paterculus). This situation may have contributed to the almost complete loss of his ceuvre. To date it has only been possible to attribute very few short papyri to P.; certainly, of the numerous adespota, some may still belong to him. In late antiquity and beyond it, he survived primarily as the author of gnomic observations; over 40% of his fragments (only 60 of the 103 without play titles) come from the anthology of + Stobaeus.

nice are mentioned), in Metion é Zomion (see above; in

fr. 43, the Athenian politician > Callimedon is mokked) and in Néawga (Néaira, fr. 49: the tiger of Seleucus).

Of the extant fragments that have not been assigned to plays, the following are worthy of mention: frr. 95 (from a prologue of the god Aer, ‘Air’), 100 (ironic praise for farming life), 18 (words of an admirer of Euripides; cf. fr. 153), 134 (on the Cynic > Crates [4]), 142 (against a fat soldier) and 160 (mockery of the selfpraise of the tragic writer > Astydamas [2]).

1 PCG VII, 1989, 221-317.

2H.-G. NESSELRATH,

Die

attische Mittlere Komédie, 1990 3 E. SrArK, Mostellaria oder Turbare statt sedare, in: E. LEFEVRE, E. STARK, G. VoctT-Spira, Plautus barbarus, 1991, 107-140 §64L.

Braun, Phormio und Epidikazomenos. Mit einem Anhang zu Mostellaria und Phasma, in: Hermes 127, 1999, 43-46.

[3] P. the Younger. Attic comedy writer of the 3rd cent. BC, son of Philemon [2]. He wrote 54 plays [1. test. r] and was victorious six times at the Dionysia [1. test. 2]; in 280 he took part in a comedy agon in Delos [1. test. 3]. A play with the title Bwxets (Phokeis, ‘The Phocians’) is attributed either to him or to his father [1. test. *4]. Of the three extant fragments, fr. 1 is a type of lecture of a self-important cook, the two others are sarcastic, didactic maxims about the medical profession. 1 PCG VU, 1989, 318-320.

[4] Attic comedy writer who was sixth in the Dionysian agon of 183 BC witha MiAnoia (Milésia, ‘The Girl from Miletus’) [1. test. 2] and first at least once in other Dionysia [1. test. r]. 1 PCG VU, 1989, 321.

H.-G.NE.

[5] Glossographer from the Attic deme of > Aixone who belonged to the late 3rd/early 2nd cents. BC. Fragments of his work Iegi Attx@v dvoudtov i} ykooo@v (‘On Attic words or glosses’) — the title is attested in Ath.

11,468f—are passed to > Athenaeus [3] by Aristarchus [4] of Samothrace and Pamphilus [6], and to > Ammonius [4] by Tryphon. Of this work, explanations of several terms relating to food and items of everyday use that occur in Attic comedy are passed down. A further glossographical work by P. consisting of at least 2 bks. and with the title Mavtodan& yonotyea (‘Useful items of every kind’) is mentioned by Ath. 3,114d-e who quotes from it explanations of various bread names. 1 L. Conn, Der Atticist P., in: Philologus N.F. rr, 1898,

353-367 2R. Weper, De Philemone Atheniensi Glossographo, in: Commentationes philologae quibus Ottoni Ribbeckio ... congratulantur discipuli Lipsienses, 1888, 441-450

3 C. WENDEL, s.v. P. (13), RE 19, 2150-2151.

ST.MA.

17

18

[6] Greek geographer who wrote — after the naval expedition of Tiberius in AD 5 that went to Jutland

contemporaries [3].

(+ Mare Suebicum) and before Pliny [1x] the Elder, i.e. at the latest in AD 77 —a work that is lost today that was probably called Periplous tés ektos thalattés (‘Sailing around the Outer Sea’) [2.194] or Peri Okeanot (‘About the Ocean’) [1. 2146]. After seeking information traders, P. as a critical follow-up to > Pytheas, dealt particularly with seas, islands and coasts of northern Europe that was still called ‘Scythia’. This is demonstrated by the four fragments that have been unambiguously attributed to him (Plin. HN 4,95; 37,333 37,36; Marinus in Ptol. 1,11,8), in which among other things Ireland, Scandinavia, the Cimbri in Jutland and

types of amber from the North Sea coast are mentioned. — Geography 1 W. KROLt, s.v. P. (11), RE 19, 2146-2149

2E. Nor-

PHILETAERUS

ments contain a number of jibes at apparently living 1PCG

VII, 1989, 322-332

2 H.-G.

attische Mittlere Komédie, 1990

letairos (5), RE 19, 2163f.

NeEsseELRATH, Die

3 A. KorrteE, s.v. PhiT.HI.

[2] P. of Tius, son of the Macedonian Attalus and the Paphlagonian Boa, and founder of the Pergamene Attalid dynasty (> Attalus with stemma; Str. 12,543; Ath. 13,577b; OGIS 264,15; 748,1). As commander of the

fortress of -» Pergamum, which hoarded 9,000 talents, the eunuch P. was in the service of > Docimus, and from 302 BC, of Lysimachus [2]. The bloody, scheming intrigue instigated within Lysimachus’ family by his wife — Arsinoé [II 3] and Attalus’ defamation of P. induced the latter in 282 to defect to > Seleucus [2] I; Seleucus at once marched into Asia Minor and defeated

DEN, P. der Geograph, in: B. KyTzier (ed.), KS, 1966,

Lysimachus

191-196.

chased the corpse of Seleucus, killed in the same year, from his murderer Ptolemy Ceraunus, and sent his ashes to the victim’s son and successor, Antiochus [2] I (App. Syr. 63,335). He minted coins in the name of Lysimachus and subsequently of Seleucus, later using the image of Seleucus but his own name; coins bearing the image of P. were, however, minted only posthumously, until c. r90 BC. Under Seleucid suzerainty, P. in fact ruled Pergamum and the central Caecus Valley independently. He adopted his nephew Attalus [3], whom he married off to Antiochis, daughter of Achaeus [4], and Eumenes [2] I. He ushered in the Attalid policy of gaining influence in Greek cities by means of benefactions and donations (OGIS 310-312; 335,13 5f5 748; 749; IDélos 298 A 95). At Pergamum, P. erected the Temple of Demeter. A fort by Mount Ida was called Philetaerea (OGIS 266,2). After his death in

H.A.G.

[7] Atticist and grammarian around AD 200 [1. 363366], author of an iambic work (only extant in two

extracts

[2. 285-301;

3. 392-396])

about contradic-

tions (legit Attixijs avttAoyias tij¢ év tac KAeEeouv, Choi-

roboscus, Comm. in Hephaestion 183,4f. CONSBRUCH) and of Svuwxta (‘Miscellanea’), in which among other things he discussed Herodotus problems (Porphyry, Quaestiones Homericae ad II]. 286-288 SCHRADER). 1 L. Conn, Der Atticist P., in: Philologus 57, 1898, 353367 2F. OsANN, Philemonis grammatici quae supersunt, 1821 3R. REITZENSTEIN, Geschichte der griechischen Etymologika, 1897 (repr. 1964). GR.DA.

[8] Latin grammarian of the first half of the 3rd cent. AD, one of the teachers of the son of Emperor Maxi-

(Str. 13,623; Paus.

1,8,1; 10,4). P. pur-

minus [2] Thrax (SHA Maximinus 27,3 [1. 83, 85]). P.

263, P. was honoured as an — euergétés (OGIS 266;

is associated with a Liber de proprietate sermonis which started with Adipiscitur and still existed in the library of Montecassino in the rsthcent. [2. 19, n. J. It was probably a lexicographical text with etymologies or differentiae (> Differentiarum scriptores), written in alphabetical order and with quotations from authors.

764,19f.). [3] Son of one Eumenes. It is uncertain whether he was the brother of Eumenes [2] I or cousin of Attalus [4] I. P. is recorded as a benefactor at Thespiae (OGIS 750). A.ME. [4] Son of > Attalus [4] land Apollonis, born after 220 BC, last documented in 171 (Str. 13,624). P. helped his reigning brother > Eumenes [3] [lin 181 by conducting an embassy together with their other brothers Attalus [5] [Il and Athenaeus [2] to Rome, in 171 by assuming a temporary regency in the absence of Eumenes in particular, and by conducting a successful war against the Galatians (> Celts IIIB. 3.; IG XI 4, 1105; Pol. 24,5; Liv. 42,55,7; Plut. Mor. 480c), among other ways. Several cities paid him honours (Syll.3 629,11f.; OGIS 248,40f.; 295; 308,14f.). Athens, where he and his three brothers had won the chariot race in the Pan-

1A. Lippotp,

Der Kaiser Maximinus

Thrax

und der

romische Senat, in: Bonner Historia Augusta Colloquium 1966/67, 1968, 73-89 2M. Manitius, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, vol. 1, 1911 v. STRZELECKI, S.v. P. (17), RE 19, 2152-2155.

3 W. P.G.

Philetaerus (®iAEta190¢; Philétairos). [1] Attic poet of the Middle Comedy (1st half of 4th cent. BC), according to Dicaearchus, son of the comic poet > Aristophanes [3] [1. test. 1; 2. 192], though this remains uncertain owing to some discrepancies in ancient tradition [3]. In the list of victors at the Lenaea, P. has two victories immediately after Anaxandrides and before Eubulus. Of the total of 21 pieces attributed to P. by the Suda [r. test. r], the titles of 13 (perhaps only rr) are still known, of which at least five appear to be mythological travesties [2. 193]. The 20 brief frag-

athenaic Games (> Panathenaea) in 186, 182 or 178

(IG II/M12 1,2, 905; I/Ml2 2,2, 2314,83-90; Syll.3 641), accorded him citizenship no later than 175/4. 1R.E. ALLEN, The Attalid Kingdom, 1983 2 (CH. Hasicut, Athen in hellenistischer Zeit, 1994, 191-193 3 E. V. Hansen, The Attalids of Pergamum, 1971 41.

PHILETAERUS

19

Kerrész, Zur Sozialpolitik der Attaliden, in: Tyche 7, 1992, 133-141 5H.-J. SCHALLES, Untersuchungen zur

Kulturpolitik der pergamenischen Herrscher im 3. Jh.v.Chr., 1985 6B. VirGILIo, Fama, eredita e memoria degli Attalidi di Pergamo, in: Studi ellenistici 4, 1994,

137-171 7U. WesTerMark, Das Bildnis des Philetairos von Pergamon, 1961 8 WILL 1, 100; 136f.; 144; 151. A.ME.

Philetas see > Philitas

Philhellenism. In the modern languages, the word philhellene (‘lover of Greece or the Greeks’) or philhellenism (‘love for Greece or the Greeks’) came into use at

the time of the Greek War of Independence (18211829), when there was a wave of sympathy for the Greeks throughout Europe. A short time later (beginning in the 1850s) the word also came to be used by classical scholars such as GROTE and MOMMSEN also + PHILHELLENISM).

(see

In Antiquity there was only the Greek adjective puréAdnv/ philhéllén (‘loving of Greece or the Greeks’), which appeared regularly, although not very frequently, beginning with > Herodotus [1] (2,178). It was used to describe Greeks who were especially committed to the cause of Greek culture or noted for their hatred of the > barbarians, like the Athenians who fought against the Persian great king Xerxes (Isocr. Or. 4 [Panegyrikos], 96; > Persian Wars) or the physician Hippocrates [6], who refused to treat the Persian king Artaxerxes [1] (Soranus, Vita Hippocratis 8). We see this meaning in the description of the poet -» Homerus {z] asa philhellene in certain scholia vetera on the ‘Iliad’ as well as in the comm. of > Eustathius [4] during the Byzantine era (12th cent.). It was more common, however, to refer to nonGreeks as philhellenes, particularly > barbarian rulers who had shown favour to the Greeks, for example in the case of the pharaoh Amasis [2], whose description in Herodotus (2,178) is the earliest recorded use of the word philhéllén. During the Hellenistic period, the word philhéllén was even part of the official titles of certain non-Greek rulers who had conquered Greek cities, including the kings of the — Parthians, after Mithridates [12] I had taken Babylonia from the > Seleucids (141 BC), or in the title of the Arab ruler Aretas

[3] III, king of the > Nabataeans, who seized the opportunity to proclaim himself the protector of the Hellenized city of > Damascus during the period of Seleucid anarchy (84-71 BC). Kings who had been subjected by Rome also referred to themselves as Philorhomaios kai Philhéllén (‘lover of

Rome and Greece’), as if their loyalty to Rome were the basis for their affinity for the Greeks (cf. Str. £4,2,5 C.)e.g. Antiochus [16] I of Commagene, during the 1st cent. BC, and in the first third of the 3rd cent. AD > Rhescuporis III, ruler of a kingdom at the Cimmerian Bosphorus (~ Regnum Bosporanum); in the latter case, however, this word was found in an unusual form only in a single inscription in his honour.

20

The concept was already reflected in a decree of the Delphic > amphiktyonia issued in 182 BC for Eumenes [2] Il of Pergamum, but was formulated differently. The term philhéllén no longer appeared in the titles of the rulers of the great Hellenistic kingdoms that grew out of Alexander’s empire (> Hellenistic states); nor did cities bestow that title on kings any more, but instead they honoured them in a highly formalized way for the favour shown to the cities and all of the Greeks. Accordingly, the Macedonian king who is generally referred to as ‘Alexander Philhellene’ is not Alexander [4] the Great, but > Alexander [2] I of Macedonia, who lived at the time of the > Persian Wars, and even that designation is not documented prior to Dion [I 3] of Prusa (2,33) in the rst cent. AD. The word philhbéllén itself does not appear in the letters written to the cities by Roman magistrates and later by the emperors, nor in the honourary decrees dedicated to them by the cities. The single known exception is the decree from — Acraephia in Boeotia in honour of Emperor — Nero (Syll.3 814): In appreciation of his giving the Roman province of Achaia its freedom, he was called heis kai monos ton ap’ aionos autokrator mégistos philhéllén (‘the one and only most philhellenic emperor in living memory’); it was in his capacity as Neron Zeus Eleutherios, however, that statues and an altar were created in Nero’s honour. Although documentation is scarce, there is no reason to doubt that the term philhéllen was commonly used for Romans as a public sign of respect (cf. Plut. Antonius 23,2). Immediately after Quintus ~— Tullius became governor of the province of Asia, his brother + Cicero observed in a letter to Atticus (Cic. Att. 1,15,1) that the brothers’ reputations were even more at

stake because they were ‘more philhellenic than others, and were regarded as such’ (praeter ceteros philhéllénes et sumus et habemur). Another letter, written to Quintus in connection with this governorship (Cic. Ad Q. fr. 1,1), sheds light on what he meant: since the Greeks represented the cradle of culture and civilization, they deserved to be treated especially well. It appears that respect for Greek culture was a significant part of philhellenism as early as > Isocrates (or. 9,50). However, its political and cultural components

cannot be separated: the assumption that a Greek education (+ paideia) was a requirement for hegemony over the Greeks (cf. Str. 9,2,2 C., who took up and developed a subject that went back to the historian ~ Ephorus, a pupil of > Isocrates) implies a privileged status for the Greek cities within the Roman Empire as in the earlier Hellenistic monarchies. Nonetheless, certain texts tend to regard the cultural dimension as practically the only one to be considered. For example, in the 5th cent. BC the tyrant Hieron [1] I of Syracuse was declared philhbéllén because he honoured Greek culture and the great poets of his time (Ael. var. 9,11); in a Panégyrikds to an emperor of the 3rd cent. AD (possibly Philippus [2] Arabs), the emperor’s philhellenism is described only in terms of how he

21

22

helped regain respect for Greek culture that his predecessor has scorned ([Aristid.] 35,20; probably apocryphal). During the Byzantine era the word héllén took on the negative meaning of ‘pagan’ (see — Hellenization 4.); use of the word philhéllén thus became less and less common. ~ Hellenization; > Panhellenes, Panhellenism; — PHILHELLENISM J.-L. Ferrary, Philhellénisme et impérialisme, 1988, esp. 497-526; 565-572; J. IRMscHER, Philéllén im mittelgriechischen Sprachgebrauch, in: ByzF 2, 1967, 238-245; J. Kakripis, Homer, ein Philhellene?, in: WS 69, 1956, 26— 32 (= Id., Homer Revisited, 1971, 54-67); P. PARSONS,

®IAEAARN, in: MH

53, 1996, 106-115; B. ROCHETTE,

Note sur philobasileus et philellen 4 l’@poque hellénistique, in: ZPE, 121, 1998, 62-66; Id., Sur philhellen chez Ciceron (Ad Att. I,15,1), in: Acta Classica 68, 1999, 263-

266; J. WOLSKI, Sur le ‘philhellenisme’ des Arsacides, in: Gerion 1, 1983, 145-156.

PHILINUS

1SH 900 2PGM II’, p. 145 3 Pack, No. 1871 (with bibliography) 4 A. HeNricus, Zum Text einiger Zauberpapyri, in: ZPE 6, 1970, 204-209.

S.FO.

Philinus (®wdivoc; Philinos). {1] Athenian. P. proposed absorbing all thetai (> thetes) into the hoplites (- hoplitai) (Antiph. fr. 61 from the speech Kata Philinou). In 420/419 BC, he attempted to prevent a case brought against him for the improper use of public funds by inciting one Philocrates to raise a charge of accidental killing against the accuser immediately before the trial. Once the charge was accepted, P.’ accuser was no longer permitted to enter any protected places, including places of justice (n6mima) (Antiph. Grate ams aii|. E. Heirscu, Antiphon aus Rhamnus

(AAWM

1984, 90-109.

1984.3), WS.

ipa

[2] Attic orator of the 4th cent. BC. The titles of three speeches are preserved (Harpocr. s.v. Oeweimd, él

Philia see > Friendship Philiadas (®vdSac; Philiddas) of Megara. Steph. Byz. s.v. O€omeva ascribes to him an éxiyoaua tov &vaioed-

évtwv b10 tHv Tego@v (‘epigram on those who fell against the Persians’) from which he quotes an elegiac distich (GVI no. 5 PEEK = no. 23 PREGER = FGE 289290 = IEG II* p. 193) lauding the bravery of the Thespians. The theory that this formed part of an > Epitaphios carved on one of the five steles erected at Thermopylae (Str. 9,4,2) is probably without foundation [1; 2]. The hypothesis that P. authored vv. 773-782 (788) of the Theognidea (> Theognis [r1]) is also dubious [3]. 1 M. Boas, De epigrammatis Simonideis, 1905, 17 n. 23 2 FGE 78-79 3 J. CarRRIeRE (ed.), Théognis, *1975, 176 (with commentary). M.D.MA.

Philicus (®idwxoc; Philikos) of Corcyra (Corfu). Poet and tragedian, priest of Dionysus at Alexandria in the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 BC). Member of the > Pleias, often confused with > Philiscus [4] of Aegina (IrGF I 89; I 104 T1, T4). Nothing

survives of the 24 tragedies attributed to him. A large section is preserved of a hymn to Demeter in stichic catalectic choriambic hexameters (SH 676-680). In it, Demeter is consoled for the loss of her daughter with the prospect of cultic honours at Eleusis and by the wit of the maiden > Iambe (in direct speech). K. Latre, Der Demeterhymnos des Philikos, in: Id., KS, 1968, 539-561.

B.Z.

Philinne (®uivvn; Philinné). A papyrus fragment (PAmherst 11) contains three hexameters of a magical incantation (énw6n; epdidé) against headaches, attributed to a certain ‘P. of Thessaly’. This fragment is physically connected to another (PBerolinensis inv. 7504) from the same roll containing a magic spell by a Syrian woman from Gadara against burns of all sorts.

xoeens, xorgw@vidat; Ath. 10,425b). In the only one of these whose authenticity was not disputed in antiquity, P. spoke against the motion of > Lycurgus [9] to honour the three great tragedians of the 5th cent. with statues. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 6 P.626b) quotes the wording of the beginning of a speech of P., which is clearly reminiscent of Dem. Or. 19,1 and Aeschin. In Ctes. 1. BLASS 3,2,288ff.

MW.

[3] Tragedian, victorious at the Lenaea c. 354 BC (TrGF I 80).

B.Z.

[4] P. of Cos. Greek physician, active around 250 BC. He was one of the founders of the > Empiricist school (Ps.-Galenus, Introductio; Gal. 14,683; [1]). Once a

pupil of > Herophilus [1], he broke with his teacher [1. fr. 6], when he became doubtful of his pulse diagnostics [1. fr. 77] and his explanations of Hippocratic concepts as given by the Herophilean > Baccheus [1] [x. fr. 3x1] (although the three quotations from his 6-book glossary [1. frr. 322, 327, 328] essentially agree with these). Pliny (> Plinius)[1] the Elder and — indirectly — Galen ( Galenus) consulted him on pharmacological matters. Of his theories it is only known that he was critical of sensory perception. EDITION:

1 DEICHGRABER, 163f., 254f.

VN.

[5] P. of Acragas. Author (2nd half of 3rd cent. BC) of a

monograph on the rst > Punic War, whose title, extent and content are unknown. Only 5 fragments are preserved. The work served > Fabius [I 3 5] Pictor (cf. Pol. 3,8,1), > Polybius [2] (cf. Pol. 1,14) and > Diodorus

Siculus [18] (Diod. Sic. 23 and 24; cf. P. FGrH 174 F 3-5) as source material. According to Polybius (1,14), P. wrote with sympathy for the Carthaginian side, while Fabius Pictor was pro-Roman — neither deliberately distorting the truth. However, Polybius based his own account in bk. 1, 10-64 on P. and Fabius Pictor, with the pro-Carthaginian or anti-Roman elements largely

PHILINUS

taken from P. (e.g. Pol. 1,10f.; 1,15; 1,17-193 1,26-28; 1,60f.). P. is the chief authority for the so-called P. Treaty, the historicity of which is denied by Polybius (cf. Pol. 3,26), but endorsed by various modern scholars (cf.

[5]). 1 FGrH 174 with comm. 2K. MEISTER, Historische Kritik bei Polybios, 1975, 127ff. 3 Id., Die griechische Geschichtsschreibung, 1990, 143f. 4 O. LENDLE, Einfiihrung in die griechische Geschichtsschreibung, 1992, 219ff. 5 StV 3, Nr. 438. K.MEL.

[6] P. of Corinth was killed along with his sons by the radically anti-Roman Achaean strategos > Diaeus in 148 BC on suspicion of pro-Roman and pro-Spartan sympathies (Pol. 38,18,6f.) [1. 222; 2. rof.]. 1 J. Demincer, Der politische Widerstand gegen Rom in Griechenland, 1971

24

23

2R. BERNHARDT, Polis und rémi-

sche Herrschaft in der spaten Republik, 1985.

L-M.G.

Philip; acts and gospel of see > New Testament Apocrypha; — Philippus, I Greek [I 28]

Philippi (®itinxovPhilippoi, Latin Philippi). I. FOUNDING, HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS Il. CHRISTIAN PERIOD I. FOUNDING, HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN

PERIODS City in eastern Macedonia, founded by Philip [4] II around 355 BC on the site of Crenides or Daton (App.

B. Civ. 4,105) on the occasion of the conquest of the region between the > Strymon and the — Nestus [1], inhabited by the Thracians (> Thraci). The > Via Egnatia later passed by P. The site of the ancient ruins of P. is r5 km north-west of the modern Kavala. Although the mines of the > Pangaeum (> Philippus (stater)) were nearby and initially seem to have provided an annual yield of 1,000 talents (Diod. Sic. 16,8,6) — even under Alexander [4] the Great, disputes between P. and the Thracians over exploration rights continued to require arbitration (SEG 34, 664) — P. appears to have been more orientated towards agriculture. During the Hellenistic Period, P. was an autonomous municipality. In 242 BC, P. recognized the > asylia of Cos [1] and later granted hospitality to the Delphic thedroi [2]. From 168 BC, P. belonged to the rst Macedonian meris (regio, Liv. 45,29,5f.). It was conquered by L. Valerius Flaccus during the rst > Mithridatic War (Granius Licinianus 35,70). In 86 BC, negotiations between Sulla and Archelaus [4] took place here (Plut. Sulla 23). Following the double battle fought near P. in 42 BC between the Caesarians, under Antonius [I 9] and the later Augustus, and the Republicans, under M. Iunius {I ro] Brutus and Cassius [I ro], the population was enlarged by the settlement of Roman veterans, and more Italians joined them in 30 BC (Cass. Dio 51,4,6). The colonia was granted the ius Italicum (Dig. 50,15,8,8); after 27 BC it called itself colonia Augusta

Iulia Philippensis. Although the urban district of P. now stretched from what originally had been a single settlement on the Acropolis (App. Civ. 4,105) into the plain where the (now excavated) forum and its associated official buildings were located, the city remained largely agricultural in character, with the population living in dispersed village settlements across the land (15 vici are recorded by name). 1R. Herzoc, G. KLAFFENBACH, Asylieurkunden aus Kos, 1952, nr. 6 2A. PrassarT, Inscriptions de Delphes, in: BCH 45, 1921, 18 1. 80. MALER.

IJ. CHRISTIAN PERIOD Around AD 49/50, the apostle Paul (> Paulus [2]) travelled to P. and founded a Christian community there (Acts 16,11ff.), the first in Europe, to which he continued to nurture a close relationship (Phil 1,3-8; 4,15f.) [1; 2]. Considerable building activity, including bishop Porphyrius’ Church of St. Paul (mosaic inscription [3. no. 226]), and numerous Christian inscriptions (collected in [3. nos. 222-252], cf. also [z. 6-14]) attest to the wealth of P. in Late Antiquity and the early Byzantine period. Bishops of P. are recorded as having attended the Councils of AD 343 (Porphyrius) [4. 548f. no. 9], 431 (Flavianus) [5. 198f.], 449 and 451 (Sozon) [5. 436] and 692 (Andrew) [6. 152 no. 61, 228f.] as well as 532/3 (Demetrius) [5. 126]. Evidence shows P. to have been a suffragan diocese of > Thessalonica until 692; it became a metropolis of the Church province of Macedonia no earlier than the 8th cent. (early oth cent. at the latest), and from the roth cent. it had its own suffragan dioceses [6. 229]. Conquered by the ~ Bulgari in 837, P. found itself under Byzantine rule once more in the roth cent. (repair and expansion of ancient fortifications). In the 12th cent., Idrisi describes P. as a flourishing city. After many fluctuations in its history, P. finally submitted to Turkish rule, probably in 1387. 1 L. BoRMANN, Philippi. Stadt und Christengemeinde zur Zeit des Paulus, 1995 2 P. PILHOFER, Philippi. vol. 1: Die erste christlichr Gemeinde Europas, 1995 3 D. FEISSEL, Recueil des inscriptions chrétiennes de Macédoine du III* au VI° siécle (BCH Suppl. 8), 1983 4EOMIA1 SR. SCHIEFFER, Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum 4,3,2, 1982 6H. Oumg, Das Concilium Quinisextum und seine

Bischofsliste. Studien zum Konstantinopeler Konzil von 692, 1990.

H. Batz, s.v. Philipperbrief, TRE 26, 504-513; W. EuiGER, s.v. Philippi, LThK? 8, 213; P. CoLiart, Philippes, ville de Macédoine depuis des origines jusqu’a la fin de Pepoque romaine, 1937; T. E. GreGory, s.v. Philippi, ODB 3, 1653f.; D. LazarIDEs, s.v. Ph., PE, 7o04f.; P. LEMERLE, Philippes et la Macédoine orientale a l’époque chrétienne et byzantine, 1945; F. PAaPAZOGLOU, Les villes de Macedoine (BCH Suppl. 16), 1988, 405f.; P. PrtuoFER, see [2].; P. SousTAL, s.v. Philippi, LMA 6, 2082f.; TIR K 35,1 Philippi, 1993, 47. MA.ER. and E.W.

25

26

Philippicus Bardanes (®iuimxd¢ Bagddvye/Philippikos Barddnés). Byzantine emperor (November AD 711 -June 713). Of an Armenian family at Constantinople (hence his Armenian name Bardanes), d. at Constantinople in 7144/5. While participating in an expedition against Cherson, he was proclaimed emperor there under the Greek name P.B. as a rival to > lustinianus [3] II, who, while attempting to stall him on his way to Constantinople, was killed. As an adherent to ~ Monotheletism, P.B. revoked the rulings of the 680/1 Council of Constantinople. Ineffective in battle against the Bulgars and Arabs, he was deposed by officers of the thema Opsikion (+ Themata).

Philippopolis (®uinxdxodc/Philippopolis, Puitobs0d¢/Philipoupolis).

~> Byzantium (with map); > BYZANTIUM LMA 6, 2083; ODB 3, 1654.

ET.

Philippides (®uunnidy¢/Philippides).

PHILIPPOPOLIS

I. LOCATION AND HISTORY UP TO THE CONQUEST BY THE Got! II. BYZANTINE PERIOD

I. LOCATION AND HISTORY UP TO THE CONQUEST BY THE GOTI

City in Thrace (+ Thraci), founded by Philip (Philippus [4]) Il in the immediate vicinity of a fortified settlement of the Bessi on the right bank of the > Hebrus in 341 BC. An important road and river transport junction between the Ister [2], the Black Sea, the Aegaean, Hellas [1] and the Ionian Gulf, it was also called Trimontium in Pliny’s time (1st cent. AD) owing to its location on three hills (Plin. HN 4,41, cf. Ptol. 3,11,12: Towovtov; Trimontion). Its modern place name, Plovdiv, developed from the Thracian name for P., Pulpudeva (lord. De summa temporum 28,16; 47,5) (Poner-

[1] Athenian, follower of Philip II (+ Philippus [4] II),

opolis is improbable, cf. Theopomp. FGrH 115 F 117;

mocked by the comic poets Alexis, Aristophon [4] and Menander [4] (Ath. 6,230c; 23 8c; 11,503a; 12,5 52d-f). After two convictions for proposing illegal measures, as charged by + Hyperides in 336 BC or between 336 and 334, he was again prosecuted on such a charge (+ parandm6én graphe) for his proposal to grant honours to the prohedroi (Hyp. Or. 4), among whom Philip [4] II had been honoured.

Plin. loc.cit., as is Eumolpia in Amm. Marc. 22,21, pro-

J. ENGELS, Studien zur politischen Biographie des Hypereides, *1993, 143-147; PA 14351.

[2] P., son of Philomelus [2] from the deme of Paeania, Athenian trierarch in 3 53/2 BC and c. 326-323 (Dem. Or. 21,208; IG II* 1613,191; 163 1,287; 1632C,263),

strategos for the fleet, agonothétés and archon basileus, highly honoured following the proposal of Stratocles in 292 (IG II 649). — Athens (III 10-11) Davies, 549f.; HABICHT, 98; PA 14361.

JE.

[3] Son of Philocles, Attic poet of the New Comedy and, according to ancient opinion, one of the foremost exponents of this genre [1. test. 4, 5]. P. was victorious at the Dionysia in 311 with his otherwise unknown piece Mobotic/Mystis (The Adept) [1. test. 8]; he won at least two (perhaps even three or four) victories at the Lenaea [x. test. 7]. As an influential intercessor with the Macedonian king Lysimachus [2] and as an agonothetes, P. gained great merit with Athens, as is recognized in an extraordinarily lengthy honorific decree (c. 287/6) from his fellow citizens [1. test. 3]. Of his extensive oeuvre (45 plays were still known to the Suda [1. test. r]), 16 titles and 41x brief fragments survive. 1 PCG VII, 1989, 333-352.

Philippika see - Demosthenes [2]

T.HI.

bably only the name of a phyle of P.). It is not known at what date P. was retaken by the Thraci, from whom Philip (Philippus [7]) V only briefly took the city in 183 BC (Pol. 23,8,5-7; Liv. 39,53,13f.). Thereafter, P. was the residence of the Thracian kings. The city was taken by the Romans in 72 BC in connection with the 3rd — Mithridatic War (74-63 BC) (Festus Rufius, Breviarium 9,3); it was annexed as a military zone of the province of Macedonia (cf. Plin. HN loc. cit.). As a metropolis in the Roman province of Thracia, P. was

an

important

city (untedmodts

ths Ooedaxyge,

IGBulg 3/1,878, under Marcus Aurelius). The Romans organized it along the lines of Greek cities. Seven phyle names are known. P. experienced a considerable economic and cultural boom until the mid—3rd cent. AD (cf. city architecture). Records of personal names suggest that the population was mixed: as well as Greeks, P. was home to Thracians and craftsmen from Asia Minor and Italy. The city’s patron deity was Apollo Kendresenos (syncretism: Apollo and the ‘Thracian Horseman’ with this epiclesis), whose temple stood on what is now the Dzendemtepe. Greek and Oriental deities were worshipped at P. There was also a Jewish community (IGBulg 3/1,937). The city’s territory was considerable: 17 vici are attested for it (ILS 2094 from AD 227). P. was the seat of the koinon Thrakon. P. won the right to mint coins under Domitian (AD 81-96), and

retained it with brief interruptions until Elagabalus (AD 218-222; indications of a neokoria on his coins). The city walls were renovated under Marcus Aurelius (AD 161-180), probably owing to the attacks of the > Costoboci. In AD 250, the > Goti under Kniva stormed the city; it was forced to capitulate and was ravaged (Dexippus FGrH roo F 26; Amm. Mare. 31,5,12). Epigraphical evidence: IGBulg 3/1,878-1054. Cu. Danov, s.v. P. (1), RE 19, 2244-2263; H. DZAMBov,

Archeologiéeski prouévanija za istorijata na Plovdiv i Plovdivski kraj, 1966; A. PeyKov, Razkopki v drevnefrakijskom gorode Evmolpija, in: Pulpudeva 3, 1980, 239-

PHILIPPOPOLIS

249; L. Boru’arova, E. KEsJAKOVA, Sur la topographie de la ville de P. ..., in: Pulpudeva 3, 1980, 122-148. _ Lv.B.

Il. ByZANTINE PERIOD In spite of the attacks of the > Goti, > Hunni (AD 443 and 551 respectively) and, a harbinger of the Slavic invasions, the > Avares (586), P. remained an important city during the Byzantine period, as is attested not least by the repeated restorations of the inner ring of walls around the Trimontium (3rd-6th cents., under Justinian (Iustinianus [1]) I; then again in the roth/rrth cents.). Nonetheless, there is no mistaking a shrinking of the urban area, as demonstrated by the partial abandonment of the settiement areas within the outer ring of walls. Christianity appeared early (from the late 3rd cent.) (Tatianus inscription; martyrs). Church constructions can be demonstrated from the 4th cent.; a basilica was built over the ancient Temple of Apollo. From the 7th cent. into the Ottoman period, P. remained metropolis of the ecclesiastical province of Thrace. Evidence shows that there was a synagogue until the 6th cent. The expansion of the Bulgarian khanate made P. into a much-contested frontier city (flight of population in 812 and 832), but it was not permanently taken, and the Byzantine Empire was able to make use ofthe city as an operational base for its destruction of the first > Bulgarian kingdom (in connection with which the walls were reinforced). It was probably also at this time, around 1000, that a > théma of P. was created, after the city had already formed an > eparchia Thrake within the théma Thrakoon under Constantinus [1] VII. The Bulgarian form of the name, Plbptdivé (locative, formed from the old Thracian form Pulpudeva) is attested from the rrth/r2th cents. 1 P. SousTAL, s.v. Philippopel, LMA 6, 2083f. (with bibliography) 2 SousTAL, Thrakien, 399-404 (with bibliography) 3 A. KAzHpaN, s.v. P., ODB 3, 1654f. (with bibliography) M. OppeRMANN, Plovdiv, antike Dreihiigelstadt, 1984. JIN.

Philippus I. GREEK

28

27

~ Phoebidas during the Thesmophoria festival in 382 BC and established a regime of terror (Xen. Hell. 5,4,2) in Thebes. At the end of his year in office as polémarchos P. was murdered at a banquet in December 379 by Theban conspirtors from the circle of + Pelopidas (cf. Plut. Pelopidas 5; 7; 9; 11; Plut. Mor. 594¢; 5974). R. J. Buck, Boiotia and the Boiotian League, 1994, 64-76;

J. DeVoro, The Liberation of Thebes in 379/8 BC, in: R. F. Surron (ed.), Daidalikon. Studies in Memory of R.V. Schoder, 1989, 101-116. HA.BE.

[13] Son (Satyros, FGrH 631 F r) or grandson (Hdt.

8,139) of + Perdiccas [1], probably an invented name in the official family tree of the > Argeads. [1 4] P. Il. King of the Macedonians 3 56-336 BC; third son of — Amyntas [3] and > Eurydice [2], born in about 382, killed in 336 BC, father of > Alexander [4] the Great. EB. I. INTRODUCTION

II. YOUTH

II]. ACHIEVING HEGEMONY

AND RISE IV. DECLINE AND END

V. APPRAISAL

I. INTRODUCTION

P. was the founder of Macedonia as a great power. He strengthened the power of the monarchy with respect to a traditionally assertive nobility, created a centrally ruled state, and by means of a reform of the army (see below V.), expansive external policies and a clever policy of marriage, he acquired the military, financial and diplomatic means to systematically advance southwards, after consolidating the considerably expanded Macedonian realm in the north of Greece. He began by gaining access to the Aegaean, then control over Thessaly, and he exploited the general weakness of Greece after the > Peloponnesian War and the frequent local conflicts in order to bring central Greece under his influence and ultimately to rule the whole of Greece. An advance on Asia was prevented by his being murdered, but his son Alexander [4] took up his plans.

II. ROMAN

I. GREEK (®ihixnoc/Philippos).

Macedonian kings P. [3-7], including P. [4] II, P. [7] V; the apostle and evangelist P. [28]; philosophers and poets P. [29-32]. {I 1] Spartiate, commander at Miletus in 412 BC (Thue. 8,28,5), sent in 441 with two triremes to Aspendus to

move, with the support of > Tissaphernes, the Phoenician fleet to fight Athens (Thuc. 8,87), but soon told the nauarchos — Mindarus that his mission would be unsuccessful (Thuc. 8,99; [1. 244]).

— Peloponnesian War 1B. BLECKMANN,

Athens Weg in die Niederlage, 1998. K.-W.W.

[12] Member of Leontiades’s pro-Spartan party [2], which skilfully handed the Cadmea to the Spartan

Il. YOUTH AND RISE As a child P. lived as a hostage among the Illyrians and three years in Thebes in the house of > Pammenes [1] (Diod. Sic. 16,2,2; Just. Epit. 7,5,1-2). There he learnt more about the art of war, life in a Greek — polis and relations with Persia than had all his predecessors. He returned to Macedonia under his brother > Perdiccas [3], after whose death in 3 60 he took over as head of the collapsing state, initially as guardian of his nephew + Amyntas [4] and later as king. He quickly showed himself to be an outstanding diplomat. The Athenians forsook a rival Macedonian king they had supported when P. withdrew a Macedonian garrison from > Amphipolis —in the eyes of the Athenians a rebel colony. He was able to bribe the Thracians and the Paeones. This gave him time to equip an army with which he subjugated the + Paeones in 358 and destroyed an Illyrian

29

30

army under > Bardylis [1]. The victory brought him the silver mines of Damastium. Invited by the Thessalian city of + Larisa [3] to intervene against > Pherae, he was able to reconcile the two and make them allies. P. underpinned his success with marital connexions (Athen. 13,557b-c). In 357 he concluded a marriage to ~ Olympias [1], and this produced a connexion with her uncle + Arybbas. In the meantime he had brought the Upper Macedonian princes under his dominion. Then he made plans to regain Amphipolis, which Athens had long sought in vain. In a secret agreement, P. promised to conquer Amphipolis and exchange it for Pydna, which was occupied by Athens; this would open up to him a route to the sea. The Athenians consequently tolerated the capture of Amphipolis. Even if he had ever intended to keep the agreement, it was made unnecessary by the outbreak of Athens’ — Social Wars [1] (357). He kept Amphipolis and conquered Pydna. Athens’s declaration of war remained an empty gesture. 356 was a particularly successful year: he was invited to take on protectorship of Crenides on the other side of the Pangaeum mountains (later renamed > Philippi). This secured him the gold and silver treasures of the > Pangaeum, bringing him 1,000 talents a year

Apollo of Delphi. Onomarchus positioned himself in the coastal plain, where he expected Athenian help; this came too late and his mercenaries were not able to withstand the Macedonian cavalry. P. had the captured Phocians killed for sacrilege. Now, if not earlier, made a citizen of Larissa, he was elected tagos, and this secured him control over the famous Thessalian cavalry (the only one comparable to that of the Macedonians). He had the tyrants of Pherae leave under favourable conditions, in order to occupy -» Thermopylae at forced march. An Athenian army, however, arriving in time now, prevented this. After quickly pacifying Thessaly, P. led his army to Thrace. A coalition between > Cersobleptes and Athens had been in the offing there, mediated by > Charidemus [2]. P. marched as never before and was able to organize part of the country to his advantage. Then he

(Diod. Sic. 16,8,4). He was able to gain an alliance with — Olynthus, which had inclined towards Athens, in return for handing over Potidaea, which he had conquered (StV 2, no. 308). Within a few summer weeks in

356, Olympias gave birth to —> Alexander [4] (the roughly equally aged > Arrhidaeus [4], son of P. witha Thessalian wife, was feeble-minded), P.’ general > Parmenion [1] defeated the Illyrians, and P. himself gained the glory of an Olympic victory in chariot racing (Plut. Alexander 3). An advance on Thrace (> Thracia) supported by Pammenes came to nothing (Dem. Or. 23,183; Polyaen. 4,2,22), but with the conquest of Methone [3], in which he lost an eye (Diod. Sic. 16,34,5; Just. Epit. 7,6,14), P. became ruler of the Macedonian coast. His powerful position could not be doubted. III. ACHIEVING HEGEMONY Now P. was able to direct his ambition towards central Greece, and this gave rise to the third of the

+ Sacred Wars. When > Lycophron [3] and — Peitholaus inherited the tyranny of > Pherae in 354, they revived Pherae’s claim to the tageia, leadership of the Thessalian League (> Tagds). Called again to the aid of Larissa, P. defeated the tyrants. They turned to the Phocians, who had plundered the treasures of Delphi and raised a large army of mercenaries; ~ Onomarchus came to their aid and defeated P. twice. P. had to withdraw to Macedonia and — for the first and only time — suppress a perilous mutiny in the army (Diod. Sic. 16,3552). Nevertheless at this low point he did not give in. In 352 he marched into Thessaly with a new and effective parole: with their heads crowned with Delphic laurels, he and his soldiers appeared as the avengers of

PHILIPPUS

fell sick; a rumour circulated that he was dead (Dem.

Or. 1,133 3,5). Now his diplomatic network threatened to fall apart: Olynthus and even Arybbas made contact with Athens. Barely recovered, P. had to return most urgently to Macedonia. He merely took the time for an expedition into Chalcidice, as a warning to Olynthus (Dem. Or. 1,13; 4,17). He sent Arybbas into exile and placed Olympias’ brother > Alexander [6] on the throne of the > Molossi (after Arybbas’ death, in 342, he became their lawful king). Then in 349 he began an attack on the Chalcidian League (— Chalcidice). In Euboea he supported secessionary movements against Athens in order to prevent Athenian help for Olynthus. The Athenians returned Peitholaus to Pherae; P. had to break off the war in Chalcidice. Peitholaus might have become the most serious threat; but the Athenians sent

him no help; thus this remained just an interlude. Olynthus fell, probably through treachery, although the Athenians provided three auxiliary contingents (in the summer of 348). The city was destroyed and the citizens were sold into slavery. The following years saw P. negotiating with the Athenians and with the Phocians. In Athens many (led by > Philocrates [2] and ~ Demosthenes [2]) were prepared to conclude a peace. Some, e.g. > Isocrates, even saw in P. a leader of a pan-Hellenic war against Persia (> Panhellenes, Panhellenism). When Athens invited the Greeks to a congress in order to decide whether to wage a joint war against P. or conclude a treaty, the Greeks showed no interest. In the February of 346, an Athenian embassy arrived in the Macedonian royal city of — Pella to hear P.’ peace initiatives. P. insisted on limiting the treaty to Athens and its League; an alliance was to follow the peace. On the return of the embassy, Demosthenes was made P.’ mouthpiece and he put these conditions into force. Meanwhile P. had time fora Thracian campaign. Charidemus [2] had settled in Athens and as stratégds reinforced > Cersobleptes by means of mercenary garrisons. In the hope of peace, Athens now handed over the Thracian. He became a vassal of P. and his son went to Pella as a hostage. The land as far as the Nestus was annexed by Macedonia.

31

32

In April 346 the ‘Peace of Philocrates’ (> Philocra-

peace, and P. was ruler of the Greek poleis of Europe. He was generous to Athens because he knew that a siege would fail if he provoked resistance. Thus democracy was preserved, and Athens gave up its anti-Macedonian attitude. In the rest of Greece that was not allied, government was handed over to P.’ friends and intimates. Three garrisons were sufficient to secure his dominance over Greece. In the spring of 337, P. brought the Greeks together to create a Hellenic League (StV 3, no. 403 I: > Corinthian League). All forms of government were guaranteed, supreme command for a war against Persia was handed over to P. himself. A year later he sent a strong vanguard to Asia Minor.

PHILIPPUS

tes [2]) and an alliance were sworn between Athens and

P. in Pella. The oath-taking was hardly complete when P. also brought other negotiations to a favourable conclusion. In Phocis a civil war broke out. > Phalaecus [1], in possession of Thermopylae, gained the upper hand, but could no longer be sure of his fellow citizens; he accepted P.’ offer of free withdrawal with his mercenaries. P. was finally in central Greece with an army. He ordered the allied Athenians to contribute their promised contingent against Phocis. This Demosthenes did not intend to permit: they would have to both march against people who until very recently had been allies and also hand over to P. a large number of Athenian citizens as hostages. Hence the alliance was of no value. P. occupied Phocis but resisted pressure from his allies to execute the population for desecrating the sanctuary at Delphi and for sacrilege. Phocis was demilitarized and sentenced to a high fine. Its two seats in the Pylian/ Delphic > amphiktyonia were transferred to P. In the following years, P. was able to incorporate quite large tribes to the west and north of Macedonia into his kingdom and gain the friendship of the Peloponnesian enemies of Sparta. But the Peace of Philocrates gradually fell apart, particularly after 343. Under the leadership of Demosthenes, > Hegesippus [1] and others, Athens started resistance against P. With semiofficial support — Diopeithes [3] began a series of attacks on P.’ Thracian coast in 343 and on Cardia, with which he was allied. In 342, P. had to intervene again in Thrace. His plans for an advance on Asia Minor, for which he needed Thrace, had been betrayed to > Mentor [3], and Cersobleptes negotiated with Athens again. In two campaigns Cersobleptes was driven out and the Bulgarian Balkans were conquered and secured by the founding of — Philippopolis (modern Plovdiv). The kingdom of the Odrysae was annexed and placed under a Macedonian stratégos. Then in 341, P. tackled the siege of > Perinthus, which had made approaches to Athens. The city was able to defend itself against his siege engines, however, thanks to support from > Byzantium and Persia. In response he tried to capture Byzantium; there, too, however, help from Greek allies and Persia frustrated the attack. P. had to abandon both sieges and accept the loss of prestige. An attempt to stop ships loaded with wheat bound for Athens as a warning led to a declaration of war by Athens. Suddenly Demosthenes was able to unite several cities in a coalition. Meanwhile an amphictyonic war with > Amphissa had broken out (cf. 4th > Sacred War). P. took over command in 339 and used it first of all to reach ~ Elatea [1] by mountain paths. At this threat, Demosthenes managed to form an alliance between the enemies Thebes and Athens. However, in 338 P. was able to attack Amphissa, by skilful manoeuvres annihilate a mercenary army of the allies and invade Boeotia. In August 338 he obtained a decisive victory at > Chaeronea: Thebes was occupied, Athens soon sued for

IV. DECLINE AND END At about the time of the congress, P. fell in love with a young Macedonian noble woman > Cleopatra [II 2]. At the wedding (secondary wives were quite usual in the Macedonian nobility) a dispute arose between P.’ son Alexander [4], who had long been the named successor, and — Attalus [x], Cleopatra’s guardian, who now called this succession into question. Olympias and Alexander were exiled, and although Alexander soon returned, the tension remained. P. now seems to have

turned to his nephew Amyntas; Alexander no longer felt his succession secure. When he courted the daughter of > Pixodarus, the result was a quarrel with P. and the banishment of his friends. He himself was isolated at court. In the autumn of 336, P. married his daughter to Olympias’ brother Alexander [6]: this was to deprive Olympias of the support of her brother. When at the wedding in > Aegae [1] P. entered the theatre, effectively as thirteenth in a procession of the twelve Olympian gods, he was murdered by > Pausanias [6]. Alexander and even Olympias, who had been absent, came under suspicion of having had a hand in the matter. Nevertheless, Alexander was immediately acclaimed king by — Antipater [1]. It is disputed whether P. was buried in one of the royal tombs found in > Aegae [1] (modern Vergina) (for an illustration of P.’s Tomb see > Funerary architecture III. B.). V. APPRAISAL By means of war and politics, the king of a peripheral people considered ‘barbarian’ by the Greeks had raised himselfto be the ruler of Greece. Above all he created an unconquerable army. He was the first to resolutely use for his purposes the manpower of Macedonia, which was immeasurable in comparison with the number of citizens in the Greek poleis. He realised his brother + Alexander [3]’s idea of putting side by side the trusty > hetairoi cavalry and the > pez(h)étairoi (king’s foot companions). Both were equipped with the unique - sdrissa, which enabled P. to reduce the weight of the pezétairoi’s armour and make them more manoeuvrable than ~ hoplitai. By drilling them he accustomed them to enduring tremendous exertions. He himself always fought in the front line and was wounded several times.

it

34

Politically P. was able to hold his realm together chiefly by taking the sons of his nobles into his court as + basilikoi paides, where they were both held as hostages and brought up to be officers of the kingdom. He was the first Macedonian king to be well-acquainted with the + polis. His cities, probably on the Persian model, were autonomous and affiliated to the kingdom. He exploited fully the superiority of the monarchy’s capacity for decision and adaptation. In foreign policy he saw promises and treaties as binding only as long as they were of use. One of his first goals was the acquisition of gold and silver, which he made generous use of to reward his friends and to gain followers in the poleis. He also divided the territory of cities that had been liquidated among his old and new friends. In this way he attracted many members of the upper social strata to his + court (B.) from throughout Greece. That this court was a ‘pool-of the dissolute and criminal’ (as in Theop. FGrH 115 F 225) is refuted by the successes these men helped him achieve.

the small Roman fleet, but he subjugated a large part of the inland area (first of the > Macedonian Wars). In 211 the Romans formed an alliance with the Aetoli, in which their allies such as > Attalus [4] of Pergamum (informally) joined. Initially successful against P. (Attalus won Aegina), in 207 the Romans lost interest in the war. Abandoned by Rome, the Aetoli had to make an unfavourable peace with P. in 206. Only then did a Roman fleet and army appear in Illyria, but there was no fighting. In 205, P. concluded with Rome the peace of Phoenica, which recognized a part of his Illyrian conquests. After the Romans had withdrawn, he extended his rule there (Pol. 18,1,14), but the Orient now became his chief interest. In 204, > Ptolemaeus V, still a child, ascended the throne in Alexandria [1]. Both P. and Antiochus [5] III wanted to make use of this situation: P. attacked Ptolemaic cities on the Hellespont and extended his inherited Carian domains. This led to a clash with Attalus and Rhodes, whose fleets clashed with him in two naval battles. Then they turned to Rome (201) with a (probably invented) report of a secret agreement between P. and Antiochus to share the kingdom of the —> Ptolemies. Just freed from the war with Hannibal, the Senate did not intend to permit an enemy king to become strong in Illyria and in the East. It issued an ultimatum that P. should cease his wars of aggression. When he indignantly rejected this, Rome declared war on him in

The main sources are Diodoros

16, Iustinus 7-9,

Demosthenes (Or. 1-12 and Or. 18-19) and Aeschines (In Ctes. and Leg.).

-» Macedonia G. T. GRIFFITH, in: HM

2, 203-646, 675-755 (the most

comprehensive biography including all source material); J. Buck er, Philip II and the Sacred War, 1989; M. B. HatzopouLtos, L. D. LouKopou tos, Philip of Macedon, 1980.

{I 5] P. Ill. see > Arrhidaeus [4] {I6] P. IV. Son of > Cassander and — Thessalonica,

successor of Cassander as king of Macedonia in 297 BC, died a short time later (Eus. Chronikon 1, p. 231 and 241 SCHOENE; lust. 15,4,24; 16,1,1). {I 7] P. V. Son of > Demetrius [3], born in 238 BC, king of the Macedonians 221-179 BC. After Demetrius’

death > Antigonus [3] ruled as guardian; after his death (in 221) P. became king of the Macedonians and hégemon of the Hellenic League, initially under a regent (> Apelles [1]). In 220 a war broke out between the League and the > Aetolians. P. accepted Messene into the Hellenic League, conquered Elis and achieved other successes, but came under the influence of > Aratus [2]. A consequence of this was the execution of those associated with Apelles (Pol. 5,25-29). This particular phase of P.’ life is reported about enthusiastically by Polybius, writing after the political upheaval (esp. Pol. 7,11). When P. was unable to win a decisive victory, the war was ended by the peace treaty of Naupactus in 217, a compromise mediated to some extent by Greek poleis, but according to Polybius concluded mainly because P., under the influence of Demetrius of Pharus (in Polybius P.’ éminence grise: see esp. Pol. 7,13-14), was hoping to profit from + Hannibal [4]’s victories over Rome. First of all he wanted to take over Rome’s protectorate in Illyria. When that failed, he concluded a treaty with Hannibal (Pol. 7,9), of which the Romans heard straightaway. On the coast he was unable to withstand

200 (second of the

PHILIPPUS

> Macedonian Wars).

For two years the war stagnated. It was not until 198 that T. > Quinctius Flamininus appeared with a fresh army and a new watchword: in a meeting with P. he demanded that the king should give all the Greeks their freedom. When P. did not agree, Flamininus invaded Greece, forced the Achaean League (~ Achaeans) and other Greeks to abandon P. and, after futile negotiations in 197, defeated him decisively at > Cynoscephalae. P. had to surrender Greece and Illyria, pay high reparations and send his son Demetrius [5] to Rome asa hostage. At the — Isthmia in 196, Flamininus proclaimed full freedom for the Greeks: throughout that land there would be no Roman soldiers, nor would tribute be

demanded. In the wars with > Nabis of Sparta and with the disappointed Aetoli and Antiochus, P. was a faithful ally of Rome. As a reward, a part of the reparations was waived and Demetrius was allowed to return home. At the end of the war, Senate commissions began to intervene in every grievance directed against P., in each case finding for his enemies. It was a Roman tradition never to forgive an enemy, and P.’ stabbing them in the back at the time of the war with Hannibal had not been forgotten. When he then began to reinforce the Macedonian military as well as its finances, the situation became so tense that he sent Demetrius to Rome with two advisers to gain facilities among his aristocratic patrons (Pol. 23, 1-2). But Demetrius allowed himself to be led by Flamininus to hope that the Romans would overthrow his father and make him king (Pol. 23,3,8). When P. heard of this from his elder son > Perseus [2],

35

36

he had to have Demetrius killed (181). In 179 P. died on campaign. The life and achievements of P. are difficult to establish. The main source is > Polybius [2], followed by later historians (such as > Appianus and ~ Livius {III 2]). Polybius’ Achaean prejudices against P. are whitewashed over with Roman ones in Livy. It is an invention of P.’ enemies that he entertained farreaching plans for a new war with Rome. Perseus, however, had to take power under the heavy burden of Roman suspicion. + Hellenistic states; -- Macedonia; - Macedonian Wars

he was transferred to Parthia by Antipater [1] at Triparadeisus. He is probably identical with P. [x6], who served under Eumenes [1] in 317/6 and then entered the service of Antigonus [1]. (Diod. Sic. 18,3,3; 39,6; 19,4043 42,7; 69,1; 20,107,5; cf. P. [16] and P. [17]). {1 12] Acarnanian physician, one of the court physicians on the campaign of Alexander [4] the Great, whom he cured of a serious illness in Cilicia in 333 BC, when the other physicians were not able to do so. An anecdote that Alexander had been warned against P. by a letter from > Parmenion, but had given him his full confidence (Arr. An. 2,11,7—11; amplified version in Curt. 3,6) was attached to this story. This anecdote is demonstrably a counterpart to the arrest of > Alexander [7]. According to Curtius (4,6,17), P. showed less skill when he removed an arrow from Alexander’s shoulder at Gaza. Later he appears only in the — Alexander Romance at the banquet of Medius [2].

PHILIPPUS

E. BapDIAN, Foreign Clientelae, 1958, esp. 55-95; E. GRUEN, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, 1984, 132-157; 373-402; N. G. L. HaMMonp, in: HM 3,

367-491. {I 8] Son of > Alexander [2], who gave him feudal land on the Axius. Banished by > Perdiccas [2] in about 43 5 BC, in alliance with Derdas [1] and Athens he invaded Perdiccas’ territory and then escorted the Athenians with his cavalry on a march against Potidaea. Abandoned by Athens, he fled with his son Amyntas [4] to ~ Sitalces and died soon after. E. BADIAN, From Plataea to Potidaea, 1993, 171-185.

[I 9] Son of Machatas [1], brother of > Harpalus; perhaps identical with one of the commanders of Peucelaotis (Arr. An. 4,28,6). Appointed in 326 BC by > Alexander [4] the Great as satrap of the region between the Indus and the Hydaspes, after the death of Nicanor [2] he took over the satrapy to the west of the Indus. He followed Alexander’s march southwards along the Indian rivers. The extended region as far as the confluence of the Indus and the Acesines, where P. was to found a port, was added to his satrapy with a considerable garrison. In 325, however, he was killed in a rebellion of mercenaries. HECKEL, 331-332.

BERVE

2, no. 788; E. BADIAN, in: A. B. Boswortn,

E.

BayNHAM (ed.), Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction, 2000, 60-63.

{I 13] Probably the youngest son of > Antipater [1]. He and his brothers > Cassander and > Iolaus [3] were in Babylon with > Alexander [4] the Great in 323 BC, and he was later accused with them by > Olympias [1] of having poisoned the king (Just. Epit. 12,1 4,6). As one of Cassander’s commanders he defeated > Aeacides [2] and the > Aetolians in two battles in 313; Aeacides fell in the second (Diod. 19,74,3—-6; Paus. 1,11,4). His son Antipater was king of Macedonia in 281 and was expelled after 40 or 45 days by > Sosthenes. {1 14] Son of > Antigonus [1] and — Stratonice, allegedly raised strictly by his father (Plut. Demetrius 23,5; in contrast to his brother > Demetrius [2]) and advised by letter (Cic. Off. 2,48). Together with Demetrius he was honoured after the peace of 311 BC by the city of Scepsis (OGIS 6,30). In 309 he fought against Phoenix, who had deserted Antigonus for Ptolemy (Diod. Sic. 20,19,5). He died in 306 and was buried by his father with royal honours (Diod. Sic. 20,73,1, with incorrect

{1 10] Son of Menelaus, leader of the cavalry of the Greeks allied with > Alexander [4] the Great on the

name).

+ Granicus

ried in about 325 BC to Berenice [1], who bore him

(in 334 BC) (Arr. An.

1,14,3), then at

— Gaugamela (it is not known from what time) of the Thessalian cavalry under > Parmenion’s [1] command (Arr. An. 3,11,10). After the Thessalians were disbanded (Arr. An. 3,19,5) he took over part of the mercenary cavalry and at first remained under Parmenion in Media. After the death of Philotas [1] (and probably after that of Parmenion) he added his troops to Alexander’s Thessalian volunteers and other mercenary units on the way to Bactra (Arr. An. 3,25,4 and 28,1).

This is the last report of him. {[ 11] Officer under > Alexander [4] the Great, who appointed him satrap of > Bactria-Sogdiana in 324/3 BC. His office was confirmed after Alexander’s death by Perdiccas [4], but he is not mentioned at the suppression of the mercenary rebellion (see > Peithon [2]);

[1 15] An allegedly non-aristocratic Macedonian, marMagas [2], Antigone [5] and perhaps other children. BERVE 2, no. 787.

[116] Erstwhile officer of Alexander

[4] the Great,

became a philos (> Court titles B.) of Antigonus [r],

probably after the death of Eumenes [1]. He fought under Demetrius [2] at Gaza and in 302 BC held the

fortress of > Sardis for Antigonus. His later fate is unknown. Probably identical with P. [rr] and P. [17] (Diod. Sic. 19,69,1; 20,107,5). [I 17] Served under + Eumenes [1] and took part in the battle of Gabiene (in 316 BC) (Diod. Sic. 19,40,4). Probably identical with P. [rr] and P. [x6]. EB. [1 18] Son of Alexander, Macedonian, honoured as a Ptolemaic Pamphyliarch in Termessus in 281/280 BC

By

38

(possibly identical with the P. mentioned in Diod. Sic. 20,102,2). PP VI 15084.

+ Seleucid, son of Antiochus [ro] VII, ruled part of

L. Rosert, 1966, 53ff.

Documents

d’Asie

mineure

méridionale,

[119] Son of + Lysimachus [2] and > Arsinoe [II 3], probably named after his father’s younger brother. After the death of Lysimachus he and his brothers Ptolemaeus and Lysimachus participated in some manner in ruling. P. was killed in the spring of 280 BC at the age of 13 by -Ptolemaeus Ceraunus (Just. Epit. DATS, Sth) H. Hernen, Untersuchungen zur __hellenistischen Geschichte des 3. Jahrhunderts v.Chr., 1972, 78ff. WA.

[I 20] Son of an Alexander from Megalopolis. Under his brother-in-law > Amynander he at first ruled Athamania and later administered Zacynthus, and induced him into alliance with the > Aetolians and Antiochus [5] Ill against Rome, allegedly in order to be placed on the Macedonian throne by Antiochus. He buried the Macedonians who fell at > Cynoscephalae (in 197 BC), and this contributed to driving P. [7] into the arms of the Romans. Besieged by P. [7] and Baebius [I 12] in Pelinna, he had to surrender to Acilius [I ro], who sent him to Rome in chains (Liv. 35,47; 36,8,13-14; App. Syr. 13,50-52; cf. 16,66f.). EB. {[21] Foster brother of — Antiochus [5] III. In the battle of > Rhaphia in 217 BC, P. was in command of the 60 elephants on the right wing, at Magnesia in 190, still a commander of elephant troops, he, Minnio and Zeuxis, probably sharing duties, led the phalanx at the centre (Pol. 5,82,8; Liv. 37,41,1; App. Syr. 33,170). 1 B. Bar-Kocuva, The Seleucid Army, 1976, 166ff.

{I 22] From Phrygia, foster brother and philos (> Court titles B.) of > Antiochus [6] IV, as whose commander he oppressed the Jews in Jerusalem from 169/8 BC onward. Against the uprising of > Judas [1] Maccabaeus he called for help from the strategos of > Coele Syria, Ptolemaeus. Approaching his death (late in the year 164) Antiochus appointed the same (?) P., who was now staying with him, — instead of Lysias [6] — chancellor of the realm and guardian of his son Antiochus [7] V Eupator. In the struggle of the rivals, P. was defeated by Lysias and either was executed or fled to the Ptolemaic court (1 Macc 6:14f.; 5 5f.; 63; 2 Macc 5:22; 6:11; 8:8; 9:29; Jos. Ant. Iud. 12,360; 379f.; 386; OGIS

253,6 (?)). T. FiscHer, Seleukiden und Makkabder, 1980; SCHURER Ty £5 Tihs WILL 2, 34253533 365A.ME.

[I 23] Achaean (> Achaeans with map) loyal to Rome, who, as legate to L. > Aemilius [I 32] Paullus, took part with > Callicrates [x1] in denouncing political opponents in Amphipolis in 167 BC (Pol. 30,13,3-73 cf. Liv.

45,31,6-8) [1. 193]. 1 J. DemninceR, Der politische Widerstand gegen Rom in Griechenland, 1971. L.-M.G.

PHILIPPUS

[124] P. I. Epiphanes Philadelphus. Syria with the capital Damascus 94-83 BC, at first together with his twin brother Antiochus XI (died by 94). P. and his brother Demetrius [9] III, who was supported by Ptolemy IX and who ruled jointly with P., fought successfully against their relative Antiochus [12] X. In 88/7, however, the two fought one another; Demetrius became a prisoner of the Parthian king Mithridates II. Later P. also turned against his younger brother Antiochus [13] XII, who had also begun ruling as king in Damascus in 87. In 84/3 P. lost his Syrian domain to Tigranes I of Armenia and withdrew to the small remainder of his kingdom in Cilicia (Just. Pr. 40; Jos. Ant. Jud. 13,369-371; 384-389; App. Syr. 48,247f.; Euseb. Chronicon 1,259-263 SCHOENE). A.R. BELLINGER, The End of the Seleucids, in: Transac-

tions of the Connecticut Acad. 38, 1949, 51-102, esp. 65ff.; A.HouGHTON, The Double Portrait Coins of Antiochus XI and Philip I, in: SNR 66, 1987, 79-85; WILL 2,

446f.; 450. {1 25] P. I. Son of P. [24] I. He drove his relative Antiochus [14] XIII of Syria out of Cilicia in 67/6 BC, with the help of Antiochene refugees and the Arab prince Azizus, but was himself threatened by Azizus and fled to Antioch [1] on the Orontes. Ruling from there, he adopted the epithet Philorbomaios (‘Friend of the Romans’), but he was soon driven out by uprisings — possibly those instigated at about that time by the Roman politician Clodius [I 4] - and replaced by — Pompeius [I 3]. Continuing to rule in Cilicia, as a result of Roman intervention in 57/6 he was unable to keep the throne of the Ptolemies (MAMA 3, 62; Diod. Sic. 40,1af.; Cass. Dio 36,17; Porph. Chronicon FGrH 260 F 32,28; Euseb. Chronicon 1,261-263 SCHOENE: incorrectly P. [24] I; loh. Mal. 9,225,7—10). A. R. BELLINGER, The End of the Seleucids, in: Transactions of the Connecticut Acad. 38, 1949, 51-102, esp. 82-84; G. Downey, A History of Antioch, 1961, 14off.; WILL 2, 446f.; 5o5f.; 510. A.ME.

[I 26] Son of + Herodes [1] the Great, in 4 BC as tetrarch was bequeathed the northern territories of his father’s kingdom: Batanaea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, Gaulanitis, Panias and according to Lc 3:1 also Ituraea. He made large-scale extensions to Panias at the sources of the Jordan and > Bethsaida at its mouth on the Sea of Galilee and named them Caesarea (Philippi) and Iulias in honour of the imperial house. Josephus [4] Flavius (Ant. Iud. 18,r06f.) paid tribute to him as a just and peace-loving regent. P. was married to the > Salome known from the legend of the death of John the Baptist. After his death in AD 33/4, his kingdom was annexed to the Roman province of Syria. SCHURER 1, 425-431.

K.BR.

[I 27] Freedman of Cn. Pompeius, landed with him in Egypt in 48 BC and was a witness to his murder at

PHILIPPUS

+ Pelusium (Plut. Pompeius 78,7; 79,4). P. buried his patron under the most impoverished circumstances (80,3-5).

JOE. {I 28] Concealed behind the name P. are two early Christian figures, who became fused at an early stage into one individual: a) the apostle P., b) the evangelist P. The apostle P. (one of the twelve: Mk 3:18; Mt 10:3; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13) from Bethsaida shows interest in converting the Greeks (Jo 1:43-48; 6,5-73 12:20-223 14:811). The evangelist P. (Acts 21:8) is the father of four prophetically gifted virgins (Acts 8:5-40) and is one of the seven leaders of the ‘Hellenists’ (Acts 6:5). By the 2nd cent. Asia Minor was vindicating its cause against Rome with the tomb of P. in Hierapolis (Phrygia) and that of Iohannes [1] in Ephesus (Euseb. Hist. eccl. 3,31,2-5). P. is considered the addressee and writer of gnostic writings (— Gnosis): letter from Peter to P. (NHCod 8,2 [6; 7]; ~ New Testament Apocrypha, — Nag Hammadi); Gospel of P. (NHCod 2,3 [4; 5]). The Encratitic Acts of P. (4th cent.) are almost entirely preserved in Greek as well, due to quite recently discovered texts [13 2; 3]. 1 F. Bovonet al. (ed.), Acta Philippi (Corpus Christiano-

rum Series Apocrypha 11), 1999 2 F. AMSLER, Acta Philippi. Commentarius (Corpus Christianorum Series Apocrypha 12), 1999 3F. Bovon, Les Actes de Philippe, in: ANRW II 25.6, 1988, 4431-4527 4B. LayTon (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codex II 2-7, Together with XIII 2%,

Brit.Lib. Or. 4926(1) and P. Oxy. 1, 654, 655, vol. 1 (NHS 20), 1989 5 W.C. Tit (ed.), Das Evangelium nach Philippos (Patristische Texte und Studien 2), 1963 (with German transl.) 6 J.E. MENARD (ed.), La Lettre de Pierre

a Philippe (Bibliothéque copte de Nag Hammadi/Section textes 1), 1977

7M. W. Meyer (ed.), The Letter of Peter

to Philip: Text, Translation and Commentary (Society of Biblical Literature: Dissertation Series 53), 1981 (with Engl. transl. and comm.) 8 F. S. SPENCER, The Portrait of

Philip in Acts: A Study of Roles and Relations (Journal for the Study of the New Testament/Suppl. Series 67), 1992 9 A. voN DosBELER, Der Evangelist Philippus in der Geschichte des Urchristentums (Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 30), 2000. F.BO.

{I 29] P. of Opus. 4th cent. BC, a pupil of > Plato who later probably migrated to Medma in southern Italy — the probable reason for his epithets Opovntios and Medmaios — and whose interest, according to the inventory, albeit incomplete, in the Suda, was considered to be in astronomy, parapegmatics, time reckoning and mathematics. P. also worked in the field of ethics, however, and — judging by the titles of his works — took up themes that are familiar to some extent from Plato, but primarily from —> Xenocrates. In the last years of Plato’s life P. is said to have been his secretary (tvayoahets/anagrapheus: Philod. Academicorum index 3,36ff.) and hence also to have published the Nomoi

40

39

posthumously

(Diog. Laert. 3,37 et passim),

and in addition to have written a life of Plato. Already in antiquity (Diog. Laert. 3,37), the Epinomis in the Corpus Platonicum was attributed to him (discussion of the authorship in [1. 106]). In this small dialogue

appended to Plato’s Némoi, Platonic propositions and their further developments by the earliest of Plato’s pupils are brought into a strange synthesis (for example in the promotion of a state cult for the astral gods, [PI.] Epin. 98 5dff.). 1H. J. KRAMER, Philippos von Opis und die ‘Epinomis’, in: GGPh?, vol. 3, 103-120. K-H.S.

[I 30] Middle Comedy (first half of the 4th cent. BC) poet, according to an ancient tradition a son of the comedian > Aristophanes [3] [1. Test. 2, 3]. P., who was victorious at least twice at the Lenaea [1. Test. 4], is

said to have also staged plays by > Eubulus [2] [z. Test. 3]. Of his works four titles are still known: AaidaAoc/ Daidalos (Daedalus), Kmdmviactai/Kodoniastai (The Bell-Ringers), this title is uncertain [1. test. 1]), Navviov/Ndnnion (Nannion, name of a hetaera; the play can perhaps be attributed to Eubulus [2]), ’OdvvOia/Olynthia (The Girl from Olynth); the only direct citation is five verses from the last preserved in Stobaeus [t. fr. 2]. 1 PCG VIl, 1989, 353-355

2PCGV,1986,227.

THI.

[131] Megarian, contemporary and possible pupil of > Stilpo. The only surviving evidence is a verbatim citation from a work by P. in Diog. Laert. 2,113, in which there is an enumeration ofpupils Stilpo has drawn away from other teachers. KD. {I 32] P. from Thessalonica. Epigraphist and compiler of an anthology of epigrams, later than > Meleager [8] (in alphabetical order, cf. > Anthology [1] D., perhaps enlarged with thematic connexions [1; 2; 3]). P. lived in Rome (as is shown by the exaggerated flattery of the emperor: Anth. Pal. 6,236; 240, etc.) in the first half of the rst cent. AD. Some 80 poems have been handed down, in which P. imitates other epigrammatists — either from his own ‘garland’ or from that of Meleager: dedications of various kinds, often fictional epitaphs (cf. 7,405: a burial poem filled with hate for the iambographer > Hipponax), descriptions of artworks, reports of rare events, venomous attacks on pedantic grammarians and slavish followers of Zenodotus, Callimachus [3] and Aristarchus (11,321; 347), a couple of elegant sympotic poems (9,561; 11,33), whereas erotic themes appear only very rarely (11,36). As a poet who loves antithesis, linguistic subtlety and sharp witticisms, P. primarily takes after > Leonidas [3] of Tarentum, not only on the level of content (dedications of tools by persons of lowly origin), but also on the formal level (neologisms and audacious compounds). The multiplicity of metres occasionally reveals eccentric originality (cf. his stichic use of the pentameter Anth. Ralleaerae

1 A. CAMERON, The Garlands of Meleager and Philip, in: GRBS 9, 1968, 331-349 2Id., The Greek Anthology from Meleager to Planudes, 1993, 33-43, 56-65 3K. J. GUTZWILLER, Poetic Garlands, Hellenistic Epigrams in Context, 1998, 38.

GA II i, 296-3513 2, 327-371.

M.G.A,

41

42

[133] Greek physician and pharmacologist, active in

245 in Aquae in Dacia: FIRA 2,657). It was not until 247 that he managed to defeat the Carpi and the Germani in a decisive battle, whereupon he assumed the

Rome (luv. 13,125) and Asia Minor in the rst cent. AD

(his recipes are cited by + Asclepiades [9] Pharmakion). A pupil of > Archigenes, he was one of the ~ Pneumatists. He wrote on catalepsy and marasmus. The latter work apparently comprised two books, but only book 1, with the definition, descriptions and aetiology

PHILIPPUS (STATER)

titles Carpicus (PLond. 3, 220f. no. 951) and Germa-

nicus Maximus (IGR 4,635), and in the late summer of the same year celebrated his > triumph in Rome. From 21 to 23 April AD 248, P. organized Rome’s

of the sickness, had survived until the time of Galen, so

millennary celebrations (Aur. Vict. Caes. 28,1; > Sae-

that it was suspected that P. had never completed book

culum), but tranquillity by no means set in. At the end of 247 the legions of Moesia had elevated T. > Clau-

2 on the treatment of marasmus (Gal. De marasmo 7,689 K).

6;

dius

P. should not be confused with the > Empiricist of the same name, whose dispute with — Pelops [I 5] formed the basis of Galen’s treatise De experientia medica. VN.

[Il 46] Marinus

Pacatianus

(Zos.

1,20,2;

Zon.

12,19 D.), and hence a chain of usurpations began: in Mesopotamia — Jotapianus (Zos. 1,21,2) rebelled, on the Rhine Silbannacus (RIC 4,3,66f.; 105), and on the Danube Sponsianus (RIC 4,3,67; 106). Even C. Mes-

sius Traianus > Decius [II 1], who from 247 had been

II. ROMAN {111} Flavius P: Praefectus praetorio orientis AD 344/346-351. He was probably from a curial family (> Curiales [2]; despite Lib. Or. 42,24-25), possibly from Chytrus on Cyprus (IEph ra, 41). Between the summer of 344 and 28 July 346, by way of the notariate and presumably other posts at court, P., an Arian Christian (> Arianism), rose to the praetorian praefecture of the East (Lib. Or. 62,11; Cod. Theod. 11,22,1). Also cos. ord. in 348, P. was one of the closest confidants of Constantius [2] II, who repeatedly entrusted him with special missions (e.g. dismissing the bishop Paulus [3] of Constantinople). His last undertaking, a legation in 3 51 to the counter-emperor > Magnentius, cost him his office and his life (Zos. 2,46,2—-49,2; Athan. Hist. ar. 7). P. was able to found a dynasty of nobility of office frstEss nos25 |: PPERE-r.

A.H. M. Jones, The Career of Flavius Philippus, in: Historia 4, 1955, 229-233; PLRE 1, 696f. no. 7.

AG.

successfully reorganizing the army at P.’s command, and managed to beat back the Goths (~ Goti), was acclaimed emperor by his troops (Zon. 12,20 D.; Zos. 1,21,3). P. set out against him in 249; the two armies

met in September or October of the same year at Verona (or Beroea?); in the battle P. lost his life (Aur. Vict. Caes. 28,10; [Aur. Vict.] Epit. Caes. 28,1; Eutr. 9,3).

Despite the numerous uprisings against him and the continual attacks by barbarians on the Imperium Romanum during his reign, P. was conscious of his responsibilities as emperor. He strove for a good relationship with the Senate, enacted a general amnesty for deportees and exiles, took care of the supply of corn and water to Rome and supported the cities of the Empire; he showed himself to be generous in respect of the population and intervened in the interest of the inquilini (— inquilinus) and the coloni (> colonatus), had the road system, which was strategically so important, expanded, and energetically combatted the ever more widespread activities of brigands (> Brigandry). 1 KIENAST*.

{II 2] P. Arabs. Imperator Caesar M. Iulius P. Pius Felix Augustus, Roman emperor 244-249. Born in about AD

204, of popolis passing allowed

lowly origin, from what was later called Philipin Arabia (modern Sahba in Syria) and began by through the equestrian cursus honorum, which him to rise as far as > praefectus praetorio

R. Gores, Kaiser Marcus Julius P., 1922; X. Lorior,

Chronologie du régne de Philippe l’Arabe (244-249 apres J.C.), in: ANRW II 2, 1975, 788-797; M. PEACHIN, Philip’s Progress, in: Historia 40, 1991, 331-342; PIR*I 461;

H. A. PoHLsanper,

Did Decius Kill the Philippi?, in:

Historia 31, 1982, 214-222.

TR

(Zos. 1,18,3; SHA Gord. 29,1; [Aur. Vict.] Epit. Caes.

27,2). At the beginning of AD 244 he probably had + Gordianus [3] III killed and elevated himself to emperor (Cod. lust. 4,10,1; 3,42,6; Zos. 1,19,1; Zon. 12.8 D = Eutr9,2,3 [r9189)).

P. brought to an end the war with the Persians (> Parthian and Persian Wars), which had begun in 242, concluded a tolerable peace, which left Rome with a part of Armenia and Mesopotamia, but obliged him personally to pay 500,000 aurei (+ Aureus) (Zos. 1,19,1), and appointed his brother ~ Iulius [II 114] Priscus praefectus Mesopotamiae (IGR 3, 1202). In the early summer of 244 he was already in Rome and held an ordinary consulate (CIL VI 793; AE 1954, 110). In 245 he set out to fight the > Carpi who were invading, having crossed the Danube (attested for 12 November

Philippus (stater) (®wAinsevo¢/Philippeios, sc. yovoots ovatie/chrysotis stater; Diod. Sic. 16,8,5-6; Poll. 9,84; 9,59; Syll.* 588 Z. 7; Syll.3 285; Dareikoi Ph.: IG II 5, 845c Z. 8), Latin Philipp(e)us (Liv. 37,593 39,53 39573 Hor. Epist. 2,1,234; gold coin in general circulation: Dig. 34,2,27,4), golden — stater of Philip (Philippus [4]) Il of Macedon. It was a > didrachmon of the Attic standard, weighing approx. 8.6 g [2. 407-409]. The obverse has a head of Apollo with a laurel wreath, the reverse a carriage and pair which, according to Plutarch (Alexander 4) referred to a chariot race victory of Phi-

lip’s at Olympia. The P. was the first mass-produced gold coin in Greece, produced from the gold mines at ~ Philippi (Diod. Sic. 16,8,5-6). Minting of the P.

43

44

began around 342-340 BC; many were minted only after 336 (i.e. after Philip’s death), also in Asia Minor, initially until 328 and then from 323/2 to c. 310 [2. 428-434; 4]. According to an inscription at Delphi from 336/335 BC (FdD, vol. 3.5, 50, col. 2, lines 9-10), the P. was worth 7 Aeginetic staters = 20 Attic drachmae; this corresponds to a ratio of gold to silver of 10:1 (qualification of this in [2. 439-441]). The P. flowed into the Celtic regions of the Balkans and Gaul in great quantities, where it was copied in increasingly debased

be by the student of Diogenes. It is unlikely that P. was also the shoemaker of the same name who is consulted by Crates in a fragment by — Teles (IV B: ‘On Wealth and Poverty’, p. 45 HENSE, p. 427 FUENTES GONZA-

PHILIPPUS (STATER)

LEZ).

M.G.-C.

nayage d’argent et d’or de Philippe II frappé en Macédoine

[3] P. of Miletus. Rhetor, d. c. 320 BC, student of > Isocrates and friend of > Lysias [1] (cf. the elegy in [x. 113f.]), teacher of the historian > Timaeus [2] and perhaps of Neanthes [1] (cf. Dion. Hal. de Isaeo 19; Epist. ad Ammaeum 1,2; Suda s.v. II., s.v. Tysatloc). P. wrote a Bios Lykourgou (‘Life of Lycurgus’ [9]; FGrH 496 F 9; Suda s.v. ®tdioxog MtArjovos), a Téchneé rhétoriké, a textbook of rhetoric in 2 vols., and démégoriai (‘popular speeches’), i.e. pamphlets in the style of

de 3594294,1977

Isocrates, e.g. Milésiakés and Amphiktyonikos.

form [1; 2. 442-443; 3]. 1D. F. ALLEN, The Philippus in Switzerland and the Rhineland, in: SNR 1974, 42-74 2G. LE Riper, Le mon3S. SCHEERS, Les imitations en Gaule

du statére de Philippe II de Macedoine, in: I. Gepat, K. BirONE-SEy (eds.), Proc. of the International Numismatic Symposium

Warszawa/Budapest

1976,

1980,

41-53

4M. THompson, Posthumous Philipp II Staters of Asia Minor, in: S$, SCHEERS (ed.), Studia Paulo Naster Oblata 1, 1982, 57-63.

DLK.

Philiscus (®tAioxoc; Philiskos). [1] Poet of Middle Comedy, to whom the Suda attributes 7 play titles: “Adwvic (Adonis), Awos yovai (Dids gonail‘The Birth of Zeus’; Adespoton 1062 K.-A. is sometimes assigned to this play [4]), OeuiotoxAfjs (Themistoklés/ ‘Themistocles’; title probably incorrectly included in the list [3. n. 37]), "OAvumoc (Olympos; ‘Olympus’), Mavos yovat (Panos gonai; “The Birth of Pan’), ‘Equot xai Adgodits yovai (Hermon kai Aphrodités gonail‘The Births of Hermes and Aphrodite’; possibly two plays [3. n. 24]), Agtéudog xal “AmdAAwvos yovat (Artémidos kai Apollonos (gonai); ‘The Births of Artemis and Apollo’) [x. test. 1]. Stobaeus also quotes two verses from a play entitled BUdeyveor (Philargyrot; ‘The Lovers of Money’) [1. fragment 1]. P.’s preference for the theme of divine births suggests that he wrote in the early 4th cent. [2. 229; 3]. 1PCG VII, 1989, 356-359

2H.-G. NESSELRATH,

Die

attische Mittlere Komédie, 1990 3 Id., Myth, Parody, and Comic Plots: The Birth of Gods in Middle Comedy, in: G.W. Dosrovy (ed.), Beyond 1-27 4PCG VIII, 1995, 355.

Aristophanes,

1995, T.HI.

1 E. Drenz (ed.), Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, vol. 1, 1949. FGrH 337 bis (Addenda p. 757); J. MELEZE-MODRZEJEWSKI, Philiscos de Milet et le jugement de Salomon: La premiére réference grecque a la Bible, in: Bolletino dell’Istit. di Diritto Romano 91, 1988, 571-597; B. MEISSNER, Historiker zwischen Polis und K6nigshof (Hypomnemata 99), 1992, 165f. K.MEI.

[4] P. of Aegina, tragedian, often confused with — Philicus and the comic poet P. [1], said to have been a student of Diogenes [14] (IrGF 89 T r) and Isocrates (Ut 3 B.Z. [5] Comic poet of the 3rd cent. BC, known only from the list of victors at the Lenaea. No trace remains of his works. 1 PCG VU, 1989, 360.

[6] Epicurean with a certain philosophy at from the city

T.HI.

of the 2nd cent. BC; attempted, along Alcius (or Alceus) to spread Epicurean Rome. However, both were expelled in 155 BC during the consulship of L.

Postumius (Ath. 12,547a; Ael. VH 9,12). M. ERLER, in: GGPh? 4, 1994, 364.

TD)

[7] Sculptor from Rhodes, son of Polycharmus. P. belonged to one of the Greek families of sculptors which in the late Republican period worked both in the east and at Rome. His statues of the nine Muses with Leto, Apollo, Artemis, another Apollo and an Aphro-

[2] Son of > Onesicritus

of Aegina and brother of

Androsthenes (Diog. Laert. 6,75); pupil of Diogenes [14] of Sinope. According to > Satyrus, the seven tragedies attributed to Diogenes were written by P. (Diog. Laert. 6,73; 6,80). > Sotion mentions a title P. in his index of Diogenes’ works (Diog. Laert. 6,80). If the Suda is to be believed ( 359, IV, 725, 28-30 ADLER), P. taught Alexander [4] the Great to read. However, according to the same source, Hermippus [2] named him a student of Stilpo, in which case chronology practically excludes the possibility that he could have taught Alexander. According to the Suda, he wrote dialogues, including a Codrus. Stob. 3,29,40 transmits a phrase by a certain P., which at least by virtue of its content could

dite (along with an Aphrodite by his father) stood in the Porticus Metelli at Rome. It is not possible to identify P.’s Muses from copies (so-called Philiscus Muses). Artists’ signatures by a P. at Thasus and Pergamum are probably attributable to the same sculptor, but cannot be securely dated. OVERBECK,

no. 2207; LIPPOLD,

383; L. LAURENZI, s.v.

Ph., EAA 6, 1965, 122-123; D. PINKWaRT, Das Relief des Archelaos von Priene und die Musen des Philiskos, 1965, 163-168; E. La Rocca, Philiskos a Roma, in: N. Bonacasa (ed.), Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano, 3, 1984, 629-643; M. WOrRLE, Die Inschriften auf dem Architravblock von der Ostwand des Marmorsaales, in: M. Fixes (ed.), Die Stadtgrabung (Altertiimer von Pergamon, 15.1), 1986, 159-160; B. S. RipGway, Hellenistic

45

46 Sculpture, 1, 1990, 252-274,

359; P. MorENO, Scultura

ellenistica, 1994, 409-413; C. SCHNEIDER, Die Musengruppe von Milet, 1999, 179-190. RN.

[8] Greek rhetor from Thessaly, known only from Philostr. VS 2,30 (621-623) and perhaps one Delphic inscription (BCH 73, 1949, 473-475). He held a chair at

Athens (though without the customary tax exemption) in the reign of Caracalla. Philostratus gives a detailed account of a dispute brought before the Emperor in this matter, and otherwise praises the exemplary purity of P.’s speech; his style, however, tended towards the circuitous and was ill-suited to debating. P. died at the age of 67 and was buried at the Academy. PIRZP 367

Philistides (®wdioteidyc; Philisteidés). Scholar from Mallus, known only from Plin. HN 4,58 and 120. It is not known when he lived. He was apparently interested in geography, since Pliny reports that he wrote about names of islands (e.g. an earlier name for Crete). D. Strout, R. FRENCH, s.v. P. (3), RE 19, 2390.

W.AX,

PHILISTION

tion, geometric patterns and stylized birds and fish predominate, and Egyptian, Canaanite and Cypriot origins can be identified. City planning and architecture partly point to Cyprus but also indicate continuity with the autochthonous late Bronze Age culture [4. 141-159]. The P. mastered metal working, but did not invented iron production, nor did they monopolize it against Israel (cf. 1 Sam 13:19-22). Little is known of their religion. The gods Dagon (1 Sam 5:1f.; > Dagan) and > Baal Zebub (2 Kg 1:1ff.) and the goddesses -> Astarte (t Sam 31:10) and Asherah [4. 170-171], the latter being mentioned in inscriptions, are to be viewed in a general Near Eastern context. Female figurines and small statues of gods have parallels in finds from Cyprus [4. 169-178]. There were certainly no devastating campaigns of conquest by the P. as part of a larger violent invasion of Sea Peoples. They did not cause the unstable political and economic situation during the transition from the late Bronze Age to the Iron Age, but they exploited it. Their material remains in the southern coastal plain have allochthonous roots, but their mixed culture prevents identification of their identity. The often assumed hypothesis that the P. originated in the Aegean (cf. Am 9:7) remains an assumption.

Philistines (Hebrew polistim; LXX ®wdtotteiu/Philistieim, Gn 10:14 et alibi; ‘AhiMOovAoVAllophyloi, 1 Chr 14:10 et alibi; Vulgate Philistim). In the Old Testament

the inhabitants of a pentapolis with the cities of — Gaza, > Ascalon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gath in the southern coastal plain east of the Mediterranean Sea (— Palaestina). They are attested for the first time as

prst/pw-r3—s}—t in the context of a sea and land battle in 1177 BC in inscriptions and reliefs from the mortuary temple of Ramesses III in Madinat Haba (western Thebes) along with other groups of Sea Peoples (> Sea Peoples, migration of) [4. 53-112]. From the middle of the r2th cent. BC onwards, the P. founded new towns and sought to control parts of the mountainous hinterland. ‘Israel’ was initially subjugated (x Sam 4-6), but under Saul it was temporarily (x Sam 13f.) and under — David [1] permanently (2 Sam 5:17-25; 8:1) militarily successful (+ Judah and Israel). According to Assyrian sources [5. 272], the Assyrians repeatedly suppressed uprisings in the territory of the P. (pilista) in the 8th cent. BC. In 711 BC, they made the country into an Assyrian province. With the Babylonian conquests (cf. Jer 47:1), the traces of autonomous Philistine cities are lost [4. 27-33]. Excavations have revealed a diverse material culture but unfortunately produced hardly any evidence of the language. Philistine Ceramic [1. 94-218] with its black and red decoration on a white background is attested from the middle of the 12th cent. BC. It represents a continuation ofthe finer Mycenaean IJIC:1b wares that were manufactured locally when the international economic system collapsed and Mycenaean IIIB imported goods were no longer available (~ Mycenaean culture and archaeology C3). With regard to shape and decora-

1 T. DoTHAN, The Philistines and their Material Culture, 1967

27T.and M. Dornan, Die Philister, r995

3C.S.

EHRLICH, The Philistines in Transition, 1996 4E. Noort, Die Seevolker in Palastina, 1994 5S. PARPOLA, Neo-Assyrian Toponyms (AOAT 6), 1970.

RL.

Philistion (®itotiwv; Philistion). [1] P. of Locri. Physician from Locri in Italy, active around 364 BC. He is said by Plato’s 2nd letter to have been the personal physician of > Dionysius [2] II at Syracuse in that year. However, a fragment of the comic poet > Epicrates [4] (Ath. 2,59c) has been plausibly interpreted to mean that he arrived at Athens soon after this. He wrote about dietetics, pharmacology and surgery. The > Anonymus Londiniensis (20,2 5ff. = fragment 4 WELLMANN) preserves a detailed account of his views on causation. He posited four elements (earth, air, fire and water), each with its own single quality (dry, cold, hot and wet). Disease arises either from excess or deficiency of an element, from external causes (wounds, faulty nutrition or excessive cold or heat) and from bodily conditions in particular weak or blocked breathing. P.’s theory clearly derives from + Empedocles [x], and finds extremely close parallels in Plato’s Timaeus, esp. > Plato’s doctrine of the four elements and his theory of the harmful consequences of blocked breathing (Ti. 81e-84d). P. is said also to have taught ~ Eudoxus [1] of Cnidus (Diog. Laert. 8,86). However, the wide-ranging influence ascribed to him by WELLMANN and DILLER [1] is far from proven, though his status as an important link in the transmission of the Empedoclean > element theory is incontestable. 1H. Dicer, s.v. P. (4), RE 19, 2405-2408.

PHILISTION

48

47

Epit1on: M. WELLMANN, Fragmentsammlung der griechischen Arzte, vol. 1, Die Fragmente der Sikelischen

Philistus (@iAvotoc; Philistos). A. LiFe

B. Works

Arzte, 1901.

[2] Physician from Pergamum, active around AD 170 and a follower of his teacher Metrodorus [8] in his interpretation of a recipe against barrenness from the Hippocratic Epidemics (2,6,29). He gave hot, half roasted cuttlefish to a wealthy, childless woman, charging her an enormous fee. The woman immediately began to vomit violently and lost consciousness. P. thus lost his reputation and his patient, although well-trained, was forced to earn his living in the smaller towns in backwoods Asia Minor (Gal. Comm. in Hippocratis V.N. Epid. II: CMG 5,10,1, p. 401). [3] Mimographer of the Augustan period, from Asia Minor (Jer. ad Eus. Chron. 2nd year of the 196th Olympiad). The Suda s.v. ®. knows him as the author of xMuUDdtat Biohoyixat (approx. ‘Comedies Drawn From Life’), of which one title (Mwoywndotal, ‘Show-Voters’) is recorded, and of a work entitled ®udoyehkwe (‘Lover of Laughter’). [1] does not exclude the possibility that the latter humorous collection, which in its surviving form is probably of the Byzantine period, may in part derive from P. References from the later period seem to confuse him with > Philemon [2], the contemporary of Menander [4] [2. 2403f.]; these call him the ‘Inventor of the mimos’ (e.g. Cassiod. Var. 4,51), which is chronologically impossible. Martial (Mart. 2,41,15) knew the mimes of ridiculi Philistionis (the ‘jocular P.’). — Mimos 1 A. THIERFELDER, Philogelos. Der Lachfreund, von Hierokles und Philagrios, 1968, 11-12 2 E. WUstT, s.v. P. (3), RE 19.2, 2402-2405. H. Reicu, Der Mimus, vol. 1, 1903, 415-436; A. GUIDA,

Nota a pap. Berol. inv. 9772, in: RhM 116, 1973, 361;J. HAMMERSTAEDT, Der Mimendichter P. in einem Brief des Neilos

von

Ankyra...,

in: JoAC

39,

1996,

102-104.

W.D.F.

Philistis (®wAtotuc/Philistis, in Hesychius s.v. ®ttot(8(e)vov/Philistid(e)ion). Consort of Hieron [2] II of Syracuse from c. 270 BC. As is evidenced by her name — which derives from Philistus — and that of her father Leptines [5], P. belonged to the descendants of the family of the elder Dionysius [1]. She does not appear in literary sources [1], but in one epigraphical document (Syll.3 429) and on several silver coins minted after 241 bearing her image on the obverse and her name, royal title and a carriage and pair (or four) on the reverse [2]. The coins belong to the Ptolemaic tradition, and bear witness to the prominent role played by P. by Hieron’s side. 1G. DE Sensi SesTiTO, Gerone II., 1977, 28 note 103, 124,162, 183,185,188 2 M. CaccAMOo CALTABIANO, V.

TroMBA,

La monetazione

della basilissa

Filistide, in:

Numismatica e antichita classice 19, 1990, 161-181.

A. LIFE P. of Syracuse, c. 430-356 BC, confidant, advisor, officer and historian of Dionysius I and II. P. helped + Dionysius [1] I seize power in 406/5 (FGrH 556 T 3), commanded the tyrant’s fortress on Ortygia for many years (T 5 c) and was entrusted with building the Adriatic colonial empire (T 5 a). Around 386, he was banished for personal reasons, probably only returning under > Dionysius [2] II, whereupon he became the latter’s most trusted advisor. P. was a staunch opponent of the reform plans of > Plato and Dion [I 1] (T 5 cand 7); he died in 356 as admiral (naviarchos) while serving the tyrant in battle against the insurgent Syracusans (T 9). K.MEI. B. Works P.’ Sikelikad (‘History of Sicily’) encompassed two ‘collections’ (syntdxeis) and covered the period from mythical origins to 363/2 BC. The seven volumes of the first part led up to the sacking of > Acragas by the Carthaginians in 406/5 (T 11 a), while the four volumes of the second described the government of Dionysius I, from his seizure of power in 406/5 to his death in 368/7 (T 11 a). There were also two volumes on Dionysius II

up to 363/2 (T 11 b). The work was continued by — Athanis or Athanas up to the retirement of > Timoleon in 337/6 (T 11 ¢). According to Plutarch (Dion 36,3 = T 23 a), P. was philotyrannotatos (‘the greatest friend of tyrants’), “who always more than any other glorified and adored the tyrants’ debauches and absolute power, their opulence and weddings”. There are similar assessments in Cornelius Nepos [2] (Dion 3,1 = T 5 d), Siculus (16,16,3 = T 9c), Dionysius [18] sus (Peri mimeseos 3,2 = T 16 a) and (1,13,9 = T 13 a). The few fragments of

Diodorus [18] of HalicarnasPausanias [8] P.’s work dea-

ling with Dionysius I (esp. F 57 and 58) also reveal P.’s highly sympathetic attitude to tyrants. At the same time, he seems to have been a highly competent and important historian: he was universally regarded in antiquity as in the tradition of > Thucydides, e.g. by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Dion. Hal. Epist. ad Cn. Pompeium Geminum 5 = T 16), Cicero (Cic. De or. 2,57 = T 17) and Quintilian (Quint. Inst. 10,1,74 = T 15 c). Many of Diodorus’ narrations, which derive from + Timaeus (e.g. siege of Gela, Diod. Sic. 13,108-113; building of the wall at Syracuse, 14,18; arms build-up for the Carthaginian war, 14,41-46; plague at Syracuse, 14,71), are ultimately based on the colourful and knowledgeable accounts of P. [1. 139ff.]. However, Diodorus cannot have directly used P. for his history of Dionysius | in vols. 13 and 14 (pace [2. 394ff.]). In Diodorus’ account of the Athenians’ Sicilian expedition (Diod. Sic. 12,82-13,10),

anumber of details which are

not in Thucydides but in > Ephorus, Diodorus’ model, also originally derive from P. (cf. [3]).

49

5°

76 fragments survive, of which 42 are place names in the geographical lexicon of Stephanus of Byzantium. According to E. Meyer, the loss of P.’s work is ‘one of the most grievous losses to have befallen ancient historiography’.

Paignia, also poems of epigrammatic structure, constitute two shorter collections. The themes of (4), however, must have been those traditionally associated with sympotic poetry (perhaps including erotica). The sole surviving Ppaignion is a poem consisting of two elegiac

1K. F. SrOHEKER, Timaios and Ph., in: Satura. FS O. Weinreich, 1952, 139-163 2L.J. SANDERS, Diodorus Siculus and Dionysius I of Syracuse, in: Historia 30, 1981, 394-411 (=id., Dionysius I of Syracuse and Greek Tyrannis,

1987

3R.

ZoOeprreL,

Untersuchungen

zum

PHILITAS

distichs that exhibits the griphos structure characteristic of some sympotic skélia (fr. to K.). A work entitled

Telephus, reported by the schol. Apoll. Rhod. 4,1141, may justifiably be called into question given its transmission in the manuscripts (év Tnkédw/en Téléphdi,

Geschichtswerk des P., Diss. Freiburg im Br. 1965.

cod. L; év th Aédw/en téi léephdi, cod. P); however, it is

FGrH

probable that P. had written an epic poem on the mythical history of > Cos and that this was the second work mentioned by Callimachus in his Aetia Prologue alongside Demeétra (Callim. fr. 1,10, beginning: K@v/ Kon, ‘Cos’, suppl. Vitelli). P.’s intense activity as a scholar of language produced the Ataktoi glossai, a glossographical collection probably in the form of a lexicon (cf. Strato comicus fr. 1,40-44 K.-A.), covering rare literary words or terms from local dialects and technical

556; O. Lenpie,

Einfithrung in die griechische

Geschichtsschreibung, 1992, 206ff.; B. MEISSNER, Historiker zwischen Polis und Kénigshof (Hypomnemata

99),

1992, 289ff.; K. MeIsTER, Die griechische Geschichtsschreibung, 1990, 68f.; L. PEARSON, The Greek Historians of the West. Timaeus and his Predecessors, 1987, roff.; Cu. SABATTINI, Filisto storiografo e politico. Tradizione,

forma,

immagine,

Diss. $. Marino,

1991;

M.

Sorpt, Filisto di Siracusa e la propaganda dionisiana, in: Studia Hellenistica 30, 1990, 159-171; F. W. WALBANK,

The

Historians

of Greek

Sicily, in: Kokalos

1968/69, 476-498.

14/15, K.MEI.

terminology (fr. 29-52 K.); however, a work entitled Hermeéneia (cf. Str. 3,5,1) is the likeliest venue for P.’s

exegetical and editorial work on texts by Homer and other authors (fr. 53-58 K.). Philitas (®tditac; Philitas). [1] P. of Cos (®.ditac/Philitas, the correct form; also Philétas/®vAta Theocritus [2] (cf. Vita p. 1,9ff. WENDEI) and > Hermesianax (cf. schol. Nic. Ther. 3). Some thirty fragments and four definite titles are preserved of his poetic works. (1) Hermes (fr. 1-4 KUCHENMULLER) in hexameters, which must have been a poem hymnic in structure with a pars epica at the center of which was the heroic myth, which told of the arrival and sojourn of Odysseus on the island of Aeolus, equated with Lipari/Meligunis, where the hero carried on a secret love affair with Polymele, the king’s daughter (cf. Parthenius, Erotika pathemata 2 = fr. 1 K.). (2) Démétér, in elegiac distichs, which developed the obscure myth of the roaming goddess’s arrival on Cos and the warm welcome prepared for her by the royal family of the Meropids, thus presenting the ation of a local cult of the goddess on the island. (3) the Epigrdammata (fr. 12-13 K.), of which only one can be fully reconstructed (fr. 12 K.), and (4) the

PComplete editions of the poetic fragments: ;CollAlex 90-96; A. Nowackt, Philitae Coi fragmenta poetica, diss. Minster 1927 (with commentary).

PARTIAL EDITIONS OF THE POETIC FRAGMENTS:

GA

I.1, 165 (ed. of the epigrammatic fr.); 1.2, 673-675 (com-

mentary); SH 477f. (supplement to CollAlex).; W. KUCHENMULLER, Philetae Coi reliquiae, diss. Berlin 1928 (complete ed. of the poetic, glossographical and critical ft.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY P. BiNG, The Unruly Tongue: Philitas of Cos as Scholar and Poet, in CPh 98, 2003, 330-348.; P. E. Knox, Philetas and Roman Poetry, in: Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 7, 1993, 61-83; J. LaTacz,

Das Plappermaulchen aus dem Katalog, in: Cu. SCHAUBLIN (ed.), Catalepton. FS B. Wyss, 1985, 77-95; L. SBARDELLA, L’opera sinora ignota di Filita di Cos, in: Quaderni urbinati n.s. 52 (81), 1996, 93-115; Id., Buttida. ... Bory: il problema dell’elegia erotica in Filita, in: R. PRETAGOSTINI (ed.), La letteratura ellenistica. Problemi e prospettive di ricerca (Atti del colloquio internazionale, Roma, 1997), 2000, 79-89.

L.SB.

[2] P. of Samos. Two impressive epigrams in the Anthologia Palatina are attributed to P.: a dedication of the tools of her trade by a hetaera no longer young (Anth. Pal. 6,210) and a consolatory epitaph on a girl who preceded her father in death (7,481). Both are from the Garland of > Meleager [8], although P.’s name does not appear in his prefatory poem; he would hardly have been ignored by Meleager had he been the famed P. [1] of Cos. GAI1, 164f.; 2, 476-478; K. J. GUTZWILLER, Poetic Garlands, 1998, 17. M.G.A.

PHILO

Philo I. GREEK

52

51

II. ROMAN

I. GREEK (Pikwv/Phildn). {[1] Athenian from Acharnae who was exiled by the Oligarchic regime in 404 BC (> Triakonta). During the civil war, he lived as a metozkos (resident without Attic citizenship) in Oropos awaiting the outcome of events.

Following his return, when he applied to join the + boulé he was accused of cowardice and other misdemeanours at a dokimasia investigation (~~ Dokimasia) (Lys. 31; possibly 398 BC). Brass, vol.1, 480f.; TH. LENSCHAU, A. RAUBITSCHEK, S.V.

P. (2), RE 19, 2526f.

{I 2] Athenian from the deme of Paiania, son of Philodemus, brother-in-law of the orator > Aeschines [2] (2,1 50-152), who praised P.’s bravery as a hoplite and

allegedly inherited five talents from him (Dem. Or. 18,312). He is not the member of the Theban legation to Philip [4] Ul. in 346 BC, who is named in Demosthenes (Or. 19,140). Davies, 544; PA 14862.

{1 3] Athenian, pupil of Aristotle [6], who brought a successful action concerning unlawfulness (> Paranomon graphe) against Sophocles of Sounion. In 307 BC, Sophocles had passed a law which forbade, on pain of death, the founding of a school of philosophy without permission and which also caused > Theophrastus and the remainder of the — peripatos to flee (Diog. Laert. 5,38; Ath. 13,6rof). Cur. Hasicut, Athen in hellenistischer Zeit, 1994, 236f.;

PA 14806; P. ScHoLz, Der Philosoph und die Politik, 1998, 66.

U.WAL.

{I 4] Pupil of > Diodorus [4] Cronus, towards the end of the 4th cent. BC. Author of a dialogue with the title Menéxenos; he is supposedly the same P. whose writings Ilegt onuaodv/Peri seémasion (‘About Omens’) and Tlegi tedmmv/Peri tropon (‘About Forms of conclusions’) are attacked by Chrysippus [2] (Diog. Laert. 7,191; 194). There is documentary evidence for two of P.’s tenets, which he arrived at in his discussions with Diodorus: 1. The conditional statement is then true even if the antecedent is not true and the apodosis is false (Sext. Emp. P.H. 2,110; Sext. Emp. Adv. Math. 8,113). 2. Due to its own nature, something can possess

the possibility of being true, even if external circumstances permanently prevent it from becoming true. P. illustrated this by the example of a piece of wood which lies on the ocean bed and therefore never catches fire; if it were to be lying somewhere else it might perfectly well catch fire (Alex. Aphr. in Aristot. An. pr. 184,6-10 e¢

alibi.).

EpiTions: 1SSRII. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 2K. DOrING, s.v. Diodoros Kronos,

Philo, Panthoides, GGPh? 2.1, 221-230.

K.D.

[I 5] Leader of an expedition (to collect animals?) under Ptolemy I or II; he went as far as Meroe and the Red Sea and wrote an account of his journey (FGrH 670), which was used consistently after the time of > Antigonus [7] and — Eratosthenes [2]. P. delivered important conclusions on calculating the earth’s circumference and on other views regarding geographical topics. P. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 1972, vol. 2, 296 note 338; 297 note 339; 600 note 314.

W.A.

[I 6] Ph. of Eleusis. Greek — architect in Late Antiquity. Manuscript sources and inscriptions provide accounts of his work. According to these, he designed a > Skeuotheke (Naval Arsenal) which was built between 347 BC and 329 BC for the Attic fleet in > Peiraeus. The Skeuothek became famous through a well preserved, detailed inscription (IG IIz 1668) and, according to Plutarch (Sulla 14,7), was destroyed when it was captured by Sulla in 86 BC. Although the inscription seemingly describes the magazine building meticulously, an exact reconstruction, based on the inscription, has as

yet not been possible [1]. Only the type of building, dimensions and individual structural shapes have been verified. The building was evidently almost 120 m long, around 16 m wide and 10.5 mhigh, fitted with windows and a saddleback roof and constructed from carefully hewn rectangular blocks of stone. A decorative triglyph frieze (— frieze) encircled the upper edge of the building. Rows of pillars divided the inside into a wide central nave and two double-storey side aisles. According to its size and configuration the Skeuothek was not only a spacious and practical building in which the rigging for around 150 warships could be stored, but also at the same time, it was a building which clearly proclaimed its special architectural and prestigious status. There is documentary evidence of a further work from his studio (IG IIz 1670, 1671, 1673, 1675, 1680, Vitr. 7 Praef. 17). It is a peristyle with a well supported, pediment facade which was superimposed on the Telesterion in + Eleusis [1] (> Mysteria); the archaeological findings concerning the peristyle have been debated many times [2]. A P. who might have been P. of Eleusis was busy working in > Delphi, where he built a weapons arsenal as well as a Stoa for the gymnasium and restored Croisus’ expensive votive gifts (Syll.3 249253). Likewise in the event of P. of Eleusis being the P. who is named as the trierarch in 3 42/1 BC (IG II? 1622, 694), and as the donor of a votive gift in the Asklepieion Athens in 338 BC (IG II* 1533, 95), he was part of the wealthy tier of Athenian society and might have made his fortune as a building contractor. The mention of his name and his buildings in various written sources proves that, even later on in Antiquity, he was ranked amongst the most important architects (Cic. De or. 1,14,62; Str. 9,1,15; Plin. HN 7,125; Philod. De rhetorica 12,192; Val. Max. 8,12,2). In addition he left behind writings (+ Architectural theory), whose importance is specifically alluded to in Vitruv (7 Praef. 2)

54

a1) 1M.

UNTERMANN,

Neues zur Skeuothek

DiskAB 4, 1983, 81-85

des Philo, in:

2 TRAVLOs, Attika, 95f.

E. Fasricius, s.v. P. (56), RE 20, 56-60; K. JEPPESEN,

Paradeigmata, 1958, 69-149; A. Linrert et al., Die Skeuothek des Philo im Pirdus, r981; V. MARSTRAND, Arsenalet i Piraeus, 1927; W. MULLER, Architekten in der Welt der Antike, 1989, 188f.; H. SVENSON-Evers, Die griechische Architekten archaischer und klassischer Zeit, 1996,

301-315 (with further bibliogr.).

H.KN,

{I 7] Ph. of Byzantium. Greek mechanic who supposedly lived shortly after > Ctesibius [1], therefore probably at the beginning ofthe 2nd cent. BC [3.41; 7.13f.; 5.vol. 2, 300f.]. He wrote a work on mechanics (Mnyavixiy ovvtaétc/Méchanike syntaxis) in 9 volumes of which volume 4 as well as excerpts from volumes 7 and 8 (= volume 5 in old editions) are preserved in Greek translations; volume 5 is preserved in Arabic (and partly in a Latin translation from the Arabic). Volume 4 (title: Bedorouxd/Belopoiikd, ‘The Manufacture of Cannons’ edition: [8. part 1]; edition and German translation: [r]) gives very detailed instructions about how to build cannons (see the illustrations in [1. plate 3-8]). Volume 5 (Ilvevuatixe/Pneumatika, ‘Pneumatics’; English translation and edition of the Latin translation in [7]; see also [3. 44-74]) contains a theoretical section about air, water and vacuums as well as descriptions of machines which are based on the principle of air pressure; the book is similar in lay-out to > Hero ‘s Pneumatics. Volumes 7 and 8 (Ilaoaoxevaotixd/Paraskeuastikd, ‘Military Weapons’ and [lohogxntxd/Poliorkétika, ‘Art of Siege Warfare’; edition of excerpts: [8. part 2]; edition with German translation: [2]) deal with tactics and weapons for defending and besieging towns. P.’s writings were to a large extent superseded by the equivalent works of > Hero. For the continuing effect of P.’s Pneumatics in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Modern era see [7. 19-34]. P. is also the source of an alternative proof to Euc. 1,8 (edition: [4. 266,15-268,14; 6. 263f.]) and of an approximate solution to the problem of > duplication of the cube (Delian problem) by mechanical means ([s.vol. 1, 262-264]; > Mechanical method, > Neusis).

+ Catapult; Duplication of the Cube, » Mechanics; — Pneumatics; > Siegecraft. 1H. Diets, E. ScHRAMM (eds.), Philos Belopoiika (4. vol.

of the Mechanics, with German transl.; Abh. Preufs. Akad. Wiss. 1918, Philos.-Histor. Kl. 16), 1919 21d. (ed.), Exzerpte aus Philos Mechanik, Band VII und VIII (vulgo 5. vol., with German transl.; Abh. Preufs. Akad. Wiss. 1919, Philos.-Histor. Kl. 12), 1920 3 A. G. DRACHMANN, Ktesibios, Ph. and Heron. A Study in Ancient Pneumatics,

1948 4G. FRIEDLEIN (ed.), Procli Diadochi in primum Euclidis Elementorum librum commentarii, 1873 5 T. L. Heatu, A History of Greek Mathematics, 2 vols., 1921 6 Id., The Thirteen Books of Euclid’s Elements Translated

PHILO

[I 8] Son of Castor from Alexandria. (PP VI 14608; for further family connections [1. 98f.]). Supposedly whilst on a legation to Philip [7] V. in 188/7 BC, P. became a proxenos (> Proxenia) of Delphi and Aetolia. Between 186 BC and 180 BC he was archisoématophylax (+ Court titles B. 2.) and as the Ptolemaic stratégés in Cyrene, he was an eponymous priest of the Alexander cult in 179/8 BC. 1J. Iysewiyn, De sacerdotibus sacerdotiisque Alexandri Magni, 1961.

E.

OLSHAUSEN,

Prosopographie

der

hellenistischen

Konigsgesandten, vol. 1, 1974, 58f. Nr. 36; L. Mooren, The Aulic Titulature in Ptolemaic Egypt, 1975, 198 Nr. 0359. W.A.

[19] Ph. of Larisa. Academic philosopher 159/8-84/3 BC; after the death of > Cleitomachus [1] he took over as the scholarch (head of the Academy) in 110/9 BC and went to Rome in 88 BC, where Cicero was among his

listeners. We do not have sufficient information about his writings; his Roman Books, which people have attempted to reconstruct from Cicero’s Lucullus led to an argument with his former pupil > Antiochus [20]. It appears certain that P. changed his philosophical point of view several times and represented the sceptical school of thought in the academy (he was even regarded as the founder of a fourth academy: Sext. Emp. P.H. T,220).

+ Academy; — Scepticism FRAGMENTS: H. J. Metre, Philo von Larisa und Antiochos von Askalon, in: Lustrum 28-29, 1986-1987, 9-24.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. GGPh? 4.2, 915-934.

GOrLER,

Philo

aus

Larisa, in: K-HS.

[110] Ph. Historicus. Hellenistic, supposedly Jewish historian who lived before 40 BC and was the author of a Greek work, which is no longer extant, about the kings of the Jews (Clem. Al. Strom. 1,141). Josephus [4] Flavius mentions P. once, together with the historians > Demetrius [29] and > Eupolemus [1] and gives him the epithet ‘the Elder’ (neeopiteQoc/presbyteros), supposedly chosen by himself, to distinguish him from the philosopher P. [9]. Flavius considered him to be a nonJew (Jos. Ap. 1,23) which is probably a misinterpretation [2. 556], that can arguably be traced back to the original text from which he was working: i.e. either to ~ Alexander [23] Polyhistor [2. 556] or to an anonymous chronographic work from 40 BC [4. 94]. P. probably cannot be identified ([4.113] contrary to [1; 2.560]) as the poet of the same name (living before Alexander Polyhistor), who wrote an epic about Jerusalem, of which three fragments are preserved (themes: Abraham, Joseph, Jerusalem’s water supply; > literature IV.) (Euseb. Praep. evang. 9,20; 24; 37). FGrH 729 T 1-2 (Ill C, p. 689-691).

From the Text of Heiberg, vol. 1, 1956 7F.D. PRAGER, Philo of Byzantium, Pneumatica (facsimile and transcription of a Latin MS, together with the translation of an

1R. Doran, The Jewish Hellenistic Historians before Josephus, in: ANRW II 20.1, 1987, 246-297 2 SCHURER

Arabic MS with notes, illustrations and commentary),

ger Reste friiher jiidisch-hellenistischer Literatur bei Jose-

1974 8R. SCHOENE (ed.), Philonis Mechanicae Syntaxis, libri quartus et quintus, 1893. M.-F.

3,555f.,

559-561

3.N. Watter, Zur Uberlieferung eini-

55

56

phus, Clemens und Euseb, in: Studia Patristica 7, 1966, 314-320 41d. (ed.), Fragmente jiidisch-hellenistischer

P.’s remarkable knowledge of the Greek tradition of philosophy points to a solid training and contact with the Greek schools of philosophy in Alexandria (be it that there is no actual documentary evidence for this). His exegetical works likewise reveal extensive familiarity with the exegesis tradition of the Septuagint. It is conjectured but cannot be proved that this knowledge was acquired against the background of a school, possibly connected to the Synagogue [4]. P.’s own writings may also stem from a school setting but this must like-

PHILO

Historiker (Jiidische Schriften aus hellenistischer Zeit, vol. 1,2), 1976, esp. 112-114

5 Id. (ed.), Fragmente jiidisch-

hellenistischer Epik: Philo, Theodotos (Jiidische Schriften aus hellenistischer Zeit, vol. 4), 1977. LWA.

{1 11] Pompeian from Hispalis (pardoned by Cn. Pompeius in the Sertorian war ?), who reconquered his home town fora short period in 45 BC after the battle of + Munda [1] (Bell. Hisp. 3 5,2-4; 36,1-4). He and the freedman P., who in July 44 BC took Sextus Pompeius’ demands to Rome (Cic. Att. 16,4,1f.), are probably one and the same person. JOR. {I 12] Ph. of Alexandria (Philo Judaeus). I. LIFE AND BACKGROUND II. Works Ul. TeacH1nc IV. AFTERMATH

I. LIFE AND BACKGROUND P. of Alexandria, born c. 15 BC, died c. AD 50, also known as Philo Judaeus, is the most important representative of Greek-speaking — Judaism which flourished in > Alexandria [1] from the early 3rd cent. BC until the disastrous Jewish uprising in AD 117. Details about his life are scanty [18.813-819]. He was born into a wealthy, upper-class Alexandrian family. His brother > Alexander [17] was an alabdarchés (cf. > arabarchés [{1]), the leading official of the Jewish community (> Politeuma) in Alexandria; his nephew, Tiberius Julius > Alexander [18], had a distinguished career in the Roman civil service, but apostatised from Jewish religion. Family discussions on philosophical and religious matters are recorded in P.’s dialogues (see below II.C.). In AD 39 P. was appointed leader of a legation of Alexandrian Jews who travelled to Rome to present their case to the emperor > Caligula. Vivid descriptions of this event and its historical and social context are given in two of his treatises (see below B.2z.a.). P. is probably referring to these events when he complains that he was distracted from his studies by ‘an ocean of civic worries ’(De specialibus legibus 3,3). In the only extant, approximately contemporary reference to P., the Jewish historian > Josephus [4] Flavius tells us that P. was ‘held in the highest honour ’in the Jewish community and was ‘not unskilled in philosophy ’(Ios. Ant. ud. 18,258; cf. Euseb. Hist. eccl. 2,5; 16-18). P. notes in passing that he visited the temple in Jerusalem to worship there (De providentia 2,107). According to Jer. Vir. ill. 1x he was of priestly descent, which implies connections with the > Sadducees [29]. Many incidental details in P.’s writings refer to his participation in the cultural and social life of Alexandria [33]. Asa member of the wealthy elite P. definitely possessed Roman citizenship [15] (> Civitas B.), however his intellectual and political activities must be seen in the context of the increasingly difficult situation of the Jewish community in Alexandria, sandwiched as it was between the educated Greek upper class and the volatile, native Egyptian population [36. 55-78].

wise remain a matter for speculation [35]. II]. Works

P. was a prolific author. Nearly 50 works have survived either in the original Greek or in Latin and Armenian translations [18. 8r9—-870]. At least a further 20 to 25 have been lost: this can be deduced from references and fragments in the Florilegia (— Florilegium) and ~+ Catenae, internal cross-references in P.’s works and the list in Euseb. Hist. eccl 2,18. This list is based on inventories in the episcopal library in Caesarea [2] from which the MS tradition is derived. Most of these writings take the form of commentaries on the > Pentateuch, the five books of Moses, which were known to P. from a Greek translation. In De vita Moysis 2,2 5-44 he describes the origin of the Septuaginta and explains that the Greek and the Hebrew text are ‘sister versions’ whose contents are identical. There is almost universal agreement among scholars that P. did not read Hebrew [19. 50-96]. He undoubtedly used existing onomastika (> Onomastikon) for the etymologies of Hebrew names [12].

The Philonic corpus is notoriously difficult for the uninitiated reader. In order to understand individual works it is helpful to know their correct position in the corpus as a whole. The following division basically follows the reconstruction by CoHN [7], but deviates in the role which is ascribed to De vita Moysis, as well as the placement of De opificio mundi. A. EXEGETICAL WORKS

APOLOGETIC WORKS A. EXEGETICAL 1. DEvita

B. HISTORICAL AND

C. PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

WORKS

Moysis

2. COMMENTARIES

ON THE

PENTATEUCH

1. DE vita Moysis The introductory work, Heol Biovu Mwmiotmc (The Life of Moses, in 2 books), is meant to introduce the

great Jewish lawgiver to a wider audience. His life is analysed under the headings of king and leader, lawgiver, priest and prophet. 2. COMMENTARIES ON THE PENTATEUCH a) Exposition of the Law: A series of ten interconnected works giving a systematic account of the contents of the Pentateuch: it is essentially a literal exegesis with occasional scholarly analysis of the symbolic and allegorical meaning of the texts [3. 63-79]. The first

57

58

work, De opificio mundi (Negi tig tod xata Mwiota xoowosotias), explains the account of the Creation Gn 1-3 as the cosmological foundation of the law. This is followed by De Abrahamo (Bioc copod tod xatd Si5a0XAALAV TEAELWOEVTOS ... 6 £oTL HEEL’ ABoadu) and De Iosepho (Biog noditixod breQ gott reQi word) which are accounts of these two patriarchs as the ‘living law’ (the vitae of Isaac and Jacob are lost). The Laws are explained firstly in general terms in De decalogo (Megi tv déxa Aoyiwv...) and in detail in De specialibus legibus LIV (Tlegi tov év péget Suvatayudtwv). Two further treatises, De virtutibus... (Negi dget@v ...) and De praemiis

et poenis et de exsecrationibus (Megi GOdwv émitundy, Tlegt evioyr@v xai Go@v), round off the series. b) Allegorical commentary on Genesis: A series of 19 treatises giving a verse for verse commentary on Gn 2-17 (the titles of individual works are based either on the contents of the biblical text or on a central aspect of P.’s interpretation): Legum allegoriae (I-III), De cherubim, De sacrifictis, Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat, De posteritate Caini, De gigantibus, Quod Deus immutabilis sit, De agricultura, De plantatione, De ebrietate, De sobrietate, De confusione linguarum, De

migratione Abrahami, Quis divinarum rerum heres sit, De congressu eruditionis gratia, De fuga et inventione, De mutatione nominum. Two books are added as an appendix: De somniis (Mei tot Seonéumtous eivat tovs oveigouc), which deal with various dreams in Genesis. In all these works P. rigorously applies the allegorical

method adopted from the Greek interpretation of Homer (> Allegory) [22; 8; 31]. The events in Genesis are read in terms of the life of the soul striving for perfection, fulfillment and repose in God. P. does not confine himself to the biblical text in question, but interweaves other texts and themes in a narrative of daunting complexity [25] (useful structural analyses are found in COLSON and ARNALDEZ). A fragment of a later treatise commenting on Gn. 18 is preserved under the title De Deo in an Armenian translation [31]. c) Questions and answers on Genesis (six books in four) and on Exodus (two books, originally five) are preserved only in a 6th cent. Armenian translation, in a 4th cent. Latin translation Quaestiones in Genesim 4,1§4-2.44 (originally book VI.) and in fragments in the Catenae and Florilegia. Using the method of questions and answers,

(> Zetema), which was developed for

Homeric exegesis, the commentary can be seen as a huge database of exegetical material [13; 34]. Wherever possible P. gives both a literal and an allegorical interpretation. B. HisTORICAL AND APOLOGETIC WORKS 1) Two works, In Flaccum (Eig ®\Gxxov) and Legatio ad Gaium (Tleoi Goet@v TEMtOV xa MEEGPEtas MOOS Tauov, cf. [x8. 859]) which were part of an originally

greater whole, describe the events of AD 38-40 in Alexandria and Rome from a strongly pro-Jewish perspective. The demise of both Flaccus > Avillius and Caligula are ascribed to the working of divine Providence.

PHILO

2) De vita contemplativa

(Meei Blov Sewentixod)

contains the famous description of the Jewish community of the > Therapeutai, who lived just outside Alexandria [28. vol. 2, 591-597]. P. regards them as exemplars of the contemplative life. The companion treatise on the > Essenes, illustrating the practical life, is lost, but can be reconstructed from Quod probus 75-87. Eusebius [7] regarded the Therapeutae as proto Christian monks (Euseb. Hist. eccl. 2,16-17).

3) The Hypothetica or Apologia pro Iudaeis, a description of the origins, customs and laws of the Jews, is only preserved in a few fragments (in Euseb. Praep. evang. I1). C. PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS P. wrote a series of philosophical works in which overt references to his Judaism are reduced to a minimum. These works are a valuable treasure house for historians of ancient philosophy. The thesis that they are works written in his youth has now been abandoned [38]. Two works are fully preserved in Greek: a) Quod probus omnis liber sit (Meoi tot mavta omnovdatov eivat éhevOeeov, on ethics) and b) De aeternitate mundi (Ieo\ ap0agotas xOonov, a defence of the indestructibility of the cosmos; the sequel is lost). Three works are fully preserved only in a 6th cent. Armenian translation: c) De providentia | and two dialogues: d) De providentia II (Greek fragments preserved in Eusebius) and e) De

animalibus [36]. Many works and fragments are falsely ascribed to P. (full account in [23]). Il. TEACHING As can be seen from his ceuvre, P.’s first loyalty is to Judaism and the wisdom of Moses which he regards as divinely inspired [5]. But in expounding Mosaic scripture he makes extensive use of his knowledge of Greek philosophy. The result is an intellectual world which reads like a synthesis of Greek and biblical thought, though this was certainly not the aim that P. had in mind. The strongest influence was exerted by Platonism, in particular its division between the intelligible realm and the realm which is perceptible to the senses, its idea of the creation of the cosmos by a divine Creator (P.’s interpretation of Genesis is strongly influenced by + Plato’s [1] dialogue Timaios and its tradition of interpretation [24; 10. no. 137.1-2, 141.1, 143.1]) and Plato’s view of the life and immortality of the soul. P.’s philosophical ideas are closest to contemporary + Middle Platonism [9.139-183]; Stoic and Aristotelian ideas are also significantly present, above all in the area of ethics [41]. Attempts to present P. as a systematic philosopher [43], are doomed to fail: he uses philosophical thought to explain Mosaic scripture [19; 20; 3]. This method can be called eclectic [16], but it has a clear objective. P.’s main interest lies in theology. God is identified with the concept of Being (derived from the divine selfrevelation in Exodus 3,14). In his essence he is nameless and unknowable [17]. Man can only know that he is,

PHILO

not what he is. P.’s doctrine of the divine + Logos is highly influential; it builds upon the hypothesis of Jewish-Hellenistic wisdom [40] (+ Wisdom). The logos is essentially the aspect of God which is related to the created world, but is sometimes discussed as if it has a

separate existence. The goal of human existence is to turn away from the physical world with its passions and to gain knowledge of and communion with God, which can be achieved through contemplation of the order of creation and the study of the law [42]. The doctrine of divine Grace (chdris) is central to P.’s theology, cosmology and soteriology [44].

The name Israel is etymologised (falsely) by P. as ‘he who sees God’. Generally this is meant in a universalist sense [1], though P. recognises that the Jews intrinsically have a special place through their direct relationship to the Patriarchs and Moses [3]. P.’s connections to contemporary Palestinian Judaism are supposedly significant, but difficult to pin down through lack of evidence [6]. Attempts to classify him within earlier Alexandrian tradition are speculative. [42; 11]. He can be compared with Aristobulus and the author of the Wisdom of Solomon, but possesses a more extensive knowledge of Greek philosophy. His work is also of importance for the background of the New Testament [26. 63-86; 30; 43] and the antecedents of Gnostic thought [21] (> Gnosis).

60

59

D.T.R.

IV. AFTERMATH After the decline of Hellenistic Judaism, P.’s influence on Jewish tradition was negligable; he is never named by the Rabbis. In later pagan literature he is only cited by > Heliodorus [8]. However his works exerted a powerful influence on early Christian thinkers, especially in Alexandria. + Clemens [3] is the first to name him and use his writings extensively (cf. [14]). Later Church fathers (~ Origenes, > Gregorius [2] of Nyssa, ~» Ambrosius, > Jerome, > Augustine) seldom refer to him, but are strongly indebted to him, particularly in the area of allegorical exegesis and theology [26; 27]. It is due to this powerful aftermath that P.’s writings survived largely intact. His combination of biblical thought and philosophical doctrines was decisive for the development of Christian dogmatic > theology and philosophy. ~ Alexandria [1]; > Exegesis; > Hellenization; > Judaism; > Philosophy; > Theology

[36]. Latin: F. Petit, L’ancienne version latine des ‘Questions sur la Genése’, 2 vols., 1973. FRAGMENTS: see overview in R. Rapice, D. T. RuNiaA, 1988 (s.b.), 14-19 (no complete collection exists); F. PetiT, Quaestiones Fragmenta Graeca: Les ceuvres de Ph. d’Alexandrie, vol. 33, 1978. BipLioGRAPHY:

H.L.

GoopuHart,

E.R.

Goop-

ENOUGH, A General Bibliography of Philo Judaeus (up to 1936, including MSS), in: E. R. GOODENOUGH, Politics of Philo Judaeus, 1938; R. Rapice, D. T. Runta, Philo of Alexandria: Annotated Bibliography, 1988 (1937-1986); D. T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria: Annotated Bibliography II, 2000 (1987-1996); The Studia Philonica Annual

(annual updates). Lexrcon: P. BorGEN et al., The Philo Index, 2000. LITERATURE: 1E. BIRNBAUM, The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought, 1996 2 P. BorGEN, Philo of Alexandria:

A Critical and Synthetical Survey of Research since World War Il, in: ANRW II 21.1, 1984, 98-154 31Id., Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time, 1997 4 W. BousSET, Jiidisch-christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und Rom, 1915 5H. BurRKHARDT, Die Inspiration heiliger Schriften bei Philo von Alexandrien, 1988 6N.G. COHEN, Philo Judaeus: His Universe of Discourse, 1995

7 L. Conn, Einteilung und Chronologie der Schriften Philos, in: Philologus Suppl. 7, 1899, 385-437 8 J.D. Dawson, Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria, 1992 9J. Ditton, The Middle Platonists, 1977 (71996)

10 DORRIE/BALTES 5,1998

11 R. GOULET,

La philosophie de Moise, 1987 12 L. GraBBE, Etymology in Early Jewish Interpretation: The Hebrew Names in Philo, 1988 13 D.M. Hay (ed.), Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus, 1991 14 A. VAN DEN Hoek, Clement of Alexandria and his Use of Philo in the Stromateis, 1988 15 A. KasHER, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, 1985 16 J. MANSFELD, Philosophy in

the Service of Scripture: Philo’s Exegetical Strategies, in: J. M. Ditton, A. A. Lone (eds.), The Question of ‘Eclecticism’, 1988, 70-102 17 L. A. MONTEs-PERAL, Akata-

leptos theos: der unfafbare Gott, 1987 18 J. Morris, The Jewish Philosopher Philo, in: [28], vol. 3, 809-870 19 V. NrkIpROWETZKY, Le commentaire de l’Ecriture chez

Philon d’Alexandrie, 1977 20 Id., Etudes Philoniennes, 1996 21B.A. Pearson, Philo and Gnosticism, in: ANRW II 21.1, 1984, 295-342 22 J. PEPIN, Remarques

sur la théorie de l’exégése allégorique chez Ph., in: Ph. d’Alexandrie (Colloque du C.N.R.S., Lyon 1966), 1967,

131-167

23J.R. Royse, The Spurious Texts of Philo of

1896-1915 (repr. 1962: still the fundamental critical edi-

Alexandria, 1991 24D.T. Runta, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, 1986 25 Id., Exegesis and Philosophy: Studies on Philo of Alexandria, r990 26 Id., Philo in Early Christian Literature: a Survey, 1993 27 Id., Philo and Church Fathers, 1995 28SCHURER 29D.R.

tion).

SCHWARTZ,

Epitions:

L. Coun, P. WENDLAND, S. REITER, 6 vols.,

TRANSLATIONS: L. COHN et al., Die Werke Philos von Alexandria, 7 vols., 1909-1964 (German); F. H. CoLson et al., Philo, 10 vols. and 2 suppl.-vols., 1929-1962 (Greek and Engl.); R. ARNALDEZ et al., Ph. d’Alexandrie, 36 vols., 1961-1992; R. Rapice et al., Filone di Alessan-

dria, 1994 (It.); C.D. YoncE, The Works of Philo, 1993 ('1854; Engl.). ANCIENT TRANSLATIONS: ARMENIAN: J. B. AUCHER, 2 vols., 1822-1826; F. S1EGERT, Ph. von Alexandrien ‘De Deo’, 1988; A. TERIAN, s.

Philo’s

Priestly Descent,

in: F. E. GREEN-

SPAHN et al. (eds.), Nourished with Peace, 1984, 155-171 30 G. SELLIN, Gotteserkenntnis und Gotteserfahrung bei Philo von Alexandria, in: H.-J. KLauck (ed.), Monotheismus und Christologie, 1992, 17-41 31 F. SrEGERT, Ph. von Alexandrien iiber die Gottesbezeichnung ‘wohltatig verzehrendes Feuer’ (De Deo), 1988 32 Id., Early Jewish Interpretation in a Hellenistic Style, in: M. SaEBo (ed.),

Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, 1996, 130-198 33D.1I. Sty, Philo’s Alexandria, 1995 34 G. E. STERLING, Philo’s

Quaestiones: Prolegomena or Afterthought?, in: [13], 99-

61

62

123

35 Id., The School of Sacred Laws: The Social Setting

of Philo’s Treatises, in: Vigiliae Christianae 53, 1999, 148164 36V. A. TCHERIKOVER, Corpus papyrorum judaicarum, 1957 37 A. TERIAN, Philonis Alexandrini de Animalibus, 1981 (with Engl. transl. and comm.)

38 Id., A

Critical Introduction to Philo’s Dialogues, in; ANRW II 21.1, 1984, 272-294 39 T.H. Tosin, The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation, 1983 40 Id., s.v. Logos, The Anchor Bible Dictionary 4, 1992,

348-356 41D. Winston, Philo’s Ethical Theory, in: ANRW II 21.1, 1984, 372-416 42 Id., Logos and Mystical Theology

in Philo of Alexandria,

1985

43H. A.

WoLrson, Philo. Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, 2 vols., 1947 44 D. ZELLER, Charis bei Philon und Paulus, 1990.

D.T.R.

{I 13] Ph. of Tarsus. Inventor of an antidote which bears

his name (@Woveow/philéneion) and is mentioned by Galen (13, 267-269). According to the antidote’s for-

mula he came from Tarsus. On the basis of excerpts from the formula (see below) P. lived in the rst cent.

AD. The formula complies with the changes in > pharmacology during this era and in the development of compound medicines for taking internally. P. has been regarded as the first known member of the (hypotheti-

cal) pharmacological school of Tarsus, about which we admittedly have no knowledge at all. The formula which consists of 13 distichs specifies measured quantities (1-6) and ingredients (7-13). Due

to the presence of opium it would have had an analgesic effect and was prescribed for pains in the digestive and urinary tracts, the lower and upper airways and the nervous system. Galen annotated it (13,269-276), and it is

said to have been recommended to Aelius Aristeides [3] by the god Asclepius (Aristid. Orationes 3,29), before it was once again frequently included in later medical literature and even circulated independently in Byzantine manuscripts. A further medicine, which was attributed to P. but

was not described in detail, appears in Celsus (6,6,3), but does not say whether it is the one already mentioned. H. Diets, Die Handschriften

PHILOCHARIDAS

(ibid. 2,4), gives rise to the notion that he was an adherent of > Asclepiades [6] of Bithynia or of the > Methodists. V.N. [115] P. of Gadara probably from the 2nd cent. AD; mathematician and teacher of the mathematician and grammarian > Sporus of Nicaea. The Greek mathematician > Eutocius of Ascalon records in his commentary to > Archimedes’ [1] Kixhov pétenots (“Measurement of a circle’), that P. had amended Archimedes’ approxi-

mation of the number x [1. 258,25]. 1 J. L. HerperG (ed.), Archimedis opera omnia cum commentariis Eutocii, vol. 3 (Eutocius), 'r881, *1915 (repr.

with corr. 1972).

GR.DA.

{I 16] Ph. of Byblos see ~ Herennius Philo [117] Writer in Late Antiquity, probably from —> Byzantium and author of a small work, Peri t6n hepta theamdaton (‘About the Seven Wonders of the World’),

which, thanks to its rhetorically elegant narrative, promises to take the place of a tedious journey to the Seven Wonders of the world. Edition: [1.13-37]. ~ Gardens, hanging ; > Lighthouses; > Wonders of the world 1K. BRODERSEN (ed.), Reisefiihrer zu den Sieben Weltwundern, 1992 (with German transl.). K.BRO.

[1 18] P. from Metapontion, dates unknown; he was a flautist and writer (Steph. Byz. s.v. Metandvtov, p. 448,14 M. =SH 689) and perhaps also the author of an anapaestic dimeter, which is quoted in Ath. 15,697b (= SH 689A). M.D.MA. {1 19] Author of an epigrammatic, satirical monodistich about the venerability of white-haired old age, which however is exposed to the greatest opprobrium when the intellect is in decline (Anth. Pal. 11,419). His identification with > Herennius Philo of Byblos was debated [x], but cf. [2]. 1 Fr. Jacoss

(ed.), Anthologia

Graeca

13,936,

1814

2EGE 114,

F, BRECHT, Motiv- und Typengesch. des griech. Spottepigramms, 1930, 71.

M.G.A.

der griechischen Arzte,

Nachtrag, 1907, 63; H. Drier, s.v. Philon (47), RE 20,

52f.; C. Faprictus, Galens Exzerpte aus alteren Pharmakologen, 1972, 202; D. Gourevitcu, Le triangle hippocratique, 1984, 75, note 5;J.SCARBOROUGH, V. NuTTON,

The Preface of Dioscorides’ Materia Medica, in: Transac-

tions and Studies of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, Ser. 5, Nr. 4, 1982, 193 and note 24.

A.TO.

[I 14] Ph. of Hyampolis. Doctor who cared for the sick towards the end of the first century AD and appears in + Plutarch’s [2] Quaestiones convivales (Symposiaka, ‘table talk’). There he speaks about grafting trees (Plut. Symp. 2,6) and diatetics (ibid. 4,1) and claims that the so-called elephantiasis (— leprosy) is a ‘new’ illness (ibid. 8,9). His explanation that the phenomena of hunger and thirst occurred through a change in the body’s pores and not through a lack of food and drink

Il. ROMAN

Roman cognomen; in the Republican Period it was a third name or nickname used by the Publilii and Veturii families (> Publilius); > Veturius) until the 2nd cent. BC. In the Imperial era it was no longer an upper class family name (Cic. Div. Caec. 63: Pit/hjoni instead of Philoni). MUnzer, 129f.; SCHULZE, 315.

K-LE.

Philocalus, Furius Dionysios see -> Filocalus, Furius Dionysius

Philocharidas (®ioyaoidac/Philocharidas). Spartiate, son of Euryxilaidas, co-signatory of the truce between Sparta and Athens in 423 BC (Thuc. 4,119,2) and the

PHILOCHARIDAS

Peace of Nicias in 421 (Thuc. 5,19,2). With > Ischa-

goras and Menas [1] he was supposed to instruct + Clearidas to hand over Amphipolis by treaty to Athens but the latter opposed this (Thuc. 5,21). In the same year, P. took oaths to the > symmachia of Sparta with Athens (Thuc. 5,24,1) and in 420 was a member of a Spartan delegation that was snubbed in Athens through intrigues on the part of Alcibiades [3] (Thuc. 5544-46; [1. 37-40]). With > Megillus in 408/7 BC he again acted as the negotiator in Athens to free prisoners (Androtion FGrH 324 F 44; [2. 395]).

~ Peloponnesian War 1W.M. Extuis, Alcibiades, 1989 Athens Weg in die Niederlage, 1998.

2B.

BLECKMANN, K.-W.W.

Philochorus (®wWoyogoc/Phildchoros). P. of Athens, son of Cycnus, born c. 340 BC, the last and most eminent Atthidographer (— Aftthis). His works — a short biography in the Suda lists 21 works (FGrH 328 T 1); six more are known from other evidence — comprise the entire breadth of the history, literature and religion of Athens. The variety of themes, the unadorned style and the systematic method of collection betray peripatetic influence (— Peripatos) and make him ‘the first scholar among the Atthidographers’ (FGrH IIIb [suppl.], vol. 1, p. 227f.). P.’ antiquarian interests and his activities as a seer, diviner (hieroskOpos)

64

63

and oracular

interpreter

(FGrH 328 T 1-2) indicate conservative politics and a close affinity with Athens’ ancient values. His partisanship on behalf of Ptolemy II and against the Macedonians in the > Chremonidean War (267-261) eventu-

Philocles (®tAoxAfjc¢; Philoklés). [1] Athenian + demagogue, elected to the office of > stratégds in 406/5 BC and dispatched with the fleet to ~ Conon [1] at Samos, both of whom thereupon were in command of the fleet in the Hellespont. Re-elected as a stratégos, and subsequently partially to blame for the defeat in 405 BC at > Aigos Potamos, P. was captured and executed by Lysander [1] for having had the crews of two captured Spartan triremes thrown into the sea (Xen. Hell. 1,7,1; 2,1,32f.; Diod. Sic. 13,104,1f.; Paus. 9, 32,9; Plut. Lysander 13,1f.; Plut. Sulla 42,8). WS. [2] Son of Phormio from the Athenian démos Eroeadae,

several times stratégds. As stratégds at the fortress of Munichia in 324 BC, he refused to allow the small fleet of + Harpalus, who had fled from Alexander [4] the Great, into > Piraeus, but shortly afterwards permitted Harpalus to enter as a private citizen. In the so-called ‘Harpalus affair’ (for the chronology see [1]) he was accused of bribery and — like Demosthenes [2] — requested an investigation (apdphasis) of himself by the + Areopagus, expressing the willingness to accept the death penalty if proven guilty (Din. Or. 3, ‘Against Philocles’). He was, however, acquitted by the court or sentenced to a minor punishment. His identification with the > kosmétés [1] honoured shortly thereafter by the phyle Leontis is disputed (cf. [2. 315f.]). 1E. Bapran, Harpalus, in: JHS 81, 1961, 16-43

21.

WorTHINGTON, A Historical Commentary on Dinarchus,

1992.

E.B. and H.VO.

[3] Macedonian, ‘royal friend’ of > Philippus [I 7] V (Pol. 22,14,7) [1. r1r1f.]. As a commander in the 2nd

ally led to his execution (probably 262/r) at the behest

+ Macedonian War P. led an ill-fated attack on Mylasa

of > Antigonus [2] Gonatas.

and Attica

P.’2 main work, the Atthis, comprised seventeen books; three pairs were dedicated to the mythical period up to > Solon, to the period up to the end of the 5th cent. and the period to the 4th cent. (up to 338 or 317); the remaining eleven dealt with the c. fifty years of his own lifetime; the numerous fragments come predominantly from the first six books. Highly acclaimed, the work almost completely superseded earlier depictions of the local history of Athens (even those of > Androtion, whom P. frequently uses); in the Augustan period an abbreviated version was published by Asinius {I 4] Pollio (FGrH 193). P.” other work, mostly predating the Atthis, comprised i.a. studies on Athens (‘On the Tetrapolis’, “The Founding of Salamis’), on religion (‘On the Mysteries at

31,26,1-9). In 198 BC, though failing to reach and relieve Eretria (Liv. 32,16,12-14), he freed Corinth from a hostile occupation, and the next year kept from delivering it over to T. > Quinctius Flamininus (Liv. 32,23,L1-13; 32,40,5f.). He also freed Argos, handing it over to the supposed ally Nabis in 197 BC on Philip’s instructions (Liv. 32,25,1; 32,38,2—53 32540,1). As Philip’s envoy P. was in Rome in 184/3 BC with > Apelles [2] to accompany > Demetrius [I 5] (Pol. 23,1,5; 3,2); he returned there in 181 BC to gather evidence of a Roman plot against Philip. The ominous letter in praise of Demetrius he brought back with him from T. Quinctius led to Demetrius’ prosecution and execution for high treason in 180/179 BC (Liv. 40, 20,3f.; 40,23,5-93

Athens’, ‘On Prophecies’, ‘On Sacrifice’, ‘On Festivals’,

etc.) and also on tragedy and tragic subject matter (‘On the tragic Poets’, ‘On the Subject Matter of Sophocles’, ‘On Euripides’), a (first) ‘Collection of Attic Inscriptions’ and a document ‘On Inventions’. + Athens; > Atthis F, Jacosy, FGrH 328 (Testimonia and fr.); IIIb (Suppl.) vol. 1, 1954, 220-595 (comm.); IIIb (Suppl.), vol. 2, 1954, 171-486 (notes); O. LENDLE, Einfiihrung in die griechische Geschichtsschreibung, 1992, 146-150. K.MEI.

in 200

BC

(Pol.

16,24,7;

Liv. 31,16,2;

40,5459): 1S. Le Bouec, Les philoi des rois Antigonides, in: REG 98, 1985, 93-124.

L.-M.G,

[4] P. of Athens. Tragedian, 2nd half of the 5th cent. BC, son of Polypeithes (TrGF 124 T r) or Philopeithes (T 2), nephew of Aeschylus [1] (TrGF I 12 T 3). He was

known for his bitter sharpness and is said to have written more than roo tragedies. In the tragic agon Sophocles lost to him with his play Oedipus Rex (24 T 3). B. Gauty et al. (eds.), Musa tragica, 1991, 94-97, 28rf.

BZ.

65

66

[S] P. of Acharnae. Athenian architect; according to IG I 372a line 3 (409/8 BC) member of the collegium of > epistdtai for the construction of the Erechtheum in

were allied with Athens. Dissatisfaction among the majority of the people (démos) with this peace led in 343 to an > eisangelia petition by > Hypereides for bribery and high treason. P. fled and was sentenced to death in absentia; his vast assets were confiscated (Hyp. 3,29f.; Dem. Or. 19,116; Aeschin. Leg. 6; SEG 17,40).

Athens (+ Athens [1] II. 1.; > Erechtheus).

W.H.GR.

[6] P. of Athens. Son of > Astydamas [1] (TrGF I 12 T 3), tragedian in the 2nd half of the 4th cent. BC. Bz. [7] Writer of New Comedy; victorious at the City Dio-

nysia in 154 BC with the play Toauuatiac (Traumatias; ‘The Wounded Man’) [r. test. 1]. The only remnant of his work is a verse from an unnamed play quoted incompletely in Athenaeus [t. fr. 1]. 1 PCG VII, 1989, 361.

T.HI.

[8] Son of Apollodorus (Phoenician names unknown), king of Sidon; presumably fled to the court of the Ptolemies and entered the royal service, retaining his title until Sidon came back under Ptolemaic control in 294 (2) BC. P. twice donated to the rebuilding of Thebes (after 316 BC and c. 308 BC; [1. 24ff.]), gained Caunus for Ptolemy I in 309 BC (Polyaenus, Strat. 3,16) and shortly after 301 BC together with > Leonides [1] carried out an operation to relieve the burden on Aspendus (SEG 17, 639). As supervisor of the nesiarch > Bacchon

PHILOCTETES

DEVELIN, 2434; J. ENGELS, Studien zur politischen Biographie des Hypereides, *1993, 73-77. JE.

[3] P. of Rhodes, as envoy in Rome

+ Astymedes and Philophron the danger of a Roman war Thalna was demanding in 167 of M. Porcius Cato [1] (Pol. 45,20,4-25,13) [1. 206f.].

together with successfully warded off that M’. Iuventius [I 6] BC against the resistance 30,4,1; 30,5,1; cf. Liv.

1 J. DEININGER, Der politische Widerstand gegen Rom in Griechenland, 1971. L-M.G.

[4] Attested as a Ptolemaic syngenes and epistologrdphos (> court titles B. 2.) in Sept./Oct. 99 BC. PP I/VIII

4. L. Mooren, The Aulic Titulature in Ptolemaic Egypt, 1975, 171 Nr. 0271.

W.A.

P. was active in the Aegean and had powers which extended over the island federation (— nésidtai [2]) and

affected further islands, along with areas of mainland Asia Minor (Ionia, Caria, Lycia). He was possibly en-

trusted with the reorganisation of affairs in the island federation (IG XII 5,2, 1065) and in Lycia (SEG 28, 1224). P. was hardly a mauarchos (IG XII 7, 506), more

probably stratégos, although so far no Ptolemaic title is attested. At first his responsibilities were probably chiefly military, becoming also political later. PP V

Philoctas (®iAdxtac/Phildktas or Pidoxedrtye/Philokratés). As the leader of a sacred embassy (archithéoros) from Ptolemy II. and the city of Alexandria he brought votive offerings to Delos between 274 BC and 257 BC. E. OLSHAUSEN, Prosopographie der hellenistischen K6nigsgesandten, vol. 1, 1974, 316f. Nr. 209. W.A.

13795; VI 15085. 1M. Hotteaux, Etudes d’épigraphie et d’histoire grecques, vol. 1, 1938.

M. Worr-E, Epigraphische Forschungen zur Geschichte Lykiens Il, in: Chiron 8, 1978, 225-230; H. HAUBEN, in: E. Guset (ed.), Studia Phoenicia, vol. 5, 1987, 413ff.

W.A.

Philocrates (®iioxedtn¢; Philokratés). [1] Athenian who advised the Athenians at the negotiations in 392/1 BC to reject a peace treaty with Sparta (Dem. Or. 23,116f.). As stratégos, P. in the summer of 390 BC commanded ten ships that were sent to Cyprus to help > Evagoras [1] but were captured by the Spartan Nauarch — Teleutias (Xen. Hell. 4,8,24). P. Funke, Homénoia

und Arché, 1980, 95; 144f.; 150.

WS.

[2] Son of Pythodorus from the demos of Hagnus, Athenian rhetor at the time of > Eubulus [1], envoy on several occasions; the so-called Peace of Philocrates between Athens and — Philippus [4] II of 346 BC (StV

2,329f.) is named after him. P. proposed important decrees to initiate negotiations and to accept this peace

in the > ekklésia (including its extension to the descendants of Philip), and to abandon the Phocians who

Philoctemon (®thoxthuwv; Philoktémon). According to Isaeus (Or. 6) he was the oldest son of Euctemon

from Cephisia, whose great fortune (brothels and bath houses, herds of goats and mules) caused a dispute. P. served as a knight; he died as a trierarch (captain of a trireme) around 370 BC off the coast of Chios. Davies 15164; vgl. 14093; R. F. Wevers, Isaeus, 1969; W.E. THompson, Isaeus VI: The Historical Circumstances, in: CR 20, 1970, I-4.

K.KI.

Philoctetes (@idoxthty¢/Philoktetés; Lat. Philoctetes). Thessalian hero, son of > Poeas (Hom. Od. 3,190) and Demonassa (Hyg. Fab. 97,8); outstanding archer and

companion of > Heracles [1]. P. is distinguished by his bow, a token of thanks from Heracles for igniting his funeral pyre on Mt. Oeta (Soph. Phil. 801-803). In Apollod. 3,131 and Hyg. Fab. 81, P. is counted among the suitors of > Helena [1]. Party, with seven ships, to the Greek campaign against Troy (Hom. Il. 2,716-725), he is bitten by a snake while participating at a meal and sacrifice to Apollo on Tenedos. The wound does not heal and develops a dreadful smell, and P. is abandoned alone on the island of Lemnos, armed only with his bow (ibid.; Soph. Phil. 260-275; Procl. on the Cypria, EpGF

67

68

p. 32; Apollod. epit. 3,27; otherwise, Serv. Aen. 3,402).

1 A. Stewart, Dionysos at Delphi: The Pediments of the Sixth Temple of Apollo and Religious Reform in the Age of Alexander, in: B. BARR-SHARRAR, E. N. Borza (eds.), Studies in the History of Art ro, Symp. Ser. I, 1982, 205227 2 Guide de Delphes. Le musée (Sites et monuments

PHILOCTETES

When, after ten years of war, the captured seer > Hele-

nus [1] or > Calchas prophesies that Troy can be conquered only with P.’s bow, the Greeks send > Odysseus to Lemnos who convinces P. to go to Troy. There, P. is cured by > Machaon or > Podaleirius; and by killing + Paris with an arrow, he contributes decisively to the fall of Troy (this is treated in the Ilias parva, EpGF¥ p. 52; subject of a dithyramb (hymn to Dionysus) by Bacchylides, fr. 7; Soph. Phil. 604-613; Apollod. Epit. 5,8). According to Pind. Pyth. 1,52-55, P. even destroys the city. Quintus of Smyrna, bks. 9-10, describes P.’s retrieval from Lemnos and his participation in the battle before the walls of Troy. After the war, P. either returns safely to his homeland (Hom. Od. 3,190) or is driven off course and lands in Italy where he founds several towns and a shrine to Apollo, where he consecrates his bow (Apollod. Epit. 6,156). 5th cent. BC Attic tragedy especially found fascination with P.’ fate on Lemnos. Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides each wrote a Philoctetes; only Sophocles’ is extant. Comparing the three plays, Dion Chrys. 52 considers them equal. In Aeschylus and Euripides the chorus consisted of Lemnians, while Sophocles’ P. is completely isolated. A peculiar feature of Euripides (produced in 431 BC; paraphrase of the prologue in Dion Chrys. 59) is that two embassies make a try for P., one Greek (Odysseus, > Diomedes [1]) and one Trojan. Sophocles (produced in 409 BC) has Odysseus accompanied by > Neoptolemus [1] who because of his upstanding character refuses to suborn Odysseus’ intrigues. Sophocles’ P. in Troy was devoted to the events after P.’s retrieval from Lemnos (TrGF 4 F 697-703). — Sophocles [1] C. W. MULLER

(ed.), Euripides, Philoktet Testimonien

und Fragmente, 2000; Id., Philoktet. Beitrage zur Wiedergewinnung einer Tragodie des Euripides, 1997; A. SCHNE-

BELE, Die epischen Quellen des sophokleischen Philoktet, 1988; T. Visser, Untersuchungen zum sophokleischen

Philoktet, 1998.

VI), 1991, 77-84. L. KAppEL, Paian, 1992, 207-284, 375-380 (with further bibl.); B. L. RarNer, Philodamus’ Paean to Dionysus: A

Literary Expression of Delphic Propaganda, Diss. Univ. of Illinois at Urbana, 1975. L.K.

Philodemus (®i6dywos; Philodémos). A. LIFE AND WORK

B. INDIVIDUAL WRITINGS

C. ASSESSMENT

A. LIFE AND WORK Born in + Gadara around 110 BC; in Athens, pupil

of the Epicurean philosopher > Zeno of Sidon; after Zeno’s death, in the mid—7os, P. went to Italy. In Rome he became friends with L. Calpurnius [I 19] Piso Cae-

soninus (cf. Cic. Pis. 68-72) and took up residence at the Villa dei Pisoni (also called the ‘Villa dei Papiri’) in

+ Herculaneum, where he met Siron and the poets + Quinctilius Varus, L. > Varius Rufus, > Plotius and ~ Vergilius. P. died after 40 BC. Before the library in the ‘Villa dei Papiri’ ( Herculanean papyri) was discovered in the mid—18th cent., P. was known only from a reference in Diogenes Laertius (Diog. Laert. 10,3; 24) and a few epigrams in the Anthologia Graeca. His poems, which he wrote throughout his life [4], included not only the usual topoi, but also philosophical set pieces; hence P. the poet cannot be separated from the philosopher. A large number of prose treatises which deal with the broad spectrum of contemporary intellectual life make up the bulk of his work. Fragments of some of these are found in the Herculaneum library (+ Herculanean papyri). The contents of the most significant writings [2; 3] follow below, in the presumed chronological order:

J.STE.

Philodamus (®.\d8apoc; Philodamos). Choral lyricist from Scarpheia. He wrote a paean to Dionysus, recorded on an inscription, and performed in 3 40/339 BC at the > theoxenia (sacred meal) in > Delphi. In return, he and his family received a wealth of privileges in Delphi, where the poem appears to have played an important role in the new definition of > Dionysus as a ‘second + Apollo’. By progressive stages the portrayal of Dionysus resembles the traditional picture of Apollo: the story of his birth modelled after that of Apollo, musicality, ‘soteric’ (saving) and healing powers (> Iacchus), similar cultic homage, and address as ‘Lord of Health’. This assimilation is supported by the use of formulaic elements obviously regarded as fundamental to the genre of > paean as a ‘healing’ song to Apollo. In so doing, it betrays the Hellenistic period’s greater awareness of literary form on the one hand, and documents the major significance of the cult lyric as a means of constructing religion on the other.

B. INDIVIDUAL WRITINGS The short work Tegi tot xa0’ “Ounoov &yaot Baothewe/Peri toi kath’Omeéron agathot basiléds (‘On the good king according to Homer’, PHercul. 1507), written by P. during his first few years in Italy and dedicated to his patron Piso, cannot be considered a mere allegory, nor purely political; it was probably a > Princes’ mirror, composed with protreptic intent. The Livtaktc tHv proodgwv/syntaxis tén philos6phon (‘List of philosophers’), a history of philosophy organized by the successive leaders (Stadoyai/diadochat) of the most important Greek schools of philosophy, contained in a guide consisting of at least ro volumes the basic principles of philosophical thought; this work was intended not only for the members of the Epicurean school, but also for the educated society of Rome and Italy. In his books on the + Academy, the Stoa (— Stoicism) and the > Epicurean School, fragments of which have been preserved, P. includes both

69

70

external events in the individual schools and doxographic aspects (> Doxography). The ‘History of the

because of its combination of individual words (synthesis ton onomaton), but because it represents a perfect unity of thought and content. The task of poetry is not to teach, but to evoke pleasure in the ear and, in particular, in the intellect. This work is the only extant treatise on poetry and literary theory written after Aristotle’s Poetics and before Dionysius of Halicarnassus. In the treatise Tlegi wouvovxts/Peri mousikés (‘On music’; only fragments of what was probably the fourth volume remain), P. contends that > music has no moral influence, and cannot be seen as a way to attain virtue. He concedes merely that it gives pleasure, encouraging an inclination toward all that is beautiful and good, but without an ethical objective. Music should be appreciated for its own sake, for its inherent beauty and the pleasure that it brings to the listener. One characteristic of P.’ works, namely the polemic and sometimes acerbic manner in which he argues against his enemies, is evident in the short work entitled Ilegi tv Ttwmadv/Peri tén Stoikén (‘On the Stoics’: PHercul. 339 and 155), in which he criticizes, with a good deal of irony, the writings on the state (Politeiai) by the Stoic Zeno and the Cynic Diogenes [14] of Sinope. In the work Iled¢ tovs [étaigouc]/Pros tous [hetairous] (‘To the schoolmates’: PHercul. too5) he rails against groups of Epicureans whom he characterizes as ‘dissidents’ (ood.otai/sophistai), since they proposed an interpretation of Epicurus that differed from the orthodox interpretation of the Athenian school. This debate centred around the definition of oeBaoudc/ sebasmOs (‘veneration’) of the master, the problem of the influence of literary compendia and of éyxbxAvocg matdeia/—> enkyklios paideia (‘general education’). The major work Iegi xaxiWv/Peri kakidn (‘On vices’) comprised at least ten volumes, each of which examined a vice and its opposite virtue. Particular attention is paid to flattery and the vices related to it. The ninth volume (PHercul. 1424) deals with the management of a household (oixovopia/oikonomia) and the financial means available to a wise Epicurean for procuring the necessities for sustaining life. The vice contrasting with oikonomia appears to have been avarice (piAagyveia/philargyria); some fragments have been preserved of a work entitled Iegi ptkagyvetas/Peri philargyrias (‘On avarice’). P. considers similar topics in Heoi mdkovtov/Peri ploutou (‘On wealth’: PHercul. 163). Arrogance is the subject of the tenth volume, entitled Meoi tregnpavias/Peri hyperéphanias (‘On arrogance’: PHercul. 1008); adverse circumstances teach the arrogant proper behaviour. The work ‘On ways of life’ (lei Ov xat Biwv/Peri éthén kai bidn) contains the treatise Tegi magenotac/ Peri parrhésias (‘On unrestricted speech’: PHercul. 1471). P. regarded parrhésia as a téchné that can affect an individual much like medicine, i.e. as the art of providing help and treatment. According to P., freedom of speech is the guiding principle of the common life of philosophers, as manifested in the community of philosophers in Athens and Herculaneum. The two books

Academy’ (PHercul. r021 and 164) recounts events in the Academy from > Plato to Antiochus [20] of Ascalon and his brother and successor, Ariston (Ed. [1]). The ‘History of the Stoa’ (PHercul. 1018) deals with the vicissitudes of the Stoic School, from > Zeno [2] of Citium to + Panaetius and his pupils (Ed. [2]). The meagre fragments that remain of the ‘History of the Epicureans’ (PHercul. 1780) contain traces of episodes concerning the scholarchates of > Polystratus [2] and Dionysius [11] of Lamptrae (Ed. [9]). In the sphere of philosophical biography, we know of the existence of a biography of + Epicurus in at least 2 volumes (Ilegi Emxovgov/Peri Epikouirou, ‘On Epicurus’: PHercul. 1289 and 1232); the TMoayuateica/ Pragmateiai (“Treatises’: PHercul. 1418 and 310), writings containing information on Epicurus and other Epicureans; and (of uncertain authorship) the anonymous Vita of > Philonides [2] of Laodicea (PHercul. 1044). The work ‘On rhetoric’ (at least 9 volumes) discusses in its first two volumes (1st volume: PHercul. 1427; 2nd volume: PHercul. 1672 and 1674) the arguments for and against defining rhetoric as > téchné (‘art’): P. seeks to demonstrate that only sophistic or epideictic rhetoric can be so classified, but not political rhetoric. In the third volume (PHercul. 1426 und 1506) P. attempts to show that sophistic rhetoric is incapable of producing good statesmen, as it does not enhance their moral qualities; that is, instead, the goal of philosophy. In the fourth volume (PHercul. 1423 and 1007/1673) P. criticizes the sophistic rhetoricians and their claim to superiority. One of the subsequent volumes (PHercul. 101 5/832) contains a polemic against + Nausiphanes of Teos, the teacher of Epicurus — from whom the latter later dissociated himself — and against Aristotle [6]; another (PHercul. 1004) speaks out against the Stoics and Diogenes [15] of Babylon as well as against the Peripatetic Ariston. In another book (perhaps the last one) (PHercul. 1669) he deals with the controversy between rhetoric and philosophy. P. favoured philosophy, seeing it as superior to any kind of rhetoric and as the only way to find true happiness. The five-volume [legi xoumpdctwv/Peri poiématon (‘On poems’) was written at approximately the same time as the work on rhetoric. P. explains (from the standpoint of a philosopher, not a literary theorist) what determines the quality of poetry. The first three volumes of that work deal with the polemic debate about the relationship between form and content, as well as between evwvia/euphonia and ovvOeotc/ synthesis (pleasing sound and word composition), in opposition to Crates [5] of Mallus and unknown critics (kritikot). In the fourth volume (PHercul. 207) P. attacks Aristotle; in the fifth (PHercul. 1425 und 1538) he discusses the definition of a good poet (a@ya8oc nountic/agathos poiétes) and the value of poetry (dgeti) moumoec/areté poiéseds). A poem is not good because its rhythm and melody are pleasing to the ear, nor

PHILODEMUS

PHILODEMUS

71

Heoi yaoutoc/Peri chdritos (‘On gratitude’: PHercul. 1414) and Iegi dwAtac/Peri homilias (On philosophical discourse: PHercul. 873) can be traced back to that same work. The topic of homilia was an important one for the Epicureans, along with > friendship and shared philosophical inquiry (ovtymotdsyzetesis). It is likely that P. also wrote a work examining passions (160n/pathé); in one of its books (Iegt deyti¢/Peri orgés, ‘On anger’: PHercul. 182) P. makes an astute distinction between doyy (orge, ‘anger’) and Ovjdg (thymos, ‘excessive anger’); the wise, too, can be subject to moments of anger, but never to choleric, excessive anger. The treatise Heol Oe@v/Peri thedn (‘On the gods’) belongs to the last phase of P.’ literary endeavours. In the first of the two extant volumes (PHercul. 26) P. underscores the harmful effects of popular conceptions of the deity and the fact that erroneous ideas about the gods, along with fear of death, cause people to be anxious and thus prevent them from achieving peace of mind (ataraxia). Only the wise are able to free themselves from these influences and reach a state of bliss. The third book (PHercul. 152/157), entitled Iegi tis TOV Oe@v Siaywyis/Peri tés ton then diagogés (‘On the life of the gods’), discusses the characteristics of the gods, in contrast to those identified by the Stoics. P. dwells on the connection between recognition of the future and achievement of bliss, as well as on a divine omnipotence that does not intervene in human affairs. He examines questions related to the gods’ way of life and their possession of everyday objects. Another work, made up of two volumes and entitled Tlegi evoeBetac/Peri eusebeias (‘On piety’), is likewise critical for the reconstruction of theological thought. The first volume presents the ideas of Epicurus regarding the true feeling of eusébeia (‘piety’): The gods exist and must be worshipped in accordance with the laws of the state, but mortals cannot expect to receive either harm or benefit from them. The gods live a blessed existence, happy and free of any worry, without concerning themselves with mortals and their deeds. The second volume, which is divided into three sections, contains criticism of the myths and gods as depicted by poets and thinkers, criticism of popular religious doctrines and finally criticism of philosophical and specifically Stoic > theology. A theological topic is also dealt with in Ilegi meovoiasg (Peri pronoias, ‘On destiny’: PHercul. 1670), contrasting with the views of Chrysippus [2]. The treatise Tegi mdawoutvwv xai onuevdoewv/Peri

phainoménon kai sémeidseon (‘On appearances and designations’: PHercul. 1065) is rooted in P.’ interest in

— logic. It presents in three sections the discussion conducted within the Epicurean School regarding analogous conclusions (uetéPpacig xa0’ Guoidtnta/metdbasis

kath’omoiotéta). In accordance with Epicurus’ principles of logic and recognition theory, P. defends the method of using analogy to arrive at logical conclusions, which makes it possible to move from the world of

72

appearances (datvouevov/phaindmenon) to the unrecognizable (&&ndov/ddélon) world. Two ethical writings are from the period of P.’ maturity as a writer and artist, and they show indisputable similarities in their language, content and teachings: the so-called ‘Comparetti Ethics’ (PHercul. 1251) and the work entitled Negi @avatov/Peri thandtou (‘On death’), in which P. offers personal thoughts in

considering two fundamental motifs of Epicurean doctrine: fear of death and the means which the wise have available to them to overcome that fear. T.D. C. ASSESSMENT It is difficult to define the personality and teachings of P. and his position in the history of the Epicurean ‘garden’ on the basis of what scholars know today. P. appears to have introduced certain nuances to Epicurean philosophy which, although they do not call into question its basic principles, adapted that philosophy to meet the needs of changing times and Roman reality. This was done by attaching greater importance to éyxbudia uabhwata (enkyklia mathémata, ‘comprehensive education’, i.e. rhetoric, poetics, music) and rein-

terpreting enkyklios paideia. P. was not an exceptionally profound thinker, nor did he show philosophical originality; he was, most of all, the spokesman for and disseminator of the ideas of his teacher, Zeno; after Zeno’s death he felt called upon to disseminate Epicurean doctrine throughout Italy in a systematic and conclusive way. He appears to have been quite successful in that endeavour [12]. > Epicurus; ~— Epicurean School; — Herculanean papyri; > Zeno of Sidon EDITIONS, TRANSLATIONS,

COMMENTARIES:

1P.H.

AND E. A. DeLacy, Philodemus: On Methods of Inference, 1978 (ed. with Engl. transl. and comm.) 2T. DoranDI, Filodemo, Storia dei filosofi: Platone e |’Academia (PHerc. 1022 and 164), 1991 31d., Filodemo, Storia dei filosofi: La stoa da Zenone a Panezio (PHerc. 1018), 1994 4M. GicanteE (ed.), La scuola di Epicuro, vol. 1, 1978ff. (series) 5D. Oppinx, Philodemus ‘On Piety’, 1996 (ed. withcomm.) 6 F. SBORDONE, L. AURICCHIO, Ricerche sui Papiri Ercolanesi, vol. 1-4, 1968-1983 (with It. transl. and comm.) 7 D. StpeErR (ed.), The Epigrams of Philodemus, 1997 (with Engl. transl. and comm.) 8S. SupHAus (ed.), Philodemi volumina rhetorica, 3 vols, 1892-1896 (Greek text) 9A. TEPEDINO GuERRA, II Kfjtoc epicureo nell PHerc. 1780, in: CE ro, 1980, 17-24 10 New edition in preparation (with Engl. transl.) by the international Philodemus Project, cf. http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/classics/ Philodemus/philhome.htm SECONDARY LITERATURE: 117. Doranpy1, La villa dei papiri a Ercolaneo e la sua Biblioteca, in: CPh 90, 1994, 168-182 12 Id., Lucréce et les Epicuriens de Campanie, in: K. AvGra et al. (ed.), Lucretius and His Intellectual Background, 1997, 35-48 13M. Erter, Epikur — Die Schule Epikurs — Lukrez, in: GGPh* 4, 1994, 281, 289362 14M. Gicante, Filodemo in Italia, 1990 (Engl.:

Philodemus in Italy: The Books from Herculaneum, 1995) 15 N. A. GREENBERG, The Poetic Theory of Philodemus, 1990 16 A.A. Lone, D. N. SEDLEY, The Hellenistic Phi-

74

De losophers, 1987

17 D. Mustittet al., La villa dei papiri

(CE 13, Suppl. 2), 1983

and Poetry, 1994.

18 D. Opsinx (ed.), Philodemus

T.D.

Philoetius (®woitocg; —Philoitios). |» Odysseus? cowherd (Hom. Od. 20-22); like the swineherd > Eu-

maeus he epitomizes the loyal retainer. After Odysseus has revealed his identity to them and has assured himself of their loyalty, the two of them, who are largely cast in the same mould [1], assist him in killing the suitors. In doing so, the two of them take their revenge on their counterpart, the disloyal goatherd > Melanthius

[1].

PHILOGELOS

the ‘idiot’ whose comicality is based on the consistent use of false analogy (e.g. he shakes a tree to gather the sparrows that are sitting there like fruit, § 19). Also appearing in the jokes are the inhabitants of Abdera (§§ 110-127), of Cyme [3] in Asia Minor (§§ 154-182) and of Sidon (§§ 128-139 — stupidity was traditionally associated with all three cities), as well as misers, the ‘idiot’ (uwedc/moros), jokers, louts, gluttons, drun-

kards (and similar types from the comedy and character studies) right through to ‘foul-smelling’ people (cf. [3. 631-632]). There are few jokes based on sex. The Philogelos is a treasure chest of evidence for everyday life in the Roman-Hellenistic Period (e.g.

1 B. FeNnrk, Studies in the Odyssey (Hermes ES 30), 1974,

[6. r0]). The humour is popular, not erudite, it does not

172-173.

hesitate to take aim at physical anomalies, does not spurn any elements of black humour — not even macabre, tasteless and sometimes repulsive elements. It is oriented not directly ad personam (anecdotes originally linked with historical personalities are applied to set characters), is without moral suggestion, and is based on word plays, illogicality, senselessness and absurdity. The characters and situations are reminiscent of the — mime, and several jokes could have been accompanied by a mimic-theatrical plot ([9. 456-459, 467]; against the collection originating in mime see [13. 1067]). Similarities to the > apophthégmata and Aesop’s > Fables (> Aesopus) are discernible (it is not by chance that the greatest part of the Philogelos MSS also contains Aesopic fables or scenes from the life of Aesopus). The Philogelos is part of a long tradition of ancient joke books. Various jokes also appear in other sources (particularly — Plutarchus [2], as well as — Cicero,

REN.

Philogelos (®ir6yehwe/Phildgelés, ‘the Lover of Laughter’). The only collection passed down from antiquity of 265 individual Greek jokes (in different recensions; with regard to the MS tradition see [1. 129-146; 8]), compiled between the 3rd [11] and sthcent. AD. In the MSS, it is attributed to Hierocles and the grammarian Philagrius (not identifiable; hypotheses in [2. IV-V]). Dating indications are the allusion in § 62 to the festival of AD 248 celebrating the foundation of Rome and the mention in § 76 of the Serapeion destroyed in AD 391 by Alexandria (cf. [6]). In the Philogelos, Graeco-Roman religious institutions are named (oath to the gods, cremation) that are typical of the late Imperial Period (cf. [13. 1063]) but there is no clear linguistic evidence for the dating: aside from early Byzantine features there are also atticisms, vernacular expressions, Latinisms and Greek liturgical language (in detail [r0; 2. 117-125]; regarding Oeé/theé and xvote/ kyrie in § 223 see [3. 624]). In the same way, social institutions of the late Imperial Period co-existed with those that rather belong to the Classical Period (athletic competitions, theatre, gladiator games). There are no clues allowing for geographical localization. A form of the joke collection could therefore already go back to the famous mime actor > Philistion [3] (Augustan period), but his name does not appear in the MSS; the Suda s.v. ®idtotiwv names him as the author of the ‘Philogelos, the book that people take with them to the barber (novota/kouréa)’ (this could allude to the fact that the jokes were a typical type of entertainment at the barber’s shop [9. 454; 1. 11] but xovget Jokes Ep.:

1A. THIERFELDER, Philogelos. Der Lachfreund,

von Hierokles und Philagrios,

comm.)

1968 (Greek/German, with

2B. Batpwin, The Philogelos or Laughter-

Lover, 1983 (Engl. transl. and comm.).

Lit.: 3 Id., The Philogelos: an Ancient Jokebook, in: Id., Roman and Byzantine Papers, 1989, 624-637 4Id., John Tzetzes and the Philogelos, in: Byzantion 56, 1986, 337338 (repr. in: Id., Roman 329-331)

and Byzantine Papers, 1989,

5A. CLAUS, ‘O oyodaotixdc, thesis K6In 1965

6 A. LuKaszewicz, Sarapis and a Free Man, in: Eos 77, 1989, 251-255 7 E. MANUWALD, ZyoAn und Lyokaotxds vom Altertum bis zur Gegenwart, 1923 8 B. E. PERRy, On

the Manuscripts of the Philogelos, in: Classical Studies in Honor of W.A. Oldfather, 1943, 157-166 9H. ReErcu, Der Mimus, vol. 1.2, 1903, 454-475 10G. RITTER, Studien zur Sprache des Philogelos, thesis Basel 1955 11 L. RosertT, L’épigramme grecque, 1968, 289 12 J. RouGg&, Le Philogelos et la navigation, in: Journal des Savants

1987, 3-12

13 A. THIERFELDER,

s.y. Philogelos, RE,

Suppl. 11, 1062-1068 14 K.-W. WEEBER, Humor in der Antike, 1991, 63-79 (anthology in translation) 15S. West, Not at Home: Nasica’s Witticism and Other Stories, in: CQ 42, 1992, 287-288. S.FO.

WS,

76

Philolaus (®tA0dao0c; Phildlaos). [1] P. of Corinth is said to have belonged to the group of nobles called the + Bacchiadae, to have gone into exile in + Thebes with his lover Diocles, and to have been buried there in a clearly visible tomb (Aristot. Pol. 1274a 31-bs). P. gave the Thebans laws on the procreation of children, which were referred to as vOwot Oetxot (n6moi thetikoi), apparently aimed at preserving the number of plots of land (Aristot. Pol. 1274b 2-5), perhaps through adoption of an heir by childless landowners. Such measures, which were also attributed to the ‘Corinthian’ > Pheidon [1], are typical of early legislation and may well be basically authentic.

possibility can be eliminated because limits are the general prerequisite of knowledge (‘for if everything is limitless, there will be nothing from the start that can be known’: B 3). Objects can be known thanks to the numbers that limit them (without numbers ‘nothing can be perceived or known’: B 4). When P. refers in B 5 to the ‘forms’ of the even and odd numbers, which each object ‘indicates’, this seems to be based on figurative illustration through counting stones (cf. - Eurytus [2], who is said to have linked individual plants and animals with certain numerical figures; cf. [8; 5. 128f.], for a different view, cf. [2. 190-192]). CRI. 2. COSMOLOGY The limited and limitless things (such as air, time, void? cf. [2. 43f., 50]) that make up the cosmos have always existed, but they would not have resulted in an ordered world without > harmonia (literally: ‘joining together’) (B 6, cf. A 1; the continuation of B 6 indicates that P. was referring to the numerical proportions of the

PHILOLAUS

K.-J. H6.keskamp, Schiedsrichter, Gesetzgeber und Gesetzgebung im archaischen Griechenland, 1999, 246250, cf. 150-157. K-J.H.

[2] Pythagorean philosopher A. Lire B. PHILOSOPHY A. LIFE Pythagorean from Croton (Menon Anon. Lond. 18,8 = A 27) or Tarentum (Aristox. fr. 19 Wehrli= A 4). Born about 4702, died after 399 BC [z. 1-6]. Author of a book on natural philosophy; some fragments (in Doric dialect) and testimonies have been preserved (those now considered wholly or partly authentic include at least B 1-7, 13, 17 and A 9, 16-21, 27f., cf. [2.17, 34f.]); in addition, Aristotle’s remarks on the ‘so-called Pythagoreans’ probably refer to some extent to P. (cf. za. [2. 28f., 31f., 58-64] and [4], with the qualifications of [5.116 with note 9; 6]). Little is known of P.’ life. It is said that > Lysis was his teacher (A ta). The following have been mentioned as his pupils: — Democritus [1] (A 2), > Eurytus [2], > Archytas [1], Simmias and > Cebes (who heard P. before 399 BC in Thebes: Pl. Phd. 61de), as well as the Pythagoreans of the ‘mathematical’ school (— Echecrates [2]). > Plato too is reported to have met P. during his first journey to lower Italy (A 5; cf [z. 5]). A source critical of Plato (Aristoxenus?) alleged that while staying at the court of Dionysius [1] in Syracuse, Plato paid a great deal of money to buy P.’ book from his relatives, and plagiarized it in his Timaeus (Hermippus fr. 40 Wehrli; cf. Timon fr. 54 Diels = 828 SH; [7. 225-227]). B. PHILOSOPHY 1. GENERAL

2. COSMOLOGY

1. GENERAL In his book, P. apparently provided a comprehensive explanation of the world comparable to Plato’s Timaeus. His starting-point is the statement that ‘nature, ina well-ordered universe (R6smos), is composed of limitless and limited things’ (B 1). This is argued for in logical and epistemological terms: of the three possibilities, namely that all things existing (in the world) are a) limited or b) limitless or c) both limited and limitless, it is ‘evident’ that only the third is true (B 2). The second

diatonic octave in music, which includes the fifth and fourth). First, according to B 7 (cf. A 16), the fiery

‘hearth,’ which, as the beginning of everything, is equated with the number r (cf. also B 8, the authenticity of

which was called into question by [2. 345f.]; but see [5. 126f.]), is assembled in the middle of the earth sphere (P. assumes another > fire, encompassing the former, ‘at the very top’: A 16). ‘Ten divine bodies dance’ around this central fire (A 16): counter-earth, earth, > moon and — sun, the five > planets and the sphere of the fixed stars. Thus in P.’s model of the universe the earth too is moving; this attracted a great deal of attention in the ancient world (cf. A 1 and 21; Aristot. Cael. 293a 20-23; Aristot. Peri ton Pythagoreion fr. 13f. Ross = 162 and 169 G1Gon), and in the modern era it partly inspired Nicolaus Copernicus to abandon the geocentric view of the universe, as he himself noted [9]. P. regarded the sun as a kind of glass that collected the light and heat of the cosmic > fire and allowed them to reach us through pores (A r9 and Achilleus Isagoge 19, p. 46 Maass; [7. 342-344]). He also believed that the moon was home to plants and animals, but that they produced no excrement and for that reason were larger, more beautiful and 15 times stronger than those on the earth (A 20).

P. also addressed medical problems (embryology and the causes of diseases: A 27f.; cf. A rz; > medicine). He distinguished four psychic-vegetative capacities (x.

intellect; 2. animation and perception; 3. growth; 4. procreation) and related them to certain parts of the body (x. head; 2. heart; 3. navel; 4. penis: B 13). He also appears to have concerned himself with ethical issues: “There are certain motives (thoughts?) that are stronger than we are’: B 16; prohibition of suicide: Pl. Phd. 6rde; B 14, the authenticity of which is disputed — among those who believe it is authentic is [ro], while it is rejected by, among others, [2. 404-406] — says: ‘Ancient (Orphic?) theologians and seers also confirm that the soul was yoked together with the body as a punishment, and that it is buried in the body as in a tomb.’

Te

78

Regarding works erroneously attributed to P., cf. jane? nx:

+ Cosmology; > Pythagoras; + Pythagorean School; > World EDITIONS:

1 DreLs/KRANZ, nr. 44

2C. A. HUFFMAN,

Philolaus of Croton, 1993 (text and commentary) TIMPANARO CarpINI (ed.), I Pitagorici, vol. 2,

3M.

1962,

110—

249. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 4B. CENTRONE, Introduzione a i pitagorici, 1996, 104-133 SH. S. ScHIBLI, On ‘the One’ in Philolaus, Fragment 7, in: CQ 46, 1996, 114-130 6A. Perit, La tradition critique dans le pythagorisme ancien, in: A. THIVEL (ed.), Le miracle grec, 1992, 110-112 7 W.

Burkert, Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism, 1972

8J. BAaRNeEs, The Presocratic Philosophers, *1982,

390f. 9 B. BittNskt, Il pitagorismo di Niccolé Copernico, 1977, esp. 61-73, 10 A. BERNABE, Una etimologia platonica: LYQMA-ZHMA, in: Philologus 139, 1995, 220f. 11 H. THesierr.(ed.), The Pythagorean Texts of the Hel-

lenistic Period, 1965, 147-151.

CRI

Philology I. GREEK

IJ. ROMAN

I. GREEK A. DEFINITION B. PRE-ALEXANDRIAN PHILOLOGY C. ALEXANDRIAN PHILOLOGY D. THE END OF ALEXANDRIAN PHILOLOGY E. IMPERIAL PERIOD F. CHRISTIANITY

A. DEFINITION Philology as the interpretation and study of texts is as old as literature itself; the questions it poses concern the meaning of a text (usually a text in written form) and sometimes its wording. Philology in the sense of scholarly study of the language and literature of a particular people from its textual tradition is a modern usage (first mention in 1575 in the translation of RABELaIs’s Gargantua by FiscHart). In Antiquity a philologist was called yoaupatixds (grammatikos) or xoiti%0¢ (kritikos); the difference in meaning was discussed well into the Imperial Period (cf. Galen’s lost text ei dvvatat Tic eiVaL XOITIXOS ZxaL YoapLaTiXds ‘Whether one can be

both a kritikés and a grammatikos’, 17,57 KUHN). The term iWdroyos (phildlogos), however, in ~ Plato [1] refers to someone who loves speeches; in Hellenism + Eratosthenes [2] (among others) applied it to himself to indicate the range of his scholarship. Epicurean texts from Herculaneum ( Herculanean papyri) show that the term could also refer to a scholar in general, without specifying the field (Philod. De morte 26,1; detailed discussion of the term in [1]). In Antiquity the term certainly encompassed more than the activity of a grammatikos. B. PRE-ALEXANDRIAN PHILOLOGY t. PREDECESSORS: HOMER AND THE RHAPSODES

2. EARLY FORMS OF PHILOLOGY 3. FROM ATHENS TO ALEXANDRIA 4. THE TRANSITION

PHILOLOGY

r. PREDECESSORS: HOMER AND THE RHAPSODES In early Greek literature philology was inherent to the text; the poet or + rhapsode explained his poetry through his poetry. The allegorical interpretation of mythological figures started as early as > Homerus [r] (cf. the description of the Lita/as supplicants, Hom. II. 9,502~5 12, and the selection of pairs in the battle of the gods, ibid. 20,67-74) and etymological interpretations abounded (cf. Zeus in > Hesiodus’ Erga, Odysseus in Homer). The beginning of ‘deconstructivist’ > allegoresis, introduced in the late 6th cent. BC by > Theagenes [2] of Regium, that tried to reduce traditional mythological figures to their ‘rational’ essence, can equally be found in Homer (cf. the reproaches on the part of Patroclus in Hom. Il. 16,2835; see also [2]). 2. EARLY FORMS OF PHILOLOGY In addition to the > rhapsodes, who never merely recited Homer but also always interpreted him, schools that mostly taught poetry, esp. the Homeric epics, became increasingly more important. Rare or unique (hapax legomena) words needed to be explained to the students (in the so-called D-scholia modified and improved versions of such lists have survived dating to the 5th cent. or earlier) and Homer needed to be defended against the moralists ( Xenophanes of Colophon) prompting Theagenes of Regium to develop an explicitly allegorical method of interpretation (cf. also the socalled exegetic scholia on the Iliad; thereafter the allegorical interpretation was especially popular with the Stoics and has been preserved in the text of an otherwise unknown Heraclitus (rst cent. AD). With Theagenes

came an interest in Homer’s life and dates. > Hecataeus [3] of Miletus tried to infer historical facts from the ‘true’ meanings of place names. From > Heraclitus [1]

onwards philosophers have pondered names (évouata; onomata) hoping to discover the nature or essence of things. Today the poetic > figures in the Cleobulus fragment of — Anacreon [1] seem like a rudimentary case-system. They are an early version of what was later systematized in Alexandria: “The fact is that creative poetry foreshadowed the technical devices of future centuries... ’[3. 31]. 3. FROM ATHENS TO ALEXANDRIA In the 5th/4th cent. BC Athens had become the intellectual centre of Greece. Even though there was no apparent philological interest in literature, the study of literature was ubiquitous. In Archaic Greece written texts were mostly used as an aid for the recital (thus it remains unknown to what extent the texts that circulated were motivated by the desire to preserve an established text; > Literacy/Orality), but in the schools of

the + Sophistic the texts of the old poets were in great demand and were studied for rhetorical or pedagogical instruction since the most important part of education was to master evémeva/euépeia, (‘correct and good speaking’). As a teacher of the ‘correctness of the words’ (t@v Ovonatwv 6E06tN¢/t6n Onomaton orthotées) > Pro-

dicus instructed his students in the proper use of seemingly synonymous words, also with a view to etymology.

79

80

The emerging book trade (+ Book) brought about the first private libraries (— library), as owned e.g. by ~ Euripides and the > Peripatos. Although the interests of Aristotle [6] and his school were not primarily literary, they nevertheless laid the foundation for the principles of Alexandrian philology (> Literary theory) — if only in the formal evaluation of poetry (cf. the division into genres in the Poetics; > Literary Genre). In that sense Aristotle, who e.g. wrote treatises ‘On Poets’ and ‘Difficult Questions in Homer’, could be called the first ‘philologist’ (cf. Dion. Chrys. Or. 53,1: &g’ ob aor THV KOUTUXIYV TE al yYoauMaTixhy Goxv haBetv/aph’ou phasi ten kritikén te kai grammatiken archen labein, “to whom, they say, goes back literary criticism and the art of explanation”). 4. THE TRANSITION In a sense > Antimachus [3] of Colophon was a predecessor of the Alexandrian philologists who studied the poets, but he was a unique case. He is the only known pre-Hellenistic author of a Homer edition; rather than producing a didrthosis (‘critical edition’, + publication) he wrote about Homer’s life, possibly in a kind of prologue to the text; the numerous glosses (+ Glossography) he added to his texts betray his great interest in the Homeric language. > Philitas [1] of Cos is the first of the ‘new’ poets whom Strabo 14,2,19 calls mots &wa xai xeutixdc/poietes hama kai kritikos (‘both poet and philologist’). His new artistic ambitions inspired distichs, short epic poetry and epigrams as well as Gtaxtoi yA@ooat (dtaktoi gléssai), a compilation of rare dialect expressions, technical terms and Homeric vocabulary. He was a teacher of > Zenodotus of Ephesus, the first head of the library at Alexandria [1]. The role of the Peripatetic - Demetrius [4] of Phaleron remains uncertain; accounts of his great influence in the foundation of the library are not reliable.

title of the text, the sources used by the author and the date when an orator had first delivered a speech in public, thus providing elementary criteria for the evaluation of texts. 2. PRINCIPLES Two fundamental principles of Alexandrian philology can be inferred from the comments, almost invariably in the form of brief and anonymous excerpts, found on the margins of medieval MSS: 1) Homer should be explained from Homer; the full corpus of the author should be consulted to explain difficult or rare words, yet the possibility of unique expressions was not disregarded (cf. Schol. Hom. Il. 3,54). More so, for the first time the phenomenon of poetic license (xoujtixh &deva/poiétike ddeia, ugéoxevalaréskeia, &ovoia/exousia) was taken into account, even with regard to grammar (demonstrative pronoun instead of the definitive article in Homer, understanding tmesis, vgl. schol.

PHILOLOGY

C. ALEXANDRIAN PHILOLOGY 1. BEGINNINGS 2. PRINCIPLES 3. METHODS

1. BEGINNINGS The systematic philology that evolved during the 140 years when Alexandria flourished (c. 285-145 BC) was motivated by the political interest of the > Ptolemies to demonstrate the superiority of Greek culture through a complete collection of Greek literature and to extend its brilliance to the royal house. This resulted in the first working ground for philologists: Many texts had been accumulated early on without proper examination and turned out to be > forgeries; secondly, even at this early stage, the legibility of the books had suffered from the process of copying by hand; texts written in the old Attic > alphabet (dexaia onucacia; archaia sémasia) were especially prone to errors. Especially + Callimachus [3] was involved in separating the genuine from the false, he was not a librarian in Alexandria but his [ivaxes (Pinakes, a catalogue of 120

books) amounted to a first bibliography (> Pinax [5]): In each entry he listed what he thought was the correct

Hom. Il. 1,12; 1,67). 2) The inappropriate (d&eeméc/

aprepés) helps in distinguishing the genuine from the false — the basic idea may go back to Aristotle and may for some time have been influential in Peripatetic circles before the Alexandrians applied it more generally (cf. also [4]). The main indications for aprépeia are a weakening of the train of thought or improper behaviour. 3. METHODS With the development of — critical signs the reader could for the first time follow the observations of the philologists and it became possible to establish definitive texts. The invention of the > obelus goes back to + Zenodotus who might be called the first diorthétes (‘critical editor’) of Homeric poetry. But the system became sophisticated only with > Aristophanes [4] of Byzantium who introduced additional marks (sémeia) for the critical evaluation of the traditional Homeric text

(+ Asterisk,

sigma

and

anti-sigma)

and

most

importantly invented > colometry (but cf. Stesichorus fragments with sections as early as 250 BC). Furthermore he developed a system for indicating Greek accents (~ accent) and improved punctuation which was still very rudimentary (— punctuation). One can only speculate in how far his editions contributed to the later canonisation ( canon) of Greek poets. His stu-

dent > Aristarchus [4] of Samothrace completed the task. By writing commentaries (tzouvynata/ hypomnemata, > Hypomnema) he was the first to state the reasons for his textual emendations. The Homeric text probably was worked on in the following sequence: Aristarchus’ first hypomnemata based on Aristophanes’ [4] text, followed by Aristarchus’ didrthosis (‘critical edition’), then Aristarchus’ second hypomnémata based on his own text; finally the revised edition done by others. Unfortunately the fragments of the apparatus and commentary on the Iliad that survived in a Venetian MS from the roth cent. are not sufficient to give us a detailed idea of Aristarchus’ work. Aristarchus was also the first commentator of a prose text (Herodotus).

8r

82

D. THE END OF ALEXANDRIAN PHILOLOGY Because the main interest of the first philologists of Alexandria had been the éouyveia tov moumtaov (herméneia ton poieton, ‘explanation of the poets’) and because language studies had been in the service of textual criticism and interpretation, a theoretical summary of the achievements of Alexandrian philology was done only late. Influenced by the Stoics it took the form of a

noteworthy Christian teacher in his succession was + Origenes [2]. Less interested in salvation history, his + exegesis came close to > allegoresis which he considered the only method that could shed light on the aodpeva (asdpheia, ‘obscurity’) of the Holy Scripture. Typological interpretation, which assumed the realisation of historical ‘prefigurations’, was less important for Origenes. In an attempt to preserve the text of the Bible through the methods of Alexandrian philology, Origenes tried to restore the wording of the - Septuagint which he considered inspired (wording of the text in the MSS, meaning of the words, historical circumstances, reliability of the accounts). In his “EEamAa

TEXVN YOOMAaTIXY (téchné grammatike, ‘grammar’, at-

tributed to > Dionysius [17] Thrax, a student of Aristarchus, c. 180/70-90 BC). In line with its origins, it defines grammar as the experience-based knowledge of what poets and prose writers usually say. At the end of the heyday of Alexandrian philology the six areas discussed by Dionysius (reading out loud, explanation of poetic > tropes, explanation of antiquated words and contents, etymology, analogy and xegioig mompdtov/ krisis poiématon, “literary criticism’) provided a good survey of the techniques that had evolved over almost 150 years; Dionysius possibly produced the first abstraction of a normative system. The few fragmenst that have survived of Didymus [1] of Alexandreia (observations on Demosthenes [2] from a historical perspective) are not of very high quality. He was important not so much because of his own philological work but rather because he preserved the legacy of the Alexandrian Period. E. IMPERIAL PERIOD

The interest shifted in Roman times: Greek literature was studied in the context of the Atticist movement (— Atticism) and producing lexicographic aids (> Lexicography) for authors who wrote archaizing Attic prose became a greater priority. Yet the writings of > Heliodorus [4] and > Hephaestion [6] on > metre indicate that more traditional literary studies continued as well. Instead of studying the original authors directly one could now learn about them through manuals and Téchnai, e.g. > Nicanor [12]’s (AD 130) complete punctuation of the Iliad was built on his systematic theory of punctuation based on Homer and Callimachus. This development culminated in > Apollonius [xx] Dyscolus’ text on grammar which was no longer concerned with empirical observations of the phenomena of spoken and literary language. In a departure from his predecessors Apollonius contended that underlying language was a rational system of objective and natural rules and therefore methods previously reserved for > logic and > rhetoric were considered appropriate for grammar as well. F. CHRISTIANITY

1. CHRISTIAN PHILOLOGY

2.SCHOLIA AND

CATENAE

1. CHRISTIAN PHILOLOGY By combining philosophical reason and biblical revelation the Jewish Hellenistic author — Philo [12] of Alexandria set the direction for the future. The first

PHILOLOGY

(Hexapla),

an edition of the Old Testament

in six

columns, Origenes built a critical apparatus that went beyond the work of his Alexandrian predecessors. He also betrays some familiarity with an early version of what became the schema isagogicum — possibly attributable to > Proclus. At least four aspects of the scheme are apparent (topic, position in the corpus, the branch of philosophy to which it belongs, discussion of the title). However, at that date (first half 3rd cent. AD) the scheme had not yet been firmly established (Proclus has additional aspects: usefulness, authenticity and division into chapters; detailed discussion in [5]). In the late 4th cent. > Diodorus [20] of Tarsus, along with his student ~ Theodorus [25] of Mopsuestia, responded to the allegorical method of Origenes by establishing the historical grammatical method of explanation (— Antiochene School); in this approach, the bible is regarded less as a philosophical and more as a historical book, thereby opening it up to ‘literary’ interpretation (a direct connection between the Antiochenes and the Peripatos has not been firmly established). 2. SCHOLIA AND CATENAE At the end of Late Antiquity when books usually were in the form of a ~ codex comments and notes could be written directly into the margins, whereas before they had been kept separately. Because the material was so plentiful, summaries and compilations became necessary and led to the so-called > scholia; the situation was similar for theological commentaries (> catenae). Unfortunately, scholia — unlike catenae — almost never mention the name of the author who took the notes, which makes their attribution very difficult. The emergence of scholia marks the end of ancient philology; only in the 9th cent. in Byzantium is there again evidence for literary and philological activity ona larger scale; on Byzantine philology, see > BYZANTIUM (II. Literature).

+ Allegoresis; > Correction marks; > Critical signs; + Publication; > Etymologica; > Exegesis; - Glossography; > Grammarians; > Lexicography; > Library; + PHILOLOGY; — PHILOLOGICAL tuation; > Scholia

METHODS;

~> Punc-

1 A. Dine, Eratosthenes und andere Philologen, in: M. BAUMBACH et al. (eds.), Mousopolos Stephanos, FS H. Gorgemanns, 1998, 86-93 2G. W. Most, Die fritheste

erhaltene griechische Dichterallegorese,

in: RhM

136,

PHILOLOGY 1993, 209-212

3 PFEIFFER, KPI

83

84

4N. G. Wixson, Sco-

to the rst cent. BC, who taught Cicero as well as Varro. According to the so-called Anecdoton Parisinum (Paris. lat. 7530 fol. 28", [5]) — the fragment of > Suetonius’ De notis written down at the end of the 8th cent. at Monte Cassino — Aelius was the first to apply to the texts of Latin authors the > critical signs which > Aristarchus [4] of Samothrace had used for the Homeric text. Aelius’ son-in-law Servius > Clodius [III 1] also studied literary issues. According to Cicero he developed methods for distinguishing between genuine and fake verses of Plautus (Cic. Fam. 9,16,4). Varro’s canon of 21 genuine texts by Plautus (Gell. NA 3,3,11ff.) was the culmination of this scholarly tradition. Varro also formulated the central principle: emendatio as correction (> Emendation of texts) of errors that had occur-

liasti e commentatori, in: Studi classici e orientali 33, 1983, 103-105

5 J. MANSFELD, Prolegomena. Questions

to be Settled Before the Study of an Author, or a Text,

1994. GENERAL SURVEYS: PFEIFFER, KPI (cf. N. G. WILson, Review of the Engl. edition, in: CR 19, 1969, 366-372);

U. von WiLaMow1Tz-MOELLENDOREF, Geschichte der Philologie, 31921 (repr. 1998); J. E. SaNDys, A History of Classical Scholarship, vol. 1: From the Sixth Century B.C. to the End of the Middle Ages, *1906; L. D. REYNOLDS, N. G. Witson, Scribes and Scholars. A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, 31991; N. G.

WiLson, Geschichte der griechischen Philologie: Griechische Philologie im Altertum, in: H.-G. NEssELRATH (ed.), Einleitung in die griechische Philologie, 1997, 87103. SINGLE Periops: M. Et-ABBADI, Life and Fate of the Ancient Library of Alexandria, *1992; B. NEUSCHAFER, Origenes als Philologe, 1987 (cf. N. G. Witson, in: CR

39, 1989, 136); C. SCHAUBLIN, Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunft der Antiochenischen Exegese, 1974; H. van TureEL, Der Homertext in Alexandria, in: ZPE 115, 1997, 13-36; ST. WEST, Chalcentric Negligence, in: CQ 20, 1970, 288-296; N. G. WILSON, s. [4], 83-112; Id., A Chapter in the History of Scholia, in: CQ 17, 1967, 244-256.

N.W. and R.SO.

Il. ROMAN A. DEFINITION

B. REPUBLIC

C.1ST CENTURY AD

D. 2ND CENT. AD

A. DEFINITION In Cicero’s time phildlogos (a term Eratosthenes [2] of Cyrene had shaped in reference to himself [4], see

above I.A.) along with philologia had found its way into Latin as a loan word (philologus) (Cic. Att. 13,12,3; 13,28,4; 2,17,1). Unlike > grammaticus philologus was nota profession; the activities of a philologus included writing grammars (> Grammarians) and lexicons (> Lexicography) as well as editing and interpreting texts (for Late Antiquity, see also — Scholia (Lat.); — Macrobius [1]; — Servius).

B. REPUBLIC Just as in Greece philology in Rome evolved as an aid for understanding texts which were considered important for education and for society in general. In particu-

red in the course of the tradition of the text (recorrectio

errorum qui per scripturam dictionemve fiunt, fr. 236 F). C.1ST CENTURY AD The next time period brought with it a change in the texts that were read in the schools: The Twelve Tables, previously routinely memorized (Cic. Leg. 2,59), were replaced; in general, younger authors were preferred over older ones: Virgil instead of Ennius, Cicero instead of Cato or C. Gracchus etc. When philological methods were applied to newer texts the results were sometimes curious. The remaining fragments of the commentary on Virgil by the Augustan freedman C. Julius > Hyginus reveal a critical appreciation of chronological and genealogical details and sacred law; the two suggested emendations (Verg. Aen. 12,120: limo for lino; Verg. G. 2,247: amaror for amaro) are not convincing and are discredited by Hyginus’ reliance on forged MSS [6. 3 134]. This illustrates why Q. > Asconius Pedianus in the middle of the AD rst cent. felt compelled to write a treatise Contra obtrectatores Vergilii (‘Against Virgil’s critics’) (Suet. p. 66,2 REIFFERSCHEID). Better known

are Asconius’ commentaries on Cicero’s speeches, five

of which have survived: They focus entirely on historical explanation; in the surviving text there is only a single remark on the text itself (Ascon. 76C: constituerunt statt restituerunt, in connection with Pro Cornelio de maiestate fr. 48 CRAWFORD). In Nero’s time L. Annaeus > Cornutus [4] wrote at

of Sex. > Aelius [I 11] Paetus Catus (cos. 198 BC) con-

least one work on Virgil and his proposed emendations were quoted later: For Verg. Aen. 1,150 he defended (correctly) volant against volunt, but he was wrong when he proposed inflixit for infixit (Aen. 1,45) and

tained both philological and legal explanations as did

nocte tor morte (Aen. 9,348). His criticism of Virgil’s

the Commentarii of M. Iunius Gracchanus (see Varro Ling. 6,95, — Iunius [I 20] Congus), who lived at the

dixerat ille aliquid magnum (Aen. 10,547) is reminiscent of the kind of Homeric criticism that was solely based on ‘appropriateness’ (meénov/prépon). Equally limited is our knowledge of the textual criticism of M. Valerius > Probus (late rst cent. AD) to whom Suet. Gram. 24,2 attributed critical and annotated textual editions (exemplaria emendata distincta adnotata); what has survived of his work deals with Terence and Virgil. According to the Anecdoton Pari-

lar the archaic Latin of the Twelve Tables (> tabulae duodecim) inspired early commentaries: The Tripertita

time of the Gracchi. Other early writings on texts owed to Alexandrian methods as well: C. > Octavius [I 14] Lampadio (a freedman of the middle of the 2nd cent. BC: Suet. Gram. 2,2 |[3. ad loc.]) supposedly organized Naevius’ Bellum Punicum into 7 books. The most important ancient interpreter of Old Latin was L. +> Aelius [II 20] Stilo Praeconinus at the turn of the 2nd

85

86

sinum (see above) Probus increased the repertoire of > critical signs. Several passages of the Scholia Danielis (> Servius) suggest that Probus explicitly justified his use of signs ([6. 47-54] pace [7. 473f.]). A.DY.

Philomelium (®owhwov; Philomélion). City in southern Phrygia, in the valley of the > Gallus [1] (coins: HN 683), on the road leading east from Ephesus at the

D. 2ND CENT. AD For the 2nd cent. A. > Gellius’ [6] Attic Nights document the prevalent archaizing taste and show insights into the processes that can lead to textual corruptions (6,20,6; 9,14,1f.; 20,6,14), even if Gellius does not reach the level of his contemporary > Galen of Pergamum (J.). The quality of the work of professional philologists of the 2nd cent. remains a mystery, since we only have scant fragments of the commentaries of Q. + Terentius Scaurus on Plautus, Virgil and Horace, of

+ Velius Longus on Virgil’s Aeneid and the work of + Flavius [II 14] Caper. We can get some idea of contemporary textual criticism from a few passages of ~ Aemilius Asper’s commentary on Virgil — provided it is representative — which was largely exegestical. For Verg. Aen. 10,539 he defended against Probus (correctly) armis instead of albis and supported this reading by referring to Sall. Hist. 2,63 M.; less convincing is his reading of viris for viri in Verg. Aen. 10,737. It is not clear whether these emendations were conjectures or already existing alternative readings [6. 5 5-74]. Overall, Latin philology followed the principles of Greek philology although it lacked a central institution such as the + Mouseion at Alexandria. + Critical signs; > Emendation of texts; > Grammarians; > Grammaticus; > Lexicography; ~ PHILOLOGICAL METHODS; > PHILOLOGY; —> Scholia EDITIONS: 1GRF/GRF(add) 2GL 3R.A. KAsTER (ed.), Suetonius, De grammaticis et rhetoribus, 1995. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 4 PFEIFFER, KPI 5 S. F. BONNER, Anecdoton Parisinum, in: Hermes 88, 1960, 354-360 6J.E. G. ZeTZzEL, Latin Textual Criticism in Antiquity, 1981 7 H. D. Jocetyn, The Annotations of M. Valerius Probus, in: CQ 78, 1984, 464-472; 79, 1985, 149-161 and 466-

474 8L. Horrorp-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 1988 9R. A. Kaster, Geschichte der Philologie in Rom, in: F. GrarF (ed.), Einleitung in die lateinische Philologie, 1997,

1-16 10B.A. MarsHatt, A Historical Commentary on Asconius, 1985 11 REYNOLDs/WILSON. A.DY.

Philomele, Philomela (®iropHAn, BHirophra; Philomeélé, Philoméla). Daughter of the Attic King > Pandion [1], sister of Procne. For her myth, see > Procne. K.WA. Philomeleides (®irounreidyc; Philoméleidés). Mythical king of the island of Lesbos, who challenged those sailing by to a wrestling match. + Odysseus defeated him, according to Hom. Od. 4,343 = 17,134 in the fight, but according to Hellanicus FGrH 4 F 150 by deceit together with + Diomedes [1]. H. von Gersau, s.v. P., RE 19, 25196.

R.HA.

PHILOMETOR

crossroads to Dorylaeum and Caesarea (Str. 11,6,1; 12,8,14; Ptol. 5,2,25; Tab. Peut. 9,4; Steph. Byz. s.v. PthopnAetov; Cic. Verr. 2,3,191; MAMA 7,38-q2). It

was founded in the 3rd cent. BC by a Macedonian dynast named Philomelus (Lit. in [x. 131317]). At the time of Cicero’s proconsulship, P. was part of the province of > Cilicia (Cic. Fam. 3,8,5f.; 13,43,13 15,4,23 Cic. Att. 5,20,1); in the early Imperial Period it belonged to the province of > Asia [2] (Plin. HN 5,95), later — probably from the reign of + Diocletianus (cf. Procop. Arc. 18,42; Hierocles, Synecdemus 672,12) — to the province of + Pisidia. There is evidence of a Christian community at P. from the mid—2nd cent. (Euseb. Hist. C0Gle 4.1553) 1 MaGie.

BELKE/MERSICH,

359-361; W. RUGE, s.v. Philomelion

(1), RE 19, 2520-2523.

E.O.

Philomelus (®wWounroc; Phildmeélos). [1] Son of > Iasion and Demeter, brother of the wealthy — Pluto (different Hes. Theog. 969f.) and father of Pareas, the founder of > Parium (but Parios, son of Iasion, is more frequently named as the founder). P. lived in extreme poverty and was regarded as the inventor of the wagon, which he harnessed to two oxen. In recognition of his ingenuity his mother placed him amongst the stars as > Bootes (Petellides of Knossos in Hyg. Poet. Astr. 2,4, s. FHG 4, p. 472). CA.BI. [2] Son of Theotimus from Ledon [r. 19-21], leader of the Phocian League at the beginning of the 3rd + Sacred war: When the Delphic — amphiktyonia imposed a huge fine on the Phocians in the spring of 3 56 BC because they had cultivated arable farmland in the plain of Crisa, P. incited his fellow countrymen to rebel against the sanctions which were perceived as disproportionate. He was elected as the stratégos autokrator [2. 115-7] and argued vociferously for the restoration of the former prostasia of the Phocians over Delphi (Diod. Sic. 16,23,1-24,1; Paus. 10,2,1-3; cf. Polyaenus, Strat. 5,45; Justin 8,1,8; [3]). In July 356 BC, P. seized the shrine and plundered the temple treasures; the > Pythia was forced to pronounce an oracle which retroactively authorised these acts (Diod. Sic. 16,24,425,3;27,1-4;cf.Plut. Mor. 292d-f) [4. 32]. At Neon [6] in 355 BC, P. suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of the Boeotian League and died (Diod. Sic.16,28-31,4; Paus. £0,2,4). 1 J. Buckter, Philip Il and the Sacred War, 1989 2H. Beck, Polis und Koinon, 1997. 3 J. McINERNEY, The Folds of Parnassos, 1999 4 F. LEFEvRE, L’Amphictionie pyléo-delphique, 1998. HA.BE.

Philometor (®uoujtwe/Philométor, lit. ‘the motherlover’).

PHILOMETOR

88

87

[1] Cultic sobriquet of Greek rulers, firstly of Ptolemaeus VI, whose reign began under the regency of his mother. For many of the subsequent kings (e.g. Ptolemaeus VIII, X, XV, Cleopatra [II 12] VII, Antiochus

[xo] VIII, Demetrius [9] III), the statement of GuTSCHMID [1. 112] is valid, namely that they ruled at first under the guardianship of their mothers. There are also Egyptian connotations to the name (Kamutef, ‘the bull of his mother’ [sc. Isis]), intended to show that the rule of the king in question would guarantee the eternal endurance of royal power. P. was, like > Philadelphus and > Philopator, also used to denote a quality of a deceased commoner [2. 174 note 3]. + Philopator 1 A. VON GUTSCHMID, KS 4, 1893 2 L. Ropert, Sur un papyrus de Bruxelles, in: RPh 1943, 170-201.

L. KoENEN, The Ptolemaic King as a Religious Figure, in: A. W. BuLLocH et al. (eds.), Images and Ideologies, 1993, 61-66.

W.A,

[2] Pupil at Constantinople of + Themistius, at Antioch [x] in AD 355; his identification with the homonymous

nephew of the Neoplatonist Sosipatra is doubtful.

1M. Erer, Epikur —- Die Schule Epikurs — Lukrez, in: GGPh? 4, 252-255 2A. ANGELI, T. DoRANDI, II pensiero matematico di Demetrio Lacone, in: CE 17, 1987, 90-91 3 I. GaLLo, Frammenti biografici da papiri, vol. 2: La biografia dei filosofi, 1980, 23-166. T.D.

[3] Middle or New Comedy poet, known only from

three brief fragments quoted without play titles in Stobaeus [1]. 1 PCG VII, 1989, 370-371.

T.HI.

Philonis (®tAwvic; Philonis). Daughter of Deion (or of Eosphorus and Cleoboea), mother of > Autolycus [1] by Hermes and of > Philammon by Apollo. Perhaps in Hes. fr. 64 M.-W., certainly in Pherecydes FGrH 3 F 120, who places her abode in the region of Parnassus; according to Conon FGrH 26 F 1 and 7, she lived in Attic Thoricus. The reconstruction of her name asa cult recipient in an illegible section of the sacrificial calendar of Thoricus is thus plausible (SEG 33, 44f. no. 147). Hyg. Fab. 65 names P. as the wife of Hesperus or Lucifer, and mother of > Ceyx. EK.

HL.

Philopappos see > Iulius [II 12] Philonicus (®wovixoc; Philénikos). Comic poet of the transition period between Old and Middle Comedy, on the list of victors at the Lenaea after > Philyllius with a victory around 390 [t. test. 2]. No fragments of his works are extant. 1 PCG VII, 1989, 362.

Ariarathes V, Demetrius [9] III, Antiochus [13] XII). It

Philonides (®ivwvidyc¢; Philonides). [1] Attic Old Comedy poet, father of the comic poet ~ Nicochares [1. test. 1, 2]. The supplementation of his name on the list of victors at the Dionysia is insecure [1. test. 3]. Three play titles survive —’Annvn (Apéné / ‘The Chariot’), Ko@oevo. (‘The Cothurni’), ®irétaeoc (Philétairos | ‘The Good Comrade’) — as do 17 brief fragments, most from ‘The Cothurni’. The play Teoaydv (Proagon / ‘The Preliminary Contest’), sometimes attributed to P., is probably by Aristophanes, who had it produced under P.’s name [2. 253]; P. served as producer for Aristophanes four times in all [3]. 1PCG VII, 1989, 363-369 KOrTE, s.v. P. (3), RE 20, 62.

Philopator (®iAonatwe/Philopatér, literally ‘father lover’). Cultic epithet of Hellenistic rulers, first borne by — Ptolemaeus IV, then by his wife Arsinoe [II 4] III (theoi philopatores). The epithet P. was also used outside the Ptolemaic dynasty (e.g. Mithridates [4] IV,

2PCG

Ill.2, 1984

describes somebody his father designated as his successor during his lifetime. Co-regency could, but did not have to, be connected with the title. The Egyptian background, which the title could also have, facilitated its use by the > Ptolemies: after the battle of > Rhaphia (in 217 BC) Ptolemy IV was worshipped by the Egyptian priesthood as Harendotes, as ‘Horus who protects his father, whose victory is beautiful.’ ~ Philometor L. KoENEN, The Ptolemaic King as a Religious Figure, in: A. W. BuLLocu et al. (eds.), Images and Ideologies, 1993, 61-66.

W.A.

3A. T.HL.

[2] Epicurean and mathematician [2] of the 3rd—2nd cents. BC, originally from a politically prominent family of Laodicea [1] (Syria). At Athens, he studied philosophy under — Basileides [rt] and Thespis, at Ephesus geometry under the mathematicians Eudemus of Pergamum, Dionysodorus and Artemon [2]. P. wrote many treatises, including a commentary on bk. 8 of Epicurus’ De natura and a work, ‘On the Commentary of Artemon’ (i.e. Artemon’s commentary on Epicurus’ De natura, bks. 1-33). PHercul. 1044 [3] contains remnants of a biography of P.

Philopoemen (®troxoiunv/Philopoimeén). Son of Craugis from + Megale Polis, 253-182 BC, prominent Achaean statesman, instigator of a ‘limited resistance’ against Rome [1. 112-127]; idealized by > Polybius [2] and celebrated into the Roman Imperial Period as the ‘last of the Greeks’ and last champion of liberty (Paus. 8,52,6; Plut. Philopoemen 1,7), more recently criticized

for his ‘doctrinaire patriotism’ [2. 227; 3. sr]. P.’s lofty reputation depended on his numerous military successes achieved as hipparchos and stratégés of the Achaean League (209 and from 208/7 on; > Achaea with map), i.a. against Machanidas (Syll.3 625; Plut. Philopoemen 7; 10; 12; Liv. 37,20,2; [1. 114]). P. was

89

90

for several years a mercenary leader on Crete (Paus. 8,49,7; [2. 27-48]), for the last time in 199-193, when

he apparently left Achaea because of — Cycliadas (cf. Liv. 31,25,103 [1. 407; 109]; cf. [3. r154]). P. was stra-

tégos of the League eight times: 208/7, 206/5, 201/200, 193/2, 190/189,

189/8, 187/6 and 183/2. Under his

PHILOPONUS,

IOHANNES

brotherhood of the phildponoi (pihOmxovou). He was sharply criticized for his Christian faith by the Neoplatonist scholar > Simplicius, a member of the > Academy in Athens, after Emperor Justinian [1] had closed that institution in AD 529. In 570 he was condemned as a tritheist and in 680 as a monophysite. KSA.

command, the regrouped Achaeans defeated + Nabis in 201 and 192, and Sparta in 188 (Pol. 16,3 6-37; Plut. Philopoemen 9; 14-16; Liv. 35,25,6; 26,3; 26,10; 27—

30; [2. 8o0f., 102-106, 145f.]) — in r92, P. had tried (without a mandate!) to have the latter join the League (Evens s.37 uh

ales mangas Tr 8=12233. 36]).. Py was

captured in 182 during a campaign against Messene,

which had deserted the League, and is said to have been poisoned by — Deinocrates [2] (Plut. Philopoemen 20; Liv. 39,49—-503 Just. Epit. 32,1,5—-10; [r. 124; 2. r91-

194]). P.’s uncompromising stance on issues of independence and self-determination for the Achaean League was already evident in dealings with > Cleomenes [6] in 223/2 (Plut. Cleomenes 24,8; cf. Pol. 2,61,5-11; [4. 194]). His main goal was the increase of the League’s power, esp. by expanding to include Sparta. This led to various conflicts, not least with the Romans, who expected the Achaeans to accept their political concept of order for Greece after their victory over > Philippus [7] V (cf. Pol. 24,11; 13; [1. 113]). But P.’s rebuffs of Roman commanders and emissaries, esp. T. > Quinctius Flamininus (Pol. 23,5,15-18; 39,3,4-8; Liv. 38,32,83; 39,3355—-83 36,53 379-17; Plut. Philopoemen

17,2-7; Paus. 7,9,3; 4; [1. 110, 123, 3. 39-48]) promoted a polarization of opinion within the Achaean League, with Diophanes and — Aristaenus ever more compliant towards the Romans [1. 109-121] and P., along with > Lycortas, representing the absolute priority of defending the Achaean legal position against Roman interference. After his death, P. was commemorated in statues in several cities (Syll.3 624; Pol. 3.9,3,1; Paus. 8,49,1); Polybius succeeded in having the Roman decision to dismantle them in 146 BC reversed (Pol. 3953533 35103 Plut. Philopoemen 21,10-12). — Macedonian Wars 1 J. DeINtNGER, Der politische Widerstand gegen Rom in Griechenland 217-86 v.Chr., 1971 2R.M. ERRINGTON, Philopoemen, 1969 3H. NotTrMeyer, Polybios und das Ende des Achaierbundes, 1995 4R. URBAN, Wachstum und Krise des Achdischen Bundes, 1979. L.-M.G.

Philoponus, Iohannes (®thdn0vo¢/Phildponos, ‘the industrious’; also called Peaupatindc/Grammatikos, ‘the teacher’). I. Lire I. Work

III. SIGNIFICANCE AND

INFLUENCE I. LIFE P. was a Christian polymath who lived in Alexandria [x1] around AD 490-575 and was a disciple of > Ammonius [12]. His cognomen may have been inspired by his enthusiasm for his work or by his membership in the

Il. WorK

P. wrote numerous works dealing with such fields as mathematics, astronomy, grammar and medicine; many of them have not been preserved. Of particular importance are the following: his surviving commentaries on Aristotle (on Aristot. An., An. pr., An. post., Cat., Gen. corr., Mete., Ph., his polemical writings De aeternitate mundi contra Proclum and De aeternitate mundi contra Aristotelem (only fragments remain) and his commentary on the hexaemeron (De opificio mundi). On purely philosophical grounds, he argued in favour of the idea that the world had a beginning and an end, and introduced the concept of impetus to explain projectile movement, also applying it to all natural movement through the Christian belief in a creator. In so doing, he distanced himself from the Aristotelian doctrine that the heavenly aether moved in a circular fashion. In his (preserved) theological works Diaitétés, Tmemata and Epistula ad Iustinianum he developed his monophysite theology (~ Monophysitism), in De trinitate (only fragments) he established the rationale for his tritheism. During the Middle Ages, Islamic and Latin thinkers gave serious consideration to his anti-Aristotelian cosmology. KSA. III. SIGNIFICANCE AND INFLUENCE While his theological speculations had relatively little influence, P.’ enormous philosophical accomplishments led to a turning point in the history of Aristotelian and Neoplatonic natural philosophy. His critical examination of Aristotle [6] had its origin in his extensive work as a teacher and commentator and represents nothing less than a fundamental reconsideration of the basic physical concepts accepted at the time. Among other things P. criticized the Neoplatonic idea, based on Aristotelian arguments, of a formless first matter (as the lowest level of > ontology) and replaced it with the postulate of a three-dimensional physical expanse (tO text] Siaotatov/to trichéi diastaton). He

disputed the Aristotelian definition of the place of an object as the internal surface of the body surrounding it, just as he did the Aristotelian concepts of + space and of the regularity of the motion of falling. His most important and influential ideas included the impetus theory developed in his commentary on the Physics (— physics) and his devastating criticism (in Contra Aristotelem) of the Aristotelian aether theory and of the doctrine of the eternity of time and > motion. A lasting contribution of P. is his critical and constructive consideration of Aristotle, which made him a forerunner of the emancipation from — Aristotelianism that followed in the early modern era.

PHILOPONUS,

IOHANNES

There is disagreement as to what caused and enabled him to break with the tradition of the philosophical schools. It is striking that beyond substantive differences of opinion, P. also challenged the methodological foundations of Neoplatonic hermeneutics. As a Christian he rejected the idea that the soul’s salvation depended on philosophy. The belief in the unquestioned authority of the great thinkers (especially Plato and Aristotle) is dwindling in P., as is the need to bring obvious philosophical differences into harmony. P. concentrated his efforts on examining philosophical concepts in the light of the author’s intended meaning, and in so doing he challenged the Platonic and Neoplatonic tendency to interpret concepts as direct reflections and signs of a noetic world of true realities. + Ammonius

[12]; — Aristotle, commentators on; + Aristotelianism; >» Monophysitism; ~— Neoplatonism; > Trinity EDITIONS: C. SCHOLTEN (ed.), Johannes Philoponos, De opificio mundi (Fontes Christianae 23), 1997; H. RABE (ed.), De aeternitate mundi, 1899; K. WALTER (ed.), Libellus de paschate, 1899, 198-229; A. Sanna (ed.), Johannis Philoponi opuscula monophysitica, 1930; PG 94, 743754 (fr. in lohannes of Damascus). BIBLIOGRAPHY: L. FLADERER, Johannes Philoponos, De opificio mundi: Spatantikes Sprachdenken und christliche Exegese, 1999; F. A. J. DE Haas, John P.’ New Definition of Prime Matter, 1996; C. SCHOLTEN, Antike Naturphilosophie und christliche Kosmologie in der Schrift De opificio mundi des Johannes Philoponos, 1996; R. SORABJI (ed.), P. and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science, 1987; C. WILpDBERG, John P.’ Criticism of Aristotle’s Theory of Aether, 1988; M. Wo rr, Fallgesetz und Massebegriff,

1971.

K.SA. and CH.WI.

Philos, Philoi see > Court titles

Philosophical life. Ancient Greek and Latin philosophy was characterized not only by the fact that it formulated theories about the world and mankind; it also represented a way of life. Hence choosing to adhere to a certain philosophical school meant not so much the adopting a particular doctrine as it did the realization of a particular way oflife [1; 2; 3; 4; 5] (cf. Sext. Emp. Adv. math. 9,178-180), i.e. living in a way that outsiders might regard strange and even absurd. This was often realized within the philosophical schools — communities in which teachers and pupils had daily contact with one another (contubernium, Sen. Ep. 6,6), and frequently also lived and had meals together. A. THE PRESOCRATIC

PERIOD

C. PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

92

91

B. SOCRATES

D. EPICUREANS

AND

Stoics E. CyNics AND SCEPTICS F. NEOPLATONISM G. THE LIFE OF THE PHILOSOPHERS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF COMEDY AND SATIRE

A. THE PRESOCRATIC PERIOD H. Diets [6] compiled all of the evidence indicating that school communities of teachers and pupils already existed in the period of the > Presocratics; only for the case of the Pythagoreans (— Pythagorean School) is there clear documentation that membership in a certain

school meant a certain kind of philosophical life. For instance, Plato in his Politeia (Plat. Resp. 600b) praised Pythagoras for having introduced a way of life (trépos tov biou) that was still being practiced by the Pythagoreans in Plato’s time. Later writers (Diodorus [18] Siculus, 10,5-10, rst cent. BC; Porphyrius, Vita Pythagorica 30-53, and Iamblichus, VP 60-101, 3rd—4th cents. AD) provide extensive descriptions of the Pythagorean communities; unfortunately, they also tend to project a much newer philosophical ideal onto the past. At any rate, it appears that the Pythagoreans fulfilled certain political functions in the city, while on the other hand leading an ascetic life (+ Ascesis/Ascetism), which included e.g. vegetarianism, owing to their belief in metempsychosis. They made use of certain intellectualspiritual exercises such as the examination of the conscience, which was both an effort at self-control and a training of memory. B. SOCRATES The personality of — Socrates left a profound impression, taking on mythical dimensions not long after his death. Accordingly, it is difficult to discern the true historical person of that name behind the ‘hagiography’ of Plato (Symposium) and Xenophon (Memorabilia). It is clear, at any rate, that he had a decisive influence on the perception of philosophical life that developed in the course of ancient philosophy. Plato and Xenophon indicated that his only true doctrine consisted in his life itself: ‘I never cease to demonstrate what I regard as just; instead of giving speeches, I make it clear in my actions’ (Xen. Mem.

4,4,5). Plutarch

noted that Socrates did not stand behind a lectern while philosophizing with his pupils. Rather, he bantered or went drinking with them, as the opportunity arose; with some, he went to war or visited the agora, and

finally, he went to prison and drank poison (Plut. An seni res publica gerenda sit 26,796d), all the time philosophizing with his pupils. In the end, philosophical life must thus produce a moral change in the philosopher, which, thanks to the practice of dialectics, also manifests itself in the lively dialogue carried out within a school. C. PLATO AND ARISTOTLE Of all the schools founded by pupils of Socrates, the school of > Plato, the + Academy, is the most prominent, Owing to its members (> Xenocrates, > Speusippus, > Aristoteles [6]) and its long life. Like the Pythagorean school, the Platonic school sought to shape active political figures by providing practice in the various sciences, but also by exercising a certain asceticism. The characteristic lifestyle of this school, in which

93

94

daily life was regulated by precise rules such as those organizing common meals or determining the selection

(parrhésia) and absolute independence from all useless needs characterized the lifestyle of individuals like > Diogenes [14] of Sinope and > Crates [4] of Thebes and his wife > Hipparchia. In contrast, the Sceptics, who invoked the example of — Pyrrho, preached total conformity (they complied with the laws and customs of their respective country), refusing to assert that one thing or another was bad or good. Accordingly, they were utterly indifferent to all things, and thus in a constant state of imperturbable peace of mind (ataraxia).

of the school’s head, was marked on the one hand by

dialogue (which was less a means of inquiry than of education), and on the other by certain nutritional regu-

lations as well as the ‘exercise in preparation for death’ described in Plato’s Phaedo (64a), which involved accepting the idea of separation from one’s body. Aristotle’s school, the Lyceum, was comparable to the Academy in terms of its organization. It followed a way of

PHILOSOPHICAL

LIFE

life that was dedicated to scientific inquiry, but also to

contemplation. D. EPICUREANS AND STOICS Other enduring academic institutions emerged near the end of the 4th cent. BC: the Stoa (> Stoicism) foun-

ded by Zeno of Citium and the ‘garden’ of > Epicurus. The lifestyle of Zeno’s school was very different from that of the school of Epicurus. The Stoics were characterized by tension and activity, the Epicureans by passivity and relaxation. The Stoics required of their adherents constant vigilance (prosoché), the continual moral purification of their intentions (to ensure that an action

was motivated only by the aim of realizing what was morally good), untiring intellectual preparation for the emotional shock resulting from any unfortunate events that might occur, and devotion to the community of the city and of humankind. The Stoic way of life was highly regarded by Roman aristocrats: M. Porcius [I 7] Cato Uticensis, Q. Mucius [I 8] Scaevola, P. Clodius [II 15] Thrasea Paetus, Seneca and > Marcus [II 2] Aurelius were noted for the rigour of their lifestyle, their moral and political integrity and their strength of character. In contrast, the Epicureans were primarily concerned with liberating the spirit from the torment of anxiety (from fear of the gods, of death, of suffering of any kind), as well as with placing limits on one’s desires, not through the constraints of asceticism, but instead through the enjoyment ofpure, unadulterated pleasures (which required abstention from politics, which was the source of much anxiety). Life in the Epicurean school was known for its friendly atmosphere, the frugality of its common meals and the equality of masters and slaves, men and women (cf. also > Women philosophers). E. CYNICS AND SCEPTICS The Cynics (> Cynicism) and Sceptics (— Scepticism), who, unlike the ‘dogmatic’ schools, had no organized school system, did not require their adherents to pursue a theoretical course of study (it is well known that for the Sceptics philosophical discourse led to its own disintegration), but instead they were expected to acquire in practice certain ways of living. Cynicism, which may perhaps be traced back to Socratism through — Antisthenes [tr], represents a radical break with the lifestyle of outsiders and even other philosophers: a rejection of all social conventions, a strictly ascetic way of life, shamelessness, disdain for money, lack of respect for the powerful, provocative free speech

F. NEOPLATONISM The Pythagorean component of Platonism is predominant in the form of Platonism that began with + Plotinus (3rd cent. AD) and has in the modern era come to be called ‘Neoplatonism’. Characteristic of the school of Plotinus and (to an even greater extent) of the Neoplatonism of > Ilamblichus was a nearly ‘monastic’ life: according to Porphyrius (De abstinentia 1,29,4), one should live ‘according to the spirit’, i.e. ‘flee’ from the body, liberate oneself from passions, eat no meat and, to the degree possible, achieve contemplation and mystic ecstasy. Sacramental practices also played a role for Iamblichus and his followers: the rites of Chaldaean ~ theurgy prescribed by the gods, permitting contact with the divine and the intuiting of divine forms. — P.Ha. G. THE LIFE OF THE PHILOSOPHERS FROM THE

PERSPECTIVE OF COMEDY AND SATIRE Along with Diogenes [17] Laertius’ work on The

lives of the philosophers, which contains a great deal of valuable information on the lifestyles and famous sayings of ancient philosophers, information is also provided by comedy [7; 8] and the satirist Lucianus [1]. As their way of life seemed strange to laymen, philosophers offered abundant cause for ridicule (e.g. Aristophanes’ The Clouds). While these caricatures tell us nothing about the deeper substance of the various philosophical schools, they do reveal something of their external — and often striking — aspects. The Platonists were depicted as proud, formal, elegant and affected, while the Pythagoreans, who, strangely enough, were lumped together with the Cynics, were regarded as unclean. Comic poets and Lucianus also made fun of the pseudophilosophers who claimed to be philosophers, but by no means led the exemplary life they urged upon others. 1 I. Hapor, Seneca und die griechisch-rémische Tradition der Seelenleitung, 1969 2 J. HAHN, Der Philosoph und die Gesellschaft, 1989 3P. Hapot, Die Philosophie als

Lebensform, 1991 antique?, 1995

41d., Qu’est-ce que la philosophie

5A.-J. VoELKE, La philosophie comme

thérapie de me, 1993 6 H. Diets, Uber die altesten Philosophenschulen der Griechen, in: Philosophische Aufsatze, E. Zeller zu seinem 50. Jubilaum gewidmet, 1887 (repr. 1962), 241-260 7A. WEIHER, Philosophen und Philosophenspott in der attischen Komédie, diss. Minchen/Nordlingen 1913 8 R. HEL, Lukian und Menipp, 1906, 371-386.

P.HA.

PHILOSOPHICAL

LITERATURE,

GENRES

OF

Philosophical literature, genres of. The term ‘genres of philosophical literature’ refers to the forms and linguistic tools of presentation used by ancient philosophy. It is not always possible to make a clear distinction between philosophy and non-philosophical genres with respect to the use of specialized terminology (which is sometimes consciously avoided: Pl. Tht. 182a; cf. the dispute between Epicurus and Metrodorus [3] of Lampsacus, Epicurus De natura B 28 [1. ror, 218]) or logical rigour. It is essential to consider the content at issue; as a rule the relationship between doctrine and literary genre can only be determined from case to case [2. 548; 3. 103 5ff.; 4. 848]. A. POETRY AND

PROSE

TION AND FUNCTION

B. FORM

OF PRESENTA-

C. ORALITY AND WRITTEN

FORMS D. FORMS RELATED TO THE TEACHING PHILOSOPHY

OF

A. POETRY AND PROSE Ancient genres of philosophical literature range from > aphorism and > gnome in the sense of ‘sharply formulated, universally applicable ideas regarding the actions of human beings’ (cf. Aristot. De philosophia fr. 13 ROSE [5. 35]) to > didactic poetry and philosophical hymns (~ Hymn) (Orphic Hymns, see > Orphism, + Cleanthes [2], > Lucretius [III 1], > Proclus), > dialogue, symposium and memorabilia literature (+ Athenaeus [3], > Xenophon); they include essays, diatribes (— Diatribe), > protreptics, paraenesis and — consolatio as a literary genre, along with manuals, treatises and epistolary literature (> Letter [6. 3ff.]; [3. ro49ff.] with respect to Christian literature). This variety may be rooted in the fact that philosophy is situated somewhere between poetry and science. The transition from theogony to cosmogony, from genealogy to aetiology, from myth to physics in the earliest philosophical works is accompanied by a shift from poetic expression to prose (> Anaximander, > Anaximenes, > Heraclitus,

~ Anaxagoras, > Pherecydes [7. 15]). - Parmenides chose to use the form of a didactic poem; his pupil + Zeno of Elea, however, defended his teacher’s theses in prose (cf. Pl. Prm. 127c). The general preference for prose in the philosophy of the 5th/4th cents. BC should probably be seen as a reaction to the dominance of poetry up to that time. In this context, > Xenophanes’, Parmenides’ and > Empedocles’ choice of the form of didactic poetry [8. 838ff.] is striking. The aim of using poetic forms in communicating philosophical knowledge was no doubt to take advantage of the reputation (inspiration of the > Muses) and the means of imparting knowledge that poetry had to offer (mnemonic techniques, see + mnemonics),

96

95

or it may have been

rooted in the conviction that the subject matter required a special form of expression. Cleanthes continued to view poetic language as the appropriate means of philosophical expression related to the divine; Lucretius touched upon this idea in the proem to the 5th book [9; 10; rr]. The cultural environment and the intended audi-

ence may also have played a role in this context (Xenophanes, Parmenides, Empedocles e.g. in -» Magna Graecia) [12; 13].

B. FORM OF PRESENTATION AND FUNCTION The following have been proposed as classification criteria: (1) the relationship between the author and the work, (2) the form of presentation and (3) the function of the texts: (x) Is the author presenting his own ideas in written form (in some cases in ~ Aristotle [6]) or public speeches, or is he speaking of other philosophers (~ Xenophon, ‘memorabilia’, > doxography)? Is he writing under his own name, is he letting others present his opinions, or is the reader left in the dark about his philosophical stance (cf. e.g. Plato’s ‘anonymity’) [4. 849]? (2) In antiquity there was already a distinction between writings that described (hyphégésis) and those that analysed a subject (zétésis) (Plato’s dialogues were classified according to these types of discourse: Diog. Laert. 3,49; Albinus, Isagoge 3; [14; 15; 16]). In the first case, the description provides an overview of the doctrine as a whole or of central portions of it (e.g. Epicurus’ ‘Letter to Herodotus’; Lucretius; Proclus’ ‘Elements of theology’) or deals with specific questions by using principles as a starting point and ultimately arriving at conclusions (theorem proof); > Euclides’ [3] ‘Elements’ are the best-known example of this, and probably often served as a model. Other forms of presentation (handbooks, doxographies) focus on classifying their subjects (e.g. aspects of philosophy). In analytical presentations (zétésis), questions posed to the teacher by a pupil — whether as a response to a thesis (‘problemata’; ‘zetemata’; ‘aporiai and solutions’) [17. rff.] or to a text (cf. Iambl. De myst., responding to Porphyrius’ ‘Letter to Anebon’ [18]) — trigger a search for answers or for premises on which a conclusion might be based. It was above all Plato’s Socratic dialogues, with their refutation (elenctics) of definitions or theses, that served as a model. (3) Already in antiquity, different forms of philosophical texts were distinguished on the basis of their purpose (cf. Stob. 2,7,2 WACHSMUTH-HENSE); not only the aim and intended audience were of central importance, but also the respective view of knowledge and how it is conveyed. Along with the desire to impart content, the aim was to make this knowledge become second nature for the reader — ‘to permeate’ is the metaphor commonly used in this context — so that it can have a concrete effect (Sen. Ep. 71,31: olorare; M. Aur. 5,16; Pl. Resp. 430c: Baxtew/baptein; cf. [19]) and thereby change the reader’s life. This purpose was served primarily by — dialectics (‘dialogues’), but increasingly (particularly after + Cicero) also by making stylistic methods and rhetoric part of the philosophical literature of the Greco-Roman Imperial Period.

97

C. ORALITY AND WRITTEN FORMS Ina time of increasing literacy during the 5th and 4th cents. BC, the advantages and disadvantages of written texts were considered in the context of conveying philosophical knowledge (Pl. Phdr. 274b-277a; PI. Ep. 7, cf. [20. 21-59; 21], > literacy/orality). Those who believe that the acquisition of knowledge is possible solely through a dialectic search for truth and oral discourse will concede only a supportive function to textual material (e.g. + hypomnéma). Depending on the audience, however, a text may have multiple functions, e.g. Plato’s ‘aporetic’ dialogues function as a reminder in the case of an audience that has prior knowledge, while for any audience they serve to promote the Platonic school

98

PHILOSOPHICAL

LITERATURE,

GENRES

OF

(> epitome), compendia, collections of maxims, letters

and commentaries. Originally, philosophical discourse was oral, and for various reasons this remained the case for certain philosophers (Socrates, Arcesilaus [5], Menedemus [8], Ammonius [9] Saccas). Many types of texts are related to or developed from oral instruction (-> philosophy,

teaching of). We can distinguish several areas of application that can be termed ‘exoteric’, a term first used by » Aristotle [6] (perhaps borrowed from Plato), or the opposite, ‘esoteric’ (public/non-public, popular/specialized) (Aristot. Eth. Nic. 1,13, 1102a 26; 6,4,1140a

So btheabud-

a.m, consbezan

Pole

386.02 78bia a:

Fo,1323a 223 Eth. Eud) 1,38,1227b 22; Metaph. 13,,0,fO7 62253 DheAsrowmm7b 40"alsorPoln, 5.02544

(Pl. Phdr. 276d; [20. 28o0ff.; 22]). Those who regard acquired knowledge as ultimate truth and capable of being fully imparted will view texts as an adequate sub-

33 and Eudemus in Simpl. in Aristot. Phys. (1,2,185b 5) Comm. p. 85,27 DiELs = fr. 36 WEHRLI; cf. Lucian. Vit.

stitute for the author (Isocrates, cf. [23; 21. 13ff.]), and

auct. 26; cf. [28; 29]). Aristotle is believed to have refer-

as helpful in internalizing his teachings (Epicurus, — Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus [2] Aurelius). In this context, texts that present the result of previous attempts to arrive at the truth, such as anthologies or collections of maxims from the ~ Epicurean School (Ratae Senten-

red to propaedeutic arguments as ‘exoteric’. Note that

tiae, Gnomologium Vaticanum), > Stoicism (Marcus [2] Aurelius’ Meditationes) or Platonism (— Porphyrius’ ‘Letter to Marcella’), but also traditional genres

such as > prayer and hymns (> hymn) (e.g. the Hymn to Venus in Lucretius’ De rerum natura 1,1-61) take on

a philosophical function as an aid to meditation aimed at internalizing knowledge or assuring oneself of the nature of the gods [24. rs5ooff.; 27; 3. 1149ff.]. Both of these are intended to help establish an orientation in life and to put philosophy into practice. Reading traditional poetry as a repository of moral exempla also helped to make philosophy part of everyday life (e.g. > Horatius’ reading of Homer in Praeneste: Hor. Epist. 1,2,1— 30). As a result of the renewed importance attached to transcendence, and as Platonism ultimately achieved a dominant position in Late Antiquity (— Neoplatonism), philosophical prayer texts no longer focused on orientation in this life, but on supporting the desire of the soul to return to its spiritual origin (e.g. Orphic and Proclean hymns) [26]. Ancient reflections on philosophical literature are found in > Isocrates, > Plato and (in connection with Plato’s dialogues) > Aristotle [6] (cf. Isocr. Antidosis 45; Pl. Ti. sre; Aristotle on Plato’s dialogues in Diog. Laert. 3,37). > Apollonius [14] of Tyana regarded philosophy as a separate genre (Epist. 19). Theoretical comments are found in ancient epistolary literature [3]. Epicurus (letter to Herodotus 35; in this context [27]) offers thoughts on a functional classification of different types of philosophical texts with a view to the recipient: summaries or detailed presentations can be useful, depending on the interest of the reader (precise information, overview) and his existing knowledge (advanced level or prior knowledge). It was therefore more and more common in the philosophy of the Hellenistic and Imperial period to find brief summaries

‘esoteric’ is not the same

as ‘secret’ [30. 400-405].

When literary works are termed ‘exoteric’ today, this concept goes back to its first use in Cicero (Cic. Fin. 5555125 Cic. Att. 4,16,2). In Aristotle, and probably as early as Plato, there were three areas in which philosophical texts were used: literary works (‘dialogues’) intended to be published; ‘exoteric’ exercises or public courses of instruction; and strictly academic lectures and discussions within the school (> Philosophy, teaching of). Texts deemed canonical were commentated on with regard to their philological aspects and content. The structure of such a commentary (e.g. > Olympiodorus’ commentary

on Plato’s Gorgias) is reminiscent of school instruction: the pupil reads a text aloud, the teacher comments on it, cf. Cic. De or. 1,46-47 = 16 DOrRIE [32] (helpful with respect to commentary [34], cf. [31. 192]). Commentaries (along with concordances, lexica, comprehensive treatments, monographs)

became an important part of teaching philosophy and of philosophy itself (e.g. Anonymus, Commentarium in Platonis “Theaetetum’ (P Berol. inv. 9782) in [35]: an anonymous commentary on the Theaetetus; the first preserved commentary on Aristotle is > Aspasius’ [1] commentary on Nicomachean ethics, CAG XIX 1 HEYLBUT).

MER.

D. FORMS RELATED TO THE TEACHING OF PHILOSOPHY The — diatribe too is related to oral forms of traditional instruction in philosophy and rhetoric, perhaps including discussion of certain theses within the respective schools (cf. [37]). Elements of this genre (direct address, dialogue, alternating questions and responses) reflect the original relationship between student and teacher in school instruction. The term ‘diatribe’, probably first used in the roth cent. to refer to sermon-like, popular-philosophical expositions (also suggested: didlexis, didlogos; see [3. 1124] and additional literature), stands for instruction, presentation or speech

PHILOSOPHICAL

LITERATURE,

GENRES

OF

I0O

99

which might be set down in writing and in literary form, e.g. in an account of the teaching presented by a philosopher (cf. Arrianus’ [2] edition of + Epictetus’ Dissertationes).

Of significance are ‘introductory writings’ (Ezsagogai; > isagoge) in a variety of forms: dihaeretic introductions ranging from the general to the most specific concept of the respective discipline (e.g. Alypius, Eioaywyh povou/Eisagoge mousike, ‘Introduction to music’, similarly > Porphyrius’ Eioaywyt/Eisagoge, ‘Introduction’), introductory writings structured as a dialogue (Porphyrius’ Etoaywyi sic tag xatyyoetac xara mevow xai &oxovoww/Eisagoge eis tas katégorias kata peisin kai apokrisin, ‘Introduction to categories through questions and responses’) or those that echo school instruction (Nicomachus’ Harmonikon encheiridion/‘Manual of harmonics’; [31. 58, note 99; 40}), admonitory writings (Protreptikoi: Protreptikos of Aristotle or > Iamblichus [2] or Cicero’s Hortensius, cf. > protreptics), hortatory or therapeutic writings (Parainetikoi) that dealt with such matters as emotions (cf. Plut. De ira; Seneca, Letters), lives of the philosophers, which were read aloud before groups of followers, as hagiography and for the purpose of internalization [38; 39], or compendia: all of these belong in the school context. It is unlikely that notes taken during instruction or finished versions of such notes (bypomnemata, Latin commentarii, cf. Sen. Epist. 33,7: ex commentario sapere; [40]) were intended for publication, but sometimes they were published despite objections from their authors (Pl. Prm. 128d); authorized versions were then circulated as a result (cf. Arr. Epicteti dissertationes; Arr. Epist. ad Gellium p. sf. SCHENKL; Quint. Inst. 1, praef. 7). Other philosophical genres are not related to school instruction: letters (Plato’s and Epicurus’ letters; Cynic letters, Seneca) [3. 113 2ff.], literary works such as biographies, autobiographies (> Augustinus, Confessiones), doxographies (> Doxography), anecdotes, collections of materials in literary form (cf. > Clemens [3] of Alexandria, Stromdteis; > Gellius’ [6]Noctes Atticae; — Athenaeus’ [3] Deipnosophistai), commemorative

literature (Plato’s Apology; Xenophon’s Memorabilia), the Meditations of > Marcus [2] Aurelius and the Dissertations of Epictetus aided in the internalization of moral principles and philosophical content by their audiences outside the school context. ~ Diatribe; > Literature; > Philosophy; > Protreptics

in: ANRW I 3, 1973, 813-901 9H. RetcHe, Myth and Magic in Cosmological Polemics: Plato, Aristotle, Lucretius, in: RhM r14, 1971, 296-329, esp. 307 and note 28 10 D. OBBinK, How to Read Poetry about Gods, in: Id. (ed.), Philodemus and Poetry, 1995, 188-209, esp. 205f. 11 P. Haport, Physique et poésie dans le Timée de Platon,

in: Revue de théologie et de philos. 115, 1983, 113-133 12 A. A. Lone, in: CHCL-G, 246

13 G. WOuRLE, War

Parmenides ein schlechter Dichter? Oder: Zur Form der Wissensvermittlung in der friihgriechischen Philosophie, in: W. KULLMANN, J. ALTHOFF

(eds.), Vermittlung und

Tradierung von Wissen in der griechischen Kultur, 1993, 167-180, esp. 174ff. 14 B. Rets, Der Platoniker Albinos und sein sogenannter Prologos, 1999

15 O. NUsSER,

Albins Prolog und die Dialogtheorie des Platonismus, 1991 16D. Cray, The Origins of the Socratic Dialogue, in: P. VANDER

WaeRpT

(ed.), The Socratic Movement,

1994, 23-47 17H. Dorrik, Porphyrios’ Symmikta Zetemata, 1959 18 F. W. Cremer, Die Chaldaischen Orakel und Jamblich de mysteriis, 1969 19 M. ERLER, R6mische Philosophie, in: F. GraF (ed.), Einfiihrung in die lateinische Philologie, 1997, 537-598, esp. 539-544 20 Id., Der Sinn der Aporien in den Dialogen Platons, 1987 21S. UseNneR, Isokrates, Platon und ihr Publikum, 1994 (with

further bibl.). 22 K. Garser, Protreptik und Paranese bei Plato, 1959 23 M. Erter, Hilfe und Hintersinn. Isokrates’ Panathenaikos und die Schriftkritik im Phaidros, in: L. RosseEtTI (ed.), Understanding the Phaedrus, 1992, 122137 24R.J. Newman, Cotidie meditare. Theory and Practice of the Meditatio in Imperial Stoicism, in: ANRW Il 36.3, 1989, 1473-1517 25 M. ERveER, Reflexe miindlicher Meditationstechnik in der Kaiserzeit, in: W. KULLMANN et al. (eds.), Gattungen wissenschaftlicher Literatur in der Antike, 1998, 361-381 26Id., Interpretieren als

Gottesdienst.

Proklos’ Hymnen

vor dem Hintergrund

seines Kratylos-Kommentar, in: G. Boss, G. SEEL (eds.),

Proclus et son influence, 1987, 179-217

271. Haport,

Epicure et l’enseignement philosophique hellénistique et romain, in: Actes du VIII® Congrés de |’Association G. Budé, 1969, 347-356 28F. DrruMeteEr, Physik IV ro (E&mteeixol dOyou), in: J. DURING (ed.), Naturphilosophie bei Aristoteles und Theophrast, Verhandlungen des 4. Symposium Aristotelicum in Goteborg, 1969 29 K. GarSER, s.v. Exoterisch/esoterisch, HWdPh 2, 866f. 307TH. A. SzLEezAK, Platon und die Schriftlichkeit der Philosophie, 1985 31 J. MANSFELD, Prolegomena. Questions to be Settled Before the Study of an Author, or a Text, 1994 32 H. Dorrie, Der Platonismus in der Antike, vol. 1,

1987, 433ff. 33 DORRIE/BALTES 3, 1993, 15tf., 162ff., 184-226 (survey of the commentaries on Plato’s dialogues)

34 J. BARNES et al., Alexander of Aphrodisias: On

1M. Erter, Epikur-Die Schule Epikurs-Lukrez (GGPh?

Aristotle’s Prior Analytics 1. 1-7 (Engl. transl.), 1991, 4-7 (esp. 5) 35 G. BasTIANINI, D. N. SEDLEY (eds.), Corpus dei Papiri Filosofici Greci e Latini (CPF), vol. 3: Commentari, 1995, nr. 9 (227-562) 36 H. THROM, Die Thesis. Ein

4.1), 1994 2R. BRAND, Die literarische Form philosophischer Werke, in: Universitas 40, 1985, 545-556, esp.

Beitrag zu ihrer Entstehung und Geschichte, 1932 37M. Asper, Zu Struktur und Funktion eisagogischer Texte, in:

548

W. KULLMANN et al. (eds.), Gattungen wissenschaftlicher Literatur in der Antike, 1998, 309-340 381. DUrINc, Aristotle’s Protrepticus, 1961 39 D. CLay, Individual and

3K. Bercer, Hellenische Gattungen im Neuen

Testament, in: ANRW II 25.2, 1984, 1035-1432 4P. Haport, s.v. Philosophie VI (Literarische Formen),

HWdPh 7, 848-858 5 J. DALFEN, Formgeschichtliche Untersuchungen in den Selbstbetrachtungen Mark Aurels, 1967 6M. UNTERSTEINER, Problemi di Filologia Filoso-

Community

fica, 1980 7 H. CHERNISs, Ancient Forms of Philosophical Discourse, in: Id., Selected Papers, 1977, 14-35 8E. POHLMANN, Charakteristika des rémischen Lehrgedichts,

Den Autoren uber die Schulter geschaut. Arbeitsweise und Autographie bei den antiken Schriftstellern, in: ZPE 87, 1991, 11-33.

in the First Generation

of the Epicurean

School, in: G. Maccutavott (ed.), Syzetesis, FS M. Gigante, 1983, 255-279 (esp. 264-270) 40 T. Doranpl,

102

Io.r

R. Branpt, Die Interpretation philosophischer Werke. Eine Einfiihrung in das Studium antiker und neuzeitlicher Philosophie, 1984, esp. 103-136; J. M. BROEKMAN, Darstellung und Diskurs, in: E. W. Orrtu (ed.), Zur Phano-

menologie des philosischen Textes (Phanomenologische Forschungen 12), 1982, 77-97; K. DORING, ‘Spielereien,

mit verdecktem Ernst vermischt’, in: W. KULLMANN, J. ALTHOFF (eds.), see [13], 1993, 337-352; H. FRANKEL, Dichtung und Philosophie des frithen Griechentums, 1962; K. VON Fritz, Philosophie und sprachlicher Ausdruck bei Demokrit, Plato und Aristoteles, 1966; M. FUHRMANN, Das systematische Lehrbuch. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte

der Wissenschaft

in der Antike,

1960;

O.

GiGon, Grundprobleme der antiken Philosophie, 1959; G.

GABRIEL,

C.

SCHILDKNECHT

(eds.),

Literarische

Formen der Philosophie, 1990; B. GLADIGOW, Sophia und Kosmos, 1965; I. HADoT, Seneca und die griechischromische Tradition der Seelenleitung,

1969; Ead., The Spi-

ritual Guide, in: World Spirituality 15, 1986, 444-459; P.

Hapvot, Philosophie als Lebensform. Geistige Ubungen in der Antike, 1991; R. Hirze, Der Dialog. Ein literarhistorischer Versuch, 2 vols., 1895 (repr. 1963); K. HorNa,

s.v. Gnome, Gnomendichtung, Gnomologien, RE Suppl. 6, 74-87 (87-90: K. VON Fritz, additions); R. KassEL,

Untersuchungen zur griechischen und rémischen Konsolationsliteratur, 1958; M. LatrKe, Hymnus. Materialien zu einer Geschichte der antiken Hymnologie, 1991; J. MaNSFELD, Doxography and Dialectic. The Sitz im Leben of the ‘Placita’, in: ANRW II 36.4, 1990, 3056-3229; Id., Studies in the Historiography of Greek Philosophy, 1990; Id., D. T. Runta, Aetiana. The Method and Intellectual Context of a Doxographer, 1996; J. MITTELSTRASS, Versuch uber den Sokratischen Dialog, in: Id., Wissenschaft als Lebensform, 1982, 138-161; G. F. Nreppu, Neue Wissensformen. Kommunikationstechniken und schriftliche Ausdrucksformen in Griechenland im sechsten und fiinften Jh.v.Chr., in: W. KULLMANN, J. ALTHOFF (eds.), s.

[13]; J. STENZEL, Studien zur Entwicklung der platonischen Dialektik von Sokrates zu Aristoteles Arete und Diairesis, *1931 (repr. 1961), 123-141; TH. A. SLEZAK, Platon lesen, 1993; B. WEHNER, Die Funktion der Dialog-

struktur in Epiktets Diatriben (Philosophie der Antike 13), 2000, esp. 27-36; M. L. West, Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient, 1971; W. WIELAND, Platon und die Formen des Wissens, 1982; Id., Platons Schriftkritik und die Grenzen der Mitteilbarkeit, in: V. BOHN (ed.), Roman-

tik. Literatur und Philosophie. Internationale Beitrage zur Poetik, 1987, 24-44.

M.ER.

Philosophy A. WORD AND MEANING B. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS C. PERIODS

A. WORD AND MEANING Philosophy means ‘love of wisdom’ or ‘desire for wisdom’ (philo-sophia). The Greek noun otA\oco¢ic. (philosophia) and the verb pido0098tv (philosophein) do not yet appear in Homer [1] and Hesiod (c. 700 BC), whereas codia (sophia) occasionally does appear. Sophia refers to any kind of technical ability, intellectual knowledge or political savvy as embodied e.g. by the — Seven Sages (Hdt. 1,29; 30; 60; 4,95). The term phildsophos is first attested in Heraclitus (fr. 35 DK),

PHILOSOPHY

but > Plato [1] was the first who defined it — before Plato philosophia was synonymous with philomathia, ‘love for knowledge’ (Thuc. 2,40,r). Plato — according to some ancient sources > Pythagoras was first: Cic. Tusc. 5,3,4 — distinguished between sophia and philosophia: sophia is reserved for God alone (PI. Phdr. 278d; Aristot. Metaph. 982b 17ff.). In antiquity, the term ‘philosophy’ had two basic meanings: 1) investigation of the heavenly phenomena, the cosmos (natural philosophy); according to many Greek philosophers its structure can be discovered only by pure thinking (see also + metaphysics); 2) thinking about man and the good life (> Ethics).

B. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS The Greeks developed the Western concept of science, understood as the rigorous proof and substantiation of assumptions, as knowledge of the whole and as an activity that was an end in itself (Aristot. Protrepticus fr. 6; Plot. 3,8). Philosophy was based on frankness and freedom of inquiry and characterised by the basic principles of order (k6smos) and proportion or regularity (/6gos), as also illustrated by contemporary sculpture and architecture. The Rosmos was envisioned as a comprehensive, regular and purposeful order (+ Cosmology). The idea of the orderly cosmos was applied to human life and became its paradigm. Therefore the order of the cosmos became a model for the order of the state (polis). By gradually moving away from the > myth of poets (or from religion) and from individual disciplines, the grasp and identity of Greek philosophy evolved. Philosophy and myth shared a world view (— World). The goal of philosophy, how-

ever, was an understanding that was as rational and conceptual as possible (> Rationality). The tension between ancient philosophy and poetry is mediated by the use of poetic literary genres (poem, aphorism, dialogue, etc., cf. > philosophical literature, genres of) by several philosophers (Parmenides, Heraclitus, Plato, Lucretius etc.). Yet philosophy is different from the individual empirical disciplines. > Mathematics, a purely rational science, was the quintessential model of science (cf. + Pythagorean School, —> Plato). First and foremost, philosophy tried to arrive at an understanding of unity from plurality (metaphysically, ethically and politically). For most Greek philosophers, investigating the kosmos, and being in general, was the highest and most distinguished facility of man. For this reason too, philosophy was ethics. In addition, by turning away from external values like money and honour, philosophy could involve a (more or less) ascetic way of life (> Ascesis).

103

104

C. PERIODS 1. BEGINNINGS 2. CLASSICAL PERIOD (SOCRATES, PLATO, ARISTOTLES) 3. HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PHILOSOPHY 4. IMPERIAL PERIOD AND LATE ANTIQUITY

of Socrates, whose doctrine is very difficult to reconstruct because he never wrote anything down. Plato emphasised the component philos in philosophialphilosophein and thus defined philosophy not so much as ‘wisdom’ (sophia) but rather as the ‘desire’ for it (Pl. Phd. 61a; Plat. Grg. 484c). The philosopher does not love a part of wisdom but ‘wisdom as a whole’ (PI. Resp. 475b; 580d-e). Sophia remains the goal although it can never be reached completely. As true comprehensive education (paideia), philosophy was for Plato the culmination of all arts and sciences. > Dialectics was supposed to lead to anhypothetical principles and

PHILOSOPHY

1. BEGINNINGS To some extent the onset of philosophy in Greece was predicated on earlier scientific achievements in Mesopotamia and Egypt, especially in + mathematics and > astronomy. Greek authors repeatedly expressed their admiration for the rich traditions of their predecessors, e.g. Herodotus and Plato (e.g. Hdt. 2,109; Pl. Leg. 8r9b). But the Greeks were the first for whom science and its pursuit was an end in itself that did not need to have any practical application. At first, philosophy was an investigation into the > nature (physis) of the whole, but from the 5th cent. BC on, it also — or exclusively so — was an investigation into the nature of man (anthropiné physis). The — Milesian School (Ionian natural philosophers) searched for the original matter or the > principle (arché) of all things. The ordering principle was conceived of as unchanging and divine (theion) (> Eleatic School: > Parmenides, ~ Zeno). Natural philosophy sometimes led to a criticism of > anthropomorphism in religion (~ Xenophanes and > Anaxagoras [2]), as happened later in the case of Plato. Materialist thought (+ Materialism), such as the > atomism of > Democritus [1] and its continuation (> Epicurus,

> Lucretius [III 1]) was to radi-

calize the criticism of religion. Later (especially in the Hellenistic and early Christian period) philosophy did not always reject poetic art; instead it embraced allegorical interpretation, searching for a deeper meaning behind the literal one (> Allegoresis). 2. CLASSICAL PERIOD (SOCRATES, PLATO, ARISTOTLES)

When the > Sophists (5th—4th cent. BC) for the first time defended a radical scepticism and conventionalism, — Socrates (470/65-399 BC) tried to rationally justify the old moral concepts. In his quest for virtue (areté) and > happiness (ewdaimonia) ‘Socrates was the first who brought down philosophy from the heavens, placed it in cities and introduced it into families’ (Cic. Tusc. 5,10). For Socrates knowledge was at the basis of

a good and happy life. Language (/dgos) became fundamental, more in particular a speaker’s opinions (/6goi) to be examined in dialogue (Pl. Phd. 96a—99d). The dia-

lectic method of disproof (élenchos) exposed false knowledge and conceit and thereby illustrated the long process of gaining philosophical knowledge. Among the Socratics were — in addition to Socrates’ students + Xenophon and especially > Plato (whose works have survived) — the proponents of > Cynicism (> Antisthenes [1], -» Diogenes [14] of Sinope), the > Cyre-

purely noetic ideas ( Ideas, theory of). In this way the

good of man coincides with the metaphysically good. Philosophy was placed in sharp contrast to the > Sophists who degraded (pseudo-)knowledge to merely a means for self-representation. Turning away from sophistic relativism, Plato established the fundamental distinction between > opinion (ddéxa) and knowledge (epistemé) (+ Epistemology). Plato’s idealist political theory was based on the (as he acknowledged, unlikely) coincidence of political power and selfless knowledge (> Political philosophy). ~ Isocrates, a student of > Gorgias [2], returned to the more general meaning of philosophy as sophia. Rejecting the idea that pure knowledge could ever be reached and was even relevant, he wanted to reconcile philosophy with politics and —> rhetoric. Historically, not the Platonic concept but rather the Isocratic one influenced

ancient

—> education.

Plato’s school,

the

Academy (+ Akadémeia), was a philosophical community with indirect political consequences (— Philosophical life). After Plato’s death, the mathematically oriented Old Academy (> Speusippus, > Xenocrates) evolved, as well as the Middle (> Arcesilaus [1]) and the New Academy (— Carneades [1]). They represented various types of > scepticism. ~ Aristotle [6] rejected Plato’s unitarian concept of

knowledge and divided philosophy into theoretical philosophy (> metaphysics, + mathematics, > physics) on the one hand and practical and ‘productive’ (poietic, poiétiké) philosophy (poetics, rhetoric, economy, politics, aesthetics; > practical philosophy; > political philosophy) on the other. The various areas of knowledge or philosophies corresponded to the various types (géné, eidé, Lat. genera) of being (Aristot. Metaph. 10042 4). Philosophy in the stricter, proper sense (metaphysics) examined only the most general and highest type, being itself (Aristot. Metaph. 1026a 20). Only the theoretical life gave man autarchy (Aristot. Eth. Nic. 1097b

10-11;

1172a

27-35). In general, Aristotle’s

(only partially preserved) writings revealed two basic tendencies: systematisation and specialisation. Philosophical speculation remained connected to empirical research (especially biology).

naics (> Aristippus [3]) and the members of the > Me-

The Aristotelian school, the Lykeion (Lyceum), can

garian School (— Euclides [2]). The Socratics emphasized various aspects — e.g. autarchy (> autdrkeia), + pleasure and — logic (or dialectics) — of the teaching

only be traced to the 2nd cent. BC (— Peripatos). The publication of a complete edition Aristotle’s writings by + Andronicus [4] (c. 50 BC) was a new beginning and

105

106

the start of a new tradition of commentators on Aris-

is increasingly realised today that they need and deserve reconstruction (+ Women philosophers). FR.

totle (+ Aristotle, commentators on). > Neoplatonism

brought a renewed interest in > Aristotelianism and absorbed it. 3. HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PHILOSOPHY The Hellenistic schools (after c. 300 BC) systematically divided philosophy into physics, ethics and logic. For them philosophy was primarily > ethics or moral philosophy (ars vitae, Cic. Fin. 2,2). The underlying ethical attitude was mostly based on physics, i.e. a world view (Sen. Epist. 89,7). The significance of the

theoretical and the practical varied with each thinker. Plato, Aristotle and especially the character of Socrates provided an important frame of reference for > Stoicism. In general, the main interest of Hellenistic philosophy no longer was the order of the cosmos but the quest for > happiness. Philosophy provided a recourse against strokes’ of misfortune (Sen. Epist. 104,21-24) and provided spiritual guidance (Epict. Dissertationes 3,33 133 15; M. Aur. 2,17). Inner tranquility (— ataraxia, apatheia, Lat. tranquillitas animi) could be attained through spiritual exercises. The objectives were to reduce one’s needs, carried to an extreme by the Cynics (+ Cynicism), and to master passion and the desire for external things. The practical outlook produced various kinds of > popular philosophy. > Zeno of Cition (333/2-262 BC) and the Old Stoa developed + logic and a linguistic concept. Individual sciences flourished as well, such as > mathematics and — astronomy. The Middle Stoa (— Panaetius and — Poseido-

nius) changed this outlook; this included a relaxing of the moral rigor and epistemological optimism (Cic. Fin. 4,79). After 167 BC, Stoic philosophy was introduced to political circles in Rome (the — Scipionic circle). — Cicero largely accepted the Isocratic concept of philosophy as general education (— enkyklios paideia) and formulated the distinctively Roman concept of — humanitas. + Epicurus (342/1-271/70 BC) founded another philosophical school with a moral orientation based on Democritus’ atomism and the hedonism of the Cyrenaics. He examined what was within human power and what was outside of it, thus determining the framework of freedom and responsibility (Diog. Laert. 10,133134). By his apolitical attitude Epicurus distanced himself from the Stoa (Diog. Laert. 10,13 0ff.; in that sense Lucretius’ [III 1] adoption of the Epicurean position was an exception in the politically oriented intellectual life in Rome). He continued to accept the immutability of being, yet he rejected the absolute determinism of the Stoa. The Sceptics (> Pyrrho of Elis, c. 360-271 BC, later > Sextus Empiricus, c. AD 200) - like the Sophists and the Middle Academy — rejected any possibility of knowledge (Diog. Laert. 9,61 and 74-76; Sext. Emp. Adv. Math. 11,140). Their agnosticism lead them to accept the customs of society, and it assisted them in the search for serenity (ataraxia).

There are a few accounts of women who were philosophically active. These are not very informative, and it

PHILOSOPHY

4. IMPERIAL PERIOD AND LATE ANTIQUITY

In Late Antiquity there was a philosophical shift from the practical to the religious and metaphysical. The period (AD rst to 4th cent.) culminated in > Neoplatonism (+ Plotinus, > Porphyrius, > Proclus) with its strongly theological reading of Platonic texts; the goal was to become one with the ineffable One (Plot. Enn. 6,7,35; 559,10). Yet, the mystical element was

based on strictly rational exercises. Contemplating the world that was thought of as divine, unchangeable and eternal involved ethics, since the divine order needed to be realised by imitation. Plotinus’ criticism of the pessimist world view of the gnostics (> Gnosis) belonged in the same context. The imitation of God, according to the words of Plato (Pl. Tht. 176b), became the primary aim of philosophy. After initial opposition against Greek and Roman philosophy (e.g > Tertullianus), from the 2nd cent. AD on most Christian thinkers (+ Clemens [3] of Alexandria,

— Origenes,

- Hieronymus,

— Augustine)

sought a common basis for philosophy and Christian revelation. For instance, Augustine considered philosophical reason (ratio) and Christian belief (fides) as different, yet interrelated ways of looking at the world and attaining knowledge of God; although belief had precedence. Elements of Platonist and Neoplatonist theology and Stoic ethics were integrated into the emerging Christian world view. Important traits of the common basis were the separability of the soul from the earthly world (in spite of the affirmation of physicality because of incarnation) and the self-sufficiency of God. Christian doctrine, however, denied human autarchy because of the dependence on Christ’s act of salvation. In addition, the new idea of creation required a rejection of the Greek thesis of the eternity of the world (e.g. in Aristotle) (> Philoponus). The study of Hellenistic philosophy inevitably lead to an adoption of philosophical and theological concepts which in turn helped to clarify e.g. problems related to the definition of trinity and incarnation. > Boethius (c. AD 430-524), as translator of the Aristotelian logic, — just as Cicero before him — became a crucial mediator between Greek and Latin intellectual life and between antiquity and the Middle Ages in general. The later reception and transmission of Greek texts in the Latin Middle Ages through the Arabs (9th to rath cent.) is also highly important; it made possible the rediscovery of Aristotle’s writings in the 13th cent. Philosophy, in particular Aristotelian metaphysics and logic, became part of the seven liberal arts (— artes liberales). — PHILOSOPHY G. Barpy, ‘Philosophie’ et ‘philosophe’ dans le vocabulaire chrétien des premiers siécles, in: Revue ascétique et mystique 25, 1949, 97-108; G. Bren, Himmelsbetrachter und Gliicksforscher. Zwei Auspragungen des antiken Philosophie-begriffs, in: Archiv fiir Begriffsgeschichte 26, 1982, 171-178; E. BREHIER, Y a-t-il une philosophie chré-

PHILOSOPHY

tienne?, in: Revue de métaphysique et de morale 38, 1931, 133-162; L. Brisson, Philosophie du mythe, 1996; W. BuRKERT, Weisheit und Wissenschaft, 1962; Id., Platon

oder Pythagoras? Zum Ursprung des Wortes ‘Philosophie’, in: Hermes 88, 1960, 159-177; R. BUXTON (ed.), From Myth to Reason?, 1999; M. CANTO-SPERBER (ed.), Philosophie grecque, *1998; A.-H. CHroust, Philosophy: Its Essence and Meaning in the Ancient World, in: Philosophical Review 56, 1947, 19-58; P. COURCELLE, Connais-toi toi-méme.

De Socrate a Saint Bernard, 3 vols.,

1974-1975; E.R. Curtius, Zur Geschichte des Wortes ‘Philosophie’ im Mittelalter, in: Romanische Forschung 57, 1943, 290-309; A. DIHLE, Fachwissenschaft — Allgemeinbildung, in: H. FLASHAR (ed.), Aspects de la philosophie hellénistique (Entretiens 32), 1985, 185-231; M. Dixsaut, Le naturel philosophe, 1985; K. DORING,

Exemplum Socratis. Studien zur Sokratesnachwirkung ..., 1979; GGPh?, vol. 2.1, 1998; vol. 3, 1994; vol. 4.1, 1994; H.-G. Gapamer, Griechische Philosophie, 3 vols., 1985— 1991 (= Gesammelte Werke 5-7); O. GiGon, Cicero und die griechische Philosophie, in: ANRW I 4, 1973, 226261; E. GILson, Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages, 1938; R. Goutert (ed.), Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, 1989- (5 vols. published); GuTHRIE; P.

Hapot, Exercices spirituels et philosophie antique, 1981 (2004);

108

107

Id, Philosophie

als Lebensform,

1991;

Id.,

Qu’est-ce que la philosophie antique?, 1995; Id., Les divisions des parties de la philosophie dans !’Antiquité, in: MH 36, 1979, 202-223 (= Id., Etudes de philosophie ancienne, 1998, 125-151); R. HARDER, Die Einbirgerung der Philosophie in Rom, in: Antike 5, 1929, 291-316 (= Id., Kleine Schriften, 1960, 330-353); CH. HEIN, Definition und Einteilung der Philosophie. Von der spatantike Einleitungsliteratur zur arabischen Enzyklopadie, 1985; C. Horn, Antike Lebenskunst. Gliick und Moral von Sokrates bis zu den Neuplatonikern, 1998; G. B. KER-

FERD, The Image of the Wise Man in Greece in the Period Before Plato, in: F. Bessrer

(ed.), Images of Man

in

Ancient and Medieval Thought. Festschrift G. Verbeke, 1976, 17-28; TH. Kopuscu, Metaphysik als Lebensform. Zur Idee einer praktischen Metaphysik, in: W. Goris (ed.), Die Metaphysik und das Gute, 1999, 29-56; H. J. KRAMER, Der Ursprung der Geistesmetaphysik, 1964; Id., Platonismus und hellenische Philosophie, 1971; A. M. Ma increy, Philosophia. Etude d’un groupe de mots dans la littérature grecque des Présocratiques au IV* siécle aprés J.-C., 1961; M. Puetma, Die Rezeption der Fachsprache griechischer Philosophie im Lateinischen, in: Frei-

burger Zeitschrift fiir Philosophie und Theologie

33,

Philosophy, teaching of A. INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS B. TEACHING METHODS C. SUBJECT MATTER

A. INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS ~ Plato probably modelled his school, the > Academy (Akadémeia) — named after the gymnasium in which instruction was held — after the Pythagorean communities (Pl. Resp. 10,600b; — Pythagorean School). In turn, his institution served as a model for later philosophical schools, which (unlike the + Sophists, whose

groups of pupils met at a variety of locations for brief periods of time) continued to exist in Athens for centuries: the Lyceum (> Peripatos) founded by Aristotle (> Aristoteles [6]) and — Theophrastus, the Stoa (> Stoicism) that was founded by > Zeno [2] of Citium, and the ‘garden’ (kepos) of + Epicurus. The testaments of school leaders (Diog. Laert. 3,41; 5,11; 55513 §,61; 10,14; 10,69) indicate that the schools’ possessions (library, land) were the property of the head of the school, who was chosen by members of the school or by his predecessor [1. 106-134; 2. 226ff.]. In legal terms, therefore, each school was identified with the person who was head of the school; this refutes the earlier belief [3. 262-291] that philosophical schools were required for legal reasons to take the status of religious communities. Instruction was held in multipurpose buildings (such as the gymnasiums known as the Akadémeia and Lykeion), or, in the case of Zeno, in a public columned hall, the Stod poikilé (> Stoa). Only Epicurus had a garden with a house where he taught and lived in community with his pupils (Diog. Laert. FOsb7ts)s Unlike the Pythagorean communities, these schools were open to a wider public, for the most part male and free-born. Only two women, > Axiothea and Lasthen-

eia, are known to have been pupils of Plato and > Speusippus (Diog. Laert. 4,2). Epicurus accepted not only slaves (Diog. Laert. 10,2; 10,10), but also married women and former hetaerae as his pupils [4. § 24, p. 287]. We find no information from the Stoics regarding female pupils, although C. > Musonius [1] Rufus favoured philosophical instruction for women; certainly the freedman > Epictetus [2] was his pupil while

1986, 45-69; P. RaBBow, Seelenfithrung. Methodik der

still a slave. The Stoic L. Annaeus > Cornutus [4] was

Exerzitien in der Antike, 1954; F. RICKEN (ed.), Philosophie der Antike, 2 vols., 1996; E. RUDOLF (ed.), Polis und Kosmos, 1996; TH. A. SZLEZAK, Platon und Aristoteles in der Nus-Lehre Plotins, 1979; G. VERBEKE, L’homme et

also a freedman. Among the Neoplatonic philosophers whose names are known today was —> Hypatia (for information on female pupils of various philosophical schools, see also > Women philosophers). The Cynics and the Pyrrhonean Sceptics did not establish schools of their own (+ Cynicism; > Pyrrho; > Scepticism). Most philosophers did not charge fees. The school of Epicurus was supported by donations from benefactors and modest contributions from its members. In general, the pupils were divided into two groups, those who were merely listeners and those who belonged to the inner circle of confidants, friends and companions

son univers: de l’Antiquité classique au Moyen Age, in: C. WENIN

(ed.), L’>homme

et son univers au Moyen

Age,

1986, 16-41; N. VotioTis, The Term ‘Philosophy’ in Isocrates’ Works and the Relevant Aspects in Plato’s and Aristotle’s, in: Platon 30, 1978, 134-139 (Modern Greek); C. J. DE VoGEL, Some Reflections on the Term ‘Philosophia’, in: Philosophia (Assen) 1, 1970, 3-24.

FR.

(hetatroi, gnorimoi, synétheis, Latin iunctiores), some of whom were treated as colleagues by the leaders of the

109

school (kathégétat, kathégemones), for example Speusippus and Xenocrates in Plato’s school. These pupils in the narrower sense frequently lived with their teacher (Diog. Laert. 4,19; 10,9). This was also the case later on

in the Neoplatonic school in Athens. The schools had to follow specific rules regarding such matters as the selection of the school head, festivals and the common meals that were held at certain intervals. Of these private institutions, the ‘garden’ of Epicurus continued in Athens until the 2nd cent. AD, headed

by an unbroken series of Epicurus’ successors [1. r9tff.; 4. Sec. 9, p. 209f.]. The Academy and the Aristotelian school (also known as the - Peripatos) came to an end in the rst cent. BC [2. 98-120; 1. 177192, 192-207], as did the Stoa ([2. 366ff.], for a different account, see [1. r9off.]). The demise of the Athe-

nian institutions did not mean the end of these philosophical schools, since their exponents opened private schools beginning in the rst cent. BC, primarily in Asia Minor, Egypt, North Africa and the Latin-speaking European regions of the Roman Empire (e.g. Gaul: Massalia and Augustodunum). Parallel to these events, from the beginning of the Imperial period, instruction was increasingly carried out by permanently assigned teachers, financed by the cities and regulated by imperial decrees. It included grammar, rhetoric and — particularly in the larger cities — often philosophy as well [5. 215-238; 6. 20-25]. In AD 176, emperor Marcus [2] Aurelius established four

professorships for Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic and Epicurean philosophy in Athens, which were underwritten by the imperial treasury (Lucian Eunuchus 3; Philostr. VS 2,2,566). However, private instruction — in philosophy as well as in grammar and rhetoric — continued to exist alongside the imperial and municipal institutions, as is documented by Epictetus in Nicopolis and > Plotinus in Rome, among many others. Moreover, the Neoplatonic school in Athens (end of the 4th to the beginning of the 6th cent. AD) and the various Neoplatonic schools in Alexandria were strictly private (in Athens for the entire period of their existence, in Alexandria at least after AD 450) and received no subsidies from the city [7. 203°, 27f.; 8. 239].

B. TEACHING METHODS Alexander [26] of Aphrodisias compared the teaching methods of his time (around AD 200) with those of the previous centuries in the following remarks (Alex. Aphr. In Aristot. Top. 27,13 WALLIES): “This kind of speech (i.e. the discussion of theses) was customary among the older philosophers (i.e. from Socrates until the rst cent. BC), who set up most of their classes in this way — not on the basis of commenting on books as it is now done... but rather, after a thesis (thésis) had been posited, they argued in favour or against it, training their argumentative faculties, by reasoning from general assumptions (to keimenon).’ However simplified, these remarks demonstrate that Alexander was aware of the profound difference between the ‘old’ and

|i

PHILOSOPHY,

TEACHING

OF

>

the ‘new’ method. The term ‘thesis’ here probably means (as in Aristot. Top. 104b 30) a problem, a controversial topic of discussion [9]. Cicero (Fin. 2,1,1-3) offers a brief historical outline of this method, from the

Sophists until his own time (middle of the 1st cent. BC). Later on, the discussion

of theses took two distinct

forms. The first method (used by > Socrates, but also by > Arcesilaus [5]) does not convey a particular doctrine, but uses questions to force the pupil to think about his own position; philosophy in this sense is purely critical in nature. In the other method, which, as Cicero notes, was used by - Gorgias as well as many of his contemporaries, the teacher develops his own position by responding to questions from his pupils. Here the pupil poses a question (e.g.: is pain an evil?) in such a way as to allow the teacher to provide a comprehensive presentation of his position in the form of a negative response; this is an example of dogmatic philosophy. Cicero terms the latter form of discussion schola and claims it was the teaching method used by the first successors of Plato (which is confirmed by > Philodemus [10. 266, 542]). In the Sceptic strand of the Academy, it was also common to argue in utramque partem (‘for both sides’), i.e. to provide in turn a positive and a negative answer to a question. Instruction thus took the form of discussing a particular problem and proceeded on the basis of a particular question and a particular answer [11. 247] (e.g. in Plato’s dialogues, the treatises of Aristotle, the Metaphysics of Theophrastus). From Plato to Cicero, therefore, the teaching of philosophy in the Platonic, Aristotelian and Stoic schools never took on a systematic and deductive form (Cicero mentions the ‘questions’ of the Stoics, Fin. 5,7): it led to principles, but did not start from them. To a substantial degree, this method continued to be used even during the ‘exegetical period’ (1st—6th cent. AD) referred to by Alexander. The teacher, or a pupil with the help of the teacher, would comment on a canonical text (perhaps written by a school founder); then a discussion would take place in a small group among the teacher and his pupils, i.e. the pupils asked questions and the teacher responded in detail. This was the method used by the Stoic Epictetus (Diatribae 1,26,1) and the Platonists or Neoplatonists Taurus [12. 216ff.] and Plotinus (Porph. Vita Plotini 3,36, cf. also Ath. 5,186e). As H. THrom [9] has convincingly demonstrated, what is today somewhat arbitrarily termed ~ diatribe was simply this method of discussing theses. However, under the influence of mathematics the deductive method was sometimes used in philosophy as well. The earliest example is found in Timaeus’ initial remarks in Plato’s dialogue Timaeus (Procl. In Pl. Ti. 1,238,15 DIEHL). In Aristotle’s works, definitions and general principles are established at the beginning of the Categories, the work On the Heavens and book 1 of the Physics. At the beginning of his Letter to Herodotus, Epicurus explains that he intends to present a summary of his research on nature (physics), in deductive form: his remarks begin with axioms on being and the whole

PHILOSOPHY,

TEACHING OF

IIT

(37,14ff.), out of which he derives a number of statements on physics. The same method is found in > Proclus’ Elements of Theology and Elements of Physics, both of which consist of a series of theorems that follow from one another. The exegesis mentioned by Alexander of Aphrodisias as the teaching method of his time (see above), i.e.

commentary, was in fact the main form of theoretical instruction beginning as early as the rst cent. AD. It was pedagogically refined by the Neoplatonists: a course of study consisted of two successive cycles, Aristotelian and Platonic. Each included a representative selection of Aristotle’s works or Plato’s dialogues, which were studied in a specific sequence according to their degree of difficulty. The instructor’s oral or written commentary was adapted to the level of his pupils; accordingly, for example, the commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, with which philosophical instruction began, was to contain no metaphysical statements. Ignorance of this method has led to numerous erroneous interpretations by modern scholars [13. 173f.; 7.64 with note 12; 8. 238]. P.HA, C. SUBJECT MATTER

Except for Aristotle, who did not consider dialectics to bea component of true philosophy, all of the schools, including the ‘Old Academy’ (i.e. the immediate successors of Plato) agreed that the teaching of philosophy encompassed three parts: — physics, — ethics and — dialectics. The last of these three corresponded to the — theology of the Platonists, which culminated in contemplation — for their dialectics was concerned with divine ideas —, while the Stoics saw it purely in terms of the study of > logic [14; 15]. In addition, for the Platonists, the Middle Platonists and the Neoplatonists,

the mathematical sciences (geometry, arithmetic including numerical mysticism, theoretical music and astronomy, together with astrology) were, for ontological reasons, closely associated with philosophy. Along with the related disciplines of geography, optics and mechanics, these sciences were also cultivated by the Stoics and the Peripatetics [8. 23 4ff.], and for the most part were included in the teaching of philosophy. Since (despite a thesis put forth in the mid—roth cent. by F. RitscH1, which has been repeated uncritically ever since) the mathematical sciences were not part of the general education of the upper classes, which consisted rather of instruction in grammar and rhetoric [5. 252261; 6. 32-34], the study of philosophy was the only way for individuals who were not pursuing specialized training as engineers or architects to gain access to those disciplines [8. 243f.]. As ancient philosophy was also, and above all, a way of life [6; 17] (— Philosophical life) that required a certain perspective on life and a certain ethical condition, depending on the school, theoretical knowledge alone was not the ultimate objective of the philosophical schools, but instead their aim was to achieve the moral attitude that resulted from their teachings. Accordingly, rehearsing the doctrines

LEZ

and putting them into practice in real life made up a substantial part of philosophical instruction, at least for the inner circle of pupils. Through constant repetition of the school’s main teachings, through school-specific intellectual exercises and through admonitions and frugality (vegetarianism in the case of the Neoplatonists), the aim was for each ancient school of philosophy, in its own way, to achieve the same goal: a happy life (+ Happiness). + Education; > Enkyklios Paideia; — Education; ~ Philosophy 1 J.P. Lyncu, Aristotle’s School, 1972 2 J. GLUCKER, Antiochus and the Late Academy (Hypomnemata 56), 1978 3U. von WILAMowITz-MOELLENDORFF, Antigonos von Karystos (Philologische Untersuchungen 4), 1881 4M. Erver, Epikur, in: GGPh.* 4.1., 1994 51. Hapor, Arts libéraux et philosophie dans la pensée antique, 1984 6 Ead., Geschichte der Bildung: artes liberales, in: F. GRAF (ed.), Einleitung in die lateinische Philologie, 1997, 17-34

7 Ead., Simplicius - Commentaire sur le Manuel d’Epictéte, 1996 8 Ead., Les aspects sociaux et institutionnels des sciences et de la médecine, in: Antiquité Tardive 6,

1998, 233-250 9H. THROM, Die Thesis. Ein Beitrag zu ihrer Entstehung und Geschichte, 1932 10K. GAISER, Philodems Academica (Supplementum Platonicum 1), 1988 111. DURING, Aristoteles und das platonische Erbe, in: P. Moraux (ed.), Aristoteles in der neueren Forschung,

1968, 232-249 12M.-L. Lakmann, Der Platoniker Tauros in der Darstellung des Aulus Gellius, 1995 131.

Hapot,

continu

dans

P Antiquité, in: Antiquité Tardive 5, 1997, 169-176

Le commentaire

philosophique

14P.

Hapot, Les divisions des parties de la philosophie dans PAntiquité, in: MH 36, 1979, 201-223 15 Id., Philosophie, dialectique, rhetorique dans |’Antiquité, in: Studia philosophica 39, 1980, 139-166 (repr.: Id., Etudes de philosophie ancienne, 1998, 159-193) 16 Id., Philosophie als Lebensform — Geistige Ubungen in der Antike, 1991 17 Id., Wege zur Weisheit, oder Was lehrt uns die antike Philosophie?, 1999 18 J. HAHN, Der Philosoph und die Gesellschaft, 1989. P.HA.

Philostephanus (®t\ootépavocd/Philostéphanos). [1] P. of Cyrene. Pupil (yvieuoc/gnorimos) of > Callimachus [3] (Ath. 33 1d; cf. [4. vol. 2, 752]), lived in the reign of Ptolemaeus Philopator (222-206 BC, cf. [z. 30]). Author of ostensibly geographical works whose true compass is in the aetiological and paradoxographic (Gell. NA 9,4,3 puts P. alongside other authors of res inauditae, > Aristeas, > Ctesias, > Onesicritus), of which we have only scanty fragments and titles, which may also denote parts of a single comprehensive work (or of a large-scale antiquarian periegesis [6]). Known works: On the Cities of Asia (frr. 1-8 MULLER [6. rosf.], at least 2 bks.), to which On the Cities of Europe may perhaps be appended (fr. 9 M. On Cyllene, fr. 9a On Epirus [6. 106f.]); On Islands (frr. 10-19 M. [6. 107-109], including Sicily: frr. 15-17; Cyprus: frr. ro-14 — a monograph? [6. ro8f.]); On Peculiar Rivers (frr. 20-26 M. and [3]; cf. [6. ro9—111; 5]); On Springs (fr.27 M. [6. 111]); On Inventions (frr. 28-31 M.: probably belonging to a Peripatetic genre

Laney)

114

nurtured in the Callimachus circle by e.g. Istrus [4]; the ‘inventors’ (eveetai/heuretat) were probably divided

work consists of two parts, each of which is introduced

into Barbarians and Greeks [6. 111-113]); Hypommemata (frr. 32-38 M.), like Callimachus’ work of the

same name containing a variety of information, aetiological, literary or geographical in content, concerning cults. Composed in elegiac distichs and the Ionian dialect, On Peculiar Lakes [2] was probably not P.’s sole poetical work. His interest in the strange and extraordinary and his delight in etymological games with placenames, historical and religious names place P. mid-stream in the wake of - Callimachus [3]; even the few fragments show similar subject matter (e.g. the foundation myth of Phaselis or the miraculous waters of the river Crathis; cf. in

detail esp. [4; 6]). P. may also have written Aftia (fr. 14 M.; discussion and literary evidence in [4. vol. 2, 75 4755]). The aetiologies evidently follow euhemeristic explanations (as e.g. the derivation of the name Trinacria from King Trinacrus, fr. 16 M.), in accordance with

a general tendency to explain all that seems incomprehensible in rational terms. Among P.’s various historical and mythological sources (> Pherecydes, > Heraclides, > Cleon

of Syracuse),

> Timaeus

must

have

been important as well as Callimachus. ~ Mythography; > Paradoxographi Fragments: 1 FHG 3, 28-34 (partly to be completed by [6]) 2SH 691-693 3A. GIANNINI (ed.), De mirabilibus fluviis, in: Paradoxographorum Graecorum reliquiae, 1965, 21-23.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: 4P. M. FRaAseER, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 1972, vol. 1, 522-524, 777f.; vol. 2, 752-778, 1085

5 A. GIANNINI, Studi sulla paradossografia greca, in: Acme 17.1, 1964, r1of. (with bibliogr.) 6 F. GIsINGER, s.v. P. (7), RE 20, 104-118 (with further frr., comm. and

bibliography).

S.FO.

[2] Comic poet ofthe 3rd or 2nd cent. BC. A fragment is preserved from the play Anitoc/Délios (fr. 1), in which the speaker lists famous cooks. 1 PCG VII, 1989, 372.

B.BA.

Philostorgius (®tAootdeyioc; Philostdrgios). The Church historian P. was born around AD 368 in Borissus/Cappadocia and remained a layman throughout his life. From 388 on he lived in Constantinople and expanded through travel the good education he had received. Of significance for his theological views was an encounter with his countryman > Eunomius, whose neo-Arianism influenced his theology ( Arianism B.3,.; he rejected the concept of ‘Anomoean’ [3. 65,11-14 et passim]). Fragments of his history of the Arian controversy are found notably in the Passio of + Artemius [2] [1. 169y/172] and in > Photius [2]. This work, which takes > Eusebius [7] as its starting point and deals with the years 320-425, is valuable for its source material, its detailed characterization of Homoean theologians and the inside look it provides at this type of theology. The

PHILOSTRATUS

by an epigram (Anth. Pal. 1,193f.); the initial letters of the twelve books form an acrostic of the author’s name. An encomium to Eunomius and agones against > Porphyrius have been lost. Photius praises his style (Phot. Bibl. cod. 40). 1F. Harkin (ed.), Bibliotheca hagiographica (Subsidia hagiographica 8a), +1957.

EDITIONS:

2 CPG 3, 6032

Graeca

3 J. Bipez, F. WINKELMANN,

Philostorgius, Kirchengeschichte (GCS 21),*1972.

GM.

Philostratus (®iWdoteatoc/Phildstratos). [1] Attic orator of the 4th cent. BC, son of Dionysius of Colonus, known inscriptions (IG I/III* from 2,1622,773) and mentions by + Demosthenes [2]. In the gos, while still a young man, he provided lodging for the lover of his friend > Lysias (Dem. Or. 59,22f.); in 366/5, he was among the accusers of + Chabrias in the Oropus trial; later he gained a victory as choregos with a choir of boys at the Dionysia (Dem. Or. 21,64); in 342, he was trierarch; between 3 43 and 340, he testified as a witness in the trial against > Neaera [6]. P. was wealthy and adopted Phaenippus, the son of his daughter Aristonoe (Dem. Or. 42,21f. and 27). M.W. [2] Comic poet of the 3rd cent. BC, recorded only in an uncertain inscription; perhaps a victor at the Lenaea (cf. [x ad [Nicos]trati III test. *2). 1 PCG VII, 1989, 3734.

B.BA.

[3] P. of Lemnos (3rd/2nd cent. BC), author of 43 tragedies and 14 comedies (TrGF I 194). PCG VI, 373.

B.Z.

[4] Author of an epigram, which (perhaps inspired by a painting) describes the wounding of Telephus (Anth. Pal. 16,110). It is uncertain whether he should be equated with the Flavius P. of Lemnos, among whose works the Suda ( 421) also mentions epigrams (see P. [5—8]). Even less certain is the ascription of two iambic poems (Xtixou tod Piootedtov/Stichoi to Philostrdtou) from the Cod. Parisinus Graecus 3019f. 206 [1]. 1S. FoLLer, Deux épigrammes peu connues attribuées a Philostrate, in: RPh 38, 1964, 242-252. M.G.A.

[5-8] The Suda ( 421-423 ADLER) lists three sophists with the name P., distributed over at least three generations between AD 160 and 250, all with the epithet ‘the Lemnian’ (Ajwvioc/Lémnios). Only some of the attributions in the Suda of their numerous works (most not preserved) are accepted by modern scholars, few of them unanimously. [5] Most scholarly agreement exists with regard to P. [5], whom the Suda calls the ‘second’ ( 421). A. Lire B. Worxs C.INFLUENCE D. TExT TRANSMISSION A. LIFE P., son of Verus, was born c. AD 170 toa prosperous Athenian family with properties on Lemnos, which he

PHILOSTRATUS

rls

I16

explored in his youth (Philostr. VA 6,27; cf. Philostr. VS

3,41, cf. 4,19). P. minimizes Apollonius’ role as a magician (ucryoc/mdgos), which is probably equivalent with that of philosopher in Moeragenes, and emphasizes his connection to the divine as a Pythagorean sage, who wandered about the Roman empire (and even travelled as far as Persia, India and Ethiopia), directed his admonitions to people and cities, revived the traditional Greek cults and opposed oppression by the ‘tyrants’ Nero and Domitian. P. places a companion (in the role of a Platonic dialogue partner) at the side of his Apollonius: Damis of Nineveh (probably invented as a foil to Apollonius), in order to be able to quote from his “diaries’ and give his report more weight than those of his predecessors. The division into 8 books and other features make the work more of a > novel than a > biography. 2. LIVES OF THE SOPHISTS The Lives of the Sophists (Bio. oopiotmv; Biot sophistén = VS), dedicated to Gordianus III during his proconsulate in Africa in 237/8 (cf. VS praef. 480, thus [6]), is rooted in the spirit of the early 3rd cent. to a greater degree than VA and more typical in its view of Greek cultural identity. The 2 books contain 59 biographies, the majority (41) of them of prominent Greek sophists: from > Nicetes [2] of Smyrna at the time of Nero to his own contemporaries — a period for which P. lastingly coined the term ‘New’ or > Second Sophistic. The lives of these > sophists (outstanding among them the long sections on + Polemon and > Herodes [16], VS 1,25; 2,1) are preceded by the biographies of eight philosophers whose profile also earned them the title of ‘sophist’ (VS 1,1-8, concluding with > Dion [3] of Prusa and > Favorinus) and of ten classical sophists of the 5th-4th cents. BC: from Gorgias to Aeschines [2] (VS 1,9-18), whose authority P. made use of for his concept of the Second Sophistic. P. utilized both the works (primarily declamations) of the people presented and the oral traditions he had heard himself from sophists. His credibility has been doubted [7]; however, his version has often been confirmed by scholarship [8]. The VS represents an invaluable, albeit one-sided Greek cultural history of a period which is difficult to grasp in traditional historiography. 3. GYMNASTICUS

T,21,515-516). As a student of Proclus of Naucratis (Philostr. VS 2,21,602) and perhaps > Damianus, Hippodromus [2] and Antipater [12], his life followed a course like that of many of the figures in his Lives of the Sophists (= VS). The Suda attributes declamations (uwedéta/melétai) and a sophistic career as rhetor and teacher in Athens and Rome to him. He probably held a high office in Athens: if he is identical to the L. Flavius P. of Stiria recorded in three inscriptions (IG I/II? 1803,

cf. [1. 323-325]), he was ‘general of the hoplites’ (oteatnyos éml ta StAG/stratégos epi ta hopla, an officer primarily responsible for the public food supply) and one of the prytaneis of the phyle of > Pandionis between 200/r and 210/r [2. rorf.] (perhaps c. 205 [3]) [4]. He is probably also identical with the sophist Flavius P., who was honoured by the city of Athens with a statue at Olympia (Syll.* 878). After P. transferred his sophistic activities to Rome (beginning c. 203-205), he was introduced (perhaps before the end of 207, on the chronology cf. [5. 19-22]) at the court of Septimius Severus and => Iulia [12] Domna, particularly in Julia’s circle of yewpétoat/ geométrai, mathematicians, and philosophers (Philostr. VA 1,3). He was present when (end of 212 or beginning of 213) > Heliodorus [7] declaimed before Caracalla in Gaul (VS 2,32,625-626), perhaps also on the imperial visit to Tyana and Antioch [1] on the Orontes in 215 (Cass. Dio 77,18,4; Philostr. VS praef. 480). The inscription on a statue in Erythrae [2] in honour of L. Flavius Capitolinus, the son of the sophist Flavius P. (IEry. 63 = Syll.3 879), indicates that the wife of P. was Aurelia Melitine, that another son and other relatives were Roman senators and that the family probably held property in Erythrae (cf. Philostr. Epist. 45). B. Works t. APOLLONIUS OF TYANA 2. LIVES OF THE SOPHISTS 3.GYMNASTICUS 4. HEROICUS 5. EIKONES 6.DIALEXEIS 7. LETTERS 8. EPIGRAM 9. NERO 1. APOLLONIUS OF TYANA The life of + Apollonius [14] of Tyana (Tu éc tov Tvavéa “Anodkwviow/Ta es ton Tyanéa Apollonion = VA) in 8 books, was completed in the period between the death ofJulia Domna in 217 (she had commissioned the work, in which she is spoken of in the past tense, VA 1,3) and the dedication of VS (237/8, see below), since VS 2,5,570 refers to VA. For VA, P. used local oral traditions which were current in the cities Apollonius had visited; a work in 4 books by > Moeragenes (beginning of the 2nd cent. AD); a work by Maximus of Aegeae on the youth of Apollonius in Cilicia; a collection of letters (VA 1,2; 7,35), some of which had already been attributed to Apollonius in the reign of Hadrian (117-138; VA 8,20); as well as two other works attributed to him, On Sacrifice (Negi 8vovdv/Peri thysién) and On Astrology (Ilegi wavteias Gotéewv/Peri manteias astéron; VA

On Gymnastics (Tunvaotwxoc/Gymnastikos), an his-

torical and protreptic treatise on Greek athletics, with particular attention to the Olympic games, was in all probability written by this P.: it is in accordance with his constant concern with Greek values, Greek identity and the prestige of the elite of Greek cities; linguistic parallels [9; ro] confirm this attribution. The mention of the top form of the athlete T. Aurelius Helix (chap. 46) suggests that the work was written after his second Olympic victory (either 213 [10] or 217 [11]) and probably after his double victory at the > Capitolea in Rome (219, cf. Cass. Dio 79,10,2-3). 4. HEROICUS On Heroes (‘Hemixdc/Hérdikos) was probably also written by P. [5] (alternatively: Héroikds and Eikones I—

ifiteys

118

for the division I and II see below — by P. [7], [10. 495497]). The dialogue — in which a Phoenician sailor learns from a wine merchant on the Thracian Chersonesus of the latter’s meeting with the ghosts of the heroes of the Trojan War — is a version of the popular pastime of emending Homer and other Archaic poets (cf. + Dion [3] of Prusa Or. 11, > Dictys), and allows the author to dabble in poetry (cf. Heroikos 53,10; 5553) [12. 221-224; 13. 183-187]. The same subject (the ghost of Achilles appears to Apollonius) is dealt with briefly in VA 4,12. [14]; however, the chronology is debated: references to the second Olympic victory of Helix mean that the Héroikds should not be dated before 213 [14] and probably after 217. 5. EIKONES Of the two collections of literary descriptions of pic-

[6] This P. is mentioned in the Suda (¢ 422) as the father of P. [5] (who is, however, also called the son of Verus)

tures, Eikones I and II (Latin Imagines, ‘Pictures’), the

earlier (EzkOnes'l, in 2 books) was probably written by P. [5]; it contains descriptions (— Ekphrasis) of 65 paintings, predominantly of mythological subjects. They are designed as explanations of paintings in a gallery in a suburb of Naples, and are addressed by the narrator to the ten-year-old son of his host. Menander [12] Rhetor (2,390) ascribed this work (probably correctly) to the author of the Hérdikds, however the differences in genre make a final judgment difficult. 6. DIALEXEIS The second of the extant treatises on nature and culture (AvaAEetc/Dialéxeis; probably identical to that which the Suda also ascribes to P. [5]) shares a topo-

graphical detail with VA (Philostr. Dial. 2/VA 4,34) and was probably written by P. [5]. 7. LETTERS From the collection of 73 extant letters, 58 love letters, all but three of whose young addressees are unnamed, probably belong to those called Emotodai gomttxat/Epistolai erdtikai, ‘Love letters’, by the Suda. Of the non-erotic letters whose addressees are named (Epist. 41-433453 493 523 65-73), at least nine (65-73) were in

all probability written by P. [5], particularly the letter to Ctesidemus (Epist. 68; cf. VS 2,1,552) and Julia Domna (Epist. 73; cf. VA 1,3) and the letter of a Lemnian (Epist. 70). 8. EPIGRAM An epigram on a statue or painting of Telephus (Anth. Plan. rro), similar to Héroikds 23,24ff.; the Suda attributes epigrams to P.; the authorship of P. [5] is probable ([15] shows that two others are later). g. NERO In the short dialogue Négwv/Néron, ‘Nero’, preserved together with the works of Lucianus, the Stoic — Musonius [1] criticizes > Nero’s attempt to have the Isthmus of Corinth cut through (along with Nero’s artistic activities and matricide) in a discussion with a Menecrates (probably a fiction based on P.’ fellow Lemnian, cf. Heroicus 8; 11); although attributed to P. [6] by the Suda (like the Hérdikds), the author is more likely P. [5] due to the close relationship to VA (4,23;

373 5573 19).

PHILOSTRATUS

and as the author of a Nero, a Gymnastikoés and a few rhetorical works, including one against an Antipater. However, based on the biographical data of Antipater (as with the Nero and the Hérozkos), the latter fits better with P. [5] (contrary: [16. 3]). The silence concerning the father of P. [5] in VS argues against the implicit distinction here and in other works between P. [5] and P. [7]. Possibly, none of the works are by P. [6], thus a very vague figure. [7] P. [7], a sophist who taught in Athens and died in Lemnos (according to the Suda), may be P. ‘the Lemnian’, who is frequently praised in VS. The Suda calls this P. the son of Nervianus (NeoBiavot/Nerbianon), the nephew (ddekpomatdoc/adelphopaidos) of P. [5]; the latter’s student and son-in-law was P. [7]. Through emendation (ddekpdomaic/adelphopais for Gdekpomatdoc) or by assuming a mistake in the Suda, P. [7] can be convincingly made into the nephew of P. [5] (cf. [5. £1; 10. §17—519]). P. [7], born in 187 or r9x/2 [17], was a student of Hippodromus (VS 2,27,617) at the age of 22, received immunity (exemption from public office, VS 2,30,623) from — Caracalla after a magnificent declamation when he was 24, met Claudius ~ Aelianus [2] in Rome after 222 (VS 2,31,625) and

quarrelled with — Aspasius [3] during the latter’s professorship in Rome and later in Ionia (VS 2,33,627—-628; cf. Suda a 4205). When Aspasius became imperial secretary, P. wrote him a critical letter ‘How to write a Letter’, undoubtedly the work handed down as Dialéxis I. This is P.’ [7] only extant work of all those attributed to him in the Suda (Eikones, Panathénaikos, Troikos, a paraphrase of the Homeric shield description and five declamations) — if the Eikones and the Troikos (? = Héroikos) are in truth not his work (see above, P. [5]). [8] P. (not mentioned in the Suda), who represents himself at the beginning of the (incompletely preserved) Eikones Il as the son of the daughter of the author of the earlier Eikones I, could be the son of P. [7] and the daughter of P. [5] [18] and was thus probably active around 250. He, not P. [7], was probably the Athenian archon of 2.55/6, L. Flavius P. of Stiria (IG I/II? 2245; on the dating [2. 331-333], with other identifications [2. 243]; contrary [5. 18; 19]). Extant from his Eikdnes

are the introduction and 17 descriptions, which refer to the (probably) imaginary paintings in more detail than in P. [5], but are frequently reminiscent of P. [5] in phraseology and choice of subject. C. INFLUENCE The Philostrati were often read and admired, particularly P. [5]. His style (together with that of Plato, Xenophon and T. Aurelius > Nicostratus [10]) was dis-

cussed (perhaps even during his lifetime) by Metrophanes of Lebadea (Suda ut roto). In the 3rd cent. AD, Menander [12] Rhetor (2,390) knew the Eikones and the Héroik6s. Around AD 300, VA was the basis of a hexameter epic by > Soterichus and it was translated

PHILOSTRATUS

119

into Latin in the late 4th cent. by Nicomachus Flavianus (not extant) [20]. Libanius [21], Himerius (who probably reproduces Philostr. VS 2,12,593 in Or. 21,9), Synesius and Eunapius (Eunap. VS praef. 454) were familiar with VS; lulianus [11] knew VA with fair certainty. Later, c. AD 850, in > Photius, we find both a shorter summary of VA (Phot. Bibl. cod. 44) and a longer sequence of passages, which he excerpted for their admirable style (ibid. 241). In the following generation, ~+ Arethas was probably the author of the exegesis of VA contained in Cod. Laurentianus 69,33. In the middle of the 11th cent., Michael > Psellos (De operatione daemonum 48) recommended P. (along with Heliodorus [8], Lucianus and Achilles Tatius) to aspiring authors; he declared Eikdones I to be one of his favourite books; he probably drew his knowledge of Lollianus, Polemon and Herodes [16] Atticus from VS. Inc. 1125, Gregorius [4] of Corinth praised VA (together with Heliodorus, Achilles Tatius, Xenophon and Procopius) as a narrative model. In c. 1295, Maximus + Planudes wrote commentaries on the Ezkones and Héroikos. E.BO.

I20

Sophists in the Roman Empire, 1969 17 1. Avotins, The Year of the Birth of the Lemnian Philostratus, in: AC 47, 1978, 538-539 18 W. ScHMip, Der Atticismus, vol. 4, 1896, 6-7 (repr. 1964) 19PIR F233 20M. DzieLska, Apollonius of Tyana in Legend and History, 1986, 153183 21 A. F. Norman, Philostratus and Libanius, in: CPh 48, 1953, 20-23.

FIRST EDITIONS:

LETTERS:; Epistulae Graecae, vol. 2, Aldina, Venice 1499. VA:

(with

Eusebius’

‘Adversus

Hieroclem’),

Aldina,

Venice 1501-1502. VS, Heroikos,

IMacines

I AND

II: in the Aldina

Lucian, Venice 1503 (with Callistratus). GyYMNASTIKOS: K. L. Kayser, Heidelberg 1840 (incomplete); K. MinorpEes Mynas, Paris 1858 (complete). MODERN EDITIONS: C. L. KAYSER, 1870-1871. HEROIKOS: L. DE LANNOY, 1977. IMAGINES: O. BENNDORF, C. SCHENKEL, 1893.

EDITIONS WITH TRANSLATION: VA: V. MUMPRECHT, 1912 (Engl.).

1983 (Germ.); F. C. CONYBEARE,

VS: W. C. Wricut, 1921 (Engl.). IMAGINES I AND II: A. FAIRBANKS, 1931 (Engl., with Callistratus). Letters: A. R. BENNER, F. H. FoBEs, 1949 (Engl., with

Alciphron and Aelianus). D. TEXT

COMMENTARIES

TRANSMISSION

Most of the extant works of P. [5] are handed down

in numerous MSS: the Héroikos in at least 48 (cf. L. DE Lannoys (ed.), 1977, V-XXII), the earliest MS, Cod. Laurentianus 58,32 comes from the r2th or 13th cent. For VA (earliest MS Cod. Escorial. from the rrth or

12th cent.), VS, etc., cf. the edition by K. L. Kayser, Zurich 1844. The Gymnastikés, although known to Arethas, was extant only in fragments until MINOIDES Mynas brought the only MS with a complete text (14th cent., Cod. Parisinus suppl. Gr. 1256) to Paris in 1844 (14C.). 1J.S. Trait, Greek Inscriptions Honouring Prytaneis, in: Hesperia 40, 1971, 321-326 (nr. 13); 326-329 (nr. 14) 2S. Fouet, Athénes au II et au IIIf siécles. Etudes chronologiques et prosopographiques, 1976 3 E. KAPETANOPpouLos,

B.D. Merritt, J.S. TRAILL, The Inscriptions

(Agora 15), 313-315, nr. 447-449 4J.S. TRAILL, Prytany and Ephebic Inscriptions, in: Hesperia 51, 1982, 231-233, nr.34 5 J. J. FLINTERMAN, Power, Paideia, and Pythagoreanism, 1995 6I. AvoTINsS, The Date and Reci-

pient of the ‘Vitae Sophistarum’

of Philostratus,

in:

Hermes 106, 1978, 242-247 7 C. P. Jones, The Reliability of Philostratus, in: G. W. Bowersockx (ed.), Approaches to the Second Sophistic, 1974, 11-16 8S. C.R. SwaIn,

The Reliability of Philostratus’ Lives of the Sophists, in: Classical Antiquity 10, 1991, 148-163 9 J. JUTHNER, Der Verfasser des Gymnastikos, in: Festschrift Th. Gomperz, 1902, 225-232 10K. MUNscHER, Die Philostrate, in: Philologus Suppl. 10, 1907, 467-558 11 J. JUTHNER, Philostratos tiber Gymnastik, 1909, 87-89 12 E. L. Bowrr, Greek Sophists and Greek Poetry in the Second Sophistic, in: ANRW II 33.1, 1989, 209-258 13 Id., Philostratus, Writer of Fiction, in: J. R.MorGAN, R. STONEMAN (eds.), Greek Fiction, 1994, 181-199 14 F. SOLMSEN, s.v. Philostratus (9-12), RE 20, 125-177.

15S. FoutetT, Deux

epigrammes peu connues attribuées a Philostrate, in: RPh 38, 1964, 242-252 16 G. W. Bowersock, Greek

AND

INDEX:

J. JUTHNER,

see

[11],

1909; S. ROTHE, Kommentar zu ausgewahlten Sophistenviten des Philostratos, 1989; I. and M. Avotins, An Index to the Lives of the Sophists of P., 1978; O. BENNDORE, K.

SCHENKEL, Index verborum zu Imagines I und II in ihrer Ausgabe der Imagines, 1893. TRANSLATIONS WITH COMMENTARY: IMAGINES

I:; A. BouGot, F. LissARRAGUE,

Philostrate.

La galérie de tableaux, 1991; O. SCHONBERGER, KaLInKA, Philostratus. Die Bilder, 1968.

E.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. L. Bowrg, Apollonius of Tyana: Tradition and Reality, in: ANRW II 16.2, 1978, 1652-1699; G. ANDERSON, Philostratus, 1986; Id., The Second Sophi-

stic, 1993; R. Wess, The Transmission of the Eikones of Philostratus and the Development of ‘Ekphrasis’, unpubl. diss. London, 1993; S.C. R. Swatn, Hellenism and Empire, 1996, 380-400; J. ELSNER, Hagiographic Geo-

graphy: Travel and Allegory in the ‘Life of Apollonius of Tyana’, in: JHS 117, 1997, 22-37; L. DE Lannoy, Le probléme des Philostrate, in: ANRW II 34.3, 1997, 23622449; A. BILLAULT, L’univers de Philostrate, 2000;J.ExsNER, Making Myth Visual, in: MDAI(R), 2000. E.BO,

Philotas (®iwtac; Philotas). [1] Eldest son of > Parmenion [1]; following > Philippus’ [I 4] II marriage to > Cleopatra [II 2] P. stood by him against > Alexander [4] the Great in the Pixodarus affair. After Philip’s death (336 BC) and the murder of Attalus [1] by Parmenion [1], P. was promoted to the command of the + hetairoi, whom he led in the great battles against the Persians. In autumn 330 BC his brother Nicanor [1] died. P. remained behind for the funeral while Alexander continued the march. P. caught up with the army in Drangiana and became immediately entangled in a conspiracy against Alexander by one Dimnus. According to Arrian (Arr. Anab. 3,26, following — Ptolemaeus) the affair had already begun in

I21

122)

Egypt (332 BC); P. was now sentenced by the army and executed as ‘patently guilty’. According to Diodorus

Callim. fr. 228,40-58) and was probably worshipped with her sister in the Arsinoeion (for their Egyptian cult see > Nesysti [2]). Two villages in Arsinoitis, a deme in Ptolemais and towns on the Red Sea, in Lycia and Israel are named after her.

(17,79,3) and Curtius (6,11,21) he was perhaps guilty.

Curtius, one of the Vulgate (> Alexander historians), reports a coup against P.: lulled into security by Alexander, he is attacked in his tent at night by friends of the king and two somatophylakes (— court title B.2).

PHILOXENUS

P. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 1972, vol. 1, 668f.; Bd. 2, 373 Nn. 282; 377 n. 314; G. WeBer, Dichtung und hofi-

He is accused before the army, condemned, tortured

sche Gesellschaft, 1993, 269; M. WOrRLE, Epigraphische

and stoned. The report, albeit embellished with speeches by Curtius, rests in the last analysis upon an official bulletin which above all reveals P.’s coerced ‘confession’ of a plot between Parmenion and > Hegelochus [x], by then already dead. After P.’s death Alexander sent an expedited messenger to > Cleander [3] with an order to despatch Parmenion, the ‘confession’ serving to justify the murder. Plutarchus [2] (Plut. Alexander 48-49), though familiar with the Vulgate, gives a completely different account: In Egypt P. starts to confide in his mistress his contempt for Alexander’s character and successes. Alexander, informed of this by Craterus [1], orders her to report to him any further such comments. The Dimnus affair, in which P. is completely innocent, follows this conspiracy against P. (49,1). While in other sources P. twice learns of the Dimnus conspiracy through an informer and prevents Alexander from being told about it, according to Plutarch he knows nothing at all about it: The informers want only to be admitted into Alexander’s presence with an important message and P. takes no notice of them. When they finally reach the king they arouse his suspicion of P.’s complicity; Alexander, embittered against P. as a consequence of the spying, believes this and consults friends who he knows hate P.; P. is arrested, tortured and executed. This report should be taken seriously as a counterbalance to the official version.

Forschungen

HECKEL, 23-33.

zur Geschichte

Lykiens II, in: Chiron

1979, 83-111, esp. 104f.

Philotes (®iAory>; Phildtés). Greek personification of sexuality and sensual love. In Hesiod (Theog. 224) she is a daughter of + Nyx and a sister of the Moirai (+ Moira; but cf. Hes. Theog. 905) and of Age, Sleep, Deception, Vengeance, Quarrelsomeness, etc. This peculiar combination is occasionally traced to a negative view of women or Hesiod’s pessimistic view of the world. Whereas Hesiod writes explicitly of parthenogenesis (Hes. Theog. 213), later Erebus is named as the father of P. (Cic. Nat. D. 2,44). P. is also > Empedocles’ [x] name for his cosmic elemental force of love. + Eros [1] M. L. West, Hesiod. Theogony, 1966.

Philotimus (®wotmwo0c; Phildtimos). Freedman of Cicero’s wife > Terentia. Notwithstanding Cicero’s suspicion that Ph. had defrauded him in the years 5 1/50 BC (Cic. Att. 5,8,2f.; 7,1,9), he remained their financial administrator up until their divorce in 47/46 BC. He also caused offence to Cicero as the head of the latter’s messenger service (Cic. Att. 5,17,1; Cic. Fam. 4,2,1). In

46 BC, Ph. who himself owned slaves (Cic. Att. 10,15,1) and had previously been a fervent supporter of Pompey (Cic. Att. 9,7,6; 10,9,1), was co-opted to the

[2] The P. who after the death of > Alexander [4] the

Luperci (> Lupercalia) (Cic. Att. 12,5,1).

Philotis see > Tutola

E.B.

[3] P. of Amphissa. Greek doctor, official guest (— proéxenos) of the city of Delphi [1] and garrulous friend of Lamprias, Plutarchus’ [2] grandfather. As a student of medicine in Alexandria, he witnessed the extravagant preparations the triumvir > M. Antonius [II][I 9] made for Cleopatra’s amusement in 41/40 BC. He later became the personal physician of Antonius’ elder son M. Antonius [I ro] (Plut. Antonius 28). 1 W. A. OLpFaTHER, A Friend of Plutarch’s Grandfather, in: CPh 19, 1924, 177. VN.

Philotera (®u.téoa; Philotéra). Daughter of Ptolemy I and Berenice [1]; the year of her birth is unknown; d. after 276 BC and shortly before her sister Arsinoe [II 3] II. Not long afterwards she received a Greek cult (cf.

HE.B.

Philotheos see > Kletorologion

Great became a satrap of Cilicia and the P. who took part in the banquet of + Medius [2] may be one and the same person. BERVE 2, Nr. 804.

9,

W.A.

JO.F.

Philoxenides (®tioEevidns; Philoxenidés) from Oropos, writer of satyr plays; after 85 BC he achieved success at the Amphiaraea and Romaea festivals in Oropus (IrGF I 170).

B.Z.

Philoxenus (®iAdEevoc; Phildxenos). [1] Several officers with the name P. are mentioned in the sources about — Alexander [4] the Great. They cannot always be distinguished with certainty. One P. was appointed by Alexander in 331 BC (incorrect [r]) ‘to collect tribute on this side of the Taurus’ (i.e. in Asia Minor) (Arr. An. 3,6,4). This cannot be correct. Arrian

must, as often, have expressed himself imprecisely, as this duty had already been entrusted to somebody else. It can also hardly be the case that his duties related only to tribute from Caria (‘the most likely segment’: [2z. 28x], with associated speculations). It is rather a

123

124

matter of the symtdaxeis (‘war taxes’) of the Greek cities,

E. Decant, Filosseno di Leucade e Platone comico (fr. 189 K.-A.), in: Eikasmos 9, 1998, 81-99. O.M.

PHILOXENUS

for which nobody else was responsible [3. 5 4f.]. For this purpose he must also have had troops at his disposal. After the conquest of the Persian imperial treasuries and the end of the Hellenic war of revenge (in 330), this tax became obsolete. P. now apparently became ‘hyparchos ofIonia’ or ‘of the coast’ (Polyaenus 6,49; Plut. Mor. 333a), with the task of supervising the Greek cities, in which his intervention as in Ephesus and several of the islands) is recorded. In 324 P.-and, in an entirely parallel manner, Antipater [1], who supervised the Greek cities in Europe —- demanded from Athens the handing over of > Harpalus. One P., who was not particularly prominent, was for some time satrap of Caria, where he exploited his subjects. From there in 323 he supplied Alexander with troops. He must be identical with the equally nonprominent P. who became satrap of Cilicia after Alexander’s death. One P. (perhaps the same) was handed the city of Susa by its Persian commander in 331. 1 BERVE 2, no. 793 (see also nos. 795 and 796)

2A.B.

BoswortTH, A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander, vol. 1, 1980 3 E. BapIAN, Alexander

the Great and the Greeks of Asia, in: Ancient Society and Institutions. Studies in Honor of V.Ehrenberg, 1966, 3769.

E.B.

[2] Dithyrambic poet from Cythera, from 435/34 to 380/79 BC (Marmor Parium, ep. 69, p. 18 JACOBY). As a representative of the ‘New Music’ (> Music IV.D.) he was the author of 24 dithyrambs (Suda s.v. ®.) inclu-

ding a famous Kyklops (or Galdteia), which was parodied by Aristoph. Plut. (schol. Aristoph. Plut. 8rof. CaMPBELL). Anecdotes are told of his activities at the court of Dionysius [1] I of Syracuse and his stay in Ephesus, where he died (Suda) [1. 138-175]. He is some-

times considered to be the author of the ‘Banquet’ (Aginvov; Deipnon), of which quite large fragments survive in dactyloepitrites, although it is mostly ascribed to P. [3] of Leucas (836 PMG). It is disputed whether this is really a dithyramb; some are sceptical [2. 70-71], whereas others are of the opinion that it shows to what extent the genre had already declined [3. 143-144]. 1D. A. CAMPBELL, Greek Lyric 5, 1993 2 D. F. SuTTon, Dithyrambographi Graeci, 1989 3 B. ZIMMERMANN, Dithyrambos, 1992. ER.

[3] P. of Leucas. Gastronomic poet at the beginning of the 4th cent. BC, author of a Deipnon in hexameters mentioned in Athen. 1,5b, of which the comedian Plato [2] cites a dozen verses in his ‘Phaon’ (of 391 BC) (fr.

189 PCG VII): the poem, a kind of opsartysia (‘cookery book’), inaugurated > gastronomic poetry (a sub-genre of > didactic poetry) and became a favourite model for ~ Archestratus [2], in whose works clear echoes can be found. The metre, the Ionic patina, the epic style and the content rule out the common hypothesis according to which the comedic poet was ‘parodying’ the lyric Deipnon of the same name (PMG 836a-f).

[4] Author of an epigram in the ‘Garland’ of Meleager [8]: the dedication on a statue of Hermes used as the

starting-point of a stadium, which was endowed by Lycius Tlepolemus of Myra (Anth. Pal. 9,319), a multiply victorious athlete. If this is the Olympic victor of 256 BC of the same name (cf. Paus. 5,8,11), identification [1] of P. with the dithyrambist P. [2] of Cythera can be ruled out. 1 Tu. BerGk (ed.), Poetae Lyrici Graeci, vol. 3, 41882 (repr. 1914), 615. GA I 1, 165; 2, 478-480.

M.G.A.

[5] Greek painter from Eretria in Euboea, a pupil of ~ Nicomachus [4], later a representative of the ‘AtticTheban School of Painting’, working at the end of the 4th cent. BC for the future king Cassander in Macedonia (Plin. HN 35,110). P. is considered the creator of the original of the - Alexander Mosaic, which is thought to be a quite faithful copy. The picture of a battle, with an abundance of figures, celebrates a victory of > Alexander [4] the Great over the Persians. Only one other work is recorded for the painter, who is mentioned only in Pliny: three exuberantly celebrating + Silens, about whose appearance scholars have various ideas. In recent times, owing to analogies of style and content, P. has also been considered the author of a painted hunting frieze above the entrance of the “Tomb of Philip’ in Vergina (see > Aegae [1]). The lively composition shows a company of aristocrats with horses and hounds on a lion hunt in a hilly, sparsely wooded landscape. P. perfected the technique, already practised by his teacher, of fast painting (> compendiariae), which may have consisted in a procedure simplified with respect to drawing and the construction of layers of colour. Further comparisons with tomb paintings from Macedonia and other peripheral areas of the Greek world moreover suggest the painter had a perfect control of light and shade (> skiagraphia). > Painting I. BaLDassarE, A. ROUVERET, Une histoire plurielle de la

peinture grecque, in: M.-CH.

VILLANUEVA-PuiG

(ed.),

Céramique et peinture greques, 1999, 219-231; N. J. Kocn, Techne und Erfindung in der klassischen Malerei, 2000, 167-171; 176; 199; 211; P. MORENO, Elementi di

pittura ellenistica, in: L’Italie méridionale et les premiéres experiences de la peinture hellénistique, 1998, 7-67; I.

SCHEIBLER, Griechische Malerei der Antike, 1994; B. Tr1popl, Cacce Reali Macedoni, 1998, 56; 90f.; ror—109.

NH. [6] P. Anicetus (Avixntoc/Anikétos, Middle Indic: Philasina). Indo-Greek king at the end of the 2nd cent. BC or the beginning of the rst, documented only by his coins. BOPEARACHCHI, 1oof., 288-294.

K.K.

125

126

[7] Egyptian surgeon and pharmacologist working towards the end of the 2nd cent. BC; Celsus (De medicina 7, praef. 3) says of him that by his many books and his teaching (in Alexandria?) he had advanced surgery a good deal. A treatment by P. for eyes is described in Pap. PACK* 2377. Many of his drug recipes are preserved by Galen via > Asclepiades [9] Pharmakion. The nomen Claudius, given him by Galen in his De compositione medicamentorum secundum genera (2,17 and 3,9 = 13,539 and 645 K.), is likely to be the result of MS corruption. VN. [8] P. from Alexandria. Versatile grammarian of the rst cent. BC [1. 3-7], a scholar and teacher in Rome (Suda 394). P. wrote no fewer than 19 works [1. 8-14], including those on the epics of Homer (textual criticism, prosody, definition), on > Greek dialects (he also

completed in the year 507/8 by his chorepiskopos Polycarp (the work has been lost, but was used by Thomas of Hargel as the basis for a further revision carried out in about 615).

considers

584, 1144), usually made from plants, sometimes with mineral and animal substances. Philtra were used in two ways: 1. The substances were burned in a magical ritual carried out by a professional sorcerer using additional materials (lead plates carrying magical formulae, a statuette embodying the object of the ritual). As in the case of religious offerings, smoke would be produced by this process, summoning a deity. The deity would then effect the spell (e.g. Ach. Tat. 5,22). 2. By being introduced into drinks consumed by the object of the spell or products placed on his body, such substances would

Latin a dialect related to Aeolic)

and on

metrics, glosses and correct usage (Hellénismos). In his main — presumably alphabetically ordered [1. 8] - work Tlegi LovoovAAGBav Onuatov (“Monosyllabic Verbs’) P. separates himself from the the Stoics’ substantive-oriented theory of etymology, in that he traces é6véuata (ondmata, substantives) and 6ywata (rhémata, verbs)

to one-syllable verbal roots, which must be deduced by — analogy [2] when they no longer exist in everyday language or in dialects. None of P.’s writings has been directly passed on, but fragments can be found in later grammarians (esp. > Orion) and in the Byzantine ~ etymologica. Fragments:

1 C. THEOpDorIDIs (ed.), Die Fragmente des

Grammatikers Philoxenos, 1976. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 2 J. L. HELLER, Nepos, ‘Skorpistes’ and Philoxenos, in: TAPhA 93, 1962, 61-89

3G.L. Konia-

RIS, Conjectures in the Fragments of the Grammarian Philoxenos, in: Hermes 108, 1980, 462-476 4C. WENDEL, s.v. Philoxenos, RE 20, 194-200. GR.DA.

PHILUMENUS

A. DE HALLeux, Philoxéne de Mabbog. Sa vie, ses écrits,

sa theologie, 1963; Id., s.v. Philoxenus von Mabbug, TRE 26, 1996, 576-580; F. GRAFFIN, s.v. Philoxéne de Mabboug, Dictionnaire de Spiritualité 12, 1984, 1392-13973;

E. KeTrENHOFEN,

Biographisch-bibliographisches

chenlexikon 7, 1994, 524-529.

KirS.BR.

Philtron §(iAtQ0v/philtron, Latin philtrum; also otéoynOgov/stérgethron and Oédxutoeov ~owtoc/thélktron érotos; Latin amatorium, pocula desiderii or amoris). Generally a love charm, more often instruments of such a charm (e.g. the tunic of > Deianira, Soph. Trach.

arouse love (e.g. Heliodorus 3,16; Plin. HN

28,256).

They may — according to modern scholars — have contained aphrodisiacs. — Defixio; > Magic A. BERNAND, Les sorciers grecs, 1991; TH. HOPENER, S.v.

Philtron, RE 20, 203-208;J.J. WINKLER, The Constraints of Eros, in: C. A. FARAONE, D. OBBINK

(eds.), Magika

Hiera. Ancient Greek Magic and Religion, 1991, 214PAge A.TO.

[9] P. of Mabbag. Syrian writer (died ro December AD 523). P. (the Hellenized form of his Syrian name Aks‘naya) was born in the Sassanid Empire and edu-

Philumenus (®wrobpevoc; Philoumenos). Author of a treatise on poisonings (Ilegi topoAMv Cwmv xat TOV Ev avtoig BonOnudtwv, ‘On poisonous animals and medi-

cated at the ‘Persian School’ in > Edessa [2]. An ardent

cines extracted from them’) that has only been passed down to us in the MS Vat. Gr. 284 (roth cent. AD). P.’s period of writing in any case later than > Galenus — the work is structured following the model of the latter’s treatise on toxicology — and it must have appeared before that of > Oribasius who quotes him, i.e. it must be dated to the 2nd or rather the 3rd cent. AD. The text of P. contains Egyptian and Alexandrian therapeutic procedures, although we cannot draw any conclusions from these, as the entire work is based on compilation. From references in later medical encyclopaedias to P. and from fragments in the Latin translation of Alexander [29] of Tralles, it is believed that we can deduce that P. compiled a comprehensive therapeutic handbook, of which the exposé on toxicology was only a part without having been a treatise sui generis, as was thought. The sources of P. have given occasion for great speculation; it appears that this was ultimately the treatise on the same subject attributed to > Pedanius Dios-

opponent of the Council of Chalcedon (in 451) and of Tomus Leonis (> Leo [3]), in 485 he became Metro-

politan of Mabbag (Hierapolis/ Bambyce), but he was driven from there into exile in Gangra on the occasion of the accession of Justin I (in 518). His extensive writings in Syriac language deal primarily with theological and monastic topics. In the first group are 10 Discourses

(méemré,

— Mémra)

against

the eastern

Syrian Habbib (in 482/484), a work on the Trinity and the Incarnation and a commentary on the Prologue of John; in the second group are 13 Discourses on the monastic life and a letter to Patricius (an abbreviated version of which was translated into Greek at the Monastery of St. Sabas in Jerusalem in the 8th—9th cents. under the name of > Isaac [3] the Syrian). Among his other letters there is one addressed to the emperor + Zeno (‘On the Incarnation’). P. commissioned a revi-

sion of the Syriac translation of the NT, which was

PHILUMENUS

m7

curides whose content was structured (as in Galen) and

expanded with new material; to this extent it would bea purely literary synthesis. The illustrations accompanying the text of Vat. Gr. 284 — stereotypical pictures of non-specific snakes — do not belong to the original textual stage but come from the Byzantine period. The treatise on toxicology (or perhaps the entire assumed handbook on treatment) by P. was used by Oribasius and translated very quickly into Latin, as parts of it appear in the Latin translation of the 2nd bk. of the Therapeutikai by Alexander [29] of Tralles that was perhaps still written during his life time (6th cent. AD). The treatise on toxicology was translated into Arabic and was therefore already circulated independently in the 9th cent. AD. The work remained unknown until it was rediscoyered at the beginning of the zoth cent. and edited by M. WELLMANN. + Pharmacology H. Ditier, s.v. Philoumenos (7), RE 20, 209-211; Z. KApAr, Survivals of Greek Zoological Illuminations, 1978, 72£.; P. MIHAILEANU, Fragmentele latine ale lui Philumenus si Philagrius, 1910, 103-147; H. MoRLAND, Zu Philoumenos, in: Symbolae Osloenses 32, 1956, 84f.; A. TouwalbE, Galien et la toxicologie, in: ANRW II 37.3, 1993, 1887-1986; M. WELLMANN, Die pneumatische Schule, 1895; Id., CMG X,1,1, 1908; Id., Ph., in: Hermes 43, 1908, 530-569.

A.TO.

Philyllius (®ivdduoc; Philyllios). Comic poet from the 5th/4th cents. BC; according to the Suda he was a contemporary of Diocles [5] and > Sannyrion [t. test. 2]. He was victorious at the Lenaean festival and possibly at the Dionysian [1. test. 3, *4]. Thirty-three fragments and ten titles have survived, of which six are of a mythical nature (Aiyets, Atadavtn, Aiyn, “EdXévn, “HoaxaArjs, TTAbvtevat i Navowda; ‘Aegeus’, ‘Atalante’, ‘Auge’, ‘Helen’, ‘Heracles, “The Washerwomen or Nausicaa’).

The last-mentioned play [x. fr. 8] from the closing decade of the sth cent. BC ridicules the Attic politician Laespodias [2. 203]. 2 H.-G. NEssELRATH, Die 1 PCG VII, 1989, 374-387 attische Mittlere Komédie, 1990. B.BA,

Philyra (®Uea/Philyra, literally ‘lime-tree’). [1] > Oceanid, already in Hesiod (Theog. 1002) the mother of the centaur — Chiron, in whose cave she

lived according to Pindar (N. 3,43). The Hesiodic, Aeolic spelling Phillyridés for Chiron points to an archaic stratum of the myth (West on Hes. Theog. 1002). She was loved by > Kronos who, being surprised by > Rhea while making love to her, turned himself and P. into horses. Their child was the centaur Chiron, whose monstrous shape so horrified the mother that she prayed Zeus to change her own form (TrGF Adespoton 734b), and thus became the tree named after her (Apoll.

Rhod. 2,123 1-1241; Hyg. Fab. 138). The myth is consitently situated in northern Greece, be it Thrace (Hyg.

128

l.c.), Mt Pelion (Verg. island in the Black Sea which on the mainland Rhod. 3,392f.; Val. Fl.

G. 3,92-94) or on an obscure (Apoll. Rhod. |.c.), opposite of the Philyres were located (Apoll. 5,152; Amm. Marc. 22,8,21).

A. Kossatz-DEISSMANN, s.v. P., LIMC 7.1, 386-387; H. STOLL, s.v. P., ROSCHER 3.2, 2353f.; P. Maas, KS, 1973, 229 (Phillyrides). JB.

[2] Wife of + Nauplius [1], mother of > Palamedes (Apollod. 2,23), also called > Clymene [5]. LK.

Phineus (®wetc; Phineus). [1] Son of > Agenor ’s [1] son — Phoenix [1] and > Cassiepeia [1] (Hes. Cat. 138; Pherecydes FGrH 3 F 86; Antimachus fr. 70 MATTHEWS); also son of Agenor himself (Hellanicus FGrH 4 F 95; Apoll. Rhod. 2,237; Nonnus, Dion. 2,680) or Poseidon (Apollod. 1,120). Married first to -+ Cleopatra [I1], daughter of + Boreas and > Oreithyia, by whom he fathers two sons (> Plexippus/Pandion; Parthenius/Carambis; Mariandynus/Thynus, and others); then to Idaea, the daughter of > Dardanus [1] (Apollod. 3,199f.; Soph. fr. 704 Rant; schol. Apoll. Rhod. 2,178-182bc). He comes from either the Thracian east shore of the Euxine (— Salmydessus, Apollod. 1,120; Soph. Ant. 966-976), the Thynian (European) southwest shore (Apoll. Rhod. 2,177 with schol.; Val. Fl. 4,424) or the BithynianPaphlagonian south shore (Asia Minor) (Pherecydes FGrH 3 F 27). P. is the blind seer who foretells the next stages of the — Argonauts’ journey (as — Circe does Odysseus [z. 221]), in particular the > Symplegades, on condition that his brothers-in-law, the Boreads > Calais and Zetes, free him in accordance with an oracle from the ~ Harpies who were stealing his food (Aesch. fr. 258 RapT), even him himself (Hes. Cat. 151) (Apollod. 1,120f.; in a later version the prophecy is out of gratitude: Apoll. Rhod. 2,178ff.; Val. Fl. 4,424). His blinding and his being tormented by the Harpies (as well as his banishment: Val. Fl. 4,427 and 447f.) are either for preferring a long life to the ability to see (Hes. Cat. 157; punishment by Helios: schol. Apoll. Rhod. 2,178182b) or for giving > Phrixus and his sons directions for their journey (or way back; [2. 213f.]) (Hes. Cat. 254; Apollod. 1,120, punishment by Poseidon; Istrus FGrH 334 F 64, punishment by Helios), or for revealing the future (i.e. Zeus’ plans) to mankind (Apoll. Rhod. 2,180-182; Val. Fl. 4,479; variation in Apollod. 1,120). In Apoll. Rhod. 2,456ff., > Paraebius [1. 222f. n. 3] is P.’ friend and takes care of him. According to a version probably deriving from a tragedy, because of his second wife’s calumnies, P. blinded the sons from his first marriage or buried them alive and had them flogged or abandoned them and had their mother locked up, wherefore P. is blinded or killed by Hercules or the Boreads who are travelling with the Argonauts, or blinded by Boreas or swept away; the sons and their mother are freed and the stepmother condemned to death (Soph. fr. 704 RADT; Soph. Ant. 966-

129

130

976; Dionysius Scytobrachion fr. 18 RuSsTEN apud Diod. Sic. 4,43f.; ibidem. fr. 19; Orph. A. 671ff.; Apollod. 3,200, Apollod. 1,120 [3. 97ff.] as variant); the

sons are healed by the Boreads or > Asclepius (Phylarchus FGrH 81 F 18; Orph. A. 674f.). P. in art: [4. 5 1ff.; 53 6].

PD.

[2] Son of Belus and Anchinoe, brother of the Ethiopian

king - Cepheus [2] (Eur. fr. 881 TGF apud Apollod. 2,11 and schol. Aesch. Supp. 317; Nonnus, Dion. 3,296), and betrothed to his daughter > Andromeda. P. wants to prevent her marriage to > Perseus [1] who thus turns him to stone with the + Gorgoneion (Apollod. 2,44; Ov. Met. 5,1-235; blinding in schol. Apoll. Rhod. 2,178-182b due to confusion with P. [1]). P. in arts zl: 1U. von WILAMow1Tz-MOELLENDOREF, Hellenistische Dichtung, vol. 2,*1962 2 P. DRAGER, Argo pasimelousa, 1993 3J.S.RusTEN (ed.), Dionysius Scytobrachion,

1982

4M. Voyjatzi, Friihe Argonautenbilder, 1982 5 L.

Kaui, s.v. P. (1), LIMC 7.1, 387-391

P., RE 20, 245f.

6K. ZIEGLER, s.v.

7 E. Stmon, s.v. P. (2), LIMC 8.1, 391f.

K. ZIEGLER, s.v. P., RE 20, 215-248.

P.D.

Phineus Painter. Younger of the two main masters of — Chalcidian vase painting (cf. > Inscription Painter), active c. 540-520 BC. The PP was named after a large eye cup with internal friezes (chariot procession of Dionysus

and Ariadne;

Phineus,

Boreads

and Harpies;

Wurzburg L 164); he specialised in eye cups and neck amphorae, as well as hydriai, oinochoai and skyphoi (> Pottery, shapes and types of with figs.). Mythical images are rare (Return of Hephaestus [1. 204], Tydeus and Polyneices in Argos [1. 207f.]); animal friezes, symmetrical animal paintings with central ornamentation and variation-rich compositions of men, women, youths and riders predominate. His highly elegant style shows Ionian influences. The PP along with the ‘Phineus Cup Group’ (which cannot always be easily separated from him) form the most extensive ceuvre of Chalcidian vase painting, numbering over 160 works. The main find locations are > Locri [2]], > Rhegium and + Vulci. 1 W. J. SLATER, M. STEINHART, Phineus as Monoposiast, in: JHS 117, 1997, 203-211.

J. BoarpMaN, Early Greek Vase Painting, 1998, 219; M. Iozzo, La ceramica ‘calcidese’, 1994, 67-81. M.ST.

Phintias [1] (®wudc; Phintids). Town on the southern coast of Sicily, modern Licata, founded in c. 280 BC by P., the

tyrant of > Acragas and settled by the residents of Gela driven out by the - Mamertini (Diod. Sic. 22,2,2; 22,7,1); the inhabitants of P. therefore also continued to call themselves Geldioi (Tek@out, IG XIV 256-261; [x. 711 no. 588f.]). In 249 BC a Roman fleet was defeated at P. by the Carthaginians in connection with the rst + Punic War (Diod. Sic. 24,1,7f.). Under Roman ad-

PHINTYS

ministration, P. was accounted among the civitates stipendiariae (Plin. HN 3,91). On the outermost eastern hill of Monte S. Angelo (~ Eknomon), remains identifiable with P. have been found (an area of settlement

laid out in terraces, dwellings with painted stucco, necropoleis, massive water installations) [2. 56, 162]. 1A. Howm,

Geschichte

Siziliens, vol. 3, 1898

2E.

Manni, Geografia fisica e politica della Sicilia antica, 1981.

A. DE Miro, s.v. Licata, EAA 2. Suppl. vol. 3, 1995, 353355; BICGI 12, 1-3.

K.MEI. and GLF.

[2] (®wtiac; Phintias). Attic vase painter and potter of the Late Archaic period (525-510 BC) who along with + Euphronius [2] and > Euthymides was among the chief representatives of the so-called pioneers of > redfigured vase painting , although his style of drawing is somewhat more antiquated than theirs. His origins lie in the ‘pre-pioneering period’ (autographed bowl Munich, SA 2590). Influences from the early red-figure painters > Psiax and — Oltus are discernible. In his ‘pioneering period’, as well, P. still often painted ornamental beading in the black-figured manner and carved contours. His language of form is clear and unadorned but without great verve, his drawing of detail (reproduction of muscles, finger nails, knuckles, eyelashes) is careful and meticulous. His figures often look a little stiff and his compositions, though influenced by Euthymides, appear somewhat unexciting and academic. His repertoire is highly diversified and comprises everyday scenes (hydria with musical instruction and symposium of hetaerae: Munich, SA 2421) as well as mythical paintings (amphora with theft of tripod and thiasos: Tarquinia, Mus. Nazionale RC 6843). P., like all the

pioneers, took pleasure in writing and sometimes added to his figures the names of colleagues (Euthymides on the Munich Hydria, SA 2421, Sosias on the Paris Amphora, LV G 42). Of the ten extant vessels with an autograph, he signed seven as painter (four bowls, an amphora, a pelike, a hydria) and three as potter (one bowl, not painted by him, and two shell-shaped ointment vessels). BEAZLEY,

ARV’,

22-26,

1620,

1700;

BEAZLEY,

Addenda’, 154-155; E. SIMON, Die griechischen Vasen, *1981, figs. 98-101; C. Weiss, in: Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum 4, 1989, 83-94; M. RoBerTSoN, The Art of Vase-Painting in Classical Athens, 1992, 20-35 et passim; J. BOARDMAN, Athenian Red Figure Vases: The Archaic Period, 1975, 30-32, figs. 38-42. LW.

Phintys (®ivtvc; Phintys). Pseudonymous female author of a work in Pythagorean spirit, Hei yuvarxoc owpQoovvas (Peri gynaikos sophrosynas, ’On the selfcontrol of women’; two relatively long fragments in Doric dialect are preserved in Stob. 4,23,61): a woman’s characteristic virtue is self-control; some particular traits and abilities are common to both men and women, others are either male or female; philosophiz-

PHINTYS

ing is common to both. A woman attains the good specific to her by means of five things: chasteness, physical adornment, good housekeeping, absence from orgiastic celebrations and moderation in sacrificing. Perhaps P. is identical with the Pythagorean Philtys in the catalogue by Iamblichus (Iambl. VP 267); according to Stob. 4,23,61, she is a daughter of Callicrates (perhaps 2nd century AD). ~ Gender roles; > Pythagorean School Ep.: H. THESLEFF, The Pythagorean Texts of the Hellenistic Period, 1965,

151-154.

M.FR. and C.RI.

Phiops (®iow/Phiops or Pic/Phids). Greek form of the name of two Egyptian kings (Egyptian Pjp/). [1] P. I. Third king of the 6th dynasty (c. 2300-2250 BC). Under his reign, expeditions to the > Sinai [1], to Byblos [1], > Nubia and Punt are attested. An inscription of P. was found in Palace G in > Ebla. A courtier reported in his funerary inscription that there was a secret investigation of a harem conspiracy led by the queen [1. 98-110]; the same report mentions five mili-

tary campaigns against Asian > nomads. The name of the pyramid (-town) of P. (Mn-nfr-Pjpj) later (first attested c. 1500 BC) became the name of the city > Memphis. K JW. [2] P. IL. Fifth king of the 6th dynasty (c. 2245-2180/50 BC) who ascended the throne as a child. According to the later tradition (Manethon, Fr. 19/20, see [2], Royal Canon of Turin [3]), he reigned for 94 years; sources from that period provide evidence of a reign of over 60 years [1. 274]. At the beginning of his reign, an expedition from the Sudan took a pygmy to Egypt as a ‘dancing dwarf’, and later military campaigns against Nubia and Asian nomads are attested. The provincial administrators gradually became more independent — possibly one of the reasons for the decline of the Old Kingdom shortly after the death of P. He and his three wives are buried in small pyramids in Saqqara. 1K. SeTHeE, Urkunden des Alten Reiches, 1903 2 W. G. WADDELL, Manetho, 1964, 50-55 3 A.H. GARDINER, The Royal Canon of Turin, 1959, pl. IL, V, fr. 59. T. SCHNEIDER, Lexikon der Pharaonen, *1996, 295-301, Saves

m2

13

KJ.-W.

Phix see > Sphinx Phlebotomy. In Babylonian, Egyptian and also Greek medicine, blood-letting was part of standard medical practice. This procedure was carried out either by directly opening a vein, by scarification or by using a cupping vessel. Considering how often the latter are depicted on monuments connected with physicians, cupping may have been the most common method [1]. Two notions seem to have favoured phlebotomy: on the one hand, it supposedly prevented the stagnating of the blood and its transformation into a harmful substance,

on the other, it followed nature’s example in removing

an excess of blood by bleeding, be it haemorrhoidal, menstrual or nasal. In that way, it relieved swelling and pressure and counteracted the seasonal spring-time increase in the amount of blood as described in Hippocratic doctrine. Under exceptional circumstances, as e.g. in cases of polycythaemia and of diseases in which the pathogenic agent is to be deprived of iron, even modern medicine still recommends a reduction of the blood volume [3. 158-172]. Provided that the patient had not been unduly weakened, the very act of intervention might have caused a feeling of well-being and in some cases, e.g for headaches, brought temporary relief of pressure. However, there were some who did not consider the therapeutic benefit of this widely used procedure significant enough to include it in their own practice. > Erasistratus (fr. 63 GAROFALO) preferred to reduce his patients’ blood volume by depriving the patient of nutriment. Challenged by Galen, Erasistratus’ followers in Rome openly supported the potentially much more pernicious doctrine of wholesale bloodletting [3. roo—-r11]. However, Galen, though a fervent

supporter of bleeding, also sets out clearly when such procedure should not be performed; in his practice, he is far more moderate than his later followers would seem to suggest. In Late Antiquity, the rules for phlebotomy became more fixed; Hippocrates was credited with a tract on how to interpret the various kinds of blood as an indication of the underlying disease [2; 4]. 1 E. BERGER, Das Basler Arztrelief, 1970

2D. BLANKE,

Die pseudohippokratische Epistula de sanguine cognoscendo, 1974

3P. BRAIN, Galen on Bloodletting, 1986

4F. LENHARDT, Blutschau, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Hamatoskopie, 1986 5G. Mayjno, The

Healing Hand, 1975

6 V. Nutron, Ancient Medicine,

2004.

V.N.

Phlegethon (®ieyé0wv; Phlegéthon). [1] River near Cumae (+ Cyme [2]), which, according to Strabo (1,2,18 and 5,4,5), was identified with the

Homeric P. [2] on the basis of the nearby hot springs. [2] “Stream of fire” (also Tveupieyé0wv/Pyriphlegethon); one of the rivers of the Underworld, it and > Cocytus [1] flow into > Acheron [2] (Hom. Od. 10,513f.). According to Plat. Phd. r13a-b, P. flows through a burning region, forming an enormous swamp, then circles the earth and flows into Lake Acherousia and finally into a lower region of > Tartarus. Volcanoes on the earth’s surface arise from P. Patricides and matricides serve their sentence in P. until they can convince their victim of their remorse and are freed (ibid. r13e-114b). The Orphic system of four Underworld rivers associates fire and the east with P. (Orph. Fr. 123 and 125; > Orphism). Virgil represents P. as a burning stream encircling the castle of the Underworld (Verg. Aen. 6,548-551). Ancient antiquarians derived the name from ‘cremation’ (Apollod. FGrH 244 F 02a).

K.SCHL.

133

134

Phlegon (®éywv; Phlégdn). P. Aelius, of > Tralleis [2]

s.v. lady). The renaming of the peninsula as Pallene can be traced back to the Achaean Pelleneis who landed at the later town of > Scione on their return from Troy (leAnveic/Pelleneis, Polyaenus, Strat. 7,47; cf. Thuc.

in Asia Minor, a writer of miscellanies. A freedman of the emperor > Hadrianus [II], P. belonged to the latter’s court and possibly administered his — itinerare [II.] (cf. [7]); d. after AD 137, the terminus post quem of work (6), below. According to the list in the Suda (FGrH 257 T 1) P.’s

ceuvre included i.a. topographical-heortological writings: (1) Peri Olympionikon/‘On Olympic Victors’ (2 bks.); (2) Ekphrasis Sikelias/‘Description of Sicily’ (3 bks.); (3) ‘On Roman Festivals’ (3 bks.) and a topography of Rome (2 bks.). He also wrote on anthropological curiosities: (4.) Peri thaumasion/*On Marvels’. (5.) Peri

makrobion/ ‘On Long-lived Persons’ These were then compiled in his most extensive (16 bks.) and famous work, a world chronicle of curiosities (Mirabilia). (6.)

Olympionik6n kai chron|ik]6n synagoge (in Phot. bibl. 97 = FGrH 257 T 3; Olympiddes in the Suda), which

dealt with the period from 776/5 BC until the death of his patron Hadrian (AD 138); P.is thus classified as a historian (historikés) in the Suda. A short version of this work in 8 bks., (7.) Epitome, testifies both to its use-

fulness and its excessive length. Of the works (1-3) and (7), only the titles are extant. In the 9th cent., > Photius [2] was still able to have the

first 5 bks of (6) read aloud to him. Today only (4) (on the beginning cf. [5]; [8. 193-198]) and (5) are incompletely preserved in MS form, as well as a fragment from (6) (FGrH 257 F r) in Heidelberg (Palatinus Graecus 398 = FGrH 257 F 36f.). As to the contents, attention to Western Roman themes stands out [7. 194f.| with a range of miscellaneous information similar to the Pratum of the elder > Suetonius, as does a marked interest in prodigies and oracles (criticised already by Photius). Photius assesses P.’s style as middle, lying between the low and one that is all too Atticistic. In the Modern Period, a vestige of P. also remains in GOETHE’s ballad The Bride of Corinth (an adaptation from the mirabilia). PIR* P 389. + Buntschriftstellerei EpItTIons:

1 FGrH 257 und 2572 (Text II B1159-1196;

comm. II D 837-853) 2A. GIANNINI (ed.), Paradoxographorum Graecorum reliquiae, 1965, 169-219 (Peri thaumasion) 3 W. HANSEN, 1996 (Engl. trans. and comm., with extensive bibl.) 4 A. STRAMAGLIA, Res inau-

ditae,

1999,

230-255;

360-382;

400-415

(mirabilia.

I-3).

LITERATURE:

5E.

RoupeE,

KS

2, 1901,

173-185

368 (mirabilia ro) 7S. FEIN, Die Beziehungen der Kaiser Trajan und Hadrian zu den litterati, 1994,193-199 8A. STRAMAGLIA, Sul peri thaumasion di Flegonte, in: Studi classici e orientali 45, 1995 (1997), 191-234 (with extensive bibl.).

P.L.S.

Phlegra (®iéyoa; Phlégra). According to Hdt. 7,123, the Pallene [4] peninsula originally bore the name of P. In antiquity, P. was thought to be the site of the battle between Heracles [1] and the Giants (Ephorus FGrH 70 F 34; Str. 7a,1,253 27; Apollod. 1,6,1; 2,7,1; Steph. Byz.

PHLIUS

AyU2ZO51)t E. OBERHUMMER, S.V. Ph., RE 20, 264f.

M.Z.

Phlegyas (®ieybac; Phlegyas). Eponym of the Phlegyans, a mythical people in Thessalia (Hom. Il. 13,302), also localized in Boeotia, Phocis or Epidaurus (> Erythraean Paean [1. 372-374]). Son of > Ares and Dotis, father of > Ixion (Eur. TrGF fr. 424) and > Coronis [1], mother of + Asclepius (H. Hom. 16; Pind. Pyth.

3,8-11; Isyllos IG IV* 1, 128,37-56 = Paean 40 E KAPPEL [1. 382]). The Phlegyans were a people of brigands (H. Hom. 3,278), and P. himself set fire to the temple of Apollo in Delphi, thus becoming one of the penitents in the Underworld (Verg. Aen. 6,618; Serv. Aen. l.c.). In Dante he is a ferryman (Divina Commedia, Inferno 8,1 5ff.). 1 L. KAppeEL, Paian, 1992.

LK.

Phlius (®iewotc/Phleiows, more rarely ®iod Persian Wars (Thermopylae, Plataeae; cf. Hdt. 7,202 and 9,28,43 31,3; 85,3; the snake columns Syll.> 31,13). P. remained basically loyal to > Sparta, which led to skirmishes in the region during the > Corinthian War (Xen. Hell. 4,4,15). In 381 BC, the recall of exiles resulting from stipulations of the > King’s Peace caused internal quarrels. These were settled when Agesilaus [2] occupied the town after a long siege (Xen. Hell 5,3,r0ff.). After the battle of Leuctra (371 BC), P. con-

u85)0)

136

tinued to support Sparta, which led to protracted battles with Argos [II r] and Sicyon (369-366 BC; Xen.

Since the late rgth cent. [4. 52], the P. plays have been connected with the representations of comic scenes on > South Italian vases, the > Phlyax vases (so far more than 250), produced between 400 and 325 BC and showing travesties of myths and burlesques of gods, as well as comical everyday scenes (overview in [x] and [3]); the pot-bellied actors often wear ugly masks, oversized phalli and tasseled clothing. More rec-

PHLIUS

Hell. 7,2,1; 5; 17ff.). P. was involved in the > Lamian War (Paus. 1,25,4), and like other neighbouring towns was under Macedonian suzerainty wielded by the tyrant Cleonymus [4] (Pol. 2,44,6). In 228 BC, P. allied itself with the Achaean League (> Achaeans, Achaea, with map; Pol. l.c.; Plut. Aratos 3 5,3), then briefly with Cleomenes [6] III. (Pol. 2,52,2; Plut. Aratus 39,4; Plut. Cleomenes 19,1; 26,3). In the Imperial Period, Pausanias described P. (2nd cent. AD; Paus. 2,13,3—8) as flourishing; and under the Severi (end of 2nd, beginning of 3rd cent. AD) P. again minted coins (inscription: IG IV 439-478; coins: HN 408f.; 417). In Greek cultural life P. played a considerable role: for example, from P. hailed the dramatists — Pratinas and > Aristias [2], the parodist > Timon [2], the musician > Thrasyllus [3], the painter Cleagoras, as well as + Echecrates [2], Phaedo’s interlocutor in Plato’s dialogue of the same name. P. also enjoyed a close relationship with the Pythagoreans and the Academy (> Axiothea; > Asclepiades [3]). S. E. ALcock, Urban Survey and the Polis of P., in: Hespe-

ently, however,

[4] attributes these presentations to southern Italian productions of Attic comedies. This is certainly the case in some instances, but whether this must be true for all is not certain. In the last decades of the 4th cent., the P. tradition produced, in the poet + Rhinthon, a literary representative of the comedic drama practiced in southern Italy. 1E. Wust, s.v. P., RE 20, 292-306

2J. SCHMIDT, s.v.

Phleon, RE 20, 290 ©3 A.D. TRENDALL, Phlyax Vases (BICS Suppl. 19),*1967 4 O. TapLin, Comic Angels and Other Approaches to Greek Drama through Vase-Paintings, 1993 5M. ScHMipT, Tracce del teatro comico Attico nella magna Grecia, in: Vitae Mimus. Forme e funzioni del teatro comico greco e latino, 1993, 27-43 6 Ead., Komische Arme, Teufel und andere Gesellen auf

der griechischen Komodienbihne, in: AK 41, 1998, 1732. H.-G.NE.

ria 60, 1991, 421-463; W.-R. Biers, Excavations at P.

(1970), in: Hesperia 40, 1971, 424-4473 (1972) 42, 1973, 102-120; J. Hopp, s.v. P., in: LAUFFER, Griechenland, 542-544; MULLER, 831f.; N. PHARAKLAS, ®)e.aoia, 1972; PRITCHETT 2, 1969, 96-111; 6, 1989, 6-9; G. Roux, Pausanias en Corinthie, 1958, 165-171. Verb

Phlya (®dva; Phlya). Large Attic Mesogeia deme belonging to the Cecropis phyle and from 224/3 BC on to the Ptolemais phyle, with five? (six?) bouleutai; located at modern Chalandri northeast of Athens, bordering Athmonon (IG II* 2776,49). In addition to numer-

ous cults (Apollo, Artemis, Athena, Zeus, Nymphs: Paus. 1,34,4; [1]), rural > Dionysia are attested for P. (Isaius 8,15f.). After its destruction by the Persians + Themistocles renewed the age-old sanctuary to the ‘Great Goddess’ attended by the + Lycomidae (Plut. Themistocles 1,4; Paus. 4,1,7). Myron [2], prosecutor against the Alcmaeonids for their sacrilege in the ‘Cylonian affair’ (~ Cylon [1]), was from P., as was the poet Euripides [1]. 1 E. MEYER, s.v. P., RE Suppl. 10, 535-538. TRAILL, Attica, 20, 51, 59, 62, 67,

112 no. 112, tab. 7, 13;

J. S. TraiLL, Demos and Trittys, 1986, 4, rof., 13, 16f., 24f., ro8f., 115, 135; WHITEHEAD, Index s.v. P. H.LO.

Phlyakes (®)vaxec; Phlyakes). According to the Hellenistic historian Sosibius Laconus (FGrH 595 F 7) the usual term in Graeca Magna for the performers of a local variety of Doric folk burlesque. In antiquity the name is usually derived from Avagetiv/phlyarein, ‘talk nonsense’ (Hsch. s.v.; cf. Poll. 9,149). A derivation from d€w/phléo, ‘teem, abound’ is probably more correct. Phleon (and similar forms) is an old epithet for Dionysus as god of vegetation [2].

Phlyax vases. Even before the end of the 5th cent. BC, Greek vase painters had begun to depict grotesque comic scenes of the phlyakes’ burlesques. The c. 250 extant vases and vase fragments show a rich repertoire of burlesques of the gods and heroes (e.g. Zeus and Hermes on an amorous

adventure, Heracles at sacri-

fice), travesty of myth (Oedipus and the Sphinx) and daily life (punishment of a thief, love scenes, wedding). In Greece itself, PV are quite rare, although they are common in Apulian and > Paestan vase painting. On various PV, the painted stage, staircase, columns, cur-

tains etc. convey the impression of a real theatre performance, although such details are mostly dispensed with. The phlyakes depicted wear a tasseled garment stuffed at the chest, seat and stomach with a huge + phallus bound onto the front and the > masks adopted from the stock of models from Greek > comedy. — Phlyakes; > South Italian vases A. D. TRENDALL, Phlyax Vases (BICS Suppl. 19), *1967;S. Gocos, Das Bihnenrequisit in der griechischen Vasenmalerei, in: JOAI 55, 1984, 27-53; O. TAPLIN, Phallology, Phlyakes, Iconography and Aristophanes, in: PCPhS 213, 1987, 92-104.

R.H.

Phlygonium (®)vyoviov/Phlygonion). Phocian town. Whether it was located in the north-west of the small plain of Tséresi is uncertain; the remains of the fortifications on the hill of Palaiokastron have been attributed to it. P. was among the cities destroyed in 346 BC at the instigation of Philippus [4] II (Paus. 10,3,2); the name P. also appears in the reports of the treasurers of > Delphi after 324/3 (CID II 108 |. 10). Inc. 140 BC (FdD II 2, 136), P. and Ambryssus, probably as part of a

137

138

> sympoliteia, together established the borders of their territory with that of Delphi.

37,1,1); Pompey even accorded the city the status of a civitas libera (Luc. 5,53). P. was an episcopal see. From 1455 it was part of the Ottoman Empire. » Colonization (with map and overview)

F. ScHoBER, Phokis, 1924, 39f.; E. KiRSTEN, s.v. Phlygonoin, RE 20, 306-308; J. M. Fossey, The Ancient Topography of Eastern Phokis, 1986, 54-56; J. McINERNEY, The Fold of Parnassos, 1999, 316-318; G. Daverto RocCHI, Frontiera e confini nella Grecia antica, 1988, 132—

ie

G.D.R.

PHOCAS

E. AKURGAL, Foga Kazilari ve Kyme Sondajlari, in: Anatolia 1, 1956, 33-40; O. Ozy1GiT, The City Walls of Ph., in: REA 96, 1994, 77-109; M. Morec et al., Phocée et la fondation de Marseille, 1995; Kazi Sonuglar: Toplantis: 12, 1991ff. (reports of the latest excavations since 1989).

Phobos (®6fo¢/Phobos, Latin

Pavor). Personification of terror, esp. terror in war (cf. Aesch. Sept. 45);

0.0Z.

therefore, along with his brother > Deimos, son of Ares

Phocaeae (®wxota/Phokaiai). Unidentified quarter (x@eiov/chdérion) of the city of > Leontini. Some aristocrats from Leontini, who had gone away and settled in Syracuse (> Syracusae) but then left again because of conflicts, withdrew to Ph. and the nearby fortress of > Bricinniae in 422 BC. Many of the democrats previously driven out of Leontini also soon gathered here in order to take up the fight with Syracuse (Thuc. 5,4,4).

and Aphrodite (Hes. Sc. r95f., 463f.). The brothers are found in Homer in connection with their father’s chariot (Hom. Il. 4,440f.; 13,299f.;

15,1 19f.); they appear

on the shield of » Agamemnon together with > Gorgo [x] (Hom. Il. 11,36f.), P. alone appears on the > aegis of + Athena (Hom. Il. 5,739) and of > Heracles [1] (Hes. Sc. 144-148). P. was believed to be ugly (PCG VIII fragment 873 K.-A.); vase depictions (> Cypselus chest) in keeping with this exist.

E. MANNI, Geografia fisica e politica della Sicilia antica, 1981, 218.

E.O. and GLF.

J. BOARDMAN, s.v. Ph., LIMC 7.1, 393f.; H. A. SHaPiRo, Personifications in Greek Art, 1993, 16, 209-215.

LK.

Phocais (®wxalic/Phokais). Lost Archaic epic about the Phocaea (®wxata/Phdkaia). One of the twelve Ionian cities on the western coast of Asia Minor, modern Foga, founded by settlers from Phocis (Hdt. 1,146; Str. 14,1,3; Nicolaus of Damascus FGrH 90 F 51). The

most recent excavations show a settlement from as early as the 2nd millennium BC. Remains have also been discovered of the wall mentioned in Hd. Joc. cit., dated between 590 and 580 BC (over 5 kmin length). In the Archaic Period, P. was not on the peninsula, but on

the mainland, and it was one of the largest cities in the Mediterranean region in the 6th cent. BC. P.’s patron deity was > Athena, whose temple was on the peninsula. > Cybele too was worshipped here, in a sanctuary north of the temple of Athena, but also in temples built into the rocks on the offshore islands (spread of Cybele cult by P. via > Massalia and > Elea as far as Spain). The theatre, to be dated to 3 40/330 BC, was discovered in 1991. In the Hellenistic and RomanPeriods, P. was a centre for the production of ceramics. In the Byzantine Period, the area of P. was limited to the peninsula. The sophist -» Hermocrates [2] and the architect — Theodorus [I] came from P. The Phocaeans were skilful seafarers; they traded throughout the known world, e.g. with + Naucratis and - Tartessus, founding -— Lampsacus and + Amisus jointly with Miletus [2], but esp. in the west: + Velia [2,3], > Aleria, Nicaea (today Nice), > Massalia and > Emporiae. P. was conquered by Harpagus [x] in 546 BC (Hdt. 1,164f.), took part in the > Ionian Revolt (Hdt. 6,r1f.; 17) and was, from 478, a member of the > Delian League, from which it withdrew in 412 (Thuc. 8,31,3; Xen. Hell. 1,6,33). In spite of its support for Aristonicus [4] in 132 BC, P. was spared by the Romans thanks to the advocacy of Massalia (Justin.

city of > Phocaea in Ionia in Asia Minor, probably part of a complex of early historical epics about regions and cities [4]. Attested only in a Life of Homer from the Imperial period (Vita Homeri Herodotea 16 = 10,3-7 in [3]): ‘the inhabitants claimed that the so-called P. had been composed by Homer in Phocaea’. Thus it seems that the author and time of composition were unknown even to later Phocaeans. No fragments survive. Possibly a source for later notes on Phocaea in the works of geographers, historians and lexicographers [5]. EpiT1ons: 1PEGI 2EpGF 30U. von WiLamMowit1zMOELLENDORFF (ed.), Vitae Homeri et Hesiodi, 1916, *1929.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: 4E. Bowrg, Early Greek Elegy, Symposium and Public Festival, in: JHS 106, 1986, 13-35 (esp. 27-34) 5 F. CAssoia, De Phocaide carmine, quod Homero tribui solet, commentatio, in: SIFC 26, 1952, 141-148.

ipe,

Phocas (®wxdc; Phokas). [1] Martyr (t around AD 305 in Sinope; Fest: 22. 9.).

He lived in > Sinope as a gardener and suffered martyrdom by beheading. As early as the 4th cent. a church is said to have existed above his grave in Sinope. From there his cult spread throughout the entire Mediterranean area. He is depicted as a gardener. J. BoLLanpus, G. HENSCHENIUS et al. (eds.), Acta sanctorum, vols. rff., 1643ff.; 6, 293-2993 7.3, 629-632; PG 60, 36ff. KSA.

[2] P. Diaconus. A poet of unknown date who is known only through a monodistich; the epigram is recited by the goblet which contains the remains of the wine intended for the cup-bearer (Anth. Pal. 9,772). It is impossible to prove that P. is identifiable as the deacon of Tyre

PHOCAS

140

139

of the same name who took part in the synod of Ephesus

Auxerre and by the rich manuscript tradition (more

(AD 449).

than 70 MSS up to the Humanist Period).

M. LausBerG, Das Einzeldistichon. Studien zum antiken Epigramm, 1982, 358 n. 48. M.G.A.

[3] East Roman official of noble origins, non-Christian, ~ patrikios from AD 526 at the latest. He replaced Flavius + Iohannes [16] at the time of the > Nika revolt (Jan. 532) to Oct. 532 as > praefectus praetorio Orientis. P. later worked in Constantinopole as a judge (iudex pedaneus). He took his own life at the time of the Justinianic persecution of pagans in AD 545/6 (> lustinianus [1] I.; > Tolerance) PLRE 2, 881f. (Ph. 5). FT. [4] Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire (AD 23.11.602-5.10.610). Born in AD 547, he was under Emperor — Mauricius centurio in the Thracian army, which revolted in AD 602 and elevated him to be their leader (éxarchos). Only after the elimination of two other candidates was the title of Emperor conferred on P., who had Mauricius and his sons executed on 27.11.602, and later his widow Constantina and her daughters as well on account of their participation in a conspiracy in AD 605. Nevertheless, the empire continued to be shaken by unrest and rebellions. From the moment — Chosroes [6] II. invaded the Empire in AD 604, new clashes began with the Persians, who took the provinces of Mesopotamia and Syria between AD 605 and AD 607, and in the aftermath advanced as far as Cappadocia (> Parthian and Persian wars). P. came to an arrangement with the > Langobardi in Italy, installed Smaragdus, a loyal official, as exarch of Ravenna (see > exarchate), who erected a column to him on the Forum Romanum (column of P.), and declared himself

in favour of the papal primacy in AD 607. A revolt in Africa in AD 608 under > Heraclius [7] ended, after

initial battles for Egypt, with the capture of Constantinople and the execution of P. ~ Byzantium, Byzantine; > ByZzANTIUM J. Herrin, The Formation of Christendom, 1987; D. O sTeER, The Politics of Usurpation in the Seventh Century, 1993; J. FERLUGA, s.v. Phokas, LMA 6, 2108; ODB 3, 1666; PLRE 3, 1030-1032 (Phokas 7). ET.

[5] P Il. see > Nicephorus [3]

Phocas (Focas). Roman grammarian probably of the early 5th cent. AD. His Ars de nomine et verbo (Regula) represents the type of rule-based grammar that came increasingly into use in the later 4th cent., and that makes the learning of correct Latin easier by means of numerous paradigms of declensions and conjugations. The text grew out of language teaching experience; the author intends to replace the grammars of his predecessors that were in part too short and in part too detailed (the greater danger) with a better one. Sources are used relatively independently. The didactic format secured considerable success for the textbook from the 6th cent. on

(quotations

in Priscian

and

Cassiodorus),

as is

shown in the Middle Ages by a comm. of Remigius of

The metric Life of Vergil (in hexameters, introduction in Sapphic strophes)in a Spanish anthology (Parisinus Latinus 8093, 9th cent.) which breaks off towards the end has been passed down under P.’ name. It goes back directly to the Suetonian Vita De viris illustribus (ie see ARS: Ep.: 1F. CasAceELtl, 1974 (with comm., cf. A. MAzzaRINO, in: Helikon 13/14, 1973/74, 505-527) 2G Goetz, Der Liber glossarum, 1891, 55f. 3 Id., CGL 1, 92 4 G. Pesenti, Anecdota Latina, in: RFIC 45, 1917, 87-93.

Lit.:

5 W. STRZELECKI, Quaestionum de Phoca gram-

matico specimen, in: Eos 37, 1936, 1-18 6C. JEUDY, L’ars de nomine et verbo de Ph., in: Viator 5, 1974, 61156 7R.A. Kaster, Guardians of Language, 1988,

BR Otte Nido Te Vita: Ep.: 8 G. BRUGNOLI, 1984 (with comm.). 9 Id., Vitae Vergilianae antiquae, 1999, XXXIV, 159-169. Lit.: 10 W. STRZELECKI, De Phocae vita Vergiliana, in:

Munera philologica L. Cwiklinski oblata, 1936, 23 5-252 11 W. SuERBAUM, Hundert Jahre Vergil-Forsch., in: ANRW II 31.1, 1980, 301-304, 307 (bibliogr.); II 31.2, 1981, 1172f. 12 F. Srox, Questioni biografiche 10, in: Giornale italiano di filologia 48, 1996, 99-109

SCHMIDT, in: HLL, vol. 4, 32f.

13P.L.

P.LS.

Phocion (®@xiwyv; Phokion). Son of Phocus, Athenian, from the Potamon (?) deme, > stratégds and respected

rhetor (Plut. Phocion 5,5), 402/1-318 BC. P. was elected strategos 45 times (ibid. 8,1-2) — more often, probably, than any other Athenian; in 322-318 he and — Demades led the oligarchic regime in Athens, he was a pupil of > Plato [1] and friend of + Xenocrates (Plut. Phocion 4,2; Plut. Mor. 1126c). In 376/5 as a trierarch (2?) under the strategos> Chabrias P. (or Cedon [2]: Diod. Sic. 15,34,5) commanded the left wing at the naval victory over Sparta at Naxos and after that was given the job of collecting taxes (syntdxeis) (Plut. Pho-

cion 6,2; 7,1; Plut. Mor. 805f). The dating of the first of his 45 offices of strategos (possibly 371/370) and the fixing of P.’s few years out of office are disputed. As a strategos in 349/8 after a victory at Tamynae, P. drove Plutarchus [1] out of Eretria (Plut. Phocion 1213; Dem. Or. 21,164; Aeschin. Leg. 169-170). Presumbly in 344/3 he proposed an aid expedition for Megara (Plut. Phocion 15,1). In 343 he spoke in favour of ~ Aeschines [2] in the False Embassy Trial (Aischin. Leg. 170 and 184). In the spring of 341 BC as strategos he defeated > Cleitarchus [1], the tyrant of Eretria in Euboea, and established a democracy there (Diod. Sic. 16,74,1-2; schol. Aischin. In Ctes. 103; Philochorus

FGrH 328 F 160). In 340/339 he successfully brought help to Byzantium, which was under siege (Plut. Phocion 14,3; Mor. 188b-c; 851a; IG IVI? 1628c,437; 1629d,958).

In 339/8, P. commanded a fleet in the Aegaean islands and it was only after the battle of Chaeronea (338 BC) that he returned from this command to

141

Athens

142 (Plut. Phocion

16,1).

There

he, instead

of

+ Charidemus [2], was appointed supreme commander of the defence of the city (Plut. Phocion 16,4). P. supported the peace of Demades, but declared himself against Athens’s entry into the — Corinthian League founded by > Philippus [4] II (Plut. Phocion 16,5). In 336 he opposed a resolution for thank-offerings after the death of Philippus II and a proposal to honour his murderer (ibid. 16,8). As a strategos in 335 during the Theban rebellion he advised against participation by Athens and recommended the surrender of leading rhetors and strategoi around + Demosthenes [2], as demanded by Alexander [4] the Great after the suppression of the rebellion (Diod. Sic. 17,15,2; Plut. Phocion 17,2—4). In 333, P. also recommended in the Council fulfilling + Alexander’s demand for triremes for his naval war

Demosthenes

with the Persian

Empire, whereas

and -> Hypereides spoke against (Plut.

Phocion 21,1; Plut. Mor.

847c; 848e). P. was not en-

snared in the > Harpalus affair despite his son-in-law Charicles [2]’s good relations with Harpalus. After the death of Alexander in 323, P. spoke in opposition to Hypereides and Leosthenes against triggering the > Lamian War (Plut. Phocion 22,5-23,4). Nevertheless elected strategos for the defence of Athens in 323/2 (ibid. 24,1), he was able to beat back land troops under Micion (ibid. 25,1-4). After the defeat of the Hellenes, P. and Demades negotiated a peace with ~> Antipater [1] (Diod. Sic. 18,18,2; Plut. Phocion 2628; Nep. Phocion 2,2). Installed, together with Dema-

des, by Antipater as leaders of the oligarchic regime in Athens 322-318, his friendly relations with Nicanor, the commander of the Macedonian garrison, cost him the trust of his fellow citizens. In the April or May of 318, P.’s regime was deposed and democracy was restored in short order. P. offered > Polyperchon [1] the headship of an oligarchic satellite regime compliant to himself in Athens, but was delivered by Polyperchon to the Athenian democrats and sentenced to death (Plut. Phocion 31-37; Diod. Sic. 18,64-67); shortly afterwards, however, he was rehabilitated and awarded a state burial and other high honours (Plut. Phocion 38,1; Mor. 850b). Despite personal Laconophilia and basically conservative attitude, until 322 P. was a successful and loyal strategos of the Attic > démokratia. There are not sufficient reasons for criticizing his position before 322 as pro-Macedonian or fundamentally hostile to democracy. He is usually mentioned as an example of specialization (disputed in its extent) among strategoi and rhetors in 4th-century Athens. In > Plutarchus [2]’s biographical representation and in the tradition of his often blunt apophthegmata, P. (‘the Good’, Plut. Phocion 10,4) is described as the model of an upright man. As an exemplum virtutis, P. experienced a significant literary impact until modern times. ~» Athenian League (Second); > Lamian War C. BEARZOT, Focione tra storia e trasfigurazione ideale, 1985; Develin, 2496; H.-J. GEHRKE, Phokion, 1976; G. A.

PHOCIS LEHMANN, Athen,

1997,

Oligarchische 32-40;

Herrschaft

im

L. A. Trirte, Phocion

klassischen the Good,

1988; PA 15076.

JE.

Phocis (®wxic/Phokis, Pwxets/Phokeis). I. GEOGRAPHY Ill. History

II. POLEIS, ETHNOS, KOINON

I. GEOGRAPHY A region in central Greece shaped by far-flung mountain ranges (c. 1615 km7*). Parnassus and Kirphis separate the eastern plain — which is crossed by the Cephisus and borders east on the Callidromus up to Kopais — from the western plain which extends along the Gulf of Corinth up to the Bay of Cirrha, in the northeast borders on Doris, Thessaly and East Locris and in the west on Locris Ozolis. Phocis is one of the most seismically active regions in Greece. The catastrophic earthquakes of 426 BC (Thuc. 3,89,1-5; Diod. Sic. 12,59,1f.; Demetrius of Callatis FGrH 85 F 6; Oros. 2,18,7), c. 229-227 BC (SEG 38, 1476) and AD 551 (Procop. Goth. 4,25,16-23) had geological and hydromorphological aftereffects. Due to its central location, P. has been passed through by mass migrations, military campaigns and supra-regional commercial traffic since prehistoric times. II]. POLEIS, ETHNOS, KOINON

Phocis was already inhabited in prehistoric times, with cultural connections especially to > Boeotia and Thessaly (— Thessalia). Settlements were concentrated at the main traffic arteries; in EH II one can observe an increase in settlements, while in MH and LH, palacestyle residences of modest economic wealth predominated [1; 2]. In the > Dark Ages [1] and in the Archaic period, settlements moved towards the interior of the land. The mountain regions served as the economic basis for a pastoral lifestyle and as areas of retreat, shaping the appearance of the society as it became known in historical times (cf. Pind. Hypothesis Pyth. d; Hdt. 8527503 2503 Ochiai dell, e34550-p lela Oxyrheengass Pause0) 5472123555 93571-71Os biut. Sulla 5y57 SEGer5, 412) [3]. Inthe 8th-7th cents. BC, the urbanisation process accelerated, esp. in the plains and at the foot of the mountains in the east and resulted in the claiming of much land for the cities (Hom. Il. 2,517-523: 9 cities; Hdt. 8,33-35: 15 cities; Dem. Or. 19,123: 22 Cities; Paus. 10,3,1f.: 20 cities). Internal conflicts in Phocis motivated the building of fortresses (Abae, Hyampolis, Elatia [1], Parapotamii, Daulis, Tithorea) [4]. Local tradition and ancient finds both show evidence that the population growth was a result of waves of immigration in smaller groups, cf. the various place names and founding myths of the poleis (Abae, Elateia, Hyampolis, Panopeus, Stiris). Parallel to the notion of geographically and ethnographically based urban diversity, there existed in historical times the idea of a unified éthnos (cf. Diod. Sic. 16,23,4) which saw Phocis as going back to > Phocus

143

144

as progenitor (Paus. 10,1,10), cf. the term Phokeis,

compensation (Diod. Sic. 16,59,4—60,2; CID II 33-36).

‘Phocians’, which first appeared in the Homeric catalogue of ships (Hom. II. 2,5 17-523), as well as the idea that Phocis belonged to the Pylaeic-Delphic > amphiktyonia (Aeschin. 2,116; Paus. 10,8,2; Harpocr. s.v. Gixtboves) formed in the period of the battle for liberation against the Thessalians. The growing Pan-Hellenic importance of the sanctuary of + Delphi explains the political ambitions of the Phocians — they were interested in ruling the eastern regions and in regaining the prostasia (leadership) in the sanctuary, (Diod "Sic. 1652555, ch-127,33 aus. 4574,11;) ct. also the plundering of the temple in the Third > Sacred War 356 BC). The desire for ethnic unity found an expression in the choice of the cult location (heroon of the heros Archegetes and the league’s sanctuary ofArtemis Elaphebolos) and in the institutional formalising of the Phokikon (meeting place of the > koinon; cf. [5]). The term Phokeus, ‘Phocian’, appears on coins from the late 6th cent. BC on [6; 7]. The oldest record of a — sympoliteia with the right of citizenship goes back to the early 4th cent. BC (IG II? 70). Soon thereafter, the system of states is referred to as tO xouvov tav Doxéwv/ to koiJnon tén Phokéon [8] (cf. Str. 9,3,15: xowov ovotmpa/koinon systema). The highest decision-making body was the main assembly, where men appeared armed, before or during military conflicts (Diod. Sic. 16,23,4-24,13 27,23 32,23 56,3). Lhe first decisions of the league were made in the middle of the 4th cent. BC. (IG IX 1,70). The earliest evidence that Elateia was the centre of the league (seat of political organs; sacred places which were transformed into institutions of the koinon: IG IX 1,97; Phokarchai: IG IX 97; 99; 101; nomographoi: IMagn 34; local institutions: Moretti 2, 83) dates from the Hellenistic period. G.DR.

When this decision was moderated after the battle at -» Chaeronea in 338 BC, several cities in Phocis were rebuilt. Phocian cavalry contingents participated in Alexander [4] the Great’s Asian campaign (Diod. Sic. 17,57,3f.). In the subsequent years, West Phocis found itself almost constantly under the rule of the Aetolian League (> Aetolians, with map), while the eastern part was alternately under the rule or influence of the Aetoli

PHOCIS

Ill. History In the 6th cent. BC, Phocis was occupied by the Thessalians. With the victory at Cleonae near Hyampolis (Hdt. 8,27f.; Paus. 10,1,3-11; Plut. Mor. 244d-e; Phot. s.v. xatéhoLoev), the Phocians liberated themselves from

foreign rule. In the > Persian Wars, they fought on the side of the Greeks (Hdt. 7,203; Diod. 11,4,7) and became involved in the conflicts that finally led to the start of the > Peloponnesian War (cf. the border conflict with Doris in 457 BC: Thuc. 1,107,2f.; Diod. Sic. 11,79,4—-80,1; Plut. Cimon 174), into which they were drawn on the side of the Spartans (Thuc. 4,76,3). A

border conflict between Phocis and West Locris at the beginning of the 4th cent. BC brought about the > Corinthian War (395-386 BC; Xen. Hell. 3,5,3-5; Hell. Oxyrh. 13,3; Paus. 3,9,9f.). Phocis also became the sub-

ject of the hegemonic ambitions of the tyrants of Pherae, the Thebans and Philippus [4] II. After the Third Sacred War (356-346 BC; > Philomelus [2]; > Onomarchus), brought to an end through the intervention of

Philippus II, the amphictyonic synod decided to destroy the cities in Phocis and to exclude Phocis from the amphictyony. The Phocians had to pay 60 talents in

or the Macedonians (+ Macedonia). In Phocians were once again accepted into tyony in recognition of their merits earned Delphi against the > Celts (Paus. 10,3,4;

279 BC, the the amphicin defending 20,1; 23,3-

TO).

In the Imperial period, Phocis suffered an unstoppable decline of its settlements and a steady population decrease, accelerated from the 4th cent. AD on by barbarian attacks (e.g. by the Goths (> Goti); the > Slavs in 539/540: Zos. 5,5,6ff.; Procop. Pers. 2,4,10ff.). Phocis was excluded from the fortification system that Justinian (AD 527-565) constructed in Greece. For the 6th cent., only a single diocesan town (Daulis; Not. Episc. 3,421; 10,534; 13,384) is documented. Inscriptions: IG IX 1, 1-233; SGDI 1512-1536; [9]; SEG 3,

406-427; 16, 347-3533 23, 333-3403 25, 591-604; 34, 407-4633 37, 421-4253; 42, 478-479. 15S. E. Iaxovipis, Late Helladic Citadels in Mainland Greece, 1983, 105 2P. ALIN, The Prehistoric Periods, in: E. W. Kase et al., The Great Isthmus Corridor Route ..., vol. 1, 1991, 65-69 3G.J.SZEMLER, The Isthmus Cor-

ridor during the Dark and Archaic Ages, in: E. W. Kase et al., cf. [2], 74-104 4 J. M. Fossey, The Development of Some Defensive Network in Eastern Central Greece during the Classical Period, in: S. VaN DE MaeEte, J. M. Fossey

(ed.), Fortificationes

antiquae,

1992,

109-132

5 J. McInerneEY, The Phokikon and the Hero Archegetes, in: Hesperia 66, 1997, 193-207 6R.T. WILLIAMS, The

Silver Coinage of the Phokians, 1972

7S. CoNsoLo

LANGHER, La monetazione federale focese e le vicende storiche della Focide, in: Archivio Storico Messinese 60, 1992, 57-95 8A.R. Rancasgé, Antiquités Helléniques ou repertoire d’inscriptions et d’autres antiquités, vol. 2, 1855, no. 1226, 1.1 9E. Mastroxostas, Emtyodat “Eonegias Aoxgidos, Pmxtdig xat Madidoc, in: AE 1955, 51-89.

F. ScHoBER, Phokis, 1924; E. MasTRoKosTAas, TootoTOOLZOL GUVOLXLOWOL Ev Eomegiot Aoxeld., Paxid. xat Bouotiat, in: AE 1956, 22-27; J. M. Fossey, The Ancient To-

pography of Eastern Phokis, 1986; G. Daver1o ROcCcHI, Strutture urbane e centralismo politico nel koinon focese, in: L. AIGNER Forest (ed.), Federazioni e federalismo nell’Europa antica, vol. 1, 1992, 181-193; Pu. Nrasios, LupBoay otnv toroyealav tm¢ aoxaias Pwxidac, in: Phokika Chronika 4, 1992, 18-97; P. ELLINGER, La légende nationale phocidienne ..., 1993; N. Cucuzza, s.v. Focide,

EAA 2. Suppl. 4, 1996, 679-683; S. CONSOLO LANGHER, Stati federali greci, 1996, 111-235; H. Brcx, Polis und Koinon, 1997, 106-118; G. Daverto Roccui, Identita

etnica, appartenenza territoriale e unita politica del xowdv focese, in: Orbis Terrarum 5, 1999, 15-30;J.MCINERNEY, The Folds of Parnassos, 1999.

145

146

Phocus (®@xoc; Phdkos). [1] Mythical hero of Aegina, son of + Aeacus and the Nereid > Psamathe; the latter had attempted in vain to stop Aeacus from raping her by turning herself into a seal (phoké): hence the name P. for the child of this union (Hes. Theog. too4f., Apollod. 3,158 and 160; Pind. Nem. 5,12). In > Phocis P. marries the princess Asterodia and gives his name to this region (Apollod. 1,86). P. is ultimately killed by his step-brothers + Peleus and + Telamon, and he is buried in Aegina (Paus. 2,29,9f.). His mother avenges his death (Ov. Met. 11, 346-409; Antoninus Liberalis 38).

[2] Of Corinth, grandson of - Sisyphus; he heals tiope [1] of her madness and marries her (Paus. 29,3f.; 9,17,5f.). It is unclear whether P. [1] and identical; in Paus. 10,1,1; 2,29,3 P. [2] appears

older one.

> An2,4,3; [2] are as the LK.

[3] see > Glisas

PHOEBE

1 J. Bernays, Uber das phokylideische Gedicht (1856), in: H. Usener (ed.), Gesammelte Abhandlungen, vol. 1, 1885, 192-261 2M. KUcHLER, Frithjiidische Weisheitstraditionen, Zum Fortgang weisheitlichen Denkens im Bereich des friihjiidischen Jahweglaubens, 1979, 236-302 3 SCHURER

3, 687-692

4P.W.

VAN

The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides,

DER Horst

(ed.),

1978 (with comm.)

5 N. WALTER (ed.), Pseudepigraphische jiidisch-hellenische Dichtung: Pseudo-Phocylides, Pseudo-Orpheus,

gefalschte Verse auf Namen griechischer Dichter (Jiidische Schriften aus hellenistisch-romischer Zeit, vol. 4), 1983 6 D. Younc (ed.), Theognis, Pseduo-Pythagoras, PseudoPhocylides, Chares, Anonymi Aulodia, Fragmentum Telecambicum, *1971, 95-112.

Phoebe (®oiBn/Phoibe, Lat. Phoebe). [1] (‘Bright, pure one’ [2], cf. on the etymology: [3]). Titan (> Titans), daughter of - Gaia and > Uranus

(Hes. Theog. 136; Orph. fr. 114; Apollod. 1,2; cf. Diod. Sic. 5,66,2f.; of Chthon (+ Chthonic deities): Aesch.

Phocylides (®axviidnc/Phokylides). [1] Greek poet from Miletus (Phryn. 336, p. 463 R.; Suda) who wrote hexameters and elegiac gnomai (+ gnome; elegiac: Athen. 632d; both: Suda 643), c.

Eum. 6f.; of > Kronos: Schol. Pind. Pyth., hypothesis p. 1 DRACHMANN), by her brother > Coeus (corrupt: Hyg. Fab. praef. to: Polus) mother of — Leto and

540 BC (Suda). The I'v®ualGn6mai, aphorisms, are ascribed to P.

Apollod. 1,8; Schol. Pind. Pyth. loc. cit.), grandmother of > Apollo and > Artemis. After her mother Gaia and Themis, P. was the third incumbent of the Delphic Oracle (— Oracles). She transferred it to > Apollo, who takes the epithet Phoibos from her, as a birthday present (Aesch. Eum. 1-8; cf. Schol. Hom. Il. 1,43 BEKKER; etymologically masculine s.v. ®otBog “AndAhwv/

by many authors (e.g. Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Strabo, Dion [I 3] Chrysostomus, Athenaeus, Clement of Alexandria). They begin (as do those of > Demodocus [2] of Lerus) with xai t65¢ Paxviridov/kai tide Phokulidou, ‘P. says this, too’). They are written in hexameters (from one to eight verses), with the exception of one four-line epigram (Anth. Pal. 10,117 = 17 G.-P. and 1 G.-P.) attacking the Lerians (cited in Strabon 10,5,12). WEST [z. 171] combines this elegiac couplet with Demodocus 3 G.-P. and assigns it to the latter, whereas to P. he attributes only the hexametric aphorisms or [1; 2] a continuous poem, which is divided up by a refrain.

~ Asteria [2] (Hes. Theog. 404-409; Diod. Sic. 5,67,2;3

Phoibos Apollon). The Phoibaion at Therapnae (Hadt. 6,61,3; Paus. 3,14,9; 3,20,2; Liv. 34,38,5) was probably dedicated to a P. [1; 2]. Conversely, it is disputed

whether the ancient name of the Saronic Gulf in Paus. 2,30,7 should read Phoibaia or Psiphaia limné [5}.

1M. L. West, Studies in Greek Elegy and Iambus, 1974

1 F. BOLTE, s.v. Phoibaion, RE 20, 323-326 2 E. OBERHUMMER, S.v. Phoibe (1-2), RE 20, 343-345 ans SCHMIDT, s.v. Phoibos (1), RE 20, 348 4E. SIMON, s.v.

2 Id., Phocylides, in: JHS 98, 1978, 164-167.

Phoibe (1), LIMC 8.1 Suppl., 984

EDITION: GENTILI/PRATO, giac Poetry, 1999.

1; D. E. GERBER, Greek EleE.BO.

[2] Pseudo-Phocylides. A didactic poem (230 verses) written between 100 BC [4. 55ff.] and AD 100 [3. 690], possibly in Alexandria [5. 193] and presumably originating from a Hellenistic-Jewish author (‘Pseudo-P.’) [x]. It is ascribed to the Milesian P. who lived in the 6th (or 7th) cent. BC. It combines borrowings from the ~ Septuagint (esp. Lev 19) — without containing specifically Jewish beliefs — with ‘Hellenistic popular ethics’ [5. r9r]. It does not contain any Christian or NT subjects. It belongs to the literary-philosophical wisdom literature that was characteristic of the Hellenistic era [5. 188; 2]. Used as a school textbook in the Byzantine Period, it has survived in numerous manuscripts and has repeatedly appeared in print since the 16th century. Verses 5-79 (an extended version) are handed down in the Sibylline oracles (2,56-148; — Oracula Sibyllina). Text editions: [4; 5; 6]. >» Pseudepigraphy

5 G. Turk, s.v. Phoibe

(general), ROSCHER 3.2, 2395f.

[2] Poetic name for — Artemis (cf. Phoebus Apollo), usually in Roman poets, often as moon goddess (e.g. Ov. Am. 3,2,51; Ov. Epist. 20,229; Ov. Met. 1,11; Ov.

Fast. 6,23 5f.). The Greek model is only rarely attested (Opp. Cyn. 2,1f.; Porph. De philosophia ex oraculis 2,169 and 236f. WoLFF; Paulus Silentiarius in Anth. Pale552515510} 957.65 uts) SLA. [3] One of the > Leucippids, daughter of Leucippus (or of > Apollo: Paus. 3,16,1 following the poet of a Cypria) and Philodice (Tzetz. on Lycoph. 511), sister of Hilaeira (Elaeira in Steph. Byz. s.v. “Agidva/Aphidna). The sisters were taken from Messene and married by the > Dioscuri. P. bore Polydeuces Mnesileus (Apollod. 3,117 and 13.4; Mnesileus or Mnesinous: Tzetz. loc. cit.; Mnasinus: Paus. 2,22,5; 3,148,133 P. as wife of Castor: Prop. 1,2, 15f.). The Phoibaion at Therapnae with the temple to the Dioscuri possibly derives from this P. [1; All Chabon)

PHOEBE 1 F. BOLTE, s.v. Phoibaion, RE 20, 323-326

147

148

2A. HER-

D. BupiNa, Phoinice a la lumiére des recherches archéologiques recentes, in: Iliria 16/1, 1986, 113-121; P. CaBA-

MARY, S.v. Dioskouroi (4 B), LIMC 3.1, 583-585 3L. Jones Roccos, s.v. Lynkeus I et Idas E, LIMC 6.1, 321 4 E, OBERHUMMER, 8$.V. Phoibe (1-2), RE 20, 343-345.

SLA.

Phoebidas (®oiPidac/Phoibidas). Spartan general, probably related by marriage to the house of — Agesilaus [2] [1. 147f.]. In 382 BC, supposed to bring new troops to his brother - Eudamidas [1], who was fighting Olynthus, on the way he marched to Thebes and in a surprise attack captured the Cadmeia, the fortress of Thebes, during the -» Thesmophoria (Xen. Hell. 552525-36; Diod. Sic. 15,20,rf.; Plut. Pelopidas 5; Plut. Agesilaus 23f.; Plut. Mor. 576a-577d; Androtion FGrH 324 F 50). Xenophon (Xen. Hell. 5,2,25-7) attributes this to an arrangement between P. and the Theban Leontiades [2], but Diodorus and Plutarch reveal clearly that Agesilaus in particular was involved in the affair [1. r56f.]. P. lost his command, but got off lightly with a fine; the garrison in the Cadmeia was maintained too (Xen. Hell. 5,2,32~-5; cf. Pol. 4,27,4). At the beginning of the Boeotian war of liberation P. was stationed as a harmost (— Harmostat) in Thespiae,

but was defeated by the Thebans there in 378 and fell in battle (Xen. Hell. 5,4,41-6; Diod. Sic. 15,33,6; Plut. Pelopidas 15; [2]). 1P. A. CarTLeDGE, Agesilaos, 1987 2J.G. DEVoTo, Agesilaos in Boiotia in 378 and 377 B.C., in: The Ancient History Bull. 1, 1987, 75-82.

HA.BE.

NES, L’Epire de la mort de Pyrrhos a la conquéte romaine, 1976; Id., Etats fédéraux et koina en Gréce du nord et en

Illyrie méridionale, in: Id. (ed.), L’Illyrie méridionale et l’Epire dans l’Antiquité, vol. 3, 1999, 373-3823 N. G. L. HAMMOND,

Epirus, 1967; E. POLASCHEK, s.v. P. (9), RE

20, 1306-1308; L. M. Ucouini, Albania antica, vol. 1, 1927, 125-138; Id., Albania antica, vol. 2: L’acropoli di

Fenice, 1932; P. Soustat, J. Koper, Nikopolis und Kephallenia (TIB 3), 1981, 234f. (s.v. P.). M.FE.

Phoenicia see > Phoenicians, Poeni Phoenician was the language of the Phoenicians, and together with its later divergent form, — Punic, it formed a unity within the > Canaanite languages. Phoenician diversified into individual dialects which can only partly be classified according to their geographical areas (Byblus, Zincirli, Cyprus). The — alphabet of 22 characters developed from proto-Canaanite. Initially, only consonants were written in its script, which deviated slightly from Aramaic. Written Phoenician sources (from the 13th/r2th — 3rd cents. BC) mostly comprise brief votive, memorial and building inscriptions on stone, pottery and metal, and include inscribed vessels and arrowheads, graffiti, ost-

raka, amphora stamps, stamp seals and coin legends from Phoenicia (Byblos — including the inscriptions on the sarcophagus of > Ahiram -, Sidon, Tyrus and Wasta with inscriptions in Greek script), Palaestina,

Phoenice (®owixn; Phoiniké). Polis of Epeirotic ~» Chaones near modern Finiq (Albania), on a hill protruding steeply out of the Bistrica Valley and stretching

Syria (Arslantag spells), the hinterland of the Phoenician colonies in Asia Minor (> Karatepe-Aslantas with hieroglyphic Phoenician-Luwian — bilingual inscrip-

from the north-west to the south-east, c. 5 km northeast of the harbour of > Onchesmus that belongs to it, c. 17 km north of > Buthrotum. Settlement is evidenced from the 5th cent. BC to the Byzantine period [1. 219ff.]. P. appears in the 4th cent. BC on theorodoékoi lists from Epidaurus (IG IV* 1,95,29) and Argos (SEG 23, 189 I 12). After the fall of the kingdom (232 BC), P. was the capital of the League of Epeirotes (Syll.3

tions, Zincirli), Cyprus, Attica (Athens, Piraeus, some-

653 A No. 4, B No. 22, 2nd cent. BC). In the 3rd/2nd cent. BC, P. was the most affluent and best fortified

town in > Epirus; in 230 BC it was captured for a short time by Illyria (Pol. 2,5,3-8,4). At the end of the rst -» Macedonian War, the peace concluded in 205 BC between Philip [7] V and Rome was signed in P. (Liv. 29,12,11-16); at the end of the 3rd Macedonian War, there was internal unrest (Pol. 32,5f.). In the 5th and 6th cent. AD, P. was a diocese and city renewal work was undertaken under Justinianus [1] (Procop. Aed. 4,1,37). The settlement was probably abandoned because of the invasion of the > Slavs. Cults for Poseidon (SEG 23, 478), Artemis (coins) and Athena (SEG 43, 337 = 15, 397; attributed) are attested. Further sources: Str. 7,7,5; Ptol. 3,14,7; It. Ant. 3:24,4. 1 N. Ceka, Stadtebau in der vorromischen Periode in Siid-

illyrien, in: Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Akten des 13. Internationalen Kongresses fiir Klassische Archdologie Berlin 1988, 1990, 215-229.

times bilingual Greek-Phoenician inscriptions), Rhodes, Italy, Sardinia (Nora), Malta, Spain and Egypt (Saqqara papyrus). The well-known Etruscan-Punic bilingual inscription from —> Pyrgi [2] (c. 500 BC) is probably Phoenician rather than Punic. + Ammonite; > Phoenicians, Poeni J. Friepricu, W. ROLLIG, Phoénizisch-punische Grammatik, 31999; E. LipINsk1, s.v. Langue, DCPP, 254-256; S. Moscartl, Die Phonizier, 1966. CK.

Phoenician Standard see > Coinage, standards of Phoenicians, Poeni I. NAMES AND CONCEPT, SOURCES II. GEOGRAPHY AND TorpoGRApPHy III. History IV. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HISTORY V. LANGUAGE AND SCRIPT VI. RELIGION I. NAMES

AND CONCEPT,

SOURCES

The name and concept of the Phoinikes (Poivixes)/Phoenicians (= P.) were formed in the Greek world [1]. Those designated by it understood themselves primarily as citizens or members of a union of cities, e.g. as Tyrians, Sidonians or — after the shared

149

150

cultural region — as Canaanites [2]. In this they were referring to a political or ethnic identity derived from the Ancient Near Eastern Bronze Age. The various designations can only be reconciled from case to case. On the one hand, the term ‘Canaan’, known primarily from the OT tradition, also comprises regions occupied by other West-Semitic tribes during the Iron Age [3.87].

from the Bronze Age, which were often ethnically closely related, outlying places, e.g. > Ugarit in the north or + Samaria and > Jerusalem in the south, are also significant for the study of Phoenician culture. The area described was considerably enlarged by Phoenician expansion and > colonization (III., with map), which encompassed the whole of the Mediterranean and the Atlantic coastal regions of northern Africa and southwestern Europe [7]. The Phoenicians’ main goals were to acquire the raw materials pressingly needed for domestic industry and crafts and for their prosperous (intermediary) trading in the eastern Medi-

On the other hand, it can be assumed that, for the same

time horizon, members of other neighbouring Northwest-Semitic tribes with the same name were included besides the P. in the narrow sense (i.e. citizens of the Phoenician — city states in the Levant) —as if it served as a functional designation for the traders and craftsmen from the East in the Aegaean [1.1 18-133]. The Latin name Poeni (with adjective Punicus/Punic) is a creation of the Romans [4]. Etymologically traceable to the same root as the Greek Phoinikes, it was

already applied in Republican Rome predominantly to the Phoenician > aporkia of Carthage, and also to the regions influenced or ruled from there in the 6th to 2nd cents. BC, of which northern Africa and the Iberian Peninsula were still apostrophised by Horace (Hor. Carm. 2,2,11) with the expression uterque Poenus.

Modern scholarship has largely adopted this usage, with the reservation that Punic is fundamentally only a part of Phoenician. Therefore P. and Punic are treated together in the following. However, the course of historical developments and the closer archaeological consideration of the relevant material evidence can also legitimize separating Phoenician and Punic, at least from the time when the powers of the Phoenician city states in the Levant began to decline and — Carthage rose to be one of the leading powers of the Mediterranean West. Literary sources for one or the other horizon are scanty and are primarily transmitted by neighbouring peoples [5]. These perceived Phoenician and Punic cultures as foreign if not inimical, and for this reason the information they give is seldom precise and often quite distorted. The archaeological evidence regarding the Phoenician city states, which is available only very fragmentarily in modern Lebanon, can contribute only little to answer questions about the cultural profile and the ideas underlying it. In analogy with the term ‘vestige languages’ (Triimmersprachen) coined by J. Untermann for Iberian, Oscan, Umbrian etc. [6], Phoenician-Punic culture could be described as a ‘vestige culture’. G. Markoe has correspondingly called it a ‘lost civilisation’. II. GEOGRAPHY AND TOPOGRAPHY The description of the geographical area of Phoenician culture has to be different from that of the ancient Greek and Roman cultures. In the mother country it is partly defined by the concrete territorial extent (unfortunately in no case exactly known) of the Phoenician city states (i.e. Arwad, > Byblus [1], > Sidon and > Tyrus on the Levant coast); in addition, due to the close coexistence of individual city states and cultures manifest-

PHOENICIANS, POENI

terranean, which were lacking in the area of the Levant

after the collapse of the Bronze Age world. They also needed increasingly to satisfy the Neo-Assyrian Emptre’s demands for tribute (cf. ~ Mesopotamia III.D.). The inhabitants of the not particularly populous Phoenician cities had to pay careful attention to these aims when deciding on settlements outside the Levant. A particular concern was the choice of a specific site in accordance with criteria of maritime strategy, of local geography (simple defence) and of greater economic efficiency [8]. This was not yet very pronounced in the early foundation of the colony of > Citium on the territory of an abandoned settlement of the Mycenaean period. In the central and western Mediterranean, however, an independent and characteristic Phoenician pattern of settlement developed. Accordingly evidence of Phoenician and Punic culture appears in settlements which were considered excellent harbours (e.g. — Ebusus/Eivissa/Ibiza and ~ Panormus [3]|/Palermo) within the framework of ancient navigation, or opened up natural access to the sources of desired raw materials, such as > Gades/Gadir and — Sexi/Almunécar, > Nora [1] and > Tharrus

(in Sardinia). From the beginning, > Carthage (with plan), which, according to the written tradition had

been the only ‘true’ P. apoikia, occupied a special position. The site of the city — with its broad fertile hinterland — also guaranteed adequate provisions for a large population [9]. The geographical area for a study of Phoenician and Punic culture is further enlarged by finds of exported luxury goods in places outside the Phoenician cities and settlements. In the regions that Phoenician trade expeditions frequented, the rising leading class was richly provided with objects of prestige from the early Iron Age onwards. It was this elite that was in a position to make access to the desired raw materials more or less difficult — in Cyprus to the copper deposits in the Troodus mountains, in the Aegaean e.g. to the gold mines on Thasos, in Etruria to the Colli Metalliferi [ro], in Tartessus and southern Spain to the Rio Tinto and Sierra Morena mining regions [11]. This explains the appearance of Phoenician products or trade goods (partly also of other oriental origin), such as precious ivory furniture (> Ivory carvings), bronze items (> Thymiaterion), gold, silver and bronze vessels, pieces of jewellery and glass pearls, etc., in early Iron

PHOENICIANS,

152

TES:

POENI

ies f \

4

y

gi

LN

al-Mina‘o# Ties

D -

4

Lapithou

Ra’s Samra 0

Larnakatis

Suksi/Tall Sakas

4d

AY

?rwd/Arados/ H Arwad/Arwada [a]$ smr/Sumura/Simyra/

Tall Kazal EN) Kurion

gbl/Gubla/

Byblos /Gubail E]

Halda ©, sdn/Sidon/Sidunu/ Sidon Als)

Mediterrlanean

yee

l An sr/Suru/Sur/Tyros AES

Umm al-‘Amad ES Nees

Akziv/Akzibi/az-Zib£)

n,

Asdod/Asdidu ¥\

jqin/ Asqalon/Isqalina ,

SoOoJerusalem/ ha 5 a Uréalionmd P

zzh/Hazzatu/Gazza/ Gaza Po

The Phoenician cities in the Eastern Mediterranean (c.12th — 7th cents. BC) Phoenician city-state /colony

[~~~ Territory of the Late Hittite {__—W_lI Princedoms (c. 700 BC)

Other Phoenician town or find spot

“Y Territory of the Aramaic states 1 (c. 700 BC)

Other important settlement or find spot Find spot of Phoenician inscriptions

Assyrian Empire under Sargon II/Sennacherib

Phoenician name

Byblos

Territory of the Canaanite states (c. 700 BC)

Greek or other ancient name ~-

Gubail

Modern name

Egyptian kingdom Orontes Palastu

Body of water/ Region Political name

Above 3000m 2000 — 3000

E53

154

Age graves of princes in > Cyprus/> Kypros [1], in the Aegaean, in Calabria, Campania, Latium, Etruria and

the west (Tarsis ships: 1 Kg 10:14-29) and into Ophir, the land of gold across the Red Sea (1 Kg 9:26f.), happened during his reign. EthbaalI (c. 887-856), had already taken (legally?) the title of ‘King of the Sidonians’ (t Kg 16:31). Only later (Menander FGrH 783: under Pygmalion, c. 820-774) was > Carthage (OartHadast, ‘New City’) founded in northern Africa. Tyre remained the ‘Mother of Carthage’ and received financial help from Carthage for some time (until c. 540). From the reign of Adad-Niraris III (810-783) onwards, and more so under > Tiglath-Pileser III (746— 727), Tyre became involved in warlike disputes with Assyria (~ Mesopotamia III.D.). Hiram II (739-732), who took part in the revolt of Rezin of Damascus, had to capitulate, but Tyre was not integrated into the system of provinces. Shortly before Eloulaeus (c. 729694), Sidon had been given back its independence. It also had dominion over Sarepta and Ma’rubbu — two cities that after Asarhaddon’s treaty with Baal of Tyre (c. 680-660) again fell to Tyre. Disloyal, it was besieged in 663 by > Assurbanipal (669-c. 627) and had to surrender. Then the Phoenician mainland cities were probably incorporated into the Assyrian provincial system

Andalusia [12]. It also explains, at least in part, votive

gifts of Phoenician origin in the great sanctuaries of the Greek world [13]. Thus the P. may not be originally ‘resident’ in the Mediterranean world of classical antiquity, but they are in very many ways present. —-H.G.N. Ill. History A. PHOENICIANS

B. POENI

A. PHOENICIANS Since there was no ‘Phoenician state’, no common history can be written. Rather, Phoenicia is defined by its representative city states of Arwad, > Byblus [1], ~ Sidon and - Tyrus. Thus e.g. Menander [5] of Ephesus translated the archives of Tyre from Phoenician into Greek (Jos. Ant. Iud. 8,144; 9,283 = FGrH 783 T 3). However, according to Jos. Ap. 1,112 (= FGrH 78s F), Dios, a Hellenistic historian, is supposed to have written a ‘Phoenician History’ (regi Dowixwv totogia/peri Phointkon historiai), as did Philostratus (Jos. Ant. Iud. 10,228 = FGrH 789). At the end of the rst cent. AD, Philo

of Byblus

(> Herennius

Philo)

also wrote

a

‘Phoenician History’, allegedly based on a work by Sanchuniathon of Beirut (> Berytus), which is known to us

in excerpts from Porphyrius and Eusebius [7] of Caesarea (FGrH 790). Therefore, there was an idea of a unified history of the Phoenicians during Hellenistic Antiquity, and to some extent this still exerts an influence today. But in the OT and in Assyrian sources on the campaigns of conquest on the Mediterranean coast, only the Phoenician cities are mentioned, not a state representing them. Nevertheless, they shared a common language and script, religion and material culture (see below IV.). Common traits of Phoenician history can be named: since their settlement areas were territorially limited, the city states were forced into expansion overseas to Cyprus, Crete, and by the roth cent. BC also to the west (Malta, Sicily, Sardinia, Spain and northern Africa). There were also economic, political and cultural contacts with northern Syria and Anatolia: Abdimilkutti of Sidon entered into an anti-Assyrian coalition with Sanduarri of Kundu and Sizu in Taurus. For this, they were deported and decapitated by > Asarhaddon (681669) in 676 BC. After 1200 BC and the collapse of the northern Syrian political world, Byblus appears to have been politically predominant (cf. a travelogue by the Egyptian Wen-Amun (ANET 25-29) and various archaic inscriptions from this city (KAI 1-8)). By the roth cent. political predominance evidently transferred to Tyre, which according to Just. Epit. 18,3,5 had been founded by Sidon. The OT records this leading position under + Hiram! (c. 969-936; treaty with Solomon: 1 Kg 5:26; surrender of lands in Galilee: 1 Kg 9:11), which led to the foundation of > Citium on Cyprus as the first Tyrian colony, probably in the 9th cent.. Expansion to

PHOENICIANS,

POENI

(Mannu-Ki-Ahhé was the governor of Simyra). After the collapse of Assyria, the Phoenician cities

evidently tried to regain their independence (cf. Zeph 1,4), but the Egyptian — Apries (588 BC, see Hdt. 2,161; Diod. Sic. 1,68,1), and then the Babylonian ruler ~ Nebuchadnezzar [2] Il cracked down on them: Tyre was besieged for 13 years (Jos. Ap. 1,143). The court calendar of the Babylonian later mentions the kings of Tyre, > Gaza, Sidon, Arwad and Ashdod, i.e. the wellknown city states other than Byblus, as representatives. The transition to Persian rule after Cyrus [2] Il (5 59530) evidently proceeded without problem, and by now Sidon had surpassed Tyre. Its king sat on the right hand of the Great King (Hdt. 8,67). With the occupation of Dor (> Dora) and Jaffa (> Jabne), the epigraphically recorded dynasty of ESmunazar extended far to the south, but in 515/4 under Darius [1] I, all of P. was incorporated into the Persian Empire as part of the Fifth Satrapy. Under — Tennes (c. 354-350), Sidon rose against Artaxerxes [3] III Ochus, but had to surrender defeated after great losses. Sidon then received Alexander [4] the Great as a friend in 333, but Tyre resisted on religious grounds, and after a siege of 7 months was devastatingly defeated. Under the > Diadochi and after 64 BC under the Romans, the Phoenician cities no longer played a political role. WR. B. POENI 1. GENERAL POINTS 2. SOCIETY AND ECONOMY 3. CONSTITUTION AND ADMINISTRATION

1. GENERAL POINTS The history of the PPhoenician (on the word P. see above. I.) is understood to be the historical fate of the Phoenician foundation of + Carthage and the Carthaginian and Phoenician settlements in the western Medi-

PHOENICIANS, POENI

terranean, that from the end of the 6th cent. BC onwards increasingly merged into a Carthaginian empire. Accordingly, the term ‘Punic history’ is used primarily for the historical periodization of Phoenician history and is only of little help in classifying archaeological finds and as a tool for structuring the history of religion, language and culture (see above I.). The geographical scope of Punic history encompasses the whole of the western Mediterranean, including, to varying extents, the Atlantic coast of southern Spain adjacent to Gibraltar and northern Africa. Initially, Carthage and its surrounding area (the northern half of modern Tunisia), Numidia bordering to the west, the northern African coast and southern Spain, the western part of Sicily and the western and northern coasts of Sardinia were the centre. Spain only became the target of systematic penetration by military and diplomatic means after the loss of Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica to Rome following the first of the > Punic Wars (264-241 BC). The temporal frame of Punic history can not be conclusively defined: from the Roman point of view, the history of the P. stretches from the founding of Carthage (at the end of the 9th cent.) until its destruction after the Third Punic War (149-146 BC). However, this classification, which is based on political grounds, is historically misleading, because it does not take into account the peculiarity of Punic history in comparison to Phoenician history: the formation of an empire, i.e. the political dominance of Carthage over other Phoenician-Carthaginian settlements and regions. From the second

half of the 6th cent. onwards,

156

155

this becomes

obvious from the military interventions undertaken by Carthage in — Sicily, > Sardinia and off > Corsica to secure Phoenician-Punic presence and maritime freedom. On the other hand, despite intensive Latinization and Christianization, even after the destruction of Carthage, the language, religion, ethnic identity and to some extent also the political institutions of the P. remained formative or even present in northern Africa (and likewise in the Punicized areas of the empire such as Sardinia) at least until the end of the 3rd cent. AD. The description of Punic history is complicated by the total loss of the once rich Punic historiography and literature. Contemporary accounts of the political and administrative organisation of the P., their economy and social structure are therefore either available in Greek (Aristot. Pol. 1272b 25-1273b 26; Pol. 6,43,3; 6,5 1-52), are (primarily in Latin literature) negative or even hostile (Liv. 21,4,9; 21,54,33 22,2354 et passim; Just. Epit. 18 and 19), or have to be deduced from mate-

rial culture and often very formulaic inscriptions. With increasing research and critical evaluation of the clichés recurring since antiquity, depicting the P. as an acquisitive and deceitful trading people, who were opposed to military intervention for the common good and performed barbarian rituals (child sacrifice; — Moloch; ~ Human sacrifices), more recent study tends to reveal

the political constitution, military organization, bases

of (agricultural) economy and conditions of life of Punic society as an ordinary [55. 274] ancient Mediterranean megalopolis. 2. SOCIETY AND ECONOMY Like every highly developed ancient society, the Carthaginians organized themselves into those who were free and possessed citizenship, free foreigners without citizenship (> métoikos) and the non-free. In addition there were also freed slaves called Sidonians, who hada status between that of the non-Phoenician metoikoi and that of the citizens of the Phoenician city of Sidon. As in Greece, freeing of slaves was restricted; it required an act of liberation by their owner, probably combined with payment of a sum of money that slaves could obtain from a special fund (cf. the Roman ~ peculium),

and confirmation by the People’s Assembly. Estimates of the proportion of metoikoi and slaves in Carthage’s population of c. 150,000 to 200,000 inhabitants in the 4th and 3rd cents. BC (cf. [55. 205f.]) can only be speculative, but in both cases it seems to have been high

[14. 497-502]. The top of the society was a politically leading aristocratic upper class, whose wealth (contrary to earlier opinions) originated from agriculture rather than trade [55. 169-176]. The general population (démos) was able to enter into a kind of client relationship with an upper-class patron, but also had sufficient opportunities as craftsmen, merchants, sailors and oarsmen in the Carthaginian navy and as settlers in the Phoenician/ Punic foundations, so that rule by the upper class was never questioned (cf. Aristot. Pol. 1272b 30-32; 1273b r9f.). The homogeneity of the aristocracy is confirmed by the lack of tyrants (Aristot. Pol. 1272b 32f.) and the development of efficient institutions to keep state officials in check, primarily in the sphere of military affairs. The choice of officials according to achievements and wealth (Geuotivény GAA xai thovtivénv/aristindén alla kai ploutindén: Aristot. Pol. 1272b 23-24) implies an openness to social climbers. Hetairiai (probably only of nobles) can be considered a further group; according to Aristotle (Aristot. Pol. 1272b 34) they dined together (syssition, > Banquet; for an interpretation as originally communal meals of noble warrior-retinues see [5 5. 164-167]), and ‘unions of the people’ (mzrhm), which may have been restricted to the démos, but could also have been subdivisions of the total population comparable to Greek > phratriai or Roman > curiae. Almost nothing is known ofthe family as a basic unit in the Carthaginian state. Frequent dedication of stelae by women points to their socially respected position. The combination of families into larger unions each led by a patriarch is reminiscent of Roman gentes (but these lack a personal head). Epigraphically recorded professions show a great variety in crafts and trade (list in [14. 481-483]), but lack the area of agriculture. The idea of a Phoenicia disinterested in agriculture (Cic. Rep. 2,7), drawing its

wealth predominantly or exclusively from trade, however, 1s not justified, since the epigraphic sources are

ES

158

from the city, and estates could also be managed by slaves or local tenants. Even the faint traces in Varro

tent and competences of the Punic institutions rather than describe them. The organization of early Carthage (8th—7th cents.) can not be reconstructed; the city was under the control of either a governor from Tyre or — this is more likely, but renders Carthage even more a special case among Phoenician colonies — a king, like its mother city. No later than the 6th century this king was kept in check by an aristocratic council; a short time later he lost parts of

(Ruste 151,80; 21,275 2,5,78) 9352329). Columella (1,1, 105 3,15,4-53 12,39,1-2; 12,46, 5-6 et passim) and

Plinius (Plin. HN 17,63; 17,80; 18,97—-98; 21,110-112

et passim) of agricultural manuals written in Carthage reveal profound preoccupation with arable farming and almost scientific studies on livestock breeding (cross-breeding; see [16]). In addition, there are several indications that trade was only a secondary interest of the Carthaginians: the foundation history (+ Carthage) points to an actual or threatening political conflict in the royal house of + Tyrus as its immediate cause. The choice of the site with its fertile hinterland caused the ‘New City’ to be close to an agrarian colony; its immediate proximity to the already existing Phoenician settlement of > Utica rendered a further station for Phoenician trade navigation to the west inconceivable. In contrast to the Phoenician cities in the Levant, craft and artistic pro-

duction in Carthage did strikingly little to address the needs of its alleged trade partners, but provided predominantly for its own needs (see below IV.B.). The late

introduction of minting (c. 410 BC in Sicily and decades later in Carthage) contradicts an efficient trade configuration (and also an early use of large groups of mercenaries).

Furthermore, after the rapid growth of the city, which expanded the urbanized area fourfold in the period from the 8th cent. to the 6th, and under the increasing pressure of Greek —> colonization (IV.), the concentration of militarily supported interests in Sicily and Sardinia in the 6th cent. (— Malchus [x]; — Mago [1]) — both known as ‘granaries’ in the Roman period — was to secure the grain supply rather than trade routes to the west. Similarly the struggle to secure food is the explanation of an attempt to appropriate and subsequently colonize land probably originally leased from the Libyan population (cf. stipendium urbis conditae, Just. Epit. 19,2,4), which had been begun in the 6th cent. and ended successfully in the 5th. As in Rome, the subsequent military confrontation with neighbours ultimately led to the creation of an empire, which may have been caused by the military aspirations of an intensely competitive aristocratic upper class in Carthage (cf. [55.r55-181]) rather than an imperial idea geared towards trade. 3. CONSTITUTION AND ADMINISTRATION Despite the interest of Aristotle (Aristot. Pol. 1272b 25-1273b 26) and Polybius (Pol. 6,43,3; 6,51-52) in the positively viewed — politeia of Carthage and despite our knowledge of numerous terms for functions (sadly without descriptions of the functions) from Punic inscriptions, the constitution of Carthage (and even more the administration of the empire) eludes a systematic treatment: the data is scattered across several centuries, and the Greek and Latin equivalents for individual institutions (drchontes, basileis, éphoroi, gerousia, stratégot; rex, indices, senatus, etc.) interpret the con-

PHOENICIANS, POENI

his civil and legal authority to two > sufetes, who were either newly established or strengthened in their competences in the sth cent.. The king retained only supreme military command, which, however, was passed on without break within the family (e.g. the Magonids; -» Mago with stemma). From the 5th cent. or the beginning of the 4th cent., the royal commander regularly had to give account before a state court of a hundred (Aristot. Pol. 1273a 15: megisté arché, ‘highest authority’) or a hundred and four, probably created especially for the purpose, and could even be condemned to death. Ultimately he was replaced even in his military function by an army leader elected by the people (stratégot), but presumably ‘king’ continued to exist as the title of a sacred office (as in [55. 67-97]); cf. [14. 458-

460)). In the 4th cent. Aristotle presents the constitution of Carthage as an aristocratic-oligarchic mixed form. The royal element was provided by the two sufetes; they represented the state to the outside world, controlled the judicial system and probably also exercised judicial functions. Supported by a quaestor, they may also have been in charge of leadership of the state finances. They convened the People’s Assembly and also had a great significance in the state cult. The Council, which probably had 300 members (cf. Pol. 36,4,6), represented the aristocratic element. From its ranks a sanctius consilium (‘Sacrosanct Council’, Liv. 30,16,3) was formed

as an executive committee. Members of the Council also formed the ‘state court’ (unknown to Aristotle)

mentioned above, which was selected from the pentarchs and was compared by Aristotle to the Spartan ~ éphoroi. They were appointed for life, until they became annually elected officials at Hannibal’s [4] instigation in 196 BC. Aristotle considered the People’s Assembly the democratic element, with a general right to speak for all participants, the right to elect officials (sufetes and strategoi at least), and political arbitration

in issues placed before it by the Council and the sufetes. It is probable that the People’s Assembly participated in banishments. The Carthaginian empire comprised an abundance of cities and tribes that had come into Carthage’s sphere of influence in the most varied ways and therefore enjoyed different rights, duties and privileges. A unified imperial administration or even comparable regimes in the individual provinces are inconceivable. The ‘oath of Hannibal’ (cf. Pol. 7,9) reveals a tiered system of dependencies; it stretched from the citizens of Carthage through the citizens of Phoenician cities in the west and

PHOENICIANS, POENI

159

the Carthaginian colonies (which nominally possessed city autonomy, > epigamia with the Carthaginians and to some extent the right to mint, but as hyparchoi or symmachoi were dependent on the central power) to the hypékooi (‘subjects’), which included the African Libyans (also those living in the territory of Carthage) and to some extent Numidian tribes. The hinterland of Carthage was divided into districts (pagi, each with a praefectus pagi at its head), in which the indigenous communities continued as centres of administration (to some extent with institutions on the Punic model), but

were probably under Carthaginian control. The entire region (eparchia) was surrounded by a ditch-like limes. In the regions outside Africa, in Sicily and Sardinia, most of the cities enjoyed autonomy but were in fact under the supervision of military officials. In Sardinia, control was probably exercised more strongly than in the Sicilian epicracy. The regions of Spain, which were controlled by Carthage, were part of the African administrative region. All cities and tribes within the Carthaginian empire were obliged to provide military service and, if they were not Carthaginian citizens, had to pay tribute in money or produce, which ranged from ten per cent of the harvest in Sicily to a quarter in the case of the Libyans. On the whole, this system of graded rights and tributes, which — like the Roman one — was extremely flexible and so could accommodate varying conditions of rule, proved its worth. W.ED.

IV. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HISTORY A. PHOENICIANS

B. POENI

A. PHOENICIANS

The material evidence of Phoenician culture is as difficult to apprehend as that transmitted by verbal account; it is concentrated on selected areas of life. 1. URBAN DEVELOPMENT 2. ARCHITECTURE 3. SCULPTURE 4. CRAFTS 5. CLASSIFICATION IN THE HISTORY OF CULTURE

1. URBAN DEVELOPMENT In the culture of the Phoenician cities, urban devel-

opment took a lively course. Whereas in the late Bronze Age and even beyond, oriental characteristics with irregular winding streets predominated, an increasing tendency towards orthogonality appeared [17.94] in the early rst cent. BC. Segmentation by function (specific craft quarters) can generally be assumed and is attested for crafts dependent on energy from fuels, e.g. in Sarepta in the core of Phoenician lands and in the western settlements (including Carthage, > Motya, ~» Maenaca/ Toscanos). Port installations [x8] as well as > shipbuilding and navigational skills were of a high standard. Individual elements of the urban texture of the Phoenician mother country can be demonstrated from the 8th cent. BC onwards in the central and western Mediterranean on Phoenician sites, too; how-

ever, permanent urban structures grew only slowly,

160

with the exception of the early foundations of > Citium, > Carthage and > Gades (?) [19.83-84]. 2. ARCHITECTURE From the early period, only smallish sanctuaries of the sacral architecture in cities [20] survive: one of + Astarte/> Tinnit in Sarepta (8th cent. BC), a plain oblong room of modest dimensions (c. 3:6 X 7:-4m [21.131-148]) and the Punic temple of + Kerkouane from the 4th/3th cent. BC [22.145-221]. Monumental buildings also existed, including the Temple of > Melgart, built by > Hiram I in Tyre and known from literary reports (Jos. Ap. 1,112-127), which was certainly the

most famous and is also mentioned in Greek literature (Hdt. 2,44). According to an interpretation first propounded by R.D. Barnett, it was depicted on a now lost relief, sketched by A.H. Layard, from the palace of + Sennacherib (704-681 BC) in Nineveh (> Ninus [2]) [23]. The two columns either side of the entrance can be linked to the columns Yakin and Bo‘az in front of Solomon’s Temple of > Yahweh in Jerusalem (in the construction of which Tyrian builders took part) and to the Temple of Astarte in the Phoenician Cition in Cyprus [24.138—145]. It can hardly be accidental that a proto-Aeolian limestone capital with a floral top [25.167-68] originated from Gades, where a Temple of Melgart is attested from the oldest times. The spacious terrace and courtyard sanctuaries of Bustan al-Saih (sanctuary to > ESmin at Sidon), ‘Amrit (~ Marathus: naiskos in the middle of a water basin of 38-5 x 46-7 m surrounded by portici, sanctuary to Melgart and Esmun) and Umm al-‘Amad (2 km to the south of Tyre) date only from the Persian and Hellenistic periods. This group probably belonged to a partially excavated relatively small temple site in Carthage [26]. Smaller chapels could also be included in the cramped urban area of the city [27.477-484]. The sanctuaries mentioned, unlike e.g. Greek temples since the archaic period, are not bound to any fixed canon; specific characteristics of Phoenician architecture in the early period are decorative constructional elements such as the proto-Aeolian capital with its cascade of leaves, which can be considered a Phoenician invention [28.76, 79; 29]. The more common > naiskos sanctuaries (Chapelle Carton in Carthage, Tharrus, etc.) combine Egyptian and Greek models, of which the former are a firmly established factor in Phoenician forms and images from the late Bronze Age onwards. By contrast, Greek models are an element that won itself a fixed place in the culture of the P. only from about the 5th cent. BC onwards, and from then on continually gained significance. Thus in the Carthage of the late sth/early 4th cents., a Greek style temple is attested [30.237-239]. 7th-sth cent. BC chamber tombs (tombeaux bdtis) built of ashlar, by contrast, are a Phoenician characteristic in sepulchral architecture; Egyptian and ancient Anatolian forms were reworked in their typology [31.366-371]. Burial customs (interment and cremation) and grave forms were not particularly fixed and in the west even appeared side by side in the same

/ayeys-AyI9 UBIDIUaOUd Auojoo

(aouapina Asesa}i| 10/pure |ea1s0joaeyae ) juawaqas uBINIUaOUd

(a}qeqosd 10 urea) SOWSI4/OUA UPIDIU2OYdg

(aouapiAe Aesop] 10/pue jer1Sojoaeyoue ) juawajjeas (ueiuIse4yeD) DUN

saounosai jesnyeu UM Pally /Bale SUILIW.

spodwi! ueiuaoyg Ayee yyim ods pul4

e115 QUO: fessnyaUzid

Wapoyy

y;ePe4-URO

oweu

aweU dung JO URIDIUaOYg

s

>

f seu

en

,

— JPL /E(|OW© !X8So0Ww

ap

Ree :

G

so70

SODUE/ IA) eur

BIpy./erapgqw Byiqinbzay $7

a

OAD

[AP

ae

\

_¢

DQeouelg evog

/59PPD

ci

SO

O

opoquiesed /7

4

ae / O

feqnya:

mi4PD,/B119PED

q

BS Of JADBI/V

/eqnu6 eajenh ° =

OSPYURD/}SEPEY-UEO PAON sanepees

WB ©) /13]

AWEU JUDIDUL 194}O JO UIE] / 2925

_yaseueui,

sasnojepuy

=

UBSULLALIPSW W12}SA/\ 24} JO PjLOM IIUN -UBIDNIUBOYd 9YL

i)

nsnunD sosnq3

sadaq euseyw

eyIaW /ax1oW

om

eioy oddiy

© ree:

POENI

ENICIANS, PHO

62

uy aquow 191s

163

164

cemetery ( Necropolis III.). Besides social stratification, the different traditional backgrounds of those buried have to be taken into account. 3. SCULPTURE In Phoenician culture, gods were worshipped in aniconic cult images — such as the three baityloi (> baitylia) in the Phoenician shrine of > Kommos [1] in Crete [32] or the meta of Astarte/Aphrodite of ~» Paphus (Tac. Hist. 2,2) — (v.i. VI.). The monumental figurative representation of humans was never a particular concern. Individual 8th—-6th cent. large-scale sculptures from the Phoenician cities in the Levant (Sarepta, Tyre) and from Sicily (> Lilybaeum/Marsala) are entirely formed on Egyptian models [33. 448-452, 456-462]. In the sepulchral cult there was no development of burial sculpture in monumental forms either [343 35536. 60-67]. On the numerous burial and votive stelai found in Carthage and in Sardinia and Sicily (recently also in Tyre) baityloi and typical symbols (Tinnit/ Tanit symbol, so-called ‘bottle-shaped idol’) compete with often very clumsy depictions of humans. Freestanding baityloi are also attested as tomb decorations and representatives of the souls of the dead [37]. A group of 5th/4th cent. anthropoid sarcophagi (— Sarcophagus), inspired by Egyptian models and initially made by Greek artists in Sidon, show entirely Greek stylistic forms [38; 39]. Although a few specimens spread through Palermo as far as Gades/Cadiz, they were a passing phenomenon. Two anthropoid sarcophagi from the necropolis of Rabs [40] also ultimately remained alien to Carthage, like the late Classical and Hellenistic period ‘temple boys’ in the eastern Mediterranean [41], which were concentrated in Cyprus. A unique example of the tension between Phoenician-Punic culture and the statues developed in the Greek world is the ‘Mozia Youth’ (Motya, Museo Whitaker; [42; 43]): equipped with a garment and attributes native to the Phoenician-Punic world, its face bears characteristics of the early strict style of Greek art, and the pose anticipates Classical ponderation. This life-size male marble statue may be identified with a youthful + Melgart or one of the monuments (Hdt. 7,166f.: mnemata) of > Hamilcar [1], who vanished after losing the battle of Himera (480 BC) [42; 43]. Its sculptor must have been a high-ranking western Greek artist, perhaps > Pythagoras [4] of Rhegium. W.ED., H.G.N. and W.R.

royal courts of neighbouring powers (— Arslantas, + Karchemish, Dur Sarrukin/Horsabad, — Samaria) or as prestige goods into the possession of the Mediterranean elites in the Aegaean, Etruria (> Caere, > Praeneste) and — Tartessus (Huelva, Carmona) [45]. Initially made in workshops in Phoenicia (cf. Ez 27,6) and in northern Syria, soon they were also made by emigrants or specially hired craftsmen and their indigenous pupils in the centres of demand [46]. Among the large groups of finds, those from the Northwest Palace of Assurnasirpals II (883-858 BC) in Nimrud (+ Kalhu) stand out. Styles of various workshops can be recognized, but, for want of corresponding finds from the Phoenician mother country, they have not yet been identified [47]. The development of a period style in the very conservative Phoenician craft is less noticeable. The Phoenician love of ornamentation primarily developed objects of ivory. Floral motifs were subject to a strict calligraphic stylization. Lotus blossoms and palmettes are constitutive elements of the — tree of life. Lotus blossoms, inspired by Egyptian models (papyrus blossoms), were developed into a central motif of the paraW.ED., H.G.N. and W.R. dise flower [48].

PHOENICIANS,

POENI

4. CRAFTS

The principles and structures of stylistic elements and the composition of images in the Phoenician-Punic culture can best be observed in the area of crafts. A) Ivory

Cc) OTHER

Furniture (beds, thrones) [44] decorated with figura-

tive parts (knobs, beams, struts, etc.) and relief panels which were made from ivory as well as equipment (weapons, bridles, fans, make-up palettes) and containers (chests, boxes) were particularly prized or abominated as godless luxuries (Am 6:4) from ancient times. They came as gifts or trade goods, tribute or booty to the

B) METALWORKING

Phoenician metalworking (cf. Hom. Il. 12,740-749) was of a similar standard and had approximately the same distribution as the ivory products. Besides various items of equipment, vessels (thymiateria; ~ Thymiaterion), lamp stands, kettles and stands, pear-shaped offering jugs) and (a few) bronze statuettes, which were bartered in the Mediterranean, bronze and silver bowls with a rich relief decoration, executed in a combination of chasing, engraving and embossing, were greatly in demand: in 1985, G. Markoe counted 83 published or well-known specimens [49], to which can be added at least 40-50 items (and further fragments) from the hoard discovered in 1849 by A.H. Layard in the Northwest Palace of Nimrud [50]. The centres of production were initially in the Syrian-Phoenician area, later predominantly in Cyprus and in the Phoenician cities, and perhaps one or two in the Mediterranean West. The imagery and stylistic elements of the bowls — like those of the ivories — are strongly influenced by Assyrian and Egyptian models; their specifically Phoenician character can be recognized in a meticulous composition of a central medallion and one or more concentric friezes with their somewhat heraldic-emblematic structure. In the iconography of later (7th cent. BC) silver bowls, groups of hoplites appear among the narrative elements, which may have been inspired by the Greek world [51].

>

PRODUCTS

Phoenician and Punic arts and crafts also produced an abundance of luxury articles and exotica, which were circulated widely in the Ancient World: Ointment vials and pearls of coloured glass and faience, cosmetic palettes of engraved tridacna shells [52], seal scarabs [53], and Egyptianized faience amulets [54]. Phoenician ~ pottery, by contrast, always remained at a mediocre

165

166

level of craftsmanship and was exported primarily as vessels (amphoras, ointment vials), or within personal possessions in individual migratory movements inside the Phoenician world, including the enoikismoi (> Co-

wide dissemination of the cult of Tinnit, recorded in the West in inscriptions and depictions (e.g. votive terracottas), is part of these finds. From the late 6th cent. BC,

lonization III. Phoenician colonization).

5. CLASSIFICATION IN THE HISTORY OF CULTURE All in all, the Phoenician horizon in the Mediterra-

nean presents itself as a phenomenon of cultural history that was formed in many ways through selectivity: in respect of geographical distribution (target regions of expansion, goal-oriented trade corridors), target social groups (local elites in key positions), means of cultural transmission (general, particularly technical, knowledge, transportable prestige goods of all kinds for classappropriate life-styling), overt concentration in producing artifacts in demand from outside (the satisfaction of which was important to the survival of the small Phoenician city states, which were few in relation to the surrounding powers), and, finally, in respect of acceptance by the surrounding powers, which was dependent on various regional cultural profiles ‘overseas’, i.e. also on their various needs. With regard to the cultural panorama in the city states on the Levant coast, the Phoenician identity appears in the scarcely broken tradition of the Ancient Near Eastern Bronze Age, in the predominance of a differentiated urban way of life, and in the highly developed technical (and administrative) knowledge of a high level of civilisation. B. POENI On the one hand, the Phoenician heritage and the continuation of a tradition based on it are characteristic of the material culture of the Carthaginian or Punic world. On the other hand, it is distinguished by an advanced position in time which is characterized — in contrast to the early rst millennium BC in the Phoenician mother country — by very different political and economical parameters. Carthage in its wider setting in northern Africa and on the road from Tunis was not in serious danger until the 4th cent. BC and was not dependent on securing its existence and prosperity by means of trade in raw materials (except to satisfy its own needs) and the export of luxury and prestige goods. The lack of this external, i.e. outward-looking, element, which was characteristic of Phoenician culture, enables one to recognize the Carthaginian-Punic culture as a normal ancient cultural community, which was city-centred, that is to say, a Punic identity of its own between East and West, [55.237-274; 56.303350]. Its particular and conservative profile was the result of preserving traditional cult practices and conventional social norms. Material products were attuned to use in cult and magic as well as to the satisfaction of the needs of everyday life. The archaeological finds are dominated by an abundance of modest ex voto offerings and terracotta grave goods (e.g. heads and busts, masks), simple burial stelai

decorated in the manner of folk art, metal cult imple-

ments

PHOENICIANS,

POENI

(‘razors’), Egyptianized magical amulets. The

an increase of Hellenizing tendencies can be recognized: e.g., models of Greek Demeter iconography (Démetér kernophoros) were drawn on for the common votive statue heads with incense bowls (bruciaprofumi, pebeteros) on top. Characteristic for this are finds in Carthaginian Ebusus/Eivissa/Ibiza, where a good part of both the bell-shaped clay idols from the cult grotto of Tinnit at Es Cuyeram and the terracotta busts of the graves of the city necropolis on the Puig des Molins are dependent on Greek models [583 59]. + Carthage; — Etrusci/Etruria; Hispania; > Melite [7]; > Pithecussae; > Sardinia; + Sicily; > CARTHAGE 1 H. Pastor BORGONON, Die Phonizier: Eine begriffsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, in: Hamburger Beitrage zur Archdologie 15/17, 1988/90, 37-142 2S. Moscami, Nuovi studi sull’identita fenicia, in: RAL 9.4, 1993, 9-14 3 G. BUNNENS, s.v. Canaan, DCPP, 87f. 4 Id., La dinstinction entre Phéniciens et Puniques chez les auteurs classiques, in: P. BARTOLONI (ed.), Atti del I Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici (Roma 1979), vol.

I, 1983, 233-238 5 V. KrinGs (ed.), La civilisation phénicienne et punique. Manuel de recherche (HbdOr I vol. 20), 1995, 9-84 6J. UNTERMANN, Triimmersprachen zwischen Grammatik und Geschichte (Rheinisch-Westfalische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vortrage G 245),

1980 7H.G. NieEMEYER, Die frithe phonizische Expansion im Mittelmeer. Neue Beitrage zu ihrer Beschreibung und ihren Ursachen, in: Saeculum 50, 1999, 153-175 8 M. PELLICER CaTALAN, Estrategia de los asentamientos fenicios en Iberia (Real Acad. de Bellas Artes Sevilla), 1996, 143-167 9H. G. NIEMEYER, Das frihe Karthago

und die phonizische Expansion im Mittelmeerraum, 1989 10 G. Markog, In Pursuit of Silver: Phoenicians in Central

Italy, in: Hamburger Beitrage zur Archaologie 19/20, 1992/93, 11-31 11 C. DOMERGUE, Les mines de la péninsule ibérique dans l’antiquité romaine, 1989, 141-154 12 J. BouzeK, Greece, Anatolia and Europe: Cultural Interrelations during the Early Iron Age, 1997, 160-167 131. Srr6m, Evidence from the Sanctuaries, in: G. Kopckg, I. TokuMARU (ed.), Greece between East and

West. roth-8th Centuries B.C. (Papers of the Meeting at the Institute of Fine Arts, New York 1990), 1992, 46-60 14 W. Huss, Geschichte der Karthager, 1985 15 Id. (ed.), Karthago, 1992 16 J. PETERS, Romische Tierhaltung und Tierzucht, 1998 17H. G. Niemeyer, The Early Phoeni-

cian City-States on the Mediterranean: Archaeological Elements for their Description, in: M. H. HANSEN

(ed.),

A Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures (Kongelike Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Hist.-fil. Skrifter 21), 2000, 89-115 18H. Frost, Harbours and ProtoHarbours. Early Levantine Engineering, in: V. KARAGEORGHIS, D. MICHAELIDIs (ed.), Cyprus and the Sea (Proc.

of the International Symposium

Nicosia

1993), 1995,

1-22 19H. G. NIEMEYER, Phoenician Toscanos as a Settlement Model?, in: B. CUNLIFFE, S. KEAy (ed.), Social

Complexity and the Development of Towns (Proc. of the British Acad. 86), 1995, 67-88

in Iberia

20M. Yon,

Architecture sacrée, in: [5], 122-129

21 J. B. PRITCHARD,

Recovering Sarepta, a Phoenician

City. Excavations at

Sarafand, 1978

22 M. Fanrar, Kerkouane. Cité punique

PHOENICIANS,

POENI

du Cap Bon (Tunisie), vol. 3: Sanctuaires et cultes, sociéte, économie, 1986 23 R. D. BaRnetTrT, Ezekiel and Tyre, in: Eretz Israel 9, 1969, 6-13 24 V. KARAGEORGHIS, Kition auf Zypern, die alteste Kolonie der Phoniker, 1976

25 J. M. BLAzQuEz, Tartessos y los origenes de la colonizacion fenicia, *1975 26F. Rakos, Forschungen im Stadtzentrum von Karthago, in: MDAI(R) 102, 1995, 420-427 27H. G. Niemeyer et al., Die Grabung unter dem Decumanus

Maximus

von Karthago, in: MDAI(R)

102, 1995, 475-502 28E. AkurGAL, Orient und Okzident, 1966 29 Y. SHILOH, The Proto-Aeolic Capital and

Israelite Ashlar Masonry (Qedem 11), 1979

30H.G.

Niemeyer, R. F. Docrer, Die Grabung unter dem Decu-

manus Maximus von Karthago. Vorbericht, in: MDAI(R) 100, 1993, 201-244 31 H. BENICHOU-SAFAR, Les tombes puniques de Carthage, 1982 32 J. W. SHaw, Der phonizische Schrein in Kommos auf Kreta (ca. 800 v.Chr.), in: R. Route, K. Scumipt (ed.), Archaologische Studien in

Kontaktzonen der antiken Welt, 1998, 93-104

33G.

Tore, L’art. Sculpture en ronde-bosse, in: [5], 448-470 34 U. Kron, Heilige Steine, in: H. FRONING (ed.), Kotinos. FS Erika Simon, 1992, 56-70 35 T. N. D. METTINGER, No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in its Ancient Near Eastern

Context,

168

167

NIEMEYER,

Sémata.

Uber den Sinn griechischer Standbilder, 1996

1995

36H.G.

37G.

El Santuario de Es Cuieram (Trabajos del Museo Arqueologico de Ibiza 8), 1982 59 J. H. FERNANDEZ, Excavaciones en la necropolis del Puig des Molins. Las Campaiias de D. Carlos Roman Ferrer 1921-1929, vols. 1-3 (Trabajos del Museo Arqueologico de Ibiza 28/29), 1992. M.E. Auset, The Phoenicians and the West, 1993; C. BaurRAIN, C. BONNET, Les Phéniciens. Marins de trois continents, 1992; W. CUuLICAN, Phoenicia and Phoenician Colonization, in: CAH 3.2, 1991, 461-546; E. GUBEL (ed.), Les phéniciens et le monde méditerranéen (exhibition cat., Brussels), 1986; G. MARKOE, Phoenicians, 2000; S. Moscarti (ed.), I Fenici (exhibition cat., Venice), 1988;

H. G. NieMEYER, Die Phonizier und die Mittelmeerwelt im Zeitalter Homers, in: JRGZ 31, 1984, 1-94; A. PaRrot, M. H. Cuenas, S. Moscati, Die Phonizier (Universum der Kunst), 1977. FOR

THE

MAP

(ADDITIONAL):

the Phoenician

Tradition

of Round

Cultic Stones, in:

en dehors de la Phénicie, in: AArch 58, 1987, 213-221 40 H. G. NreMeyer, Gedanken zu Bild und Abbild im

Grabkult der phonizischen und punischen Welt, in: F. PRAYON (ed.), Akten des Kolloquiums ‘Der Orient und Etrurien’, Tubingen 1997 (Biblioteca di Studi etruschi),

2000, 323-331 41C. BEER, Temple-Boys. A Study of Cypriote Votive Sculpture, vol. 1: Catalogue (Stud. in Mediterranean Archaeology 113), 1994 42 N. BopE, Die Statue von Mozia. Hamilkar als Heros, in: AK 36, 1993, 103-110 43 G.C. Picarpb, Mythe et histoire aux débuts de Carthage, in: E. AcQquaro (ed.), Atti del II Congr. Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici (Roma 1987), 1991, vol. 1, 385-392 44 E. GuBEL, Phoenician Furniture (Studia Phoenicia 7), 1987 45 id., M. E. AuBet, M. F. BASLEZ, s.v. Ivoires, DCPP, 233-237 46 M.E. AuBET, Los marfiles orientalizantes de Praeneste, 1971 47S. M. CECCHINI, L’art. Ivoirerie, in: [5], 516-526 48 B. B. SHEFTON, The ‘Paradise Flower’, a Court Style Phoenician Ornament, in: V. TATTON-BROWN (ed.), Cyprus and the East Mediterranean in the Iron Age (Proc. of the 7th British Museum Classical Colloquium, London 1988), 1989, 97-102 49 G. MARKOE, Phoenician Bronze and Silver

Bowls 50R.D.

from

Cyprus

Barnett,

The

and

the

Nimrud

Mediterranean, Bowls

1985

in the British

Museum, in: Rivista di Studi Fenici 2, 1974, 11-33 51G. FALSONE, s.v. Coupes métalliques, DCPP, 123 52 R. A. Stucky, The Engraved Tridacna Shells, in: Dédalo ro, 1974, 7-170 53E. GuUBEL, s.v. Glyptique, DCPP, r91—

194 54 A. FEGHALI GorTON, Egyptian and Egyptianizing Scarabs. A Typology of Steatite, Faience and Paste Scarabs from Punic and Other Mediterranean Sites, 1996

55 W.

AMELING, Karthago. Studien zu Militar, Staat und Gesellschaft, 1993 56S. LANCEL, Carthage. A History, 1995 57P. Recout, I Bruciaprofumi a testa femminile dal Nuraghe Lugherras (Paulilatino), 199r 58 M. E. AUBET,

NIEMEYER,

Die

1999, 153-175; W. ROLLIG, H. SADER, Syrien und Palastina vor der Annexion durch Assyrien (732 v.Chr.), TAVO B IV 14, 1991; D. KELLERMANN, Palastina unter den Assyrern (nach 732 v.Chr.), TAVO BIV r5, 1991; K. BIEBERSTEIN, S. MITTMANN, Palastina unter den Babyloniern und Persern (587-332 v.Chr.), TAVO BIV 16, 1991. W.ED., H.G.N. and W.R.

Farsone, An Ovoid Bety! from the Tophet at Motya and

Journ. of Mediterranean Studies 3, 1993, 245-285 38E. Kuxann, Anthropoide Sarkophage in Beyrouth und die Geschichte der sidonischen Sarkophagkunst, 1955 39 M. L. Bunt, Les sarcophages anthropoides phéniciens

H.G.

friihe phénizische Expansion im Mittelmeer, in: Saeculum

V. LANGUAGE AND SCRIPT + Phoenician;; Punic

W.W.M.

VI. RELIGION The Phoenician religion and the Punic religion dependent on it are largely identical with the Canaanite religion, which we know from the polemic of the OT as a natural background to the > Yahweh religion. Since the followers of the Phoenician-Punic religion lived in sites on the edge of the Mediterranean, there arose — apart from early Egyptian influence — diverse interrelationships with the religions of Asia Minor and later Greece and Rome, less so with the Numidian religion alive in the hinterland of Carthage [6.366-373]. As a result of its wide distribution, the Phoenician-Punic religion was subject to regional differentiation; effects of ~ Hellenism are perceptible from the 3rd cent. BC onwards. The Phoenician-Punic religion was significant in the history of religion and culture, because it conveyed ancient oriental religious elements westwards to the Occident. The weather god > Baal (‘lord’, ‘husband’, ‘owner’) and his partner — Astarte played a central part in many variations [6.79—-90 et passim]. More than in > Ugarit, Baal had a political and martial character. As > Melqart (‘king of the city’) he was the god of — Tyrus, as + ESmun the god of - Sidon. The spread of Melqart was by means of a Hellenistic identification with ~+ Heracles [1] and Esmin, as god of healing, with ~ Asclepius [3]. Baal Hammon, mentioned as early as in the orthostatic inscriptions at Zingirli (KAI 24,16; gth cent. BC), later became the main god of > Carthage [93 6.251-264]. As ‘Baal of the Heavens’ (B‘I Simm) Baal became a High God, without displacing other gods in the sense of a tendency to monotheism.

169

170

The role of a youthful god of vegetation appears to have been filled by + Adonis [6.90-r105], particularly in + Byblus [1] and > Alexandria [1] (Theoc. Id. 15) and later (Sappho 23; 107 D.) in Greek- and Latinspeaking areas. His annual demise connected with the withering away of vegetation, which corresponds to the death of the Babylonian

god Dumuzi

(> Tammuz),

merged with the older fate of a big-game hunter who met with an accident: a boar killing Adonis by biting his thigh (Ov. Met. 10,7rOoff. etc.), a recurrent motif in the myth of the Phrygian > Attis (Paus. 7,17,9). A fourmonth journey to the netherworld by Adonis (Apollod. 3,14,4) is set in opposition to the idea of his resurrection in (Ps.-)Lucian (De Syria Dea 6).

PHOENIX

Phoenicides (Powimidyc/Phoinikides). 3rd century BC comic poet from Megara [1. test. 2]; twice victorious at

the Dionysia [r. test. 3]. At the Lenaea he took fifth place in 285 with the “AvaowCouevow/Anasoizomenoi, and fourth place the following year with the Houtys/ Poiétes. Four fragments and five titles (in addition to those already listed: AvAntoidec/Aulétrides, Miooupevy/ Misoumeéné, ®vdagyoc/Phylarchos) survive; in the untitled fragment 4, a hetaira wants to give up her craft because of bad experiences she had had with three lovers (a soldier, a physician and a_ philosopher)

[2. 323]. 1 PCG 7, 1989, 388-392

2H.-G. NESSELRATH, Die atti-

sche Mittlere Komédie, 1990.

B.BA.

The ancient B‘/t Gbi (‘Lady of Byblus’) [6.70-79],

whose predecessor had a temple and holy pond in the city by the 3rd millennium BC, is difficult to identify with a goddess of Syria. Later > Astarte was worshipped in many Phoenician cities [7.456-458]. In Ugarit [4.1.92. l. 2], this goddess was also described as a hunter and, as she did later in Sidon, became [4. vol.1.16. VI 56] as sm B‘ (‘[hypostasis of the] name of Baal’, KAI 14,18) the partner of Baal; cf. pn B‘I (‘face of Baal’) as epithet of the Carthaginian goddess > Tinnit [53 6.199-215]. From the Hellenistic period Astarte and Atargatis merged in > Syria Dea. Like in the OT, the risks to life officially kept under control by the Phoenician-Punic religion are recorded in inscriptions as those of rural life and of history. Relics of myths are preserved in the euhemeristic Greek cosmogony by Philon Byblius (> Herennius Philo) in Euseb. Praep. evang.

1,10,1-48

(cf. 4,16,6; 10,9,12).

Insight into everyday religion is provided by many votive inscriptions giving thanks for help and rescue [8.480-488]; phrases in the OT psalms of thanksgiving correspond with the stereotypical phraseology [8.486, 493f.]. The m(o)lk (offering) sacrifices, often connected

with the donation of such inscriptions, to Tinnit and Baal Hammon- probably originally of small children and later of substitutes — were supposed to strengthen future life by sacrificing life (on this see also > Human sacrifices; + Moloch). Votive inscriptions mostly close with a request for divine blessing. Magic elements are the curses, common at the end of burial and other inscriptions, for the protection of the relevant objects; magic texts proper are rare. 1 La religione fenicia. Matrici orientali e sviluppi occidentali (Stud. semitici 53), 1981 2 C. BONNET, E. LipiNskI, P. MarcuettTi (ed.), Religio Phoenicia, 1986 3 C. BONNET, Melgart. Cultes et mythes de |’Héraklés tyrien en Mediterranée, 1988 4M. Dretricn, O. Loretz, J. SANMARTin, Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit (=KTU), 1976 5 F.O. Hvipperc-Hansen, La déesse TNT, 2 vols., 1979 6 E. LipiNskt, Dieux et déesses de l’univers

phénicien et punique, 1995

7 H.-P. MULLER, s.v. NINWY

Strt (‘astoret), ThWAT 6, 1989, 453-463

8 id., Punische

Weihinschriften und alttestamentliche Psalmen im religionsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang, in: Orientalia 67, 1998, 477-496 9P. XeLtA, Baal Hammon, 1991. H.-P.M.

Phoenicussa, Phoenicodes (®owwnotooa/Phoinikotissa, Powinddnce/Phoinikodés, Latin Phoenicusa).

The sixth of the > Aeoliae Insulae in Plin. HN 3,94, modern Filicudi, between the islands of Aliculi in the west and Salina in the east. The date-palm island (botviE/phoinix,

Aristot. Mir.

132; Str. 6,2,11) was

used for pasture, but at times was settled: a prehistorical settlement has been discovered on Cape Graziano in the east of P., and also numerous graves of the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Below sea-level there are remains of buildings surviving from various eras. BTCGI 7, 456-463; E. MANNI, Geografia fisica e politica della Sicilia antica, 1981, 76.

K.MEI. and GLF.

Phoenix (®otwé/Phoinix, Latin Phoenix). Persons P. [1-4], the mythical P. bird [5], the date palm P. [6], geographical locations P. [7-9].

[1] Mythical

king of > Sidon

or > Tyrus, son

of

~ Agenor [1] and Telephassa (Apollod. 3,2-4), brother of > Europe [2], > Cadmus [1] and > Cilix, according

to others also their father (Hom. Il. 14, 321); other children: — Phineus (Apoll. Rhod. 2, 178), Carne

(Antoninus Liberalis 40). Eponym of the Phoenicians and the Poeni (Poem; cf. > Phoenicians, Poeni). LK. [2] Son of > Amyntor [2], whose concubine P. is urged

by his mother to seduce, whereupon his father puts a curse of childlessness on him. P. flees to — Peleus in Phthia, where he becomes ruler of the Dolopi and teacher of > Achilleus [1] (Hom. Il. 9,447ff.). In another version, P. is blinded and healed by > Chiron (Eur. frr. 804ff. NaucK’; Apollod. 3,175). In the run-up to the Trojan War, P. fetches Achilles, who is disguised as a girl, from Scyros to Troy thanks to Odysseus’ trickery (Cypria fr. 19 BERNABE). There he makes an appearance primarily as a participant in the embassy unsuccessfully petitioning Achilles to give up his fighting boycott (Hom. Il. 9,182ff.): in this P. employs the long + Meleager [1] paradigm (later sources — Ov. Met. 8,307 — then mention P. among the participants in the Calydonian Hunt). The predominance of the embassy theme is also reflected in pictorial representations [1]. P. stands by Achilles in his grief for > Patroclus [1] (Hom.

PHOENIX

Il. 19,310-312) and acts as an umpire at the funeral games for the latter (ibid. 23,3 59-361). After Achilles’s death, P. and Odysseus bring > Neoptolemus [1], who is indispensable for the conquest, to Troy (Ilias parva, argumentum 2 BERNABE; Soph. Phil. 343-347). He buries P. in the land of the Molossi (Apollod. Epit. 6,12). P. is known as the title of several lost plays (e.g. by Sophocles, Euripides and Ennius [2]). 1 A. KAUFFMANN-SAMARAS, 8.v. P., LIMC 8.1, 984-987 2S. Rapt, TrGF 4, p. 490. REN.

[3] > Dioikétés of the whole of Egypt, c. 250/240 BC (PP I/VIII 5x), perhaps as a ‘colleague’ of Apollonius

[x]. HO LBL, 58 with 293 n. 124.

72

aya

W.A.

[4] Iambic poet from — Colophon [1], 4th/3rd cents. BC. Paus. 1,9,7 attributes to him a > threnos on the

capture of the city by Lysimachus [2]. Noteworthy among the relics of his choliambic works (at least 2 books; frr. r-6 CollAlex) are: an adaptation of a funerary epigram to the Assyrian king Sardanapal in 24 verses (but according to P. intended for king Ninus), with an invitation to make the most of life (x P.); an

imitation of the korénisma (a folk song which would be performed by a beggar who wandered about with a crow; 2 P.); a poem in 23 partially damaged verses, aimed at those who live in luxury without knowing that true riches consist in wisdom (6 P.). P. took as his model ~ Hipponax, adopting, in addition to his dialect and metre, his partiality for glosses and neologisms. The topics and the sententious tone of some of the surviving poems led to an assumption that P. was a Cynic [1]: in any case the influence of moderate > Cynicism can be identified in his poetry [2]. Fragments: CollAlex, p. 231-236. LITERATURE: 1G. A. GERHARD, Ph. von Kolophon, 1909 2A. BaRIGAZZI, Fenice di Colofone e il Giambo di Nino, in: Prometheus 7, 1981, 22-34 3 W.D. FurLey, Apollo Humbled. Phoenix’ Koronisma in its Hellenistic Literary Setting, in: Materiali e Discussioni 33, 1994, 9-31. M.D.MA.

[5] Mythical bird, native to Egypt: (Egyptian bnw/ benu; for the etymology > ®otwéE [1. 317]), particularly to Heliopolis (Hdt. 2,73). According to the sources the

Egyptian P. myth is to be distinguished from the Greek one. In Egypt the bnw is originally connected with the cult of the sun: it is a water bird symbolizing the source of all creation. As such it emerged on the stone fetish bnbn like the sun god out of the water. The bmw is also connected with the jsd tree, in which it is born. This additionally brings it into relationship with the timecycle. As part of the worship of > Osiris it takes the place of > Ré [1. 3 18f.; 2. 14-32]. The earliest Greek mention can be found in Hes. fr. 304 M.-W., which primarily emphasizes its long life (972 human lifetimes). Subsequently the myth was widely developed in Greek literature, evidently in a kind

of ‘revision’ of the Egyptian model. Hdt. 2,73 reports that the P. comes to Heliopolis every 500 years to bury the remains of its father, brought in an egg, in the Temple of the Sun (according to Tac. Ann. 6,28, every 1461 years). Later sources relate that it then allows itself to be consumed by fire, and a worm from its ashes grows into a new P. An impressive description of its appearance is given by the tragedian Ezechiel (TrGF vol. 1, 128 F 1, 253-269). There are several historical accounts of sightings of the P.: Tac. Ann. 6,28 mentions an appearance in AD 34, a little later a P. was even exhibited in Rome (Plin. HN 10,2). Poetically the myth of a bird that renewed itself by self-combustion was adapted by > Lactantius [1] (Carmen de ave Phoenice, Anth. Lat. 485 a: first Christian Latin verse in classical formal tradition) and — Claudianus [2] (Carmina minora 27: Phoenix). The P. appears as a symbol of the eternity of Rome in Mart. 5,7 and on coins of the Imperial period [3. 987-990], as a symbol of the Resurrection in early Christian art [2. 423-464, table 1-40], asa symbol of Christ in the > Physiologus 7 SBORDONE. 1 A. B. LLoyp, Herodotus Book II, vol. 2 (Commentary 1-98), 1976 2R. VAN DEN Broek, The Myth of the P.

according to Classical and Early Christian Traditions, 1972 3R. VOLLKOMMER, s.v. Phoinix (3), LIMC 8.1, 987-990; 8.2, 656f.

LK.

[6] The date palm, Phoenix dactifera L. (fh poimé/hé phoinix or potwé/phoinix, Latin palma or palmula), widespread e.g. in northern Africa, with its fruit Badavos tig boivixoc/ bdlanos tés phoinikos or motvé/ phoinix or Bddavos/ balanos (from the 2nd cent. AD also daxtvudoc/ daktylos, from which ‘date’. The name palma originally refers to the fan palm (Chamaerops humilis L.) with leaves like an open hand, which grows wild in the western Mediterranean. In Greece and Italy the decorative tree was used only for adornment, because it does not produce ripe fruit there. Herodotus (1,193 and 4,172) is familiar with its cultivation in Egypt, the oases of Cyrenaica and in Babylonia. He mentions artificial pollination (cf. Theophr. H. plant. 2,8,4; Plin. HN 13,35), production of palm wine (cf. Plin. HN 14,102) and use of the trunks in construction (cf. Theophr. H. plant. 5,3,6 and 5,6,r). Xen. An. 1,15,r0 and 2,3,14f. and Theophr. H. plant. (passim) offer many further details. Plin. HN 13,26 is familiar with 49 genera. In the Roman Imperial period dates were very much favoured, also by the emperor Augustus, who receive regular consignments from Judaea (— Palaestina) by Herod [r] I. In the Imperial period palm wreaths and individual branches were given as victory prizes, a custom that was later traced to Heracles or Theseus; also Plut. Symp. 723), too, assigns an early date to the designation of the palm as a general prize for victory ina competition. Liv. 10,47,3 states that by 293 BC palmae ‘translato e Graeco more’ (‘palms in adoption of the Greek custom’) were presented to the victors at the ludi Romani (> ludi Ill. G.). After all, the toga or tunica

173

174

palmata, a garment embroidered with palms, was used to dress Jupiter Capitolinus and a general at a > triumph. In Cic. Q. Rose. 17 and Cic. Orat. 2,221 palma is the term for ‘victory’. Apul. Met. 2,4,1 describes a portrait of a winged goddess of victory (palmaris dea). Palmares ludi can be found in CIL IX 1666. Coins and pictorial works with palms as victory emblems are common [r]. In religion the palm was connected only with Apollo in Delphi. A plantation at the Sanctuary of

Phoetiae (Powtiav/Phoitiai, also Putia/Phytia). City in Acarnania ( Acarnanians), 4 km to the northwest of

Artemis in Aulis (Paus. 9,19,8) had only a decorative

lists:eIG IW aro5 (Zar 1921, 23 IV 63.

significance. Pythagoras is said to have forbidden cultivation (Plut. Is. 10,354f.). luv. 2,142 mentions a fertility spell using palmae. Medicinal use e.g. for diarrhoea was the result of its astringent effect (Dioscorides 1,109 WELLMANN = 1,148 BERENDES).

PHOLUS

modern Bambini. In a strategically favourable location P. dominated a fertile plateau in the interior of Acarnania and was one of the leading cities of the Acarnanian Koinon. During the division of Acarnania in the 3rd century BC P. remained Aetolian until conquered by Philip [7] V in 219 BC. A plan of P. can be found in [1]. Cf. IG IX 1” 2, 389, 602; mentions in theorodokoi

ms SEGas ons saps 47t BOl a5.

1 E. Kirsten, s.v. P., RE 20, 436-443 (plan by F. Noack). PRITCHETT 7, 4-8; D. SrraucH, R6mische Politik und griechische Tradition, 1996, 272f. DS.

+ Karyotos Phoinix 1 F. IMHOOF-BLUMER, O. KELLER, Tier- und Pflanzenbilder auf Miinzen und Gemmen des klassischen Altertums,

Phoke see > Seal

1889 (repr. 1972).

A. STEIER, s.v. Ph., RE 20, 386-404; V. HEHN, Kulturpflanzen und Haustiere (ed. O. SCHRADER), *1911 (repr.

1963), 270-286.

C.HU.

[7] Carian city and mountain in the Rhodian > Peraea (Str. 14,2,2; Ptol. 5,2,11; Steph. Byz. s.v. Powixn) near

modern Fenaket at the foot of Mount Karayiiksek in the southwest of Marmaris. P. was the centre of the TA@ov Tloioi deme of the polis of Camirus in Rhodes. Archaeology: remains of an ancient acropolis, necropolis, numerous inscriptions (SGDI 4262f.; IG XII 1,1442; [r. 33f. nos. 19-22, 58, 95]). 1 P.M.

Fraser, G. E. BEAN, The Rhodian

Islands, 1954.

Phoito see > Sibyl

Peraea and

E.O.

Pholegandros (®ohéyavdeoc; Pholégandros). Island in the southern > Cyclades (33 km*, 19 km long, up to 4 km wide) to the southeast of Melos (Strab. 10,5,1; 5,33 Plin. HN 4,68; Ptol. 3,15,31), named after a son of

~» Minos (Steph. Byz. s.v. ®.), today once again called P.; its highest elevation is Hagios Eleutherios (411 m). P. was settled as early as the Cretan-Mycenaean Period, later it was Doric. P. was a member of the > Delian League (tribute 1000 drachmai: ATL 1,434f.; 2,83). The ancient city of P. was above modern P. on the southeastern coast (graves, marble spolia and walls from the Hellenistic and Roman Periods). P. was a feared place of exile (Solon fr. 2,1; Plut. Mor. 814a).

Inscriptions: IG XII 3, 1058-1072. Coins: HN 490. [8] (®., Bowixot Thermopylae at the ‘Western Gate’, in Antiquity flowing into the Asopus [1] (Hdt. 7,176; 200; Str. 9,4,14; Plin. HN 4,30; Steph. Byz. s.v. Powixn), modern Rhevma tou Mylou. F. STAHLIN, Das hellenische Thessalien, 1924, 198f.; Id., s.v. Phoinix (18), RE 20, 435; MULLER, 3 58f. HE.KR. and E.MEY.

H. KALeTSCH, s.v. P., in: LAUFFER, Griechenland, 545f. A.KU.

Pholoe (©o06n/Pholdé). The monotonous conglomerate surface, some 11 km long and 8 km wide to the north of the middle reaches of the Alpheius [1], up to 798 m high in the north, 640 m in the south, to the east with a steep edge merging with the Erymanthus [2] mountains, to the west with lowish ranges of marl hills (Strals:8535us 3555 3932510535 aUsaOs20,531652454pbtol:

3,14,35 ; Mela 2,43; Plin. HN 4,21), modern Pholoi Oros. P. is unsettled and poor in springs, today covered with oak forests and arable land. It is mentioned as an area for hunting big game in Xen. An. 5,3,10. In Antiquity P. was reckoned part of Arcadia (~ Arcadians) and was considered a home of > Centaurs. PHILIPPSON/KIRSTEN 3, 332, 336; F. BOLTE, s.v. P. (1), RE ZO FL G= Sle

E.O. and CL.

Pholus (®d)oc, Latin Pholus). One of the > Centaurs, son of Silenus (> Silens) and a Nymph. When > Heracles [1] is being entertained with wine by P., the other Centaurs attack them; Heracles repels them with poi-

PHOLUS

176

175

soned arrows, by which P. is also wounded and he dies

Phonetics and phonology

(Stesich. PMGF S 19 = 181 p. 162; Theoc. 7,149; Diod.

A. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PHONETICS AND

Sic. 4,12,3ff.; Verg. G. 2,456; Verg. Aen. 8,294).

LK.

PHONOLOGY

B. SPEECH SOUND

OR PHONEME

CHANGES Phommus

(®opuotc; Phommois) was, as syngenes (‘king’s relative’) and epistratégos (- Court titles B 2) of the Thebaid, a predecessor of Plato [3] from c. August/September 115 until at least February 110 BC. In OGIS 168,26f., the king calls him his adelphos (‘brother’). P. was an Egyptian, probably from the Delta; his career can perhaps be used as proof that Cleopatra [II 6] III sought indigenous support. E. van’T Dackx et al., The Judaean-Syrian-Egyptian Conflict of 103-1 BC, 1989, 73; 108. W.A.

Phonaskoi (pwvacxoi/phonaskoi, Latin phonasci). Voice coaches whose professional teaching skills were called upon first of all by heralds, then by singers, actors, choreuts, rhapsodists, orators, itinerant teachers, and people who read out loud in public. Their technique, phonaskia, is already mentioned at Dem. Or 18,280 and Or. 19,255. The phonaskoias a profession are mentioned for the first time at Rhet. Her. 3,20 (cf. [2. 265; 5. 208]), and described as masters of the high, middle and low voice registers in Quint. Inst. 2,8,15. For them, as well as for the oratores, regular practice was of great importance (11,3,22). It is reported that both Augustus (Suet. Aug. 84) and also Nero (Tac. Ann.

14,15; Suet. Nero 25) worked with phonaskoi. The work of an otherwise unknown Theodorus about phonaskia (Diog. Laert. 2,819) is lost, and our knowl-

edge of the discipline correspondingly limited. The work of the phonaskoi affected medicine as well as music (on this [8. 48of.]). Even C. Sempronius Gracchus hada slave who stood behind him with a pitch pipe (tondrion) and indicated when he ought to soften his voice (Plut. Gracchus 2; see [3. 83f.; 4. 81]). In the Imperial period, doctors recommended recitation as health-promoting physical exercise [6; 7. 93-105]. At Brut. 313-316, Cicero cites his weak constitution as a reason why doctors and friends advised him to give up oratory, whereupon he softened his florid style on Rhodes [1. 24-27]. The circulation of the blood was not understood until William Harvey (1628) and it was believed that one’s breath (spiritus) went through the arteriae (Cic. Nat. D. 2,138; on this [2. 526f.]; Cels. De medicina 1,2,6; cf. [4. 105-107]). Various illnesses could thus be treated by the phonaskoi. 1G. CALBOLI, Oratore senza microfono, in: A. CERESAGaSsTALDO (ed.), Ars rhetorica antica e nuova, 1983, 23-

56 2 Id. (ed.), Cornifici Rhetorica ad C. Herennium, 1993 3 A. CAVARZERE, Oratoria a Roma, 2000

4 A. KRUMBA-

CHER, Die Stimmbildung der Redner im Altertum bis auf die Zeit Quintilians, MUL eR

Diss.

(ed.), Rhetorica

Wirzburg

1920

ad Herennium,

1994

§SF.L. 6 J.

SCHMIDT, s.v. P., RE 20, 522-526 7H. SCHONE, Heol bytewijs avapwvyjoews bei Oribasius, Coll. Med. VI ro, in: Hermes 65, 1930, 92-105 8 G. WILLE, Musica Romana, 1967.

G.C.

A. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY One generally distinguishes between phonetics and phonology (phonemics, phonematics) in the following way. The primary objects of phonetic study are the sounds produced by the speech organs (acoustic phonetics) and their creation (articulatory phonetics), and thus particularly the speech sounds (notation [ ]) as the smallest acoustic-articulatory elements of speech acts (parole), but also the prosodic elements. The object of phonology, on the other hand, is the function of speech sounds and prosodic elements within the linguistic system (langue). The phoneme (notation //) is the central concept of phonology and can be defined as the smallest unit to distinguish meaning in the linguistic system, a unit that can be identified through distinctive oppositions. It can have variants (allophones) which may be free or occur in certain environments, that is, between certain other sounds. Letters (— alphabet) are graphic signs that represent sounds or groups of sounds. By virtue of representing phonemes or groups of phonemes, these signs function as graphemes (notation ( )) which, in turn, can have variants (allographs). Regarding the assigning of sounds or phonemes to letters or graphemes see > pronunciation. Sounds can be distinguished by their colouring (quality) and are traditionally divided into vowels and consonants. Vowels are formed when the vocal folds vibrate and the breath flows out unhindered through the mouth or through mouth and nose, while consonants are created when the breath is stopped or constrained in the vocal tract for a certain amount of time. Syllables or prosodic elements are usually carried by vowels, not consonants. Vowels are classified according to the position of the tongue (horizontal and vertical) and the shape of the lips, while consonants are distinguished by the type of articulation (stops, fricatives, etc.), the place of articulation (lips, teeth etc) and by the use or non-use of the vocal chords. Secondary articulation (aspiration, labialization, etc.) also plays a role; > Gutturals, > Labiovelar, > Laryngeal. Although their definition is controversial, syllables may be understood as the smallest group of sounds or phonemes to rhythmically structure the speech act. The fullness of sound also plays an important role. The most prominent part of the syllable is referred to as the nucleus and is usually the vowel. If this is not the case (as in diphthongs), the vowels are referred to as nonsyllabic vowels or semivowels. When consonants appear in the nucleus, they are referred to as sonorant or syllabic. Syllables that end with a vowel are usually called open, those ending with a (non-sonorant) consonant are closed.

177

178

A sequence of two vowels in the same syllable is called a diphthong. It is regarded as one phoneme. Depending on the relative strength of the vowels, diphthongs are classified as either rising or falling. Apart from the speech sounds, which are determined by their colouring, further components of the speech act include the prosodic elements that overlie the articula-

memordi

tion

of sounds:

duration

(quantity),

stress

accent

(accent in the narrow sense) and tonal accent (pitch or intonation), with the last two often summarised as

~ accent (in the broader sense). Regarding quantity, where relative duration is much more important than absolute duration, it is usually sufficient to distinguish between short and long. Quantity is often phonologically relevant, esp. in vowels. CH. B. SPEECH SOUND OR PHONEME CHANGES As we know from experience, the realm of phonetic and prosodic elements changes over time (> Language change) as do all other areas of > language. These changes are the object of diachronic (historical) phonetics and phonology. A sound or phonemic change originates in the speech act: If the normal expression of a phoneme intended by a speaker or by a part of the community of speakers changes beyond the limit of tolerance, that expression is perceived as a different phoneme. To be exact, the phoneme does not change but is actually replaced. Once such a phoneme change is accepted by the community of speakers, it usually affects all realisations and variants of that phoneme: under the same conditions, a phoneme will change in the same way in all words and morphemes of a language. This empirically gained insight is reflected in the term ‘sound law’ which was established by the Neogrammarians. Sound changes or phoneme changes that result from neighbouring sounds or phonemes are called conditional or combinatory sound changes. They stand in contrast to spontaneous sound changes, where no such influence exists. Of the many sound or phoneme changes, only those with specific names will be exemplified here. Phenomena referred to as ‘assimilation’ are as frequent as they are varied: neighbouring sounds may become more similar in respect to their manner of articulation, their place of articulation or their sonority. Distinctions are made regarding a) the direction of the influence — thus into progressive (progr.) and regressive (regr.) assimilation depending on whether the preceding sound influences the following one or vice versa, and b) the degree — total (tot.) or partial (part.) assimilation, that is, the complete assimilation of both sounds or the assimilation of only one characteristic of articulation in two sounds

(progr./tot.

Greek

Geonv

> Att. deenv,

Lat.

*velse > velle; regr./tot. Greek *xodot > Homer. nooo,

PHONETICS

>

Classical

AND

momordi,

PHONOLOGY

Indo-European

“penk"e > pre-Lat. *quenque > Lat. quinque) in con-

trast to the much more frequent ‘contact assimilation’ that occurs in directly neighbouring sounds. A counterpart to long-distance assimilation is the sporadically occurring dissimilation: one of two (not directly) neighbouring sounds that are identical or share some characteristic of their articulation is replaced by another sound that is less similar to the unchanged sound, or it disappears altogether (dissimilatory loss): Greek *GAyahéoc > Homer. doyahéos, *tFeumov >

*éFeutov > Homer. tewnov, *Fontoa > Cypr. Foéra; Lat. “agrestris > agrestis, type* consulalis > consularis). On

the dissimilation of aspiration, cf. > Graf{mann’s Law. The dissimilation of two identical or similar neighbouring syllables or sequences of sounds is called ‘haplology’ (Greek. *dvtitttog > Homer. é&vtitoc, Homer. audipogets > Att. Gudogevs; Lat. *portitorium > portorium, *latronicinium > latrocinium).

A rare occurrence — slightly more frequent in loanwords — is so-called metathesis, the displacement of a sound or (lit.) the ‘exchange’ of two sounds within a

word (Greek. tex-: *titxw > tixtw, Hell. dawddng > gdatkovys; Lat. trapezita > tarpezita, Lat. paludem > Vulgar Lat. padulem > It. Tuscan padule, Romanian padure ‘forest’, Lat. scintilla > pre-Lat. *stincilla > French étincelle). A regular sound change conditioned by syllable structure is the so-called quantitative metathesis (metathesis quantitatum), which effects that directly neighbouring vowels exchange their quantities, the long vowel becoming short, the short, long (Greek Homer. paowdia, Ion. Att. BaotWéa; Homer. Aeol. adc, Ion. Anos, Ion. Att. > Aews).

The term ‘epenthesis’ refers to the — etymologically unmotivated — insertion of a consonantal glide in the middle of a word (Greek *dvodc > &vdo06c, Lat. *emtus > emptus), while the integration of a short vowel into a group of consonants is referred to as ‘anaptyxis’ (Greek *€Bduoc > EBSouoc; Lat. piaclum > piaculum). Yet especially in Greek, the anticipation of the /*i/ appearing in the groups of phonemes /ani/, /ari/, /awi/ and /oni/, /ori/, /owi/, which leads to the diphthongs /ai/ and /oi/ and which, from a synchronic perspective, is simply understood as an inclusion, also is called epenthesis (@av-: *Paviw > paivw, *xOQLravos > x01Qavos).

Among the sound changes occurring only in vowels the following should be mentioned: a) contraction: merging of two directly neighbouring vowels into a long vowel or a falling diphthong, often caused by the loss of an intervocalic consonant (Greek*xoéGoe > *y0t00 > x0éG, O0GM > 60H; Lat. mavolo > *maolo >

malo, * praibibeo > * pratibeo > praebeo); b) compensatory lengthening of a vowel after the loss of a directly following consonant, perhaps motivated by the effort to preserve the quantity of the syllable (Greek Cret.

Lat. *adtuli > attuli; regr./part. Greek *heytoc > Aextoc, Lat. *regs > rex). If assimilation occurs between sounds that are not direct neighbours, it is referred to as ‘longdistance assimilation’ (Greek Old Attic dBeddcg > Att.

tovc, > Lacon. te, > Ion. Att. tots; Lat. *ovins > ovis); c) syncope: loss of a short vowel in the word interior,

SPoddc, Svvatar

mote > Homer. tite; Lat. viridis, -e > Vulgar-Lat. virdis,

> Cret. vivatou;

Lat. Pre-Classical

often due to fast speech tempo (‘allegro form’) (Greek tt

179

180

-e > French verde); d) iambic shortening (only in Latin): shortening of a vowel in a final open syllable in such a way that disyllabic words of iambic shape ~~ show the sequence ~~ (e.g. mihi > mihi along with extant mihi). ~ Ablaut; > Itacism; > Prosody; > Psilosis; > Rhotacism; > Sandhi

139-148, 141, r46f. 6 R. TAUBENSCHLAG, Das Strafrecht im Rechte der Papyri, 1916 7 G. THUR, Die Todesstrafe im Blutprozef Athens, in: Journal of Juristic Papyrology 20, 1990, 143-156 8Id., The Jurisdiction of the Areo-

PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

GENERAL:; D. ABERCROMBIE, Elements of General Phonetics, 1966; R.-M. S. HEFFNER, General Phonetics, 1950; A. Martinet, Economie des changements phonétiques,

Traité de phonologie diachronique, 1955; M. SCHUBIGER, Einfiihrung in die Phonetik, *1977; E. TERNEs, Einfiuhrung in die Phonologie, 1987.

GREEK: M. LEJEUNE, Phonétique historique du mycénien et du grec ancien, 1972; Rix, HGG; ScuwyZeEr, Gramm. Latin: M. BassoLs DE CLIMENT, Fonetica latina, con un

apendice sobre fonematica latina por S. Mariner Bigorra, 1962; LEUMANN; SOMMER/PFISTER.

CH.

Phonos (dvoc; phonos). Homicide. In Greek law the

nearest relatives could originally carry out a > blood fued as a result of phonos. Due to the strengthening of the polis and in Athens, in any case since > Draco (end

of 7th cent. BC), they were limited to a private lawsuit (> diké) asa result of phonos. This lawsuit was brought before the > basiletis (I.C.), solemn oaths (> didmosia) were sworn in three pre-hearings by the parties and witnesses. The adjudication, according to the severity of the crime, was made in the court sessions which met on

various cult sites (> dikastérion A.I.). Draco already distinguishes between direct and indirect killing (IG DP 104,12; suggested emendation [7. 152]), by which distinction perhaps the jurisdiction of the law court of the > Areios pagos can be separated from that of the Palladion [8]. However, according to Dem. Or. 23,71 and Aristot. Ath. Pol. 57, 3 the boundary between the two rests upon whether the perpetrator has acted intentionally (xv, hekon) or unintentionally (Gxwv, dk6n) [4. 45]. A sentence of death was passed for the intentional > murder of a citizen (possibly since Solon, beginning of 6th cent. BC, [7. 15 5f.]), otherwise of exile (+ phyge). A third court, where cases of phonos were tried, was situated at the Delphinion, the temple of Apollo Delphinios (here the perpetrator claimed that the murder was ‘justifiable’), a fourth court on the coast at Phreatto (phonos-lawsuits against those already in exile). > Ephétai sat in the last three courts. At the Prytaneion, killing by unknown(?) perpetrators, animals and tools was adjudicated upon without a court session (Dem. Or. 23, 65-79; Aristot. Ath. Pol. 57,3f. [4]). There is only sparse information about phonos outside Athens and in the Graeco-Egyptian papyri [5; 6]. ~ Murder 1 E. CANTARELLA, Studi sull’omicidio in diritto greco e romano, 1976 2 E. CARawan, Rhetoric and the Law of Draco, 1998 3 M. Gacarin, Drakon and Early Athenian Homicide Law, 1981 4D.M. MacDoweti, Athenian Homicide Law, 1963 5 H.-A. RuppRECHT, Straftaten und

Rechtschutz nach den griechischen Papyri der ptolemaischen Zeit, in: M. GAGaRIN (ed.), Symposion 1990, 1991,

pagos in Homicide Cases, in: M. GAGaRIN (ed.), Symposion 1990, 1991, 53-72 9 A. TULIN, Dike Phonou, 1996 10 R. W. Waxiace, The Areopagos Council, to 307 B.C., 1989.

GT.

Phorcides (®ogxidec/Phorkides, also Pogxuvides/ Phorkynides or Pognvvades/Phorkynddes). Daughters of > Phorcys [x], viz. the Gorgons (> Gorgo [1]) and the > Graeae; the latter were brought to the stage by Aeschylus in his Phorcides (TrGF 3 F 26rf.). LK. Phorcys (®dgxv¢/Phorkys, Latin Phorcus, Phorcys, Phorcyn). [1] Sea god, son of > Pontus and > Gaia, brother of + Nereus (Hes. Theog. 237; in Orph. Fr. 16 son of + Oceanus and > Tethys, in Orph. Fr. 114 > Titan); with his sister - Ceto he fathered monsters (> Phorcydes) such as the > Graeae, Gorgons (~ Gorgo [1]), + Echidna and the snake > Ladon [1] (Hes. Theog.

270-3033 333-336); according to others he was also the father of the > Sirens (Soph. fr. 861 TrGF), the

> Hesperides (schol. Apoll. Rhod. 4,1399d), > Scylla (Apoll. Rhod. 4,828f. with schol.) and — Thoosa (Hom. Od. 1,71f.). In the Odyssey, where a port in Ithaca is named after him, he bears the epithet > halios géron, ‘old man of the sea’ (Hom. Od. 13,96). As the ruler of the sea he leads off in the round dance of the sea creatures (Verg. Aen. 5,824; Plin. HN. 36,26). Variati-

ons of his name are Phorkos (Pind. Pyth. 12,13 et alibi) and Porkos (Alem. 1,19 PMGF). For etymology cf. phorkos, ‘white’ (Hsch. s.v. poexdv) [rz]. 1 CHANTRAINE, S.V. PoQxOV. B. MaerI, s.v. Phorcys, LIMC 7.1, 398.

AA.

[2] Son of > Phaenops [3], from Ascania in Phrygia; he fought in the Trojan war on the Trojan side, and was killed by Aias [1] (Hom. Il. 2,862; 17,218; 312-318; Paus. 10,26,6).

Phorminx figure)

see

LK.

— Musical

instruments,V. A.

(with

Phormio (®oguiwv; Phormion). [1] Athenian —> stratégds, commanded a fleet against Samos in 440/439 BC (Thuc. 1,117,2). Against the Ambraciotes, who were holding Argos in Amphilochia, he led 30 ships in support of the > Amphilochi and the ~ Acarnanes, who settled the city from that time on. The Athenians and the Acarnanes concluded a symmachy (Thuc. 2,68,7f.). In 432, with an Athenian army, P. beseiged + Potidaea from the landside (Thuc. 1,64,2; 65,25 2,29,6; Diod. Sic. 12,37,1). From 430 he blocked the Gulf of Corinth with 20 guard ships at Naupactus and in 429 achieved two victories against superior fleets

18r

182

(Thuc. 2,69,1; 80,4; 81,1; 83-92; Diod. Sic. 12,47,1;

48). In the winter of 429/8, the Athenians under P.’s leadership embarked on a successful campaign in Acarnania (Thuk. 2,102,1). On his return in 428 he was sentenced in the public examination of his conduct in office (-+ evthynai) to a large fine, and lost his rights (atimos), but regained them with the support of the city. > Peloponnesian War D. HaMeEt, Athenian Generals, 1998, 17; 26; 40n. 1; 52 n.

10; 129; 134; 142; K.-W. Wetwel, Das klassische Athen, 1999,

161-166.

WS.

[2] Athenian rhetor of the 4th cent. BC, > synégoros of Apsephion in 355/4 in a lawsuit opposing a law by ~ Leptines [x] that was supposed to restrict exemptions from — liturgies (hypothesis 2,3 on Demosth. Or. 20).

PHOROS

3 B. BLECKMANN, Athens Weg in die Niederlage, 1998 4A. P. MaTTHalou, Xoenyixh éemyeadl Oaoyndtwy, in: Horos 8-9, 1990-91, 53-58.

U.WAL.

Phoroi see > Phoros

Phoroneus (ogwvet Deuca-

lion) and hence the ‘first man’ (Akusilaos FGrH 2 F Hes. fr. 122 M.-W.; Hellanikos FGrH 4 F 1; Hyg. 143 and 274) [1. 84]. Like -» Prometheus he was inventor of fire (Paus. 2,19,5), bringer of culture, judge in the dispute over Argos between Poseidon Athena (Paus. 2,15,5). He is the subject of the + Phoronis (c. 600 BC) [2; 3; 4].

23a; Fab.

the and and epic

1 PRELLER/ROBERT 2 PEGI, 118-121 3 EpGF, 153-155 4 F. STOESSL, s.v. Phoronis (2), RE 20, 646-650. L.K.

~ Ateleia R. SEALEY, Demosthenes and His Time, 1993, 126-127; PA 14952.

JE.

Phormis (®6gQuic/Phormis) or Phormus (®dQuoc/ Phormos in Ath. 14,652a; Them. Or. 27 p. 337b; Suda € 2766, } 609 =[T. test. r]). P. was a Syracusan, and like his contemporary > Epicharmus, a poet of comic dramas, allegedly also tutor to the sons of the tyrant Gelon [z. test. 1]. This, however, may rest upon a confusion with a military commander of the same name (Paus. 5,27,1 and 7). Aristotle declares P. and Epicharmus inventors of the coherent comic plot [1. test. 2]. The seven plays ascribed to him (no fragments survive) seem to have dealt with mostly mythical subjects. 1 CGF, 148.

H.-G.NE.

Phormisius (®oguicwoc/Phormisios). Athenian, returned from Piraeus in 403 BC with > Thrasybulus and the democrats after he had fled the oligarchical regime (— tridkonta). His motion on the return of the refugees in Eleusis and limitation of citizenship rights to house and land owners in accordance with the will of Sparta (Dion. Hal. Lysias 32,2) can be seen as a compromise between the restored democracy and oligarchic ideas on the basis of the amnesty and with the goal of a reconciliation supported by foreign policy [2. 227-2325 3. 344f.]. The motion was unsuccessful, but P., who was often mocked in comedy, was able to remain politically active, i.a. in a delegation to the great king, and in 379 he supported the Theban democrats in exile. P. supposedly died while having sexual intercourse (Ath. 13,570f). He is possibly identical with the choregos P. who was victorious in 380/379, the son of Meneclides from the demos of Thymaetadae, who is mentioned in an inscription found in 1989 [4]. 1PA 14945 2G. A. LEHMANN, Die revolutionare Machtergreifung der Dreifig und die staatliche Teilung Attikas (404-401/0 v.Chr.), in: R. STIEHL (ed.), Antike und Uni-

versalgeschichte. Festschrift H.E. Stier, 1972, 201-233

Phoronis (®ogwvic/Phordnis). Epic by an anonymous author, 7th/6th cent. BC. It received its name from a hero from Tiryns, > Phoroneus, the ‘father of all men’ (fr. t PEG). The frequency of the word nea@toc/prétos, ‘the first’, in the fragments indicates the poet’s interest in the first beginnings of human life. Fr. 2: the > Daktyloi Idaioi discover the art of Hephaestus. Fr. 4: > Callithoe [2] is the first to adorn the great statue of the ‘Argive’ Hera: the epithet is problematic (bibliography in [1. 120]). Paus. 2,15,5 and 2,19,5 (Phoroneus as the discoverer of fire), for example, is probably based on the P. The P. was a source for > Acusilaus and perhaps > Hellanicus [1]. 1 PEGI, 118-121 646-650.

2F. STOEssL, s.v. Phoronis (2), RE 20, S.FO.

Phoros (de0¢/phoéros, plural phoroi, ‘tribute’, ‘contribution’, from phérein, ‘carry’, ‘take’, ‘bring’). A. DEFINITION B. SIZE AND ADMINISTRATION C. ATHENIAN TRIBUTE LISTS D. DEVELOPMENT IN THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR

A. DEFINITION Phoroi were payments by states to a superior power or to an organization to which they belonged. In particular phoros was the term for the financial contributions made by the members of the > Delian League.

B. SIZE AND ADMINISTRATION At the foundation of the Delian League in 478/7 BC, the contributions of members were assessed by > Aristides [1] from Athens; they were either to provide ships or pay a sum of money ([Aristot.] Ath. Pol. 23,5). According to Thucydides (1,96,2) the first sum fixed for phoroi was 460 talents, but this is problematic: Thucydides must be referring to contributions in cash only; in the year 431, however, when almost all members were paying cash and the League was presumably larger

183

184

than at the time of its foundation, the amount collected was under 400 talents (though Thuc. 2,13,3 speaks of

neighbouring states together. In 442 the practice began of organizing the lists in five regional panels (Ionian, Hellespontine, Thraceward, Carian and Islands; see + Delian League, with map); in 337 a number of inland Carian states were abandoned and the rest of the Carian states became part of the Ionian panel. Some cities were in special categories: e.g. (in the year 434) dtaktoi (‘not assessed’), and cities that for the years 433-431 either ‘set their own phoros (poles autai phoron tachsamenat) or ‘cities which private citizens registered to pay the phoros’ (péles has hoi ididtai enégraphsan phoron phéren). These appear to be poleis that had a special status as voluntary members of the League [4]. Then in the years 429-428 there appear poleis that ‘declare their phoros’ (haide poles katadelosi tom phoron) and those that ‘provided pay out of the Hellespontine phoros’ (misthon etélesan haide apo t6 hellespontio phoro); the tribute of these cities was collected and spent again locally, the '/,, for Athena, however, was calculated in the usual way. Some members obtained special conditions: for Methone, a city on the edge of Macedonia, for example, whose loyalty it was important to keep, the Athenians considered a special assessment or the collection of only '/,, for Athena and decided on the latter

PHOROS

600); yet the general level of tribute is not likely to have been lower than at the time of founding, if the good reputation enjoyed by Aristides [1] ‘the Justs’ assessment is taken into consideration (cf. Thuc. 5,18,5). There have been various attempts at explanation: it is possible that a monetary equivalent for ships was taken into account in the original assessment [2]; and it is possible that both figures in Thucydides are based on ‘optimistic’ assessment lists containing more states than in fact paid [12. 8]; others are of the opinion that part of the tribute was collected and spent again locally, so that the tribute lists published in Athens (see below, C.) do not reflect the full amount of the tribute collected [3]. In the beginning the treasurer of the League was on the island of > Delos, where part of the phoroi was probably presented as a sacrifice to Apollo of Delos just as they were later to Athena in Athens. Phoroi were collected by the > hellénotamiai. According to Thuc. 1,96, these were Athenians from the beginning, and this is credible as the Athenians had an executive role in the League (doubting this: [14]). In the view of the Athenians an alliance founded to last also meant permanent warfare. Their rigour in exacting ships and tributes led, according to Thuc. 1,99, to a growing number of members preferring paying phoroi to providing ships. Rebellious members could, after they were suppressed, be forced to pay phoroi (e.g. Thasos: Thuc. 1,101,3). By 440 only Samos, Chios and the cities of Lesbos were still providing ships ([{Aristot.] Ath. pol. 24,2; cf. Thuc. 1,19;

3,10, 5). C. ATHENIAN TRIBUTE LISTS Apparently in 45 4/3 the League treasury was moved from Delos to Athens, allegedly at the suggestion of Samos (Plut. Aristides 25,3) and probably not in recognition of Athenian power but in fear of a Persian resurgence after the failure of an Athenian naval campaign against Persia in Egypt. From 453 the phoros was accu-

mulated in Athens: '/,, of the amount collected went into the treasury of + Athena as an aparché (‘first fruits’), with this portion not being calculated on the total phoros but being separately on the payments of the individual members. The numbered and dated lists of this aparché, known as the Athenian Tribute Lists, were carved in stone (most recent edition: IG P 259-

290; see also [5]). For the first 15 years (453-439) a single large block of marble was used, for the next eight years (438-431) a further block; after that a separate > stele was used for each year. In so far as the lists survive or can be reconstructed,

they reveal which members paid in which years and how much. The amount of the members’ contributions ranged from 300 drachmai for the smallest states to 600 times as much, viz. 30 talents (Aegina and Thasos). The members appear in the lists not in an ordered sequence, but from the earliest times there was a tendency to put

(ML 65 =IGI

61).

It is possible that in 448, when the war with Persia seemed to have ended (the historicity of the Peace of > Callias [4] notwithstanding), no phoros was raised (doubt: cf. [r1r]), but in 447 contributions were collected from the League again. Then Athens seems to have begun to spend part of the tribute for its own purposes, even for erecting buildings in Athens (Plut. Pericles 12,1-4; 14): it is possible but not certain that a papyrus fragment of acommentary on Demosthenes [2] records the transfer of a surplus of 5,000 talents from the tributes into the Athenian state treasury (Pap. Strassbg. 84; most recent reconstruction in [13]).

D. DEVELOPMENT IN THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR Assessment normally took place all four years, in the years of the Great > Panathenaea. At the time of the first assessment after the beginning of the > Peloponnesian War, in 430, the Athenians were financially confident and altered the amount of the tribute only insignificantly; no later than 428, however, they were in financial difficulties (cf. Thuc. 3,19: winter 428/7). The ordering in time of the lists from the 420s is not certain, but in 428 there was probably an extraordinary assessment with considerable increases (contra most recently [10]); in 426 no further assessment took place, but the decree of + Cleonymus [1] tightened up the form of collection and made the rich citizens of member states personally responsible for their city’s tribute (ML 68 = IG P 68). The year after (425) a decree by Thudippus ordained a further assessment, with the express statement that the yield of the tribute was insufficient and that a member’s contribution would be reduced only in the case of inability to pay (ML 69 = IG I 71). This decree was accompanied by an assessment list: many

185

186

poleis were assessed at a much greater amount than

Phosphoros (®woddgoc/Phdsphoros, ‘bringer of light’; also ‘Ewopdgoc/Hedsphoros, ‘bringer of dawn’; Latin > Lucifer [1], cf. Cic. Nat. D. 2,53). Term for the planet Venus as a light-bringing human-friendly morning star, which is identical — as was recognised at an

before the war, and the total amount that can be dedu-

ced from the inscriptions presumably amounted to more than 1,460 talents (in contrast to the 400 talents in fact raised in 431 or the 600 mentioned in Thucydides: see B.). The list is optimistic, including a number of poleis that had not paid before and would probably not pay this time either (e.g. Melos), but apparently the Athenians were trying to raise a considerably greater tribute from the League in 425 than in 431. According to the Thudippus decree, the next assessment was to be in the year of the next Great Panathenaea, i.e. 422: this list survives in part (IG E 77) and resembles the list of 425. In 413, after they had spent large sums on their Sicilian expedition (+ Peloponnesian War) and the Spartans had occupied the Attic border fortress at Decelea, the Athenians decided to replace the tribute with a five per cent tax on trade in the hope of raising more money that way (Thuc, 7,28,4; [8. 15-17] places this decision in the year 414 instead of the assessment due then, but cf. [1]). Presumably the collection of phoros was resumed in 410/409, and another assessment list must be dated to the year 410 (IG I? 100; cf. Xen. Hell. 1,3,9; but [6] differs, not believing in a general resumption of raising tribute, and dates this list to the year 418). When the (Second) > Attic League was founded in the 4th cent., the payment of tributes was considered one of the resented features of the 5th-cent. League; hence the Athenians refrained from raising phoros in the new League (IG IV/III* 43 = Top 123;cf. IGIVUL 44 = Top 124), but shortly afterwards the members were called on to pay syntaxeis (‘contributions’, from syntattein, ‘arrange’, ‘organize’. + Athenian League (Second);

(IIL. 6.);

~— Delian League 1K. J. Dover, in: A. W. Gomme et al., A Historical Comm. on Thucydides, vol. 4, 1970, 401-403 2S.K. Eppy, Four Hundred Sixty Talents Once More, in: CPh 63, 1968, 184-195 3A. FRENCH, The Tribute of the Allies, in: Historia 21,1972, 1-20 4 F. A. Lepper, Some Rubrics in the Athenian Quota-Lists, in: JHS 82, 1962,

25-55

5D.M.

early stage — to the evening star Hesperos (Parmenides,

28 A 1 DK; Pl. Epin. 987b). In mythology, however, the idea of two stars always remained: here P., like Hesperos, is a son

Lewis, The Athenian Tribute Quota-

Lists, 453-450 B.C., in: ABSA 89, 1994, 285-301 6 H.B. MarttTINGLy, Two Notes on Athenian Financial Documents, in: ABSA 62, 1967, 13-17, esp. 13f. (repr. in: Id.,

The Athenian Empire Restored, 1996, 205-213, esp. 205208) 7R. Meices, The Athenian Empire, 1972 8 B.D. Meritt, Athenian Financial Documents of the Fifth Century, 1932 9ATL 10M. Prérat, Deux Notes sur la politique d’ Athénes en mer Egée, in: BCH 108, 1984, 161176, esp.172-176 11 Id., Athénes et son empire. La crise de 447-445, in: J. SERvaIs (ed.), Stemmata: mélanges de

philologie, d’histoire et d’archéologie grecques offerts a J. Labarbe (AC Suppl. 1987), 291-303 12P.J. RHODEs, The Athenian Empire, 1985, *1993 13H.T. WabDeEGerry, B. D. Meritt, Athenian Resources in 449 and 431 B.C., in: Hesperia 26, 1957, 163-188

14A.G. Woop-

HEAD, The Institution of the Hellenotamiae, in: JHS 79, 1959, 149-152. PPR.

of the dawn

> Eos and the — Titan

~+ Astraeus (Hes. Theog. 378ff. and West ad loc.; Nonn. Dion. 6,15ff.) or of Cephalus [1]. His son is the king -» Ceyx of Trachis. P. is also an epithet of lightbringing or light-bearing deities (Phosporeia, Helios). W. GUNDEL, s.v. P. (1), RE 20, 652-654; J. SCHMIDT, s.v. P. (2ff.), RE 20, 654-657; S. Karusu, s.v. Astra (II 1,

Sektion c), LIMC 2.1, 917-919.

CW.

Photius (®@tvoc/Photios). [1] Stepson of — Belisarius, son of his wife Antonina from an earlier marriage, born around AD 520, died AD 578/585. After AD 535, he accompanied Belisarius on campaigns in Italy, and after AD 541 in Persia. Ina novelistic passage from the Historia arcana (1,31-3 5; 2,1-17}3 352-53 3,12f.; 3,21-29) Procopius relates that P. was incarcerated by the empress > Theodora on Antonina’s orders because P. tried to thwart her affair with Theodosius, an adoptive son of her husband. However, according to Procopius he escaped and (c. AD 545 2?) became a monk in Jerusalem. Other sources testify to him being there as abbot of the New Monastery, who distinguished himself by taking rigorous action against Monophysites (> Monophysitism) and Samaritans

—> Athens

PHOTIUS

(— Samaria). PLRE

3, 1037-1039

(P. 2).

ET. [2] (c. AD 810 — c. AD 893). Patriarch of Constantinople AD 858-867, AD 877-886. The most important representative of Byzantine humanism and of ecumeni-

cal beliefs, who through his works influenced the direction of the revived interest in studying classical literature in 9th-cent. Byzantium. His Ag&ixov/Lexikon [1], a work of early date, possibly written between AD 830 and AD 840, represents a compilation of several lexicographical sources (amongst them: - Harpocration [2], + Diogenianus [2], two versions of the Synagoge, cf. + lexicography). It is rich in quotes from ancient authors and was intended as a reference work when reading classical poetry and designed as an aid for writers and orators. His BipdwoOyxn/Bibliotheké [2] (written c. AD 838 or AD 845; final version dated probably after AD 876), a kind of Greek history of literature for the Middle Ages, consists of 279 notes or entries of various lengths, which, according to a letter of dedication, he addressed to his brother Tarasius before departing on an Arabian legation. The ‘Library’ discusses 3 86 prose works (even more in some MSS and including many lost works known only through P.) of classical, patristic and early Byzantine authors. It is often accompanied by a literary aesthetic appreciation, in which

187

188

affected style and exaggerated use of archaic language are sometimes sharply criticized. In the variable career of the patriarch the clash with the Roman pope Nicholas I, which led to a split be-

-» Media Atropatene (near modern Laylan on Lake Urmia?), Antony’s [I 9] base in the Parthian campaign in 36 BC; not identical to > Sis.

PHOTIUS

tween the Eastern and Western Churches

(AD 867),

played a not insignificant role. The christianisation of the > Chazars, > Slavs and > Bulgari took place under his auspices. Among the theological works of this outstanding scholar and theoretical founder of the orthodox faith in the post-iconoclastic Period (> Syrian dynasty) are the homilies [3; 4], which are also important for the history of politics and art history, the antiLatin tract Mvotaywylia/Mystagogia about the Holy Spirit [5], and a work against the Manichaean sect of the Paulicians [6]. In the 300 short tracts of the "Augiroy.a/Amphildchia [7], an exegetical work, which P. sent to his pupil and friend Amphilochius, the metropolitan of Cyzicus, c. AD 868, he deals predominantly with questions of a theological and philosophical nature. The 299 letters [7] bear witness to his leading role in ecclesiastical and state matters. His first letter, an encyclical to the Bulgar prince Boris-Michael who had converted to Christianity in AD 865, contains 7.4. an interesting mirror for princes, which links classical-traditional elements with specifically Christian ones. Finally, P.’ contribution to the development of imperial ideology and the propaganda of the > Macedonian dynasty can be traced in various works ofpoetry and art of his period. EDITIONS:

1CuHR. THEODORIDIS,

Photii Patriarchae

Lexicon, 2 vols., 1982-1998 2R. HENRY, Photius Bibliothéque, 8 vols., 1959-1977 (with Fr. transl.) 3 B. LaourDAS, Patiov ‘OwAdtat, 1959 (Homilies) 4 C. Manco, The Homilies of Photius, 1958 (Eng. transl.) 5 PG 102, 279392 6P. LEMERLE et al. (eds.), Les sources grecques pour Phistoire des Pauliciens d’Asie mineure (Travaux et Mémoires 4), 1970, 99-183 7B. Laourpas, L.G. WESTERINK, Photii Patriarchae Constantinopolitani Epi-

1M. Scnotrxy, Media Atropatene und Grof-Armenien in hellenistischer Zeit, 1989, Index s.v.

JW.

Phraataces see > Phraates [5] Phraates (®eactncs; Phradtés). [1] P. I. Son of > Phriapatius, Parthian king from 176 BC. In about 171 BC, P. defeated the - Amardi and deported them to Charax near the Caspian Gates (Isidorus of Charax 7). He died soon afterwards, after having appointed his brother > Mithridates [12] I as his successor (Just. Epit. 41,5,9-10). M. Scuortrky, Media Atropatene und Grofs-Armenia, 1989, Index s.v. P.

[2] P. I. Nephew of P. [1], son of > Mithridates [12] I, Parthian king from 139/8 BC. The campaign of Antiochus [9] VII in 130 BC to conquer back lost territories of the Seleucid kingdom was directed against him. P. destroyed Antiochus in 129 and eliminated the Seleucids as a power in Iran (Just. Epit. 38,10). The Scythian hordes recruited to ward off the Seleucids arrived too late to provide assistance. When P. therefore refused them their agreed pay, they laid waste to his kingdom. He fell in the battle against them in c. 127 (Just. Epit. 42, 0)s Tu. FiscHER, Untersuchungen

zum

Partherkrieg Anti-

ochos’ VII., thesis, Munich 1970; M. SCHOTTKY, Quellen

zur Geschichte von Media Atropatene und Hyrkanien in parthischer Zeit, in: J. WIESEHOFER (ed.), Das Partherreich und seine Zeugnisse, 1998, 43 5-472, esp. 440; 462f.

Chronological Progression with an Index to the Author

[3] P. Tf. Son of Sinatruces (> Sanatruces), Parthian king from 71/70 BC. In the conflict between Pontus/ Armenia and Rome, he initially remained neutral (Sall. Hist. fr. 4,69 Maurenbrecher) and did not become an active party until the Armenian prince > Tigranes rose against his father Tigranes I: P. took him into his court and married him to his daughter. For his benefit, P. invaded Armenia in 66, but was only able to occupy the border territory of > Gordyaea. After his troops were also expelled there by the Romans, the Armenian-Parthian border skirmishes were settled by a conciliation committee appointed by Pompey [I 3] in 64: Gordyaea with > Nisibis was awarded to > Armenia, whilst > Adiabene was granted to P. (Cass. Dio 37,5-7; Plut. Pompeius 36; 39; App. Mithr. 106). Around 57 BC, P. was murdered by his sons Orodes [2] Il and Mithridates

(Exxaynoia

[14] Ill (Cass. Dio 39,56).

stulae et Amphilochia, 4 vols., 1983-1988. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

8 A. KAZHDAN s.y. P., ODB 3, 1660f.

9 F. TINNEFELD, s.v. P., LMA 6, 2109f. 10J. A. G. HERGENROTHER, Photius, Patriarch von Constantinopel, 3 vols.,

1867-1869

11 P. LEMERLE, Le premier humanisme

byzantin, 1971, 37-42, 177-204 12 F. Dvornik, Photian and Byzantine Ecclesiastical Studies, 1974 13 T. HAG, Photius als Vermittler antiker Literatur, 1975 14 W.T. TREADGOLD, The Nature of the Bibliotheca of Photius, 1980 15D.S. Wnirer, Patriarch P. of Constantinople, 1981 16K. TSANTSANOGLOU, New Fragments of Greek

Literature from the Lexicon of Photius,

1984

SCHAMP, Photius, Historien des lettres, 1987 GAS,

Towards xai

a Complete Ogohoyia

Bibliographia 10),

17].

18 G. DRaPhotiana,

1989-1991,

in

531-669

19 N. G. Witson, Scholars of Byzantium, *1996 ('1983, 93-111).

Taye

Phraaspa (®odaona/Phrdaspa: Steph. Byz.; Pedata/ Phraata: Plut. Antonius 38,2; edaona/Prdaspa: Cass. Dio 49, 25,3; identical to Ovéea/Ouéra = Vera: Str. 11,13,3). Probably a citadel in the city of Gaza(ka) in

P. ARNAUD,

Les guerres parthiques de Gabinius et de

Crassus et la politique occidentale des Parthes Arsacides entre 70 et §3 av. J.-C., in: D. Daprowa, Ancient Iran and the Mediterranean World (Electrum 2), 1998, 13-43; M. ScuoTrky, Gibt es Miinzen atropatenischer Kénige?, in:

AMI 23, 1990, 211-227, esp. 223.

189

190

[4] P. IV. Grandson of P. [3], who came to power in 38 BC through the abdication of his father Orodes [2] II.

Phradasmanes (®eadaopndavyc; Phradasmdnés). Son of

He began his reign with the murder of his 29 brothers,

his son and his father (according to Just. Epit. 42,4,16—5,2). In the alliance with Artavasdes [6] Il of Atropatene in 36, he survived the > Parthian War of M. Antonius

PHRATAPHERNES

Phrataphernes, satrap of Parthia and Hyrcania. P. and his brothers were accepted into a Macedonian-Iranian cavalry unit in Susa in 324 BC (Arr. Anab. 7,6,4f.). A.B. Boswortn,

Alexander and the Iranians, in: JHS

T00, 1980, I-21, esp. 13.

P.HO.

[1 9], who failed because of the siege of the northern

Median residential city of -» Phraaspa and_ only brought about an orderly retreat with difficulty (Plut. Antonius 37-50; Cass. Dio 49,23-31). More dangerous for P. proved the usurpation of > Tiridates (from 32/1 BC), from which he fled to Scythia. Supported by Scythian auxiliary troops, P. returned and held his position until 25 (Just. Epit. 42,5,4-6; Isidorus of Charax nm):

In 20 BC, peace was made with Rome: P. handed

back the battle standards that he had taken as booty as well as the surviving prisoners from the campaigns of Licinius [I rr] Crassus and Antony, and recognized Roman supremacy in > Armenia (R. Gest. div. Aug. 29; Just. Epit. 42,5,11; Vell. Pat. 2,91; Suet. Aug. 21,3;

Suet. Tib. 9,1; Cass. Dio 54,8,1-3). The Italian slave Musa, whom P. was given as a gift by Augustus on this occasion, came to have great influence over the king in the years that followed: on the occasion of the birth of a son, she was elevated to the position of royal wife, and four sons of other wives, already adults, were expelled at her instigation in 10 BC to the Roman Empire (according to R. Gest. div. Aug. 32; Tac. Ann. 2,1). This cleared the path for Musa and her son who ridded themselves of P. around 2 BC (Jos. Ant. Iud. 18,2,4). PIR* P 395 (with stemma p. 157). H. BENGTsoN, Zum Partherfeldzug des Antonius, 1974; J. R. SEAGER, The Return of the Standards in 20 B.C., in: Liverpool Classical Monthly 2, 1977, 201f.; D. Time, Zur augusteischen Partherpolitik zwischen 30 und 20 v.Chr., in: WJA N.F. 1, 1975, 15 5-169.

[5] P. V. (in literary sources called Phra(a)takés, ‘Little P.’). Son of P. [4] and Musa. A conflict with Rome threatening to arise around the time of Christ with regard to the question of supremacy over Armenia was cleared up at a meeting between the king and Augustus’ grandson Gaius + Julius [il 32] (chi Cass.» Dio 55,10,20f.; §5,10a,3f.; Vell. Pat. 2,roof.). The reasons for P. marrying his mother, Musa, were certainly political and religious, but this ultimately appears to have unsettled his position: between AD 2 and 4 he had to flee to Roman territory, where he soon died (R. Gest. div. Aug. 32; Jos. Ant. Iud. 18,2,4). PIR* P 394. — Parthia; > Parthians; > Parthian Wars On P. [r]-[5]: M. ScHorrky, Parther, Meder und Hyrkanier, in: AMI 24, 1991, 61-134; esp. 61-63; 97-99; 109; stemmata I-III; V; VII; J. Woxsk1, L’empire des Arsacides, 1993; K.H. ZG er, Die Beziehungen zwischen Rom und dem Partherreich, 1964. M.SCH.

Phradmon (®oed5puwv; Phrddmon). Bronze sculptor from Argos. Plinius (HN 34,49) gives 420-417 BC as his prime. P. is known primarily for his participation in the competition over the statues of Amazons in Ephesus, among the copies of which the ‘Doria Panfili’ type (Rome, Galleria Doria Panfili) are attributed without

adequate reason to him. Victors’ statues by P. were to be seen in Olympia (according to Pausanias 6,8,1), and in Delphi (according to a restored inscription). An inscription in Ostia names P. as the creator of a statue of the Delphic Pythia Charite. A bronze group of 12 cows in Iton (Anth. Gr. 9,743) must be by a later sculptor of the same name if the historical event connected with it is to be dated to 356 BC, as is supposed. OVERBECK, No. 489, 946, 1016-1018; L. GUERRINI, S.v.

P., EAA 6, 1965, 139; J. MARcADgE, Recueil des signatures de sculpteurs grecs, vol. 1, 1953, 87-88; F. ZEvI, Tre iscrizioni con firme di artisti greci, in: RPAA 42, 1969-70, 95-116; B. S. RIDGway, A Story of Five Amazons, in: AJA 78, 1974, I-17.

Phraortes

R.N.

(®Qadetns¢/Phraortés, Old Persian Fravar-

tis).

[1] According to Hdt. 1,96, father of the Median king + Deioces. [2] Son of > Deioces, who, according to Hdt. 1,102, reigned for 22 years, subjugated the Persians and fell in JW. battle against the Assyrians. [3] Median rebel against > Darius [1] I, mentioned in the > Bisutin inscription [r. DB II 13ff., 64ff., DBe] and depicted on the relief there [rst panel 33a]. He passed himself off as XSa@rita of the family of Uvaxstra(+ Cyaxares [1]). P. was defeated on 8 May 521 BC at Kund(u)rus in > Media by Darius, then apprehended in Raga, mutilated and executed with his closest followers. 1R. Scumirt, The Bisitun Inscriptions of Darius the Great. Old Persian Text, r991, Index s.v. P.

JW.

Phrataphernes (®eQatadpéovys/Phrataphérnés). Satrap of the territories of > Parthia and > Hyrcania under + Darius [3] III (Arr. Anab. 3,23,4); he commanded the Parthians, Hyrcanians and Topeirians in the battle of + Gaugamela in 331 BC (ibidem 3,8,4). After the death of Darius he was reinstated in his old post by > Alexander [4] the Great (ibidem 3,28,2; 5,20,7; Curt. 8,3,17) and became one of the most loyal followers of the Macedonian. He took part in the suppression of the rebellion in > Areia [1] (tbidem 3,28,2; 4,18,1), arrested the insurgent > Autophradates [2](ibidem 4,18,2;

PHRATAPHERNES

Curt. 8,3,17) and brought the Thracians who had been left in his satrapy (ibidem 5,20,7) to Alexander in India. Alexander honoured P. by admitting his sons > Phradasmanes and Sisines into the dgéma (‘guard’) of the Companion cavalry (ibidem 7,6,4; — hetairoi). P. remained in possession of his satrapy beyond the death of Alexander (until c. 321 BC?) (Diod. Sic. 18,3,3 et alia). BERVE, vol. 2, no. 814, 400f.

JW.

Phratria (@Qateia/phratria, ‘brotherhood’). A. ORIGIN AND DEFINITION

B. Duties

C. ORGANIZATION AND SPREAD Each phratria was led by an annually appointed phratriarchos. The decisions of the phratria were recognized by the polis (Solon fr. 76 a RUSCHENBUSCH). Géné (— relationship), > orgednes and thiasoi (see -» Societies) were sub-groups of phratries. Demographic changes may have led to merging or splitting up of phratries or sub-groups. There is evidence of phratries in many Greek cities in the motherland, in Asia Minor, southern Italy, Sicily and in Hellenistic Egypt [1; 2]. — Curiae; — Hetaeriae

C. Or-

GANIZATION AND SPREAD

A. ORIGIN AND DEFINITION In older research the Greek phratries were thought to be associations of kin dating from the migration period (> Doric migration > Colonisation II). According to more recent research they supposedly derive from neighbourly organizations, which first took on increasing significance in the Archaic period (after the 8th cent. BC). Yet the fact that the term phrater already no longer means ‘natural brother’ in the epics of the 8th cent. BC suggests that phratries as fictional associations of related people go back much further. In the epics the phratries are important institutions of social integration, to which recourse was had in ordering the army (Hom. Il. 9,63; 2,362f.). In Athens, at least from the time of > Draco [2], ten selected members of a phratria decided about a reconciliation in the event of an unintentional killing, if there were no immediate relatives (IG P 104,16-19). The equation of phratries with trittyes (— trittyes) as sub-divisions of the ancient phylai (+ phylé [x]) as found in the (pseudo-)Aristotelian work Athenaion politeia (fr. 3) is a late theory. > Cleisthenes’ [2] reform of the phylai (see also > Attica with map) had no effect on the phratries ({Aristot.] Ath. Pol.

1 J. SEYFARTH, Frétra und fratria im nachklassischen Griechentum, in: Aegyptus 35, 1955, 3-38 2M. GuaRDUCCI, L’istituzione della fratria nella Grecia antica e nelle colonie greche d'Italia, in: RAL 6, Ser. 6, 1937, 5-101; 8,

1938, 65-135. Cu. W. Heprick, The Decrees of Demotionidai, 1990; Id., The Attic Phratry, 1984; S. D. LamBert, The Phra-

tries of Attica, *1999; K.-W. WeLwel, Athen, 1992, 116r19. WS.

Phrearrhii (Poeceeuoi; Phredrrhioi). Large Attic Paralia deme of the Leontis phyle, with nine (ten) bouleutai. The name is not derived from oéag/phréar, ‘well, shaft’, rather it is pre-Greek [1. 745°*]. The find of a cult calendar secures its location to the north of the southern Attic Olympus [2] at modern Pheriza. In the east and south P. bordered on > Anaphlystus [1. 74f.; 2]. Quarries in P.: [x. 785°8]. + Themistocles was from P. 1 H. LouMann, Atene, 1993, Index s.v. P. 2 E. VANDERPOOL, A lex sacra of the Attic Deme P., in: Hesperia 39, 1979, 47-§3-

TRAILL, Attica, 45, 62, 67, HEAD, Index s.v. P.

112 No. 113 Tab. 4; WHITEH.LO.

Phriapatius. The third Parthian king and the first to take the name Arsdkés as an epithet (Arsaces III). He

O51. 6)

B. DuTIES

In Athens one of the essential duties of the phratria was attending to the cult of the phratria gods, especially Zeus Phratrios and Athena Phratria. A second important function was recognition of legitimate descent. At the main phratria festival, the > Apaturia, the children of phratria members were introduced into the phratria. By oath and sacrifice the father or guardian testified that the child was the product of a legitimate marriage to an Athenian woman. After voting among the members of the phratria, sons, adopted sons and daughters who were legal heirs were entered in the phratria register. On reaching adulthood, a young man made a sacrifice of hair and on marriage the bridegroom (in the case of an — epikléros the father) made a bridal sacrifice (gamélia). Irrespective of the role of the démoi (+ démos [2]), membership of a phratria was required for access to citizenship.

192

191

WS.

reigned c. 191-176 BC. He was the father of the Parthian kings Phraates [1] I, Mithridates [x2] I and Artabanus [4] I and therefore the progenitor of all later Arsacids (> Arsaces; Just. Epit. 41,5,8—9; Nisa ostra-

kon 1760). — Parthia; > Parthians M. Scuorrxy, Parther, Meder und Hyrkanier, in: AMI 24, 1991, 61-134, esp. 95-98; J. Woxsx1, L’empire des

Arsacides, 1993, 58-65.

M.SCH.

Phrixa (®gi€a/Phrixa). Settlement in western Arcadia

or south-eastern Elis or Triphylia (Xen. Hell. 3,2,30), east of — Pisatis on the left bank of the > Alpheius [1], where the Leucyanias flows into it from the north (Hdt. 4,148,4: Oeigav/Phrixai; Paus. 6,21,5f.; Str. 8,3,12; Steph. Byz. s.v. Méxtotos). It stood on a prominent hill

(305 m; modern Paliophanaro) at what today is once more known as Phrixa, 9 km east of > Olympia. P. later adopted the name Phaestus, probably also

193

194

> Phaesana (Steph. Byz. s.v. Paotdc). Even by the time

Phrontis (®edvtc; Phrontis). [1] Son of + Phrixus and > Aeetes’ daughter > Chalciope [2], brother of — Argos [I 2], > Melas [2] and > Cytissorus (Hes. Cat. 255; Apollod. 1,83). On Phrixus’ death the sons return to Hellas (Apollod. 1,120; Apoll. Rhod. 2,114 1ff.) or remain in Colchis (Val. FI. 5,460ff.). Only in Apoll. Rhod. 4,70ff. does Ph. play a role, when -» Medea calls to him as the youngest of Phrixus’ sons to help her escape and he responds. [2] Son of Onetor, helmsman of + Menelaus [1]; he dies at Sunium on the journey home from Troy and is buried (Hom. Od. 3,278ff.). According to Paus. 10,25,2f., -» Polygnotus [1] had portrayed Ph. on the painting of the Iliupersis in the > Lesche of the Cnidians at Delphi. P.D. [3] Wife of the Trojan > Panthus, mother of Hyperenor, ~ Euphorbus and — Polydamas [1] (Hom. Il.

of Pausanias (2nd cent. AD), the site was abandoned

except for the temple of Athena Kydonia and her cult. MULLER, 832; PRITCHETT 6, 1989, 70f.

E.O.

Phrixus (®gQiEo¢/Phrixos, Lat. Phrixus). Son of ~ Athamas and -» Nephele [1], brother of > Helle. When Athamas, incited by his second wife Ino (> Leucothea), intends to sacrifice P. to Zeus on the basis of an oracle falsified by her, he flees with Helle on a ram with

a golden coat sent by Nephele. Helle drowns; P, after his arrival in > Aea (Colchis), sacrifices the ram to Zeus Phyxios and gives the fleece to -» Aeetes who hangs it up in the grove of Ares (as a guarantee of his rule: Diod. Sic. 4,47,6; Val. Fl. 5,224ff.). P. marries > Chalciope [2] (or + lophossa: Pherecydes FGrH 3 F 25) and fathers by her his sons > Argos [I 2], > Melas [2], ~ Phrontis [1] and > Cytissorus (as well as Presbon:

Epimenides FGrH 457 F 12; see as a whole Apollod. 1,80ff.). When P. dies (murder: Hyg. Fab. 3,3; tomb: Val. Fl. 5,184ff.), his sons return to Hellas (Herodorus FGrH 31 F 47; Apollod. 1,120; Apoll. Rhod. 2,114 rff.; return of P.: Hes. Cat. 254). According to a myth invented at a later time, P. in accordance with Colchian custom (Apoll. Rhod. 3,200ff.) has a fur burial so that his soul passes into the Golden Fleece (Pind. P. 4,159ff.; Apoll. Rhod. 3,374). > Pelias dispatches > Jason [1] and the > Argonauts in order to calm the fury of Zeus towards the > Aeolidae provoked by the fur burial of the Greek P. (Apoll. Rhod. 2,11926f.; 3,33 6ff. [1. 205ff., 315ff.]). This is based on a religious and legal custom of — Halus, according to which the oldest male of the clan had to be sacrificed to Zeus Laphystios to purify the country (in Pherecydes FGrH 3 F 98, P. offers himself). However, Cytissorus prevents the sacrifice of his grandfather Athamas (Hdt. 7,197 [2. 246f.; 1. 312ff.]). With regard to P. in art, see

[3. 768f.; 4]. 1 P. DRAGER, Argo pasimelousa, 1993

MOWITZ-MOELLENDORFF, 2, 1924, repr. 1962

2 U. VON WILa-

Hellenistische Dichtung, vol.

3K. KEYSSNER, S.v. P., RE 20, 763-

769 4 PH. BRUNEAU, s.v. P. et Helle, LIMC 7.1, 398-404.

P.D. Phronesis see > Prudence

Phronime (®ooviwn; Phronimé). Daughter of Etearchus, the mythical king of > Oaxus in Crete, and his first wife; mother of > Battus [1], the mythical founder of + Cyrene. Hdt. 4,154f. tells her story evidently according to a Cyrenian source: on the basis of a slander by his second wife, Etearchus hands his daughter over to the merchant Themison to be drowned. He does throw her into water in accordance with his promise, but pulls her out again. In Thera Polymnestus takes her as a concubine and fathers Battus with her. W. Ary, Volksmarchen, Sage und Novelle bei Herodot und seinen Zeitgenossen, 71969, 137f.

ke

PHRYGES,

PHRYGIA

17,40).

K. ZIEGLER, s.v. Ph., RE 20, 771f.

P.D.

Phrourarchos (deo0veaeyoc/phrourarchos). ‘Commander’ (archos) of a ‘guard’ (phrourd), commander of

a garrison or fortress. In the > Delian League the office involved performing both military and political functions. For example, after their intervention in Erythrae [2] in about 453/2 BC, the Athenians commissioned their phrourarchos and their > episkopos [x] there to supervise the appointment of a new council. The phrourarchos was to perform this duty every year from then on in cooperation with the local council that was stepping down (IG P 14). The term is also used as the Greek equivalent for Persian ‘officers’ (Xen. An. Te,Or Xena Cyne 5s35L030 7555545105150) meblaton( Piles.

76ob-e) in drafting the ideal state uses the term for the ‘supervisors’ of the citizens. Under Alexander [4] the Great and the > Diadochi, phrourarchos refers to royal military commanders. In Egypt they also had police and judicial authorities from the 2nd cent. BC (Pap. Tebtunis 6,13; OGIS 111,16).

K-W.W.

Phryges, Phrygia (®ovyec/Phryges, Devyia/Phrygia). An Indo-European people who emigrated from ~ Thracia, and an area on the Anatolian plateau in central Anatolia. Previously, scholars believed that the P. were identical with the Muski known from cuneiform sources, and that the Muski king Mita attested for the 8th cent. BC was identical with the Phrygian king + Midas -—on the assumption that the P. initially moved eastwards from Anatolia via the Euphrates [2] before they were stopped by Tiglath-Pileser 1 (1116-1078). Today, it seems advisable to date the immigration of the P. to the 9th cent. BC (earliest archaeological sources), when a Phrygian kingdom was forming around > Gordium on the Sangarius (> Asia Minor III D). Inscriptions (attestations of the Old Phrygian language, c. 250 texts, only partly deciphered, use of Greek and Semitic characters) and ceramics make it clear that in the 8th/7th cents., the area of Phrygian settlement surpas-

PHRYGES, PHRYGIA

195

sed by far the Phrygia of the ancient geographers (Strabo, Ptolemaeus, Pliny [1] the Elder, Hierocles [8]). Phrygian settlements ranged from Dascylium in the west to Tyana in Cappadocia. The kingdom around Gordium comprised Asia Minor from the springs of the Maeander |2], possibly even from the coast of Aegean Sea, i.e. including Lydia up to the upper Halys. There is clear evidence that P. kept worldwide diplomatic and trading relationships, e. g. with —> Assur [1] and + Urartu in the east and — Delphi (Hdt. 1,14) in the west. At the beginning of the 7th cent. BC, this kingdom was overrun by the > Cimmerii (Str. 1,3,21); Phrygian principalities superseded the central state and soon became dependent upon neighbouring powers. The term Phrygia, which had been of mostly political significance, has since then been used only in geographical and administrative contexts. Even without a state of their own, the P. maintained their culture, including their religion (grave tumuli; cliff tombs; temple states; mystical worship of > Cybele/Magna Mater with > Attis in the temple state of ~ Pessinus; worship of > Men and > Sabazius), economy (animal husbandry, wool production), art (architecture; bronze work, woodwork, ivory work; furniture with inlays; music) and language (about 110 Neo-

Phrygian texts) under the > Mermnadae after 690, the ~ Achaemenids [2] from 547 (3rd tax district: Hdt. 3,127; at the end of the 5th cent. broken administratively into a northern part, Phrygia Minor, and a southern part, Phrygia Major; the common border ran south of Gordium), in the Alexandrian empire (> Alex-

ander [4]) from 333 and under the > Diadochi Antigonus [1], Lysimachus [2], the > Seleucids, the Attalids (> Attalus, with stemma), the Mithridatids (> Mithridates) and the Ariarathids, and in 116 BC in the Roman province of > Asia [2]. In the west the Mysian Olympus [13] and Cibyratis, in the south-east Lake Karalis and Lake Tatta and in the north-east the line from Lake Tatta to the upper reaches of the Sangarius towards ~ Galatia formed the geographical limits of Phrygia at that time. The P. also asserted their cultural identity against foreign influences such as the numerous Macedonian settlers who had come to the country with Alexander the Great and the Diadochi, or against the Galatians (> Celts II B), who in 278 BC had crossed from Thracia to Asia Minor and who after their defeat in the battle against Antiochos [2] I in about 269/8 BC settled in the northern Anatolian region of Phrygia (‘Galatia’) between Sangarios and Halys; similarly when Antiochus [5] II deported 2000 Jewish families to Phrygia (Jos. Ant. Iud. 12,3,4; Acts 2,10). From the middle of the 3rd cent. AD, the Roman province of Asia with its Phrygian area was divided up several times. After the territorial reform under > Diocletian, the provinces of Pamphylia I (Pacatiana in the west) and II (Salutaria in the east) came into being (cf. ~ Asia Minor, with maps ‘Development of provinces in Asia Minor’). On several occasions in the 4th/5th cent.,

196

the court in Constantinople settled Goths in Phrygia (Gotthogratkoi). Under Heracleius [7], the areas of Phrygian settlement belonged to the themes of Anatolikon and Thrakesion. After 1204 Phrygia came under the rule of the Seljuks. ~ Asia Minor III (with maps); > Phrygian; > Tumulus ANNUAL

REPORTS: AJA; AS; Kazi Sonucglari Toplantisi

(on various archaeological sites and topics). BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. AKuRGAL, Die Kunst Anatoliens von Homer bis Alexander, 1961; K. BartTL, Zentralanatoli-

sche Stadtanlagen von der Spatbronzezeit bis zur mittleren Eisenzeit (1. Internationales Colloquium der DOG, Mai 1996 Halle/Saale), 1997, 267-288; BELKE/MERSICH; O. BINGOL, Malerei und Mosaik der Antike in der Tirkei, 1997; K. Birret, Grundziige der Vor- und Friihgeschichte Kleinasiens, *1950; Id., Kleinasiatische Studien, 1942; R. M. BoeHmer, Die Kleinfunde von Bogazkéy aus den Grabungskampagnen 1931-1939, 1952-1969 (WVDOG 87), 1972; E. M. Bossert, Die Keramik phrygischer Zeit

von Bogazkoy, 2000; C. BRIxHE, M. LEJEUNE, Corpus des Inscriptions Paléophrygiennes, 1984; E. CaNER, Fibeln in Anatolien, vol. 1, 1983; A. CILINGIROGLU, D. H. FRENCH (ed.), Anatolian Iron Ages (Proc. of the Third Anatolian Iron Ages Coll., Van 1990), 1994; TH. DREw-BEAR, Local Cults in Graeco-Roman Phrygia, in: GRBS 17, 1976, 247-

268; Id., C. Naour, Divinités de Phrygie, in: ANRW II 18.3, 1976, 1907-2044; R. Drews, Myths of Midas and the Phrygian Migration from Europe, in: Klio 75, 1993, 9-26; K. Emre et al. (ed.), Anatolia and the Ancient Near

East. Festschrift T. Ozgiic, 1989, 333-344; C. H. E. HasPELS, The Highlands of Phrygia, 2 vols., 1971; F. Igik, Zur Entstehung phrygischer Felsdenkmaler, in: AS 37, 1987, 163-178; Id., Zur Entstehung der tonernen Verkleidungsplatten in Anatolien, in: AS 41, 1991, 63-86; G. B. LANFRANCHI, Dinastie e tradizioni regie d’Anatolia ..., in: A. ALoNI, L. DE Finis (ed.), Dell’Indo a Thule: Greci, Romani, gli altri, 1996; MITCHELL; O. W. MUSCARELLA,

The Iron Age Background to the Formation of the Phrygian State, in: BASO

299/300, 1995, 91-101; Id., Phry-

gian Fibulae from Gordion, 1967; F. NAUMANN, Die Iko-

nographie der Kybele in der phrygischen und griechischen Kunst (28th suppl. MDAI [Ist]), 1983; F. PRayon, Phrygische Plastik, 1987; Id., A.-M. Witrke, Kleinasien vom

12. bis 6. Jh. v. Chr. (TAVO suppl. 82), 1994; W. RAMSAY, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, 2 vols, 1895-1897; M. Salvini (ed.), Frigi e Frigio. Atti del 1. Simposio Internazionale (16/17 ott. 1995), 1997; G. K. Sams, The Phrygian

Painted Pottery of Early Iron Age Gordion and its Anatolian Setting, diss. 1971; M. WAELKENS, Die kleinasiatischen Tirsteine,

1984; A.-M. Wirrke

Mittelmeerraum

und Mesopotamien

TAVO BIV 8, 1993.

et al., Ostlicher

um

700 v. Chr., E.O. and A.W.

Phrygian. The language the Phrygians ( Phryges), brought with them from their prehistoric territories in the southern Balkans to their historical region of settlement in central Anatolia. It is only fragmentarily attested. The main sources are inscriptions, some glosses and also anthroponyms and toponyms. Nothing survives of the records of the Phrygian language collected in the Hellenistic period by - Cleitarchus [3] of Aegina, ~» Neoptolemus [9] of Parium and > Thoas of Ithaca.

197

198

Two stages of development are attested: 1) Old Phrygian (or Paleo-Phrygian), known from some 250 inscriptions written in an alphabet closely related to the Greek (transliteration into Latin script), including some fairly substantial stone and rock inscriptions, from the 2nd half of the 8th cent. to the end of the 3rd cent. BC, primarily from the pre-Achaemenid period; 2) Late Phrygian (or Neo-Phrygian), known from over 100 inscriptions in the Greek alphabet, esp. curse formulae at the end of Greek inscriptions, from the rst to the 3rd cents. AD. Interpretation, esp. of Old Phrygian, presents considerable problems, and scholars continue to depend mostly on the etymological method. Phrygian forms an independent branch of the > Indo-European languages. It does not belong to the branch of the > Anatolian languages. It does, however, exhibit a close relationship to > Greek. Innovations shared only by Phrygian and Greek demonstrate early proximity between the two languages (inherited ono-

Phryne (®ebvn; Phryne). Born before 371% BC in ~ Thespiae, best known > hetaera of the 4th cent. BC, celebrated for her quick wit (Ath. 13,585e-f) and the natural beauty of her face (Gal. protrepticus ro); she was quite reticent in showing off her body [2. 157f.]. The numerous anecdotes about her come partly from the biographical tradition regarding her prominent lovers + Hypereides and > Praxiteles; there was also a piece of writing (or a speech) by Aristogeiton about her specifically (all sources, especially Ath. 13,590d-s9rf, in [4]). The prices for her favour passed down to us (between two golden staters and roo drachmas, Ath. 13,583b-c) reduce the specific gift exchange economy of the hetaerae to a clear fee [2. 132ff.]. P.’s (undoubted) wealth is reflected in her supposed offer to rebuild Thebes if they would erect the inscription ‘Alexander destroyed it, but P. the hetaera rebuilt it’ (Ath. 13,591d; we can possibly conclude from this that she was still alive after 335 BC). The motif of the rich hetaera as a building patroness was not unique (Hadt. 2,13 4,1f.). P. is said to have been the model for the so-called + CNIDIAN APHRODITE by > Praxiteles and other sculptures as well as for the painting of Aphrodite Anadyomene by > Apelles [4] (Ath. 13,590f-591a); a gilded statue by Praxiteles based on a copy of P. that stood in Delphi between the statues of kings — Philip [4] Il and > Archidamus [2] created a huge sensation. In Athens, P. was charged of > asébeia after 350 for Dionysian revelries in the Lyceum, for the introduction of a cult for Isodaetes (‘the one who apportions equally’; see > Pluto) and for holding orgiastic processions of men and women. The presence and actions of this independent woman could be seen as a transgression and a threat to the socio-political order [5]. Hypereides, through his much-praised but not extant oration, had her acquitted [3. 67-70]. The anecdote that he attained this goal by dramaticically baring P.’s breasts is probably not historically correct [1]; it did however no damage to her influence (painting ’Phryne Before the Judges’ by J.L. Géréme, 1861).

man/ovouay, ‘name’: Ionic-Attic dvoua, as opposed to Doric dvuuc; inherited or borrowed from Greek dat.

sing. lavagtaei vanaktei, ‘to the leader [and] king’: Mycenaean ra-wa-ke-ta/Greek hayétac; Mycenaean wa-na-ka/Greek FavaE > tvaE).

Characteristics of Phrygian include: a) the preservation of the Indo-European palatal stops (place name *Axuovia: *akmon-, ‘stone’: Old Indo-Iranian dsman-, ‘stone’: — gutturals); b) the delabialisation of IndoEuropean > labiovelars (xe, ‘and’, Latin -que, Greek

te); c) remnants of paradigmatic ablaut (nom./acc. sing. matar/materan, ‘mother’: Greek whto/untéoa); d) the presence of the augment (3rd sing. pret. edaes/edaec, ‘he made’: Greek &-0n-x-e); e) the formation of the perfect passive participle (tetuxuevoc, approx. ‘condemned’, like Greek mequyuévos); f) the relative pronoun (ios/toc: Greek 6c, Old Indo-Iranian yds).

The languages neighbouring on Phrygian (e.g. Thracian in the southern Balkans, Galatian in Central Ana-

tolia) have left no apparent traces in the Phrygian language sources remaining to us. From the Hellenistic period, the impact of Greek on Phrygian — which by then was already largely restricted in its usage to the sphere of everyday life —- was a lasting one. The last reference to it as a living language comes from the Patristic literature of the early 5th cent. AD (Socr. 5,23 in PG 67, 648A). It is not known when it died out. Asia Minor V. Languages (map); > Asia Minor VI. Alphabetic scripts C. BrixHE, M. LeyEUNE, Corpus des inscriptions paléo-

PHRYNICHUS

> woman; — hetaerae; > prostitution; > sexuality

1 C. Cooper, Hyperides and the Trial of P., in: Phoenix 49, 1995, 303-318

2 J. Davipson, Kurtisanen und Mee-

resfriichte, 1999 3 J. ENGELS, Studien zur politischen Biographie des Hypereides (Quellen und Forschungen zur antiken Welt 2),*1993

4 A. RAUBITSCHEK, s.v. P., RE 20,

893-907. 5K. TRAMPEDACH, Gefahrliche Frauen. Zu athenischen Asebie-Prozessen im 4. Jh.v.Chr., in: S. SCHMIDT, R. VON DEN Horr (ed.), Konstruktionen von Wirklichkeit, 2001. U.WAL.

phrygiennes, 1984; C. BrixHe, Prolegoménes au corpus neo-phrygien, in: BSL 94/1, 1999, 285-3153 Id., Le Phrygien, in: F. BADER (ed.), Langues indo-européennes, 1994,

165-178; G. NEUMANN, Phrygisch und Griechisch, 1988; L. Zcusta,

Kleinasiatische

Personsnamen,

Kleinasiatische Ortsnamen, 1984.

Phrygian cap see > Headgear; > Tiara

1964;

Id.,

CH.

Phrynichus (®ebviyos/Phrynichos). [1] P. from Athens. Tragedian. According to Suda o 762 (IrGF I 3 T 1) he achieved his first victory in 511/508 BC and died on Sicily (T 6). He is said to have been the first person to bring female roles to the stage and to have ‘invented’ the trochaic tetrameter (T 1), which probably means that he introduced the metre into the tragic genre. He was famous on account of the quality

PHRYNICHUS

199

(‘sweetness’) of his sung parts (Aristoph. Vesp. 219), whose length exceeded that of the spoken parts by far (T 9). Great asclepiads (F 6), dactyloepitrites (F 9, 13) and ionics (F 14) are to be found in lyrical metrical forms. Like > Aeschylus [1] he is said to have put a great deal of effort into the artistry of dance in tragedies

(T 15). The Suda names nine titles by P., of which seven are listed (The Women of Pleuron, The Egyptians, Actaeon, Alcestis, Antaeus or The Libyans, The Righteous or The Persians or The Assessors, The Danaids), as well as the two plays addressing contemporary issues, the Capture of Miletus and the Phoenician Women (preserved merely in writers’ quotations). In the Capture of Miletus (Muxitov &dwoc/Miletou hadlosis) Ph. deals with the capture of the town of — Miletus [2] by the Persians during the > Ionian revolt (494 BC). According to Hdt. 6,21,2, the performance shook the Athenians so much that the entire theatre burst into tears; Ph. was fined rooo drachmas, as he had reminded the Athenians of their own misfortunes (> Persian wars). The ban on staging the play further might be aimed at repeat performances in the theatres of the demes. The original performance is likely to have taken place in 492 BC when > Themistocles was archon. In 476 BC Themistocles acted as P.’s ~ chorégos, probably when he staged the Phoenician Women (®owiooaPhoinissai). In the hypothesis to Aeschylus’ [1] Persians, > Glaucus [7] of Rhegion writes that Aeschylus had based his play on P.” Phoenician Women. The starting point of P.’ play was the defeat of the Persian fleet at Salamis, which a eunuch announces to the Persian royal council. A further messenger speech (> messenger scenes) follows in the course of the drama. The elegies of the Phoenician women, whose men served in the Persian fleet, probably formed the main part of the play. P.’ Alcestis served as the model for > Euripides’ [1] play of the same name. Thanatos (Death) in the prologue and Hercules, who fetches Alcestis back from the Underworld, may already have appeared in P.’ work. The Women ofPleuron dealt with the Calydonian Hunt and the death of Meleager (F 6). The Egyptians and Danaids may have been the model for Aeschylus’ Danaid Trilogy. It is possible that both plays appeared on stage in the context of a trilogy. P. might have received the inspiration for this format from Aeschylus. ~ Tragedy B. Gauty

et al. (ed.), Musa

tragica,

1991, 40-49;

A.

Lesky, Die tragische Dichtung der Hellenen, 31972, 5862; H. LLoyp-Jones, Greek Epic, Lyric, and Tragedy, 1990,

230-237.

B.Z.

[2] Attic politician, mentioned for the first time in 422 BC (Aristoph. Vesp. 1302). As a stratégds he achieved a victory at Miletus in the summer of 412 BC, but advised against a siege of the city in view of a newly arrived Spartan fleet (Thuc. 8,25-27). From the fleet headquarters on Samos he vehemently opposed the return of

200

+ Alcibiades [3]. Through intrigues he was suspected of treason (Thuc. 8,48—51; Plut. Alcibiades 25,6-13) and was dismissed from his post (Thuc. 8,54,3); he then

participated in the overthrow of the Athenian democracy and was one of the leaders in the rule of the 400 (> tetrakosioi; Thuc. 8,68,3; Aristot. Pol. 5,6,1305b 27). In the autumn of 411 BC, after his return from an unsuccessful mission to Sparta, he was murdered in plain sight on the marketplace. In proceedings initiated posthumously by > Critias, Ph. was charged with treason. His fortune was confiscated and his house destroyed. His murderers were publicly honoured [1. 379386]. + Peloponnesian War; > Tetrakosioi 1B. BLECKMANN, Athens Weg in die Niederlage, 1998.

WS.

[3] Writer of Attic Old Comedy. He is said to have made his debut in the same year as > Eupolis (429 BC, [z. test. 2]; but cf. [1. test. r]). In the list of Dionysian winners [1. test. 5] he is three places behind > Aristophanes [3] and two behind Eupolis; he won the Lenaea twice [1. test. 6]; in the Dionysia of 414 BC he came third with the Movoteomos

(Monotropos “The Recluse’) [1. test.

7a]; and in the Lenaea of 405 BC he came second with the Motoa (Motisai ‘The Muses’) [1. test. 7b]. The fragments reveal very little of his total of ten plays [r. test. 1. 3]: in the Kovvoc (Komnos), it seems that > Socrates’ music teacher was the eponymous hero. The Movoteomos of 4144 BC (cf. above) was about a type of character comparable with > Menander’s [4] Dyskolos (cf. fr. 19, *20), and there were attacks on a series of notorious Athenians (fr. 21: Peisandros, Execestides; fr. 22: Meton; fr. 23: Nicias; fr. 27: Syracosius, who had had the mockery in comedy reduced by law). In the Motoat of 405 BC (cf. above), it appears that a writers’ competition (between Sophocles and Euripides?) took place, similarly to that in Aristophanes’ Frogs. 1 PCG VII, 1989, 393-430.

H.-G.NE.

[4] Atticist lexicographer of the most stringent school of thought of the 2nd cent. AD, called Arabios by Photius (Bibl. Cod. 158). According to Suda » 764 s.v. ®. he was of Bithynian origin, a scholarly rival of > Iulius [IV 17] Pollux. The “Exroyh Onudtwv xai dvoudtav ‘Attxav (Selection of Attic words and phrases, 2 books [2. 29-31]) is counted among P.’ works; it is a collection of expressions whose usage, compared with the Attic equivalent, is seen as unacceptable. In the Loprotny Tagaoxevn (Sophistic preparation), which is preserved in the form of an > epitome, P. pursues the aim of analysing and evaluating all the purely Attic expressions according to category and style, and includes examples for the potential orator. P.’ models were Aelius > Dionysius [21] of Halicarnassus, the > Antiatticist and Julius Pollux; his work was frequently excerpted by later lexicographers. ~» Lexicography

201

202

Epirions: 11. pe Borrigs, Phrynichi sophistae Praeparatio sophistica, r911 2 E. FiscHER, Die Ekloge des Phrynichos (SGLG 1), 1974. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

3D. U. Hansen, Das attizistische Lexi-

kon des Moeris (SGLG 9), 1998, 36-40

4G. KarBeL, De

Phrynicho sophista, 1899 5 M. NAEcusTER, De Pollucis et Phrynichi controversiis, 1908 6D. Srrout, R. FRENCH, S.v. P. (8), RE 20.1, 920-925.

ST.MA.

[S] According to the Suda, an Athenian tragedian (qo 765, IrGF I 212), dates unknown, author of plays entitled Andromeda and Erigone, as well as of weapon dances (> Pyrrhiche). BZ.

PHTHIA

1L. Moretti, Olympionikai, 1957. letics in Ancient Athens, *1993

2D. G. Kyiz, Ath3H. W. PLeket, Zur

Soziologie des antiken Sports, in: MededRom, n.s. 36, 1974, 57-87 4D.C. Younc, The Olympic Myth of Greek Amateur Athletics, 1984.

W.D.

[2] Athenian from Rhamnus, one of ten Athenian legates that negotiated the peace treaty of > Philocrates [2] with > Philippus [4] II in 346 BC. P. was known to Philip, because in 348 he had been captured by Macedonian ships and ransomed by Athens, and sent him his infant son (Dem. Or. 19,229-233: hostile; Aeschin. 202.)

Phrynis (®gbvic/Phrynis). Citharist from Mytilene, active 446-416 in Athens; a key figure of the ‘New Music’ of the late sth century BC [5. 12]. Of his works nothing survives. Brought to the cithara (in about 480) by Aristocleides, a descendant of Terpander (schol. Aristoph. Nub. 971), P. was victorious at the Panathenaea in 446 {2. 4off.] and was defeated in about 416 by Timotheus [4. 1332]. By applying freer rhythms (Phot. 320b), altered tuning (Plut. De musica r1r4r1f) and kampai (here: ‘modulations’) [3. 184f., 190] he renewed Terpander’s citharody (Plut. De musica 1133b) and made Timotheus’ innovations possible (Aristot. Metaph. 993b 16; the figure of thought of this ‘inventive discovering’ is still being utilised at the height of scholasticism [6. 103 5f.]). The raising of the number of strings from 7 to 9 was ascribed to him (Plut. Mor. 13,84a), a step capable of having political consequences at state level (cf. Pl. Resp. 424c) and liable for punishment by having the newly added strings removed (cf. the Spartan decree in Boeth. De institutione musica 1,1; Plut. De musica 1144f.); it is possible that a crater by Asteas makes reference to the removal of the strings added by P. [7. 140]. Reprimanded as late as by Aristophanes (Aristoph. Nub. 969-971), in the late 4th century P. was considered the equal of > Terpander (Athen. 14,63 8bc). —> Music (IV.D.) 1D. CampBELL (ed.), Greek Lyric 5, 1993, 62-69 2J. Davison, Notes on the Panathenaea, in: JHS 78, 1958, 23-41 31. Durie, Studies in Musical Terminology in sth Century Literature, in: Eranos 43, 1945,

4 P. Maas,s.v. Timotheus, RE 6A, 1331-1337

176-197

5 L. RIcu-

TER, Die Neue Musik der griechischen Antike, in: Archiv fiir Musikwiss. 25, 1968, 1-18 6 J. RITTER, s.v. Fort-

schritt, in: HWdPh 2, 1972, 1032-1059 Illustrations of Greek Drama, 1971.

7A. TRENDALL, RO.HA.

Phrynon (®gQbvwv; Phryndn). [1] Victor at Olympia. Moretti [1. no. 58] dates his victory (in the > pankration rather than the stadion) [2. 243: A 68] to the 36th Games = 636 BC. According to ancient tradition he died in 607/6 in a duel with ~ Pittacus of Mytilene over the ownership of ~ Sigeum. His activities as an oikistés (founder of a colony) suggests an aristocratic origin ([3. 63], otherwise [4. 160 note 59]).

~» Aeschines [2]; > Demosthenes [2]; > Philocrates [2] DEVELIN, 316-322; M. P. J. DILLon, P. of Rhamnous and the Macedonian Pirates: The Political Significance of Sacred Truces, in: Historia 44, 1995, 250-254; LGPN 2, Siveee (as K.KI.

Phrynus Painter. Attican black-figure vase painter, middle of the 6th cent. BC, named after the potter Phrynus (®etvoc; Phrynos), whose signature is preserved on three — little-master cups. The decoration on one of these cups (London, BM B 424) has become famous as an outstanding example of the art of black-figure painting. It has two small scenes on the lip of the cup which depict the birth of > Athena and > Heracles’ introduction to Mount Olympus in an extremely succinct and at the same time amusingly explicit depiction. Starting with this cup, BEazLey has identified more cup depictions and also the expressive scenes of a man’s amorous courtship of a youth on a belly amphora in Wurzburg (Martin von Wagner Mus. L 269) as the work of the PP, besides at least one amphora of the so-called Botkin class. It is not clear whether two further cups signed by the potter Phrynus are painted by the PP. Also, later ascriptions do not help in understanding the painter’s style more precisely. Attican; BEAZLEY, ABV, 168-170; BEAZLEY, Paralipomena, 70-71; BEAZLEY, Addenda’, 48; J. D. BEAZLEY, The

Development of Attic Black-figure, *1986, 49-50; H. MomMsen, Zwei schwarzfigurigen Amphoren aus Athen, in: AK 32, 1989, 134-137; H. A. G. Briyper, A Band-

Cup by the Phrynos Painter in Amsterdam, in: M. GNADE (Hrsg.), Stips Votiva, Festschrift C.M. Stibbe, 1991, 21-

30.

HM,

Phthia [1] (®0ia/Phthia, &0in/Phthié). The kingdom of + Peleus and > Achilles [1], home of the > Myrmidones (Hom. Il. 1,155; 2,683f.; 762-767; 19,323; Hom.

Od. 11,496), extending over the valley of the > Spercheius and the adjacent north shore of the Thermaios Kolpos (Str. 9,5,8). The Spercheius was regarded as the home river of Achilles (Hom. Il. 23,140-144) and Phthios as the son of Spercheus (schol. Hom. Il. 23,142). The > Dolopians lived ‘in the most remote part of P.’ (Hom. Il. 9,484). The > Aenianes considered themselves to be descendants of the Myrmidons

PHTHIA

204

203

(Scymn. 616f.). Already in Homer, though, the inhabitants of Achaea Phthiotis (the kingdom of > Protesilaus) were called ®0tow/Phthioi (Hom. Il. 2,695-699; 13,693-700). Peleus and > Thetis belonged originally to > Pelium, where Achilles was raised by the centaur + Chiron. Thus, P. must have originally comprised the whole of southern and eastern Thessaly, where the name survived in that of the two landscapes called — Phthiotis, and maybe comprised Thessaly altogether (see Str. 9,5,4-7). Already in antiquity, P. was in many cases wrongly thought of as a town; — Pharsalus claimed to be the Homeric P. (Str. 9,5,6; Steph. Byz. s.v.

Phthonos (0d6voc/phthoénos, Latin invidia). ‘Envy, jealousy’, particularly what was known as phthonos theon, the ‘jealousy of the gods’, which is directed against humans who aspire to transgress the boundaries with the divine (> Hybris); (cf. Hdt. 1,32; 3,40 etc.); as a personification P. appears in Eur. Tro. 768 etc. LK.

E. BERNERT, s.v. Phthia (1) und (2), RE 20, 949-9553J. C. Decourt, La vallée de |’Enipeus en Thessalie, 1992, cf. index; R. Hope Simpson, J. F. LazenBy, The Kingdom of Peleus and Achilles, in: Antiquity 33, 1959, 102-105; E.

Phye (®in; Phyé). Daughter of Socrates from the Paeania deme. As > Peisistratus [4] attempted his second seizure of power in 5 46/5 BC, she was, on acount of her tall stature (c. 1-80 m), dressed with weapons as the goddess Athena and carried on a chariot, as a sign that the goddess was showing him the way (Hdt. 1,60; Aristot. Ath. Pol. 14). This is related in the form of a legend as early as Herodotus. In later versions P. becomes a Thracian garland seller. P. is also given as the name of the wife of > Hipparchus [1] (Cleidemus FGrH 323 F

ViscHER, Homers Katalog der Schiffe, 1997, 654-657.

I5).

Oia).

HE.KR. and E.MEY. [2] (®0ia/Phthia).

Daughter of Alexander

H. Berve, Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen, 1967, 545, 555-

[ro] and

Olympias, the daughter of > Pyrrhus. Her mother married her to Demetrius [3] to obtain his help against the + Aetolians. After this, Demetrius’ wife > Stratonice fled to her brother Antiochus [3], stirring him up against Demetrius. If P. died in 234 BC (so [2. 17] according to Syll.3 485), she might be identical with Chryseis, the mother of Philippos [7] V. 1 J. SErBERT, Historische Beitrage zu dynastischen Verbindungen in hellenistischer Zeit, 1967, 37f. 2 W. W. Tarn, Philippos V and Phthia, in: CQ 18, 1924, 17-23. EB.

B.P.

Phyge (ovyi; phyge). Literally ‘flight’ out of the legal community because of the threat of —> blood feud, which leads to the condition of ‘banishment’. Dracon already intended it for > homicide in Athens (end of 7th cent. BC; IG P 104,11). Later in Greek law it was often tolerated in place of the death sentence (Dem. Or. 23,69) or imposed as a sanction for political crimes, either lifelong (> aeiphygia) or for set periods of time (— apeniautismos), in the case of > ostrakismos for 10

Phthiotis (®0.ttc/Phthidtis). Name of two regions which were not distinguished even in early ancient literature: 1) Thessalian P., the southern part of Thessaly, the area of > Pharsalus (Hellanicus FGrH 4 F 52; Aristot. fr. 497; Str. 9,5,3); 2) Achaea P., bordering on r) to the south and south-east, the area of the > Othrys, the plain of Halmyrus and the northern bank of the Thermaikos Kolpos, including several cities (Scyl. 63; Hdt. TAS Osea 32; ences wEleracleidessGreticusmirmas.;

years; it could be recalled by a popular decision or — aidesis (agreement of penance). In 324 Alexander [4] the Great put an end to the large number of phyge cases in the 4th cent. BC by means of a letter to the Greek poleis which repealed banishment almost completely (Diod. Sic. 18,8) [3]. 1 O. SCHULTHESS, s.v. Phyge, RE 20, 970-979 27TH. C. LOENING, The Reconcilation Agreement of 403/402 B.C. in Athens, 1987 3 IPArk Nr. 5. G.T.

Scymn. 605; Str. 1,2,38; 9,5,13 5,8-11; Pol. 18,20,5;

Ptol. 3,13,46). As a region of > perioikoi, Achaea was originally dependent on Thessaly (Aristot. Pol. 1269b 6; Thuc. 8,3,1), though it was an independent member of the Delphic > amphiktyonia (Aeschin. 2,116; Harp. s.v. Audixtboves; Paus. 10,8,2). After 363 BC, P. split from Thessaly and became allied to Boeotia (Diod. 1755753), but it broke away during the > Lamian War (Diod. Sic. 18,11,1). In the 3rd cent. BC, it joined the Aetolian Confederacy (— Aetolians, with map); in 196

BC, P. was declared free by Rome and incorporated into Thessaly, where the region has since remained (Pol. 18,46(29),53 47(30),7). E. BERNERT, s.v. Phthiois, RE 20, 955-958; PHILIPPSON/ KirsTEN 1, cf index; F. STAHLIN, Das hellenische Thessa-

Phylace (®viaxn; Phylakeé). [1] City, mentioned in Homer and other early verse as well as passages dependent on them, belonging to Achaea > Phthiotis in the Halmyrus plain. P. was the home of ~ Protesilaus; as late as Pind. I.1,83f. P. is mentioned with a sanctuary of Protesilaus. Later P. was evidently absorbed in Thebae Phthiotides (Heraclides fr. 3,3 identifies P. with it), which continued the cultural

and mythological tradition of P. A more precise location at Thebae is not possible. Sources: Hom. Il. 2,695;

13,696; 15,3353 Str. 9,5,85 9,5,14. E. KirsTEN, s.v. Phylake (4), RE 20, 983-987; F. STAHLIN, Das hellenische Thessalien, 1924, 173; E. VissER, Homers Katalog der Schiffe, 1997, cf. Index. HE.KR. and E.MEY.

lien, 1924, 135-144; E. ViscHER, Homers Katalog der Schiffe, 1997, 661-668.

HE.KR.

[2] Town in the border region between Tegea and Sparta, where the > Alpheius [1], the eastern branch of

205

206

the modern Sarandapotamos, rises (Paus. 8,54,1f.), probably therefore to the west of Vurvura between Tegea and Sparta. In Tegea there was a deme called

head, arms and legs or attached to clothing, they were also called in Greek meQuéppata/peri(h)ammata or neotamta/peri(h)apta (Plat. Resp. 426b; cf. Pind. Pyth. 3,526.: peri(h)apton pharmaka); in Latin, ligamenta or ligaturae (Aug. Serm. 4,36; cf. Cato Agr. 160: adligare), ‘tied-on objects’. Here ancient terminology is less specific and more comprehensive than the modern term’s range: the distinction drawn in religious studies following the paradigms of the late r9th cent. between a talisman, an amulet and an apotropaic symbol is too spe-

®viaxetc/Phylakeis (Paus. 8,45,1). 1 PRITCHETT 4, 185f.; PRITCHETT 5, 85-91.

yell

Phylacus (®bAaxoc; Phylakos). [1] Mythical founder and eponym of Phylacia (in Attica), also of > Phylace [1]. Son of Deion(eus) [1] and Diomede, the daughter of -» Xuthus (Apollod. 1,51; 86), father of Iphiclus (Hom. Il. 2,705; 13,698) and ~ Alcimede (Apoll. Rhod. 1,47). P. caused the infertility of his son by threatening him with a knife bloody from castrating rams. After > Melampus [1] heals Iphiclus in the course of his brother > Bias [r]’s battle for Iphiclus’s oxen (as a dowry for > Pero), he receives the

oxen for his brother without a fight (cf. Hom.

Od.

11,287ff., 15, 225ff., where the story is already alluded LK.

to).

[2] Local hero of > Delphi: guardian, whose sanctuary

was in front of that of Athena Pronaia [1. 52 with 48 fig. 4 no. 17/18]. It was to him and Autonous that help was ascribed during the Persian invasion in 480 BC (Hdt. 8,36—-39; Paus. r0,8,4) and during the Celtic attack in 279 BC (Paus. 10,8,7f.; 23,2). 1 J.-F. BOMMELAER,

D. LaRocuHeE, Guide de Delphes: Le

site, I99I.

LK.

Phylakopi (®viaxonr/Phylakopé, modern place name). Site of prehistorical settlement on the steep eastern coast of the island of > Melos, one of the most

important bronze age towns of the Aegean, significant for its obsidian trade. Three phases of settlement have been determined: phase 1 (24th-2z1st cent. BC), an extensive settlement, barely urban, probably destroyed by earthquakes; phase 2 (2000-1600 BC), fortified, to some extent with multistorey buildings, with contacts with > Knossos

(ceramics) and the Greek mainland,

also tablets of > Linear A, destroyed by a catastrophic fire; phase 3 (from 1600 or 1400 BC onwards), strongly fortified (double wall, 6m thick, with casemates), buildings with wall paintings, rectangular road layout; initially under Minoan influence, later Mycenaean (palace, megaron, sanctuary). P. was abandoned in about r1oo BC, probably destroyed by the Dorians (> Dorieis).

~ Aegean Koine (with maps); > Natural catastrophes H. Katetscu, s.v. P., in: LAUFFER, Griechenland, 547f.

(bibliogr.); C. RENFREW, The Archaeology of Cult. The Sanctuary at P., 1985.

AKU.

Phylakterion (gvdaxtihouow/phylaktérion, _ literally ‘means of protection’) refers to a religious formula used to ask for protection (PGM VII 317f.) as well as to an amulet believed to offer safety, Latin amuletum (Char. 1,15; [1]). Since amulets were worn around the neck,

PHYLAKTERION

cific to do justice to ancient circumstances.

Among objects used as amulets were simple or knotted strings [2] and ribbons; plants, animals and even

parts of human limbs; stones, rings and cameos [3-5]; nails, figurines and depictions of gods. Another group included strips, discs (lamellae) or tablets made of papyrus, wood, leather, wax and metal that were inscribed and worn on ribbons or folded into a covering or capsule [6; 7; 16]. Amulets were produced and sold by

specialists (and frequently mass-produced) (Aristoph. Plut. 883-885), but could also be made without any special training and with little effort by individuals for their own needs (Plin. HN 28,27).

Attempts were made to further enhance the effectiveness of a phylakterion through ritual strategies of inscription, by including, for example, numbers, figures, symbols, secret characters (charaktéres) and names, by clustering vowels or placing in a series seemingly meaningless letters, like the so-called Ephésia grammata, or by invoking in writing daimones (~ demons), gods (e.g. Abrasax, Aion, Hecate, Helios, Hermes, Isis, Serapis: [8. 222]) and ‘magical’ names, especially Egyptian or Jewish ones (e.g. Ia6, Jeu, Moses, which also appear regularly in non-Christian and non-Jewish contexts). Written specification of a respective amulet’s application, whether in prose (RGM CXXI), verse (PGM IV 2145-2240), magic spells, incantations or prayers [6. 110-122; 7; 16], offered more precise information on its intended purpose vis-a-vis the divinity addressed. Detailed instructions on the material, preferred locations, times and specifics for the proper manufacture and use of amulets were contained in such sources as the > magical papyri (PGM IV 52-85; VII 186-221;

628-640;

XII 201-210;

XCIV

10-16), as

was information on the complicated ritual sequences for consecrating amulets for use and, in some cases, ‘animating’ them (PGM IV 1596-1715; VII 590; XII

201-269; 270-3 50; [9]). Various magic spells (émmdat/ epoidai; Lat. carmina), recitation of which was thought to enhance an amulet’s effect, were passed around in knowledgeable circles [6. to8-110, 113f.] (> magic). The large number of such instructions and their ritual (over-)precision, coupled with the simultaneously arbitrary nature of the theological explanations that accompanied them, would seem to indicate that beliefs were extremely heterogeneous. Terms like phylakterion, the Greek (pro)baskdnion (Aristoph. fr. 592 HALL-GELDart) and the Latin praebia (Varro, Ling. 7,107; Fest. 276 L.) highlight the ‘pro-

PHYLAKTERION

207

tective’ function of amulets, used either as a means of

prevention or as a remedy (phdrmakon, Latin remedium) in a specific situation: protection against a wide range of diseases (a great deal of attention was paid in antiquity to the effectiveness of certain plants, animals and stones: [10. 401-404; 11]), against physical and moral failings (PGM CXXI), against daimones and supernatural forces (PGM VII 579-590), against magic, curses and — defixiones [16. 85f.]; hence the ‘apotropaic’ use of objects or symbols such as the phall6s (> phallus), the > Gorgo [1] or the ‘evil eye’. Phylaktéria were presented to newborn babies (+ age D.) and deposited in tombs (Plin. NH 37,66); the installation of statues and portraits of the gods, Herms and masks at city gates, on streets, on doors and in rooms to ensure the protection or increase of city, house and property (PGM IV 2359-2372; for more extensive comments see [12]) is also to be seen in this context. In

addition to their defensive use, amulets were employed to gain material wealth, beauty and grace, victory or friendship (e.g. [7. No. 58 Z. 37ff.]), for success in sexual adventures or the death of an enemy, and even for the utilization of divine and human powers (PGM XIa 1-40; > Paredros, Paredroi B.). The use of amulets was — and is —a phenomenon that is not restricted to folk religion and superstition, but has been documented for all classes in Graeco-Roman antiquity (in detail: Plin. HN 28-34; Pericles: Theophr. fr. L21 FORTENBAUGH; Sulla: Plut. Sulla 29,11f.; Augustus: Suet. Aug. 90; Apuleius: Apul. Apol. 61). Some have attempted to interpret the use of amulets within a strict contradistinction between > magic and religion, but the ritual forms and concepts of ‘magical’ and traditional religious practices converged at many points (even as far as > sacrifice before an amulet as before the image of a god: Suet. Nero 56; PGM IV 2373-2440); thus the ostensible difference between the two areas should, from the perspective of a theory of action, be replaced with a model based on the assumption that they are part of a coherent whole (cf. [6. 122; 8. 220222). With some amulets, it is readily apparent how they were originally carried about. Magical gems frequently have a hole enabling them to be strung on a necklace, either alone or along with other objects. Other gems have been preserved in ancient rings [5]. Amulet capsules, also worn on a necklace, are familiar from + mummy portraits [16. 6f.]. Just as often, however, how surviving amulets were carried about is no longer clear [19. 41f.]. Amulets were common among Jews and Christians as well [10. 407-410; 133 14; 15. 499-502; 16]; the Christian amulet tradition in particular forms a link between the ancient use of amulets and that of the Byzantine and medieval worlds [17]. While the signs, symbols and names invoked by Jews and Christians differed increasingly from those of their pagan environment, particularly in late antiquity and afterward, both the ritual forms and the specific conceptions and objec-

208

tives expressed in Jewish and Christian amulets [18] have their roots in familiar patterns that can only be understood by appeal to individual psychological fac-

tors. + Amulet (Ancient Orient and Egypt); > Curse; > Defixio+ ; Demons; > Magic; > Magical papyri 1R. Wunscu, Amuletum, in: Glotta 2, 1911, 219-230 2 P. Woxters, Faden und Knoten als Amulett, in: ARW 8,

1905, 1-22

3 A. DELaTTE, PH. DERCHAIN, Les intailles

magiques gréco-égyptiennes,

1964

4J. HALLeux,

ScHamp (eds.), Les lapidaires grecs, 1985 Mira et Magica, 1986

J.

5 H. PHILIPP,

6 R. Koransky, Incantations and

Prayers for Salvation on Inscribed Greek Amulets, in: C. A. Faraone, D. Opsink (eds.), Magika Hiera, 1991, 107-137. 7Id., Greek Magical Amulets. The Inscribed Gold, Silver, Copper and Bronze Lamellae. vol. 1: Published Texts of Known Provenance, 1994 8 J. G. GAGER,

Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World, 1992, 218-242 9S. ErTrEM, Die magischen Gemmen und ihre Weihe, in: Symbolae Osloenses 19, 1939, 57-85 10 F. Eckstein, J. H. Waszink, s.v. Amulett, RAC 1, 1950, 397-411 11 J. SCARBOROUGH, The Pharmacology of Sacred Plants, Herbs, and Roots, in: [6], 138-174 12 C. A. Faraone, Talismans and Trojan Horses, 1992 13 J. NAVEH, S. SHAKED, Amulets and Magic Bowls. Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity, *1987 14 Id., Magic Spells and Formulaic Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity, 1993 15 K. von STUCKRAD, Das Ringen um die Astrologie, 2000

16 TH. GELZER, et al. (eds.), Lamella

Bernensis: ein spatantikes Goldamulett mit christlichem Exorzismus und verwandte Texte, 1999 17K. Hauck (ed.), Der historische Horizont der Goétterbild-Amulette

aus der Ubergangsepoche von der Spatantike zum Friihmittelalter, 1992

18 M. SmitTH, Salvation in the Gospels,

Paul, and the Magical Papyri, in: Helios 13, 1986, 63-74 19 R. Wunscu, Antike Zaubergerat aus Pergamon, 1905.

C. BONNER, Studies in Magical Amulets, Chiefly GraecoEgyptian, 1950; R. Heim, Incantamenta Magica Graeca

Latina, in: Jahrbiicher fiir classische Philologie Supplementum-Band 19, 1892, 463-576; L. ROBERT, Amulettes grecques, in: Journal des Savants, 1981, 3-44 (= ROBERT, OMS 7, 465-506). AN.BE.

Phylarchos (@tAagyoc/phylarchos, ‘chief of a > phyle

[1]). [1] In many Greek poleis the phylarchoi were leaders of phylai with high advisory or magisterial functions: in Epidamnus phyle leaders also formed the advisory board of the leading official (archon) and were replaced in the 5th century BC in this function by a council witha broader basis (Aristot. Pol. 1301b 22f.); in Cyzicus

phylarchoi acted as a college and together with the highest civil and military officials (stratégoi) there carried out high magisterial functions [r.no. 59 with comm.]; they had similar tasks in poleis in Thrace (IGBulg III 2, 1803, 1830) and in Hellenized cities in Asia Minor [2. 156f.; 270; 274; 289f.; 346; 3493 351]. [2] In Athens until the introduction of the stratégia (see

~ Stratégos) in 501/500 BC at first leaders of the representatives of the four ancient Attic and after 507 of the ten Cleisthenian phylai (Hdt. 5,69,2; > Cleisthenes

209

Z2EC

[2]; > Attica with a map of the Cleisthenian phyle organisation); later commanders of the mounted contin-

gents of the phylai (Aristot. Ath. Pol. 61,5). K-W.W. [3] Greek term for Hebrew ‘tribal elders’ of the premonarchy Period (LXX Dt 31,28) and for Arab ‘chieftains’ (Str. 16,1,28). 1 F. G. Mater, Griechische Mauerbauinschriften, vol. 1, 1959 2N.F. Jones, Public Organization in Ancient Greece, 1987.

F. GSCHNITZER,

s.v.

P., RE

Suppl.

11,

1067-1090. K.-W.W.

Phylarchus. P. from Athens or Naucratis (FGrH 81 T 1), Greek historian of the 3rd cent. BC, one of the main

representatives of ‘tragic’ or ‘mimetic’ > historiography (II C) [z. 93-108; 2. 95-102; 222 note 22].

P. wrote Historiai in 28 books, extending from the death of + Pyrrhus (272 BC) to the death of king > Cleomenes [6] III of Sparta (220/119 BC) (FGrH 81 T 1). 60 fragments survive (FGrH 81 with comm.). His work continues that of Duris of Samos (see > historio-

graphy II C) and Hieronymus [6] of Cardia. > Polybius [2] (Pol. 2,56-63 = FGrH 81 F 53-56) criticized P.’ pro-Cleomenes and anti-Achaean stance and rightly rebukes his ‘sensationalism’ (terateia). Furthermore, P.’s work contains many historically questionable excursions, such as miraculous events (FGrH 81 F 10; 17; 35), wondrous fables (F 4; 26; 28; 38; 61), numerous anecdotes (F 12; 31; 40; 41; 75), and many love affairs (F 213 24; 30; 32; 70; 71; 81). Consequently his credibility (contra [3]) can not be considered high. Dionysius [18] of Halicarnassus had a very low opinion of P.’ style (Dion. Hal. Comp. 4 = FGrH 81 T 4). P. was the main source for > Plutarchus’ [2] lives of Agis [4] and Cleomenes [6] and a secondary source for his lives of > Pyrrhus and Aratus [2]; Pompeius [III 3] Trogus also made extensive use of him [4. 106-108]. Also, numerous quotations (verbatim) can be found in Athenaeus. All of P.’ lesser writings (cf. FGrH 81 T 1) have been lost: the Story of Antiochus and Eumenes of Pergamum is probably an appendix to the Historiai, discussing Antiochus [5] III (223-187) and Eumenes [3] II (from 197); a summarised history of legends (Epitome of myths); Unwritten (Agrapha); Inventions and On the Epiphany of Zeus. Edition: FGrH 81. — Historiography (II C) 1 K. MEIsTER, Historische Kritik bei Polybios, 1975 2Id., Die griechische Geschichtsschreibung, 1990 3 H. Stras-

BURGER, Die Wesensbestimmung der Geschichte durch die griechische Geschichtsschreibung, 31975 4H.-D. RicHTER, Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Historiographie, 1987.

J. KRoyMann, s.v. Phylarchos, RE Suppl. 8, 471-489; E. Gapsa, Studi su Filarco, 1957; T. W. Arrica, Ph. and the Spartan Revolution, 1961; G. MARASCO, Filarco e la religione, in: FestschrifE.Manni, vol. 4, 1980, 1387-1402; P. PEDECH, Trois historiens méconnus: Theopompe, Duris,

Phylarque, 1989; S. STELLUTO, Il motivo della tryphe in

PHYLE

Filarco, in: J. GALLO (ed.), Seconda miscellanea filologica, 1995, 47-84. K.MEL.

Phylas (®bAac; Phylas). [1] King of the Thesprotians, father of + Astyoche [4] (Astyocheia in Hom. Il. 2,658). > Heracles [1] fights on the side of the Caledonians against the Thesprotians, captures > Ephyra [3], kills P, takes his daughter prisoner and fathers -» Tlepolemus with her (Hom. II. 2,653-660; Apollod. 2,149, cf. Soph. Trach. hypothesis; Apollod. 2,166; Apollod. Epit. 3,13). The same king is called Phyleus in Diod. Sic. 4,36,r. [2] King of the Dryopians who commits sacrilage (a feast in the grove of > Apollo: Apollod. 2,155; cf. Soph. Trach. hypothesis) against the sanctuary in > Delphi, whereupon > Heracles [1] and the Melians advance against P. and kill him; Heracles takes his daughter ~ Meda [3] with him as a prisoner and fathers Antiochus with her (Diod. Sic. 4,37,1; Paus. 1,5,23 10,10,1). In Apollod. l.c. the king is called Laogoras (cf. Tzetz. Chil. 2,466). On the fate of the Dryopians: Paus.

4534,9f.

SLA.

Phyle [1] (ovar/phyle, plural phylai). I. DEFINITION II. ORIGIN, SPREAD, CHANGE III. NAMING AND FUNCTION

I. DEFINITION The Greeks described as phylai groups or categories of extremely various sizes of people (or animals), and therefore also the peoples and tribes into which they divided themselves and the ‘ethnic groups’ (éthné) of > barbarians. Clearly predominant, however, is the technical use of the term for the largest subunit of a ~ polis state. As in the case of the terms for other subdivisions of the polis, with the term phyle the idiom of the kinship was transferred to the internal organisation of the poleis. II]. ORIGIN, SPREAD, CHANGE

Evidently originally used only by the Ionians (> Iones) and the Dorians (— Dorieis), from the 8th cent. BC phylai became the most widespread structural elements of polis states. In northwestern Greece as with the > Aeolians [1], however, there is no evidence of phylai in the Archaic era and they were not introduced to parts of these areas until the Hellenistic period. Accordingly there is in principle no connexion between the development or function of the polis and the existence of phylai. At first there was by and large agreement between the number and names of phylai in the various cities of the Ionians (Geleontes, Aegicoreis, Argadeis, Hopletes; see also > Jones) and those of the Dorians (Hylleis, -» Dymanes, Pamphyli). On the basis of recent investigation [4], the traditional explanation of the correspondence in phylai in numerous Ionian and Dorian poleis as inherited from an original tribal structure is

PHYLE

Base

increasingly called into question; instead it is assumed that the recognisable congruences came into being only with or after the genesis of the polis, and after, therefore, the era of migration ( Doric migration; > Colonization II.) by means of secondary contacts and borrowings. The explanation of agreement in phylai and phyle names as cultural and political convergences and derivation of them from late formation of Ionian and Dorian identity during the archaic period (8th6th cents. BC) are not compelling, however. It could well be that the efficiency of the phyle structure explains its being passed from city to city, but not the correspondence of phyle names in competing and often warring poleis. Neither did any Dorian or Ionian city during the so-called > Dark Ages or the early archaic period possess sufficient influence it could expressly mark by imposing its own phylai within the various ethnicities. The original correspondences therefore indicate rather that phylai had been established as components of this ethnic group before it spread and in the process of polis development turned into divisions of communities. In the course of Archaic > colonization (IV.) from the 8th cent. BC onwards the phyle structure of the — metropolis [1]

was

as

a

rule

exported

to

the

— apoikia, but could be supplemented there, according to need, with further phylai. In the Greek motherland reforms led to a considerable differentiation in number and principles of definition, with territorial divisions dominating. This re-organization (particularly in Corinth,

Sicyon

and

Athens),

attested

from

the

7th/6th cents. BC onwards, used phylai as organizational components that could be freely shaped in accordance with political rationale (and to some extent direct mathematical one), in order to satisfy current needs and goals by restructuring the citizenry. The goals of such reforms were: mixing citizens together, inte-

grating migrants or absorbing the hitherto legally disadvantaged into the group of full citizens. Such measures advanced the internal unification and consolidation of the poleis, which in certain circumstances were accompanied by democratization.

212

tible legal distinctions in status between the phylai of a polis. They were equal in rank and also connected all social strata with one another internally. Inherited membership of a phyle was as a rule a prerequisite for participation in full citizenship (> politeia). Based ona roughly equally large number of citizens or > hoplitai, the phylai made a substantial contribution to the political, administrative, cultural and military organisation of the poleis. In this way e.g. the phylai of Athens (> Attica, with map) re-organized by > Cleisthenes [2], like the phylai in Sparta or Argos, formed the framework for a military constitution and the formation of an army. In Athens and elsewhere (cf. e.g. ML 8 on Chios) the phylai provided council bodies, but as a rule did not form their own voting blocks either in the > boulé or in the > ekklesia. The phyle co-operated substantially in the appointment of magistrates, commissions and judges. Either these were chosen in equal numbers from the phylétai by lot or election, or the preliminary election of candidates devolved on to the phylai. Other duties — e.g. the appointment of prytaneis — fell to them in rotation or by lot (> Lot, election by, I. A.). They also formed part of the structure of religious life. Their own assemblies, estates, property, treasuries and officials — chairman, tamiai (> tamias) etc. — with diverse military and civil responsibilities, attest to the corporate form of phylat. In all, the phylai formed a basic framework for the participation of citizens (politai) in community life, in administration and government: they were a conduit for rights and duties by providing mechanisms for the distribution of military service, offices and functions, or for participation in administration and government. With their pronounced reference to the polis as a whole, phylai had the effect of centralizing and reinforcing an institutionalized statehood. — Athens; > Attica (with map of phyle organisation); ~ Cleisthenes [2]; > Eponymous; > Sparta 1 P. FUNKE, Stamm und Polis, in: J. BLEICKEN (ed.), Colloquium, FS A. Heuss, 1993, 29-48 2 .N. F. Jones, Public Organization in Ancient Greece, 1987

(1), RE 20, 994-1011

III. NAMING AND FUNCTION The name of a phyle was originally derived from the name of an eponymous hero (> Hero cult) or — archégétés. He was worshipped as an ancestor, and this implied the idea of interrelatedness of members of the same phyle (phylétai). This fiction (in which the citizens believed), like the eponym cults that created religious unity, promoted the integration of phylétai. Later, phylai might also be named after groups of settlers, places, sanctuaries, gods, guilds or simply numbers. During their increase and renaming in the Hellenistic and Roman periods there was often a tendency to take the names of monarchs and emperors or their followers. The core functions of a phyle remained unaffected by such demonstrations of loyalty. There are no percep-

3K. LaTTE,s.v. P.

4D. RoussEL, Tribu et cité, 1976.

B.SMA. [2] Attic paralia deme of the Oineis phyle, 307/6-224/3 BC of the Demetrias [2] phyle, with two (six) bouleutai, demoticon ®viAdo.oc/Phyldsios, in the east of ~ Parnes on the border with Boeotia (Str. 9,2,11; Har-

pocr. s.v. ®.; Steph. Byz. s.v. ®.; Suda s.v. ®.; Hsch. s.v. ®.) and an Attic border fortress in the sth(?)/4th cent. BC, modern Fili. The site visible today is from the 4th cent. According to Plut. Mor., 189b 12ff. opponents of Peisistratus [4] had allegedly taken shelter in P. It was from P. that > Thrasybulus attacked the Thirty Tyrants in 404/3 BC (Diod. 14,32,1ff.; Xen. Hell. 2,4,2ff.; Nep. Thrasybulus 2,1; IG II’ 10; > Tridkonta). In 304 BC, P.

fell to > Cassander, but > Demetrius [2] won it back (Plut. Demetrius 23). In 287 there was still a Macedonian garrison in P. (IG I? 2917). It is unclear when P.

213

214

became Athenian again. IG II* 1299 records repairs for the last time in 236/5 BC. The grotto of Pan at P. is the setting for - Menander’s [4]Dyskolos [1]. ~> Attica (with map)

PHYLONOE

R. J. Buck, Boiotia and the Boiotian League, 1994, 72-78; J. DeVoro, The Liberation of Thebes in 379/8 BC, in: R. F. Surron (ed.), Studies in Memory of R.V. Schoder, 1989, roI-116.

HA.BE.

1 J. M. Wickens, The Archaeology and History of Cave Use in Attica, vol. 2, 1986, 245-269 no. 47. Hasicut, Index s.v. P.; TRAILL, Attica, 50, 59, 68, 85, 112

nO, 114, 120 no. 30, Tab. 6, 402-407; WHITEHEAD,

12; TRAVLOS, Attika, 319

Index s.v. P.; W. WreDE,

MDAI(A) 49, 1924, 153-224.

fig. P., in

H.LO,

Phyles (®vAijc; Phylés). Son of one > Polygnotus, bronze sculptor from Halicarnassus. 23 bases of lost

portrait statues with the signature of P. survive in Delos, Rhodes and Lindos; according to them he was active between 258 and 213 BC. Liproip, 343; J. Marcapé,

Recueil des signatures de

sculpteurs grecs, vol. 2, 1957, 89-100; EAA 1965, 142-143.

6, s.v. P., RN.

Phyleus (®viaevcs; Phyleis). Eldest son of > Augeias (Paus. 5,1,10), brother of Agasthenes (Paus. 5,3,3), according to > Echemus [1] the second husband of — Timandra (Hes. Fr. 176,3f.; cf. Hes. Fr. 23a,9. 31. 34f. M.-W.) or > Ctimene [1] (Eust. ad Hom. Il. 2,625-630), in Hyg. Fab. 97,12 the husband of Eustyoche. P. is the father of > Meges (Hom. Il. 5,72; 15,519f. and 528; Apollod. 3,129; Quint. Smyrn. 12,326) and Eurydameia (Pherecydes FGrH 3 F 115a). When Augeias refuses to pay > Hercules [1] the promised wage for cleaning out his stable, P. supports Hercules in a court proceeding, is then banished from the country by his father and goes to Dulichium (Hom. II. 2,628f.; Apollod. 2,88—91; Paus. 5,1,9f.). Several years later Hercules returns to Elis (Plut. Quaest. Rom. 28,271¢ mentions an oath in this connection), conquers

the city, kills Augeias and hands rule to P. (Pind. Ol. 10,28—42; Callim. fr. 77 with schol. Hom. Il. 2,629; 11,700 BEKKER; Diod. Sic. 4,33,1.4; Apollod. 2,139-

141). According to Paus. 5,3,1.3, Hercules spares Augeias, P. allows his father to reign and returns to Dulichium. After the death of Augeias, the rule falls to Agasthenes, > Amphimachus [2] and > Thalpius (cf. Hom.

Il. 2,625-630;

Eur. IA 283-287; Str. 10,2,19;

Apollod. Epit. 3,12). P. takes part in the funereal games of +> Amarynceus [1] (Hom. Il. 23,637) and the Calydonian hunt (Ov. Met. 8,308). SLA. Phyllidas (@vAridac/Phyllidas, also Puddidac¢/Phillidas). Theban, in 379 BC scribe of the polemarch > Archias [3]. He established contact with exiled Thebans around > Melon and > Pelopidas in Athens and made the necessary preparations for an attempt on Archias’ life. Xenophon (Xen. Hell. 5,4,2-9) also ascribes to P. the murder of > Leontiades [2] (but see Plut. Pelopidas 7-11; Plut. Mor. 577b-d; 588b; 594d; 596; 598).

Phyllis (@vddic; Phyllis). [1] Eponymous heroine of the territory on the lower

> Strymon (Struma), which she brings as the dowry to her marriage with > Acamas the son of Theseus. When he is unfaithful to her she curses him and he dies. The legend illustrates the great interest of Athens in the region with its rich mineral sources (Aeschin. 2,31 with schol.; Thuc. 1,100,3; 4,102; Androtion FGrH 324 F 33; Izetz. ad Lycoph. 495). P. hangs herself and is turned into a tree. The tragic death and P.’ transformation is the central theme in Callim. fr. 556. This theme is dealt with particularly frequently in Roman literature up to Late Antiquity (Verg. Culex 13 1f.; Hyg. Fab. 59; 243; Ov. Epist. 2; Ov. Rem. am. 591-608; Plin. HN. 16,108; Philostr. Epist. 28; Anth. Pal. 7,705,2). RHA. [2] Name of shepherdesses in Verg. Ecl. 3,76.78.107; Fat Aas OZselor.

©Carmlue4sn Is3se Mart.

rOySmis

1129.50; 12,65 (name of hetaerae). R. Hanstik, TH. LENSCHAU, s.v. P. (3)-(4), RE 20, r02z1-

1024; U. Kron, s.v. P., LIMC 7.1, 407f.; Id., Die zehn attischen Phylenheroen, 1976, 142-145. R.HA.

Phylobasileis (dvioBaouets/phylobasileis, pl.). The phylobasileis (‘kings of the phyla’; v. > Phyle [1]), who were nominated from the > Eupatridai, were the chiefs of the four Old Attic/lonic ‘tribes’ (phylat) of Athens. They constituted one of the most important official councils of the archaic polis, which, thanks to its documented cultic and judicial competences (recorded, for instance, in the state sacrificial calendar), even survived the constitutional reforms of > Cleisthenes [2] (508/7 BC). The phylobasileis, alongside the archon basileus (> Archontes [r]), conducted > ephetai trials in cases of unintentional homicide, and they were responsible in the court of the > Prytaneion for proceedings against persons unknown, animals and inanimate objects which had caused the death of a human being. > Basileus (C.); > Eupatridai; > Phyle [1] P. Carer, La royauté en Gréce avant Alexandre, 1984, 3503 353-359; R. ParKER, Athenian Religion: A History, 1996, 14; 27; 45f.; 112f.; RHODES, r50f.; 648f.

Phylonoe

(®vi0v6n/Phylondé,

also

— B.SMA.

PiUovodr/Philo-

noe).

[1] Wife of — Bellerophon, after her father Iobates regarded him as innocent (Apollod. 2,33). [2] Daughter of > Tyndareos and ~ Leda, made immortal by > Artemis (Apollod. 3,126); worshipped in Laconia (Athenagoras, Presbeia 1). ST.

PHYLOTIMUS

215

Phylotimus (®vAdt0¢; Phylotimos) of Cos. Physician and chief magistrate (m6énarchos) of > Cos in the first half of the 3rd cent. BC; along with > Herophilus [x], he was a pupil of > Praxagoras and became one of the classic authorities of Greek medicine (cf. Gal. De examinando medico 5,2), although only fragments of his writings now survive. He pursued anatomical interests, placed the seat of the soul in the heart and held that the brain was merely a useless extension of the spinal medulla (Gal. De usu partium 8,3 and 12). One of his surgical procedures, mentioned by Celsus (De medicina 8,20,4), and his comments on internal diseases are cited only at second hand by later writers, often from medical doxographies (> Doxography). His work on > dietetics in at least 13 books, by contrast, is quoted directly by > Athenaeus [3] and excerpted in part by > Oribasius. In it P. directed his attention particularly at the role of the humours (> Humoral theory) and, like his master, tried to regulate health with dietetic measures and appropriate blood-letting (> Phlebotomy; Gal. De venesectione adv. Erasistratum 5). In general he is almost always cited as a representative of the ~ Dogmatists [2] in the same breath as Praxagoras, to the

extent that it is difficult to distinguish his contribution from that of Praxagoras. FRAGMENTS: F. STECKERL, The Fragments of Praxagoras of Cos and his School, 1958. LITERATURE: H. DILLER, s.v. Phylotimus, RE 20, 10301032; S. M. SHERWIN-WHITE, Ancient Cos, 1978, 105,

195.

VN.

Phyromachus (®vedpaxod/Phyrémachos). Sculptor of Athens, teacher of the painters Heraclides [30] (active 168 BC) and Milon. The written and archaeological traditions, which are controversial, reveal at least the existence of a famed artist who was active under the Attalid kings (> Attalus) of Pergamum. The Laterculi Alexandrini (late 2nd cent. BC) place him in a list of artists, and Pliny (HN 34,84) has the same in mind when documenting the sculptors who worked for Attalus and Eumenes. As Pliny only makes a generalized reference to the monumenta Attalidum, it cannot be demonstrated from him whether particular victory monuments of Attalus [4] 1 (241-197 BC), Attalus [5] II (159-138 BC) or Eumenes [3] II (186-183 BC) were executed by all the artists named at the same time. A correction of the name of the sculptor Isigonus (in Plin. HN 34,84, Isigonus and P. are mentioned together) to ~ Epigonus [1], who was active in the 3rd cent. BC, is thus of no concern to the dating of P. Consequently, the equating of the monuments with the surviving copies of the ‘Gaul Monuments’ of the 3rd cent. BC or the socalled ‘Little Barbarians’, which have been variously reconstructed and dated, based on style, to between the early 2nd cent. and around 160 BC, is disputed. On the basis of his participation in the monumenta Attalidum, P. must also be the sculptor responsible for the creation of a famous cult statue of Asclepius at Pergamum. This was certainly earlier than 156 BC: its date

216

of production is dependent on knowing to which temple it belonged, which is still the subject of controversy. Later inscriptions give P. as the creator of a

much-copied portrait of Antisthenes [1]. The original is generally dated by its style to the 2nd cent. BC, but has been put in the 4th cent. BC and thus attributed to an otherwise unknown sculptor of the same name. In the most thorough examination, by ANDREAE [6], P. emerges as the leading sculptor of Pergamene art in the second quarter of the 2nd cent. BC, to whom not only the portrait of Antisthenes and the cult statue of Asclepius (copy of the head at Syracuse, Museo archeologico regionale), but also parts of the lesser monumenta Attalidum (giant at Naples, MN) are stylistically attributable, and who took part either as stylistic designer or active participant in the creation of the Altar of Zeus at Pergamum. Objections from HIMMELMANN (s. [6]) concern the identification or dating of these works. Other written records (s. [6; 13]) play a part in the discussion, possibly either putting the active career of P. back to the 3rd cent. BC or suggesting the existence of others of the same name. One P. who according to Pliny (HN 34,51) was active around 296-292 BC may have been the father of the sculptor Asclapon (active around 220 BC) mentioned in inscriptions. Epigraphical evidence has a P. often working with the elder > Niceratus [3] on Delos and at Cyzicus, which would suggest a career some time in the 2nd half of the 3rd cent. BC. Statues to which Pliny makes obscure reference, of the Spartan king Demaratus, his mother and Alcibiades [3], may refer to one or more groups created together. A group of Priapus and the Charites is attributed to the artist Phylomachos (Anth. Gr. 2,120,8), and may have

been by P. or another sculptor of the same name. 1 OVERBECK, no. 860, 921,1994,1998-2001

193, 320-321

2 LIPPOLD,

3 J. Marcapé, Recueil des signatures de

sculpteurs grecs, vol. 2, 1957, ro1-102 4. L. GUERRINI s.v. Phyromachos (1) und (2), EAA 6, 1965, 143 SA. STEWART, Attika, 1979, 8-25 6 B. ANDREAE, N. HIMMEL-

MANN, G. De Luca, Phyromachos-Probleme, 1990 7B.S.Ripcway, Hellenistic Sculpture, 1, 1990, 287, 296, 301 8 A. STEWART, Greek Sculpture, 1990, 62, 207-208, 301, 303 9B. ANDREAE, Laokoon und die Kunst von Pergamon, 1991 10H. MULLER, Phyromachos im pergamenischen Nikephorion, in: Chiron 22, 1992, 195-226 11F. QuEYREL, P. Problémes de style et de datation, in: RA 1992, 367-380 12 P. MoRENO, Scultura ellenistica, 1994, 203-205, 255-258, 262-271, 370 13 B. ANDREAE, s.v. P., EAA, 2. Suppl. 4, 1996, 355-356. RN.

Physcus (®voxoc/Physkos). [1] Carian city in > Peraia in Rhodes (Str. 14,2,4; 29; 5,22; Ptol. 5,2,11: Potoxa/Phoiiska; Stadiasmus maris

magni 272), deme of the polis of > Lindus in Rhodes [t. 79°; 2. no. 51]. Ancient remains of a Classical and

Hellenistic fortress are on Asar Tepe, 2 km to the northwest of Marmaris, above an excellent natural harbour on the bay. Inscriptions: [1. 2-5; 2. no. 1-7, 57].

217

218

1 P.M.

Fraser, G. E. Bean, The Rhodian

Islands, 1954

Peraea and

2C. BLINKENBERG, K. F. KincH, Lindos,

vol. 2,1, 1941. G. E. BEAN, s.v. P., PE, 710; E. MEYER, s.v. Physkos, RE Suppl. 11, rogof. E.0,

[2] City in western Locris (Plut. Mor. 294e and Steph. Byz. s.v. ®.), c. 8 km to the south-southeast of modern

Lidoriki near modern Malandrino on the western slopes of Lidoriki. From c. 360 BC until Aetolian predominance in 263/2 BC P. was the chief town of the western Locrian League, and likewise in the period of independence, from 167 BC onwards. Seat of the League’s cult of Athena Ilias. The ethnic name ®voxertc/ Physkeus is often mentioned in Aetolian, Delphic and Locrian inscriptions (IG IX 1,3*, 665-706; SEG 32, 558; 42, 481; 44, 437). Remains of the double city wall, foundations of houses and finds stretch from the 4th century BC until the Byzantine Period. W. M. OLDFATHER, S.v. Physkos (4), RE 20, 1167-1169; L. Lerat, Les Locriens de l’ouest, vol. 1, 1952, 48-50, 64,

77-81, 123-134; vol. 2, 1952, s. Index; K. BRAUN, s.v. P., in: LauFFER, Griechenland, 549; E. W. Kase et al., The Great Corridor Route, vol. 1, 1992, 90, 96, 102; KODER/ HILp, 211. G.D.R.

Physica Plinii. Renaissance title of a Latin book of formulae, based largely on the > Medicina Plinii and written in the 5th/6th cents. AD. There are three recensions: 1. Sangallensis (6th/7th cents.) in three books (not yet published; titles of the chapters: [6. 41-55]; contains numerous incantations [5]); 2. Bambergensis [3], dated to the 5th/6th cents., but possibly more recent, and divided into three books; 3. Florentino-Pragensis [113 10; 7] in five books (including the Medicinae ex oleribus et pomis of > Gargilius [4] Martialis and the Liber dietarum diversorum medicorum by an anonymous author from the 5th/6th cents. AD); perhaps going back to the 13th/r4th cents. These recensions were printed in 1509 under the title Medicina Plinii and incorrectly ascribed to the doctor Plinius Valerianus, who is known from an inscription from Como. ’Bald’s Leechbook’ (9th cent.) uses the Physica Plinii in a recension that is independent of the Bambergensis and Florentino-Pragensis, and may help clarify the textual history [1], which is currently being revised [2; 8; 9]. + Gargilius [4] Martialis; > Medicina Plinii 1 J. N. Apams, M. DEEGAN, Bald’s Leechbook and the PP, in: Anglo-Saxon England 21, 1992, 87-114 _2K.-D. FISCHER, Quelques réflexions sur la structure et deux nouveaux témoins de la PP, in: Helmantica 37, 1986, 53-66

3 A. ONNEREFORS

(ed.), PP Bambergensis (Cod. Bamb.

med. 2, fol. 93v-232r), 1975 4 Id., Die mittelalterlichen Fassungen der Medicina Plinii, in: Ders., Mediaevalia, 1977, 9-18, 3126. 5 Id., latromagische Beschworungen in der PP Sangallensis, in: Eranos 83, 1985, 235-252 6V. Rose, Uber die Medicina Plinii, in: Hermes 8, 1874, 18-66 7G. Scumitz, Physicae quae fertur Plinii FlorentinoPragensis liber tertius, 1988 8 S. SconoccuiA, La medicina romana della tarda antichita: un nuovo testimone

PHYSICS

della cosiddetta PP Bambergensis, in: Id. (ed.), Studii di letteratura medica latina, 1988, 71-89 9Id., Per una nuova edizione della cosiddetta PP Bambergensis, in: A. Garzya (ed.), Tradizione e ecdotica dei testi medici tardoantichi e bizantini 1, 1992, 275-289 10 W. WacutMEISTER (ed.), Physicae Plinii quae fertur Florentino-Pragensis liber secundus, 1985 11J. WINKLER, Physicae

Plinii quae fertur Florentino-Pragensis liber primus, 1984. A.TO.

Physicians (Ancient Near East). Numerous cuneiform sources on physicians and their activities show that Herodotus (1,197) was misled in his view that the Babylonians had no physicians. Physicians are attested in the next to oldest comprehensible written documents of Mesopotamia (middle of the 3rd millennium BC). Precision tools were manufactured for them [2]. Prescriptions for producing medicines and therapeutic instructions are known from the end of the 3rd millennium BC [3]. Medical care was provided by casualty physicians, whose fees in the Old Babylonian period were laid down in the Codex Hammurabi. On the other hand, the treatment of illnesses as well as the production and administration of medicines fell into the domain of the sorcerer, who combined seemingly rational, somatic forms of therapy with magic cures. Inspection of victims’ entrails were also tasked to use divinatory methods to establish the cause of an illness. In the royal court, physicians were held in high regard. Several hundred clay tablets with collections of prescriptions and descriptions of therapeutic procedures, particularly from the rst millennium BC, are known to us [4]. Assyrian-Babylonian physicians and exorcists had access to an extensive ‘diagnostic handbook’, consisting of over 40 clay tablets in which the name of each illness and the patient’s chances or recovery were assigned to the symptoms of illness [5]. ~ Training (medical); > Surgery; > Medicine I. Mesopotamia; ~ MEDICINE, HISTORY OF 1 H. WaEtTzo pt, in: Notes bréves et utilitaires, 1995/117 2 A. Arcui, AOAT 240, 10 3 M. Civit, in: RAssyr. 54, 1960, 57-723 55, 1961, 91-94 4F. KOcHER,Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin 1-6, 1963-1980

5 R. LaBat,

Traité akkadien de diagnostics et prognostics médicaux, 1951. P. HerRERO,

Thérapeutique

mésopotamienne,

1984;

E. K. Ritter, Assyriological Studies 16, 1965, 299-321. S.M.

Physics I. PRELIMINARY REMARK II. CONCEPT AND ASSUMPTIONS III. SUBJECT

IV. DIFFERENTIATIONS METHODS

V. QUESTIONS AND

OF INVESTIGATION

AND PHysics VII. Optics OPMENTS AND INFLUENCE

VI. MATHEMATICS VIII. FURTHER DEVEL-

I. PRELIMINARY REMARK

Physics in the ancient sense, as developed by > Aristoteles [6], differs from modern physics in its subject

PHYSICS

219

and the scope of its questions. Here it is presented without basing it on modern notions. Il. CONCEPT AND ASSUMPTIONS The expressions ‘physics’ (vownr/physiké sc. émotiunfepistemé or prooodia/philosophia, synonymous with regi pboews émothun/peri physeds episteme, that is, the ‘science of nature’ or ‘philosophy of nature’) and ‘physicist’ (puotxdc/physikos) were first introduced by Aristotle as designations for a section of philosophy and an expert on that field, respectively (Aristot. Metaph. 1025 brg). Aristotle uses the expressions ta ovoxd/ta physikd and t& meQi pboews/ta peri physeos or mvoixh totogia/physike historia when referening to his works of natural science, including De caelo, De generatione et corruptione and Historia animalium. The word physikés does not yet occur in > Plato [1]. These Aristotelian terms continued to be used in the Hellenistic period and were then transmitted into Latin (physicus, Cic. Nat. D. 1,83; physica (neuter plural), Cic. Acad. 1,6).

Aristotle uses these expressions to claim a thematic continuation of the cosmological ‘research’ of the + Presocratics (itotogia/historia: Eur. fr. 910 TGF; Pl. Phdr. 96a; Hippoc. De vetere medicina 20 polemically alludes to this usage). Among such themes of Presocratic > cosmology were the origin and structure of a ‘whole’? encompassing heaven and earth (x@v/pdan: Emp. 31B1r3 DK; Pl. Ti. 28c; 6dov/holon: Pl. Ly. 214b, cf. Aristot. Cael. 278b 18ff.) (including meteorological and biological processes) as a spatial and temporal ‘order’ (xdouoc/kdsmos: Heracl. 22B30 DK; Eur. fr. 910; Xen. Mem. 1,1,11; Pl. Ti. 28b). ‘Nature’ in this context does not denote a domain of objects but a research programme: ‘to distinguish each thing by the manner of its burgeoning and to explain its qualities’ (xata mow Siaieewv Exaotov xal MPEaCMV Sxweo EyeV kata physin dihairéon hékaston kai phrazon hokos échei; Heracl. 22Br DK). The feasibility of this programme was challenged by > Parmenides and > Zeno [1] of Elea, who argued that generation and corruption, change, motion and multiplicity could not be described without contradiction. Post-Parmenidean cosmology responded to this objection by reducing all things to certain transportable materials, also called ‘seeds’ (onéquata/spérmata: Anaxag. 59B4 DK) or ‘roots’ (OtCmpata/rhizomata: Emp. 31B6 DK), which made up their unoriginated and imperishable ‘nature’ (pvotc/ physis: Hippoc. De natura hominis 3f.; cf. Eur. fr. 9103 Democr. 68A68 DK; Pythagoras, Oath 58Br5 DK; Pl. Leg. 892c; Aristot. Metaph. ror4b 26ff.). In Empedocles, these are the four elements (> Elements, theories of the), in Anaxagoras, the homoiomeries, and in Leucippus and Democritus, the atoms (+ Atomism).

Zeno’s paradox of number (29B3 DK) was met by the assumption of a complete interpenetration of matter (> Anaxagoras), or by a separation of the atoms by ‘nothing’.

220

Presocratic cosmologies and the controversies associated with them became known to a broader public in the second half of the 5th cent. BC, primarily through the lectures of the > sophists, and became the object of a non-professional and in this sense ‘dilettantish’ interest (philosophia in the pre-Platonic sense, cf. Hippoc. De vetere medicina 20; P|. Ap. 23d). One such theme as popularly called meQi tHv wetemowv/peri ton meteoron (sc. xai tov tnd yhv/kai tén hypo gen): ‘on things up high and under the earth’, Hippoc. De vetere medicina 1; Pl. Ap. 18b; 23d; Aristoph. Nub. 490; Aristoph. Av. 690). Under this label, the relevant teachings were subject to charges of > asebeia and a lack of seriousness that became proverbial. Possibly for this reason the label Teoi pboews/Peri physeds (sc. tHv anavtwv/ton hapanton or similar: ‘On the nature of everything’; Dialexeis 90,8,1f. DK; Xen. Mem. 1,1,11; Pl. Ti. 27a) became established at the end of the sth cent. GO.H. III. SUBJECT

Aristotle’s physics includes the entire catalogue of topics given at the outset of his Meteorology (338a 2off.). Physics is a scientific ‘discipline’ (or ‘course’: ué00d0c/méthodos, Aristot. Ph. 184a 11; Aristot. Mete. 338a 25; Aristot. Mot. an. 704b 13) whose theoretical foundations are laid in the Lecture on physics, followed by numerous special treatises. These include a treatise on > astronomy (Aristot. Cael. rf.), on the doctrine of elementary bodies and their changes, as well as the generation and decay of the objects composed of them (Aristot. Cael. 3f.; Aristot. Gen. corr.; Aristot. Mete. 4), and on meteorology, which for Aristotle still encompasses > geology (Aristot. Mete. 1 to 3). Biology too including the subject of the general functions of life and the (non-rational) soul — is reckoned to be part of physics by Aristotle (cf. Aristot. An. 403a 28; Aristot. Part. an. 641a 21). In all, the treatises on physics constitute over 40% of the corpus Aristotelicum. The Problemata physica — which are rather medically oriented — and the Problemata mechanica (-» Mechanics) belong to a different literary genre in the corpus Aristotelicum. Such a comprehensive range of themes had already taken shape in Presocratic cosmology. It is also at the basis of Plato’s Timaeus, and remained authoritative for the

Hellenistic period, despite the growing independence of individual disciplines. The subject of the Aristotelian treatise transmitted under the title Lecture on physics (pvowmr a&xodaotc/ physiké akroasis; Lat. physica) are the fundamental assumptions and concepts presupposed in the special treatises on physics. The contents of the individual books are as follows: Bk. 1: The reduction of all becoming (yéveotc/ génesis) to > matter and form/privation as its ‘principles’ (aeyai/archai, 190b 17ff.; > principle). Bk. 2,1: Discussion of the concept of nature, distinction between natural things and artifacts. Bk. 2,2: Form and matter as the subject of physics; differentiation between ~ mathematics and physics. Bk. 2,3ff.: Four kinds of

221

222,

‘cause’; chance and natural teleology. Bk. 3,1-3 and Bk. 5,1f.: Distinction of four kinds of — motion (xivnotc/ kinésis, 201a off.) or ‘change’ (wetaPpodr/metabole, 225b sff.), viz., generation and corruption, change of place, of size, and of quality; definition of motion as the ‘actuality of the possible as such’ (tod Suvduet Svtoc éevtehexera, & toottow/tom dyndmei Ontos entelécheia, hai toiotiton, 201a 10; cf. 202a 13ff.). Bk. 3,4-8: The concept of the infinite; rejection of actual infinity in favour ofthe potentially infinite (206a 14ff.). Bk. 4,1-5: The concept of place; identification of an object’s place with the surface limit of the nearest body at rest that surrounds it (212a 20). Bk. 4,6-8: Rejection of a (microscopic or macroscopic) vacuum. Bk. 4,9-14: The

especially in the Stoic view, the explanation of functions of the rational soul as well as theology. The division of

concept of time; time as a numerical structure, resulting from the distinction of different ‘nows’ (viv/ny) as the

boundaries of intervals of time (yoovoc/chronos) of a (219a r9ff.; > time, theories of). Bk. 5,3-6: Structures of succession, unity and contrariety. Bk. 6: Analysis of the continuous structure of motion, in confrontation with the paradoxes of Zeno (esp. 233a 21ff.; 239b stt.; 263a 4ff.). Bk. 7 and 8: The structure of efficient causal relations and series, the reduction of all motions to an unmoved source of motion. motion

IV. DIFFERENTIATIONS According to Aristot. Metaph. ro25b 18ff., physics, as a ‘theoretical’ science, is distinct not only from all ‘practical’ disciplines, but also from all ‘poietic’ ones, and therefore from — medicine and -+ mechanics. Again, among theoretical disciplines, it is characterized by the fact that its objects, unlike those of mathematics and theology, are changeable and therefore perceptible. Yet, mechanics, mathematics, and theology remain systematically related to physics: the structural similarity Aristotle sees between natural and artificial processes (Aristot. Ph. r94a 21; 199a 9ff.) also holds true for

mechanics. The objects of mathematics are geometrical (and numerical) relations, which exist in natural things and processes and are only considered in abstraction from them. This abstraction is solely justified by the fact that it does not lead to false results (Aristot. Ph. 193b 35). A connection between theology and physics results from the construction of an unmoved impetus of the heavenly motions (Aristot. Ph. 258b roff.; Aristot. Metaph. 1072b 7ff.; 1073a 23ff.). These, in turn, act through the changes of the seasons as the impetus to all meteorological and biological processes (cf. esp. Aristot. Gen. corr. 33 6b 2ff.; Aristot. Metaph. 10714 13ff.). By excluding the functions of the rational soul and the objects to which they refer (> Soul, theory of the), Aristotle rejects the view that literally ‘everything’ is the subject of physics (Aristot. Part. an. 641a 32ff.),a claim that had been made explicitly in Presocratic literature (Heracl. 22Br DK; Democr. 68B165 DK), as well as by the Sophists (Dialexeis 90,8,1f. DK). The Hellenistic thematic title ‘On the order of the world and that which is in it? (meoi xOouo” xai tov év adbt@/peri kdsmou kai ton en autoi, Diog. Laert. 1,18) emphatically includes,

PHYSICS

philosophy, canonical since - Zeno [2] of Citium, into

physics, -> ethics, and - logic, corresponds to a division of the starting points of (didactic) dialectical discussion in Aristotle (Aristot. Top. rosb roff.), and must therefore have its roots in the curriculum of the school of Plato (> Academy). It is also followed, albeit in a different order and now including the Metaphysics, in -» Andronicus’ [4] edition of the corpus Aristotelicum.

V. QUESTIONS AND METHODS OF INVESTIGATION Aristotle identified the ‘nature’ of things not with their origin or material composition, but with their causal qualities (+ Causality). In so doing, he adhered to a view developed in the historiography and medicine of the 5th cent. BC, which also had a decisive influence on Plato’s concept of nature (cf. Hdt. 2,45; Thuc. 3,82; Hippoc. De aere, aquis, locis 7; Hippoc. De vetere medicina 20). Knowledge of physics is knowledge of causes and hence always an answer to the question ‘Why ...?? (6ua tWdia ti, Aristot. Ph. 194b 17ff.). This question may be answered in four complementary ways: by stating (a) the matter (An/hbylé) of which something consists, (b) the ‘species’ or ‘form’ (etdo¢/

eidos) of the object in question, (c) the origin of change and rest, and (d) the good achieved by the state of affairs in question (ibid., cf. 195a 24). Aristotle’s criterion for

the distinction between natural things and artifacts is whether an object possesses an ‘internal’ origin of change and rest, i.e. pertaining to the characteristics of the thing’s form or species, and in particular the origin of the formation and preservation of those characteristics (Aristot. Ph. 192a 13ff.). This origin is the ‘nature’ (pbotc/physis) of the object in question. Only insofar as the emergence of an object must take place as the appearance of the relevant form in a matter that is appropriate and hence dependent on the kind of object (Aristot. Ph. r90a 31ff.), while its causal qualities remain preserved (Aristot. Metaph. 1or4b 28), is this matter also considered ‘nature’. By characterizing matter as ‘something relative’ (1edc¢ t/pros ti, Aristot. Ph. 194b 9), however, Aristotle avoids identifying it with an unoriginated and imperishable substance. According to Aristotle, the subject of physics are those processes that can be explained from the ‘nature’ of the objects involved. Consequently, only natural things can be the object of physics (Aristot. Metaph. 1025b 20). The realm of artifacts remains excluded, since here change and rest are not traced back to the ‘nature’ of the objects involved, but to knowledge and intention, and thus to an external origin (Aristot. Metaph. 1070< 7). Likewise excluded are the functions of the rational soul, because these do not act as the cause of motion, and hence not as ‘nature’ (Aristot. Part. an. 64rb 4ff.). This view is oriented primarily toward biology. Yet it also holds true for the elementary bodies (192b ro).

22:3

224

Their upward and downward motion (Aristot. Cael.

involved. For this reason, testing them by experimental and measuring methods, or quantitative research in general, is not a primary task of physics (for similar views in Stoicism, cf. Sen. Ep. 88,2 5ff.). Mathematical definitions of natural realities, for instance organic forms such as a snub nose, are usually inadequate (Aristot. Ph. r94a rff.). Aristotle views harmonics (> Mu-

PHYSICS

268b r4ff.; 3 10a 20ff.), their generation and corruption

through mutual transformation (Aristot. Gen. corr. 331a 7ff.) and chemical and thermal interaction (Aristot. Mete. 378b 20ff.) are also traced back to their ‘nature’. It is ‘natural’ for the elementary bodies to be normally situated at their ‘proper place’ (attot tomoc/ auton topos, Aristot. Cael. 310a 21) — fire at the periphery of the world, earth at its centre, air and water in the regions in between — or to return to this normal situation, like a sick person returns to health (Aristot. Cael. 3114 6ff.). These ‘natural’ motions are matched by ‘unnatural’ ones, countermovements forced by external influence. The elementary bodies are characterized, both individually and in relation to one another, by lightness and heaviness, as well as by their elementary qualities (warm, cold, dry, wet). Aristotle assumed a fifth elementary body for the stars, and circular motion pertains to it ‘by nature’ (Aristot. Cael. 269a 2ff.). VI. MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICS Aristotle accepted > Zeno’s [1] demand for a con-

sistent mathematical analysis of the extension, composition, and motion of bodies. This analysis led Aristotle to represent, in confrontation with atomism, places,

time intervals, motions and bodies and their parts as continua of finite extension; only their limits are without extension. The notion of instantaneous motion

is rejected, since differences in velocity would result in a division of indivisible points of time (Aristot. Ph. 23 4a 24ff.); the introduction of instantaneous velocities as limit values (after the model of incommensurable geometrical relations between physical quantities) is not considered. Opposing the Eleatic (Melissus 30B 7.7 DK) and atomistic (Leucippus 67A 7 DK) conception of an entry into the ‘void’ (xevov/ken6n), Aristotle maintains that spatial > motion requires an accompanying medium which establishes its direction (Aristot. Ph. 21 4b 32ff.),

limits its speed (Aristot. Ph. 215a 31ff.), and also guarantees its continuation in ballistic processes (Aristot. Ph. 215a 14ff.; 266b 27ff.). It cannot, therefore, be an inertial motion. The physical quantities relevant for a course of motion are distance (D,) and time (T), as well as the moved body (B), its weight (W) or the strength of its impulse (S,), and the density (D,) of the medium. Each of these physical quantities can be multiplied and broken down into equal parts, thus they can also be analysed numerically. Aristotle postulated proportional and inversely proportional correlations between D,/T and S, or B in forced motion (Aristot. Ph. 249b 30ff.), as well as between D/T and W or D, in natural motion (Aristot. Cael. 273b 29ff.; 301a 26ff. and Aristot. Ph. 215a 24ff.). Unlike modern physics since GALILEI, however, Aristotle does not consider such proportions to be laws of nature. As they are relations between objects ofvarious kinds, they cannot be explanations of physical phenomena based on the ‘nature’ ofthe objects

sic), astronomy and optics as exceptions; these harbour the possibility of mathematical physics.

VII. Optics In Antiquity, optics was considered to be the theory of vision. This included the anatomy and function of the organs of vision (elaborated esp. in Gal. De placitis Hippocratis et Platonis 7,4ff.; Gal. De usu partium ro) and the description of causal and geometrical relations between the eye and its object. The atomist thesis that the eye receives material ‘copies’ (et8mda/eidola, Leucippus 67A29 DK) that detach themselves from the surface of the object and appear on the pupil is according to Aristot. Sens. 438a 5ff. rendered obsolete by the theory of images and reflection. Geometrical optics (perspective, reflection in plane and curved mirrors, refraction on the surface of media), practiced by means of a detailed series of measurements esp. by Euclid (— Euclides [3]), — Archimedes [1], + Hero

I, and

Ptolemy

(— Ptolemaeus),

operated

instead with visual rays emanating from the eye. In this theory, the interaction between the eye and the surface of the object, and hence the perception of its ‘colour’, is mediated through the transparency of the medium (identified with light by Pl. Ti. 45bff. and Aristot. An. 418b off.). According to the Stoics, the visual ray is a state of tension of the air emanating from the eye, vision being similar to scanning an object with a stick (Diog. Laert. 7,157).

GOH.

VIII. FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS AND INFLUENCE

The extensive Hellenistic literature on physics is for the most part lost. Our knowledge is based largely on secondary sources, especially in Latin (Cic. Nat. D.; Cic. Fat.; Cic. Div.; Lucr.). From the second century on,

detailed commentaries were written on Plato’s Timaeus (> Proclus) and on Aristotle’s scientific works, especially by + Alexander [26] of Aphrodisias, > Philoponus, and > Simplicius. Ancient physics remains important today, particularly through the controversial discussion of its fundamental assumptions and concepts. It has clarified alternatives which in many respects still determine the framework of modern theories. Examples are atomism, criticized by Aristotle (indivisible bodies in Leucippus and Democritus; indivisible but extended points in space and time in Epicurus); the causal structure of becoming (internal teleology in Aristotle, external teleology in Stoicism and Platonism; Stoic determinism, motivated by a logic of time and explicated in physical terms, in the Stoics (> Predestination, theory of); indeterminism on the atomic level in Epicurus); the assump-

2255

226

tion, rejected by Aristotle, of a microscopic or macroscopic vacuum (with the problem of the conceptual distinction between corporeal extension and space); and especially the relation (already problematic with regard to the statics and hydrostatics of Archimedes) of physics

Extant sources: the treatise Physiognomonikd, attributed to Aristotle [6], but probably originating from the > Peripatos and the 3rd cent. BC; based on this, » Polemon’s [6] treatise, written between AD 133 and 136, of which a fragment and an Arabic translation together with an adaptation by — Adamantius are extant; a Latin work, erroneously ascribed in the MS’s list of authors to Apuleius [III], undoubtedly written in the 2nd half of the 4th cent. AD on the basis of the two already mentioned works together with the lost work by Loxus; finally a Byzantine adaptation of the aforementioned treatise by Adamantius. Even though in antiquity both > Pythagoras and + Hippocrates [6] were accredited with having invented physiognomy, the science itself is much older, dating back to Babylonian mantics (> Divination I.), according to which the body displays signs which allow the prediction of its life expectancy. However, physiognomy was codified in the Corpus Hippocraticum (around 400 BC) and formalized in the > Peripatos with reference to Aristot. Hist. an. and under application of the principles of syllogism. Galen (znd cent. AD) provided its theoretical legitimization, particularly as it worked on the same principles as medical diagnostics, i.e. using signs (sémeia) in order to grasp the deeper causes. As a discipline, it was split into three different techniques: zoological, ethnological and medical-psychological physiognomy. The former two compared the observed human characteristics with the characteristics

to mathematics and mechanics, and the associated con-

cept of ‘nature’. The modern concept of a law of nature as an experimentally testable relation between measurable physical quantities does not distinguish between natural things and artifacts. The decisive breakthrough in modern physics with Galilei is the result of the reduction to mechanical experiments of two physical phenomena which Aristotle could not sufficiently explain, as neither could the theory of impetus, inspired by Aristotle and transmitted to the Middle Ages via > Philoponus, sc. the persistence of ballistic (and hence forced) movement and the acceleration of natural movement. ~ Aristoteles [6]; ~ ATomism; > Cosmology; > Mathematics; > Matter; > Mechanics; > Nature, Natural philosophy; — Space; -— Teleology; -» World; — Pxysics 1 A.C.

Crompie,

Styles of Scientific Thinking in the

European Tradition, 3 vols., 1994

2E. J. D1sKsTERHUIS,

Die Mechanisierung des Weltbildes, 1956, repr. 1983 3H. Frasnar, Aristoteles. Problemata Physica, 31983 (German transl.) 4G. GALILer, Dialogues concerning two new sciences, 1914, repr. 1991 5 G. HEINEMANN, Natural Knowledge in the Hippocratic Treatise On Ancient Medicine, in: J. ALTHOFF et al. (ed.), Antike Naturwissenschaft und ihre Rezeption, vol. 10, 2000 6L. Jupson (ed.), Aristotle’s Physics. A Collection of Essays, 1991 7CH. Kaun, Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology, 1960 8 D.C. LinpBERG, Auge und Licht im Mittelalter, 1987 9G. E.R. Lioyp, Hellenistic Science, in: CAH?, vol. 7.1, 321-352 10Id., The Revolu-

tions of Wisdom. Studies in the Claims and Developments of Ancient Greek Science, 1987 11 A.A. Lone, D.N. SEDLEY, The Hellenistic Philosophers, 2 vols., 1987, §§4-15, 43-54 12 W.D. Ross (ed.), Aristotle’s Physics, 1936(withcomm.) 13 S. SaMBuRSKY, The physical world of the Greeks, 1987 14H. SCHNEIDER, Das griechische Technikverstandnis, 1989 15 G.A. SEECK (ed.), Die Naturphilosophie des Aristoteles, 1975 16 F. SOLMSEN, Aristotle’s System of the Physical World. A Comparison with His Predecessors,

1960

17R.

SoRaBy1, Matter,

Space and Motion: Theories in Antiquity and Their Sequel, 1988 18 Id., Time, Creation, and the Continuum: Theories in Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, 1983 19 G. ViasTos, Plato’s Universe, 1975 20H. WAGNER, Aristoteles. Physikvorlesung, +1979 (German trans.) 21S. WATERLOW, Nature, Change and Agency in Aristotle’s Physics, *1988 22 W. WreLanp, Die aristotelische Physik, 31992 23M. Wotrr, Geschichte der Impetustheorie, 1978. GO.H.

Physiognomy (pvo.oyvmuovia/physiognomonia, Lat. physiognomia). Within ancient > psychology, physiognomy represented a set of techniques, assessing a person’s personality and character through the observation of physical characteristics and behaviour (Ps.-Aristot. Physiognom. 6-7).

PHYSIOGNOMY

of an animal species or respectively an ethnic group, which were assumed to be constant and consistent; the

characteristics ascribed to this animal species or ethnic group, which were at least to some extent determined by environmental factors, were then transferred to the person under analysis. The examination under the third technique was somewhat more specific, as it was based on the assumption that a person’s — psychology (i.e. soul) could influence the physical appearance, particularly through changes in its condition (Ps.-Aristot. Physiognom. 35); in this, the face and the eyes were of particular importance. While the former two physiognomical techniques resulted in a typology, the third technique made it possible to conduct a specific psychological differentiated analysis. Originally descriptive and interpretive, ancient physiognomy had become normative no later than the Ps.-Aristotelian treatise by prescribing the required relationship between appearance and condition on the principle of appropriateness (epiprépeia) and adopting the sociocultural notion of a balance (— mes6tés) be-

tween extremes. As evident e.g. in > Theophrastus’ Characters, psychological observation had become more specific since the 4th/3rd cents. BC, but without replacing physiognomy in its entirety. In Rome, it was fashionable to interpret facial features (metoposcopi), and in the 2nd cent. AD, physiognomy was used as a literary tool. Following a period during which it may have sunk into

PHYSIOGNOMY

227

oblivion, it seems to have been practiced again from the 4th cent. AD onwards; without any further breaks, it was transmitted to Byzantium and the Occident. — PHYSIOGNOMY J. ANpré (ed.), Traité de physiognomonie par un anonyme latin, 1981 (with French trans. and comm.); A. ARM-

STRONG, The Methods of Greek Physiognomists, in: G&R, N.S. 5, 1958, 52-56; S. Darts, Il lessico fisiognomico nei papiri greci, in: §. Sconoccuia (ed.), Lingue tecniche del greco e del latino, 1993, 99-104; E. C. EVANS,

Studies of Physiognomy in the Second Century A.D., in: TAPhA 72, 1941, 96-108; Ead., Galen the Physician as Physiognomist, in: TAPhA 76, 1945, 287-298; Ead., Physiognomics in the Roman Empire, in: CJ 45, 1950, 277-

282; R. FOERSTER, Die Physiognomie der Griechen, 1884; Id. (ed.), Scriptores Physiognomonici Graeci et Latini, 2 vols, 1893; B. Hoppe, Physiognomie der Naturgegenstande, insbesondere der Pflanzen, in der Antike und ihre

Wirkung, in: Antike Naturwissenschaft und ihre Rezeption 8, 1998, 43-59; F. R. Kraus, Die physiognomonischen Omina der Babylonier, 1935; R. Mecow, Antike

Physiognomielehre, in: Das Altertum 9, 1963, 213-221; M. M. Sassi, La scienza dell’uomo nella grecia antica, 1988;J.SCHMIDT, s.v. Physiognomik, RE 20, 1064-1074; S. VocT, Aristoteles, Physiognomonika, 1999 (German trans. and comm.).

Physiologus

(®vowAdyoc/Physiolégos).

A.TO.

The

short

Greek work Physiologus is the earliest and most important typological explanation of nature that interprets numerous animals, several plants and stones typologically with respect to God, Christ, the devil, baptism, resurrection etc. The transmission of the Greek text is complicated and varied [5. XII-XXIXj. The original text of the first edition probably had 48 chapters; their sequence was more or less unsystematic and cumulative. Almost without exception, the lion as king of the animals comes first (ch. 1) in the Greek MSS and the ancient translations. The P. originated in the second half of the 2nd cent. AD in > Alexandria [1] (its earliest users: Clemens [3] of Alexandria, > Origenes [2], > Hippolytus [2] of Rome and probably — Tertullianus [2], cf. [7. 598]). The name of the author is unknown (> Pantaenus is worth considering; cf. [7. 598]); and the authors listed in the MSS (Epiphanius, Basileius, etc.) are of no significance. Stereotypical statements (e.g., ‘the Physiologus says’) and parallels in ancient non-Christian authors led to speculations about the existence of an ‘original Physiologus’ as source; Wellmann [14] attempted to attribute the ‘original Physiologus’ to a schematic author of c. AD 200, Bolus of Mendes. Specifically, Wellmann postulated a common source for the P. and ‘Cyranides’ (contra [6. 14-3437. 598]). Points of contact between the P. and ancient authors are usually vague and varied, while almost half of the characteristics dealt with in the P. have no parallels in pagan and Christian literature. Without exception, the author of the P. arrived at them through profound theological reflection on certain Bible passages and the use of the

228

Christian method of > TyPpoLoGy [6. 42-47; 7. 599] [6. 35]; in addition to the Bible, early Christian texts are used, such as the Epistle of Barnabas (6. 29f.; 7. 598f.]. Occasionally the P. reveals a precise knowledge of nature [6. 4of.]. In Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, the little book enjoyed a wide and influential circulation, especially as it was translated into almost all of the cultural languages of Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Syriac, Arabic, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavic, Romanian

[x1. 79ff.; 7. 600]; because of its faithfulness to the Greek text, the Ethiopian translation is important for textual criticism [6. 57 note 8; 7. 600]). The medieval Latin versions, the vernacular translations (e.g. Old High German and Icelandic) and the bestiaries depended on the old Latin translations B (4th cent.) and Y

(before 500) [7. 600f.] [7. 6or]. On the great influence of the P. in visual art, see [9]. 1 F.C. Carmopy, Physiologus Latinus, versio B, 1939 2 Id., Physiologus Latinus, versio Y,1941 3 D. KAIMAKIS (ed.), Der Physiologus nach der ersten Redaktion

trage zur Klassischen Philologie 63), 1974

(Bei-

4D. OFFER-

MANNS (ed.), Der Physiologus nach den Handschriften G

und M (Beitrage zur Klassischen Philologie 22), 1966 5 F. SBORDONE (ed.), Physiologus, 1936 (repr. 1976 and 1991) 6K. ALpErs, Untersuchungen zum griechischen Physiologus und den Kyraniden, in: Vestigia Bibliae 6, 1984, 13-87 7 Id.,s.v. Physiologus, TRE 26, 1996, 596602 (bibl.) 8 M. J. CurLey, Physiologus, 1979 (transl. of the Physiologus Latinus)

9 P. GERLACH, s.v. Physiologus,

LCI 3, 1971, 432-436 10 N. HENKEL, Studien zum Physiologus im Mittelalter, 1976 11 F. LAucHERT, Geschichte des Physiologus, 1889 (repr. 1974) 120. SEEL, Der Physiologus (transl. and comm.), 1960 (°1992) 13 U. Trev (ed.), Physiologus, 1981 (with transl.) 14 M. WELLMANN, Der Physiologus. Eine religionsgeschichtlichnaturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung, in: Philologus

suppl. 32.1, 1930, I-116.

K.ALP.

Phytaeum (®vto1ov/Phytaion). City in Aetolia on the south of Lake > Trichonium (ethnic name ®vtatevc/ Phytaieus, cf. IG IX 1? 1,24,6f.; probably also ®vetaioc/Phyrtaios, SGDI 1949,16), identified with the ancient remains at modern Palaiochori, to the south of Kapsorachi. According to inscriptions, citizens of P. frequently provided officials for the Aetolian League (cf. [1. col. [V 46]; IMagn. 28,14); mentioned in literature only in Pol. 5,7,7 and 11,7,5 and Steph. Byz. s.v. ®. +> Aetolians, Aetolia (with map) 1 BCH 45, 1921. S. BOMMELJE, P. K. Dorn et al., Aetolia and the Aetolians, 1987, 100; PRITCHETT 6, 133f. KF.

Phytalidae see > Theseus Piaculum. From Latin piare = pium reddere, ‘cleanse’, ‘expiate’ (Plaut. Men. 517; Varro, Ling. 6,30), later also ‘reconcile’ (Plaut. Asin. 506; Verg. Aen. 6,379). Piacu-

lum denotes on the one hand the action leading to vio-

229

230

lation of the + pax deorum and requiring expiation (Plaut. Truc. 223; Varro, Ling. 629) and on the other hand the ritual act of expiation for such an offence or the sacrificial animal used for this purpose (Cato Agr.

Monte Mangone and the Colle di Piazza Vecchia. The complex is named after the modern locality situated nearby. On the basis of the ceramics finds, it is assumed that the villa was built between AD 305 and 325. The ancient restorations of the mosaics suggest that the complex was inhabited in this form right through to the Byzantine Period [6. 54, 376f.]. After that it was used more or less as a village by farmers and artisans, until it was finally destroyed in the 12th cent. AD. The numerous and extensive mosaics make the complex one of the most important sites from the time of the tetrarchy (> Tetrarches). The first excavations and subsequent research also concentrated on the mosaics to an extent that the other finds, i.e. earlier and later settlement layers and even the architecture, were for a long time only superficially investigated. It was not until [7] that a comprehensive publication regarding the finds appeared, inasfar as the excavation notes from the 1950s and the preserved remains allowed this. The key question that appeared to arise on the basis of the rich fittings was that of the identity of the owner. He is possibly depicted in one of the mosaics, the socalled ‘Great Hunt’. It was initially thought that he was a Roman emperor — e.g. Maximianus [1] Herculius (cf. [3]) or Maxentius (cf. [5]). Modern research has however reached the conclusion, based on the finds of other extensive building complexes of Late Antiquity, that PA is not so different from other late ancient > villas as to suggest that it was commissioned by the emperor. So the assumption that the owner was a Roman aristocrat seems presently more convincing ({7. 31-51]: L. Aradius Valerius Proculus Populonius).

139). Since correct observation of instructions, acts and rules was an essential part of the exercise of Roman cults, there was a great danger of offending. A distinction was made between offences committed unintentionally (sine dolo) and intentionally (dolo malo); priestly cult rules (+ Ecclesiastical/Religious law) and leges sacrae set out what transgressions were to be deemed

piacula and determined the (im)possibility, nature and extent of the expiation by the piacula sacrifice (CIL I? 366; 2872; Cic. Leg. 2,22). Unintentional or recurring unavoidable infringements of these rules could be expiated in advance or by regularly arranged sacrifices [1. nos. 48,20-24]. The piaculum could be offered by the perpetrator himself or by the magistrate, and the sacrifice was a pig or the animal appropriate to the respective deity. The various types of offence that had to be expiated by a piaculum included a) interrupting sacrifice and prayer (Cato Agr. 141; Macrob. Sat. 3,10,7; Gell. NA 4,6,6; Serv. Aen. 2,104); b) failing to carry out sacral acts; c) contravening instructions applicable to Roman = priests (Liv. 5,52,14; Gell. NA 10,15,10); d) violation of a > grove or — sanctuary (CIL I 366; 2872; Cato Agr. 139f.; [1. nos. 42,14; 48,18—24]); e) violating certain (holi)days (dies nefasti:

Varro, Ling. 6,30; Macrob. Sat. 1,16,9f.; — fasti); f) contravention of the ius manium (> Manes, Di; Cic. Leg. 2,57); g) breaking contracts. ~ Expiatory rites 1J. ScuHerp

(ed.), Commentarii

fratrum

arvalium

qui

supersunt, 1998.

W.

EHLERS,

s.v.

P., RE

20,

1179-1182;

H. FuGIEr,

Recherches sur |’expression du sacré dans la langue latine, 1963, 341-346; J. SCHEID, Le délit religieux dans la Rome tardo-républicaine, in: Le délit religieux dans la cité antique, 1981, 136-138, 148-151; S. P. C. Tromp, De Roma-

norum piaculis, 1921; G. Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Romer, *1912, 392f. AVS.

Piacus (Iiaxoc/Piakos). City in Sicily (Steph. Byz. s.v.

II.), presumably to the northwest of Catania at Adrano in the Mendolito quarter. Finds of coins suggest this location: bronze (425-420 BC) and silver (c. 400 BC) issues as well as an exemplar showing the double Piacinus/Adran \egend. BTGCI 13, 501-507; E. MANNI, Geografia fisica e politica della Sicilia antica, 1981, 219. GLF.

Piazza Armerina I. GENERAL

II. ARCHITECTURE

III. Mosaics

I. GENERAL Extensive Late Antique villa complex in Sicily in the so-called Casale, a valley between Monte Casale,

PIAZZA ARMERINA

Il. ARCHITECTURE The villa is situated not quite in the bottom of the valley and is built into the falling terrain from east to west in terraces. Ancient visitors entered the villa through a triumphal arch and came through a courtyard and porch into the vestibule, i.e. into the first reception room. From there they reached the rectangular peristyle surrounded by Corinthian columns, a large pool with a fountain in the middle. In the west a thermal complex adjoins the peristyle, in the north the kitchen and servants’ quarters, in the east the rooms of the owner. These consist of the ambulatio (extensive corridor) — that served as a kin of boundary to the other rooms and at the same time asa link between the private rooms — the basilica with the apsis which, as a reception hall, was fitted out with opus sectile ( mosaic), the bedrooms of the owner and a complex just for his children. The rooms adjoining the peristyle to the south were probably intended for the servants of the children. Finally a door leads from the ambulatio to the extensive garden peristyle in the shape of a horseshoe, again with a fountain and in addition with a spacious trikonchos (room in the shape of a clover), a triclinium (dining room).

The plan reveals four sections of the building that — as [5. 19] assumes, certainly rightly - were however

PIAZZA

232)

231

ARMERINA

Piazza Armerina, ‘Imperial villa’; AD 305-325 (ground-plan)

Deambulatoria, Peristylia Honorary arch 2 Vestibulum with porch (added later) on the court side Latrine

Garden peristyle Fountain Ambulatio

Basilica Palace aula with apse

Baths

Palaestra (?) Frigidarium Covered pool of frigidarium Tepidarium Caldarium Guest rooms

Room of the Little Hunt Room of the Fishing Cupids

Room of the Dance (mosaic of ‘Rape of the Sabine Women’)

ES

Private living quarters

16

Anteroom to ‘emperor's apartments'

Ae 18 19 20 21

Private dining room Cubiculum with alcove Peristyle of the children's villa Children's dining hall Northern cubiculum with rectangular alcove Southern cubiculum with apsidal alcove Peristyle of the triclinium Triclinium

Exedra (Nymphaeum) Hall of Orpheus Service rooms

Kitchen with anterooms Rooms for the servants Great latrine Walled-in area (not excavated) Distribution basin of

the aqueduct Latrine of the children's villa

Aqueduct

233

234

PICTI

built in one stage. Presumably the builders started with the rectangular peristyle and the adjoining rooms, immediately moved over to the construction of the thermal baths, then built the triclinium with the garden peristyle and finished with the entrance area. AL.PA.

Picentes, Picenum (lunvoi/Pikénoi, Muxevtivn/Pikentine). Italian tribe in the area between the Adria in the east and the Appennines in the west, the rivers Aesis in the north and Aternus in the south, first mentioned on the occasion of the conclusion of a treaty with Rome in

Ill. Mosaics Almost all the rooms are equipped with colourful + mosaics. Those in the representational and living rooms of the family are richly ornamented with figures, those in the servants’ quarters are simpler with geometric decoration. Striking are the fittings of the basilica that was fully lined with marble and equipped with a > pavimentum in opus sectile. [7. 112-373] provides a precise catalogue of the individual rooms with their wall and floor decoration. The mosaics’ workshop is African, possibly Mauritanian according to [6]. The most striking mosaic compositions are the so-called ‘Great Hunt’ (ambulatio) that is particularly captivating because of the numerous exotic animal species, the chariot race with a richness of detail (thermal baths), the — poorly preserved — Orpheus mosaic (apsidal room) and the plastic and subtle representation of figures from the Hercules sequence (trikonchos). The pictorial programme as a whole conveys that the owner,

campaigns in 269/8 BC (Acta triumphalia for 268 BC; Liv. Epit. 15; Eutr. 2,16); some of the P. were settled north of the Gulf of Paestum (- Poseidonia) (Str. 554513; Dionys. Per. 361; Plin. HN 3,70; Ptol. 3,1,7). Their capital city of Asculum Picenum (caput gentis) became a civitas foederata, the inhabitants of the rest of the area, ager Picenus, obtained the status of civitas sine suffragio. The P. played a major part in the > Social

thanks to his honesty (virtus), his education and his in-

di S. Severino, Tolentino,

telligence, remains victorious over all his opponents,

Cupra Marittima). Inscriptions in the indigenous lang-

even over chaos and evil (wild animals, giants). At the same time, the scenes, e.g. the hunts, individually reveal the view of life of the newly rich class of Late Antiquity which now had the leisure to indulge in the once serious competitions in the form of sport and pleasure in their free time. —+ Mosaic; > Pavimentum; = Sicilia

uage are extant (+ Northern Picene; southern Picene: — Oscan-Umbrian).

299 BC (Liv. 10,10,12). Conquered by Rome in two

1B. Pace, I mosaici di P.A., 1955 2G. V. GentiLi, La villa Erculia di P.A.I mosaici figurati, 1959 3H.P. L’OraNGE, Nuovo contributo allo studio del palazzo di P.A., in: Acta ad archaeologiam et artium historiam pertinentia 2, 1965, 65-104 4G. V. GENTILI, P.A., 1969 5 H. KAHLER, Die Villa des Maxentius bei P.A., 1973

6K.M.

D. Dunpasin, The Mosaics of Roman North

Africa, 1978 7A. CaARANDINI, A. Ricci, M. DE Vos, Filosofiana. La Villa di P.A., 1982 8R.J. A. WILSON, P.A., 1983 9 C. F. SEMINI, Mosaici di P.A., 1992 10L.

ViLxaRI, L’ibla Sicana e il sito della villa imperiale di P.A., 1995:

AL.PA.

Pibechis (IliPfyic/Pibéchis). Late Antique sorcerer from Egypt. Probably known under various names, e.g. Apollobex (Apul. Apol. 90), all of which always bear the meaning ‘falcon’ or ‘sparrow-hawk’. Hence P. can be seen as close to the Egyptian deity — Horus. P. is supposed to have possessed the alchemical ability to make gold [1. 2,25,12]. 1 M. BerTHELOT (ed.), Collection des anciens alchimistes grecs, 1888 (repr. 1967). J.BL.

War [3] against Rome (Liv. Per. 72; 74; 76; Eutr. 5,3;

Flor. 2,6; Gell. NA 15,4,3). In 49 BC the territory of the P. was still under the control of > praefecti (Caes. B Civ. 1,15,1). In Late Antiquity, P. was part of the province of Flaminia et P. (Not. Dign. Occ. 1,56; 2,14).

The P. was shaped from the gth to the 4th cent. BC by a completely autonomous culture (so-called ‘Picena’ culture). This is attested by the funereal gifts (especially from the 6th cent.): ceramics, crockery for symposia, chariots, sculptures that were recovered from the numerous necropolises (cf. Numana, Canerano, Pitino

Fermo,

Belmonte

Piceno,

+ Italy, languages (with map) A. MarinetTTI, Le iscrizioni sudpicene, vol. 1, 1985; D.

Lo.uint, E. Percossi (eds.), La civilta picena nelle Marche. FS G. Annibaldi, 1992; D. G. Lotuint, La civilta picena, in: A. RADMILLI (ed.), Popoli e civilta dell’Italia antica, vol. 5, 1976, 107-195; M. LaNnDo-rFr, I Piceni, in: G. PUGLIESE CARRATELLI (ed.), Italia omnium terrarum alumna, 1988, 313-372; G. Pact, Il Piceno in eta romana.

Atti del 3° Seminario di studi per personale direttivo e docente della scuola (Cupra Marittima, Ottobre 1991), 1992; A. Emrtiozzi (ed.), Carri da guerra e principi etruschi. Cat. della mostra (Viterbo, 1997/8), 1997, 229241, 315-319; G. CoLonna (ed.), Die Picener. Ein Volk Europas (Exhibition Frankfurt), 1999; A. Naso, I Piceni, 2000.

G.PA.

Picti. Tribe beyond the northern frontier of the Roman province of - Britannia, first mentioned in connection with the events of AD 297 (Laterculus Veronensis 13; Pan. Lat. 8,11,4). Constantius [1] I campaigned against them in AD 306, but from the mid—4th cent. they subjected the province to repeated attack (Amm. Marc. 20,1; 26,4,5; 27,8,20). Their territory lay in eastern

Scotland, north of the Firth of Forth (cf. the etymology of various place names). Little is known of their settlements; however, they left a remarkable number of symbol stones [1]. They came under the rule of their western neighbours the > Scotti in the 9th cent. as the Kingdom of Scotland took shape. 1 C. THomas, The Interpretation of the Pictish Symbols, in: AJ 120, 1963, 31-97.

PICTI

G. und A. Ritcuig, Scotland, 1985; F. T. WAINWRIGHT, The Problem of the Picts, 1955; $. H. CRUDEN, The Early Christian and Pictish Monuments of Scotland, 1964; A. SmytTH, Warlords and Holy Men, 1984. M.TO.

Pictones (Ilixtovec; Piktones). Tribe in Gallia Celtica, afterwards + Aquitania, to the south of the lower — Liger (Caes. B Gall. 3,11,53 7,4,63 75533 8,26,13 Plin. HN 4,108; 17,47; Str. 4,2,1; Ptol. 2,7,6), in the modern départements Vendée [1], Deux-Sévres [2] and Vienne [3]. The P., known from the 2nd cent. AD as Pictavi (CIL XIII 7297; Notitia Galliarum 13,6; Amm. Marc. 15,11,13), were neighboured by the Namnetes on the north-west, the Bituriges Cubi on the east, the Lemovices on the south east and the Santones on the south west. In 56 BC, the P. were already under the control of the Roman proconsul (Caes. B Gall. 3,11,5). In 52 BC, they allied with > Vercingetorix (Caes. B Gall. 7,4,6; 75,3). In the Roman Imperial Period they were numbered among the civitates of Gallia Aquitanica (Str. 4,2,13 Plin. HN 4,108). Their region’s limy soil was well suited for cultivating olives and vineyards. (Plin. HN 17,47). Fishing, shipbuilding and silver deposits in the lead at Melle [4. 975f.] were economically significant (Deux-Sévres; aerariae: Caes. B Gall. 3,21,3). Its excellent network of roads was important for trade (It. Ant. 460; Tab. Peut. 2,3 [5. 87f.]). Their main town was Lemonum (later Pictavorum civitas [6. 418, 504]; modern Poitiers). The first known bishop was > Hilarius [1]. Inscriptions: [7. 55-57]; CIL III 14046a; CIL XIII 1124; 1697; 7297; 11070. — Gallia (with map) 1M. Provost et al., Vendée (Carte archéologique de la Gaule 85), 1996 2J. HiERNARD, D. SIMON-HIERNARD, Deux-Sévres (Carte archéologique de la Gaule 79), 1996 3 J. PERRIER, Haute-Vienne (Carte archéologique de la Gaule 87), 1993 4 GRENIER 2,2 5 GRENIER 2,1 6 GRENIER I 7 P. WUILLEUMIER (ed.), Inscriptions latines

des Trois Gaules, 1963.

yall,

Pictor. Roman cognomen (‘painter’), inherited in the Fabii family (> Fabius [I 3 1-3 5]). KaJANTO, Cognomina, 321.

236

235

K.-L.E.

1H. Dantmann, Uber Aemilius Macer (AAWM 1981,6) 2 RaDKE

3 WaLDE/HOFMANN, vol. 2.

C.R.P.

Picus. Mythical king of the ancient Italic Laurentes (Verg. Aen. 7,48; 171) or of the > Aborigines (Fest. 228,32-34 L.), son of > Saturnus (Verg. Aen. 7,48) or of > Stercutius (Serv. Aen. 10,76). In Verg. Aen. 7,4 549 P. is the father of + Faunus and grandfather of ~ Latinus [1] (differently Verg. Aen. 12,164; cf. [1]). P. appears to > Rhea Silvia in a dream (Ov. Fast. 3,37) and feeds > Romulus and Remus (Plut. Quaest. Rom. 21). P. is turned into a woodpecker (Latin picus) by + Circe (Verg. Aen. 7,189-192). Vergil motivates this transformation by P.’s rejection of Circe’s affections; in Ovid (met. 14,320-434) P. is already married to Canens, in Servius (Aen. 7,190) to > Pomona (a possible source is Aemilius Macer, Ornithogonia: Plin. HN 10,40f.; Non. 834 L.). According to Valerius Antias (fr. 6 HRR; cf. Ov. Fast. 3,285-360) Martius P. and Faunus teach religious rituals to king ~ Numa Pompilius. The interpretation of the woodpecker as a predictive bird (> Divination; Fest. 214,9-11 L.; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1,14,5; Plin. HN

10,40), as being sacred to ~ Mars (Non. 834 L.)

and a totem of the > Picentes (Tabula Iguvina 5b 8-18; Plin. HN 3,70), is not undisputed [2. 31 note 30]. 1R. Moorton,

The Genealogy of Latinus in Vergil’s

Aeneid, in: TAPhA 118, 1988, 253-259 2N.HorRSFALl, Romulus, Remus and the Foundation of Rome, in: id., J.

BREMMER (eds.), Roman Myth and Mythography (BICS Suppl. 52), 1987, 25-48. CRP.

Pidasa (Tidaca; Pidasa). Fortified Carian settlement on (Mount) Grion, modern Ilbira Dagi, above Danisment, with two acropoleis (modern Cert Osman Kalesi) [1; 2. 91f.; 5]. After 494 BC the Persians gave > Milesia

baegdxeua/hyperakria (‘on the heights’), the uplands of Miletus [2], to the Pidaseis (Hdt. 6,20). P. was a member of the > Delian League (tribute of one talent, ATL 1, 535), and concluded a > sympoliteia between 323 and 313 BC with Latmus [2] (cf. [1]), and between 188/7 and 178/7 BC with Miletus [2] (cf. [1. 1393 3; 4. 283f.]), which sent a detachment to garrison P. 1 W. BLUMEL, Ein Vertrag zwischen Latmos und P., in: EA 27,1997, 135-142 2J.M. Cook, Some Sites of the Mile-

Picumnus. Roman deity identified with > Picus (Aemilius Macer fr. 1 CourTNEY; Non. 834 L.; cf. [1. 6-8]), even though there is no etymological connection to picus, ‘woodpecker’ [2. 254; 3. 299f.]. Also known as Sterculinius, inventor of manuring (Serv. Aen. 9,4), P. had a brother > Pilumnus, who, as Stercutius, was also associated with manure (Serv. Auct. Aen. 10,76; [z. 293f.]). Servius (according to Varro in Non. 848,11-

15 L.) interpreted P. and Pilumnus as gods of marriage (di coniugales) or of small children (di infantium). This Varronian speculation does not exclude an earlier tradition concerning both deities, but the antiquarian work prevents firm conclusions.

sian Territory, in: ABSA 56, 1961, 90-101 3 P. HERRMANN, Milet, vol. 6,1: Inschriften von Milet, 1996, 184

Nr. 149

4M. Prérart, Athénes et Milet. II. L’organisa-

tion du territoire, in: MH 42, 1985, 276-299 5 W. RapT, P. bei Milet, in: MDAI(Ist) 23/4, 1973/4, 169-174 6L.

RoserT, Documents d’ Asie Mineure. 13: Une monnaie de Peédasa-P., in: BCH 102, 1978, 490-500

7 ZGUSTA, 489.

H.LO.

Pierides (Iegidec/Pierides; Lat. Pierides or Pieriae). [1] Name for the + Muses after the place of their resi-

dence (Hes. Theog. 53). [2] The nine daughters of — Pierus (Paus. 9,29,4) and Antiope, they challenged the > Muses to an artistic

237

238

competition, were defeated and turned into magpies (Ov. Met. 5,671ff.) (Ov. Met. 5,294ff.; Antoninus Liberalis 9,1ff.). According to Antoninus Liberalis l.c. their names were Acalanthis, Colymbas, Iynx, Cenchris, Cissa, Chloris, Nessa, Pipo, and Dracontis. cw. Pierus (Iliggoc; Pieros). [1] Eponym of the Macedonian region Pieria (— Pierides), son of +» Macedon

[1] (Schol. Hom. Il. 14,226).

His association with the > Muses is evident from alternative genealogies: son of > Linus (Suda s.v. “Ounooc; Certamen Homeri et Hesiodi 47), father of > Oeagrus and > Calliope [1] (l.c.; Paus. 9,30,4; Suda l.c.). The first to write poetry to the Muses (Plut. De musica 3), he

introduced the cult of the nine Muses to Thespiae (+ Thespia) (Paus. 9,29,3). According to later versions, he named his nine daughters after the Muses; they are turned into magpies after a musical competition with the real Muses (I.c.; Antoninus Liberalis 9; Ov. Met.

55294-304). [2] Son of > Magnes [1], » the Muse > Cleio, and by her the father of > Hyacinthus (Apollod. 1,16). LK.

Pietas. Latin ‘dutiful behaviour’ towards the gods (Cic. Nat. D. 1,116); other people, especially one’s family and parents (Cic. Inv. 2,66; Ter. An. 869;[1. 105-114]); one’s mother country (Cic. Rep. 6,16; Liv. 39,9,10);

and later the emperor. Pietas was translated into Greek as — eusébeia [2]. Pietas is frequently linked to other virtues:

e.g.

clementia

(‘mercy’),

concordia

(‘har-

PIGMENTARIUS

1R. SaLter, Patriarchy, Property and Death in the Roman Family, 1994 2 BURKERT, 408-412 3 P. C. RosSETTO, s.v. P., LTUR 4, 86

87-89

4E. La Rocca, s.v. P., in: [3],

5 P. ZANKER, Augustus und die Macht der Bilder,

1987, 108-140 6A. TRAINA,s.v. P., EV 4, 93-101 GERWING, s.v. P., LMA 6, 2141f.

J. R. Fears, The Cult of Virtues and Roman

7M.

Imperial

Ideology, in: ANRW II 17.2, 831f., 835, 841; R. VOLLKOMMER, S.V. P., LIMC 8.1, 998-1003. W.-A.M.

Pietrabbondante. A Samnite federal sanctuary which may possibly be equated with > Bovianum Vetus lay near

the village of P. (in the province of Isernia). Numerous dedications of weapons dating from the late 5th cent. BC up to the > Samnite Wars in the early 3rd suggest that a god, no longer identifiable, here received a tithe of the booty of war. Shortly after the mid 3rd cent., an Ionic temple replaced the first square, walled

enclosure from the 4th cent; the temple was violently destroyed at the end of the 3rd cent. A monumental extension of the sanctuary was carried out in the 2nd and early rst cent., first by the original smaller temple A (around 180 BC) followed beginning in the late 2nd cent. by a larger complex consisting of a theatre and a podium temple (temple B), located axially behind it. According to an Oscan inscription on the building, temple B was erected by C. Statius Clarus, mentioned in App. B Civ. 4,25,102 in connection with the > Social War [3] (91-89 BC). The presumable ancient name + Cominium (Liv. 10,43,5-7) is linguistically linked to

mony’), constantia (‘constancy’), fides (‘fidelity’), virtus

comitium (— comitia) and points to its function as a

(‘courage’).

meeting place of the > Samnites. The sanctuary quickly fell into disrepair after the defeat of the Italici by the

The = personification of Pietas as a goddess in the personal or public realm (Plaut. Rud. 190-192; Plaut. Curc. 639f.) led M.’ Acilius [I 11] Glabrio in the year 181 BC to erect a temple at the Forum Holitorium in Rome, at the site of what was later to be the theatre of Marcellus, in order to fulfill a vow (votum) made by his father; a second temple was located at the Circus Flaminius [3; 4]. The cognomen pius as well as coin depictions of Pietas — sometimes shown with a > stork feeding its parents in their old age (Aristot. Hist. an. 615b 23; Publilius Syrus, CRF? fr. 1,5f.), the symbol of pietas beginning in the Republican era — underscored, using a variety of pictorial themes, the pietas of the ruler or the imperial house [5. 108-140]. The prototype of the pius homo was created by - Vergilius in the character of Aeneas (> Aeneas [1]), which was put to programmatic use by Augustus; the Pietas Augusta was evoked as an ‘imperial virtue’ [4; 5; 6]. From the time of — Augustine (Civ. 10,1) pietas referred to the relationship between human beings and God, characterized by worship and the requirement of sacrifice, and the relationship between children and their parents; it also referred to the behaviour of people towards each other as manifested in works of charity. In this sense it was also significant in the further development of Christianity [7].

Romans. S. CaPINI, s.v. P., EAA 2. Suppl. vol. 4, 371-375; S. GrIMALDIetal., Antico futuro, 1996; A. La Reaina, P., in: V. CIANFARANI et al. (ed.), Culture adriatiche antiche di Abruzzo e di Molise, 1978, 449-489; M. J. STRAZZULLA, I] santuario sannitico di P., *1973. M.M.

Pigeon see > Dove/Pigeon Pigmentarius. Derived from pigmentum (‘pigment’; cf. Pla HIN (33350 £335 0L S833. 585355293 137550)5.t0e Latin word pigmentarius is the term for producers of and traders in pigments, ointments and perfumes (unguenta). Representatives of this group are mentioned in Cicero and in inscriptions (Cic. Fam. 15,17,25 ILS 7604; 7605; CIL VI 9795). The workshop and store of a pigmentarius may be depicted in the house of the Vettii in Pompeii [2. pl. XV 1]. The selling of poisons or love potions by a pigmentarius was punishable (Dig. 48,8,3,3; cf. > Pharmakeia). 1 E. MULLER-GRAUPA, s.v. Pigmentarii, RE 20, 12331234 2 RostTovrzeFF, Roman Empire. H.SCHN.

PIGMENTS

240

239

Pigments. The notion of a ‘marble-white Antiquity’ which became fashionable during the Renaissance, reached its zenith with J. J. WINCKELMANN’S aesthetics during the period of Classicism, and slowly began to change only in the first half of the roth cent., e.g. through works such as the architectJ.HirToRF’s 1830 De Architecture polychrome chez les grecs (discovery of architectural — polychromy). This notion, along with the poor survival of pigmentary remains on sculptures and architecture and the almost complete absence of original Greek > painting, was one reason for the relative lack until recently of studies in the history of colour. However today, thanks to new finds, refined scientific procedures and re-evaluations of the written sources, pigmentation is known as a fundamental design element in the life and art of ancient Mediterranean cultures. From the distant past, rich decorative colour had been part of Egyptian artistic creativity. In the 7th cent. BC, the pigments used there and in the Ancient Near East were adopted into Greek painting. New studies show that the palette was not restricted to black, white, red and yellow, but included blue and green on an equal par. From the Greek Classical period on, individual colours were also mixed. Ancient pigments were obtained from organic, i.e. animal and vegetable, substances, as well as inorganic materials, i.e. earth and minerals, but they were also manufactured synthetically. The primary source on manufacturing processes is Pliny (HN 33ff.). White was obtained from various chalks; yellows from ferrous ochre; red from ruddle containing iron oxides, as well as from the murex; blue from ground blue glass or lapis lazuli; green from malachite or green chalks; black from burnt organic substances such as charcoal. Pliny distinguishes between colores singuli, austeri and floridi, thereby denoting the technical processes of applying the paint (mixed/unmixed) and the aesthetic effect in a painting (dull/bright). Scholars continue to dispute this interpretation, not least in view of the distinction inferred from it between opaque and translucent pigments and their specifications. Pigments were also used to colour textiles and leather. For certain regions, e.g. Sinope on the Black Sea, which enjoyed a monopoly in the finest red earth, the trade in pigments was of considerable economic importance. Many pigments, such as e.g. > purple and ~ lapis lazuli, were also extremely expensive to produce, and their use enhanced the prestige of commissioning customer and user alike. Many terms used in Greek poetry from Homer on attest to a different perception of colour among the Greeks: in archaic times, contrasts between light and dark and the identification of colour with light were stressed. Words for colours denote the structure and material of an object, not primarily its surface decoration. Natural philosophers, such as + Alcmaeon [4] of Croton and + Empedocles, who later influenced the colour teachings of > Democritus and > Theophrastus, or were interpreted by

+ Plato and > Aristoteles, reflect this in their treatises

on colours and their blending. Painters themselves also developed theories of pigmentation, e.g. the four-colour painting of Late Classicism, which used limited, single-tone pigments (yellow, red, white, black) and whose most famous exponent was > Apelles [4]. BLUMNER, Techn. IV, passim; V. BRINKMANN, Die Friese des Siphnierschatzhauses, 1994, 39-51; J. GAGE, Kulturgeschichte der Farbe, 1994; A. HERMANN, M. CAGIANO DE AZEVEDO, s.v. Farbe, RAC 7, 358-447; E. KARAKASI,

Die prachtvolle Erscheinung der Phrasikleia, in: Antike Welt 28, 1997, 509-517; N. Kocu, De Picturae Initiis, 1996, passim; R. Konic, G. WINKLER (ed.), Plinius, Naturkunde, Buch 35,*1997; I. SCHEIBLER, Griechische Malerei der Antike, 1994, 100-106; H. SCcHwEPPE, Handbuch der Naturfarbstoffe II 3, 1993; K. YFANTIDIS, Die Polychromie der hellenistichen Plastik, 1984, 128-149. TABLE AND BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. BERGER, Die Maltechnik des Altertums, 1904, repr. 1973, 260-262; J. ANDRE,

Etude sur les termes de couleur dans la langue latine, 1949; S. AucustI, I colori pompeiani, 1967; E. RIEDEL,

Bibliographie iiber die Pigmente der Malerei, in: Berliner Beitrage zur Archaometrie 10, 1988, 173-192; D. G. ULL-

RICH, Malpigmente der Klassik und des Hellenismus im ostlichen Mittelmeerraum, in: Akten des 13. Internationalen Kongresses fiir Archaologie, Berlin 1988, 1990, 615-617; Pigments et colorants de l’antiquité et du moyen-age ... Conference, Paris 1988, 1990.

N.H.

Pignus. Roman law of — pledge developed considerably by virtue of credit guarantee practice. At first it was a law of forfeit: at the expiry of the guaranteed debt, the pledgee received ownership of the pledged item (which until then had been conditional subject to deferral), with the protection of the > rei vindicatio (the claim to ownership). This is the form of the pignus in the formulae described by the elder Cato (Cat. Agr. 146,2,3, 149,2 and 150,2). Forfeiture (into slavery) was also, for instance, the fate of the (pledged) hostages surrendered in the Latin League in 493 BC (Fest. 166 s.v. nancitor).

In terms of the law of debt, the pignus took the place after forfeiture of the payment owed (datio in solutum), so that the guaranteed claim was settled, taking into account any depreciation of the pignus; appreciation, on the other hand, did not have to be paid out (cf. Cic. Att. 12,27(25),1; Labeo Dig. 20,1,35; Tabulae Herculanenses 70,73).

During the history of the Roman Republic, expiry of a guaranteed claim began to lead not to forfeiture but to a right of sale (ius vendendi) on the part of the pledgee (Servius/ Ulp. Dig. 47,10,15,32; Plin. Ep. 3,9,6), which at first had to be agreed upon (lav. Dig. 47,2,74; Pompon. Dig. 13,7,6 pr.; Gai. Inst. 2,64), and was later unconditional (Ulp. Dig. 13,7,4). The guaranteed claim now allowed a loss to be carried over in the remainder (reliquum, residuum)

(Pomp./Paul.

Dig. 20,5,9,1); a

surplus (superfluum) had to be paid out to the pledger (Ulp. Dig. 13,7,24,2). A special forfeiture agreement remained possible as datio in solutum (Cod. Iust 8,13,13 for AD 293) or—on the Greek model —asa sale

242 Pigments obtained from minerals and earths Armenian blue Azurite 2CuCQO3 - Cu(OH)2 Armenium 35, 30; 47

‘Scythian sky-blue' Lapislazuli(?) Scythicum caeruleum

Pigments obtained from plant or animal materials Indigo Indigofera C16H19N2O02 Indicum 35, 30; 42f.; 46; 49

PIGMENTS

Artificially produced pigments

Egyptian blue Cupriferous glass frit powder CaCu SigO10

Puteolanum 33, 161f.

33, 161; 35, 45f.; 49

Mountain green

Malachite CuCO3 - Cu(OH)> chrysocolla 33, 90;35,30;47 Appian green Terreverte Appianum

35, 48f.

Yellow ochre Weathering residue of iron ore and feldspar with oxide/hydroxide

Massicot

Burnt lead acetate cerussa usta

a-FeQ(OH)

35, 30; 38

ochra, dypa (Ochra) 3), 30) 35999; S77 179; 183 Orpiment

BLUE Sulphide of arsenic As2S3 GREEN YELLOW auripigmentum 33, 79; 35,30; 49 Ruddle Iron oxide Fe2O3 utAtocg (miltos),rubrica 33, 145;35, 30;33735

Sandarach Realgar As4Sq4 sandaraca 35, 30; 39 Sinopian earth Red ochre Sinopis 35, 30f.; 36; 40; 50 Cinnabar Mercury sulphide HgS

Dragon's blood Exudation of Dracaena cinnabari cinnabaris 33, 116; 35730

Purple Pigment obtained from the purple gland of the purple snail

Scarlet Ruddle + sandarach, roasted sandyx 35, 30; 40

Syrian red Sinopian earth + sandyx Syricum

purpurissimum

35, 30; 40

35, 30; 44f.; 49

‘Gold glue’ Sinopian earth + yellow ochre + kaolin (for gold-plating) leucophorum 35, 36

minium 83113884 35130; 331s 40n45

Chalks CaCO3 Eretrian earth, Eretria terra, 35, 30; 37f.; 192; 194

Lead acetate Basic carbonate of lead

2 PbCO3 - Pb(OH)2 cerussa

Selinuntian earth, creta Selinusia, 35, 46 Cimolian chalk, Cimolia creta,

347175; 35, 371., 49

35, 36; 194ff.. 198 Paraetonian white, Paraetonium,

35, 30; 36

Silversmith's earth, creta argentaria,

35, 44; 199

White argillaceous earth: Melian earth, Mndta sc.yh (Melia gé) Melinum

35,30; 37; 49f. Black Coal, soot atramentum

35, 30; 41f.; 50

'‘Wine-lee black’ Wine-lees tryginon

35, 42 ‘Ivory black’ Burnt ivory

elephantinum 35, 42

Ancient pigments in Pliny: Modern term, pigment substance, ancient term and references to Pliny's Naturalis historia.

PIGNUS

244

243

(Marcianus Dig. 20,1,16,9), until Constantine (+ Con-

tablished pledges (in cases of rental and lease, cf. Pom-

stantinus [1]) banned forfeiture agreements (Cod. Theod. 3,2,1 for AD 320, also Cod. lust. 8,34,3 for AD

pon. Dig. 20,2,2; Neratius Dig. 20,2,4).

530). The physical transfer of the pledge to the creditor (this being pignus in the strictest sense) was irrelevant to the pledge itself (Marcianus Dig. 20,1,5,1); it could still apply without actual transfer as a hypotheca (Ulp. Dig. 13,7,9523 Inst. Iust. 4,6,7; > hypotheké). However, a relationship in terms of the law of debt (pignus as real obligation), with the right of the pledger to receive the pledge in return on settlement of the guaranteed loan only came into effect through transfer (Gai. Dig. 44,7,1,6; Inst. lust 3,14,4). It was according to the formula ofthe actio Serviana, probably founded by Servius Sulpicius Rufus (cos. 51 BC) under the influence of Cato’s pledge formulae, that the pignus came into being (at first only for land lessors, then, from —> Iulianus [1] in the 2nd cent., for all pledgees, Inst. Iust 4,6,7) on the

following conditions: a pledge agreement (conventio), the belonging of the pledged object to the assets (in bonis) of the pledger at the time, and the existence of the claim to be guaranteed. Furthermore, the creditor must not delay acceptance of benefits of the guaranteed claim (> mora). The informal conventio (Gai. Dig. 20,1,4; Ulp. Dig. 13,7,1 pr.) could refer to individual items (in speciem collata) or — under the influence of Greek credit guarantee

practices (> hypdllagma)

— (as conventio

generalis) to entireties such as stocks of goods or complete estates, so-called general hypothecary credits (Gai. Dig. 20,1,15,1; Papin. Dig. 20,1,1 pr.). With the conventio, the pledgee unconditionally acquired + possessio (Florent. Dig. 13,7,35,1). This seems already to have formed the basis for the general right of the pledgee to the protections of the interdict (— interdictum; lulianus/Paul. Dig. 41,2,1,15). The requirements of the in bonis esse (— bona) at first also included the ‘freedom of pledge’, so that an item could only be pledged once (Africanus Dig. 20,4,9,3). Here, influence continued to be exerted by the idea that the pledge was forfeit to the creditor if the debtor failed to settle it. It was thus only possible to pledge the item in the case of the lapse of the existing pledge, or the surplus (superfluum, hyperocha) in the case of a pledge sale (Gai. Dig. 20,1,15,2). From the end of the 2nd cent., several pledges could coincide on the same item (Marcellus Dig. 44,2,19; Marcellus/Ulp. Dig. 20,4,7,1) ranked according to the principle of priority (prior tempore potior ture, cf. Cod. lust 8,17,3 for AD 213), which was, however, increasingly breached by privileges of rank. Only the first-ranking pignum imparted a right to sale, though lower-ranking creditors could succeed to its status on its settlement (ius offerendi et succedendi). Pignora were also founded by law (e.g. by a SC under Marcus [2] Aurelius, Papin. Dig.

20,2,1; also numerous general hypothecary credits under the Severan emperors and Justinian). A judge could also order a pignum (pignum in causa iudicati captum). Finally, there were certain tacitly (tacite) es-

As well as the technical meaning of the pignum described above, ‘pledges’ on the basis of private pledge arrangements (pignoris capio) in accordance with the Twelve Tables (Tab. 12.1) occurred (Gai. Inst. 4,28f. and reminiscence in Alfenus/Paul. Dig. 13,7,30?), as did ‘pledges’ made and destroyed in the course of magisterial coercion (— coercitio) (Cic. Orat. 3,1,4). There were also pignora in the sense of praediatura (sale of land on behalf of the state), rights of retention, hansels, wagers, hostage, sub-pledges, averments. H. DERNBURG, Das Pfandrecht nach den Grundsatzen des heutigen romischen Rechts, 2 vols., 1860-1864; KASER,

RPR, vol. 1, 144f., 463-473; vol. 2, 312-321; Id., Studien zum romischen Pfandrecht, 1982; A. MANIGK, s.v. Hypotheca, RE 9.1, 292-321; Id., s.v. Hyperocha, RE 9.1, 343412; Id., s.v. P., RE 20.1, 1239-1284; D. SCHANBACHER, Die Konvaleszenz von Pfandrechten im klassischen romischen Recht, 1987; Id., Beobachtungen zum sogenannten ‘p. Gordianum’, in: ZRG 114, 1997, 233-271; A. WACKE,

Max Kasers Lehren zum Ursprung und Wesen des romischen Pfandrechts, in: ZRG 115, 1998, 168-202; Id., Die Konvaleszenz von Pfandrechten nach rémischen Recht, ibid. 438-461. D.SCH.

Pigres (Iiyens; Pigrés). Poet from Halicarnassus, son (Plut. Mor. 873f) or brother (Suda a 1551) of Artemisia [x], c. 480 BC (provided the person was not invented; on the Carian name cf. Hdt. 7,98; Syll.> 46,28). Plutarch (if this is not an interpolation [1]) ascribes the

~ Batrachomyomachia to P.; the Suda adds the > Margites and an Ilids, in which P. follows each hexameter in Homer with a pentameter. 1R. PEpPMULLER, Review of A. Lupwicn, Der Karer P.

und sein Tierepos Batrachomachia,

1896, in: PhW 21,

1901, 673-679.

E.BO.

Pigs I. NEAR EAST AND EcyrT

II. JUDAISM

III. CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY

I. NEAR EAST AND EGYPT

The Near East is part of the original range of the wild pig (Sus scrofa L.), which was evidently used in various

places for breeding the domestic pig; the earliest examples date from the 7th millennium BC [6. 73]. The pig (Sumerian sah(a); Akkadian Sahu [3]) was of some sig-

nificance during most periods and in most regions of the Near East, probably esp. as a provider of meat. The few pictorial representations usually depict wild pigs. Pigs are mentioned from the beginning of written records in Mesopotamia (late 4th millennium BC), esp. as a general theme in a lexical — list, which presents 58 categories differentiated according to age, sex, colour and other unknown criteria [4]. There is no evidence of a food taboo in Mesopotamia.

245

246

Domesticated pigs were known in Egypt (Egyptian rrj, 33j) from the early 4th millennium BC, and were probably also bred from wild pigs. Illustrations are rare in comparison to their regular appearance in financial records, according to which, for example, temples sometimes possessed large herds of pigs. The pig was apparently the least valued domestic animal, and was correspondingly cheap. There was probably no universal taboo on eating it: pig sacrifices continued into the later periods. 1J. BogssNecK,

Die

Haustiere

in Altagypten,

1953

2 Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture, vols. 7-8, 1993/1995 (Domestic Animals of Mesopotamia)

3 Chicago Assyrian

Dictionary, vols. $/1, 1989, 102-105 s.v. Sahd

4R.K.

ENGLUND, H. J. Nissen, Die lexikalischen Listen der Archaischen Texte aus Uruk, 1993 5 W. HELCK, s. v.

Schwein, LA 5, 1984, 762-764

6 C. Brecker, Early Do-

mestication in the Southern Levant as Viewed from Late PPNB Basta, in: L. K. Horwitz et al., Animal Domestication in the Southern Levant, in: Paléorient 25, 1999, 63-80 7 E. Viva, L’exploitation des animaux en Mésopotamie aux IVe et Ile millénnaires avant J.C., 1998 8 F. E. ZEuNER, Geschichte der Haustiere, 1967. H.J.N.

II. JUDAISM

According to Lv rr:1 ff. and Deut 14:1 ff., pure animals whose meat could be eaten were those which were both ruminants and cloven-hoofed; in the pig, the first condition does not apply. In Jes 65:4; 66:3; 66:17, the pig is mentioned in reference to criticism of cultic activity. The persecution edict of > Antiochus [6] IV Epiphanes (t Macc 1:50) demanded of the Jews that they carry out heathen sacrifices and also, among other things, slaughter pigs. As this was again and again demanded of Jews during persecutions into modern times, the consumption of pork became a casus confessionis.

Various explanations are given for the ban on eating pork. Alongside the rabbinical view that, as a commandment of God, it requires no further justification (Sifra Q*d6sim 11,22), hygienic arguments were often put forward (Philo [12], De specialibus legibus 4,100118; Maimonides, More Nevukhim 3,48). Mostly because of the references in Isaiah, scholars have tended to attempt to explain the ban in terms of drawing a distinction with non-Jewish cults in which pigs played a role. On the basis of Lv 11, M. Harris [2] puts forward the theory that the cause is to be found in ecological issues: its requirements in terms of food and water place the pig in direct competition with humans in the Middle East, which is not the case with the ‘pure’ animals, > cattle, + sheep and — goats, which, as ruminants, are suited to the hot, dry climate. 1 F. S. BODENHEIMER, Animal and Man in Bible Lands, 1960 2M. Harris, Wohlgeschmack und Widerwillen,

1991

3 W. He ck, s. v. Schwein, LA 5, 1984, 762-764

4 W. KornFELD, Reine und unreine Tiere im Alten Testament, in: Kairos 7, 1965, 134-147

5 P. SCHAFER, Jude-

ophobia, 1997 6R. DE Vaux, Les sacrifices de porcs en Palestine et dans |’Ancien Orient, in: J. HEMPEL, L. Rost

(ed.), Von Ugarit nach Qumran, 250-265.

PIGS FS O. Eiffeldt, *r96r, G. RE.

Ill. CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY A. GREECE B. ROME

A. GREECE The breeding and keeping of pigs (otc/sys; Latin sus, porcus) in Ancient Greece had the sole purpose of producing meat to augment the otherwise mainly plantbased -> nutrition; in this, pig farming differed fundamentally in its function from cattle farming, which primarily provided the ancient economy with working animals, and sheep farming, which mainly delivered wool (although both beef and lamb were eaten in small quantities). The consumption of pork is mentioned in Homer (Hom. Il. 9,208; 19,196 f.; 23,32; Hom. Od. 8,474 ff.; 14,16 ff.; 14,26 ff.; 14,81; 14,414-438), and pig-breeding is described in detail in the Odyssey (Hom. Od. 10,237-243; 10,388-397; 14,5-20; 14,410 ff.; 15,555 ff.): on Ithaca, pigs are watched over by herdsmen during the day in open country, and spend the night in stalls, in each of which 50 sows are kept; the herds of > Eumaeus number 600 sows and 360 boars in total. The literary sources offer relatively little information on pig-keeping in Greece; as the pig was kept for its meat, the fattening process was important. According to Aristotle, it took around 60 days. During this time, the animals were fed with barley, millet, figs and acorns (Aristot. Hist. an. 595a). The age of the breeding boar should be at least one year, and the same age was prescribed for the sow’s first farrowing (Aristot. Hist. an. 545a; cf. 573a-573b). A Socrates anecdote from Plutarch provides evidence that large herds of pigs were kept in the city of Athens (Plut. Mor. 580e-f); piglets were fattened by poor women for payment (Ath. 14,65 6f). A red-figured vase-painting (Cambridge, FM) shows a pig and a piglet on the way to market [2. Taf. 5.8]. H.SCHN. B. ROME The Roman agricultural writers deal in great detail with the breeding and keeping of pigs (Varro Rust. 2,4; Columella 7,9-11; Plin. HN 8,205-213). Sows were kept in stalls, in which animals could be kept separate from each other; this was necessary to avoid the piglets’ being squashed by older animals (Varro Rust. 2,4,1315; Columella 7,9,9 f.). It was recommended to keep the stalls scrupulously clean (Varro Rust. 2,4,15; Columella 7,9,14). If a litter was large, not all the piglets would be reared; esp. in the vicinity of cities, piglets were sold (Varro Rust. 2,4,19; Columella 7,9,4). In the mornings, the pigs were driven to pasture. Woods with oak were considered particularly suitable for keeping pigs (Columella 7,9,6); the land should contain boggy areas so that the pigs could wallow in the mud (Varro Rust. 2,4,8; Columella 7,9,7; 7,10,6). Boars were castrated at the age of 1 year or 3—4 years, after they had mated several times (Varro Rust. 2,4,21; Columella

247

248

2,954; 2,11; > Castration). According to Varro’s view,

Pikrai Limnai (Iioai AiwvaPikrai limnai). Term (Str. 17,1,24) for the brackish ‘bitter lakes’ on the Isthmus of Suez, ancient Egyptian km-wr, ‘great black (lake)’. In the 3rd and early 2nd millennia there were fortifications

PIGS

a herd should contain around 100 sows and ro boars,

but there were breeders who kept herds of more than 150 animals (Varro Rust. 2,4,22). There were clear ideas about the appearance of animals thought suitable for breeding, esp. the boar, which should have a stout, not elongated body with a prominent belly, legs that were not too long, a powerful neck and short snout (Varro Rust. 2,4,3; Columella 7,9,1). One centre of pig breeding in the 2nd cent. BC was the plain of the Po, with its oak forests, where more pigs were slaughtered than in the rest of Italy (Pol. 2,15). During the Roman period, pork was a regular element of the diet; the meat was preserved with > salt (Cato Agr. 162); estate owners also used pig farming to support their own households, and in the cities, pork was sold by butchers (Varro Rust. 2,4,3). Salt pork was imported into Italy in large quantities from Gaul in the Augustan period (Varro Rust. 2,4,10 f.; cf. also Str. 453523 45453). There was a custom of not carving the pork at banquets, but bringing it to the table in one piece (Ath.4,129b; cf. Petron. Sat. 49). In late antiquity, the supply of pork to the city of Rome was organized by the municipality; it was the job of the > suarii to bring pigs to Rome, esp. from southern Italy, and to distribute the meat in the city (Cod. Theod. 14,4,1-8). The pig was an important sacrificial animal (> Sacrifice) in ancient times (Varro. Rust. 2,4,9 f.; cf. Cato Agr. 134); at Rome, a boar was sacrificed along with a bull and a ram at the > Suovetaurilia. A boar is depicted as a sacrificial animal on the Ara of Domitius Ahenobarbus (Paris, LV). — Cattle;> Macellum;

+ Meat,

consumption

of;

~ Nutrition; > Sheep 1 J. Frayn, The Roman Meat Trade, in: J. WILKINS et al. (ed.), Food in Antiquity, 1995, 107-114 2 IsAGER/ SKysGAARD, 93 f. 3 JONES, LRE, 702-704 4 J. PETERS, ROmische Tierhaltung und Tierzucht, 1998, 107-134 5 WHITE, Farming, 316-321 6 ZIMMER, Cat. I-17. H.SCHN.

Pike. This Central European predatory fish (Esox lucius L.), wide-mouthed with many teeth, was unknown to the Greeks. Auson. Mos. 120-124 by contrast mentions the pike (/ucius) as an enemy of frogs that lurks in ponds in the algae and is not valued in the kitchen. The Greek physician > Anthimus [1] (De Observatione Ciborum 40; [1. 18]), on the other hand,

gives a Germanic recipe. Thomas of Cantimpré 7,48 [2. 264f.], following a contemporary 13th-cent. source (Liber Rerum, cf. Alexander Neckam 2,32 [3. 147]), identifies the pike with lupus marinus and describes it as a particularly cruel pursuer even of its own mate (cf. Albertus Magnus, De Animalibus 24,40, [4. 1537]). Both Pliny (HN 9,57) and Thomas mention the crystalline stone supposedly contained in the lupus’ head. 1 H. Gossen, s.v. Hecht, RE 7, 2591 2H. Boese (ed.), Thomas Cantimpratensis, Liber de natura rerum, 1973 3 TH. Wricut (ed.), Alexander Neckam, De naturis rerum, 1857, repr. 1967 4H. STADLER (ed.), Albertus Magnus, De animalibus, vol. 2, 1920. C.HU.

there, later the canal to the Red Sea (> Ptolemais) was

routed through these waters. K. W. Butzer, s.v. Bitterseen, LA 1, 824f.

KJ-W.

Pilaster. A modern term of classical archaeology, borrowed from Latin, Italian and French, for a half-pillar built into a wall. This architectural element consists, in analogy with a > column or a half-column, of a capital, a shaft and a base. Rare in Archaic and Classical Greek architecture

(but cf. + Ante), pilasters increasingly appear in Hellenistic and especially Imperial Roman architecture and find an application as structural elements of large wall complexes, and also in door and window frames. The frequent use of pilasters in the Renaissance, Baroque and Classicist era is a reference to Roman architecture, whereas the striking use of pilasters in the German national socialist architecture of the 19308 refers to its Greek counterpart (esp. the temple of Apollo at Didyma). H. BusInG, Die griechische Halbsaule, 1970; E. ETTLinGER, P.-Kapitelle aus Avenches, in: E. SCHMID (ed.), Provincialia. FS R. Laur-Belart, 1968, 278-290 (with bibliogr.); H. Laurer, Die Architektur des Hellenismus, 1986, 253-256; A. Scosie, Hitler’s State Architecture. The

Impact of Classica) Antiquity, 1990; Further bibliogr.: — Ante.

C.HO.

Pilatus [1] See > Pontius [II 7]. [2] M.P. Sabinus. Senator. Cos. suff. in AD 153; con-

sular governor of Moesia 159/160. PIR* P 822.

Superior,

recorded

in W.E.

Pilgrim see > Pilgrimage Pilgrim flasks. Modern technical term for a type of flat or flat rounded containers of clay or metal, less often of stone

and - faience

(‘Saitic

New

Year’s

bottles’,

~ Sais). The Greeks perhaps knew this type as kothon; it Owes its modern name to the medieval ampullae in which blessed water was taken from pilgrim sites, especially from the Egyptian sanctuary of Menas (Menas ampullae). PFs possess either two small loops or two to four axial belt tabs. From the Late Bronze Age Rhodian, Cyprian and Levantine PFs developed the Iron Age Phoenician PFs and — later — the middle italic bronze and > Bucchero PFs. > Bucchero; > Pottery, shapes and types of D. Marzout, Bronzefeldflaschen in Italien (Prahistorische Bronzefunde, vol. 2.4), 1989 P. MINGAZZINI, Qual’era la forma del vaso chiamato dai greci kothon?, in: AA 1967, 344-361.

RD.

249

250

Pilgrimage I. CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Ill. IsLam

II. CHRISTIANITY

I. CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY

Pilgrimage, defined here as a journey of considerable length to a sacred place, undertaken for religious reasons, was a Common practice in all of antiquity, not solely a Christian phenomenon. A. GREEK WORLD B. ROME AND THE ROMAN EMPIRE C. EGYPT AND THE NEAR EAST A. GREEK WORLD The best-documented form is the state pilgrimage (+ thedria), in which the Greek city-states sent out envoys (theoro?) to attend religious festivals, announce their own festivals or consult > oracles. However, festi-

vals drew not only official thedriai but also private pilgrims; in general they came from a specific region. For example, > Delos was an important regional centre for Ionian pilgrims (Thuc. 3,104,3-6), the Hera shrine in Lacinia for the Italian Greeks (Aristot. Mir. 96, 838a 17; [1. 124-148]).

Pilgrimages for the purpose of > initiation (~ Mysteries) were undertaken in —> Eleusis [1] probably as

early as the 6th cent. BC [2], and there is corresponding evidence for + Samothrace shortly thereafter. Some pilgrims in > Clarus [1] (p. [3]) probably underwent the type of initiation referred to by the verb embateuein (to enter). Other centres of initiation, like ~ Andania in

Messenia, may also have attracted pilgrims. A pilgriminitiand had access to special rituals and experiences that remained closed to an ordinary pilgrim or theoros; accordingly, the initiand-to-be undertook the pilgrimage only once, while other pilgrims returned to a shrine several times. Pilgrimages to > healing deities, mainly to the Asclepieia (> Asclepius I.C.), were primarily a post-classical phenomenon, and very common in the Roman Empire. The best-known early Asclepieia were found in + Epidaurus and > Lebena on Crete. > Pergamum later gained importance, as did > Aegeae in Cilicia [4]. Reports of successful healing were recorded in special inscriptions (idmata) that are documented for Epidaurus and Lebena [5; 6]; during the Roman era they were also found in the sanatorium of Dair al-Bahri in Upper

Egypt [7]. A common reason for private pilgrimages was to consult oracles, as documented by lead tablets from ~ Dodona between 500 and 250 BC [8. 100, 259-273] and inscriptions from the oracle of + Trophonius in Lebadia (IG VII 3055 = LSCG 74). Some pilgrimages appear to have marked certain stations in the life cycle: Theophr. Char. 21 indicates that some people took their sons to > Delphi for a ritual hair-cutting; in ~ Acrae (Sicily) young people were taken to ‘Anna and the Paides’ (SEG 42,825-836; [9]). A kind of religious tourism undoubtedly motivated some pilgrimages, a desire to see shrines and religious points of interest with

PILGRIMAGE

one’s own eyes (Isocr. Or. 17,4; Hyp. fr. 70; Call. iambus 13,10f.). Many pilgrims brought votive offerings (e.g. in Delos: [1o]), but they were not necessarily the main reason for the pilgrimage (— Dedications). Pilgrims rarely took home souvenirs (in Ephesus, however, pieces of the holy tree were scraped off and taken away: Call. iambus 13,60f.; cf. [r1. 5of.]). B. ROME AND THE ROMAN EMPIRE Pilgrimage appears to have played a less important role in the religion of Roman Italy. Nevertheless, many sites of pilgrimages are known, for example the official shrines of + Mons Albanus (Dion. Hal. Ant. 4,21,2; [12. 136f.]: scene of the > feriae Latinae) and > Lavinium (Dion. Hal. Ant. 2,52,3; [13. 136-143]; other Latin centres included > Lacus Nemorensis, with an annual festival of Diana (Ov. Fast. 3,269f.), > Fregellae, on the border between Samnite and Latin territories, site of a cult of Neptune and Asclepius (Str. 5,3; 5,10; [12. 139ff.]), or the grove of Helernus (Alernus) near the mouth of the Tiber (Ov. Fast. 2,67; 6,105). The most notable pilgrimages in the Roman Empire were undertaken by the Roman emperors: Vespasian’s pilgrimage to the Serapeion (> Sarapis) of Alexandria [1] (see [14]), Hadrian’s indefatigable journeys (regarded as models for later Christian pilgrimages [15]) and the pilgrimages of Emperor Julian [11] to > Pessinus and Mount > Casium. They may have been modelled after the pilgrimage by Alexander [4] the Great to the oracle of > Amun at the Oasis of Siwa in Libya (> Ammonium) in 333/2 BC (Arr. An. 3,3,1-2; Str. 17,1,433

Curt. 4,7) and perhaps after the pilgrimages that were common in the ancient Orient; thus, for instance, in 675

BC ~ Asarhaddon consulted Sin in > Harran before leaving on a campaign to Egypt [16. 36].

Along with a rise in travel in the early Roman Empire, there were more and more documented pilgrimages and related activities, such as the tradition of undertaking a pilgrimage to an oracle in > Abonutichus in northwestern Asia Minor (Lucian. Alexander

15-30). > Pausanias [8] may have written for pilgrims as well as for tourists [17], and the philosophical journeys of Apollonius [14] of Tyana (cf. [18]) resemble pilgrimages, as do those undertaken by P. Aelius > Aristides [3] to the healing shrines of northwestern Asia Minor. A certain Thessalus visited Egypt, in particular ~ Thebes, in order to learn about plants, and had a vision of Asclepius there [19. no. 45]. C. EGYPT AND THE NEAR EAST Hdt. 2,60 describes extensive pilgrimages in Egypt during the 5th cent. BC, during which 700,000 people are said to have travelled down the Nile, singing and playing instruments, at the festival of Artemis in > Bubastis. During the late Hellenistic and Roman periods pilgrims frequented shrines like > Philae [20; 21. 5 4f.; 22; 28], the Memnonion (~ Memnon [2]) in Abydus (see [23]) or the Serapeion in - Memphis (see [24]).

Another important shrine was that of - Mandulis/

(98E GV 2) 7L-Z

:ui snueiwinysod

A\qeqoid) av

(EEE GV) asuayesiping wnuesaui|

"BION JO SnuUIINed 'GG— HG Pur 9p BIPISNE] BLO}SIH ‘sodouajay JO snipe|jeg 4ap|z ay} BIUB|aW

(OOv-ZZE GV 2) Sh ‘LE '6z ‘87 “da

(p8€/L8E

(BOL dq) aejneg wniydezid3 ‘awoas

‘smuanas

S

wp

.

OqIeEN

>

ee PHEAUQ

*

)\

i

fo

A 2

D

\,

Rua,

Pon

\

é

N

Aw

a

{81ping

>

af

>

i

y

eenany

yet

Waa . = JO Seznos ayewixoidde pure sasjua;

aay

}

/

/

RK

BipSseWee

B9/SIOD

sasew

pe PIO] ONCULIZEIaq eUAaBZ POURS $

009

ema

sngojeig

(uolpa]as

W> OGL

’

tee!

=, uo|Aqeg

Se. |e syodeusyy Ajai MANY Poeorsipuexaly

uopayeua~—

sniaiding

*s}Ua2‘gy

J

f

sijodowiay

ifseca

tf

InsiodoapieioH4 ; soysuAysAxOQ,

>) GV (00v

UIP) — Y}Z

J

H OT

° H

OS

Ge \%

feuls sud

t ’ ‘

GCP STOP Isy

Pad

snuuud

¢‘ sauouny =

oO Y

ewAjOsOlaIH /wayesniar ms

oe

Bom

eusey

wes ‘ysjodosopoa

T

7 hd]

oa

A

Sf f

(02S 2) GV WNeJaUIz| |uIUOJUYY aq saoejd yo asewis}id panuyuod 0} (s)1194 4ayIOay} 3ND 5y2a/qo Suojye ajnos sumoL 49UIO advI/d JO ‘diysiOM jules UOHZeJBUAA JO BSOYM UOIS (05S IP|OIIN 2) GV BUA ae luuUade|g PUP SQUIO} JO BUIAI] ‘SUOWW SalJa}SPUOLU

UINUL|OIPAW

r— cowed

>

ss

M4

quiol py

ESS, sodox

rhs Fm adous

IN y ws

syodoounuy

OgaN SUOW esesa0[¥], \ Pay) tly eepeo { °& seauey

ea. tae

(o%

o0€

e)

a SSusodansoxjoid.

252 PILGRIMAGE

suow

tT i snuesiey °

255

254

PILGRIMAGE

Aion in Kalabsha (Talmis) in Nubia. An anonymous inscription tells of a vision received there [19. no. 40;

Hadrian and St Helena. Imperial Travel and the Origin of Christian Holy-Land Pilgrimage, in: R. OusTERHOUT

25.576 no. 166; 26]. From Philae there are indications of pilgrimages from Meroe until sometime in the 4th cent. AD [27; 28. 242-248]. In Egypt, pilgrims commemorated their visits through inscriptions, particularly with the phrases to proskynéma tou X (‘worship by X.’; perhaps the translation of a demotic formula: [29]), X emmnesthé X (*X. commemorated X. (here)’; also common in Greece during the Roman era), X mnésthéi (‘blessed be X.’: [31. 16], apparently the translation of an Aramaic formula) [303 31; 32. 67]) and heko (I have come). Not all of these inscriptions were made by pilgrims; some of them were left by soldiers or other tourists. Some pictures show pilgrims holding palm branches [33. 325, 526; 34. 89]; their stay is occasionally immortalized in

(ed.), The Blessings of Pilgrimage, 1990, 66-81 16 7T.M. GREEN, The City of the Moon God, 1992 17 J. ELSNER,

depictions of feet [3 5].

1M. P.J. Ditton, Pilgrims and Pilgrimage in Ancient 2 C. SouRVINOU-INWOOD, Reconstructing

Change: Ideology and Ritual at Eleusis, in: M. GOLDEN, P. Toouey

(ed.), Inventing Ancient Culture?

Periodization

and the Ancient World,

Historicism,

1997,

132-164

3 C. PicarD, Ephése et Clare, 1922 4 A. Kru, Heilkunst und Heilkult, 1984

Meélanges P. Leveque, vol. 1, 1988, 49-63

21 J. YOYOTTE,

Les pélerinages dans l’Egypte ancienne, 1960, 17-74 22 A. J. FestuGieéReE, Les proscynémes de Philae, in: REG 83, 1970, 175-197

23 F. DUNAND, La consultation ora-

culaire en Egypte tardive: l’oracle de Bes a Abydos, in: J. G. Heintz (ed.), Oracles et prophéties dans l’antiquité, 1997, 65-84 24D.J. THomMpson, Memphis under the Ptolemies, 1988 25 E. BERNAND, Inscriptions métriques de Egypte gréco-romaine, 1969 26 A. D. Nock, Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, vol. 1, 1972,

There is evidence that Near Eastern cults during the Hellenistic and Roman eras also participated in pilgrimages. Carthaginian pilgrims visited > Tyrus (Curt. 452,10; Pol. 31,12,11f.; 2 Macc 4:18-20); during the 4th/3rd cent. BC pilgrims from Paphos went to > Sidon [36]; numerous pilgrims left graffiti in the grotto of Astarte in Wasta/Phoenicia during the 2th cent. BC ([37], cf. KAI 174); Lucian gave a detailled description of a pilgrimage to the shrine of > Syria Dea in Hierapolis/> Bambyce (Lucian. De dea Syria 10; 55f.). Jewish pilgrimages to > Jerusalem have been documented since > Philon [12] of Alexandria (Phil. De specialibus legibus 1,68f.; Phil. De providentia 2 p. 216 AUCHER). Bronze medallions with depictions of the three deities associated with the cult of Heliopolis/> Baalbek have been found in other regions of Syria; it is likely that they were distributed by returning pilgrims [38. 177f.]. — Travels Greece, 1997

Pausanias: A Greek Pilgrim in the Roman World, in: Past and Present 135, 1992, 3-29 18 Id., Hagiographic Geography: Travel and Allegory in the Life of Apollonius of Tyana, in: JHS 117, 1997, 22-37. 19M. Torri, Ausgewahlte Texte der Isis- und Sarapis-Religion, 1985 20E. BERNAND, Pélerins, in: M.-M. Macroux, E. Geny (ed.),

5 L.-R. LrDonnicr (ed.), The Epi-

daurian Miracle Inscriptions, 1995 (with English trans. andcomm.) 6 M. Guarpbuccl, I ‘miracoli’ di Asclepio a Lebena, in: Historia. Studi storici per l’antichita classica 8, 1934, 410-428 7A. BATAILLE, Les inscriptions grecques

du temple de Hatshepsout a Deir el Bahari, r951 8 H. W. ParKE, Oracles of Zeus, 1966 9M. Guarvbuccl, Il culto di Anna e delle Paides nelle iscrizioni di Buscemi e il culto latino di Anna Perenna, in: SMSR 12, 1936, 25-50 101.C. RuTHERFORD, The Amphikleidai of Sicilian Naxos. Pilgrimage and Genos in the Temple-Inventories of Hellenistic Delos, in: ZPE 122, 1998, 81-89 11B. KOrrTInG, Peregrinatio religiosa, 1950 12 J. M. Frayn, Markets and Fairs in Roman Italy, 1993 13 N. BELAyCHE, Les pélerinages dans le monde romain antique, in: J. CHELINI, H. BRANTHOMME (ed.), Histoire des pélerinages non chrétiens, 1987 14 A. HENRICHS, Vespasian’s Visit to Alexandria, in: ZPE 3, 1966, 51-80 15K. G. HoLum,

357-400

27 L. TOROK, Two Meroitic Studies. The Meroitic Chamber in Philae and the Administration of Nubia in the 13" Centuries AD, in: Oikumene 2, 1978, 217-237 281.C. RUTHERFORD, The Island at the Edge. Space, Language and Power in the Pilgrimages Traditions of Philai, in: D. FRANKFURTER (ed.), Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Antique Egypt, 1998, 229-256 29G. GERACI, Ricerche sul Proskynema, in: Aegyptus 51, 1971, 3ff. 30B. SnNeLt, Antike Besucher des Tempels von Sunion, in: MDAI(A)

51, 1926, 159-162

MNH2OH, in: Philologus 94, 1940, 1-30

31A. REHM,

32 R. SOLzBaA-

CHER, Ménche, Pilger und Sarazenen, 1989 33 P. PERDRIZET, G. LEFEBVRE (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae Aegypti, vol. 3, 1919 (repr. 1978) 34H. Jaritz, Die Terrassen vor den Tempeln des Chnum und der Satet, 1980

35 M. Guarbuccl, Le impronte del Quo Vadis e monumenti affini, figurati ed epigrafici, in: RPAA 19, 1942/3,

305-344

36 O. Masson, Pélerins chypriotes en Phénicie

(Sarepta et Sidon), in: Semitica 32, 1982, 45-49 37A. BEAULIEU, R. MoureRDE, La grotte d’Astarté 4 Wasta, in:

Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 27, 1947/8, 1-20 38 Y. Hayyar,

1977.

La triade d’Héliopolis-Baalbek,

vol.

1,

LRU.

II. CHRISTIANITY The idea that Christian existence is merely a pilgrimage on earth (Hebr 11:13-15: the Christian as xénos; {x4. 18-31]), first took on concrete form with early Christian itinerant preachers (— Paulus [2]; Didache 11-13 and 15,1-2) and the (marginal) figure of the wandering monk in late antiquity [2; ro]. Since the time of Constantine (starting approximately in the fourth decade of the 4th cent. AD) pilgrimages were increasingly undertaken as a Christian exercise of limited duration in the form of a journey to a holy place. Starting in the late 6th cent., the Latin peregrinatio (or the Greek Eevia, Eeviteia/xenia, xeniteia), similar to the word pilgrimage later derived from it, became a t.t. in a dual sense: peregrinatio a patria (the ascetic practice of leaving one’s homeland that was particularly common among the > Irish-Scottish monks) and peregrinatio ad loca sancta (‘journey to a holy place’).

PILGRIMAGE

The most prominent destination for Christian pilgrimages prior to the year 500 were the Biblical sites in the Holy Land [3; 13], where there is evidence of local Christian traditions from the 2nd cent. onward that drew religious travellers [5. 83-89]. Here, too, however, it was not until the persecution of Christians had ended (AD 312) that pilgrimages really took hold [4] (cf. map). Large numbers of pilgrims also visited memorial sites of > saints. Beginning in the 2nd decade of the 4th cent., people sought out the tombs of > martyrs of the last large-scale persecutions in order to commemorate the persecution of the Church [9]. Pilgrimages were undertaken to certain monks, whose asceticism was seen as a daily martyrdom, sometimes while they were still alive (e.g. stylites, Egyptian monks); the relevant sites drew pilgrims up to and beyond the death of the respective saint. There is evidence beginning in the late 4th cent. of pilgrimages to sites of worship of the archangel > Michael [r] [1], but sites associated with earlier martyrs, particularly the tombs of the apostles in Rome (Peter and Paul), Ephesus (John) and Edessa (Thomas), were also favoured destinations for pilgrims. For more information on the specific centres of pilgrimage, see [5. 111-286; 6. 251-410] and the map. Among the motives for developing and expanding a Christian pilgrimage site was a desire to the supplant the pre-Christian cults. For the pilgrims themselves, however, personal considerations were predominant. In addition to interest in Biblical scholarship, sensationalism encouraged by reports of miracles, as well as touristic’ curiosity, there were four main motives: hope for healing, advice or other assistance; enhancement of re-

ligiosity (through prayer, participation in festivals, etc.); penance; and the desire to acquire relics [5. 312-

3425 6. 137-151]. At their destination pilgrims took part in religious services and local customs (baths, incubation, touching of relics, + processions, sharing meals at the tombs of martyrs [refrigeria]), left gifts of money, tablets with

thanks and other offerings and acquired eulogiae (water believed to have healing properties, soil, oil, relics to be touched, pictures, etc.) [5. 389-413; 6. 213-

245]. The pilgrimages led to the development of settlements with inns, monasteries, souvenir-making work-

shops and houses [6. 203-212;

256

255

rr]. Travel journals

(— Itinerare) were written, some of which were used as

guides by other pilgrims and contributed to cultural exchange [7]; the pilgrims, in turn, put their mark on the culture of the countries they visited. Pilgrimages and the related exchange of relics and MSS enhanced a sense of supranational unity among Christians, but they sometimes also took on a national character, e.g. Frankish pilgrimages to Tours (+ Martinus [1]) [5. 266275]. By-products of pilgrimages (prostitution, robberies, etc.) and the dubious motives of some pilgrims led to persistent criticism, critics pointing out that the real pilgrimage of aChristian is nota physical journey [8. 5— ois

+ Exploration, voyages of; -» Monasticism; > Peregri— Travel literature;

natio ad loca sancta; > Travels; ~» PILGRIMAGES

1 TH. BAUMEISTER, Die christlich gepragte Hohe, in: RQA 83, 1988, 195-210 2H. VON CAMPENHAUSEN, Die asketische Heimatlosigkeit, in: Id. (ed.), Tradition und Leben, 1960, 290-317 3 E. D. Hunt, Holy Land Pilgrimage in the Later Roman Empire AD 312-460, 1982, repr. 1998

4R. Kien, Die Entwicklung der christlichen Palastinawallfahrt in konstantinischer Zeit, in: RQA 85, 1990, 145-181

5B. KorrinG,

Peregrinatio religiosa, 1950,

Ndr. 1980 6P. Maravat, Lieux saints et pélerinages d’Orient, 1985 71d., Liturgie et pélerinage durant les

premiers siécles du christianisme, in: La Maison-Dieu 170, 1987, 7-28 8Id., Lattitude des Péres du IV® siécle devant les lieux saints et les pélerinages, in: Irenikon 65, 1992, 5-23

9 R. A. Markus, How on Earth Could Places

Become Holy?, in: Journ. of Early Christian Studies 2, 1994, 257-271 10M. Mees, Pilgerschaft und Heimatlosigkeit, in: Augustinianum 19, 1979, 53-73 11L. REEKMANS, Siedlungsbildung bei spatantiken Wallfahrtsstatten, in: JoAC Suppl. 8, 1980, 325-355 12R. SoLzBACHER, Monche, Pilger und Sarazenen, 1989

13 P. W.L.

WALKER, Holy City, Holy Places?, 1990 14 G. STAHLIN, s.v. Eévoc, ThWB 5, 1-36 15 Akten des XII. Kongresses fiir Christliche Archdologie (1991), vols. 1-2 (JbAC Suppl. 20, 1-2), 1995.

For the map (additional): H. Jepin et al. (ed.), Atlas zur Kirchengeschichte, 1988, 18; P. MARAVAL, Lieux saints et pélerinages d’Orient, 1985, esp. 165. AN.M.

Ill. Istam The social and economic importance of pilgrimage in > Islam can hardly be overstated, since the religiously-motivated mobility of large segments of the population is recognized to be an essential unifying factor in Islamic culture. The practice of visiting a shrine is rooted in ancient Semitic customs (cf. for example Ex 23:14). Even in pre-Islamic Arabia, hostilities ceased during the time of a pilgrimage, making it possible to hold large-scale markets. One of the most important centres even before the time of > Muhammad was the + Kaaba (Ka‘ba) in > Mecca.

A distinction should be made between the following types of Islamic pilgrimage: the ‘greater hajj’ to Mecca (hagg) and its surroundings, which is to be undertaken only at a specific time (during the month of Da’l-higga) of the Islamic calendar. The hajj is one of the fundamental obligations of every able-bodied adult Muslim who has the financial means to undertake that journey. The pilgrim, who is in the state of ritual purity (ibram), is required to carry out certain rites near Mecca (‘Arafat ceremony/wuquf) whose climax is a solemn walk around the Ka‘ba (‘umra). The timing of the ‘lesser hajj’ is less restricted, and it consists only of a visit to the Ka‘ba. Mention should also be made of pilgrimages to other holy sites, like > Jerusalem. Finally, the > Shiites in particular have a custom of visiting the tombs of holy individuals such as imams (e.g. in Nagaf and Karbala? in Iraq).

ai

258 S. FaroQut, Herrscher tiber Mekka. Die Geschichte der Pilgerfahrt, 1990; H. HALM, Die Schia, 1988, 177-185; B. Lewis, A. J. WENSINCK, J. JOMIER, s.v. Hadjdj, El’, CDROM Edn. 1999; F. E. Perers, The Hajj: the Muslim Pil-

grimage to Mecca and the Holy Places, 1994; M. Wart, Der Islam, vol. 1, 1980, 327-347; M. Wore, One Thousands Roads to Mecca: Ten Centuries of Travelers Writing about the Muslim Pilgrimage, 1997. LT-N.

PILOS

> Propylaea of the Athenian Acropolis. In contrast to the deliberately demonstrative usurpation of the Perseus

monument

by L. Aemilius

Paullus,

however,

Agrippa’s should not be seen as an act of antipathy, but rather as a pragmatic reuse of an excellent monument. Cf. also > Herms; — Portraits; > Rulers L. M. GUNTHER,

L. Aemilius Paullus und ‘sein’ Pfeiler-

denkmal in Delphi, in: C. ScuuBeERT et al. (ed.), Rom und der griechische Osten, 1995, 81-85; K. HERRMANN, Der

Pilia. From 56 BC (Cic. Ad Q. Fr. 2,3,7) wife of T. Pomponius [I 5] Atticus, mother of Caecilia [2]. j.8a.

Pfeiler der Paionios-Nike in Olympia, in: JDAI 87, 1972,

Pilius Celer, Q. Probably related to — Pilia, appears quite often in the milieu of Caesar and the Caesarians in Cicero’s letters in 54-43 BC. He also makes an appear-

senier und Naupaktier in Olympia, in: JDAI 89, 1974, 7o-111; J. M. Hurwirt, The Athenian Acropolis, 1999, 270-273; M. Maass, Das antike Delphi, 1993, 210-216; L. SCHNEIDER, CH. H6ckeER, Die Akropolis von Athen, 2001, 191; M. TrEpe, Hellenistische Pfeiler im Heraion

ance

as a prosecutor

(Cic. Fam.

8,8,2f.;

Cic. Att.

6,3,10). In 46 a candidate for political office (Att. 12,8)?

J.BA.

232-257; B. HiINTZEN-BOHLEN, Herrscherreprasentation im Hellenismus, 1992; T. HOLscHER, Die Nike der Mes-

von Samos und Magnesia am Maander, in: MDAI(A) 195, 1990, 213-258. C.HO.

Pillar saint see > Stylites Pillars of Hercules see > Pylae [x] Gadeirides Pillar, monumental. As well as the > COLUMN/MONUMENTAL COLUMN, there was another possibility available for the displaying of monuments, in their placement on free-standing monumental pillars (on the incorporation of monumental pillars in buildings, cf. ~ pilaster), a form of honouring rulers primarily found in Greece in the vicinity of sanctuaries. An early example of a pillar-mounted monument is the bronze > Nike of the Messenians and Naupactians sculpted by — Paeonius [1] and placed before the eastern front of the temple of Zeus at Olympia, atop — and seemingly about to swoop down from — a slender, triangular pillar some nine metres high. In the context of the scene here created, the pillar was clearly intended solely from a technical perspective to bear the statue, and not as part of the monument in itself. By contrast, massive monumental pillars in honour of rulers are attested from the 4th cent. BC (monument to > Gorgias [2] of Leontini at Delphi: Paus. 10,18,7), and appeared subsequently at ~ Delphi in particular (e.g. for Attalus [4] I, Eumenes [3] II, Prusias [2] and finally the pillar, richly decorated with reliefs, which was originally intended for Perseus but was then reassigned to his Roman conqueror L. Aemilius [I 32] Paullus; > relief). It was customary in such examples for the pillar to be topped by a statue of the ruler on horseback or in a > quadriga; the model for the latter tradition was probably the quadriga array on the top of the — Mausoleum (with fig.). Elsewhere, too, there were rededications of such monumental pillars, which dominated their surroundings, were richly decorated with sculpture or constructed in polychrome materials and therefore formed architecturally and visually striking tributes benefiting also from their usually privileged

locations. Another such rededication was that of the pillar to Eumenes, reassigned to + Agrippa [1]: it was

built of alternate layers of light and dark stone, and was positioned effectively, by the open stairway to the

Pilleus (also pileus). Close-fitting half-spherical or ballshaped head covering made of fur, felt, leather or wool; adopted by the Romans from the Etruscans (cf. Liv. 34,7). In Rome the pilleus was the mark of a free citizen and was given a slave (Petron. Sat. 41), prisoner of war, or gladiator (Tert. De spectaculis 21) upon > manumission. Thus the pilleus libertatis, together with the — vindicta, is the attribute of > Libertas, who holds them in her hands on Roman coins. Pilleus can be used synonymously as an expression for freedom (Mart. 2,68; Suet. Nero 57, cf. Plaut. Amph. 455): Roman coins show the pilleus between two daggers after the murder of Caesar. The entire population wears the pilleus at the > Saturnalia (Mart. 11,6; 14,1). The pilleus is also an element of priestly garb, although here various head coverings must be distinguished on the basis of their additions and reshaping (galerus, apex, tutulus). In the late Roman army the pilleus pannonicus is a flat, cylindrical head covering for soldiers and officers. ~» Pilos H. UBL, P. Pannonicus, die Feldmiitze des spatromischen Heeres, in: Archaeologica Austriaca, Beiheft 14 (= FS R. Pittioni) vol. 2, 1976, 214-241; L. BONFANTE, The Etrus-

can Dress, 1975, 68-69; R. VOLLKOMMER, s.v. Libertas, LIMC 6, 278-284.

RH.

Pilos (xtioc/pilos). Originally the term for the felt lining of helmets (Hom. II. 10,265), shoes and caps (Hes. Op.

542-546) and the protective part of the armour (Thuc. 4,344), later for felt blankets (Hdt. 4,73 and 75) and shoes of felt (Cratinus 100 CAF), but esp. for a conical headdress (Hes. Op. 546, Anth. Pal. 6,90 and 199, cf. Hdt. 3,12; 7,61; 62; 92 on the felt mitres and tiaras of eastern peoples). The last resembles half an egg (Lycoph. 506), at times with a loop on the point for hanging up or carrying by the finger. The pilos was

PILOS

259

260

worn by craftsmen (in pictorial representations, e.g. Vulcanus, Hephaestus), boatmen (e.g. Charon), travellers, fishermen, shepherds, and sometimes women and children or the elderly; in myth, esp. by the Dioscuri, Odysseus and Pylades, more rarely Hermes, Cyclopes, Patroclus, Athena and the Amazons. IG Iz 1672,70 transmits the name of a female pilos trader from 329328 BC. In Aristoph. Lys. 562, pilos chalkysrefers to a — helmet (with ill. rx). — Helmet; > Pilleus RH.

equipment consisted of five plumbatae (arrows for throwing weighted with lead), a pilum called a spiculum and a small spear (verutum oder verivulum; Veg. Mil. 2,15). An incendiary weapon similar to the pilum was the falarica. It had a round shaft, which became square at the top end and was fitted with an iron point. The incendiary material was wound around the top end of the shaft, and lit shortly before throwing (Veg. Mil. 4,18; Liv. 34,14,11; 21,8,10). The framea was a Germanic spear with a short, narrow iron point, which was used in close and distant combat (Tac. Germ. 6).

Pilum. In a brief reference in Servius (Serv. Aen. 7,664:

‘pilum proprie est hasta Romana’), the pilum, a throwing-spear, is taken for the typical Roman spear. Among the earliest evidence for the use of the pilum in the Roman army is the depiction of the Battle of Panormus in 250 BC (Pol. 1,40). In Livy (8,8), the first two battle rows of the legions in the time around 3 40 BC are called the antepilani (‘soldiers in front of the pilum bearers’). In his description of the Roman army, Polybius speaks of the yedodovgrdsphoi as the javelins of the youngest soldiers, and the toooi/hyssoi as the spears of those more heavily armed; however, this text makes no reference to > velites and pilum. In spite of the exposition in Aen. Tact. 33,2 this weapon is no longer believed to have had its origins in Greece, but is presumed to have been developed in Italy. According to the older tradition, M. > Furius [I 13] Camillus replaced the armament of > hasta [1] and clipeus (— shield) with equipment consisting of pilum and scutum (oblong shield), with the addition of the gladius (> sword) (Plut. Camillus 4of.). Two types of pilum are distinguished, one light (2 kg) and one heavier (4.5 kg). From the heavier and no doubt older type developed also the pilum murale, which was used during sieges to defend the walls of a legionary camp or city (Caes. B Gall. 5,40,6; 7,82,1;3 Tac. Hist. 4,29,3; Tac. Ann. 4,51,1; — Siegecraft). The pilum was a spear 2.10 min length, with a wooden shaft of at least 1.40 min length and an iron point, of varying lengths and so hard that it could penetrate several shields. At the same time, though, the thin point bent at the impact, so that the enemy was unable to throw the pilum back. The Romans usually used the pilum as a throwing weapon, esp. when attacking (Caes. B Civ. 3,93,13 Caes. B Gall. 2,27,4). Only in exceptional cases was it used for thrusting (Plut. Caesar 45,2-4; Plut. Pompeius 69,4~-5; Plut. Antonius 45,6). Marius [I r] initiated an important innovation: he replaced one of the two rivets which fastened the point to the shaft with a wooden nail which broke at the moment of impact and thus prevented the enemy from making use of the weapon (Plut. Marius 25). The oldest finds of spears which can be regarded as pila are from ~ Vulci and > Telamon; pila have been found at locations including Castra Caecilia (Spain, c. 79 BC) and > Alesia (52 BC). There is a good pictorial representation on the Julian tomb at Saint-Rémy. According to Vegetius, a Roman legionary’s usual

1M.C. Bisuop, J.C. N. Coutston, Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome, 1993 2 M. FEUGERE, Les armes des Romains, 1993 3 C. SAUL-

NIER, L’armée et la guerre dans le monde étrusco-romain, 4Id., L’armée et la guerre chez les peuples 1980, 108 Y.LB. samnites, 1983.

Pilumnus. Brother of > Picumnus and, as > Stercutius, connected with manuring (Serv. Aen. 10,76). According to antiquarian speculation (Piso fragment 44 HRR; Varro in Non. 848 L.), P. (with Picumnus, q.v.)

was among the dei coniugales or dei infantium. Varro groups P. with the goddesses Deverra and Intercidona (Varro, Antiquitates rerum divinarum fragment 111 CARDAUNS; [1]) as tutelary deities of the family household, guarding against > Silvanus [2. 29-31], and derives his name from pilum, ‘pestle’, which also explains the association with bakers (Serv. Aen. 9,4; [3. 256f.]). P.’s tutelary function is not mere antiquarian specula-

tion: the protection of the house against Silvanus was customary [4. 14-32]; the ‘sweeping out’ (Deverra) of ritual impurities is attested in Roman cults (Fest. 68,8— 13 L.; Ov. Fast. 2,23; 4,736). An altar to Pitumnus (=

P.) at + Veii, dating from the early phase of Roman colonization of the city, shows the importance of the god in Rome’s colonization programme [5. 27-29]. 1D. BrIQUuEL, Le pilon de P., balai de Deverra, in: Latomus SAMTER, Geburt, Hochzeit und Dorcey, The Cult of Silvanus, gious Aspects of Early Roman Tota Italia, 1999, 14-42.

la hache d’Intercidona, le 42, 1983, 265-276 2E. Tod, r9r1r 3 RADKE 4P. 1992 5 M. TorRELLI, ReliColonization, in: Id. (ed.), CRP.

Pimpleia (Miuxdew; Pimpleia). Village on the Mace[II 2], also Pipleia (cf. Hesych. s.v. Timeun; Varro Ling. 7,20), c. 3 km to the south of modern Dion. > Orpheus is supposed to have lived in P. (Str. 7a,1,17f.), the place is supposed to have been dedicated to the Muses (Str. donian coast in the territory of > Dion

92,25).

F. PapazoGLou,

Les villes de Macédoine,

1988, 112.

MAR.

Pinacotheca

(awaxoOyxn/pinakotheké: Str. T4,1,143 Lat. pinacotheca). Rooms designed for collections of

pictures (cf. Varro, Rust. 1,2,10; 59,2; Vitr. De arch.

261

262

6,2,5; Plin. HN 35,4,148). According to Vitruvius (6,3,8; I,2,73 6,4,2; 7,3) the room or rooms should be

BC, the gens was no longer able to remain in the nobility. In 312 BC by Ap. Claudius [I 2] Caecus made the cult a state cult. While ancient sources attribute this

large and, in consideration of lighting requirements, face north. There is a problem with this conceptualisation: the name pinacotheca for the north wing of the Propylaea on the Acropolis in Athens is not ancient; other buildings displaying imposing panel paintings such as the Stoa Poikile in the Athenian Agora (see + Athens

[1 II. 4.]), or the hall of the Cnidians

conveyance to the Potitii (Liv. 9,29,9-11; Val. Max. 1,1,7; Fest. 270 L.), [1. 306f.] has assumed with good

reason that only the Pinarii had a supervisory function in the cult, forfeited in 3 12 due to the diminished esteem of their gens

at

> Delphi, which was richly furnished with large-sized panel paintings, were termed —> /ésché in ancient literature. — Painting

PINARIUS

1R. E. A. Patmer, The Censors of 312 B.C. and the State Religion, in: Historia 14, 1965, 293-324. C.MU.

I. REPUBLICAN PERIOD

II. IMPERIAL PERIOD

W. ExRLICH, Die griechische Tafelmalerei und das Entstehen der Pinakotheken, in: Altertum 23, 1977, 110-119.

I. REPUBLICAN PERIOD {I 1] P., L. In 214 (2?) BC as the Roman commander of

C.HO.

Henna in Sicily, had the citizens of the city killed in the theatre, which only accelerated the island’s defection to + Hannibal [4] (Liv. 24,37-39). K.-L.E. {I 2] P., T. Mentioned in the retinue of > Caesar in 54 BC by Cicero, whose brother was a friend of his (Cic. Ad Q. Fr. 3,1,22). Presumably he is the T.P. recommended in 43 to Cornificius [3] (Cic. Fam. 12,24,3). His identification with other Pinarii is uncertain. _j.Ba. {I 3] P. As consul in 472 BC (MRR 1, 29f.), according to Varro (apud Macrob. Sat. 1,13,21), he introduced a law providing an intercalary month to assimilate the lunar and solar year with each other (for the dating of this intercalatio cf. [1. 40f.; 2. 202; 204-207]; > Calendar). His authorship of a lex Pinaria (in Gai. Inst. 4,15) with procedural provisions for the > legis actio [3. 1143 4. 305] is dubious.

Pinara (Iivage/Pinara, Lycian pinale, pillenni). City in Lycia to the east of the > Cragus mountains on the western edge of the Xanthus valley (Strab. 14,3,5; Ptol. 5,353) at modern Minare. Identification is confirmed from inscriptions and coins. The earliest inscription (TAM 1, no. 45), c. the mid 4th cent. BC, identifies ~ Xanthus as its founder (cf. Menecrates FGrH 769 F 1), although grave pillars indicate the existence of a settlement in the 5th or even 6th cent. BC. In 334/3, P. was captured by Alexander [4] the Great (Arr. Anab. 1,24,4). P. was one of the six largest cities with three votes in the > Lycian League (Strab. 14,3,3). A fortified acropolis on a steep rock dominates the urban area, while the settlement area, with numerous buildings, lies about 350 m lower. Archaeology: extensive necropoleis with grave pillars, sarkophagoi and gravestones, many decorated with facades, reliefs and Lycian and Greek funerary inscriptions; from the Roman Period, temple, odeum, theatre and thermal baths; imperial votive inscriptions from the time of Domitian (81-96 AD), Trajan (98-117) and Antoninus Pius (138-161).

From the 4th cent. onwards, P. was a see with a cathedral. The area of settlement came to be considerably reduced in Late Antiquity. —> Lycu, Lycia W. W. Wurster, M. WoOrr-LE, Die Stadt P., in: AA 1978, 74-99; C. BAYBURTLUOGLU, Lykia, 1981, 71-76. KA.GE.

Pinarius (In an older form also Peinarius, CIL I’ 1357; 2469f.). Name of a patrician gens. According to tradition, they maintained a cult for > Hercules at the Ara Maxima together with the > Potitii (further evidence there). Hercules himself — or Evander [1] - is said to have transferred the cult to them at an extremely early time. The derivation of the name from meta (peindan,

‘starve’) is a scholarly construction based on the P. having had the smaller share in the sacrifices for Hercules (Serv. Aen. 8,270, i.a.). The family was also traced back to Pinus, the ostensible son of > Numa Pompilius (Plut. Numa 21,1-4). According to the annalistic tradition, in the 5th and at the beginning of the 4th cent.

1G. RApDKE, Fasti Romani, 1990

und Offentlichkeit, 1995

2 J. RUPKE, Kalender

3 KaseR,RZ,*1996

4R.E.A.

PALMER, The Censors of 312 B.C. and the State Religion, in: Historia 14, 1965, 293-324.

{1 4] P. Mamercinus Rufus, P. According to tradition, consul in 489 BC (MRR 1, 18f.); in the following year, one of the consulares sent to > Coriolanus (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 8,22,4).

{I 5] P. Natta, L. In 363 BC magister equitum of the + dictator L. Manlius [I 11] Imperiosus appointed to ‘hammer in the nail to mark the year’ (MRR 1, 117). Presumably identical with the praetor of 349 entrusted by cos. Furius [I 11] Camillus with the protection of the coast of Latium (Liv. 7,25,12f.). C.MU. [I 6] P. Natta, L. As a young man helped his step-father Licinius [I 35] Murena in his campaign for election 63 BC; related to > Clodius [I 4] through his sister. In 58 as novus pontifex he dedicated Cicero’s house to the gods, in order to deprive Cicero of it,. According to Cic. Att. 4,8a,3, he may perhaps have died in 56. |.BA. {I 7] P. Rusca (Posca?), M. As praetor in 181 BC may have proposed a lex annalis (Cic. De or. 2,261). Put an

end

to

uprisings

in Sardinia

40,19,6-8; 34,12-13). MRR

and

Corsica

1, 387, note 2.

(Liv. K-LE.

263

264

Il. IMPERIAL PERIOD [II 1] Cn. P. Aemilius Cicatricula. Cos. suff. presumably in Dec. 72 AD. In 79/80 he was probably the official in charge of a special assignment in the province of Africa [x. 136f.]. Probably the adoptive father of Cn. Pinarius Aemilius Cicatricula > Pompeius [II ro] Longinus.

by lot and then allocated to the individual courts (Aristot. Ath. Pol. 63,4ff.; [1. 527ff.]). Jurors’ tablets were stamped with an owl; others, used for selection by lots of annual offices (Dem. Or. 39,10), with a Gorgon’s head. Various pinakes bore both stamps [2. 187; 239].

PINARIUS

PIR? P 407.

> Lot, election by (A) [4] Written summons to an Athenian absent from the

territory of his citizenship (Dem. Or. 8,28).

1 THOMaSSON, Fasti Africani, 1996.

1 W. ScHULLER, Neue Prinzipien der athenischen Demo-

{Il 2] P. Natta. Under the sway of > Aelius [II 19] Seianus, he successfully brought charges against > Cremutius Cordus in AD 25 (Tac. Ann. 4,34,1). His descendant could have been the cos. suff. of 81, C. Scoedius Natta Pinarianus. PIR* P 410.

{II 3] L.P.Scarpus. Relative of > Caesar through the latter’s sister > Iulia. Caesar had appointed him heir in his will along with Octavian (> Augustus) and Q. Pedius. In the Civil Wars until after the Battle of > Actium, P. was on the side of > Antonius [I 9], who eventually entrusted him —> Cyrenaica and four legions. On coins he had minted there he bears the title imp(erator) (RRC 546,1-3). P. broke with Antony who wanted to transfer the legions in Cyrenaica to Actium, delivering his army to Octavian. P. retained his position in Cyrenaica even after the death of Antony, seeing that he also minted

coins with the name of C. Caesar divi filius. PIR* P 413. W.E. {Il 4] P. Valens. According to HA Max. Balb. 5,5, uncle on the paternal side of emperor > Pupienus who supposedly immediately made him > praefectus praetorio. Presumably a fiction of the author of the — Historia Augusta. PIR* P 414.

W.E.

Pinarus (Iivagoc/Pinaros), modern Deli Cay. A river,

dry in summer, rising in the > Amanus mountains and flowing into the Issikos Kolpos (Bay of Iskenderun) to the south of > Issus. On its banks Alexander [4] the Great gained a victory over Darius [3] in 333 BC (Pol. 12,17,4f.; Arr. Anab. 2,10,13 5; Str. 14,5,19). A. JANKE, Auf Alexanders des Grofen Pfaden, 1904, 5 574; HILD/HELLENKEMPER, 380.

F.H.

Pinax (mivat/pinax, ‘board, painted or inscribed tablet’; extended meaning, ‘inscription, register’). [1] Notice-board, board for announcements of all kinds (Hdt. 5,49,1; Plut. Theseus 1,1). [2] (pinax ekklésiastikos). At Athens, the register of citizens entitled to take part in the popular assembly (> ekklesia) (Dem. Or. 44,35). It was kept for the 139

démoi (+ demos [2]) by the > démarchos. After 338 BC, enrolment was conditional upon completion of service in the > ephébeia (Aristot. Ath. Pol. 42,5). [3] (also mtvaxtov/pindkion). After the policy reform on jury participation (— dikastérion) in the early 4th cent., name plate possessed by every > dikastés in Athens as certification. Presumably after 385, the plate was marked with the name and one of the ten letters from A to K. On court days, necessary jurors were first selected

kratie, in: Der Staat 26, 1987, 527-538 2M. H. Hansen, Die athenische Demokratie im Zeitalter des Demosthenes,

1995.

K-W.W.

[5] Term for a list of literary-historical matter, a bibliographical catalogue. A wide variety of documentary catalogues (e.g. lists of priest or victors) is identifiable as the original form of ‘pinacographic’ activity [9. 14101412]. By the Classical Period, such documents were already gaining literary significance as a topic of technical writing [2. 36-92; 7. 74-75, 106-109]. On the basis of their archival research, for example, > Hippias [5] of Elis and Aristotle (> Aristoteles [6]) collated in catalogue form the victors at the Olympic, the latter also the Pythian, Games (fr. 615-617 ROsE). As director of the Peripatos, the latter also exploited the largely documentary material on theatrical performances for his works Didaskaliai and Nikai Dionysiakai (fr. 618— 630 Ross; cf. IG II* 2319-2323, 2325 [8. 107-120]), making him the most important pioneer of Greek ‘pinacography’. The literary register acquired particular importance in the book culture of the age of > Callimachus [3] (3rd cent. BC) [2. 133-244; 7. 161-169]. The famous scholar worked Aristotle’s Didaskaliai into a pinax of the dramatic poets (fr. 454-456; cf. IG XIV 1o98a, 1097, 1098 [8.120-122]) and also created the so-called ‘Democritus pinax’, a catalogue of sayings (rather than glosses) and writings [13]. However, his main achievement in this field was the Pinakes (Tlivaxec tv év ndoy Tadeig Sraraupdavtov xal Ov ovveyeapay, ‘Catalogues

of the Well-Known Authors of Every Genre and of their Works’; fr. 429-453, SH 292f.). Based on research conducted in the universal library of Alexandria [1, this monumental, 120-vol. inventory of Greek literature categorized authors according to genre or discipline and arranged in alphabetical order. Each name was followed by a brief biography and a predominantly alphabetically arranged register of works. The incipit and number of lines were noted for each, as were questions of authenticity as necessary. Callimachus’ critical inventory served simultaneously as a national ‘bio-bibliography’ and as an overview of the history of literature. In spite of its defects [5. 233ff.], which provoked ~ Aristophanes [4] of Byzantium’s corrective treatise Tleog tovg KadaAuayovu Mivaxac (“Reply to the Pinakes of Callimachus’) [6; 11], Callimachus’ ‘pinacographic’ output was seminal [3. 28ff.; 9. 1424ff.; 10. 99-106]. In its spirit arose not only the library catalogues such as

265

266

that of Pergamum

([1; 12. 72f., 84f., r1rof.]; and see POxy. 3360), but also all literary registers from the Pinakes of Andronicus [4] on the works of Aristotle and Theophrastus to Hesychius’ Onomatologos and Jerome’s (~ Hieronymus [8]) De viris illustribus. Callimachus’ ‘pinacography’ also underlies the biographies introduced by his pupil - Hermippus [2] of Smyrna that include registers of works [4. 90-102, 163-182]. +> Alexandria [1]; > Biography; — Callimachus [3]; > Catalogue; > Didaskaliai; » Drama; — Library 1 F. Lonco Auriccuio, Su alcune liste di libri restituite dai papiri, in: Rendiconti della Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti 46, 1971, 143-150

2R. Bum, Kal-

limachos und die Literaturverzeichnung bei den Griechen, 1977

31d., Die Literaturverzeichnung im Altertum und

Mittlalter, 1983 4 J. Bottansée, Hermippos of Smyrna and His Biographical Writings, 1999 5 M. GRIFFITH, The Authenticity of Prometheus Bound, 1977. 6 K. NICKAU,

Aristophanes von Byzanz zu den Pinakes des Kallimachos, in: RhM

110, 1967, 346-353

7 PFEIFFER, KPI

8A.

PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE, Ihe Dramatic Festivals of Athens,

*1968

R. VALLoIs, Les pinakes déliens, in: Mél. M. Holleaux, 1913, 289-299;J.BOARDMAN, Painted Votive Plaques, in: ABSA 49, 1954, 183-201; W. KENDRICK PRITCHETT,

Attic Stelai, in: Hesperia 25, 1956, 250-253; P. MORENO, s.v. P., EAA

Die

Pinakes

des

Kallimachos,

Pindarus (MMiv5aeoc/Pindaros). [1] Tyrant of Ephesus (c. 560 BC), nephew of > Croesus. When Croesus laid siege to Ephesus, P. is said to have advised fastening the gates and walls of the town to the columns of the Artemisium (> Ephesus with map) with ropes. Croesus, bound by a vow to the shrine, spared the town and promised safety and freedom but forced P. to leave; his son was spared and his fortune left untouched (Hdt. 1,26; Polyaenus, Strat. 6,50; Ael. VH 3,26).

WENDEL, W. COBER, Das griechisch-rémische Altertum,

in: Handbuch *1955, 51-145

der Bibliothekswissenschaften, Bd. 3, 13M.L. West, The Sayings of Demo-

critus, in: CR 19, 1969, 142.

U. Muss, Bauplastik des archaischen Artemisions, 1994,

1922

11 W. J. SLaTeR, Aristophanes of Byzantium on the Pinakes of Callimachus, in: Phoenix 30, 1976, 234-241 12C.

CH.F.

6, 1965, 171-174; D. CALLIPOLITIS-FEYT-

MANS, Les plats attiques a figures noires, 1975; D. P. BROOKLYN, Attic Black-Figure Funerary Plaques, 1982; I. SCHEIBLER, Griechische Malerei der Antike, 1994, 14, 78-81, 94-96, 146f. Ise

90. REGENBOGEN, s.Vv. IT., RE 20, 1408-1482

10 F. ScHmiptT,

PINDARUS

26-28.

P.HO.

[2] Pindar, the Greek writer of choral lyrics. A. D. G. H.

Lire B. Works C. LANGUAGE, METRE, STYLE, Ciients E. THE EPINICIUM F. RECITATION APPRAISAL AND INTERPRETATION RECEPTION

[6] As an archeological t.t, pinax (Lat. tabula picta)

denotes tablets containing pictures. The tablets may be made of wood, fired clay, ivory, metal or stone; most of those surviving are clay, generally square or rectangular, more rarely circular; also included are the decorative clay plaques favoured in archaic Eastern Ionia, Corinth and Athens. Black-figure and red-figure clay pinakes were manufactured in potteries. A mass find from the 6th cent. BC with numerous pottery workshop scenes comes from a Corinthian Poseidon sanctuary (found in Penteskouphia, today in Berlin, SM). A wellpreserved red-figure pinax of the 4th cent. BC shows a procession from Eleusis and a dedication by a woman named Niinnion. Some series of Archaic clay pinakes with funerary cult scenes probably decorated tombs which no longer survive (> Execias). In tablet painting, by contrast, wooden pinakes were common, often carefully constructed out of several layers. Information on image genres, framing and the mounting of pinakes is given in e.g. Hellenistic temple inventories of Delos, where pinakes with wing-doors (mivaxec teQvEMpEVOU pinakes tethyroménoi) and without them (G@vemtov/ athyr6toi) are mentioned. As free-standing picture carriers, pinakes were mostly employed as votive offerings. Larger images were presented raised up on columns or pillars; others were sunk into walls; and small pinakes (mwaxa/ pindkia, Lat. tabellae) were hung from trees, on walls or

on the cultic image itself. Evidence of pinakes in ancient homes is less common. ~ Metope; > Painting; > Plate; > Votive offerings

A. LIFE P.’s vita in the Ambrosiana MS quotes the words of a

man who states that he was born in a year when the Pythian Games were held. This man is thought to be the poet Pindar, and the year is mostly assumed to be 522 BC or 518 BC (fr. 193). His birthplace is Cynoscephalae near Thebes. His father is variously called Daiphantus, Pagondas or Scopelinus, his mother is Cleodice.The lines (Pind. Pyth. 5,75-76) allude to the lineage of the -» Aegidae as ‘my forefathers’ (&uol matéges): if this is the poet’s voice and not that of the chorus, then P. was a member of a prominent family of the Theban as well as the Spartan aristocracy. His wife is called > Megaclea, his son is Daiphantus, for whom he wrote a > daphnéphorikon (Pind. fr. 94c); his daughters are Eumetis and Protomache. POxy. 2438 records a victory with a + dithyramb in Athens in 497/6 BC. The first dateable epinicium (— Epinikion) is Pind. Pyth. ro from 498 BC, the last is Pyth. 8 from 446 BC. Some ancient sources say that P. died at the age of 80; tradition has it that he died in + Argos [II 1]. The many anecdotes about his life are nowadays viewed with scepticism [1. 57-66]. B. Works According to the Vita Ambrosiana, P.’s works were

amassed in 17 books in the library at Alexandria [1]. These comprised nine genres of poetry: one book each of > hymns, > paeans, > encomia, > threnodies, two books each of — dithyrambs, > prosodies, > hyporchemata, three books of > partheniads and four books

PINDARUS

267

268

of epinicia (> Epinikion). Only epinicia have survived in MSS. We can get a certain idea of the rest by virtue of quotations in the works of prose writers or with the help of papyrus fragments: POxy. vol. 5 (1908) in particular contains sizeable sections of Paeans 2, 4 and 6. Nevertheless, the modern appraisal of P’.s skill has to be based essentially on the epinicia. These were arranged according to the prestige and seniority of the games: odes for the victors at > Olympia, at the Pythian games

number of themes (Pind. Pyth. 9,77-78: movxth\ew/ poikillein): He uses synonyms, paraphrases, metonymies, repeated metaphors, oxymorons, plays on words and assonances, as well as word repetition and elaborate periphrases with both traditional and newly invented compound adjectives. The working towards a climax by means of a contrast [2. 36] or a > priamel occurs regularly. The topoi, which in such a way are detached and become independent, include arrival, effortlessness of praise, obligation to praise, aposiopesis and ‘break-off formulae’, i.e. ways of ending one topic and going over to another. There is an abundance of apostrophes, short speeches, questions and orders. The difficulty of the style arises from the extreme conciseness and the fast transitions.

(> Pythia) in Delphi, at the Isthmus (+ Isthmia) and in

+ Nemea [3]. The sequence of the last two books was reversed in the course of the MS tradition, and in doing so the Isthmia were heavily damaged and are today incomplete. All in all 45 complete ‘victory odes’ and a fragmentary Isthmian epinicium at the end of the collection remain in existence. The poems are arranged within the books according to the importance of the competition: first of all the victories in the chariot and horse races, then gymnastic victories in the order of pancratium, wrestling, boxing, pentathlon and running. Pyth. 12 was written for a winner in the fluteplaying competition (a special feature of the Delphic Games), whilst the last three Nemean odes, which were originally an appendix to the collection, do not refer to Nemean victories at all. There are also some anomalies: thus for example, Pyth. 2 and 3 were placed next to P.1 because of the importance of the addressee Hieron [1] of Syracuse, although it is not known for certain whether they were written in praise of victories at Delphi or elsewhere. As we are having to deal with the text of a book, we also possess comprehensive > scholia (which we lack for other Greek lyrical poets); these mainly go back to > Didymus [1] Chalcenterus, but without doubt preserve a lot of material from earlier commentaries. C. LANGUAGE, METRE, STYLE,

P.’s language is the poetic koiné, an artificial language which is also found amongst the rest of the ‘choral lyricists’ (Stesichorus, Bacchylides): it combines Aeolian, epic and Doric forms, in which the Doric element is

considerably less pronounced in P’s. work than in that of the Spartan Alcman, though more so than in the writing of the Ionian > Bacchylides. There are occasionally also Boeotian words (cf. e.g. schol. Pind. Ol. 1,146a). Around half of the epinicia are composed in dactyloepitrites, a metre which is found first of all in > Stesichorus (> Lyric poetry) and is also used by > Simonides and Bacchylides, whilst the other half are composed in ‘Aeolian’ metres, which are based on iambics and choriambs (+ Metrics V.D). A single ode, (Pind.

Ol. 13), combines both of them. The largest part of the odes are composed in triads (> Lyric poetry); seven are monostrophic (Ol. 14; Pyth. 6, 12; Nem. 2, 4, 9; I. 8).

Most of the odes that are composed in triadic form feature three to five triads; Pyth. 4 with 13 triads is an exception.

The most outstanding characteristic of P.’s style is that of variation and elaboration (poikilia) of a small

D. CLIENTS The odes were commissioned by aristocrats and princes from all over the Greek world, from Thessaly (Pind. Pyth. 10) to Cyrene (Pyth. 4; 5), from Rhodes (Ol. 7) to Sicily. There are no existing odes for winners from Sparta, and only two short poems for Athenians (Pyth. 7 for the Alcmaeonid > Megacles [4]; Nem. z). Thebes on the other hand is well represented (Pyth. 11; I. 1; 33 4; 7). Three geographical groups stand out: 1. The Cyrenian odes include the long poem Pyth. 4, which tells the story of Jason (> Iason) and the Argonauts, one of whom, Euphemus, was an ancestor of the ruling Cyrenian dynasty; Pyth. 5, an accompanying piece on the same victory in the chariot race (which reveals accurate knowledge of the topography of Cyrene) and Pyth. 9, which became famous through the story of Apollo’s union with the eponymous nymph of the town of Cyrene. 2. There are eleven odes for victors from Aegina, which, apart from two (Ol. 8; Pyth. 8), are all part of the Isthmian odes and were mainly meant for young victors in less prestigious contests. P. emphasizes his special connection to the island because Thebe and Aegina as daughters of Asopus are sisters (I. 8,16-30) and Aegina, with the Aeacids Peleus, Telamon, Achilles and Ajax, provides a great treasure-trove of heroic myths. 3. Fourteen poems on Sicilian victors testify to the interest of the great ruling houses in gaining prestige in the Panhellenic chariot and horse races: Four odes are for Hieron [1] of Syracuse (Ol. 1; Pyth. 1-3), four for the royal house of Acragas, which was connected by marriage to Hieron (Ol. 2 and 3; Pyth. 6; I. 2). On the basis of inner criteria in Ol. 1-3 it is commonly assumed that P. visited Sicily in 476 BC. Clients could also order more than one ode for a particular victory (e.g. Bacchyl. 5 and Pind. Ol. r). E. THE EPINICIUM In a complete ode (i.e. an ode of the normal length of five triads; — lyric poetry) there are routinely five components [3. 500]: rt. Essential family background information about the victor is set out: name, patronymic, family, town,

269

270

type of victory and a list of previous victories. As P. likes to emphasize inherent ability (ud/phya); he often enumerates the victories of other family members. All this represents the objective ‘programme’ or ‘agenda’ of the ode [4]. 2. The poet states the source of his inspiration by speaking to and about his > Muse; he deliberates about his art, which requires careful choice and conciseness (xcugdc/kairos, teOudc/tethmos). As inherent talent is just as important for the poet as for the athlete, P. prefers innate oodia (sophia) to erudition (Ol. 2,86). 3. Aphorisms (yv@ua/gn6mai) contain a core of tra-

epinicia is unclear; some understand it as referring to the poet himself — as distinct from the chorus; others think it refers exclusively to the chorus, and yet others are of the opinion that it sometimes refers to the chorus, sometimes to the poet and sometimes to both together. In the epinicia, P. does not mention a yood¢ (choros), but rather the accompanying x@po¢ (> kdmos). This does not appear to be simply a topos, but rather a reference to the exuberance which accompanied the singing of odes [7. 256f.]. Generally in epinicia the figure of the first person probably represents the poet, whether or not he is accompanied by the chorus. In the dithyrambs and paeans, which were undoubtedly performed by the choir and were specifically for a state occasion, the ‘I’ is always the chorus. Yet epinicia mainly aim at eulogising individual persons and, as secular hymns, are not rituals of the political organization.

ditional wisdom which the sage (God¢/sophos) teach-

es, and they often form bridges between the various episodes of an ode. The moralizing element gives further significance to the events alluded to and thus raises the individual to the level of the universal. 4. There are hymnal elements everywhere (P. calls his odes tuvoU/hymnoi); emphasis is placed on the belief that all elements of human life, good and bad, have their source in divine providence. As well as the more important Olympian deities and the more impersonal @¢6¢ (theds) or daiuwv (daimon), many smaller gods or deified abstract concepts appear, such as Hesychia (Pyth. 8,1), Hora (Nem. 8,1), Tyché (Ol. 12,2). The Graces

(Charites) are continuously present; Ol. 14 is a hymn to them. 5. Irrespective of their length, most odes contain mythical stories which as a rule draw on material that is part of the history of the addressee or his family. The myths are told with unparalleled brilliance and great conciseness, preferably in short vignettes rather than in detailed analysis. In so doing ring composition is frequently used, and the stories are often initiated by a short, succinct statement (xedddcaov/kephdlaion) [5. 55-67]. As a sophos it was important to P. to present a true account, and he occasionally corrects his predecessors (Ol. 1,36; 7,21); for him, his > Muse is the guarantor of the truthfulness of his narrative. F. RECITATION There is no external documentary evidence for the recitation of the odes. Most of them were doubtless recited in front of the victor in his home town. In some cases there are duplicates for the same victory: Ol. rx was recited immediately at the site of the victory, the longer poem Ol. ro during the official celebration; Ol. 3 appears more clearly to be directed towards a public audience than the accompanying ode Ol. 2; Pyth. 5 was commissioned by the victor, while Pyth. 4 was a personal gift to the king. The epinicia themselves contain no explicit documentary evidence for being performed by a ~ chorus; their triadic composition is in itself no proof of that (> Lyric poetry), and much of what has since antiquity regularly been regarded as choral work is nowadays viewed, to a large extent, as solo pieces or citharodes, pieces to be accompanied by a cithara [6]. At the heart of the problem is the personal pronoun ‘I’: its use in the

PINDARUS

G. APPRAISAL AND INTERPRETATION Dion. Hal. Comp. 22 includes P. among the representatives of the ‘strict style’. Modern interpretation of P. largely is an attempt to find unity in the disparate elements of his poems. Boeckh and Dissen wanted to trace each poem back to a summa sententia, a basic idea, an approach which favoured the aphorisms (gndmai); this solution was a reaction to the question of unity which had already been raised by the Humanists in the Renaissance (see [8]). In a similar manner, Young

sought the basis for the ideas in each poem [9]. A. Boeckh took the historical allegory as his starting-point by seeing references to contemporary politics in the poems. The reaction to this point of view coincided with the reaction to the biographical approach (e.g. Wilamowitz [10]). Schadewaldt’s emphasis of the ‘programme’ or agenda [4], and Bundy’s [2] study of the various topoi of praise rhetoric have made accessible much of what was previously obscure in the poems. Nevertheless, this approach has analyzed technique at the expense of originality and intellectual seriousness. Respect for P. as a thinker is a central concern in the works of Frankel [3] and Hubbard [11]. In recent times scholars have distanced themselves from the search for unity, which is viewed as an anachronistic form of distinction [8]. Since Norwood [12] the analysis of imagery in the odes has been very popular. ER. H. RECEPTION In the Hellenistic period, > Callimachus [3] wrote victory odes (Callim. Fr. 383; 384) and hymns [13. 85] which were obviously influenced by P. > Theocritus is also indebted to him in the Idylls 16 and 24, and + Apollonius [2] of Rhodes shows an exact knowledge of Pyth. 4 in the Argonautics. Horace ( Horatius [7]) imitates P. (Hor. Carm. 1,12; 3,4) and pays his respects to him in Carm. 4,2, a poem which gave the Renaissance a reason to differentiate between ‘larger’ Pindaric and ‘smaller’ Horatian odes. Pierre de Ronsard wanted to be the French P. and in r5 50 published fourteen Pindaric odes [14]. In England, John Milton wrote Pindaric

PINDARUS

poems in Latin, and in the 17th cent. Ben Jonson and Abraham Cowley wrote English versions of Pindaric poems. ‘Pindaric’ gradually evolved into the general description for grandiose poetry in irregular metres, and is found in the works of Nicolas Boileau and John Dryden. Thomas Gray’s poem Progress of Poesy begins with an acclaimed version of the start of Pind. Pyth. 1, as does Matthew Arnold’s poem Empedocles on Etna. In Italy the Canzoni Eroicheof Gabriello Chiabrera were Pindaric, and Ugo Foscolo saw in P. the stylistic counterpart to himself in the Greek language. The Romantic movement in Germany admired P.: J.W. von Goethe addresses him in ‘Wanderer’s Storm Song’, Friedrich von Humboldt translated fifteen odes, und August von Platen’s Pindaric odes meticulously reproduce Pindaric examples of verse. Friedrich Holderlin not only translated P. with exact adherence to the word order, but in the poem ‘The Rhine’ also deliberately wrote Pindaric verses. P. had a powerful influence, even if he was not always openly acknowledged [15. 230-244; 250-254]. zoth-cent. poets generally had less affinity or understanding for P.; some, like Ezra Pound and T.S. Eliot, expressed themselves in a downright disrespectful manner. + Chorus; ~— Epinikion; + Lyric poetry; — Ode; — Sports festivals 1M. R. LerKowi1z, The Lives of the Greek Poets, 1981 2 E. L. Bunpy, Studia Pindarica, 1962 3H. FRANKEL,

Dichtung und Philosophie des friihen Griechentums, 21962 4 W. SCHADEWALDT, Der Aufbau des Pindarischen Epinikion, *1966 5 L. Itt1G, Zur Form der pindarischen Erzahlung, 1932 6M. Davies, Monody, Choral Lyric, and the Tyranny of the Hand-Book, in: CQ 38, 1988, 52-64

7E. RopBIns, Pindar, in: D. E. GERBER (ed.), A

Companion to the Greek Lyric Poets, 1997, 253-277 8 M. Heat, The Origins of Modern Pindaric Criticism,

in: JHS 106, 1986, 85-98 9D. Youna, Pindaric Criticism, in: W. M. CALDER, J. STERN (ed.), P. und Bakchylides (Wege der Forschung 134), 1970, 1-95 10U. VON WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDORFF, P., 1922 11 T. K. Hus-

BARD, The Pindaric Mind: A Study of Logical Structure in Early Greek Poetry (Mnemosyne Suppl. 85), 1985 Norwoob, Pindar, 1945

1921

DT,

271

12 G.

13 F. DornseEIFF, Pindars Stil,

14 T.ScHMiITz, Pindar in der franzdsischen Renais-

sance. Studien zu seiner Rezeption in Philologie, Dichtungstheorie und Dichtung (Hypomnemata ror), 1993 15 G. HiGHet, The Classical Tradition, 1959. EDITION: Epinicia: B. SNELL, H. MAEHLER, *1987. FRAGMENTS, INDICES: H. MAEHLER, 1989; A. TURYN, *1952. SCHOLIA VETERA: A. B. DRACHMANN, 3 vols, 1903/1927. Lexica: I. RUMPEL, 1883; W. J. SLATER, 1969. COMMENTARIES: A. BOECKH, 1811/1821; L. DissEn,

1830; B.L. GILDERSLEEVE, 1885 (Olympian, Pythian odes); J. B. Bury, 1890/1892 (Nemean, Isthmian odes); L.R. FARNELL, 1930/1932; E. THUMMER, 1968/1969 (Isthmian odes); A. PRIVITERA, 1982 (Isthmian odes); G. Bona, 1988 (paeans); M. CANNATA FERA, 1990 (threnoi);

M. J. H. VAN DER WEIDEN,

1991 (dithyrambs); B. GEN-

TILI, 1995 (pythian). BIBLIOGRAPHY: D. E. GERBER, A Bibliography of Pindar

1513-1966,

1969; Id., Pindar and Bacchylides

193 4-

1987, in: Lustrum 31, 1989, 97-269; ibid. 32, 1990, 7-67.

E.R. [3] Freedman of C. Cassius [I ro] Longinus. He killed Cassius at his request after the battle of Philippi in 42 BC (Cass. Dio 47,46,5; Val. Max. 6,8,4; Vir. ill. 83,5). Details were already disputed in antiquity (App. B Civ. 4,472£f.; Plut. Brutus 48,5). J.BA.

Pindenissus. Fort in the Amanus range in Cilicia Pedias. In the course of defending the frontiers of his province > Cilicia against the Parthians, > Cicero as Roman proconsul in 51 BC fought against the indigenous peoples of the Amanus from > Epiphaneia [1] and took Erana (chief town of the > Amanus), Sepyra and Commoris. He then camped at Arae Alexandri (south of Issus), subjugated the remainder of the Amanus and, after a long siege, gained P., the high and strongly fortified oppidum of the Eleutherocilices (Cic. Fam. 2,10,3; 15,4,7-10; Cic. Att. 5,20,1: inhabitants called Pindenissitae; 5; 6,1,9), which later may have been renamed > Neronias. W. RuGE, s.v. Pindenissum, RE 20, 1700.

F.H.

Pindus [1] (6/4 Mivdoc; ho/hé Pindos). In antiquity, P. denoted only the central part of the huge, almost inaccessible wall of mountains traversing the whole of north and central Greece from north to south in a series of chains, most of which are over 2000 m in elevation, south of the Zygos Pass (Metsovo Pass, el. 1650 m) and west of Thessaly (> Thessalians), dividing the river basins of the > Peneius in the east and the > Achelous [1] in the west. The mountain ranges to the north of it had special names (cf. the Boeum mountains in Str. 7a,1,6). Strabo designated the mass of mountains south of the depression around the Spercheius as Oeta or Callidromon and further south as the Aetolian Mountains (Str. 7,7,9). The remaining ancient references likewise concern only this part west of Thessaly; only in Dionysius Calliphontis 61 is the — Evenus [3] also said to rise in the P. (unlike Ptol. 3,15,2). Xenophon knows P. as a wilderness filled with beasts of prey (Xen. Cyn. 11,1). The

highest elevation in this section is the Kakarditsa (Tzoumerka) at 2429 m. Vardousia (2495 m), not geologically part of the P. either, was probably called Aselenon in antiquity (Nic. Ther. 215 with Schol.), while the 2510 m tall Giona was called Korax. E, OBERHUMMER, S.v. Pindos (1), RE 20, 1700-1704; A. PHILIPPSON, Thessalien und Epirus, 1897; PHILIPPSON/ KIRSTEN 2, cf. Index. HE.KR.

[2] (Ilivdoc; Pindos). One of the towns in > Doris [II 1] in central Greece, which, along with Boeum, Erineus and Cytinium, was allegedly founded by Dorus (Hdt. 8,43; Plin. HN 4,28), on the river P. (modern Kananitis) situated above Erineus, also known as Acyphas (Str. 9,4,10; SEG 27, 123, Z. 12; SEG 40, 487). Probably the

274

273

latest of the towns of the Dorian Tetrapolis (Scymn. 592ff.); P./Acyphas seems for a time to have been part of the territory of the > Oetaei (Str. 9,5,10; SEG 39,

PINS 1 G. H. Monr, Lexikon der Symbole. Bilder und Zeichen

der christlichen Kunst, 71983.

CHU.

476). The town was c. 5 km west of modern Kastelli, c.

Pinianus

3 km south of modern Oinochori near Ano Kastelli in the upper reaches of the Kananitis, where there remain numerous traces of ancient settlement (partly rebuilt as a Frankish fortification), particularly from the Hellenistic period.

[1] Praefectus urbi Romae AD 385-387, P. was sent as a legate to emperor Valentinianus II by the senate in 3.95

with Postumianus to seek assistance with regard to a rise in prices. The choice of another legate, Paulinus, proved contentious. Probably the father or uncle of P.

E. W. Kase etal. (ed.), The Great Isthmus Corridor Route,

(2) SPERE i702, ((Pian):

1991; D. Rousset, Les Doriens de la Métropole, in: BCH

[2] Nephew or son of P. [1], in AD 396 AD at the age of 16 or 17 ® the younger > Melania [2], who after the

113, 1989, 361-374.

199-239;

114,

1990, 445-472;

118, 1994, PF.

Pine. In the Mediterranean region there are about 12 species of the coniferous genus Pinus (cf. picea ~ spruce): In the west, 1) pinus pinea L., the stone pine

(Italian: pino domtestico cf. nevxn iyuegos; peké héemeros) with cones (otedpirou/ strobiloi, Obeoot / thyrsoi) containing edible seeds (xoxxtdou/ Rékkiloi, xOxxwvec / kokkones); 2) the maritime pine, Pinus maritima (=

pinaster Sol.); In the east, 3) the fine-needled aleppo pine, Pinus halepensis; 4) Pinus peuce Grisebach, which grows only on a few mountains of the northern Balkans along with various species of the European black pine, especially Pina nigra subspecies pallasiana Lam., and the Bosnian pine, Pinus heldreichii Christ (= leucodermis Ant.) that grows on Mount Olympus up to an altitude of 2500 m; 5) The Scots pine, Pinus silvestris L., that only grows as far south as northern Italy, Thessaly, Euboea and northern Asia Minor. There are no species in the environs of Rome (Plin. HN 16,38). The Greek terms zitus (pitys) and mevxn (peuké) refer to several species that cannot always be distinguished clearly. Pines were used for resin (Ontivn/rhétine, Lat. resina) and pitch (xitta/pitta, Lat. pix; according to Plin. HN 16,3 8-44 from six conifers; on the process in detail, see Theophr. Hist. pl. 9,2-3). The Greeks added the resin to

K.G.-A.

death of their two children brought him to asceticism. P. accompanied her and her mother Albina to Sicily in 410, then to Africa (where, due to his wealth, he was almost made a presbyter in > Hippo [6]) and to Jerusalem in 417; he corresponded with > Augustinus and + Hieronymus. P. died in 43 1/2. G. A. Cecconl, Un evergete mancato. Piniano a Ippona,

in: Athenaeum 66, 1988, 371-389; A. GIARDINA, Carita eversiva. Le donazioni di Melania la Giovane e gli equilibri della societa tardoromana, in: Hestiasis. Studi di tarda antichita offerti a S$. Calderone, 1986, vol. 2, 77-102; PLRE 1, 702 (P. 2); V. A. SrraGo, Incontro di Agostino con Melania e Piniano, in: M. Fasris (ed.), L’;umanesimo di Sant’Agostino. Atti del congresso internazionale (Bari 1986), 1988, 629-648.

K.G.-A.

Pinna (Ilivva/Pinna). City in the region of the > Vestini (Tab. Peut. 6,1), modern Penne. From the — Social Wars [3] (91-88 BC) on, a municipium of the tribus Ouirina (Vitr. 8,3,5; Ptol. 3,1,59); from Augustus on, in

the 4th Region (Plin. HN 3,107). Remains of the urban site on the Colle Castello at San Domenico and on the Colle Duomo. G. Firpo, in: Fonti Latine e Greche per la storia dell’ Abruzzo antico, 2,2, 1988, 841-858; (Keiron 19-20), 1993, 62f., 70f.

Abruzzo

e Molise M.M.MO.

the must before fermentation (cf. Plin. HN 14,124 and

16,54; cf. Dioscorides 5,6,5 p. 3,7 WELLMANN = 5,9 p. 481f. BERENDES). Pliny (Plin. HN 37,42ff.) already knew that > amber was the resin of fossilized pines. According to Plin. HN 16,224 the hollowed trunks of pinus, picea and alnus made good ~ water pipes (ductus aquarum). A liquid pressed from pine nuts moistened with must was fermented into wine (Plin. HN 14,103). The nuts also had medicinal uses, i.a. as a remedy against the coughing-up of blood (Plin. HN 23,142). The pitys (perhaps no. 2 above) was sacred to Poseidon. The pine cone (thyrsos) was a fertility symbol. Sacred to Dionysus and Pan, it was a mark of bacchants and a decorative element on funeral monuments. In Christianity the cone was regarded as the fruit of the tree of life [1. 240]. Orphic interpretation rendered it an image of the heart of Dionysos + Zagreus (Avovvooc Zayoevs; Orph. fr. 210). In mythology a nymph named Pitys was wooed by Pan and Boreas (Longus 2,7,39; Gp. 11,10).

-» Conifers

Pins I. GENERAL IJ. Cyprus II]. PHOENICIAN-PUNIC CULTURE IV. Asta MINOR V. GREECE VI. ITALY VII. ROMAN Empire VIII. PREHISTORIC CENTRAL EUROPE

I. GENERAL Pins and needles (pedovy/beloné, neQovy/perone, oadic/rhaphis, Latin acus) were put to a variety of uses in the ancient household: they were used for hair, garments and sewing. They were also a utensil, for example, in the work of doctors (- Surgical instruments), sailmakers etc. Tattoos were also done using special needles. The shape of the pin, long and thin with one sharp end, has not changed since prehistoric times. In sewing needles, the head is generally unadorned and flat; below it is an oval or circular eye. In hairpins and garment pins, on the other hand, the head is decorated in an extremely wide variety of ways — ornamental (disc

275

276

pins, multi-headed pins, pierced-neck pins, etc.) as well as figurative (heads, hands, animals, people and deities, plants, objects such as dice, vases etc.). Many examples of pins and needles survive since the Neolithic Period. They have been made of wood, bone, ivory, bronze, silver and gold, and rock crystal for the heads. To prevent the breaking of the pin’s fragile tip, they could be sheathed in a pin guard. Hairpins fixed hairstyles and attached hairpieces (knots etc.) or wigs (> Phenake) (cf. Ov. Am. 1,14,1518). As ancient garments were often wound round the body, a garment pin was indispensable to secure them; such pins are found in association with the clothing of both men and women. The ability of pins to provide a secure hold was improved with the invention of the fibula, or brooch, which had the function of the modern safety pin and was already known in the early Bronze Age (on the development and typology of brooches see [r]). Surviving pins and needles are mostly found in graves, but they have also been excavated in settlements. Others have been discovered in sanctuaries, where they were used either as votive objects in their own right or together with consecrated garments.

From the end of the Late Bronze Age, independent fibula forms were developed on Cyprus [1.244], with no discernible gender-specific significance or use as a costume element of a particular ethnic group. Rather, the different types seemed to have been used as markers of social differentiation, independently of Cypriot dress, which was mostly sewn. At least one type appears to have been used as a status symbol, possibly also as a means of distinguishing between individual city states. Fibulae were not found as votive offerings in sanctuaries. They were made of metals, also in combination

PINS

1 T. CAPELLE, s.v. Fibel und Fibeltracht, RGA

8, 1994,

411-607.

G. L. Carancini, Die Nadel in Italien (Prahistorische Bronze-Funde 13,2), 1975; I. DIRLMEIER-KILIAN, Nadel der frihhelladischen bis archaischen Zeit von der Peloponnes (Prahistorische Bronze-Funde 13,8), 1984; D. STUTZINGER, ROmische Haar-Nadel mit Frauenbiiste, in: BJ 195, 1995, 135-208; M. FEUGERE, E. KUNZL, U. WEIsSER, Die Star-Nadel von Montbellot, in: JRGZ 32, 1985,

436-507; Gotter und Helden der Bronzezeit. Europa im Zeitalter des Odysseus, Ausstellungskatalog Bonn, 1999. RH.

II. Cyprus Simple pins and needles were used sporadically on Cyprus from the beginning of the Early Bronze Age; from the Late Cypriot IIB Period (zo0o0-1850 BC) various decorated forms were in regular use. The influence of neighbouring cultures is clearly detectable. Bone and metal sewing needles were in uninterrupted use throughout antiquity from the end of the Early Bronze Age I. So-called toggle-pins, which probably originated in Asia Minor, were found from the Early Bronze Age Philia culture to the Late Bronze Age [3. 235]; they had an eye, but could not be used for sewing, since the needle heads were mostly thickened or adorned. Instead, a thread was probably tied to the eye and wound round the tip of the pin after it was pushed through the material. Since the function of the fibula was the same, i.e. being that of a safety pin, fibulae superseded pins towards the end of the Late Bronze Age in the 2nd half of the 13th cent. [2. 182]. External influences may well have played a role here. Short pins, mostly made of materials other than metal or combined with it, continued to be used, presumably as hairpins. Sewing needles similar to those of today were used unchanged throughout.

(gold, silver, iron, most commonly bronze). Additional

decoration with rings or small chains was unusual. In the course of assimilation with Ionian dress customs,

fibulae disappeared in the 6th cent. BC, until the reintroduction of standard Roman types in the rst cent. Be ~ Cyprus; > Kypros [1] 1 H.-G. BucuHHo1z, Ein kyprischer Fibeltypus und seine auswartige Verbreitung, in: V. KARAGEORGHIS (ed.), Cyprus between the Orient and the Occident, 1986, 223245 2D. Srronacn, The Development of the Fibula in the Near East, in: Iraq 21, 1959, 181-206

3P. Drxkalos,

J. R. Stewart (eds.), The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, vol. 4,1a, 1962.

H. W. CaTLinc, Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World, 1964, 237-247. K.GIE.

II]. PHOENICIAN-PUNIC CULTURE The fibula types (e.g. double spiral fibulae) used in the sphere of Phoenician-Punic culture derive from Near Eastern models. Their distribution and, in case, adoption by indigenous cultures (e.g. the Iberian culture; > Pyrenean peninsula) correspond to the extent of Phoenician expansion. E. GuBEL, s.v. Fibula, DCPP, 170.

H.G.N.

IV. Asta MINOR Pins and needles were widespread in Anatolia from the early 2nd mill. BC, fibulae from the rst mill. BC [3; 4; 6; 8]. The double pin (with triple, M-shaped arcuate head) was prominent, being widely distributed in the Balkans, Greece and Italy; previously it had mostly been known from post-Hittite Bogazkoy [8]. To the west of the river Halys, ‘Phrygian types’ with arched bows predominated [7; 8], whereas in eastern Anatolia types with asymmetrical, bent bows were more common [4]. The origins of the Anatolian fibula types and their ethnic attribution remain disputed [6; 7]. There are also overlaps with fibula types found in Greece, Cyprus and northern Syria. In the 9th and 8th cents. they were made of bronze or brass. Gold and silver fibulae increased in numbers only from the 7th cent. [7], esp. in Lydia, Ionia and northern Lycia. The so-called Phrygian type (esp. BLINKENBERG Type XII, with numerous sub-types [1]) is characterized by its size of more than 10 cm, by its semi-circular or half-moon-shaped bow with various symmetrical deco-

277

278

rative elements such as discs, bosses and cubes and by its likewise adorned pin-clasp — usually with cornute ends — whose broad, rectangular shape is also a consequence of the preference for double needles. The main site is + Gordium, where the large numbers of fibulae found in graves (including 145 examples in a single linen sack by the head of a burial in the largest tumulus, MM [g9. 156]) suggest a pre-monetary function, cf. fibulae as picture motifs on eastern Greek coins of the 6th cent. BC [2. 102 with fig. 96]. Other than in graves, pins, needles and fibulae have also often been found in settlements and sanctuaries. Some moulds for casting fibulae have been found in Old Smyrna [7. plate 16, 83-84]. The depiction of a splendid fibula of the Phrygian type on the clothes of the late Hittite king Warpalawas on the rock relief of Ivriz in Tabal, as well as the offerings of Phrygian fibula types in Greek sanctuaries (Delphi, Olympia) have led to the suggestion that these fibulae were not traded as individual objects, but may have been given as gifts or offered in association with costly garments [5]. + Gordium (with map); Asia Minor III.C. and D.; — Phryges, Phrygia

called + peplos, while one or more fibulae closed its sides [3. 39, 43]. From the Geometric Period, female clay statuettes (e.g. from Asine and the Heraion of +> Argos [II 1]) attest to the use of pins on the shoulders for attaching chains. Men probably used a single fibula to secure the > chlamys. In Attica, pins seem to have been an unusual element of male dress: they no longer appear in this function in the + Kerameikos in Athens after the proto-Geometric Period [8. 95], though there is evidence of such use on the Peloponnese at least into the Archaic Period [ro. 293]. From the 6th cent. BC, pins also ceased to be used in female dress, at least in

1 C. BLINKENBERG, Fibules grecques et orientales, 1926 2 J. BOARDMAN, Kolonien und Handel der Griechen, 1981

3 R. M. BoeHMeER, Die Kleinfunde von Bogazkéy aus den Grabungskampagnen 1931-39, 1952-1969 (WVDOG 87), 1972 41d., Die Kleinfunde aus der Unterstadt von Bogazkoy (Grabungskampagnen 1970-78), 1979 $5Id., Eine tabalische XII 9 a-Fibel aus Assur, in: Id. (ed.), FS K. Bittel, vol. 1, 1983, 75-82 6 E. CaNER, Fibeln in Anatolien, vol. x (Prahistorische Bronze-Funde, vol. 14,8), 1983

70. W. MuscareLta, Phrygian Fibulae from Gordion, 1967

8H. PaRZINGER, Phrygische Doppelnadeln aus

Bogazkoy. Zur déstlichen Herkunft einer balkanischen Nadelform, in: MDAI(Ist) 43, 1993, 305-311 9R.S. YounG, Gordion I. Three Great Early Tumuli (The Gor-

PINS

Attica.

Pins and fibulae also served ritual purposes. In the burial practice they were used as grave goods, parts of clothing or for pinning together the shroud (esp. smaller examples and in the graves of children [13.8]) — the precise function is often unclear [10. 161f.; 5. 9]. Very large examples may have been parts of festival garb or may have had a liturgical purpose (ritual clothing of cult images) [13. 8]. As elsewhere in Europe, pins and fibulae were also used as votive offerings in Greece [8. 96-105; 10; 12]. They were among the most popular of all votive gifts, and, from the Geometric Period onwards, they appeared in sanctuaries, esp. those of female deities, sometimes in large quantities. More rarely, they were found at the cult sites of heroes. Bronze and iron pins are mentioned in temple inventories. Homer mentions the giving of a garment together with twelve golden perdnai (here probably fibulae) to Penelope as a gift (Hom. Od. 18,292-294). Pins and

fibulae found in sanctuaries were most probably offered together with gifts of textiles and clothes [10. 294f.; 12. 21f.]. Miniature fibulae, probably manufactured specially as votive offerings, are known e.g. from Chios [13. x1f.] (> Votive offerings).

dion Excavation, vol. 1), 1981.

F. Prayon, A.-M. Witrke, Kleinasien vom 12. bis 6. Jh. v.Chr. (TAVO Beihefte B 82), 1994, esp. 55-63 (with distribution map 6). F.PR,

V. GREECE A. GENERAL Use

AGE

B. EARLY AND MIDDLE

BRONZE

C. LATE BRONZE AGE AND

Post-MyYCENAEAN PERIOD D. ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL PERIODS E. HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS

A. GENERAL USE The Greek words per6né, porpé and eneté are recorded, to some extent in synonymous usage, for garment pins (i.e. needles and fibulae) [3. 6-8; 8. 102; 7. 15491550; 2. 491-494]. The use to which the relatively rare Early and Middle Bronze Age pins and needles known from Greece and the Aegean islands were put has not yet been established. From the Late Bronze Age (from c. 13th cent. BC), they appear in women’s graves along with fibulae, with a pair of pins at the shoulders securing the garment of the deceased, apparently the so-

B. EARLY AND MIDDLE BRONZE AGE From the Early Bronze Age (c. 3rd mill. BC), pins of uncertain purpose are occasionally found in the Graeco-Aegean region (Cyclades, Zygouries/Argolid) [ro. 30f., 36f.]. Delicate gold pins with floral heads from the early Minoan graves on the island of > Mochlos are assumed to be hairpins due to their fragility. At the end of the Middle Helladic Period (c. 1550 BC), pins for the first time appear as fasteners of women’s garments, which apparently required pins (esp. from the shaft tombs of > Mycenae) [3. 39; 10. 52-54]. This could be an early indicator of the so-called peplos [5.13], usually believed to be post-Mycenaean (see below). The relatively sparse occurrence of pins in Mycenaean contexts may be due to the prevalence of sewn clothing in the courtly society of the mainland, which was influenced by Minoan Crete [3. 39]. The main task of pins may initially have been to secure heavy, cloak-like gowns. Based on their locations in graves, smaller examples may have been used as hairpins or for attaching headscarves or veils.

279

280

C. LATE BRONZE AGE AND Post-MYCENAEAN PERIOD Garment pins of definite date only appear again at the end of the Bronze Age (13th-12th cents. BC), but from then on in increasing numbers and often worked as pairs. The fibula was closely related in function to the pin. It is found in Greece in the late Mycenaean Period (13th-12th cents.), at around the same time as the reappearance of the pin. Its earliest forms are the violin bow and leaf bow fibulae. It came to Crete probably only in the post-Mycenaean Period. Older research saw the appearance of fibulae as evidence for a change in dress styles in the post-Mycenaean Period (‘Doric peplos’), in connection with the so-called + Doric Migration. However, this assumption is called into question because pins and brooches already occurred in the late Bronze Age. Their development continued uninterrupted throughout the ‘> Dark Ages’ and was homogeneous after the Bronze Age in previously Mycenaean regions [3. 41; 10. 65, 82; 11. 77]. Pins and the somewhat rarer fibulae are predominant among jewellery items throughout the sub-Mycenaean Period. On the Peloponnese, fibulae remained distinctly rarer than pins [12. 260]. In the first half of the 8th cent., towards the end of the Geometric Period, so-called Boeotian plate fibulae were popular. They had large, engraved plates showing some of the earliest illustrations of Greek legends. Other important fibula types of the Geometric Period were variations of the bow fibula, the ‘boat’ fibula with a convex hollowed out bow [5. 11-16] and the spectacle fibula, which probable originated in the northern Balkans.

Few pin finds from the Classical Period have been published. This may be due not only to their greater rarity but also to their simpler manner of production. However, occasional very valuable, elaborately-made pieces do survive from the Classical Period [4. 153]. From around the mid—sth cent., Attic vase paintings show garment pins on the shoulders of peplos figures as only a minuscule point. In male dress, the vases show round disc fibulae as fastenings for the mostly short hunting, battle and riding coat (chlamys), esp. from the Classical Period onwards. Older costume traditions, incl. pins and fibulae, may well have survived much longer in certain provinces, but also among certain population groups and classes. In Macedonia, there is evidence of bow fibulae with collar decorations at least until the end of the 4th cent. [4. 198; 1. 209; 15. 78f. Nr. 33]. In Thessaly, the old fashion for attaching breast chains with pins even survived into modern times [x. 210, fig. rr4].

PINS

D. ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL PERIODS From the 6th cent. onwards, vase paintings are known, esp. from Attica (e.g. krater of — Clitias), which provide information about the use of garment pins and how they were worn [8. 106-115]. They show pins almost exclusively on female garments, from the late Archaic Period principally on what is now known as the peplos. As in earlier times and until the Classical Period, chains or decorative bands were sometimes fitted to the pins. In the women’s graves of the late Archaic necropolis of Sindos (Macedonia), these breast chains were always attached with bow fibulae [14. cat. nos. 131, 132, 156]. The only garment pins found in male graves at Sindos were double pins in the shape of tuning-forks; these occurred only occasionally in women’s graves: they apparently served to fasten outer clothing (cloaks, robes) [14. cat. no. 61]. Bow fibulae, which had flourished in the Geometric Period, were driven out by pins in the later 6th cent. BC in Attica and southern and central Greece; they only reappeared under Roman influence. In turn, Attic vase paintings indicate that the pin seems to have become redundant as a fastener for women’s clothing over the course of the 5th cent. BC, due to a gradual shift in fashion towards sleeve and shoulder buttons and sewn seams.

E. HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS Valuable pins, with various figurative heads, are also known from the late 4th cent. BC [4. 171 figs. 120, 276; 15.174 no. rir]. Their rarity makes it unlikely that they were a necessary component of dress styles — they were probably pure adornments. In the 2nd cent. BC, golden porpai are known to have been bestowed along with purple garments by the Hellenistic kings as marks of distinction to philoi and syngeneis (> Court titles B.I.) (1 Macc 11,58) [8. 102]. Fibulae of Roman types circulated in Greece under Roman influence. Types of pins which developed in Late Antiquity, from c. 3rd/4th cents. AD, were the clover-leaf, ball and polyhedricheaded pins [12. 102-108]. — Aegean Koine; > Clothing; > Jewellery; - Macedonia (with maps); > Minoan Culture and Archaeol-

ogy; ~ Mycenaean Culture map); > Necropoleis

and Archaeology

(with

1 P. AMANDRY, Collection Héléne Stathatos, vol. 3, 1963 2 A. VON BALDERSHOFEN-NETOLICZKA, s.v. Fibel, RE Suppl. 3, 491-522 3 E. BIELEFELD, Schmuck (ArchHom 1,3), 1968 4B. Deppert-Lippirz, Griechischer Gold-

schmuck, 1985 5H. Donper, Die Fibeln. Katalog der Sammlung antiker Kleinkunst des Archaologischen Instituts der Universitat Heidelberg, vol. 3,2, 1994 6 E. HartMANN, Die griechischen Gewand-Nadeln, Dissertation Minster 1941 (typed) 7 G. HERzoG-HAuseEr, s.v. N., RE 16, 1549-1556 8P. JACOBSTHAL, Greek Pins and their Connections with Europe and Asia, 1956

9K. KILIAN,

Fibeln in Thessalien (Prahistorische Bronzefunde

14,2),

1974 101. KittAN-DirRLMEIER, Die Nadeln der friihhelladischen bis archaischen Zeit von der Peloponnes (Prahistorische Bronzefunde

13,8), 1984

Karre,

friiheisenzeitlichen

Metallbeigaben

Kerameikos, in: JDAI 77, 1962, 59-129

11H.

MULLER-

Graber des

12H. Purwipp,

Bronzeschmuck aus Olympia (OIF 13), 1981 13 E. SaPouNA-SAKELLARAKIS, Die Fibeln der griechischen Inseln (Prahistorische Bronzefunde 14,4), 1978 14 Divdoc. Katalog der Ausstellung in Thessaloniki 1985, 1985 15 D. WixLIAMS, J. OGDEN, Greek Gold. Jewellery of the Classical World, 1994. CH.ST.

281

282

VI. Iraty Fibulae were used to fasten clothing in Italy from the Bronze Age (2nd mill. BC). At the end of the rst mill., the essential component of Italian fibulae was a spiral with two or more turns; this guaranteed the elasticity of the pin. In the Roman Period and the Middle Ages this spiral was replaced by a hinge. This could be stamped with the name of the manufacturer, e.g. the Roman stamp aucissa. There is evidence of inscriptions of ownership on the pin rest of archaic fibulae (Etruria and Latium with > Manius [I 1] fibula; Fibula Praenestina, authenticity controversial). As one of the most widespread find types in necropoleis and sanctuaries, fibulae provide important information about the gender and social rank of the dead or those making votive offerings. Pictorial representations of high-ranking persons, including clay statuettes from a grave in Cerverteri and

fastening a garment. There are clear chronological and geographical variations, since fibulae — more than other types of jewellery — provide evidence for indigenous traditions (e.g. trumpet brooches from Britain), which tie in with the pre-Roman Period. There were also typical men’s (e.g. collared, aucissa and spiral fibulae) and women’s (thistle, wing, double-knot fibulae etc.) brooches. Fibulae were subject to changes of fashion, esp. regarding pin fastenings or bow design. Thus,

stone stelae from Apulia (+ Daunia), document how

fibulae were worn. Fibulae were not only elements of everyday clothing, but often specially reserved for ceremonial use, esp. in cults of the dead. This usage can be seen throughout the rst mill. BC, from the large Iron Age examples from Campania (with human figures and animals on a large disc), via the golden examples of the orientalizing Period, which were difficult to wear on the body due to their considerable size (Cerveteri, RegoliniGalassi grave: length 31.5 cm) and fragility, to the find of more than 500 bronze fibulae, which were found lying on the body in an archaic fossa grave in Numana. In spite of striking local and temporal variations, a general trend in the development of design of the Italian fibula can be demonstrated. It began as the violin bow fibula of the end of the Bronze Age. In the Iron Age there was a wide variety of types (esp. simple bow fibulae with thickened or twisted body, the so-called dragon, Navicella and Sanguisuda fibulae). The same form could vary considerably in size, e.g. the spectacle fibulae common on the Adriatic coast, which measured from 5-6 to 25 cm. In the orientalizing Period, fibulae were often decorated with bone, ivory or amber discs. In the Archaic and late Archaic Periods, fibulae with three knobs and the so-called pre-Certosa and Certosa fibulae (after a necropolis near Bologna) appeared in central Italy. Hundreds of examples of various types of the latter are known. The Republican Period saw the introduction of fibulae with double spirals and the so-called Balestra fibula. F. Lo Scuiavo, s.v. Fibula, EAA 2. Suppl., 1971-1994, vol. 4, 1996, 634-640 (bibliography); P. van ELEs Mast, Le fibule dell’ Italia settentrionale, 1986; P. G. Guzzo, Le fibule in Etruria dal VI al I secolo, 1972; J. SUNDWALL, Die alteren italischen Fibeln, 1943. A.NA.

VII. ROMAN EMPIRE In the Roman Imperial Period, fibulae were rarely part of clothing in Italy, though they have been found in large numbers and a variety of forms in the northern provinces of the Roman Empire. They were worn both by men and women, with (at least) two fibulae used for

PINS

in female dress, collar, thistle or lunula brooches were in fashion in the rst cent. AD, in the rst/2nd cent.

wheel-shaped designs and, from the 1st—3rd cents., the so-called omega fibula. Fibulae were primarily made of bronze, but silver and gold pieces were also known, albeit in smaller numbers. During the 2nd cent. AD, coloured enamel inlays began to be added as an enlivening decorative element. In the 4th cent. AD, the screw thread, which was a technical innovation, was introduced as a fastening mechanism (> Jewellery). Over the course of Late Antiquity, fibula types became less diverse. The main types in the 4th cent. were now simple ring and crossbow brooches, which were apparently worn only by men. W. JopstT, Die romische Fibel aus Lauriacum,

1975; A.

BOHME-SCHONBERGER, Kleidung und Schmuck in Rom und den Provinzen, 1997, 57, 84-89; E. Rima, Die rémische Fibel aus Augst und Kaiseraugst, in: Forschungen in Augst 3, 1979; Id., Die romische Fibel aus Augst und Kaiseraugst.

Die Neufunde

seit 1975,

in: Forschungen

in

Augst 18, 1994; P.M. Protret, Zur Chronologie der Zwiebelknopf-Fibel, in: JRGZ 35, 1988, 347-372. RH.

VIII. PREHISTORIC CENTRAL EUROPE Pins were primarily used to fasten clothing in prehis-

toric central Europe as well as occasionally being used for adornment (hairstyle, head-dresses) and as a tools

(e.g. sewing needles). From the 3rd mill. BC, pins were used as dress fasteners, variously competing with the fibula, which emerged later (end of 2nd mill. BC). Pins, like fibulae, were mostly made of bronze, later also of iron or precious metal (gold); occasionally, there were

also bone pins. From the Chalcolithic Period (3rd mill. BC) onwards, pins and fibulae were an important element of the furnished burial practice; they were mostly positioned in the shoulder and chest area, more rarely by the head. Because of the chronological development of their forms and decorations (in pins esp. the design of the head), they are used as diagnostic types for specific phases. Rarely, pins and fibulae have also been found in ~ hoard finds or as offerings (e.g. in wells, springs). While pins predominated in the Early Iron Age (8th/7th cent. BC) in central Europe, the fibula was clearly preferred in the Late > Hallstatt and > La Téne Cultures (6th-r1st cents. BC). In the Iron Age and the Imperial Period (5th cent. BC — 4th cent. AD), brooches (some influenced by Celtic designs) were most common in graves, though pins (some made of iron) also occurred. In the Germanic areas, pins of considerable size have been found, which could not have been worn on

PINS

284

283 Body

Foot

Piper see > Pepper

Head

Piracy Foot decoration

A. GENERAL

B. GREECE

C. ROME

(0) Spring

Foot knob(_ | Pin rest

Pin

Components of an ancient fibula (example of a Hallstatt period fibula)

clothing, but must have been used for show or as status symbols. The Iron Age > Princely grave of > Hochdorf had fibulae specially manufactured for it, which were used for fastening the textile lining of the grave chamber. + Celtic archaeology; - Germanic archaeology- ; Jewellery O. ALMGREN, Studien iiber nordeuropaische Fibelformen der ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhundert, 1897; B. BECKMANN, Studien iiber die Metall-Nadeln der rémischen Kaiserzeit im freien Gemanien, in: Saalburg Jahrbuch 23, 1966,

5-100;

R. Heynowskt1,

Eisenzeitlicher

Tracht-

schmuck der Mittelgebirgszone zwischen Rhein und Thuringer Becken, 1992. VP.

Pinus (Stone pine) (xituc/pitys, Lat. pinus, Pinus pinea L.). This striking broad-crowned conifer, related to the — spruce, is common along the coastal fringes of the Mediterranean Sea. Because a wreath of stone pine was awarded to victors in the Isthmian Games (> Isthmia),

poets from Hom. Il. 13,390 on mention the pinus. Pall. Agric. 12,7,9-12 and, much more briefly, Gp. 11,11 describe its cultivation. In many cases, a cone of pinus crowned Roman funerary monuments (— Funerary architecture). Its wood useful for shipbuilding, its bark, needles and cones (x@voc/kOnos) were used in medicine, e.g. as aromatic substances (Dioscorides 1,69 WELLMANN = 1,86 BERENDES). According to Plin. HN

23,142, the pine nuts still enjoyed today quenched thirst and calmed an acid stomach, among other things. The Nymph Pitys, beloved of > Pan and the wind god ~ Boreas, was pushed off a cliff by the latter and turned into a stone pine (Gp. 11,10).

V.

HeHN,

Kulturpflanzen

und

Haustiere

(ed.

O.

SCHRADER), *ror1 (repr. 1963), 301-307; H. GossEN, s.v. P., RE 20, 1708-1710. C.HU.

Pinytus (Iivutoc/Pinytos). Author of a conventional,

one-distich funerary epigram on > Sappho (Anth. Pal. 7,16; inclusion in the Garland of — Philippus [32] highly doubtful). The rarity of the name suggests identification with the grammarian P. of Bithynium, freedman of Epaphroditus and secretary to Nero (Steph. Byz. s.v. Bubuvov). GA II 1, 438f.; Il 2, 464f.; M. LausBerG, Das Einzeldistichon. Studien zum antiken Epigramm, 1982, 261, 265.

M.G.A.

A. GENERAL Piracy is armed robbery using ships on open or coastal waters. The boundaries between > naval warfare and piracy hard to set; the same goes for sea trade and piracy. In the eastern Mediterranean piracy was practically aided and abetted by on-going wars — from the > Peloponnesian War to the Wars of the Successors (+ Diadochi, wars of the) — which prevented Greek cities from ensuring the security of sea routes; pirates also often supported warring powers thereby consolidating their own position. Pirates also played a considerable economic role: in the East they controlled the > slave trade (cf. — Slavery) to great profit (Str. 14,5,2). Toleration of piracy, however, contrasts strikingly with interests in secure sea routes and trade; Cicero observed that the Romans often went to address the maltreatment of merchants or > navicularii (Cic. Leg. Man. 11; cf. Pol. 2,8). B. GREECE While the beginning of piracy in the Mediterranean can not be dated precisely, Thucydides assumed an almost permanent state of war with piracy commonplace in Greece before the Trojan War. Piracy was profitable and thoroughly respected: as a protection from piracy cities were frequently sited at some distance from the coast, and — Minos was the first who was able check it (Thuc. 1,2-8). Piracy is frequently mentioned in Homer, and Odysseus prides himself on having made raids by ship (Hom. Od. 14,222-234; cf. 3,71-74; 9,252-255). In the Archaic Period the Corinthians moved against pirates (Thuc. 1,13,5). In the western Mediterranean piracy was carried on in grand style by the

Phocaeans,

who

had

abandoned

Asia

Minor

because of the Persian expansion and established themselves on Corsica; the Etruscans and Carthaginians ultimately formed an alliance against them, forcing them to give up their colony (Hdt. 1,166). Piracy was probably not uncommon from the Persian Wars until the middle of the 2nd cent. BC, but represented no fundamental threat to ancient societies. In 4th cent. BC texts individual references to piracy appear. Demosthenes reports, e.g., that Lycon’s ship from Heraclea was assaulted by pirates in the Gulf of Argos and that he himself was killed (Dem. Or. 52,5), and that the Athenian Nicostratus fell into the hands of pirates and was sold at the slave market in Aegina (Dem. Or. 53,6). In the late 4th cent. BC the fame of Rhodes rested primarily on its successful combatting of piracy (Diod. Sic. 20,81,3). J.M.A-N. C. ROME The Romans were confronted with piracy as they expanded beyond Italy: in the 3rd cent. BC they battled

285

286

Illyrian pirates in the Adriatic (Pol. 2,8); in 122 BC, pirates in the Balearic Islands (Flor. Epit. 1,43; Str. 3,551). Likewise, Crete abounded with pirates, who were later displaced by their Cilician counterparts (Str. 10,4,9). From the middle of the 2nd cent. BC on, due to the decline of the Seleucid Empire, piracy in the eastern Mediterranean grew increasingly intense. Operating out of Cilicia, these pirates were further invigorated by the wars of Mithridates [6] VI (App. Mithr. 92 f.) and dominated the slave trade, of which Delos was the centre (Str. 14,5,2). Several attempts by the Romans to rid the eastern Mediterranean of piracy failed; as praetor in 102 BC M. Antonius [I 7] (cos. 99 BC) fought the pirates in the East, and in 74 BC the praetor M. Antonius [I 8] waged an unsuccessful war against those in Crete. In the years before 67 BC pirates not only interrupted the grain supply noticeably, but also demonstrated their power by raiding the coast of Italy (Cic. Manil. 29-35; Cic. Flacc. 29; Plut. Pompeius 24-28; Cass. Dio 36,20-37). Pompey [I 3], who under these conditions in 67 BC was given an extraordinary + imperium with full jurisdiction against the pirates (lex Gabinia), was able in a few weeks to restore the security of the sea routes in the Mediterranean. During the Principate the presence of the Roman navy ensured the non-existence of any large-scale piracy; immediately upon the appearance of pirates,the provincial governor would attack (cf. e.g. Jos. BI 3,414431). In the literature of this period, however, piracy remained an attractive theme; the > novel in particular adopted eastern Mediterranean piracy as a theme. The insecurity of sea routes in Late Antiquity was due less to piracy than to the appearance of Germanic tribes who undertook raids on the Atlantic coast and in the Mediterranean. — Brigandry> ; Commerce; > Marginalized groups; — Navigation

Piraeus

1 A. Avipov, Were the Cilicians a Nation of Pirates?, in: Mediterranean Historical Review 10, 1997, 5-55 2M.

BENABOU, Rome et la police des mers au 1“ siécle avant J. C.: la répression de la piraterie Cilicienne, in: M. GALLey, L. Sépat (eds.), L’>homme méditerranéen et la mer,

1985, 60-69 3H.G. DeLt, The Origin and Nature of Illyrian Piracy, in: Historia 16, 1967, 344-358 4P. DE Souza, Greek Piracy, in: A. PowELt (ed.), The Greek World, 1995,179-198 5 Id., Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World, 1999 6 Y. GARLAN, War, Piracy and Slavery in the Greek World, in: M.I. Frntey (ed.), Classical Slavery, 1987, 7-21 7A. GIOVANNINI, E. GRzYBEK, La lex de piratis persequendis, in: MH 35, 1978, 33-47 8H.A. ORMEROD, Piracy in the Ancient World, *1978 9H. PouL, Die romische Politik und die Piraterie, 1993 10 J. Roucgé, Recherches sur l’organisation du commerce maritime en Méditerranée sous l’empire romain, 1966 11S. SAHIN, Pirateniiberfall auf Teos: Volksbeschlu& iiber die Finanzierung der Erpressungsgelder, in: EA 23, 1994, I-36.

J.M.A-N.

PIRAEUS

[1] (Meteatet¢/Petraievs,

Latin Piraeus, modern

Pira-

eus). I. TopoGrapny

II. Hisrory

II]. ARCHAEOLOGY

I. TOPOGRAPHY Large Attic deme of the phyle Hippothontis, main harbour of > Athens on the west coast of Attica, c. 7 km from Athens. Its territory is a peninsula stretching c. 3 km into the > Saronikos Kolpos, between the + Aegaleos in the north and the -» Hymettus in the east.

The west side of this peninsula encloses the ‘large harbour’, Kantharos, which is closed off on the west by the headland of > Eetionia. It is dominated in the south by the Acte ridge (57 m high) and in the east by the hill of Munychia (86 m high), which at the time of Thucydides (2,13,7) was not counted as an immediate part of P.

Between Acte and Munychia, the circular bay of Zea encroaches deeply from the south-east; on the east side of Munychia is another small bay with harbour (see map).

Il. History PALAIOKRASSA [3. roff.] conjectures a Neolithic settlement (with continuity into the Hellenistic era) underneath the sanctuary of Artemis. Apart from Archaic grave finds, no Archaic settlement is proven. That it was already of strategic significance at the end of the 6th cent. BC is indicated by the attempt of Hippias [1] to fortify Munychia (Aristot. Ath. Pol. 19,2). In 493/2 BC, > Themistocles relocated the harbour from the open moorings at > Phaleron to the P., which offered better protection for the fleet with its three natural bays (Thuc. 1,93,3ff.; Philochorus FGrH 328 F 40; Diod. Sic. 11,41,2; Nep. Themistocles 6,1). After the > Persian Wars, the entire P. was fortified (according to Thuc. 2,13,7: total length of the fortifications 60 stadia = 10.5 km, actually 13 km). Aristotle (Pol. 1267b 22) ascribes the layout of the city of P. from c. 479 BC to ~ Hippodamus of Miletus. Probably only starting in this period was P. represented in the council of Athens by nine bouleutai. After 460 BC, Cimon [2] connected the P. with Athens by the ‘long walls’ (Thuc. 1,107,1; 108,33 2,13,6). The P. experienced its greatest significance and heaviest settlement in the 5th and 4th cents. BC, as many > métoikoi and foreigners also lived here cf. the cults for foreign deities recorded in inscriptions (Baal, Bendis, Isis, Men, Nergal, Sarapis). _ The ideal topographic situation of the P. formed one of the conditions for the Athenian thalassocracy. Moles, one of which is preserved in the Munychia harbour, narrowed the closable harbour entrances. All three harbours had ship sheds. After the end of the + Peloponnesian War, fortifications and naval facilities were destroyed in 404 BC (Lys. 13,8; Xen. Hell. 2,2,15), the reconstruction of which began before the naval battle at Cnidus (August, 394 BC; IG IVI’ 1656). In the middle of the 4th cent. BC, there were 94 ship sheds at the > Kantharos (the main commercial

PIRAEUS

288

287

uolaidajysy

=,ajow

Biysiunoyy/ NoqieH

S|JBM ‘suoIFeIyIYO4

quaiue

ssulping

wapoyw

pus JuaIUy joau}s Aep-juasaldg auljyseoo aul}}SBOD JUaIUY auyeau

quiol simapy jo Arenjoues [7] Blewyyod jo sauoys Arepunog

ay

tj

snaeilg Juaiuy pod Jo

1 snoqueH baz

,S9]20}S1W9y |

UO|IYd JO Bx94}ONI%S spays-diys

$o ay} sjseishuoig asnoy ,uolasuria

289

290

harbour), 82 at the Munychia harbour and 196 at the main naval base, the Zea harbour (IG I/II 1627-1629; 1631), as well as armouries (skewothékai) for equipping warships (masts and rigging, oars, etc.). Between 347

and the so-called deigma for moneychangers and the display of goods. The foundations of two halls have been found. Furthermore, the sanctuary of Artemis Munychia above the Munychia harbour, with an annex on the Munychia hill, and the Asclepiaeum on the Zea harbour, founded in 420 BC, have been excavated. Of the two theatres in the P., the elder, in the Dionysus sanctuary on the western slope of the Munychia (Thuc.

and 330 BC, Philo [6] built the famous arsenal named for him on the west side of the Zea harbour (IG II? 1668; remains: [1. 44ff.]). After the capitulation of Athens in 322 BC in the > Lamian War, a Macedonian garrison was stationed on the Munychia. With the rise of Alexandria [1], Rhodes and Delos as trading centres, the P. increasingly declined in significance. In the rst + Mithridatic

sacked

War, it was

by Cornelius

besieged, conquered

PIRUSTAE

8,93,1), has not been preserved. The younger (about 200 BC) lies close to the Zea harbour at the Archaeo-

logical Museum.

A cave

sanctuary

with two

large

and

chambers, mosaic floors and two water chambers has

[[90] Sulla in 87/6 BC (App.

been identified as the heroon of the hero Serangus (cf. Isaius 6,33; Alci. 3,4,3; Phot. and Hsch. s.v. Xnedavyyeov). The water supply of the P. was provided by underground cisterns and tunnels, over 100 of which have been identified in emergency excavations. Str. 9,1,15 already describes the Munychia hill as undermined (l6phos hypdénomos). A cenotaph of the 4th cent. BC on the coast south of the entrance to the main harbour was later considered to be the ‘tomb of Themistocles’ (Paus. 1,1,2). ~ Athens; > Attica (with map); > Harbours, docks

Mithr. 30ff.; 4of.; Plut. Sulla 14,7), and the arsenal of

Philo was destroyed. In the now insignificant commercial harbour, Strabo 14,2,9 saw ‘a small group of houses around the Zeus sanctuary’. There was a recovery in the Imperial era [2]. Due to the regression of settlements in the Imperial era and Late Antiquity, tombs were built in formerly settled areas. The P. was last mentioned under its ancient name in AD 396 on the occasion of the raid by Alaricus [2] (Zos. 5,58); the name P. was forgotten in the Middle Ages (again P. since the middle of the 19th cent.). III. ARCHAEOLOGY Modern construction since 1835 has largely destroyed the ancient P. Remains of the ancient walls, especially on the south side of Acte, come from the reconstruction under Conon [1]; only a very few traces remain of the Themistoclean wall. The ‘asty gate’, the ‘gate between the long walls’ on the north side of the city and the ‘Eetionia gate’ on the Eetionia peninsula west of the Kantharos harbour probably go back to it; however, the existing form comes from the Cononian period or later. Apparently, the Cononian wall followed the Themistoclean. Remains of a fortification on the Munychia probably come from the period of the Macedonian garrison. Ship sheds have been found at the Zea and Munychia harbours, as has the foundation of the arsenal of Philo on the west side of the Zea harbour. In the residential city, an orthogonal grid of wide (c. 7-8 m) and narrow (c. 3-4 m) streets can be traced,

apparently reflecting the city plan of + Hippodamus; the insulae (depth c. 40 m) consist of two rows of houses. The properties measure c. 12 x 20 m. A large inner courtyard and an > andron [4] are characteristic of the houses, but a ‘type house’ [1] cannot be verified. In the Hellenistic era, the insulae were converted into peristyle houses (> House II.B.4.; remains under the Polytechnic School of P.) or larger complexes (‘House of the Dionysiasts’ under the city theatre). The Imperial era insula on Iroon-Polytechniu Street lies on top of a Classical insula. The ancient centre, the Hippodamian agora with the sanctuary of Zeus Soter and Athena Soteira (Str. 9,1,15; Paus. 1,1,3), has not been archaeologically demonstrated. Around the Kantharos harbour were five halls for trade, including the Alphitopolis stoa for the grain trade

1 W. Hoepener, E. L. SCHWANDNER, Wohnen in der klassischen Polis, vol. 1: Haus und Stadt im klassischen Griechenland, *1994, 38-42 2J. Day, An Economic History of Athens under Roman Domination, 1942, 142ff. 3L. PaLaloxrassA, Neue Befunde aus dem Heiligtum der Artemis Munichia, in: MDAI(A) 104, 1989, 1-40.

K.-V. VON EICKSTEDT, Beitrage zur Topographie des antiken P., 1991; R. GARLAND, The P. from the Fifth to the First Century B.C., 1987; L. PALAIOKRASSA, TO igQo tYj¢

“Aotéuidog Movviyias, 1991 (Greek, with a German abstract); CH. PANAGOos, O Ilewgatetcs, 1995; G. STEINHAUER, Ta uvynpeta xa to Agyatohoyixo Movosio tov Ieteatov, 1998; TRAILL, Attica, 21, 52, 59, 6, 111 no. 103, pl. 8; Trav_Los, Attika, Index s.v. P.; WHITEHEAD, Index s.v. ee Kv.E.

[2] (Iletga.os; Peraios). Son of Clytius, from Ithaca, faithful companion to > Telemachus. P. accompanies the latter on his journey to Pylos and afterwards hosts the seer > Theoclymenus (Hom. Od. 15,539-544; 17,55 and 71-78; 20,372). PRELLER/ROBERT 2, 1408.

NI.JO.

Pirates see > Piracy Pirustae (Ileiootota/Peirodstai). Illyrian tribe (Str. 7,553; Ptol. 2,16,8) in the ore-rich region between Lim and Drin in modern Albania, first mentioned in Liv. 45,26,13 in the context of the conclusion of the 3rd + Macedonian War, 167 BC, as a civitas libera et immunis. At that time, its relationship with Rome was governed by a treaty. However, in 54 BC the P. undertook excursions into the Roman province of > Illyricum for plunder. In reaction, the proconsul of the province, Caesar, restored order in the frontier region by taking hostages and arbitration (Caes. Gall. 5,1,5-9).

PIRUSTAE

In 33-35 BC, the future Augustus incorporated the P. into the Roman province. The P. were ringleaders in the Pannonian Revolt of AD 6-9 (Vell. 2,115; > Pannonia). After Trajan’s (AD 98-117) foundation of the province of Dacia, many of the P. were deported to work in the gold mines of > Alburnus maior, where they formed their own distinct urban community (cf. CIL III Tab. VIII). TIR K 34 Naissus, 1976, ror.

292

291

E.O.

Pisae. Town in northern Etruria in a lagoonish landscape at the confluence of the Auser (modern Sérchio) with the northernmost mouth of the Arnus (modern Arno), c. 3.8 km from the Tyrrhenian coast, modern Pisa. Notwithstanding the traditions which ascribe to P. a Greek, Etruscan or Ligurian founding (Justin. 20,1,11; Verg. Aen. 10,179; Str. 5,2,5; Dion. Hal. Ant.

Rom. 1,20; Plin. HN 3,50), the origins of the settlement

of this lagoon region go back to the late Aeneolithic and early Bronze Age. By the 9th cent. BC at the latest, a centre emerged. The settlement in outermost northwestern Etruria was concentrated around this point. Drawn into the maritime world by its site near the — Mare Tyrrhenum (as evidenced by the smaller landing places along the coast as well as the mooring stage on the Auser that belonged to P.), the town controlled a large area as early as the end of the 7th cent. BC. This area extended from the upper valley of the Versilia in the north as far as the mouth of the Fine in the south. In the interior it embraced the entire Auser valley, the lower Valdarno and the central Valdera region. From the beginning of the 6th cent. BC trade and agriculture flourished (especially wine-growing and exportation ranging from the south coast of France to southern Etruria). The legend of the founding of the town by — Nestor [1] (Str. 5,2,5), its admission to the Etruscan

League at the end of the sth cent. BC, the minting of silver coins and the structures of its municipal port, along with various new shrines (at Piazza Dante, Piazza

del Duomo), testify to the town’s importance. Allied to Rome from the mid 3rd cent. on, P was an important base naval and army base in the struggle against the > Ligures (Liv. 33,43ff.) and > Carthage. After ceding a portion of its territory to the Roman colonies of > Luca (Liv. 40,43,1; 180 BC) and > Luna [3] (Liv. 41,13,4; 177 BC), P. first became a munici-

pium (Fest. 155,18) and then, between 41 and 33 BC, a colonia (Opsequens Iulia Pisana, cf. ILS 139,36.) of the tribus Galeria (cf. ILS 7258,7). Little is known about the appearance of the Roman town; only the ruins of the baths of Porta a Lucca which escaped the destruction at the end of the sth cent. AD are worth mentioning. > Etrusci, Etruria S. BRUNI, Pisa etrusca. Anatomia di una citta scomparsa,

1998; Id., Le navi antiche di Pisa, 2000; Id., Ricerche di archeologia medioevale a Pisa. I: Piazza dei Cavalieri, la campagna di scavo 1983, 2000; A. Nepr1 Mopona, P., 1953; NISSEN 2, 288-291. ST.BR.

Pisatis, Pisa (Ilodtic/Pisdtis, Mioa/Pisa). Region and city or two terms for one region in western Peloponnesus. The question of the historicity of the city P. is controversial today [1] just as in antiquity (Str. 8,3,31) and often answered in the negative (Str. l.c.). The earliest mention gives the name Iltoa/Pisa (", cf. Pind. Ol. 2,3; 3,9; Pind. Nem. 10,32), in Attic literature Itoa/Pisa (~~, Eur. IT 1; Eur. Hel. 386; Hdt. 2,7, with long /i/); the classical ethnikon is always Tuoatn¢/ Pisdtés (Pind. Ol. 4,11; Eur. IT 824), and since the Hellenistic Period Muootoc/Pisaios (cf. Paus. 5,8,6); Lat. Pisaeus (cf. Accius, Atreus 196). The name itself is preGreek. P. can indicate the region in which + Olympia lies, later Olympia itself and everything belonging to it (cf. SGDI 1153; Schol. Pind. Ol. 6,55a; Schol. Pl. Phdr. 236). While the original extent of the region P. is not known, P. probably indicates the area with eight cities annexed by > Elis and contiguous with it from Olympia northwards to Elis. The Hellenistic geographers used the term Pisdtis differently. Demetrius [34] used it for the entire area at the lower course of the Alpheius [1] (in Ath. 8,346bc), which Artemidorus [3] took over from him; Apollodorus [7] uses the double name P. and Triphylia for the entire kingdom of > Nestor (> Pylus), both north and south of the Alpheius, according to which P. apparently means the above-mentioned eastern, Elian region (Str. 8,3,7; 3,11f.). It is not possible to determine the compass of the term P. in Pol. 4,74,1. According to Pausanias (Paus. 5,1,6f.; 6,21,3—5) Pisaia is the country south of the Alpheius excluding Olympia. 1 A. MALLwitz, Olympia und seine Bauten, 1972, 79.

F. CarINcl, s.v. Elide 1, EAA 2. Suppl. 2, 1994, 447; J. Hopp, s.v. P., in: LAUFFER, Griechenland, 552-554; F. KIECHLE, Das VerhAltnis von Elis, Triphylien und der Pisatis im Spiegel der Dialektunterschiede, in: RhM 103, 1960, 336-366; E. MEYER, s.v. Pisa, Pisatis, RE 20, 1732-

1755; MULLER, 833f.; P. SIiEWERT, Die friihe Verwendung und Bedeutung des Ortnamens Olympia, in: MDAI(A) 106, 1991, 65-69; O. VIEDEBANTT, Forschungen zur alt-

peloponnesischen Geschichte 2. Elis und Pisatis, in: Philologus, 85, 1930, 23-41. Y.L. and E.0.

Pisaurum. Roman colony (tribus Camilia, cf. ILS 92.41; regio VI, Plin. HN 3,119) in the territory of the > ager Gallicus (founded 184 BC; Liv. 39,44,10; Vell. Pat. 1,15,2) on the via Flaminia, where the Pisaurus (modern Foglia) flows into the Adriatic at modern Pesaro; inscriptional evidence (ILS 2970-2983; ILLRP 13-26) of the ucus (‘sacred grove’) found at P. together with numerous 3rd—znd cent. BC dedications to gods of central Italy, suggests the existence of a conventus civium Romanorum where the colony was later sited. The place was settled by the early historical period (necropolis at - Novilara). P. received additional colonists: under the future Augustus in 41 BC (Cass. Dio 48,6) and between 31 and 27 BC (cf. ILS 7218,2: colonia Iulia Felix P.). Known magistrates are: duoviri

293

294

PISIDIA

(quinquennales), aediles, quaestores (alimentorum), decuriones. In AD 270/1, P. was threatened by the + luthungi, who defeated Aurelianus [3] at Fanum Fortunae on the Metaurus [2] (Aur. Vict. Epit. Caes. 35,2). In the struggle with the Goti under > Witigis, P.’s defences were rebuilt by — Belisarius in AD 544 (Pro-

[2] Swimming pool. The piscina publica, built as early as 312 BC in Rome outside the Porta Capena (+ Rome) in conjunction with the aqua Appia (— Water pipes),

cop. Goth. 3,11,32-34). The Christian basilica (with its mosaics) was also rebuilt at that time under the magi-

was used for swimming (Cic. Quinct. 3,7,1; Liv. 23,32,4). In the Roman baths (> Thermal baths), pis-

ster militum Iohannes [17].

cina denoted both the cold pool in the frigidarium and the swimming pool. The former was about 1 m deep and approached via a balustrade with steps. The frigidarium frequently contained several piscinae, placed in niches or apsides. The frigidarium sometimes also held a piscina used for swimming, but swimming pools occurred more frequently outdoors; it was also known as a natatio. A calida piscina was a heated (swimming) pool in Roman thermae. Often lined with marble (> Incrustation) these bathing pools were fed with water from spigots. ~ Thermal baths

I. ZicAri,

s.v.

P., RE

Suppl.

11,

nell’antichita, *1985; G. Crescr

1092-1098;

MARRONE,

Pesaro

G. MEN-

NELLA, P.I: Le iscrizioni della colonia, 1984; BTCGI 13, 458-477; G. Pact, Terre dei Pisaurensi nella valle del Cesano, in: Picus 16-17, 1996/7, 115-148; R. FARIOLI CamMPaNaTl, I mosaici pavimentali della seconda fase della Cattedrale

di Pesaro,

in: Picus

18, 1998,

7-29.

GPA.

Piscina (from Latin piscis, ‘fish’).

{1] In Greece, fish-farming was practiced in natural bodies of water, more rarely in artificially constructed ponds (Aristot. Hist. an. 592a). Piscinae are known in Rome from the 3rd/znd cents. BC on (Gell. NA 2,20,6f.), where fish-farming was part of pastio villatica (Varro, Rust. 3,3,1; 3,27,1; > Breeding, of small

domestic animals); the growing popularity of sea fish lead to the construction of saltwater piscinae (Columella 8,17,1ff.), extremely costly to maintain due to their need for a continuous supply of fresh sea water. Raising the fish also involved great expense (Plin. HN

1J. HiccinsoruaM, Roman Italy, 1997.

Piscinae:

Artificial

Fishponds in CH.KU.

I. NrELSEN, Thermae et Balnea, *1993, 154 and passim.

LN.

Piscinae. Station on the via Aurelia between > Vada Volaterrana and — Pisae on the Tyrrhenian coast of Etruria (Tab. Peut. 4,1; Geogr. Rav. 4,323 5,2). M. Sorpt, La via Aurelia, in: Athenaeum 59, 1971, 302-

312.

GU.

9,170; Varro, Rust. 3,17,2ff.). It was principally the

Pisibania Lepida. Member of the senatorial class, who

wealthy upper classes who had piscinae built, bringing large numbers of various saltwater fish onto the market

had an estate at Ferentium in southern Etruria (CIL XI

(Mart.

10,30,21ff.;

Macrob.

Sat. 3,15,7;

— moray).

Extensive pond complexes contributed significantly to the increase in value of country estates (Varro, Rust. 3,17,3; Columella 8,16,5; Plin. HN 9,171; Macrob. Sat. 3,15,6). Primarily, however, piscinae were an

important status symbol for the > nobiles. The enthusiasm for fish-farming among the wealthy owners of piscinae was often ridiculed in literature (e.g. Varro, Rust. 3,17,5); Cicero, in particular, makes ironic comment on the retirement of rich piscinarii from politics to devote themselves to their fish and fishponds (Cic. Att. I,18,6; 1,19,6; 120,33 2,1,73 2,951). Q. Hortensius [5],

L. Licinius [I 26] Lucullus and L. Marcius [I 14] Philippus are all mentioned as owners of piscinae in the Late Republic (Varro, Rust. 3,17,3-10; Plin. HN 9,170172); women of high status of the Early Principate also owned fishponds (Antonia [4]: Plin. HN 9,172; Domi-

3.003 and p. 1313); she was related to Pisibanius [2] (cf. {. 158f.]). 1 P. Weiss, Ein Konsulnpaar vom 21. Juni 159 n.Chr., in: Chiron 29, 1999, 147-182.

Pisibanius [1] P. Celsus. Presumably a senator with an estate near Ferentium in southern Etruria (CIL XI 3003 and p. 1313; cf. [r. 147ff.].) W.E.

[2] M.P. Lepidus. Attested as cos. suff. on 21 June AD 159 [1. 147ff.]; also mentioned in CIL VI 32321 as a consul, presumably beginning 1 April. For his relatives chiles atta 1 P. Weiss, Ein Konsulnpaar vom 21. Juni 159 n.Chr., in:

Chiron 29, 1999, 147-182.

Pisidia (Mwowdsia/Pisidia).

tia [1]: Tac. Ann. 13,21,3).

I. GEOGRAPHY,

Ponds for ducks and geese to swim in, cattle drinking troughs and horse watering places at a villa rustica (Pall. Agric. 1,31) were also termed piscinae. Frontinus also calls the sedimentation tanks and distribution tanks of the Roman water conduits piscinae (Frontin. Ag. 1,19). The piscina publica, situated near the Porta Capena, was Rome’s municipal pool (Liv.

TORICAL DEVELOPMENT

23,3254) (see piscina [2]).

> Fishes; > Fishing, Fishing trade; > Villa

W.E.

POPULATION, ECONOMY

II. His-

I. GEOGRAPHY, POPULATION, ECONOMY Region in southern Asia Minor. While its frontiers can be described only vaguely due to constant shifting over the course

of history, it did, however, extend beyond the western Taurus region, the original area of Pisidian settlement (Str. 12,7,1-3) [2. 8f.]: In the north,

PISIDIA

the mountain chains of Sultan Daglari form a natural frontier with Phrygia (> Phryges); the western runs roughly along a line from > Apamea [2] to > Termessus; the eastern (with Lycaonia) is marked by PappaTiberiopolis (modern Yunuslar) and > Etenna; in the south, P. slopes down to > Pamphylia (between Etenna and Termessus). The majority of P. is characterized by the mountain chains of the > Taurus riddled with basins and high plateaus. The region, marked by numerous lakes and three great rivers, the Cestrus (modern Aksu Cayi), Eurymedon [5] and Melas (modern Manavgat Cayi), is remarkably fertile [1. 5 861]: grain-farming (esp. wheat), livestock breeding and a fishing economy led to a prosperity buttressed further by an abundance of wood (such as — Styrax) (Str. 12,7,3). Several tribes in addition to the Pisidians (who show post-Luwian traces) settled here, esp. the Milyadeis (> Milyas [2]) and the > Solymi. Contrary to ancient (and modern) prejudices, P. is not marked by uncivilized barbarians, but, already by the Hellenistic Period, by a Greek immigrant culture [2. 44-63; 5. I27]. Str. 12,7,2 offers the chief literary witness for this. Invoking the late Hellenistic geographer Artemidorus [3], he lists a number of Pisidian poleis alongside the large cities of — Sagalassus, > Selge and Termessus: Amblada, Anabura, Isinda and Timbriada, which so far have received little archaeological attention. Further Pisidian cities of the Hellenistic Period are known from literary and inscriptional sources, such as Kormasa

296

295

(Pol. 21,36,1),

Kretopolis

(Pol. 5,72-77),

+ Lysinia, Pogla (SEG 19,834) and Sibidunda (SEG 19,855). Surveys of the last decade have expanded this catalogue of Hellenistic poleis in P. even further: Panemotichus, long attested only for the Imperial Period, had been settled continuously from the Archaic Period into Late Antiquity; and newly found royal documents from the Hellenistic Period reveal that > Olbasa was a polis as early as in the 2nd cent. BC; Adada — with a democratic constitution in the 2nd cent. BC according to an inscription (TAM 3,2) — possessed a large Hellenistic agora;and centres of Hellenistic settlement are also attested for Sia as well as Ariassus. The existence of another Hellenistic polis by the name of Angeira is, however, unverified (SEG 43, 986). HB. Il. HisTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Archeological remnants from the pre-Greek era attest to the early settlement of P. in the Neolithic and early Bronze Ages. The Persians had integrated P. into its ‘first two’ satrapies (Hdt. 3,90). The campaign of Alexander the Great [4] led to the subjugation of several poleis in P.; thereafter, P. was at least formally subject to the > Seleucids and fell to the Attalids after 188 BC (cf. [6. 54]; SEG 44, 1108), against whose sovereignty esp. > Selge revolted (Pol. 31,1,2-5; Pomp. Trog. prol. 34). After ror BC at the latest the Romans exerted direct influence over P., but in 39 BC entrusted the majority of it to the Galatian Amyntas [9] as the ‘new king of P.’ (App. B Civ. 5,75). After his death in 25 BC,

Augustus established the new province of > Galatia to which also P. was added (Str. 12,5,1; 6,5). Direct consequences of this measure were the creation of Roman colonies in P. (Antiochia [5], cf. [5. 1-27], Comama, Cremna, Olbasa, Parlais) and the expansion of the road system [3]. This territorial arrangement probably endured at least until the Flavian Period (AD 69-96): the double province of > Lycia et Pamphylia (which was also to include P.) could hardly yet have existed or been created in 43 BC (cf. [2. 98f.], differing [4. vol. 2,

154f.]). An independent province of P. comprising the northern region with its capital at Antioch did not emerge until the early 4th cent. AD in the course of the provincial reforms by — Diocletianus and his successors (cf. for example ILS 8932) [5], while southern P. now belonged to the province of Pamphylia, also new. Both provinces, in turn, were assigned to the dioecesis Asiana. These changes were important for the Church as well and were reflected already in the list of members of the council of > Nicaea [5] in 325. In the 4th cent, P. suffered invasions by the Ostrogoths (Zos. 5,13ff.); in the 5th, there were repeated invasions by the Isauri (— Isauria). Iustinianus [1] temporarily transferred civil and military power in P. to a praetor. In the 7th cent., P. was integrated into the new Anatolian — theme [1. 79tor]. ~ Luwian 1 BELKE/MERSICH 2H. Branpt, Geschichte und Wirtschaft Pamphyliens und Pisidiens im Altertum. (Asia Minor Stud. 7), 1992 3B. Levick, Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor, 1967 4 MITCHELL 5 S. MITCHELL, Hellenismus in Pisidien, in: E. SCHWERTHEIM (ed.), Forschungen in Pisidien (Asia Minor Stud. 6), 1992, 1-27 6 WELLES. H.B.

Pisidic see

> Luwian B.r.

Pisilis (Miowtc/Pisilis). Fortified settlement in southeastern Caria between Calynda and Caunus on Baba

Dag near Sarigerme. The ruins on the bay below belong to the Byzantine town of Prepia. Only mention: Str. ASD 28 H. LoHMaNN, Zw. Kaunos und Telmessos, in: Orbis Terrarum 5, 1999, 43-83. H.LO.

Piso [1] Roman cognomen (derived in popular etymology from pisere, ‘trample’, Plin. HN 18,10), hereditary within the family of the Calpurnii (> Calpurnius [I 823; > II 12-24]) and transferred to the Pupii (> Pupius); in many other families in the Imperial Period. Also the name of an Aquitanian prince who fell fighting for Caesar in 55 BC (Caes. B Gall. 4,12,3-6); his father

or grandfather may have taken the name from L. Calpurnius [I 17] P. (cos. 112 BC). DecrasslI, FCIR, 262.

297

298

[2] Otherwise unknown author of a satirical epigram in two hexameters against the Galatians, ‘from whose soil spring not flowers but Erinyes’ (Anth. Pal. 11,424).

Pistis (Miotic/Pistis).

PISTIS

A. RELIGION B. PHILOSOPHY D. Law E. CHRISTIAN

C. RHETORIC

F. BRECHT, Motiv- und Typengeschichte des griechischen Spottepigramms, 1930, 100.

M.G.A.

Pisonian conspiracy See > Calpurnius [II 13]; > Laus Pisonis; > Nero [1] B.

Pissuthnes (IliooovOvn¢/Pissouithnés), son of one Hystaspes, may have been related to the — Achaimenidai [1. 174 and note 3]. As satrap of > Sardis in 440 BC he supported the oligarchs of > Samos in their (unsuccessful) rebellion against Athens (Thuc. 1,115; cf. Plut. Pericles 25). Between 430 and 427 P. sent Arcadian and native mercenaries to help the Greeks of + Colophon, but they failed (Thuc. 3,34). When the Lesbians and other Ionian Greeks formed contacts with Sparta in 427, they held out to the Spartan nauarch Alcidas [1] the prospect of an alliance with P., but the plan came to nothing (Thuc. 3,31). In about 420 P. attempted a rebellion against Darius [2] II, which — Tissaphernes in particular was dispatched to combat. When he succeeded in persuading P.’ Greek mercenaries under Lycon [1] to defect, P. surrendered on the strength of promises, but was taken before the Great

King and executed (Ctesias, Persika 52 = FGrH 688 F 15,53)- His illegitimate son Amorges later rebelled anew from his base in Caria with help from Athens (Thuc, 8,5; 8,19; 8,28; 8,54). ~ Peloponnesian War 1 J. V. PRASEK, Geschichte der Meder und Perser, vol. 2,

1910.

M.SCH.

Pistachio (motcxn/pistaké from the Aramaic fustaqa, Arabic fustuq; Lat. pistacia). The fruit-tree Pistacia vera, of the family Anacardiaceae, originated in Mesopotamia and Syria, and produces flavoursome drupes (motcx.a/pistakia). The pistachio became known to the Greeks through the conquests of Alexander [4] the Great. Theophr. Hist. pl. 4,4,7 mentions it as being similar to the ‘terebinth’ (téguww8ov/términthon) — still unnamed — which grew in Bactria. According to Plin. HN 15,91, L. Vitellius introduced it to Italy from Syria in AD 35 under Tiberius, and the eques Pompeius Flaccus to Spain. Plin. HN 13,51 recommends it against snakebite, as does Dioscorides (1,124 WELLMANN = 1,177 BERENDES). Pall. Agric. 11,12,3 describes its sowing in October and its grafting onto the terebinth in February or March. As an additive, it was also said to help clarify cloudy wine (ibid. 11,14,12). Gal. De alimentorum facultatibus 2,30 regards the fruits as digestively neutral, but recommends them for strengthening the liver. H. Gossen, s.v. Pistazie, RE 20, 1809-1811.

C.HU.

A. RELIGION P. is the personification of the Greek goddess of loyalty and faith. Except for Thgn. 1137 (2nd half of the 6th cent. BC), P. rarely appears as a deity, and only very late. She had a cult of which at least a shrine in Athens can be identified in Diogenianus 2,80. P. was regarded by the Romans as equivalent to — Fides. It was not until Christianity that the term pistis came to mean a belief in revealed truth (see section E below). B. PHILOSOPHY According to > Parmenides, alotig GAnOf\c (pistis alethés, ‘true reliability’) is not to be found in the opinions of mortals (28 B 1 Z. 30 DK). In the line analogy in Plato’s Politeia (Pl. Resp. 509c—5 rre), pistis was considered part of the realm of — opinion (doxaston), which is also equated to the visible world (horaton): Within this realm, pistis represents certainty derived from direct perception, as opposed to eikasia, or mere supposition, which is also linked to the sphere of horaton and considers shadow images to be the things themselves (so9d—5 10a). The counterpart to opinion is the sphere of noét6n, the world that can only be grasped through thought. It is subdivided into the realm of didnoia (thinking) and that of ndésis (insight) (511d-e). Thus, within to doxaston, pistis represents an analogue to nodésis, which is located in to noétén. Socrates, however, places this subdivision under the reservation that he is saying what seems to him to be right (ta dokodinta, 509¢ 3). Pistis is understood in the sense of an orthé doxa (‘correct opinion’) (602a 4f.). > Porphyrius (AD 233-310) is apparently arguing against the view of pistis held by > Paulus (1 Cor 13:13) (Porph. ad Marcellam 24). In a radical reinterpretation of this concept, the neoplatonist — Proclus interpreted pistis to mean perfect union with the One (Theologia Platonica 1,25; paganization of John’s concept of faith; see below).

C. RHETORIC In Greek rhetoric, pésteis (plural) is the term used for a means of producing a firm conviction on the part of an audience

(~ Argumentatio;

> Probatio).

For > Aris-

totle [6], pistis was a kind of proof (apddeixis tis, Aristot. Rh. 1355a 5); he distinguished between pisteis that could not be learned (pisteis dtechnot) but were simply present, and those that could be employed through skillful use of rhetoric (pisteis éntechnoi, Rh. 135 5b 3 5f.). The Aristotelian division of this latter group into ethical, pathetic and logical proofs was later adopted by the Romans as well (Quint. Inst. 5,12,9). In this context pistis was translated as probatio. D. Law

In Greek private law during the classical era, pistis offset the risk of an uncertain legal situation and refer-

299

3.00

red to the trust between contractual partners as well as to the trustworthiness of contractual parties or parties offering evidence (cf. Isoc. Or. 17,44; Dem. Or. 32,16). In the Roman era, influenced by the Roman fides, the resulting legal commitment took on more emphasis: pistis was now also used as a term for certain relationships of trust that had not been included under that term before. In private law, the meaning of pistis depends on the respective form of government. It refers to the relationship of mutual trust and the acceptance of trust between citizens and the statesman in power, or later, euphemistically, to the dependent relationship between a king and his subjects. Letters of safe conduct

In Christian usage, pistis means faith. LXX uses derivatives of the root mot-/pist- exclusively to translate the hiphil (i.e. the causative or declarative form) of the

ing it from the salvation history of Israel and linking it with an individual’s fate — an anthropological transformation inconceivable apart from Greek influence. Indeed, the concept of faith offered by Jesus is much like the ancient concept ofvirtue: faith, no longer a response to the acts of God, is a design on the part of humankind with regard to the future. + Paulus [II 2] draws the theological consequences from this by raising faith to the constitutive distinctive of Christianity (Gal 2:15f.). Faith is directed toward eschatological salvation; man shares in this salvation only by faith, and no longer through works of the law (Rom 10:9). The evangelist + Iohannes [1] transforms eschatology into ontology, elevating faith above any other vision of the world. Faith is no longer aimed at salvation, but is salvation itself: whoever believes is already beyond judgment; whoever does not is already condemned (Jo 3:18). Faith in the Son of God is not a value-judgment on the Son, but on the believer himself. Faith is thus a recognition of the truth, an act which does not surpass faith, but completes it: by recognition faith realizes what it possesses. Plato (Tim. 29c) had already established a similar link between faith and recognition. The eastern Church followed in John’s (and Plato’s) footsteps, but to draw a distinction with philosophy had to define more closely the content of the faith. This led to the well known elaboration of formulae of belief (> Nicaenum, — Nicaeno-Constantinopolitanum) which were subsequently also adopted by the western Church. The Latins’ translation of pistis with fides lent the concept of faith a strongly moral and legal sense. As a result, in the western Church faith was sharply opposed to knowledge and recognition (most clearly in Tert. De praescriptione haereticorum 14,6), while in the eastern Church — following Plato — the two are closely linked (e.g. Clem. Al. Strom. 5,1). Augustine was the first to reconcile the two positions (Aug. De

Hebrew ’aman, ‘to say amen’, i.e. in the case of God, to

praedestinatione sanctorum

affirm and ‘say amen’ to divine claims. LXX thereby seizes upon the basic meaning of pistis = ‘trust’. Thus in the OT pistis is always simply humankind’s response — in trust, hope, fear and obedience — to actions taken by God. Pistis intimates an overcoming of fear of the world and a turning away from trust in one’s own strength. However, in the OT pistis has not yet come to signify a pervasive attitude towards life, but relates first and foremost to crisis situations — though significantly not to death, since death is part of God’s action to save his people (Is 7:9). The view of faith put forth by the historical > Jesus is rooted in the OT, but simultaneously portends a radical innovation. Certain statements ofJesus allow those with faith to have a share in God’s creative power: ‘All things are possible with God’ (Mk 10:27; so also Hom. Od. 10,306; Soph. Aj. 86; Cic. Nat. D. 3,92), ‘All things are possible to him who believes’ (Mk 9:23) and his words on faith moving mountains (Mk 11:23). In the words, ‘Your faith has saved you’ (Mk 5:34), Jesus maieutically releases the healing power of faith, remov-

establishing the classical distinction between the content of faith (fides quae creditur, ‘the faith which is believed’) and the act of faith (fides qua creditur, ‘the faith by which we believe’).

PISTIS

were now termed pisteis. In the terminology of interna-

tional treaties, pistis was translated by the Romans as fides from an early stage on(cf. for example the capitulation of the Aetolians to the Romans in 191 BC. On this and translation-related communication problems see Pol. 20,9,11 and Liv. 36,27,8).

— Fides 1 W. BEIERWALTES, Das Problem der Erkenntnis bei Proklos, in: O. REvERDIN, De Jamblique a Proclus, 1975, 153-191 2S. CALDERONE, IIIZTIZ-FIDES, 1964 3E.S. GRUEN, Greek xiottc and Roman fides, in: Athenaeum N.S. 60, 1982, 50-68 4 J.T. LIENHARD, Note on the Meaning of stots in Aristotle’s Rhetoric, in: AJPh 87, 1966, 446-454 5D.R. Linpsay, Josephus and Faith. Tliotig and Ilotevew as Faith Terminology in the Writings of Flavius Josephus and in the New Testament, 1993 6 W. SCHMITZ, “H xiots in den Papyri, diss. K6lIn 1964 7G. THOME, Zentrale Wertvorstellungen der Romer,

2000.

W.PO.

E. CHRISTIAN

2,2,5; Aug. Trin. 13,2,5),

O. MicueE1 et al., s.v. Glaube, Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum NT, vol. 1, 71997, 781-800; R. BULTMANN, A. WEISER, S.v. tiottc, ThWB 6, 174-230; H. VoRSTER, s.v.

Glaube, HWdPh 3, 627-643; G. EBELING, Das Wesen des christlichen Glaubens, 1959 (bibliogr.).

j.BU.

Pistis Sophia (Iiotic Lodia/Pistis Sophia). Double proper name of a figure in Gnostic myth (representing Wisdom who distinguishes herself by belief and for this reason bears the (first) name ‘Pistis’). This figure is acting in and has given the name to a Gnostic book translated from Greek into Coptic; it forms the content of the Codex Askewianus, a very well preserved parchment codex from the 4th cent. AD (named after a former owner A. ASKEW and in the possession of the British Library). The book contains two different Gnostic writings: the first is a longer work divided into three

301

302

sections whose actual title was ‘The (Three) Books of

frontal eye with long eyelashes) and specialized in redfigured cups. These mainly represent warriors, horses and thiasos companies grouped so as to correspond with one another. His masterpieces are cups with twofigure painting on white ground on the inside: Berlin, SM 2282 (Achilles and Diomedes), Athens, AM 439 (death of Orpheus), Taranto (maenad and satyr). The new four-colours technique with veneer and coating colours (even raised gilded details) as well as the spacious and tension-filled composition make the vases suggestive of large-format paintings. The figures, executed with a steady hand, show later no relief lines but finer, softer strokes; their inward agitation and dramatic dialogue reveal them to be closely related to the ~ Penthesilea painter. The PP combined most perfectly subject-matter and artistic expression in the whiteground inside of the cup London, BM Dz, in which Aphrodite drifts away with graceful bearing on a flying goose. The PP’s favourite inscriptions (> Kalos inscriptions) are the names Lysis, several times Glaucon, and Megacles on the recently-found Kerameikos cup (cf. [1]). The latter probably records, on two fragments with the carved name of the famous Megacles [4], his second ostracism in 475 BC. The signature of the potter Pistoxenus is also extant on a cup and four other skyphoi (two by the Syriskos painter, one by > Epictetus [1]). The double signature Pistdxenos Syriskos epoiésen on two skyphoi points towards a single person: Syriscus (identical with the Copenhagen Painter) has given up painting with the name Pistoxenus and worked only as a potter [2].

the Saviour’ (only here the story of PS is told, and that only in one section, namely ch. 29-82 of 135), and at the end an shorter, undivided work. Discussions between Jesus and his disciples on the Mount of Olives in the rath year after his resurrection form the framework of the main text. In the PS section, not only the fall and redemption of PS is narrated but penitential prayers are also put into her mouth when she is in a state of mortification and hymns of thanksgiving when she is being raised up, the model for which are the psalms of David and the Odes of Solomon; these are repeatedly interpreted by the disciples as the fulfilment of these models. The name and figure of PS are encountered in older Coptic-Gnostic writings as well, namely in ‘Eugnostos’ (NHCod II,3 und V,r), ‘The Sophia of Jesus Christ’ (NHCod

III,4 and Codex

Berolinensis gnosticus

3),

“The Hypostasis of the Archons’ (NHCod II,4) and ‘On the Origin of the World’ (NHCod II,5). + Gnosis C. ScHmipt, V. MacDermort (eds.), P.S. (The Coptic Gnostic Library 9), 1978 (with Engl. transl. and comm.;

C. ScHMIDT, Koptisch-gnostische Schriften, vol. 1, 41981; W. SCHNEEMELCHER, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, vol. 1, °r990, 290-297 (German transl., bibliogr.); J. M. Rosinson (ed.), The Nag Hammadi Library in English, +1996. H.-M.SCHE.

Pistoriae (Il.otweia; Pistoria). Ligurian city on the Umbro (modern Ombrone), a right-bank tributary of

the > Arnus, where a pass opens northwards over the Appennines; modern Pistoia. First mentioned at the beginning of the 2nd cent. BC (in Plaut. Capt. 16of.). — Catilina was defeated near P. in 62 BC in a battle against Petreius (Sall. Catil. 1,37). From 89 BC on, munictpium of the tribus Velina; from Augustus’ time on, in regio VII (Plin. HN 3,52; Ptol. 3,1,48); in Late Antiquity in the Tuscia annonaria (Amm. Marc.

PISYE

1F. WILLEMSEN, Ostraka einer Meisterschale, in: MDAI(A) 106, 1991, 137-156 2M. RoBeErRtTSON, Beazley and After, in: Miinchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst

27, 1976, 426. BEAZLEY, ARV’, 859-863, 1554, 1672f., 1703; BEAZLEY, Paralipomena, 425; BEAZLEY, Addenda’, 298f.; H. DrePOLDER, Der Pistoxenos-Maler (BWPr), 1954, 110; M.

27,3,1), mansio on the via Cassia (Tab. Peut. 4,2; It.

ROBERTSON, The Art of Vase-Painting in Classical Athens,

Ant. 284f.). Bishop’s see since the 5th cent. AD. Few Etruscan and Roman remains, inscriptions and coins.

Keramik, 1983, 87-91.

L. Tonbo, Vecchi ritrovamenti di monete nel Pistoiese, in: RIA 81, 1979, 211-213; D. C. Barni, Viabilita romana

nell’ Appennino Pistoiese, in: Anazetesis 4/5, 1981, 40-50; G. UcGeRI, Per una definizione del municipium Pistoiense e del confine con la colonia di Lucca, in: Annali dell’ Istituto di Storia dell’ Universita di Firenze 2, 1980/1, 25-44; M. Tore. (ed.), Atlante dei siti archeologici della Toscana, 1992, 68-71.

G.U. and M.F.P.L.

Pistoxenus Painter. Attic vase painter of the Early Classic Period, active about 480-460 BC, named after

the skyphos in Schwerin (music lesson of Iphicles with ~» Linus/baneful Heracles with his tattooed old Thracian nurse Geropso), signed by the potter Pistoxenus. The PP started as a pupil of the > Antiphon Painter at the workshop of > Euphronius [2] (his white-ground cup Berlin, SM 2282, signed by Euphronius, still shows in Achilles’ figure the older style of representing the

1992, 155-159; I. WEHGARTNER, Attische weifgriindige E.BO.

Pistrina see > Mills

Pisye (Mwvn/Pisyé). Carian city, capital of a local koinon (together with Pladasa, [3. 443 no. 19]; other koind were led by Mobolla and > Idyma); occupied for a short time in 201 by Philippus [7] V, then regained by + Ruopes (Syll.3 586; [2. no. r51r]), belonging to the region of Rhodian > Peraia subjugated on the basis of the Apameia agreement in 188 BC (> Antiochus [5] II.) (Steph. Byz. s.v. I1., according to him also Iutin/ Pityé, ethnicon Muviytys/Pisyetés; Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos, De Thematibus 14,33). Archaeology: traces of the acropolis, a theatre, site of numerous inscriptional finds at modern Pisikéy, southwest of

Mugla [1. 47 no. 44f., 73, 75, 92, 99, 127°; 2. no. 51]. 1 P.M. Fraser, G.E. BEAN, The Rhodian Peraea and Islands, 1954 2C. BLINKENBERG, K. F. Kincu, Lindos,

PISYE vol. 2,2, 1941

3H. VAN GELDER, Geschichte der alten

Rhodier, 1900. Gore BRAN Si Vo bebe ns.

E.O.

Pitana (Iidvo/Pitdna, Mitavy/Pitané). District of -» Sparta (Pind. Ol. 6,28; Hdt. 3,55; Paus. 3,16,9; Plut. Mor. 601b) west and southwest of the acropolis, preferred as a residential area: even > Menelaus [1] is sup-

posed to have lived there (Eur. Tro. 112ff.; Paus. 3,14,6). The grave monument of the royal family of the — Agiads (Paus. 3,14,2ff.) also lay there. With Mesoa, Cynosura, Limnae and Amyclae, P. was one of the five villages to form the foundling polis > Sparta. P. formed one of the divisions (@®é/0b4) of the Spartan citizenry as well as a military division (Iitavatyns Aoyoc/Pitanatés Iéchos in Hdt. 9,53,2£.; contra, Thuc. 1,20,3). Inscription: IG V 1, 675; 685; 730. M.

304

303

MoacI, I sinecismi

interstatali greci, 1976, no. 6.

eu

Pitane (Ilitavn/Pitané). Town with two ports in Mysian Aeolis (Hdt. 1,149; Str. 13,1,25 51; 67; > Aeolians [2]) situated in modern Candarli. P. was regarded as a legendary foundation of the > Amazons (Diod. Sic. 3,5 5,6) and already existed in the Late Geometric Period according to finds in the necropolis (excavations by E. AKURGAL between 1959 and 1965, still unpublished; description in [1]). There have not yet been any official excavations in the town itself, with a concomitant paucity of archaeological finds. P. was a member of the > Delian League. In 336 BC, Parmenion [1] besieged P., to no avail (Diod. Sic. 17,759). After 281 BC, P. acquired additional land from Antiochus [2] I. for 380 talents (OGIS 33 5,133ff.) and remained a free city within the Pergamene Empire (+ Pergamon) until 133 BC. In the rst > Mithridatic War Mithridates [6] VI. fled to P., was was besieged by Flavius {I 6] Fimbria, but escaped to the sea. The poet > Matron hailed from P. In the Christian Era P. was a suffragan diocese of Ephesus. 1 C. SCHUCHHARDT,

Die Altertiimer von Pergamon

1.1,

1912/3, 99f. J. KeIL, s.v. P., RE 20, 1841-1843.

E.SCH.

Pitch I. ANCIENT

ORIENT AND

EGypT

II. CLASSICAL

ANTIQUITY

I. ANCIENT ORIENT AND EGyPT Pitch (also bitumen; asphalt) is a natural product of fossil origin and varying composition. Its use in the Ancient Orient mostly remained limited to the source regions in Mesopotamia, Huzistan and the Dead Sea. Egypt did not have any noteworthy deposits of pitch, therefore pitch was irrelevant until the Ptolemaic period, and was then imported from Syria and Palestine

as an agent for mummification

(~ Mummies).

Pitch,

which is viscous, was rarely used unadulterated, but was refined with mineral and vegetable additives. It is elastic, water-repellant and was used as an adhesive. Pitch is attested from the 5th/4th millennia BC. From the 3rd millennium BC, it appears in cuneiform texts in various contexts. It was used in architecture (mortar, mostly for brick masonry), as an insulating

and sealing agent against water, as a binder in the fixing of sealing strips or overlays on a carrier material, as an adhesive in the mounting of tools and weapons, and in repairs. Because of its preservative and anti-toxic properties it was used in ship-building (mainly since the Persian period), in burial and in medicine. Its ductile character was used to assist with toreutic procedures (as abutment in metal processing work, in chasing and engraving). The artificial product bitumen-— mastic, which is attested from the 4th millennium to about the 7th cent. BC, remained concentrated in Susa. In order to create it, a mixture of pitch/bitumen and certain mineral raw materials was burnt at about 250°C to forma material with new properties and design options that could be processed using stone-working techniques. W. HELck, s.v. Bitumen, LA 1, 825; P. R. S. Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian

Materials and Industries, 1994,

332-335; J. CONNAN, O. DESCHESNE, Le bitume 4 Suse. Collection du Musée du Louvre, 1996. R.W. I]. CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY

The modern technical terms pitch, tar and crude resin do not have any clear equivalent in GraecoRoman antiquity. Lat. pix and Greek niooa/pissa (Attic mitta/pitta) describe processed resin, wood tar or pitch although they occasionally also refer to crude resin. On the other hand, resina and 6ntivy/rhétiné usually meant crude resin but sometimes also pitch in general. Wood tar can also be called pix liquida, picea resina or resina, crude resin flos crudus resinae (Plin. HN 14,122-124; 16,52-56; Theophr. Hist. pl. 3,9,1f.; 3,15,3; 9,253; uns hals

Resin was extracted by tapping conifers. The liquid collected was solidified or heated in order to obtain a tar-like product. However, it could also be used in its fresh and unprocessed state. Wood tar was manufactured through dry distillation of wood. Theophrastus describes the method used in Macedonia. Similar to the production of — charcoal, a round wood pile was stacked up that was covered almost completely with earth to control the inflow of air. Only a small opening remained through which the smouldering fire was lit; the fire could be kept burning for up to two days. The tar (pitta) flowed slowly from a trough under the kiln through a channel and into a catch pit (Theophr. Hist. pl. 9,3,1-4). Pliny mentions kilns out of which, after an aqueous preliminary discharge, a more viscous wood tar flowed that was further processed through boiling into actual pitch or refined through the addition of asphalt (bitumen) or vinegar (Plin. HN 16,52-5). By

32)

306

re-boiling it, palimpissa (Plin. HN 24,40) was obtained. Zopissa (Greek twmooa; zOpissa) was pitch drenched in salt water that was scraped off old ship timber (Plin. HN 16,56).

sometimes combined in such a way as to read Arimoi as the Etruscan translation of the Greek pithékoi (cf. Str. 13,4,6) and reconcile the name P. with Inarime. The

There were diverse uses for pitch —it was used to seal ship timber, rope and wood for house-building against water, and wine and food vessels were

coated and

sealed with it; in addition, pitch was used as a taste additive for wine and in various medicines (Vitr. De arch. 10,4,2; 7,4,23 Plin. HN 14,57; 20,102; Columella

12,4,4). Pitch was an important trading ware in the Mediterranean region. According to Ps.-Xenophon, it was not allowed to be exported again (cf. also Xen. Ath. pol. 2,11-13). For the Greek area, pitch and ship timber from Macedonia were of particular importance (IG I 3,117); in the western Mediterranean, sought-after pitch came from Bruttium (Plin. HN 14,127; Str. 6,1,9) where, in Locri [2] Epizephyrii, a sanctuary sold local pitch (SEG 42,905). In all the regions with forests containing coniferous wood, we can assume local production of a pitch that was often of relatively poor quality (cf. Plin. HN 16,3849). Only a few references to the pitch producers themselves have been passed down to us despite the great importance of their work. We do know of terms for the artisans (mi00oveydc/pissourgos) and for the workshops (suttoveyeta/pittourgeia; Lat. picariae, ‘pitch foundries, tar furnaces’); Cicero mentions a societas of — publicani that employed slaves and freedmen to control leased picariae (Poll. 7,101; Str. 5,1,12; Cic. Brut. 85f.) in the 2nd cent. BC. The Macedonian pitch-makers performed special rituals to ask the gods for help with their difficult work (Theophr. Hist. pl. 9,3,3). 1 J. ANDRE, La resine et la poix, in: AC 33, 1964, 86-97 2R. Meiacocs, Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World, 1982, 467-471 3 A. SCHRAMM, s.v. Pech, RE 19.1, 1-5. A.B.-C.

Pithecussae

(IlWyxotooaPithékoussai,

Lat. Pithe-

cusa, Pithecusae). Volcanic island off the coast of Cam-

pania, first mentioned in Pherecydes FGrH 3 F 54 (TlOnxotooa/Pithékoussa; early 5th cent. BC.), modern Ischia. Not named after the apes (miOyxoc/ pithékos, ‘ape’) who allegedly lived there, but after the art of pottery practiced on the island (mi®oc¢/pithos, ‘wine cask’), as Plin. HN 3,82 makes clear. Inarime, as P. was also called, can be traced to a misinterpretation of a Homeric passage: > Typhoeus, who had his camp ‘among the Arimoi’ (giv Agipou/ein Arimois) in Cilicia and around whom Zeus in his anger scourged the earth with lightning bolts (according to Hom. Il. 2,781-783), was transported (cf. Pind. Pyth. 1,17-19) undersea from Sicily to Cyme, where he is said to have caused a large number of seismic phenomena. Later poets (cf. Verg. Aen. 9,716; Ov. Met. 14,89) tried to locate Typhoeus more narrowly on P., making the Homeric expression ‘ein Arimois’ into Inarime and using it as the island’s own name. Misinterpretations of this kind were

PITHOS

Romans also called P. Aenaria (App. B Civ. 5,69), since it was where Aeneas was said to have landed (Plin. HN 3,82).

P. was known for its natural resources (thermal waters, clay, alum, ores, fruits, wine: Str. 5,4,9; Plin. HN 31,9). Settlers from Euboea [1] had founded the earliest Greek colony on P. even before 700 BC, as archaeological finds attest. These settlers, like ones brought later by Hieron [1] I around 474 BC, left the island again around 500 BC chiefly due to its enormous seismic and volcanic activity (Str. 5,4,9; cf. Liv. 8,22,6; Timaeus FGrH 566 F 58). P. was initially in the possession of Neapolis [2], was then ceded to Rome in 326, but then annexed to Neapolis once again by Augustus in 29 BC in exchange for > Capreae (Str. l.c.). Inscriptions on vessels constitute a fundamental source for the history of Greek writing [4]. The earliest interest in the antiquities of P., beginning in the 16th cent., was linked to the use of its thermal springs [4]. The first systematic excavations were made by G. BucHNER [1], who conducted an exhaustive study into the continuity of settlement from the Euboean settlement on Monte Vico to the Syracusan occupation of Castello d’Ischia and evidence from the Roman Imperial Period [4]. Study of burial objects and customs and analysis of the craftmanship demonstrate P.’s ethnic heterogeneity, which brought together oriental [3] and native influences [2] in a permanent cultural interaction with the Euboean colony. 1 G. BucHNER, La scoperta archeologica di Pithecusa, in: Centro di Studi sull’isola d’Ischia, 1984, 205-211 2B. D’AGostTINno, Appunti sulla posizione della Daunia e delle aree limitrofe rispetto all’ambiente tirrenico, in: A. NEPPI Mopona (ed.), La civilta dei Dauni nel quadro del mondo italico. Atti XII Convegno di Studi Etruschi e Italici (Manfredonia 1980), 1984, 249-261 3S. F. Bonpi, La colonizzazione fenicia, in: M. GuIDETTI (ed.), Storia dei Sardi e della Sardegna, vol. 1, 1988, 147-171 4 BIT'CGI8, 327370 5 C. HALtier, L’isola di Ischia, 1998 6G. BaILo Mopestl, P. GasTatpt (eds.), Prima di Pithecusa: i piu antichi materiali greci nel golfo di Salerno, 1999. G. BuCHNER, D. Ripceway, Pithekoussai, vol. 1, 1993; G. BUCHNER, C. GIALANELLA, Museo archeologico di Pithecusae, 1994. MLG.

Pithekos see

> Monkey

Pithoigia see > Anthesteria Pithos (pithos, plural pithoi). The largest clay storage vessel of the Greeks (called

dolium by the Romans),

often taller than a man. Pithoi were made in specialised, sometimes travelling workshops and were shaped by hand on a slowly revolving wheel. They served as storage containers for wine, olive oil and grain on farms, in town houses and palaces. In the Minoan palace of

307

308

+ Knossos pithoi were found in their original positions embedded in the floor of the storage room. A lower and more constant storage temperature which enhances the storage life of the contents is maintained by being embedded. In addition it makes easy access to the contents. In the Attican vase painting of the 6th and 5th cents. BC, the story of the centaur > Pholus provides images of buried pithoi from which Hercules is offered delicious wine. In spite of their unsuitable size for handling pithoi were conveyed over wide distances. In the Late Bronze Age shipwreck of Ulu Burun (Turkey) several pithoi have been found, of which one served as a

Pittacus (Iiwtaxdc/Pittakés: MSS; ittaxos/Phittakos: MS 562, Alc., papyrus). Tyrant of + Mytilene, early 6th cent. BC (Alc. 87 Drent [2. vol. 1] = 348 LoBeEL/PaGE = VoictT), considered one of the > Seven Sages (PI. Prt. 343a; Diod. Sic. 9,11f.; Str. 13,2,3; Diog. Laert. 1,75 and 77; Plut. Mor. 147b et passim). His father, Hyrrhas (Alc. 24a DIEHL = 129 LOBEL/PAGE = Vo1cT) is said to have come from Thrace (Duris FGrH 76 F 75; Suda s.v. I1.), where the personal name P. is attested (Thuc. 4,107). In 607/6 BC (Jer. Chron. on 607/6), P. was strategos in the war with Athens over

PITHOS

container for Cyprian pots.

H. Buitzer, KORONEIKA. Storage-Jar Production and Trade in the Traditional Aegean, in: Hesperia 59, 1990, 675-711.

RD.

Pithus (Ii®o0c). Attic Mesogeia deme of the Cecropis phyle with three (four or five) bouleutai, probably in the northeast of Chalandri. There is evidence of ~ Thesmophoria in P. (Isaeus 8,19f.). P formed an association with the neighbouring demes of Gargettus and Pallene [3] for the cult of Athena Pallenis. TRAILL, Attica, 51, 59, 62, 68, 112 Nr. 115, Tab. 7; J. S. TraIL_, Demos and Trittys, 1986, 4, 11, 13f., 21f., 24f., 13534; WHITEHEAD, Index s.v. P. H.LO.

Pitinum [1] Pitinum Mergens. Roman municipium in the region

of the > ager Gallicus, tribus Clustumina, regio VI (Plin. HN 3,114; possibly Ptol. 3,1,53 unless he means P. [2]; CIL XI 5965; 6123), 4 km in distance from the

via Flaminia and modern Acqualagna, on both sides of the Candigliano. The city was administered by quattuorviri (cf. CIL XI 5959; 5961f.; 5964). Only a little has been excavated (villa from the 2. cent. BC); results unpublished. L. BantTI, s.v. P. (2), RE 20, 1850-1859; V. PuRCARO, Acqualagna, in: Picus 1, 1981, 222-226; E. CaTANI, Per una identificazione del ‘Pitinon’ umbro di Claudio Tolomeo (Geogr. III,1,46), in: W. Monaccui (ed.), Storia e archeologia di P. Pisaurense, 1999, 23-41. G.PA.

[2] Pitinum Pisaurense. Municipium of the tribus Ofentina (AE 1959, 94), regio VI in the region of the > ager Gallicus (CIL XI 6033; cf. 6035; 6354; Plin. HN 3,114 may read Pitinates instead of Pisuertes), in the parish of San Cassiano near Macerata Feltria. Archaeological research documents the settlement of the area from prehistoric

times

on.

Decuriones,

quattuorviri,

seviri

Augustales, pontifices, and augures are epigraphically attested. L. BANTI, s.v. P (2), RE 20, 1850-1859; G. SuSINI, P.P., in:

Epigraphica 18, 1956, 3-49; W. Monaccut, Il Museo civico di Macerata Feltria, 1995; E. CaTAnt, Per una iden-

tificazione del ‘Pitinon’ umbro di Claudio Tolomeo (Geogr. III,r,46), in: W. Monaccui (ed.), Storia e archeologia di P.P., 1999, 23—41.

GPA.

Sigeum (Str. 13,1,38; Diog. Laert. 1,74). P. © a woman

from the erstwhile ruling (Aristot. Pol. 1311b 26-30) family, the Penthilids (Diog. Laert. 1,81; in connection with P.’ tyrannis, Alc. 43 and 48 D. = 70 and 75 LoBEL/ Pace = VoicT). Strabo counts him together with + Melanchrus and > Myrsilus [1] among the tyrants of Mytilene’s period of ‘civil wars’ (dichostasiai), although P. is said to have used his monarchy as a means of eliminating political factions (dynasteiai); once done, he restored the city’s self-governance. A popular song calls P. > basileus ([2. vol. 2, Carmen populare no. 30] = 869 PMG). Alcaeus [4] ‘Songs of Sedition’ (stasidtikd, Str. 13,2,3) attack P.: they had both been members of the — hetairia [2] which deposed Melanchrus (Diog. Laert. 1,74; Suda s.v. I.) and attempted to overthrow Myrsilus (Schol. to Alc. 37 DigHL = 114 LOBEL/PAGE = VorcT); P. then aligned himself with Myrsilus (Alc. 43,7; 24a D. = 70; 129 LOBEL/PAGE = Voicr). Alcaeus’ bitter polemic from exile against ‘the hybris of the tyrant’ P. (306 fragment 9 LOBEL/PAGE = 306g VOIGT) is rich in profanities (list in Diog. Laert. 1,81 = 429 LoBEL/PaGE = VoicT). He calls P. kak6patris, i.e. ‘man without a homeland’ (not ‘of bad parents’ [8. 1863; I. 573]; 26; 48; 87 DIEHL = 67; 75; 348 LOBEL/PAGE =

VoIGT; 106 LOBEL/PAGE; word otherwise only attested in Thgn. 193). According to Alcaeus, P. is ‘devouring the city’ (24a; 43 DIEHL = 129; 70 LOBEL/PaGE = VoicT), and the démos must ‘be delivered from its torments’ (24a). Yet Alcaeus makes city and démos jointly

responsible for P.’ rule. He calls the latter blinded (43) and the former faint-hearted, though all of them acquiesced ‘exceedingly’ to P. (87 DIEHL = 348 LoBEL/PAGE = Voicr). Aristotle’s [6] typology of governments uses this quotation and P. as the prototype for his construct of the ‘elected tyrant’ (Aristot. Pol. 1285a 3 5-40; Diog. Laert. 1,75), for which he requisitions the term — aisymnétés (‘referee’) [7; 5; 4]. Chosen ‘to resist the exiles’ (Aristot. ibid.), ‘he freed his native city from the

three greatest evils — tyranny, civil strife, and war’ (Diod. Sic. 9,11).

Herodotus links P., like > Solon, with > Croesus (1,27; comm.

on Alc. 283 SLG; Diog. Laert.

1,81).

Apollodorus’ [7] chronology (FGrH 244 F 27 with comm.; [6. 246-254]) connects P.’ akmé with the overthrow of Melanchrus in 612/609; this would mean that P. was born in 652/649. The ‘ten-year aisymnetia’ came ro years before his death (in 578 or 570, dependent on

310

309

the conjecture followed). P. did not reorganize the constitution (Diog. Laert. 1,75; council and public assembly: Alc. 24c DiEHL = 130 LoBeL/PaGE = VoIGT) so much as promulgate individual laws (Aristot. Pol. 1274b 18f.) to limit arbitrary aristocratic power [4. 223f.]. Ancient tradition places P. alongside Solon and + Charondas in the ranks of the ‘wise law-givers’ (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2,26). Numerous gnomai (+ Gnome) are preserved as the ‘words of P.’ (Pitta-

keion: Simon. 4,4 D. [2. vol. 2, p. 63] = 542 PMG) [3.

fr. rof.]. Diog. Laert. 1,78 quotes from a ‘song’ of P. (cf. [z. vol. 2, scolion no. 34]). + Aisymnetes; > Alcaeus [4]; > Lesbos; > Mytilene; > Tyrannis 1H. Berve, Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen, 1967, 91-95;

572-575 2E. Dien (ed.), Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, 2 vols.,'1925 3 GENTILI/PRATO 2, 31-41 4K.-J. HOLKESKAMP, Schiedsrichter, Gesetzgeber und Gesetzgebung im archaischen Griechenland, 1999, 219-226 5 L.DELIBERO, Die archaische Tyrannis, 1996, 28-30;

314-328 6 A. A. MossHAMMER, The Chronicle of Eusebius and Greek Chronographic Tradition, 1979 7F.E. Romer, The aisymneteia: A Problem in Aristotle’s Historic Method, in: AJPh 103, 1982, 25-46 8 F. SCHACHERMEYR, S.v. Pittakos, RE 20, 1862-1873. J.co.

Pittheus (MitOevc/Pittheis, name probably derived from mev0d/peitho [x], therefore something like ‘good adviser’ [3], cf. [2]). P. was perhaps originally an ancient oracular deity, according to the sources the son of > Pelops and > Hippodamia [1], a brother of + Atreus and > Thyestes (Eur. Med. 684; Eur. Heracl. 207; Apollod. Epit. 2,10; Schol. Eur. Or. 5; Ov. Met. 8,622f.), father of > Aethra (Hom. Il. 3,144; Eur. Heracl. 207f.; Eur. Supp. 4-7; Bacchyl. 17,34; Hyg. Fab. 14,5 and elsewhere) and > Henioche [4] (Plut. Theseus 25,11f), grandfather of > Theseus, great-grandfather of + Hippolytus [1] and mythical founder and ruler of + Troezen. With his brother Troezen, P. defeated ~ Anthes [1] or > Aetius [1], who had ruled until then, and combined the two ancient cities of Hyperia and Anthia into a new city, which he named after his brother when he died (Str. 8,6,14; Plut. Theseus 3,2a; Paus. 2,30,8f.). P. was famous for his wisdom, eloquence and reverence for the gods (Eur. Med. 684-686; Schol. Eur. Hipp. 11; cf. Callim. Fr. 237). He taught and wrote on the art of speaking (Paus. 2,31,3; cf. WALZ 4, no. 22); sayings like médén dgan (‘nothing in excess’; Schol. Eur. Hipp. 264) and the wisdom of Hesiod’s Erga (Plut. Theseus 3,2a-b) were attributed to him. He also delivered judgment and built an altar to the Themides and a sanctuary of Apollo Thearios (Paus. 2,31,3; sf.). P. solved ~» Aegeus’ oracular utterance and gave him his daughter Aethra in marriage (Eur. Supp. 5-7; Plut. Theseus 3,2b-c; Apollod. 3,208; Schol. Eur. Hipp. 11). He subsequently took on the education of his grandson Theseus (Diod. Sic. 4,59,1; Plut. Theseus 4,2d) and his great-grandson Hippolytus (Eur. Hipp. 11; 24f.; Paus. T2252)

PITZIA 1R. HANSLIK, s.v. P., RE 20, 1873-1875

20. HOFER,

Nachtrag zum Artikel P., ROSCHER 3.2, 2515f.

3 Pape/

BENSELER, S.V. P., 1203.

Pityus

(Ilwwvotc/Pityows:

SLA.

Str. 11,2,14;

Ptol.

5,8,10;

5,951; Patrum Nicaenorum nomina p. LXII, 113 GEL-

ZER; Zos. 1,32; Theod. Hist. eccl. 9,5,35; Suda 1670; Tliwic¢/Pitivs: Procop. Pers. 2,29,18; Procop. Goth. 8,4,1-6; Procop. Aed. 3,7,8; Pityus: Plin. HN 6,16;

Pithiae: Not. Dign. Or. 18,32). Identified with Picunda/ Bicvinta in the republic of Abchasia/Georgia (Roman and early Byzantine fort), yet the identification of the town, founded by Milesian Greeks and mentioned in Strabo and Pliny, has not hitherto been confirmed; G. LORDKIPANIDZE assumes it to be c. 10 km to the east, near present-day Lidzava. From the time of Hadrian (AD 117-138) a military post on the Pontic limes (> Limes VI.B.) was located here with a detachment of the 15th Roman legion stationed in Satala (brick stamp). P. was laid waste by the Boranian invasion of AD 255; the vicus and port were surrounded with a wall in the late 5th or first half of the 6th cent. In the interior of the fort were the principia or officers’ houses, with mosaics, in front of the western main gate thermal baths (row type). P. was a bishop’s see from the early 4th cent. on, with evidence ofseveral church buildings of the 4th— 6th cents. A. APAKIDZE (ed.), Velikij Pitiunt, vol. 1-3, 1975-1978; D. BRAUND, Georgia in Antiquity, 1994, 198-200, 290— 292; G. LORDKIPANIDZE, Biévintis nakalakari, 1991; M.

SPEIDEL, Three Inscriptions from Pityous on the Caucasus Frontier, in: Id., Roman Army Studies, vol. 2, 1992, 209211.

A.P.-L.

Pityussae (Ilitvotooa/Pityoussai). Appellation of the two islands of > Ebusus and Ophiussa (Odtotooa/ Ophioissa, from ddic/dphis, ‘snake’; so also the Latin name Colubraria, from Lat. colubra, ‘snake’) in the ~ Baliares; so called for their spruce forests (Str. 5,3,13 Ptol. 2,6,77; Plin. HN 3,76-78; Mela 2,126); modern Formentera. Trabajos del Museo arqueologico de Ibiza, vol. 1-30, 1979-1993; J.H. FERNANDEZ Ervissa, Bibliografia arqueologica de las islas Pitiusas 1, 1980; 2, 1986; 3, 1993; TIR K/J 31 Tarraco, 1997. M.M.MO.

Pitzia. Gothic > comes AD 505 [1. 886f.]. In a dispute with the > Gepidae in 505, he occupied > Sirmium and helped the local overlord Mundo [2. 397ff.] against troops of the Eastern Empire, defeating them (Ennod. panegyricus dictus clementissimo regi Theoderico 12; lord. Get. 300f.) [3. 174f.]. Possibly identical to the Petia murdered in 514 by Theoderic (+ Theodericus (Theoderic) [3]) (Auctarium 9,331) [1. 861; 2. 406f.].

Havniense,

MGH

AA

1 PLRE2 2 P. AMory, People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 1997, 489-554 3 J. MoorHeEaD, Theoderic in Italy,

1992.

WE.LU.

311

Bie,

Pius {1] Roman cognomen. In the Republican Period, confined to the Caecilii Metelli (> Caecilius [I 3 1-32]); found among numerous other gentes in the Imperial Period.

pium (Fest. 155,19), tribus Voturia, and regio VIII after the Augustan districting reform (Plin. HN. 3,115). In the Imperial Period the town developed into a centre for the production of ceramics and achieved a respectably flourishing economy as an important point for commercial traffic between the > Ionios Kolpos and the network of roads on the plain of the Po (via the via Aemilia and via Postumia). In AD 546 the town was captured by > Totila (Procop. Goth. 3,16,2f.). The first town wall — one of the earliest brick walls [3] ever built — dates back to c. 190 BC; the Aurelian wall to the 3rd cent. AD, when the > Alamanni and — Juthungi were defeated at P. in AD 271 (SHA Aur. 18,3; 21,1-3). P. had a good river port at its disposal (Liv. 21,57,6; App. Hann. 7; Tac. Hist. 2,17). In the civil war of AD 69 the amphitheatre in front of the town burned down (Tac. Hist. 2,21). Only a few sparse building remains of P. are preserved. The town’s regular layout, typical of a military installation [1], can still be

PIUS

KaJANTO, Cognomina, 251.

K.-LE.

[2] Grammarian, tentatively dated to the late 2nd or late 3rd cent. AD, active in Memphis and Sparta (Schol. Hom. Od. 8 356; 8 372), i.a.; author of a commentary

(EM 821,55) on Homer, the essentials of which (explanations of vocabulary and facts, matters of content and stylistics) were incorporated in > scholia literature and — etymologica. According to Schol. Hom. Il. 12,175, P. opposed atheteses of > Aristarchus [4]. The attempt of [r. 94ff.] on these grounds to attribute to him other, anonymous anti-Aristarchean Homer scholia, in addition to the eleven which explicitly mention P., is unconvincing [2. 269 (376)]. The quotation from P. in Schol Soph. Aj. 408 hardly suffices to posit the existence of a Sophocles commentary by P., as it may also come from a grammatical text. 1 E. HIL_er, Der Grammatiker P. und die &rohoyiat mQd¢ tas &etHoEIc “Aguotcexou, in: Philologus 28, 1869, 86— 115 2D. Lturs, Untersuchungen zu den Athetesen Aristarchs in der Ilias, 1992 3 D. Strout, R. FRENCH, s.v. P. (2), RE 20, 1891f. 4 M. VAN DER VALK, Researches on the Text and Scholia ofthe Iliad, vol. 1, 1963, 171, 436f., 589.

RSI.

Pixodarus (IMtEmSae0c/Pixddaros). Hecatomnid, brother of — Maussolus and the ruling dynast > Ada, whom he deposed. According to the trilingual inscription of Xanthus, he was satrap of Caria and, in the Aramaic version, also of Lycia (341-336 BC). From 336 until his death in 335, he ruled jointly with the

recognized in the modern townscape [2] (c. 480 x 480 m; the via Aemilia ran via the decumanus maximus, the present-day via Roma; the via Postumia corresponds to

the present-day via Taverna). The streets and the centuriation of the territory can be easily reconstructed.

[4]. 1M. Marini Catvant, s.v. P., EAA 2. Suppl. 4, 1996, 356-358 21d., Piacenza in eta romana, in: G. PONTIROLI (ed.),

Cremona

Romana.

NISSEN 2, 270.

[1] See > Galla [3] Placidia.

illustration), and subsequently Galli Anamares (Liv. Epit. 20). Before Hannibal’s [4] invasion of Italy, P. was already, like -- Cremona, a colonia with > Latin law (Pol. 3,40,4; Vell. Pat. 1,18,4). In 200 BC, the town was captured by the Galli and destroyed (Liv. 31,10,2; 33,23,2) only to be reconquered by the Romans soon thereafter (Liv. 34,22,3). In 190 BC, new settlers arrived (Liv. 37,46,9), and the town experienced a perceptible upturn as the last stop on the via Aemilia, built in 187 BC (Liv. 39,2,10). In 90 BC, P. became a munici-

storico

Milano

1992,

1995, 321-342.

Placidia

town go back to the > Terramare culture, followed by Etruscan settlers (Liv. 5,3 3,10; cf. the ‘liver of Piacenza’ of c. 200 BC in the Museo Civico; > Haruspices with

congresso

temporis reparatio. Atti del Convegno

as satrap.

Placentia (Mdaxevtia/Plakentia). Town on the right bank of the > Padus (Po); the mouth of the Trebia lies just westward (ILS 9371; Str. 5,1,11; Plin. HN 3,118; Ptol. 3,1,46), modern Piacenza. The beginnings of the

del

1985, 261-275 3Id., Archeologia IL. P., in: V. AGOSTIi.a., Storia di Piacenza, vol. 2, 1990, 765-906 41Id., Emilia occidentale tardoromana, in: G. SENA Cu1esa (ed.), Felix

Persian > Orontopates, whom > Darius [3] III had sent S. Ruzicka, Politics of a Persian Dynasty, 1992; P. BrIANT, Histoire de l’empire Perse, 1996, 727-729. P.HO.

Atti

archeologico per il 2200° anno di fondazione di Cremona,

ASA.

[2] Younger daughter of > Valentinianus [4] III and ~ Eudoxia [2], b. AD 441/2. First betrothed to the son of> Aetius [5], Petronius > Maximus [II 8] apparently forced her into a marriage with his son ([2. 18of.]). In 455, she was taken hostage by the Vandals as they overran Rome; she was released to Constantinople in 462. Probably already married to > Anicius [II 15] Olybrius by 455, she was briefly (472) imperial consort of the Western Empire; she did not, however, become Augusta. After Olybrius’ death in 472, Zeno (+ Zeno [18]) attempted to use her to coax the Vandal king > Huneric, the husband of her sister > Eudocia [2], to adopt a more conciliatory policy towards the Catholics. P. d. after 478. 1 PLRE 2, 887 2F.M. CLover, The Family and Early Career of Anicius Olybrius, in: Historia 27, 1978, 169196.

HLL.

343

314

Placidus

the roth cent. [2. 12-60, 73-92; 3. 241-273, 330-338] and was published several times during the Renaissance.

[1] Equestrian military tribune in the Syrian army, sent by the governor of Syria, Cestius [II 3] Gallus, against the rebellious Jews in AD 66. From 67, he served under Vespasian (-> Vespasianus) in the same capacity, fighting the Jewish military commander Flavius > Iosephus [4] on several occasions, the last in 67, when the city of +> Iotapata was conquered (Jos. BI 3,144; 323-326). The last reference to him is from 68, when he subjugated Transjordanian Perea (Jos. BI 4,419-439). PIR* P 437. W.E. [2] Compiler of a Latin lexicon of the s5th/6th cents. AD, probably from Spain (on the reception in the Praefatio to the Anthologia Salmasiana, cf. [1]). Two elements are clearly distinct: grammatical, antiquarian word definitions which primarily derive from commentaries (= A), and shorter glosses (= a; Pseudo-P. in [2], only survives up to the letter P) which clarify rare words of old Latin poets and derive from an older source of glosses, whose relationship to > Festus [2. 5-10] (or > Verrius Flaccus) is disputed. P. proceeded by arranging a alphabetically and combining it with A, each in the largest possible blocks (A/a/b/B/C/c/d etc.). As well as being significant to our knowledge of Old Latin, the glossary represents important evidence for the educational system in Late Antiquity. We owe its direct preservation to Parisinus n. acq. Lat. 1298 (11th cent.) and three Vaticani of the rsth cent.; there are also substantial excerpts in the > Liber glossarum. The reception also includes Isidore (— Isidorus [9]) of Seville. — Glossography EDITIONS:

1CGL

5, 1-158

2J.W.

Pirie, W.M.

Linpsay, Glossaria Latina 4, 1930, 3-70 (includes a critical discussion of the material). LITERATURE: 3 P. Kart, De Placidiglossis, 1906 4 CGL 5, V-XX (reception and tradition) 5 CGL 1, 59-71 6F. Stok, Su alcune glosse di Placido, in: Orpheus N.S. 8, 7 R.A. Kaster, Guardians of Language, 1987, 87-101 P.LS. 1988, 341f.

PLAGA

1J.G. ACKERMANN

(ed.), Parabilium

medicamentorum

antiqui, 1788 2H.J. De Vrrenp, The Old English Medicina de Quadrupedibus, thesis Groningen 1972 3 Id. (ed.), The Old English Herbarium, 1984 4H. GrapeALBERS, Spatantike Bilder aus der Welt des Arztes, 1977 5 E. Howa.p,

H.E. Sicerisr (ed.), Antonii Musae

De

herba vettonica liber; Ps.-Apuleii Herbarius; Anonymi De taxone liber; Sextii Placiti Liber medicinae ex animalibus (CML

4), 1927.

6C.H.

TaLBot,

F. UNTERKIRCHER,

Medicina antiqua. Codex Vindobonensis 93 der Osterreichischen Nationalbibliothek vol. 1972.

(Facsimile),

1971;

comm.

M.P. SEGOLonizI (ed.), Libri medicinae Sexti Placiti Papyriensis ex animalibus pecoribus et bestiis vel avibus concordantiae, 1998. A.TO.

Plaetorius. Name of a Roman plebeian family (occasionally

confused

with

Laetorius);

attained

some

distinction only in the 2nd cent. BC; insignificant in the Imperial Period. SCHULZE, 44, Anm. 5.

[1] P. Cestianus, L. Quaestor in 43/42 BC under M. Tunius [I ro] Brutus; issued denarii depicting a > pilleus between two daggers, with the legend Eid(ibus) Mar(tiis), thus celebrating the assassination of Caesar

on the Ides of March of 44 BC (RRC 508). K-LE. [2] P. Cestianus, M. Quaestor before 69 BC (Cic. Font. 1), prosecutor of Fonteius [1 2], aed. cur. between 69 and 66 (Cic. Clu. 126), in 66 head of one of the assassins’ courts (quaestio inter sicarios, Cic. Clu. 147); pro-

bably governor of Macedonia in 63/2(?) (FdD Ill 4, 45), therefore previously praetor; in 56/5, probably a legate of Cornelius [I 54] Lentulus (Cic. Fam. 1,8,1). Cicero’s remark in Att. 5,20,8 is obscure. J.BA.

Plaga

Placitus Papyriensis. Name of the author to whom is ascribed the Liber medicinae ex animalibus from the corpus also containing Ps.-Musa, De herba vettonica, Ps.-Apuleius, Herbarius, the anonymous

treatise De

taxone and Ps.-Dioscorides, De herbis feminis. As the work borrows from > Marcellus’ [8] De medicamentis, it would appear to date from the rst half of the sth cent. AD. The author, who is sometimes confused with Sextus Platonicus, is unknown and may be historically dubious, especially since text [5. 233-286] and illustrations [6] are attested in two recensions which cannot be traced to a common original, this having led to suspicions that there were two authors [5. XXI; 4. 23-25]. In its 34 chapters, the work analyzes substances of animal origin used in therapeutic applications, following the model of the Herbarius of Ps.-Apuleius; its illustrations may derive from old [4. 27], possibly Hellenistic [4. 35] models. The text was revised by Constantinus Africanus [1. 1-112], was translated into English in

[1] Roman hunting net, esp. for entrapment, into which game (stags, boars) was flushed from cover by dogs (Hor. Epod. 2,3 1-32; Hor. Epist. 1,6,58; 1,18,45), and so contrasts with the retia (‘strike nets’) and casses

(‘drop or purse nets’); of plagae plaited from rope, those from Cumae were the most highly valued (Plin. HN 19,11). The battue with the plaga, depicted in ancient art from early times (Vaphio Cup), later became primarily a theme of Roman mosaic and sarcophagus art. The term plaga is no longer used in modern archaeological scholarship, as it does not normally reflect the differences in hunting nets. — Hunting I. Eccer, Die Jagd auf rémischen Sarkophagen und Mosaiken. Ein ikonographischer Vergleich, 1976, 148165; B. ANDREAE, Die rémischen Jagdsarkophage (ASR I.2), 1980, ILI—-125.

Bans

316

[2] (also plagula), Latin term variously applied to a curtain on a litter or bed, a rug and a bed-spread (cf. Liv.

Fabia (probably 2nd or rst cent. BC), thus: crimen legis

PLAGA

39,6,67 on plagulae brought from Asia). Plagae were sometimes decorated with woven or embroidered ornamentation and figures (Varro fr. 74,13; Non. 378,6). [3] The strips of > papyrus from which a sheet was assembled were called plagae or plagulae in Latin. A quantity of 20 sheets was called a scapus (Plin. HN

13,77): > Papyrus (with fig.)

RH.

Plagiarism. Greek and Roman authors frequently state the sources they use as models and create dense networks of allusion that bring those earlier authors to the educated reader’s notice. In doing so they carefully modify what they have taken by using borrowed images, metaphors and motifs in astonishingly new ways. The restrictions and boundaries of the precedent > literary genre and tradition are thus determinative in understanding creativity and originality. Sometimes the borrowing transcends allusion. Prose authors — e.g. historians — regularly take facts and anecdotes from their predecessors without making clear the extent to which they are in their debt. At the same

time, however,

ancient authors and literary critics regarded the work of an individual as his own legitimate (gnésios) product, and from the time of Theognis poets were anxious that later authors could steal their work. Beginning in the Hellenstic age, scholars such as ~ Aristophanes [4] of Byzantium seized upon examples of what was henceforth known as ‘literary theft’ (klopé, cf. Lat. furtum): instances of an author seeking to hide use of the work of another, or deceitful use of a borrowing. Treatises ‘on (literary) theft’ (peri klopés) belonged to the wider study of mimeésis/imitatio or aemulatio (literary emulation) -, and plagiarism can be described as its pathological aspect; in the 3rd cent. AD its scope was considerable. — Porphyrius drew upon it for his vivid portrait of a symposium of scholars critically scrutinizing the reputation of writers (Porph. in Euseb. Praep. evang. 10,3,12). Educated Christians such as ~ Clemens [3] of Alexandria also treated of plagiarism topically. ~ Falsification (of texts); > Intertextuality; > Literature (III.; > V.); > Pseudepigraphy E. STEMPLINGER, Das Plagiat in der griechischen Literatur, 1912; W. KROL, Studien zum Verstandnis der r6mischen Literatur, 1924, 139-184; K. ZIEGLER, s.v. Plagiat,

RE 20, 1956-1997.

AN.GR.

Plagium. The majority of scholars consider the word plagium to be derived from the Greek micytog (plagios, ‘treacherous’, “oblique’), but the Latin plaga (‘trapping net’) is also considered a possibility. In Roman law, plagium is a collective term for any presumption of the right of dominion over another human, e.g. kidnap, human trafficking, treating a free person as a slave, inciting the escape of, concealing or detaining others’ slaves. Culpability of aplagium was regulated by the lex

Fabiae (‘crime under the lex Fabia’). The description of the lex de plagiariis (‘on acts of plagium’) in Dig. 48,15 is probably much later. Perpetrators could be Roman citizens or slaves. Objects of the offence could, according to ch. 1 of the lex, be free or freed persons, and according to ch. 2, other people’s slaves. Culpability was dependent upon dolus malus (‘evil intent’, Dig. 48,15,6,2); attempts and aiding and abetting (in the case of slaves also the cognizance of the master) were punishable like the actual deed. The former view [1] that this applied only to > publicani is irreconcilable with Cod. lust. 9,20,10. A plagium was originally punishable by a fine; a slave was barred from manumission for a period of ten years. To counteract the prevalence of plagium, the emperors threatened ever-harsher penalties: for the humuliores (‘lower classes’) condemnation to the mines and crucifixion, for the honestiores (‘upper classes’) partial confiscation of property and banishment (— honestiores, humiliores). Diocletian made the standard penalty for plagium death (Cod. lust 9,209,7,

I ).

1 MoMMSEN, Strafrecht, 780. Cu. BRECHT, s.v. P., RE 20, 1998-2006; A. BERGER, s.v.

Lex Fabia, RE Suppl. 7, 386-394; R. LAMBERTINI, P., 1980; G. Lonco, Crimen plagii, in: Annali della facolta giuridica dell’ Universita di Genova 13, 1974, 381-482; M. MOLE, s.v. plagio, in: Novissimo Digesto Italiano 13, 1966, 116.

Z.VE.

Plague see > Disease; > Epidemic diseases Plaice. wftta/pséttai (etym. whyew/pséchein, ‘rub off’; Lat. pisces plani, e.g. Plin. HN 9,72) is the name mostly used to designate the family of flatfish (Pleuronectidae).

It was difficult to differentiate between the numerous species (cf. Ath. 7,329e-330b). According to schol. Pl. Symp. 191d, wijtta/psétta is the Attic word for BovyAwMoooc/bouglossos, ‘ox- tongue’. MAIN SPECIES f. Plaice, Pleuronectes, a) the witta in the strictest sense. Aristot Mot. an. 17,714a 6-8 refers to its characteristic asymmetry, Plat. Symp. r91d points

out how easy it is to halve. According to Aristot. Hist. an. 4,11,538a 20, it reproduces by self-fertilization, spawning once a year (ibid. 5,9,543a 2f.). On the coasts of Attica (Clem. Al. Paedagogus 2,1,3; Ath. 7,3 30a) the plaice is frequently caught with nets (Aristot. ibid.). It likes to hide in hollows in the sand (Ael. NA. 14,3) artificially constructed by humans. Columella mentions artificial breeding (8,17,9). Hippoc. De victu 2,48 and Galen De facultatibus alimentorum 3,29 praise its soft and hence easily digestible flesh, whereas Xenocrates De alimentis 22 has a negative opinion of it. b) otQov0dd/strouthds, Lat. passer (‘sparrow’), possibly the brill, Rhombus laevis Ron. (cf. Plin. HN. 9,72: rhombus), is frequently mentioned with other plaice, e.g. in Ael. NA. 14,3; Hor. Sat. 2,8,29; Ps.-Ov. Halieutica 125.

317

318

2. Rhombus, the flounder, 66uBo¢/rhémbos, Lat. rhombus (‘spinning top’), the turbot, Rhombus maximus L., particularly popular with the Romans; according to Ath. 7,330 Plancus. We know of Plancii from Atina (P. [1-2]) in the rst cent. BC, and of Plancii from Perge in the rst —2nd cents. AD. [1] P., Cn. Of an old equestrian family from Atina (Cic. Plane. 32; cf. CIL X 5075; 5119). He served under Licinius [1 15] Crassus in Spain, probably in 96-93 BC. Thereafter active as a tax farmer (> Publicani). In 6159 BC he distinguished himself as the spokesman for the tax farmers of Asia in a dispute about an inheritance concerning tax farming (Cic. Planc. 31-34; Schol. Bobiensia 157; 159 ST.), gaining enemies in the process. Father of P. [2]. [2] P., Cn. In contrast to his father P. [1], he pursued a senatorial career after military service in Africa in 69 (?) BC and Crete, 68-66/5 BC, and after serving as a military tribune in Macedonia in 62 BC. As quaestor in Macedonia in 58 BC, he became particularly well known for support he lent to the exiled — Cicero (Cic. Att. 3,14; 22 et passim). His bid for tribune of the people in 56 BC was successful, but his term in office was hardly spectacular. Nevertheless, he gained a decisive victory in the elections for the curule aedileship in 54 BC. Taken to court by the inferior Juventius [I 4] Laterensis, he was successfully defended by Hortensius [7] and Cicero. Cicero’s Pro Plancio is the most important source for P.’s life. His coins, struck under orders of the senate (RRC 455), are the only trace of his aedileship. On the side of > Pompeius [I 3] in 49 BC, he was still awaiting pardon from Caesar in Corcyra (Corfu) in 46/5 BC. After that he disappears from history. _J.Ba. [3] M.P.Varus. Citizen of > Perge in Pamphylia; admitted to the senate under -> Nero; praetor before AD 69; amicus of Cornelius [II 11] Dolabella, against whom he nevertheless brought an indictment before the ~ praefectus urbiin AD 69 (Tac. Hist. 2,63,1). A career of basically insignificant posts culminated in the proconsulship of Pontus-Bithynia under ~— Vespasian. Extensive estates in Galatia and Pamphylia were at his disposal. His daughter — Plancia Magna was married to C. Julius [II 48] Cornutus Tertullus, likewise from Perge [1]. PIR* P 443.

3. The sole from the genus Solea, BowyAwooos(-ov)/ bouglossos(-on) (after Epicharmus CGF 65), Lat. solea (after Plautus), is classified correctly at Ath. 7,330a (and Plin. HN. 9,72) as belonging to the plaice family;

its flesh is a glistening white like that of the passer and rhombus (Ps.-Ov. Halieutica 124), but like the psétta

was held in varyirig esteem from a culinary point of view. Galen (De facultatibus alimentorum 3,29) preferred sole to plaice (no. 1.a). Plaut. Cas. 497 uses it in one

of his jokes. 4. The xi®agoc/kitharos,

Lat. citharus, which, despite the description in Aristot. fr. 319, is impossible to identify, belongs to the genus Arnoglossus. Living on sandy coasts (Opp. Hal. 1,98), it is sacred to Apollo (Apollod. at Ath. 7,306a), but considered poor eating

(Plin. HN. 32,146 citharus rhomborum generis pessimus; cf. Gal. De facultatibus alimentorum 3,29). Callias (at Ath. 7,286b) recommends preparation by frying. 5. xi0aowddc/kithardidés probably denotes the

zebra sea-bream (Synaptura zebra Bl.), its skin a red gold lustre with vertical black stripes. Ael. NA 11,23 distinguishes two types in the Red Sea. 6. The tawa/hyaina (bavwis/hyainis), Lat. hyaena, is probably Rhomboidichthys podas Delar., which, according to Ael. NA 9,49 and 13,27 (cf. Ath. 7,326f), induces terrible visions in human beings. Pliny HN 32,154 saw on Ischia a hyena fish which had been caught. H. Gossen, s. v. Scholle, RE 2 A, 705-710; KELLER 2, 366-369.

C.HU.

Planasia. Island in the > Mare Tyrrhenum off Etruria, modern Pianosa. Prehistorical finds, villa of Agrippa [2] Postumus, catacombs. BTCGI 13, 535-546.

GU.

Plancia Magna. Daughter of M. > Plancius [3] Varus and wife of C. Iulius [II 48] Cornutus Tertullus. She was from — Perge, where she held several public offices.

After erecting others, she built a spectacular tower with statues of Diana Pergensis, the Genius Civitatis, of Divus Augustus and of the members of the imperial

1 S. SAHIN (ed.), Inschriften von Perge, 1999, no. 86; 108; 118; 120-126.

W.E.

family in the time of Trajan and Hadrian [1]. She is an

Planctae (Mhayxtai sc. nétoalPlanktai sc. pétrai, ‘wan-

example of a senator’s wife who, despite her connexions with Rome through her sociopolitical relation-

dering rocks’ or, from the pounding of the breakers, ‘clashing rocks’). Designation (Hom. Od. 12,61) for

PLANCTAE

mythical rocks made dangerous due to their smoothness, fire and surging waves; encountered by the > Argonauts on their return journey; near the monsters + Scylla and - Charybdis. The — Argo, assisted by Hera, is the only ship to have succeeded in navigating its way past the P. (Hom. Od. 12,59ff.; Apollod. 1,136; Apoll. Rhod. 4,924ff.); on > Circe’s advice + Odysseus avoids the P. and sails through between Scylla and Charybdis. Every time the doves that bring ambrosia to Zeus fly over the P., one is invariably snatched away (Hom. Od. 12,62ff.). The doves in the Odyssey are an echo of the clashing > Symplegades (+ Cyaneae [1]) of the Argonauts’ outward journey, often confused with the Planctae (e.g. Hdt. 4,85,1). The P. were situated on the Straits of Messina, the Liparian Islands or by the Pillars of Hercules. F. GisinGer, s.v. Planktai, RE 20, 2187-2199; A. LEsky, Aia, in: Gesammelte Schriften, 1966, 26-62, esp. 37ff. P.D.

Plancus. Roman cognomen (‘wide-footed’), hereditary in the family of the Munatii (> Munatius [I 2-5], {II 6]); fem. form Plancina (> Munatia Plancina). KaJANTO, Cognomina, 241.

K.-L.E.

Plane tree (mAGtavoc/plaétanos, poet. mhatéviotoc/ platanistos, Lat. platanus) is the tree Platanus orientalis

L., found in southern Europe at least since the time of Homer (Il. 2,307-13). According to Plin. HN 12,6, the plane tree crossed the Ionian Sea to Sicily, and thence to Italy. It was later naturalized in northern Europe. The broad (rhatuc/platys, ‘broad, wide’) leaves, after which it is named, provided goodly shade for rest, as in Plato’s Phaedrus (Plat. Phdr. 229a-230b). In antiquity, the tree was favoured as a graft stock for slips of e.g. pear (Pall. Agric. 3,25,17), fig (ibid. 4,10,32), cherry (ibid. 11,12,6) and peach (ibid. 12,7,8). At Gortyn on Crete, a

plane tree beneath which Zeus was believed to have copulated with > Europa [2] was said never to have lost its leaves (Theophr. Hist. pl. 1,9,5). This and other famous examples are mentioned in Plin. HN 12,9-12. Pruning, according to Plin. HN 12,13, yielded the dwarf plane (chamaeplatani). According to Dioscorides (1,79 WELLMANN = 1,107 BERENDES) young shoots cooked in wine had an anti-inflammatory effect, while the bark cooked with vinegar helped against toothaches. Its still-green, spherical fruits (t& oateta/ta sphairia), swallowed down with wine, were said to heal snakebite. H. Gossen, s.v. Platanos (1), RE 20, 2337f.

320

319

C.HU.

Planets I. ASTRONOMY

II. ASTROLOGY AND MYTHOLOGY

I. ASTRONOMY A. GENERAL POINTS B. FROM THE PYTHAGOREANS TO ARISTOTLE C.HELLENISTIC ASTRONOMY D.CLaubIus PTOLEMY E. THE MiIppDLE AGES TO MODERN TIMES

A. GENERAL POINTS Because of their peculiar motions, which differ significantly from the regular motions of the — fixed stars (so called because they seem to be attached to the vault of the heavens), the planets were conceived by the Greeks as wandering stars (ot tAavytec/hoi planétes and ot thavita/hoi planétai; lat. planetae) from the earliest periods of planetary observations (traceable from the 5th cent. BC). The Greeks and Romans knew of five planets only: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn (cf. fig. 6). The term nAcvytec/planétes is first attested in Democritus (68 A 86 DK), then in Xenophon (Xen. Mem. 4,7,5). Two anomalies (&vowahiavanomaliai)

were apparent in the observation of the planetary orbits (Ptol. Alm. 9,2,208,23-28 H.): a) an anomalous period takes place in a synodic revolution (a syzygy with the sun), containing phenomena particularly striking to the observer, such as loops and stoppages. The other kind of anomalies refers to the alteration of velocity in the course of a planet’s revolution, as can also be noted in the case of the > sun and the > moon; this type of anomalous period occurs in a sidereal revolution (return to the same fixed star). The theories of Greek —> astronomy, which became increasingly complicated, were essentially directed at explaining the anomalies denoted by a) and b).

B. FROM THE PYTHAGOREANS TO ARISTOTLE The earliest Greek planetary system known to us (from Pl. Resp. 7,530d and Aristot. Cael. 2,9,291a 10)

is that of the > Pythagorean School. The essence of their astronomical doctrine was the hypothesis of the harmony of the spheres (— Spheres, harmony of) [22], which was made possible only by the assumption of the circular and regular motions of the > sun, the > moon, and the five planets (the origin and date of the theory remain unknown [2]). According to this doctrine, the motion of the planetary spheres produces a sound (popoc/psophos). On the basis of the planets’ distances from one another, the velocities were given the ratios of musical harmony (that is, of the ovngovial symphéniat; Aristot. Cael. 2,9,290b 12-13). This theory was supported by the general Pythagorean view that the entire world structure is harmony [18]. Assuming that the earth revolved, the Pythagorean + Philolaus [2] banished it from the centre of the universe (0tia tod mavtoc/hestia tou pantos), replacing it by the central fire (Aristot. Cael. 2,13,293a 21; cf. > Fire D), around which the ‘anti-earth’ (dvtix8@v/

320

322 — 6

2

4 Ecliptic

:

5

7

4 Fig.1

8

Hippopede

PLANETS

+ Eudoxus [1] of Cnidus was the first Greek to seek a solution to the problem raised by Plato. His hypothesis explained planetary motions by the combined workings of several homocentric spheres, rotating at constant speed around various axes, which were inclined toward one another at specific angles. These spheres were not considered real, but as mere mathematical representations. He needed one sphere for the > fixed stars (that of motion from East to West), three each for the sun and

World axis

the moon, and four each for the planets: 26 spheres in all, plus the sphere of fixed stars. For each planet, the four different motions of the individual spheres resulted in a composite motion, for which he made the graphical assumption of the motion of a point on a curve. This curve had the form of a , and was called hippopédé because it resembled a horse’s foot (Procl. In primum Euclidis elementorum librum commentarii 1,127,1; cf.

Fig.2

Dynamic (three-dimensional) representation of the movement ofplanets according to Eudoxus

fig. 1 and 2). This explained periodic and synodic planetary motion, with its standstills, forward and backward motions, in order to ‘save the phenomena’. This theory gave a good explanation for Saturn and Jupiter, and a satisfactory one for Mercury, but could only partially represent the trajectory of Mars, and remained inadequate for Venus. To remedy this lack, it was developed by — Callippus [5], a student of Eudoxus, to the point that the total number of spheres rose to 33. Aristotle (— Aristoteles [6]) adopted Eudoxus’ hypothesis into his cosmological system. He understood the spheres as real, and as consisting of a fifth element, the ether (ai@ye/aither). They were situated inside one another like onion skins, and possessed various directions and velocities of rotation. The impulse to rotate was provided by the outermost sphere, the heaven of the fixed stars. Aristotle’s theory of the spheres was linked to the physical-metaphysical question of > motion, starting from the basic principle that all that

antichth6on), earth, moon, sun, the five planets, and the

moves

heaven of the fixed stars revolve. This resulted in ten distinct spheres, whose orbital periods increase from inside to outside, with the exception of the heaven of fixed stars as the termination of the universe. Whether — Plato [rx], who was closely associated with the circle of the Pythagoreans, knew the rotation of the earth is a controversial question: one might conclude as much from interpreting Pl. Ti. 40a-4obc [x0. 466f.] accordingly. As Theophrastus stated (DieLs, DG 494,1), Plato was aware of the earth’s revolution, albeit probably not until his old age. It is particularly significant that he defended the conception that the planets do not wander about aimlessly (PI. Leg. 7,821c-822c), but follow strict laws, since they are divine beings, for whom the best and most perfect kind of motion, circular motion, must be appropriate. If we are to believe Simplicius (Simpl. Comm. in Aristot. Cael. 488,21H.), it was Plato who set the following problem for his own time and for the whole of antiquity: ‘What kind of regular circular motions must be hypothetically assumed for the planets, if we are to do full justice to the phenomena?’

xivovuevov 070 Tivos Avayxy xveloOavhdpan to kinoumenon hypo tinos andgkéi kineisthai, Aristot. Ph.

must be moved

by something (else) (&av 16

7,1,241b 1-2). To make the velocity of the inner sphe-

res, which depended on the velocity of the outer spheres, agree with actual observations, Aristotle had to resolve to accept reacting spheres, each of which were

inserted on the outer side of the individual planetary spheres (except for Saturn). They were supposed to cancel out the influence of motion of the respective preceding spheres. Since Aristotle assumed three ‘backrolling’ (GvedittovoaVanelittousai) spheres each for Jupiter and Mars, and four each for Venus, Mercury, the sun and the moon, thus totaling 22, the overall total of spheres rose from 33 to 55, to which the sphere of fixed stars was added as a 56th (according to another Aristotelian calculation, however, the overall total added up to only 47). No further retroactive spheres were needed after the > moon, since it was followed only by the earth, thought to be motionless at the centre of the cosmos. One observational result, however, could not be explained by this theory: the varying intensity of the light from the planets (particularly Venus and

PLANETS

324

323

Mars). Nevertheless, Aristotle’s basic geocentric view,

together with the rest of his physical knowledge, retained its authoritative importance until the beginning of modern times. ~» Heraclides [16] Ponticus, a student of Plato, presumably building on the observation of the slight elongations of Mercury and Venus, advocated the theory that these two planets had the sunas the centre of their orbit. His system remained geocentric, since the > sun was conceived as orbiting the earth. The occasionally striking increase in the brightness of Mercury and Venus was thus explained by its true cause: their varying proximity to the earth. On the level of content, therefore, his theory signified a kind of transition from the geocentric to the heliocentric system [19. 27f.]. C. HELLENISTIC ASTRONOMY The scientific investigation of the cosmos is an essential characteristic of Hellenistic astronomy. This, in turn, provided the basis for further theoretical explanations of the planetary system. Of the most important results of observations and measurements of this time, the following should be mentioned: the attempt by + Aristarchus [3] to calculate the distances between moon and earth and sun and earth; the quite accurate measurement of the earth achieved by > Eratosthenes [2]; and the determination of the location of the fixed stars in the heavens by Aristyllus and > Timocharis, and their catalogue of stars. > Hipparchus [6] achieved an accurate representation of the motion of the sun and moon, and a refinement of Aristarchus’ procedure for determining the distance between the moon and the sun. By revising the stellar positions of Eudoxus [1] and Aratus [4], and elaborating on the catalogue of Eratosthenes, he compiled a great catalogue of stars, and thereby discovered the eastward precession of the vernal equinox.

From a theoretical perspective, the heliocentric world system of Aristarchus [3] is especially noteworthy. His theory of the earth’s rotation and its orbit around the sun, thought to be at rest at the centre of the planetary system, was known to Archimedes [1] (Arenarius 1,4,244 H.). It was further developed by Seleucus of Seleucia (Plut. Platonicae quaestiones 8,1,1006), the only other known proponent of the heliocentric system in Antiquity. This system did not prevail, because at that time it was impossible to give a completely convincing justification or experimental confirmation (such, for instance, as FOUCAULT’s pendulum, built in 1851), and because of religious grounds (here the criticism by the Stoic > Cleanthes [2] deserves mentioning). For further ancient developments of planetary theory, it was thus the geocentric model alone that remained dominant. Next, the theory of homocentric spheres was further developed: Contrary to Aristotle’s view, the heavenly bodies were not conceived as attached to the spheres, but as able to move on their own in circular orbits. ~+ Apollonius [13] of Perga studied the standstill and

Fig.3 Epicycle

retrograde motions of the planets, and was acquainted with the theory of epicycles, which was crucial for ancient planetary theories (see fig. 3). The centre of the deferent (ABIA) is the earth (E), while the epicycle (ZHOK) has its centre (A) on the circumference of the

deferent. The planet was supposed to move along the circumference of the epicycle, and in the same direction as the deferent. The task was now to determine the ratio of the radius of the epicycle to that of the main circle (Ptol. Alm. 3,3,218 H.). Some historians of science assume that already Apollonius advocated a mixed planetary system, consisting of (a) the theory of epicycles for the inner planets, and (8) the theory of eccentrics for the three outermost planets [8. vol. 2, 196]. Hipparchus made further progress with his hypothesis of the earth’s eccentric position inside the orbits of the sun and the moon. His interest in the hypothesis of eccentrics is clearly attested. Claudius Ptolemy (— Ptolemaeus) exemplified this theory as follows (cf. fig. 4): “We cut off equal arcs AB andTA, and join BE, BZ, TE, TZ. Then it is immediately obvious that the body will traverse the arcs AB and [A in equal times, but will (in so doing) appear to have traversed unequal arcs of a circle (sc. in the ecliptic) drawn on centre Z (= the earth). For the angle BZA will be smaller, but the angle PZA greater than either of the angles BEA and PEA, which had been assumed to be equal” (Ptol. Alm. 3,3,217 H.). With this theory, the planets’ anomaly could be explained in a simple form by reference to the = ecliptic, which had to be deduced from the inequality of the return paths in the various divisions of the > zodiac. In Hipparchus, the theory of the eccentric was mainly directed at explaining the orbits of the sun and moon, but the demand for combining the epicyclic and eccen-

325

326

PLANETS

Fig.4 Excenter Deferent

tric methods for all planets originated with him. At the least, he postulated to apply a combination of both theories for the five planets. The period between Hipparchus (2nd cent. BC) and Ptolemy (znd cent. AD) also witnessed the establishing

of the ‘line of apsides’, a straight line joining the centre of the earth and the centre of the orbit of the planet designating the location of the perigee (closest proximity to the earth) and apogee (greatest distance from the earth) of each planet by means of the zodiac (Plin. HN 2,15,63-72). D. CLauDius PTOLEMY The planetary theory of Claudius Ptolemy, which represents one of the most significant results of Hellenistic science, constitutes the culmination and conclusion of the history of ancient planetary theories. Ptolemy’s merit was the application of exact mathematics in the development of ancient planetary theories. He used systematically a combination of the hypotheses of the epicycle and the eccentric circle to explain the anomalies. Ptolemy was the first to abandon the previously fundamental and undisputed principle of the regular motion of the centre of the epicycle on the deferent. He made this motion irregular, breaking with the Platonic requirement. In order to provide a graphical definition of the planet’s irregular motion on the deferent, Ptolemy introduced a circle, later called aequans (equant) in Latin, which he designated as ‘the eccentre of the anomaly’ (6 uév tis avouahiag éxxevtoog xvxdoc/ho men tés anomalias ékkentros kyklos, Ptol. Alm. 9,6, 255,142-13 H.), and which was situated eccentrically to the deferent. Ptolemy made the radii proceeding constantly on the equant intersect the deferent at points which he defined as the respectively corresponding position of the centre of the epicycle on the deferent. Regular motion was thus reduced to an auxiliary kine-

matic construction, and the equant designated a mere symbol of a middle path (see fig. 5). The centre of the epicycle was, on the one hand, conceived as sliding along the radial vector (R) and, on the other hand, as sliding along the circumference of the deferent, bound, that is, attached to the centre of the deferent.

The angular motion of the sight lines (= the radial vectors earth-planets) was irregular in three ways: 1) because the lack of homogeneity on the deferent as such, 2) from the centre of the deferent, 3) as a result of the planet’s motion on the epicycle. With these mathematical assumptions, Ptolemy was able to give a quite precise representation of the planetary orbits, with all their characteristic standstills and looping, by means of an appropriate choice of radii of the deferent and the epicycle, through corresponding determination of the orbital periods in the epicycle, and through calculation of the angle of inclination of deferent and epicycle against the ecliptic. E. THE MippDLE AGES TO MODERN TIMES After Ptolemy, no further progress was made in the field of planetary theories. Following the fall of the Roman Empire, ancient astronomical knowledge disappeared for centuries in the territory of the former West Roman Empire. That the ancient texts were preserved at all is owed to Byzantine scholars; in addition, the Arabs translated the Greek texts into Arabic and made the planetary theory of the Greeks the basis of their astronomical investigations _[5.244-28o]. Through Arabic intermediaries the text of Ptolemy became known in the Occident once again. The translation of the Syntaxis megdlé (Lat. Syntaxis), called Almagest (al-mjsti) by the Arabs, from Arabic into

BQT,

328

Latin, which was carried out around 1175, became highly influential. Once again Ptolemy became the basis of planetary theory. From this point on, however, doubts increased about the correctness of the Ptolemaic system. During the late Middle Ages some theories were devised, in which the earth moved, although they remained pure hypotheses [1.260-265]. It was not until the beginning of the modern period with the works of COPERNICUS (1473-1543) that the geocentric model was overcome. COPERNICUS, following ancient views in his work De revolutionibus, published in 1543, created a completely new argument for the heliocentric theory of the rotation and revolution of the earth. Starting from the basic problem of the simplest possible explanation of the planets’ phenomena, he decisively relocated the earth’s position in the universe, but for the planetary orbits themselves, he adhered to the ancient theory of circular motions with eccentric and epicycle. Copernicus’ breakthrough was by no means the end of the ancient theory of the planets [r1. 133-270]. Johannes KEPLER (1571-1630), who had become familiar with the Copernican doctrine at an early stage through his teacher MASTLIN, developed a physical-dynamic viewpoint instead of the previously customary purely geometrical conception of celestial motions. He overcame the ancient theory of the planets’ circular motion by means of his famous three laws. KEPLER stated that the planets’ orbits are ellipses, with the sun located in one of their focal points (he published the first two laws in the Astronomia nova in 1609, the third one in the Harmonice mundi of 1619). This development found its culmination in Isaac NEWTON (16431727), who founded modern science on a strictly mathematical basis. In recent decades, many epistemologists have turned their attention to the Copernican revolution, in which they saw an exemplary case of ‘paradigm shift’ (KUHN), from the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic paradigm to that of Copernicus. At first, this shift concerned only the specific domain of astronomy, but it later had an explosive effect on the entire cultural structure of the Occident, causing the scientific revolution of the 17th century. In this context, the social, religious, and scientific factors that impeded the application of the heliocentric system of Aristarchus in Antiquity and the Middle Ages are investigated, as are those that enabled it in modern times, despite multifaceted opposition.

Naturphilosophie des Aristoteles, 1989 13 O, NEUGEBAUER, The Exact Sciences in Antiquity, 1957 14Id.,A

PLANETS

1 F. Bortin, La scienza degli occamisti, 1982 2 W. BurKERT, Weisheit und Wissenschaft, 1962, Engl.: Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism, 1972. 3 F. CornFORD, Plato’s Cosmology, 1937. 4D.R. Dicks, Early

Greek Astronomy, 1970 5 J.L. E. Dreyer, A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler, *1953 6 K. VON FRITz, Grundprobleme der Geschichte der antiken Wissenschaft, 1971, 132-197 7 TH. HEATH, Aristarchus of Samos. The Ancient Copernicus, 1913 8Jd., A History of Greek Mathematics, vol. 2, 1921 9M. JAMMER, Concepts of Space, 1954 10A. Jor (ed.), Aristotele: Il cielo, 1999 11 Tu. S. Kun, The Copernican Revolution, 1957 12 B. MANuWALD, Studien zum unbewegten Beweger in der

History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy, vol. 3, 1975 15Id., Astronomy and History, 1983 16B. Noack, Aristarch von Samos: Untersuchungen zur Uberlieferungs-Geschichte der Schrift Tegi peyeO@v xa axootmmdatwv

fhhlov xal oednvys,

1992

17E.

PEREZ

SEDENO, El rumor de las estrellas. Teoria y experiencia en la astronomia griega, 1986 18 L. SprrzeR, Classical and Christian Idea of World Harmony, 1963 19 A. SZABO,

Das geozentrische Weltbild, 1992 20Id., E. Maura, Enklima. Untersuchungen zur Frithgeschichte der griechischen Astronomie, 1982 21 P. TANNERY, Recherches sur l’histoire de l’astronomie ancienne, 1893 22 B.L. VAN DER WAERDEN, Die Astronomie der Pythagoreer, 1951 23 W. WigeLanp, Die aristotelische Physik, 1962 24E. ZINNER, Entstehung und Ausbreitung der copernicanischen Lehre, 71988. AL.J.

II. ASTROLOGY

AND MYTHOLOGY

The identification of the luminaries (the sun and

moon) with gods, which originated in Babylonia, continued to hold in Graeco-Roman Antiquity, despite attempts to name the planets scientifically according to their colour [1] (see fig. 6). Greek > polytheism had a

Latin

Babylonian

Greek

Mythological | ‘Scientific’ Saturnus

luppiter

| Ninurta

Kronos

Phainon

(Ninib)

(Nemesis)

shows himself!

'He who

Marduk

Zeus

Phaéthon

(Osiris)

‘Shining one’

Mars

Nergal

Ares (Heracles)

Pyrdeis ‘Fiery one’

Venus

Ishtar

Aphrodite (‘Isis’)

Phosphoros ‘Light-bringer’

Hermes (Apollo)

Stilbon ‘Glittering one’

Mercurius | Nabi

Fig.6 Planet names

tendency to build structures, which astrology tended to systematize. The planetary system of the ancient astrologers, attested since Archimedes [1] [2. 278-297] and never questioned since by astrologers, displayed a complete symmetry (see fig. 7). Between the earth, conceived as motionless, and the outermost sphere of fixed stars (+ Constellations, > Fixed stars) seven celestial bodies rotated, with the sun in the middle dividing the planets into two groups of three. The outer triad was represented by three generations (grandfather, father and son), the inner triad of faster-moving planets by the two female planets Venus and Luna (the moon) and Mercury, interpreted as androgynous or sexless. Each

of the two triads fulfilled a mes6tés-figure (uecdtys: ‘mean between extremes on either side’): near to the sun, Mars and Venus (already honoured as Ares and Aphrodite in Ancient Greece and later also worshipped together at Rome [3], whose symbols still designate both sexes today), participate in excessive heat and dry-

329

330

PLANETS

Firmament Capricornus Saturnus

Capricorn

=

Sagittarius Archer

luppiter

Aquarius

Saturnus

, Water Carrier

; '

Pisces Fishes

luppiter

Mars Scorpius

SUN

Heat

tempered

Cold

Mars

Scorpion _

Ram eS

Libra Scales

Venus

yn

' !

Taurus

one

oa

Venus

Mercurius Gemini

Moon

Mercurius

Twins

Sol Sun

Earth

Fig.7 Symmetry of the astrological planet system

Cancer Crab

Luna Moon

DAY

NIGHT

Fig.9 Heptazonos of the planet houses

ness, while Saturn and Luna, far from the sun, have excessive cold and moisture as their lot. In between,

‘jovial’ Jupiter and his versatile son Mercury each have a balanced temperament. Occasionally, both luminaries, who, as Apollo(n) and Artemis (Diana, Cynthia and others), were mythological siblings, are distinguished from the five genuine planets, which are considered as ‘interpreters’ (Quveic/hermeéneis) (Diod. 2,30,3). These five genuine planets formed a quincunx-figure (see fig. 8). Attention was

still further ‘cohabitants’

Planet Favourable

Day

| Unfavourable

luppiter wae

~ Mercurius Night

Fig 8.

Venus

my a

Saturnus

> Mars

Quincunx of the five true planets

paid to the morning or evening rise and setting of the

(ovvoixov/synoikoi)

(CCAG

VIII 3, 12 1f.). The modern period developed the system further: since the five ancient planets each occupied two ‘houses’, they could afford to give one each to the newly discovered planets Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto [5]. In the system of exaltations (tpopata/ hypsomata) and (diametrically opposed) lowness (tamxewopata/ tapeinomata: see fig. 10), Saturn and the sun, Jupiter and Exaltation

Dejection

5

Saturnus

Libra

aie

Aries

f

luppiter

Cancer

155

Capricorn

15°

ey Mars

Capricorn

28°

Cancer

28°

©

sun

Aries

19°

Libra

19°

eg

Venus

Pisces

DY

Virgo

Ie

ee

Pisces

Mls?

%

Mercurius

Virgo

D

Moon

Taurus

35

Scorpio

Die

Se

Fig.10 Exaltation and dejection of the planets

planets, the speed of their revolutions, their standstills,

their retrograde motion, and above all the angles (or configurations) they formed, when viewed from the central earth, with one another or with other points of the > zodiac, especially oppositions or conjunctions. Other observations determined whether a planet was ‘escorted’ by two others (Sogudogia/doryphoria), or whether it was situated in the zodiacal region of another one. The rising and setting dracontic lunar nodes (+ Moon), with their orbital period of c. 18.5 years (thus situated between Jupiter and Saturn) were also reckoned among the planets [4]. Among the signs of the zodiac, the luminaries governed only one zodion each (Leo and Cancer), while the

Mars, and Venus and Mercury are situated approximately opposite one another (the moon remains on its own). An ancient vernal equinox may lie behind the exaltation of the sun in the rgth degree of Aries, which points to the emergence of the system around 780 BC. Within the signs of the zodiac, the planets rule the individual decans (sections of 10°) [6.81, 307], individual

parts of the zodiacal figure (Ptol. Apotelesmata 1,9) or the bright individual stars [7.74-80], as well as ‘subdivisions’ (6gua/ horia), determined according to two different systems, whose sum in the zodiac indicates longevity: Saturn 57 years, Jupiter 79 years, Mars 66 years, Venus 82 years, Mercury 76 years.

Added to this was the influence of the so-called ‘houses’ of the circle of twelve divisions (dddekdt(r)opos/ dwdexct(@)omoc). Here, unlike in the zodiac, the plan-

other five planets shared the remaining ten (see fig. 9). The incompatibility between the numbers twelve and seven was thus counterbalanced, just as the cyclical motion of the year was combined with the linear ascent

ets rule over only one house each (see fig. 11), although the system of > Manilius [III 1] deviates from this

from below to above. Cosmas [3] of Jerusalem added

[8.18-91].

PLANETS

331 Upper culmination

Xl! Kronos

Ascendant | |

Hermes

Descendant

Aphrodite

Vv

Lower culmination

Fig.11 The planets of the dodekatropos

Apart from conjunctions, the planets, viewed from the earth, formed specific ‘configurations’ (oynuationot/ schématismoi): the trine (120°: tetywvov/

trigonon) and the sextile (60°: &daywvov/ hexagonon)

332

the outer limbs of the human body from head to toe to the signs of the zodiac (Antiochus CCAG VIII 3 p. 113, 8-13), planetary melothesia attributed primarily the inner organs to the planets, as the ‘entrails of the cosmos’ (omauyyva tod xdopov/splanchna tot kdsmou). According to the best-known system of + Antiochus [23], Saturn governs the head and throat, Jupiter the shoulders and torso, Mars the diaphragm and kidneys, the sun the heart, lungs and liver, Venus the genitals, Mercury the thighs and knees, and the moon the bladder and abdomen. Later, chiromancy distributed the planets among the five fingers of the hand (Anon. CCAG VII p. 239,53; p. 244; [11]). The nations of the + Oikoumene were basically reserved for the signs of the zodiac, but Ptolemy (> Ptolemaeus) also considered their planetary hosts. Further parallels drawn with the planets included the times of day, the worldly ages (in descending order) like the age (in ascending order in Ptolemy) and the months of pregnancy. Parallels in the field of psychic phenomena included the parts and faculties of the soul,

configurations were considered favourable, while the

the seven virtues (nvevpata Cwi\c/pneumata z0és) and

square

the seven

configuration

(90°: teteaywvov/

tetrdgonon)

and the contrary configuration or opposition (180°: duapeteov/ didmetron) were unfavourable. Johannes KEPLER (1571-1630) later discovered additional configurations. In establishing mythically associative astrological structures, the planets were integrated within a universal network of relations. Some parallels were quite early, dating from the time of Sudines (3rd cent. BC), while others are attested only late. The number of planets varied between four (without the luminaries and Mercury), five (without the luminaries), six (without the sun), seven, eight (with the heaven of fixed stars), or nine (with the heaven of fixed stars and the earth). In the astral sphere, the planets correspond to the seven stars of the Great Bear, the seven > Pleiades, and the comets, while on the earth they were matched with the directions, the seven climates (geographical latitudes), the five zones, or the seven estuaries of the Nile (Manil. 3,271274). In music, following the Pythagorean harmony of the spheres (> Spheres, harmony of), they corresponded to the intervals and the modes (Ptol., Canobic inscription p. 154 HEIBERG; cf. already Plin. HN. 2,84), the five vowels (whereas the consonants were reserved for the signs of the zodiac) [9], as well as certain numbers, represented in Greek by letters, and later grammatical tenses as well [10]. The planets were further divided according to the opposition between day and night, the sexes, the elements, and everything that used to be placed in parallel with them: colours, flavours, juices, temperaments and senses (for instance, Vettius Valens 1,1; Rhetorius CCAG VIII 214-224; Anon. ibid. 96-99). The series was usually applied in descending order to other structured units, from top (Saturn) to bottom (the moon). While zodiacal melothesia (the attribution of the signs of the zodiac to the limbs of the human body) assigned

vices or (deadly) sins (avebpata mhdvyc/ pneumata pldnés) [12.52 f.) (Macrob. In Somn. 1,12,14; Serv. Georg. 1,33; Serv. Aen. 6,714; Testamentum Salomonis 2; Testamentum Ruben, ch. 3). In the social hierarchy, the luminaries usually rank higher than the five satellites, while Mercury has the function of a slave, as he did on the stage (Heph. 2,20,1 and 4; Ptol.Apotelesmata 2,3; 30; Firm. Mat. 6,32,57; Serv. Aen. 10,272; Mart. Cap. 1,92; Anon. CCAG VII p.

98,25 f.; cf. already Plaut. Amph. 117) [13. 215, 260268, esp. 265]. As chronocrators, the planets reign alternately over years, months, days (including intercalary days [6.253]) and hours. The result was the still customary series of days of the week, which originally began with the day of Saturn [1.2143, |. 42-2147, |. 15]. From the 2nd cent. AD, the cults of the Sun and of Mithras moved the central - sun to the beginning of the week, and Christianity adopted this with regard to Christ as the ‘sun of justice’ (Sol iustitiae). Alchemy attributed the two luminaries to the noble metals, and the other planets to the base metals. Added to these were attributions to precious stones (in addition to the signs of the zodiac), (healing) plants, flowers, animals (particularly birds), and clothing. The combinations with Muses,

archangels or prophets, as well as religions, parallel to the worldly ages (Aba Ma‘Sar, De magnis coniunctionibus 1,4), point to more spiritual domains. Individual cities later laid claim to specific planets, and the bastions of the city of Dresden were named after the planets. Finally, the planets are found today in card games and brand names of drinks [1 5.140f.]; Michel Buror classified BEETHOVEN’s sonatas according to them [16.42-

44]. Following the model of + Mars as a charioteer, the planetary motions were seen in the chariot races of the circus [7], while religious literature had the souls (or

33916;

334

gods) travel up or down through the planetary spheres. The planets determined the seven stages of initiation in the cult of > Mithras [18. 242]. A Greek hymn to the planet Ares (Mars) was transmitted among the Homeric hymns, as were prayers to individual planets or to all of them (cf. Anon. CCAG 9,82-86; Manetho 6(3), 753; Firm. Mat. 1,10,14). Mercury in particular (Hermes

Trismegistus, cf. > Hermetic writings) was considered the transmitter of astrological doctrines (Firm. 5, 1, 36) and also served as a pseudonym for astrologers or authors of astrological works. In profane literature, characters were shaped after the properties of individual planets. This practice was revived in the Baroque [19.5—116] and in the most recent literary interpretations [16.34-36], down to A. P. GUTERSLOH’s novel Sonne und Mond (‘Sun and Moon’) (1962).

The names

of the planets motivated

poetic catalogues and the construction of oppositions or other structures (e.g. Ov. Ib. 207-214; Luc. 10,201209; App. Vergiliana: Aetna 243). Poets and authors of all periods discerned a particular affinity to Mercury,

the planet of the Jogos, of the tongue and of writers. Panegyric poetry of the Baroque compared rulers and military commanders with Mars and the > sun. Ancient plastic arts reproduced the planetary gods as statues or as decorative figures on jugs in the minor arts,

while they were distributed among the four cardinal points in ceiling-painting. Musical history knows of a symphony of The Planets (G. Hotst). Whereas in Babylonian astrology, emphasis was on the ruler as the representative of the country, and in the individual astrology of Hellenism, by contrast, on the multiplicity of particular individuals, individual existences once again receded into the background in Gnosticism

(— Gnosis,

Gnostics,

Gnosticism)

and

PLANTAGO

7¥. Bou, Antike Beobachtungen farbiger Sterne, 1916 8 W.

HUsNer,

9 AGRIPPA

VON

Die Dodekatropos

NETTESHEIM,

des Manilius,

1995

De occulta philosophia,

1531,174 10M. Buror, Les compagnons de Pantagruel, 1976 11 JOHANNES DE INDAGINE, Introductiones apote-

lesmaticae, 1556 (1stedn. 1522), 10 12 R. REITZENSTEIN, Poimandres,

1904

13 W. HUBNER, Manilius als Astro-

loge und Dichter, in: ANRW II 32.1, 1984, 126-320 14 W. und H. GunDEL, s.v. Planeten, RE 20, 2017-2185 15 H.A. Strauss, Psychologie und astrologische Symbolik, 1953 16 W. HUpner, Michel Butor y la antigiiedad, 1998 17P. WuILLEUMIER, Cirque et Astrologie (Mél. d’archéologie et d’histoire 44), 1927, 184-209 18R. MERKELBACH, Mithras, 1984 19 K. HABERKAMM, Sensus astrologicus, 1972 20 W.HUsBNeER, Zodiacus Christianus, 1983.

F. Bot, s.v. Hebdomas, RE 7, 2547-2578; Id., C. BezoL_p, W. GuNDEL, Sternglaube und Sterndeutung, 71977; A. BoucHEé-LECLERCQ, L’astrologie grecque, 1899; W. Bousset, Die Himmelsreise der Seele, in: ARW 4, L901, 136-169, 229-273; F. DORNSEIFF, Das Alphabet in Mystik und Magie, *1925; W. ErLers, Sinn und Herkunft der Planetennamen, 1976; W. GUNDEL, Sterne und Sternbilder im Glauben des Altertums und der Neuzeit, 1922; W. HUBNER, Religion und Wissenschaft in der antiken Astrologie, in: J.-F. BERGIER (ed.), Zwischen Wahn, Glaube und Wissenschaft, 1988, 9-50; Id., Zum Planetenfragment des Sudines, in: ZPE 73, 1988, 33-42; Id., Grade und Gradbezirke der Tierkreiszeichen, 1995; A. OLIVIERI,

Melotesia planetaria greca (Memorie della Reale Accademia di archeologia, lettere ed arti 5, 15/2), 1936, 19-58; D. PINGREE, The Yavanajataka of Spujidhvaja, 1978.

WH.

Plangon (Mdayyov/Plangon). Daughter of the Athenian stratégos of 389 BC, > Pamphilus [1], b. before 404. First wife of > Mantias [1], to whom she bore Boeotus (alias Mantitheus) and, out of wedlock following the divorce and the death of her successor, Pamphilus. On the legal dispute over the right to bear the name between ‘Mantitheus’ and his half-brother + Mantitheus [3], cf. Dem. Or. 38 and [Dem.] Or. 39f. (Ge 350)s

+ Neoplatonism. The planets in their spheres burden the souls with vices to take with them in their descent from heaven, from which they free them after death at the Resurrection (Testamentum Ruben, ch. 3). The attempt of the Counter-Reformation to re-name the planets for Christianity did not succeed [20.144147], yet the like is still found in literature, as for instance in Franz WERFEL’s novel Stern der Ungeborenen (‘Star of the Unborn’) (1946). The ancient notion of the microcosmos lives on in the elements found parallel to the newly discovered planets: uranium, neptunium, and plutonium.

Apol. ro).

— AsTROLOGY; — Fixed stars; diac; > NATURAL SCIENCES

Plant and animal studies see > Zoology and botany

K.KI.

Plania. Supposedly the lover who was the subject of > Tibullus elegies under the pseudonym Delia (Apul. J.BA.

> Moon; > Sun; > Zo-

1 F. Cumont, Les noms des planétes et l’astrolatrie chez les Grecs, in: AC 4, 1935, 5-43 2 W. BuRKERT, Weisheit und Wissenschaft, 1962 (Eng.: Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism, 1972)

Davies, 365f.; TRAILL, PAA 774575.

3 Id., Das Lied von Ares

und Aphrodite, in: RhM 103, 1960, 130-144 4 W. HartNER, The Pseudoplanetary Nodes of the Moon’s Orbit in Hindu and Islamic Iconographies, in: Ars Islamica 5, 1938, 113-154 5 W. Hipner, Antikes in der Astrologie der Gegenwart, in: W. Lupwic (ed.), Die Antike in der europdischen Gegenwart, 1993, 103-124 und 179 6 W. GuNDEL, Dekane und Dekansternbilder, 1936 (*1969)

Plantago. The names aovoyhwooov/arnéglosson, uvvoyAmooov/kyndglosson, entamdeveov/heptapleuron, modvmdeveov/polypleuron, moofdtevov/probateion, woddov/psyllion and Lat. plantago, all descriptive of appearance, indicate various species of the plantain (plantago). Pliny, by virtue of its familiarity, compares it in habit with many other plants. Plin. HN 25,80, citing his contemporary + Themison, praises two species as excellent in desiccating and solidifying

335

336

the body. Dioscorides (2,126 WELLMANN = 2,152 BERENDES) says that the leaves’ astringent effect, externally applied, helps against all kinds of ulcers. Cooked as a vegetable with salt and vinegar, they were regarded as a good remedy against e.g. digestive ailments. Columella 6,33,2 (= Pall. Agric. 14,25,4) recommends plantain with honey against all forms of equine ophthalmalgia.

two theological works, namely > Augustine’s De trinitate [3] and De duodecim abusivis saeculi of Ps.-Cyprianus. Other important publications of P. include his anthologies of epigrams and popular proverbs. The socalled Anthologia Planudea (preserved in the autograph Marcianus graecus 481), in which he intervened in passages that seemed offensive, contains around 2400 epigrams (amongst them 388 which do not occur in the Anthologia Palatina. P.’ polemic and dogmatic writings, which arose from attempts to establish a union with the Latin Church, poems [4] and encomia on saints, as well as an idealized portrait of the young emperor Michael IX Palaeologus [5] still survive. Finally his 121 letters [6] to pupils and friends testify to his all-round philological interests and represent a treasure-house of information about cultural life in the early Palaeologan period. ~ anthology; > astronomy

PLANTAGO

H. Gossen, s.v. Plantago, RE 20, 2200-2202.

C.HU.

Plantain see > Plantago

Plants see > Zoology and botany Planudes, Maximus (l)\avovdy¢/Planondeés, c. AD 1255 —c. AD 1305). Before he entered monastic life (c. 1283) P.’ first name was Manuel. He was an all-round scholar with wide interests and knowledge in many specialist areas: teacher, copyist, editor and commentator of classical authors, and translator of Latin literature. He is regarded as the first philologist of the Palaeologan period (AD 1259-AD 1453; cf. > Palaeologan Renaissance). Born in + Nicomedia, he went to Constantinople in AD 1261 and had close connections with the imperial family. As a layman he became an imperial ambassador, as a monk he took part in a diplomatic mission to Venice (AD 1296/7). In the monastery of Akataleptos (supposedly also in the Chora monastery) he taught grammar, rhetoric, mathematics and astronomy. Leading personalities of the time belonged to his circle of pupils. A series of writings on grammar and syntax, declamations and rhetorical works on > Hermogenes [7] and > Aphthonius were probably intended for teaching purposes. Further works and a number of text editions of the polygraph P. may also be connected with his teaching activities: an arithmetic book about Arabic numerals [1], the editions of > Diophantus [4] (with commentary on the first two books), the Gedgraphias hyphegésis of + Ptolemaeus and the Phainémena of ~» Aratus [4]. He even added parts of text to the latter in

order to include the latest scientific knowledge because it was intended to be used as a text book on > astronomy. For his editions P. collated the textual evidence available. His large collection of epic poetry formed between AD 1280 and 1283 (preserved in the codex Laurentianus 32,16) is of notable importance, especial-

ly for the textual tradition of + Nonnus and > Theocritus. In addition he prepared a complete edition of ~ Plutarchus and wrote scholia on > Hesiodus, > Aristophanes [3], > Philostratus, > Aesop and on the socalled Byzantine triad of tragedians (—> Aeschylus [1], ~+ Sophocles and > Euripides [1]). Among his careful translations of Latin authors [2], which are preserved in numerous MSS, are ~ Cicero’s Somnium Scipionis with + Macrobius’ [1] commentary, > Boethius’ De consolatione philosophiae, the Dicta Catonis, Ovid’s Metamorphoses and Heroides (-> Ovidius) as well as

1 A. ALLARD (ed.), Maxime Planude, Le grand calcul selon les Indiens, r981 2 W.O. ScHmrtT, Lateinische Literatur

in Byzanz. Die Ubersetzungen des Maximos Planudes und die moderne Forschung, in: Jb. der dst. byz. Ges. 17, 1968, 127-147.

3M.

Ricotti

PaPpaATHOMOPOULOS,

(eds.), Adyovotivou

I. Tsavari,

G.

Tegi Teidos BiBdia mevte-

nxaidexa Gmeg &x ths Aativwyv diadextov sic hv “EAAdda uetrveyxe M&Euos 6 TAavovdys, 2 vols., 1995 (extensive

prolegomena, full bibliography on life and work 1, XVCLVI)

4 Pu. M. Pontani

lium, 1973 Planude,

(ed.), Maximi Planudis Idyl-

5 L.G. WESTERINK, Le Basilikos de Maxime in: Byzantinoslavica

27,

1966,

98-103;

28,

1967, 54-673; 29, 1968, 34-50 6P.A. M. LEONE (ed.), Maximi monachi Planudis epistulae, r99r. C. WENDEL, s.v. P., RE 20, 2202-2253; HUNGER, Litera-

tur 2, 68-71, 246f.; E.A. FISCHER, s.v. P., ODB 3, 1681f.; N.G. Witson, Scholars of Byzantium, 1996, 230-241. LV.

Plaria Vera. Wife of an important Ostian, A. Egrilius Rufus, and thus mother of the two senators M. Acilius Priscus Egrilius [1] Plarianus and A. Egrilius [2] Plaria-

nus. For her possible second marriage see [1. 215ff.]. PIR? P 447. 1 C. Bruun, Zwei Priscillae aus Ostia und der Stammbaum der Egrilii, in: ZPE 102, 1994, 215-225. WE.

Plataeae

(Mhataa/Plataiai,

Wrataai/Plataiai,

Lat.

Plataeae; ethnic MWhatatet¢/Plataievs). City in southern Boeotia, in the northern foothills of Mount > Cithae-

ron, near the Asopus. The site was inhabited from the Helladic into the Byzantine Period [1]. The city walls, still recognizable today, were built at various times. A

ring wall c. 3 km in length was probably erected in the reign of Philip II (> Philippus [I 4]) [2]. Mentioned in the Homeric catalogue of ships (Hom. Il. 2,504), P. was in conflict with > Thebes [2] in the Archaic period and allied with Athens in c. 519 BC [3]. Whether P. lay within the territory of the Athenian polis is disputed [4]. In 490 BC, P. took part in the Battle of Marathon [5]

7)

338

(> Persian Wars [1]). In 480 BC, P. was destroyed by the Persians, against whom the decisive battle of the war was fought at the site in 479 BC [6]. After 446, P. elected two Boeotarchs to the Boeotian League jointly with neighbouring towns (-> Boeotarchs). At the outbreak of the +» Peloponnesian War, P. was an enemy of Thebes. After a two-year siege, the city, protected by an Athenian garrison, was destroyed by Sparta and Thebes

Plato (MAdtwv/Platon).

in 427. The temple of Hera, which survived

intact,

remained the setting for the festival of the Daedala [7. vol. 1, 242-259]. Around 380 BC, P. was rebuilt with assistance from Sparta, only to be destroyed by Thebes again in 374/3. Philip [I 4] II saw to its resettlement, and > Alexander [4] the Great bestowed privileges on the city. Among P.’s sanctuaries in addition to the temple of Hera was one to Zeus Eleutherios [7. vol. 3, 125-143], whose altar had been consecrated by Greeks following the Battle of P. The Festival of the Eleutheria [8] was inaugurated after 479 BC and was still being celebrated in the 3rd cent. AD following revitalization by Hadrian. There is evidence of a double cult of Zeus Eleutherios and ~ Homonoia at P. in the 3rd cent. BC. The ‘Koinon of the Hellenes’ was by then responsible for the running of the Eleutheria [9]. 1 Fossey,

102-112

2 A. KoNeEcNy, Der Plataiai-Survey

1996-1997, in: JOAI Beiheft 67, 1998, 53-62

3N.G.L.

HaMMonbD, Plataea’s Relations with Thebes, Sparta, and Athens, in: JHS 112, 1992, 143-150 4E. BADIAN, From Plataea to Potidaea, 1993, 109-124

5 D. HENNIG, Hero-

dot 6,108: Athen und Plataiai, in: Chiron 22, 1992, 13-24 6 PRITCHETT 5, 92-137

7 SCHACHTER

8 L. PRANDI, Pla-

tea: momenti e problemi della storia di una polis, 1988, 161-173 OR. ETIENNE, M. Prérart, Un décret du Koinon des Hellénes a Platées..., in: BCH 99, 1975, 51-75.

KF.

Plataniston (Ikataviotav; Plataniston). River in sout-

hern Arcadia (Paus. 8,39,1), rising on Mount Tetrazio

(1389 m high), flowing north through > Lycosura and east of Calivia Carion into the left side of the Alpheius fel HE. BOLTE, Soe boil2), he 20, 23 35 «

E.O.

Plate (iva&/pinax, hexavr/lekané; Lat. catillus). Plates were used, like flatter platters and deeper bowls, for preparing and serving food at table (e.g. Hom. Od. 1,141; 16,49 f.); they could be round or square, with or without a stand, with curved or steep walls. In archaeological finds plates are attested from the 8th cent. BC until the end of Antiquity in various materials (bronze, wood, silver, clay, tin etc.). + Catinus [1]; > Crockery; — Fish-plate; — Lanx; + Table culture S. Kunz1, Das Tafelgeschirr, in: E. KUNzx (ed.), Die Alamannenbeute aus dem Rhein bei Neupotz, vol. 1, 1993,

153-176.

RH.

PLATO

[1] Athenian philosopher, 428/7 — 348/7 BC A. Lire B. Likeness C. Writincs D. INDIRECT TRADITION E. CRITICISM OF WRITING F. DIALOGUE FORM _G. PLATO’S PHILOSOPHY H. INFLUENCE

A. LIFE The Seventh Letter (which is not intended to consti-

tute a complete autobiography) and scattered reports from various ancient authors (of these, > Plutarchus’ [2] Life of Dion and - Philodemus’ Academica GatsER/Academicorum Historia DORAND| are particularly instructive) are our most important sources of information on the life of P. To these should be added the chronological accounts in Apuleius, De Platone et eius dogmate (> Ap(p)uleius [III]), - Diogenes [17] Laertius, Vitae philosophorum (3 B), » Olympiodorus in Pl. Alc. ch. 1-2 WESTERINK, as well as the anonymous Prolegomena (ed. L.G. WrsTERINK) [1]. These works are in turn based on an extensive body of literature on P., now lost (a brief overview is found in [2. 179f.]), originating from the first generation of P.’s pupils (> Speusippus, TAdtwvog megidewtvov/Platonos perideipnon, P.’s funeral feast, fr. 1 TARAN; Xenokrates Tlegi tot MAdtwvoc Biov/Peri tot Platonos biou, On P.’s life, fr. 53 Hetnze; Aristotle fr. 650 RosE). Modern attempts at biography in [3; 4]. P. was born in Athens (or Aegina) in 428/7 BC to an aristocratic and probably wealthy family whose paternal line went back to the mythical king Codrus, while the maternal line shared ancestors with > Solon. P.’s father was Ariston, his mother was > Perictione; it is believed that his own name was originally Aristocles and that he was not called Plato until he was a youth (Diog. Laert. 3,4). With unabashed aristocratic family pride, Pl. Resp. 368a celebrated the ancestry of his brothers Glaucon and Adeimantus~and thus also his own— and Charm. 157e f. celebrated that of his uncle > Charmides [1]. His praise of Solon (PI. Ti. 21c-d) should also be seen in this light. After a thorough education, the young P. is said to have tried his hand at sports (as a wrestler at the Isthmian Games: Dicaearchus fr. 40 Wehrli) as well as at painting and, most importantly, at poetry. After meeting > Socrates he burned his own tragedies (regarding the epigrams attributed to P., see C below). According to Aristot. Metaph. 1,6,987a 32, his first philosophy teacher was the Heraclitean > Cratylus. It was not until he was 20 years old that he became a follower of Socrates. P.’s childhood and youth were spent during the period of the + Peloponnesian War. It is likely that he served in the military, probably in the cavalry, during the last years of the war and/or in later wars waged by Athens ([3. vol. 1, 136f., vol.2, 4], according to Diog. Laert. 3,8 and Ael. VH 7,14). After Athens was conquered by ~ Lysander [1] (spring of 404), the Thirty Tyrants (— tridkonta) took over its leadership. Among them were P.’s kinsmen

PLATO

340

339

+» Critias and -» Charmides [1], who appealed to him to become involved in political life. P. hesitated, and soon recognized the criminal nature of the regime (PI. Ep. 7,324€ ff.). However, even in the democracy that was restored in 403 — whose political moderation P. acknowledged — his high moral standards kept him from becoming politically active (ibid. 325a ff.). The trial of Socrates (spring of 399) reinforced that decision. P. was present when his teacher was convicted by a jury (PI. Ap. 34a; 38b), but not at the conversations that took place in the condemned man’s cell (Pl. Phd. 59b). For the rest of his life, P. regarded the death of Socrates not only as a miscarriage of justice, but as evidence of the hostility toward morality and philosophy that was inherent in Athenian democracy. After Socrates’ death, P. joined > Euclides [2] in Megara, perhaps believing himself to be in danger in Athens, but soon returned home. It appears that his career as a writer began around 399 (according to |3. vol. 1, 98] [on (“Iwv), Hippias minor (‘Innias B’/Hippias 2) and Protagoras (Mewtayoeas) were written prior to Socrates’ death). The Seventh Letter indicates that P.

shared the conviction of the Republic (Moduteia/Politeia, Latin Res publica) that political disaster was inevitable until philosophers took over power or rulers became philosophers (known as the philosopher-king proposition), a belief that he expressed prior to his arrival in Sicily, i.e. in the 390s (Ep. 7,326a-b) — whether in writing or orally is unclear. A lengthy educational journey, probably made in 390-388, took P. first to Egypt, then to Cyrene, where the mathematician ~ Theodorus lived and worked, from there to Lower Italy, to the Pythagorean statesman and philosopher > Archytas of Tarentum, and finally to Syracuse, to the court of the tyrant > Dionysius [1] I. There he gained an enthusiastic supporter for his view of the world in the person of Dionysius’ brother-in-law - Dion [I1] (Pl. Ep. 7,326¢ ff.). On his journey home, P. was taken prisoner and sold as a slave in Aegina. His new master, Anniceris, set him free. Immediately upon his return, in 3 88/7, P. must have founded the > Academy, which soon enjoyed a great deal of prestige. Instruction was held on its property and in the gymnasium in the grove of Academus (to the northwest of the gates of Athens). As he was well off himself, P. did not charge his pupils fees. Instruction encompassed a variety of subjects, with mathematics considered particularly important. In addition to P., such experts and philosophers as > Eudoxus [1], Speusippus, -» Xenocrates and > Aristotle [6] taught at the Academy. Especially because of the political involvement of P.s school, — Isocrates [5] regarded it as dangerous competition. Dionysius I died in 367. Dion [I 1] appealed to P. to come to Sicily, hoping to achieve a reform of the power structure in accordance with philosophical principles; the interest in Platonic philosophy shown by the young heir to the throne, Dionysius [2] II, seemed to offer a good opportunity for such reform. In 366 P. went to Syracuse, motivated more by a sense of obligation to

Dion than by enthusiasm for reform (Pl. Ep. 7,327¢329b). Political foes prevented P. from exerting philosophical influence on Dionysius. Instead, Dionysius fell out with Dion, who went into exile in Athens. It was not until 365 that P., too, was able to return. A second attempt met with even less success: in 361 Dionysius sent a ship to Athens to take P. to Syracuse; while one philosophical discussion was held with the tyrant (ibid. 345a), the hoped-for political reconciliation with Dion failed to materialize. P.’s personal safety was eventually threatened by Dionysius’ mercenaries, who were interested in maintaining the —tyrannis (ibid. 3502). Thanks to the diplomatic mediation of Archytas, P. was finally able to leave in 360. Despite these negative experiences, P. refused to give his blessing to the military action undertaken by Dion against Dionysius, as he still regarded Dionysius as the host who had spared his life against the advice of those who had maligned him (ibid. 3500). P.’s lecture On the good was probably held during the last decade of his life, according to Aristoxenus (Harmonica Il, p. 30 M.), before an uneducated audience that responded with incomprehension and disdain. The fact that P. appeared in public, violating his view of proper (i.e. exclusively internal) philosophical contemplation of the ‘greatest subject of instruction’ (cf. péyiotov waOnua/ mégiston mathema, Pl. Resp. 504d) is plausibly explained by K. GalseEr in terms of P.’s need to justify himself in a time of political intolerance [6]. Until his death in 3 48/7, P. continued to write his final and most comprehensive work, Laws, which remained unfinished (Diog. Laert. 3,37); it was published by his pupil and secretary > Philippus [29] of Opus. B. LIKENESS According to a report in Diog. Laert. 3,25, a Persian

named Mithridates dedicated to the Muses a statue of P. created by Silanion. The 16 existing Roman copies of P.’s head are all based on this likeness [7]. The best copy is agreed to be that found in the Glyptothek in Munich [8. 134 with fig. 58 a, b]. The date of the original is subject to controversy: Many believe that Silanion’s statue was made after P.’s death, while others date it to before 363 (death of a certain Mithridates of Cius). Literature and dating from around 360 [8. 134f., 497]. 11 of the 16 copies are shown in [9. after p. 884].

C. WRITINGS 1. BODY OF WORK NOLOGY

2. AUTHENTICITY

3. CHRO-

1. BODY OF WORK Everything that was listed in antiquity as having been written by P. has been preserved. The Corpus Platonicum in the manuscript tradition includes: (1) 36 writings arranged in ‘tetralogies’, consisting of 34 dialogues, the Apology of Socrates (‘Anohoyia Dwxedtove/ Apologia Sokratous) and a collection of 13 letters, (2) 6

341

342

PLATO

short dialogues that even in antiquity were not considered authentic, (3) a collection of Definitions (“OooU Horot), probably post-Platonic. Outside the Corpus, the following have been handed down: (4) 2 additional letters (Epistolographi Graeci 531f. HERCHER), (5) a collection of dihaereses in Diog. Laert. 3,80-109, and in more complete form in Cod. Marcianus 257, (6) 32 epigrams and a fragment of 7 verses from a hexametric

ning of the 2oth cent. in the matter of chronology (see

poem [ro].

Hippias

Aristotle cited in his preserved works 17 of the dialogues, which are still considered the philosophically most important [11. 598f.]; of course, this does not imply that he was unfamiliar with the others or believed them to be inauthentic. Beginning with the 3rd cent.

longer disputed. Of the lesser dialogues in the tetralogy classification, Clitopho (Kheiwop@v/Kleitophén) and Theages (Oecyys) still find the occasional defender,

BC, the dialogues were studied in Alexandria; accor-

ding to Diog. Laert. 3,61, > Aristophanes [4] of Byzantium organized them in trilogies. An arrangement in nine tetralogies’came to be the standard; following Diog. Laert. 3,56, it is associated with the name of ~> Thrasyllus [2] (rst cent. AD), although it clearly dates from an earlier period [3. vol. 2, 324] (for a criticism of the tetralogy arrangement, see [12. 494ff.], for an appreciation of its basic idea, [3. vol. 2, 324f.]). The collection begins with the four dialogues that focus on the trial of Socrates. The second tetralogy includes the Theaetetus (Qeaitntoc/Theaitétos), whose fictitious date also refers to the time of the trial (Tht. 210d), as well as two works closely connected with it, the Sophist (Soptoty¢/Sophistés) and the Statesman (Todutixdc/ Politikos). It has always been recognized that the Laws (Nowot No6mot, Latin Leges) and certain letters are of

later provenance; accordingly, these writings tained in the ninth tetralogy. The other works sified according to their topics, e.g. the 6th tetralogies contain dialogues dealing with the

are conare clasand 7th Sophists.

2. AUTHENTICITY While Thrasyllus was convinced that the nine tetralogies contained only genuine works by Plato (Diog. Laert. 3,57), other ancient Platonists already expressed doubts as to the authenticity of certain works, for example Alkibiddés 2 (Ahupiady¢ B’), Hipparchos (“‘Inmagyoc), the Lovers (Eoaotat/Erastat) and Epinomis (Emtwouic), which are today generally accepted to be post-Platonic in origin, and very probably the work of > Philippus [I 29] from Opus [13. esp. 133-139]. Doubts raised as to the authenticity of certain works took on a new intensity only in the r9th cent., when F. SCHLEIERMACHER [14] sought to identify a consistent didactic plan in the entire body of P.’s work, believing that using ‘genuine Platonic form’ as a criterion would enable him to answer the questions of authenticity and chronology simultaneously, and as K. F. HERMANN [15] began, for the first time, to apply an approach based on developmental history to Plato. Finicky and far too selfconfident philologists gradually cast doubt on nearly every important dialogue (see [12. 474-483]). The excesses of such criticism of the works’ authenticity finally gave way to a more considered discussion, particularly as a consensus began to develop at the begin-

next section).

Of those dialogues that have particularly great philosophical significance, today only Alkibiddés 1 (AdxtBiadng a’) is controversial (arguing in favour of its authenticity [16. vol. 2, 214-226], against it [17]), while doubts regarding Hippias maior (‘Inniac a’/Hippias 1) appear to have been resolved [18] and minor

and

Menéxenos

(MevéEevoc)

are

no

while the inauthenticity of Minds (Mivwc), Alkibiades

2, Hipparchos and the Lovers is almost universally accepted. References to literature on the authenticity of all of the dialogues are found in [19] (also containing a list of ‘Dubia et Spuria’, disputed and inauthentic writings, which — contrary to today’s consensus — includes works such as Critias (Keutias/Kritias), Lachés (Adyns), Ion, Hippias maior and minor and Euthyphro (EvOvpewv/Euthyphron) [19. 204-23 5]). Of the writings not in dialogue form, the Apology is unproblematic; the definitions and dihaereses were produced in the Academy, but it is unlikely that they were redacted by P. himself. Of the letters, only those included in the Corpus Platonicum can be regarded as possibly authentic, and specifically only letters 3, 6, 7 and 8. So far, repeated attempts at proving the inauthenticity of the Seventh Letter have failed; there has been no substantial addition to the debate since [20] and [21]. It is quite possible that several of the poems are genuine; the lovely epigram to Dion ([{10. No. 6] = Anth. Pal. 7,99) has been accepted as Platonic since [3. vol. 1, 509]. 3. CHRONOLOGY There was no interest in antiquity in compiling a complete chronology of the dialogues. It is conceivable that Lysis (Avots) was written while Socrates was still alive (Diog. Laert. 3,35), but it is certainly a mistake to believe that Phaedrus (®aitSeoc/Phaidros) was the earliest dialogue (ibid. 3,38). Aristot. Pol. 1264b 27 indicates that the Laws were of a later date than the Republic; according to Diog. Laert. 3,37, they were first published by Philippus [29] of Opus. In the modern period, W.G. TENNEMANN in 1792 drew up a relative chronology [22] that differed only slightly from what is accepted today. In contrast, F. SCHLEIERMACHER’S didactic classification of the dialogues, which was also intended to identify the time of their composition [14], and which identified Phaedrus as the first dialogue, represented a step backward. Unlike F. SCHLEIERMACHER, K.F. HERMANN [15] explained the order of the dialogues not in terms of a didactic plan, but as a reflection of P.’s intellectual development. The introduction of the linguistic statistical method by L. CAMPBELL (1867) and W. DITTENBERGER (1881; analysis in [23]) had a profound effect, making it possible to convincingly identify a group of late dialogues that shared a relatively homogeneous style unlike that of P.’s other works: the Sophist, the Statesman,

343

344

Philebus (®idnBoc/Philébos), Timaeus (Tiwaroc/ Timaios), Critias, the Laws. The earlier classification

P.’s philosophy. Attempts to date the dgrapha to P.’s last years (and thus to suggest that they were somehow unfinished and unimportant) lack any foundation in the texts.

PLATO

into early, middle and late dialogues was reinforced by these results, although linguistic statistics [24] for the early and middle periods have not yielded conclusions that have gained widespread acceptance [25; 26]. An overview of 132 proposed chronologies between 1792 and 198r in [19. 8-17] shows that the order within each group has continued to be controversial, while the three groups themselves are classified in approximately the same way by nearly all interpreters: (a) early dialogues: Hippias Minor, Ion, Crito (Kettwv/ Kriton), Euthyphro, Laches, Charmidés (Xagpidys), Lysis, Menexenus, Protagoras, Meno (Mévwv/Ménon),

Gorgias (Toeyias), Euthydemus (Ev0vdquosc/ Euthydémos); (b) middle dialogues: Cratylus (Keattioc/Kratylos), Hippias Maior (these two are often considered part of (a)), Phaedo (®atdwv/ Phaidon), the Symposium (Zvpndo.wv/Symposion), Republic (book 1 is often considered part of (a)), Phaedrus (sometimes classified under (c)); (c) late dialogues: Parmenidés (Maguevidns), Theaetetus, Sophist, Politicus, Philebus, Timaeus, Critias, Laws. If the contention

of [19] should prove correct, namely that many of the dialogues were revised by P. as well as by his pupils, this would dissolve the question of ‘authenticity’ and of how to draw up a clear chronology of the dialogues relative to one another. For those following a unitarian interpretation (e.g. [27; 35; 36]), the much-discussed question of chronology is not a central concern. D. INDIRECT TRADITION Aristotle, who studied and taught at P.’s Academy for 20 years, presented P.’s doctrine of ideas, numbers and principles in a way that differed substantially from his doctrines as reflected in the dialogues [28]. The attempt of [29] to explain every divergence as a misin-

terpretation on the part of Aristotle can be dismissed as unsuccessful [30. 143]. Aristotle was very clear in distinguishing between disinterested reporting (Aéyovow/ légousin, oaoiv/phasin, ‘they maintain, they say’) and his own analysis [31]. Aristot. Ph. 2o9b 14-15 mentions a comment by P. regarding the material principle ‘in that which is referred to as (his) unwritten teachings’ (&v Toics Aeyouevois Kyeddous S0yuaow/en tois legoménois agraphois dogmasin — deyoutvoig does not have the ironic sense of ‘so-called’, see [32]). P. presented a significant portion — not necessarily all — of his unwritten philosophical theses in his lecture On the good (Ilegi tot &ya0ot/Peri tou agathou), which was recorded by P.’s pupils Aristotle, Speusippus, Xenocrates, Hestiaeus and Heraclides (Simpl. in Aristot. Ph. 151, 6ff.; 453,22ff. Diels), cf. [6]. A collection of the materials from the indirect tradition is contained in [33. 441-557, appendix: Testimonia Platonica}. A collection of texts on the influence of the dgrapha dogmata (‘unwritten teachings’) in the ancient world is found in [34]. For [2. 331] (among others) it was still beyond doubt that the indirect tradition was an indispensable source for

E. CRITICISM OF WRITING It is no accident that especially for Plato there is an extensive indirect tradition alongside the completely preserved written works: the writings themselves make it abundantly clear that he considered the oral form to be more important than the written form. (a) According to Pl. Phdr. 275d-e, written texts have three fatal flaws: they cannot respond to questions, they cannot choose to speak or remain silent if necessary, and they cannot defend themselves against attacks; all of these things are possible only for the ‘living word of the knowing man’ (276a), i.e. the oral philosophizing of the dialectician — who is like a wise farmer who does not plant valuable seed ina ‘garden of Adonis’ (symbolizing writing, as the plants in a garden of Adonis grow quickly, but fail to bear fruit — like knowledge gained through reading) (276b-c). The philosopher writes in the awareness that

he can orally help that which is contained in his writings, and thus demonstrate that they are less valuable compared to the ‘things of greater value’ (tywmtega/ timiotera) expressed in his oral help (278c-d). This means — as timiotera refers to content, and as the exam-

ples of ‘help’ found in the dialogues always involve new and ‘more valuable’ theoretical approaches [35] — that the philosopher must always be able to expand beyond the content of his written work. (b) The Seventh Letter addresses the deficient character of all human means to gain insight; because of this deficiency, it is impossible to impart noetic insight adequately even using oral means, let alone the written word. Accordingly, a sensible individual will never entrust his ‘most serious things’ (omovdaotata/spoudaiOtata) to writing (344c), just as there is no writing (ovyyeaupa/syngramma) by P. himself concerning the things he regarded the most serious (341c). Dionysius [2] Il profaned the ideas confided to him by P. regarding the ultimate grounds for explaining reality out of ‘shameful ambition’, while P. ‘honoured’ them (by refraining from putting them in writing) (344d-e). (c) The philosophical ideas that the rulers of the Cretan ideal state in the Laws will have to learn are not ‘secret’ (Geontov/drrhéton), but they are ‘not communicable before the right time’ (4xedeentov/aproérrheton), since premature communication would not lead to understanding (Pl. Leg. 968e 2-5). Hence aprorrhéton is P.’s own term for ‘esoterics’: secrecy was to be rejected, but it was both encouraged and practiced to withhold what could only be understood once the recipient had been properly prepared. It is from this perspective that the ‘gaps’ in the dialogues (compiled in [36. 389ff.]) should be viewed, as farther-reaching problems are clearly identified but excluded from the explanation presented ‘here and now’. Also to be seen in this context is the depiction of the discussion leader

345

346

as a superior dialectician who may ‘help’ his own oral argument (by means of timidtera), and then again refer in the context of such gaps to aprorrhéta, hence ‘remaining silent’ with respect to the ultimate explanation (cf. Phdr. 276a). The analysis of [37. 653], which trivializes criticism of written form, fails because its understanding of the Platonic concepts of ‘helping one’s logos’ (BonPetv t@ AOyw/boethein tdi logoi) and ‘things of greater value’ (timiotera) finds no support in the dialogues

G. PLATO’S PHILOSOPHY 1. GENERAL REMARKS 2. ETHICS AND ANTHROPOLOGY 3. STATE, RHETORIC, POETRY, UTOPIA 4. COSMOLOGY 5. ONTOLOGY AND DOCTRINE OF PRINCIPLES 6. DIALECTICS, CONCEPT OF PHILOSOPHY

([38; 39. 71-78]). F. DIALOGUE FORM Since SCHLEIERMACHER’S groundbreaking work on the unity of form and content in P.’s works [14. 14], there has been extensive discussion of the dialogue form (+ Philosophical literature, genres of). Continuing the anti-esoteric perspective of SCHLEIERMACHER, in the 2oth cent. it was‘held that P. used the dialogue form to make his work immune against the deficiencies of written form (see e.g. [16. vol. 1, 177]), a view that is no longer held by any significant number of scholars since its criticism in [35. 331-375]. There continues to be widespread support for the contention that P. used the dialogue form to maintain his ‘anonymity’ (for example [40]; criticism in [3 5. 348-3 50]). Even the ancient dispute concerning whether the dialogues should be interpreted ‘sceptically’ or ‘dogmatically’ has reemerged, see [42]. P. expressly confines the idea that philosophy should of needs be a matter of dialogue: thinking, as a silent dialogue of the soul with itself (Pl. Soph. 263¢; Tht. 189e), does not require two subjects; Socrates had a tendency to philosophize alone (Pl. Symp. 175b-c, 220C¢) or with an imaginary partner, his alter ego (this is mentioned frequently, see [39. 137—139]). Itis doubtful that P. regarded the dialogue as the only legitimate form of philosophical exposition; the long monologue in Ti. 27¢-92C¢ is evidence to the contrary. The still expanding literature on the dialogue form is hampered by a reluctance to formulate a descriptive morphology of the Platonic dialogue based on dramatic structure and the depiction of characters (for first steps toward such a morphology, see [35] and [39, esp. 117-147]), along with a widespread disregard for the insights provided by the criticism of writing (exceptions: [3 5; 39; 41]). It can be demonstrated that the action in the most important dialogues and the depiction of the discussion leader as a superior dialectician can only be fully understood from the perspective of P.’s criticism of writing [35]. The aim of the dialogues is to achieve homologies (‘points of agreement’) between unequal partners [43] that are philosophically tenable, even if no dialogue purports to reveal the ultimate explanation that the discussion leader might achieve [39, esp. 147].

PLATO

1. GENERAL REMARKS It is widely believed that the dialogues do not present a ‘doctrine’, but rather questions and unfinished thoughts or even contradictions (listed in [44. vol. 1, xiv-xvii]) as well as gaps. There is, however, no disput-

ing that the reader is led repeatedly to homologies regarding basic questions of philosophy which are not negated by other dialogues (‘the soul is immortal’, ‘the creator of the world is good’), and that most ‘contradictions’ merely indicate divergences in particular aspects. The compilation of lasting homologies that is now to follow must necessarily abstract from the fact that the later distinction of autonomous philosophical disciplines (on the so-called ‘pragmatia distinction’ cf. [36. 552-5713 33- 308-325]) is not in keeping with the spirit of Platonic philosophy, in which > logic and > dialectics, > ethics, > anthropology and > ontology are always only one part of an overarching context of argumentation. It would be wrong to view P. only (or even primarily) as continuing the Socratic approach; equally crucial for understanding his philosophy are the influences of > Heraclitus I [1], > Anaxagoras (cf. Phd. 97¢ ff.), - Parmenides (Soph., Prm.), Pythagorean + cosmology and speculation about principles (Ti., Phlb.) as well as Orphic-Pythagorean religion (Phd., Phdr., myths; see > Orphism, > Pythagorean School). 2. ETHICS AND ANTHROPOLOGY At the root of P.’s anthropologically based ethics are two radically new beliefs: that our ethical responsibilities are not limited to the brief period of human life (Resp. 608c-d, Phd. 107c) and that it is always worse to do wrong than to suffer wrong (Gorg. 469b ff.). P. disparages as ‘popular’ or ‘civic virtue’ (Snuotixi) or moktixh Goett/demotike or politike arete; Phd. 69b; 82ab; Resp. 430c; 500d) the thoughtless > ‘virtue’ of an ordinary citizen that stems merely from habit; true virtue is knowledge (epistemé), recollection of the ideas of the virtues perceived beyond this world (Phdr. 247d; 250b; Ideas, theory of). Such knowledge leads directly to the right action: ‘No one does wrong voluntarily’ (oddeic Exmv dpagtave/oudeis hekon hamarténei, cf. Resp. 589c, Grg. 488a, Men. 78b). It is also in knowledge that the unity of virtue lies (discussed in Prt. 329¢ ff.). Initial attempts at defining the virtues are made ‘aporetically’ (i.e. without agreeing on a satisfactory solution; > Aporia) in some of the early dialogues (see [45] on this), then developed in Resp. (429a-443¢e). At the basis of the doctrine ofthe four cardinal virtues is a distinction between the three parts of the soul: epithymétikon — thymoeidés — logistikon (Resp. 435¢— 441c: the ‘appetitive’ — ‘spirited’ — ‘thinking’ parts of the soul). Courage (dvdgeia/andreia) is associated with the

PLATO

347

thymoeidés, wisdom (oodia/sophia) with the logistikon; prudence (owpgoovvry/sophrosyne) is the agreement between the superior and the inferior with respect to the question of who should have control, while the crucial virtue of — justice (Suxatoobvn/dikaiosyne) is the condition of the > soul in which every part “does its own’, 1.e. plays the role assigned to it by nature, which is the precondition for the unity of the > person (Resp.

443d-e). However, the ‘original’ and ‘true’ nature of a human being is not the tripartite soul, but the divine thinking soul, which alone can be immortal (Resp. 611b-612a; Ti. 90a-d). The other two parts of the soul are secondary and mortal ‘annexes’ (Ti. 69c, cf. Resp. 611d-e). Human > happiness consists in ‘becoming like God’ (6uoimots 8e@/homoiosis thedi) as the highest ethical as well as philosophical possibility, consisting in the thinking soul’s growing ever more similar to the divine object of its thought, the world of ideas (Resp. 5oocd) and the cosmos (Ti. 90cd). Homoiosis is possible because of the relationship between the logistikén and the world of ideas (Phd. 79d—-80a; Resp. 611e, Ti. ibid.), but has its limits in the nature of human beings (sic 600v duvatov avOomnw/eis hdson dynaton anthropoi, Resp. 613¢): over and over, they fall back from an intuiting of ideas into the concerns

of mortal life. At the same

time,

‘becoming like God’ means ‘fleeing’ from this world to the world beyond (évOévde éxetoe/enthénde ekeise, Tht. 176a-b, et alibi), preparing the individual for a necessary return to the body after a period during which the soul exists free of its bodily ties (Resp. 498d; > Soul, migration of the). 3. STATE, RHETORIC, POETRY, UTOPIA In direct analogy (Resp. 43 5e) to the three parts of the soul, P.’s ideal state (> Utopia) would consist of three classes: the working population, the military and the philosopher-rulers (reflecting, as [46. 271ff.] points out, probably correctly, an ancient Indo-European structure). Philosophers should rule the state, because

only they are capable of knowing the Idea of the Good, which determines the goal of all action (Resp. 504d ff.; 519¢; 540a-b). Members of the two upper classes are required in this model to forgo ownership of private property and families of their own; the entire elite would constitute one large commune (ibid. 41 5d—423¢; 457¢-471d). P. regards other political forms as ‘degenerative forms’ of the ideal state: ‘Aristocracy’ changes to timocracy, then oligarchy and democracy, and finally tyranny; to each form of government corresponds a certain type of person (Resp. 8—9; theory of constitutions). The systematic classification of forms of government in Plt. 291d ff. distinguishes between monarchy, oligarchy and democracy according on the number of individuals in a position of power. If laws are respected, monarchy is the best form of government; if they are not, democracy is best (ibid. 303a). P.’s criticism of democracy (for general comments see [47; 48; 49]) encompasses his criticism of rhetoric: rhetoric attaches greater importance to what is proba-

348 ble than to what is true, and to emotional decisions than to rational ones, and thus tends to instrumentalize speech for the purpose of promoting a state in which ‘might makes right’ (Grg. 482c-486d). The ‘true’ rhetoric as proposed in the Phaedrus (259¢ ff.), which is based on sufficient knowledge of things and souls, can only be achieved by a dialectician. Since it is the state’s duty to improve its citizens, the Republic and Laws contain detailed schemes for education. In this context mimetic poetry, particularly that of Homer and of tragedy, becomes the subject of scathing criticism; because it teaches mistaken beliefs about the gods, produces only copies of copies and appeals primarily to the lower portions of the soul, it should be banned from the ideal state (Resp. 376e-398c; 595a—608b). At the same time, however, the enthusiasm of the poet is a divine mania (‘madness’; Phdr. 24 5a). P.’s own ‘poetry’, his dialogues, is presented as divinely inspired, and is intended to serve as a model of educationally valuable literature (Leg. 811c, cf. [41. 108]). The description of a future ‘best’ state is not a utopia in the modern sense, nor mere wishful thinking (edyh/euche, Resp. 5 40a); nor is it conceived merely for the sake of a criticism of the prevailing order. A gradual progression (ibid. 473a-b) toward a goal that is ‘difficult, but not impossible’ to achieve (ibid. 502c; 540d) is conceivable. Along with the Republic as a ‘utopia of the future’, the Laws offer a ‘utopia of the present’ and Atlantis a (negative) ‘utopia of the past’ (Ti. 24e-26d; Critias). 4. COSMOLOGY In mythical form, Plt. 272e-273¢ expresses the claim that the world has a destructive ‘innate longing’ that would destroy it without the intervention of a divine ‘helmsman’. In the Timaeus, the order in the world is caused by a ‘craftsman’ (Snuioveydc/—> démiourgos [3], Ti. 28a), also called ‘god’ (@e6¢/theds) (30a). He is essentially good, and thus wishes for everything else to become like himself as much possible, i.e. to participate in order (29ef.). With a view to the cosmos of ideas as his paradeigma (29a), he created the cosmos as a selfsustaining and blissful visible god (3 4b; 92c). Using the elementary triangles of geometry, he created from the disorder of the surging chora (yea, 52a: simultaneously > ‘space’ and —> ‘matter’) the elements (> Elements, theories of the), and from them, in turn, the world body. This is surrounded by the world soul, which the démiourgos ‘mixed’ as an ontological intermediate from divisible and indivisible being and ‘divided up’ according to musical proportions (35a ff.). It is the oldest created entity and the origin of all motion (Leg. 896a; Phdr. 24 5c-e). The connection between the world soul and the world body is not inherent to them, but it is indissoluble owing to the will of the démiourgos (Ti. 41a-b); hence the world is eternal. On the other hand, it has ‘come into being’ (yéyovev/gégonen, 28b) — the dispute going as far back as antiquity as to whether P. was referring here to an emergence in time, or only to a way of being in time, is correctly resolved by [50] in favour of the latter solution, which was also held by the Old Academy and by Neoplatonism.

BA?

350

5. ONTOLOGY AND DOCTRINE OF PRINCIPLES Fundamental to P.’s philosophy is the distinction between the many visible things that share the same name and the one Idea which can only be grasped through thought (Resp. 476a; ‘Idea’, Greek iSéa/idéa, more frequently eidSoc/eidos), or in general terms between the visible and the intelligible realm or ‘place’ (Resp. 509d; dgatdc/vontos tom0c; horatds/noétds topos). With their ontological characteristics clearly opposed to each other (multiplicity versus unity, changeability in time versus self-identity beyond the limits of time), the question is what sort of relationship exists between the two ‘worlds’ (Phd. rood: ‘presence’ or ‘community’ ofthe idea; Prm. 130e-13 5b: aporiae of the ‘separate’ existence of ideas and individual things).

achieve its end, i.e. knowledge of the principle (Resp. 533a, c; cf. [54]). Its method consists, generally speaking, in questions and answers, and more particularly in the élenchos (Soph. 230d-e), the ‘division and bringing together’ (Staigecis xai ovvaywyn/dibairesis kai synagoge, Phdr. 266b) aimed at reaching definitions, the related ‘synopsis’ of the mathematical sciences (Resp. 531d; 537¢; Leg. 967 e; cf. [55]), the upward progression toward a principle by ‘raising’ hypotheses, and the contrary movement from the principle down to the lowest eidos (Resp. 511b; 533¢; cf. Phd. rord-e). The

This ‘separation’ (chorismos) persists into the late dia-

logues (Phlb. 15a ff.; Ti. 5rb-e). Attempts to interpret away the idea ofseparation in P. (e.g. [51]) are methodologically faulty, see [52]. In Leg. 898e, the soul is called noéton, although temporality and movement are inherent to it; in Phd. 78b—8ob, it is removed from the

world of the senses without being entirely part of the world of ideas: it stands for an intermediate kind of being (cf. also Ti. 3 §a). It is probable that this dichotomy was never a complete reflection of P.’s ontological viewpoint. If we look at both the indications contained in the dialogues (Ti. 52a; Resp. 525d—527b) and the indirect tradition (Aristot. Metaph. 987b 14-29), a system consisting of the following ontological levels emerges: pre-cosmic, amorphous chora — formed sensible things — the soul and the objects of mathematics — ideas. The world of Ideas is itself structured hierarchically (Plat. Resp. 485b); the ‘higher-ranking part’ (twuwwtegov pégoc/ timidteron méros, ibid.) might be the theory of metaIdeas or the ‘supreme genera’, or the Idea numbers testified in the indirect tradition. Ideas are characterized by ‘life’ and (noetic) motion (Soph. 248¢ f.). The study of the world of Ideas is carried out in two clearly distinct phases (ibid. 537d; 5 40a), leading to objects of different ontological status. It is not until the final phase that the highest — principle is addressed, the ‘Idea of the Good’ or ‘the Good itself? (f tod Gya8ot idéa, to &ya8ov abt0/ he tot agathon idéa, to agathon auto, ibid. so05a 2; 540 8), which is ‘beyond being’ (éméxewva. tig ovoias/ epékeina tés ousias, Resp. 509b, cf. [53]). Aristotle confirms that for the Academy the doctrine of principles took precedence over the theory of ideas (— Ideas, theory of; Aristot. Metaph. 990b 17-22). Besides the Idea of the Good, discussion also concerned the negative principle, the ‘indefinite duality’ ( Dyas), as well as the interaction between these two principles and the characteristics of Idea numbers as the first products of ontological ‘procreation’ (ibid. book 13-14 passim). 6. DIALECTICS,

CONCEPT

OF

PHILOSOPHY

Only through dialectics (f tot diaréyeoBar Suvayic or émotyun/hé tou dialégesthai dynamis or episteme; * Siahextixt ueB0d0¢ or téxvn/he dialektiké méthodos or téchné, Resp. 511b-c; 533a-c; Phdr. 276e) can thinking

PLATO

attempt of [56] to reduce P.’s dialectics to mere elenctics

should be rejected; while elenctics remains essentially negative, P. sought to achieve positive insight into the nature of being (see [57; 58]). The dialectical method cannot guarantee linear progress in achieving insight, and often leads the seeker into > aporia (Prm. 130c; Phlb. 16b). Noetic insight cannot be forced (for some it is simply unachievable: Resp. 476b), nor can it be made plausible to outsiders; it occurs suddenly, after a long period of effort (Ep. 75343C-344¢; 341¢-d; cf. Symp. 210e). The prerequisites for it include not only intellectual qualities, but also qualities of character (Resp. 485b-487a; 537d; Ep. 75344a). The human soul is, in principle, capable of achieving full insight into the Idea of the Good (Resp. 518d; 519d; 5 40a; for a different view, see [59], for a criticism of that view, [60]). Unlike the gods (Phdr. 249c), however, it cannot remain in a state of contemplating ideas; like Eros (Symp. 203¢), it loses what it has

gained when it directs its attention to tasks in this world. In this sense, philosophy for P. is an endeavour that can never come to an end (which is not to say that ultimate insight could never be achieved: [61]; > Epistemology). H. INFLUENCE The well-known remark by A.N. WHITEHEAD [62] that the European philosophical tradition consisted of ‘a series of footnotes to P.’ indicates the impossibility of fully doing justice to P.’s impact on subsequent thought. His influence can be felt in all philosophical approaches that came after him, and also goes far beyond the realm of philosophy, into political and religious thought, theology, utopian literature and countless other spheres. No other single thinker has had as profound an effect on European identity as P. During his lifetime, P. was already the object of admiration and veneration, as well as of criticism and ridicule. The first works on P. were written soon after his death (see section A. above; also Dicaearchus fr. 40-45 WEHRLI, Aristoxenus fr. 61-68 WEHRLI, Clearchus fr. 2a-b WeHRLI). After the Academy briefly renounced P.’s teachings during its sceptical phase (> Academy; — Scepticism), from the beginning in the rst cent. BC on, P.’s works came to be the dominant (> Middle Platonism), and finally the sole determining force (~ Neoplatonism). The Christian theology of the Church fathers would not have been possible without the conceptual orientation

PLATO

351

towards Platonism. When Aristotelian thinking was predominant during the Middle Ages, P.’s ideas were indirectly present as well, conveyed through the work of (Ps.-) > Dionysius [54] Areopagita, who built on the teachings of > Proclus. Beginning with the Platonic Academy of Marsilio Frcrno in Florence (2nd half of the rsthcent.), explicitly engaging with P.’s thought has become a regular component of the philosophical life of the Western world.

Spake dies, 1995

43TH.

A. SzLEZAK,

Gesprache zwischen

Ungleichen, in: A&A 34, 1988, 99-116 Platone, 2 vols., 1949

44 L. STEFANINI,

45 M. ERER, Der Sinn der Aporien

in den Dialogen Platons, 1987 46 B. SERGENT, Les indoeuropéens, 1995 47 K. Popper, The open society and its enemies, vol. 1: The Spell of Plato, 1947, *1952 48R. Maurer,

Platons

“Staat”

und die Demokratie,

1970

49 Tu. A. SZLEZAK, Platone politico, 1993 50 M. BALTEs, Péyovev (Platon, Tim. 28 B7). Ist die Welt real entstanden oder nicht?, in: K.A. Avera et al. (ed.), Polyhistor. Fest-

-» Academy; > Ideas, theory of; > Middle Platonism; + Neoplatonism; ~ Philosophy; > Socrates;

schrift J.Mansfeld 1996, 76-96

— PLATONISM

tons Semiotik als Inszenierung der Ideen, in: R. ENSKAT

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Philosophy,

1 Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic

ed. L.G.

WESTERINK,

1962,

3.12-15.22

2 GGPh! 3 U. v. WILAMOoWITZ-MOELLENDORFF, Platon, 2 vols., 1919, 51959 4 J. PLatrHy, Plato. A Critical Bio-

graphy, 1990

5K. Ries, Isokrates und Platon im Ringen

um die Philosophia, diss. Miinchen

1959

6K. GalsER,

Plato’s Enigmatic Lecture ‘On the Good’, in: Phronesis 25, 1980, 5-37. 7R. BOEHRINGER, Platon. Bildnisse und Nachweise, 1935 8 K. SCHEFOLD, Die Bildnisse der antiken Dichter, Redner und Denker, *1997 9 G. REALE (ed.), Platone. Tutti gli scritti, r991 10 E. Drer (ed.), Anthologia lyrica Graeca, vol. 1, 1958, 102-110 11 H. Bonitz, Index Aristotelicus, 1870 12 ZELLER 2,16 13 L. TaRAN,

Academica: Plato, Philip of Opus, and the Pseudo-Platonic Epinomis, 1975 14 F. SCHLEIERMACHER, Platons Werke, vol. 1.1, 1804, 5-36 (Introduction) 15 K.F. HER-

MANN, Geschichte und System der platonischen Philos., 1839 16P. FRIEDLANDER, Platon, 3 vols. 31964-1975 17 C.A. Bos, Interpretatie, vaderschap en datering van Alcibiades Maior, 1970 18P. WoopruFF, Hippias maior, 1982 19H. THESLEFF, Studies in Platonic Chronology, 1982 20L. EDELSTEIN, Plato’s Seventh Letter, 1966 21F. SOLMSEN, Review of [20], in: Gnomon 41, 1969, 29-34 22 W.G. TENNEMANN, System der platoni-

schen Philosophie, 1792-95

23 L. BRANDWOoD,

Chronology of Plato’s Dialogues, 1990

Re-counting Plato: 1989

The

24 G.R. LEDGER,

A Computer Analysis of Plato’s Style,

25P.T. Keyser, Review of [24], in: BMCIR

2,

1991, 422-427 26Id., Review of [23], in: BMCIR 3, 1992, 58-74 27P. SHOREY, The Unity of Plato’s Thought, 1903 28 L. Rosin, La théorie platonicienne des idées et des nombres d’aprés Aristote, 1908 29 H. CHER-

51 W. WiELAND, Platon

und die Formen des Wissens, 1982

52K. OEHLER, Pla-

(ed.), Amicus Plato magis amica veritas. Festschrift W. Wieland, 1998, 154-170 53 H.J. KRAMER, EIIEKEINA TH= OY3IAY. Zu Platon, Politeia so9b, in: AGPh 51, 1969, 1-30 541d., Dialettica e definizione del Bene in Platone, 1989 55 K. GatseR, Platons Zusammenschau der mathematischen Wissenschaften, in: A&A 32, 1986, 89-124 56P. STEMMER, Platons Dialektik. Die friihen und mittleren Dialoge, 1992 57 J.HALFWASSEN, Review of [56], in: AGPh 76, 1994, 220-225 58 K. Gatser, Platons Dialektik —damals und heute, in: Gymnasium Beiheft 9, 1987, 77-107. 59R. FERBER, Die Unwissenheit des Philosophen, 1991 60TH. A. SZLEZAK, Review of [59], in: Gnomon 69, 1997, 404-411 61K. AvBeErt, Uber Platons Begriff der Philosophie, 1989 62 A.N. WHITEHEAD, Process and Reality, 1941, 63. Epit1ons: J. Burnet (ed.), Platonis Opera, 5 vols., Oxford 1900-1907 (*1905-1913); E.A. DUKE et al. (ed.),

Platonis Opera: vol. 1, Oxford 1995; E. CHAMBRY et al. (ed., transl.), Platon, CEuvres completes, 13 vols., Paris 1920-1956.

TRANSLATIONS: FR. SCHLEIERMACHER, Platon, Samtliche Werke, Berlin 1804-1828 (several reprints); O. APELT, Platon, Samtliche Dialoge, 1916-1926 (reprint 1988); R. RUFENER, Platon, Samtliche Werke, 1960 et alibi

COMMENTARIES AND BIBLIOGRAPHIES: Cf. the comprehensive bibliographies: H.F. CHERNISS, L. BRISSON, H. IoANNIDI, in: Lustrum 4, 1959, 5-308; 5, 1960, 323648; 20, 1977, 5-304; 25, 1983, 31-320; 30, 1988, 11— 285 and 286-294; 34, 1992, 7-338; L. Brisson, F. PLIN, Platon. 1990-1995, 1999 (bibliography). T.AS.

niss, Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato and the Academy, vol.

[2] Poet of the Old Comedy. It is believed that he wrote

1, 1944 30D.W. Ross, Plato’s Theory of Ideas, 1951 31 Tu. A. SZLEzAx, Die Liickenhaftigkeit der akademischen Prinzipientheorien nach Aristoteles’ Darstellung in

four

Met. M und N, in: A. GRAESER (ed.), Mathematik und Metaphysik bei Aristoteles (X. Symposium Aristotelicum), 1987, 45-67 32 Id., Zur iiblichen Abneigung gegen die Agrapha dogmata, in: Méthexis 6, 1993, 155-174, esp. 158-160 33K. Gatser, Platons ungeschriebene Lehre, 1962 34J.R. Arana, Platon. Doctrinas no escritas. Antologia, 1998 35 TH. A. SZLEZAK, Platon und

die Schriftlichkeit der Philosophie, 1985

36H.J. Kra-

MER, Arete bei Platon und Aristoteles, 1959 37 G. VLAsTos, Review of [36], in: Gnomon 35, 1963, 641-655 38 TH. A. SzLEzAK, Dialogform und Esoterik. Zur Deu-

tung des platonischen Dialogs Phaidros, in: MH 35, 1978, 18-32 391d., Platon lesen, 1993 40 L. EDELSTEIN, Platonic Anonymity, in: AJPh 83, 1962, 1-22 41K. GalsEr, Platone come scrittore filosofico, 1984 42 F.J. GonzaLEz (ed.), The Third Way. New Directions in Platonic Stu-

28 plays [1. test. 1; 3]; 31 titles have been listed, but of them (Adxwvec/Lakones, Mauudxv0ov Mammakythoi, Xxevai/Skeuai, Luwucayia/Symmachia) were disputed even in antiquity. P. is said to have begun his career at approximately the same time as > Aristophanes [3] and > Eupolis [1. test. 6] and, like Aristophanes, to have first successfully entrusted his plays to other directors, while his own attempt at directing ‘PapdotxyoV/Rhabdotichoi (‘The referees’) led to his being downgraded to the status of a Lenaean poet (+ Lenaea) [1. test. 7]; it was not until several years after Aristophanes and Eupolis that he, too, achieved a victory at the > Dionysia [1. test. 8]; at the Lenaea of 405 he won third prize with his KAsop@v/Kleophén (‘Cleophon’) [1. test. 9]. His work for the stage can be followed up until the early 380s (cf. fr. *14; 196; 201).

SNe

354

His fragments reflect a typical poet of the political Old Comedy (cf. fr. *14; 303 653 853 1093 110; 1143

[4] P. Epiphanes (Exupavijc/Epiphanes). Bactrian king from the dynasty of Eucratides in the 2nd cent. BC, documented only by coins.

I16; 141; 148; 176; 201; 202; 203; 236; 239); P. devo-

ted entire plays to particularly notorious politicians (Yxéepohoc/Hyperbolos, ‘Hyperbolus’; Teioavdaoc/ Peisandros,

‘Peisander’;

Kheop@v/Kleophon,

‘Cleo-

phon’); the plays “Educ i) NijooVHellas e@ Nésoi (‘Greece or the islands’), Adxwvec i} Moutai/Lakones é Poiétai (‘The Spartans or the poets’), Métowmov Metoikoi (‘The metics’), Toéofet/Présbeis (‘The envoys’),

Lodtotai/Sophistai

(‘The

— sophists’),

Lunwayic/Symmachia (‘The alliance’) probably also dealt mainly with political subjects. Interest in poetry

and most of all in tragedy is also characteristic of Old Comedy (ridicule of Euripides: fr. 29; 142; ridicule of other tragedians and of actors: fr. 72; 1363; 1403 143; 1753 2353 cf. also the play titles Mou)¢/Poiétes, ‘The poet’; ‘Papdodyo/R habdoiichoi, ‘The referees’; Dxevai/

PLATORIUS

BOPEARACHCHI, 74, 220f.

K.K.

[5] P. the Younger. This author, whose creative period was probably around the middle of the rst cent. AD, is regarded by the Anthologia Palatina as responsible for three epigrams, each consisting of one distich: a variation on the theme of the blind man and the lame man (Anth. Pal. 9,13), and two descriptions of works of art (9,748; 751). Three other epideictic epigrams of the same kind, marked ‘P.’, have also been correctly attributed to him (9,747; 16,161; 248, the last two purely monostichic). FGE 82-84; GA II 2, 454f.; M. LausBerG, Das Einzeldistichon. Studien zum antiken Epigramm, 1982, 162; 211— 214; 365-368; 450.

M.G.A.

Skeuat, ‘The actors’ costumes’), and certain formal ele-

ments are typical as well (fr. 99: Eupolidean elements in the parabasis; fr. 182: from a dialogical entry scene, cf. Aristophanes’ ‘The knights’, ‘The wasps’, ‘Peace’ fr. 2o1: the personified demos speaks, cf. Aristophanes’ ‘The knights’.).

On the other hand, a large portion of P.’s work consists of myths (‘Adwvic/Adénis, Aaidadoc/Daidalos, ‘Daedalus’, Etownn/Europé, “Id/I6, Adioc/Ldios,

‘Laius’, Mevédewc/Menéledos, ‘Menelaus’, NvE paxod/ Nyx makra, ‘The long night’: probably the first comic treatment of the story of > Amphitryon, Eavta ij Kéoxwaec/Xantai é Kérkopes, ‘The wool carder or the Cercopes’: Hercules with Omphale), and some of these works dealt with their subject matter using ‘updated’ Attic features typical of the final period of Old Comedy and the early phase of Middle Comedy (in Zevc¢ xaxovuevoc/Zeus kakouimenos, “Zeus in difficulty’, Hercules takes part in a > Kottabos game, fr. 46-48; in Pawv/ Phdon there was a lengthy parody of a gastronomic poem by Philoxenus of Leucas, fr. 189). Perhaps because of such elements, P. was regarded as belonging to the Middle Comedy [t1. test. 16], a view that has occasionally been held since Late Antiquity, even today ({3], but cf. [2. 35-38]). Usually, however, he is unequivocally — and probably correctly — reckoned to be part of the Old Comedy [r. test. 2, 3, 12, 13, 185 fr.

Platonius (MAatwvioc; Platonios). Literary theorist of unknown date. The Prolegomena in Aristophanem preserves two treatises of P. on Attic > Comedy (one epitome [1] is disputed); they show Peripatetic influence, are highly schematic and in parts factually imprecise: 1. Peri diaphords komoidion, a justification of the distinctions between Old and Middle Comedy. Shifts in content and form (literary criticism, Suaovgeww/diasyrein, in place of political and personal attacks, oxwztew/ skoptein; disappearance of the chorus sections/parabaseis; grotesque in place of individualizing — masks) are explained in political terms, as reflecting the transition from democracy to oligarchy (fear of repression, changes in citizens’ interests). P. names no authors or plays of the Middle Comedy, and he probably no longer had direct knowledge of them. 2. Peri diaphoras charakteron, detailed discussions of characteristics (structure, style) of the three chief exponents of the Old Comedy: — Cratinus [1], > Eupolis, > Aristophanes

[3]. 1 H.-G. NESSELRATH: 1990, 30-34, passim.

Die

attische

Mittlere

Komédie,

Epitions: W.J. W. Koster (ed.), Scholia in Aristophanem 1,1 A, 1975, 3-7; F. PERUSINO, Platonio: La commedia greca, 1989 (with It. transl. and comm.). RSI.

145, 239]. — Comedy I 1 PCG VII, 1989, 431-548 2H.-G. NESSELRATH, Die attische Mittlere Komédie, 1990, 35-38 3R. ROSEN, Plato Comicus and the Evolution of Greek Comedy, in: G. Dosrov (ed.), Beyond Aristophanes, 1995, 119-137.

H.-G.NE. [3] Epistratégos of the Thebaid (> Court titles B 2) who

played a crucial role in 88 BC in putting down a rebellion by Ptolemy X. There were several homonymous individuals in his family. L. Mooren, E. vAN’r Dack, Le stratége Platon et sa famille, in: AC 50, 1981, 535-544; E. van’T Dack et al., The Judaean-Syrian-Egyptian Conflict of 103-101 B.C.,

1989, 147-149.

Wes

Platorius [1] A.P. Nepos Aponius Italicus Manilianus C. Licinius Pollio. Senator with a lengthy career under Trajan (> Traianus) and Hadrian (> Hadrianus). From a not especially promising start as triumvir capitalis, he at length gained Trajan’s support as praetor. Subsequently, he became curator viae Cassiae, Clodiae, Ciminiae

novae, Traianae; thereupon, during the > Parthian War; cia, AD 117/8; cos. suff., Hadrian, from which a close may be inferred. According

legate of legio I Adiutrix praetorian legate of ThraAD 119, together with association with the latter to SHA Hadr. 4,1f., this

PLATORIUS

355

356

connection dated from the Parthian War. He was con-

Plautius. Name of a Roman plebeian family, in the late Republic also often spelt Plotius, with no clear differ-

sular governor

of Germania

inferior

119/120-122,

whence he proceeded to Britannia accompanied by legio VI Victrix. The provincial troops constructed Hadrian’s Wall under his command (> Limes II). He later quarreled with Hadrian, perhaps over his succession; some of his property may have been requisitioned for the private imperial treasury. He probably came from the Iberian peninsula; an equestrian statue was erected under his patronage at Aquileia [1] (CIL V 877 =ILS 1052; cp. [1. t07-112]). P. [2] is his son or grand-

ence in use (cf. > Claudius/Clodius). The earliest epi-

[2] A.P. Nepos Calpurnianus. Cos. suff. in March 160

graphic evidence comes from Praeneste (among it the maker of the Ficoronian Cista, Novios Plautios, CIL I* 561), while the family in Rome achieved political eminence after 367 BC (MUNZER therefore considers them to have migrated from Praeneste [1. 42; 44f.; 412]), providing seven consuls between 358 and 318; their migration may explain their interest in integrating Latini (cf. P. [I 5]). The cognomina Proculus and Venox were initially individually assigned, but then inherited; the cognomen Decianus suggests a connection with the Decii (> Decius). In the 3rd cent. BC, the family lost its importance, appearing again only in the 2nd and rst cents. BC (cognomen Hypsaeus). Freedmen of the Plautii are well attested as traders in Delos [2. 68f.], slaves

(AE 1994,1914

on their estates in the rst cent. BC in Minturnae [3].

son. PIR* P 449. 1 W. Ecx, Mommsen e il metodo epigrafico, in: P. CROCE DaVita (ed.), Concordia e la X Regio. Atti del Convegno Portogruaro 1994, 1995.

= RMD

3, 173); same year, curator

alvei Tiberis, a post still attested for him in AD rér. Descendant of P. [1]. It is uncertain whether CIL VI 41128a refers to him. PIR* P 450. W.E.

1 Minzer 2 J. HatzFe.p, Les Italiens résidant a Délos, in: BCH 36, 1912, 5-ro1 3 J. JOHNSON, Excavations at Minturnae 2, 1, 1933.

Plaustrum see > Wagon, Chariot

I. REPUBLICAN

Plausus see > Applause

I. REPUBLICAN PERIOD {1 1] P. As tribunus plebis, probably in 70 or 69 BC (MRR 2,128; 3,158), he carried a law, with Caesar’s

Plautia [1] P. Urgulanilla. Daughter of M. Plautius [II 12] Silvanus, first wife of the future emperor > Claudius {III x] (wedding between AD 9 and ro); divorced, probably in 24, on grounds of debauchery and suspicion of murder (aiding in eliminating of Apronia [1], the wife of Plautius’ brother) (Tac. Ann. 4,22; on the date Suet. Claud. 26,2; 27,1; [1. 430; 2. 24f.]). The marriage produced two children: Claudia [II 1] Iulia and Claudius {II 23] Drusus (Suet. Claud. 27,1; [3. 135]). 1 R. SyMe, The Augustan Aristocracy, 1986 2B. LEvick, Claudius, 1990 3D. Batspon, Roman Women, 1962,

41974. PIR* P 488; RAEPSAET-CHARLIER, MANN, 76, 416 note 1541.

619; VOGEL-WEIDE-

[2] Mother of L. Aelius Caesar (> Ceionius [3]), © L. Ceionius [2] Commodus, C. Avidius [4] Nigrinus and Sex. > Vettulenus Civica Cerealis, cos. ord. AD 106. SyME, RP 1, 325ff.

[3] Her name can only be inferred from the nomenclature of Avidia [3] Plautia, the daughter of Avidius [4] Nigrinus, who was an amita (paternal aunt) on her side of the family of the emperor L. > Verus. Her mother P. must therefore also have been married to L. Ceionius [2] Commodus, cos. AD 106, Verus’ grandfather; and she, a grandmother of the emperor Verus. Presumably her third marriage was to Sex. > Vettulenus Civica Cerialis. She occupied a prominent role in the genealogy of the imperial house from — Hadrianus onwards ([x. 238f.] with stemmata). PIR? P 484. 1 A.R. Birtey, Marcus Aurelius, *1988, 23 8f.

W.E.

PERIOD

II. IMPERIAL PERIOD

support, allowing the return of the participants in the revolt of M. Aemilius [I 11] Lepidus, who had fled to Q. ~ Sertorius (Suet. jul. 5; Cass. Dio 44,47,4). P. may

also have been the author of a land law in favour of the veterans of > Pompeius [I 3](Cic. Att. 1,18,6); the lex

Plotia de vi (‘against use of force’) should probably be attributed to P. [I 12].

K-LE.

[12] P., A. A people’s tribune in 56 BC, acting in the interests of > Pompeius [I 3] (Cass. Dio 39,16,2); aed.

cur. in 55 BC (2) (Cic. Plane. 17; §3f.; cf. MRR 3,158); praetor in 51 BC, to the annoyance of Cicero (Cic. Att. 5,15,1). In 49/8, he apparently was — without observing the legal delay — propraetor of Bithynia-Pontus (Cic. Fam. 13,29,4), where he may have been killed in the fighting against the supporters of Caesar: in 47 BC, Caesar had confiscated bona Plotiana sold (Cic. Fam.

13,8,2). Through his son M.P. (= PIR2 P 477) Silvanus and his grandson P. [II 12], P.’s family lived on into the Imperial period. A.P. is not identical with the P. (or Plotius?) who was legate of Pompeius against the pirates in 67 BC (Flor. Epit. 1,41,9) and perhaps in Judaea in 63 (App. Mithr. 43 5). He is possibly the vir primarius C.P. mentioned in 59 BC (Cic. Flacc. 50); identification with P. [I r] is contested.

JOR.

{I 3] P., C. Praetor in 146 BC; his province was Hispa-

nia Ulterior. He marched against > Viriatus, but suffered a major defeat (App. Hisp. 64; Liv. Per. 52; Oros. 55453). In 145 BC, he was convicted of high treason (> Maiestas) and exiled (Diod. Sic. 33,2). ALEXANDER, 3f.

PN,

997,

358

[14] P., C. He is supposed to have sexually molested and beaten T. Veturius, a young son of the homonymous consul of 334 and 321 BC, who had become his debt slave (+ Nexum). The boy’s complaint before the consuls is said to have led to P.’s arrest at the urging of the Senate (Val. Max. 6,1,9). The same anecdote is told of other persons as precedent for the mitigation of laws on debt bondage (Liv. 8,28,2-9 for the year 326; ~ Poetelius [3]). HOLKESKAMP,

159-160.

[I 5] P. Decianus, C. In 329 BC, the second of three Plautii (P. [I 14] and [I r1]) who succeeded one another

as consul. This remarkable event was a zenith of the history of the > gens that suddenly become prominent in the second half of the 4th cent. The unbroken sequence of 330-328 suggests a family group working together and attaining and maintaining preeminence through a nexus of contacts. This is also indicated by the fact that P. was the first Roman to use his cognomen (Decianus) to indicate the gens from which he was adopted, thus using his name to show where he belonged. The rise of the Plautii was probably aided by their origin in the local elite of > Tibur or > Praeneste: the will and ability to integrate made them an important factor in the assimilation of the > Latini. The annalists claim P. conquered > Privernum, but then supported the admission of the conquered into the Roman citizenry (Liv. 8,20-21). His descendant P. [I 8] only recalled, as chief of the mint in 58 BC, a real or imaginary triumph of P. over Privernum (RRC 420). MUNZER, 36-45.

TAS.

[I 6] P. Hypsaeus, L. As praetor in 138 or 135 BC (MRR

1,482 Anm.

1; 3,159), he was sent with 8000

troops to suppress the slave rebellion in Sicily, where he was defeated by a numerically superior slave army (Diod. Sic. 34/3 5,2,18; Flor. Epit. 2,7,7).

[I 7] P. Hypsaeus, M. Cicero attests to the insufficiency ofhis legal knowledge as prosecutor in a court case over guardianship in c. 126 BC (Cic. De or. 1,166f.). In 125, as the first of his gens after a hiatus of 200 years, P. rose to the consulship (MRR 1,510). Whereas his colleague M. Fulvius [I 9] Flaccus, a supporter of the Gracchi

PLAUTIUS

must have been praetor, since in 53 he stood against T. Annius [I 14] Milo for consul (Ascon. 30 C.), with the support of Pompeius and P. Clodius [I 4] Pulcher. The

politically desired anarchy in Rome frustrated the elections; in 52, P.’s followers destroyed the house of the interrex M. Aemilius [I 12] Lepidus. As soon as Pom-

peius was elected consul thanks to the unrest, he dropped P. as his puppet and demonstratively permitted his conviction for corruption (Val. Max. 9,5,3). The mention of a senator P.P. in the middle of 44 (Jos. Ant. Iud. 14,220) could indicate that P. was pardoned by Caesar. JO.F.

[19] P. Plancus, L. Praetor in 43 BC, see

Munatius

[I 2] Plancus, C.

K-LE. [1 10] P. Proculus, C. Consul in 358 BC, the first representative of his gens in the consulship (MRR 1, 121). He was

victorious fighting the > Hernici (Liv. 7,12,6; 15,9). For this victory the acta triumphalia attest a triumph for P. (Inscrlt 13,1,68f; 402f.) — admittedly passed over by Livius. In 356, P., only the second plebeian to hold this office, was > magister equitum of the ~ dictator C. Marcius [I 25] Rutilus (Liv. 7,16,6).

[1 11] P. Proculus, P. Son of P. [I ro]. A colonization at ~ Fregellae has been deduced for P.’s consulship in 328 BC (Liv. 8,22,1f.). Diodorus Siculus 17,87,1 incorrectly adduces a certain A. Postumius instead of P., meaning that both consuls would still be patrician that year. C.MU. {1 12] P. Silvanus, M. People’s tribune in 89 or 88 BC (MRR 3, 159), co-author with his colleague C. Papirius [I 6] Carbo of the lex Plautia Papiria after the close of the > Social Wars [3]. This law specified the conferral of Roman citizenship: those who had received local citizenship in the Italian cities allied to Rome (ascripti) but did not reside there could obtain Roman citizenship within 60 days by applying to a praetor (Cic. Arch. 7; [z. rsrf.]). P. also enacted a law reopening participation in court juries to senators (Cic. Pro Cornelio 1,54 SCHOELL with Ascon. 79 C. [2. 274f.]; see Q.— Varius) and perhaps a law against the use of force (de vi, Cic. Mil. 35; Sall. Catil. 34,1). 1 A.N. SHERWIN-WHITE, The Roman Citizenship, *1973; 2 B.H. MarsHatt, A Historical Commentary on Asconius, 1985. K-LE.

(+ Sempronius Gracc(h)us), was sent off by the senate

to fight the Gauls, P. was probably on the side of the senate majority (speech by C. Gracchus against him, Val. Max. 9,5, externi 4). P. then probably assumed the administration of a province (Asia?), as there was no

consul in Rome when > Fregellae rebelled. MUNZER, 42, note I.

P.N.

[18] P. Hypsaeus, P. Partisan of + Pompeius [I 3]. P. was quaestor for him in c. 66-63 BC in the eastern provinces (Ascon. 35 C.; cf. Cic. Flacc. 20 with Schol. Bobiensia 100 Sr.). In 58, as aedilis curulis, he minted coins glorifying his ancestor P. [I 5] (RRC 420). In 56, P. pressed for Pompeius to be charged with repatriating Ptolemaeus XII to Egypt (Cic. Fam. 1,1,3). Inc. 55, he

[I 13] P. Venox, C.

— Censor in 312 BC with Ap. Claudius [I 2] Caecus. His time in office is completely overshadowed by his famous colleague (Diod. Sic. 20,36,1-5); unlike him, P. abdicated at the end of his term (Liv. 9,29,7f.; 33,4). [I 14] P. Venox, L. In 330 BC, the first of three consecutive consuls from his gens (> P. [I 5]). In the war with — Privernum he assured the loyalty of Fundi through a demonstration of power and then took part in besieging his adversary (Liv. 8,19-20,1). [I 15] P. Venox, L. Praetor in 322 BC and consul in 318.

His devastating campaign in Apulia forced Teanum and Canusium into > deditio. In the region of Privernum, conquered by his father (?) P. [I 14], the — tribus

359

360

Oufentina was created at the time (Liv. 9,20,1-6), also, the tribus Falerna (> Ager Falernus) was established.

ers of > Titus in the senate. Domitianus later had him executed; the reason is not known. L. Lamia Aelianus, cos. suff. in 116, was a descendant of his. PIR* A 205.

PLAUTIUS

TA.S.

SyME, RP 4, 168f.; 257.

Il. IMPERIAL PERIOD {Il 1] Roman lawyer. At the end of the rst cent. AD, he wrote a work of unknown title which probably treated mainly of the ius honorarium (> lus B.) [3. 66f.]. This work in the tradition of > Proculus [1] [2. 50] was commented upon by ~Iavolenus [2], — Neratius [4], — Pomponius [II 3] and > Iulius [IV 16] Paulus; the latter’s compilation contains seven direct quotations [1]. Despite the lack of any data on the person of P., the hypothesis [4] that his name was only a pseudonym of -» Pegasus is unfounded. 1 O. LEeNEL (ed.), Palingenesia Iuris Civilis, vol. 2, 1889,

13f. 2H. Srper,s.v. Plautius, RE 21, 1951, 45-51 3C.A. Mascut, La scienza del diritto all’eta dei Flavi, in: Atti del Congresso Internazionale di Studi Vespasianei (Rieti 1979), vol. 1, 1981, 59-83

4 R.A. Bauman, Lawyers and

Politics in the Early Roman Empire, 1989, 163f., 187f.

LG:

[II 2] A.P. Possibly a son of the homonymous proconsul of Cyprus under Augustus (PIR* P 455). He originated from Trebula Suffenas. Cos. suff. in 1 BC. Sent by Augustus to Apulia to suppress a slave revolt (ILS 961 = AE 1990, 222). Probably the father of P. [II 3]. PIR* P 456. {11 3] A.P. Probably the son of P. [I] 2]. Born c. 5 BC. Quaestor of > Tiberius in 20/1 AD; compiled for Tiberius the text of the SC de Cn. Pisone Patre on 14 tabellae (tablets) [1. 103ff.]; praetor urbanus in 26, cos. suff. in 29; mentioned as a legate in an inscription found north of Tergeste, from which it can be deduced that he was either legate of Pannonia or, more likely, legate extraordinary in northern Italy [2. 3.9]. Claudius [III 1] charged him with command of the army to conquer Britain; under him the south of the island was conquered from 43 to 46/7. Claudius himself participated in the first large-scale battle. In 47 he was the last senator allowed to march into Rome ina minor triumph (— Ovatio). He

was married to Pomponia [3] Graecina, who, though accused of ‘foreign superstition’ in AD 57, was acquitted by him in a domestic court (Tac. Ann. 13,32,2). For

his influence cf. also Tac. Ann. 11,36,4. PIR? P 457. 1 W. Eck, A. CaBBALLOS, F. FERNANDEZ, Das s.c. de Cn.

Pisone patre, 1996

2 BIRLEY.

[If 4] A.P. Perhaps a son of P. [II 3]. Described by Suetonius as a iuvenis, the emperor > Nero had him killed because he hoped to rule one day, as he was related to Nero and had good connections with Agrippina [3] (Suet. Nero 35,4). PIR* P 458. [If 5] Q.P. Cos. ord. in 36 AD; probably a younger brother of P. [II 3]. PIR* P 459. {II 6] L. Aelius Lamia P. Aelianus. Senator. He was married to > Domitia [6] Longina, daughter of Domitius {II rx] Corbulo; emperor — Domitianus [1] married her in AD 70; he had allegedly taken her from P. (Suet. Dom. r). Cos. suff. in 81; probably one of the support-

[II 7] L. Titius P. Aquilinus. Cos. ord. in AD 162, brother of P. [II ro]. PIR* P 460. {II 8] P. Lateranus. Son of P. [II 5]. In AD 48, he was accused of adultery with > Messalina [2], wife of Claudius [III 1]; because of his uncle’s services to the empire — probably P. [II 3] — he was not executed, but only dismissed from the senate. In 55, > Nero readmitted him to the senate. In AD 65, as consul designatus, he was executed after taking part in the conspiracy against Nero. His property on the Lateran hill was confiscated.

PIR? P 468.

[II 9] P.P. Pulcher. Son of P. [II 12]. His early career was promising — triamvir monetalis, quaestor of > Tiberius in AD 31 — but seems to have decelerated: as late as 47/8, when Claudius [III 1] enrolled him among the patricians, he had reached only praetorian rank; subsequently he was only proconsul Siciliae and augur. He did not attain consulship, surprising in view of his age and socio-political position. He was buried near Tibur (ILS 964). PIR? P 472. {11 10] P. Quintillus. Cos. ord. in AD 159. Father-inlaw of emperor Lucius > Verus; father of P. [II rz]. RIRGRearae [11 11] M. Peducaeus P. Quintillus. Son of P. [II ro], adopted by a certain Peducaeus. Cos. ord. with > Commodus in AD 177; son-in-law of Marcus [2] Aurelius, probably by marriage to his daughter Fadilla; In 193, he battled in the senate with Didius [II 6] Iulianus; he was killed under > Septimius Severus [1. 23 8f.]. PIR* P 474. 1 A.R. Brrtey, Marcus Aurelius, *1988.

{i 12] M.P. Silvanus. Probably a son of the homonymous senator in AE 1972, 162 = 1984, 177, which also

explains his origin from Trebula Suffenas. Cos. ord. with > Augustus in 2 BC; by c. AD 4/5, proconsul of Asia, where he was accompanied by his wife Lartia (PIR* L 114). Active in Galatia and Pamphylia in AD 6/7 as legatus Augusti pro praetore, whence he led troops into Pannonia to fight the rebels. In AD 8/9, he was victorious over the > Breuci and > Dalmatae, and

received triumphal insignia. He is buried with his family in the tomb of the Plautii near Tibur (ILS 964). On the question of the attribution of the titulus Tiburtinus (CIESXIVs 3'6n3 =s1ES. tom8 s= ainscrleeasaeyan3 o:6 ch. {x. r99f.]). PIR? P 478. 1G. ALFOLDY, Un celebre frammento epigrafico Tiburtino, in: I. pt STEFANO MANZELLA (ed.), Le iscrizioni dei Cristiani in Vaticano, 1997.

[Il 13] M.P. Silvanus. Son of P. [Il 12], probably the adoptive father of P. [II 14]; praetor urbanus in AD 24;

second marriage with an Apronia whom for unexplained reasons he threw to her death; impeached in the senate, he killed himself with a dagger sent him by his

361

362

grandmother > Urgulania (Tac. Ann. 4,22,1f.). PIR* P

familiar to P. [1. 6; 2. 142, 151], and he probably even acted in both [14. 84; 1. 2; 2. 142, 151].

479. (I 14] Ti.P. Silvanus Aelianus. For his senatorial origin see summary in PIR* VI p. 199: probably a son of Aelius [II 16] Lamia, cos. ord. in AD 3, adopted by either P. [II x2] or P. [Il 13]. His career is preserved complete in CIL XIV 3608 = ILS 986 in the form of res gestae. Asa patrician he became triumvir monetalis and quaestor of > Tiberius; as a quaestorian he became legionary legate; he accompanied Claudius [III 1] to > Britannia in 43; cos. suff. 45. Proconsul of Asia probably in 5 5/6. Under > Nero, probably after 60, he was a consular legate in Moesia (> Moesi); sustaining battles with the + Sarmatae and > Scythians, he brought a considerable number of kings beyond the Danube to recognize Roman rule and settled more than 100,000 people in Moesia from beyond the Danube. He did not receive the > ornamenta triumphalia for this until under > Vespasianus. In 70, as pontifex, he conducted the ceremony for the reconstruction of the temple of Jupiter on the + Capitolium in Rome. Appointed governor of Hispania Tarraconensis by Vespasianus, he probably did not accept the charge, since in the meantime he had been appointed > praefectus urbi in Rome. Cos. II suff. as successor to Vespasianus on 13 January 74. Interred in

the grave monument of the Plautii near Tibur. PIR? P 480.

W.E.

Plautus. T. Maccius P., the outstanding Roman comic playwright, brought the genre of > palliata to a zenith. Their exceptionally broad reception rightly renders both him and Terence (— Terentius) ‘fathers of modern comedy’. For general background information see ~ Comedy II. I. Lire

IJ. CULTURAL

IV. VistON

BACKGROUND

V. DRAMATIC

VII. TRANSMISSION

ART

III. Works

VI. LANGUAGE

VIII. RECEPTION

I. LIFE Despite P.” great popularity in his own lifetime, but little of his biography is known for certain. The date of the first performance of Pseudolus, 191 BC, coupled with Cicero’s remark that P. wrote this play and the Truculentus as a senex (‘old man’: Cic. Cato 50), points to a date of birth around 250 BC, though it may well be later. P. hailed from the Umbrian town of > Sarsina. According to Gell. NA 3,3,14 (drawing on Varro and others), he worked as a stage hand (in operis artificum scaenicorum), was engaged in a business venture in which he lost all of his money, and took employment in a mill. Of greatest interest amongst these colourful reports is the first: P. seems to have learned stagecraft starting from the bottom. Both Maccius and P. could well be nicknames of the Umbrian Titus [14. 83; 1. 2]. Maccius (Maccus, the ‘fool’, a stock character of the ~ Atellana fabula) points to a familiarity with the Atellana [1. 2; 3. 148]; and P. (‘flatfooted’), to one with +> mime [2. 151; I. 2; 3. 152]. Both genres were quite

PLAUTUS

Il. CULTURAL BACKGROUND P.’ biography may well explain why he incorporated oral Italic dramatic elements into his plays to such an exceptional degree — on the sheer assumption that a stagehand and actor with years of experience in improvization could not bear producing a verbatim translation of a Greek comedy (which, at any rate, would have been a fruitless anachronism). Inasmuch as P. succeeded in introducing his audience to ‘high’ literature through familiar dramatic forms and in turning the indigenous ‘sketches’ into veritable plays through the adaptation of continuous dramatic plots, his plays are an ingenious combination of Greek ‘literacy’ and Roman ‘orality’ [3. 154]. An assessment ofthe value ofP.’ plays just for their imitation of Greek originals ignores not only their unique character, but also their author’s intention. Although elaborate adaptations of Greek were first produced by Roman poets (+ Neoteric poets) in the rst cent. BC, P.’ endeavour to surpass the accep-

ted, but comparatively ‘tame’ originals in dramatic effect and wit, and to make them into something ‘genuine’ can be taken for given. The tradition of dramatic improvization is also apparent in his numerous ‘metatheatrical’ structures and observations [15; 19] as well as in his complicated intrigues [20. 19; 4]. III. Works

Current scholarship attributes 21 comedies to P., commonly known as the fabulae Varronianae (cf. VII below). Not a single play by P. can be dated with certainty in the 3rd cent. BC ([18]; possible exceptions are the Miles gloriosus and Cistellaria). P. apparently emerged as a ‘literary’ poet only in his later years. The Stichus was first performed in 200 BC, the Pseudolus in 191. Their models belong consistently to Greek New Comedy (— Comedy I.H.). Knowledge of Old Comedy is ill-evidenced as is the attribution of various originals to Middle Comedy (sometimes guessed for the Amphitruo, Persa and Poenulus). The Casina (Klérotimenoi) and Rudens (Epitropé?) are traced back

to > Diphilus [5]; the Bacchides (Dis exapaton), Cistellaria (Synaristésai) and parts of the Stichus (Adelphoi) to Menander [4]; and the Mercator (Emporos) and Trinummus (Thésauroés) to > Philemon [2]. All other attributions are uncertain. The Stichus is telling for P.? work method. The ~» hypothesis names Menander as its model, though it is clear this can apply only to the beginning of the (short) play [22]. Reference to a performance of Menander’s comedy in southern Italy quite a few years earlier cannot be ruled out; P. was about 50 years old when he wrote the play. He may also have composed his version based on a précis of the original. The same might also apply to the adaptation of other plays considered to have been written without direct models (the Epidicus [7]: very controversial, the Menaechmi [20], Asinaria,

363

364

although P. referrs to an otherwise unknown poet named Demophilus (cf. - Demophilus [3] in the prologue) [21], and the Truculentus [9]). In all probability, the same also applies to the Persa. In this sense, to speak of a reworking of Greek originals for the comedies in question is a matter of definition. The Amphitruo seems to be unique: it is probably directly based on a tragedy (a Roman adaptation of Euripides’ [1] lost Alkmeéné; [11]). The Aulularia is frequently supposed to be based on Menander (albeit with little certainty). Several plays resist any statement regarding their models: the Captivi,

with which old people are swindled out of considerable sums of money does not reflect reality. These daring plots of deception were accepted in Rome also because the beneficiaries of material success generally are not slaves, but the sons of strict and miserly fathers who have fallen in love with a hetaera or a free-born girl. If marriage ensues — as it so often does — the lost money remains with the family in any case.

PLAUTUS

Curculio, Epidicus, Miles gloriosus, Mostellaria, Poe-

nulus, Pseudolus, Vidularia (extant only in fragments).

IV. VISION The typical 3rd-cent. BC world view of New Comedy held no value for 2nd-cent. Rome, with a number of logical consequences. Foremost, the Greek view that the sway of Agathé Tyché (‘Good Fortune’), ensured the plot, however intricate, a happy ending is not transferable. Neither a theological interpretation nor a moral can be discerned in P. Every character is concerned with only his own personal advantage. Generally speaking, the social structures and problems of the Attic petite bourgeoisie do not match the Roman situation. The paradox of Plautine comedy is that it does not bring Roman society to the stage, but so bends and sharpens the plots of Greek plays as not to reflect any real situation, Greek or Roman. P.’ comedy, like the later commedia dell’arte, floats in mid-air.

Authority figures, in particular the > pater familias, but also matchmakers and bankers (important for the impoverished, love-lorn young man) are derided or taken advantage of in drastic fashion: in real life those who initiated such intrigues, generally slaves, would have been threatened with severe punishments, possibly even death. After cheating and tricking him for all he is worth, Pseudolus burps in his master’s face (1295) and then places his foot on the latter’s neck with the word of the Gallic chieftain > Brennus: Vae victis (‘Woe to the

vanquished!’) (1318). This conclusion to the play, as unrealistic as it is inflammatory [10. 86-91], will have amused even an upper-class audience. The same applies

to the final scene of the Bacchides. Two honourable fathers — attempting to save their sons from entrapment by two hetairai both called Bacchis — in the end fall prey to these women and are humiliated as bleating sheep (1123). The key words deridere (‘to deride’, 1126) and stultae (‘stupid’, i.e. oves, ‘sheep’, 1139) are clear and

prominent. Since this dialogue was sung, FRAENKEL appropriately describes it as a ‘duet of sheep’ [6. 423]. In the Asinaria or the Casina, patres familias are exposed by women in the most compromising of situations — an occurrence unthinkable in Rome, thus showing the extent to which P.’ comedies turned actual social conditions upside down. The final scene of the Mercator even shows a ‘legal trial’ in which his son and the son’s friend condemn the senex (‘old man’). The world of the

+ Saturnalia is clearly palpable here. The frequency

V. DRAMATIC ART With the irrelevance of the Greek outlook for Rome, the Greek dramatic art that animated this outlook also proved inapplicable; not least, use of the popular dramatic tool of — anagnorisis (recognition of a child believed to have been lost — generally a daughter — as a young adult) was prejudicially aimed at a ‘good’ ending. P. eliminates such scenes of sentimental recognition at the end of his plays, creating space instead for comic scenes of his own stamp. Generally, the individual parts of a plot no longer have a thoroughgoing connection, but gain their own intrinsic value which, depending on the author’s preference, allows both unlimited expansion or reduction to the point of absurdity. Contradictions and irregularities are not the result of the poet’s incompetence, but of his desire to provide each individual scene, each individual conceit, with the greatest possible impact, even, if need be, at the cost of the plot’s structure. Contradictions are of particular importance in the analysis of P.’ sources. Eminent in this field were T. LapewiIG, F. Leo and the latter’s pupils E. FRAENKEL [6] and G. JACHMANN [8]. roth-cent. scholars frequently attempted to explain inconsistencies with an assumed ‘contamination’, i.e. the combination of two Greek originals. This phenomenon was confirmed by Terence in his prologues to the Andria, Heautontimorumenos and Adelphoe. But the thesis of this method no longer holds weight, even though Terence explicitly refers to P. in this connection (Andr. 18). The invention of a new sub-plot of a few hundred verses is no problem for the experienced, astute Umbrian P. Furthermore, the set pieces in New Comedy plots and the > palliata keep repeating themselves, such that care must be taken in deducing interdependencies from similarities in plot and motifs. An important alternative approach in the analysis of sources is to distinguish between Greek and Roman law in the plays [17]. VI. LANGUAGE P. language, which the Umbrian poet created with seemingly inexhaustible imagination and skill, still clings closely to archaic structures [5]. Though he is strongly indebted to the characteristics of the spoken language, he does not simply reproduce colloquial speech. On the contrary, his idiom — including his popular swearwords ~ is a highly artificial creation, placing him amongst the leading linguistic innovators in world literature. His scurrilous humour is largely based on puns. Many of his well-honed techniques originate

365 from the — fescennini versus. The beguiling ring and onomatopoeia often triumph over their trivial content. Musical accompaniment may well have further emphasized this effect. VI. TRANSMISSION The text of P. is uncertain. In the first half of the roth

cent., especially F. RirscHt greatly contributed to this end. Considering that the reconstructive efforts of that are, despite their erudition, century somewhat arbitrary, the conservative editions by F. LEO (1895/96)

and W.M. Linpsay (1904/5) do represent progress insofar as they provide an adequate picture of the trans-

mission. The problem of interpolations remains unsolved to this day. Of course, if up to 40% of the transmitted text is considered interpolated [23], there is a risk of separating the ‘Plautine in P.’ from the Umbrian himself. On the other hand, the rst cent. BC possessed much under P.’s name that was not genuine: > Aelius [II 20] Stilo recognized only 25 of 130 comedies attributed to P. (Gell. NA 3,3,13) as genuine, > Varro 21 (Gell. NA 3,3,3) (fabulae Varronianae). It is thus probable that much genuine material has been lost and that some falsely attributed material has been transmitted. However, the ‘inauthentic’ comedies transmitted under

P.’ name are not necessarily forgeries, because Gellius (NA 3,3,13) has no doubts that P. also adapted older Roman plays. VIII. RECEPTION P. was well received throughout Antiquity and into Late Antiquity. The Middle Ages had no complete knowledge of his comedies. His reception experienced an upturn with the discovery of his remaining comedies in 1429. The Humanists then took P. as a shining example for their own creative work, initially in Latin (comoedia erudita), then in the lingua volgare. From there, the commedia dell’arte took up his subject matter and techniques and thus disseminated them across Europe. Great poets such as ARIOSTO, SHAKESPEARE and MouizRE also recognized his genius and were inspired by him. Until J.M. R. Lenz, he remained an almost unrivaled example. Only the enthusiasm for all things Greek in WINCKELMANN’s wake restricted P.’ hitherto widespread reception [16]. + Comedy; — Palliata; > Comepy; > LATIN COMEDY LITERATURE.: 1/J. Barspy (ed.), P., Bacchides, 1986 (with Engl. trans. and comm.) 2 W. Beare, The Roman Stage, 31964 3L. BENz, Die rémisch-italische Stegreifspieltradition zur Zeit der Palliata, in: Id., E. STARK, G. Voct-Spira (ed.), P. und die Tradition des Stegreifspiels, 1995, 139-154 4M. BerriNi, Verso un’antropologia

dell’intreccio e altri studi su Plauto, 1991 5 J. BLANSpor, Archaische Gedankengange in den Komédien des P., 1967 6E. FRAENKEL, Plautinisches im P., 1922 75S. GoLpBERG, P.’s Epidicus and the Case of the Missing Original, in: TAPhA 108, 1978, 81-91 8G. JACHMANN, Plautinisches und Attisches, 1931 9 E. LEFEVRE, Truculentus oder der Triumph der Weisheit, in: [12], 175-200 10 Id., P.’s Pseudolus, 1997 11 Id., P.’s Amphitruo zwi-

366

PLEASURE

schen Tragédie und Stegreifspiel, in: TH. BArER (ed.), Studien zu P.’s Amphitruo, 1999, r1-50 12 Id., E. STARK, G. VocrT-Spira, P. barbarus, 1991 13 P. Leyay, Plaute, 1925 14F. Leo, Plautinische Forschungen, *1912 15s Moore, The Theater of P., 1998 16 K. VON REINHARD-

STOETTNER,

Spatere Bearbeitungen

spiele,

17 A.D. Scaruro, The Forensic Stage, 1997

1886

plautinischer

Lust-

18 K.H. E. Scnurrer, Quibus annis comoediae Plautinae primum actae sint quaeritur, thesis, Groningen 1952 19 N. W. SLaTeEr, P. in Performance, *2000 20 E. STARK, Die Menaechmi des P. und kein griechisches Original, 1989

21G. Vocr-Spira,

Asinaria oder Maccus

vortit

Attice, in: [12], 11-69 22 Id., Stichus oder Ein Parasit wird Hauptperson, in: [12], 163-174 23 O. ZWIERLEIN, Zur Kritik und Exegese des P., 4 vols., 1990-1992. COMPREHENSIVE

EDITIONS:

F. LEO, 2 vols., 1895/6;

W.M. Linpsay, 2 vols., 1904/5; C. Questa, Titi Macci Plauti Cantica, 1995. LEXICON: G. LODGE, 2 vols., 1924-1933.

EL.

Plays see + Spectacles Pleasure (ij50vn/hédone, Lat. voluptas). A. DEFINITION AND BACKGROUND BB. PLATO AND ARISTOTLE C. HELLENISTIC PHILOSOPHY D. CHRISTIAN

A. DEFINITION AND BACKGROUND The Greek idea of pleasure as the aim and defining motive in conducting one’s life appears comparatively early in Greek didactic literature, with both positive and negative assessments (e.g. Hes. Op. 287-92; Theognis 983-985; Simonides fr. 71; 79; particularly im-

pressive in > Prodicus’ parable of the choice of > Heracles between the easy path of physical pleasure and the arduous path of virtue, Xen. Mem. 2,21-34). The terminology was initially not clearly defined (alongside hédone there was also chard, euphrosyneé, térpsis, i.e. joy, enjoyment, pleasure) and no distinction was made between pleasurable emotions, sensations, perceptions or thoughts. Democritus appears to have been the only one amongst the Presocratics to assign a special role to joy or cheerfulness (euthymia) (regarding the physiological theory of Empedocles, Anaxagoras and Diogenes [12] of Apollonia, cf. Theophrastus, De sensu 16).

The Pythagoreans had a reputation of rejecting any kind of pleasure, as did > Antisthenes [1] later on. By contrast, the position maintained by Aristippus [3] and his school was unreservedly hedonistic. However, before Plato, there is no extant systematic analysis of the conditions for psychological or ethical hedonism. B. PLATO AND ARISTOTLE Plato discussed pleasure as a possible highest good for the first time in his Protagoras (351b-358e), without clearly defining his own position. In his earlier dialogues Gorgias und Phaedo, he expressed principal disapproval, defining pleasure as nothing but a disruptive factor (used almost synonymously with desire, émiOuuta/epithymia). Later on, in his Republic, he

367

368

deviated from this position and developed (possibly following the medical concepts of > Alcmaeon [4] of Croton and > Hippocrates [6]) the concept of pleasure as the compensation of a deficiency and introduced a distinction between spiritual and physical pleasure (5 80d—5 88a). This theory of pleasure as the restitution of a natural balance (in contrast with epithymia as the mere desire for such compensation) he elaborated systematically in the Philebus, one of his later dialogues (possibly in reply to the famous mathematician and astronomer > Eudoxus [1] of Cnidus, who defended a

sure — still prevalent today — is the result of + Cicero’s

PLEASURE

‘natural hedonism’, and to distance himself from the criticism of pleasure expressed by ~— Speusippus). Looking at the intentional objects of such compensatory processes makes it possible for pleasure to be either true or false, thus providing a rational criterion for its assessment. In Plato’s Laws, pleasure and pain appear as essential aspects of an education towards the right measure

(Pl. Leg.

1,631e-632a;

633a-636e;

634d-

645C; 2,653-660d; 674d-e; 5,732e-734Cc). Despite his positive assessment of certain kinds of pleasure as part of a good life, Plato continued to emphasize the need for rational control. Aristotle adopted the notion of the right measure of affects (including pleasure and pain) in his concept of virtue (Aristot. Eth. Nic., 2 B), but in his two independently written treatises on pleasure (Eth. Nic., bk. 7, 11-14 and bk. ro, 1-5), he rejected Plato’s notion of

pleasure as a compensation and a génesis, but saw pleasure as an integral component of perfect activity (enérgeia, entelécheia). Perfect activities in tune with one’s own nature are eo ipso pleasurable. — Happiness (eudaimonia) as the perfect life of exercising one’s best abilities thus includes pleasure, but is not identical with it. It is still debated whether the concept in Aristot. Eth. Nic. bk. ro (pleasure as the ultimate perfection of a perfect activity) represents a significant change compared with the concept outlined in bk. 7 (pleasure as the perfect exercise of a natural ability). C. HELLENISTIC PHILOSOPHY The distinction between pleasure as a process and pleasure as a state is echoed in > Epicurus’ differentiation between kinematic pleasure (process) and katastematic pleasure (state), the former consisting in a lib-

eration from pain, while the latter exists in the state of rest and was regarded as the superior kind of pleasure. For that reason, Epicurus equated pleasure with contentment, which as such could not be intensified. Accor-

ding to his views, life without physical complaints or disturbances resulting from fear or desire guaranteed inner peace

(— ataraxia;

letter to Menoeceus,

Diog.

Laert. 10,128f.). Epicurean hedonism was thus aimed at ascetic self-restraint, and hence it might be more appropriate to speak of contentment or the enjoyment of not being disturbed, rather than of pleasure. Whereas pleasure played but a minor role in > Lucretius’ [III r] representation of Epicureanism (De natura rerum), the

negative image of the Epicurean ethics regarding plea-

polemics (Cic. Fin. 2; Cic. Tusc. 5).

Like the Epicureans, Stoics regarded inner peace as the greatest good; but they had a different conception of pleasure. Stoicism identified pleasure with an excessive commotion of the soul (pathos, Lat. affectio/affectus, perturbatio/motus animi, pejoratively aegritudo) based on wrong evaluative judgements, and thus contrasted it with chara (Lat. laetitia, hilaritas, also gaudium), high spirits based on reason, which was seen as integral to a sage’s inner well-being (eupdtheia, Lat. constantia). Thanks to Cicero and > Seneca (De vita beata), the Epicurean and Stoic notions of pleasure continued to dominate the debate on pleasure in the Roman philosophy of Late Antiquity. Initially, early Christianity took guidance from the Stoic views, while later on — Plotinus’ world-detached Neo-Platonic notions dominated. In the Renaissance, the Stoic and Epicurean teachings on pleasure once again became central (particularly as the result of the rediscovery of Diogenes Laertius) to the philosophical debate about what represented the highest good in life. ~ Desire 1 J.C. B. Gostina, C.C. W. Taytor, The Greeks on Pleasure, 1981.

D. FreDE, Platon, Philebos, 1997; A.J. FESTUGIERE, Aristote: Le plaisir, 1936; PH. Muirsis, Epicurus’ Ethical Theory. The Pleasures of Invulnerability, 1988. D.FR.

D. CHRISTIAN In the New Testament, pleasure (hédoné; similarly epithymia) refers to a force that opposes God’s work, one that pulls human beings into the realm of evil. In humans, pleasure stands against the will of God (cf. Jac Avctfsw Matus) 353) + Augustinus essentially maintained the Stoic ideal of apathy, including the feeling of well-being, but transferred it to the afterlife. In contrast with the Stoics, however, he also recognized a positive aspect of affects in this world, as long as they affirmed the orientation of the will towards God as the highest good — such as the desire (cupiditas, concupiscentia) for eternal life or the delight (gaudium) in expectation of the afterlife (Aug. Civ. 14,9). Augustinus saw the most obvious manifestations of the negative affects of ‘carnal pleasure’ (concupiscentia carnalis; libido carnalis; voluptas) in sexuality. There they have to be accepted as necessary evils in order to realize the greater good of procreation. In addition, he attached an aspect of guilt to this kind of desire, which was passed on through procreation (original sin) and could only be removed through baptism (De nuptits et concupiscentia). Augustinus was engaged in a fierce controversy with bishop > Iulianus [16] of Aeclanum, who saw sexual desire as a positive gift by the Creator (Contra Iulianum). G. BONNER,

s.v. concupiscentia,

in: C. Mayer

(ed.),

Augustinus-Lexikon, vol. 1, 1113-1122; J. BRACHTENDoRF, Cicero and Augustine on the Passions, in: Revue

369

eye:

des Etudes Augustiniennes 43, 1997, 289-308; G. STAHLIN, S.v. HOovy, ThWB 2, 911-928.

JO.BRA.

Plebeian tribune see > Tribunus [7] plebis

Plebiscitum (pl. plebiscita). The resolutions of the assembly of the Roman plebs (+ concilium; — plebs). From the lex Hortensia (287 BC) onwards, these reso-

lutions were equated with leges (laws, > lex) (legibus exaequata sunt, Gai. Inst. 1,3) and were also so called. It can now be regarded as disproved that there existed any earlier general binding character to the plebiscitum (summary in [1. 6rf.]). Over the following three cents., the plebiscitum formed the core of the entire Roman legislative process. This may partly have been because the convocation of a concilium plebis by the people’s tribunes (> tribunus) could be carried out without the need for the complex formalities which had to be observed for the assemblies of the ‘whole’ people, the + comitia

(curiata, centuriata

and tributa), e.g. the

obtaining in advance of auspices from the augurs (> augures). The people’s tribunes were also able to devote more attention to the preparation ofa legislative process than were the consuls and praetors who were responsible for the convocation of the comitia [2. 128]. It will also sometimes have been opportune to transfer the legislative initiative pre-emptively to the people’s tribunes in order to forestall the exercise of their right to veto (— intercessio [1], cf. also > rogatio). Until the Gracchi (133-121 BC; + Sempronius), the collabora-

tive division of labour between the Senate and the tribunes through the calling of plebiscita seems generally to have been effective [3. 614-625]. The divisive politics of C. > Flaminius [1], who probably initiated the plebiscitum on the settlement of the > ager Gallicus (232 BC) and supported (if not conceived) the lex Claudia limiting senators’ ship ownership to counteract their trading activities (218 BC), may have been something of

an exception (cf. [3. 6r1f.]). This changed during the period of the Civil Wars (from 133 BC), until the emperors, by virtue of their own tribunicial powers (tribunicia potestas) also gained the power to call plebiscita. The attempt (probably in 81 BC) by L. > Cornelius [I 90] Sulla once more (as prior to 287 BC) to subject the tribunes’ right to table plebiscitum motions to the prior consent of the Senate proved to be a mere interlude (until 70 BC). To trigger the process for calling a plebiscitum, it sufficed for any one of the ten tribunes to table a motion. A subsequently adopted /ex would then generally also be named after that tribune. Although there was no obligation to consult the augurs prior to the assembly of the plebs, the tribunes had to take note of their colleagues’ obnuntiationes (announcements) of ‘unsolicited’ evil omens (Cic. Leg. 2,31 and discussion in [3. 626]). Otherwise the plebiscitum was null and void. Otherwise, the procedure was the same as that for the comitia. Combined motions (rogatio per saturam) were forbidden. The motion had to be promulgated

PLEBS

(promulgatio) prior to the vote. Voting was done, as in the — comitia tributa, simultaneously in 35 tribus (tribal constituencies). Plebiscita were carried out in all fields of Roman law, esp. with regard to civil law. Laws can usually only be recognized as originating in plebiscita from the name attached to them, where it betrays the circumstance that the proposer of the law was at the time of the legislation’s passing also people’s tribune. 1H. Siper, s.v. P., RE 21, 54-73

2 J.M. Ratner, Einfiih-

rung in das rémische Staatsrecht, 1997, 125-129 3 W. KUNKEL, R. WITTMANN, Staatsordnung und Staatspraxis der R6mischen Republik, vol. 2: Die Magistratur (HdbA 10,3,2,2), 1995, 607-626.

J. BLEICKEN, Lex publica. Gesetz und Recht in der R6mischen Republik, 1978; ROTONDI; WIEACKER, RRG, 403406.

GS.

Plebs I. MEANING

OF THE WORD

II. REPUBLIC

III. PRINCIPATE

I. MEANING OF THE WORD The word plebs initially simply meant ‘multitude’ (from the root ple; cf. plenus, ‘full’ and Greek xAf80c/ pléthos, ‘multitude’). As a collective term for all Roman citizens, excluding the Patricians (— patricit), it can be

conceived (disparagingly) only by the latter and in both its meaning and its historical development can be understood only as a correlate of the concept of patriciate. When this had been transformed by the elevation of leading plebeian families to the nobility (> nobiles) and the ordo equester (> equites Romant) had become differentiated, plebs increasingly acquired the meaning of ‘lower orders’ (Plaut. Poen. 515: plebeii et pauperes; Cato fr. 152 ORF: pauperem plebeium atque proletarium; Hor. Epist. 1,1,57-59: plebs eris). The division into patriciate and plebs is traditionally ascribed to the Roman founder-king > Romulus, with the plebs being assigned to the noble gentes as clients (— cliens) (Cic. Rep. 2,16; Dion. Hal. Ant. 2,9,f.). This is pure construction; next to the clients there were always free Plebeians. The thesis that there was an original ethnic difference between the patriciate and the plebs has not stood the test. Furthermore the law of inheritance in the XII Tables (— tabulae duodecim) already implies plebeian gentes.

I]. REPUBLIC With the end of the Monarchy in about 500 BC, the patriciate isolated itself permanently as an order and monopolized admission to the priesthoods, magistrateship and the Senate. In reaction to this, the plebs also became politicized and developed its own special organization, unique in Antiquity but with parallels in medieval Italian and German cities. It formed a sworn fellowship (lex sacrata), at the head of which were people’s tribunes (> tribunus) and plebeian — aediles, which assembled independently (— concilium plebis)

B72

37%

and made resolutions (— plebiscitum). As campaign measures against the patrician magistrates the solidarity of the Plebeians guaranteed a law of assistance (ius auxilii ferendi) and a right of intercession or veto for people’s tribunes. The occasional withdrawal

{I 4] Pulcher found new forms of mobilization for the plebs.

PLEBS

(> secessio) of armed Plebeians to the Mons Sacer or Mons Aventinus emphasised the military indispensibility of plebeian hoplites, and can therefore be understand as a kind of ‘military strike’. The sanctuary to ~» Ceres, - Liber and Libera on the Aventine administered by the aediles plebei appears to have been a specifically plebeian cult, but one can also point to the chapel of — Pudicitia plebeia and to the ludi plebei (> ludi IUL.F.). The duplication of the city founder Romulus in the form of his twin brother Remus has also been considered an expression of plebeian autonomy. The strict and lasting separation between the patriciate and the plebs was dropped with the lifting of the prohibition of intermarriage, which was probably formulated in the Law of the XII Tablets in about 445 BC, on the initiative of the people’s tribune C. Canuleius [1]. By the year 300, the joint campaign opened up to the leading plebeian families access to the Senate, to magistrateships and to most priesthoods, for other Plebeians it created legal security by means of the right of provocation (lex Valeria), and, above all, economic betterment by mitigating the law of debt and by land assignments. The granting to plebiscites (> plebiscitum) of equality with the laws of the people as a whole (lex Hortensia, 287 BC), following a secessio, signified a certain state recognition in retrospect of the special plebeian organization, which, after achieying its original goals, was nevertheless not disbanded, but was integrated into the res publica and to some extent took on new duties — as in the sphere of legislation.

It is in the year 287 BC that scholar customarily place the ‘end of the Struggle of the Orders’ (‘> Orders, struggle of the’). This does not reflect Roman historical understanding and division into periods of history. There continued to be a plebeian tradition and an awareness of difference that could be activated as needed. This was the case for the period of C. Flaminius [1] (around 230 BC), but particularly for the crisis in the late Republic from 133 BC onward, in which the Populares repeatedly wanted to revive the revolutionary character of the people’s tribunate, and attempted to appeal and relate to the plebeian forms of campaign in the Struggle of the Orders, particularly significantly, for example, in C. > Sempronius Gracchus and his followers’ withdrawal to the Aventine in 121 BC. However, social differentiation had meanwhile moved on far beyond the old patriciate-plebs opposition. Within the plebs, new conflicts of interest had also arisen. If the agrarian question continued to be of decisive significance for the plebs rustica, particularly for the soldiers and veterans provided by it, the plebs urbana (cf. Sall. Catil. 37,4) were in need of a regular supply of grain ata reasonable price. In the confusion of the sos, P. Clodius

III. PRINCIPATE In the Principate, the plebs frumentaria (who were given free grain) in Rome were above all an important audience for the emperor. Although the plebs of the City of Rome had lost important political rights, they vigorously articulated their interests in public, in the > circus and in the theatre (plebs sordida et circo ac theatris suetal‘the plebs who are dirty and accustomed to the circus and the theatre’: Tac. Hist. 1,4,3; — munera); above all when grain was in short supply or its price was high, there were demonstrations (Tac. Ann. 2,87; Suet. Claud. 18,2). After Nero’s death (in AD 68) the grain supply had a considerable influence on the political mood in Rome (Tac. Hist. 1,89; 4,38,25 4,52,2). The actions of the plebs were not limited to questions of provisions, however: under Nero, the plebs tried to prevent the execution of Pedanius [6] Secundus’s slaves (Tac. Ann. 14,42,2; 14,45). Even the family life of the > princeps could become a trigger for unrest; the plebs reacted to the rumour that Nero had recalled Octavia [3] from exile with a revolt (seditio) in which statues of Poppaea were torn down (Tac. Ann. 14,61). Grain distribution and games were the preferred means of pacifying the plebs (panem et circenses: luv. 10,7781; cf. also Fronto 210 NABER: annona and spectacula). A critical picture of the Roman lower classes in late Antiquity is sketched by Ammianus Marcellinus (Amm. Marc. 14,6,25f.; 28, 4,28ff.); in late Antiquity, too, their potential for violent action was extraordinarily high. It was primarily lack of grain or wine that was the cause of unrest in Rome (Amm. Marc. 14,6,1; 15,7,33 HO SLOs275854))5

~ Cura annonae; > Orders, struggle of the; > Patricii; ~ Populares 1 E.J.BicKERMAN, Some Reflections on Early Roman History (1969), in: Id., E. GABBA (ed.), Religions and Politics

in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, 1985, 523-540 2 P.A. Brunt, Der romische Mob (1966), in: H. SCHNEIDER (ed.), Zur Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte der

spaten romischen Republik, 1976, 271-310 3 T.J. CorNELL, The Beginnings of Rome. Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264

BC), 1995

4 J.-M. Davin, La clientéle, d’une forme de l’analyse a autre, in: H. BRuuNS, J.-M. Davip, W. Nipret (ed.), La fin de la république romaine, 1997, 195-216 5 W. EDER,

Zwischen Monarchie und Republik: Das Volkstribunat in der frithen rémischen

Republik, in: F. Gasrrexi

(ed.),

Bilancio critico su Roma arcaica fra Monarchia e Repubblica, 1993, 97-127 6 A. GUARINO, La rivoluzione della plebe, 1975 7 W. HorrMann, Die rémische Plebs, in:

Neue Jahrbiicher ftir Antike und deutsche Bildung 1, 1938, 82-98 8K.-J. HOLKESKAMp, Senat und Volkstribunat im frithen 3. Jahrhundert v.Chr., in: W. EDER (ed.), Staat und Staatlichkeit in der frithen romischen Republik, 1990, 437-457 9H.P. Kouns, Versorgungskrisen und Hungerrevolten

im

spatantiken

Rom,

1961

10 A.

Mom Ic iano, The Rise of the plebs in the Archaic Age of Rome,

in: K.A.

RaAarLaus

(ed.), Social

Struggles

in

374

33) Archaic Rome, 1986, 175-197. 11 W. Nipret, Public Order in Ancient Rome, r995 12 K.A. RAAFLAUB, Politics and Society in Fifth-Century Rome, in: s. [5], 129-157

13 J.-C, Ricuarp, Les origines de la plébe romaine: Essai sur la formation du dualisme patricio-plébéien, 1978 14 H. ScHNeIDeER, Die politische Rolle der plebs urbana wahrend der Tribunate des L. Appuleius Saturninus, in: AncSoc 13/14, 1982/83, 193-221 15 J. VON UNGERNSTERNBERG, Die Wahrnehmung des ‘Standekampfes’ in der rémischen Geschichtsschreibung, in: s. [8], 92-102 16 J. VON UNGERN-STERNBERG, The End of the Conflict of the Orders, in: s. [to], 353-377. 17 W. WILL, Der rémische Mob, r991 18 T.P. WisEMAN, Remus. A Roman Myth, 1995 19Z. Yaverz, Plebs and Princeps, 1969

20 Id., The Living Conditions of the Urban Plebs in the Republican Rome, in: Latomus 17, 1958, 500-517. J.v.U.-S.

Plectrum see > Musical instruments, V.A.r.

Pledge, law of I. ANCIENT ORIENT

II. CLAsSsIcAL ANTIQUITY

I. ANCIENT ORIENT The requesting of a surety to secure a contract is documented in the laws of the Ancient Orient to varying degrees. Requiring a pledge plays a large role in debt trials in agrarian societies. For example, if tenants were

in arrears with their obligations, the forfeiting of a personal surety often led to debt-bondage [1; 2; 15. 179f.] with the resultant negative consequences for the social balance of a society (> Leasehold I.).

The requesting of a pledge has been documented in — cuneiform legal texts by documents of varying complexity from the 2nd half of the 3rd millennium for the individual periods. Real-estate and personal pledges are documented, both with interest antichresis. The pledge was asa rulea pledge ofpossessions and usually became due upon the non-fulfilment of the debt by the due date; it was a tangible pledge, i.e. no further right of access to the person or other assets of the debtor existed [8. 15 8161]. To some extent, already in the Old Babylonian period (18th/17th cents.), but clearly from the middle of the 2nd millennium onwards, there was a gradual development in Babylonia of the compensation pledge on to the collateral pledge, which is fully developed in NeoBabylonian documents (from the 6th cent. BC on). In

Assyria, by contrast, the pledge primarily contained replacement character; it was an expiry or cancellation pledge. In the Old Assyrian period (zo0th/rg9th cents.) the usufruct pledge is also documented; however, the collateral pledge likely dominated here. The institution of personal pledging is especially well documented (tidennutu, etymology uncertain) from > Nuzi (cf. [2]). In - Hittite law, § 76 of the Hittite collection of laws regulated only a special case of the law of pledge (LOP). According to it, the creditor was required to pay damages if an animal given to him as pledge died ({3. 155 5. 13-15]; contra [6. 82], where it is assumed to refer to requisitioning the animal for public works).

PLEDGE, LAW OF

Concluding from the papyri of Graeco-Roman Egypt, there was likely a conditional sale (put down in writing) in Egypt. The personal property pledge can only be reconstructed by written notes, household statements or accounts belonging to the pledge creditor [acy ae lL The OT contains numerous references, not only in narrative context but also in the religious and legal norms handed down. It is familiar with pledges of real property with antichresis (Neh 5:3); persons (i.e. first family members, then the debtor himself) were allowed to be taken as a pledge only after the expiry date or non-payment of a debt claim (Dt 15:12; Lv 25:393 47); it was not allowed to claim things essential to life (e.g. a millstone, Dt 24:6) as a pledge. Both the Mesopotamian law and the OT were familiar with the redemption of a pledge by (royal) decree (> seisachtheia, [11. 172. §6, 180. §20f.]) or by religious charter (sabbatical year [17. 279-282]). 1 W. Boocus, Altagyptisches Zivilrecht, 1999, 112f. 2B. EICHLER, Indenture at Nuzi, 1973 3 J. GroTuus, Die Rechtsordnung der Hethiter, 1973 4 R. Haase, Einfiih-

rung in das Studium keilschriftlich Rechtsquellen, 1965 5 Id., Keilschriftliches, 1998 6 H. HOFENER, The Laws of the Hittites, 1997 7B. Kienast, Pfand, in: Id., Die altbabylonischen Briefe und Urkunden aus Kisurra, 1978,

66-150 8 V. Korosec, Keilschriftrecht, in: Orientaliche Recht (HbdOr 1, Supplement 3), 1964 9 P. KOSCHAKER, Neue keilschriftl. Rechtsurkunden, 1928 10Id., Uber einige griechische Rechtsurkunden aus den Ostlichen Randgebieten des Hellenismus, 1931 11F.R. Kraus, K6nigliche Verfiigungen in altbabylonischer Zeit, 1984 12 H. Neumann, Grundpfandbestellung und Feldabgabe, in: H. KLENGEL, J. RENGER (ed.), Landwirtschaft im Alten Orient, 1999, 137-148 13H. PeErscHow, Neubabylonisches Pfandrecht, 1956 14K. RADNER, Die neuassyrischen Privatrechtsurkunden, 1997, 368-390 15 J. RENGER, Flucht als soziales Problem in der altbabylonischen Gesellschaft, in: D.O. Epzarp (ed.), Gesellschaftsklassen im alten Zweistromland (ABAW N.F. 75, 1972), 167-182 16E. Sere, Einfiihrung in die agyptische Rechtsgeschichte bis zum Ende des Neuen Reiches, 1957 17 R. DE Vaux, Das AT und seine Lebensformen 1, 1964.

JRE.

IJ. CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY

The roots of the modern idea of LOP (as legal sphere and as subjective entitlement) lie in Greek and above all in Roman law. According to this, pledge is a limited real right to be distinguished from property, and serves as collateral for a claim based upon contract (mostly for money and often from a loan). Therefore, the pledge is available to the bearer of the LOP under certain prerequisites for the satisfaction of his claim. In classical antiquity, the path to a clearly profiled LOP was of course lengthy, and already in late antiquity the profile was partially lost again. In a further sense, LOP in classical antiquity comprises in addition to the limited, real collateral law also different types of concession of full ownership for collateral purposes, thus in Greece the > prdsis epi lysei, in the law of the Graeco-Egyptian papyri the > one en

PLEDGE, LAW OF

375

pistei and in the Roman law the > fiducia. But even the LOP in the narrower sense remained a law of forfeiture fora long time. This meant that in the case of collateral — so when the LOP was not redeemed by the simple fulfilment of the secured claim — the LOP fell into full power of disposal of the creditor as owner. In Greek law, not only the possessor’s lien or pawn (enéchyron) but also the + hypotheké possibly without direct possession, corresponded to the model of the law of forfeiture. In contrast, the Roman > pignus developed into a technically more perfect LOP, matched exactly to the collateral function: here the creditor no longer became the owner ina collateral case, but rather received only a right of exploitation. This development also brought with it the possibility of creating several pledges on the same object. Owing to this, the problem of the ranking ofa LOP came about (very relevant still today, above all in real-estate hypothecary laws). The power of exploitation as a major component of the LOP also made this law suitable for individual execution due to a judgment or an enforceable document. This is how a LOP relating to levy of execution came about, as we have found it already in the Greek > enechyrasia. The more exact modelling of the collateral character led in Roman law toa major refinement ofthe accessory nature of LOP; that is the dependence of the LOP on the securing of the claim. Founded accessoriness (dependence of the origin of the LOP on the continued existence of the claim) was valid for the pignus from the beginning. Exploitation accessoriness (expiration of the claim only in the amount of the sale proceeds, duty to hand over surplus proceeds to the giver of the pledge) occurs already in Greek law with the category of ~+ hypérocha (surplus gain on disposal). It was first included in the law of pignus in the Imperial period. In late antiquity threats to the institution of LOP are demonstrated by the lack of publicity: If the LOP was not connected with direct possession by the creditor or (as in modern property law) with a register entry, multiple hypothecations and pledge prerogatives (pledge privileges), e.g. for the state, led to the purpose of collateral no longer being able to be fulfilled. This contributed to the decline of private loans and at the same time reflects it. Kaser, RPR vol. 1, 457-460; vol. 2, 312f. M. Kaser, Studien zum rom. Pfandrecht, 1982 A.R. W. Harrison, The

Law of Athens, vol. 1, 1968, 253-293. Cf. also the bibliographies for > enechyrasia, hypotheke and pignus. GS.

Pleiades (mA evady¢/pleiddés, Latin pliades, also Boteuc/ Botrys, ‘bunch of grapes’ or ‘curl’; Latin Vergiliae, ‘twig’). In contrast to the > Hyades, the P. were known from the time of Euripides and Hippocrates by the collective singular Mheukc/Pleids: seven faint stars, placed close together, designated as a ‘nebula’. According to Nicander [4], they are located on the tail of Taurus ascending in reverse, otherwise — because only its forequarters form stars — at the start of its sector. Both Hom. Il. 18,486 and Od. 5,272 mention them in the

376 first position; Hes. Op. 383 calls them daughters of Atlas [2] and > Pleione; according to Arat. 262f. they are named Alcyone, Merope, Celaeno, Electra, Sterope, Taygeta and Maia. One of the P. shines only faintly. This is either Merope from shame for being the only one to have married a mortal, Sisyphus, or Electra from

grief about the downfall of the city of Troy, founded by her son > Dardanus [1]. According to Callim. fr. 693, the P. are daughters of the queen of the Amazons and are called Coccymo, Glaucia, Protis, Parthenia, Maia, Stonychia and Lampado. As doves (meheusdéc/peleia-

des) they are constantly fleeing from the giant constellation of > Orion. Called MUL.MUL by the Babylonians, the P. mark the beginning of the moon’s orbit; likewise in > Euctemon [1. 11] and in Indian astronomy [z. 441]. Etymologically, the closing of the year was thought to be derived from their name (Schol. Arat. 254-255 p. 202,10 Martin ovunAnooty/ sympléroun). Farmers and sailors used the P. for guidance (— Paranatellonta). Around 430 they were first visible on the morning of 19 May and first invisible on the morning of 8 November. Theophr. De signis tempestatum 6 uses this to divide the year into sections (IThetas te Svopevy xa avatérovo), cf. Arat. 266: start of summer and winter.

Ptol. Apotelesmatika 1,9,3 relates the P. to the quality of Mars and — like all nebulous stars — to that of the moon. Procl. in Hes. Op. 381 divides the Aratean catalogue over the planets: Celaeno — Saturn, Sterope — Zeus, Merope — Mars, Electra — Sun, Alcyone — Venus, Maia — Mercury, Taygeta —- Moon. In — iatromathematics, the P., like all faint stars, were considered harmful to the eyes [3] and in astrology they reinforced the femininity and softness of Taurus (Manil. 5,140-156), particularly promoting care of the hair, cf. the ill. in the codex Leidensis Vossianus lat. 79 (9th cent.), fol. 42’. > Astrology; + Astronomy; ~— Constellations; + Zodiac 1 A. REHM, Das Parapegma des Euktemon, 1913

2D.

PINGREE, MUL.APIN and Vedic Astronomy, in: H. BEHRENS (ed.), FS Ake Sjoberg, 1989, 439-445 3 W. HUs-

NER, Die Eigenschaften der Tierkreiszeichen in der Antike, 1982, 193-196.

F. BOLL s.y. Fixsterne, RE 6, 2407-2431; Id. s.v. Hebdomas, RE 7, 2547-2578; W. and H. GuNDEL, s.v. Pleiaden, RE 21, 2485-2523; W. Htpner, s. [3]; Id., Grade und Gradbezirke der Tierkreiszeichen, 2 vols., 1995; A. REHM, Parapegmastudien, 1941; J. ROHR, Beitrage zur antiken Astrometeorologie, in: Philologus 83, 1928, 259305, esp. 283-285.

W.H.

Pleias (ITAeusc/Pleids). The ‘Constellation of Seven’ Greek tragic poets during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus (+ Ptolemaeus [I 3] II Philadelphus) (28 5-246 BC). The list of names varies (as with those of the > Seven Sages and the Seven > Wonders of the World); certain are: + Alexander [21] Aetolus, > Lycophron [5] of Chalcis, > Homerus [2] of Byzantium, > Philicus of Corcyra and > Sositheus of Alexandria; also mentio-

BE

378

ned are:

BC (Paus. 3,5,1), making no political or military impression. K.-W.W, [2] Son of + Antipater [1], brother of + Cassander, b. shortly before 350 BC, probably grew up at the Macedonian court. P. is first mentioned as his brother’s commander on Euboea in 312, but he was unable to hold Chalcis [x] against the troops of Antigonus [1] (Diod. Sic. 19,77,2-28,2). In 304/3 BC, he suffered defeat at the hands of the Athenians in the course of military action by his brother in the Peloponnese (Paus. 1,15,1), then again at Argos [II 1] at the hands of Demetrius [2]

+ Sosiphanes [2] of Syracuse, — Aeantides, ~> Dionysiades of Tarsus and + Euphronius [3]. The list adds a Hellenistic coda to the > canon [1] of the Classical triad of + Aeschylus [1], > Sophocles [1] and > Euripides [1], portrayed already in the Frogs of + Aristophanes [3] (405 BC) as unsurpassable examples. A. Lesxy, Die tragische Dichtung der Hellenen, 5357

+1972, B.Z,

Pleione (ITiniovn/Pléioné, Latin Plione: Serv. Georg. 1,138). Daughter of - Oceanus and > Tethys (Ov. Fast. 5,83f.), mother of the - Pleiades (Apollod. 3,110; schol. Hom. Od. 5,272), who — according to a widely accepted version- are named after their mother (schol. Hom. Il. 18,486 BEKKER after the > Epic cycle ; schol. Apoll. Rhod. 3,225-227a), also mother of > Hyas and the + Hyades (schol. Hes. Op. 383a; Hyg. Poet. Astr. 2,21

after Musaeus;

Hyg.

Fab.

192

and

248), and

grandmother of> Mercurius) (Ov. Met. 2,742f.; Ov. Epist. 16,62; Val. Fl. 1,737f.). It is uncertain whether P.,

together with the Pleiades, is placed among the stars by Zeus, whilst they are fleeing from > Orion [1], who is pursuing either her (Ath. 1r1,490d. f; schol. Apoll. Rhod. |.c.) or her daughters (schol. Hom. Il. l.c.). P. is

possibly used by Pind. Fr. 74 (cf. schol. Pind. Nem. 2,17c) to describe the entire group of the Pleiades [x].

This same mythical figure is also called Aethra (schol. Hes. Op. l.c.; Hyg. Poet. Astr. l.c.). 1 M. C. VAN DER KOLF, s.v. P., RE 21, 192.

SLA.

PLEISTHENES

(MorerTTI 1, 39). In 301, attempting to bring troops to

Cassander for the war with Antigonus in Asia Minor, he lost most of his men in the sea crossing (Diod. Sic. 20,112,1-4). After taking part — evidently successfully — in the Battle of + Ipsus (301), he was given Cilicia (Plut. Demetrius 31,6), losing it a little later to Demetrius. However, shortly after 298 BC, on inscriptional evidence (e.g. [4 no. 44]), he came into possession of part of Caria under unknown circumstances. It is doubtful whether P. is the refounder of the Carian city of Pleistarcheia mentioned by Stephanus of Byzantium (s.v. ITAevotceyeia), previously and subsequently known as Heraclea and probably identifiable with > Heraclea [5] at Mt. Latmus [2]. The end of his rule in Caria and its causes remain obscure. 1 A.P. Grecory, A Makedonian dynastés. Evidence for the Life and Career of P. Antipatrou, in: Historia 44, 1995, 11-28 20. HULDEN, Pleistarchos und die Befestigungsanlagen von Herakleia am Latmos, in: Klio 82, 2000, 382-408 3J. Kopes, ‘Kleine Konige’. Untersu-

chungen zu den Lokaldynasten im hellenistischen Kleinasien (323-188 v.Chr.) (Pharos 8), 1996 4L. RoBErT, Le

Pleistaenetus (II\etotaivetoc; Pleistainetos).

A Greek

painter mentioned solely in Plut. De gloria Atheniensium 2,346; his life span can be dated to the middle of the 5th cent. BC only through chronological inference. He is said to have been a brother of the sculptor > Phidias and to have created paintings of battle scenes with victorious commanders, as well as images of heroes. Several scholars believe that Pliny (Plin. HN 35, 54) had mistakenly written > Panaenus instead of P., however the assumption of a mistake on the part of Plutarch is just as plausible, as Panaenus is mentioned even more

frequently in other sources. We have no idea of the painter’s style. G. LrppoLp, s.v. P., RE 21, 192-195; P. MORENO, s.v. P.,

EAA 6, 246; R. Krumeicn, Bildnisse griechischer Herrscher und Staatsmanner im 5. Jahrhundert v.Chr., 1997, 234, A25. N.H.

Pleistarchus (Mheiotaoyoc/Pleistarchos). [1] King of Sparta, of the house of the > Agiads; still not of age at the death of his father Leonidas [1], fallen at Thermopylae in 480 BC; P.’ cousin Pausanias [1], who commanded the Greek forces at Plataeae in 479 BC, thus became regent (Hdt. 9,10,2; Thuc. 1,132,1; Paus. 3,4,9; Plut. Mor. 231¢). Once of age, P. exercised the

role of king for only a few years until his death in 458

sanctuaire de Sinuri prés de Mylasa I. Les inscriptions grecques, 1945. O.HU.

Pleisthenes (IlAewo0évng; Pleisthéneés). [1] Mythical figure from the family of > Pelops, often also named as the family’s eponym (Aesch. Ag. 1569 etc.): either the son of Pelops and — Hippodameia [r] (with > Atreus, > Thyestes and —> Pittheus as brothers; schol. Pind. O. 1,144), or the son of Atreus and Cleola born in exile in Macestus (Triphylia), father of > Agamemnon and — Menelaus [1] (schol. Eur. Or. 4), or husband of > Aérope and father by her of Agamemnon and Menelaus (Apollod. 3,15; cf. schol. Soph. Aj. 1297). The competition between Atreus and P. as fathers of Agamemnon and Menelaus led to an attempt at harmonisation, that after the early death of P. they had grown up with their grandfather Atreus (schol. Eur. Or. 4; schol. Hom. Il. 2,249). P. appears as a son of > Thyestes in Sen. Thy. 726; Hyg. Fab. 88; 244; 246. [2] Son of > Helena [I 1] and - Menelaus [1] (schol. Eur. Andr. 898). [3] Son of > Acastus. > Peleus is driven out by him and his brother (Dictys 6,8). LK.

379

380

Pleistoanax (IT\etotodvak/Pleistodnax). Son of the Spartan regent — Pausanias [1] of the house of the

strong emetic and in many and diverse preparations, including a pessary. + Dogmatists

PLEISTOANAX

~ Agiads, king 458-408/7

BC (Diod. Sic. 13,75,r),

initially under the guardianship of his uncle Nicomedes [x] (Thuc. 1,107,2; Diod. Sic. 11,79,6). In 446, P., in command of a Spartan army in fact led by his advisor > Cleandridas, was to march on Attica to engage Athenian troops during the Euboean revolt. However, after one attack he returned to the Thriasian plain, was charged in Sparta by > Pericles [1] of allegedly taking bribes and exiled in Arcadia (Thuc. 1,114,1-23 2,21,13 5,16,3; Plut. Pericles 22-23). Cleandridas had obviously realized that Athens would not be forced even if subjected to heavy losses. After recall and reinstatement (Thuc. 5,16,1; 17,1), P. campaigned for reconciliation with Athens and in 421 swore to the Peace of > Nicias [1] and symmachia with Athens (Thuc. 5,19; 5,23f.). In 421 he was operating in southern Arcadia (Thuc. 5,33); in 418 he was supposed to bring king Agis [2] reinforcements in the battle against the Peloponnesian League, though after the Spartan victory at Mantinea considered this no longer necessary (Thuc. 5,75,1; > Peloponnesian War).

K-W.W.

Pleistonicus (M\etotovixoc; Pleisténikos). Doctor fl. c. 270 BC; he was a pupil of > Praxagoras of Cos (Celsus, De medicina, proem. 20) and one of the ‘classics’ of Greek medicine in the so-called Dogmatic tradition (> Dogmatists [2]; Gal. Methodus medendi 2,5; Gal. De examinando medico 5,2). It is difficult to assess his individuality, as, according to tradition- i.e. fundamentally in Galen — his views are transmitted as being in agreement with those of Praxagoras or other Dogmatists. Like his master, P. was also a firm believer in + humoral theory (Gal. De atra bile 1; Gal. De facultatibus naturalibus 2,8). It is unclear how he may have continued to develop it so that Galen could then take exception to it. P. considered digestion in the stomach to be a process of putrefaction (fr. 1 STECKERL) and believed that water was more beneficial to digestion than wine (fr. 3). His views on anatomy and pathology agree essentially with those of Praxagoras. Like the latter (Gal. De uteri dissectione 10) P. also believed that a — woman’s womb (II. F.) was divided into two sinuses, but into several in living creatures which produced lots of offspring (e.g.the sow). He also assumed (frr. 29-30) that > pneuma was drawn in not only from the heart but from the entire body during the diastole. He considered the heart to be the seat of the soul (Gal. Anin arteriis 8; Ath. 15,687e). Although he did not support the theory of innate heat (Gal. De tremore 6), P. believed that a rise in the

heat acquired by the body was in itself a sign of fever (fr. 3). He favoured prognosis, and in accordance with the Hippocratic tradition, believed that the doctor needed to consider the entire human being, rather than just the

affected part (Gal. Methodus medendi 4,4). He practised > phlebotomy (Gal. De venae sectione adversus Erasistratum 5-6) and used hellebore liberally as a

FRAGMENTS: F. STECKERL (ed.), The Fragments of Praxagoras of Cos and His School (with English trans.), 1958.

V.N.

Pleistus (I\etotdc/Pleistos; literary Pleistos, Herodianus, De prosodia

form I\etotoc/ catholica 217).

River, modern Xeropotami, and valley in western + Phocis at the southern foot of Mount Parnassus, where > Delphi was located. It flows into the Gulph of Corinth in the east of the plain of Itea. Material remains attest to settlement from Protohelladic II onwards; the greatest density of settlement is found in the Mycenaean Period. Cf. Paus. 10,8,8; 37,7; Str. 9,3,3; Schol. Apoll. Rhod. 2,711. — Crisa E. KirsTEN, s.v. P., RE 21, 213-221; E. Kase et al., The Great Isthmus Corridor Route, vol. 1, 1991, 14f.; D. SxoRDA, Recherches dans la vallée du P., in: J.-F. Bom-

MELAER (ed.), Delphes, 1992, 39-66.

GDR.

Pleminius, Q. Propraetor. Legate of Cornelius [I 71] Scipio in Locri [2] after it was regained in the war with Hannibal in 205 BC (second of the > Punic Wars). In

204 the Locrians’ complaint in the Roman Senate about P.’ despotism, which was tolerated by Scipio, and about the pillage of the sanctuary of Persephone was used by Q. Fabius [I 30] in his motion to relieve Scipio of his command (Liv. 29,19,6). A senatorial commission, friendly to Scipio, established his innocence in Locri,

however, and brought P. to Rome, to be put on trial by the people’s tribunes for — perduellio. He probably died while still in custody. MRR 1, 304. W.ED. Plemmyrium = (ITAnu(u)verov/Plém(m)yrion). The north cape of the peninsula of Maddalena to the south of — Syracusae, today Punta della Maddalena (cf. [1. 13, 95f., 10273]. Together with the southern tip of the island of > Ortygia to the north, the P. formed the entrance into the great harbour (otdwa tod Awévoc/ stoma tou liménos) of Syracuse (Thuc. 7,4,4). A necropolis containing 53 graves from the Mycenaean Period attests to a coastal base; there was a village settlement here during the Greek period (grave group of the sth cent. BC). During the Athenian siege of Syracuse (415-413 BC) in the > Peloponnesian War, the P. played a strategically important role (cf. Thuc. 7,22-24; 31f.; 36), as it did during the siege of the city by the Carthaginians under > Himilkon [1] in 397 BC (Diod. Sic. 14,63,3; 72,3). Archaeology: the remains of a round tower on the P. may be identifiable as a tomb for Syracusan citizens who fell during the war with Athens (but otherwise [2. 220]). 1 H.-P. DROGEMULLER, Syrakus (Gymnasium-Beiheft 6),

1969

2E. Mannl, Geografia fisica e politica della Sicilia

antica, 1981, 220.

BTGCI 14, 497-499.

E.O. and H.-P.DRO.

381

382

Plemnaeus (IlAnpvaioc/Plémnaios). King of Aegialea (= Sicyon), son of Peratus, father of Orthopolis, the only one of P.’ children to be kept alive and brought up

Pleumoxii. People of Gallia > Belgica, mentioned only

by — Demeter (Paus. 2,5,8); in thanks P. institutes a

sanctuary to Demeter (ibid. 2,11,2). P. is considered to be the rrth king of + Sicyon (Eus. Chronicon r p. 175f. SCHOENE).

PLEURON

in Caes. B Gall. 5,39,1 in the context of the events of the winter of 54/3 BC, who were in a relationship of dependence on their immediate neighbours the > Nervii. Their homelands were probably in Brabant or in the Belgian province of Namur. F.SCH,

SU.EL

Pleraei (MAneatou; Pléraioi). Illyrian people, whose area

of settlement on the + Ionios Kolpos stretched from the left bank at the mouth of the > Naro and from + Corcyra Melaina to Risinium (Strab. 7,5,5; 7; Mela 2,3,56f.; Plin. HN 3,144; cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. MAagaiou, who also has the form T1Acguot). Like the neighbouring Ardiaei, they were notorious pirates (> Piracy). In 135 BC they were subjugated by the Romans (App. Ill. 29: TlaAcaetot).

N.G. L. HaMMonpD, The Kingdoms in Illyria circa 400167 BC, in: ABSA 61, 1966, 239-253; G. ALFOLDY, A.

Mocsy, Bevélkerung und Gesellschaft der romischen Provinz Dalmatia, 1965.

E.O.

Pleuratus (I\evodtoc/Pleurdtos). [1] Illyrian king, son of > Scerdilaedas and from 212 (?) BC his co-regent [1. 256]; nephew of > Agron [3]. He ensured his autocracy over the southern Illyrian tribes from 206 onwards by means of an alliance with Rome in the first (Pol. 10,41,4; Liv. 26,24,9; 27,30,133 28,5573 29,12,14) [2. 298-302] and the second of the > Macedonian

Wars

(Pol. 21,11,;7;

21,21,3;

Liv. 31,28,rf)

[2. 302-306], for which in 196 he received the cities of Lychnis (modern Ochrid) and Parthus (Pol. 18,47,12) [1. 618f; 2. 306f]. In 189 in a war with the Aetoli he attacked their coast with 60 fast-sailing galleys (lembi)(Liv. 38,7,2) [2. 310]. [2] Son of P. [1] and Eurydice, killed by his brother ~ Genthius (Pol. 29,13; Liv. 44,30,2-3: Plator; Ath.

Plestia > Municipium of the tribus Oufentina, Regio

10,4404: P.) [2. 3133 3. 377].

VI (Plin. HN 3,114), near the church of Santa Maria di

[3] Son of > Genthius, who with his mother Etleva and

Pistia on the Colfiorito plateau in the northeast of Foligno in Umbria; nearby there was Lake Plestinus (App. Hann. 37: IAetotivn Aiuvy/Pleistiné limné; today dried up). Inscriptions mention octoviri, seviri Augustales, curator rei publicae. In the neighbourhood a rich preRoman necropolis and a sanctuary to Cupra have been discovered. K. SHERLING, S.v. P., RE 21, 23 1-235; BICGI 5, 372-376;

L. Bonomi Ponz1, La necropoli Plestina di Colfiorito di Foligno, 1997.

G.PA.

his brother Scerdilaedas fell into the hands of L. > Anicius [I 4] (Liv. 44,30,3-4) at Meteon in 168 BC, and

was then part of his triumphal procession (App. III.

9,27). [4] Illyrian exile at the court of > Perseus [2]. In 169 BC he travelled several times as Perseus’ ambassador to ~ Genthius (Pol. 28,8,1; Liv. 43,19,13-20,3; 23,8)He was perhaps a relative of the Illyrian royal house and probably identical to the P. who sent 2000 Illyrian — penestai [2] to the defence of Cassandria (Liv.

44,11,73 Cf. 43,2357) [2. 319f.5 4. 164]. Plestina. Fortified city of the Marsi [1], not located, conquered, like the two neighbouring — also unlocated — cities of Milionia and Fresilia, in 302 BC by the Roman dictator M. Valerius Maximus (according to Liv. 10,3,5; less likely by his father M. Valerius Corvus, as the Acta Triumphalia CIL I’ p. 171 write for 301 BC, however) after a victory over the Marsi and set free again after the conclusion of a treaty. M.LG. Plethron (m)\é000v/pléthron). A p. (Latin tugerum) is a Greek unit of length of 100 feet, corresponding to ‘/, otad.ov/stddion (> Stadion). Depending on the underlying length of the foot (+ Pous), it has a length of c. 27-35 m; an Attic plethron comes to 31 m. In Homeric epic, plethron is synonymous with the length of a furrow; plethron can also be found there as a unit of area for a piece of land 100 feet square (cf. also Hom. Il. 23,164: éxatoumedov évOa xal EvOa). — Measures 1F. Huttscu, 71882, 28.

Griechische und rémische

Metrologie, H.-].S.

1 F.W. WaALBANK, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, vol. 2, 1967 2P. CABANES, Les Illyriens, 1988 3F.W. WAaLBANK, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, vol. 3, 1979 4E. OLSHAUSEN, Prosopographie der hellenistischen K6nigsgesandten, 1974. L.-M.G.

Pleuron (ITkevedv; Pleurén). City in south-western Aetolian — Aeolis [2] (ethnic names T\evedvtoc/ Pleuronios and MWhevewvert Achaeans, Achaea, with map). In the 4th cent., P. together with neighbouring cities was integrated into the Aetolian League [1]. Its membership of Aetolia is however not attested until the 3rd cent. BC when P. on several occasions held official positions in the league (> Aetolians, with map). After being destroyed by Demetrius [3] (also called Aitolikos in Str. 10,2,4) in the 3rd cent. BC [2], New P. was built on higher ground. In the 2nd cent. BC, P. belonged for a while to the Achaean League (Paus. 7,11,3). Old P., whose location cannot be

383

384

pinpointed with certainty, is estimated to have been situated on the coastal plain between the rivers Achelous [1] and Euenus [3] close to Calydon (Str. 10,2,23) and probably lay in the vicinity of New P. on the southern slope of Mt. Aracynthus near modern Kato Retsina [3]. Of the Hellenistic city area (Kastro Irinis), city walls, a theatre, agora, wells and building foundations are preserved [5]. In the myths associated with the region, P. is the home of > Meleager [1] and the > Cu-

(...]inion Sekoun{...)— discovered in 1836 and lost again soon after — indeed referred to P., his career would have also included otherwise undocumented offices in Egypt and Syria [5]. In any case, a detailed chronology remains uncertain. Prior to AD 47, P. embarked on the three-year

PLEURON

retes. A cult of Athena in P. is attested (Stat. Theb.

2,727; Dionysius son of Calliphon 57) [6]. 1S. Bommeryjé, Aecolis in Aetolia, in: Historia 37, 1988, 297-316 2C. EHRHARDT, Demetrius 6 Aitwdixdg and

Antigonid Nicknames, in: Hermes 106, 1978, 251-253 3 E. KirsTEn, s.v. P., RE 21, 239-243

4 P. FUNKE, Zur

Datierung befestigter Stadtanlagen in Aitolien, in: Boreas 10, 1987, 87-96 5M. WEIsSL, Die Befestigung der jiingeren Stadtanlage von P. in Aitolien, in: JOAI 68, 1999,

militia equestris, became

tribunus militum

and soon

after praefectus alae (‘cavalry officer’) in Germania superior, the latter confirmed by a fragment of a horse’s bridle engraved with his name Plinio praefec found in Castra Vetera on the Lower Rhine (modern Xanten; CIL XIII roo 26 Z. 22, London, BM; or was he praefectus castrorum?) [6]. In 47, he took part in Cn. > Domitius [II xx] Corbulo’s campaigns against the + Chauci (Tac. Ann. 11,18-22; Cass. Dio 60, 30,4-6; cf. Plin. HN 16,2-6 De Chaucis); in 50/1, in those of P.

(Apollod. 1,62; Ov. Met. 8,305; 434; 440; Hyg. Fab.

+ Pomponius [III 8] Secundus against the > Chatti (Tac. Ann. 12,27f.; cf. HN 31,20 thermal springs in Wiesbaden). 51/2 saw him back in Rome, according to Plin. Ep. 3,5,7 as patronus. His presence in Italy is assumed in Plin. HN 33,63; 36,124 (Lacus Fucinus, modern Lago di Celano) for 52 and according to HN 2,180 for 59 (Campania). Following his period of reclusive study during Nero’s reign, he held continuae procurationes (‘further procuratorial offices’) under Vespasian (6979) (Suet. De viris illustribus p. 92f. REITTERSCHEID) in

1733 174; 244).

the provinces of Africa (this soon after 54), Narbonen-

106-158

6 C. ANTONETTI, Les Etoliens, 1990, 282.

KF.

Plexippus (Il\jEwtnoc/Plexippos). Son of > Thestius, brother of > Althaea; participant in the Calydonian Hunt; P. is killed by his nephew — Meleager [1], because he intended to steal from > Atalante the pelt of the Calydonian boar, which Meleager had given her

LK.

Plinius [1] P. Secundus, C. (Pliny the Elder). Roman equestrian [1], cavalry officer, government official, historian, ora-

tor, encyplopaedist. I. Lire

Il. Lostworxs

III. NATURALIS HISTORIA

IV. RECEPTION

I. LIFE P. was born in AD 23/4 in Novum Comum (Gallia

Transpadana, modern Como). Under emperor > Claudius [III 1], he served as an officer and financial administrator in the provinces (procurator), simultaneously active as an encyclopaedist and versatile author. Apparently unmarried, he took his widowed sister Plinia and her son C. Plinius [2] Caecilius Secundus (Pliny the Younger, adopted in his will) into his household. Letters by P. [2], since made famous, describe his learned uncle as a hard-working, conscientious and fearless man (Ep. 3,5: way of life and chronological catalogue of works;

sis, Tarraconensis and Belgica. Then he held an office at the imperial court (Plin. Ep. 3,5,9). After 76, he served as praefectus classis in ~ Misenum (a top rank) until his early death on 24 August 79 at age 56 in Rectina’s villa near ~ Stabiae in the course of rescue efforts following the sudden eruption of Mt. > Vesuvius (it is not clear whether the cause of death was asphyxiation, poisoning, asthma, a heart attack or a stroke). His nephew, who was not an eye-witness to these events, wrote his much-studied report 30 years later (Plin. Ep. 6,16); at

times contradictory and unrealistic, it was not intended

as a factual report, but as literary prose. Il. Lost works A. HISTORICAL WORKS

B. GRAMMATICAL-RHE-

TORICAL WORKS A. HISTORICAL WORKS 1. DE IACULATIONE EQUESTRI LIBER UNUS

2. BELLORUM GERMANIAE LIBRI XX AUFIDII BASSI HISTORIARUM

3. A FINE

LIBRI XXXI

Ep. 6,16: final activities and death) [2; 3]. Some ideali-

zations and literalizations aside, this largely agrees with the image gleaned from P.’s own work of a patriotic moralist and a universal scholar with a conscientiousness bordering on pedantry [4]. These letters constitute the main source for his biography, together with > Suetonius’ biographical essay (fr. 80 REIFFERSCHEID) and the (allegedly autobiographical) information in his Historia

naturalis

(= HN).

If, as maintained

by T.

MommMsEn, but disputed by F. MUNzER, R. SYME and others, the honorary inscription for a ...]wiov Dexovv...

1. DE IACULATIONE EQUESTRI LIBER UNUS His catalogue of works (Plin. Ep. 3,5,3-6) names this tactical monograph on spear-throwing as his earliest work; due the general assessment (pari ingenio curaque) and the absence of any fragments, its concept remains vague. Perhaps it had been P.’s intention to replace the traditional use of the spear in the Roman cavalry, i.e. throwing it from afar (&xQofodia/akrobolia), with a close-combat technique used by Germanic warriors [7].

385

386

2. BELLORUM GERMANIAE LIBRI XX According to Plin. Ep. 3,5,4, P. had begun writing the History of the Germanic Wars (HRR II 1oof.; cf. CXXXVIIEf.) during the Germanic campaign ‘to prevent’ the achievements of the elder Drusus (-> Claudius [II 24]), the true conqueror of Germania, ‘from being forgotten’. The scope of the work (omnia quae cum

commander and dramatic poet must have been an important example of Roman biography before Suetonius. Listed second in the catalogue of works, it requires a date after 51 for Pomponius’ death (when he served as legate in Germania superior, see above); P. will thus have started the ‘Germanic Wars’ before, but completed them after, the biography. References to his own work

Germanis

(Plin. HN 13,83: Pomponius’ MSS collection.; 14, 56 his exquisite wines) point to a personal-private relationship with the not unimportant (Quint. Inst. 10,1,98), but soon out-dated poet. 2. STUDIOS! LIBRI III This work, a rhetorical curriculum from the cradle on, was divided into six books (Ep. 3,5,5) due to its comprehensiveness. Written during P.’s ‘retirement’ under Nero (c. 60?), > Quintilianus (Inst. 3,1,21) mentions him alongside — Verginius and Tutilius as an author of contemporary rhetorical text-books; other references are rather more ironic (e.g. Quint. Inst. 11,3,143 about the toga and 11,3,148 on the orator’s handkerchief). The work, a pedantic accumulation of rather curious individual prescriptions and examples (Gell. 9,16) perhaps designed as a supplement to > Ciceros Orator (which P. calls Studiosus), was apparently rendered superfluous by Quintilian’s Imstitutiones oratoriae. 3. DUBII SERMONIS LIBRI VIII (Ep. 3,5,5 refers to grammatical works of the final years of Nero’s rule, completed, according to HN praef. 28, ten years earlier, i.e. by AD 69). This collection and assessment of words and word forms conducive to faulty usage (maybe in form of an ars?) followed the Stoic tradition of a meQi &udirodoyiac/peri amphilologias, ‘On Ambiguities’ (Chrysippus in Gell. NA 11,12,1). Despite a wealth of material taken from + Varro’s De lingua Latina, it did not necessarily follow the Varronian opposition between analogy and anomaly, although numerous excerpts in the Grammatici Latini (esp. > Charisius on > Julius Romanus) do reveal liberal use of the anomaly (not necessarily applicable to the language of his HN). Here apply P.’s reproach of the grammarians for their inappropriate obsession with details (perversa grammaticorum subtilitas, HN 35,13) and the rivalry of the analogist + Remmius Palaemon. To deduce an_ inclination towards political opposition to the Tulio-Claudian dynasty is to misjudge P.’s encyclopaedic interests.

gessimus

bella, ‘all of Rome’s

Germanic

wars’) and quotations in Tac. Ann. 1,69 and Suet. Gaius

8 seem to indicate that it was a comparative overview with dramatic scenes and dynastic details rather than a work of political criticism and partisanship. Under the rule of Drusus’ son > Claudius [II 27] such would have been directed less against Tiberian historiography (as represented by > Aufidius Bassus, > Velleius Paterculus) [8], than against those historians glorifying Drusus’ wayward grandson > Caligula (Cn. > Cornelius Lentulus [II 27] Gaetulicus?) [9]. P. may have propagated Drusus’ policy of a border along the river Elbe, dismissed by both Tiberius and Claudius [ro]. This is further supported by his dream of Drusus’ plaintive visitation in the camp as reported in Plin. Ep. 3,5,4 (possibly from the work’s proem?) as the legitimation for and impetus behind his book [rr]. 3. A FINE AUFIDII BASSI HISTORIARUM LIBRI XXXI

P.’s ‘Continuation

of the Histories

of Aufidius

Bassus (HRR II rro-112), not mentioned in Plin. Ep.

3,5, though a major work, is largely closed to research. Even the year from which P. took up Bassus’ narrative, most likely AD 47, is supposition rather than certainty. As P. himself instructed for some of his books to be published posthumously (Plin. HN praef. 20), it is assumed this work was pro-Flavian (‘laudes Vespasiani et Titi’, HN praef. 3-59) and anti-Neronian (cf. HN. 7,46: ‘enemy of mankind’). To what extent > Tacitus used the scrupulous (Plin. Ep. 3,5,7) P. for his Annales, Historiae and Germania remains a point of contention and depends on the assessment of the structure of Tacitus’ sources. TOWNEND’S [12] formula — parallels between Tacitus and Suetonius point to P. as source; those between Tacitus and Cassius Dio or Plutarchus, to Cluvius Rufus — is too simplistic. Even topical criteria (the Batavian revolt, Tac. Hist. 3,46-5,26) [13] or stylistic ones (accumulation of details, documents, inscriptions, etc.) prove nothing [14]. The existence of further works not mentioned in Plin. Ep. 3,5 (attribution of De viris illustribus to P. in the MSS) is not to be assumed (con-

tra, [15]}). B. GRAMMATICAL-RHETORICAL WORKS 1. DE viTA POMPONII SECUNDI LIBRI II 2. STUDIOSI LIBRI III 3. DUBII SERMONIS LIBRI VI

II]. NATURALIS HISTORIA Naturae historiarum libri XXXVII (Ep. 3,5,6: a comphrehensive, erudite and deliberately multi-faceted work), persistently called Naturalis historia in the c. 130 MSS; these cannot be accurately placed in a stemma [17].

A. STRUCTURE AND CONTENT t. DE vITA POMPONII

PLINIUS

B. SOURCES

SECUNDI LiBRI II

Reverent memoir of his beloved friend P. > Pomponius [III 8] Secundus in biographical form (Ep 3,5,35 HRR 2,109). The encomiastic portrait of the military

A. STRUCTURE AND CONTENT According to the index in bk. 1 (table of contents, Roman and Greek sources, index), this largest extant

PLINIUS

388

387

Latin prose work from Antiquity consists of two parts

[343 35]. In his critique of civilization, P. brushes up

in 18 books each. Part x (bks. 2-19) deals with nature in

against Seneca’s Naturales quaestiones. In its moralistic

its own right; Part 2 (bks. 20-36), with nature related to humans as healer and nurturer. These general guiding principles seem to be overruled at times in favour of autonomous digressions and encyclopaedic supplements, though the overriding pragmatic purpose of all knowledge is never out of sight. Part I contains a bk. on cosmology and astronomy (2; [18; 19]), four bks. on geography [20] (3: western and southern Europe; 4: eastern and northern Europe; 5: North Africa, western Asia; 6: eastern and southern Asia, southern Africa), one bk. on anthropology (7: biographical details on Roman politicians and emperors {[21]), four bks. on zoology [22] (8: land animals; 9: marine animals; ro: birds [23]; 11: insects), eight bks. on botany (12-13: exotic trees, including 13,68-88 on papyrus [24]; 14-15: fruit trees, including wine-growing and different types of vine; 16: forest trees and general botany, e.g. 16,156-173 on the calamus, the reed used as a > pen; 17: fruit trees and their cultivation; conclusion to Part 1: bk. 18: agriculture, set apart by its own proem (on 18,34 see [25]); 19: garden plants, 19,1-6 on sailing vessels, linked to the marvels of flax). In Part 2, eight bks. (20-27) deal with remedies from plants (pharmacology), one bk. (28) with the medicinal uses of human products (including language at 28,1029, which P. attributes with limited magical powers, [26; 27]), four bks. on the medicinal uses of animal products (29-30: land animals, including a history of

appeal, this comprehensive compilation of data thus arrives at a rhetorical claim with an ideological force — expressed most clearly in the (highly commended) praefatio (with the dedication to Titus) [36; 37] — and creates something unique, new and_standard-setting. However, P.’s distancing from Greek positivism and his predilection for ancient Roman values, e.g. in folk

B. SOURCES The scientific material comes almost exclusively from Greek text-books (> Aristoteles [6], > Theophrastus, Hippocratics) [41], mostly directly or from epitomes (— Epitome), to a lesser extent from handbooks, as had been presumed earlier. New historical and geographical insights come from Cato [1], Varro [2], Agrippa [x], Licinius [II 14] Mucianus, Corbulo and others. The index (bk. r) lists 146 Roman and 327 (not always directly used) Greek authors as P.’s sources

ancient medicine at 29,1-28 [28], and of magic at 30,1-

[42].

203; 31-32: marine animals). The final five books are devoted to mineral resources: 3 3-34: metals, including their use for weapons, tools and artifacts (3 3,29-37 history of the ordo equester; 33,42-49 history of money with a diatribe against greed [29; 30]; 34,5-32 history of bronze sculpting; 34,49-52 catalogue of artists); 35-36: soils (including pigments; 35,15-28 history of painting) and stones (36,9-43 history of marble sculpting, including 37 on the Laocoon group [31]; 33-36 are regarded as ‘bks. on art’ [32]); 37: precious stones including amber and pearls. Apart from this dichotomy (18 + 18 bks.), the work has no other obvious symmetric structure; instead it follows a logical progression in terms of natural philosophy, i.e. from large to small forms (bks. 2-37: from the cosmos to the pearl; animals, bk. 7: from the elephant to the hare; on remedies, bks. 29-30: a capite ad calcem, ‘from head to toe’; human life, bk. 7: from birth to death). Ever-present is also a deep reverence for nature and its divine principle (2,18): ‘deus est mortali iuvare mortalem et haec ad aeternam gloriam via’, ‘To assist mortals as a mortal is to be a god; this is the way to eternal glory,’ on which [33]. Nature is entirely focused on humankind, while allowing man the freedom to use nature rightly or wrongly. Despite this (undogmatically) Stoic conception of nature and morality, the utilitarian trust in a nature that is ambivalent towards human beings displays (subconcious?) Epicurean traits

medicine, have also bestowed on him the odium of an

unscientific approach [38]. This is true inasmuch as P. ultimately took a literary approach: in the belief that he was describing nature itself, he basically only repeated what had already been written about it. The present is reflected only in the didactic-moral appeal to his readers: he seeks to convey a reality-oriented competence for living and a rational religiosity. His language is correspondingly heterogeneous, encompassing lists of data, narratives and rhetorical pathos [39; 40].

IV. RECEPTION Despite > Quintilianus’ criticism (Inst. 11,3,143), P.

was widely used by the grammarians, > Suetonius (Pratum), > Solinus, > Martianus Capella, > Isidorus [9] [433 44] and throughout the European Middle Ages (with an astonishing priority on geography) [45]. The first edition was printed as early as 1469 (Venice); P. found lively interest among the Humanists, who used the HN as a nonfiction reference book (commentaries by HeRMOLAUS BaRBARUS 1492, GELENIUS 1554, DELECAMPIUS 1587, SALMASIUS 1629, HARDUINUS 1685). Nonetheless, it was only in 1851 (SILLIG), long after P.’s dethronement during the Enlightenment, that the first scholarly edition appeared (followed in 1865 by JAN, 1906ff. by MAYHOFF [repr. 1967]). DANNEMANN [46] began the HN’s rehabilitation as a unique historical document; this continues with the bilingual Latin/German edition by G. WINKLER/R. KONIG (1973ff.) and the technical verification by a Tiibingen team called Arbeitskreis Archaometrie (F. Locher et. al., since 1979). ~ Encyclopaedia; > Technical literature; > Stoicism 1 H.G. PFLauM, Les carriéres procuratoriennes equestres sous le Haut-Empire romain 1, 1960, 106-111 2 K.SaLLMANN,

Quo verius posteris tradere possis, in: WJA

5,

1979, 209-218 3R. Martin, La mort étrange de Pline Ancien, in: VL 73, 1979, 13-21 4 V. Cova, Plinio il Vecchio o letica del funzionario, in: Atti del congresso

389

390

internazionale di studi Varroniani, 1981, 325-334 5 PIR* P 373 6 J. Jenkins, A Group of Silvered-Bronze Horse Trappings from Xanten, in: Britannia

16, 1985,

141-164 7 F, LAMMeERT, Die rémische Taktik (Philologus Suppl. 22/23), 1931, 483f. 8K. Curist, Drusus und Germanicus, 1956, 587 9 D.W. Hur ey, Gaius Caligula in the Germanicus Tradition, in: AJPh 110, 1989, 316-338

10 K. SALLMANN, Der Traum des Historikers, in; ANRW II 32.1, 1984, 578-621 11 A. ONNERFORS, Traumerzablung und Traumtheorie beim dlteren P., in: RhM 119, 1976, 353-365 12 G.B. TowNneEND, Cluvius Rufus in the ‘Histories’ of Tacitus, in: AJPh 85, 1964, 337-377 13L. BESSONE, La rivolta batavica e la crisi del 65 d.C., 1972

14 J. Wirkes,

Julio-Claudian

Historians,

in: CW

65,

1971/72, 177-203, esp. 182 15 L. BRACCHESI, Plinio storico, in: L. ALFons! (ed.), Plinio il Vecchio, 1982, 53-82

16 L. Hoxtz, Pline et les grammairiens, in: J. PIGEAUD (ed.), Pline ’ancien, temoin de son temps, 1987, 549-570 17 H. Watter, Studien zur Handschriftengeschichte der Naturalis Historia des Alteren P., in: Universitat Mannheim Forschungsberichte, 1978-1982, 227-239 18 F. Touuze, Astronomie, mythe et vérité, in: B. BAKHOUCHE (ed.), Les astres 2, 1996, 29-59 19 A. Jones, Pliny on the

Planetary Cycles, in: Phoenix 44, 1990, 82f.; 45, 1991, 148-161 20K. SALLMANN, Die Geographie des 4lteren P. in ihrem Verhaltnis zu Varro, 1971 21. Nok, Echi di polemica anti-augustea in Plinio Nat. Hist. 7,147—-1 50, in: RIL 113, 1979, 391-407 22H. LeEITNER, Zoologische Terminologie beim alteren P., 1972 23 F. Cappont, Le fonti del X libro della Naturalis Historia di Plinio, 1985 24 I.H. M. HENpRIKS, Pliny, Historia Naturalis 13, 74-82

and the Manufacture of Papyrus, in: ZPE 37, 1980, 212236 25 A. CossarInI, Plinio il Vecchio e l’ideologia della terra, in: P. SERRA ZANETTI (ed.), In verbis verum amare,

1980,

143-163

26 T. KOves-ZuLauF,

Reden

und

Schweigen, 1972 27 A. BAuMER, Die Macht des Wortes in Religion und Magie, in: Hermes 112, 1984, 84-99 28 J.

Hann, P. und die griechischen Arzte in Rom, in: Sudhoffs Archiv: Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschafts-Geschichte 75, 1991, 209-239 29H. Z=HNACKER, Pline l’Ancien et I’histoire de la monnaie romaine, in: Ktema 4, 1979, 169-181 30 C. NIcoLeT, Pline, Paul et la théorie de la monnaie, in: Athenaeum 52, 1984, 105-135 31 O. ZWIERLEIN, P. tiber den Laokoon, in: H.-U. Can (ed.), FS N. Himmelmann, 1989, 433-443 32 J. IsaGER, Pliny on Art and Society, 1991 33S. CITRONI MarcHETTA, luvare mortalem, in: Atene e Roma 27, 1982, 124-148 34S. CiTRONI MarCHETTA, Plinio il Vecchio e la tradizione del moralismo romano, 1991 35 M. BeEaGon, Roman Nature, the

Thought of Pliny the Elder, 1992

36 T. KOves-ZULAUF,

Die Vorrede der plinianischen Naturgeschichte, in: WS 7,

1973, 134-184 37N.P. Howe, In Defense of the Encyclopedic Mode, in: Latomus 44, 1985, 561-576 38G. GRUNINGER, Untersuchungen zur Personlichkeit des alteren P., thesis, Freiburg i.B. 1976 39 R. Gazicu, Modello narrativo del racconto nella Naturalis Historia, in: Bollettino di Studi Latini 18, 1988, 33-57 40J.F. Heaty, The

Language of Pliny the Elder, in: Filologia e forma letteraria 4, 1988, 3-24 41G.A. SEECK, P. und Aristoteles als Naturwissenschaftler, in: Gymnasium 92, 1985, 419-434 42 F. Munzer, Beitrage zur Quellenkritik der Naturgeschichte des P., 1897 43 A. LABHARDT, Quelques temoinages d’auteurs latin sur la personalité et l’ceuvre de Pline Ancien, in: Mélanges M. Niedermann, 1944, 105-114 44 Id., Plinio tardoantico, in: [15], 151-168 45 A. Borst, Das Buch der Naturgeschichte, 1994 46 F. DANNEMANN,

PLINIUS

P. und seine Naturgeschichte, 1921

47 J.H. HEALy, Pliny

the Elder on Science and Technology, 1999. Ep1TIONs:

Historica: HRR

2, 109-112; Dubius sermo:

A. DELLA Casa, 1969; Naturalis historia: C.MAYHOFF, 1906 (repr. 1996);J.BEAuyEU, A. ERNOUT, et al., 19 50ff.; H. RackHaM, 1938ff.; R. Konic, G. WINKLER, et al., 1973ff.; E. GaBBa, 1984ff.; C.G. NAUERT, in: F.E.CRANZ (ed.), Catalogus translationum et commentariorum, 1980, 297-422. INDEX: F. SEMI, 1980.

RESEARCH Reports: K. SALLMANN, in: Lustrum 19, 1975, 5-299 (1938-1970); F. ROMER, in: AAHG 31, 1978, 129-206, esp. 164-175; G. SERBAT, in: ANRW Il 32.4, 1986, 2069-2200. COLLECTIONS: Plinio e la natura, 1982; A. RONCORONI (ed.), Plinio il Vecchio sotto il profilo storico e letterario, 1982; J. PicEAuD (ed.), Pline ’Ancien, temoin de son temps, 1987. KL.SA.

[2] P. Caecilius Secundus, C. (Pliny the Younger) I. Lire II. Worx I. LIFE

Born in AD 61/2 (Plin. Ep. 6,20,5) the son of a Caecilius in Novum > Comum. Following his father’s early death, P. the Younger was given a home in Rome by ~ P. [1] the Elder, a maternal uncle, and later adopted in his will. P. hailed from the wealthy municipal nobility and enjoyed an excellent education, initially in Comum, later in Rome, where he studied rhetoric under > Nicetes [2] Sacerdos and > Quintilianus. This was followed by a brilliant political career (CIL V 5262f.; CIL XI

5272). P. started as Xvir stlitibus iudicandis (+ decemviri[2]);in AD 82 he went to Syria as tribunus

militum, became quaestor in 90, in 92 tribunus plebis and, still under > Domitianus’ rule, achieved the praetorship in 93; during 94-96, he served as praefectus aerart militaris. From 98-100, he filled the office of praefectus aerarti Saturni, and reached the suffect consulship in roo (Plin. Pan. 60,4-5; 92,2-4) and probably assumed the office of curator alvei Tiberis (> Cura [2]) in 104/5. In 103, he was admitted to the college of the — augures on the proposal of > Frontinus (Ep. 4,8 and 10,13). Frome. 109, he served as legatus Augusti in the province of > Bithynia. P. definitely died before the end of Trajan’s rule (i.e. prior to 117), possibly while still in Bithynia. Alongside his activities in politics and government, P. also appeared as orator and as advocate in extortion trials (> repetundarum crimen; together with > Tacitus; Ep. 2,11) as well as in the centumviral courts (— centumviri). His public life also included the foundation of educational institutions (library; Ep. 1,8). In general, P.’s cultural activities are seen as an essential part of his public self-presentation. II. Work A portion of P.’s literary oeuvre is closely linked to his political career. Along with some private letters to + Traianus of AD 98/9, bk. 10 of his letter collection

PLINIUS

391

contains mainly P.’s correspondence from Bithynia with the the emperor and his chancery (including the letters about the Christians, Ep. 96 and 97). P.’s Panegyricus, the speech of thanks delivered to the Senate in Rome on the occasion of his appointment as suffect consul, also belongs to an immediately political context. The central topic of this speech, a mixture of gratiarum actio (thansgiving) and mavyyvetxdc dOyos/ panégyrikos logos (laudatio, ‘speech of praise’, cf. + Panegyrics), was the ideal ruler, with Trajan set against the backdrop of > Domitianus’ rule. The actual core of P.’s work is his own collection of his private letters (Epistulae, bks. 1-9). Differing from Cicero’s correspondence, these letters aim not primarily at the exchange of information, but constitute a collection of epistolary essays, each of which as a rule takes up a single topic. However, it would be wrong to view these letters as fictitious letters in isolation from the actual communication situation. The true function of the individual epistles has to be seen within the culture of friendship within the Roman elite under Trajan’s rule with its integral element of exhibiting cultural erudition. The edition of the letters, deliberately aimed at topical variety and stylistic variation (Ep. 2,5), covers a

wide range of subjects: character profiles, questions of lifestyle, legal problems, contemporary cultural life, anecdotes, amazing things and events, ecphrastic texts (the so-called ‘villa letters’: Ep. 2,17; 5,6; > Gardens;

+ Villa), theoretical discourses (historiography: Ep. 5,8; rhetoric: Ep. 7,9), historical-autobiographical essays (the letter about the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius: Ep. 6,16; 6,20; > Vesuvius). In all, these letters provide

an excellent picture of the author’s intellectual environment and the values of the Roman senatorial aristocracy of his period. Addressees and personal subjects include — Silius Italicus, > P. [1] the Elder, > Martialis [1], > Tacitus and > Suetonius. Against the mirror of his subjects and addressees, P. provides an elaborate picture of himself as a supreme authority on the social codes of his times in respect of architecture, literature, religion, social life, etc. A further aspect of this display of cultural erudition were P.’s poems; circulated under the title of Hendecasyllabi (‘eleven-syllable’), they were largely modelled in form and content on > Catullus [1], whom P. presumably found attractive because of his ‘friendship’ motifs and ‘urbane wit’. However, apart from a very few references in the letters (Ep. 4,27; 7,4), these poems are completely lost. The strong focus on cultural aspects in P.’s self-presentation is both (a) a consequence of the ever growing + literary activity and the increasing social significance of > education / culture in the rst cent. AD; and (b) a

result of the author’s reflection on the historical conditions and opportunities under imperial rule. A significant factor in this will certainly have been the experience of Domitian’s rule. In spite of his own successful career under him, P. tried to distance himself in his writ-

ings from the last of the Flavian rulers (Ep. 1,5; 9,13).

B92.

The opportunities for political fame were limited. The cultural sector provided an alternative for good publicity. P.’s medium for this reflection was his literary competition with > Cicero (Ep. 3,15; 4,8; 9,2), which — despite the parallels in their respective political careers — he explicitly confined to the field of intellectual pursuits (studia) because of the fundamental differences between the Republican and the Imperial eras. However, this does not derive from a resigned stance, but from a very deliberate turn towards a notion of establishing one’s own cultural virtues. Against this backdrop, P. arrived at a re-assessment of the traditional categories of negotium-otium

(> Leisure). Contra Cicero, who saw intellectual pursuit as essentially inferior to any activity in the area of actual business, otium in P.’s view gained greater significance in its own right and became the true field in which to aim for fame (Ep. 3,13 4,3). In antiquity, P.’s epistles were considered a model; imitations include the letters of > Symmachus (4th cent.) and the Gallic bishop > Sidonius Apollinaris (5th cent.). The reception of P.’s Panegyricus ranged from the late antique > Panegyrici latini to Baroque laudatory poetry (Fiirstenlob). ~ Epistolography, > Letter; > Letrers, EpISTOLARY LITERATURE EDITIONS: Complete: M. SCHUSTER, *1952; M. ScHuSTER, R. HANSLIK?1958. Letters: R.A. B. MYNORS, 1966.

Panegyricus: Id., XII Panegyrici Latini, 1964 (repr. 1990); W. KUHN, 1985. COMMENTARY: A.N. SHERWIN-WHITE, The Letters of

Pliny. A Historical and Social Commentary, 1966. BIBLIOGRAPHY: H.-P. BUTLER, Die geistige Welt des jiingeren P., 1970; S. FEIN, Die Beziehungen der Kaiser Trajan und Hadrian zu den Litterati, 1994; M. FELL, Optimus Princeps?, 1992; A. GIOVANNINI, Pline et les délateurs de Domitien,

in: K.A.

RAaFLAUB,

A. GIOVANNINI

(ed.),

Opposition et résistances a l’empire d’Auguste a Trajan (Entretiens 33), 1987, 219-248; A.-M. GUILLEMIN, Pline et la vie littéraire de son temps, 1929; H. KrasseER, Claros

colere viros oder iiber engagierte Bewunderung, in: Philologus 137, 1993, 62-71; Id., Extremos pudeat rediisse — P. im Wettstreit mit der Vergangenheit, in: A&A 39, 1993, 144-154; E. LEFEvRE, P.-Studien I, V, VI, VII, in: Gymnasium 84, 1977, 519-541; 96, 1989, 113-128; 103, 1996, 193-215 and 333-353; M. Lupo pu, Epistolo-

graphie und Selbstdarstellung, 1997; G. MERWALD, Die Buchkomposition des Jiingeren P., thesis, Erlangen 1964; J. Nicxas, Pliny and the Patronage of Communities, in: Hermes 108, 1980, 365-385; K. STROBEL, Laufbahn und Vermachtnis des jiingeren P., in: W. Huss, K. STROBEL (ed.), Beitrage

zur

Geschichte

(Bamberger

Hochschul-

schriften 9), 1983, 37-56; Id., Zu zeitgeschichtlichen Aspekten im Panegyricus des jiingeren P., in: J. KNOsPE, K. StRoBEL, Zur Deutung von Geschichte in Antike und Mittelalter (=Bamberger Hochschulschriften rr), 1985, 7-112; F. TRISOGLIO, La personalita di Plinio il Giovane

nei suoi rapporti con la politica, la societa e la letteratura (=Memoria dell’ Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, Cl. di Scienze Mor., Stor. e Fil. Ser.4 n.25), 1972; K. ZELZER,

Zur Frage des Charakters der Briefsammlung des jiingeren P., in: WS 77, 1964, 144-161.

H.KR.

393

394

Plinta. Goth in the service of Rome, a relative of Aspar (+ Ardabur [1]; ILS 1299), possibly an ancestor of Basilicus [2. 426f.]. P. put down a rebellion in Palestine in 418 AD. In 419 he was a consul, then until c. 438/440 a magister militum.

the sea. The participants then returned to the sanctuary of Isis where, according to Apuleius, a grammatens pronounced a wish for general well-being inclusive of seamen and their ships. Since the beginning of the seafaring season meant that grain from Egypt, so important for Rome and other cities, could once again be transported by ship and the distribution of grain corn (> Cura annonae) was thus guaranteed, Isis could be considered the protector ofthe annona, just like - Sarapis, who was represented on coins.

1 PLRE 2, 892f.

2 W. BRANDEs, Familienbande?, in: Klio

753 1993, 407-437.

WE.LU.

Pliska (Slavonic; Greek MAtoxoBa/Pliskoba). Residency in the first kingdom of the > Bulgari, one of the succes-

sor States on the soil of the Roman Empire, in the years 681-843, 25 km to the east of Sumen at modern Pliska

PLOTINA

1S.A. TaxkAcs, Isis and Sarapis in the Roman (RGRW

124), 1995;

World

2 J. Gwyn GrirrFiTus (ed.), Apu-

(formerly Aboba) in northeastern Bulgaria, to the north

leius of Madauros. The Isis-Book (with Engl. trans. and

of the + Haemus, where important mountain passes can be controlled, probably founded by Khan Asparuh. Originally built as a military fortress 23 km? in area, with rectangular’ and circular wooden buildings and three concentric embankments, the innermost ring enclosing the palace area (0-5 km*). This city, formed under Khan Krum was completely destroyed in 81x by Nicephorus [2] I, and after the victory of the Bulgari over the Byzantines was rebuilt in stone by Omurtag. His palace was centred around a large throne chamber (48-50 X 28-54 m), decorated with statues captured at Constantinople. To the west of that was a sanctuary to the chief Bulgarian god, Tangra. When Boris I adopted the Christian faith in 864, building was begun on churches (e.g. the Great Basilica, proto-Bulgarian architecture) and near the palace precinct a monastery, which would become significant to the mission of > Cyrillus [8] and > Methodius [4]. In 893 under Symeon P. was abandoned in favour of a new, purely Christian residency at Preslav.

commentary; EPRO 39), 1975; 3 L. VipMman, Isis und Sarapis bei den Griechen und Rémern (RGVV 29), 1970.

R.S. Rasev, P., 1985; L. Donéva-Petxova, P. heidnische und christliche Stadt der Bulgaren, in: Das Altertum, 2000.

Lyv.B.

S.TA.

Plotheia (MAwea/Plotheia; demoticon WhwOeev tamias) and cults of Apollo, Aphrodite and the Dioscuri (Anaces). TRAILL, Attica, 41, 59f., 69, 104, 112 Nr. 116, Tab. 2; WHITEHEAD, Index s.v. P. H.LO.

Plotia Isaurica. Owner of brickworks near Rome in the time of Trajan (98-117), products of which survive in

great numbers (CIL XV 52-60; 63-68; 339 etc.). She may have been a member of a senatorial family (cf. — Plotius [II 3 and 4]). RAEPSAET-CHARLIER, Nr. 620; PIR? P 524.

Plistica (Plistia, MAevotwxn/Pleistike). City in Samnium (> Samnites) near Saticula (Liv. 9,21f.; Diod. Sic. 19,7253), possibly at modern Prestia c. 4 km to the east

of Sant’ Agata dei Goti on ~ Mons Taburnus. In the second of the > Samnite Wars (326-304 BC) the city, which was allied with Rome, was conquered by the Samnites in 315 BC after a year-long siege. M.LG.

Ploeaphesia (xovadéowa/ploiaphésia,

Lat. navigium

Isidis). The P. was a festival celebrated in numerous

places on 5 March to open the annual ancient seafaring season. It is described in Apul. Met. 11,8—17 (where it is probably connected with the Corinthian Hybristica festival [1. 87-89]) [2]; the nauarchs belonging to the cult association of > Isis probably served as officiants [3. 76-87]. According to Apuleius, women led the procession, initiates with no special responsibility in the cult of Isis formed the middle, and priests of Isis with cult symbols were at the end. On the beach a small model ship (ploion) dedicated to Isis was pushed into

W.E.

Plotina. Pompeia P., b. between AD 62 and 72. Daughter of a L. Pompeius from Nemausus [2] (mod. Nimes) and possibly a woman called Plotia. A connection to the imperial family from Trajan to Marcus Aurelius has been suggested but is not verifiable. The marriage to ~ Traianus [1], completed before the beginning of his rule in AD 98, remained childless. P., together with Trajan’s sister > Marciana, was praised in AD 100 by Pliny (Plin. Pan. 83f.); like Marciana, P. bore the title of Augusta from around AD 102, although this only appeared on imperial coinage after AD 112 (RIC Il 297299). Plotinopolis in Thrace was named after her in AD 106, but it is not clear whether she accompanied Trajan during the Dacian Wars (AD 1ro1-106); on the other hand it is beyond doubt that she stayed (with > Matidia [x]) in the east during the > Parthian War, whence she took to Rome the ashes of Trajan who had died in AD ity

275)

396

Her personal relationship with > Hadrian was evidently good; this is testified by her (successful) espousal of the + Epicurean school in Athens, a matter of great interest to her [1. No. 442]. After her death (AD 123) she was consecrated and frequently revered as Hadrian’s diva mater. Her received image is influenced by the ambivalent traditions about Hadrian: she is regarded as the embodiment of ancient Roman, womanly virtue (> Pudicitia), but also as a schemer whose favour (favor Plotinae) allegedly secured Hadrian’s succession against Trajan’s wishes.

In 263 the philosopher + Porphyrius came to Rome from Athens; for 6 years he belonged to P.’s school (263-268). Because of his initial reluctance to accept the Plotinian theory of the relationship between the intellect (nods) and the intelligible (zoéta) he was not immediately admitted to the inner circle. Only after accepting the theory, was Porphyrius given access to P.’s writings and was even asked to edit them. Thanks to his biography of P. we have information about P.’s life in Rome. He stayed in the house of Gemina, a woman ‘who was very interested in his philosophy’. Her house appears to have been rather large; in addition to Gemina (who was not —as mistakenly assumed — the widow of emperor Trebonius [2] since Trebonius’ widow had died before 251) and her daughter Gemina, there stayed also a widow by the name of Chione with her children, and there were many more children whose guardian P. was; there were also the slaves of the various families. Porphyrius reports that emperor Gallienus (sole ruler from 260 to 268) and empress Salonia greatly

PLOTINA

1 E.M. SMALLWoop, Documents Illustrating the Principates of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian, 1966. PIR?: P 279; RAEPSAET-CHARLIER, Nr. 631; H. TEMPORINI, Die Frauen am Hofe Trajans, 1978, 10-183; H. TeM-

PORINI-GRAFIN VITZTHUM, Frauen im Bild der domus Augusta unter Trajan, in: E. SCHALLMAYER (ed.), Traian in Germanien, Traian im Reich, 1999, 45-53. H.T.-V.

Plotinus (TAwtivoc; Plotinos). Greek philosopher, founder of > Neoplatonism. A. Lire B. WritTines C. TEACHINGS D. INFLUENCE

A. LIFE

P. was born in AD 205 (in the 13th year of the rule of Septimius Severus) and died in 270 at the age of 66 (Porph. Vita Plotini 2,34). His ethnic origin is difficult to determine. Eunapius (p. 456 BOISSONNADE) lists as his place of birth Lycon in Egypt (the town has been identified as > Lyconpolis). The information is problematic because according to Porphyrius P. kept his place of birth secret. Proclus (Platonis Theologia 1,1)

called him an ‘Egyptian’. His name is in the Latin form [1]. The only detail that P. ever told about his childhood was that he still wanted to nurse from his wet-nurse at the age of seven (Porph. Vita Plotini 3,6). This anecdote probably belongs in the context of the Stoic doctrine of the onset of reason at the age of seven. In Alexandria P. studied with several teachers of philosophy. When he was 28 years old he met the Platonist + Ammonius [9] Saccas and was captivated by his teaching. He remained his student for 11 years. In 243, probably through the intervention of his apparently wealthy and influential family, he came to the court of emperor > Gordianus III and accompanied him in the campaign against the Persians ‘to also learn about the philosophy of the Persians and Indians’ (Porph. Vita Plotini 3,15-16). When in early 244 Gordianus was assassinated by his army (possibly instigated by the prefect Philippus Arabs) P. fled to Antioch [1] on the Orontes — probably because he felt his association with the imperial court put him in danger. From Antioch P. went to Rome where he opened a school, probably the first year after his arrival. When the school was in its second year, the philosopher > Amelius Gentilianus became his student and later his ‘assistant’.

revered P. (Vita Plotini 12,2). In this context he menti-

ons P.’s dream of rebuilding a ‘city of philosophers’ in Campania. The site was probably a former estate of + Cicero, located between Cumae and Bacoli. It was to become a real academy, suitable for philosophical conversations [3]. The opposition of Gallienus’ advisors thwarted the effort to restore the site. In 268 Gallienus was assassinated. The school closed a year later. There may have been a political reason, related to the beginning of the rule of Gallienus’ successor Claudius Gothicus. But the more likely cause for the closing of the school was P.’s progressing illness (tuberculosis according to [4]). Porphyrius was in Sicily at that time and Amelius in Apamea in Syria. P. retired to Campania where he died in 270 in the presence of Eustochius, one of his students. P.HA. B. WRITINGS P. started to put his philosophical treatises in writing only after 254, i.e. ro years after opening his school (Porph. Vita Plotini 3,35). Earlier, Amelius had compiled scholia for P.’ lectures (ibidem 3,46-48; 4,4-6; not extant). P. had limited himself to oral instruction

for such a long time because he and his two fellow students Herennius and Origenes [1] had agreed not to spread the doctrine of their teacher Ammonius [9] Sac-

cas. When Herennius broke that agreement, P. decided to write as well. But P. did not write his treatises to explain his philosophical system to his readers. According to his editor Porphyrius (Porph. Vita Plotini 5,5; 5,60) his writings were elaborations on the problems that had come up in discussions during his lessons. Thus, although P.’ treatises are related to his oral instruction, they are not transcripts of his lessons. Thanks to Porphyrius’ edition we have all of P.’ writings. Porphyrius even provided their chronology (in round brackets in the sources under C). But he consid-

erably changed the arrangement of these writings and

397

398

their relationship; in the Pythagorean spirit he arranged them on his own accord in a systematic sequence of six

eternity). In the third period, P. apparently turned his attention to moral issues. Apart from the text devoted to the concept of self-knowledge in the realm of the intelligible (49), and from another text (50) that offers an interpretation of the myth of Eros, the last treatises dealt with evil (kak6n), providence (proénoia), the influence of the heavenly bodies, the relationship of the self to what affects the body, and finally, the traditional question whether death is a good (47-48, 51, 52, 54).

groups, with each group consisting of nine treatises (the

‘Enneads’) and organised according to the three parts of philosophy (ethics, physics and theology). He arbitrarily divided individual writings and thereby created the impression that the resulting individual segments corresponded to the same number of self-contained writings. These segments were scattered over various Enneads (e.g. originally. 3,8; 5,8; 5,5; 2,9 were one text) — an arrangement that P. never had intended. Almost all of P.’ treatises are some kind of ‘Platonic question’. E.g., they are not a direct explanation of P.’ doctrine of the descent of the soul but explain it indirectly by interpreting > Plato’s statements. Some of these treatises are concerned with more technical issues (e.g.: why do objects in a distance seem small to us?). Most of them, however, do not intend to solve a particular philosophical problem, but rather want to provoke a psychological response in the reader: above all, they encourage him to go beyond rational thought and, through an experience that can not be communicated in words, to go beyond reason (/dgos) and even beyond intellect (xods). Porphyrius presented the chronological list of P.’ writings from a rather egocentric perspective: He distinguished three periods in P.’ writing: The first period prior to Porphyrius’ arrival, the second spanning the six years he spent in P.’ school, and a third that started with his departure. According to Porphyrius, most of P.’ writings and his most significant ones came from the second period. The presence of Porphyrius, who was a productive philosopher, might have stimulated interesting discussions at school and the writings related to these discussions could have been especially numerous and thorough. Contrary to Porphyrius’ opinion, the texts of the last period do not betray any sign of weakness or senility. The 21 texts of the first period are shorter and less complicated than those of the second period. The specifically Plotinian doctrine of the > emanation (aporrhoia) of the levels of Intellect and Soul from the One is expressed in great clarity (in chronological sequence in the treatises 7, 9, 10,

11). A group of writings examines

the Soul (psyché) — its immortality, its essence, its presence in the body (2, 4, 6, 8, 14 und 21) — and matter (bylé, 12). Other texts discuss moral issues: purification (katharsis) through virtue or the status of the wise man (spoudaios) in the hierarchy of beings (15, 19, 20). In the second period, there are extensive discussions about the Soul (26-29 und 41) and, probably related to them, discussions about the presence of the intelligible (70éta) in the material world (22-23). A coherent group of writings is polemical towards the + Gnostics (30-33 and 38-39) and rejects the idea of a creation of the world through the will and the design of a creator: by neccessity the visible world is derived — like a reflection (eiddlon) - from the world of ideas (eidé; ~ ideas, theory of). Treatises 34 and 42-45 discuss the structure of the intelligible world (numbers, types/géné of being,

PLOTINUS

C. TEACHINGS 1. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS 2. THE LEVEL OF THE SOUL 3. THE LEVEL OF THE INTELLECT 4. THE CONTACT WITH THE ONE 5. THE DOWNWARD MOTION 1. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS P. merely wanted to be an exegete of Plato. But the method of his exegesis — to reconcile the hierarchy ofhis hypostases with the ideas of Platonic dialectics- had already been outlined by Numenius [6] and probably by P.’ teacher Ammonius [9] Saccas, about whom we know almost nothing. Basically, the Plotinian method is the ascension from one level of reality to the next higher, which generated it. The ascension can be achieved in two ways: through discursive thinking and through asceticism and mysticism. The discursive path has the following stages: the material world requires a principle of life and animation: the world soul (psyché toi pantos) and the individual souls. The world soul in turn requires a higher principle that illuminates it and that projects the reflection of the ideas onto it: the Intellect (nous). The Intellect in turn requires a principle that gives it unity and definition: the One (hem). These levels of reality correspond to the hierarchical levels and states of internal reality, i.e. of the self. One can only reach the various levels and get to know them in an active and existential manner through asceticism and mystical experience. To really understand something is to practice it. We do not know whether in his oral teachings P. treated questions of ethics, physics and theology separately as was customary. As far as his

writings are concerned, most of them can not be assigned to a particular area of philosophy. Instead, they cover (apart from a few exceptions) all areas of philosophy and take the reader on a path where he becomes aware of himself first as > soul, then as > intellect and

finally glances the possibility of touch at the One. The convenient framework of philosophical disciplines is not helpful for a discussion of P.’ philosophy; instead one has to constantly distinguish the philosophical discourse from the realities reached through the internal experience of the self. 2. THE LEVEL OF THE SOUL In the first stage of the ascent (andbasis) to which P.

invites his students, they should use their intellect in a philosophical manner to become aware of the fact that they have risen above the level of the unreasoning soul (it animates the body, and hence it is troubled by desire

399

400

and the pains that accompany the life of the body). Abstract argumentation is of no use; to really rise to the level of the intelligent soul one needs too undergo purification of desires through asceticism. The desires, essentially connected to the unreasoning soul, attach themselves to the reasoning soul as well (Plot. Enneades

for all things’, then we don’t say what it is, but rather what we are in relation to it, and that means that we are its effects. Instead of talking about it, we talk about us

PLOTINUS

4,7 (2),10,27). Thus purified, the reasoning soul can

rise to the level of the world soul (psyché tot pantos), which is not troubled by its relation to the world body and is always directed to the Intellect. P. does not define clearly the relationship between the world soul and the + hypostasis (hypostasis) of the soul that always remains in the Intelligible [5]. 3. THE LEVEL OF THE INTELLECT But one has to go further than the reasoning soul. Philosophical discourse has to admit that the Soul can only think reasonably if there exists some kind of substantial thought that is both present in the soul and that rises above it and makes discursive reasoning possible. Again, there are two possibilities for self-knowledge: to recognise oneselfas a reasoning soul, illuminated by the Intellect, yet persisting on the level of the reasoning soul, and to recognise oneself as an emerging Intellect, i.e. knowledge (Enneades 5,3 (43),4,8-14) that ‘knows it is is no longer a man, but something that has become completely different, something which tore itself loose from itself, up into the higher world.’ This is no longer a discourse, but rather a mystical experience since its is a supra-rational knowledge. Thereby the self realises that it constantly and unconsciously lives the life of the Intellect (Enneades 4,8 (6),8,3). The Intellect should be seen as our proper self. “To become Intellect’ means to reach a state of the self where the self has the same transparency toward itself as the Intellect. This happens by dismissing the individual aspect of the self that is attached to a body and a soul and by rising to a thinking of wholeness. According to P. the Intellect contains the totality of the forms that constitute the intelligible world where each is in everything and everything is in each. To think oneself as Intellect is to overcome one’s individuality and think oneself as totality; that happens not by dividing the totality into details, but through experience, since the totality is a kind of organic system. By leaving behind individual differences one becomes the Whole (holon). 4. THE CONTACT WITH THE ONE In P.’ colourful language (6,7 (38), 36,17) the Intel-

lect, with whom the self identifies, is like a surge that throws us onto the shore of the One. Philosophical discourse can demonstrate that what generates the OneAll, i.e. the Intellect, is the absolute and first unity. With this demonstration the philosophical discourse has reached its limit, because speaking means relating attributes and direct or indirect objects to a subject. But the One has neither objects nor attributes because it is completely One. As far as the One is concerned, we can only deny all objects and attributes; this method is called apophatic theology. But if we still believe we can say something about it, such as: ‘The One is the reason

(6,9 (9),3,51-52). The only way to reach the One is through mystical experience, through contact and presence. Then the philosophical discourse can be resumed again, at least it can explain why there are two levels of mystical experience and how we can experience the One. The self can lead the life of the Intellect on two levels. One is the level of the thinking intellect, i.e. of the completely structured Intellect; it corresponds to the suprarational level reached in the first mystical experience (4,8 (6),1,13 5,8 (31), 10-11). The second level P. calls ‘loving intellect’ (nous éron, 6,7 (38),35); it could also be called ‘emerging Intellect’. The Intellect comes from the One just as undefined matter emanates from the One like a ray and returns to it in pre-intellectual contact. Because of this contact with the One, says P., the intellect is full of love, drunk with nectar (6,7 (38),35). In this mystical experience of the One, the self puts itself on the point of origin where all things emanate from the One, in other words the emanating Intellect — like the radius of a circle that returns to the point where it coincides with the centre but is not the centre itself. 5. THE DOWNWARD MOTION If philosophy means returning to the One and Good then that implies that philosophy also means becoming aware of the emanation (prdodos) of all being from the Good (agath6n). Thus we become aware of the fact that all being, including ourselves, have initially moved away from the One. The coming into being of all being has a twofold meaning. On the one hand it attests to the mysterious productivity of the Good (in the Middle Ages the Good is said to be diffusivum sui, ‘pouring itself out’). P. speaks of the overabundance (hyperplerés) of the One (5,2 (11),1,9) which produces a kind of

unformed matter or potential which comes into being by returning to the One. On the other hand, the genesis of all beings is in some way related to some kind of original sin. In other words: to be more than the Good means to be in the evil. P. says about the first product of the One, the Intellect, that ‘it had the boldness (t6/ma) to move away from the One’ (6,9 (9),5,29) and that ‘it would have been better for it not to have wanted to possess all being within itself’. With these words P. alludes to > Kronos who rose against his father Uranus and who wanted to keep all of his children in himself (cf. [6]). The world soul and the individual souls rose like Zeus against Kronos, they differentiated themselves from the Intellect because they wanted to be themselves and achieve their independence, and because they wanted to project the images (eid6la) — the reflection of themselves, i.e. their

bodies — onto matter. The motion of the conversion of the souls, the upward motion, presupposes a downward motion in which the souls experience evil.

401

402 D. INFLUENCE The Plotinian hierarchy of the hypostases was the

starting point for Neoplatonic

— metaphysics from + Porphyrius (3rd cent. AD)to + Damascius (6th cent.). The influence of + Iamblichus and his exegesis of the Chaldean Oracles (~» Oracula Chaldaica) led to a multiplication of the various levels of the hierarchy,

contrary to Plotinian thought. One might even say that ~ Proclus’ Neoplatonism leads inevitably to an extension of the criticism of P., especially of P.’ theory that a

part of the Soul always remains in the Intelligible. In the history of Western thought there are four Plotinian periods: 1. The revival of Plotinian spirituality and mysticism by Christian writers in the East and West: the Cappadocians -> Gregorius [2] of Nyssa, > Gregorius [3] of Nazianzus and Basileius [1] of Caesarea; in the West especially + Ambrosius and — Augustine; the latter had read some texts by Plotinus in the Latin translation by > Marius [II 21] Victorinus (cf. [7; 8]). 2. The circulation in the Arabic world of a text the Arabs called Theology of Aristotle and its reception in the West during the Middle Ages. For the most part this text consisted of excerpts from P.’ works and was translated first from Greek into Syriac, then from Syriac into Arabic and finally from Arabic into Latin. 3. Christian Platonism beginning with the rediscovery of P.’ texts in the Renaissance through the excellent translation by MarsILio Ficino at the end of the rsth cent. (1492): Christian Platonism spread from the 16th to the 18th cent. from Italy to England where it was kept alive by the Platonists from Cambridge such as R. CuoLwortTH, J. SmitH, H. More, the poets of the Romantic Period like W. BLake, $.T. COLERIDGE, W. WorDsWoORTH and modern novelists such as CH. MorGAN.

4. The P. reception by German philosophy in the early roth cent.: G.F. CREUZER, J.W. GOETHE, G. Ficute, Nova.is and G.F. SCHELLING. Their ideas of the inner form, of beauty and of the absolute should be seen against a background of Plotinian philosophy. Towards the end of the r9th cent. H. BERGSON assumed the heritage of this Romantic tradition. His idea of living organisms was inspired by P.’ description of the forms [9] which are always complete and whole and

sufficient in themselves. + Neoplatonism; — Plato [1]; > Porphyrius; > Proclus 1 J.-L. Brisson, Plotin: une biographie, in: L. BRIssoNet al., Porphyre, La vie de Plotin, vol. 2, 1992, 2

2P.

Haport, Plotin ou la simplicité du regard, 1997, 85 3 M. GicanTeE, L’Accademia flegrea da Cicerone a Plotino, in: Momenti e motivi dell’antica civilta flegrea, 1985, 84-95 4 M. Grek, Les maladies et la mort de Plotin, in: [1], vol. 2, 355-344 5 H.-J. BLUMENTHAL, Soul, World-Soul and Individual Soul in Plotinus, in: P.M. SCHUHL, P. HaDoT (eds.), Le Néoplatonisme,

1971, 55-66

6P. Hapbot,

Ouranos, Kronos and Zeus in Plotinus’ Treatise Against the Gnostics, in: H.J. BLUMENTHAL, R. A. Markus (eds.), Neoplatonism and Early Christian Thought. Festschrift 7 P. COURCELLE, Les A.H. Armstrong, 1981, 124-137

PLOTINUS lettres grecques en occident de Macrobe a Cassiodore, 1948 8lId., Recherches sur les Confessions d’ Augustin, 1968

9R.-M. Mossé-BastibE, Bergson et Plotin, 1959.

COMPLETE EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS: A.H, ARMSTRONG, Plotinus, 7 vols., 1966-1988 (with English transl.); E. Breuer, Plotin, Ennéades, 7 vols., 19241938, *1963-1967 (with French transl.); M. CASAGLIAet al., Enneadi di Plotino, 2 vols., 1997; V. CILENTO, Plotino, Enneadi, 3 vols., 1947-1949 (text and critical comm.); G. FaGGIN, Plotino, Ennadi, r992 (Italian transl. and comm.); R. HARDER, R. BEUTLER, W. THEILER, Plotins Schriften, 6 vols., 1956 (Greek text, German transl. and comm.); P. Henry, H.-R. ScHwyzer, Plotini Opera, 3 vols., 1951-1973 (editio maior); 1964-1982 (editio minor); J. IGA, Porfirio, Vita de Plotino, Plotino, Ennéadas (Enn. I-IV), 2 vols., 1982-1985 (Spanish transl. and comm.).; S. MACKENNA, The Enneads, 31957 (English

transl., with an intr. by P. Henry) COMMENTARIES AND ANTHOLOGIES: ENN. 1,6: D. SUSANNETTI, Plotino, Sul Bello, 1995 (intr., transl., comm.). ENN. 1,8: E. SCHRODER, Plotins Abhandlungen Pothen ta kaka, 1916 (with Greek text); D. O’MEara, Plotin, traité 51 (18), 1991.

ENN. 2,4: K.M. NARBONNE, Plotin, Les deux matiéres, 1993 (with Gr. text).

ENN. 2,5: J.M. NARBONNE, Plotin, traité 25 (II 5), 1998. ENN. 3,2-3: P. Boot, Over Voorzienigheid, 1984. ENN. 3,5: A.M. Wo ters, Plotinus ‘On Eros’, 1984; P. Hapor, Plotin, Traité 50 (III 5), 1990. ENN. 3,6 B. FLEET, Ennead III,6, On the Impassibility of the Bodiless, 1995 (transl., comm.). ENN. 3,7: W. BEIERWALTES, Plotin, Uber Ewigkeit und

Zeit, 1967, 31981 (with Gr. text). ENN. 3,8; 5,83; 5,53 2,9: V. CILENTO, Paideia antignostica, 1971 (with Gr. text).

ENN. 4,85; 5,13 5,63 5,3: K. KREMER, Seele, Geist, Eines 1990 (with Gr. text) ENN. 5,1: M. ATkinson, Plotinus, Ennead V 1, 1983, *1985 (with Gr. text).

ENN. 5,3: W. BEIERWALTES, Selbsterkenntnis und Erfahrung der Einheit, r991 (with Gr. text), 1991; H. OostTHOUT, Modes of Knowledge and the Transcendental. An Introduction to Plotinus, Ennead V 3 (49), 1991. ENN. 5,9; 6,8: W. BEIERWALTES, Freiheit, 1990 (with Gr. text).

Plotin, Geist-Ideen-

ENN. 6,6: J. BERTIER, L. BRissoN et al., Plotin, Traité sur les nombres, 1980 (with Gr. text).

ENN. 6,7: P. Habot, Plotin, Traité 38 (VI 8), 1988. ENN. 6,8: G. Leroux, Traité sur la liberté et la volonté de ?’'Un, 1990 (with Gr. text). ENN. 6,9: J. IGAL, Commentaria in Plotini ‘De Bono sive de Uno librum’ in: Helmantica 22, 1971, 273-304; P. Haport, Plotin, Traité 9 (VI 9), 1994.

BIBLIOGRAPHIES: H.J. BLUMENTHAL, Plotinus in the Light of Twenty Years Scholarship, 1951-1971; K. CorRIGAN, P. O’CLEIRIGH, The Course of Plotinian Scholarship from 1971-1986, in: ANRW II 36.1, 1987, 571-623. BIBLIOGRAPHY: A.H. ARMSTRONG, Plotinian and Christian Studies, 1979; Id., Hellenic and Christian Studies, 1990; W. BEIERWALTES, Denken des Einen, 1985; J. BusSANICH, The One and its Relation to Intellect in Plotinus, 1988; D. O’MEARA, Plotin, Une Introduction aux Ennéades, 1992 (bibliogr.); H.-R. ScHwyZER, s.v. Plotinos, RE

21, 471-592, 1276; Id., s.v. Plotinos, RE Suppl. 15, 311-

PLOTINUS

404

403

328; Tu. G. SINNIGE, Six Lectures on Plotinus and Gnosticism, 1999; TH. A. SLEZAK, Platon und Aristoteles in der

regarded on the one hand asa special senatorial role for the procurement of supplies in the Sarmatian War of

Nuslehre Plotins, 1979.

> Domitianus [1] (which would be quite unusual) and on the other as the equestrian function of the + praefectus [11] vehiculorum who had to concern himself with the stations of the > cursus publicus and the necessary supplies for the army. This would imply that his socio-political position was that of an eques (or senator; cf. [1. 96f.]). PIR* P 505.

P.HA.

Plotius. Probably originally the vulgar Latin form of the Roman proper name > Plautius, an independent nomen gentile at the latest from the rst cent. BC onwards. K-LE. I. REPUBLICAN PERIOD

II. IMPERIAL PERIOD

1 W. Eck, L’Italia nell’Impero Romano, 1999.

I. REPUBLICAN PERIOD {I 1] P. Gallus, L. The first teacher of Latin rhetoric

[II 3] D.P. Grypus. Eques who was admitted to the Tribunicians by > Vespasianus as early as AD 69 and entrusted with the command of the legio VII Claudia. In 70 he was appointed praetor instead of > Tettius Iultanus. He did not reach the rank of suffect consul until 88. His family relationship with the other Plotii of the Flavian period is debated, cf. PIR* P 506. {II 3a] L.P. Marcellus. The name of a suffect consul, who appears in the Tabulae Herculanenses and in ILS 5161k (= AE 1994, 140).

attested for Rome at the beginning of the rst cent. BC who held his classes in Latin and on Roman matters and was very popular (cf. Cic. in Suet. Gram. 26). An edict of the censors of 92 BC, especially Cicero’s teacher Licinius [I ro] Crassus, attempted — apparently without long-term success — to have the school close its doors (Suet. Gram. 25, cf. also Cic. De or. 3,93f.); the edict criticized especially the novelty of the form of schooling, such as full-day classes. A special leaning towards the populares and Marius on the part of the school which the edict would have sought to counter is however ruled out according to [1. 187-190; 196-201]. As late as 56 BC, P. wrote a speech for Atratinus, the prosecutor of Caelius who was defended by Cicero (Suet. l.c.). In a treatise he expressed his views particularly with regard to rhetorical gestus (Quint. Inst. 11,3,143).

{II 4] L.P. P[...] Proconsul of the province of Cyprus in AD) 3x/2ePIRG Pasar WE. {Il 5] Marius P. Sacerdos. grammaticus urbis in Rome

1 P.L. ScumipT, Die Anfange der institutionellen Rheto-

during the late 3rd cent. AD. Author of Artes gram-

rik in Rom, in: E. LEFEVRE (ed.), Monumentum Chiloniense. FS E. Burck, 1975, 183-216. P.LS.

{1 2] P. Tucca. Latin poet (? works are not extant) of the

Augustan period, probably from Gallia Cisalpina (schol. Pers. 2,42), a close friend of L. > Varius Rufus and of > Vergilius; Horace (Sat. 1,5,40; 1,10,81) men-

tions him as a companion. If the sources are credible, P. and Varius were the heirs to Virgil’s material and especially his literary heritage. Allegedly either Varius or both edited, in accordance with the decrees of Augustus, the incomplete Aeneid that Virgil wanted to see destroyed (Donat. Vita Vergilii 37; Jer. Chron. 2000: after Suetonius). R. Scarclia, s.v. P., EV, V* 307-308.

JAR.

II. IMPERIAL PERIOD [II 1] P. Firmus. Common soldier who became > Praefectus [16] vigilum in Rome under > Galba [2]. After Galba’s death on 15 January AD 69, he was acclaimed — praefectus praetorio by the soldiers of the Praetorian guard. When > Otho died, he lost no time in making the Guard swear an oath of loyalty to > Vitellius. On possible family relationships cf. PIR* P 503. [II 2] P. Grypus. Addressee of Statius’ Silv. 4,9 from c. AD 92/3, in which P. features as a judge is and as leading (praeficere) the annona sequens and the stationes viarum. The function that is described in this way was

G. Camopeca, Nuovi dati dalla riedizione delle tabulae

ceratae della Campania, in: S. PANcrERA (ed.), XI Congr. Internazionale di Epigrafia Greca e Latina. Atti I, 1999, 524.

maticae (‘Grammaticae’) in 3 vols. of different periods, vol. x dedicated to one Gaeanus, vol. 2 to his father

Uranius and vol. 3 to his friends Maximus and Simplicius. The beginning of vol. 1 (De institutis artium grammaticarum) has been lost; references to it in vol. 2 show the content to have been of the usual pattern (basic terms, parts of speech). It is possible that the main source was a school grammar that (like Scaurus II, see HLL 5, 522.2) included the rudiments of metrics. Vol. 2 (De catholica nominum verborumque ratione) contains accidence (noun, verb); the incomplete or revised text can be improved through Ps.-Probus, Catholica (cf. Valerius > Probus); Among his sources may have been ~ Flavius [II 14] Caper. In vol. 3 (De metris), starting with the hexameter, the individual types of verse are discussed. From > Servius onwards, vol. 2 as Catholica Probi entered into a forced marriage with the likewise ps.-Probian Instituta artium; the grammar section (vol. 1/2) was revised in the 5th cent. under the name of M. Claudius Sacerdos (Neapolitanus Latinus 2, formerly Vindobonensis 16), supplements in [3], cf. also the Claudius citations in Ars Ambrosiana, Ars Bernensis among others [7. 113]). Vol. 3 too has been separately preserved in Carolingian MSS dealing with metrics. EDITIONS: GL 6, 415-546. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1L. JEEP, Zur Geschichte der Lehre von den Redetheilen, 1893, 73-82 2G. Hantscue, De Sacerdote grammatico, 1911 3K. BARWICK, Remmius Palaemon, 1922, 71-77. 4M. DE NoNNOo, Frammenti misconosciuti di Plozio Sacerdote, in: RFIC r11, 1983,

405

406

385-421 Nr. 132

5 R.A. Kasrer, Guardians of Language, 3526, 6C. Simont, Il secondo libro de Sacerdote ¢ i

Catholica Probi, in: RFIC 116, 1988, 129-153 SCHMIDT, in: HLL vol. 5, 1989, 112-116

7P.L. P.LS.

[Il 6] P.P. Romanus. Senator of the Severan period. His

long career was recorded for posterity in CIL VI 332 = ILS 1135. After his praetorship he became curator viae Labicanae, ~ iuridicus per Aemiliam et Liguriam, legatus Augusti censibus accipiendis in Hispania citerior

and praefectus aerarii Saturni; subsequently he took on two praetorian governorships, first in Galatia, then in Arabia, probably between AD 221 and 223; cos. suff. Outside Rome P. had a sanctuary (aedes) to Hercules built on the road to Ostia. PIR* P 515. {Il 7] L.P. Sabinus. Senator of the Hadrian-Antonine period who after completing his praetorship lost his life

PLOUGH

M. CiviL, The Farmer’s Instructions. A Sumerian Agricultural Manual (Aula Orientalis Suppl. 5), 1994, 28-30, 78-87, 173-176; L. SrOrK, s.v. Pflug — Pfliigen, LA 4, 1013-1015; B. Hruska, Die Arbeitsgerate in der altsumerischen Landwirtschaft, in: H. KLENGEL, J. RENGER (ed.), Landwirtschaft im Alten Orient, 1999, 237-247. BL.HR.

Il. CLAssiIcaL ANTIQUITY

The main components of the Graeco-Roman plough (Geoteov/ drotron; Latin aratrum) were the share-beam ({huua/élyma; Latin dens, dentalia), the plough-bean (yonc/gyes; Latin buris) and the stilt (éyétAn/echétle; Latin stiva), to which a handle (yevQodafic/ cheirolabis; Stilt (stiva) Plough-beam (buris)

in Formiae (CIL VI 31746 = 41111 =ILS 1078). PIR? P Siler [Il 8] L.P. Vicina. Senator who held office between 2 BC and AD 7 as proconsul of Creta-Cyrenae; he probably came from Luceria [1. 115; 145]. PIR* P 520. 1 G. CAMODECA, in: EOS 2.

Wooden dowel for adjusting the depth

of the furrow

SSS

W.E. Plough-share (vomer) Share-beam (dentalia)

Plough I. ANCIENT NEAR EasT AND EGypT ANTIQUITY

II. CLASSICAL

I. ANCIENT NEAR EAST AND EGYPT The plough (Sumerian APIN, Akkadian epinnu, Egyptian 4b.w) probably originated in the ancient Near East and Egypt (but also in India and China). In Egypt, the transition from hoe to plough in agriculture may have taken place as early as during the Naqada II period (3700/3600-3200 BC), although the first conclusive evidence originates from the Early Dynastic Period (late 4th millennium BC). Likewise, while the plough may well be older in the Near East, simple ard-ploughing can only be demonstrated in Mesopotamia from the Uruk period (late 4th millennium; cylinder seal, archaic texts). The earliest extant evidence indicates that draught animals were used, but this probably only applies to agriculture connected with major production units (temples and palaces; - Oikos economy). Hoe culture must have continued to exist alongside, as evidenced by the ironic Sumerian disputation ‘Hoe and Plough’. In this text, the plough is described as less serviceable and more labour-intensive than the hoe; in addition, it is only usable during the short season when the earth is moist. The supreme deity — Enlil thus awards victory to the hoe over the plough. A major step forward was the seed-plough, of which evidence survives only from the Near East (and Asia), that had a seed funnel tied to its frame. This allowed the necessary quantity of seed to be reduced, and seed to be sown at equal distances and depths. + Agriculture

fe ai)> maereriis eerenheh

20 cm

Roman plough (schematic drawing)

Latin manicula) could be fitted. The metal ploughshare (tvic/hynis; Latin vomer) was fixed to the sharebeam. The plough-bean was connected to the ploughtree (totopoet¢/histoboeus; Latin temo). The oldest surviving evidence for the plough is in the Middle Minoan ideograms of the Cretan > hieroglyphic script. Finds of figures of draught animals from the Early Helladic period may be the oldest evidence of the use of the plough on the Greek mainland. Literary descriptions of the plough are found in Hesiod (> Hesiodus) (Hes. Op. 427-436), Virgil (> Vergilius) (Verg. G 1,162-175) and

Pliny (Plin. HN 18,171-173), and illustrations are found on Greek vase paintings (kylix of Nicosthenes, Berlin, SM; BEAZLEY, ABV,

reliefs (Aquileia, Museo (Cherchel mosaic).

Hesiod

distinguishes

223,66) and on Roman

Archeologico)

two

types

and mosaics

of plough:

the

&ooteov avtoyvov/drotron autogyon and the &goteov mmxtov/drotron pékton; in the first, share-beam and

plough-bean were a single piece of wood, while in the second, they were constructed by joining separate pieces. Hesiod and Virgil describe symmetrical ploughs which deposited earth to either side, but did not break it up (these are generally called ard ploughs). The plough described by Hesiod is a so-called sole-ard, in which stilt and plough-bean were each attached to the sharebeam, while that in Virgil is a so-called bow-ard, in which the stilt was attached to the plough-bean, which in turn was fixed to the share-beam.

407

408

For particular tasks (furrowing of drainage, plough-

+ Pluto, P. was only ever a personification of an abstract concept, and never an independent figure with his own mythology. Nor did he ever enjoy the veneration of a cult. The form Pluto instead of P. is rare (Aristoph. Plut. 727; cf. Soph. TrGF 4 F 273, 283), and is probably chosen more for its stylistic effect than in any attempt to suggest that the deities were identical. + Personification

PLOUGH

ing-in of seed), earth-boards (tabellae, tabulae, aures)

were fitted to the plough to permit broader furrows (Varro, Rust. 1,29,2). Only Pliny the Elder (Plin. HN 18,171) mentions the plough-coulter (culter), which cut open the earth ahead of the share. Pliny also describes a plough equipped with wheels (plaumoratum), which was used in the Rhaetian region of Gaul (Plin. HN 18,172) and was suitable for use on heavy grounds. As Servius regarded its use in northern Italy as commonplace (Serv. Georg. 1,174), it must have been widespread there from the late 4th cent. AD. Draught animals yoked to the plough were mostly oxen, but cows, donkeys and mules were also used (Varro Rust. 1,20,4; 2,6,5; cf. Anth. Gr. 9,274; 10,101). As the soil was

generally not broken up by the plough, fields were ploughed three times. > Columella, however, describes a method whereby holding the plough at an angle enabled the clods to be turned (Columella 2,2,25).

> Agriculture; > Grain 1R. AITKEN, Virgil’s Plough, in: JRS 46, 1956, 97-106 2 A.S. F. Gow, The Ancient Plough, in: JHS 34, 1914, 249-275 3 D.J. PULLEN, Ox and Plow in the Early Bronze Age Aegean, in: AJA 96, 1992, 45-54 4 G. RECHENAUER, lc 68 xataoxevdtetar ... onpratwv ete, Die Beschreibung des Pflugs in Hesiods Erga, in: Eranos 95, 1997, 78-88 5 W. SCHIERING, Landwirtschaftliche Gerate, in: W. R1cHTER, Die Landwirtschaft im homerischen Zeitalter (Arch-

Hom 2), 1990, H147-H152

6M. SCHNEBEL, Die Land-

wirtschaft im hellenistischen Agypten,

7H. ScHNEIDER,

1925,

101-109

Einfiihrung in die antike Technikge-

1 N.J. RicHaRDSON (ed.), The Homeric Hymn to Demeter (with comm.), 1974 2K. CLINTON, s.v. P., LIMC 7.1,

416-420; 7.2, 341f.

3E. Stmon, Eirene und Pax: Frie-

densg6ttinnen in der Antike (SB Frankfurt 24), 1988. Tu. EISELE, s.v. P., ROSCHER 3.2, 2572-2584; M. P. NILsson, Die eleusinischen Gottheiten, in: ARW 32, 1935, 79-141, esp. 97-101; J. ZWICKER, s.v. P., RE 21, 102710§2. LK.

Plum (derived from Lat. prunus for the tree and prunum for the fruit, from Greek moeovuvn/proumne instead of the earlier name xoxxvunrov/kokkymelon, ‘cuckoo-apple’). While the tree was evidently indigenous to central Europe, the Greeks and Romans probably learned of its cultivation in the Near East. Growing only poorly in Greece, it was cultivated in many varieties in Italy (according to Plin. HN 15,44 only after + Cato [r]). Grafting on to apple, nut and almond stock yielded varieties no longer ascertainable with any certainty such as apple-plums (malina pruna, Plin. HN 15,42) and nut-plums (mucipruna, Plin. HN 15,41) propagated by seed (ossa prunorum, Pall. Agric. 325,33) or cuttings. Syrian or Damascene plums (Plin. HN 13,51 and 15,43), which Dioscurides (1,121

schichte, 1992, 58-60, 68f. 8 M.S. Spurr, Arable Cultivation in Roman Italy, c. 200 B.C.- c. A.D. 100, 1986, 23-40 9 WHITE, Farming, 174-178 10K.D. Wuirte,

WELLMANN = 1,174 BERENDES) claims are good for the

Agricultural Implements of the Roman World, 1967, 123-

stomach and anti-diarrhetic when dried, were famous.

145.

Gargling a decoction of the leaves in wine is supposed to heal affected gums, uvula and tonsils. The gum exuded from an incised trunk taken with wine is supposed to destroy bladder-stones.

K.RU.

Ploutos (Modt0c/Plotitos). Personification of wealth, esp. the wealth of the harvest (cf. also Abundantia, ~ Consus, > Copia, > Ops [3]). Son of > Demeter and ~ Jasion (Hes. Theog. 969-974), conceived in Crete

(Hom. Od. 5,125-128). P. assures those who meet him of prosperity. The reference to him in H. Hom. ad Cererem 483-489 is evidence of his prominent role in the + Mysteria of > Eleusis [1]: after handing over the mysteries to humans, Demeter and her daughter Kore retire to Olympus, sending P. to those they love, to whom he brings blessings and affluence (ibid. 488f.), apparently in reward for the initiation [1. 315-321]. The birth of the boy P. may also have formed part of the secret mystery rites [1.317f.]. P. is thus generally depicted in art as a boy [2]. He appears in an Attic drinking song in a round dance among the young and delightful > Horae (PMG 855). Bacchyl. frr. 4,6rf. MaAEFHLER is the first to make the connection, subsequently widespread, with > Eirene [1] [3. 59-64], the goddess of peace. ~ Aristophanes [3] brings P. physically to the stage in a comedy named after him, albeit — and probably to enhance the comic effect — as a blind, old man (cf. also Hipponax frr. 36 West). In contrast to

A. STEIER, s.v. Pflaume, RE 19, 1456-1461.

C.HU.

Plumbata see > Bow and arrow; > Pilum

Plumbum see > Lead Pluspetitio (excessive claim, cf. Cod. Iust. 3,10) — or,

more commonly, plus petere —is a figure of Roman law intimately related to the artful construction of the > formula in the Roman formula procedure. The pluspetitio led to sanctions or reactions in procedural law, which could range from loss of a case to corrective action (as today with the award of legal costs) within a legal dispute. According to Gaius [2] (Inst. 4,53ff.; 68), classical Roman law of the rst—3rd cents. AD distinguished between four manifestations of the pluspetitio: re, tempore, loco, causa (factual, temporal, local or causal). Examples would be a claim for an excessively large (re) sum or a sum that was not yet due (tempore, the decisive

409

410

deadline being the — litis contestatio), or a claim lak-

Plutarchus (M)\obtaeyoc/Plotitarchos). [1] Tyrant of > Eretria [1]. As the guest-friend of + Meidias [2], the rich opponent of Demosthenes

king indication of the agreed place of performance (loco, cf. Dig. 13,4), or where a claimant demanded a particular performance and thereby deprived the respondent of his material elective right (causa). If the pluspetitio was contained in the > intentio of the formula, this led categorically to the loss of the case (causa cadere, Gai. Inst. 4,53). This went together with the establishment of the object of dispute as that stated in the intentio, but applied only if the claim was in respect of a certum (something definite); in the case of a

claim in respect of an incertum, it was the task of the judge to set the precise content of the performance, excluding the possibility of a pluspetitio in the context of the intentio (but not of the + demonstratio, see below). As, in conjunction with the ruling of such a loss

of case, the opportunity of initiating a new claim restricted to the correct extent was disabled due to the precept bis de eadem re ne sit actio (‘in the same matter no claim should be made twice’), the supposition suggests itself that the rigorousness of this legal consequence was a legacy from a predecessor (unknown to us) of the pluspetitio, from the highly formalistic procedural type of the > legis actio. The bringing of an action for an insufficient sum or action was innocuous;

however, the remainder could no longer be claimed during the period of office of the same praetor, Gai. Inst. 4,56 (exceptio litis dividuae). For a claim in respect of an incertum, where the > demonstratio (factual dec-

laration) contained a pluspetitio, e.g. an incorrect basis for calculations, the claimant here, too, lost the case, but the opportunity remained to him to issue a new claim on the correct basis. Gai. Inst. 4,58 envisages the same legal consequence if too little is demanded (but otherwise e.g. Labeo or Ulp. Dig. 19,1,33). Finally, if the pluspetitio was contained in the > condemnatio (verdict formula), this did not lead to the loss of the case; rather, in such a case the burden of claim was imposed on the respondent, who had to contest the lowering of the verdict to the correct extent by a — restitutio in integrum (restoration of the former condition), Gai. Inst. 4,57. In the cognizance procedures (-> cognitio) of Late Antiquity, the connotative content of the pluspetitio had changed: the judge, in line with his comprehensive powers, could himself restore the excessive claim to the appropriate level, without having to dismiss the entire claim. However, the pluspetitio could be ruled to trigger various sanctions and penalties in order to prevent frivolous litigation, cf. Cons. 5,7 (Diocletian, around AD 300). A. BURGE, Zum Edikt De edendo, in: ZRG

112, 1995,

1-50, esp. 9; D. DauBE, Exceptio litis dividuae, in: RIDA 6, 1959, 313-322; M. Kaser, K. Hackt, Das romische

Zivilproze&recht, *1996, 323ff., 586; G. PROVERA, La plurispetitio nel processo romano, vol.1, 1958; G. SACCONI, La

‘pluris petitio’

nel processo

formulare,

1977;

D.

Stmon, Untersuchungen zum justinianischen Zivilprozefs, 1969, 125f.; H.-D. SPENGLER, Studien zur interrogatio in iure, 1994, 21. CPA.

PLUTARCHUS

(Dem. Or. 21,110; 21,200), he turned to Athens for

help in 349 BC when the exiled Cleitarchus [1] and Callias [9] of Chalcis, supported by Phalaecus of Phocis and Philippus [4] Il, threatened his position (Aeschin. In Ctes. 86-88 with schol.). > Phocion led the inglorious and expensive expedition in early 348 BC (Dem. Or. 5,5 with schol.; 39,16). At the battle of Tamynae P. ruined Phocion’s tactics and fled. Phocion saved the day, drove P. out of Eretria, established a democracy there and installed occupying troops in the fortress of Zaretra. Molossus took Phocion’s place but fell into the hands of the enemy (Plut. Phocion 12-14; Dem. Or. 9,57; Aeschin. Leg. 169). On the way to Eleusis Pausanias saw the grave of him who had hurried to Plutarch’s aid (Paus. 1,36,4). H. Berve, Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen, 1967, 301f., 675; H.-J. GEHRKE, Phokion, 1976, 7-12, 32-35. —_J.CO.

[2] I. LIFE AND PHIES

SURVEY

OF HIS WORK

III. PHILOSOPHICAL

WORK

II. BloGRaIV. SPECIAL

TREATISES

I. LIFE AND SURVEY OF HIS WORK

P., born around AD 45, spent his life in the Boeotian town of - Chaeronea. His was a close-knit family and he describes his grandfather, father and brothers with warmth; P. was also fortunate in his wife Timoxena,

herself author of a work ‘On the Passion for Finery’ (‘Rules of Marriage’ 145a), and he was devoted to her

and their children (see in particular the ‘Letter of Consolation to His Wife’). As his family was wealthy, P. was able to travel, e.g. to Rome and Italy (several times) and to Alexandria, and he could afford the best education. His teacher, the Egyptian > Ammonius [5]was a lead-

ing philosopher, and P.’s own works display an indepth familiarity with rhetorical technique, probably acquired in his youth, presumably in Athens. His rhetorical expertise prepared him for political and literary activities. His ‘Rules of Statecraft’ (813c-d, cf. 811a-c and ‘Should an Old Man Engage in Politics?’ 793c-d, 794b) advises a young acquaintance from Sardis not to make excessive efforts to obtain municipal office but to accept satisfactory offers. P.’s trips to Rome and Italy were evidently in part political; he undertook legations to proconsuls and accepted municipal posts, even supervising minor public building projects himself (‘Rules of Statecraft’ 811b-c). He is more cool and detached on career opportunities for young Greeks in Roman public life (“On Peace of Mind’ 470d-d); ‘Rules of Statecraft’? concentrates on municipal politics in Greece: the wise politician should urge harmony and restraint upon his own city and thus avoid constant, degrading Roman intervention. P. himself remained in Chaeronea (Demetrius 2,2). He also accepted posts for

411

412

many Pythiads (‘Should an Old Man Engage in Politics?’ 792f) in Delphi, which was experiencing a resurgence in its fortunes, eventually becoming one of the two permanent priests (‘Table Talk’ 700e); his treatises ‘On the Pythian Oracles’, ‘On the & at Delphi’ and ‘On the Decline of Oracles’ reveal his immense knowledge of Delphic antiquities. After his death the Delphians together with the Chaeroneans erected a portrait bust (Syll.3 843A). In his later years a circle of young pupils gathered around him in Chaeronea. Eventually, P. came to know a great many distinguished Romans: Q. Sosius + Senecio (dedicatee of the Bioi pardlleloi, ‘On Progress in Virtue’, and ‘Table Talk’); L. + Mestrius [3] Florus (consul under Vespasian), in whose company P. visited the battlefield of Bedriacum (‘Otho’ 14,1) and to whom he evidently owed his Roman citizenship (P.’s Roman

form a continuous history of the > principate: thus Galba takes up the story where Nero ends and the earlier careers of Otho and Vitellius are outlined in the Galba (19-21, 22,7-23,1) rather than their own

PLUTARCHUS

name was Mestrius Plutarchus); Q. Junius > Arulenus [2] Rusticus (cos. AD 92, executed c. a year later by emperor Domitian); C. > Minicius [4] Fundanus (cos.

AD 107); the exiled prince of Commagene, C > Tulius {II 12] Antiochus Philopappus (cos. suff.AD tog); and the brothers T. > Avidius [5] Quietus and C. > Avidius [3] Nigrinus (both probably proconsuls of Achaea). P. may also have received imperial honours, though the recorded details are unreliable. The ornamenta consularia — if he ever (as in the case of > Quintilianus)received them — honoured his academic renown. Likewise, in view of his age, the post of procurator of the Roman province of Achaea in AD 119 was probably an honorary position. He died before AD 125. P.’s writings fall into two large groups: philosophical and historical-biographical. The so-called ‘Lamprias Catalogue’, actually a library catalogue, probably originating in the 3rd or 4thcent. AD, lists a total of 227 works, many of them now lost. The catalogue itself is incomplete: it misses out some preserved works as well as others not preserved but independently attested.

Fragments or other preserved evidence of lost works (collected in [1]; hereinafter marked with *). 1 F.H. SANDBACH (ed.), Plutarchi Moralia, vol. 7, 'r896, *1967.

C.P. Jones, Plutarch and Rome, 1971; S. Swain, Hellenism and Empire, 1996, 13 5-186; Id., Plutarch, Hadrian,

and Delphi, in: Historia 40, 1991, 318-330. II. BloGRAPHIES

A. LIVES OF THE CAESARS

C. FURTHER

BIOGRAPHIES

B. PARALLEL LIVES AND SPURIA

A. LIVES OF THE CAESARS

The ‘Lives of the Caesars’, dealing with the Roman emperors from Augustus to Vitellius, were probably published under the Flavians, possibly Nerva (AD 9698) [1], though definitely before the ‘Parallel Lives’ and also before - Suetonius’ similar series of Latin biographies. Only Galba and Otho survive; we possess fragments of Tiberius* and Nero*. One may assume the biographies to have been compiled in such a way as to

‘Lives’. B. PARALLEL

I. OVERVIEW

LIVES

2. CHARACTERISTICS

1. OVERVIEW The Bioi pardlléloi (Vitae parallelae, ‘Parallel Lives’), begun after AD 96, are a large-scale and original series of pairs of ‘Lives’, in which in each case an outstanding, historic Greek (including Macedonians)

and a Roman are compared with one another. The first pair is lost: Epameinondas* and Scipio* (probably Cornelius [I 71] Scipio Africanus). The relative chronology of the remaining pairs is not entirely clear [2], though several of the early pairings appear to concentrate on figures wherein politics and education (or at least issues concerning their development) are combined: Plut. Demosthenes [2] and Cicero (the fifth pair: Dem. 3,1); Cimon [2] and Lucullus (> Licinius [I 26]; emphasizing his affinity with Greece and Greek culture); Pelopidas and Marcellus (Claudius [I 11]); as well as possibly Phi-

lopoemen (stressing his thorough but all too military upbringing: 1-4) and Flamininus [1]. The next group of works is concerned with early history, especially Roman (they probably date from the same period as ‘Questions on the Origin of Roman Customs’) and also perhaps the ‘second founders’, i.e. men who restored their cities’ greatness [3.359]: Lycurgus and Numa, Theseus and Romulus, Themistocles and Camillus, Lysander [1] and Sulla (Cornelius [I 90]). Pericles and Fabius {1 30] were in tenth place (Pericles 2,5). Then came a group containing the great Romans of the Late Republic, often paired with Greeks of the 4th cent. BC; this group had evidently been prepared as a separate project [4] — Dion [1] and Brutus [I 10] (12th:

Plut. Dion 2,7), Alexander [4] and Caesar, Agesilaus [2] and Pompey {I 3], Nicias [1] and Crassus (Licinius [I 11]), Demetrius [2] and Antony [I 9], Phocion and Cato [x] the Elder. Evidently the pair Aemilius [I 32] Paullus and Timoleon also belong to this period; the work on the latter probably overlapped that on Dion. From the start P. had included figures with negative as well as positive qualities; some of these subjects, in spite of their greatness, had sufficient moral flaws to be presented as chilling examples (Plut. Demetrius r): that may be as true of Coriolanus and Alcibiades [3] as of Pyrrhus and Marius [I 1], which clearly belong to the end of the series. A further bold step, again probably late in the series, was the combination of the double pairing of Agis [4], Cleomenes with the Gracchi (+ Sempronius). Further pairs unable to be ordered reliably are Solon und Publicola (> Valerius), Aristeides [1] and Cato [1] the Elder as well as Sertorius and Eumenes [1]: this last pairing (like Coriolanus — Alcibiades and Aemilius — Timoleon), by dealing with the

413

414

Roman before the Greek, is the exception to the rule. P. also intended to write a Leonidas (Plut. De malignitate Herodoti 866b) and a Metellus Numidicus (Plut.

cion 1-3, Brutus 55(2), Crassus 37(4), Cato the Elder

Marius 29,12), though there is no evidence that he did

so. 2. CHARACTERISTICS P. separates his ‘Parallel Lives’ (as bfoi) from narrative historiography: ‘it is not always the most glorious exploits which demonstrate the virtues or vices in a man’s character: often it is an insignificant thing, a word or a joke which gives insight into a man’s character rather than the greatest armaments, the bloodiest battles or sieges’ (Plut. Alexander 1,1-2). A successive history of events can be found elsewhere (Galba 2,5, Fabius Maximus 16,6); less well known material is

capable of shedding light on a person’s character (Nicias 1,5) without concealing flaws or over exaggerating them (Cimon 2,5). P. hopes his readers will be guided by models of virtue (Pericles r-2, Aemilius Paullus 1) or occasional cautionary examples of flawed greatness (Demetrius 1,6); he himself likewise tried to become a better person through his biographical studies (Aemilius Paullus 1,1). Personal details and overtly moralistic intentions are characteristic: e.g. Pericles’ generosity, Aristeides’ justness or M. Porcius [I 7] Cato’s concern for the citizens of Utica. Special interest attends families, the private lives of heroes and the effect of their triumphs and disasters on those closest to them. Their personalities are revealed by great events. The Bioi offer a wealth of detail on great events though they focus mainly on the more personal aspects than does historiography (e.g. Nicias’ exemplary stubbornness concerning the Sicilian catastrophe, or Alexander’s self-destructive flaws when narrating his campaigns). Some Bioi also develop more far-reaching theses about the historical forces at play: Caesar and the Gracchi offer an analysis of the political background in Rome emphasizing the political importance of the ‘deme’. Agis and Cleomenes highlight the social background of the Spartan revolution; the paired lives of Philopoemen and Flamininus subtly develop the contrast between the Greeks’ belligerence (philoneikia) and

the qualities of the Romans that now give them their desired freedom (esp. Flamininus rr). P. compares not only the men but also their nations. In fact, comparison is the basis of P.’s technique in the Bioi pardlléloi. Most of the pairs (with four exceptions) conclude with a comparative epilogue, frequently taking up themes from the proems and making each figure a foil for the other, to emphasize strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes one of the two emerges with a clear victory simply because he is the better or more important man; in most cases however the judgment is

more balanced. More recent studies show that the themes of one Bios frequently determine where emphasis is placed on the other. Comparison also frequently extends to the historical background, contrasting the different worlds in which both heroes operate (e.g. Pho-

PLUTARCHUS

28(r)).

In some sense, each Bios is linked not only to its counterpart but also to the entire series. The Boi present a wide, witty survey of Greek and Roman history from the perspective of their most important figures: a further development of the principle established in the earlier ‘Lives of the Caesars’, in which the biographies serve to portray the early principate. There was some biographical literature before P.encomia, autobiographies, literature on campaigns centred on their respective generals (e.g. Alexander’s campaigns). The ancient genre of the > biography cannot, however, be defined exactly: it was P. himself who gave political biography its actual contours. Source material available for some of his Béoi in the form of biographies (e.g. Xenophon’s ‘Agesilaus’, Polybius’ ‘Philopoemen’ or Aratus’ autobiography [4]), though even when available P. generally did not use them as his main source. The majority of the Béoi are based on widely available historical sources (Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, Dionysius [18] of Halicarnassus), though P. variously supplemented them. His excellent knowledge of classical Greek literature lent him rich additional material especially for the Bioi of the 5th cent. Greeks. He also read Latin sources, with some difficulty at first (Dem. 2,2—4), drawing on them for the Roman Bjoi (Asinius [I 4] Pollio was especially important for Late Republican figures). P. also used epigraphic sources, skillfully at times (e.g. Aristeides 1); sometimes the figure’s appearance is also illustrated by means of statues. In addition, he also drew on oral traditions (for P.’s use of sources cf. [5; 6; 7]). Nowadays P.’s use of historical documents can often appear slapdash, as actions by one person are assigned to someone else, time spans shortened or lengthened and a great deal of imagination brought into play in order to recreate believable details and construct plausible motives. However, his methods are not noticeably different from those current in ancient historiography. Even in the Bioi in which P. is most concerned to examine the historic background he keeps pretty close to the guidelines on ‘accurate’ historiography, which he himself set out at the start of his work ‘On the Malice of Herodotus’ (85 5b-85 6d). His historical judgment is at times acute, whether in details (e.g. Phocion 4,1-2, Aristeides 26,2— 5,27) or general interpretation (e.g. he is more prepared than Thucydides to recognize the religious dimension to the hysteria caused by the profanation of the Eleusinian Mysteries in 415 BC: Alcibiades 18, Nicias 13). P. wrote for a mixed audience, ranging from influential Romans in his circle of acquaintances to Greeks interested in the language and life of the Romans. His works were relevant to his own generation, especially for the class of cultivated Greeks in the Roman world. Remarkably, P. rarely preaches a directly political message and many of his typical, political themes (e.g. the dangers of tyranny, a soldier’s difficulties on entering

415

416

into political life) are equally relevant to other eras. Rather, P. tries to understand his figures in a psychological

SCARDIGLI, Essays on Plutarch’s Lives, 1995; J.M. MossMAN, Plutarch and His Intellectual World, 1997; Ploutarchos. Zeitschrift der International Plutarch Society (Konferenzen seit 1985). CBP.

PLUTARCHUS

sense (when, for instance, he traces Coriolanus’ defects

back to his unusual upbringing and relationship with his mother) or by considering how the same qualities that cause a person’s greatness can also destroy him (Antony’s uncomplicated soldier’s nature; Caesars rela-

tionship to his troops, friends and the Roman people; the elder Cato’s or Coriolanus’uncompromising intransigence; Flaminius’ ambition; Alcibiades’ flair). P. is not contemptuous or indifferent even towards the characters of whom he disapproves (e.g. Alcibiades, Antony and Demetrius); he combines admiration for the greatness of human beings with a clear vision of their weaknesses, a human sympathy that has created a wide readership for his Bioi.

C. FURTHER BIOGRAPHIES AND SPURIA Likewise preserved, but outside of the series, are Aratus, addressed to Polycrates of Sicyon and his sons, and Artaxerxes. The ‘Lamprias Catalogue’ lists the Lives of Hercules*, Hesiod, Pindar*, Crates*, Daiphantus* and Aristomenes*. The extant Bioi ton déka rhetoron (‘Lives of the Ten Orators’) are not by P. 1 J. GetceR, Zum Bild Julius Caesars in der romischen Kaiserzeit, in: Historia 24, 1975, 444-453

2C.P.JONEs,

Towards a Chronology of Plutarch’s Works, in: JRS 56, 1966, 61-74 (repr. in: B. SCARDIGLI (ed.), Essays on Plutarch’s Lives, 1995, 95-123)

3 P.A. STADTER, Searching

for Themistocles, in: CJ 79, 1983-1984, 359-363 4C.B. R. PELLING, Plutarch’s Method of Work in the Roman Lives, in: JHS 99, 1979, 74-96 (repr. with postscript in: B. SCARDIGLI (ed.), see [3], 1995, 265-318

5 C. THEANDER,

Plutarch und die Geschichte, 1951 6 P. DEsrpeERt, I documenti di Plutarco, in: ANRW II 33.6, 1991, 4536-4567 7 J. BucKLER, Plutarch and Autopsy, in: ANRW II 33.6, 1991, 4788-4830.

COMPREHENSIVE EDITIONS OF THE LIVEs: C. LINDsKOG, K. ZIEGLER, 1914-1939; K. ZIEGLER, 1957-1971.

COMMENTARY: Two comprehensive comm. in Italian by Rizzoxt and the Fondazione Lorenzo Valla, Opere di Plutarco (L. PrccirELL1, M. MANFREDINI et al.), 1977-, are In preparation. COMMENTARIES ON INDIVIDUAL Lives: D.R. SHIPLEY, Agesilaus, 1997; J.R. Hamittron, Alexander, 1969; C.B.R. PELLING, Antonius, 1988; D. SANSONE, Aristeides and Cato Maior, 1989; J.L. MoLEs, Cicero, 1988; A. GEORGIADOU, Pelopidas, 1997; P.A. STADTER, Pericles, 1989; H. HEFTNER, Pompeius t vol., 1995; C.F. KONRAD, Sertorius, 1994; F. Frost, Themistocles, 1980. TEXT

WITH

TRANSLATION:

B.

PERRIN,

1914-1926

(Engl.); R. FLACELIERE et al., 1957-1983 (French); K. ZIEGLER, W. WUHRMANN, 1954-1965 (German). BIBLIOGRAPHY: K. ZIEGLER, s.v. Plutarchos, RE 21.1, 1951, 636-692 (also: Id., Plutarchos von Chaironeia, 1949, *1964); A.W. GomMeg, A Historical Commentary

on Thucydides 1, 1945, 54-84; D.A. Russet, Plutarch, 1973; [. Durr, Plutarch’s Lives, 1999; B. SCaRDIGLI, Die

Romerbiographien Plutarchs, 1979; ANRW II 33.6, 1991 (complete volume on P., 3963-4623 dedicated to the biographies); Illinois Classical Studies 13.2, 1988; P.A. STADTER, Plutarch and the Historical Tradition, 1992; B.

Il]. PHILOSOPHICAL WORK A. EpucaTIon B. THE ACADEMY C. PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

OF CHAERONEA

D. DOCTRINE

E. SUB-

SEQUENT INFLUENCE

A. EDUCATION P. was a Platonist. His place in the tradition renders him for us not only the most important representative of ancient > Middle Platonism, but at the same time, because of his broad educational and cultural background, simply one of the most important observers of the intellectual life of the rst and 2nd cent. AD [x. 914ff.]. We know relatively little about his philosophical development. > Ammonius [5] is the only one of his teachers whom P. mentions by name. He became acquainted with Ammonius during his studies in Athens and it was he who probably won P. over to Platonic philosophy. As Ammonius’ pupil, in accordance with > Plato’s agenda (Plut. Mor. 387f; 391e), P. first studied mathematics in order to come to grips with the skeptical bent of the > Academy. Henceforth, all his life he was at variance with their warning against excessive confidence with regard to the human cognitive faculty (Mor. 387f; 431a; 549e [1.651f., 939; Da 2i57iss Om Otte 5 Lit s||)s B. THE ACADEMY OF CHAERONEA Later in his home town P. ran a kind of private academy. Numerous friends, their sons and members of his own family participated. The following names of the pupils and participants who professed Plato’s philosophy are recorded [1. 664ff.; 3. 4832ff.]: Antipater, Aristaenetus of Nicaea; Aristodemus of Aegium, Aristotimus, Diadumenus, Hagias, Heracleon of Megara, Milon, Niceratus of Macedonia, Phaedimus, Pollianus, Theon, Zeuxippus and possibly Tyndares of Lacedaemon. Philosophical instruction occurred partly through lectures, partly through dialogue. Alongside these stood readings from Plato as well as works by representatives of other schools (e.g a book by > Colotes [2], Plut. Mor. 1086c f.; toorb; 1107d), on which a critical position would be taken. ‘The main subject and intention was to teach philosophy as a way of living one’s life (t€xvn Biov/téchné biou). Ethics was thus implicitly in the foreground’ [1. 664], although important questions about physics, theology and the doctrine of the soul were debated. Outside the school P. emerged as a teacher of philosophy through public lectures and discussions (Plut. Mor. ro8é6d), and also acted frequently as a private adviser on vital matters [1. 656, 662]. He maintained friendly relationships with many representatives of other schools [1. 666ff.; 3. 4832ff.], e.g. the Pythagorians Alexicrates, Lucius of Etruria, T. Flavius Philinus and Sextius Sylla; the Academic and Peripatetic

417

418

PLUTARCHUS

> Favorinus of Arelate; the Peripatetics Aristotle, Men-

7. Collections of scientific problems (E: 46; L: 170.

ephylus, Mestrius Florus; the Stoics + Dion [I 3] of Prusa, Pharnaces, Philippus of Prusias, Junius Rusticus Arulenus, Sarapion, Themistocles of Athens, and probably also + Demetrius [38] of Tarsus and Nigrus; the Cynic Didymus Planetiades; the Epicureans Alexander, Boethus, T. Flavius Pemptides, Xenocles and Zopyrus. All in all, throughout his life P. realized his claim that a philosopher’s life and doctrine must be in harmony (Plut. Mor. 1033af.). Cf., summarily, [1. 662ff.; 2. 265f.; 5. 360f.].

193). 8. Doxographies (ompilation of philosophers’ opi-

C. PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS More than half of the approximately 260 works in Ps name that circulated in Antiquity [1. 696ff.; 7. 64ff.] were philosophical in nature (see the selection in the table). Many of these writings were written as dialogues though P. also used the forms of the rhetorical declamation and the treatise [1. 89of.]. The genuine philosophical writings can be divided into the following groups (E: = extant writings in the traditional tally, L: = lost works tallied in the ‘Lamprias Catalogue’; F: = fragmentarily extant works not recorded in the ‘Lamprias Catalogue’). The collection of the Moralia compiles 78 works (some not genuine) (cf. the survey Spurius

1167-1170).

The collection’s designation, Moralia, is modern and results from the preponderance of ethical writings. However, numerous, extant works fall into other categories as the following summary and [r. 66ff.] demonstrate. 1. Logic and cognitive theory (L: 49. 141. 144. 152. T1625 192.2215).

2. Natural philosophy: principles and causes (E: 59; L: 141. 145. 153); the gods (E: 23. 24; L: 80. 140. 155. 201); ideas (L: 67. 68); matter (L: 68. 185); the elements (E: 61); the cosmos (E: 60; L: 66. 99. 119. 212); predi-

stination (E: 41); fate (E: 42; L: 58); divination (E: 25. 26; Lagi. 030. 27a. 18x); the soul (E683 L:48. 177. 209. 226); th human body (L: 109); animals (E: 63. 64; L: 127); mathematics (L: 74. 163). 3. Ethics (E: 1. 2. 4—9. EL. 12.17.21. 27-40. 44. 45. 47-54. 65. 66; L: 83. 84. 93. 105. 106. III. 113. 114. To De ee LOA On LS 7amtO¢aL 72074 kTOs LO.

HO

ANRLOOMOA

TeeGate

LO a2 Miles 2 DA eee? Weel Oo ee, LAs AO.

5

spl):

4. Rhetoric (L: 47. 173. 204. 219. 227). 5. Commentaries: on Homer (L: 42), Hesiod (F: 25), Empedocles (L: 43), Plato (E: 67. 68; L: 70). 6. Expositions of (the life and) the teachings of: the ~» Seven Sages (E: 13), > Heraclitus [1] (L: 205), Socrates (E: 43; L: 189. 190), Protagoras (L: 141), » Demo-

critus [x] of Abdera (L: 145), Crates [4] of Thebes (L: 37), Peripatus (L: 44. 53. 56), the Cyreneans (L: 188),

the Academics (L: 45. 63.71. 131. 134), the Sceptics (L: 64. 146. 158. 210), of the Stoics (E: 70-72; L: 59. 78. 86. 148. 149. 1§2. 154), the Epicureans (E: 73-75; L: 80. 129. 133. 143. 148. 155. 159).

nions) (L: 50. 148. 165. 183. 184. 196. 200b). This summary demonstrates very clearly what the extant works cannot. P.’s main interest did indeed lie in the sphere of ethics, though he also took up all the other areas of ancient philosophy: the writings on natural philosophy are a striking indication that P. had ideas in this area which were very precise and entirely worthy of serious examination. D. DocrTRINE 1. NATURAL

3. SUMMARY

PHILOSOPHY

2.STRUCTURE

2. ETHICS

3. GENESIS

1. NATURAL PHILOSOPHY P.’s system like those of all the Middle Platonists is cosmocentric. The earth rests in the middle of the cosmic sphere, surrounded by layers of water, air and fire (aether [6. r92ff., 567ff.]). All these areas of the cosmos are inhabited by living creatures: the earth and water by humans and animals, the air by > demons and the heavens by star gods. The entire cosmos is a living being that is animated by a rational spirit. Beyond the cosmos reigns a supreme deity; as the force of reason (votc/nois) in a divine soul (Oeia wuyi/theia psyche) he is identical to Plato’s idea of good and he conceives the ideas which then exist in his divine spirit [8.13 9ff., 178ff.; 4.293; 6.26ff., 256ff., 3213 12]. The world was created in a singular act by god. Before this creation matter was in complete chaos, moved by an irrational original spirit to which it was naturally connected. The god brought order into this chaos by introducing reason into the irrational spirit and harmony to its disordered movements, which two qualities came from himself (a@’ abttot/aph’ hauton). As a result, the original spirit became the world spirit which in turn became the material for the cosmic body. In a wholly similar manner to the world spirit the deity created the human spirit from a part of the irrational original spirit and a part of his own spirit. The result of that is an indissoluble inner conflict between reason and unreason which is not only carried on within human beings but also within the cosmos (Plut. Mor. 1026e f.). Nevertheless, order maintains the upper hand overall [6. rooff., r14f., 408ff.; 7. 67; 12].

Qe PEENGS As chaos is, in a manner of speaking, a natural datum, it can never quite be eliminated. As a result, the aim of ethics can only be to govern the affects by reason (metriopathy), not to eradicate them (apathy). The real excellence (4getiVareté) of mankind lies in controlling the affects and, if successfully accomplished, leads to inner blessedness (evdawovia/eudaimonia), outwardly to a kindness toward humanity (piwavOgwaia/philanthropia). P. realized these ideals in his life as perhaps no other ancient philosopher.

PLUTARCHUS

419

420

The writings in Plutarch’s Moralia No. Teubner- Stephanus(E)

numbers

numbers

ie)

Net

1a—13f

Latin Title

Greek Title

De liberis educandis

Peri paidon agogés

English Title

On the Education of Children*

22S

14d — 36f

De audiendis poetis

Pos dei ton néon poiématon akou- How a Young Man Should ein Study Poetry

ates Ay Gy

37a - 48d 48e-—74e

De audiendo De adulatore et amico

5

1.149

75a-86a

De profectibus in virtute

6

1.172

86b-92f

7 8

1.186 1.197

93a-97b 97¢-100a

De capienda ex inimicis utilitate De amicorum multitudine De fortuna

Peri toi akouein On Listening Pés Gn tis diakrineie ton kédlaka | How to Tella Flatterer froma tot philou Friend P6s Gn tis aisthoito heautou proHow One Notices One’s Proképtontos ep’ aretéi gress in Virtue Ps an tis ap’ echthron opheiloito How to Profit from One’s Enemies Peri polyphilias On Having Many Friends Peri tychés On Chance

De virtute et vitio

9

1.204

1oob-1o1d

Peri aretés kai kakias

On Virtue and Vice

Io

1.208

rore-—122a

Consolatio ad Apollonium

Paramythétikos pros Apollonion

II 12 13

1.253 1.283 1.300

122b-—137e 138a-—146a 146b-164d

Detuendasanitate praecepta Coniugalia praecepta Septemsapientiumconvivium

Hygieina parangélmata Gamika parangélmata T6n hepta sophdn symposion

Letter of Condolence to Apollonius Advice on Health Advice on Marriage Symposium of the Seven Wise

T4

1.338

164e—171e

Peri deisidaimonias

Men On Superstition

Basiléon apophthégmata kai stratégon Apophthégmata Lakonika Ta palaia ton Lakedaimonion epitédeumata Lakainon apophthégmata

Sayings of Kings and Commanders* Sayings of the Spartans Ancient Customs of the Spartans Sayings of Spartan Women

Gynaik6n aretat Aitia Rhomaika

On the Virtues of Women Questions on the Origin of Roman Customs Questions on the Origin of

52d 16

al

2/t.110 2/1.204

De superstitione

172a-208a

Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata 208b-—236d Apophthegmata Laconica 236e-—240a _ Instituta Laconica

2/1.216

240b-242d

2/1.225 2/1.273

224€-263¢ 263d-291c

2/.337

291d-304f

Aetia Graeca

KS)

Np xe

305a-316b

_— Parallela minora

20

2/2.43

316c-326c

De fortuna Romanorum

21

326d-—345b

22

2/2.75 93 2/2.121

De Alexandri Magni fortuna aut virtute or. Tet II De gloria Atheniensium

DY OAs By

DUBS mal EI AG

351c-384c 384d-394c 394d-—409d

26

3.59

409e- 438d

De defectu oraculorum

27. 28 29 30 31 32

3.123 3.127 3.157 3.187 3.22% 3.255

439a-440c 440d-452d 452e-464d 464e-477f 478a-—492d 493a-497e

An virtus doceri possit De virtute morali Decohibenda ira De tranquillitate animi De fraterno amore Deamore prolis

33

3.268

498a—500a

34

3.273

soob-s502a

35

3-279

so0zb-515a

De garrulitate

Greek Customs Parallel Greek and Roman stories On the Fortunes of the Romans Peri tés Alexdndrou tychés é aretés On the Fortunes or the Virtue logos a’, b’ of Alexander the Great P6teron Athénaioi kata polemon é Whether the Athenians Are kata sophian endox6teroi More Famous for Their Fighting Skills or Their Wisdom Peri [sidos kai Osiridos On Isis and Osiris Peri tou Ei tov en Delphois On the E in Delphi Peri tou mé chran émmetranyn On the Pythian Oracles No ten Pythian Longer Spoken in Verse Peri ton ekleloipoton chréstérién On the Obsolescence of Oracles Ei didakton hé areté Can Virtue Be Taught? Peri éthikés aretés On Moral Virtue Peri aorgésias On Control of Anger Peri euthymias On Tranquility of Mind Peri philadelphias On Brotherly Love Peri tés eis ta éngona philostorgias On the Love of Offspring Ei autdrkés hé kakia pros kakoIs Evil a Sufficient Reason for daimonian Misfortune ? Peri to poteron ta psychés éta _ Are the Sufferings of the Soul sOmatos pathé cheirona Worse than Those of the Body? Peri adoleschias On Garrulousness

36 37

3.31% 3-332

515b-523b §32¢-528b

Decuriositate Decupiditate divitiarum

Peri polypragmosynés Peri philoploutias

On Being a Busybody On Avarice

38

3.346

528c-—536d

De vitioso pudore

Peri dysopias

On False Modesty

17 18

345¢-351tb

Apophthegmata Lacaenarum Mulierum virtutes Aetia Romana

_—_De Iside et Osiride De Eapud Delphos De Pythiae oraculis

An vitiositas ad infelicitatem sufficiat Animineancorporis affectiones sint peiores

Aitia Hellénika

Synagége historion parallélon Hellénikén kai Rhomaitkon Peri tés RhOmaion tychés

421

422

539a- 547f

De invidia et odio De laude ipsius

548a— 568a

De sera numinis vindicta

536e— 538e

Peri phthonou kai misous Peri tou heauton epainein anepiphthonos Peri ton hypo tot theiou bradéds timorouménon

568b— 574f 575a- 598f

De fato De genio Socratis

Peri heimarménés Peri tou Sokratous daimoniou

599a — 607

De exilio

608a—612b

Consolatio ad uxorem

Peri phygés Paramythétikos pros ten gynaika

612c —748d

Quaestionum convivalium

Symposiak6n biblia ennéa

PLUTARCHUS

On Envy and Hate On Avoiding Offence in Selfpraise

On the Delay of Divine Vengeance On Fate*

On the Daemonion of Socrates On Exile

Letter of Consolation to His Wife Table Talk

libri IX

771£—775e 776a—779¢

Amatorius Amatoriae narrationes Maxime cum principibus phi-

779d — 782 783a — 797

losopho esse disserendum Ad principem ineruditum An seni sit gerenda res publica

748e—771e

798a— 825f

Praecepta gerendae rei publi-

Erotikos

Erotikai diégeseis

On Love Love Stories*

Peri tot hoti mdlista tois hégemosi Philosophers Should Primardei ton philosophon dialégesthai ily Converse with Rulers Pros hégemona apaideuton

Ei presbytérdi politeutéon Politika parangélmata

To an Uneducated Ruler Should an Old Man Engage in Politics? Rules of Statecraft

cae De tribus rei publicae generibus De vitando aere alieno Vitae decem oratorum Aristophanis et Menandri comparationis epitoma

Peri monarchias kai démokratias

On Monarchy, Democracy

kai oligarchias Peri tot mé dein daneizesthai Bioi ton déka rhetoron Synkriseos Aristophanous kai

874a— 91IC

De Herodoti malignitate Placita philosophorum

Peri tes Hérodotou kakoétheias Peri ton areskonton philoséphois physikon dogmaton

and Oligarchy On Avoiding Debts Lives of the Ten Orators* Abridged Version of a Comparison Between Aristophanes and Menander On the Malice of Herodotus Learned Opinions of Philosophers on Natural Philoso-

91t1d-919e

Aetia physica

Aitia physika

920a —945€

De facie in orbe lunae

945f-955¢ 955d—958e

De primo frigido Aqua an ignis utilior

Peri tot emphainoménou prosopou tdi kykIOi tés selénés Peri tot protos psychron Poteron hydor é pyr chrésimote-

959a— 98 5c

De sollertia animalium

Potera ton z0ion phronimotera

6/1.

985d —992e

6/1.

993a-—996C

6/1.

996d —-999b

Bruta ratione uti De esu carnium I De esu carnium II

Peri ton ta dloga logoi chresthai Peri sarkophagias A’ Peri sarkophagias B’

6/t.

999c — rorre

Platonicae quaestiones

Platonika zétemata

6/1.

1012a—-1030C

De animae procreatione in Timaeo

Peri tés en toi Timaioi psychogonias

Epitome tot peri tés en toi Timatoi Abridged Version of ‘On the Birth of the Soul in Timaeus”* psychogonias On Stoic Self-contradictions Peri Stoik6n enantiomdton Hoti paradoxotera hoi Stoikoi ton The Stoics Speak More Paradoxically than the Poets poiétén légousin Peri ton koin6n ennoi6n pros tous On Common Conceptions Against the Stoics Stoikous Epicurus’ Teaching Makes a Hoti oud’ hédéos zén éstin kat’ Pleasant Life Impossible Epikouron Reply to Colotes in Defence Pros Kolotéen of the Other Philosophers Is the Saying ‘Live in ObscuEi kal6s etrétai to lathé biosas

826a — 827¢

827d — 832a 832b-852e

853a- 854d

854e— 874¢

Mendndrou epitome

phy*

5/3. 6/1.

ron

6/1.

EE

Causes of Natural Phenomena On the Face Which Appears in the Orb of the Moon On the Primary Cold Whether Water or Fire Is More Useful Whether Land or Sea Animals Are More Intelligent Beasts Are Rational On Eating Flesh I On Eating Flesh II Problems of Platonic Philoso-

phy

78

6/1.

1030d-1032f

6/2.

103 3a-1057¢

6/2.

1057d-1058e

6/2.

105 8f-1086b

6/2.

1086cC-1107C¢

6/2.

1107d-1127e

Epitome libri de animae procreatione in Timaeo De Stoicorum repugnantils Stoicos absurdiora poetis dicere De communibus notitiis contra Stoicos Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum Adversus Colotem

6/2.

1128a—-1128e

De latenter vivendo

6/3. 6/3.

113

6/3.

1a-I147a

On the Birth of the Soul in Timaeus

De musica De libidine et aegritudine

Poéteron psychés é somatos epi-

rity’ a Wise Precept? On Musict Are Desires and Listlessness

thymia kai lypé

Part of the Body or the Soul?

Parsne an facultas animi sit

Ei méros to pathétikon tés anthro- Is a Part or a Faculty of the

vita passiva

pou psychés é dynamis

+ not written by Plutarch himself

Peri mousikés

Soul Passive?*

PLUTARCHUS 3. SUMMARY

Allin all P. wanted to be nothing other than an interpreter of Plato; still, he was not a blind champion of all Platonic doctrines nor a purist on Platonic issues. Rather, open-minded about everything that in his opinion was compatible with Plato’s teachings, he also adopted Peripatetic and occasionally even Stoic views. Above all, P. considered himself a keeper of ‘long accepted doctrine’ (madatog AOyoc/palaios logos), which in his

opinion derives from an originary revelation and survived among many ancient peoples but most notably Plato [5. 162ff.; 11. 117ff.]. His efforts to understand the numerous manifestations of ancient religions can be seen in this context: he sought to fathom their deeper logic with the help of Plato’s teachings and make them more accessible to his fellow men [ro]. Cf. in summary [1. 93 8ff.; 7. 66f.]. E. SUBSEQUENT INFLUENCE

P.’s influence was immense and not only on the Middle Platonists — Atticus, Democritus [2] and Numenius [6] of Apameia, but also on the Neoplatonists — albeit the latter by and large rejected him for his metaphysics. Still, they quoted him repeatedly on almost all other issues. The Christians (Clemens [3] of Alexandria, Eusebius [7] of Caesarea, Basil [1] of Caesarea, Isidorus [6] of Pelusium, Iohannes Philoponus, i.a.) esteemed P. primarily for his teaching on the unique creation of the world and for his ethical views. Cf. in summary [1. 947ff.; 4. 16, 147f., 161, Anm. 6]. — Middle Platonism; > Neoplatonism; — Plato [1] 1K. ZIEGLER, s.v. Plutarchos (2), RE 21, 636-962 2/J. Guucker, Antiochus and the Late Academy, 1978 3B. PuEcH, Prosopographie des amis de Plutarque, in: ANRW Il 33.6, 1992, 4831-4893 4 DORRIE/BALTES 3, 1993 5 DOrRIE/BALTES 4, 1996 6 DORRIE/BALTES 5, 1998 7 DorrRtiE/BaALTES Index to vols. 1-4, 1997 8 C. SCHOPPE, Plutarchs Interpretation der Ideenlehre Platons, 1994 9 F. FERRARI, Dio, idee e materia. La struttura del cosmo in

Plutarco di Cheronea, 1995 101. GaLLo (ed.), Plutarco e la religione, 1996 11 M. Bactes, Der Platonismus und die Weisheit der Barbaren, in: J.J. CLEARY (ed.), Traditions of

Platonism. Essays in Honour of John Dillon, 1999, 115138 121d., La dottrina dell’anima in Plutarco, in: Elenchos 21.2, 2000, 245-270. EpiTions: W.R. Paton, I. WEGEHAUPT, M. POHLENZ et

al., Plutarchi Moralia, 7 vols., r925ff. (Greek); F.C. BABBITT, W.C.

HELMBOLD

et al., Plutarch’s

Moralia,

16

vols., 1927ff. (Greek and Engl.); J. SrRINELLI, A. PHILIPPON et al., Plutarque, (Euvres Morales, 1972ff. (Greek and French); I. GALLO, R. Laurenti, Corpus Plutarchi Moralium, r988ff. (Greek and Italian; with comm.), BIBLIOGRAPHY: P.R. Harpre, Plutarch and the Interpretation of Myth, in: ANRW II 33.6, 1992, 4743-4787;

F.E. BRENK, An Imperial Heritage: The Religious Spirit of Plutarch of Chaironeia, in: ANRW II 36.1, 1987, 248349; J.P. HERSHBELL, Plutarch and Stoicism, in: ANRW II 36.5, 1992, 3336-3352; Id., Plutarch and Epicureanism, in: ANRW

424

423

II 36.5, 1992, 3353-3383; G.J. D. AALDERs,

L. DE Bots, Plutarch und die politische Philosophie der Griechen, in: ANRW II 36.5, 1992, 3384-3404;J.MossMAN, Plutarch and His Intellectual World, 1997. = M.BA.

IV. SPECIAL TREATISES A. DE FLUvIIS B. DE MUSICA

C. ANIMAL

PSY-

CHOLOGY

A. DE FLUVIIS The work Hegi notaudv xal Oe@v EmMvupias xal TOV év abtoic eboroxouévov (Peri potamon kai orén epony-

mias kai ton en autois heuriskoménon, ‘On the Naming of Rivers and Mountains and the Objects Found in Them’) is an etiological treatise on the names of 25 rivers and adjacent mountains in Hellas (Achelous: ch. 22; Lycormas: 8; Ismenus: 2; Inachus [2]: 18; Alpheus [x]: 19; Eurotas: 17), Asia Minor (Scamander: 13; Caicus: 21; Pactolus: 7; Maeander [2]: 9; Marsyas [5]: 10; Sagaris: 12), Armenia (Araxes [1]: 23; Tigris: 24), Par-

thia (Euphrates: 20), India (Ganges: 4; Hydaspes: 1; Indus: 25), Egypt (Nile: 16), Gaul (Arar: 6), Thrace (Hebrus: 3; Strymon: rr) und Scythia (Phasis: 5;

Tanais: 14; Thermodon: 15). The work is preserved ina single manuscript (Palatinus 398); its attribution to P. is doubtful. Ep.: N. BERNARDAKIS, Plutarchos, Moralia, vol. 7, 1896, 282-328.

E. OLSHAUSEN, Einfiihrung in die historische Geographie der Alten Welt, 1991, 74f. E.O.

B. DE MUSICA The small work De musica (Mus., egi wovotxijc/ Peri musikés in Plut. Mor. 113 1a—1174a) is the most important ancient treatise on the history of music. As a ‘Table Talk’, a popular genre of learned exposition in Late Antiquity (cf. Athenaeus [3]; Macrobius, Saturnalia), De musica consists of speeches given by an Onesicrates and his guests Lysias and Soterichus on the second day of the festival of Kronia (> Kronos C.). The speeches contain parts of now lost treatises on music. The author hardly attempts to assimilate them, impairing the logic of their sequence [2. v; 3. 103-104]; the work’s value lies in the testimonies. The proem places locates De musica in relation to Hellenic education (paideia). Onesicrates then sets out the themes of the origin, growth, practitioners and aims of music. These correspond to some degree to the themes actually dealt with. The speech of Lysias the citharode about inventors of music (chs. 3-13) derives largely from Heraclides [16] Ponticus and deals with mythical prehistory (3), then citharodia (4), aulodia (5) and auletics (7), the invention of the enharmonic génos

(rr) [9] and innovators of the 5th and 4th cents. BC. (> Timotheus, > Philoxenus [2]). The speech of the encyclopedically erudite Soterichus (14-42) considers music from an ethical-philosophical perspective and is derived largely from > Aristoxenus [1] (cf. [t.19-21; 2. xiv-xix]). Chapters about the musical keys for tragedy, the spondaic key, the harmony of numbers in Plato and Aristotle and musical education follow a reference to music’s divine origin; the climax is a plaintive speech by the allegorical figure Musiké to her tormentors (30) [6;

425

426

7|. Common to all these presentations is the effort to prove that the limitation placed upon media, typical of

A. Lire

PLUTARCHUS

[3] Neoplatonist, 4th and 5th cent. AD. B. Works

C. THE ‘ACADEMY’

archaic music, was a voluntary measure, while contem-

porary musical development is decadent. This Aristoxenian pessimism holds true for the 4th cent. BC but also for the Imperial Period, when De musica was written. Onesicrates ends the discussion with references to the sympotic and cosmic functions of music (43-44). Planudes’ collection of Moralia contains De musica; the MS tradition names P. as author. Linguistic indexes [2.xxiv; 3.101], however, and the careless compilation speak against him as author. Since the roth cent. there have been attempts to restore De musica by various arrangements of its parts though without any consensus as of yet. —> Music EDITIONS WITH COMMENTARY: (with Germantrans.)

French trans.)

1R. WESTPHAL, 1865

2 H. Wert, T. REINACH, 1900 (with

3 F. LASSERRE, 1954 (with French trans.)

4K. ZIEGLER, 1959 (ed. only) 5 A. BARKER, Greek Musical Writings, vol. 1, 1984, 205-257 (Engl. trans. and notes).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: arch De Musica

6E. BORTHWICK, Notes on the Plutand the Cheiron of Pherecrates, in:

Hermes 94, 1968, 60-73 7 I. DURING, Studies in Musical Terminology in 5th Century Literature, in: Eranos 43, 1945, 176-197 8Id., Review of [3], in: Gnomon 27,

1955, 431-436

9R. WINNINGTON-INGRAM, The Spond-

eion Scale, in: CQ 22, 1928, 83-91 10K. ZIEGLER, Plutarchea I, in: L. ALFons! (ed.), FS Castiglioni, 1960, 1107-

nie

RO.HA.

C. ANIMAL PSYCHOLOGY Two speeches which P. wrote in his youth and two dialogues on animal psychology defend vegetarianism as a healthier on the basis of compassion for animals which, like humans, are sensory creatures. These are, respectively: De esu carnium (Ileoi oagxooayiac/Peri sarkophagias, Mor. 65 and 66,993a-999b); and De sollertia animalium (Mloteoa tHv CoHwv deoviwaMtega/

Potera tn z6ion phronimotera) with 37 chapters (Plut. Mor. 63,959a-985c [1]) and Bruta ratione uti (Meoi tod ta GAoya Adyw yoRoPa/Peri tou ta dloga logoi chrésthai, Plut. Mor. 64,985d—-992e [1], incompletely

preserved)). These constitute a stand against the Stoics (cf. [2.287-293; 3.96-107]) and Peripatetics. The De sollertia animalium is dominated by a contest, deemed undecided in the end, as to whether marine or land animals have the greater ability to reason (cf. [2. 254f.]). Both protagonists quote many animal stories (animal species in [3.101]), which show parallels with i.a. Aelianus [2], Aristotle [6] and Pliny [1]. 1 C. Hupert, H. DREXLER (ed.), Plutarchus, moralia vol. 6,1, 1959 2 DIERAUER 3K. ZIEGLER, Plutarchos, *1964, 2-334 (= RE 21, 636-962). C.HU.

A. LIFE Son of Nestorius (cf. [1]), grandson of Nestorius, hieropbant of Athens under the emperors Valentinian I and Valens; also probably the great-grandson of the P. known to us as the chief priest in Attica and the priest of Dionysus and Asclepius (cf. [2]). P. reestablished Platonic philosophy in Athens by founding a school of + Neoplatonism there; it existed until AD 529. He died at a great age in AD 423. His descendants remained connected with his school and the city of Athens for over four generations. A philosophical tradition links P. to Iamblichus [2] of Apamea in Syria. It was transmitted through two thinkers from the second generation after Iamblichus, both resident in Athens in the 4th cent.: one was -> Priscus, a relative of the emperor Julianus [11] and pupil of > Aedesius [x] (himself a pupil of Iamblichus); the other, also called lamblichus, was the grandson of > Sopater (likewise a pupil of Iamblichus). P.’s pupils included > Hierocles [7], — Lachares [2], Nicolaus, — Odaenathus (cf. Damascius, Vita Isidori, fr. 142), > Syrianus, > Proclus (cf. Marinus, Vita Procli ch. 12) as well as his own daughter Asclepigeneia. It is assumed that P. established an extensive course of studies in Platonic philosophy that followed Iamblichus’ established syllabus. B. Works We know that P. wrote commentaries on > Plato’s Gorgias, Phaedo and Parmenides, as well as on > Aristotle’s [6] De anima. He also probably commented on other Platonic dialogues, especially Timaeus. However none of his writings have survived; only parts of his teaching on the first principles and on the soul were passed on by later authors. Proclus handed down P.’s interpretation of the hypotheses to Plato’s Parmenides (in Pl. Prm. 6, col. 1058,21-1061,20). P. combined the traditional doctrine of the nine hypotheses (> Porphyrius) with the theory of their paired analogy (first, ~ Theodorus of Asine). In doing so he also based his teaching on his understanding of Plato’s Timaeus and Politeia. Proclus regarded this interpretation as correct and conclusive. According to Proclus, P. and Syrianus also put forward a correct interpretation of the vault of the heavens in the Phaedrus, namely in differentiating between Iamblichus and Theodorus of Asine (Procl., Theologia Platonica 4,23). According to Stephanus ad Aristot. An. 3, p. 53 5,1319, P. rejected, as Iamblichus already had, Plato’s supposition that a part of the soul remains unincarnate in the sphere of the intelligible: the intellect is of a simplex, not a two-fold nature nor does it function without interruption; thus the soul enters the body completely. — Damascius (cf. Vita Isidori, fr. 218) records that P. and the philosopher Domninus together visited the temple of > Asclepius in Athens and consulted the god [3]. Like his great-grandfather, P. would have been a

427

428

devotee of Asclepius. He instructed his daughter Asclepigeneia in Chaldaean doctrine (~ Chaldaei); she in turn passed these on to Proclus (Marinus, Vita Procli ch. 28). Porphyrius’ and Proclus’ initial reprise of the

[5] Roman shelves for books (Sidon. Epist. 2,9,4) or busts (Iuv. 1,2,7) etc., manufactured by a plutiarius. In Roman depictions, shelves attached to walls can be variously seen holding pots, shoes and other objects [x. 128 with figs. 583 and 584]; in Cic. Att. 4,8 such bookshelves are called a pegma (plur. -ata); another

PLUTARCHUS

‘Chaldaean Oracle’ (> Oracula Chaldaica) thus came

to be constitutive of the tradition for the whole of the 5th cent. by way of the Platonists P., Syrianus and Proclus. Through P., Proclus also came into contact with the theory on calculating the most favourable time for conception; this was developed by Nestorius (P.’s grandfather) and was part of the hieratical knowledge (Proclus, in Pl. Resp. dissertationes 13,2, p. 64.5-66.21 KROLL).

C. THE ‘ACADEMY’ P.’s Neoplatonic school has often been incorrectly designated an ‘Academy’, though his school was vertfiably not located on the site of Plato’s original > Academy. We know, however, that P. had a separate building constructed for his school, possibly the building which American archaeologists found to the south of the Acropolis. During the time of Proclus the financial resources of the school were estimated by Damascius (Vita Isidori, fr. 158 = § 265) at thousands of nomismata — probably accumulated from the returns on the fortune contributed by P. — Academy 1 PLRE I, s.v. Nestorius (3) 2 PLREI, s.v. Plutarchus (1) 3 A. SEGONDS, s.v. Domninus de Larissa, GOULET 2, 892894.

R. BEUTLER, s.v. Plutarchos, RE 21, 962-975; E. EVRARD,

Le maitre de Plutarque d’ Athénes et les origines du néoplatonisme athénien, in: AC 29, 1960, 108-133 und 391406; H.D. Sarrrey, L.G. WesTERINCK (ed.), Proclus, Théologie platonicienne, vol. 1, 1968, LXXX-LXXXIX; H.J. BLUMENTHAL, Plutarch’s Exposition of the ‘De

anima’ and the Psychology of Proclus, in: B.D. LarsEn, H. Dorrie

1975, Anima’

(ed.), De Jamblique a4 Proclus (Entretiens 21),

123-147;

Id., Neoplatonic

Commentaries,

Elements in the ‘De

in: Phronesis

21, 1976, 64-87

(repr. in: R. Sorasji (ed.), Aristoteles Transformed, 1990,

305-324); D.P. Taormina,

Plutarco di Atene, L’Uno,

PAnima, le forme (Coll. Symbolon 8), 1989; P. CAsTREN (ed.), Post-Herulian Athens, 1994, 115-139. HSA.

Pluteus (also pluteum). The root meaning of ‘enclosure, screen or shelter made of boards or latticework’ extends to several objects: [1] As a military t.t, a special breastwork or screen used

by the — testudo (Vitr. De arch. 10,15,1; cf. > Siegecraft). [2] A wooden fence (Liv. 10,38,5) or even a small wooden temple (Anth. Lat. 139, 158). [3] As an architectural t.t., a railing or balustrade of wood or stone (Vitr. De arch. 4,4,1; 5,1,5 et passim). [4] The side or back supports of aRoman bed (lectus, cf. + kline; Mart. 3,91,10, Pers. 1,106 = Quint. Inst. 10,3,21, Isid. Orig. 20,11,5) or even the whole bed (Prop. 4,8,68, Mart. 8,44,13).

W.H.GR.

kind of shelving is called a loculamentum. + Armarium; > Furniture 1G.M. A. RicnTer, The Furniture of the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans, 1966. R.H.

Pluto (Mout; Plouto). [1] Mother of > Tantalus by Zeus (Antoninus Liberalis 36,2; Hyg. Fab. 82 and 155; Paus. 2,22,3; according to scholion Eur. Or. 5 by Tmolus); also daughter of + Kronos (scholion Pind. Ol. 3,41), Berecyntian nymph (Nonnus, Dion. 48,729-731). According to Clemens Romanus (in Rufin. recognitiones 10,21,7 and 10,23,1) the mother of Tantalus is called Plutis or Plute and is the daughter of Atlas. [2] One of the > Oceanids (Hes. Theog. 355), companion of > Persephone (Hom. h. 2,422). Typ [3] (MAottwv/Plouton, Latin Pluto(n)). Alternative name for the god who is known in early Greek poetry as ~ Hades, the lord of the Underworld and husband of — Persephone/Kore. P. is a name, not, as is sometimes

claimed, an epithet: one does not meet Hades P. No Greek ever declared Hades and Plouton to be separate beings, but the two names are deployed to some extent in different ways.. Whereas Hades receives almost no cult, Plouton is regularly worshipped, in association with Kore and > Demeter. According to Plato (PI. Crat. 403a) P. is an optimistic and euphemistic alternative name for Hades, designed to evoke the wealth, (thotto¢/ploutos) which come up from the earth. In Aesch. PV 806 Plouton is the name of a probably imaginary gold-rich river; Demetrius of Phaleron joked that miners in Attica were seeking to drag Plouton himself up from below the earth (228 FGrH F (FGrH 228 F 35; cf. Posidon. fr. 239, 240a Kipp; Aristoph. fr. 504 K.-A.). In depictions in art where inscriptions assure his identity, P. is represented as a man of mature years who generally holds a sceptre and often also a cornucopia [1. 105; 2. no. 28f., 41, 44].; it may be possible to carry through a distinction between this P. type and a Hades with a different iconography. The early evidence for P., which starts around 500 BC (probable supplement in IG I 5,5; [2. no. 28]), all comes from Attica and either relates directly to the cult at > Eleusis [1] (> Mysteria) or is likely to have been influenced by it (for direct Eleusinian references see IG B 386,156; IG Il* 1363,21: priestess; IG II? 1672,169 and 182; 1933,2; 4701; 4751; SEG 35,113,7). He is frequently associated with Kore/Persephone, with or without her mother Demeter (CEG 2,571; IG II? 1672,182; 4751; cf. also Isoc. Or. 9,15 and frequently in art [1.105]) ]), and it is widely agreed that the nameless ‘god’ and ‘goddess’ who occasionally appear as

429

430

leading honorands of the Eleusinian cult are Plouton and Kore [1.114f.]. His name recalls the other Eleusinian figures Plutodotas [2. no. 43], who is possibly identical with him, and Plutus, normally a distinct figure, a child [1. 49-55, 91-94], ], but occasionally assimilated to Plouton in literary texts (Aristoph. Plut. 727 with the scholion ad loc., which cites Soph. fr. 273 and 283) and certainly related. A recently published votive relief (4th cent. BC?) from the sanctuary of Pancrates near the river Ilissus shows P. (inscriptionally identified) as a bearded, reclining figure holding a libation bowl and a cornucopia [3. no. 23; 4. A2]; reliefs from this sanctuary with an identical, pictorial motif are dedicated to Pancrates and Palaemon [4.7]. Plouton’s appearance here outside an Eleusinian context is rather surprising, but we are still in Attica. Cults of P. are perhaps not attested outside of Attica before the Hellenistic Period. Hellenistic instances include IG XI 4,1235 (Delos, 3rd/2nd cents. BC, with Kore, Demeter, Hermes and Anubis); Polemon 1, 32 no. 40 (Demetrias, late 3rd cent. BC?, with Demeter); [5. no. 70] and SEG 40,633 (both Olbia, early 2nd cent.BC?, with Demeter and Kore); [Knidos 141 (cf. 147; early 2nd cent. BC, with Demeter, Kore, Epimachus and Hermes); [6. ED 5,15] (Kos, 2nd cent. BC). They are widespread thenceforth [7], and a Ploutezs/ Ploteus appears alongside P. [8. 998]. Strabo (5,4,5) can speak of Plouténia as a class, apparently meaning points of access to the Underworld.; it is as Pluto too that the ravisher of Persephone enters Latin literature [9]. Whether the name P. spread outwards from Eleusis or merely chances not to be attested early outside Attica, can perhaps not be determined. In any case the underlying impulse to worship the god of the > Underworld in a form other than that of the god of death was surely always widespread. P. could not, however, be wholly isolated from the grimmer connotations of Hades. The name substitutes for Hades in Attic texts even in contexts where wealth deriving from the earth is not emphasised (Soph. Ant. 1200; Pl. Grg. 523a) and P. eventually appears on curse tablets along with other denizens of the Underworld [r0. no. 53, 84, I10, 134; I1. no. 127 and often]); in learned speculation he is also equated with deities who were assigned to the Underworld (e.g. Isodaites: Hsch. s.v. Ioodaity¢). |. It could be felt that Plouton was nota giver of wealth but a recipient, of corpses and grave offerings and all things connected with death (Cornutus 5; Lucian. De luctu 2) [8.992]. Sophocles already makes grim play with this idea in his image of Hades being ‘enriched’ (ploutizesthai) with laments in a time of plague (Soph. OT. 30; cf Iambl. VP 123). ~ Hades; > Underworld 1K. Ciinron, Myth and Cult. The Iconography of the Eleusinian Mysteries, 1992 2R. LINDNER et dl., s.v. Hades, LIMC 4.1, 367-394, esp. 390f. 3 E. VIKELA, s.v. Pankrates (1), LIMC 7.1, 167-169

4Id., Die Weihreliefs

aus dem Athener Pankrates-Heiligtum am Ilissos, 1994 5 T.N. Knivovic, E.I. Levi, Inscriptiones Olbiae, 19471965 (russ.), 1968 6 M. SEGRE, Iscrizioni di Cos, vol. 1,

PLYNTERIA

1993

7 FARNELL, Cults, vol. 3, 1907, 376-378

Wust,

s.v. P., RE 21, 990-1026

Hades-Pluto, LIMC 4.1, 399-406

9R.

LINDNER,

8E. s.v.

10J. GaGER, Curse

Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World, 1992 11 T.B. Mirrorp, The Inscriptions of Kourion, 1971.

R.PA.

Pluvialis (‘rain giving’), epithet of the Roman > Iuppiter, translation of the Greek Zevs Hyétios. Rare in inscriptions (CIL IX 324), primarily used in verse (in the form pluvius) (Tib. 1,7,26; Stat. Theb. 4,765f.; Anth. Lat. 1,1, no. 391,46). The epithet is virtually absent in the cult of Iuppiter as a rain god (-» Aquaelicium; > Manalis lapis; > Nudipedalia). K.SCHL.

Plygonium (MAvyévov/Plygénion). Western Locrian locality in the west of > Delphi, unknown to ancient literature. In Delphic inscriptions before 190 BC — the year P. was incorporated into Delphi — the IAvyovetc/ Plygoneis are frequently mentioned. It should be distinguished from a—> Phlygonium ([{1] as opposed to [2]) in Phocis. 1 E. Meyer, s.v. P., RE Suppl. 14, 385-387 s.v. Phlygonion, RE 20, 306-308.

2 E. Kirsten,

G. Daux, Delphes au II* et au I* siécle, 1936, 230-234, esp. 234; L. LErat, Les Locriens de |’Ouest, vol. 1, 1952, 59; vol. 2, 1952, 64, 74, 87. G.D.R.

Plynteria (Mvvijeia/Plynteria). Athenian festival in the course of which members of the génos of Praxiergidae removed the adornment of the ancient image of — Athena Polias [C.1], veiled the image and performed secret rites (Xen. Hell. 1,4,12; Plut. Alcibiades 34,rf.); both the goddess’clothes and her statue were presumably washed by young women called loutrides or plyntrides (Hsch. s.v. hovteides). A procession is recorded, in which — Pallas [3] was escorted to the sea by ephebai ( Ephébeia), (IG II* ror1,11); this was probably connected with the festival [1]. The day of the festival counted as one of ill omen, since the goddess’ image was veiled (Xen. l.c.; Plut. Ic.) and other temples were closed (Poll. 8,141). The ritual was explained as commemorating the day on which Athenian women after their year-long mourning for > Cecrops’s daughter + Aglaurus [2] washed their clothes again for the first time (Phot. s.v. Kaddkuvtnjewa; Hsch. s.v. I1.); offerings to Athena and Aglaurus ‘at the P.’ are recorded for the Thoricus deme in southeastern Attica (SEG 33,147,5254). These are listed under the month of Skirophorion, whereas the central Athenian P. festival took place on the 25th or 29th of the previous month ofThargelion. It appears, therefore, that at least one Attic deme celebrated its own P. — probably related to its own image of Athena. No other P. are known although the month name Plyntérion has been found in some Ionian cities [2] and comparable ritual purifications of cult images were quite widespread. Almost nothing is known about an associated festival Kallyntéria (Phot. l.c.; Hsch. l.c.);

431

432

it may be that during this the temple was swept clean (kallynein). - Athena (C. 4.); > Cult image

Only in the post-Aristotelian > Peripatos (Straton) and Hellenistic science does pneuma acquire a central and systematically developed role. > Erasistratus thinks the arterial system to be exclusively filled with ‘vital pneuma’, while > Herophilus assumes that the heart pumps a mixture of blood and pneuma through the body. Both physicians locate the higher mental and spiritual functions in the psychic pneuma in the brain. The Stoics (+ Stoicism) expand pneuma doctrine to the entire cosmos by opposing pneuma as an active and all-pervasive and -cohesive principle to passive matter. This cosmic pneuma is identical with the world soul, 1.e.

PLYNTERIA

1 R. Parker, Athenian Religion, 1996, 307 note 63 2C. Trumpy, Untersuchungen zu den altgriechischen Monatsnamen und Monatsfolgen, 1997, s.v. P. J.M. MansFIeLp, The Robe of Athena and the Panathenaic ‘Peplos’, Diss. Berkeley 1985, 370f.; R. PARKER, Miasma, 1983, 26f. R.PA.

Plynus (I\vvéc/Plynds, Hdt. 4,168,2 and Lycoph. 149; Ps.-Scyl. ro8: TWhtvovPlynoi; Str. 17,3,22: TlAtvoc/Plynos). Port on the coast of northern Africa between > Cyrenaica and the Nile Delta, but although in the Bay of Sollum [1. 225f.], hardly identifiable with modern Sidi Barrani [2. 227]. P. was apparently an ancient Greek > apoikia. In the 5th century BC the Adyrmachidae lived to the east of P. and the Giligamae to the west (Hdt. 4,168f.). 1 A. LaRONDE, Cyréne et la Libye hellénistique, 1987 2 F. CHAMOUx, Cyréne sous la monarchie des Battiades, 1953. H. TREIDLER, s.v. P. (2), RE 21, 1053-1060.

W.HU.

Pneuma (xvetuo/pnetima; Lat. spiritus). A. GENERAL

B. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

C. CHRISTIAN

A. GENERAL The primary meaning of pneuma (< nvéw/pnéd, ‘blow, waft’) is wind or breath. In scientific and philosophical literature, the term gradually acquired a more technical meaning. In the Hellenistic and subsequent periods, pneuma is a central idea in a number of important medical and natural-philosophical (including theological) systems. B. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW As early as the 5th and 4th cents. BC, pneuma is used as an explanatory principle for physiological processes. An early example is the author of the Hippocratic treatise Ilegi rvevpdtov (Peri pneumaton, ‘On Breaths’, 5th cent. BC), which distinguishes between the pneuma within the body (‘breath’) and that outside (é\o/aér, ‘air’). The internal pneuma is vital to life and simultaneously the potential cause of diseases (ch. 3). Inspired by the popular connexion of air, breath and soul, the Presocratics

> Anaximenes [1] (13 B 2 DK) and > Dio-

genes [12] of Apollonia (64 B 5 DK) describe air/breath as the substance of the soul, and emphasize their connection (through breathing) with the air of the larger cosmos. Though not yet using the term preuma in a technical sense or a systematic way, their conception already anticipates important developments. In discussing physiological problems, > Aristoteles [6], too, following medical views, occasionally adduces the internal pneuma, which he saw as warm, moist air (Aristot. Gen. an. 2,3,736b 29 ff., 6,744a 1 ff., Mot. an. ro).

the divine spirit (Greek nots, Lat. mens); individual

souls are small particles of it. The Stoics view pneuma as a physical substance, a kind of warm breeze. The medical school of the > Pneumatists (from the rst cent. BC on) also drew on this doctrine. In the twilight of Hellenistic medicine, the great physician > Galen of Pergamum (2nd cent. AD) also used pneuma in his physiology, thus ensuring its lasting influence throughout the Middle Ages and into the Modern Era. Worth noting is also the role of pneuma in Christian literature as the Spirit of God (Jo 4,24, 2 Cor 3,17), regarded by > Augustinus and others as spiritual (cf. spiritus), i.e. as purely non-physical. — Spiritus 1 W. W. JAEGER, Das Pneuma im Lykeion, in: Hermes 48, 1913, 29-74 (repr. in: Id., Scripta Minora, 1960, vol.1, 57-102) 2V. LANGHOLFF, L’air (pneuma) et les maladies, in: P. Potrer et al. (ed.), La maladie et les maladies dans la Collection Hippocratique, 1990, 339-359 3M. PUTSCHER, Pneuma, Spiritus, Geist. Vorstellungen vom

Lebensantrieb in ihren geschichtlichen Wandlungen, 1973 4F. Rtscue, Blut, Leben und Seele, 1930 (repr. 1968)

5 F. SoLMSEN, Griechische Philosophie und die Entdekkung der Nerven, in: H. FLASHAR (ed.), Antike Medizin, 1971, 202-279 6G. VERBEKE, L’évolution de la doctrine

du pneuma, 1945.

TE.TI.

C. CHRISTIAN In the LXX, pueuma almost exclusively translates the synonymous Hebrew word riiah (‘wind, breath, spiritual power’). In contrast with the Greek, the Hebrew term does not refer to a corporeal natural substance in this world, but purely functionally to the breath of life breathed into men by God and the vital energy that enables humans to perform extraordinary feats (e.g. the saving achievement of the judges, the prophet’s office and word). The r#ah is not at man’s disposal; it overcomes him suddenly and is unpredictable. Post-Biblical Jewish philosophy under the influence of Greek philosophy renders it an independent part of man in contradistinction to the body: the body is of this world, while pneuma is heavenly, immortal and later also preexisting, but never personified. + Paulus [II 2] combines the genuine Greek notion of pneuma with its conception of Jewish stamp: he eliminates the naturalness inherent in the Greek notion, but retains its substantiality; from the Hebrew he draws its

ASS

434

non-disposability, but eliminates its arbitrariness and unpredictability. In that way, pneuma is turned into a kind of ‘sphere’ or ‘dimension’. Those who do not walk

matist. However, in this context the latter may have only had a religious meaning to describe a man ‘of spirit’ [3. 208]. Pneumatists ascribed a decisive role in events of sickness and health to the > pneuma, localizing it in the left ventricle of the heart, and paying particular attention to the pulse as the most important diagnostic aid (> Archigenes). Pneumatists were deeply convinced of the analogy between microcosm and macrocosm, and believed in the creative role of nature in the body’s internal events, which they interpreted teleologically. They paid particular attention to the dyndmeis, the body’s potential and actual forces that enabled any physical activity. None of these concepts originated with the Pneumatists or with Poseidonius; some can be identified in earlier text, as e.g. in the Hippocratic work De flatibus 3-5 [4]. In the view of some authors, the notion of a dominant pneuma was linked with the doctrine of the four humours ascribed to — Hippocrates [6] (~ Humoral theory). Aretaeus wrote in an stylized Ionic dialect, and some of the texts in the Corpus Hippocraticum, such as De medico and De alimento, have also been ascribed to archaizing Pneumatists [4]. However, the eclectic tendencies within the Pneumatists make it very difficult to identify any specifically Pneumatist theses. While Pneumatist medicine can be seamlessly integrated into the Christian dualism of body and soul, it is very difficult to prove any direct Pneumatist influence on authors such as > Nemesius of Emesa and > Gregorius [2] of Nyssa, especially as Galen had adopted some of the Pneumatist ideas and therapies, e.g. bathing. + Pneuma

‘after the flesh’ (i.e. follow worldly standards), live in

the spiritual dimension (Rom 8:4). For Paul, pneuma is

thus no longer a tool of God, but redemptive reality itself. Along the same lines, the evangelist > lohannes [x] completes a (now ontological) synthesis: “God is pneuma.” (Jo 4:24). Here pneuma, like alétheia (‘truth’), means the reality of God, separate from the

world in keeping with Jewish tradition, and following the Greek tradition as Being opposed to mere appearance. This synthesis became determinative for the development of the notion of God into > Trinity. Following John’s lead, in the ancient Church pueuma is only an attribute of God. Then, it stands unconnected and unreflected alongside Father and Son and generally subordinate to them. The Cappadocians (+ Basileus [1] of Caesarea; > Gregorius [2] of Nyssa; > Gregorius [3] of

Nazianzus) were the first explicitly to maintain the Holy Spirit’s parity in essence; his divinity was subsequently elevated to dogma by the Council of Constantinople in AD 381 (- Nicaeno-Constantinopolitanum). At the end of Antiquity, pxeuma had thus completely lost its genuinely physical substantiality in favour of a purely spiritual, now hypostatically understood, reality. — Spiritus E. KAMLAH, W. KLaIBER, s.v. veda, in: Theologisches

Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament, vol. 1, *1997, 698712; H. KLEINKNECHT

et al., s.v. avetdua, mvevwatixds,

ThWB 6, 330-453; B. SCHROTT, s.v. Geist. (2), HWdPh 3, 162-169 (bibliography). j.BU.

PNEUMATOMACHOI

1 F. Kup .ien, Poseidonios und die Arzteschule der Pneumatiker, in: Hermes 90, 1962, 419-429 2J. KOLLESCH,

Pneumatics see > Vacuum

Untersuchungen zu den pseudogalenischen Definitiones medicae, 1973 3 J. KorpeLa, Das Medizinalpersonal im

Pneumatists (xvevuatixol/pneumatikot, Latin pneumatici). Greek medical sect, founded by > Athenaeus [6] of Attaleia under the influence of — Stoicism. — Galen (De causis contentivis 2) makes Athenaeus a pupil of > Posidonius [2], which might indicate a date in the latter half of the rst cent. BC. However, Cornelius + Celsus [7] who wrote in Rome in the mid-tst cent. AD, seems not to have been aware of this sect at all, and its most famous representatives — ~— Agathinus, + Herodotus [3], > Antyllus [2] and > Archigenes — lived in the second half of the rst cent. AD or later. It is difficult to determine how coherent a sect the Pneumatists were, especially as ancient sources refer to many of the physicians associated with them, such as > Leonides [3], also as Eclectics (exAextix0c; eklektikos) or Episynthetics (€movvOetix0c; episynthetikos). A Pneumatist influence is more obviously apparent in the works of > Aretaeus, the > Anonymus Parisinus and also the authors of the pseudo-Galenic > Definitiones medicae and the Introductio [2]. The last known Pneumatist may have been Alexander who on his tombstone in Rome (CIG 9578) is identified as Christian and Pneu-

antiken Rom, 1987

4 F. KUDLIEN, s.v. Pneumatiker, RE

Suppl. 11, 1097-1108. EDITION/FRAGMENTS:

M. WELLMANN,

sche Schule bis auf Archigenes, 1895.

Die pneumati-

V.N,

Pneumatomachoi (IIvevpatoudyovPneumatomachoi, ‘those who contend against the [Holy] Spirit’). Designation of a group of Christian theologians, active in Asia Minor primarily in the 2nd half of the 4th cent. AD,gwho denied the divinity (bomoousia) of the Holy Spirit. The first use of the expression pneumatomachoi, in the form mvevwatouayotvtec/pneumatomachountes, is encountered in AD 358 in the letters of > Athanasius of Alexandria to Bishop > Serapion of Thmuis (Athan. Epist. ad Serapionem 1,32; 4,1). The local Egyptian group whom he calls ‘tropists’ viewed the Spirit as a created being on the basis of Biblical evidence they adduced. In terms of their origin and theology, the pneumatomdachoi, also occasionally called semi-Arians, emerged from the Church party of the Homoiousians (motto: ‘6woiog xat’ ovotav’/’homoios kat’ ousian’, ‘({the Son is] similar in essence [to the Father]’) which

435

436

formed in the wake of the Arian controversy (> Arianism). At the synods of Cyzicus in AD 376 and Antioch (Caria) in 378, they established themselves as an ecclesial party under the leadership of the noted ascetic ~ Eustathius [6] of Sebaste, since 373 embroiled in a dispute on this matter with > Basileus [1] of Caesarea. Their chief areas of influence were Egypt and Asia Minor. Pneumatomachian views were repeatedly condemned, beginning at the synod of Alexandria in 362. The Council of Constantinople of 381, in which the pneumatomachoi took part at the behest of the emperor, named them by name among the heretics (canon r). The failure of attempts at dialogue was followed by imperial sanctions (Cod. Theod. 16, 5,11-13). No original texts of the pneumatomdchoi survive, but their views can be deduced from the writings of

Pnyx (xvv&/pnyx). Conspicious large hill built with houses in the urban area of Athens to the west of the Acropolis (+ Athens II. 3, Hill of the Muses). From the late 6th century BC this was the place of the people’s assembly (+ Ekklesia). Initially they held sessions on a gently sloping piece of ground following a natural semicircle, which was almost undeveloped; the only structure was a > rostrum (Bi\ua/béma). In the late 5th century BC the whole site was architecturally shaped and in the process turned through c. 180°. The lavishly and representatively built orchestra-shaped construction with a large open surface and two long porticos, remains of which still survive, is from the time of Lycur-

PNEUMATOMACHOI

gus [9]. TRAVLOS,

Athen,

Museion/Musenhigel;

s.v.

Pnyx. C.HO.

their opponents (overview [3. 1090-1093]). From 380

(according to [3. 1073] from 383) on, the pneumatomachoi were also called > Macedoniani, after Bishop Macedonius of Constantinople (+ before 364), who thus erroneously became known as their founder as the older name was gradually displaced. + Heresy; > Pneuma; > Trinity 1 W.-D. HauscuiLp, Die Pneumatomachen, thesis Hamburg 1967 (review: A. M. RITTER, in: ZKG 80, 1969, 397-

406) 2M.A. G. Haykin, The Spirit of God (Suppl. to Vigiliae Christianae 27), 1994 3 P. MEINHOLD, s.v. P., RE 21, 1066-1101.

J.RL

Po see > Padus

Poblicola (Fast. Capitolini, InscrIt 13,1,25; literary form Publicola, Greek Tomndxddac/Poplikélas). Roman cognomen. The etymology is unclear, according to ancient (certainly incorrect) view meaning ‘friend of the people’ (Liv. 3,18,6). Common in families of the Gellii (> Gellius [I 5]) and Valerii. The bestknown bearer is P. Valerius P. (cos. suff. 509 BC). KaJANTO, Cognomina, 256; R.M. OciLvie, A Comm. on Livy, Books 1-5, *1970, 253; H. VOLKMANN, s.v. Valerius (302), RE 8A, 180; WALDE/HOFMANN

2, 339.

K.-L.E.

Pnytagoras (IIvutayogac; Pnytagoras).

[1] Son of > Evagoras [1] of Salamis in > Cyprus. P. helped his father in the rebellion against the Persians and after the sea battle of > Citium (381 BC) defended Salamis (Isoc. or. 9,62; Diod. 15,4), which was under

siege. Father and son are supposed to have had relations with the daughter of Nicocreon [1], and both were murdered by the eunuch Thrasydaeus (Theop. FGrH r15 F 103,12; Aristot. Pol. 5,1311b 4ff.). F.G. Mater, Cyprus and Phoenicia, in: CAH

6, *1994,

297-336. [2] King of Salamis in > Cyprus, who in c. 360 BC overthrew the pro-Persian Evagoras [2] II and sided with the uprising initiated by the king > Tennes of + Sidon against Artaxerxes [3] III (Diod. 16,42,5). Besieged for some time by > Phocion and Evagoras, P. was finally subjugated in 344/3 by the Persians,.who confirmed him in his position, contrary to the expectations of Evagoras (Diod. 16,40,5; 42,6ff; 46,2). After the battle of — Issus (333) P. crossed over to > Alexander [4] the Great (Arr. An. 2,20,3 and 6) and took part in the siege of Tyrus, where his flagship was sunk in 332 (Arr. An. 2,22,2). After the conquest of this city he was given > Tamessus out of — Citium’s possessions (Duris FGrH 76 F 4). His sons were > Nicocreon [2] and the trierarch Nitaphon (Arr. Ind. 18,8). F.G. Mater, Cyprus and Phoenicia, in: CAH 297-336.

6, *1994, JW.

Podaleirius (Modaheiowoc; Podaleirios). Son of > Asclepius and — Epione, brother of > Machaon, and like him a heroic or divine physician (Hom. Il. 11,833; cf. ibid. 2,731). He is mentioned among the suitors of Helen [1] (Apollod. 3,131). In the cyclic epics he heals ~ Philoctetes (Apollod. epit. 4,8; cf. Soph. Phil. 1333), diagnoses the madness of > Ajax [1] and is finally cast away in Caria, where he founds Syrnus (Apollod. epit. 6,2; 6,18; Paus. 3,26,10). Apart from that, like Asclepius’s other children, P. plays hardly any part in mythology, but he does in cult and in art: numerous cult hymns (Erythraean paean, PMG 934, 11; Macedonius, CollAlex 138-140 etc. [1. 372-374, 383f. and 193f. 200f.]) mention P. and his siblings (+ Aegle [6], ~ Aceso, Panacea, > Hygieia, > Machaon) in order to illustrate aspects of the healing power of their father Asclepius; pictorial representations of P. and his physician family can be found primarily in Attic votive reliefs of the late sth and 4th centuries BC [2. 34-48,

140-147; 3. 777-780]. 1L. KAppEL, Paian, 1992

und

2G. GUNTNER, GOttervereine

G6tterversammlungen

1994, 34-48, 140-147

auf attischen

Weihreliefs,

3 D. PANDERMALIS, I. LEVENTI,

s.v. Machaon, LIMC 8.1, 777-780. U. Hausmann, Kult und Heiltum, 1948, 28-43, 87f., 172., 178f.;H.KENNER, s.v. P., RE 21, 1131-1136. LK.

COME

438

Podanala (MwSavéda/Podandla). Fortified settlement of the northeastern tetrarchy of the > Trocmi on the upper city of the Hittite cult city of Zippalanda (Kusakh Hityuk) near Sorgun; it was here that > Pompeius [I 3]

a steep cape. In the area early Cycladic pottery (3rd

and Licinius [I 26] Lucullus met in 66 BC (Str. R252) K. STROBEL, Galatica I, in: Orbis Terrarum 3, 1997, 131153.

K.ST.

Podarces (Moddexnc; Podarkés). [1] Son of — Iphicles, after the death of his brother > Protesilaus leader of the Thessalians from Phylace and other cities in the Trojan War (Hom. Il. 2,704; 13,693). He kills the Amazon Clonie and is killed by + Penthesilea (Quint. Smyrn. 1,233-248; 818-829 after the Little Iliad). [2] Son of the Trojan king > Laomedon [r], original name of > Priamus. In the first Trojan War he is the only one of Laomedon’s sons spared by > Heracles [1], and is ‘bought’ (apo tou priasthai, Hyg. Fab. 89) with the veil of — Hesione [4] (Soph. Aj. 1299-1303; Lycophr. 337 with schol.; Apollod. 2,136; 3,146). LK. Podarge (Moddaoyn/Podargé, ‘the swift of foot’). One of

the > Harpies; mother of Achilles’ horses Balius and Xanthus (Hom. Il. 19,400). > Zephyrus impregnates P. while she is grazing by the river Oceanus (Hom. II. 16,150f.; Eust. ad Hom. Il. 16,150f., p. 1050,58ff.). P. is also the mother of Phlogeus and Harpagus (Stesich. PMGF fr. 178), the horses of the Dioscuri. A horse of Erechtheus that was also called P. has Boreas and a Harpy as parents (Nonn. Dion. 37,157); here the maternal name transfers to the daughter. According to one version > Areion too is the offspring of a Harpy and Zephyrus (Quint. Smyrn. 4,569ff.). Sa Podargus

(Il0Sagyoc/Pédargos). Name of various mythical horses. P. is the name of a horse belonging to + Hector (Hom. II. 8,185), to > Menelaus [x] (ibid. 23,295), and of one of the man-eating horses of king Diomedes [1] of Thrace, which are killed by > Heracles [x] (Hyg. Fab. 30). NI.JO. Podouke see > Arikamedu Poeas (Motas/Poias). Father of > Philoctetes (Hom. Od. 3,190), son of Thaumacus, husband of Demonassa [2]; one of the Argonauts (Apollod. 1,112; 141), he kills

the Cretan Talos. His son is the ruler of the regions of Meliboea, Methone, Olizon and Thaumacia on the Magnesia peninsula (Hom. Il. 2,716). P. sets fire to — Heracles [1]’ funeral pyre on the Oete river; for this he receives Heracles’ bow, which he bequeaths on to his son (Apollod. 2,160). ST. Poeeessa (Ilomeooa/Poiéessa, Mowooa/Poidssa, Hotijooa/Poiéssa). City in the southwest of Ceos [1] at modern Pisses. An acropolis and remains of walls lie on

POEMANDRES

millennium BC) has been found. Few remains survive (foundations, columns). Temples to Apollo Smintheus

and Athena Nedousia are recorded in Str. 10,5,6. To the northeast of P. a mighty Hellenistic watchtower has been found. In the Hellenistic Period P. was incorporated into the polis of Carthaea on the southeastern coast, but continued to be inhabited. Cf. Callim. fr. 753733) bum.) HIN 45625 Steph. Byzsis.vs [les Sudal sev. Baxyvdtdyc. Inscriptions: IG XII 5, 568-592; r1roof.;

SEG 14, 547f.; [r. 238-241]. 1G. GALane et al., “Emavevaxy

éoevva ov

Kéa, in:

Archaiognosia 3 (1982-1984), 1987, 237-244.

E. KirsTENn, s.v. P., RE 21, 1270-1275; PHILIPPSON/ KIRSTEN 4, 66, 69; F.G. Mater, Stadtmauern auf Keos, in: MDAI(A) 73, 1958, 11-13. A.KU.

Poemander (Toiuavéeoc/Poimandros). Son of Chaeresileus and Stratonice (Paus. 9,20,1), P. was said to

have founded the Boeotian city of Poemandria (Plut. Quaest. Graec. 37), also referred to as Tanagra (Steph. Byz. s.v. Tlowavdgia; Schol. Lycophr. 326). Polycrithus, architect of the new foundation, mocked the city walls by jumping over them. P., annoyed, threw a stone at him, missed and instead struck his own son Leucippus a mortal blow. > Achilles [1], however, saw to it that P. was purified of his blood guilt, in return for which the latter built the Achilleam at Poemandria in his honour (Plut. loc. cit.). Sie Poemandres (Ilowdvdenc/Poimdndrés). Source of divine revelation in the first tract of the > Corpus Hermeticum (= CH) which was named after him. Perhaps the Coptic connection p-eime nte-ré (‘spiritual power of the sun god’), for which evidence is lacking, underlies the name, omitting the article before ré, thus being a paraphrase of the Egyptian god Thoth (cf. Psenprés, ‘son of Re’). The name corresponds to P.’ description of himself: ho tés authentias Nous, ‘the spirit of the highest power’ (CHI 1; cf. PGM XIII 258: Re as authéntés). At the same time there is a Greek etymology in the background: ‘the spirit enthralls (poimainei) your logos’ (CH XIII 19); cf. Zosimus (120,28ff. TONELLI): Pozmendanara as the ‘shepherds of men’ (see Job 7,20: God as the ‘Guardian of men’; cf. Pl. Plt. 274e and Pl. Min. 321b-c; Poimdnor in Aesch. Pers.241; Poitmandros in Plut. Quaest. Graec. 37). A person well-versed in both traditions has linked the Coptic stem of the word and the Greek etymology and invented the name. The insights which the author imparts, in P.’ name, to the reader of CH I, are firmly rooted in > Middle Platonism. The text may have originated in the 2nd cent. AD. The identity of the human and divine spirit (nous) is constitutive, cf. CH I 30: ‘I (Hermes) have received from my spirit, i.e.: from P.’. Man possesses a divine element within himself; if he recognizes it, he also knows about the divine nous, which created the cosmos because otherwise the nous would not be able to assert

439

440

itself in each individual person: Knowledge of self, God, and the world are mutually dependent. After death the ascent to the divine world is possible if man directs his aspirations towards the spirit which is light and life, and

The Cod. Romanus of Virgil not only presents a list of the speakers between sequential ecloges (a tool used also in dramas for separating scenes) but also an illustration for each poem that followed. The famous Gallus fragment (P Qasr Ibrim) — the oldest papyrus of a Latin text, which can be dated from the same period as the author with a high degree of certainty ([1. 125-155]; on the fomat [x. 129-13 1]) — divides the segments consisting of four lines with large spatia (that is, gaps) and with pairs of thus far unknown marks shaped like the letter H. Did authors who wrote short poems in the Augustan period expect no more than these divisions in the first edition? If so, then the poems lacked the titles and numbers as we would expect them. Although clearly divided in the beginning of their transmission history, a single copy could have reduced each division to a pardgraphos while still being exact. S.H. and N.W.

POEMANDRES

towards God, but not however if he directs it towards matter which was created out of darkness. Thus, P., the

divine nous, does not approach mankind in a personal way from the outside, but rather defines the soteriological function of the individual human nous, which can become aware of itself contemplating on the processes and structure of the universe. The soteriological aspect in P. is that salvation is granted by knowledge, which is made possible by the zous in mankind. CH XIII rs alone refers explicitly to CH I and attempts to surpass it. If P. had spoken in CHI 26 of the song of the divine powers, which the ascending inner being hears after death, then in CH XIII this is anticipated in an ecstasy. In doing so, the author emphasizes that no further written traditions of P. are available to him. The figure of P. does not therefore appear to have spread in Hermetic literature. — Hermetic writings J. B&UcHui1, Der Poimandres. Ein paganisiertes Evangelium, 1987; J. HoLzHausEN, Der Mythos vom Menschen

im hellenistischen Agypten. Eine Studie zum ‘P.’ (= CH I), zu Valentin und dem gnostischen Mythos, 1994; P. KINGsLEY, P. The Etymology of the Name ..., in: JWI 56, 1993, 1-24; R. REITZENSTEIN,

Poimandres:

Studien zur grie-

chisch-agyptischen und friihchristlichen Literatur, 1904. J.HO.

Poems, division of. Marking the end of one poem and the beginning of another in MSS A. ANTIQUITY

B. MIDDLE AGES

A. ANTIQUITY

The division of poems is a delicate subject in the transmission of many poets who wrote books containing several poems [6. 117-148; 4. 3-6]. A similar problem exists for the tradition of short prose, esp. in epistolography (on Seneca’s letters [6. 148-196]). Another problem is the division of books (cf. the articles on individual authors, e.g.

» Homer, > Propertius).

Regarding the aids used in Antiquity for dividing poetic works and prose into different sections and units, see [7. 8-12]. Divisions were marked by ékthesis or eisthesis (indentation) as well as by various types of signs: pardgraphos (e.g. in the new, not yet published Milan papyrus of > Posidippus), koronis and > asteriskos (cf. + Punctuation). The latter was used along with the author’s name for separating epigrams in the roth-cent. Anthologia Palatina, the former for divisions within poems [2. 127, n. 113]. The sign apparently used to separate two poems of Alcaeus (P Oxy. 2165 (= PLF 130. 16) is a small oblique in the left margin, that is, a sumple pardgraphos ([5. 201]: also regarding other places where the separation between poems was not marked by a koronis).

B. MIDDLE AGES In the Middle Ages, poems were divided by a spatium of one or more verses, which in the completed MS received either a title or, in case of a larger section (e.g. between books or authors) an explicit and an incipit. The new poem begins with an initial that is larger than the usual capitals to start lines, and this initial is often embellished or at least colourful and at times connected to a decorative element. However, there are also spatia without titles. In the Propertius codex N (Wolfenbiittel Gud. 224) we find no title, no spatium, only a large, painted initial. Such details are easy to miss and the divisions can easily disappear in the process of copying MSS. Also common was a large initial without spatium, only with a title in the margin (as in Leiden, Voss. Lat. O. 38., the Propertius codex A: f. 9°; duplicated in [3. pl. CIl.2]), or after the last words of the previous poem (as sometimes in the Cod. Thunaneus, Paris, BN Lat. 8071; codex T in the case of Martial and Catullus: f. 51° = [3. pl. XIV]). The most inconspicuous marking of a segment appears when there is neither spatium nor large initial, only a note in the margin: In this case, the division was most likely added by a later reader, regardless whether he made the correction based on a model or independently. The margin note might be a title or the explicit statement that a new poem begins, but experience shows that it is more commonly a type of nota: dor T. In such cases, much depends on the interpretation by the reader as well as by each copyist who must decide independently whether these signs are to mark interesting places or entire poems or sections within a poem. The Cod. Parisinus Lat. 14137 (codex G of Catullus) uses the capitulum sign in order to mark the change of speakers in Catullus 62. > Cornelius [II 18] Gallus; > Poetry book; tion; > Rubric(a)

> Punctua-

1R.D. ANDERSON, P.J. PaRsoNs, R.G. M. NisBer, Ele-

giacs by Gallus from Qasr Ibrim, in: JRS 69, 1979, 125155 (ed. prince.) 2 A. CAMERON, Callimachus and his critics, 1995 3 E. CHATELAINE, Paléographie des classiques

441

442 latins (2 vols.), 1884-92.

Propertianae, 1997. 1955.

4 H.-C. GUNTHER, Quaestiones

5 D.L. Pace, Sappho and Alcaeus,

6 O. PecerE, M.D. REEVE (eds.), Formative stages

of classical traditions: Latin texts from antiquity to the Renaissance, 1995.

7 E.G. TuRNER, Greek manuscripts

of the ancient world, *1987.

S.H. and N.W,

POETELIUS

punishment’ (servus poenae), whereby he lost his civil rights (— slavery). R. BAUMAN, Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome, 1996; A. GEBHARDT, Prigelstrafe und Ziichtigungsrecht im ant. Rom und in der Gegenwart, 1994; Kaser, RPR 1, 148, 498-502, 609-614; MOMMSEN, Strafrecht, 1899; O.F. Ropinson, The Criminal Law of Ancient Rome,

1995;

B. SANTALUCIA,

Diritto e processo

penale nell

Poena. Poena was originally a loan word from the Greek (own, > poine), which generally defines monetary fines and punishment in Roman law. At first poena just described the monetary compensation, paid to the injured person or his relatives in order to persuade them by law to forego their revenge (Twelve Tables, table 8,3—4). In the course of time the meaning was expanded towards a more general concept. Therefore, as early as the last two centuries BC, poena described every punishment which could be inflicted to avenge a violation of the law. This was independent of whether it concerned an offence subject to public law (> crimen) or one

Poenius Postumus. Equestrian — praefectus [5] castrorum of the Legio II Augusta in Britain, who did not follow the orders of the governor > Suetonius Paulinus during > Boudicca’s revolution in AD 60. Since he had deprived his legion of participation in the victory he killed himself (Tac. Ann. 14,34-37, esp. 37,3). PIR* P

subject to civil law (> delictum). Civil lawsuits could be

530.

purely punitive (actiones poenales, e.g. the actio furti, charge of theft, > furtum), purely restitutory (actiones ad rem persequendam, for instance the > rei vindicatio, a lawsuit demanding the return of stolen goods) or both punitive and restitutory (actiones mixtae, mixed law-

Poetae novelli. Common term for Latin poets of the 2nd cent. AD although, as a consequence of new findings, this includes poets of the 3rd cent. AD (> Alfius

suits). With regard to the mixed lawsuit, the plaintiff

not only received compensation for his loss but also —as in the punitive lawsuit- a settlement which was accorded to him and not the general public, which allowed him to make use of the legal system for his claims. Some lawsuits, such as the actio furti and the actio legis Aquiliae (— lex Aquilia), are based on the ius civile (— ius), others such as the actio quod metus causa (lawsuit on account of blackmail) and the actio de dolo (> dolus) are based on the ius honorarium. For instance, in the

actio iniuriarum (lawsuit due to outrage to the person, — iniuria), the level of the claim is calculated either by the judge in the actual circumstances, calculated at a fixed amount, or measured as a multiple (duplum, triplum, quadruplum) of the value of the damaged object. The right to private punitive action ceases with the death of the culprit but is transferred to the heirs of the victim. Poena is used also as a concept for the private contractual penalty which is, however, hereditary (Paulus Dig. 19,1,47). In public criminal law, poena is used as a comprehensive concept for every penalty; sometimes it is defined through addenda, as for example, capitis or capttalis (> capitale) (not alone, Dig. 48,19,2 praefatio) for the > death penalty. The catalogue of these poenae ranges from the death penalty, regularly by beheading, to deportation; in the case of more serious crimes or of a person of low social status, it was even more cruel, such as crucifixion or being burnt alive, being condemned to forced labour in mines (metallum) or forced labour on major public building works (opus publicum). Punishments which were linked to death or the permanent loss of freedom turned the condemned man into a ‘slave of

‘antica Roma, 1994, *1998;R. ZIMMERMANN, The Law of

Obligations, 1990, 915-921.

N.F.

Poeni see + Phoenicians, Poeni

WE.

[4] Avitus, > Annianus, > Florus [1], > Hadrianus [1], ~ Septimius Serenus). The term is not an ancient one and is nowadays repudiated; it was taken by earlier scholars from the ‘Metrics’ of > Terentianus Maurus

(V. 1973; 2528) who generally compared earlier and later exemplary authors of the genre. The PN were initially and incorrectly regarded as a closely associated group or school who worked together, comparable to the > Neoteric poets of the rst cent. BC. Ep., Komo.: S. Mattiaccl, I frammenti dei P.7., 1982. Lit.: A. CAMERON, P.n., in: HSPh 84, 1980, 127-175; P. STEINMETZ, Lyrische Dichtung im 2. Jahrhundert n.Chr., in: ANRW II 33.1, 1989, 259-302. J-W.B.

Poetelius. Plebeian family, which produced a succession of important representatives in the 4th cent. BC (family tree in [r]). 1 F. Mtnzer, s.v. P., RE 21, 1163f.

[1] P., Q. As a member of the second collegium of the — decemviri in 450 BC (MRR 1, 46f.) he is said to have been sent into battle against an incursion by the Sabines (Liv. 3,41,93; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 11,23,r). [2] P. Libo, M. As consul in 314 BC, P. achieved a victory with his counterpart Sulpicius Longus against the Samnites (Liv. 9,24-26; Diod. Sic. 19,76,1-5). Accor-

ding to the Fasti Capitolini in 313 BC he was the + magister equitum of the dictator P. [4] (Inscrlt 13,1, 3.6f.; 101; 418f.). [3] P. Libo Visolus, C. First plebeian consul in 360 BC, then in 346 BC and 326 BC (MRR t, 120; 131; 146f.). As consul I in 360 BC he triumphed over the Gauls and the Tiburtines (InscrIt 13,1,68f.; Liv. 7,11,9f.). He is probably identifiable as the tribunus plebis of the same name who introduced the first law about > ambitus in

POETELIUS 358

BC

with

the agreement

of the Senate

(Liv.

7,15,12f.). After that, as consul III in 326 BC he introduced the lex Poetelia (Papiria) (8,28,8f.; different in

Varro Ling. 7,105; cf. P. [4]), which — notwithstanding the exact, stated contents — reduced the consequences of debt bondage, but probably did not completely abolish it (> nexum; cf. on this [1. r59f.; 2. 145] with discussion of the state of research). The reason for the law was the alleged sexual harassment of an indebted young man ‘froma good family’ by his creditor (Liv. 8,28,1-9; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom

16,5,1-3; Val. Max. 6,1,9; Cic.

Rep. 2,59). The underlying issue was that indebtedness and its resultant forced labour was indeed an urgent problem in the 4th cent. BC [3. 330-333]. 1 HOLKESKAMP 2 KASER, RZ, *1996 The Beginnings of Rome, 1995.

S.P. OAKLEY,

3 T.J. CORNELL,

A Commentary on Livy, Books VI-X, vol. 2,

1998, 688-691.

[4] P. Libo Visolus, C. According to tradition (in Liv. 9,28,2-6), he was > dictator in 313 BC either for the purpose of warfare or the annual nail-driving ceremony. Furthermore, according to Varro Ling. 7,105, as dictator he is said to have introduced the lex Poetelia,

which is mostly attributed to his father P. who had the same name [3] and was consul III in 326 BC. Admittedly, this then places his second and third consulships at a distance of 20 years apart. It is therefore perfectly possible that P. himself and not his father was the consul in 326 BC [z. 70], which in any case explains Varro’s identification of the proponent of the law with the dictator. 1 BELOcH, RG.

C.MU.

Poetics see > Literary theory Poetovio. Roman settlement in Pannonia superior, from the time of > Diocletianus in Noricum Mediterraneum, modern Ptuj in Slovenia. The obviously Illyrian place name is documented in various alternative forms (CIL V 4371; VI 2552; 32561: Petovio; CIL XVI 155: Petabio; CIL VI 2579; 32515: Petavio; CIL XI to16:

444

443

Poetavio;

Amm.

Marc.

14,11,19:

Potabio;

Codex Theod. 12,1,78: Patavio; Ptol. 2,14,4; Zos. 2,46: TlotoBiov/Potdébion; Priscus fr. 8: Mataptwv/ Patabion).

The area of P. was already occupied in the preRoman era (finds from the Halstatt and La Téne periods). Serretes and Serapilli were settled nearby and the region formed a transitional area between Celts and Illyrians. P. lay on the river > Dra(v)us near a ford. In 16 BC, the area around P. came under Roman rule. From the Augustan period P. served the Romans as a military base when a camp was established on the right bank close to Ptuj. In the course of time a civilian settlement arose here. Legio VIII Augusta, and, after AD

45/46, legio XIII Augusta are documented garrisons. Under Trajan (AD 98— AD 117) the latter was with-

drawn and P. (without previously having reached the status of a municipium) was promoted to a veteran’s colony, colonia Ulpia Traiana. In the 3rd cent. AD, P. maintained its military importance (presence of units of legio V Macedonica and legio XIII Gemina under Gallienus).

Under the Principate, P. was an important military base of the Roman provincial administration. Temporarily the seat of the governor and the > tabularium of Pannonia superior, P.’s economic development was benefited by its position on the Dravus, crossed here by the Roman Amber Road (— Amber). Under Hadrian (AD 117- 138), a bridge was built, apparently on the

site of an earlier crossing. Its location on heavily used roads (Siscia — P. — Flavia Solva and further northward, P. — Savaria — Scarbantia — Carnuntum, P. — Savaria — Arrabona, Emona — Celeia — P.) contributed to its becoming a customs post for the publicum portorii Illyrici. A local fleet was stationed in the river port. Two aqueducts supplied the town with water. Nearby post stations (mansiones) lay at Pultovia, Remista and Curta. Necropoleis have been discovered in the surrounding area. Since the time of Trajan, the inhabitants belonged to the tribus Papiria. P.’s heyday fell in the 2nd and at the beginning of the 3rd cent. Duoviri or quattuorviri, aediles, quaestores and decuriones are known to have been amongst the town’s officials. P. was the seat of a collegium fabrum tignariorum, a schola calciolarium and a collegium iuventutis. The goddess Diana, nymphs (with a collegium) and local deities such as Marmogius and Nutrices Augustae (> Nutrix) played a role in religious life. The cult of + Mithras was widespread (four sanctuaries). In Late Antiquity new measures were taken to fortify the town. In AD 354, Constantius [5] was taken prisoner by the troops of Constantius’ [2] close to the town (Amm. Marc. 14,11,19f.); and in 372, Valentinian I. stayed in P. The Goths (> Goti) advanced as far as P. after their victory at Hadrianopolis. However, in the 5th cent. P. again came under Roman rule. From the close of the 3rd cent. Christianity spread in P. Under Diocletian, bishop — Victorinus fell victim to the persecution of the Christians. TIR L 33 Tergeste, 1961, 58 (with older bibl.); J. AND I. Curk, Ptuj, 1970; J. SASEL, s.v. P., PE, 718f.

J.BU.

Poetry book I. GREEK

II. LaTIN

I. GREEK In archaic and classical Greek poetry there is no known, unequivocal example of a poetry book in the modern (or even Lat.) sense of the word. The modern designation denotes a collection of short poems in one or several books, the individual poems bearing meaning not only per se but also relative to the other poems within the collection, in which the opening poem is often introductory and programmatic and the final serves as an epilogue.

445

446

Nor is there any tangible awareness of divisions which served aesthetic purposes or related to the content of the work up to the Classical Period. Even ~ Isocrates opined that dividing long or complex works lay not with the author. Rather, the reciter needed to take account of the public’s powers of comprehension (Anti-

which can also be accepted with guaranteed certainty as intentionally having a poetry book format. His Lydé, evidently a collection of poems, i.e. elegies, carried throughout a common theme (unrequited love) within a subjective framework (the pain of the poet after the death of his beloved Lyde: T 10; 11; 12 MATTHEWS). The epic Thébais is said to have been divided by Antimachus himself into 24 bks. That number perhaps already parallels the editions of the Iliad and the Odyssey (IT 26°MaATTHEWS — an unreliable testimony from Late Antiquity). One may also assume that Antimachus had a strong interest in the literariness of his work: according to documentary evidence, the audience at his recitations viewed some of his poetry as a failure (T 5

dosis 12), or the reader of his own interests (Panathe-

naicus 136). The length of choral lyric poems as well as tragic and comic pieces was in fact closely related to the varying length of oral performance, which remained until the 5th cent. BC the only medium for poetic texts. This was true at least until > Pindar (cf. e.g. the beginning of Ol. ro), even though occasionally such poetry was probably also earlier committed to writing. Up to the second half of the 6th cent. BC, collections of shorter lyric poems, iambs and elegies in poetry books written by the author himself are not verifiable. But one — doubtful — reference, Diog. Laert. 9,5—6 can be cited: > Heraclitus [I 1] deposited his poetry book in the temple of Artemis in Ephesus (more to preserve than to disseminate the one exemplar; cf. Paus. 9,31). Shortly before that, + Theognis himself is said to have compiled his own collection of maxims for Cyrnus (corresponding roughly to vy. 19-254 of the Corpus Theognideum), to which he attached the sphragis (seal) of vv. 19-30. In any case, the tradition demonstrates that this undertaking would have been in advance of his time; his poetry book at first probably blended seamlessly into a far greater corpus containing the additions and modifications which the original elegies experienced under sympotic recitation practices. Even the great works, epics like the Iliad and Odyssey, were probably initially divided up only to make rhapsodic recitation easier (cf. the description of the Homeric books as rhapsdidiai); the epics were doubtlessly not put together in bks. in accordance with the ‘author’s’ wishes. This is also demonstrated by the variance between the bk. divisions in the papyri of the 3rd and 2nd cents. BC of 1000-2000 vy. and the 24-bk. division of 3 50-650 wv. either invented or adopted by philologists of the Ptolemaic Period (> Aristarchus [4] of Samothrace, cf. [Plut.] Vita Homeri 2,4), and subsequently gaining acceptance in the tradition. In the 4th cent. BC, bks. became the established medium for literature, and poets paid closer attention to them, to the disadvantage of the performative aspect (cf. Aristot. Rh. 1413b 12). Thus the historian > Ephorus, a pupil of Isocrates, shows an awareness of bk.division by ‘preceding with a proem’ each of the 30 bks. of his histories (Diod. Sic. 16,76,5, cf. also 5,1,4). The citation of some bk. titles in Diod. Sic. 5,2,1 and Str. 7,359 is less certain since they could have been added later; even Plato, however, uses titles for his dialogues, cf. Plt. 284b). It may be that Duris of Samos (FGrH 76 Fr) adduced Ephorus and > Theopompus as authors for neglecting dramatic vividness and the public’s delight in their performance practice in favour of the written aspect. In the 4th cent. BC, two works of > Antimachus [3] of Colophon were the first to be written

POETRY BOOK

MatTTHeEws), and one of his works bore the indicative

title AgAtou (Déltoi, ‘Writing Tablets’; fr. 129 MarTHEWS), perhaps a collection of short poems in which

each poem comprised a tablet. The Aitia of > Callimachus is the first work without any doubt intentionally written in bk. form. The consistency in the arrangement of his Hymns and Iambi in the MSS indicates that they were author-edited poetry books (including the the programmatic character of the first poem in the Jambi). Furthermore, one title related to the Antimachean Déltoi is known to us from Callimachus: the Teadetov (Grapheion, fr. 380 PFEIFFER). Antimachus and Callimachus exemplify the synthesis of poetry and philology, typical of the 3rd cent. BC. The practice of cataloguing in libraries and editing earlier authors in papyrus rolls, esp. the lyric poets (e.g. the Pinakes of Callimachus, certainly concerned with the problems of entitling the epinicians of Simonides and Pindar, cf. frr. 441 and 450 PFEIFFER) led to two developments among the Alexandrian poets: 1) They produced additional works of unified content in consideration of the average length of a papyrus roll (to the best of our knowledge, 1000-2000 verses), or structured them in several bks. of this length (perhaps relevant to the individual bks. of, for example, the Argonautika of ~ Apollonius [2] of Rhodes). 2) The thematic diversity of the archaic lyric poets, originally tied to the wide variety of performative occasions, was dehistoricized and came to be conceived of as an end in itself just like the ‘generic diversity’ (mo\vetdeva/polyeideia) within the individual poetry books. So Callimachus’ Iambi, the only possible forerunner of Roman poetry books known to us, or in the epigrammatic (auto-)anthologies, the oldest known examples of which are the ‘Milan papyrus’ of Poseidippus (P Mil Voglianus VIII 309, end of the 3rd cent. BC; [11]) and the PVind. G 40611 [5]. On the compilation of epigram anthologies, cf. > anthology [1] and [1; 2; 4]; on the possibility that some of them anticipate the intentional formats of Latin poetry books, cf. [3]. In addition to the popular epigram collection, the poetry book in Greek literature of the Imperial Period developed chiefly along the lines of the Alexandrian literary system. On the one hand, the new poetry books were often designed with regard to genre; on the other,

POETRY BOOK

448

447

sometimes — by adopting the apocryphal authorial form —analogously with the poetry book format that resulted from Alexandrian philology. Thus, the collections of the lyric poets became the basis for Callimachus’ lambi and the Anacreontea |cf. 9], and the editions of the ‘Homeric’ hymns (as well as Callimachus’ Hymni), prototypes for those of > Proclus and Synesius and for those attributed to Orpheus. — Library; > Poems, division of; > Publication 1 L. ARGENTIERI, Epigramma e libro: morfologia delle raccolte epigrammatiche premeleagree, in: ZPE 1998 2 A. CAMERON, The Greek Anthology from Meleager to Planudes, 1993 3 D.P. Fow er, First Thoughts on Closure: Problems and Prospects, in: Materiali e Discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici 22, 1989, 75-122 4K. GuTzWILLER, Poetic Garlands: Hellenistic Epigrams in Context, 1998 5H. Harrauer, Epigrammincipit auf einem

Papyrus aus dem 3. Jh. v.Chr., in: Proceedings of the XVI International Congress of Papyrology, 1981, 49-53 6 N. KRreEvANS, The Poet as Editor, Diss. Princeton 1984

Fighting against Antimachus:

7 Id.,

the Lyde and the Aetia

Reconsidered, in: M.A. Harper, R.F. Rectuit, G.C. WAKKER (eds.), Callimachus (Hellenistica Groningana I), 1993,149-60 8 D.H. Roserts, F.M. Dunn, D. FOWLER (eds.), Classical Closure: Reading the End in Greek and Latin Literature, 1997 9 P. ROSENMEYER, The Poetics of Imitation: Anacreon and the Anacreontic Tradition, 1992 10 J. VAN SICKLE, The Book-Roll and Some Conventions

of the Poetic Book, in: Arethusa 13, 1980, 5-42. 11C. AusTIN, G. BASTIANINI (eds.), Posidippi Pellaei quae supersunt omnia, Milan 2002.

MFA.

and chronological sequence. Uninterrupted reading of a bk. roll is a prerequisite to achieve the appropriate effect [5]. Further principles of arrangement include: a framework set by an introductory and a concluding poem, concentric and chiastic devices, special emphasis in the middle section, groupings of thematically connected or contrasting poems (e.g. on the schema ABA or in larger cycles). The structuring may either be confined to one bk. or encompass a series of bks. (mostly groups of three: Hor. Carm. 1-3, Ov. Am., possibly Stat. Silv.). The variety of possibilities for correlations of theme, motif and form, compounded by the use of both (thematic and formal) affinity and contrast, leaves room for

partially contradictory analysis by modern interpreters [2; 3]. It is, however, incontrovertible that the poets as editors of their poetry books took into account such criteria, and in any case even ancient readers showed themselves to be aware of them [3. 28of.]. Individual poems in a poetry book that have already circulated may acquire an additional dimension through their position and function within the collection. In some cases, however, one must take into account that a poem was written only with the intention of incorporating it into a collection. The poetry book put together by an author differs from a bk. of epic in that the poems are not embedded in a continuous storyline. Artistic composition, as well as the book title and dedication to a friend and/or patron to some extent, render the poetry book a unity (it is not, however, possible to speak about

an independent literary genre [contra 1.430]). II. LATIN A. FORMAT OF THE LATIN POETRY BOOK

POETRY BOOK IN ROMAN

B. THE

LITERATURE

C. FURTHER DEVELOPMENT

A. FORMAT OF THE LATIN POETRY BOOK The compilation of shorter individual poems in one or several bks. (c. 600 to a maximum of c. 4000 wy. per roll or later, per codex) for publication and commercial sales appears to have been practiced quite early in Latin literature, the result of an already well-developed written culture. As a rule, the author himself is regarded as the editor, though in some cases later editors assembled collections (Verg. Catal., Tib. 3, Pers., Stat. Silv. 5; possibly Catull.; Mart. 12). There are no records before the 6th cent. (Anth. Lat.) of larger anthologies of individual poems by various Latin authors. The metrical form and genre of the poems within a bk. are either of one particular kind (eclogues, elegies, satires, or epistles) or varied (e.g. Catull., Hor. Epod. and Carm., Stat. Silv.).

Occasion

and subject matter

(love elegy, sympotic

poem, invective poem, propempticon, encomium, epithalamium, birthday poem, etc.) may also be varied.

Crucial to the arrangement of esp. Augustan poetry books (possibly already in Catullus) and most of the collections in the Imperial Period is the effect of variation or thematic development along three lines: format, genre and subject matter, and in certain cases length

B. THE POETRY BOOK IN ROMAN LITERATURE From the beginning the Latin poets were able to orient themselves toward the Hellenistic Greek tradition. Callimachus’ Aitia and his book of Iambi, Theocritus’ pastoral collection, and epigram collections and anthologies (— Anthology [1]) (chiefly Meleager’s ‘Garland’) appear to have exerted a strong influence as role models at least until the Augustan Period [1; 4]. However, Roman poetry books themselves soon gained exemplary status (e.g. Verg. Ecl. for Hor. Sat. 1 and Tib. 1, to some degree Catull. for Hor. Carm. [4]). Ennius and Lucilius or other writers of the short poetry of the 2nd cent. BC may have already compiled their poems into collections. The Erotopaignia of ~ Laevius [2] in six bks. (c. 90 BC) stands as the first

certain edition by an author in bk. form. > Catullus himself published a collection of poems which he described as libellus, though the question of its form and scope is disputed. It is likewise questionable whether it is possible to postulate a Neoteric form of the poetry book on the basis of analogies between Catullus and the preserved frr. of other — neoteric poets [1.309]. We know that > Cornelius [II 18] Gallus wrote four bks. of elegies. Only the poetry books of the Augustans are practically complete and preserved in their original structure (the form of Prop. 2 is, however, in dispute, due to its transmission). Vergil’s bk. of eclogues (published c. 35 BC.) stands at the head of a prolific Augustan

449

450

production. The poetry book was thus the most frequent format for literary work in this period (long poems only by ~— Vergilius and + Ovidius remain

remain. The necropolis, excavated since 1897, has rock chamber graves dating to the 7th and 6th cent. BC as well as to the 3rd and rst. The site was not settled continuously. The finds (ceramics and terracotta, i.a.) of the older excavations are dispersed among the museums in Berlin, Florence and Berkeley. ~ Funerary architecture II.C.1.

extant).

Following this heyday of the poetry book, the tradition of publishing single poetry books in bk. form continued in the early Imperial Era (Pers., Juv., Mart., Priap., Stat. Silv., Phaedr., Calp. Ecl.). Here the role that

aesthetic criteria played in arrangement varied greatly. Numerous poetry books, corresponding to the prolific production of various short forms, were written in the

mid and esp. late Imperial Era. Noteworthy are: > Nemesianus’ bk. of eclogues (3rd cent.), the poetry books of > Prudentius and > Ausonius, — Avianus’ bk. of fables (4th cent.); the collection of 24 carmina by > Si-

donius Apollinaris, the Romulea of > Dracontius [3] (sth cent.); the rr bks. of miscellanea by > Venantius Fortunatus, the collection of epigrams and hymns of ~ Ennodius, the bk. of elegies by > Maximianus (6th cent.). — Codex Salmasianus (the > Epigrammata

Damasiana and Luxurius’ epigrams modelled on Martial) and

the Carmina

Bobiensia

contain

traces

of

poetry books by various late antique authors. C. FURTHER DEVELOPMENT Poetry books continued to be written in the Latin literature of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (e.g. Hrabanus Maurus’ cycle of 28 picture-poems and Petrarch’s Carmen Bucolicum (— Songs), consisting of 12 poems. In later European literature it is, on the whole, difficult to separate the direct influence of Roman poetry books from the continuing influence exerted by ancient literature. The following can be considered as lyric collections styled on the Roman model: Ronsard’s Six Eclogues, Pope’s Imitations of Horace, Goethe’s Rémische Elegien and Venetianische Epigramme, Goethe’s and Schiller’s Xenien, and the books of odes, elegies and hymns by various 18th cent. German poets. 1N. Krevans, The Poet as Editor, 1984 2J. MICHELFEIT, Das augusteische Gedichtbuch, in: RhM 112, 1969, 347-370 3 W. Port, Die Anordnung in Gedichtbiichern augusteischer Zeit, in: Philologus 81, 1926, 280-308; 427-468 4M.S. Santirocco, Horace’s Odes and the Ancient Poetry Book, in: Arethusa 13, 1980, 43-57 = Id., Unity and Design in Horace’s Odes, 1986, 3-13 5 J. VAN SICKLE, The Book-Roll and some Conventions of the Poetic Book, in: Arethusa 13, 1980, 5-42. TF.

Poet’s vocation see > Muse, acclamation of the; > Authors

Poggio Buco. The Etruscan settlement of PB near Pitigliano (Prov. Grasseto, Italy) is most often identified with the Statonia (Etruscan Statne) mentioned in Str. 5,2,9 [1; 2]. The latter, however, is also located in the Monti Cimini west of Viterbo [4]. Of the ancient settlement on the rock plateau Le Sparne only minimal remains of the surrounding wall and a temple area

POISONS

1G. 2 G. gico P.B.,

Matreucic, P.B. The Necropolis of Statonia, 1951 BARTOLONI, Le tombe da P.B. nel Museo Archeolodi Firenze, 1972 3 E. PELLEGRINI, La necropoli di 1989 4E. Stanco, La localizzazione di Statonia:

nuove considerazioni in base alle antiche fonti, in: MEERA 106, 1994, 247-258 5 G. BARTOLONI, S.v. Statonia, EAA 2. Suppl., 1971-1994, vol. 4, 1996, 382. M.M.

Poine (own; poiné). Used in Homer quite concretely for blood money (Hom. Il. 18,498; — aidesis), but also generally for revenge, retribution, later extended to any monetary penalty a private person could demand for a tort ([4. 10, 35]; cf. Latin > poena; however, the extension to fines to be paid to the state or to corporal punishment entered Greek only by way of back-translation of the Latin term). The connexion with blood money (also &xowa, dpoina; cf. amowGayv, apoindn, demand poine, Dem. Or. 23,28 and 33; IPArk 7,14) lives on in the negative vynmowel te8vavat (népoinei tethnanai, ‘kill with impunity’, Dem. Or. 23,60, corresponds roughly to the old meaning of Gtwos, dtimos, > atimia) and signified withdrawal of every legal protection as a political sanction; the outlaw could be killed without penalty [3]. In everyday,a life poime occurs as a criminal penalty (IG IV 1* 122,98), the papyri regularly set contractual penalties for mal- or non-performance lean: 1 E. BERNEKER, S.v. P., RE 21, 1213-1215

2H.-A. Rupp-

RECHT, Kleine Einfiihrung in die Papyruskunde, 1994 3 J. VELISSAROPOULOS, Népoinei tethnanai, in:

M. GAGARIN

(ed.), Symposion 1990, 1991, 93-105 4H.J. WoLFr, Beitrage zur Rechtsgeschichte Altgriechenlands und des hellenistisch-rémischen Agyptens, 1961 SIPArk. — G1.

Poisons (idc/ids and ddeuaxov/pharmakon sc. dnAntyoov/delétérion, lat. virus and venenum). Poisons were not distinguished according to their origin (animal or plant), but according to the manner in which they were introduced to the body: inoculation (sting: mnyt/ plége, ictus; bite: 5d.xo¢/dadkos, morsus) or oral absorption (1Oot¢/posis, potus); common to all is the definition of a substance affecting the organism. Starting with the Epic Cycle, there is documentary evidence of animal and plant poisons as well as plants with magical or respectively harmful properties (Hom. Il. 2,718-725: Philoctetes’ snake bite and Hercules’ poisoned arrows; Hom. Od. 10,302-306: moly; 4,219234: népenthés); poisons were initially typically associated with the Scythians who used them to coat their arrows (schol. Nicander Alexipharmaka 208), before this association was shifted to the Orient in line with the

POISONS Hellenistic

452

451 development

of the Medea

legend (e.g.

Apoll. Rhod. 3,1026-1062). There are numerous references to animal poisons, starting with Nicander (2nd cent. BC [?]); in Rome, there is a noticeable increase in

references in the wake of the Arabic expedition led by Aelius Gallus (praefectus of Egypt from about 26-24 BC), leading to the development of a literary topos (e.g.

into De materia medica, in Galen’s writings (De sectis, in the Alexandrian canon; De antidotis) and the Byzantine encyclopaedias by Oribasius (lost), Aetius (bk. 13) and Paul of Aegina (bk. 5). All of this information was also received in the Arab world, where animal and plant poisons regained the status of a heuristic tools which they once had in Greek medicine.;

Luc. G. 9,587-889).

W. ARTELT, Studien zur Geschichte der Begriffe ‘Heilmit-

From the end of the sth cent., the physiological effects of poisons were sufficiently known to use them for the execution of the condemned (Socrates by hemlock) as well as in medicine (Corpus Hippocraticum) — undoubtedly only after experiments and trials (Ctesias in Orib. 8,8 and Thrasyas of Mantineia in Theophr. Hist. pl. 9,16,8-17,3). Diocles (Ps.-Dioscorides Theriaca p. 4 Sprengel) started a theoretical debate which was to be continued by the Empiricists (ibd. p. 49-51 Sprengel). In the debate on aetiology, animal and plant poisons became a heuristic tool to explain concepts such as that of the distant cause. Various studies at the Hellenistic courts (Pergamum, Syria, Pontus) resulted in the publication of Peri thérion (a book on venomous animals) by Apollodorus (physician and natural scientist, 3rd cent. BC), inappropriately regarded as the dux iologorum (leading toxicologist), as well as the Thériaké and Alexipharmaka by Nicander The rst cent AD saw the development of a typical method of investigating animal and plant poisons which was to become the standard approach (Ps.-Dioscorides, Alexipharmaca; Theriaca), based on the specificity of the toxic effects. In clinical cases, this method permitted the identification of the toxic substances from the symptoms which they caused, and subsequently the determination of specific therapeutic measures. For that reason, the description of any poison followed the same three steps: description of the toxic substances, symptomatology, therapeutic measures. In the course of the rst cent. BC, the Greek teachings on poison imported to Rome began to replace the indigenous tradition which thus sank into oblivion; a milestone in this development were the papers of Mithridates VI, taken by Pompey and translated by > Lenaeus (Plin. HN 25,5-7). Animal and plant poisons were subsequently used by those in power, and the use of poisons regarded as an Oriental ‘art’, practiced by those of an

tel’ und ‘Gift’, 1937; L. Bopson,

inferior legal standing (foreigners, women, criminals).

Toxins of animal and plant origin became once more the topic of a methodological reflection on aetiology; this debate gave the impetus to the development of antitoxins or antidotes (Gal. De antidotis), combining the specific therapies for several animal and plant poisons, thus aiming for universal applicability. This marked the transition from toxicology to general therapeutics; of particular importance in this was the thériaké (Andromachus and Gal. De theriaca ad Pisonem), an antidote which > Andromachus [4] the Elder had prepared for Nero. This body of information was passed on in works attributed to Dioscorides and gradually incorporated

Observations sur le

vocabulaire zoologique antique: les noms de serpents en grec et en Gow, A.F. Das Gift in Literature, Treatise on

latin, in: GRECO 8, 1986, 65-119; A.S. F. SCHOLFIELD, Nicander, 1953; E. HARNACK, der dramatischen Dichtung und in der antiken 1908; P. KNOEFEL, M. Covi, A Hellenistic Poisonous Animals (The ‘Theriaca’ of Nican-

der of Colophon), 1991; O. SCHMIEDEBERG, Uber die Pharmaka in der Ilias und Odyssee, 1918; O. SCHNEIDER, Nicandrea, 1856; A. TouwAIDE, La toxicologie des poisons dans |’Antiquité et 4 Byzance. Introduction a une étude systémique, in: RHP 290, 1991, 265-281; Id., Panorama des recherches en histoire de la médecine intéressant la toxicologie depuis 1970, in: Lettre d’information, Centre Jean Palerne 19, 1991, 8-26 (expanded English trans: Studies in the History of Medicine Concerning Toxicology After 1970, in: SAM Newletter 20, 1992, 8-33); Id., Galien et la toxicologie, in: ANRW II 37.2, 1887-1986.

A.TO.

Pola (MoAa/P6la, 16iaV/Polai). City on the south-western tip of the peninsula of Histria, modern Pula. The site on a spacious, deeply carved bay with the Brioni islands offshore make P. an outstanding natural harbour. Mythically founded by the Colchians (> Colchis), the area of P. was settled since the Bronze Age at the latest; since the 11th cent. BC, by Illyrians. After the Roman conquest of Histria in 178/7 BC, a prosperous civilian settlement developed around a naval and military base at P. Between 42 and 31 BC, P. was elevated to the status of colonia, tribus Velina. From 11 BC, Histria, and so also P., belonged to regio X. From AD 78/9, P. lay at the end of the newly constructed via Flavia. The city walls were reinforced in the 2nd cent. AD in conjunction with the wars against the > Marcomanni and again in the sth cent., although its far-flung position, at a distance from the main routes of the > migration of peoples, to a large extent protected P. from destruction. + Belisarius strengthened P. as a base against the eastern Gothic residential city of > Ravenna. Remains of the ancient city are integrated into modern Pula. The lower part of the city was grouped around the upper part of the city on a hill (probably the former military base, today a fort with a Venetian castle). Remains of the city wall with gates, foundations of two theatres, remnants of the forum and the well preserved amphitheatre (with c. 23,000 seats) are preserved. P.’s affluence was based on agricultural production (wine, oil, grain: numerous large villae rusticae in the surrounding area) and the flourishing trade. Literary evidence: Callim. fr. 11; Lycoph. 1022; Plin. HN 3,129; Mela 2,57; Ptol. 3,1,273 Str. 1,2,393 5,1,9-

454

453 G. FiscHEer, Das rémische P., 1996; S$. MLAKAR, Das antike Pula, 1968; F. RorHer, Jugoslawien — Kunst,

Geschichte, Landschaft, 1976, 94-96.

UL.FE.

Polecat. Whether yaat/galé or ixtic/iktis, Lat. mustela or viverra, respectively, describes the ermine (Mustela erminea L.) or the polecat (M. putorius L.) remains

unclear. However, the polecat is not found in modern Greece [1. vol. 1, 163]. The Romans

are ‘viverra, faelesve ... mustela’),

states that it must be kept away from poultry yards. Aristotle, in any case, knows the galé well (bony genitalia: Hist. an. 2,1,500b 24 = Plin. HN 11,261; good mouser: Aristot. Hist. an. 6,37,580b 26; fighting snakes, against whose poison it is said to protect itself with a plant: 8(9),6,612a 30 = Plin. HN 8,98 and 20,132;

bites through birds’ necks: Aristot. Hist. an. 8(9),6,612b 1). Pliny recommends its body parts for several medical applications [2. 2,64]. => Perret 1 KELLER

2 O. SCHNEIDER, In C. Plini Secundi naturalis

historiae libros indices,

1 WELLES.

R.A. BitLows, Antigonos the One-Eyed, 1990, 426-430,

no. 100.

W.A.

[2] P. of Ephesus, tragedian, a rst-cent. BC victor at the » Rhomaia at Magnesia on the Maeander (DID A 13, 3) with his tragedy Clytaemnestra and his satire Ajax (TrGF I 155). BZ.

evidently feared

this animal as a predator of poultry; already Varro (Rust. 3,12,3), using the term faelis (in Columella 8,14,9, the terms

POLEMARCHUS

1857 (repr. 1967).

C.HU.

Polemarchos (modéuagyoc/polémarchos, plural polémarchoi, ‘leader in war’) was the title of military officialsin various Greek states. In the stories of the rise of tyrants, Cypselus [2] in Corinth (Nicolaus of Damascus FGrH 90 F 57,5) and > Orthagoras [1] in Sicyon

(POxy. XI 1365 =FGrH 105 F 2) are said to have been polémarchoi. But it is unlikely that men outside the ruling aristocracy would be appointed to such an office or that the polémarchos of archaic Corinth would have civilian judicial duties like that of classical Athens. In the Spartan army of the fifth-fourth centuries the six morai (‘divisions’) were commanded by polemarchoi, who ate with the commanding king. Thebes in the early fourth century had polémarchoi, an office held simultaneously in 382 by the rival political leaders Ismenias [1] and Leontiades [2] (Xen. Hell. 5,2,25). Polémarchoi are

attested in various other places including the four adPolemaeus (Modeuctoc/Polemaios). [1] (also called Ptolemaeus and Polemon in MSS, but correctly P., IG I 469 and IK 28,2). Son of one P., Macedonian, nephew of > Antigonus [1]. P. was probably already an officer in the Macedonian army under — Alexander [4] the Great, possibly somatophylax (> Court titles B) of Philippus > Arridaeus [4] (Arr. Succ. 1,38). In 319, he went to > Eumenes [1] as a hostage of Antigonus (Plut. Eumenes ro); in 3144 he was sent as general to Cappadocia and to secure the Hellespont (Diod. Sic. 19,57,4; 60,2f.), meanwhile marrying the daughter of > Dionysius [5]. Still in 314, he was sent to Ionia against > Asander [2] and Eupolemus (Diod. Sic. 19,68,5-7). When P. was appointed strategos ton kata ten Hellada pragmdtén (‘strategos for the affairs concerning Greece’) in 312 (Diod. Sic. 19,77f.; 87), he remained stratégos ton peri ton Hellesponton (‘strategos for the Hellespont’) and named his confidant Phoenix as his deputy. P. landed in Aulis and fortified Salganeus against > Cassander; in the winter of 313/2, he had complete control of Boeotia and Euboea and partial control of Phocis and Locris. In 312 he put down the rebellion of + Telesphorus and probably led preliminary peace negotiations with Cassander [1. 9f.]. In 310 he revolted, made a pact with Cassander and successfully urged Phoenix to cease to obey Antigonus (Diod. Sic. 20,19,2). P. posted garrisons to Chalcia and Eretria, and in the winter of 309/8, following the accommodation between Cassander and ~ Polyperchon [1], he forged contacts with Ptolemy I (+ Ptolemaeus [1]; first negotiations through the good offices of — Philocles [8]). He went to Ptolemy on Cos, bringing Iasus over to the side of the Lagids (IK 28,2), but was then compelled to commit suicide by Ptolemy.

ministrative districts (tetrads) in Thessaly (IG II? 116 =

Top 147; IG II’ 175: middle of 4th cent. BC). In Athens the polémarchos was the one among the nine archons (— drchontes) who took over the military command originally exercised by the king ([{Aristot.] Ath. Pol. 3,2). At Marathon (490 BC > Persian Wars The polemarchos and all ten > stratégoi) were present (Hdt. 6,103-114). The stratégoi were the effective commanders, but the polémarchos was called in to resolve a disgreement among the stratégoi (Hdt. 6,ro9f.), and fought in the commander’s position on the right wing of the army (Hdt. 6,110). Thereafter, as the stratégoi became the leading officials of Athens and the archons routine officials, the polémarchos as a civilian magistrate had responsibility for some festivals including the funeral of those killed in war, and for lawsuits involving metics (> métoikos) and privileged non-citizens ([{Aristot.] Ath. Pol. 58).

N.G. L. HAMMOND, Strategia and Hegemonia in FifthCentury Athens, in: CQ 19, 1969, 111-144, esp. ILI I-123 = id., Studies in Greek History, 1973, 346-394, esp. 346— 364.

PR.

Polemarchus (Iodéuaeyxoc/Polémarchos). [1] Wealthy > métozkos in Athens, son of > Cephalus [2] and brother of the orator > Lysias [1], who unsuccessfully brought > Eratosthenes [1], the main culprit

amongst the Thirty Tyrants (> tridkonta) of the murder of P., to trial (Lys. Or. 12). TRAILL, PAA 776500.

K.KL

[2] P. of Cyzicus. Astronomer who, between 380 BC and 370 BC, worked as the student of > Eudoxus [1]

455

456

and as teacher of > Callippus[5]. P. worked on the question of how far the apparent changes in the size of the planets were consistent with the Eudoxian-Aristotelian theory of homocentric planetary spheres. The testimonia (Simpl. in Aristot. Cael. 493,5 and 505,21~23) are preserved through the Peripatetic > Sosigenes. —» Planets

instances of this, particularly the Cynics ( Cynicism),

POLEMARCHUS

A. REHM, s. v. P. (2), RE 21, 1256-1258.

W.H.

Epicureans (> Epicurus) and Sceptics (+ Scepticism).

In the monarchies of antiquity, polemicising against this form of state was only possible in a concealed manner; otherwise the polemicist had to fear for his life [2]. III. CHRISTIANS Like literary > forgery, polemics too came to be of

name describe a kind of bread (Ath. 3,111c), Attic monetary units (Sch. Hom. Il. 23,269; Hsch. s.v. yovootcs) and animal names (Erotianus 58,17 NAcH-

great importance to the Christians. Because of their faith, which was fundamentally opposed to belief in the gods and to ruler cult, polemics against non-Christians became very influential: many martyrs polemicised openly against the state cult; the same applied to the Christian apologists from the 2nd cent. until Prudentius

MANSON: AeBngic as Massaliotic term for rabbit, taking

(Contra Symmachum) and Augustine (De civitate Det)

into account the Latin(!); similarly Str. 3,144). They

[3]. Non-Christian writers such as > Fronto [6], > Celsus, > Hierocles [5], > Porphyrius, Emperor Julian (> Iulianus [r1]) (cf. [4; 9]) responded to them in kind. Christian theologians also polemicised in disputations (cf. the term altercatio), treatises and sermons with titles Adversus ..., Contra ..., In... against Jews (beginning already in the Gospels, especially in John (— lo-

[3] Greek grammarian from the early rst cent. AD at the latest. The four definitions of words preserved under his

suggest that P. wrote an > onomastikon ordered by topic. K. Latre, Glossographika, in: Philologus 16257; C. WENDEL, s. v. P. (3), RE 21, 1258f.

80,

1925, R.SI.

Polemics I. DEFINITION

hannes [1])) [5], against > Gnostics [6; 7] and > MaII. GREEKS, RoMANS

III. Curis-

TIANS

I. DEFINITION In contrast to > invective and iambics [1], attested from the beginning of antiquity both orally and in writing and aiming at personal insult and abuse, polemics — from noheuxt/polemikeé (sc. téxvn/téchne), ‘art of war’, i.e. hurtful dispute through words — is directed towards topics and is thus objective in its orientation. From time to time, the polemicist also makes use of invective when he is carried away by anger at the person whose opinion or theory he is challenging. Since the establishment of Greek conceptual thinking and, hence, the rise of philosophy and scholarship, there have been oral and written examples of polemics. These also concern the way in which people see themselves and the status of their own work; an apologetic tendency can often be noticed here. II. GREEKS, ROMANS From the time of > Heraclitus [1] onwards, philoso-

phers polemicised against poets and poetry as well as against one another. In the 4th cent. BC, philosophers and orators challenged one another for preeminence in education. Here, polemics display a rather broad spectrum of lack of objectivity, insinuation, slander and misunderstandings (e.g. against Homer: > Zoilus; cf. in the ist cent. AD the Obtrectatores Vergilii against Virgil). The application of polemics was not subject to any limitation, and was directed against religious, political, philosophical and scientific convictions and teachings, against concepts of demerit and merit, against activities and ways of life, social behaviour, social and state models as well as against anything ‘un-Greek’ and ‘unRoman’. Particularly from the 4th cent. BC onwards, the various philosophical schools provide numerous

nichaeans. Polemics also experienced an upturn through the different interpretations of the faith within the Christian groups that existed right from the start. The so-called orthodox believers, the heretics and schis-

matics (polemical terms themselves) quarreled bitterly among themselves [3; 8]. As a result, a large part of early Christian literature can be classified as polemics. + Apologists; > Heresiology; > Heresy; > Iambographers; > Invective; > Schism 1S. Koster, Die Invektive in der griechischen und r6mi-

schen Literatur, 1980 2 W. Speyer, Buchervernichtung und Zensur des Geistes bei Heiden, Juden und Christen, 1981, 43-74 31. OpeLt, Die Polemik in der christlichen lateinischen Literatur von Tertullian bis Augustin, 1980 4S. BENKO, Pagan Criticism of Christianity During the First Two Centuries A. D., in: ANRW II 23.2, 1980, 105 5— t118 5 H. SCHRECKENBERG, Die christlichen AdversusJudaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und_historisches Umfeld (1-11. Jh.), *1990 6C. CoLpr, s. v. Gnosis II (Gnostizismus), RAC 11, 537-659 7K. RUDOLPH, Die Gnosis, 31990 8 N. BRox,s. v. Haresie, RAC 13, 248-297

9 A. MeREDITH, Porphyry and Julian Against the Christians, in: ANRW

II 23.2, 1980, 1119-1149.

WO.SP.

Polemius Silvius. Probably identical with the Silvius mentioned

in the Vita Hilarii (14). In AD

448/o, P.

wrote a chronographical composition entitled Laterculus (‘list’), a compilation, as he notes in his preface, of earlier works of the same name. These are lost but the ~+ chronographer of AD 354 (> Filocalus) may approximate them, esp. since the latter was well known to P. [x]. P.’s intention is to make these matters better available to less educated people. In addition, he purged remnants of the non-Christian — calendar traditions by not naming their festivals; there are no illustrations. As in the case of the chronographer of AD 354 the content is heterogeneous, aiming at the accumulation of el-

457

458

ementary knowledge. For this reason, the Laterculus has often been depreciatively classified as a work typical of a period of decline. After a short introduction to the basic concepts of chronology (de diebus, de signis, de anno: ‘types of days, celestial signs, years’), the calendar is continually amplified by various additions. Thus, a list of Roman emperors from Julius Caesar to Theodosius II and Valentinian III is inserted between January and February (enumeratio principum cum tyrannis) |2], followed by a compilation of the Roman provinces between February and March. March is followed by an enumeratio spirantium, a ‘list of animals’, continued after April. The ratio quaerendae lunae festivique paschalis (‘method of calculating the date of Easter’) announced in the preface hits upon the fundamental core of Christian chronological literature. By presenting this method, the work anticipates the constellation of medieval computus treatises ( CALENDAR); however this part is missing. Another insert between June and July treats of famous sights in Rome (urbis Romae fabricarum enarratio). After a gap following July, where poeticae fabulae (‘fictional stories’) should be, August is followed by a brief account of the history of mankind since the Flood (breviarium temporum). Further, a summary of weights and measures is appended after December, while the promised chapters on animal sounds, metrical questions and schools of philosophers have been lost in the transmitted version. The work is dedicated to Eucherius [3] of Lyon. Its transmission in only one MS is evidence of its slight impact (Brussels 10615-10729, 12th cent.). However, its list of provinces in particular had an impact of its own [3]. — Calendar; > Onomastikon

> lunius [I 10] Brutus in order to rescue Cotys and have his kingdom restored to him (App. B Civ. 4,75,319-

1H. Srern, Le calendrier de 354, 1952, 32ff.

2R.W.

BurGES, Principes cum tyrannis, in: CQ 43, 1993, 49I500 3 MGHAA 9,524-551. Ep1t1oNn: MGH AA 9,511-551. BIBLIOGRAPHY: E.S. DULABAHN, Studies on the Later-

culus of P. S., diss. Bryn Mawr 1987; J. RUpKE, Kalender und Offentlichkeit, 1995, 151-160. UE.

Polemocrates (Ilodeuoxodtnc/Polemokratés). [1] Under > Philip [4] II P. received estates in the newly conquered region in the west of the Chalcidian peninsula; this estate as well as the one which his son Coenus [r], the future general of + Alexander [4] the Great, had received from Philip, was later ratified by king ~ Cassander and declared free from tax (Syll.> 332). M.B. Harzoroutos,

Une donation du roi Lysimaque,

1988.

[2] see > Alexanor;

MZ.

> Machaon

Polemocratia (Mokeuoxeateia/Polemokrateia, also Hodewoxeatia/Polemokratia). Thracian queen, wife of ~» Sadalas Il and mother of > Cotys [I 6] (IGR1775); in 43 BC, she handed over the family fortune to M.

POLEMON

320). R.D. SULLIVAN, Thrace in the Eastern Dynastic Network, in: ANRW II 7.1, 1979, 186-211, esp. 192.

UP.

Polemon (Toiépav/Polémon). [1] Academic philosopher, born c. 350, died probably in 276/5 BC. + Xenocrates [2] introduced him to philosophy (legendary account of his vocation in Diog. Laert. 4,16f.). P. succeeded him as head of the > Academy. He taught > Crates [3] and -» Crantor, as well as the Stoics > Zeno of Citium and > Ariston [7] of Chios. Very little remains of his many writings mentioned in ancient sources (Diog. Laert. 4,20; Suda s. v. I 1887) (fr. collected in [1]). P. is considered among those representatives of the Academy who remained faithful to the teachings of Plato (Philod. Academicorum index 18,9ff. = fr. 8r GIGANTE; Cic. Acad. 1,9,34 = fr. 120 GIGANTE). Although it seems that he stressed the primacy of ethics and practical dealings (Diog. Laert. 4,18), he also contributed to the further development of dialectic and especially of logic. In the sphere of ethics, it is further evident that P. based his concept of ‘life in accordance with nature’ on > Speusippus’ definition of eudaimonia. In his ethics, Zeno evidently sought to outline the Stoic position by arguing against P. + Academy FRAGMENTS:

1M. GIGAnrteE, I frammenti di Polemone,

in: Rendiconti della Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti N.S. 51, 1976-1977, 91-144. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 2H.J. KRAMER, Die Spatphase der Alteren Akademie ..., in: GGPh?, vol. 3, 151-174. K-HS.

[2] P. of ium (Suda 4. 1888 ADLER, s. v. IT.) was generally regarded as the most important author of periegetic literature during the Hellenistic period because he was cited so frequently in antiquity [1; 2]. An inscription with a list of proxenoi (> proxenia) in Delphi (Syll.3 I, 585,266) which mentions him (or a relative? [3. 40]) gives the date of 177/6 BC, which roughly corresponds to the chronological information in the Suda; P. probably lived from 220 to 160 BC [4. 1289-1291]. P. is several times referred to as > periégétés [5, vol. 1. 667, note 123], in one case also as historikos (Suda l.c.). This characterization has greatly influenced the approach to his work. PRELLER’S classification of some 100 remaining fragments [r], still a fundamental resource, reflects the structure of > Pausanias’ [8] work: some scholars, relying on an excessive study of sources, argued that the later author’s work was based mainly on P. This view has proved to be untenable [6. LXXXIII-XC]. Consideration of P.’s fragments apart from, rather than in the context of, Pausanias, demonstrates a breadth and multi-dimensionality that defies classification within one specific literary genre ({[5, vol. 2. 667-672]; cf. [4. 1291]). It is difficult to determine whether the c. 30 transmitted titles refer to

459

460

independent treatises or to sections of larger works

instigation, in the course of which > Tanais and other towns were destroyed (Str. 11,2,11). When he attempted to attack the followers of Aspurgus in 8 BC, P. was betrayed and killed (Str. r1,2,11). + Armenia; > Laodicea; — Parthia; > Pontus

POLEMON

[4. 1292].

P. wrote on the Athenian acropolis, on other cities and on the mythological traditions of several Greek regions. He wrote critically on > Timaeus and > Eratosthenes [2], as well as essays on painters, miracles and literary and antiquarian topics [4. 1291-1318; 7. 728732; 8. 247-249]. His periegetic and polemic writings, as well as his letters, usually focused on Greek antiquities; his themes were obscure and at times quite sensational [4. 1318-1320]. Athenaeus (6,234D = fr. 78) reports that P. was referred to as stélokdpas (roughly ‘stele glutton’ [8. 248, note 6]), probably because of his enthusiasm for inscriptions. Some modern critics thought him lacking in imagination [4. 13 19f.]; in antiquity he was praised as ‘learned and alert in Greek affairs’ (Plut. Mor. 675b; fr. 27 PRELLER), a laudation more appropriate to his achievements as a man and an author. 1 L. PRELLER (ed.), Polemonis Periegetae fragmenta, 1838 (repr. 1964) 2FHG III, 108-148 3H.J. Metre, Die

Kleinen griechischen Historiker heute, in: Lustrum 1978, 5-43

21,

4K. DEICHGRABER, Ss. v. P. (9), RE 21, 1288-

1320 5 F, SUSEMIHL, Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit, 2 vols., 1891-1892 6J.G. FRAZER, Pausanias’s Description of Greece, *1913, vol. 1 7 H. BiscHorFF, s. v. Perieget, RE 19, 725-742 8 R. PFEIF-

FER, History of Classical Scholarship, 1968.

A.A.D.

[3] Author of a satyr play who enjoyed success after 150 BC at the Rhomaia in Magnesia on the Maeander (DID PAW Tigi 2))= B.Z. [4] P. Eusebés (‘the Pious’, IOSPE I? 704). Son of = Acnom|2)|oneWaodiceal (Str. 12585h6)seamrhetor friendly toward Rome. Together they defended their city against the Parthians in 40 BC. A grateful Antonius [19] made P. dynast of the region of > Iconium in Lycaonia (Str. 12,6,1) in 39 BC. In35, P. participated in Antonius’ > Parthian War and was taken prisoner but ransomed (Cass. Dio 49,25,4). He then successfully mediated between Antonius and the king of > Media Atropatene, Artavasdes [2], for which he was rewarded

W. Hosen, Untersuchungen zur Stellung kleinasiatischer Dynasten, 1969, 39-53; PIR* P 531; V.E. GaIDUKEVIC, Das Bosporanische Reich, 1971; R. D. SULLIVAN, Dynasts in Pontos, in: ANRW II 7.2, 1980, 913-930, here: 915920; S.J. SAPRYKIN, Pontijskoe carstvo, 1996, 308-310.

[5] Iulius P. Son of Cotys [I 9] and Antonia [7] Tryphaena, grandson of P. [4]; brother of Cotys [I ro] and +» Rhoemetalces [3]. P. was made king of > Pontos and + Regnum Bosporanum by his childhood friend + Caligula after the death of Aspurgus in AD 38 (Cass. Dio 59,12,2; Syll.3 798; IGR 4, 147), although Mithradates [9] VIII was the legitimate heir and had practically acceded to the throne. The latter was recognized as the Bosporan king by Claudius [III 1] in 41; P. was given, in addition to Pontus, part of > Cilicia (Cass. Dio 60,8,2). In 48, he married Berenice, daughter of Herodes [8] Agrippa and converted to Judaism (Jos. Ant. Iud. 20,145). After their divorce, he married Julia Mamaea. After > Nero united Pontos with > Galatia (Tac. Ann. 14,26), P. was left with only Cilicia, where he remained king until his death (after 68). PIR? P 472; H. Seyric, Polémon II. et Julia Mamaea, in: RN (Ser. 6) r1, 1969, 44-47; R.D. SULLIVAN, Dynasts in Pontos, in: ANRW II 7.2, 1980, 913-930, here: 925-930; S.J. SAPRYKIN, Pontijskoe carstvo, 1996, 333-339. Lv.B.

[6] M. Antonius P. c. AD 90-146; sophist from a prominent family of Laodicea ad Lycon, related to the kings of Pontus. His biography in Philostratus’ [5-8] Lives of the Sophists (comparable to that of > Herodes [16] Atticus) reveals his eminence as a teacher, orator and politician (in > Smyrna). P. was trained as a sophist by > Dion [I 3] in Prusa (Philostr. Soph. 1,25,539) and by — Scopelianus and the Stoic Timocrates in Smyrna (ibid. 1,25,536); his own pupils included > Aristides

with control over Armenia Minor (Cass. Dio 49,33,2; — Armenia).

[3].

Despite his support for Antonius at > Actium (Plut. Antonius 61), he succeeded in maintaining his position under Octavianus/Augustus, although he had to give up Armenia Minor. In 26 BC, he was recognized by the Roman Senate as socius et amicus populi Romani (Cass. Dio 53,25,1-2). Because of that position, > Augustus asked him to oust Scribonius, the king of + Regnum Bosporanum; before he could carry out that plan, however, Scribonius was assassinated. Hindered in his incursion into Bosporan territory, he asked Agrippa [1] for help, leading to the surrender of the Bosporans in 14 BC and P.’s accession to the throne of the Regnum Bosporanum. Upon instructions from Rome, he married > Dynamis (Cass. Dio 54,24,5-7) and later Pythodoris [1]. Revolts broke out in the Asiatic part of Regnum Bosporanum, probably at Dynamis’

political activities took place mainly in Smyrna, where on his first embassy to the emperor he took the place of the ageing Scopelianus. It was probably on that occasion that Trajan gave him the right to free travel. After a second embassy of P., emperor > Hadrianus gave Smyrna a second neocoria (i.e. a temple for the imperial cult), new games (possibly the Hadridneia Olympia), ten million drachmai for a grain market and a major temple (Zeus Akraios?; cf. ibid. 1,25,532f., cf. ISmyrna 545 =IGR 4,1431, evidence of P.’s key role, but specifying a sum of 1,500,000 drachmai). Hadrian also granted P. membership of the > Mouseion of Alexandria and more than 250,000 drachmai. Smyrna made

While P. was buried in Laodicea (ibid. 1,25,543), his

P. (and his descendants) leader (> agonothétés) of the

Hadrianeia Olympia (Philostr. ibid.) and (probably between 130 and 136) head magistrate (stratégos). This

461

462

POLIARCHOS

is attested on coins, which also show that P. dedicated a statue of the emperor’s favourite, > Antinous [2], after

ods, D.B. Thesis Oxford 1960, 245-247 (typescript); A.

130 [1; 2]. P. is praised by Philostratus (ibid. 1,25,53 1)

pography of the Pontos, vol. 1, 1985, 111-115; E. OLsHAUSEN, Ss. v. Polemonion, RE Suppl. 14, 427f. EO.

as a just man, committed to civic harmony, but denoun-

ced as corrupt in epigrams by Ammianus (Anth. Pal. 11,180—-18r). P. was in Hadrian’s entourage when the emperor toured the province of Asia in 123/4 (Physiognomonika 138f., cf. [3]) and held the ceremonial speech when the Athenian Olympieion was dedicated in 131/2 (a bust discovered there is believed to be of P. [4]). His arrogance was evident in his ostentatious retinue when he travelled, and when he threw out the pro-

consul of Asia — the future emperor Antoninus [1] Pius, who had recently arrived — from his house at midnight (Philostr. Soph. 1,25,5323 534). P.’s speeches, always energetic, were inspired by themes from Demosthenes [2]; P. dedicated a statue of his role model at the Asklepieion in Pergamon (IPerg. 273). Quotations in Philostr. Soph. and two surviving speeches (purporting to be spoken by the fathers of two heroes at Marathon) show an ‘Asianist’ preference for short sentences and forced tropes (— Asianism). P.’s Physiognomonikd survives in an Arabic translation (1356) and a Greek paraphrase written before 300 by + Adamantius, and is much used by a 4th cent. Latin treatise. P. strongly emphasizes the effectiveness of his own practice of > physiognomy, backed by many anecdotes which purport to ‘prove’ the physiognomic predictive abilities. A historical work (cf. Phryn. Ecloge 238 p. 339 RUTHERFORD) is lost. > Philostratus [5-8]; > Second Sophistic 1 PIR A 862 3 G.W.

2BMC

Bowersock,

Ionia 277-278 no. 328, 339-341 Greek

Sophists

in the

Roman

Empire, 1969, 120-123 4 RICHTER, Portraits 3, 285 und pl. 2034-2037 (= NM Athens inv. no. 427). EDITIONS: PHYSIOGNOMONIKA:;

G. HOFFMANN,

in: R. FORSTER,

Scriptores Physiognomonici Graeci et Latini, 1893. SPEECHES: H. HINCK, 1873. BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. JUTTNER, De Polemonis vita operbus arte, 1898 (repr. 1967); M.W. Gieason, Making

Men. Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome, 1995; M.T. BoaTwriGcut, Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire, 2000, 157-162.

E.BO.

Polemonium (Iodeuwvov/Polemonion). Port city on the south shore of the Black Sea (> Pontos Euxeinos;

Ptol. 5,6,4; Peripl. m. Eux. 30-33; Steph. Byz. s. v. IL; Plin. HN 6,11; Tab. Peut. 10,3; Hierocles, Synekdemos 37) at the modern Bolaman, 10 km west of Fatsa, where the Sidenus (Str. 1,3,7; 255,253 3,3,14-16; modern Bolaman Irmag1) flows into a broad bay. Named after Polemon [4] I (37-7 BC: EM s. v. [odepnavioc). The town was probably built on the site of Side, a settlement which was abandoned by Strabo’s (12,3,16) time (cf. Amm. Marc. 22,8,16, who emphasizes the Greek tradition of P.). D.R. Wison, The Historical Geography of Bithynia, Paphlagonia, and Pontus in the Greek and Roman Peri-

Bryer, D. WINFIELD, The Byzantine Monuments and To-

Polemos (Md\euoc/P6lemos; Lat. Bellum). Personification of war (Ov. Met. 1,142f.); he was considered the lord of kydoimos (‘din of battle’, Aristoph. Pax 204-

300, esp. 236 and 255) and of the alala (‘war-cry’, Pind. fr. 78). At Rome, War was locked behind double doors (Enn. Ann. 266f.) with iron bolts (Verg. Aen. 1,293)

and guarded by Janus (+ Janus). Following a decision to wage war, the Roman consul personally opened the doors of the Temple of Janus at Rome, thereby issuing a call to arms (Verg. Aen. 7,607f.). Sor Polenta (&\¢ita/dlphita). Barley groats, flour or bread. The Lat. term polenta describes on the one hand the groats of hulled, roasted barley kernels; on the other, the mash mixed or cooked with these groats together with water, salt and other ingredients (Plin. HN 18,72; Pall. Agric. 7,12). Barley mash, served with accompaniments such as oil or vegetables, was among the most important staples of the diet in Greece until the Hellenistic Period. By contrast, in Italy (with the possible exception of Cisalpine Gaul (Plin. HN 18,85)), emmer mash (puls) was preferred, the national dish of the Republican Period. + Grain M.-C. AMourettI, Le pain et l’huile dans la Gréce antique. De l’araire au moulin, 1986; J. ANDRE, Essen und Trinken im alten Rom, 1998; A. DALBy, Essen und Trin-

ken im alten Griechenland. Von Homer bis zur byzantinischen Zeit, 1998. NG:

Poletai (xwAntai/poleétai), ‘sellers’. In Athens, the officials responsible for selling public contracts (e.g. for collecting taxes, and for working sacred land and the silver mines) and confiscated property. The contracts were made in the presence of the council (> boule), which kept a record until payment was made; the sales of confiscated property were ratified by the nine ~ archontes [1]. The polétat are mentioned in connection with > Solon ([Aristot.] Ath. Pol. 7,3); in the classical period they were a board of ten, appointed annually one from each phyle ([Aristot.] Ath. Pol. 47,2-5). Among the inscribed records left by the poléta are the ‘Attic Stelai’, listing sales of the property of those condemned for impiety in 415 BC (> asébeia; > Herms, mutilation of the) (IG P 421-430), and mine leases. Their office was the polétérion in the Agora [3. p. 165]. 1 BusOLT/SWOBODA 1, 483 n. 5 2P.J. RHoDEs, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia, 1981, 552-557 3R.E. WycHeErLey, Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia (Agora 3), 1973.

PIR.

Poliarchos (odMagyoc/poliarchos). [1] (‘High city official’). In the 3rd cent. BC, the cities of Thessaly had councils of five poliarchoi, cf. IGIX 2,459

463

464

(Crannon); IG IX 2,1233 (Larisa [1]). The etymology suggests that their duties probably encompassed the military and civil interests of the polis. The division of powers with the other city council, the tagoi, is unclear (cf. [2]). The archipoliarchos served as chair (IG IX

leges de provocatione; > provocatio) did not exercise the function of an enforcing staff but symbolized the claim of the magistrate to the obedience of citizens. In crises, there was a reliance on appeals to the citizenry to report (armed) to support the magistrates; thus e.g. 415 at Athens (And. 1,45). In the great crises of the late Roman Republic, the declaration of a senatus con-

POLIARCHOS

223i) — Tagos; > Thessalians, Thessalia 1B. Hetty, L’état Thessalien, 1995, 332 2Id., Politarques, poliarques et politophylakes, in: Ancient Macedonia 2, 1977, 531-544.

HA.BE.

[2] (‘Master of the city’) is frequently used by Cassius {III x] Dio and Johannes > Lydus [3] to translate into Greek the Roman title > praefectus urbi. F. GESCHNITZER, Ss. v. P., RE Suppl. 11,

rro8-1112.

TF.

Police. A modern term which in most European languages originally denoted the good order of public life, but from the late 18th cent. became restricted to the guarantee of public security. Thus are interwoven a material aspect describing the task, and an institutional aspect reflecting the increasing delegation of this task to public institutions equipped with coercive powers but functionally distinct from the army and also undertaking the prevention and punishment of criminal actions. In antiquity, there existed only limited functional equivalents to it, because on the one hand the maintenance of public order was entrusted to appropriate (in particular respects) magistrates, who mostly had to manage without enforcement staff, and on the other hand protection against crime largely remained a matter for the individual upon whose initiative the initiation of criminal proceedings also depended. Exceptions to the latter rule were, in certain (manifest) mis-

demeanours or groups of perpetrators, the functions of the Eleven at Athens (— héndeka) and (from the mid— 3rd cent. BC) the > tresviri capitales at Rome — the

nature and extent of the competence [1] ascribed to the latter being a matter of dispute [2]. In the Greek world, various magistrates (> agoranémoi, > astynémoi, > sitophylakes, etc.) with limited means of coercion at their disposal attended to the supervision of markets and the cleaning and maintenance of streets. The corresponding functions at

Rome and in the Italian communities devolved upon the ~ aediles and similar magistrates. Auxiliary staff allotted to them (including public slaves) took on administrative duties, but were not deployed directly against fractious citizens. An exception, and one that is difficult to explain, were the Scythian public slaves (+ Scythae) at Athens in the 5th and early 4th cents. BC, who served as aides to the magistrates to ensure the smooth progress of popular assemblies and popular courts. Essentially, public order depended on the citizenry’s recognition of the authority of the magistrates. This is especially clear at Rome in the appearance of senior officials constantly accompanied by > lictores, who (after physical acts of coercion were forbidden by the

sultum

ultimum (SCU) always brought with it an appeal to citizens to volunteer (> Emergency, state of). The Senate could also authorize temporary mobilizations of small protective squads to guarantee the security of legal proceedings or popular assemblies. The use by + Pompeius [I 3] of troops levied in Italy during the anarchic events of 52 BC represented a break with agreed principles of the securing of public order. Permanent apparatuses of public order were established for the first time in the early > Principate. The ~ vigiles, who were freedmen, were responsible for firefighting, but could also be deployed for other duties as required. There were also specialist military units. The > Praetorians served in the first instance as the Emperor’s body-guard, but were also deployed to combat unrest. The cohortes urbanae reported to the — praefectus urbi. The regular duties of the paramilitary forces included supervision of the public games. It is questionable whether and, if so, to what extent, they undertook action against crime. The increasing criminal jurisdiction of the praefectus urbi and praefectus vigilum, including the possibility of official penal action, does not prove that they used the forces answerable to them in this sense. All units at Rome were dissolved in the course of the 4th cent. The securing of order in the cities of the Empire remained the duty ofthe local magistrates concerned, who continued to depend on the support of the populace; only in exceptional cases did governors intervene at their own discretion with the deployment of regular troops. Outside the cities, the army was primarily deployed to combat banditry, which constituted a danger to army supplies as well as offering refuge to deserters and slaves, or represented stubborn indigenous opposition to Roman rule (> Brigandry, — Piracy). 1 W. KuNKEL, Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung des rémischen Kriminalverfahrens in vorsullanischer Zeit, 1962, 71-79 2A. Linrort, Violence in Republican Rome,

*1999, XXVFE. (with bibliography). V. Hunter, Policing Athens, 1994; W. Nipper, Public Order in Ancient Rome, 1995.

W.N.

Polichne (Mohiyvn; Polichné).

[1] Settlement in the Olympieum, a sanctuary of Zeus on the right bank of the Anapus in the south west of Syracusae, where in 414 BC > Gylippus stationed part of his cavalry to hamper the Athenians on the > Plemmyrium from foraging in the Syracusan hinterland (Thue. 74573 Diod Sic. t3.9.54ct.inh amid ten). 1 H.-P. DROGEMULLER, Syrakus (Gymnasium Beiheft 6), 1969.

E.O.

465

466

[2] Town in north-western Crete, probably near the modern Meskla, c. 15 km south west of Chania. According to Greek tradition, it was the only city apart from > Praesus not to take part in a Minoan expedition against Sicily (Hdt. 7,170). Temporarily under the control of the neighbouring city of Cydonia, it was liberated from the latter in 429 BC by the Athenians (Thuc. PISS)

during the red period IV. The main gate (1) was to the south west, and in its immediate vicinity were two elongated buildings, posited as assembly halls (bouleuterion, 2) and grain stores (3). The dwellings, now rectangular, were built of stone and had one or two rooms; and a building of the > megaron type (7), whose function is as yet unclear, first appears. By the end of period Il, P. occupied an area of ro hectares (25 acres), almost twice as much as its contemporary Troy II. Pottery includes fine, varnished vases decorated with zigzag lines and spirals and so-called band pottery probably imported from other Aegean centres. Tools (axes, mortars, hatchets, knives, grinding tools etc.) were mainly of stone or bone, though metalwork was gradually gaining in importance (needles and nails). In period III (c. 25 50-2375 BC), P. expanded to the west and south-east and acquired an additional wall (4). Many houses were enlarged. Among the ceramics many imports from Asia Minor take their place alongside local products. Manufacture of bone and stone implements was giving way to bronze, and the first pieces of jewellery were appearing. Period IV (c. 23752225 BC) saw the expansion of the wall (4) and the addition at regular intervals of semi-circular ‘bastions’ (5). Ceramic forms show strong stylization, with forms such as amphorae and beakers gaining in significance. The clay is fine, but the vessels remained undecorated. Tools were now consistently made of metal. P.’s cultural affinity with other centres such as Troy I and II, + Crete, Thessaly and > Boeotia is clear. Two large streets (8) were laid within the settlement during period V (c. 2225-2100 BC), and the town was equipped with canalization. A new megaron (7), surrounded by several large rooms, was built on the ‘northern square’. In ceramics, a drinking cup form developed: the socalled dépas amphikypellon, which also occurs in later strata of Troy II. The vessels of this period are of high quality, with painted or relief linear decoration. Many finds are considered Cycladic imports, indicating busy trading relations. The designs ofjewellery pieces froma gold hoard in room 643 (6) show striking similarities to ‘Priam’s Treasure’ from Troy. Around 2100 BC, the flourishing city was destroyed by an earthquake and abandoned for c. 100 years. While repair of destroyed buildings is particularly characteristic of period VI (c. 2000-1900 BC), the settlement never regained its former size. The potter’s wheel was introduced at this time. Ceramics are characterized by an unusual quality of clay and fine surfaces usually varnished red; alongside of this, so-called Grey Minyan Ware is found. More intensive research is needed for the c. 400-year phase between periods VI and VII (c. 15001275 BC), during which P.’s importance waned. Only in period VII (contemporaneous with the zenith of Mycenaean culture on the Greek mainland and Troy V and VI, > Mycenaean culture and archeology) were some buildings renovated. Ceramics comprise varnished vases with black linear decoration. An earthquake in the first quarter of the 13th cent. BC utterly destroyed

M. Guarbuccl (ed.), Inscriptiones Creticae, vol. 2, 233236.

H.SO,

Poliochni. Prehistoric settlement on the south-eastern coast of the island of > Lemnos. Discovered in 1930, it

is one of the most important prehistoric sites of the Aegean. Italian excavations between 1930 and 1956, and again from 1986, have so far unearthed approximately half of the entire area of P. The late Neolithic and Bronze Age settlement developed around the turn of the 4th and 3rd millennia BC. Settlement continued uninterrupted during the 3rd millennium but was interrupted time and again during the 2nd millennium BC, probably due to invasions and natural catastrophes. The cultural development of P. shows similarities in many areas (ceramics, metalwork, architecture) to + Troy, Thermi on Lesbos, the > Cyclades and Thessaly (> Thessalians, Thessalia; Dimini and > Sesklo cultures). P. owes its importance to its geographical location close to the coast of Asia Minor. Almost opposite the Hellespont and Troad, it was a station on the trade route from the southern Mediterranean to the Black Sea (> Pontos Euxeinos A). Its harbour was protected from strong north-easterly winds. West of the settlement stretched a fertile plain, providing the settlement with agricultural products. Clay pits and obsidian deposits lay nearby. The identity of P.’s inhabitants is unclear. Alongside an autochthonic population there were probably various tribal groups which either settled there or used the settlement as a trading post. As yet, no identifiable cultic spaces or cemeteries have been found at P., nor any objects that can be ascertained as cultic. The Italian archaeologists recognized in P. influences from Anatolia (e.g. Kumtepe, Beycesultan), the Aegean islands (e.g. Thermi on Lesbos, Chios, Cyclades), Crete and the Greek mainland (Dimini) and Thrace (Michalic-Karanovo VII, Gumelnita), distinguishing seven phases of settlement indicated by colours (black=I, blue=lII, green=III, red=IV, yellow=V, brown=VI and lilac=VII). In period I (c. 3200-2800 BC), P. was of modest size. Large buildings were ellipsoid in shape and probably built of clay bricks. Crude, dark clay vessels, most without decoration, characterize the pottery; an excep-

tion is the first appearance of a so-called fruit bowl ona high pedestal. The total absence of metals is striking. During period II (c. 2800-2550 BC), P. was a wellorganized small town surrounded by a wall (see site plan, 4) which was extended and fitted with bastions

POLIOCHNI

(D9 SLEZ 2-062 >) III (99 0552 2-008z 2) | (eg (99 008z 2-ooze 2) | [ey

00lz (Da

EM ¥ Zéheueiy €wiesaw Fugnohiatiog 17 aeo

Gzzz2iC

_

.

y

Sieh r=

VA

(D8 OOLZ — OOZE *2) saseyd yuawajyas yuRryIUSIs :1UYyI0I}0d

SHe2tto nS ey Gods 6 seming G

2-S2Ez7 [ERT (Da >)NVSzz@z [G27 A 2)

a

>)

ve

fat Meet ny Seay eae —lees

7

468

467 POLIOCHNI

469

470

P.; the city was abandoned for good and the population probably moved to the west of Lemnos.

habitation were established quite haphazardly, the conception of a planned settlement can be traced back to colonial foundations in Sicily in the late 8th cent. BC. The number ofpoleis varied, as new ones arose through » colonization and > synoikismés, and others disappeared through the incidence of war. A total of close to 1500 settlements of the polis type existed in the Greek

1A. ARCHONTIDOU (ed.), Lemnos, Archaologisches Museum. (guide), 1993 2 TH. BELITSOS, H Anwvog xan tH XMQLA TNS, *1997, 13-19 3L. BERNABO-BREA, P. Citta preistorica nell’ isola di Lemnos, 2 vols., 1964, 1976 4F.

SCHACHERMEYR, Forschungsbericht tiber die Ausgrabungen und Neufunde zur agaischen Frithzeit 19 57-1960, in: AA 1962, 2, 104-382, esp. 203-204 5P.Z. SPANOS, Untersuchungen tber den bei Homer ‘Depas Amphikypellon’ genannten Gefaftypus (MDAI(Ist) Beih. 6), 1972,

30-34.

Xo,

Poliochus (Ilodoxoc; Poliochos). Attic comic poet of the 5th cent. BC, victor on one occasion at the Lenaea

[x. test. r]. Two fragments survive, one from the play Kogw@taot)s (Korinthiastés, ‘The Whoremonger’). 1 PCG VII, 1989, 550-551.

B.BA.

Poliorcetics see > Siegecraft Polis (x6htc, ntod¢/polis, ptolis; pl. noderc/poleis; ‘city state’).

I. TOPOGRAPHICAL VELOPMENT

BACKGROUND

AND EARLY DE-

II. AS A POLITICAL CONCEPT

I. TOPOGRAPHICAL

BACKGROUND

AND EARLY

DEVELOPMENT Depending on the particular context, polis may have topographical, personal or legal-political connotations: a) a fortified settlement on a height, Homeric polis akré or akrotaté (Hom. Il. 6,88; 20,52), synonymous with

the Acropolis in Athens until the late 5th cent. (Thuc.

POLIS

motherland, the Aegean, the colonial territories of the

Hellenes on the coasts of the Mediterranean and Black Sea, and later in the Hellenistic kingdoms (> Hellenistic states).

Generally, through population growth from the early 8th century onwards, many localities in the Greek motherland and the Aegean had developed core settlements surrounded by rural areas. New organizational tasks were needed, and there developed a system of rules for decision-making and the administration of justice. Incipient institutionalization received strong impetus beginning in c. 750 BC with the great Greek colonization ( Colonization IV.), which considerably expanded the space within which Greeks exchanged ideas and developed specific identities in their local communities. Simultaneous interaction and isolation developed a network of associations in the form of municipalities, viewed as independent entities. Meanwhile, their considerable size differences gave rise to numerous, hierarchical dependencies between smaller and larger poleis. The scale ranges from that of the pdleis of Sparta’s > perioikoi to that of the member states of the + Delian League, characterized as symmachoi (> Symmachia) but in fact dominated by Athens, or to the cities in Hellenistic monarchies [3]. + Koinon; > Municipal law; — Private sphere and public sphere; > Settlement, forms of; > State; > Syn-

2,15,3-6); b) an urban settlement; c) an urban settlement including environs, ‘state territory’; d) municipal community, community of politai (see below IL.).

oikismos; > Territorium; > Town, city; > Town plan-

In the sense of a), polis probably goes back to a

1963,262 2 A.M. SNoperass, Archaeology and the Rise of the Greek State, 1977 3 F. Quass, Zur Verfassung der

Mycenaean word po-to-ri-jo, which is, however, atte-

sted only as a component of a name [1]. Although no direct continuity exists between Mycenaean palace strongholds and the historical polis, the phenomenon of the polis should be seen as belonging to an ancient Mediterranean koine whose forms of settlement differ depending on topographical and demographic conditions. Important to polis formation was the potential for a continuous subsistence. Despite the defensibility of the elevated Dark Age (> Dark Ages [1]) settlements + Zagora (Andros) and Emporio (Chios), they were abandoned before 700 BC. Conversely, a smaller settlement in old Smyrna (in Izmir) received a defensive wall as early as the oth cent.; and before 700 the increasing population, by then close to 2,000, built an urban temple, a characteristic of the polis phenomenon [2]. The significance of ‘public space’, manifested particularly in the > agord, became an early mark of distinction. In the Archaic Period, meanwhile, many communities, though not urban settlements, were already poleis in the political sense (see below II.). While areas of

ning 1 A. Mopurco

Davies, Mycenaeae Graecitatis Lexicon,

griechischen Stadte im Hellenismus, in: Chiron 9, 1979, 37-S2.

E. KirsTEN, Die griechische Polis als historisch-geographisches Problem des Mittelmeerraumes, 1956; N.J. G. Pounpbs, The Urbanization of the Classical World, in:

Annals of the Association of American Geographers 59, 1969, 135-157; 1. FISCHER-HANSEN, The Earliest TownPlanning of the Western Greek Colonies, with Special Regard to Sicily, in: M.H. HANSEN (ed.), Introduction to an Inventory of Poleis, 1996, 317-373; M.H. HANSEN, The Hellenic Polis, in: Id. (ed.), A Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures, 2000, 141-187. K.-W.W.

I]. As A POLITICAL CONCEPT The polis developed from the Archaic Period as a form of political organization characteristic of Greece and regions settled by Greeks. Its essential distinctive features were political self-determination and self-government by its citizens, and the pursuit of internal and external independence (> Autonomia; > Freedom). As

POLIS

472

471

a rule the citizenry of a polis, that is to say that portion of the population comprising adult males descended from citizens, sometimes restricted by specific propertyqualifications, decided its own laws (+ Nomos; > Psephisma) and developed its own political institutions. The polis possessed public buildings, its own calendar (> Calendar B. Historical Calendars), feast-days and sanctuaries, its own economic system and currency, its own army, and sometimes also a fleet. It is not, however, possible to confine the term polis strictly to these features, and not all Greek communities were organized in this manner. In regions with few or no urban settlements (for example in western and northwestern Greece), the tribal state (éthnos) was the main form of organization, and individual settlements could exercise only subordinate functions and jurisdiction. Another form was the federal state (> Koinon), for example in Boeotia from the late 6th cent. BC, where, although the individual settlements as pdleis each had their own citizenry, they followed a similar pattern in their internal organization and external relations were subject to control by the institutions of the Boeotian League (> Boeotia, Boeotians, with map). There was a tendency to combine several smaller settlements into a larger community by the expedient of + synoikismos. Such unions sometimes comprised only a political association, leaving the individual settle-

salia) reached a similar size, but, like Athens and Sparta, with 30,000-50,000 politically enfranchised citizens

remained on the scale of modern small towns. Despite these differences in size, citizen numbers, external character, and constitution, common features in the development of the polis and its political organization are discernible. Its development is marked by broadening of the politically active strata of the population, probably beginning as early as the 8th century

BC, and coinciding with a change in the form ofmilitary engagement from aristocratic single combat to the phalanx of hoplitai (> Hoplites), increased establishment of appropriate legal rules, and gradual institutionalization of political organization by the creation of time- or function-limited magistracies (+ Archontes) or advisory councils (+ Areopagus; > Gerousia; — Boule).

could also lead to amalgamation of the settlements

The polis can be regarded as having become going concern by about 600 BC at the latest (inscription from Dreros in Crete, ML 2: ‘decided by the polis’); in other words, the citizen body can be seen as a unit (see > Solon). The colonization ( Colonization IV.) of the 8th and 7th cent. and the concomitant need to organize new colonies efficiently appear to have aided this development, which seems not to have been hindered by tyranny (> Tyrannis, Tyrannos). The process usually ended with a constitution, by which all inhabitants capable of service as hoplites were acknowledged as citizens with political rights (politai), advisory councils (> Boule) prepared political agendas which a popular

around a common central point (for example > Mega-

assembly (> Ekklesia) then voted on and which were

lopolis in Arcadia). Again, within spread-out poleis smaller units might exercise political autonomy and fulfil political functions for the polis as a whole, as in the case of the demes (démo1, > Demos [2]) of Athens. The term polis could also be used for insignificant settlements dependent on larger ones; similarly, pdleis incorporated in a league of allies gave up part of their freedom to the league without, according to Greek notions, thereby losing the quality of a polis. The Greeks did not confine the term to territories settled by Greeks; they also described communities such as Carthage and Rome as poleis. Nor was any particular form of constitution (> Politeia) associated with the term. Politically organized settlements as well as those ruled by tyrants were called poleis. The polis was regarded as a body of citizens (ko7nonia ton politén) rather than a unit of territory (and thus it was normal to refer to a state by its citizens

implemented by annually appointed officials. Especially in 5th-cent. Athens, the politically enfranchised class was extended beyond the hoplites, which was encouraged and sometimes even demanded by Athens in the poleis of the > Delian League. The polis as a distinct mode of organizing of political life did not end with the transformation of the Greek world by Philip [4] Il, Alexander [4] the Great and the Successors (-> Diadochi and Epigoni), though it lived with certain constraints. In the conquered territories, Alexander and his successors founded many poleis as

ments

unaffected

(> Isopoliteia; + Sympoliteia),

but

(Athénaioi, Lakedaimonioi, etc.), not its territory (for

example Athénai, Thébai). Most poleis approached the ideal of the small community over which one commanded a view and where all the citizens could know one another and could meet in the assembly (cf. Aristot. Pol. 7,1326a 5-b 25). Extensive poleis with large populations were rather the exception: Athens was one of the largest, Sparta after the conquest of Messenia still larger in area, but not in citizen numbers. Greek poleis in Asia

Minor (Miletus, Smyrna) and in the western Mediterranean (Syracuse, Taras/Tarentum, Neapolis [2], Mas-

administrative

centres

(— Hellenistic

states);

these

remained under their control, and were populated mainly by Greeks and Macedonians, while the indigenous peasants lived in the surrounding countryside (chéra). The freedom enjoyed by the traditional péleis in Greece, now subject to a king or manoeuvring between the Hellenistic kings, was also limited, which had, however, been the fate of most poleis during the Classical Period of the 5th and 4th cent. The polis and its characteristic institutions continued to flourish during the Hellenistic Period and even under the Roman Empire, where the poleis enjoyed a certain degree of local autonomy as > coloniae or ~ municipia. It was only with the establishment of the > principate, when there was no longer any possibility of manoeuvring between rival powers, that the illusion of polis freedom disappeared. Still, it retained its role as a local centre of finance, administration and commu-

473

474

nication. Throughout the imperium Romanum, it was in these old urban centres that Christianity would first

the different forms ofand tried to identify the best; Aristotle’s school made a collection of 158 constitutions (— Peripatos); only the Athénaion politeia (‘Athenian

take hold.

C. BERARD, Architecture érétrienne et mythologie delphique, in: AK 1, 1971, 59-73; J.M. Coox, Old Smyrna, 1948-1951, in: ABSA 53/54, 1958/59, I-34, esp. 10-17; W. GawanTka, Die sogenannte P., 1985; V. EHRENBERG,

When Did the P. Rise?, in: JHS 57, 1937, 147-159; Id., Der Staat der Griechen, *1965; M.H. HaNseEN et al. (ed.),

Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre, 5 vols., 1995-1998; Id. et al. (ed.), Papers from the Copenhagen Polis Centre, 1993ff.; A.H. M. Jones, The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian, 1940; O. Murray, S. PRICE (eds.), The Greek City from

Homer

to Alexander,

1990;

P.J. RHODES,

D.M. Lewis, The Decrees of the Greek City States, 1997; K.-W. Wetwel, Die griechische P., *1998.

PLR.

Politeia (xoAteia/politeia) can denote either the rights of > citizenship exercised by one or more citizens (Hdt. 9,34,1; Thuc. 6,104,2) or a state’s way of life, and esp. its formal constitution (Thuc. 2,37,2). I. CITIZENSHIP

II. CONSTITUTION

I. CITIZENSHIP Citizenship of a Greek state was the privilege of only free, adult males of citizen parentage: commonly, a father with politeia was required; the law of > Pericles [1] (451 BC) required a father and mother with politeia (Aristot. Ath. Pol. 26,4). Men not of citizen descent could be rewarded politeia for proven benefaction, but could not acquire citizenship as of right. Only the citizens of a state had political rights, ‘shared in justice and ruling’ (Aristot. Pol. 3,1275a 22-23) and were allowed to own land and houses in the urban area. Whereas Greek democracies (~ Démokratia) extended some or all rights to free men of native descent, oligarchies (> Oligarchia) commonly limited some or all rights to those inhabitants who attained qualification by a particular level of wealth. Citizenship could be partly or wholly withdrawn from those guilty of serious crimes (— Atimia).

POLITICAL ADMINISTRATION

Constitution’) survives.

+ Athens; — CiTizEN; — Civitas; -> Constitution; -» CONSTITUTION, TyPEsS OF; Government, theories

of forms of; > Polis [II]; > Political philosophy J.K. Davies, Athenian Citizenship: The Descent Groups and the Alternatives, in: CJ 73, 1977/8, to5—121; P.B. ManviLLeE, The Origins of Citizenship in Ancient Athens, 1990; U. WatTeER, An der Polis teilhaben, 1993. PLR.

Polites (Modttys/Polités). [1] Son of the Trojan king > Priamus and > Hecabe. During the Trojan War, he saves his wounded brother Deiphobus (Hom. Il. 13,533ff.). The goddess Iris appears once in his guise (ibid. 2,786ff.). He is killed at the altar in the palace of Neoptolemus [1] (Verg. Aen. 2,526ff.). According to Cato (Orig. fr. 54 HRR), he reaches Latium with Aeneas (> Aeneas [1]) and founds the city of Politorium. [2] According to Paus. 6,6,7ff., one of the companions of > Odysseus; rapes a girl in Temesa and is stoned by its inhabitants. His demon of the same name, also called Heros or Alybas, afflicts the inhabitants, demanding a shrine and the most beautiful girl each year as a sacrifice. Finally, his ghost, overpowered by the famous boxer Euthymus, is driven out (Strab. 6,1,5; Ael. VH 8,18).

B.Z.

Politeuma (xoditevua/politeuma). As well as meaning ‘government’ and ‘form or constitution of a state’, politeuma denoted, particularly in the Seleucid kingdom and Ptolemaic Egypt, affiliations among compatriots, e.g. the minority populations of Macedonians, Greeks, Persians and Jews, who had some degree of self-government and independent jurisdiction. After the disappearance of the ethnic components, politeuma still denoted an elite of the privileged classes. M. Tu. LENGER, Corpus des Ordonnances des Ptolémées, *1980, XVIIIf.; J. MODRZEJEWSKI, La régle de droit dans l’Egypte ptolemaique, in: A.E. SaMMEL (ed.), Festschrift

C.B. Welles, 1966, 125-173, esp. 143f.; H.-A. Rupp-

II. CONSTITUTION The distinction between the despotic rule of a tyrant and the government by citizens on the basis of laws was the starting point for the Greeks’ analysis of constitutional forms (Hdt. 4,137,2; 5,78; > Constitution). A threefold division into > monarchia, > oligarchia and — démokratia, is attributed implausibly to the Persians in 522 BC by Herodotus (3,80-82), makes its first authentic appearance in Pindar (> Pindarus [2]) (Pind. P. 2,86-88; 468 BC?) and is commonplace from the 2nd half of the sth cent. onwards. — Plato [1] and > Aristoteles [6] refined it to distinguish between good and bad versions of the various politeiai. In the late 5th cent., the

relativism of the > sophists encouraged the view that different constitutions suit the interests of different people. In the 4th cent., Plato and Aristotle discussed

RECHT, Kleine Einfiihrung in die Papyruskunde, 1994, 98; J. VELIssAaROPOULOS, Alexandrinoi Nomoi, 1981, 16f.; H.J. Wo.rr, Das Justizwesen der Ptolemaer, 1962, 45,

92.

Gui:

Political administration I. GENERAL II. ANCIENT NEAR EAst III. EGypt IV. Hittite ANATOLIA V.SyRIA/PALAESTINA VI. IRAN

VII. GREECE

VIII. ROME

I. GENERAL The states of antiquity had no executive PA independent of government and legislature in the sense of the modern separation of powers. The triple division of constitutions, indicated in Aristot. Pol. 1297b 3513014 15 (tria moria, 1297b 37), into a decision-mak-

475

476

ing, legislating organ (t6 bouleudmenon), an executive element (‘on the offices’: to peri tas archds) and judica-

The situation in ~ Mari, where the nomadic tradition was dominant, was similar (18th cent.; patriarchalism).

ture (to dikdzon) owes more to the schematically work-

The PA of large territories (esp. in Assyria) took place via governors appointed by the ruler and sometimes belonging to the ruling clan (znd half, 2nd mill. BC). From the 8th cent. BC, the ruler recruited governors from the ranks of military leaders, who were mostly eunuchs (> Tiglath-Pileser [2] III); the formation of dynasties of governors was thus dissolved.

POLITICAL ADMINISTRATION

ing mind of the author than to a political concept as such, especially since the fields defined show considerable overlap in the subsequent models (to 13014 15). PA in antiquity was always a function of governance, thus closer in content to the term ‘government’ than the modern term ‘administration’. In monarchical systems — in the ancient Near East (see below II) as in the Greek — tyrannis and the > Hellenistic states — the close association between PA and government was evident in the often close relationship between the ruler and the heads of PA, who belonged to his family or circle of ‘friends’ (cf. > Court titles) and/or were directly or indirectly appointed by him and directly answerable to him (e.g. also in the Roman Principate and Late Antiquity). In distinctively democratic systems (see below VII) in turn, legislative, administrative and judicial functions were exercised partly jointly and partly successively by the citizenry as a whole. In societies organized along oligarchic/aristocratic lines, especially in Republican Rome, the need for public PA by nature remained limited owing to the plethora of close vertical and horizontal relationships between citizens (> Cliens; > Amicitia).

~» Demokratia;

> Monarchia; — Oligarchia

(in each case constituting

were, when necessary, corrected [4. [11-136 and 233-238].

by new

decrees

W.ED.

II. ANCIENT NEAR East Practices (including the strict adherence to document formulae and sequences of procedures, which enabled among other things the monitoring of actions in PA) and structures (e.g. division according to assignment and hierarchy of PA staff, generally into three categories) of PA can already be discerned in Mesopotamia through the earliest of the clay tablet documents around 3200 BC, and around the same time at > Elam. Sealed clay bullae including symbols for quantities and objects thus counted predate these somewhat. The events of PA throughout Mesopotamian history can be understood through some 100,000 PA documents hitherto published. Into the 3rd mill. BC, ancient Mesopotamian PA was a function of household management within a ruling oikos. Over time, a patrimonial > oikos economy developed, comprising at first small patrimonial households which grew by the late 3rd mill. to encompass all of Mesopotamia

Ill. Ecyprt Early documents from Abydus [2] (c. 3100-3000 BC) attest to complex structures of PA. Egyptian PA documents were mostly written on > papyrus and thus survive only in very limited numbers. The territorial PA of Egypt was characterized by the division of the country into ‘nomes’, a trend recognizable from the 2nd Dynasty; this system largely survived unchanged into the Ptolemaic Period (372-30 BC; - Nomarches). Conquered regions of Syria/Palaestina were ruled by governors. PA in Egypt was characterized by the coexistence of competing PA structures (palace, temple, religious foundations); PA in the Egyptian state took place through rulers’ decrees, the (negative) effects of which

the ‘state’).

Processes and structures of PA became correspondingly more complex and differentiated. The great patrimonial household was divided horizontally (regionally or by portfolio) and vertically (generally in three ranks), and was orientated towards a central administrative unit from which it was directed. The offices of PA were generally hereditary (— Family I). In contrast to the hierarchically structured and accountable PA processes of the 3rd Dynasty of > Ur (2112-2004 BC), rulings of PA under > Hammurapi, for instance, could often be brought about or corrected by direct access to the ruler.

IV. Hitrire ANATOLIA Surviving PA documents almost all come from the last phase of the Hittite Empire (mostly mid—13th cent. BC), predominantly from the palace and temple archives of > Hattusa. The number of surviving documents is considerably less in comparison to Mesopotamia, which may, among other reasons, have been because in addition to clay tablets also other > writing materials (e.g. wood

tablets)

were

used. To this extent,

our

knowledge of PA practice in the Hittite Empire is fragmentary. What survives is mostly documents registering the receipt, retention and redistribution of duties (mostly on metal and textile products). These included both regular and ad hoc controls. Different document formulae and tablet formats corresponded to the respective requirements of documentation [9]. In this respect, these documents attest to a systematic structuring of PA. Territorial PA was divided regionally, with a number of communities assigned to a single regional PA authority (E.GAL = palace). Judiciary, cult and general PA of the state were regulated by instructions to the functionary responsible, the relationship to territories incorporated in the Empire by vassalage treaties. V. SyRIA/PALAESTINA The generally small territorial extent of the Syrian states influenced the structure of PA in that PA was part of the patrimonial palace organization. Evidence for this comes in the form of cuneiform PA documents from +> Ebla, > Alalah, > Ugarit and Emar [8]. Little can be said about the late 2nd mill. or the rst mill. BC owing to the shift to perishable writing materials. An exception is

477

478

the evidence of the OT, which allows the inference that PA structures referred to the ruler in the states of — Judah and Israel.

co-Roman sources, little is known of the PA structures

and practices of the Arsacids (> Arsaces; c. 250-224 BC). Imperial PA left dynasts already active under the > Seleucids in their posts provided that they recognized Parthian dominion. Entitlement to a regional mint was connected to this. Beyond these regna were satrapies directly subordinate to the Arsacid ruler [13. 197-199]. There is more understanding of PA in the Empire of the > Sassanids thanks to seals, bulla legends, ruler inscriptions and acts of Syrian martyrs. As in the Parthian Period, the empire was divided into ‘kingdoms’, administered by dynasts and scions of the royal line; there were also provinces (Sahbr) enjoying autonomy within the empire, administered by > satrapes (Sahrab). The Sahrab was entrusted with responsibility for civilian issues (as well as revenues and, possibly, the PA of royal domains). A province also had a mogbed (spiritual or ecclesiastical ‘chief’), who may have been responsible for the PA of the domains of the Zoroastrian clergy. On a district level, there was the ‘Office of the Magi’, which was responsible among other things for the resolution of disputes on a local level. A corresponding official formed the counterpart on the imperial level of offices on the provincial level. There were also numerous offices at the court of the ruler, including the court chancellery [13. 243-252]. + Archive; > Documents; > Oikos economy; > Palace; > Ruler; > Social structure; > Temple 1G.W. AHLSTROM, Administration of the State in Canaan and Ancient Israel, in: J.M. SASsSoN (ed.), Civili-

zations of the Ancient Near East, 1995, 587-603

2R.D.

Biccs, McG. Gipson, The Organization of Power — Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East, 1987

3 W. HEtck, s.v. Landes-Verwaltung, LA 3, 918-922 4B. Kemp, Ancient Egypt, 1989

5B. Lion, Les gouverneurs

provinciaux du royaume de Mari a l’epoque de ZimriLim, in: D. Cuarprn, J.-M. Duranp (eds.), Amurru 2. L’administration du royaume de Mari, 2002, 141-212

6H.J. Nissen et al., Frithe Schrift und Techniken der Wirtschafts-Verwaltung im alten Vorderen Orient, 1990

7 L. SASSMANNSHAUSEN,

Beitrage zur Verwaltung und

ADMINISTRATION

Gesellschaft Babyloniens in der Kassitenzeit, 2001; 8 J.D. SCHLOEN, The House of the Father — Patrimonialism in Ugarit and in the Ancient Near East, 2001 9J. SIE-

GELOVA,

VI. IRAN PA practices under the > Achaemenids are revealed by the > Elamite PA documents from the PA centre responsible for > Persis, > Persepolis (hitherto some 5,000 texts dating from 492-458 BC). Thereafter, the official language changed to Aramaic, recorded on perishable writing materials (— Official Aramaic). The documents testify to a comprehensive, hierarchical civil service which was divided according to function. The direct intervention of members of the ruling clan in daily processes of PA appears to have been usual. The PA structure of the Empire was organized on three levels: satrapies, hyparchies and the local sphere [13. 94-98, 102-119]. In the absence of indigenous or even positive Grae-

POLITICAL

Hethitische Verwaltungspraxis

im Lichte der

Wirtschafts- und Inventardokumente, 1986 10E. von SCHULER, Hethitische Dienstanweisungen, 1957 11 P. VILLARD, Les administrateurs de l’époque de YasmahAddu, in: s.[5],9-140 12 W. Watson, N. Wyatt, Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, 1999 13 J. WiesEHOFER, Das antike Persien, 1993.

J.RE.

VII. GREECE

The PA of the many small, independent states which went to make up the Greek world was only seldom in the hands of professional PA officials. Usually, the cities left their PA as far as possible in the hands of individual citizens, who kept the machinery of PA running on a voluntary basis. However, the amateur culture of the Greek > polis did also offer opportunities for specialization in the field of PA. The greatest volume of information on PA in the Greek states is provided by > Athens, which is however a special case, owing to its size, its developed democratic structure and its position as the leading power in the ~ Delian League and the Second > Athenian League. Just as Athens sought to involve as many citizens as possible in political decision-making both in the Council (> Boule B.) and the Assembly (> Ekklesia), it also made efforts to include as many as possible in turn in PA: work to be done was divided into numerous small fields, the assignment concerned often also being entrusted to a committee (mostly groups of ro, one from each > phyle), those commissioned were chosen by lots (> Lot, election by) for terms of one year and could not occupy the same post more than once. If, for instance, a ~ tax was to be levied, the > polétai signed the relevant contract for the year in question with a company of tax collectors; this company paid the tax to the ~ apodéktai when it fell due. If payment was not forthcoming at the appropriate time, they were prosecuted by the praktores (> Praktor) (Aristot. Ath. Pol. 47,248,2). As there were many functions to perform, many committee members brought experience from previous PA work to their new field of activity. Many committees were appointed from among the ranks of the members of the Boule which also supervised all PA activities. The treasurer of the temple and other occupants of religious posts were regarded as part of the state PA apparatus and were appointed in the same way as other officials (e.g. the treasurer of Athena: ibid. 8,1; 47,1; + tamias). There was no hierarchical arrangement of functions, but for those interested, there was the opportunity to occupy many posts of PA through the course of their lives. Only a few positions required special skills and were thus not filled by lots but by > election, e.g. the office of the ‘secretary’ (~ Grammateis), who had to read out documents in the Boule and the > ekklésia (ibid. 5 4,4).

In the 4th cent. BC, the treasurer of the — stratiotika

POLITICAL ADMINISTRATION

480

479

was also elected, perhaps analogously to other military officials; the same applied to the treasurer of the +> theorikd, initially probably an individual, later a special committee (ibid. 43,1). The treasurers, together with the Boule, supervised the older financial committees which were appointed by lots (ibid. 47,1), thus bringing a degree of professional competence to the financial PA of Athens. The officials of the theorikd lost powers in the 330s by a law introduced by Hegemon (Aeschin. Or. 3,25; possibly by replacing an individual civil servant with a committee and limiting the term of office to four years), but an official epi téi dioikesei took a similar position, which may have first been occupied by Lycurgus [9] and may finally have been retained in Hellenistic Athens as the responsibility of a committee

VIII. ROME A.RepuBLIC

B. IMPERIAL PERIOD

A. REPUBLIC

The social order of the Roman Republic on the one hand and the structure of the essentially all-embracing > imperium of the senior Roman magistrates (+ Consul and > Praetor) on the other left little scope

at Rome for the development of a PA in the modern sense. The power of the > pater familias over all persons belonging to the household, and the duty of care of the > patronus for his > clientes tied large sections of society (freemen, > freedmen (II) and slaves; > slavery)

to the social, economic and political will of the elite, which for its part was shaped through personal rela-

[7. 104-109; 235-240].

tionships and, institutionally, within the framework of

As the volume of documentation was considerable at Athens, a number of secretaries and assistant secretaries were employed; the main secretary of state was drawn from the ranks of the Boule for a term of a ‘prytany’ (about 35 days) until the 360s, and thereafter volunteered for a year, the appointment generally rotating through the phylai (Aristot. Ath. Pol. 54,3; cf. [7. 13 5141]). Inventories of temple treasures (cf. [6]) and naval arsenals (cf. [5]) needed to be created and often to be fixed in inscriptions, various contracts had to be completed, e.g. for collecting taxes and leasing mines, while laws, plenary resolutions and legal judgments had to be

the Senate (> Senatus). The sovereign powers, military and civilian, which flowed together in the imperium of the magistrates (- Magistratus) prevented the construction of a specifically civilian PA. The opportunity for the separation of military and civilian power created in principle by the establishment of the praetorship (— Praetor) as the judicial magistracy (366 BC) was not followed up, even insofar as it ever existed as a concept. Only in the offices of the > aediles and the > viginti(sex)viri is it possible to discern functions within the city of Rome and Campania which were administrative in the strict sense. Even here, the singleyear term of office prevented professionalization. There was some continuity in PA in the magistrates’ staff, the ~ apparitores, organized into departments (decuriae) and consisting of freeborn Roman citizens and freedmen (on occasion those of the magistrates concerned) and public slaves (servi publici). They also worked in the archives (> Tabularium), assisted with the > census and provided the personnel assisting officials in the provinces. However, froma wider perspective their job was rather to represent Roman power than to undertake

recorded.

Public slaves (+ Demosioi) were used as auxiliary staff, managing documentary materials and presenting it when required, and assisting with the sophisticated procedures of the courts of law (ibid. 47,548,1; 63-653; 69,1); in one inscription (IG II* 120,11-

19), a named slave is called upon to record the content of the arsenal, and the official scribes are required to confirm the inventory. Among the duties of public slaves were also the testing of coins to guarantee their genuineness (SEG 36,72). Federally organized states and groups of confederates developed their own apparatuses of PA alongside those of the poleis. Thus, in the sth cent. BC, the Athenians elected the — hellénotamiai from among their own citizens as treasurer of the > Delian League (Thuc. 1,96,2). In the Second > Athenian League of the 4th cent., it was not an Athenian, but an appointee of the allied states who chaired the > synhédrion [1. 229-

244]. + Court; > Court titles 1S. AccaME, La lega ateniese del secolo IV a.C., 1941 2 A. Boeckn, Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener, vols. 1-2, 1817, 31886; vol. 3, 1840 3 BusoLtt/SwoBopa 4H.

FRANCOTTE, Les finances des cités grecques, 1909, repr.

1964

5 V. GABRIELSEN, Financing the Athenian Fleet,

1994

6D. Harris, The Treasures of the Parthenon and

Erechtheion, 1995

1972.

7P.J. RHopEs, The Athenian Boule,

PLR.

administrative duties (> Lictor; > Scriba).

The growing territory of Roman dominion in Italy and the provinces changed little in terms of requirements for PA. In Italy, the > potestas of the + quattuorviri or — duoviri in cities inhabited by Roman citizens was just as all-encompassing as the imperium. Thus, political and executive functions lay in the same hands. The communities of the > socii retained their autonomous administration, their elites being mostly in a kind of client relationship with members of the Roman > nobiles, so that here too, Rome was faced with no occasion to fulfil a requirement for PA. The same applied likewise to the > provinciae, which were established step by step from 227 BC, and in which Magistrates or promagistrates represented Roman power as governors while PA activities could be left to the communities concerned — if conflict ever arose, the will of Rome could always be enforced by military means. Also significant in limiting the scope of PA was the procedure, commonplace in antiquity, whereby private actors were entrusted with public duties in Rome

481

482

and the provinces, e.g. collecting taxes and revenues, building fleets, harbours and roads, carrying out public

tors also began to be appointed to deal with individual

and religious construction ~ Equites Romani).

well as for large domains, mines and customs districts. These officials had more staff at their disposal, in the form of imperial slaves and freedmen, but still did not create a comprehensive PA with numerous, decentralized offices. Rather, such matters as the raising of land and capitation taxes continued to be dealt with locally by tax-gatherers (> Publicani) or the officials of autonomous urban or regional government. Nor did governors set up comprehensive administrative networks in their provinces, but at the location where the supreme representative of Roman power spent most of his time, the caput provinciae, an archive would form over time, facilitating some continuity of PA. The staff of the legates ( Legatus 4 and 5), and to some extent also the proconsuls, were taken from the troops stationed in the province concerned; such personnel also developed a continuity beyond the term of office of the governor. The hierarchical structure continued to be very simple through the rst and 2nd cents., as practically all senatorial and equestrian officials were answerable only to the princeps. Only in the 3rd cent. does a more strictly defined hierarchy seem to have developed, resulting in the subordination of senior provincial officials too to the heads of the Roman administrative functions, e.g. the praefectus annonae or the a rationibus. In this process, literacy, though it had been present throughout, became ever more important. The administrative reforms from Diocletian (> Diocletianus C.; > Constantinus [r]) onwards built on the existing system and developed it further, accomplishing by the recreation of the offices of the > magister militum and the > magister officiorum the separation, already underway through the 3rd cent., of military and administrative functions below the level of imperial supreme power. This brought about, among other things, the expansion of a highly differentiated, labour intensive PA (> Diocletianus C.; ill. ‘Administration of the Empire’; > Notitia dignitatum; > Rome 1 E3). ~ Bureaucracy

projects

(-» Publicani;

B. IMPERIAL PERIOD No abrupt shift accompanied the change of political system under > Augustus. However, conditions were created whereby PA could be more clearly separated from political decisions. Crucial here was the formation of a monarchical apex, from which, over the course of time, all activities of state officials could be directed and

monitored — for all officials sensed their de facto dependence on the > princeps from the latter years of Augustus’ reign, even though this was, at least in the case of the proconsuls (+ Proconsul), not legally the Case: In Rome itself, new functionaries were appointed already during Augustus’ reign; these were responsible for certain spheres of public urban life which had hitherto been the proper domain of the censors or aediles (> Cura [2]), viz. in particular the curatores aquarum for the water supply, the curatores aedium sacrarum et operum locorumque publicorum for the maintenance of temples and public buildings and squares, and the cura alvei Tiberis for the regulation of the Tiber. Some responsibilities were given to senatorial praefecti: the distribution of the free grain supply (> Cura annonae II; + Praefectus [10]) and the management of the aerarium Saturni (> Aerarium; — Praefectus [2]) and the aerarium militare (— Praefectus [2]). In addition, new functions developed from the actual requirements of public life and the central political function of the princeps, and these were no longer conferred upon figures from the old elite, the senators, but individuals from the equestrian class, the military and esp. the slaves and freedmen of the princeps himself. Thus, at Rome, still under Augustus, were appointed a — praefectus [4] annonae, for the grain supply to the capital, and a > praefectus [16] vigilum. Around the princeps, there grew special departments (‘offices’) for the finances (+ Rationibus, a), correspondence (— Epistulis, ab), petitions (> Libellis, a) and the private wealth of the

princeps (a patrimonio; > Patrimonium D.). Above all, however, the praetorian prefects (— Praefectus praetorio) began little by little to assume duties in the administrative sphere alongside their protective function as commanders of the praetorian guard. All of these functional spheres seem to have been of equal status — at least, any hierarchical distinction is impossible to discern. Almost all of the abovementioned officials worked at Rome, but their activities also concerned the provinces. In all provinces, Augustus also appointed procurators (> Procurator [1] and [2]) directly answerable to and commissioned by him to manage the public finances: in the provinciae Caesaris these were financial procurators, in the provinciae populi Romani patrimonial procurators. From the mid-rst cent. AD, procura-

POLITICAL ADMINISTRATION

> taxes, esp. inheritance tax (vicesima hereditatum), as

L. pe Biots (ed.), Administration, Prosopography and Appointment Policies in the Roman Empire, 2001; P. BruNT, Roman Imperial Themes, 1990; W. Eck, Die Verwaltung des romischen Reiches in der Hohen Kaiserzeit, vol. 1, 1995; vol. 2, 1998; Id., Imperial Administration

and Epigraphy: In Defence of Prosopography, in: A.K. Bowman, H.M. Cotton et al. (eds.), Representations of

Empire: Rome and the Mediterranean World, 2002; P. Ercu, Zur Metamorphose des politischen Systems Roms in der Kaiserzeit, 2005; R. HAENSCH, Capita provinciarum. Statthaltersitze und Provinzialverwaltung in der romischen Kaiserzeit, 1997; F. JACQUES, J. SCHEID, Rome

et ’intégration de |’Empire, vol. 1: Les structures de l’Empire romain 44 av. J.-C. — 260 ap. J.-C., 1990 (419973; Germ. ed. 1998); R. ScHULZ, Herrschaft und Regierung.

Roms Regiment in den Provinzen in der Zeit der Republik, 1997-

W.E.

POLITICAL ADMINISTRATION

484

483

IX. BYZANTIUM

The PA system founded by Constantine the Great (+ Constantinus [1]), which remained in place through Late Antiquity and the early Byzantine Period (4th—6th cents. AD), formed the basis for further development from the 7th to roth/12th cents. Now, however, Greek rather than Latin terminology was used, and the new and old categories are often difficult to reconcile without ambiguity. Moreover, the system continued over subsequent centuries to be subject to continuous transformation, meaning that exact descriptions are only possible within narrow time frames. This overview of central and provincial PA in this period relies principally upon the information given in a Handbook of the Seating Precedence at Imperial Banquets (xAntogoddoytov/klétorologion, > Kletorologion) written by provisioner Philotheus in 899 (Ed.: [4. 65-235]), supplemented with details from one of the three surviving taxtwxd/taktikd (> Taktika [3]; ranking lists) of the 9th/roth cents., the Taktikon Benesevié of 934/44

koi), whose powers, however, were limited. The military was divided into ttawetavhetaireiai, (‘Palace Guards’), tayuwata/tdgmata (‘Brigades, at the disposal of the Emperor’), the troops of the 0éuata (thémata, see

below) and the mAdiwov (ploimon, ‘navy’). In provincial administration, the period is particularly characterized by the transition to a system of thémata (‘Themes’, i.e. military provinces, sing.: + Thema) administered by a otoatnydc/strategos (+ Strategos, ‘General’). Recent research has shown that this development was not the result ofacreative act of imperial reforming zeal, but developed, on the one hand, out of the provincial armies already in existence in Late Antiquity [1; 2], and, on the other, in a process of change that came to full fruition only after some 200 years [3]. Its results are to be seen both in the abovementioned Klétoroldégion of Philotheus and the Taktikon Benesevié (see Table). + Court; > Court titles 1 J.F. HaLpon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century, 1990 2Id., Administrative Continuities and Structural Transformations, in: Id. (ed.), State, Army and Society in Byzan-

(Ed.: [4. 237-253]). The central PA of the period can roughly be divided into the following categories: palace administration, the imperial chancellery, financial administration, judicial administration, military administration and the combined portfolio of post, roads and foreign policy. The office of the > magister officiorum, which had controlled several of these areas, was dissolved in the early 7th cent., nor did it survive under any other name. The palace officials, from the 4th cent. mostly > eunuchs, were henceforth subordinate to the nagaxommuevoc/parakoimomenos

(> Parakoimome-

nos, ‘He who sleeps near the Emperor’). Early in the period, the imperial chancellery was headed by the TEWTAONXETtHS/protasekrétes (— Protasekretes), whose place was increasingly taken from the 9th cent. by the éi tod xavixrelov (epi tou kanikleiou, ‘Keeper of the Inkpots’). In the finance department, the overall head of which was the oaxedAcetoc (sakellarios), the yevinov (genikon, ‘Department of Public Finances’) must be distinguished from the idixdv (idikon, ‘Department for Special Expenditures’). Each of these authorities was led by its own hoyoOEétns/logothétés (> Logothetes, ‘one who gives account’). The imperial domains were administered by a péyag xovedtwe (mégas kourator, ‘Grand Curator’). The Aoyobétyg tod dSedu0v/ logothétés toi drémou (> Logothetes, ‘Logothete of the Roads’) was responsible for highways and the postal service as well as foreign policy. From the 7th cent., the xaexosg ths Mddews/ éparchos tés Péleds (‘Commander of the City of Constantinople’) was the highest judge of the central imperial administration. Subordinate to him was the éxi t@v detjoewv/epi tén deésedn (‘Keeper of Petitions’), whose job was to receive appeals. Civil matters and their registration were the province of the xvatotwe (kyaistor, cf. Lat. quaestor). The Byzantine military was answerable to the oyobEtys tot oteatwmtxod (logothétés tot stratidti-

tium, 1995, Nr.5 3R.-J. Lirie, Die zweihundertjahrige Reform, in: Byzantinoslavica 45, 1984, 27-39; 190-201 4.N. O1konomipés, Les listes de préséance byzantines des IX* et X® siécles, 1972 (with French transl. and comm.) 5 P. SCHREINER, Byzanz, *1994.

FT.

Political philosophy A. B. E. G.

CONCEPTUAL AND HISTORICAL OVERVIEW SopHists C.SocRATES D. PLATO ARISTOTLE F. EpIcuRUS, ZENO, CHRYSIPPUS CicERO H. AUGUSTINE

A. CONCEPTUAL AND HISTORICAL OVERVIEW By his biological nature, man is a ‘political animal’ (modtixov C@ov/politikon zdion: Aristot. Pol. 1253a 3). But it was not until the Neolithic Revolution (beginning c. 10,000 BC) that centres of power emerged, leading to the formation of states [1]. Since these were created by human beings, they reflected human thought, a ‘political theory’, which in earliest times was primarily mythopoetic in nature [2; 3]. After scholarly prose had emerged in Greece (with > Anaximander, 6th cent. BC, among others), political theory became part of Greek historiography (Herodotus [1], ‘the Constitutional Debate’ Hdt. 3,80-82 and > Thucydides). In all of these documents, ‘political theory’ is to be understood as the reflection on and legitimisation of political practice [4]. Political philosophy (PP), on the other hand, is fundamental reflection, not tied to any concrete practice, on humans as ‘social beings’ and on ways of building communities. It began with the > Sophists (5th cent. BC). As anti-philosophical thinkers, the Sophists, like the philosophers, laid claim to a universally valid view of man and state, and thus challenged the exponents of philosophy (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle in the 5th and 4th cents. BC) to respond. Aristotle’s (> Aristoteles [6])

485

486

Politics constitutes the high point of ancient PP. In this work, he defines the Greek -> polis and at the same time develops the fundamental doctrine of human beings as a state builders. During the Hellenistic period (4th1st cents. BC), + Epicurus, > Zeno [2] and > Chrysippus [2] responded polemically to classical PP, classifying it as subordinate to ethical reflection. Political philosophy reached new heights with the Roman > Cicero (102-42 BC), who referred back to Plato [1] as well as Aristotle and his school, while also drawing upon the Hellenistic schools. It was not until Augustine (> Augustinus, AD 354-430) that pagan political philosophy once again underwent a fundamental reconsideration. In

contrast,

Roman

thinkers

like

-— Seneca

and

+ Marcus [II 2] Aurelius continued the Stoic tendency towards moralizing.

B. SOPHISTS. According to Plato (Pl. Prt. 320c8-323a2; see also Diog. Laert. 9,55), > Protagoras [1] proposed a theory of state formation [5]. Like modern philosophical anthropologists (A. GEHLEN), the co-founder of the Sophists viewed the motive for state formation in human deficiency. This deficiency forced people to live in small groups (probably clans); as such groups were too weak to defend themselves against animals, they subsequently banded together to form larger communities. Since these larger groupings could not depend on natural family ties, peace among their members had to be imposed by law (dixn/—> diké) and mutual respect (aidSdc¢/—> aidos), the violation of which was penalized. According to this theory, human beings are forced to form states. In this context, the state, the > polis, is the first abstract community; its cohesion derives from the law and the attitude of recognizing others as fellow citizens, and is then guaranteed by force (for other Sophist theories, see [4. 21-34; 5. 84-116]).

C. SOCRATES Plato’s depiction of > Socrates in the Crito gives us some sense of Socrates’ view of the polis (Pl. Crit. 5oa654d1) [6]. For Socrates, the polis was the collective body of legal norms (vowoU/ndmoi, + nomos [1]) that shape all aspects of an individual’s life, and to which the individual thus owes his existence and personality. Insight into this dependency led to Socrates’ righteous behaviour demonstrated in his death; for righteousness or justice (Sixaioobvn/dikaiosyne) consists in the individual’s sense of responsibility for maintaining the whole and for the norms that constitute that whole. Had he escaped from prison, therefore, he would have violated the highest norm of a polis, which is the validity of the laws. This implies that the state should be a legal entity, i.e., that it must establish with binding force the norms governing the life of the individual and the community. Only in this way can it fulfil its function of providing a living space for the individual. Like Kanr, Socrates regarded the individual as responsible for the validity of general laws. The good state is identified as

POLITICAL

PHILOSOPHY

the state of eunomia (PI. Crit. 52e6), which is under-

stood as the validity of laws. D. PLato Socrates’ attitude is explained by Plato [1] in terms of ‘justice’ (dikaiosyné; P|. Crit.; Pl. Ep. 7,324e2). Yet unlike in Aristotle, in Plato’s works the question of the ‘essence’, the idea of justice (Pl. Resp. 2,358b4; 366e5; 367b3; 367¢e3) does not lead to a theory of human virtue, but instead, in the framework of Platonic universal science, to a universal theory of order (xd0u0¢/k6smos,

taéic/taxis) [7]. Indeed, Plato uses the idea of order to

define the concepts of the human self (puyt/psyche), of the state (1O\tc/polis) and of true being (16 évtwe dv/td Ontos On), and to depict that order in a fictitious process of state formation, presented as a theoretical model (magadevypwa/parddeigma, cf. Pl. Resp. 5, 472c4; on the Republic, cf. [8]; see also > utopia, > justice). The fundamental problem of order is the question of how unity can emerge from multiplicity (for the fundamental philosophy ofthe one involved in this theory, cf. [9]; for the political dimension, [1o]). Seen in this light, the state is the entity in which the three basic human activities — the recognition and establishment of order (= government), self-defence, and meeting vital needs — work together to make the state an internally harmonious community, and to act externally as a unity. To ensure this, those who govern must possess insight into the place and significance of the different state functions. Government based on that insight embodies the rule of the best, i.e. the philosophers, who have gained understanding of order. The state is therefore the entity in which the basic human achievements are carried out, achievements which, on the one hand, are required for the very formation of the state, and which, on the other hand, the state is responsible to initiate and promote. To that end, the state must provide individuals with the necessary education to fulfil their functions. Consequently, it is responsible for educating its future leaders, who can learn through philosophical > dialectics to recognize the model of the well-ordered state, i.e. the order of being, and to ‘imitate’ that order within the state (Pl. Resp. 6,500a-c). For Plato, the theoretical foundation of the polis is the concept of order, which results from justice qua proportional equality (cf. [r1]). In the Politicus and the Laws, this concept provides a theoretical guideline for philosophical practice, 1.e. legislation (PI. Leg. 5,75 6e9758a2; onthe Laws cf. [6. 124-321; 12; 13; 14]). There Plato uses a fictitious colony as a framework to consider the average individual who lacks the preconditions of a philosophical nature. He proposes replacing philosophical education with instruction in the propaedeutic sciences, in particular the mathematical sciences (PI. Leg. 7,818a ff.), tempers aristocratic government with democratic elements (ibid. 5,75 6e9ff.), and permits private property, which was denied to the governing class in the Republic, to be held at all levels of society (ibid. 5,739b8-e7). Despite these more realistic modificati-

487

488

ons, all of the theoretical principles of the state posited in his Republic are still found in the Laws; here, too, the state is implicitly presented as a perfect community and as a union of many diverse entities, manifesting itself in > friendship (pAta/philia) among its citizens (ibid.

rity (Epicurus, Kyriai doxai 31-40), [21. 110-117]. Zeno and Chrysippus [2] believed that the state developed from the rational and social behaviour of the wise individual who was favourably disposed toward other wise men (Zeno) or humankind (Chrysippus) through friendship (philia) and justice (dikaiosyné, defined as the knowledge that and how each should be given what he is due) (cf. [22. 23-92]). In the philosophy of Epicurus, the state, as the realm of security, is one of the necessary preconditions for the individual’s striving for happiness; for the Stoa, the state, as the natural community of rational individuals (~ Cosmopolitanism), represents the necessary consequence of their moral

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

4,713 b1-715e2; cf. [r1]).

E. ARISTOTLE + Aristoteles [6] was the first to establish political phi-

losophy as an independent discipline (cf. [15]). As in other areas of his philosophy, he developed his own views based on his criticism of Plato (Aristot. Pol. 1, rff.; 2, ch. 5-6; cf. [6. 412-419; 16]). In contrast to the Platonic doctrine of the unity of the state, he defined the state as the multiplicity of the free and equal (Pol. 3,1261b32; 1274b4r). Only male citizens (heads of household; see > oikos) were considered ‘equals’, and they shared responsibility for governmental and judicial duties (ibid. 3,1275a1-a23; cf. [17]). It is clear from this definition of the citizen that, unlike Plato, Aristotle sought to define the concept (ei0¢/e7dos) of the polis as it existed in Greece at his time (as reflected in his collections of constitutions). He was the first to specifically ask: ‘What is the polis?’ (Pol. 3,1274b33). At the same time, however, he developed a theory on the origin and end of the state which, in contrast to Plato, took into account the biological conditions of human life (life within the family; see Pol. 1,1252a-1253a39). According to Aristotle, the purpose of the state is the ‘good life’, i.e., as in Plato, the realization of its citizens’ — virtue and —> happiness. Thus he was also able to formulate a theory of the ‘best state’ (Aristot. Pol., books 7 and 8).

A glance at historical reality, however, shows that states exist de facto only for the purpose of survival (ibid. 3,1278b21-25). With this in mind, Aristotle, unlike Plato, systematically considered the constitutional, economic and social requirements for the survival ofastate (ibid. 4,1288b10-1289a25). Taking into account these requirements, particularly the issue of the distribution of wealth (ibid. 3,1279b29), Aristotle developed a normative and empirical theory for revising and improving the existing constitutions in Greece (ibid., books 4-6, on the Politics as a whole cf. [18;

19]). Aristotle’s Politics remains unequaled to this day in the depth and richness of its political insights (cf.

[20]). F. Epicurus, ZENO, CHRYSIPPUS

Only in a limited sense can a ‘political’ theory be attributed to the Hellenistic thinkers. Epicurus and the Stoa (> Stoicism) posited the self-sufficiency of the rational individual, who was dependent on philosophy rather than on the polis, as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle would have it. Hellenistic thinking focused not on the question, ‘what is the polis and how is it related to human beings?’, but on the question of the individual’s + happiness. For Epicurus, the polis was the legal sphere that safeguarded the individual’s external secu-

action. The Stoa, following > Cynicism, took a critical view of collective norms and traditions. Indeed, as the

Stoic thinkers did not provide any account of extra-individual, community-building factors, we can conclude that they lacked a genuine political philosophy — which, however, does not rule out politically relevant action on the part of the Stoics [23]. G. CICERO The crisis of the late Roman Republic moved the politician > Cicero to develop a reform programme for Rome, based on Greek theories of the state [24]. His main sources were Plato as well as Aristotle and his school [25]. Cicero defined the state as a community of law and profit (Cic. Rep. 1,25,39), and identified as its precondition justice (iustitia) among its citizens, which—

as in the Stoic model — meant the willingness to give others what they were due (ibid. 3,11,18 and passim). Like in the Platonic and Aristotelian model, and unlike

the Stoic view, citizens according to Cicero learned justice not through philosophy, but through the specific state and its traditions (ibid., books 4 and 5). Cicero’s

original contribution to political philosophy is that he identified the law (ius) constitutive of the state with

Roman > law [2]. He thought the ‘best state’ was realised in the Roman Republic before the time of the Gracchi (i.e. before 133 BC; on Rome as the ideal state, see ibid., book 2). Thus —> justice, understood in moral terms, became the basis for the state’s legislation [26]; for the first time, law was regarded as a characteristic aspect ofthe state, along with the Aristotelian ‘common good’ (utilitatis communio, Cic. Rep. 1,25) [27]; and Rome became the model of a state based on the rule of law. H. AUGUSTINE

For > Augustinus, bishop of Hippo, Cicero’s contention that Rome was the realisation of the ‘best state’ posed an intellectual challenge [28]. According to the pagan theory that he adopted from Varro (Liber de philosophia LANGENBERG) (Aug. Civ. 19), human pursuit

of happiness is achieved in a common exercise of worldly virtue (Civ. 19, 1-3). In Augustine, Christian happiness, situated in the afterlife, is also to be found in a community, which he called civitas Dei (Civ. 19,4). This community is not, however, achieved by pursuing

489

490

worldly virtues, but rather through the Christian ones, above all through the love of God (amor Dei) as one’s

Saviour and Redeemer (/oc.cit.). Faith gives rise to Christian justice, which gives everyone his due — above all God, by way of cultic worship. Thus Augustine appropriates the Ciceronian definition of res publica, and in particular the thesis that justice among its citizens is the precondition for a political community (Aug. Civ.

POLLENIUS

MILLER (eds.), A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, 1991 20 O. H6rre, Aristoteles (Becksche Reihe Denker 535),

1996, 235-263 21 V. GoLDscHMIDpT, La doctrine d’Epicure et le droit, 1977 22 M. SCHOFIELD, The Stoic Idea of the City, 1991 23 A. Erskine, The Hellenistic Stoa. Political Thought and Action, 1990

24 G.A. LEHMANN, Poli-

tische Reformvorschlage in der Krise der spaten romischen Republik, 1980 25 W.W. ForRTENBAUGH, P. STEINMETZ (eds.), Cicero’s Knowledge of the Peripatos, 1989

19,21); however, by redefining justice in biblical and

26 A. NESCHKE-HENTSCHKE,

Pauline terms as allegiance to God, he places the Christian state on a foundation of faith (fides). As Augustine

Platon et Cicéron, in: M. VeGerri (ed.), La Repubblica di Platone nella tradizione antica, 1999, 79-105 27D. FREDE, Constitution and Citizenship: Peripatetic Influence on Cicero’s Political Conception in De re

demonstrates in his treatise on peace (Civ. 19,13-16),

all worldly conditions need to be reexamined in the light of faith. One of the most important results of this reexamination is a rejection of the idea that the earthly state embodies a true political community (ibid. 2,21; 19,21); only God can provide a foundation for such community. Earthly states lack the essential characteristic of a true state, which is justice as allegiance to God (ibid. 19,22-23); accordingly, they can only be viewed as communities of shared interests (Civ. 19,24) [29. 77139]. Since they are characterized by a kind of peace, Augustine recognizes them to the degree that they do not interfere with the peaceful order of God, but rather serve that order. Viewing the concepts of peace (pax), order (ordo) and justice (iustitia) as characteristics of

publica, in: [25], 77-100 klassisch-romische

Justice et état idéal chez

28 V. Hanp, Augustin und das

Selbstverstandnis,

1970

29 M.

REVELLI, Cicerone, San Agostino, San Tommaso,

1989

30 J. VAN Oort, Jerusalem and Babylon. A Study into Augustin’s City of God and the Sources of his Doctrine of the Two Cities (Suppl. Vigiliae christianae 14), 1991. ANE.

Politorium. Latin town south of Rome in the region of Tellenae and Ficana, probably near modern Castel di Decima (Liv. 1,33,1f.; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 3,37f; 43;

Cato Orig. HRR 54; in Plin. HN 3,68 considered among the clara oppida, ‘illustrious towns’, of Latium). P. was conquered by Ancus > Marcius [13] and destroyed, and its inhabitants were resettled on the

the true state, Augustine refers back to Plato and Cicero, but reinterprets their thought in the context of the biblical message [30].

Mons Aventinus. However, the Poletaurini were still

~ Aristoteles [6]; ~ Augustinus; > Cicero; > Constitution; > Epicurus; > Ethics; > Justice; > Marcus [Il

NISSEN 2, 562; L. Quiuictr, Inventario e localizzazione dei beni culturali archeologici del territorio del comune di Roma, in: Urbanistica 54/5, 1969, 109-128; M. GuatTOLI, Inquadramento storico topografico, in: Ricognizione archeologica e documentazione topografica, 1974,

2] Aurelius; > Plato [1]; > Polis; > Politeia; + POLITICAL THEORY; ~ Res publica; — Socrates; — Sophists; > State; > Stoicism; > Zeno [2] 1 V.G.

CuHILpe,

Social Evolution,

1951

2P. WEBER-

entered in the register of the cult of luppiter Latiaris on the Mons Albanus (Plin. HN 3,69).

58-69.

M.M.MO.

ScHAFER, Einfiihrung in die antike politische Philosophie, vol. 1: Die Frithzeit, 1976 3 K. RAAFLAUB (ed.), Anfange politischen Denkens in der Antike (Schriften des historischen Kollegs. Kolloquien 24), 1993 4C. Mosse,

Histoire des doctrines politiques en Gréce, 1975 C. GuTurRiE, The Sophists, 1971, 63-68

5 W.K.

6A.

HEnNTSCHKE, Politik und Philosophie bei Plato und Aristoteles, 1971, 68-74 7H.J. KrAmer, Arete bei Plato und Aristoteles (SHAW, Philosophisch-historische Klasse), 1959, 41-145 8 O. Horre, Plato. Politeia (Klassiker auslegen, vol. 7), 1997. 9 A. NEsCHKE-HENTSCHKE, Platonisches Staatsdenken und Henologie, in: T. Frost (ed.), Henologische Perspektiven II, Festschrift E.A. Wyller, 1997, 29-39 10J.F. M. ARENDS, Die Einheit der Polis. Eine Studie iiber Platons Staat (Mnemosyne suppl. 106), 1988, 1-30 11A. NesCHKE-HENTSCHKE, Platonisme

politique et théorie du droit naturel, 1995, 79-164 and 226-228 12G. Morrow, Plato’s Cretan City, 1960 13 R.F. Sratiey, An Introduction to Plato’s Laws, 1983 14 J.F. PRaADEAU, Platon et la cité, 1997, 98-128 15 G.

Bien, Die Grundlegung der politischen Philosophie bei Aristoteles, 1973

16 R.F. STaxey, Aristotle’s Criticism

of Plato’s Republic, in: [19], 182-199 17 D. STERNBERGER, Drei Wurzeln der Politik, 1984, 87-156 18G. Parzic (ed.), Aristoteles’ “Politik” (Akten des XI. Symposium

Aristotelicum,

1987),

1990

19D.

Key,

F,

Pollenius (also Pollienus). [1] Tib. P. Armenius Peregrinus. Cos. ord. in AD 244. He may have been both praetorian proconsul of LyciaPamphylia as well as proconsul of Asia after the consulate. The genealogical relationships are not completely clear; probably the adopted son of P. [2]. PIR* P 536. [2] P. Auspex. Cos. suff. Consular legate of Dalmatia, judge commissioned by the emperor, praefectus alimentorum viae Appiae et Flaminiae ter, proconsul of Africa. It is uncertain whether he was also in charge of Moesia inferior as legate. Presumably his consular offices should be dated to the time of Marcus [2] Aurelius and Commodus; he took part in the Secular Games of AD 204 as XWvir sacris faciundis. Cf. PIR* P 537 with regard to the relevant literature on the contentious questions. [3] P. Auspex. Son of P. [2]. Cos. suff. Judge commissioned by the emperor, consular governor of Hispania Tarraconensis, of Dacia and of Moesia inferior, between AD 193 and 197, since coins from Marcianopolis and Nicopolis most probably refer to him. If this is not the case, his official duties date to the time of > Severus

491

492

Alexander. His last known office was the governorship in Britannia (without the addition of inferior or superior), which supports the earlier dating. PIR* P 538. [4] Ti. Tulius Pollienus Auspex. Legate of Numidia between AD 212 and 222, then cos. suff. Perhaps the son Ot be Bila Rekas3oe

Pollianus (Mwdavéc/Péllianés). Epigrammatist of the golden age of the Imperial skoptic epigram. Of his output, the following survives: a description of a painting — attributed without evidence to the sculptor Polyclitus

POLLENIUS

[5] Pollienus Sebennus. Senator who in the Senate was to blame for the death of Baebius [II 11] Marcellinus in AD 205. He himself was accused in the Senate after his governorship in Noricum but was saved by his relative Auspex (P. [2] or P. [3]) (Cass. Dio 76,9,2f.). PIR* P 540. WE.

(Anth. Pal. 16,150)

and

four satirical poems,

one

against a prolific poet lacking in any critical faculty (41,127),

one

against

a certain

Florus,

author

of

clumsy, heavy verse (128: identification with the poet and historian > Florus [1] is pure speculation), one against the cyclic poets as ‘pillagers’ of Homer (130) and one against a profiteer (167). F. Brecut, Motiv- und Typengeschichte des griechischen Spottepigramms, 1930, 31-35; 79; G. NISBET, Greek Epi-

Pollentia [1] Town (present-day Pollenzo in the province of Cuneo) in the region of the Ligures Bagienni, close to where the Stura flows into the > Tanarus on the southern section of the via Fulvia between the Appenninus and the upper course of the river Padus. It was probably founded at the time of the campaigns of Fulvius [I 9] (rather than Fulvius [I 12]) in 125-123 BC. The town was famous for producing wool and ceramics (Plin. HN. 8,191; 35,160). P. sided with Antony [I 9] in the war of Mutina (> Mutina, war of) in 43 BC (Cic. Phil. 11,14; Cic. Fam. 11,14). P. was probably a municipium, tribus Pollia, regio IX (Ptol. 3,1,45; Plin. HN. 3,49). In the 5th cent. AD, P. was still documented as a flourishing town with numerous /atifundia in the vast plain (Tab. Peut. 3,5; Geogr. Rav. 4,33). On the 6th of April AD 402, a battle took place between Alaric (> Alaric [2]) and > Stilicho at P. (Oros. 7,37,2; Claud. Carm. 26,635; 28,203; 281). Ancient remains: rectan-

gular town lay-out derived from the Roman army camp design, necropolis, walls, aqueduct, amphitheatre; numerous inscriptions. G. Forni (ed.), Fontes Ligurum et Liguriae antiquae, 1976, s. v. P.; A. Ferrua, Inscriptiones Italiae IX 1 (Augusta Bagiennorum et P.), 1948; A. T.SarToRI, P. ed Augu-

sta Bagiennorum, 1965; L. GONELLA, D. RONCHETTA BussOLaTI, P. romana, in: Studi di archeologia dedicati a P. Barocelli, 1980, 95-108; G. CAVALIERI MANASssE, Piemonte, Valdaosta, Liguria, Lombardia (Guide archeolo-

giche Laterza), 1982, 29-31.

G.ME.

[2] Town on the north-east coast of Mallorca, presentday La Alcudia, c. 12 km to the south-east of Pollensa. Together with > Palma it was founded by Caecilius [1 19] Baliaricus after the conquest of the island in 123/2 BC (Str. 3,5,1; Ptol. 2,6,78). P. was a municipium

civium Romanorum (Mela 2,124), tribus remains: town wall, capitolium, tabernae,

(Plin. HN. 3,77) and a colonia Vellina (CIL II 3669). Ancient theatre, houses, streets, forum, necropolises, small finds, inscrip-

tions, coins. J.M. ROLDAN, s. v. P., PE, 721f.; TIR K/J 31 Tarraco, Baliares, 1997, 122-124. P.B. and E.O.

gram in the Roman Empire: Martial’s Forgotten Rivals, Oxford 2003.; W. PEEK, s. v. Pollianos, RE 21, 1411f.; V. Lonco, L’epigramma FGE 114

scoptico greco,

1967,

125-131; M.G.A.

Pollinctor (originally also pollictor: Plaut. Poen. 63; Varro Sat. Men. 222,2) is what in the classical Roman

period a slave (Dig. 14,3,5,8) or free employee of an undertaker (> Libitinarii) was called; he prepared corpses for the wake and burial (Non. 157,21: ‘pollinctores sunt qui mortuos curant’; similarly, but with erroneous etymology: Fulg. p. 112 HELM) by washing them (Serv. Aen. 9,485), embalming them with substances that prevented decay (esp. salt, cedar oil, myrrh: [1. 484, esp. note 7]), and dressing and making them up. The man standing behind the death-bed and decorating the deceased with a garland of flowers (fig. [3. pl. 9]) on the relief of the grave of the Haterii (Rome, Via Laticana: late rst cent. AD) [2. no. 1074] is generally recognized as a pollinctor. The profession carried little respect especially because of its constant contact with death. From the early Christian period on, pollinctor was a generic term for undertaker (e.g. = funerator CGL V, 93,22; = funerarius CGL V, 645,77; cf. also Sid. Apoll. Epist. 3,13,5)> Burial (D.) 1 BLUMNER, PrAlt., 484 2 HELBIG, vol. 1, no. 1074 3 J.M. C. Toynspez, Death and Burial in the Roman World, 1971. WK.

Pollio. Roman cognomen, probably derived from the nomen gentile Pollius; in the Republican period only in the Asinii family (> Asinius [I 4]; [II 12]); common in the Imperial period [1]. 1 KajANTO, Cognomina, 37; 164

2 D. ReIcHMuTH, Die

lateinischen Gentilicia, 1956, 69.

K.-L.E.

Pollis (M6Atc/Pollis). Spartan natiarchos (‘naval commander’) 396/5 BC, he fought in the Aegean Sea against + Conon [1] (Hell. Oxy. 12,2 CHAMBERS); in 393/2 BC he was epistoleus of the naviarchos Podanemus in the + Corinthian War (Xen. Hell. 4,8,11). As emissary of Sparta in Syracusae, P. was supposed to secure the par-

494

ADS ticipation of - Dionysius

[I 6] I in the war against Athens and was accused of selling the philosopher + Plato [1] into slavery in Aegina on the return trip (Plut. Dion 5; Diog. Laert. 3,19). As matiarchos he was defeated in 376 at Naxos by > Chabrias (Xen. Hell. 5,4,60f.; Diod. Sic. 15,34). He drowned in 373 during an earthquake in > Helice [1] (Diog. Laert. 3,20; Ael. NAsrz. 59):

K.-W.W,

Pollius Felix. From — Puteoli (modern Pozzuoli), magistrate and patron of Puteoli and > Neapolis [2], landowner in > Tibur (modern Tivoli), Puteoli (cf. ILS 5798) and Tarentum (— Taras). His wife was called Polla; their daughter was the wife of Iulius Menecrates;

he is congratulated on the birth of his third grandchild by Statius (Silv. 4,8; for a son of P. cf. Stat. Silv. 4,8,12). P., himself a poet, was en Campanie, le protecteur attitré ({1. 3235]) of the poet > Statius, who described his villa at > Surrentum (Silv. 2,2) and a statue of Her-

cules dedicated on its shores (Silv. 3,1), and also dedi-

cated to him the third book of his Silvae together with a prose letter. 1 L. Duret, Dans l’ombre des plus grands: II. Poétes et prosateurs mal connus de la latinité d’argent, in: ANRW II 32.5, 1986, 3152-3346

2PIR*P 550

3A. Krucer, Die

lyrische Kunst des Papinius Statius in Silv. II 2, 1998. P.LS.

Pollux [1] Latin name of Polydeuces; see + Dioscuri. [2] Grammarian and rhetor, see > lulius [IV 17].

Polos (xdk0¢/polos). Cylindrical head-dress without brim, worn by female deities, e.g. Aphrodite (Paus. 2,10,4), Tyche (Paus. 4,30,6), Athena (Paus. 7,5,9), Hera, Demeter, Persephone, Cybele, and by mortals on festive occasions. As a goddess’ crown, the polos came from the Near East (e.g. ivory statuettes from Nimrud,

see > Kalhu) to Greece, and was depicted on monuments as early as the Minoan-Mycenaean Period. The height of the polos could be just a few centimetres, or it could assume considerable proportions, as in the headdress of Hera of Samos [1. 19 fig. 6]. Such a tall polos was also called a pyledn (‘gate tower’), as e.g. the polos of Hera (Alcm. fr. 60 P.) of Sparta, woven from grass and vine. The polos could also be decorated with figures and ornaments (Paus. 2,17,4; — Caryatids from the Siphnian Treasury at > Delphi). Some Archaic clay replicas of cylindrical pdloi and a not inconsiderable number of Archaic and Classical female figures or busts wearing a polos survive. 1H. Kyrie ers, Fiihrer durch das Heraion von Samos, 1981.

I. MULLER, Der Polos, die griechische Gétterkrone, 1915; E. Simon, Hera und die Nymphen. Ein béotischer Polos in Stockholm, in: RA 1972, 205-220; M. DewalLty, La divinita femminile con polos a Selinunte, in: SicA 16, 1983, no. 52-53, 5-12; P.G. THEMELIS, The Cult Scene on the polos of the Siphnian Karyatids at Delphi, in: R. HAcc

POLYAENUS (ed.), The Iconography of Greek Cult in the Archaic and

Classical Periods (Proceedings of the First International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, November

49-72.

1990), 1992,

R.H.

Polus (I1)oc; Pdlos). [1] Sophist, from Agrigentum. Sometimes mentioned as

a pupil of Empedocles (31 A 19 DK), sometimes of Gorgias (82 A 2 and 4 DK; Philostr. VS 1,13). This is why Plato makes him one of Socrates’ conversation partners in his Gorgias (461b-481b). The technical treatise Movoeia dAOywv (Mouseia logon, lit. ‘Rhetorical Museum’), attributed to him in Pl. Phdr. 267b-c, may also be the one that is alluded to in Pl. Grg. 462c. The Suda (s.v. I1@dos) gives P. as the teacher of > Licymnius [2].

+ Rhetoric; > Sophists MLNA. [2] Greek tragic actor of the late 4th cent. BC from Aegina, pupil of > Archias [5] of Thurii (Plut. Demosthenes 28,3). His fame is testified in only a single inscription (award of citizenship and high honours by the Samians) [1], but also through many literary references. As > protagonistés, P. seems to have favoured restagings of Sophoclean tragedies: he successively portrayed > Oedipus as king and as blind beggar (Arrianus in Stob. 4,33,28), and, in the role of > Electra [4] shortly after the death of his son, he performed with the latter’s urn, thus combining the lament for Orestes with private grief (Gell. NA 6,5). In voice and gesture, he strove for realistic, psychologically-grounded performance. According to > Eratosthenes [2], even at the age of 70 he appeared in eight tragedies over the course of four days (at the same festival?) (FGrH 241 F 33). He disdained star treatment: he sometimes gave up part of his fee [1] and subordinated himself to a > tritagonistes (Plut. Mor. 816f). ~ Hypokrites 1 P. GHIRON-BRISTAGNE, Recherches sur les acteurs dans la Gréce antique, 1976, 164-168 (images).

J.B. O’Connor, Chapters in the History of Actors and Acting in Ancient Greece, 1908, no. 421; I.E. STEFANIS, Dionysiakoi Technitai, 1988, no. 2187. H.BL.

Polyaenus (Modvawwoc/Polyainos). [1] One of the four ‘masters’ (xaOnyenovec; kathégemones) of the > Epicurean School (with > Epicurus, + Metrodorus and > Hermarchus). B. at Lampsacus (year unknown), d. at Athens in 278/7 BC. Epicurus inaugurated an annual festival in his honour in the month of Metageitnion. P. came into contact with Epicurus during the latter’s sojourn at Lampsacus (3 11/10— 307/6 BC), and thereafter devoted himself to philosophy. At first, he excelled as a mathematician; remnants of an anonymous biography survive in PHercul. 176. Some works of P. are known: On Definitions (Tleoi bowv/Peri hérdn), On Philosophy, Book 1 (Megi ptiooodias, a/Peri philosophias, 1), Against Ariston (Ile0c¢ *Aototwva/Pros

Aristona)

and

Aporiai

(Anogial

495

496

Aporiai). Even in antiquity, the attribution to P. of two

Polyanthes (IMo\vavOn¢/Polydnthés) from Corinth commanded a squadron in a sea battle off the Achaean coast in 413 BC (Thuc. 7,34,2). Bribed by > Timocrates with Persian gold in 395, P. and > Timolaus steered an anti-Spartan and probably also democratic course,

POLYAENUS

further works, On the Moon (Ieoi oedjvne/Peri selenés) and Against the Rhetors (I1gd¢ tovc oytoeac/Pros

tous rhétoras) was disputed. Some fragments of the Aporiai are preserved in Demetrius [21] Lacon’s On the Aporiai of P. (Meds tag Modvaivou ‘Anogias/Pros

tas Polyainou Aporias). M. ER eR, in: GGPh* 4.1, 223-226; Guerra (ed.), Polieno: Frammenti, 1991.

A. TEPEDINO TD.

which resulted in the Corinthian League (StV 225) (Xen. Hell. 3,5,1; Paus. 3,9,8; Hell. Oxy. 2,3). + Corinthus (II B); > Peloponnesian War (with map) J.B. SatMon, Wealthy Corinth, 1984; H.-J. GEHRKE, Stasis, 1985, 83.

[2] Sophist, active c. 60 BC, author of a lost OgiapBos Tlae@ixdc¢ (Thriambos Parthikos), in 3 books, probably on the victory over the Parthians in 38 BC. He is generally identified with the author (cf. Suda s. v. Modvatvoc Yaediavds) to whom a sophisticated epigram in the style of > Leonidas [3] of Tarentum (Anth. Pal. 9,1) is

attributed. [3] Three epigrams are attributed to one lulius P.; their origin may lie in the ‘Garland’ of Philip (+ Philippus [I 32]). They sustain a dignified style tending towards a personal tone (from the epigrams we gather that he had been banished to Corcyra), which makes a possible identification with P. [2] unlikely. GA II 1, 438-441; 2, 465-467.

M.G.A.

[4] P. of Macedonia (1 praef.) was active at Rome as an orator and lawyer under > Marcus [2] Aurelius and Lucius > Verus. To them, at the outbreak of the Parthian War (> Parthian and Persian Wars) in AD 162, he dedicated a collection of ‘Strategems in War’ (Stratégika or Stratégémata) in eight books, a handbook for successful warfare (1 praef.; 3 praef.). Dividing his work along ethnological lines, P. deals in books 1-5 with the Greeks, including the mythical period (including book 4: Macedonians and — Diadochi), in book 6 with various peoples, in book 7 with the Medes, Persians, Egyptians, Thracians, Scythians and Celts, and in book 8 with the Romans and the stratagems of women. In the process, P. excerpts Greek historians, e.g. > Ephorus in books 1 and 2. The work is of varying historical value, according to the sources used, some being authentic, some fictitious or incredible. Derived from P. were the Byzantine Hypothéseis (arranged after subject matter), of which four editions exist [1. 1434-1436]. 1 F. LAMMERT, s. v. Polyainos (8), RE 21, 1432-1436.

HA.BE.

Polyaratus (Modvaeatoc/Polyaratos). [1] Rich ({[Demosth.] Or. 40,24) Athenian from Cholargus (IG > 375,21), first mentioned in 410/409 BC (ibid., |. 2of.) as > prdhedros of the hellenotamias (> Hellenotamiai) Anaetius of Sphettus; then in 405/4 as grammateus (> Grammateis) of the > boule (IG 126,5). P.’ wife was a daughter of Menexenus and a sister of > Dicaeogenes [1]; her estate was disputed by Dicaeogenes’ adoptive son and P., then by P.’ son Menexenus, probably the eldest (Isaeus 5; 389 BC). Until the 320s the family was prosperous and important. P. died in 399/394 BC. DAVIES, 11907; TRAILL, PAA, 777540.

K.KL.

[2] P. from Rhodes, exponent of an anti-Roman policy, which gained strength in the third of the > Macedonian Wars and in 168 BC led to the fatal mediating role of the Rhodians (cf. Pol. 27,7,4-12; 30,7,9-8,8; Liv. 44,23,103 44,29,6-8) [1. 139-147; 2. 185-190]. After the Roman victory, C. Popillius [I 3] Laenas in Alex-

andria demanded P.’ extradition; despite two attempts to escape P. was finally taken to Rome and executed (Pol. 30,9,1-19) [1. 1523; 2. 205f.]. 1 H.H. Scumitt, Rom und Rhodos, 1957 2 J. DEININGER, Der politische Widerstand gegen Rom in Griechenland, 1971. L-M.G.

Polybius (ModbBtoc; Polybios). [1] Physician, see > Polybus [6] [2] Greek historian. A. Lire B. Minor Works C. THE ‘HISTORIES’ D. Methodological principles E. Credibility F. Style G. Later reception

EpITIONS: E. WOELFFLIN, ‘1860, rev. ed. by J.MELBER,

1887 (repr. 1970) (with Hypotheseis). TRANSLATIONS: W.H. BLUME, 1833-1855 (German); F. Martin Garcia, 1991 (Spanish); P. Krentz, E.L. WHEELER, 2 vols., 1994 (Engl.); E. Branco, 1997 (Italian). INpDiceEs: F. Martin GarciA, A. ROSPIDE LOPEz (eds.),

Polyaeni Indices, 2 vols., 1992. LITERATURE: F. Martin Garcia, Lengua, estilo y fuentes de Polieno, thesis Madrid 1980; N. LuraGut, Polieno

come fonte per la storia di Dionisio il Vecchio, in: Prometheus 14, 1988, 164-180; N.G. L. HAMMOND,

Some

Passages in Polyaenus Concerning Alexander, in: GRBS 37, 1996, 23-53; M.T. SCHETTINO, Introduzione a Polieno, 1998.

K.MEI.

A. LIFE

Son of > Lycortas, the leading statesman of the Achaean League (+ Achaea with map), from > Megalopolis. He was born before 199 BC (as hipparchos, i.e. holder of the second highest office within the Achaean League in 169 BC, he must have been at least 30 years old), died in around 120 BC (according to Ps.-Lucian.

Makrobioi 22 by falling off a horse at the age of 82). The last dateable event in P.’s work (3,39,8) is the building of the via Domitia, possible only after the defeat of the > Arverni (121 BC). After the Third ~» Macedonian War (171-168), P. was one of a group

497

498

of 1,000 > Achaeans deported to Italy (Paus. 7,10,7-12 and others). He, together with the other 300 survivors (Pol. 35,6), was only allowed to return in 150, just before the catastrophe struck his homeland Achaea, culminating in the destruction of Corinth in 146 BC

particular Excerpta de legatis, Excerpta de sententiis,

(38,9-18). In Italy, P. had received preferential treat-

ment, probably because of his — now lost — militarytechnical work Taktikd. He was the teacher of P. ~ Cornelius [1 70] Scipio and thus became an eye-witness of the Third > Punic War (possibly involving research trips [25. 1455-1462]) and perhaps also the Numantine War (> Numantia). After 146, he was able

to exert a positive influence in the conditions in Achaea, initially in conjunction with the ten Roman commissioners (39,2—4), later by himself (honours given to him by the Peloponnesian cities: Pol. 39,5; 39,8,1 and elsewhere). B. MINOR Works The following minor works by P. are known: t) A biography of > Philopoemen, the famous statesman of the Achaean League, in 3 books (mentioned in Pol.

10,21),

written

shortly after Philopoemen’s

death (183) and describing him as a shining hero (2,37,7-11: Philopoemen continuing the political ambitions of > Aratus [2], his aim according to P. the unification of the Peloponnese; this is in contrast with his unemotional evaluation of Philopoemen in bk. 24). 2) A book ‘On Tactics’ (Taktikd), which made P. famous (mentioned in Pol. 9,20,4; quoted in Arr. Tact.

1,1 and several times by Aelianus Tacticus). 3) A treatise ‘On the habitability of the equatorial region’ (Peri tés peri ton isémerinOn oikéseds), mentioned by ~ Geminus [1] in his Eisagoge eis ta phainomena (16,32); it is possible that this was not planned as a separate publication, but as preparation of bk. 34 of the ‘Histories’ (see below C.) [25. 1474]. 4) A

treatise

on

the Numantine

War

(Bellum

Numantinum; Cic. Fam. 5,12,2), a passage from which is quoted by Appianus (App. Ib. 90,392-98,427). C. THE ‘HISTORIES’ 1. STATE OF PRESERVATION

2. STRUCTURE

3. GENESIS

P.’s main work is a history of Rome’s rise to world domination in 40 bks, initially restricted to the period from 220 to 167 BC, but later expanded to 146 or respectively 144 BC.

1. STATE OF PRESERVATION About one third of the books of the ‘Histories’ is extant (for the history of the transmission cf. [11] with stemma p. 171), and books 17, 19, 26, 37 (40) were only lost in the roth cent. Extant are a) books 1-5 completely; b) excerpts in the excerpta antiqua of books 1-16 and book 18 and also in the Constantine Excerpts. This latter compilation was ordered by content with excerpts taken from several ancient authors from the time of > Constantinus [9] VII (roth cent.), in

POLYBIUS

Excerpta de virtutibus et vitiis, Excerpta de insidiis and a few of the Excerpta de strategematis; c) quotations

and fragments in works by other ancient authors (lexical works, > Athenaeus [3], >» Heron, ~ Plutarchus [2], > Strabo [1] Diodorus [18], — Appianus [I], > Cassius [II] 1] Dio and particularly Livius [III 2] from the 4th decade onwards; for events in the East cf. [12]). Livy is frequently more exact than the excerpts, but in his accounts at times distorts his source P. through translation errors, omissions and _ stylistic changes. 2. STRUCTURE P. uses the proems to introduce the individual topic and to set out his methodological maxims: the rst proem (1,1-5; cf. also 3,r-3 and 6-7) for the period 220-167 BC, the 2nd proem (3,4—5) for the subsequent period 167-144 BC. Their main addressee is the Greek elite (3,21,9-10; 6,11,3—8), but in the second part of the work (i.e. the last ten books) as well as in later interpretations also the Roman one (31,22,8). However, despite the Greeks’ ever decreasing option of exerting active political influence (3,59,3-5), the Greek perspective prevails throughout (36,9; different in [22. 162]). Books 1-5 give separate accounts of events in the East and in the West, from book 7 (i.e from the 14 1st Olympiad, 216/5 BC), events are summarized annalistically and dated according to the Olympiads (following the example of — Timaeus: 12,10,4; 11,1-4). Depending on the amount of material, the events of an entire or half an Olympiad or even just one year are told in a single book. After an introduction (prokataskeue) in books 1 and 2, which for events in the West after 264 BC take up from Timaeus (1,5,1; 39,8,4), and for those in the East from > Aratus [4] (4,2,1; cf. however also the further retrospective in 2,37-71), the main story (bks. 3-5: 220-216 BC) sets in with the Hannibalic War (> Hannibal [4]) in the West and the > Social War [2] (220-217) together with the Fifth > Syrian War in the East. Books 7-29 cover the events of 215-168 BC, books 30-40 those of 167-144. In addition to the diachronous account, at important turning-points in the events, individual books are dedicated to systematic questions. In book 6, P. thus takes the catastrophic Roman defeat at > Cannae (216) as an opportunity to present the Roman constitution in line with the theory of the cycle of constitutions (pace [25. 1497f.] without contradiction: — Constitution) and as particularly stable compared with other constitutions (but not as eternal: [1o. 392ff.] against [25. 1495-1497]), thus proving Rome’s suitability for world domination (reference in [1. 56-57]; see + Mixed constitution). Book 12 contains P.’s critical analysis of his predecessors (in conjunction with Scipio’s crossing to Africa), particularly > Timaeus (cf. [18. 39-6r]). It is likely that in conjunction with the ‘change for the worse’ (Pol. 24,10, 10: the adverse effect of > Callicrates’ [11] accusations in the Roman Senate on Rome’s relations with the Greek states after 180 BC)

499

500

book 24 was to contain a digression on the Achaean

action was to be evaluated separately (16,28). P. rejected the use of fictitious speeches (12,25b,4); in his sparing use of speeches, he even exceeded the strict standards laid down by > Thucydides (Thue. 1,22,1). 2. TELEOLOGY AND THE STUDY OF CAUSATION In P.’ view, the whole purpose of historiography is to

POLYBIUS

constitution; however, this was written at a later date, after 146 BC (against [5], who assumes that 2,37-71

had been written prior to 167, but only included after 146). Book 34 contains a geographical description of the > Oikoumene, which P. has inserted prior to his account of the last great taraché (unrest) and kinésis (confusion) (3,4,12-13) of around 150 BC, before turning to the Spanish ‘war of fire’ (Suda, see v. mbeuvoc mOAguos with reference to Pol. 35,1; Numantine War 154-133 BC), in the course of which the weaknesses of even the Roman system became ever more apparent. P.’s digressions are generally reprehended, particularly because of evident errors (e.g. 10,9-11) [25. 1567-

1569; 9. 163]. 3. GENESIS It is as impossible to verify whether P. had written several editions of his ‘Histories’,as it would be wrong to assume that he wrote the whole work in one go. There is no doubt, however, regarding his final plan of 40 books (see 3,32,2-3) and the existence of a posthumous complete edition (39,5) (cf. the wide-ranging discussion in[25. 1485-1489] and [9. 153ff.]). P.’ original intent (1,1,5) had been to describe the decisive 53-year period prior to and leading up to Rome’s rule in 167 BC as the result of its victory in the > Macedonian War (bks. 1-30), a task which he had achieved before 146

BC, apart from his later additions. The following ro books are characterized by the critical question as to the extent to which Roman rule proved itself from the perspective of the losers (3,4-5). These 10 books are not at all disparate in their content

(against [21. 25; 183; 22. 162]), on the contrary, they appear quite homogenous [15. 186ff.], albeit — due to the choice of 146 BC as the end-point — with a negative outlook for Greece (3,4,12-13; 36,9) as well as Rome (38,22). The assumption of two writing periods also explains why the first 15 books (in contrast with the later ones and the additions) refer to Carthage as existent (e.g. 1,65,9; 1,67,133 1,733 6,51-563 14,10,53 15,30,10), and also

why the earlier books reveal knowledge of the Gracchan unrest (2,21,8; 6,5-9; 6,57,5f.; [10. 392ff.]). D. METHODOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES 1. TRUTH 2. TELEOLOGY AND THE STUDY OF CAUSATION 3. THE PURPOSE OF HISTORIOGRAPHY 4. UNIVERSAL HISTORY 5. SOURCES

t. TRUTH P. committed himself to the truth (alétheia, 1,14,6), condemned any deliberate falsification (16,20,8), but declared himself not free from errors (29,12,9-12). However, such errors were more excusable in an universal history (hoi ta kathélon grdéphontes) than in a

specialist one (hoi tas praxeis epi méros graphontes); authors of the latter tended towards lies in order to further their particular cause (7,7 und 29,12). Stories of miracles (4,40,2) and bias (8,8) were detrimental to truth, while patriotism was permitted (16,17,8). Each

reveal the causes of events (aitia, 3,31,12); otherwise history is little more than a series of events (11,18a; 12,25b,2 and 4). Comparable to Thucydides (1,23, 5-6;

cf. [15. 165-169]), P. develops a system to distinguish between onset, reason and deeper causes (Pol. 3,6,1; 22,18,8; [14. 54-354]). Causes could originate in the personal sphere (the plans or aims of those involved) or in the conditions governing their actions (constitution). Even though P. sees the will of the individual as the central cause, he differentiates his approach very clearly from that of a > biography (10,21,8), because the latter requires the glorification of a person. P. also discusses limitations to a person’s freedom of action, e.g. in the cases of Hannibal or Scipio (9,22-26; 10,2-5). Furthermore, he shows awareness of the limits imposed on humans searching for causes by the irrational element of > tyché (> Fate, chance) (29,21; cf. [zo. vol. 1. 1626; 25.1532]). According to P., tyché can fulfil a number of functions: it can be the only principle guiding the world towards a certain goal (1,4,1 und 4), it can have a levelling effect (2,4,3; 15,20,5;29,19,2), Or itcan seemingly at random hand out reward or punishment (1,35,23; 8,20,10). Nonetheless, P. restricts the realm of the irrational (1,63,93; 15,21,33; 18,28,2—-4; 31,30) and maintains that humans can methodically solve all their problems (9,2,5; belief in progress: 9,2,4). P. sees religion only as a public necessity in order to control the masses and to ensure good manners, as he considers it to be the case for the Roman state (6,56,6ff.). Despite his negative view of the masses (21,7,6; 27,9-103 31,6,6), P. displays some sensitivity towards social pro-

blems (4,73; 5,933; 36,16; 36,17,5-15). 3. THE PURPOSE OF HISTORIOGRAPHY The purpose of pragmatic historiography (pragmatike historia: Pol. 39,1,4 and elsewhere) with its description of causal connections (particularly derived from the fate of others) is to provide standards for political actions (3,4,7-8; 7,11,2). In the same way as ~+ Thucydides, P. sees the purpose of his descriptions not in entertainment or enjoyment, but in providing practical guidance (3,3 1,13; 3,57,8—9). Even though his descriptions do not neglect the pleasant (terpnoén) in combination

with the useful (chrésimon) (1,4,113 15,36), the main emphasis was unquestioningly on the latter (12,25b; 12,25g,2; [26. r171-186]). In P.’ view (9,1-2; cf. however 23,21-23), it is for this reason that pragmatic historiography — in contrast with the historiographical genres of — genealogy or the history of colonializations (+ Ktisis poems) — provides the greatest insight to those interested in politics. P. thus makes the recommendation to any author of pragmatic historiography to study the source material and to have local knowledge as well as political and military experience in order to write an adequate account.

501

502 4. UNIVERSAL HISTORY

According to P., universal history should be the medium of preference from the 3rd year of the rgoth Olympiad (220 BC), because from then on the events in the West and the East were interlinked (1,3,3ff.; 4,28;

5,105,4f.). Due to the influence of tyché, everything worked towards the ultimate aim of Roman rule. This agreed with P.’ view that the Romans followed a plan of conquering the world (1,63,9; 3,2,6). By contrast, he dismissed individual histories as unsuitable for this period because they only considered partial aspects and described them out of proportion. 5. SOURCES The historiographical sources used by P. for the history of the Western Mediterranean are discussed in [15. 05-139], his general Greek historiographical sources in [15. 147-205] and [9. 162-163]. It has to be assumed with some certainty that he used court sources in his accounts of > Antiochus [5] III ({[16. 175-185]; see also Liv. (based on Pol.) 35,17,3-19,7; Pol. 3,1112), of the Ptolemaic > court (15,24-36) and of > Philippus [7] V and — Perseus [2]. His familiarity with documentary sources is evident in his actual use of this material [25. 1564] as well as in the confirmation of his accounts (also in Liv. based on Pol.) by epigraphical material. E. CREDIBILITY P.’ accounts are considered very reliable. He is rarely accused of any deliberate falsification. In view of his personal involvement, his sober distance to adversaries and benefactors alike is as remarkable (contrary in [25. 15578; 9. 163f.]) as that to Roman politics and their change over time (18,37; 24,10; 28,6; 29,4,8-10;

36,93 3953). He also strives for objectivity in the assessment of his own ‘party’ and his work in the Achaean League (22,9; 24,11-13; 28,3,7—10; 28,7,8-15; 28,12—

133 29,23-25), but his judgement on individual politicians can be variable (4,8,7—12; 8,8,7—9), e.g. regarding of Aratus [2] (4,7,11-4,8,7; 4,10-11), Philopoemen (10,21; 22,19; 24,11-13), his father Lycortas (22,9; 23,15-16) or Diophanes (21,9; 22,10,4). P.’ negative

judgement of Achaea’s enemies, particularly the > Aetolians (but positive concerning their repulsion of the Celts: 2,3 5,73 9,3 5,1-4) is often lamented by historians, but he is certainly not alone in such view. P. does not reject monarchy on principle, but judges it according to the benefit achieved by each individual ruler for the common good, in particular for Greek culture and civilization (Philippus [7] V.: 2,35; 8,11,3; Antiochus [5] Ill.: 11,393 15,20; 15,37). P.” high standards and expectations of truth and credibility, modelled on Thucydides, lead him to sharp criticism of predecessors and contemporaries. > Ephorus is the only universal historian to receive a positive assessment (5,33). Primarily for methodological reasons, but also for factual ones, his criticism focuses on Phylarchus [4] (2,56), the Hannibal historians (3,47), Zenon of Rhodes and Antisthenes [2] (16,14-20), Timaeus (B. 12), Theopompus

POLYBIUS

(e.g. 16,12) and also Callisthenes [1] (12,17—23) (for the assessment of this criticism cf. [8. 179-192]). F. STYLE Ancient assessments of P.’ style were based on the

Classical

ideal

and

thus

correspondingly

negative

(Dion. Hal. Comp. 4,15; Cic. Rep. 1,34; 2,273 4,3). Ap-

parently ponderous, characterized by the avoidance of hiatuses and the cumbersome use of participles and infinitives, it was described as bureaucratic [3; 4; 18. 233-

243; 25. 1569-1572], thus highlighting the extent to which P. was influenced by political practice (c.f. in contrast [13], who emphasizes the characteristics of this new artistic prose). G, LATER RECEPTION

In antiquity, P. was already extensively studied (see above C. 1.) and remained a widely-read author during the Byzantine period [25. 1572-1578]. Following his rediscovery as a historian by Leonardo ‘BRUN?P in 1420, MACCHIAVELLI used him because of his political thoughts, while Angelo PoLrzrano analyzed his works philologically. In the 16th cent., CASAUBONUS published an edition of P.’ works. Lipstus valued P. greatly as a military historian. By 1789, P. had become the most influential historian; his theories concerning the structure of a federal state (2,37) continued to influence Ubbo Emmius (Vetus Graecia illustrata, tomus tertius repraesentans Graecorum res publicas, Leiden 1626), the Federalist Papers (1787; cf. > FEDERATION) as well as MONTESQUIEU, in the case of the latter as conveyor

of the principle of + mixed constitution [27. 159ff.; 308ff.] [25. 1572-1578; 15. 347-3723 6. 171-182]. ~ Achaeans, Achaea; — Constitution; > Historiography; — Macedonian Wars; — Mixed constitution; — Punic

Wars;

— HISTORIOGRAPHICAL

MODELS;

+ HISTORIOGRAPHY EpITIoONs: F. Huttscu, vol. 17, 1888, vol. 2*, 1892, vol. 3, 1870, vol. 4, 1872; TH. BUTTNER-WoBsT, vol. 1*, 1905, vols. 2-5, 1889-1904. TRANSLATIONS: W.R. PATON, 6 vols. 1922-1927 (edn. with English trans.) H. DREXLER, German, 2 vols., 1963. COMMENTARY: F. W. WALBANK, 3 vols., 1957-1979 (see below [20]). LExICON: A. MAUERSBERGER, G. GLOCKMANN, H. HE.Ms, Polybios-Lexikon, vol. 3 (up to @édtwos), 2004.

SECONDARY LITERATURE: 1 W. BLOsEL, Die Anakyklosis-Theorie und die Verfassung Roms im Spiegel des 6. Buches des Polybios und Ciceros De re publica, Buch II, in: Hermes 126, 1998, 31-57

2 J. DEININGER, Bemerkungen

zur Historizitat der Rede des Agelaos 217 v. Chr. (Polybios 5,104), in: Chiron 3, 1973, 103-109 3 M. DuBulssONn, Le latin de Polybe, 1985 4J. A. DE FoucauLtT, Recherches sur la langue et le style de Polybe, 1972 5 M. GezeRr, Die hellenistische Prokataskeué im 2. Buche des Polybios, in: Hermes 75, 1940, 27-37 6 G.A. LEHMANN,

Die Rezeption der achaiischen Bundesverfassung in der Verfassung der USA, in: W. SCHULLER (ed.), Antike in der Moderne, 1985, 171-182 7 Id., The ‘Ancient’ Greek History in P.’ Historiae, in: Scripta Classica Israelica 10, 1989/90, 66-77. 8K. MEISTER, Historische Kritik bei

POLYBIUS

504

503

Polybios, 1975

9Id., Die griechische Geschichts-Schrei-

bung, 1990, 153-166

10 E. Meyer, Untersuchungen zur

10,5,16). In Athens there was an equestrian statue of Sai

Poseidon hurling a spear at P. (Paus. 1,2,4).

Geschichte der Gracchen, in: Id., KS 1, 1910, 363-421

11 J.M. Moore, The Manuscript Tradition of Polybios, 1965 12H. NIssEN, Kritische Untersuchungen tiber die Quellen der 4. und 5. Dekade des Livius, 1863 13 J. Pam, Polybios und der Kanzleistil, 1957 14 P. PEDECH, La méthode historique de Polybe, 1964 15 Polybe (Entretiens 20),1974

16 H.H.Scumitr, Untersuchungen zur

Geschichte Antiochos’ des GrofSen und seiner Zeit, 1964 17 H. TRANKLE, Livius und Polybios, 1977 18 H. VERDIN, G. SCHEPENS, F. DE Keyser (ed.), Purposes of History:

Studies in Greek Historiography from the 4th to the 2nd Century B. C. (Studia Hellenistica 30), 1990 WALBANK,

®idimmocg Toaywdovpevos,

19 F.W.

in: JHS 58, 1938,

55-68 20Id., A Historical Commentary on P., vol. 1, 1957; vol. 2, 1967; vol. 3, 1979 211d., Polybios, 1972 22 Id., P.’ Last Ten Books, in: Historiographia antiqua, FS W. Peremans, 1977, 139-162 23 Id., Polybios’ Sicht der Vergangenheit,

in:

Gymnasium

97,

1990,

15-30

24 K.-W. WeLwel, K6nige und K6énigtum im Urteil des Polybios, thesis Cologne 1963 25 K. ZIEGLER, s. v. Polybios, RE 21, 1440-1578

26H. Sacks, Polybius on the

Writing of History, 1981

27 W. Nipper, Mischverfas-

sungstheorie und Verfassungsrealitat in Antike und friiher Neuzeit, 1980.

BO.D.

[3] C. Iulius P. Freedman of > Augustus, who in April

AD 13 was involved in writing or copying the latter’s testament, together with Hilarion, also a freedman (Suet. Aug. ro1,1); after the emperor’s death on 19 August 14, he read it out in the Senate (Cass. Dio 65.3 2s ciaoucts Mibyag sm). W.ED. [4] C. Iulius P. Freedman of > Caligula (possibly CIL VI 19795; 20252; 33838; cf. PIR I*475); rose to considerable influence (Suet. Claud. 28) through patronage by + Claudius [III r] (Sen. Dial. 11,3,5). He advised the emperor (Sen. Dial. 11,5,2) and passed petitions to him (Sen. Dial. 11,6,5); it is a matter of dispute whether he held the offices of a studiis and a = libellis (2. 133; 3. 17]. His relationship with > Messalina [2] led to his death in AD 47/8 (Zon. 11,10,25; Cass. Dio 60,31,2). He had several brothers as well as a wife and son (Sen. Dial. 11,12,1). The death of one of his brothers is the topic of > Seneca’s letter of consolation (Ad Polybium). P. paraphrased Homer in Latin and Virgil in Greek (Sen) Dial. 11, 8$2;/00)11,5): 1TH. Kurtu, Senecas Trostschrift an Polybius: Dialog. 11, 1994 2J. Curistes, Sklaven und Freigelassene als Grammatiker und Philologen im antiken Rom, 1979 3 F. Mixrar,

Emperors

at Work,

in: JRS 57, 1967, 9-19.

A.MO.

Polybus (I1dAvpog; Pdlybos). [1] Name of numerous peripheral figures in Greek mythology, e.g. a Trojan, son of > Antenor [1] (Hom. Il. 1,59), killed by > Neoptolemus [1] (Quint. Smyrn. 8,86); an Ithacan, suitor of — Penelope, killed by Eumaeus (Hom. Od. 22,243 and 284), also his father (Hom. Od. 1,399); a Phaeacian (Hom. Od. 8,373); a mythical king of Thebes (Hom. Od. 4,126). [2] Mythical king of Corinth, husband of > Merope [4] or > Periboea [4]. They bring up > Oedipus, abandoned as a suckling by his father > Laeus [1], as their own son (having received him from a shepherd, or after his wife foisted the child upon P. as her own, thus Soph. OT passim; Hyg. Fab. 67; or after he washed up in a chest, thus schol. Eur. Phoen. 26 and 28; Hyg. Fab. 66). An oracular prediction that Oedipus would kill his father and marry his mother drives Oedipus to leave Corinth to protect his supposed parents. After he has killed Laeus, married Jocasta and ascended the throne of Thebes, his adoption and the fulfilment of the oracular prophecy are revealed, either by the shepherd following P.’s death (Soph. OT), or by Periboea herself (Eur. Oedipus ?; Hyg. Fab. 67); > Theban circle. [3] Son of Hermes and Chthonophyle, mythical king of Sicyon. Leaves his throne to > Adrastus [1], the husband (Hdt. 5,67) or son (Paus. 2,6,6) of his daughter. [4] Son of Hermes, mythical king of Anthedon in Boeotia. Father of + Glaucus [1] (Ath. 7,296b; schol. Apoll. Rhod. 1,13 10; schol. Eur. Phoen. 28). [5] Father of Alcinoe, from Corinth (Parthenius 27). LK. [6] (also Polybius) Greek physician, active between 400 and 370 BC. Son of one Apollonius, son-in-law and pupil of > Hippocrates [6]. The Brussels Vita Hippocratis [1. 24-28] unconvincingly attributes to him the service of having provided Hippocrates with seven bks. on Egyptian medicine from Memphis which went on to form the foundation of the Hippocratic canon. According to > Galen of Pergamum (CMG V 9,1, S. 8), he

remained on his home island of Cos and adopted the medical teachings of his master without ever appreciably deviating from them. He was also said to have visited Greek cities during the plague, and conveyed to them Hippocrates’ advice (Hippoc. Oratio Thessali 9,418—420 L.). To P. too is ascribed the (part-) authorship of the Hippocratic treatise ‘On the Nature of Man’: Aristotle (Hist. an. 512b) quotes almost verbatim the rith chapter of this treatise, while Menon (> Anony-

Polybolon see > Catapult

mus Londiniensis 19) connects him with theories enun-

Polybotes (ModvPwtyc/Polybotés). One of the + Giants. In the Battle of the Giants, > Poseidon chases P. over the sea to the island of + Cos. There Poseidon tears off a piece of the island and throws it at P. The thrown rock forms into the island of > Nisyrus (Apollod. 1,38); P. is buried under either Cos or Nisyrus (Str.

ciated in chapters 3-4 of the work. However, in his commentary on De natura hominis 2,6, Galen argues the view that Hippocrates himself wrote, if not the whole work, then by far the greater part of it, adding (CMG V 9,1, 70-75) that neither Hippocrates nor P. wrote chapter 11. Elsewhere (2,22: CMG V 9,1,87), Galen reports the belief of > Sabinus and his followers

Wb)

506

that P. was responsible for the work from chapter 15 on. Finally, P. is said also to have written De octomestri partu (Gal. De octomestri partu 345 WALZER), as well as De natura pueri and De affectionibus, although the theories developed in the latter two treatises do not accord with the ideas in the first [2].

VIN.

However, there are also good arguments for the unity of the poorly-preserved epistle. In his text, the author focuses on the issue of justice, elaborating this to encompass, for instance, Christian ethics, which permit the pious to be quickened to eternal life (2,2). The issue of the specific character of this theology is closely connected to the characterization of the development of a Christian majority Church in the 2nd cent. Observations on the mechanisms of the formation of group identities seem more fruitful than traditional schemata such as that of an ‘early Catholicism’. P. is a witness to this effort to establish identity in the face of pronounced tendencies towards pluralization (> Marcion). + Martyrdom, literature of

I. LIFE P. was one of the most important figures among the

1 J.B. BAurR, Die Polykarpbriefe, 1995 (German transl. andcomm.) 2G. BUSCHMANN, Das Martyrium des Polykarp, 1998 3M. FRENSCHKOWSKI, s. v. Polykarpos, Biographisch-bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon 7, 1994, 809-815 (bibliogr.) 4 F. HALKIN (ed.), Bibliotheca hagiographica Graeca (Subsidia hagiographica 8a), +1957

1 J. RuBIN PINAULt, Hippocratic Lives and Legends, 1992 2 H. GRENSEMANN, Der Arzt Polybios als Verfasser hippokratischer Schriften (AAWM),

1968, 2, 1-18.

H. GRENSEMANN, s. v. P. (8), RE Suppl. 14, 428-435; J. Jouanna, Le médecin Polybe, est-il auteur de plusieurs ouvrages de la collection hippocratique?, in: REG 82, 1969, 69-92; H. VON STADEN, A New Testimonium about

P., in: Hermes 104, 1976, 494-496.

Polycarpus of Smyrna (Mokvxagnoc/Polykarpos). I. Lire

II. Worxs

second generation of Christian teachers, who still had

contact with the members of the first, ‘apostolic’ generation (Eirenaeus [2] according to Eus. HE 5,20,6). He

is described as bishop of Smyrna in the correspondence of Ignatius [1] (Ignatius, Epistula ad Magnesios 15), while another letter is addressed to bishop P. himself (Epistula ad Polycarpum). He was evidently regarded not only as a representative of the congregations of Asia Minor, but also as a guardian of the authentic apostolic tradition. This, at least, is how he is depicted by Eirenaeus [2] of Lyons and by Eusebius [7]. Around AD 154, he was involved in negotiations at Rome on the date of Easter, and in discussions with Gnostics (> Gnosis). He died a martyr’s death, probably in

155/6 (otherwise 167) at the age, according to his own testimony, of 86 (Martyrium Polycarpi 9,3). The report of this, sent to Philomelium (Phrygia) by the congregation of Smyrna, is the earliest example of a comprehensive report of a martyrdom, but cannot yet be considered part of the Acts of the Martyrs ([{2]: ‘diaspora circular’). Attempts by literary critics to support hypotheses towards an identification of an editorial history have not been successful. The Vita of Ps.-Pionius [4. 1561] dates from the 4th cent., and contains no information of use in a biography of P. II]. Works One epistle, to the congregation at Philippi, survives from P.’ correspondence. The hypothesis of P. N. HarRIS, refined by J. A. FISCHER [6. 233-235], is now generally accepted: that the document divides into two parts. According to this, chapter 13 (and 14) would form the remnant of an accompanying letter to the letters of Ignatius, and chapters 1-12 (and 14) would bea later (c. AD 135?) epistle, in support of which it can be argued that the death of Ignatius is assumed in 9,1, while in 13,1, he appears still to be alive. The literary problem posed by this letter is thus closely linked to the so-called ‘Ignatian Question’ (+ Ignatius [1] B.).

POLYCHROMY

5 W.R. SCHOEDEL, P. and Ignatius of Antioch, in: ANRW

Il 27.1, 1993, 272-358 6J.A. FISCHER (ed.), Die Apostolischen Vater (Schriften des Urchristentums 1), °1986, 227-265.

C.M.

Polycaste (Moduxdotm/Polykaste). [1] Daughter of Lygaeus in Acarnania, wife of > Icarius [2], mother of > Penelope, Alyzeus and Leucadius. The two last were eponyms of > Alyzeia and > Leucas (Str. TOs2n 2s Os255))s

[2] Youngest daughter of > Nestor

[1] (Hom. Od. 3,465) and Eurydice (cf. ibid. 3,451f.). According to Apollod. 1,1,9, her mother was Anaxibia. She bathed ~ Telemachus when he was received as a guest in the house of her father (Hom. Od. 3,464-468). Hes. Cat. fr. 221 mentions a son of the couple named Persep(t)olis. Later sources name Homer (~ Homerus [r]) as the son of Telemachus and P. (Certamen Homeri et

Hesiodi B 27 ALLEN). I. ZECHNER, s.v. Polykaste, RE 21, 1693-1695.

K.WA.

Polychares (Modvycens/Polycharés). Early 4th cent. BC poet, uncertain whether of tragedy or dithyramb (DID B 6).

B.Z.

Polychromy I. INTRODUCTION III]. SCULPTURE

IJ. ARCHITECTURE

I. INTRODUCTION

Polychromy is a term of modern art theory for the phenomenon of colour composition in sculpture, relief, architecture and pots and tablets of clay, stone, etc. It is the opposite of monochromy (— Monochromata, — Ornaments, — Painting, > Pigments). The Greek ad-

jectives polychroos (xokbygoos) and polychromatos (moAvyomuatoc), which denote material (Emp. fr. B23 DK) or surface (Aristot. Gen. an. 785b 19) polymor-

507

508

phy, are not terms of ancient art terminology [5. 38, 129ff.]. Rather the procedures of coloration are named in Greek according to the technique used for each: epichrosis (émixowos, Lat. circumlitio, ‘colour composition’), énkausis (éyxavou, ‘painting with wax

med; it was achieved either by using variously coloured contrasting materials (— Incrustation) or by painting. Architectural polychromy is evoked in the architecture of Archaic Greece at first through painted terracotta (the Geloan Treasury in Olympia; metopai of Temple C in Thermus), which covered the stone or wood entablature structures for visual representation. Coloured painting of temple structures becomes the rule towards the end of the 6th cent. BC; the earliest known painted stone example of the period is the older Temple of Aphaea in Aegina (c. 570 BC). White, yellow, blue and red, which covered constructional elements of the entablature and capital zones with maximum contrast, were predominant. One of the oldest known examples of polychromy expressed in multi-coloured materials is the Classical Erechtheum on the Acropolis in Athens: a gleaming-white marble frieze-sculpture was mounted on a blue-grey beam of Eleusinian limestone, and multicoloured glass inlays adorned the capital. In Roman architecture, polychromy is part of the general repertory of architectural extravagance. The rediscovery of by-gone painting and polychromy in Greek temples by early rgth-cent. French research expeditions (temples of Selinus and Poseidonia/Paestum) seismically shook the erstwhile dominant classicizing idea of a ‘white Antiquity’ and remained disputed for well over a generation [1; 2], even explicitly denied. The classicizing architect John NAsH (175 21835) dogmatically covered his numerous London buildings, constructed in the ancient Greek manner, ina patented weather-resistant protective ancient white

POLYCHROMY

colours’;

wax

— Encaustic

(painting)), gdndsis

coating’) or simply graphé (yoady,

(yavwotc,’

‘painting’)

[5. 25ff.]. In addition to pigments, for polychromatic effects metals, stone inlays and contrasting materials were also put to use. As early as the Archaic Period painters and sculptors would often work together in family workshops for optimal co-ordination of form and colour in sculptures, reliefs and stelai. In the sth cent. BC there arose the sophos technités (oodos texvitys, ‘universal artist’) who used a multiplicity of materials to realize coloured interior decorations, structural sculpture and cult images [5. 63ff.] (+ Damophilus [1], + Euphranor [1], > Phidias). The art-theoretical dispute inherited from the Renaissance of the precedence of disegno or colore (drawing and colour) [2. 117-138] was finally decided with WINCKELMANN in favour of drawing and form cleansed of colour. Study of polychromy began at the beginning of the r9th cent., when the discovery of polychromy in Greek architecture and sculpture gave rise to a new aesthetic paradigm [7]. The aim of this research is to recover with the help of chemical pigment analysis and specialized photographic methods [1; 3] the original painted stratum, destroyed by weathering or modern restoration, on materials such as clay, stone, metal, wood, plaster or bone. These analyses of detail are synthesized in colour reconstruction [4; 6]. By using contemporary materials and media, e.g. water-colour, coloured castings and digital image processing, reconstruction renders an ancient phenomenon for the present. 1 V. BRINKMANN, La polychromie de la sculpture archaique en marbre, in: PACT

17, 1987, 35-70

2 J. GAGE,

Kulturgeschichte der Farbe, 1994 3 V. VON GRAEVE, F. PREUSSER, C. WOLTERS, Malerei auf griechischen Grabsteinen, in: Maltechnik-Restauro 87, 1981, 11-34 4N.J. Kocu, De picturae initiis, 1996 5 Id., Techne und Erfindung in der klassischen Malerei, 2000 6 U. KocH-BRINKMANN, Polychrome Bilder auf weifgrundigen Lekythen, 1999 7 A.C. QUATREMERE DE QUINCY, Le Jupiter Olympien ou I’art de la sculpture antique considéré sous un

nouveau point de vue, 1814. POLYCHROMY IN THE MINOAN PERIOD: W. SCHIERING, Steine und Malerei in der minoischen Kunst, in:

JDAI75, 1960,

17-36; E. Hirscn, Painted and Decorated

Floors on the Greek Mainland and Crete in the Bronze Age, 1975; TH. NOrRLING, Altagaische Architekturbilder,

1995; A. DANDRAU, La peinture murale minoenne I: La palette du peintre égéen et égyptien 4 l’Age du Bronze. Nouvelles données analytiques, in: BCH 123, 1999, 1-4r. N.K.

II. ARCHITECTURE The use of many colours was more widespread in the architecture of classical Antiquity than generally assu-

coating. 1 G. SEMpER, Die Anwendung der Farbe in der Architek-

tur und Plastik, 836

2F.T. KuGer, Uber die Polych-

romie der griechischen Architektur, 183 5/36. M.F. BILLot, Recherches aux XVIII* et XIX* siécles sur la

polychromie de l’architecture greque, in: Paris, Rome, Athenes, Le voyage en Gréce des architects frangais aux XIX* et XX° siécles, exhibition catalogue. Paris/Athens/ Houston 1982/83, 61-125; A. v. BuTLAR, Klenzes Beitrag zur Polychromiefrage, in: P. FRESE (ed.), Ein griechischer Traum. Leo v. Klenze, der Archaologe, exhibition catalogue Miinchen 1985, 213-215; H. Cotvin, s. v. Nash (John), in: A Biographical Dictionary of British Architects 1600-1840, *1995, 687-694; L. GERICKE, H. SCHONE, Das Phanomen Farbe. Zur Geschichte und Theorie ihrer Anwendung, 1970; W. MULLER-WIENER, Griechisches Bauwesen in der Antike, 1988, 13 4f.; H. PHLEps, Die farbige Architektur bei den R6mern und im Mittelalter, 1930; O. RUCKERT, Die Farbe als Element der baulichen Gestaltung, 1935; E.M. STERN, Die Kapitelle der Nord-

halle des Erechtheions, in: MDAI(A) 100, 1985, 405-426; C. ZINTZEN, Von Pompeji nach Troja. Architektur, Literatur und Offentlichkeit im 19. Jahrhundert, 1998, 111114.

C.HO.

II. SCULPTURE Coloration determined the essential appearance of Greek and Roman sculpture. In the post-antique reception from the Renaissance until WINCKELMANN, how-

509

510

ever, coloured sculpture was inconceivable. It was not until the discovery of painted architectural sculpture in Sicily that discussion of ancient polychromy began. Finds such as the ‘Augustus of Prima Porta’ (in 1863), the Tanagra terracottas and the korai on the Athenian Acropolis expanded knowledge of ancient polychromy. Its scope and appearance, however, remain disputed, since at best trace remains of colour are preserved and disappear soon after discovery. Earlier painting can often be demonstrated only by photographic techniques, from contour engravings or owing to variable corrosion of painted surfaces. Colour values have for the most part been altered by chemical reactions. Polychromy can be found in bronzes as well as in terracottas and stone and can be combined with gilding. Mineral and soil ~ pigments were used for paints. On marble sculpture a tinted wax coating rendered skin. Porous stone sculpture was coated in plaster and completely painted. Ancient polychromy substituted for the expensive use of a multiplicity of materials, completed sculptural

carry her over the river, broke away shortly before reaching the other bank and was the first to set foot there; her brother then married her to secure power for

forms, and constituted an art form of intrinsic value on

a sculpture’s base or prop. Painted details on 3rd—2nd millennium BC Cycladic idols completed the summarily executed sculptural forms. Mycenaean limestone sculpture shows ornamental polychromy. In Archaic solid sculpture body parts such as eyes and hair were painted naturalistically; in garments, polychromy picks out textle variety. Polychromy in reliefs picks out or highlights important details (Siphnian frieze in Delphi). From the 4th cent. BC, polychromy is used not only objectively but also illusionistically for toning and shading (Alexander Sarcophagus, Istanbul). Accounts of the collaboration of > Nicias [3] and — Praxiteles demonstrate a high regard for polychromy in statues (cf. Plin. HN 35,133). In the Hellenistic Period, in addition to rich pigmentation on marble sculpture, there is pastel-like coloration in purple, light blue and pink on terracotta sculpture. In the Imperial Period polychromy is inconsistently applied to idealizing sculpture. It can be found more frequently in — portraits for a naturalistic rendering of eyes and hair. Until Late Antiquity, sarcophagi could be provided with extensive painting or gilding. ~» Marble, paintings on; Pigments; > Sculpture R. BraNCHI BANDINELLI, s. v. Policromia, Enciclopedia italiana, 27, 1935, 633-639; P. REUTERSWARD, Studien

zur Polychromie der Plastik. Griechenland und Rom, 1960; K. TUrr, Zur Antikenrezeption in der franz6sichen Skulptur des 19. und frithen 20. Jahrhunderts, 1979; V. BRINKMANN, Beobachtungen zum formalen Aufbau und

zum Sinngehalt der Friese des Siphnierschatzhauses, 1994; Id., s. v. Policromia, EAA, 2. Suppl., vol. 4, 1996, 400-402.

RN.

POLYCLES

his family and they had a son, Strat. 8,44).

> Thessalus (Polyaenus,

G. Rapkg, s. v. Polykleia (1), RE 21, 1695-1698.

RHA.

Polycles (Modvxdf\c/Polyklés). [1] Son of Polycrates from the deme of > Anagyrous; Athenian councillor in 367/6 BC (Agora XV,14) and several times trierarch and syntrierarch (IG II* 1609,105f.3 1611,371; 1622b,238 and 1630,6: again 327/6-325/4 BC). P. did not take over his trierarchy until a long time after the appointed date, for which he was taken to court by > Apollodorus [1] in 359 BC (Dem. Or. 50). Davies, 465f.; DEVELIN, Nr. 2567; PA 11988.

JE.

[2] Sculptor in bronze from Argos. According to Pliny, his floruit was from 372-369 BC (Plin. HN. 34,50). Only a signature from Hermione survives. It has so far not been possible to reliably ascribe works transmitted in literary sources as by P. to this P. or to later namesakes. OVERBECK, Nr. 1138, 1145; LIPPOLD, 225; J. MARCADE,

Recueil des signatures de sculpteurs grecs, vol. 2, 1957, 106, 107; L. GUERRINI, s. v. P. (1), EAA 6, 1965, 298; R.

KruMEIcu, Bildnisse griechischer Herrscher und Staatsmanner im 5. Jh. v. Chr., 1997, 136, 229.

[3] Several sculptors of the same name from an Athenian family. The family tree cannot be reliably reconstructed. After 200-197 BC in Olympia one P., a pupil of Stadieus, created the victory statue of a king Amyntas which has not survived. He was the father of the sculptors Timocles and > Timarchides, who according to Pausanias (10,34,7) created the statue of Athena Kranaia in Elateia. However an inscription found along with the remains of the statue confirms the collaboration of Timarchides’ son, the younger P. The latter created, together with his brother Dionysius [48], the statues of Jupiter and Juno in Rome after 149 BC as well as a Hercules on the Capitol whose head has survived. Pliny names him among the artists who have resurrected art after 156 BC (Plin. HN. 34,52). The ascription of other works transmitted in literature as by P. — an Alcibiades, a Hermaphrodite and statues of the Muses — to their respective creators has not yet been possible. OVERBECK, Nr. £146, 2206-2210, 2212; LIPPOLD, 366367; J. Marcapé, Recueil des signatures de sculpteurs grecs, vol. 2, 1957, 41, 107-108; L. GUERRINI, Ss. v. P. (2),

EAA 6, 1965, 298-300; F. COARELLI, Polycles, in: Omaggio a R. Bianchi Bandinelli (Studi miscellanei 15), 1969-

Polyclea (Modvxevo/Polykleia). Heroine from the family of the Heraclidae, who received an oracular prediction that the first person to cross the Achelous [1] would become ruler of the Boeoti, who were at the time living in Thessalia. She asked her brother Aeatus to

70, 75-89; A. Stewart, Attika, 1979, 42-47; STEWART, 220-221, 225, 230, 304-305; P. MORENO, Scultura ellenistica, 1994, 521-530, 542, 545-546; G.I. DespINis, Studien zur hellenistischen Plastik, 1. Zwei Kiinstlerfamilien aus Athen, in: MDAI(A) 110, 1995, 339-372.

RN.

POLYCLES

Sanit

Polyclitus (ModbxAevtoc/Polykleitos). [1] the Greek bronze sculptor Polyclitus. I. GENERAL

II. ANCIENT VERDICTS

Ill. SURVIVING ATTRIBUTIONS

worRKs

IV. OTHER

ON HIS ART SOURCES

AND

V. RECEPTION

I. GENERAL Bronze sculptor from Sicyon, pupil of > Ageladas in Argos. Biographical detail on P. is scanty. His sons were regarded as less successful. P. [2] may, judging by his name, have been a nephew, and > Naucydes thus P.’s brother. Six pupils, with mostly unrevealing names, are recorded. However, various family and artistic lineages have been reconstructed to explain the dates of works ranging from 470 to 370 BC. An earlier period of activity, from 460-420 BC, would force some works ascribed to him in antiquity to be attributed to younger namesakes. A later date would correspond to the main period of activity around 420 ascribed to P. by Pliny. Il. ANCIENT VERDICTS ON HIS ART Antiquity saw P. as the sculptor par excellence; ancient tradition gives plentiful information on his creative process, concentrating, however — like modern scholarship — on a few statues. The concentration lies on P.’s noteworthy focus on the type of the naked, standing youth, regarded as having reached a perfection in contrapposto, physical rhythm and material structure. P. dealt with this type in a treatise, the Kanon (Kava); only a few passages survive. The Kanon gave guidelines on proportioning the ideal male body by using numerical relationships to guarantee supernatural beauty. It is unlikely that the Kanon was reproduced in a model statue. Reconstruction of the proportional system from copies of Polyclitan statues continues to be meticulously pursued. Ancient criticism points out the bodies’ solidity (quadratus, cf. Plin. HN 34,56) and praises attention to detail (akribeia, cf. Aristot. Eth. Nic. 67), but compares P. unfavourably with > Phidias for a lack of ‘weight’ (pondus, cf. Quint. Inst. 12,10,8) which was said to have made him reluctant to depict gods. II. SURVIVING WORKS The stylistic peculiarities noted in literary sources have allowed some surviving Roman copies to be identified as P.’s work, but they represent only a small portion of his diverse output. Modern scholars attribute a type of Diskophoros, reconstructed also as a spearbearer, to P. as his earliest work, c. 460-450 BC (dated by its pose on the soles of both feet). The surviving base, for the victory status of Cyniscus at Olympia (after 460 BC), shows a pose with one leg relieved of weight; its identification with the so-called Westmacott type must be rejected on chronological grounds. P. created his statue of the Doryphoros (‘spear-bearer’) c. 440-430 BC. Identified in copies in 1863 by K. FRIEDERICHS, it is regarded as P.’s masterpiece and identified by some ancient authors with the kanon. It so

Cie

clearly demonstrates the chief characteristics of Polyclitan contrapposto — from the body’s kinetic potential to the details of the locks of hair — that the ancients took it to represent the art itself (Plin. HN 34,55). Described as Achilleus, Theseus or viriliter puer (‘manly youth’, loc. cit.), it became the ideal portrayal of the Greek hero. A Hermes by P. at Lysimachea is extant, however, albeit in a controversial reconstruction: it is the only association of the head type with a body also identified as a doryphoros. P. created a Heracles c. 440-430 BC; its muscles, hair and arm movement are more vivid than in the ‘Doryphoros’. P. created his ‘Amazons’ in the same period and with it won the contest at Ephesus. Their identification with the so-called Sciarra (Copenhagen) type is disputed, but the Polyclitan contrapost finds its clearest expression in it. The ‘Diadoumenos’ (youth tying the victor’s ribbons around his head) represents P.’s final refinement of the contrapposto in extended motion, c. 420 BC. The motif of the athlete binding himself with a fillet was described by Lucian (Philopseudes 18), and WINCKELMANN proposed the name. IV. OTHER SOURCES AND ATTRIBUTIONS Stylistically similar statues of athletes were also attributed either to P. or his disciples. In no case is a connection between these or the works described above and victor’s statues recorded in epigraphic or literary sources confirmed. Inscribed bases with traces of nonidentical poses for the victor Pythocles (452 BC) were found at Olympia and Rome, as well as a base for Xenocles with a 4th cent. BC inscription (460 BC). A nudus talo incessens (Plin. HN 34,56), an apoxyomenos (scraper type, ibidem 34,62) and an unexplained hageter arma sumens (ibidem. 34,56) at Rome may also be athletes or mythical figures concealed under the statues’ identification. Other victors’ statues at Olympia, such as those of Thersilochus, Antipater and Ariston, were created in the early 4th-cent. BC, probably by P. [2]. The late 5th-cent. dates of some cultic statues also suggests P. [2], esp. the chryselephantine cult image of Hera at Argos (+ Gold-ivory technique) and the Aphrodite Amyklaia (post 405 BC), as well as marble statues of Zeus Meilichios at Argos and the Letoids (Apollo and Artemis) at Tegea. Kanephoroi on Sicily and boys playing dice (astragalizontes) were later attributed to P. V. RECEPTION The chief characteristics of the Polyclitan contrapposto and the proportions of the nude male were widely

adopted in replicas and stylistic excerpts, esp. from the late Hellenic period. The first classical work was a copy of the ‘Diadoumenos’ from c. 100 BC; the heroic aspect of the ‘Doryphoros’ became representative in Roman portrait statuary. P.’s artistic importance was undisputed in antiquity: conqueror of the diversity of the ‘strict style’, pioneer and zenith of high classicism. The concept of the attainable unity of an aesthetic and ethical measure of value had its basis in the Kanon. The

514

543

reception of the Classical Greek physical ideal, from the Renaissance to contemporary art, hails to P.’s work. ~ Sculpture; > Statue OVERBECK

(see Index); LOEWy, nos. 50, 90-93, 490; L.

BEscHI, s. v. Policleto, EAA 6, 1965, 266-275; G. DonNAY, Faut-il rajeunir Polycléte Ancien? in: AC 34, 1965, 448-463; D. ARNOLD, Die Polykletnachfolge, 1969, 12,

214-233; B.S. Ripcway, Fifth Century Styles in Greek Sculpture, 1981, 201-206;

A.H. BorBeEmn, Polyklet, in:

GGA 234, 1982, 184-241; H. Beck (ed.), Polyklet. Der Bildhauer der griechischen Klassik. Ausstellung im Liebieghaus,

Frankfurt

a.M.

STEWART,

160-162,

237-239,

1990 (exhibition

262-266,

catalogue);

272-273;

D.

KREIKENBOM, Bildwerke nach Polyklet, 1990; H. BECK, P.C. Bor (ed.), Polykletforschungen, 1993; W. SONNTAG-

BAUER, Das Eigentliche ist unaussprechbar. Der Kanon des Polyklet als mathematische Form, 1995; W.G. Moon (ed.), Polykleitos, the Doryphoros, and Tradition, 1995; A. H. BorBEIN; s. v. Policleto, EAA, 2. Suppl., vol. 4, 1996, 398-400; A.H. BoRBEIN, Polykleitos, in: YCIS 30,

1996, 66-90; B.S. RipGway, Fourth-Century Styles in Greek Sculpture, 1997, 25-26, 237-243.

[2] Sculptor from Argos, son and student of > Naucydes, thus perhaps grandson or nephew of P. [1]. Pausanias (2,22,7, depending the MS) names > Periclytus

or P. as Naucydes’ brother, a possible third bearer of the name (P. [3]). Difficulties in the chronology of works attributed to P. [1] resulted in the attribution of some to a later P. Their chronological sequencing makes another, third bearer of the name in the mid—4th cent. BC possible. Literary tradition, however, associates P. only with the non-extant victor’s statue of Agenor of Thebes at Olympia, created between 371 and 339 BC. Lacking a communis opinio, some of the transmitted ceuvre of P. [1] is attributed to P. due to its (incidentally uncertain)

dating: the famous cult statue from the Heraeum at Argos, a bronze statue of Hecate, an Aphrodite at Amyclae, Letoids (Apollo and Artemis) at Thebes, Zeus Phi-

lios at Megalopolis and Zeus Meilichios at Argos. Of the victor’s statues, the Thersilochus, Antipater and

Ariston at Olympia may be by the younger P. A portrait of Hephaestion must be by a later namesake, as also the statue of Timocles at Thebes, given its connection to a work of > Lysippus [2].

OVERBECK, nos. 807, 932-939, 941-943, 947, 949-951, 995, 1004; LOEWY, nos. 90-93, 401; LIPPOLD, 216-218, 286, 339; P. ZANCANI MontuoRO, s. v. Polykleitos (4),

EAA 6, 1965, 298; EAA 6, s. v. Polykleitos (5), 1965, 298; G. Donnay, Faut-il rajeunir Polycléte l’Ancien ? in: AC 34, 1965, 448-463; D. ARNOLD, Die Polykleitos-Nachfolge, 1969, 6-16, 151-155, 176-179, 180-183; A. LINFERT, Die Schule des Polykleitos, in: H. Beck (ed.), Poly-

klet. Der Bildhauer der griechischen Klassik. Ausstellung im Liebieghaus, Frankfurt a.M., 1990, 240-297 (exhibition catalogue); L. Topisco, Scultura greca del IV secolo,

1993, 45-55, 52-53; P.C. Bot, Der Antretende Diskobol, 1996, 62-72; B.S. RipGway, Fourth-Century Styles in Greek Sculpture, 1997, 25-26, 237-240, 287.

RN.

POLYCLITUS

[3] Name = given only once, in Pausanias (2,27,5) — of

an Argive architect, said to be the designer of the > tholos and theatre at — Epidaurus; Pausanias undoubtedly means the famous Argive sculptor P. [2], supposedly active there also as an architect. The plausibility of the identification has been much discussed; particular problems are posed by the chronological discrepancy between the buildings and the dates of the sculptor P. G. Roux’s postulation [1. 186f.] — marking an error in Pausanias and banishing the architect P. into the realm of fable — has found general acceptance. 1G. Roux, L’architecture de l’Argolide aux IV* e III* siécles av. J. C., 1961. CHO.

[4] P. of Larisa (FGrH 128 F 1), father of Olympias, the mother of - Antigonus [3] (FGrH 128 T 1), took part in the campaign of Alexander [4] the Great, writing a historical or anecdotal work in at least 8 vols. He described the luxury of Alexander and the Persian kings (FGrH 128 F 1 und 4), > Susa (FGrH 128 F 2-3), the

wonders of India (FGrH 128 F 9-10) and the waterways of Asia (FGrH 128 F 5-7), about which he was, however, sometimes ill-informed. It cannot be established whether he wrote before or after > Cleitarchus [2] and > Onesicritus (cf. FGrH 128 F 8: Alexander

and the Amazon Queen). Identification with P. [5] is not impossible. FGrH 128; L. PEARSON, The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great, 1960, 70-77. EB.

[5] Became nauiarchos (fleet commander) of Ptolemy I, summer 315 BC; sent under > Menelaus [4] with roo ships to > Cyprus and from there, with 50 ships, to support — Cassander in the Peloponnese. Not needed there, he returned, defeating on his return voyage troops of > Antigonus [1] on the Cilician coast under ~ Theodotus and > Perilaus, reaching Pelusium again by way of Cyprus. He received high honours from the king (Diod. Sic. 19,62; 64). P. donated a garland on Delos before 279 (IG XI 2, 161 B 86f.). May be identical with the Alexander historian P. [4] of Larisa (FGrH 128).

H. HavBeEn, Het Vlootbevelhebberschap in de vroege diadochentijd, 1975, 79ff. no. 30. W.A.

[6] Greek comic poet of the 3rd cent. BC, known only epigraphically as a victor in the Lenaea. 1 PCG VII, 1989, 552.

B.BA.

[7] P. of Cyrene sent 215 BC by Hieronymus [3] of Syracuse with a proposed alliance to > Hannibal [4] (Pol. 7,2). After Hieronymus’ murder in 214, P. was killed by an enraged mob seeking to appease the Roman consul M. > Claudius [I rr] Marcellus (Liv. 25,28,5).

K.MEI. [8] Freedman of > Nero, who sent him to Britannia in

AD 61 to mediate in a dispute between the governor, Suetonius [1] Paullinus, and the > procurator, Tulius Alpinus Classicianus (PIR* I 145), with some success

515

516

(Tac. Ann. 14,39). He appears again in 67, still among Nero’s favoured — freedmen, accumulating fortunes for the emperor and himself in the former’s absence. He was executed by> Galba [2]. PIR* P 561. WE.

We have only traces of a rich local tradition [2. 2230]; Ibycus sang of P.’s ‘imperishable fame’ (Ibycus 3,47f. DiEHL = PMG 282), while Anacreon’s poetry ‘was full of the memory’ of P. (Str. 14,1,16; PMG 438). Our main source, Herodotus (3,39-60; 120-125) tells of the surprising ‘end unworthy ofthe life of P.’ and uses his introductory telling of the story of the ring of P. (Hdt. 3,40-43; reflections in [1. 584f.]) to make this prototype of archaic > tyrannis the object of exemplary reflections on human fortune, a theme taken up once more by SCHILLER in his ballad ‘Der Ring des Polykrates’ (‘The Ring of P.’).

POLYCLITUS

Polycrates (MoAvxeatys; Polycrates). [1] Son of > Aeaces [1], tyrant of > Samos c. 540-522 BC, initially together with his brothers Pantagnostus and > Syloson; he killed the former and expelled the latter (Hdt. 3,39). Aristotle calls major constructions

comparable to the pyramids [6] ‘the works of P.’ (Aristot. Pol. 1313b 24); Herodotus pinpoints three buildings on Samos as the largest among those of the Greeks: the Temple of Hera, the harbour mole and the aqueduct of the architect > Eupalinus (Hdt. 3,60). The aqueduct and mole were integral to the archaic city walls; like the temple, they have been dated to the 3rd quarter of the 6th cent. [4. 287-295]. The construction of the walls and P.’s seizure of power belong to the years following Cyrus’ [2] conquest of Sardeis, in c. 546 [5. 78] — somewhat earlier than the generally accepted date of 538 [1. 583; 3. 1727f.]. The prosperity of Samos in the 6th cent. was not limited to the reign of P., although individual contributing measures were attributed to him (Ath. 12,5400c-f). P. won power by cunning and violence (Hdt. 3,39;

+ Tyrannis 1H. Berve, Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen, 1967, 107-

114

2G. Gorriies, Das Verhaltnis der aufSerherodotei-

schen Uberlieferung zu Herodot, 1963

v. Polykrates (1), RE 21, 1726-1734 archaische Tyrannis, 1996, 253-297.

3 T. LENSCHAU, s.

4 L. DE LIBERO, Die 5G. SHIPLEY, A

History of Samos, 1987, 67-99.

J.CO.

[2] Athenian, in the service of > Cyrus [3] as a mercenary in 400 BC with the rank of a lochagos (+ léchos [1]); mentioned appreciatively by > Xenophon during the latter’s repatriation of the Greek mercenaries (cf. Xen. An. 4,5,24; 5,1,16; 7,2,17).TRAILL, PAA, 779385.

K.KI.

120; Polyaenus, Strat. 1,23,2). He occupied the acro-

polis of Samos and employed mercenaries, but also had control of the citizen army (Hdt. 3,44f.; 54). He must have been a ‘populist’, and his rule seems to have been stable — we hear nothing of institutional reforms. However, many aristocrats were banished or left the city — like > Pythagoras [1]. Some of them founded Dicaearchea in Italy in 526 [1. 583f.; 4. 268-271; 5. 91]. P. took the aristocratic lifestyle to the extreme: only the tyrant of Sicily measured up to him in terms of ‘splendour’ (megaloprépeia) (Hdt. 3,125). He brought the physician ~ Democedes, the architect Eupalinus and the poets > Anacreon [1] and — Ibycus to his ‘court’ [1. 585f.]. He established his proverbial naval power (Hdt. 3,39; Thuc. 1,13; Str. 14,1,16), essentially merely a well-organized association of piracy and trade, supported by an improved design of pentekonter. The policies of the Persians seem to have allowed scope for this as long as Cyrus was occupied in the east, in spite of the subjection of Ionia (Hdt. 1,169). P. was allied with the Egyptian king — Amasis [2], with > Cyrene and — Lygdamis [1] of Naxos. P.’s situation was rendered precarious by the expansionist policies of - Cambyses [2]. He supported the latter around 525 against Egypt, but only with difficulty was he able to repel an attack by Samian adversaries supported by Sparta and Corinth (Hdt. 3,44-48; 54-56). With the co-operation of the Phoenicians, Persia was now also in possession of a fleet. The loss of his freedom of action may explain why P. allowed himselftobe drawn into an ambush by the Persian governor ~ Oroites and met his end in crucifixion (Hdt. 3,120-

1205)

[3] Athenian Rhetor, b. before 436/5 BC (Isoc. Or. 11,50), d. after 380 (around this time, Iason of Pherae came to power, who according to Paus. 6,17,9, ‘after he had become tyrant’, chose Gorgias as tutor in prefer-

ence to said to that P. The

P.). The information that the Sophist Zoilus was be his pupil (Ael. VA 11,10) makes it probable was in Athens around 380. work that attracted most attention was an accu-

sation of + Socrates, which later scholars (including the

abovementioned hypothesis) believed to be the speech actually made during the trial, but whose lack of authenticity is evident not only from Isoc. Or. 11,6, but

also from the fact that P. mentions the reconstruction of the Athenian Long Wall, which only began in 393 (Favorinus in Diog. Laert. 2,39). The main points of content of the speech can be reconstructed from its many rebuttals (Plato; Xen. Mem. 1,2; Isoc. Or. 11,5; Lib. apologia Sokratous). However, it is impossible to determine whether P. is to be regarded as a representative of the spirit of restored democracy which condemned Socrates to death, or whether this accusation was

rather an authentically Sophist treatment of a paradoxical subject. Other speeches attributed to P. are unambiguously playful and paradoxical in character, such as an encomium of Busiris [3] (Isocrates corrects and sur-

passes this in Or. 11), a speech about Helen (reply to Isoc. Or. 10), a eulogy to Clytaemnestra (Quint. Inst. 2,17,4), speeches in praise of cooking pots, counting stones (SPENGEL 3,3,10f.) and others. A textbook of rhetoric is also attributed to him (Quint. Inst. 3,1,11). Dionysius [18] of Halicarnassus (De Isaeo 20) judges him negatively overall (‘empty of content, frosty, florid,

517

518

charmless’), while the iambograph > Aeschrion (late

Polycratia (Modvxedteva/Polykrateia). P. from Argos, first wife of - Philippus [7] V, who had abducted her from her marriage to > Aratus [3] (Liv. 27,31,8; 32,21,24; Plut. Aratus 49,2). They had a son > Perseus [2], whose name speaks of his Argive descent (see

4th cent. BC) calls him a ‘cunning twister of words’ (cf. Ath. 8,33 5d). ~» Socrates; + Sophists EDITIONS:

RADERMACHER

128-132; K. MULLER,

Ora-

— Perseus [r]) [1. 394°].

tores Attici, vol. 2, 1888, 312-315; BLASS 2,365—-372. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

E. GeBHARDT,

Polykratos’

Anklage

gegen Sokrates und Xenophons Erwiderung, 1957; M. Raoss, Ai margini del processo di Socrate, in: Miscellanea greca

e romana

2, 1968,

47-291;

L. Rossetti,

evale 16, 1974, 289-299; Id., Aspetti della letteratura

socratica antica, 1977; H.J. TOoLE, Xenophon’s Apologia and Its Relations to the Platonic Apologia and to the Accusatory Pamphlet of Polycrates, in: Platon 18, 1976,

M.W.

{4] Athenian

rKetor of the 4th cent. BC, disciple of ~ Demosthenes [2], applied in 3 42/1 to incite Athenian cleruchs on the Thracian Chersonese to revolt against + Philippus [4] II ([Dem.] Or. 12,16); emissary to the latter and treasurer of the shipbuilding fund between 328/7 and 323/2 (IG IP 1628a,13f; 1629b,275; 1632a,14-15). — Athens (III ro) DEVELIN, no. 2573.; LGPN 2, s. v. Polykrates (26).

.E.

[5] Son of Mnasiades, of Argos; his sister > Polycratea was the first wife of > Aratus [3] and then mother of king — Perseus [2] [1.140]; P.’s family occupied numerous important positions under Ptolemy IV and V.

P. probably arrived in Egypt shortly after the battle of Sellasia (223 BC); as an experienced soldier (Pol. 5,64,5f.5 5,65,5), he played an important part in the preparations for the battle of > Rhaphia (217), where he commanded a large section of cavalry. Initially on the side of > Agathocles [6] (Pol. 15,29,10), P. survived his fall, and was stratégos and archiereus on + Cyprus from 203-197/6 (Pol. 18,55,6: high praise for his conduct in office). Returning to Alexandria in 196, he took part in the overthrow of — Scopas [3] on the occasion of the celebrations to mark the majority of Ptolemy V (anaklétéria) (Pol. 18,54f.) and soon superseded > Aristomenes [2] in the king’s favour. In 186/5, he fought at Sais against an indigenous revolt (Pol. 22,17). P.’s way of life in old age is censured by Polybius (18,55,8). He was honoured on Delos [2. no. 62]; his daughters were victorious at the Panathenaea in 202, as were he himself and his Cyrenaic wife in 198. PP I] 2172; VI 15065. 1 BeLocn, GG, vol. 4,2 2 F. DurRBACcH, Choix d’inscriptions de Délos, 1921. R.S. BAGNALL, The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt, 1976, 253-255; CH. HaBIcHT, Athen in hellenisticher Zeit, 1994, 121; 130; 150f.; I.

MICHAELIDOU-NICOLAOU, Prosopography of Ptolemaic Cyprus, 1976, 99f. no. 34; M. Mirsos, Argolike Prosopographia, 1952, 150f.; L. Mooren, Ptolemaic Families, in: R.S. BAGNALL (ed.), Proceedings of the 16" Interna-

tional Congress of Papyrology, 1981, 289-301.

1 J. SerBERT, Historische Beitrage zu den dynastischen Verbindungen in hellenistischer Zeit, 1967. L.-M.G.

Due

momenti della polemica fra Policrate e i socratici all’inizio del IV secolo a. C., in: Rivista di cultura classica e medio-

3-8.

POLYCTOR

W.A.

Polycrite (Ilodvxeity/Polykrité). Heroine of Naxos who, by a ruse, saves her hometown when it is besieged by the Milesians and Erythreans: she is left behind in a sanctuary before the city of > Naxos [1] and taken prisoner by Diognetus, the leader of the Erythreans. Since he does not dare to rape her in the sanctuary, he tries to win her over by persuasion. She agrees under the condition that he swears to grant her request first. When Diognetus agrees, P. requests that he betray his allies, the Milesians. On a lead tablet baked into a loaf of bread she sends the information to her brothers that they should liberate the city while the Milesians are celebrating the feast of > Thargelia. This works, the city is reconquered and Diognetus falls. The Naxians heap so many wreaths and sashes on P. out of gratitude that she suffocates under their weight. From then on the Naxians regularly bring her grave offerings; Diognetus is buried near her (Parthenius 9 = Andriscus FGrH 500 F 1; cf. Plut. Mor. 254b-f; Polyaenus, Str. 8,36). According to Plut. Mor. 254e, her grave was called baskanou taphos (‘grave of the evil eye’ or ‘of resentment/jealousy’). The rescue of a city in war by the death of a virgin isa common subject of Graeco-Roman myth (> Tarpeia). It is placed into the context of ‘scapegoat’ rituals in which the death or banishment of an individual saves the entire community [1]. The name of P.’s grave shows that the ritual appeasement of the prematurely deceased was of central importance [2]. This motif is found often in Greek myths that can be related to the theme of the > initiation of young women [3]. 1 W. Burkert, Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual, 1979, 72-77 2J. Larson, Greek Heroine Cults, 1995, 136-143

358.1. JOHNSTON, Restless Dead,

I999, 203-249.

O. HOFER, s. v. P., ROSCHER 3.2, 1902-1909; G. RADKE, Sy Vv.) Pi (rt), RE 24, 1753-1759. K.WA.

Polycritus (Modvxeitoc/Polykritos) of Mende, historian from western Greece c. middle of the 4th cent. BC

and author of a History of (the Young) Dionysius [2] and a History ofSicily (Sikelika), whose compass, perspective and extent in time are unknown; only 3 fragments survive (FGrH 559 with commentary). K.MEI. Polyctor (MoAvxtwo/Polyktor). [1] In Hom. Od. 17,207 an inhabitant of Ithaca who took part in the building of the city well.

POLYCTOR

{2] Father of > Peisander [4]. [3] Myrmidon; in Hom. Il. 24,397 - Hermes pretends in a conversation with — Priamus to be the latter’s seventh son.

520

519

Ke

Polydectes (Modvdéxtn¢/Polydeéktes). [1] Son of > Magnes [2], mythical colonist and king of Seriphus, brother of > Dictys [1]. He wanted to force + Danae, who had been stranded in a box with her son

> Perseus, into marriage, but Perseus turned him to Polydamas (Modvdcuac/Polydamas, in Homer with metrical lengthening TlovAvSéuac/Poulydamas). [1] Trojan, son of > Panthous. On the basis of his experience P. possesses an understanding of the past and the future. As an astute and level-headed counsellor he represents the pessimistic alter ego of > Hector, the town’s defender, who was born on the same day as P. Nevertheless, at the decisive moment P.’ sensible advice (retreat into the town) is not taken heed of. At this occasion, his character is (notwithstanding earlier appearances) introduced for the first time in more detail (Hom. Il. 18,249-313, cf. also 12,195-250). P. survives in the Iliad, later sources report his being wounded (Quint. Smyrn. 6,505) or killed (Dictys 4,7) at the hands of Ajax

stone with the head of > Medusa (> Gorgo [1]), which

he had brought from the > Hyperborei, and made Dictys king (Pind. P. 12; Apollod. 2,24-46). [2] Poetic epithet of the god of the underworld (the ‘receiver of many’, the ‘hospitable’; > Hades, > Pluto): H. Hom. 2,9, 17, 31 etc. (see > Polyxenus [r]).

LK.

Polydeuces (Modvdevxns/Polydeukés). [1] See > Dioscuri. [2] Slave of Claudius

[III 1], who took him to court when > Caligula granted slaves generally the right to proceed against their masters. Although Caligula appeared in court, Claudius was not sentenced (Jos. Ant. Iud. 19,12f.). PIR* P 562. WEE.

[2]. K. REINHARDT, Die Ilias und ihr Dichter, 1961, 272-277; P. WATHELET, Dictionnaire des Troyens de |’Iliade, vol. 2, 1988, 901-906.; K. ZIMMERMANN, s. v. P., LIMC 8.1,

rooof.

REN.

[2] Athlete, see > Pulydamas. [3] In > Pharsalus he was in a position similar to that of a tyrant. After a civil war the castle and revenues had been entrusted to him (Xen. Hell. 6,1,2f.). In 374 BC, he

came to an understanding with the more powerful — Jason [2] of Pherae after he had failed to win Sparta as an ally against Jason (Xen. Hell. 6,1,2-18). The latter’s successor > Polyphron murdered him in 370 BC (Xen. Hell. 6,4,34). H. Berve, Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen, 1967, 285f., 668.

J.co.

[4] Probably the son of Antaeus from Arethusa, not far from Lake > Bolbe (Str. 7, fr. 36). In 330 BC, he delivered the instruction to Cleander [3] to murder > Parmenion [1]. The fast ride across the desert is described 15,2,10; Curt. 7,2,17-19; rhetorically embellished in Curtius). P. is a bosom friend of Parmenion, who sends him with a cry for assistance to Alexander [4] the Great at > Gaugamela. (The parallel tradition, e.g. Arr. Anab. 3,15,1, does not mention P.). He is forced into delivering the murder instructions because of the position of his very young brothers as hostages. (Their existence was rightly doubted by [r],

Polydora (Moivdmea/Polydora). [1] One of the > Oceanids (Hes. Theog. 354). [2] Daughter of Danaus, by the river god > Spercheius (Nicander fr. 41 SCHNEIDER) or by > Peneius (Pherecydes FGrH 3 F 8); mother of > Dryops. [3] Daughter of — Peleus and > Antigone [2], (half-) sister of Achilles [1] (Pherecydes FGrH 3 F 61; Apollod. 3,163. The river god Spercheius fathers > Menesthius [2] on her, but the latter is nonetheless regarded as the son of P.’ husband Borus (Hom. Il. 16,173-175; Str.

9,559). [4] Daughter of + Meleager [1] and Cleopatra [I 2],

wife of > Protesilaus. She is said to have taken her own life after the premature death of her husband (Cypria in Paus. 4,2,7). Usually > Laodameia [2] is mentioned as

the wife of Protesilaus. [5] Not to be confused with [3]. This P. is the daughter of Perieres, sister of Borus, wife of Peleus and mother of Menesthius (Apollod. 3,168). [6] One of the > Amazons known by name (Hyg. Fab. 163). CA.BI.

several times (Str.

who wanted to substitute them with sons). At the sight

of P. Parmenion is highly delighted (Curt. 7,2,11-28). In 324 BC, P. was discharged with the soldiers who had finished their military service and went to Macedonia (tisten

2s mon 8)

1 BERVE 2, Nr. 648.

EB.

Polydorus (MoAvdweoc¢/Polydoros, Lat. Polydorus). [1] King of Thebes, son of > Cadmus [1] and > Harmonia (Hes. Theog. 978; Eur. Phoen. 8; Hyg. Fab. 179),

husband of Nyctis who was one of > Nycteus’ daughters (Apollod. 3,40). According to Pausanias, P. succeeded Cadmus to the Theban throne (Paus. 9,5,3). In Euripides, on the other hand, P. is not the heir apparent —there, an aged Cadmus hands the Theban throne to his grandson ~ Pentheus (Eur. Bacch. 43f. and 213). Although early records attest to an ancestral line from Cadmus to P. to > Labdacus to Laius [1] to > Oedipus (Soph. OT 267f.; Hdt. 5,59), P. seems to have been invented only for the genealogical purpose of connecting the line of Oedipus with > Cadmus. > Theban circle [2] Youngest son of + Priamus and — Laothoe [3] (Hom. Il. 22,46-48) who joins the battle for Troy

Sait

against his father’s wishes and falls at the hands of ~ Achilles [x] (Hom. Il. 20,407ff.). A different version is presented in the post-Homeric legend whose main representative is Euripides: Here, - Hecabe is the mother of the youngest Priamid also (Eur. Hec. 3 and 31; Apollod. 3,151; Hyg. Fab. 109), and P.’ destiny is connected to his stay with his brother-in-law, the Thracian king Polymestor, to whom Priamus had sent P. with a large treasure (Eur. Hec. 10 and 71of.; Verg. Aen. 3,49; Ov. Met. 13,429-438). In the traditional version,

Polymestor kills his protégé after the fall of Troy, seizes the treasure and pushes the body into the ocean (Eur. Hec. 25ff. and 712ff.; Ov. Met. 13,429-438), which is found at the beach either by a servant of Hecabe (Peri-

§22,

POLYEUCTUS

1M. Meter, Aristokraten und Damoden, 1998 2 Id, Zwischen Konigen und Damos, in: ZRG 117, 2000, 43ror 3M. Narisst1, La nascita del kosmos, 1991, Index s. ele M.MEI.

[7] Brother of > Iason [2] of Pherae and his murderer in 370 BC according to several sources (Diod. 15,60,5). Along with his brother Polyphron, he became Iason’s successor as the -» tagds of Thessaly and the tyrant of Pherae, but was murdered by Polyphron (Diod. 15,61,2 erroneously: Alexander [15]) in 369 (Xen. Hell.

6,4533)H. Berve, Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen, 1967, 289f.,

670.

J.cO.

boea, Eur. Hec. 679ff. and 7or) or by Hecabe herself

(Ov. Met. 13,536) and can then be buried with > Agamemnon’s permission (Eur. Hec. 895ff.). There is a connection to the Aeneas legend (> Aeneas [1]): In Ver-

gilius (Aen. 3,19-68), Aeneas witnesses the frightening — prodigium of branches dripping with blood and the ghostly voice of P. at his burial place on the Tracian coast. Three further descriptions can be found in Dictys 2,18 and 20-27, Serv. Aen. 3,6 and Hyg. Fab. 1o9, the first two attributing P.’ demise to the perfidious actions of a few Greeks. The last — where P. survives — probably summarizes the content of a tragedy that served > Pacuvius as model for his Iliona. [3] Son of the Argive > Hippomedon [1] and of Euanippe (Hyg. Fab. 71) who was one of the Epigoni that conquered Thebes (Paus. 2,20,5; schol. Eur. Phoen. 126; However, P. is missing in other lists of the Epigon). [4] Greek who in Buprasion was defeated by > Nestor in the javelin during the funeral games of ~ Amarynceus [1] (Hom. Il. 23,637). [5] Son of > Heracles [1] and > Megara [1] (Schol. Pind. I. 4,104 g). CA.BL [6] Spartan king, grandson of > Teleclus, Agiad (Hdt. 7,204), often mentioned as the colleague of > Theopompus the Eurypontid in the context of the first —> Messenian War (Paus. 3,3,1; 4,757); his rule (basileia) thus falls into the first half of the 7th cent. BC [1. 91 ff.]. It is possible that P. participated in the battles between Argos and Sparta (cf. Paus. 3,7,5 on Theopompus) [x. 75f.] but the claim that he and Theopompus coauthored the so-called supplement to the great + Rhetra (Plut. Lycurgus 6,7f.) must be spurious [x. 187]. P. is said to have been popular among the Spartan people (damos) esp. due to his fairness as a judge, which supposedly was the reason that the aristocrat Polemarchus murdered him (Paus. 3,3,2f.). While the latter received a mnéma in Sparta, P.’ picture was used as a seal by Spartan officials - probably the + éphoroi — as late as the Imperial Period (Paus. 3,11,10). The story of Polemarchus reflects the aristocratic rivalries in early Sparta as well as a very old and close relationship between the kings and the damos, a relationship which appears to have been transferred partly to the éphoroi [2. 92f.].

[8] Legislator in Syracuse under Hieron [2] II (cf. Diod. 13,35,1—5). About the content of his laws, which may have been revisions or updates of the laws written by Diocles [3] in 412 BC, nothing specific is known. H. Berve, Hieron Il., 1959, 43.

K.MEL.

Polyeuctus (Modvevxtoc/Polyeuktos). [1] Third son of + Themistocles and his first wife Archippe, daughter of Lysander of Alopece (who adopted the second son, Diocles); nothing is known of his life. Davies, 6669; R. Frost, Plutarch’s Themistocles. A Historical Commentary, 1980, ad 32,1; TraiLt, PAA, 778325.

K.KL

[2] Son of Sostratus of the Sphettus deme, Athenian rhetor of the 2nd half of the 4th cent. BC, in the circle of ~ Demosthenes [2] and > Lycurgus [9]. In 356/s, P. requested negotiations with > Neapolis [1] (Top 159), and in 343/2 he was an emissary in the Peloponnese as Demosthenes sought to construct his Hellenic League (Dem. Or. 9,72; Plut. Mor. 841e). During the Theban Revolt of 335, Alexander [4] the Great demanded P.’ extradition by Athens (Arr. Anab. 1,10,4; Plut. Demosthenes 23,4; Suda s. v. Antipatros). For Dionysius [5] of Heraclea, P. proposed honours in 335/4 or 326/5 [4. no. 67] and in 332/1 a proxeny decree [4. no. 33]. P. spoke in favour of Demosthenes at the > Harpalus trials of 323 (Din. 1,100) and in 323/2 he was an emissary to Arcadia as Hypereides and > Leosthenes [2] sought to build a Hellenic alliance (Plut. Mor. 846c-d). P. proposed honours for Theophantus [4. no. 82], and in 318/7 he proposed the granting of Athenian citizenship to inhabitants of Epidamnus and Apollonia [3. nos. 150-151 D 39]. ~» Demosthenes [2] 1 DEVELIN, no. 2563 2LGPN 2,s. v. P. (49) 3M.J. OsBorng, Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols., 1981-1983 4 C.J. ScHwenk, Athens in the Age of Alexander, 1985.

[3] Athenian of the 4th cent. BC, of the Cydantidae deme, rhetor in the circle of friends of > Lycurgus [9], regular trial opponent of > Hypereides (Hyp. frr. 146-

POLYEUCTUS

524

523

159 JENSEN); may have proposed honours in 330 for priests and hieropoioi (Syll.3 289), as well as the post of strategos in 326 for > Thrasybulus (IG IP? 1628a,38f.) and, in vain, the restoration by the phylai of Acamanthis and Hippothontis of land at Oropus to the sanctuary of > Amphiaraus. In pursuit of this last case, P. prosecuted Euxenippus for — eisangelia in c. 330 BC (Hyp. Or. 3,15-27). In 324/3, P. was acquitted of a charge of conspiracy with Athenian émigrés at Megara (Din. 1,58f.). DEVELIN, no. 2560; J. ENGELS, Studien zur politischen

Biographie des Hypereides, *1993, 222-238.

[4] Athenian archon in 246/5 BC, in whose year of office — an important one for the chronology of the 3rd cent. — Athens adopted the festival of the > Soteria, newly arranged by the Aetolians (IG II* 680). Also for the same year, evidence exists for a tax authority employing a number of people in the polis, even during the period of foreign rule. G. Donras, The True Aglaurion, in: Hesperia 52, 1983, 48-63.; Cu. Hapicut, Hellenistic Athens, 1988, 163;

LGPN 2s. v. Polyeuktos (20); M. J.OSBORNE, The Chronology of Athens in the Mid Third Century B. C., in: ZPE 78, 1989, 209-242, esp. 241.

JE.

[5] Greek sculptor. Often described, and identified in

copies (Copenhagen), is the portrait statue of Demosthenes [2] on the Athenian Agora, created by P. in 280 Be OVERBECK, nos. 1365-1368; LIPPOLD, 302-303; P.E. AriAS, s. v. Demostene, EAA 3, 1960, 76-77; RICHTER,

Portraits, vol. 2, 215-223;

B.S. RripGway, Hellenistic

Sculpture, 1, 1990, 224-225; A. Stewart, Greek Sculpture, 1990, 199, 297; F. JOHANSEN, Demosthenes, in:

Meddelelser fra Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 48, 1992, 60-80; P. MorENO, Scultura ellenistica, 1994, 181-189. RN.

(Plut. Cimon 4,5). In Delphi too, for an > Artist)of his period he enjoyed extraordinary privileges (Plin. HN 34,59). Ancient opinion was therefore already that P., whose works are entirely lost, was a significant and innovative artist of this period, an ‘inventor’ primarily of a new kind of pictorial creation in large-scale painting (Plin. HN 7,205; Plat. Ion 532 E). Asa result the state of the written sources is relatively favourable, and at least contributes to an idea of the compositional construction, of the structure and content of some of his pictures. Reflexes can also be found in some vase paintings of this period, e.g. by the > Niobid Painter. Detailed descriptions (see below) in > Pausanias [8], who saw a few works by P. still in the original in the 2nd century AD, have repeatedly given occasion to scholars and painters from the 18th century onward to reconstruct the paintings or even recreate them artistically in the style of their own time, e.g. A. CayLus in Paris and F. and J. RIEPENHAUSEN with drawings submitted for a prize given in 1803 by GoETHE’s Society of Weimar Friends of Art. II]. LESCHE OF THE CNIDIANS

Probably the most famous, because described in the greatest detail (Paus. 10,25,1-31,12), are P.’s monu-

mental paintings in the > Lesche of the Cnidians, an assembly hall in > Delphi. Their dates are debated, ranging from the 470s to the 440s BC. On the walls of the right-hand side of the hall was a representation of the Ilioupersis (Fall of Troy), on those of the left-hand side Odysseus’s journey to the Underworld (Nekyia, > Katabasis). The technique is assumed to have been al fresco wall painting (> Fresco). The narrative scenes — with probably half-life-size figures and sparing details of landscape — were arranged above one another on several levels. Antithetic groupings of individual heroes or different configurations of events, standing for particular values and virtues, as well as misconduct, must

Polygnotus (Moavyvwtoc; Polygnotos). [1] Greek painter from > Thasos, also bronze sculptor (Plin. HN 34,58), of the early classical period. I. GENERAL

I]. LESCHE OF THE CNIDIANS

III. Stoa Porki1Le

IV. OTHER

PICTURES

I. GENERAL His exact dates are unknown; P. worked after the Persian Wars from about 480 until c. 440 BC in Athens

and other places in Greece. Because of his ability to translate historical, political and cultural achievements of the Polis into an identifiable pictorial language by means of juxtaposition of mythical and current events, P., who was said to be closely connected with the family of > Cimon [2], one of his main patrons (Plut. Cimon 4,5-6) was given Attic citizenship. His status and arti-

stic self-confidence (- Kénnensbewufstsein) were unusually pronounced for the conditions of the time; he carried out a public commission to supervise the design of the Stoa Poikile in Athens (see III below) without fee

have been responsible for the ethical and moral content of the painting, for which P. was always particularly praised (e.g. Aristot. pol. 1450a 25-29). The Nekyia can be considered the earliest representation of the Underworld, probably influenced by various literary sources, known to us in the history of painting. By means of special interconnections in terms of content, and the insertion of particular characters, however, P.

created an epic cycle of his own. The surviving depictions of the Underworld on numerous 4th-cent. BC > Apulian vases are, however, only indirectly dependent — in motifs and the content of individual groups — on P.’s paintings. Ill. Stoa POIKILE

In the Stoa Poikile (— Athens II. 4.; cf. Paus. 1,15,1f.) there was a panel painting by P., probably from after 457 BC, showing the Greeks with prisoners and Cassandra in chains after the capture of Troy, similar in kind to the Lesche painting in Delphi, but more tranquil in expression. Here, presumably, the innova-

526

525

tions in technique mentioned in Plin. HN 35,58 — e.g. special facial expressions painted in great detail, the multitude of costumes and the diaphanous clothing of women, achieved by glazing — were brought fully into play. This is connected with experiments in the area of colour and P’s encaustic knowledge (Plin. HN 35,42; 122; — Encaustic (painting)). IV. OTHER PICTURES The themes of other pictures commissioned publicly in Athens are manifold and can probably always be understood programmatically: a Leucippid wedding for the Dioscuri sanctuary, scenes from the legend of Theseus for the Theseion, Homeric episodes in the Propylaea picture gallery (Paus. 1,22,6-r0). But other places also profited from his art: e.g. > Plataeae with a picture depicting Odysseus killing the suitors, done about 460 BC in the temple of Athena. +> Athens II.; > Painting I. BaLDassare, A. ROUVERET, Une histoire plurielle de la peinture greque,

in: M.-CH.

VILLANUEVaA-PuIG

(Hrsg.),

Céramique et peinture grecques, 1999, 219-232; D. CasTRIOTA, Myth, Ethos and Actuality, 1992, bes. 63-77; 96-133; F. FELTEN, s. v. Nekyia, LIMC 8,1, 1997, 871878, Nr. 6; J.W. GorTHE, Miinchner Ausgabe (hrsg. von K. RICHTER

u. a.), Bd. 6,2, Weimarer

Klassik 2, 1988,

508-537; R.B. Kesric, The Paintings in the Cnidian Lesche at Delphi and their Historical Context, 1983 (Rez. T. HOLScHER,

in: Gnomon

60, 1988, 465-467);

N.J.

Kocu, Techne und Erfindung in der klass. Malerei, 2000; R. KruMEIcH, Bildnisse griech. Herrscher und Staatsmanner im 5. Jh. v. Chr., 1997, ro2ff.; 132; 192f.; S. MATHEsON, P. and Vase Painting in Classical Athens, 1995, 3f.; 92; passim; I. SCHEIBLER, Griech. Malerei der Ant., 1994; M. STANSBURY-O’DONNELL, P.’s Iliupersis: A New Reconstruction, in: AJA 93, 1989, 203-215; Ders., P.’s Nekyia: A Reconstruction and Analysis, in: AJA 94, 1990,

213-235; J. TANNER, Culture, Social Structure and the Status of Visual Artists in Classical Greece, in: PCPhS 45, 1999, 137-175.

N.H.

[2] Attic red-figure vase painter, who signed 5 of the almost 75 pots recognised as by him. In his early period (450-440 BC) his style particularly recalls that of the + Niobid Painter and is evidently also derived from it. P. took over his workshop. The placement of the figures on different levels as seen on various vases suggests influence from early classical wall paintings — such as those of P. [x] of Thasos, who the vase painter may have taken his name from. Ina large part of P.’s mature work (440-430 BC) the Parthenon frieze has a clear influence —not only in the way P. renders some details but also in his choice of figural types and of compositions. The drawing in his later vases (430-420 BC) is more fluid, and the style of clothing is nearer to that of the Parthenon pediments than that of the frieze. P. is the most important artist in a large group of stylistically related vase painters, including the Coghill Painter and Lycaon Painter in the early period, subsequently the Peleus Painter and Hector Painter, and the Christie Painter and Curti Painter in the late period.

POLYHYMNIA

Furthermore,

a large number of stylistically related

vases, which can not be ascribed to the hands of individ-

ual artists, belong to the Polygnotus Group. On the more than 675 vases by this group known today more than 100 iconographic themes are represented, some of them influenced by tragedy. P. had a particular interest in representing > Triptolemus, sacrifices, battles, symposia and komoi and in depictions of erotic pursuits and Dionysian scenes. He favoured the decoration of large pots, particularly of stamnot, craters, hydriai and neck amphorae (> Pottery, shapes and types of), but occasionally he also painted those of medium size such as Nolan amphorae and pelikai. A late member of the Polygnotus Group, the > Cleophon Painter, and his pupil, the > Dinos Painter, are the most important artists of the next generation in this workshop. The most significant heritage of the Polygnotus Group is its stylistic and thematic influence on early > South Italian vases, especially on > Lucanian vases. -» Cleophon Painter; > Dinos Painter; > Niobid Painter; > Parthenon M. PranceE, Der Niobiden-Maler und seine Werkstatt, 1989,

117-118; S.B. MATHESON, P. and Vase Painting in

Classical Athens, 1995; M. ROBERTSON, The Art of VasePainting in Classical Athens, 1992, 210-217. j.0.

Polygonon (xodvywvov/polygonon), literally ‘multifruit’, knot-grass (Polygonaceae family), according to Plin. HN 27,113 Lat. sanguinaria, in four species (cf. Plin. HN 27,113-117); provides a blood-staunching sap because of this plant’s astringent and cooling power (Plin. HN 27,114, similarly Dioscorides 4,4-5 WELLMANN and BERENDES). The seeds allegedly have i.a. purgative and diuretic effects. According to Columella 6,12,5 polygonon also heals cuts; sheep that consume it become seriously ill (ibidem 7,5,19). H. Gossen, s. v. P., RE 21, 1647f.

C.HU.

Polyhymnia = (Todbuvia/Polymnia, less _ often Todvbuvia/Polyymnia, one ‘with many songs’ or ‘polyphonic choral song’; cf. Diod. Sic. 4,7,2ff.). One of the nine canonical > Muses, seldom mentioned individual-

ly in verse (Ov. Fast. 5,9-5 4). Despite her unambiguous name, her sphere of activity is non-specific and multifaceted. In Horace (Carm. 1,1), P. is to be understood as a Muse who immortalizes great matters with great songs. She is known as the inventor of the lyre (schol. Apoll. Rhod. 3,1-5a) and the Muse of pantomime (Nonn. Dion. 5,104), of historiography (Plut. Symp. 9,14,1), of memory (etymologically: Polymneme) and of the rational weighing of arguments (Fulg. 1,15). According to legend she is the mother of > Triptolemus (schol. Hom. Il. 10,435), of > Orpheus (schol. Apoll. Rhod. 1,23) and of earthly > Eros (Pl. Symp. 187d). Cw.

POLYIDUS

Polymestor see + Hecabe; - Ilione; + Polydorus [1]

Polyidus (IodiS0¢/Polyidos, Latin Polyidus). [1] (‘of wide learning’). Mythical seer and miracleworker from Corinth (cf. Cic. Leg. 2,33), descendant of ~ Melampus [1] (Pherecydes FGrH 3 F r15a; Paus. 1,43,5), Spouse of Eurydameia, father of Euchenor (Hom. Il. 13,663-668; cf. Cic. Div. 1,89), > Cleitus [2], Astycrateia and Manto (not identical with the seeress + Manto). His powers are testified to by numerous accounts of his assitence: in Corinth, for example, he helps > Bellerophontes break in his horse > Pegasus [1] by interpreting his dream, and arranges for the erection of an altar to Athena (schol. Pind. O. 13,113). In Megara he purifies > Alcathous [1] and founds a sanctuary dedicated to Dionysus (Paus. 1,43,5); in Mysia he cures > Teuthras of madness (Ps.-Plut. De fluviis 21,4). The most famous and most substantially recorded are his activities in Crete for > Minos and his son (cf. + Glaucus [3]). Together with his daughters Astycrateia and Manto, P. was ritually worshipped in Megara, where their tombs were shown (Paus. 1,43,5), as well as in Byzantium (Dionysius of Byzantium 14 Gingerich). O. Paracia, s. v. Glaukos (2), LIMC 4.1, 273f.; K. Zim-

MERMANN, Ss. v. P., LIMC 8.1, rorof.

eK

[2] Trojan, son of the old dream interpreter and seer ~ Eurydamas [1] and brother of Abas. He is killed, together with the latter, by > Diomedes [1] (Hom. II. 5,148f.). [3] One of the seven local heroes of Plataeae, to whom, at the behest of the Delphic oracle, sacrifices were offered before the battle (Plut. Aristides 11,3). HE.B. [4] Thessalian engineer; he built war machines and took part, under — Philippus [4] II, in the siege of Byzantium (340/339 BC) (Vitr. 10,13,3). His treatise on mechanical engineering (Vitr. 7, Prooem. 14) has not survived. His pupils were Diades and Charias, who worked as engineers under Alexander [4] the Great (Vitr. 10,13,3). K. ZIEGLER, Ss. v. Polyidos (6), RE 21, 1658f.

MF.

[5] Dithyrambic poet of the beginning of the 4th cent. BC. It is unlikely that he should have written tragedies as well (cf. TrGF I 78).

B.Z.

Polymele (Modvwhn/Polymeéle, Mokuuhdo/Polymela). [1] Daughter of > Autolycus [1], wife of > Aeson [1], mother ofJason (— Iason [1]) (Hes. fr. 38 M.-W.). LK. [2] Daughter of king > Phylas [1] of Ephyra, lover of — Hermes, mother by him of > Eudorus [1], thereafter wife of Echecles, the son of Actor (Hom. Il. 16,179190).

[3] Daughter of Actor, wife of

528

527

Peleus before > Thetis (schol. Lycoph. 175), according to Eust. ad Hom II. 2,684 the mother of > Polydora [3] and > Achilles [1] (cf. Daemachus FGrH 65 F 2, where her name is Philomela). Apollod. 3,176, however, calls P. the daughter of Peleus, who may possibly, as the wife of > Menoetius [1], be the mother of > Patroclus. NI.JO.

Polymnestus (IToAbpvynotoc/Polymnéstos), son of Meles. Epic and elegiac poet of the 7th cent. BC from Colophon. Ps.-Plut. De musica 1132c-d reports that according to Heraclides Ponticus (fr. 157 WEHRLI), P. lived after Clonas and - Terpander, and composed aulodic nomoi (avimdixot vouovauldidikoi noémot; -» Nomos [3]), the so-called Polymnesteia (Modupvyjotea) (1132d). In connection with the establishment (xatéotactc/katdstasis) of the ‘Second School’ of Greek music on the Peloponnese, Ps.-Plutarch links him with, among others, Thale(ta)s of Gortyn and Sacadas of Argos (hence perhaps the occasional spelling Modtuvactoc/Polymnastos), associating P. esp. with SePtot vouoi (6rthioi nédmoi, 1134 b-c, cf. 1135C). ~ Alcman (145 PMG) and Pindar (— Pindarus) (fr. 188 S.-M.) allude to P.; Pausanias (1,14,4) knew a narrative (elegiac?) poem (éx1/épé) by P. on Thale(ta)s of Gortyn,

who brought an end to a plague at Sparta. Schol. Aristoph. Equ. 1287 (and after it Suda x 1988) understands the Moduuvioteta, attributed to Ariphrades (like Cratinus 338 PCG), probably wrongly, to have been obscene. M.L. West, Greek Music, 1992; D.A. CAMPBELL, Greek Lyric, vol. 2, 1988, 330-335. E.BO.

Polyneices (Movuveixnc/Polynetkés, Latin Polynices, ‘the Much-Quarrelling’). Son of > Oedipus and > Iocaste (Epicaste) or > Euryganea, brother to > Eteocles [1] (elder according to Sophocles, younger in Euripides) and > Antigone [3]. After the blinding of Oedipus, his sons ruled at Thebes. They insulted (or, according to Sophocles, banished)

their father, who cursed them.

Eteocles expelled P. or broke the agreement between the brothers to rule alternately. P. fled to Argos, where, after an initial dispute on a place to sleep with another fugitive, > Tydeus, he won the latter’s friendship. The king, > Adrastus [1], recalling an oracular prophecy, gave him the hand of his daughter, Argea, in marriage. Together with six other commanders, P. moved against Thebes, after first overcoming the resistance of > Amphiaraus by bribing his wife > Eriphyle with the necklace of Harmonia. Attempts at reconciliation on the part of Antigone and Iocaste (according to Statius also Adrastus) failed. Matters came to a head with the stor-

ming of the city and single combat between the brothers, who wounded each other mortally. The new ruler, Creon [1] (Aeschylus: the council of elders) forbade the burial of P. owing to his treason, but Antigone (according to Statius and Hyginus with the assistance of Argea) defied the ban. P.’s son was > Thersander, one of the > Epigoni. Main sources: Thebais fragments 2-3 EpGF; Aesch. Sept. 63 1ff.; Soph. OC 365-381; 12491446; Soph. Ant. 21-36; 177-210; Eur. Phoen. passim with scholia to 71; Eur. Supp. 131-154; Sen. Phoen. 279-end; Stat. Theb. passim; Diod. Sic. 4,64,4-66,4; Apollod. 3,5,8-7,2; Hyg. Fab. 68-71; Paus. 5,19,6;

529

530

9,5,10-14; 18,3; 25,2. Portrayals of the brothers’ single combat on Greek vessels, Roman and Etruscan sarcophagi and numerous Etruscan urns. + Seven against Thebes; > Theban circle E. BetHer, Thebanische Heldenlieder,

1891, 99-108; C.

Rosert, Oidipus, 1915, passim; E. WUsT, s. v. Polyneikes (1), RE 21, 1774-1788; I. Krausxopr, s. v. Eteokles, LIMC 4.1, 26-37.

Co) eh

Polyperchon (Moduxéeywv/Polypérchén). [1] P. (not Polysperchon, cf. OGIS x, p. 12 n. 14), son of Simmias (Arr. Anab. 2,12,2) from Tymphaea (Tzetz. Schol. Lycoph. 802), leader of the Tymphaean taxis of the > pez(h)étairoi under > Alexander [4] the Great from 333 BC; able, but never outstanding. According to Curt. 8,5,22-24, his derision (but in Arr. Anab. 4,12,12

that of + Leonnatus) thwarted the introduction of the > proskynésis. According to Curt. 8,11,1, he took Ora in the Swat Valley (in Arr. Anab. 4,27,9 it was Alex-

ander himself). In India, and perhaps on the homeward march (Just. Epit. 12,10,1), he served under > Craterus [x], accompanying him as deputy commander of the released veterans in 324 (Arr. Anab. 7,12,4) and remai-

ning in Macedonia as strategos when > Antipater [x] and Craterus marched against > Perdiccas [4]. He won Thessaly back from the Aetolians. Before his death, Antipater named P. as his successor, and his own son > Cassander as P.’s > chiliarchos.

A bitterly disappointed Cassander organized opposition to P. among the satraps, fleeing to > Antigonus [1]. P. invited + Olympias [1] to return to Macedonia, named — Eumenes [1] strategos of Asia and leader of

POLYPHEMUS

Antigonus discreetly interpreted the peace of 311

(v.

> Diadochi, wars of the) as directed against P. (OGIS

5,39-43). When the young king was killed (probably deliberately), P. gathered himself for one final effort. He would place > Heracles [2], the son of Alexander the Great and - Barsine on the vacant throne. Soon thereafter, however, he accepted an alliance with Cassander

and had Heracles killed. With that, P. was finished. He

was able to retain only a few Peloponnesian cities until his death (prob. before 301), which is mentioned in none of the sources.

He was

a subaltern officer, for

whom there was no place in the world of the new kings. For the period after the death of Alexander the Great, Diod. Sic. 18-20 (from > Hieronymus [6]) is almost the sole source on his life. HECKEL, 188-204.

[2] Mercenary under > Callippus [1], whom he murdered (Plut. Dion 58,6: 351 BC). EB.

Polypheides (Modvudeidns/Polypheideés). Seer in Greek mythology. Son of > Mantius, grandson of > Melampus [1], father of > Theoclymenus. After an argument with his father, he moves from Argos to Hyperesia in Achaea (Hom. Od. 15,249) and begins soothsaying to all. After the death of his nephew > Amphiaraus (cf. stemma Hom. Od. 15,225ff.; 242ff.) he was the most important Greek seer. The older P. can easily be a successor to the younger Amphiaraus, as the latter dies young (Hom. Od. 15,246f.). Pherecydes (FGrH 3 F 116) describes him as the husband of Aechme, daughter of one Haemon, living at Eleusis. Sate

the > Argyraspides and announced the relief of the cities of Greece from their commandants, most of whom were loyal to Cassander. At Athens, however,

~ Nicanor [5] enabled Cassander to land and take the city for + Demetrius [4] of Phaleron. P.’s fleet under > Cleitus [7] was destroyed by Nicanor, and when an assault on - Megale Polis failed, more cities went over to Cassander. In P.’s absence, Eurydice [5] had Cassander elevated to royal administrator by her husband, king Philippus > Arridaeus[4], and went into battle against Olympias. P. was forced to look on powerless as the troops defected to Olympias, the latter murdered the royal couple and many others, the troops then deserted her, and Cassander killed her and incarcerated the young king > Alexander [5] with his mother. Soon he held only part of the Peloponnese through his son — Alexander [8]. When the other > diadochi allied against Antigonus [x] in 315, the latter played off P. against them. He assumed P.’s office and his policies as protector of the arrested king and of the Greeks. P. accepted the title of strategos of the Peloponnese by the grace of Antigonus. When P. rejected an offer from Cassander, his son Alexander accepted it, perhaps with the secret assent of P. Alexander was murdered in 314, but his widow > Cratesipolis held Sicyum and Corinth as fortresses for P.

Polyphemus (Iodbvpywoc/Polyphémos, Latin Polyphemus). [1] A Lapith (> Lapithae) from Larisa in Thessaly, son of — Elatus [2] and Hippea (the daughter of Anthippus), brother of > Caeneus. P. fought against the > centaurs (Hom. II. 1,264) and was one of the > Argonauts (Apoll. Rhod. 1,40-44). Having stayed behind in Mysia with > Heracles [1] in search of > Hylas, he founded — Cius und fell in battle against the > Chalybes (Apoll. Rhod. lic. und 1,1240ff.; Apollod. 1,113 und 117). In Euphorion he is the son of Poseidon and lover of Hylas (Antoninus Liberalis 26). [2] Most famous of the - Cyclopes, the one-eyed giant man-eaters of Greek mythology; son of > Poseidon and the nymph > Thoosa (Hom. Od. 1,70). P. lived with the other Cyclopes, but aside from them on an island in a cave with herds of sheep and goats. Location on Etna in Sicily is post-Homeric. Hom. Od. 9,105—564 tells the classical version of the story: > Odysseus arrives on the island of goats, is locked up in the cave by P., P. eats several of his companions, but Odysseus makes him drunk, blinds him, cunningly escapes from the cave, confuses him by telling him ‘Nobody’ (Owtc¢; Outis) blinded him, but finally by calling him by his true name reveals the fulfilment of an ancient oracle. This version of the story was initially followed in poetry and fine art,

POLYPHEMUS

531

Doe

particularly in Greek comedy and in satyric drama (Epicharmus; Cratinus; especially Euripides, Cyclops, the only completely extant Greek satyr play). The dithyramb of Philoxenus (PMG 815-824) first recounts the episode of P. and > Galatea [1], so popular in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. With patience and humility P. from on land tries to win the love of the

murder, but without mentioning P.), Merope hides her youngest son > Aepytus [4] (in the eponymous tragedy by Euripides: > Cresphontes [2]) from P. with her father. Hyg. Fab. 137 calls the son Telephontes and says that he appeared before P. a few years later, claiming the reward on his head for himself. Merope hereupon almost kills the supposed murderer of her son, but recognizes him in time. P. is later killed by mother and son at a religious ceremony. HE.B.

mermaid; she, however, spurns the clumsy, lovesick

giant and teases him by continually escaping from him into her native element. P. consoles himself by dancing and singing (Theocr. 11; Ov. Met. 13,750-878). This part ‘burlesque’, part ‘bucolic’ image of P. now takes its place alongside that of Homeric epic. A further story is that of his fellow-suitor > Acis, whom P. kills out of jealousy (Ov. Met. 750-897). There is a full study ofthe literary material in [1. 406-411] and of the pictorial

+ Phrynichus [1], tragedian, first victory between 482 and 471 (DID A 3a, 13), successful at the Dionysia in 471 (DID A 1, 22). In 467 he is recorded as third to ~ Aeschylus [1], who won with his Theban trilogy, and Pratinas’ son > Aristias [2] with his trilogy Lykourgeia (IrGFI7).

representations in [2. rorr—1org].

As the giant, rough, uncivilized son of > Poseidon, P. evidently personifies the side of his father that is antagonistic to man, as a god who sends destructive storms at sea, earthquakes, seaquakes, volcanic eruptions and other natural disasters [3. 69]. Where the theme has been taken up in modern literature and art, it almost without exception relates to P.’ unrequited love for Galatea [4. 432-436]. ~ Euripides [1] 1 F. Bomer, P. Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen: Kommentar, Buch 12-13, 1982 2 O. TOUCHEFEN-MEYNIER, S. V. P. (x), LIMC 8.1, ror1—1019; 8.2, 666-675 3 SIMON,

GG, 69

Polyphrasmon (Moav@ecoumv/Polyphrasmon). Son of

4HuNGER, Mythologie 432-436

5B. FELL-

MANN, Die antike Darstellungen des Polyphemabenteuers, 1972.

Polyphron

B.Z.

(Modvewv/Polyphrén).

Brother

of

-» Jason [2] of Pherae and in 370 BC his successor together with their brother > Polydorus [7] (Xen. Hell. 6,4,33). He killed the latter (Xen. Hell. 6,4,33; erroneous: Alexander [15] Diod. Sic. 15,61,2) a short time after. “He turned the position as — tagds into a tyranny” by banishing citizens of Larisa and killing, among others in Pharsalus, > Polydamas [3] (Xen. Hell. 6,4,34). His nephew Alexander [15] deposed him in 369 (Xen. Hell. 6,4,34; Plut. Pelopidas 29). H. Berve, Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen, 1967, 289f.; 670.

J.Co.

Ke

Polypoetes (Moduxoitns/Polypoites). Polyphonte (oAvovtn/Polyphoénté). Daughter of Hipponous and Thrassa, the daughter of Ares. P. spurns > Aphrodite, sets off into the mountains and there becomes a companion of > Artemis. Aphrodite therefore punishes P. with love for a bear, and she gives birth to the man-eating twins Agrius and Oreus. Zeus intends to have their limbs cut off, but Ares causes them

and their mother to be turned into birds. P. becomes the owl that announces war and discord to people (Antoninus Liberalis 21).

Sin

[1] Son of > Peirithous and > Hippodamia [2], takes part in the Trojan War with 4o ships, mostly mentioned together with — Leonteus [1] (Hom. Il. 2,740ff.; 12,1826f.; 23,83 6ff.; cf. Apollod. 3,130; Apollod. epit. 3,14). According to Quint. Smyrn. 12,318, he was one of the heroes inside the Trojan Horse. After the war, he goes to Colophon with > Calchas (Apollod. epit. 6,2) and founds > Aspendus (Eust. ad Hom. Il. 2,740). He was depicted together with > Acamas in Polygnotus’ {x] painting in the > /ésché of the Cnidians at Delphi (Paus. 10,26,2).

Polyphontes (Mokugdovme/Polyphontes). [1] Theban, son of Autophonus, out of offended pride,

together with Maion [1], sets a trap for > Tydeus and is killed by him (Hom. Il. 4,3 91ff.). [2] Theban,

favourite

of Artemis

and opponent

of

+ Capaneus in the assault of the > Seven against Thebes (Aesch. Sept. 447ff.). [3] Herald of > Laius [1], kills a horse belonging to

~ Oedipus, who in his anger kills both him and Laius (Apollod. 3,51). [4] Descendant of Heracles (> Heraclidae), murderer of > Cresphontes [1] and two of his sons, becomes his successor as ruler of Messenia and husband of + Merope [3], the daughter of the Arcadian king Cypselus (Apollod. 2,180; Paus. 4,3,3 describes the

[2] Son of > Odysseus and > Callidice [2] (Procl. Cyclicorum enarrationes: Telegonia 321-330 p. 97 SEVERYNS). LK.

Polyptoton see > Figures Polyrrhenia (Modveenvia/Polyrrhénia). City in northwestern Crete (Ptol. 3,17,10; Str. 10,4,13; Scyl. 47: Tlohveenva/Polyrrhéna; Plin. HN 4,59: Polyrhenum) south of the Bay of Kissamos in an exposed position on a steep hill on the site of a village still called P. today. P. is one of the oldest Doric settlements in Crete (the place name is pre-Greek with its own dialect [1]). At the beginning of the 3rd cent. BC, P., through the mediation of Sparta, entered into an alliance with the neigh-

534

S33:

POLYTECHNUS

bouring city of > Phalasarna [2. no. 1, p. 179-181]. In

lari, 1978

the internal Cretan war for > Lyctus (221-219 BO), P.

filosofia, in: CE 6, 1976, 81-84.

headed a coalition against the Cretan leading powers of + Gortyn and + Knossos and sought support from Philip [7] V and the Achaean League (Pol. 5,53,6; 55,1-5). The consequence of a Rome-friendly stance that existed and was articulated from the outset particularly in various inscriptions (addressees among others Caecilius [I 23], Augustus, Hadrian) was Roman protection in the period after the Roman conquest of — Crete (67 BC) as well. In the 3rd cent. AD, P. lost

importance and later the settlement was abandoned. Systematic excavations have to this date not yet been carried out. Dominant on the acropolis is a Venetian fort. Ancient remains: partly well preserved city walls, Hellenistic buildings, tunnel of a Hadrianic aqueduct. — Crete (with map) 1 K.T. Wrrezax, Non-Greek Elements in the Animal Terminology of the Ancient Polyrrhenians, in: Eos 83, 1995, 17-25 2 A. CHANIOTIS, Die Vertrage zwischen kretischen Poleis in der hellenistischen Zeit, 1996.

J. W. Myers et al., Aerial Atlas of Ancient Crete, 1992, 251-255; I.F. SANDERS, Roman Crete, 1982, 172f.; R. SCHEER, Ss. v. P., in: LAUFFER, Griechenland, 559f. H.SO.

Polystratus (Modvoteatoc/Polystratos). [1] Wealthy Athenian, frequent office-holder, member of the boulé in 411 BC. After the oligarchic coup, he took part in the selection of the 5,000 citizens to whom political rights would in future be restricted. He was wounded in the naval battles against the Spartans off Eretria. After the fall of the Four Hundred (> Tetrakosioi), P. was fined heavily; he was prosecuted again c. 410/409 at age 70, probably for his political activities. Parts of his defence survive in the 20th speech of the Lysianic corpus (— Lysias [r]). H. Herter, Die Rede fiir Polystratos ({Lysias] XX), in: Klio 81, 1999, 68-94. W.S.

[2] Head of the > Epicurean School from 250 BC, succeeding > Hermarchus (Diog. Laert. 10,25); d. by 220/19. Almost no biographical details are known. He seems not to have been a direct ‘hearer’ (GxQoatic/ akroatés) of > Epicurus; his date of birth must therefore lie in the first decades of the 3rd cent. BC. The + Herculanean papyri preserve the remains of two works by P. In the first, ‘On Irrational Disdain for the Opinions of the People’ (Ileoi Ghoyou xatadeovncews tov év toig moAdoic S0EaCouévwv/Peri aldgou kataphronéseos tn en tois pollois doxazoménon: PHercul. 336/1150), P. opposes those philosophers (probably Sceptics and Cynics) who deprive popular opinion of any significance. The content of the second work, ‘On Philosophy, Book 1” (Ilegi ptAocodiag a'/Peri philosophias a’; meagre remains PHercul. 1520 [3]) is protreptic. 1M. ERLER, in: GGPh? 4.1, 247-250 2G. INDELLI (ed.), Polistrato, Sul disprezzo irrazionale delle opinioni popo-

3M. Capasso (ed.), L’opera polistratea sulla

amo

[3] Epigrammatist of the ‘Garland’ of > Meleager [8], where he is mentioned along with > Antipater [8] of Sidon (Anth. Pal. 4,1,41f.), perhaps a contemporary. Like him, P. commemorates (with cool rhetoric) the destruction of Corinth by L. [I 3] Mummius in 146 BC (ibid. 7,297). In his other surviving poem, ona lover of boys (12,91, cf. Meleager [8], ibid. 12,92), rhetorical

artifice also conceals the clarity of expression. It is not possible to confirm the suggestion of Jacoss (Anth. Gr. 13,941) identifying P. with P. of Letopolis (in Steph. Byz. s. v. Antots). GA I 1, 166; 2, 480f.

Polysyndeton

M.G.A.

(xodvoivdetov/polysyndeton,

‘bound

together many times’). Repetition of a coordinating copulative or disjunctive conjunction (cf. Quint. Inst. 9,3,50: ‘schema, quod coniunctionibus abundat: ... hoc mokvovvoetov dicitur’; also Rutilius Lupus 1,14: ‘hoc schema efficitur, cum sententiae multorum articulorum convenienti copula continentur)’. This stylistic figure of speech concerns the co-ordination of single words or syntactical units (groups of words, clauses, sentences) and emphasises the weight of individual elements. Thus, for example, 28 sections in Cic. De or. 3,207 are linked to one another by et. The polysyndeton can be construed either by repeating the same conjunction or alternatively by using different conjunctions which are textually equivalent (e.g. te xat or et -que). Its opposite is the > asyndeton. Examples: “OdvvOov pev 67 xal Me8a@vyv xat ATOAAWVLAV Kal SVO XAL TELAKOVTA MOAELS EL OQdxNS é@ (Dem. Or. 9,26); ‘qui aut deponere aut recipere aut

accipere aut polliceri aut sequestres aut interpretes corrumpendi iudicii solent esse quique ad hanc rem aut potentiam aut imprudentiam suam professi sunt’ (Cic. Verr. 1,36). -» Style, stylistic figures; > Syntax LAUSBERG, 345; SCHWYZER/DEBRUNNER, HoFMANN/SZANTYR, Index s. v. P.

Index s. v. P.; RP.

Polytechnus (Modvtexvoc; Polytechnos). In Antoninus Liberalis rx (after Boeus, Ornithogonia) the husband of + Aedon and father of — Itys. In revenge for the violation of her sister Chelidonis by P., Aedon kills their son Itys and serves him for P. to eat. In the end all participants are turned into birds, P. into a woodpecker [x. 87-89]. This is probably the purest form of ancient bird tale, which ultimately found its canonical form with — Tereus, > Procne and Philomele (Ov. Met. 6,412—674) [2.

115-119].

1M. PapATHEMOPOULOS (ed.), Antoninus Liberalis, Les Métamorphoses, 1968 2F. BOmer, P. Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen, B. 6-7, 1976.

UK.

POLYTHEISM

535

Polytheism I. IN GENERAL AND

IN CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY

Il. ANCIENT NEAR East AND EGyPpt I. IN GENERAL AND IN CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY 1. HISTORY OF THE TERM 2. CHARACTERISTICS

OF POLYTHEISTIC

RELIGIONS

1. HISTORY OF THE TERM The adjective modv0eoc/polytheos refers in poetic Greek to that which pertains to many deities: the altar as the seat (hédra) of many gods (Aesch. Suppl. 424) or the divine assembly attended by many gods (Lucian. Iuppiter Tragoedus 14). It is only in Jewish and Christian literature (> Apologists) that this concept is used to justify the rule (monarchia) of a single deity. > Philo [x2] of Alexandria coined the terms 56Ea 0db0E0¢/ doxa polytheos (Phil. De decalogo 65) and xoAv@eta/ polytheia (Phil. De mutatione nominum 205), while + Origenes [2] (C. Celsum 3,73; cf. Ps.-Iust. Mart. ad Graecos de vera religione 15) used moAvOedty¢/polytheotés, ‘the notion of a multitude of gods’, thus pointedly articulating the accusation that the ‘pagan’ worship of many deities is — as a failure to recognize the one and only true god — both eidololatreia (‘worship of images’) and > atheism. The Latin apologists did not coin a comparable term, but paraphrased the worship of many gods (colere deos), although they, too, exploited the argument of idolatry (Tert. De idololatria). The polemic reduction of polythedtés/polytheia as accusation of idolatry and atheism continued into the modern theological debate: in 1580, Jean Bodin was the first to translate the opposite concepts polytheotés — athedtés in a text by the Neoplatonist philosopher > Proclus as polythéisme — athéisme; the German translation from the French, from 1591, likewise used the Latinized terms Polytheismus [1. 10-16; and Atheismus Pon WOR Atel Polytheism and the neologism of > monotheism formed the two poles of the — in the course of the 17th cent. increasingly differentiated — debate on the origin of religion. Whereas some assumed that an original monotheism had over time degenerated into a state of polytheism, D. Hume took the latter as the starting point of religious development. Both models were further expanded in the 18th and roth cents. While supporters of the degradation model attempted to prove the purity of an original monotheism, those of the evolutionary model saw polytheism as a transitional stage between an original primitive religion (be it fetishism, animism, totemism or demonism) and the monotheistic

belief in one superior deity (doxography: [1; 2. ro88— ro9t]). Both models were based on the assumption of monotheism’s logical and moral superiority; both took monotheism as the reference point for religious evolution. Well into the 2oth cent., the acceptance of the evolutionary model in classical studies, led to the study of Greek deities as a mere part of mythology [3] and turned the gods of the allegedly ‘unmythical’ Roman religion into a marginal subject matter [4].

536 In epistemological terms, such a position is characterized by its tendency to interpret ‘polytheistic’ religions purely from the perspective of a ‘monotheistic’ intellectual tradition [5. 293; 6. 5-12; 7. 322f.]. The opposing concepts polytheism — monotheism do not, however, further an understanding of the characteristics of the complex polytheistic systems of classical antiquity. Because monotheism is used as a criterion, the question of how the deity is conceived of becomes pivotal in the classification of various types of religion [6. 15-21], although this may not necessarily have been the central category in which followers of these religions would have described them. It was only in the 2nd cent. AD, in the confrontation with Christian theology that this question gained significance, in restating the traditional argument that a superior god could be venerated under many names and in many different ways (Celsus: Orig. c. Celsum 7, passim; 8,65; cf. Aug. Epist. 16; Macrob. Sat. 1,17ff.; Symm. Relat. 3,10; [8]).

2. CHARACTERISTICS OF POLYTHEISTIC RELIGIONS R. Pettazoni countered the evolutionist concept of monotheism as the pivotal point of religious development with his thesis that monotheistic religions were the result of religious revolutions and thus the ‘exceptions’ in the history of religion [9]. This hypothesis can be verified using the examples of the > Aton cult initiated by > Amenophis [4], Islamic monotheism (> Muhammad), and — with modifications — ancient Israel

[ro]. In contrast with such theologically radicalized, but in practice hardly realizable monotheism, the complex polytheistic systems of classical antiquity are examples of ‘normal’ pluralistic religious world views. The concept of a plurality of personalized deities, who are part of a pantheon that was differentiated according to socio-morphous patterns (for the history of scholarship see > Pantheon [r]), tallied with the choice between several alternative religious options with universal, but also regional and local distinctions ([5; 7. 323327]; cf. [rz. vol. 1]; > epiclesis). > Hippolytus’ [x] classical conflict of loyalties — he neglected Aphrodite in favour of Artemis — made clear the need to balance alternative religious options against each other [12]. The > theologia tripertita mentions (public) cult, + myth and drama, and philosophical speculation as three complimentary patterns of interpretation in religious communication. From > Xenophanes (fr. 23 DK) on, an integral element of these interpretative patterns was the notion of an — occasionally conceived of as transcendental ~ divine being or universal god (see > pantheus). The notion of ‘pagan monotheism’, based on evolutionist concepts, disregards the fact that the achievement of classical polytheistic systems lies in its ability to absorb monotheistic patterns of behaviour and balance them against competing systems of meaning. These two complimentary elements in the construction of religious systems — integration and balance through selection — not only explain the susceptibility for the theological monotheism of the Jewish and Chri-

7

538

stian religions, but also the resistance against their universalistic orientation [13]. Integration and balance are therefore the two cornerstones of religious behaviour within polytheistic systems. Religious meaning was constituted not by mere accumulation, but by selection from a potentially infinite range of options — gods, cults, rituals, and concepts. A lack of balance between various religious systems would have overstrained the potential for integration. That is why selection also means the possibility of internal singularization and standardization, and the potential rise of — externally orientated — exclusions and conflicts, witness the Athenian prosecutions for impiety (-> asebeia), the Roman > Bacch-

Polytimetus (IModvtipytoc/Polytimetos). River in Sogdiana; modern Zeravshan in Uzbekistan, rising in the Alay and either petering out c. 640 km in the Kyzylkum (desert) or flowing into the Oxus (> Araxes [2]) (Aristob. FGrH 139 F 28a; Arr. Anab. 4,5,6; 4,6,7; Ptol.

analia or the persecution of Christians (~ Tolerance).

~ Religion; > Ritual; > Sondergétter 1 F. ScumupT, Polytheisms: Degeneration or Progress?, in: Id. (ed.), The Inconceivable Polytheism, 1987, 9-60 2R. HULSEWIESCHE, S. LORENZ, s. v. P. (1), HWdPh 7, 1989, 1087-1093 3A. Henricus, Die Goétter Griechenlands, 1987 (= H. FLasnar (ed.), Auseinandersetzungen mit der Antike, 1990, 116-162) 4 J. SCHEID, Polytheism Impos-

POLYXENA

6,14,25 Curt. 7,10,1-3). H. TREIDLER,

s. v. Polytimetos,

RE

21,2,

1836-1838.

E.O.

Polytropus (Modteono0¢/Polytropos). Commander of a detachment of mercenaries recruited in Corinth, which fought for Sparta in 370/369 BC against the newly founded — koinén of the Arcadians (see also ~ Arcadians, Arcadia, with map; [1. 8off.]) and occupied the polis of > Orchomenus [3] because it did not wish to join the Arcadians’ League. P. fell in action against Mantinean troops (Xen. Hell. 6,5,11-14; cf. Diod. Sic. 15,62,1-3). 1H. Beck, Polis und Koinon, 1997.

K.-W.W.

sible; Or, The Empty Gods: Reasons Behind a Void in the History of Roman Religion, in: [1], 303-325

5B. Gra-

DIGOW, Strukturprobleme polytheistischer Religionen, in: Saeculum 34, 1983, 292-304 6G. AHN, ‘Monotheismus — Polytheismus’: Grenzen und Méglichkeiten einer Klassifikation von Gottesvorstellungen, in: M. Dierricu, O. Loretz (eds.), Mesopotamica — Ugaritica — Biblica, 1993, 1-24 7B. GLapicow, s. v. Polytheismus, HrwG 4, 1998, 321-330 8 W. LIEBESCHUETZ, The Speech of Praetextatus, in: P. ATHANASSIADI, M. FREDE (eds.), Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, 1999, 185-205 9R. PETTAzZONI, La formation du monoth€isme, in: RHR 88, 1923, 193-299 10B. LANG, s. v. Monotheismus, HrwG 4,

1998, 148-165 11D. SapBatucct, Politeismo, 3 vols., 1998 12 B. GLtapicow, Chresthai theois — Orientierungs-

und Loyalitatskonflikte in der griechischen Religion, in: Cu. Exsas, H.G. KrprenBerG (eds.), Loyalitatskonflikte

in der Religionsgeschichte, 1990, 237-251 13 Y. AMIR, Der jiidische Eingottglaube als Stein des Anstofses in der hellenistischen-romischen Welt, in: Jahrbuch fiir Biblische Theologie 2, 1987, 58-75. AN.BE.

Il. ANCIENT NEAR EAST AND EGyPT The religions of the Ancient Near East were completely polytheistic. The individual gods of the various local and territorial pantheons ( Pantheon) embodied

either certain natural or cosmic powers or some aspect of civilization. Henotheistic or monolatric movements (e.g. the Egyptian cult of + Aton under Echnaton) or trends (~ Nabaiand > Marduk in > Babylonia [r]) can be observed. A special case is veneration of + Yahweh by the tribes of Israel, as initially this had been one god among others. The transformation of the Yahweh cult into a monotheistic religion took place at the earliest after 722/720 and latest after the destruction of — Jerusalem in 586/582 BC. 1 W. von SopEN, Monotheiotetistische Tendenzen und

Traditionalismus im Kult in Babylonien im r. Jt. v. Chr., in: Studie materiali di storia delle religioni 51, 1985, 5-19.

J.RE.

Polyxena (Todv&évn/Polyxéné, Latin Polyxena). Daughter of > Priamus and > Hecabe. In the Cypria (PEG I fr. 34) she is killed by > Odysseus and > Diomedes [1] and buried by Neoptolemus [1]. Another tradition tells of her being sacrificed by the Greeks on ~+ Achilles’ [1] grave (Iliupersis argumentum PEG I p. 89; Hyg. Fab. 110; Apollod. epit. 5,23), because his spirit demands the sacrifice (Eur. Hec. 37-41; 107-115; Ov. Met. 13,441-448; Quint. Smyrn 14,234-245) and threatens to prevent the Greek fleet from returning home. Neoptolemus himself often appears as the person who carries out the sacrifice (Ibycus fr. 307 PMG). P.’s fate and her brave demeanour are embellished (Eur. Hec. 1-628; Verg. Aen. 3,321-324; Ov. Met. 13,439-480; Sen. Tro. 1132-1164; Quint. Smyrn 14,304-323). Almost nothing survives of Sophocles’ Polyxéné (TrGF 4 p. 403-407) and the one by Euripides Minor (No. 17 T 1 IrGF 1) In Sen. Tro. 864-887 P. is lured to the sacrifice under the pretence of a marriage to Achilles. This idea is connected with the theme of Achilles’ love for P.: he is said to have seen her at the negotiations for the ransom of Hector’s body or whilst spying on > Troilus and to have fallen in love with her (Dictys 3,2f.; 4,rof.). When he is about to negotiate about the marriage in the sanctuary of Apollo Thymbraeus, > Paris kills him (Hyg. Fab. 110; schol. Eur. Tro. 16; Serv. Aen. 3,321). In Philostratus’ account (VA 4,16,4), P. kills herself on Achilles’ grave because of her love for him. For P.’s afterlife see [1]. 1 Huncer, Mythologie, 343. BIBLIOGRAPHY: R.E. Harper, Die Frauenrollen bei Euripides, 1993, 179-189, 401-407; Cu. SEGAL, Golden

Armor and Servile Robes: Heroism and Metamorphosis in Hecuba of Euripides, in: AJPh Violence and the Other: Greek, Euripides’ Hecuba, in: TAPhA TOUCHEFEU-MEYNIER, s. v. P.,

109, 1990, 304-317; Id., Female, and Barbarian in 120, 1990, 109-131; O.

LIMC 7.1, 431, 434f.; E.

Wust, s. v. P. (1), RE 21, 1840-1850.

POLYXENA

540

539

Aps.: $.F. SCcHRODER, Der Achill-Polyxena-Sarkophag im Prado: ein wenig bekanntes Meisterwerk, in:

FRAGMENTS:

MDAI(Madrid) 32, r991, 158-169; G. SCHWARZ, Achill und Polyxena in der romischen Kaiserzeit, in: MDAI(R) 99, 1992, 265-299; N. Seving¢, A New Sarcophagus of

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Polyxena from the Salvage Excavations at Guimiis¢ay, in: Studia Troica 6, 1996, 251-264; O. TOUCHEFEU-MEyNIER, Ss. v. P., LIMC 7.2, 345-347. R.HA.

K. DOrING, Die Megariker, 67-70; 166—

170.

Id., s.v. Polyxenos, GGPh*

DEE.

Polyxenus (MoiEevoc/Polyxenos, ‘he who has many guests’).

[1] Poetic epithet for the god of the underworld (+ Hades, > Pluto): Aesch. Supp. 156f. etc. (cf. > Polydectes [2]). [2] Mythical king of Elis; holds in safekeeping the cattle stolen from — Electryon; > Amphitryon releases them and receives Electryon’s daughter > Alcmene in return (Apollod. 2,5 5f.; Schol. Lycoph. 932). [3] Mythical king of Elis, grandson of > Augeias; suitor

K-H.S.

[6] P. Soter (II. Swtho/P. Sotér, Middle Indian Palasina). Indo-Greek king at the end of the 2nd or in the rst cent. BC, attested only by his coins. BOPEARACHCHI, 99, 286.

Polyxenidas (IModvEevidac/Polyxenidas). Banished Rhodian (Liv. 37,10,1; App. Syr. 21,97), general and admiral under — Antiochus [5] III, in 209 BC led Cretan auxiliary troops against the Parthian king + Arsaces [2] II (Pol. 10,29,6). In the war against Rome he was beaten at Corycus in 191, destroyed the Rhodian fleet under — Pausistratus at Samian Panormus in 190 (Liv. 37,8-11) and after a success against the Romans lost half his fleet at > Myonnesus (Liv. 36,41-45; 37,27-30; App. Syr. 22,103-109; 24,114—120; 27, 132-136). A.ME.

2.1, 236-

KK.

Polyxo (HoAv&w/Polyx0). [1] One of the > Hyades. [2] Wife of > Nycteus, mother of > Antiope [x]. [3] Wife of > Tlepolemus. After he fell in the Trojan

War, she holds funeral games for him in Rhodes where she had fled with him from Argos. When her friend + Helena [1] flees to her, she has her — as the guilty party in the war in which her husband died — hanged on a tree by female servants dressed as Erinyes (Paus. 9,19,9f.); this forms the aetion for the cult of Helena Dendritis there [1; 2; 3]. In Polyaenus,

Strat. 1,13, + Menelaus [1] saves Helena by deceiving the Rhodians and handing over a disguised female slave in her stead. [4] Nurse of Hypsipyle (> Lemnian women, Hypsipyle); she organizes the friendly reception of the > Argonauts on Lemnos (Apoll. Rhod. 1,668ff.; Hyg. Fab. 15). In Val. Fl. 2,3 16ff., she is a prophetess. 1 NiLssoNn, Feste, 426 2 NILsson, GGR, vol. 1, 315, 487 3 WILAMOWITZ, vol. 1, 122.

TEKS

of > Helena [1] (Apollod. 1,130); in the Trojan War,

commander of 40 ships of the Epeians (together with ~ Amphimachus [2], > Diores [1] and Thalpius: Hom. Il. 2,615-624). In the > Telegony, > Odysseus visits P. and receives a kratér with the images of > Trophonius, Agamedes and > Augeias (Procl. Cyclicorum enarrationes

309-312 SEVERYNS; cf. Hom. Od. 14,100; 20,209; 23,355). His son’s name is Amphimachus (Paus. 5,3,4). P. dies in Elis (Ps.-Aristot. Peplos 36). [4] Son of Jason (> Jason [1]) and Medea (Paus. 2,3,8); his name is also given as Medeus (Hes. Theog. rooof.; Paus. 2,3,9 after Cinaethon) or Medus (Apollod. 1,147; Hyg. Fab. 27); sometimes his father is also given as — Aegeus (so Hyg. L.c.). LK. [5] Philosopher of the circle of + Plato [1]; sometimes also reckoned in the Megarian tradition (> Megarian School) as he is described in Plato’s 13th epistle as hetairos of Bryson (36o0bc). Plato is said to have sent him to Dionysius [2] Il in Syracuse c. 360 BC. P. appears as a minor character in three anecdotes (Plut. Mor. 176c-d; Diog. Laert. 2,67-77; Gnomologium Vaticanum 194). According to Alex. Aphr. in Aristot. Metaph. 83,3485,12 Haypbuck, a variety of the tritos anthropos argument against the Platonic doctrine of Ideas (cf. in this regard already Pl. Prm. 132a-133a) originates with P.: man whose being is dependent on the Idea must be a ‘third’ man differing from both the idea and the individual.

Polyzelus (Moavtnroc/Polyzélos). [1] Comic poet of the late 5th and early 4th cent. BC; won four victories at the Lenaea [1. test. 2]. 13 frr. and five titles survive. Four of them are mythological (Adeoditns yovai/Aphrodités gonai, ‘The Birth of Aphrodite’; Anuotuvddagews/Demotyndareos, Atovicov yovait/Dionysou gonai, “The Birth of Dionysus’; Movoov yovai/Mousén gonai, ‘The Birth of the Muses’); he evidently favoured comedic presentations of the births of gods, a special variety of mythological play in vogue at the turn of the 5th and 4th cent. or shortly thereafter [2. 15-18]. ‘Demotyndareos’ is dated CRALO) (CEM iets 531). 1 PCG VU, 1989, 553-559 2H.-G. NEssELRATH, Myth, Parody and Comic Plots, in: G. DoBrov (ed.), Beyond Aristophanes, 1995, 1-27. B.BA.

[2] P. of Rhodes wrote a Rhodiakd c. 300 BC, a local history of Rhodes; its compass, intention and chronological sweep are unknown. The nine surviving frr. (including five in the > Lindian Chronicle) reveal manifold interests. FGrH 521 with commentary. K.MEI. Pomegranate, Pomegranate tree (G6a/rh6a, oidn/side, malum punicum or granatum; its flower, called xbtwoc/

kytinos and given as a loan word in Plin. HN 23,r10ff.,

541

542

has strange medicinal benefits) The species Punica granatum L. grows wild in the Near East from Kurdistan to Afghanistan. It had probably been naturalized since the 16th dynasty in Egypt (around 1600 BC) and in southern Europe since the Neolithic Period, probably by the Phoenicians. The pomegranate as an attribute of + Astarte and symbol of fertility because of the many seeds in its juicy flesh supports this theory. However, it also played a role in the mythology related to the Mysteries of Demeter: > Persephone becomes bound to Hades [1. 51] by eating a pomegranate. It was also associated with the goddesses Hera, Aphrodite and Athena. According to Arnob. 5,6 i.a., the pomegranate tree grew from the blood of > Agdistis. > Attis’ mother became pregnant by touching it. A pomegranate tree was planted on the graves of Menoeceus and Eteocles. According to Diod. Sic. 5,62, Rhoeo, daughter of Staphylus (from otavaAr/staphylé, ‘grape-bunch’), was Apollo’s lover. Certain nymphs, called Rhoiai, lived on them. Theophrastus (Hist. pl. 2,2,9-10 et passim), Pliny (HN.

13,112-113;

15,39;

17,65-67

et passim)

and

Columella (5,10,15f. et passim) describe in detail the cultivation of the fruit tree and its various types. Dioscorides (1,110-111, WELLMANN I. 103-105 = I,151— 154, BERENDES 131f.) praises its easy wholesomeness and prescribes various parts of it i.a. for illnesses of the stomach and the bowels. The astringent flowers of the wild pomegranate were recommended in pharmacies as flores balaustiorum for gargling [2. 125]. > Fruit 1 H. BauMANN, Die griechische Pflanzenwelt, 1982 2 J. BILLERBECK, Flora classica 1824, repr. 1972. C.HU.

Pomerium. The pomerium was the line, important in religious law, which at Rome and its colonies (+ coloniae) divided the urbs from the ager, i.e. the city in the strictest sense from its surrounding territories. Even in antiquity, the meaning of the word was obscure. According to point of view, it was etymologically explained as the line ‘behind’ (post or pone murum) or ‘in front of (promoerium) the city wall (Varro Ling. 5,143 and Gell. NA 13,14,1 versus Fest. 295), but neither etymology is likely to be tenable

The establishment of the pomerium constituted the climax of a city foundation ‘according to the Etruscan rite’ (ritu Etrusco). The most detailed descriptions of this form of ceremonial are those of > Romulus’ foundation of Rome (all sources in [2. 1868]). The city founder, having obtained the augurium (> augures), drew his toga over his head (cinctus Gabinus) and cut the boundary furrow (sulcus primigenius) with a plough drawn by a white bull and a white cow. Where gates were planned, the plough was lifted out and carried across the width of the gateway. The furrow slices falling inward symbolized the wall (murus), the furrow the ditch (fossa). It is clear that considerations of fortification (inclusion of precipices in fortifications) meant that

POMERIUS,

IULIANUS

the pomerium could not everywhere coincide with the future city wall — all the more so in the case of existing cities in which a colony was founded by deductio. In spite of the growth of cities, the pomerium was seldom advanced. Extension was later interpreted as a right of kings (lex de imperio Vespasiani) or a right conceded to whoever had expanded the populus Romanus by conquering enemy territory (qui populum Romanum agro de hostibus capto auxerat: Gell. NA 13,14,33 cf. Tac. Ann. 12,23). The first pomerium of Romulus probably circled the Palatine (~ Mons Palatinus); this is suggested by ditches in the vicinity of the Arch of Titus (cf. [3. 578ff.]). An extension ascribed to Servius > Tullius (mid—6th cent. BC) may have included the City of Four Regions and the Capitol (> Capitolium). Thereafter, only Cornelius [I 90] Sulla, — Caesar, + Augustus (?), Claudius [III 1], Vespasian (+ Vespasianus) and finally perhaps Hadrian (> Hadrianus) advanced the pomerium. Their activities are attested by boundary stones (‘pomerial cippi’) (CIL VI 31537Diesen teris [li ieee|) Although the pomerium thus coincided neither with the city wall nor the extent of the urban development, it was of enormous importance as the dividing line between urban and extra-urban auspices, between imperium domi and imperium militiae. This was where, on taking up a command, the magistrate or promagistrate donned the general’s cloak (paludamentum) and his lic-

tors (— lictor) fixed the axes into the fasces, and likewise here that the promagistrate’s > imperium ended on his return. The jurisdiction of the people’s tribunes only applied within the pomerium (— tribunus; later, for practical reasons, it was expanded to encompass the zone intra primum milliarium; s. [6. 66f.]), while only outside it could the centuriate assemblies (+ comitia) hold sessions, sanctuaries be erected to foreign gods and the dead be buried. A pomerium is also mentioned in connection with late Republican coloniae (> Lex Ursonensis 73 for Urso; CIL X 3825 for Capua), but nothing precise can be said as to its significance. 1M. ANprReEussI, s. v. P., LTUR 4, 1999, 96-105 2A. VON BLUMENTHAL, s. v. P., RE 21, 1867-1876 3A. CARANDINI, La nascita di Roma, 1997 4 F. Casavota, Il

concetto di urbs Roma, in: Labeo 38, 1992, 20-29

5B.

Liou-GILLE, Le p., in: MH 50, 1993, 94-106 6 MOMMSEN, Staatsrecht r.

H.GA.

Pomerius, Iulianus. From Mauretania; Christian priest, settled as a teacher of rhetoric towards the end of the 5th cent. AD in Arelate/Arles, where he taught i.a. — Caesarius [4] of Arelate (Gennadius Vir. ill. 99; Isid. Vir. ill. 25). Of De natura animae et qualitate eius there are only a few traces; De vita contemplativa survives in full in 3 bks. and develops a theory of virtue and vice. Though imitative of > Augustinus and > Hieronymus [8] the work is independent and was still influential in the Middle Ages.

POMERIUS, IULIANUS EDITION: PL 59, 415-520. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

M. SPINELLI, II sacerdos docens nel De

vita contemplativa di Giuliano Pomerio, in: F. SERGIO (ed.), Crescita dell’uomo nella catachesi dei Padri, 1988, 287-300.

K.P.

Pomiculture I. ANCIENT NEAR East

II. CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY

I. ANCIENT NEAR EAST

See > horticulture II]. CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY

The cultivation of fruit trees (@xed5ova/akrodrya; Lat. pomi, poma) in antiquity was regarded as an integral part of > horticulture; however, fruit trees were also often planted as intercrops in viticulture (+ Wine); there were also some separate orchard plantations (naodde.ooc/parddeisos;

544

543

Lat.

pometum,

pomarium).

Evidence for the cultivation of fruit trees, esp. the > fig, dates back into the Mycenaean period. Pomiculture is always referred to formulaically in Homer in the same sequence: pear, pomegranate, apple, fig (Hom. Od. 7,114-116; 24,336-340). In Archaic and Classical Greece, there seems to have been no special importance attached to pomiculture; Xenophon mentions fruit trees, at any rate, only in passing in connection with vineyards, specifying only the fig by name (Xen. Oec. 19,12), since it had to be counted among the staples; fig

planting was even the object of legislation of Solon (Plut. Solon 23,7). Comedy bears witness to the availability of a wide range of fruits at Athens in the 4th cent. BC (Ath. 640b-c). As is suggested by the numerous references to fruit trees in Theophrastus and papyrus finds from Ptolemaic Egypt, pomiculture increased in importance in the Hellenistic period; fruit trade via specialized traders is also well documented in Egypt. Pomiculture was widespread in Italy from at least the 2nd cent. BC. The elder Cato wished to see as many fruit varieties as possible grown on a plot close to the city (Cato Agr. 7,3f.; 8,1), and Varro made the decidedly over-emphatic observation that all of Italy was an orchard (Varro, Rust. 1,2,6; cf. also 1,59). From the rst half of the rst cent. BC, new fruits such as the cherry (> Cherry Tree) had become naturalized in Italy. For

some fruits numerous varieties were known, e.g. some 60 cultivars of pear (> Pear Tree). Pliny offers a comprehensive survey of the fruit types known in Italy (Plin. HN 15,35-110); Longus gives a detailed description of an orchard on Lesbos (Longus 4,2). Pomiculture was

widespread into Late Antiquity (cf. Pltal. II 29,13 [9]); considerable heed was still paid to arboriculture in the — Geoponica. Columella preserves instructions for creating an orchard (5,10,1-2); Pliny also offers plentiful information on pomiculture (Plin. HN 17). Fruit tree propagation was carried out using cuttings or suckers (cf. Plin. HN) (Columella 5,10,6; Columella De arboribus 20,1; cf. Cato Agr. 51-52; Plin. HN 17,96); trees grown

from seed frequently reverted to the wild form. Columella (5,11; cf Plin. HN 17,101-114) describes the various methods of refining trees by grafting (insitio). Pomiculture serving needs beyond immediate personal use was generally confined to the vicinity of towns; harvests were sold at market (Cato Agr. 7f.). There is evidence, for instance, of a thriving pomiculture in Rome’s suburbs, where orchards grew even in cemeteries (cf. Petron. Sat. 71,7). Records show trading in fruit at Rome (ILS 7495; Circus Maximus: ILS 7496; cf. also Varro, Rust. 1,2,10 on the via Sacra) as well as at smaller cities such as Pompeii (CIL [IV 149; 180; 183 = ILS 6431c; CIL IV 202 = ILS 6411a), Capua (CIL X 3956 = ILS 3413) and Corfinium (AE 1983,319). Fruit

was also imported, e.g. figs were brought from Caria (Cic. Div. 2,84; Plin. HN 15,83). + Agriculture; > Fruit; > Nutrition 1J. ANDRf, Essen und Trinken im alten Rom, 1998 (French: L’alimentation et la cuisine 4 Rome, 1961, *r981) 2D. and P. BROTHWELL, Food in Antiquity. A Survey of the Diet of Early Peoples, *1998 3 FLACH 4 IsaGER/SKYDSGAARD Rom, 1995, 317-319;

5 JONES, LRE Il, 768 6 KOLB, 325- 326 7 W. RicuHTeER, Die

Landwirtschaft im homerischen Zeitalter (ArchHom 2,2), 1990 8M. SCHNEBEL, Die Landwirtschaft im hellenistischen Agypten, 1925 9 J.-O. TJADER (ed.), Die nichtliterarischen lateinischen Papyri Italiens aus der Zeit 44 5-700 (Acta Instituti Romani Regni Sueciae 19,2), 1982 10J.M.

C. ToynBEE, Death and Burial in the Roman World, 1971, 94-100

11 WHITE, Farming, 247-267.

K.RU.

Pomona. The Roman goddess of fruit, Lat. pomum (Fest.

144,12f.

L.; Varro

Fr. 181,

189

CARDAUNS),

whose sanctuary (pomonal) was situated outside Rome on the via Ostiensis in the ager Solonius (Fest. 296,1517 L.; [1. 144f.]). The Roman calendars do not record any festival for P.; movable festival days (feriae conceptiuae) are probable [2. 199]. P. had a flamen minimus (> flamines; Fest. 144,13. L.; CIL II 12732); the description minimus probably does not refer to a hypothetical subordinate status of the goddess, but reflects differentiation within the flaminate [3. 27f., 46-50]. As the wife of > Picus (Serv. Aen. 7,190), and together with — Vertumnus (Ov. Met. 14,623-771), P. became the subject of mythology only in the Imperial period; early cult parallels from Italy, as well as the existence of her own flamen, testify to the antiquity of the goddess (Tabulae Iguvinae III-IV; VeTTER no. 227; cf. [4. 60 note r]). 1 R.A. PatMer, The Archaic Community of the Romans, 1970 2G. Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Rémer, *r912 3 J. VANGGAARD, The Flamen, 1988 4 DuMEZzIL. CRP.

Pompa see > Procession

Pompaelo. City in the lands of the > Vascones, modern Pamplona in Navarre, founded by Pompeius [I 3] (Str. 354,10: TloumtAwy wc av Tounnonokuc/Pompélon hos

545

546

an Pompéiopolis, ‘Pompelon as if Pompeiopolis’) in the winter of 75/4 BC during a war with + Sertorius where the Tarraco-Oiasso (Str. l.c.) and Astorga-Roncevalles

Pompeianus

(It. Ant. 455,5) roads cross. Roman remains: street and

drainage system, city wall, a macellum, building sites with mosaics, small finds. Inscriptions: CIL III 29582961. Episcopal see since the 6th cent. TOVAR r81f.

2,3,

1989, 401-404;

TIR

K 30 Madrid,

1993, PB.

Pompeia [1] Granddaughter of Cornelius [I 90] Sulla, sister of Q. Pompeius [I 6] Rufus. From 67 BC onwards, the second wife of + Caesar (Plut. Caesar 5). Within the context of the + Bona Dea scandal, Caesar separated from her in 62, alleging that he suspected P. of infidelity (Cic. Att. 7.29533 Plut: Caesar 10,8—9; Plut. Cicero 29,9; Suet. Tul. 6,33 74,2; Cass. Dio 37,45,2).

[2] Daughter of Pompeius [I 3] Magnus and > Mucia Tertia, engaged to be married to Faustus Cornelius {1 87] Sulla, the son of the dictator Cornelius [I 90] Sulla. After the dictator’s death, wife of L. Cornelius {I x9] Cinna, Caesar’s brother-in-law (Sen. Clem. 1,9,2). In 54 BC, Caesar planned to marry P. so as to unite Pompey with him again (Suet. Jul. 27,1). H.S. [3] P. Agrippinilla. Probably the sister of M. Pompeius {Il 13] Macrinus, cos. suff. in AD 164; wife of M. Gavius [II 11] Squilla Gallicanus, cos. ord. in 150. Priestess in the cult of Dionysus. PIR* P 667. G. ALFOLDy, Gallicanus noster, in: Chiron 9, 1979, 507-

544; esp. 52rf.

[4] P. Celerina. Mother-in-law of the younger > [2], wife of Bittius Proculus. Pliny remained in contact with her even after her daughter, Pliny’s wife, had died. PIR* P 670. [5] P. Macrina. Daughter of the eques Pompeius her brother was a senator (cf. - Pompeius [II

Plinius regular first (?) Macer; 12]). P.

POMPEII

[1] Cos. ord. in AD 209. Identical with L. Aurellius Commodus P. (AE 1978, 733 = 1979, 560; RMD SEG 32, 1149). PIR* P 568.

1, 73;

[2] Cos. suff. on 13 May ofan unknown year (CIL XVI 127); it is possible that there is a connection with the P.

who is mentioned in CIL VI 40646 as consul in about AD 212. PIR* P 567; 569.

[3] Clodius P. (PIR* P 570) see > Clodius [II 12] [4] C. Gabinius Barbarus P. (PIR* P 566) see > Gabinius [II 1] W.E. [5] Gabinius Barbarus P. Proconsul Africae AD 400-

401, probably the > praefectus urbi Romae who in 408, with > Alaricus [2] approaching, attempted to ward off the danger with ‘pagan’ sacrifices (allegedly with the consent of Pope > Innocentius I) and in 409 perished in a popular uprising. Previously he had probably proposed dispossessing Valerius > Pinianus [2] and his wife + Melania [2], but this could no longer be discussed in the Senate. He had a conflict with > Symmachus over a shared land boundary in Baiae. PLRE 2, 897f. (P. 2). K.G.-A. Pompeii (Mouneta/Pompeia, Mounta/Pompéia). I. LOCATION AND POPULATION II]. ARCHAEOLOGY

IJ. History

I. LOCATION AND POPULATION

City in - Campania at the foot of > Vesuvius. P. was a major trading centre thanks to its ideal location at the mouth of the > Sarnus (Str. 5,4,8; Plin. HN 3,62) and its rich diversity of valuable products, e.g. oil (oil mills, Cato Agr. 25,3), pumice, wine, garum (a fish sauce, > Fish dishes (and seafood); Plin. HN 31,94). According to mythology, P. was founded by Hercules (> Heracles [1] (Isid. Orig. 15,1,51). In the historical period, P. was inhabited (according to Str. 5,4,8) by + Osci, > Etrusci, > Pelasgi and > Samnites.

M.LG. and V.K.

was sent into exile in AD 33 (Tac. Ann. 6,18,2). PIR* P 674.

[6] P. Paulina. Daughter of Pompeius [II 15] Paulinus of Arelate. She married the philosopher — Seneca, with whom she was obviously deeply in love. When Seneca had to kill himself at > Nero’s command, she wanted to

join him; however, Nero prevented this. PIR* P 678. [7] P. Plotina. See > Plotina [8] P. Sosia Falconilla. Daughter of the cos. ord. of AD 149, granddaughter of Q. Pompeius [II 8] Falco, greatgranddaughter of Q. Sosius Senecio (cos. ord. 99), great-great-granddaughter of Sex. Iulius > Frontinus. She was honoured with statues in Cirta in Africa, Minturnae, Athens and Catane [1. 120f.]. PIR* P 681. 1 W. Eck, Senatorische Familien der Kaiserzeit in der Provinz Sizilien, in: ZPE 113, 1996, 109-128. W.E.

Pompeian wall paintings see > Wall paintings

Il. History Nothing is known of P. itself from the period of conflict between the Greeks and Etruscans in Campania in the 6th and sth cents. However, imported Greek pottery and Etruscan graffiti on votive offerings in the sanctuaries indicate the presence of both cultural groupings, with the Etruscans predominant [7]. From the late 5th cent., P. was under Samnite rule. A series of Oscan inscriptions dates from the 2nd cent. BC [30], mentioning the various municipal offices (-- meddix tuticus, aidiles, quastores). As previously in the Samnite Wars (— Samnites) (Liv. 9,38,2), P. also opposed Rome in the Social War (> Social Wars [3]; App. Civ. 1,39). P. was probably besieged and conquered in 89 BC by P. Cornelius [I 90] Sulla (App. Civ. 1,50; traces of artillery attack survive). It must be from this period that the so-called eituns inscriptions painted in Oscan on house walls date; these provide directions to those defending the city and

548 POMPEII

Ouses Ip BUOd
Pompeius [I 3] founded in 64 BC in the fertile valley of the river > Amnias on the important north Anatolian traffic route from the Propontis (Sea of Marmara) to Armenia (Str. 12,3,1; Cass.

Dio 37,20,2). The location at present-day Taskoprui is confirmed through inscriptions and excavation finds [x. 68f.]. Rock tombs, particularly the large one at Donalar [1. 14f.], which is decorated with reliefs, prove that the surrounding area had settlement sites as early as pre-Hellenistic times. Pompey appears to have settled soldiers from the West in P. In so far as is still extant, the list of ephebes from the Trajanic period [1. 135 No. 1] has almost only Roman names, and it emerges from a papyrus document [1. 67f.] that P. determined dates according to the Roman calendar. About 39 BC, P. was handed over again to the control of indigenous client princes by Antonius [I 9]. With the start of the era beginning in 5 BC, P. celebrated its new foundation asa metropolis and meeting-place of the parliament of the province of Paphlagonia [1. 71f.]. The families of its citizens produced some prominent officials who served the Empire: C. Claudius [II 61] Severus, governor of Arabia under Trajan, and his grandson Cn. Claudius [II 62] Severus, the son-in-law of the emperor Marcus Aurelius. The Subatianii family, including the first governor of the Severan province of Mesopotamia, appears to have had a permanent home in P. [2]. Documented as a metropolitan see from AD 325, P. was at first subordinate to > Gangra, providing bishops from the end of the roth cent. [2. 261]. The town ceased to flourish with the invasions of the Sassanids around AD 600. In the 14th cent. it is described as being in ruins [3]. 1 Cu. Marek, Stadt, Ara und Territorium ... (Istanbuler Forschungen 39), 1993 2 O.SaLomres, Die Herkunft des

Legaten Ti. Claudius Subatianus Aquila, in: ZPE 119, 1997, 245-248 3K. BELKE, Paphlagonien und Honorias (TIB 9), 1996, 260f.

C.MA.

I. REPUBLICAN PERIOD [11] P., Q. A homo novus and popular orator (Cic. Brut. 96), he became consul in 141 BC, despite resistance from the nobility and particularly from P. Cornelius [70] Scipio Aemilianus, and held command in Spain. P. blamed the failure of the sieges of > Numantia and Termantia on his predecessor L. Caecilius [I 27] Metellus Macedonicus. Nevertheless, his command was extended into 140. Because of further failures he negotiated an apparent surrender with the Numantini, the existence of which he denied when his successor arrived; the Senate ultimately sanctioned his exceedingly disputed behaviour (App. Hisp. 291-344; Cic. Rep. 3,28; Cic. Fin. 2,54; Cic. Off. 3,109). On the basis of that he was accused in 138 by Metellus and others of blackmail, but was acquitted (Cic. Font. 23; Val. Max. 8,5,1). In 136 as legate with Metellus under the consul L. Furius [I 28] Philus, again in Spain; in 133 a promtnent opponent of Ti. > Sempronius Gracchus (Plut. Tiberius Gracchus 14; Oros. 5,8,4). In 13 1 censor again with Metellus (Cic. Brut. 263); they formed the first plebeian pair of censors (Liv. Per. 59). 1 A.E. Astin, Scipio Aemilianus, 1967, Index s. v.

[I 2] See > Lenaeus W.w. [I 2a] P. Macer, Cn. (second half of the rst cent. BC).

Precise identification is disputed [1. 30-34; 2. 382; 3. 270]; presumably a son (or grandson) of the historian > Theophanes [1] of Mytilene (a friend of P. ~ Pompeius [I 3] Magnus), friend of the poet > Ovidius Naso (Ov. Am. 2,18; Ov. Pont. 2,10), author of the Latin Antehomerica (presumably not of Posthomerica), Tetrasticha and a Greek Médeia (seven verses of which are cited in Stob. 4,24,52 = IrGF I 180: Medea’s decision scene after Eur. Med. rozr1 ff.).

> Tragedy I. 1L. Gatasso

(ed.), P. Ovidii Nasonis

Epistularum

Ponto Liber II, 1995 (with It. transl. and comm.) McKeown

Pompeius. Name of a Plebeian family (connection with the Campanian city of Pompeii is unclear). The family acquired political significance with P. [I 1]; he is the origin of the Rufi branch. With P. [I 8] a related branch attained consulship and with his son Cn. P. [13] Magnus supplied the most significant member of the gens. Both lineages continue until the early Imperial

2H.

Stmon, Roms Kriege in Spanien, 1962, 108-116; 139142. K-LE.

ex

2 J.C.

(ed.), Ovid: Amores, vol. 3, 1998 (with Engl.

transl. and comm.)

3 SCHANZ/HOSIUS

2, 270.

B.Z.

{I 3] P. Magnus, Cn. Caesar’s adversary. A. EARLY CAREER (106-71) B. FROM CONSULATE TO TRIUMVIRATE (70-60) C.POMPEIUS IN ROME

(59-50) D. Civit war (49-48) CONTEMPORARIES AND LEGACY

E. JUDGMENT BY

period (family trees: [1; 2; 3]). 1 Stemma s. v. P., RE 21, 2051f. RR, Stemma V.

2PIR*P 584

3 Syme,

A. EARLY CAREER (106-71) Cn. P., son of Cn. P. [I 8] Strabo, born in Rome on 29 September 106 BC (in the same year as > Cicero), killed

on 28 September 48 in Egypt (pridie natalem, Vell. 2,533), began his military career during the > Social Wars [3] (91-89) in his father’s army (cos. 89). In the subsequent civil war between L. > Cornelius [I 90]

-.

&

r

=

°

4

_B

Ri og

(0)

ae

BYaID Woy)

a

OOL

°

00z

G

DS

F

fo}

fo)fe}

Vv

‘Wea °p I

“ol 1}

7 °

eeu ‘ e8

OO€

ofl)fea

Ve 0" yoeos cOd

Bs

“

:

T

)

a

e

ny

BAW

sek oa N }

;

nt

® 6 oo

Tuk e

ab ¢

uit

Wes

j-~'

e

ao

y=~

le

yl

(

OD

=

a

Le

5

“bh

LL‘OL

°

“9

“SG

ae °

*|

u

eueydeyy

oO

°

°

EWLO, esciie

S

N

210g 0]

e

:

Z

;

soyAuag fo} If I

Soucy Of

As

ede

A

aN

ww \ A

}

\

Be

wy)

i

~ |S

;

Oe 6

,

W

PsUdIaPENg ]| eWAJOSOIaIH

eselaD))


|

24}

(Aadwog

S9UIAOId~b1S2 Japun)

Wopsuly

sauoyalpajues Ul ay} G9-99 ‘Dg -0}

pausi| ul $9 Dg

Siapiog JO 94]

ueWOY jualjo

DUA

|PIDUINGgSJ9P1OQ

uewoy auidw3 feinuiaosd) sauo0qe} /Sulyepaid pausiqeisa Aq (Aaduwiog

RAS sauBISI) ay}

4O

a

40

——

BIS

Brenan,

POLE

NS

©

I

Kadwiog

soueibty (j

.u

anseeq SIUNLWWLW!

PyeIBPIO}

umoy

Jay

$O Sasaq aweN

UOIPeIaPAJUOD WOPSuly

2qu}

UA!

ssed/aeg

papuno} Jo Aadwiog

WOPSUly

Paweual

JUPLOdWIuoed0|

/9IUIAdIg /JUAI|D [PSSPA

jeyide> 10 B /Ayediougwopsuiy

SPVIAID B419qI| Ja

ueinAq

sapoyy

sual

SPLIAID L1aql| Ja

ueiypeg wopsuly purjyesy) pure Jessen swopSury JapuN SeyeeIY, (II|

PoPpny aWeN Jo

kq

1épun)

Pyaxoup/31{

Suunpny Jo ay}saysean seqAq

te

sp—z9) (Da

Wm

gnaLR,

=

ee,

iy

eesowurs-eS

GpG

ee i

Ye

at

oOV

snzadesy

Soatiayoyy

SSS

j

egeisey P us

e

,

————-

x

:s

P 9 2

“4

Rs

PlaLpOnUY

geenpoey \ Y F|

[fo

soduy | | }

:roe

s\jodojesayy —~_

| sodesoih fs : Xf ends reid

sijodniadwog S77) eiaynajag Paid fo]

UT [6] uyediqu Byedrtues ses ere q Sie : «

ORiydey = q fot

X J\N

: q

x

syodsoig Nav+

SnyoUrpuoo ° &

wapbury Jo,

/

Ae Fg

fe)J

PasonsdowSay

teleid

1S

Blasesie> Oo]

2s

~

=}.

9

ie

Plaiesieye (exezeyWyy

P fe)

he

1M ut

Sn

PUPLIOYy Pynuod

afdure}) e)s(0

syodouseW »

SS

Ox. OS %

}/u)o

SOSILUY

yey

——j-

is

A

Hellenistic states until the end of the rule of the ~ Ptolemies in 31/30 BC. Books 41-42 comprise the history of the > Parthians, book 43 Roman history until > Tarquinius Priscus, that of the Ligures and Massilia, book 44 the history of Spain until it was conquered by - Augustus in 25 BC (+ Cantabri). A number of historical and geographical excursions are included (e.g. 17,3: Epirus until the rule of Pyrrhus; 36,2f.: Jewish history; 42,2,7-3,9: history of Armenia), with which the work places itself in the tradition of > Herodotus [1], as well as that of + Theopompus of Chios. Behind this chronological and geographical structure lies the idea of a succession of > empires or a translatio imperii, according to which the supremacy of the Assyrians passed to the Medes, to the Persians and Macedonians and finally to Rome. Roman history

573

574

itself, however, is — apart from in book 43 — not independent, but only made a theme when it is linked with the geographical areas and historical developments being dealt with, and this makes the H.P. an exception in Roman historiography, which is largely Rome-centred. The title H.P., unique in Roman historiography, matches several 4th-cent. BC Historiai Philippikai on the subject of Philip II and his period, primarily those of Theopompus of Chios (FGrH rrs F 24-246; see above); because of Philip’s formally modest role (dealt with in 2 books of 44: 8 and 9), however, it also gave occasion in scholarship for further interpretations regarding the scheme of P.’ work and his view on history (e.g. Philip as founder of Macedonian greatness and in that sense a point of departure for the whole of Hellenistic history; on this see [2. 3 54-385]). C. SOURCES AND RECEPTION The “Timagenes hypothesis’ of [3] has become significant to the history of scholarship (essentially accepted e.g. in [4. 220f.; 5. 322f.]); according to this, the H.P. are a Latin reworking of a work by > Timagenes (FGrH 88), lost apart from a few fragments, which gave the H.P. its fundamentally anti-Roman slant. By contrast more recent studies emphasize P.’ independence of thought in the bringing together and disposition of disparate sources (e.g. Ephorus, Theopompus, Timaeus, Duris, Polybius and Poseidonius; on P.’ sources: [6], especially on books 13-40: [7]) and subjects, but chiefly also breaks away from the allegedly anti-Roman tendencies of the work ([8], but cf. [9. 68] with clear emphasis on the Rome-critical passages in 28,2; 29,2,1—63; 31,5,2—9; 38,4-7).

In Antiquity the H.P. were received directly or indirectly in historiography itself as well as in collections of exempla and antiquarian works (cf. [10. 2309-2313]). One of the reasons for the keen reception of the H.P. or the Epitoma in the Middle Ages and particularly significant to its effect was the idea of the transfer of rule (claimed by the pope) from the Roman people to another and its ruler (translatio imperii; cf. [11}). 1 O. SEEL, Eine rémische Weltgeschichte, 1972 2B. R. VAN WICKEVOORT CROMMELIN, Die Universalgeschichte des P. Trogus, 1993 3 A. voN GUTSCHMID, Trogus und Timagenes, in: RhM 37, 1882, 548-555 (=Id., KS, vol. 5, 218-227) 4FGrHIIC 5 ScHanz/Hostus, vol.2 6G. Forni, M.G. ANGEL! BERTINELLI, Pompeo Trogo come fonte di storia, in: ANRW II 30.2, 1982, 1298-1362 7H.-D. RicuTer, Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Historiographie, 1987 8 R. URBAN, ‘Gallisches Bewuft-

sein’ und ‘Romkritik’ bei P. Trogus, in: ANRW

II 30.2,

1982, 1424-1443 9 J.M. ALONSO-NONeEz, An Augustan World History, in: G&R 34, 1987, 56-72 (in addition: Id.,

Trogue-Pompée et l’impérialisme romain, in: Bulletin de lAssociation G. Budé 1990, 72-86) 10 A. KLoTz,s. v. P. (142) Trogus, RE 21, 2300-2313 11 W. Gorz, Translatio Imperii, 1958. Editions: O. SEEL (ed.), P. Trogi Fragmenta,

1956; Id.

(ed.), M. Iuniani Iustini Epitoma Historiarum Philippicarum P. Trogi. Accedunt Prologi in P. Trogum, *1972; Id., P. Trogus. Weltgeschichte von den Anfangen bis Augustus,

POMPONIA

1972 (Germ. transl. and comm.); J.C. YARDLEY, W. HEK-

KEL, Justin, Epitoma of the Philippic History of P. Trogus, vol. 1 (books 11-12), 1997 (Engl. transl. and comm., esp. I-41). C.MU.

Pompilius. Roman nomen gentile of Etruscan origin (pumple). King + Numa Pompilius was considered as the first ancestor of the family. The known bearers of the name are historically insignificant. SCHULZE, 183.

[1] P. Andronicus, M. According to Suet. Gram. 8, a rst

century BC grammarian and freedman from Syria; because of his Epicurean philosophical focus, he failed to establish himself in Rome and so moved to Cumae (+ Cyme [2]). His main work, a criticism of the Annales of + Ennius [1] (Annalium Enni Elenchi in 16 books), was published by L. > Orbilius Pupillus. No frr. survive. G. Puccront, M. Pompilio Andronico, in: Studi e ricerche dell’ Istituto di Latino (Genova) 2, 1979, 141-151; J. CurisTEs, Sklaven und Freigelassene als Grammatiker und Philologen, 1979, 25-27; R.A. KASTER (ed.), C. Suetonius Tranquillus, De grammaticis et rhetoribus, 1995, 122-128.

P.L.S.

Pomponia {1] Mother of P. Cornelius [I 71] Scipio Africanus, whom she (according to Liv. 26,19,6; Gell. 6,1,1-4) is

supposed (in imitation of the history of the birth of Alexander [4] the Great) to have conceived with a snake (=Jupiter). He is also supposed to have given her an account of a dream of his, that he and his elder brother Lucius would take office as aediles, and she was very moved by this (Pol. 10,4,4—-5,7); the story is incredible and fallacious (cf. [1. 200f.]). Perhaps with its help Scipio married Aemilia, daughter of L. Aemilius [I 3 1] Paullus, and thus supported the political ties between the Aemilii, the Pomponii and the Cornelii. 1 F. W. WacBank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, vol. 2, 1967 H.H. ScuLLarD, Scipio Africanus, 1970, 28, 30f.

[2] P. Caecilia Attica. Daughter of T. Pomponius [I 5] Atticus, > Caecilia [2] Attica. [3] P. Graecina. Daughter of P. Pomponius [II 11] Grae-

cinus, wife of A. Plautius [II 3]. In AD 57 accused of — superstitio externa (she was a Jew or a Christian, cf. [x. 391]), she was handed over for judgment to her husband, who acquitted her (Tac. Ann. 13,32; cf. comm. KOESTERMANN a.l. and [2. 199; 3.12]). She was a friend of Iulia [8], whose death she is said to have mourned for 40 years. 1 W. Eck, Das Eindringen des Christentums in den Senatorenstand bis zu Konstantin dem Grofen, in: Chiron 1, 1971, 381-406 2R. BAUMAN, Women and Politics in Ancient Rome, 1992 3 J.F. GARDNER, Women in Roman

law & society, 1986. PIR? P 775; RAEPSAET-CHARLIER, 640.

ME.SCH.

POMPONIUS

575

576

Pomponius. Name of a Roman plebeian family probably deriving from the Italic praenomen Pompo, tracing back, like the Aemilii, Calpurnii and Pinarii, to one

an active part in public life (Nep. Att. 2,4—-6). In 65 (or 64: [7. 12]) he returned — at Cicero’s urging (Cic. Att. 1,2,2) — to Rome for a while, supported Cicero’s cam-

of the sons of > Numa Pompilius (Plut. Numa 21,2; cf.

paign for consulship and even made an appearance on 5 December 63 as leader of the equestrians against + Catilina (Cic. Att. 2,1,7). In the subsequent period P. stayed partly in Greece (esp. on his estate in Epirus), and partly in Rome. In 58 he was adopted in the will of his uncle Q. Caecilius [I 3] (Cic. Att. 3,20,1; Nep. Att.5,2), making him the main heir of great wealth (after this his

Nep. Att. 1,1). In the 3rd century BC the Mathones (cf. P. [I 7-9]) achieved consulship, but later the family was insignificant. The most prominent member was a friend of Cicero, T.P. [I 5] Atticus. 1 SALOMIES, 87 I. REPUBLICAN

2 SCHULZE, 212. PERIOD

II. IMPERIAL

name was: Q. Caecilius Q(uinti) f(ilius) Pomponianus Atticus: Cic. Att. 3,20, address). During Cicero’s ban-

PERIOD

III]. ACTIVE AS AUTHORS I]. REPUBLICAN

ishment P. supported him and his family (Cic. Att.

PERIOD

[I 1] P., Cn. People’s tribune in 90 BC, killed in the Civil War in 82; Cicero quite often heard him in his youth; his judgment of the orator fluctuates (Cic. De or. 3,503 Cic. Bruters2 20722

nO Shamim): K-LE. [I 2] P., M. As people’s tribune in 167 BC he thwarted with his veto the plans of the praetor M’. Iuventius [I 6] Thalna to declare war on the Rhodians (Liv. 45,21,2). As praetor in 161 he put into effect a Senate resolution banishing philosophers and rhetors from Rome (Suet. Gram. 1; Gell. NA 15,11,1). PN. {I 3] P., M. Roman equestrian and friend of C. + Sempronius Gracchus, addressee of a work by Gracchus (Cic. Div. 2,62). At first P. and P. Laetorius [2] prevented Gracchus’ suicide in 121 and protected him on his flight, until P. himself took his own life (Vell. 2,6,6f.; Plut. Gracchus 37-38; Val. Max. 4,7,2). Possibly identical with the author P. Rufus (Val. Max. 4,4 pr.). {1 4] P., T. From Veii, Roman tax collector (> Publicani). By feigning losses of army supplies at sea during the second of the + Punic Wars, he and M. Postumius [I 2] inflicted serious damage to the state because it had to make compensation. As praefectus socium in 213 BC

P. was captured by > Hanno [8], as a result of which he escaped a conviction for fraud in 212 (Liv. 25,1,3f.5

contact

(esp. by letter) with Octavian (— Augustus; Nep. Att. 20,1-2) and married > Caecilia [2] Attica his daughter from his marriage to Pilia (56 BC: Cic. Ad Q. Fr. 2,3,7) to M. > Agrippa [1]. Because of an incurable illness he decided in March of 32 BC to end his life by starving himself (Nep. Att. 22,3).

B. ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES P. was successful with his great inherited wealth. Nepos (Att. 14,3) biasedly emphasises the assets in property: lands at Arretium and Nomentum, from 68 BC onwards (Cic. Att.1,5,7) a high-yielding property at Buthrotum in Epirus (on this in particular [3. 67-78]) and other estates in the same region. Of greater significance to P.’ incomes were his financial transactions, in-

dividual speculative operations (Cic. Att. 1,6,1 ?), and

3,8-5,1). E. Bapian,

357513 3,20,2) and worked in the background for his recall. In the civil war between Caesar and Pompey he remained neutral and waited for the outcome of the fighting in Rome. From 48 onwards he championed Cicero with Caesar’s favourites (Cic. Att. 11,6,3; 7,1). Despite his nature, which was in principle conservative (Nep. Att. 6,1; Cic. Leg. 3,37), he restrained himself under Caesar’s autocratic rule and, even after Caesar was killed, avoided sticking his neck out. He was saved from > proscription by intervention of M. Antonius [I 9] (Nep. Att. ro). In his old age P. was also in close

Z6llner

und

Siinder,

1997,

10-12;

240.

K-LE. {I 5] P. Atticus, T. A friend of Cicero. A. LIFE

B. ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES C. INTELLECTUAL INTERESTS

A. LIFE Born in r1o BC ina prosperous family of equestrian rank (+ Equites Romani), P received a thorough edu-

cation, forming long-lasting friendships, e.g. with the young C. Marius [I 2] and particularly with > Cicero (Nep. Att. 1,4; 5,3). P. did not embark on a career in

office (perhaps because of contrary political circumstances [9. 451]), but dedicated himself to increasing his wealth and to cultural interests. Presumably in 86 BC he moved to Athens for a long time, where he completed his education (e.g. in 79 he attended philosophy lectures with Cicero, Cic. Fin. 1,16; 5,1), but also took

particularly regular money-lending both in Rome and in the provinces (many indications in Cicero’s letters: [2. 516f.]). From time to time P. also had > gladiators trained, in order to hire them out or sell them (Cic. Att. 4,4a,2). His activity as a publisher, formerly often assumed, is problematic. It is true that P. have specialized slaves (librarii: Nep. Att. 13,3), who produced for him valuable manuscripts to extend his comprehensive library, and placed them at the service of Cicero (and a few other acquaintances) from no later than 5 5 BC onwards (Cic. Att. 4,13,2), in order to bring into circulation a limited number of copies of their works (after critical revision), yet he ran this service probably not really as a profit-oriented business (restrictively [8]; differentiating in time [4]).

C. INTELLECTUAL INTERESTS P. was a highly educated man with extensive literary and historical interests, who advised e.g. Cicero not

Dag

578

only in a general manner but also by providing specific information. His role as a mediator in cultural life (esp. [5. 100-104]) is reflected by dedications of works not

[I 7] P. Matho, M. Consul in 231 BC, two years after his elder brother M.’ He died as augur and decemvir in 204 at an old age and — as his doubling of priestly offices shows — highly respected (Liv. 29,38,7). During the second of the » Punic Wars he is supposed to have been in command in Upper Italy (Liv. 24,10,3; 44,3) from 215 to 214; according to another tradition he and M. Claudius [I 11] Marcellus are supposed to have inflicted a defeat on + Hannibal [4] at Nola in 214 (Liv.

only by Cicero

(Laelius,

Cato

Maior),

but also by

+ Varro (De vita populi Romani) and Cornelius > Nepos [2] (De excellentibus ducibus exterarum gentium). In the field of Roman

history P. also wrote his

own (not surviving) works (complete evidence: [6]). In 60 BC Cicero received a book about his consulship written by P. in Greek (Cic. Att. 2,1,1; Nep. Att. 18,6),

but did not like its artless style. P. wrote family histories for several prominent families (partly in the middle of the gos: Nep. Att. 18,3-4). P.’ most significant writing was the Liber annalis, a chronologically accurate sum-

mary of Roman history from the foundation of the City until about 50 BC (Cic. Orat. 120), dealing with magistrates, laws, wars and treaties (Nep. Att. 18,1f.; cf. Cic.

Brut. 14f.). Cicero received the dedication copy in 47 and used it often (esp. in Brutus, Cato Maior, De fintbus; for its use by later authors cf. HRR 2,6-8). In contrast to Cicero’s letters to Atticus (> Cicero C.) P.’ replies do not survive, but can to some extent be

reconstructed from Cicero’s letters (cf. [1]). — Cicero; > Education / Culture (C.2.)— Literary acti-

vity (II.)

1S. Consout (ed.), T. Pomponi Attici epistularum ad Ciceronem reliquiae, 1913 2 R. FEGER,s. v. P. (102), RE

Suppl. 8, 503-526 3 O. PERLWITZ, Titus P. Atticus, 1992 4 J.J. PHixuirs, Atticus and the Publication of Cicero’s Works, in: CW 79, 1986, 227-237 5 E. Rawson, Intellectual Life in the Roman Republic, 1985 6 SCHANZ/ Hostus 1, 329-332 7D.R. SHACKLETON BalLey (ed.),

Cicero’s Letters to Atticus, vol. 1, 1965, 3-59 (with Engl. transl.) 8 R. SOMMER, T.P. Atticus und die Verbreitung

POMPONIUS

24,17). Both accounts are fictional, however, as is that of an ephemeral position as > magister equitum in 217 (Liv. 22,33,11-12). T. Scamitt, Die Marci Pomponii Mathones, in: Gottinger

Forum fiir Alt.-Wiss. 4, 2001.

[I 8] P. Matho, M. As > praetor peregrinus in 217 BC he notified the people of the defeat at Lake Trasimene (> Punic Wars; Liv. 22,7,8; Plut. Fabius Maximus 3,4;

cf. Pol. 3,85,7). Continuing in office in 216 he led the

Senate session after the catastrophic defeat at Cannae (Liv. 22,55,1). Of his further career in the second Punic War nothing certain is known. On his death in 211 he is named as pontifex (Liv. 26,23,7). T. Scuitt, Die Marci Pomponii Mathones, in: Gottinger Forum fiir Alt.-Wiss. 4, 2001).

[I 9] P. Matho, M. Possibly a son of P. [I 7], was aedilis

in 207 BC, in 205 participant in an embassy to Delphi (Liv. 28,45,12) and as praetor in Sicily in 204 supported P. Cornelius [I 70] Scipio’s Africa campaign (Liv. 29,24-26). Before that he had led a commission investigating — Pleminius’ misdeeds in Locri [2] (Liv. 29,20,8-113 31,12,3).

von Ciceros Werken, in: Hermes 61, 1926, 389-422 9K.E. Wetcu, T.P. Atticus: A Banker in Politics?, in: Historia 45, 1996, 450-471.

T. Scumitt, Die Marci Pomponii Mathones, in: Gottinger

[I 6] P. Dionysius, M. Freed slave of T. P. [I 5] Atticus, of Greek origin (Cic. Att. 7,18,3) and trained in scho-

II. IMPERIAL PERIOD {fl 1] C.P. Alcastus. Spartan from a respected family, Roman citizen, who held high positions in Sparta (€phoros inc. AD 132:1IG V 65; SEG 11, 523; imperial priest for life: IG V 59; SEG 11 523, 780; leader of the nomophylakes 135/6: IG V 59; cf. SEG 11, 5214). In AD 136 or 137 he was sent to Pannonia as an ambassador to L. Ceionius [3] Commodus, the adopted son and designated successor of Hadrian.

larly activity. He was active in the service of + Cicero several times: in 56 BC he helped organize Cicero’s library (Cic. Att. 4,4a,1 and 4,8,2) and in 51 went with

Cicero to Cilicia, where he e.g. taught Cicero’s son and nephew, as he had probably done before (Cic. Att. 6,1,12). Despite his hotheadedness (Cic. Att. 6,1,12; 8,5,1) he was highly esteemed by Cicero both personally and professionally (Cic. Att. 5,9,33 6,1,125 7,451), until in 50/49 there was a serious rift, when P. returned to Atticus and declined to resume teaching the young Ciceros (Cic. Att. 8,4,1f.). The dispute must have been settled later (Cic. Att. 13, 2,3; Cic. Fam. 12,24,3: 45 BC). P. seems to have run businesses of his own (of

which nothing specific is known). — Freedmen S. TREGGIARI, Roman Freedmen during the Late Republic, 1969, 119-121; J. CHRISTES, Sklaven und Freigelassene als Grammatiker und Philologen im antiken Rom, 1979, LO7-115.W.K.

Forum fiir Alt.-Wiss. 4, 2001.

TAS.

A.S. BRADFORD, A Prosopography of Lacedaemonians, 1977, 27 (Alkastos 3).

W.ED.

{I 2] T.P. Antistianus Funisulanus Vettonianus. Praetorian governor of Lycia-Pamphylia c. AD 117-119; cos. suff. in 121. PIR* P 696. [II 3] Q.P. Bassianus. His name in the SC de Cyzicenis (CIL III 7060 = ILS 7190) used to be read as Pomp[eius], but it must be P. (AE 1973, 200). Probably a son of P. {II 8]. PIR* P 697. [0 4] P. Bassus. Senator; cos. ord. in AD 211. > Elagabalus [2] killed P. c. 220 in order to marry his wife Annia Faustina. Probably a son of P. [II 9]. PIR* P 700.

579

580

[II 5] P. Bassus [...]stus. Senator; cos. ord. IIin AD 271; possibly identical to the cos. ord. of 259. Proconsul of Asia or Africa; > comes imperatoris. > Praefectus urbi probably immediately before or after his second consulship. Corrector Italiae, perhaps under > Diocletianus c. 288 [1. 221ff.]. PIR* P 702.

{11 11] C.P. Graecinus. Elder brother of P. [II ro]. Friend of > Ovidius; in AD 8 not in Rome, but on official duties in the provinces (cf. [1. 74f.]). Cos. suff. in AD 16, Arvalis frater (> Arvales fratres) from 21; died in 38 [2. 30, Z. 33f.]. A son of the same name and his daughter Pomponia [3] Graecina are known. PIR* P

POMPONIUS

1M. CuristTot, Essai sur |’évolution des carriéres se¢natoriales, 1986.

{II 6] L.P. Bassus. Senator, probably a son of P. [II 7]; father of P. [II 8]; married to a Nonia Torquata (AE 1973, 200). Cos. suff. in 118. PIR* P 704. {II 7] T.P. Bassus. Possibly a descendant of a freed slave of > Pomponius [I 5] Atticus; he had a house on the Quirinal [1. r6rf.]. Senator; legate of the proconsul M. Ulpius Traianus in Asia in AD 79/80 or 80/t1. Cos. suff. in 94; consular legate in Cappadocia, either immediately after his consulship or perhaps already as consul designatus; recorded 94-100; in this period he carried out extensive roadworks. Together with other senators he was commissioned by — Traianus to establish the — alimenta in Italy. He was active in Latium and in Aemilia. The nature of his activity for the city of Heraclea [6] Salbace in Asia cannot be determined [pees tel bl Raa oise 1 W. Eck, s. v. domus: T.P. Bassus, LTUR 2, r61f.

2R.

Haenscu, Heraclea ad Salbacum, die heiligen Dorfer der Artemis Sbryallis und der Kaiser, in: W. Eck (ed.), Lokale Autonomie und romische Ordnungsmacht ..., 1999, I15139.

{fl 8] L.P. Bassus Cascus Scribonianus. As a son of P. [II 6] anda (Nonia) Torquata, descendant of an import-

ant senatorial family. His burial inscription probably mentions only some of his offices; he was cos. suff. under Hadrian or Antoninus [1] Pius (CIL VI 41114).

PIR? P 706.

717:

1 R. Syme, History in Ovid, 1978 2 J. ScHEID, Commentarii fratrum Arvalium qui supersunt, 1998.

{II 12] P. Labeo. Praetorian legate in Moesia under Poppaeus [1] Sabinus, for eight years in all. Accused of mismanagement in the provinces, he killed himself and his wife Paxaea in AD 34. PIR* P 726. [Il 13] T.P. Mamilianus Rufus Antistianus Funisulanus Vettonianus. Legionary legate in Britannia under Domitianus. Cos. suff. in AD roo. Later legate of a consular province, where Pliny sent him Ep. 9,16 and 9,25. P. occupied himself with literature. P. [II 2] was his son. BIRD 734 [11 13a] L.P.Maternus.

Senator; cos. suff.in the months of September and October of AD 97; his name is from two military diplomas (RMD III 140; [1]). His son may have been the suffect consul in 128, Q. Pomponius Maternus. 1D. MacDonatp, A. MinayLovicH, A New Moesia Inferior Diploma of 97, in: ZPE 138, 2002, 225-228.

{M1 14] Q.P. Munatfius/ianus] Clodianus. Senator in the middle of the 3rd century AD, who, after his praetorship, probably became curator viae Latinae and ultimately governor of the province of Hispania Baetica, whether as proconsul or imperial legate is disputed [r]. PiRSR 20, 1G. ALFOLDy, Der Status der Baetica um die Mitte des 3. Jh., in: R. FRE Stoisa (ed.), Rom. Inschr. FS H. Lieb, 1995, 29-42; in part. 3 8ff.

{II 9] C. P. Bassus Terentianus. His senatorial offices are

known from his enormous burial inscription (CIL VI 41195): quaestor, [iuridicus] probably in Hispania citerior, proconsul Lyciae et Pamphyliae under Commodus, praetorian legate of Pannonia inferior, praefectus aerarti militaris. PIR* P 707. {fl 9a] C.P.Cordius.

Procurator

in Cyrenae

under

{1 15] Q.P. Musa. Cos. suff. with L. Cassius Iuvenalis. His consulship has recently been dated to the year AD 159 (cf. PIR* P 740), but it must in fact have been earlier, no later than 157 [1. 165ff.]. P. Weiss, Ein Konsulnpaar vom 21. Juni 159 n. Chr., in: Chiron 29, 1999, 147-182.

three emperors (AE 1969/70, 636). Since he was descri-

bed by a cohort prefect at the end of the 230s as a praeses he was presumably a governor of Cyrenae (suggestion of D. Erkelenz). {I 10] L.P. Flaccus. Probably from Iguvium in Umbria. Praetorian legate under > Poppaeus [1] Sabinus before AD 16 in Moesia, where > Ovidius sent him the letter Pont. 1,10. Cos. ord. in 17. Sent to Moesia by > Tiberius in 19 as governor to solve problems with the ~ Thraci. He was a close friend of Tiberius, who appointed him consular governor of Syria in AD 32. Negotiations with Herodes [8] Agrippa, with whom P. broke his friendship. P. died in the province. Brother of Pes

lara|SPIR Peres.

{Il 16] T.P. Proculus. See > Vitrasius {Il 17] Q.P. Rufus. Perhaps from Spain. Under Galba [2] he was praefectus orae maritimae in Spain and Gallia Narbonensis. After that he probably was admitted to the Senate, but it is uncertain whether it was by Galba or by Vespasianus. Iuridicus in Hispania Tarraconensis under Vespasianus; legionary legate; praetorian legate in Dalmatia in AD 94. Cos. suff. in 95, perhaps in absentia. Curator operum publicorum, consular legate of Moesia inferior in 99; proconsul of Africa in 110. PIR* P 749. {II 18] Q.P. Secundus. Brother of [P.? Calv?]sius Sabinus P. Secundus (PIR* P 254). Senator. He demeaned himself in front of Caligula in a humiliating manner.

581

582

When Caligula was assassinated, as consul he and his colleagues tried to reinstate the old > res publica; without the intervention of Claudius [III 1] he would have been killed for that by the > praetorians. When he was accused by Suillius Rufus in the Senate, he evidently

bks.), De fideicommissis and De senatus consultis (each 5 bks.), the case studies Variae lectiones (‘Readings’, 41 bks.), the Epistulae (‘Letters’, 20 bks.; see also [2. 543f.; 6. 149f.]) and the book Regulae (‘Legal rules’). In addi-

POMPONIUS

joined L. Arruntius [II 8] Camillus’ rebellion in Dal-

tion he published the legal decisions of > Titius [IIL.2] Aristo (Dig. 24,3,44 Praef.), and was probably his pupil

matia, in which he may have died. PIR* P 757.

[6. 145, 147].

W.E.

III. ACTIVE AS AUTHORS {II 1] (a) Latin poet (epigrammatist?) of the late 2nd century BC, who describes himself in the only surviving fragment, an > epigram (Non. 125 L = 87 M = FPL} 75), as a pupil of > Pacuvius. Presumably not identical with (b) the author of the epigram FPL? 108: Varro Ling. 7,28 (Papinius) = Prisc. Gram. 2,90 GL (P./

Pompnius), who with his poem on Servilius Casca, one of the assassins of Caesar, belongs rather to the early rst century BC. CourRTNEY, 51 (a), 109 (b); SCHANZ/HostIus 1,167 (a = b)

JR.

{iI 2] Latin comedian from Bononia, who according to Jer. Chron. p. 150 H. was at his peak in 89 BC. (= anno Abraham 1928). The evidence consists of remnants from about 190 verses from 70 plays, which we owe to the interest of grammarians, particularly Nonius [III 1], in morphological and lexical rarities. Among these are > togata titles, such as Augur, Fullones (Gerber, cf. Ps.-Acro on Hor. Ars P. 288) and parodies of myths (Agamemno suppositus, Armorum iudicium), which seem to have been performed as satyr plays after tragedies (cf. Porph. on Hor. Ars P. 221). Posterity (cf. Vell. 2,9,6; Macrob. Sat. 6,9,4) considered P. and + Novius [I 1] the creators of the literary > Atellana fabula, to which most titles belong, which are taken from Italian popular life or present typical Atellana characters (Maccus, Bucco etc.). Language and content were correspondingly vulgar and coarse (cf. esp. the Prostibulum). FRAGMENTS: CRF 71873, 225-254; *1898, 269-307; P. FrRasSINETTI (ed.), Atellanae Fabulae, 1967, 23-67, 117131 (with It. transl.). BIBLIOGRAPHY: P. FRASSINETTI,

1967

(supra),

8-11,

101-108; R. RAFFAELLI, Pompone e |’Atellana, in: Cispadana e letteratura antica (Atti del convegno, Imola 1986),

1987, 115-133; R. Rrexks, Atellane, in: E. LeFevre, Das romische Drama, 1978, 351-361. P.LS.

[Il 3] S. P. A Roman lawyer of the Antonine Period who was still active after the death of Antoninus [1] Pius (AD 161) (Dig. 50,12,14), who was neither in public office nor a defendant, but a legal author on an encyclopedic scale, leaving more than 300 scrolls. His enormous commentary Ad edictum (some 150 books) was cannibalised for the edict commentaries of > Iulius [IV 16] Paulus and > Ulpianus and displaced from the market. A similar fate befell his Ex Sabino (35 bks.), the first commentary on > Sabinus. P. also wrote the commentaries Ad OQ. Mucium (39 bks.) and Ex Plautio (7 bks.), the monographs De stipulationibus (at least 8

His manual, Enchiridium (2 bks.), an isagogic work [2. 512ff.; 6. 146], is unique in Roman jurisprudence; in its historical introduction (Dig. 1,2,2) it presents the development of law up to > Hadrianus (Dig. 1,2,2,49) following the scheme of the ‘external legal histories’ (histories of legal sources, magistracies and jurisprudence) [2. 533]. The series of authors up to Salvius +> Julianus [1] (Dig. 1,2,2,53) described in it is the most important source of information on the history of Roman lawyers [3], and particularly on the legal ius respondendi (authority of experts, — ius) [4]. In view of his interests in legal history and his didactic style, P. is counted, along with > Gaius [2] and > Florentinus [3], as belonging to the academic tributary of Roman jurisprudence [2. 510; 5. 341]. However, he was considered by colleagues in his field as apt to be quoted from and commented on. — Ulpius Marcellus annotated his Regulae [1. 633; 2. 516] and probably his Ex Sabino too [1. 634; 6. 111]. Identification of P. with > Gaius [2] is improbable [5]. 1 O. LENEt (ed.), Palingenesia Turis Civilis, vol. 1, 1889 2D. Norr, P., in; ANRW II 15, 1976, 497-604

3 WIEACKER, RRG, 531f. 4 BAUMAN, 287-304 50. STANOJEVIC, Gaius and P., in: RIDA 44, 1997, 333-356 6D. Lress, Jurisprudenz,

in: HLL

4, 1997,

144-150.

TG. [fl 4] P. Bassulus, (M.) Comedian of the late rst/early

2nd century AD, known only from his burial inscription in Aeclanum comprising 15 iambic senarii (CIL 9,1164). After acting as duovir of Aeclanum, a small city near Beneventum, he translated into Latin a few small comedies (~ Comedy) by > Menander [4] and also wrote his own comedies; the inscription does not mention performances, however. P. is one of the numerous amateur poets of the period of Pliny [2] the Younger, who at the most wrote for recitation (cf. > Vergilius Romanus). Works and titles have not been passed down. P. Cucusi, Aspetti letterari dei carmina latina epigraphica, 1985, 102-104; PIR* P 698. JOBL.

{Il 5] P. Mela. Geographer from Tingentera (Mela 2,96) in southern Spain. Under Claudius in AD 43/4 (3,49) he wrote in 3 books the earliest surviving geographical work in Latin; the traditional title is De chorographia (‘Description of Regions’) [3. 15-223 5. VIIXIV, esp. 97]. P.’ premises (1,3-24a): the earth in the universe, its two hemispheres, its five climatic zones — the temperate zone, wholly surrounded by the Ocean (1,5, cf. 3,45), corresponding to that of the antichthones — and the shape of the sea and the continents (Asia, Europe and Africa). P.’ view of the earth is essentially

POMPONIUS

584

583

that of > Eratosthenes [2] with its old errors [5. XXV— XXIX], e.g. the view that the Caspian Sea was a gulf of the northern Ocean (Mela 3,38). It is usually assumed that both P. and Plin. HN 2-6 rely on a common rst century BC source in the Greek geographical tradition [2. 2401-24053 3. 175-441; 5.97-324], which, however, was enriched by P. with more recent data on Hispania and Germania [2. 2363-2386; 3. 43-46; 5. XX X-XLI]]; the only source P. mentions by name is

Nepos [2] (Mela 3,453 3,90). The Periegesis begins (Mela 1,24 b) ‘on the inside’ at the ‘Pillars of Hercules’ (> Pylae [1] Gadeirides), con-

tinues, partly including a look at the interior, along the African coasts of the Mediterranean (> Mare Nostrum) — entering Asia at Egypt (1,49) — as far as the Black Sea (> Pontos Euxeinos), from then on follows the route familiar from > Menippus [6] — the > Tanais (end of bk. 1) marks the border with Europe -, and then skims along the northern coast of the Mediterranean to beyond > Gades (2,97). The remainder of bk. 2 deals with the islands in the Mediterranean. The theme of bk. 3 is the coast of > Oceanus. The tour begins (3,3) on the western coast of Hispania and goes to the north, northeast and east as far as the Scythian peoples (3,35) of the European continental coast, being the edge of the northern ocean. At the Codanus sinus (Baltic Sea by Denmark) P. (3,3 1f.) exhibits quite accurate knowledge of Jutland and the Danish islands, of the Cimbri, the Teutoni and the Hermiones (> Mare Suebicum). Subsequently P. presents the traditional knowledge of the rst century BC [5. XL]: thus in the case of the > Hyperborei (3,36) on the Asiatic coast; > Britannia as an obtuse triangle (3,50) and > Thule with its short nights (3,57) appear as in Pytheas [4]. At the Scythicum promunturium (3,59) P.’ Asiatic coastline turns south to Cape Colis; on this eastern coast of Asia he places the settlement of the > Seres; > India fills the southeastern corner of his Asia (3,61). The island of > Taprobane (Sri Lanka) P. regards (3,70) as a possible beginning of the alter orbis, i.e. of another zona (cf. 1,4; contra Plin. HN 5,81 [5. 297f.]). Traditional is also P.’ view (Mela 3572-79) of the Mare rubrum (> Erythra thalatta, Red Sea). He locates the source of the Nile in the southwest of Libya (3,96f.) (contra 1,54: in the south); Along the western coast of Africa the Periegesis reaches the African promunturium Ampelusia.

The sequence of geographical places is reminiscent of a > periplous, but P. availed himself of this traditional structural principle only as a literary form; regualr information on distances, cardinal points and other things important to sailors are missing. P. is a literary author [1. 1-14; 2.2363; 3.23-41]. He selects his material with the interest in general knowledge [2. 2388] among a broad section of Roman readers in mind, being able to draw on a geographical and ethnographical tradition starting with Herodotus [1]; he introduces mythology, history, spiritual and cultural history, biography and also paradox, especially for Egypt (1,49-60). An ecphrasis (~ Ekphrasis) shows the

religious fascination ofthe cave of Corycus [2] in Cilicia (1,72-75). Attention is paid (1,85) e.g. to the > Mausoleum, which is recognised as one of the wonders of the world, and (1,86) to the city of Miletus [2] because of its famous men (- Thales, the poet and musician + Timotheus, > Anaximander; 1,90). Mythological references are produced e.g. (cf. [1. rof.]; 1,109) to the Golden Fleece ( Argonauts); of historical interest are e.g. > Issus (cf. [1. 11-14]; 1,70) because of Alexander’s battle there and > Saguntum (2,92) because of its loyalty to Rome. Changes, particularly in relation to the Roman present, are highlighted, as in the case of + Pola (2,57; [2.2392-2396]). In discussing the peoples, an abundance of sometimes bizarre forms of behaviour is presented; those that are little known are either idealised, e.g. the Hyperborei (3,37) and the Seres (3,60), or described as abominable, as with the peoples to the north of the Pontos Euxeinos (2,12-14), or simply as peculiar, as with the > Blem(m)yes with no heads (1,48). In general P. pursues the goal of making the reading of his ponderous subject matter (1,1; [2.2387]) exciting by rhetorical-stylistic means [2. 2408f.]. P.’s intention is to instruct in an agreeable manner, not to give a scholarly account [2. 2397]. P. was used by Pliny the Elder (— Plinius [r]) [2. 2405f.], and probably by > Martianus Capella as well; for the Middle Ages ErnHartT should be mentioned. In the 14th century P. was very well-known in Italy thanks to Perrarca, later his work was printed (Ed. princeps: 1471, Milan) and widely read — including by P. A. CaBRAL, the European discoverer of Brazil. In the modern period P. became a school author [1. 14-20].

~ Geography; > Periegetes 1 K. BRODERSEN, P. Mela. Kreuzfahrt durch die Alte Welt, 1994 (text, transl., maps)

2 F. GISINGER, s. v.P. (104), RE

3 P. PARRONI, Pomponii Melae De chorographia libri tres, 1984 (intr., text, comm.) 4F.E. Romer, P. Mela’s Description of the World, 1998 (Engl. 21, 2360-2411

transl. with comm.) 5 A. SILBERMAN, P. Mela. Chorographie, 1988 (intr., text, French transl., comm., maps).

HAG. [II 6] P.M. Porcellus. (for the cognomen Porcellus/ Marcellus see [3]). Roman grammar teacher of the early

Imperial Period, who was remembered by posterity not for any published works (but cf. [2; 3. r00]) but in anecdotes (two in Suet. Gram. 22, the second also in Cass. Dio 57,17,2; another in Sen. Suas. 2,13) which flag up his pedantic linguistic purism and in a mocking epigram by Asinius [II 5] Gallus (FPL BLANsDorRF, 305). 1 GRF(add) 1, 23-25 2G. BRUGNOLI, Studi sulle Differentiae verborum, 1955, 103 3 R.A. KasTer, Studies on the Text of Suetonius de grammaticis, 1992, 99-102 4 Id. (ed.), Suetonius, De grammaticis, 1995, 222-228.

[Ill 7] P. Poryphyrio. See > Porphyrio. [III 8] P.P. Secundus. rst-century AD politician and

man of letters, brother-in-law of > Caligula and friend of Pliny the Elder (> Plinius) [x], who wrote his life in 2 books (Plin. HN 7,39; 14,56; Plin. Ep. 3,5,3). Born at

585

586

about the turn of the era, he was accused in 31 in connection with the overthrow of > Aelius [II 19] Seianus and imprisoned until the beginning of Caligula’s reign

Pomptinus ager see > Ager Pomptinus

(in 37) (Tac. Ann. 5,8; 6,18,1; Cass. Dio 59,6,2). P. was

years, AD 80-83 (InscrIt 13,1 p. 307). He is not iden-

later supported by > Claudius [III 1]: from May 44 he was suffect consul, in the year 50/1 epigraphically attested as imperial legate of Upper Germany, where Pliny the Elder will have served under him. There is an account in Tac. Ann. 12,27f. of P.’ expulsion of plundering - Chatti. Not much later, P. is likely to have died, probably still in Germany. Quintilian (Inst. 10,1,98) mentions P. as a leading contemporary tragedy writer (cf. Tac. Ann. 12,28,2;

Dial. 13,3). His older contemporaries credited his plays with linguistic sophistication, but thought they were lacking in tragic pathos. P. also had to defend his linguistic mannerisms from — Seneca (Quint. Inst. 8,3,3 1) and his friends (Plin. Ep. 7,17,11). An utterance repor-

ted in Charisius 1, 174, 18ff. GL. also betrays linguistic and grammatical interests. In 47 Claudius tried in vain to take action by edict against public mockery of P. (Tac. Ann. 11,13,1). Posterity has followed this rejection: after the generation of Tacitus and Pliny the Younger [2] P. was no longer read. The few fragments of the grammatical tradition (the only certain title is that of a — praetexta, Aeneas; cf. also Quint. Inst. 8,3,31; Sen.

Ep. 3,6) can be traced back to the Dubii sermonis libri of Pliny the Elder (this is also the source of two morphological peculiarities in a letter from P. to Claudius {II x5] Thrasea) or to the treatise on metre by > Caesius {II 8] Bassus. FRAGMENTS: TRF 71871, 231f.; 31897, 267ff.; 41953, 312ff.; GRF(add), vol. 1, 2r0ff. BIBLIOGRAPHY: SCHANZ/HOSIUS 2, 475-477; BARDON 2, 129-132; A. DELLA Casa, Grammatica e letteratura,

1994, 7-23 (1st ed. 1961).

P.LS.

Pomptinus. Italic nomen gentile formed out of pomp-, documented in inscriptions [1. 553]. The most important bearer: C. P. (born 103 BC), a typical homo militaris (Sall. Catil. 45,2), in 71 he was the legate of M. Licinius [I xx] Crassus in the slave wars (MRR 2,166). As praetor in 63 (MRR 2,167) P. got > Cicero evidence against the supporters of Catilina when he attacked the delegates of the Allobroges at the Pons Mulvius (Cic. Cat. 3,5f.; Sall. Catil. 45,1-4). In 62-59 P. administered Gallia Narbonensis as propraetor. When the Allobroges, embittered over the Roman tax load, revolted under > Catugnatus, he defeated them at Solonium and earned a feast of thanksgiving (> supplicatio). After P.’s return home M. Porcius [I 8] Cato and Caesar’s allies delayed permission for a triumph for years on grounds of religious law. Praetor Ser. Sulpicius Galba and others were able to put it through for P. only in 54; there were battles in the streets on the day of the festival (cf. Cass. Dio 39,65,1f.). In 51-50 P. proved his tactical talent as Cicero’s legate in Cilicia, which he left prematurely (Cic. Fam. 15,4,8f.; 2,15,4)1 SCHULZE.

JOE.

PONDO

Pompusius Mettius. Praefectus aerarii Saturni for four tical to the Mettius Pompusianus mentioned in Suet. W.E.

Vesp. 14. PIR*M 570; P 783.

Ponderarium was the Latin name for the office of weights and measures. The calibration of > scales and + weights and of measuring-vessels for fluids and dry goods took place, both in Greece and the Roman Empire in a building in the vicinity of the marketplace, in which were kept the town’s official weights and a block of stone sunk with depressions of various depths and fitted with removable metal inserts for the standardization of > measures of volume. There is a copy of such a ‘measuring table’ (mensa ponderaria, Greek orjxwpa/ sekoma) with cavities of different sizes in the Forum of Pompeii (CIL X 793; original in Naples, NM). Numerous other ponderaria of theRoman period are known, from Italy (ILS 5602-5616), Greece and the eastern Mediterranean (SEG 26, 1976/77, 101; [13 6]) and North Africa (AE 1912, 156; 1921, 46; 1922, 12;

1941, 156/157). Rare evidence of a ponderarium north of the Alps is offered by a sandstone ashlar with cavities defining — sextarius, > cyathus and > cochlear [x] from the Roman vicus of Wiesloch (Rhein-Neckar district, Germany). A measuring table defining the > measures kotylé [2], — xéstés, choinix and _ tridnkion, found at Assus, is of the Hellenistic period (Boston,

MFA; [3. 3a]). The observance and monitoring of the official weights and measures, as well as their manufacture, were the responsibility in Greece of the > agoranomoi or — metronomoi, and at Rome of the — aediles. The work in a ponderarium was done by a calibrator (ponderarius) (CIL IX 706). The establishment of ponderaria was, as far as can be deduced from the available epigraphical evidence, generally done by the district duoviri iure dicundo or an aedilis, or occasionally by moneyed private individuals or affiliates of trade councils (ILS 5602-5616; AE 1912, 156; 1922, 12; 1922, 89).

> Calibration 1 M. Guarnbuccl, Epigrafia greca, vol. 2, 1969, 471-472 and figs. 113-114 2 A. HENSEN, Der romische Vicus von Wiesloch — Untersuchungen zu den Ausgrabungen bis zum Jahr 1991, thesis, Munich 1997 3 R. MERKELBACH (ed.), Die Inschriften von Assos, 1976 4 E. MICHON,§s. v.

P., DS Bd. 4, 547f.

5 J. OvERBECK, Pompeji in seinen

Gebauden, Alterthiimern und Kunstwerken, 1884, 63-64 Abb. 23-24 6 G. BARDENACHE (ed.), ROmer in Rumanien (Exhibition Cologne — Cluj), 1969, 160 no. SCHNEIDER, S. v. P., RE 21, 2425f.

E131

7K. H.-J.S.

Pondo. Fossilised ablative of limitation of Latin pondus, -i, ‘in weight’. Often used instead of > libra [1] asa basic Roman unit of weight in the sense ‘at a weight of 1 pound’.

587

588

Metrologie,

[5] Pons Aeni. Settlement in Raetia (Itin. Anton. 236,25 257513 258,83 259,33 73 statio Enensis, CIL Ill 15184; ad Enum, Tab. Peut. 4,3); the modern Pfaffenhofen on

PONDO F. Huxrscu,

Griechische

und

rémische

*1882.

H.-J.S.

of toil and

the river Inn (Aenus) in Upper Bavaria. The pottery

stress, similar to the Latin Labor. Son of Erebus and — Nyx (Soph. Trach. 29; Cic. Nat. D. 3,17,44) or

centre [1; 2], which developed out of a road, customs

Ponos

(Ilovoc/P6nos).

Personification

+ Eris with no indication of the father (Hes. Theog. 226). As son of Eris, P. is placed first in the ranks of evil by Hesiod. However, he also has a positive aspect, in that he ends debauchery and sees to a virtuous life (Lucian. Timon 3 1-33). Su

Pons [1] see + Roads and bridges, construction of

[2] The term pons (generally in the plural form of pontes) was also used for the narrow ‘voting bridges’ in Rome which members of the > comitia had to cross on the way to cast their votes. It is argued that the saying Sexagenarios de ponte (deicere) with its incitement to throw sixty-year olds from the bridge (Cic. Rosc. Am. 100; Fest. 452; Macrob. Sat. 1,5,10) stemmed from the

demand by younger voters to bar older ones from voting (e.g. in Ov. Fast. 5,633f.; Fest. 452; Non. 842 Lindsay; [z. 4087; 2. 1521*]). However, this is countered by the fact that there is no example for the use of pons in the singular when referring to the voting bridges (cf. Cic. Att. 1,14,5; Leg. 3,38; emphatic in [3]); the saying may thus indeed refer to an ancient tradition, i.e. the killing of old people during the famine in Rome following the Gallic sacking of 387 B.C. (Festus) by throwing them from a bridge (probably the pons Sub-

and > beneficiarii station, was located at the junction of the road from > Iuvavum to > Augusta [7] Vindelicum (bridge over the Inn) with the road from the Brenner pass to > Regina Castra. At different times, the lateantique fort served as garrison to pseudocomitatenses (‘frontier forces upgraded to the mobile army’) Pontaenenses and equites stablesiani (‘frontier force cavalry’) iuniores (Not. Dign. Occ. 35,21ff.). Which province it belonged to (Raetia, Noricum?) remains an open question. On the right bank of the Inn, a Mithraeum [3] was discovered in 1977 anda military camp in 1994 [4]. The ancient place name lives on in the modern settlements of Langenpfunzen on the left bank and Leonhardspfunzen on the right bank of the Inn. 1 J. Gargscu, Terra Sigillata. Exhibition cat., Prahistori-

sche Staats-Sammlung Miinchen ro, 1982, 88115 21d., Romischer Alltag in Bayern ... 125 Jahre Bayerische Handelsbank in Miinchen 1869-1994, 1994, 198 3 Id., H.-J. KELLNER,

Das Mithraeum

von P. Aeni, in: Bayerische

Vorgeschichtsblatter 50, 1985, 355-462 4M. PieTscH, Ein neues romisches Lager am Inniibergang bei Muhltal, in: Das archdologische Jahr in Bayern (1995), 1996, 99-

101. H.-J. KELLNER, Pfaffenhofen, in: W. Czysz et al. (ed.), Die Romer in Bayern, 1995, 498.

GHW.

licius), or to the annual sacrifice of an old man or a

[6] Pons Aluti. Roman military station with civilian set-

symbolic doll in substitute (cf. [4. 2025f.; 5. 8rf.]). ~ Human sacrifices

tlement in Dacia inferior on the right bank of the Alutus (the modern Olt), its probable location very near the

1 MomMssn, Staatsrecht, vol. 2 2L.R. TayLor, Roman Voting Assemblies, 1966 3 F.X. RYAN, Sexagenarians,

modern Ionestii Govorii (district of Vilcea/Romania).

[3] Pons Aelius; Pons Aemilius; Pons Agrippae; Pons

The camp served as garrison to the cohors III Gallorum. The civilian settlement developed around the military camp; it was later settled by > Daci. Apart from pottery and bricks, a particularly important find is a treasure of 152 coins dating from the 3rd cent. AD (Caracalla and Philippus Arabs).

Aurelius; Pons Milvius; Pons Sublicius; Pons Valentinianus (bridges in Rome) see > Roma III (with map)

TIR L 35 Bukarest, 1969, 47, s. v. Ionestii Govorii (with older literature); I. B. CATANictu, Evolution of the System

the Bridge, and the Centuria Praerogativa, in: RhM 138, 1995, 188-190

1923

4A. KLOTZz, s. v. Sexagenarii, RE 2 A,

5J.G. Frazer, The Fasti of Ovid, vol. 4, 1929.

W.ED.

of Defence Works in Roman Dacia, 1981, 26.

[4] Pons Aelius. After

122 AD, a bridge and a fort secu-

red the crossing of the river Tyne in Newcastle and the original western end of Hadrian’s Wall, and this crossing was named after the emperor P. Aelius > Hadrianus. The location of the bridge is known [1], but little is known about the design and history of the fort [2; 3]. In the 4th cent., it served as garrison for the cohors I Cornoviorum (Not. Dign. Occ. 40,34).

> Limes II. 1R.G. CoLLtincwoop, R.P. Wricut, The Roman Inscriptions of Britain, vol. 1, 1965, 1319f. 2E. BIRLEY, Research on Hadrian’s Wall, 1961, 161-163

3 TIR N 30,

O 30 Britannia Septentrionalis, 1987, 58. J. COLLINGWOOD Bruce, Handbook to the Roman Wall, 31978, 61-63.

M.TO.

[7] Pons Augusti. Roman settlement in Dacia superior (+ Dacia), the modern Marga (district of Caransebes, Banat/Romania). Posting station near > Sarmizegetusa on the road to > Tibiscum (Geogr. Rav. 4,7), customs station (CIL III 13 51 = 7853). Epigraphic evidence con-

firms the existence of a collegium utriclariorum (‘tubemakers’) and a templum Deae Nemesis (CIL III 1547). Traces of gold extraction in the surrounding area. TIR L 34 Budapest, 1968, orf.

J.BU.

[8] Pons Drusi. Road station named after Nero > Claudius [II 24] Drusus (Tab. Peut. 3,3), 40 miles north of ~ Tridentum on the via Claudia from > Altinum across

the Reschenpass (Passo di Resia); its probable location was in the area of Bozen Bolzano.

589

590

R. HeuBerGER, Von P. Drusi nach Sublavione, in: Klio 23,

1930, 24-73; G. INNEREBNER, P. Drusi, in: Der Schlern 30, 1956, 15-23.

H.GR.

[9] Pons Dub(r)is.

A Roman statio, only mentioned in

Tab. Peut. 2,5, at a bridge across the Dubis in Gallia ~ Belgica within the territory of the > Sequani, about 8 km upwards of its mouth into the Arar, the modern Pontoux-sur-le-Doubs (dép. Sadne-et-Loire). This station was 14 leugae (30 km) from Cabillonum, the first such station on the road to Vesontio, about 19 leugae (43 km) from Crusina, the next station upriver (either

the modern Crissey near Déle or Orchamps). The foundations of the bridge have been localized. Several finds in the river and its immediate vicinity date as far back as prehistoric times. Predominantly military finds from the Burgundian and Merowingian periods point to military conflicts in the 7th/8th cents. L. BONNAMOUR, Un example d’archéologie fluviale: Pontoux (Communications présentées au 42° Congrés de PA.B. S. S., Chalon-sur-Sa6ne 1971), in: Mémoires de la

Société dhistoire, d’archéologie de Chalon-sur-Sa6ne 41, 1971, 145f. (resumé); A. REBOURG et al., Sadne-et-Loire, Carte Archéologique de la Gaule 71/4, 1994, 485f., no. 563.

F.SCH.

[10] Pons Sociorum. Road station in > Pannonia infe-

rior between > Sopianis and > Aquincum (Itin. Anton. 264,2), in the region of the modern Tolna/Hungary, its possible location at the site of archaeological finds near Aparhant (4th cent. AD). J. Fivz, s. v. P. S., RE Suppl. 9, 864; TIR L 34 Budapest, 1968, 92.

{11] Pons Sonti. Posting station on the road from — Aquileia [1] to > Emona (Tab. Peut. 4,5; Herodian. 8,4,2), regio X, the modern Mainizza (Venezia Giulia/ Italy), where a road branched off to follow the Aesontius (the modern Isonzo) upriver. Site of Odoacer’s defeat by > Theoderic(us) in 489 (lord. Get. 57; Anon. Vales. 50). TIR L 33 Trieste, 1961, 58; L. Bosto, Le strade romane della Venetia e della Histria, 1991, 204-206. J.BU.

[12] Pons Tiluri. Station on the inland road from + Narona to > Salona running parallel to the coast of the > Ionios Kolpos, which lay 16 milia passuum (c. 23.7 km) to the north-east (Tab. Peut. 3,6; Itin. Anton. 337,5; Geogr. Rav. 4,16); the modern Trilj on the river Cetina [z. 151]. 11. BoyaNovskI, Dolabelin sistem cesta u rimskoj provin-

ciji Dalmaciji, 1974.

E.O.

[13] Pons Ulcae. Roman road station between > Mursa and — Cibalae in Pannonia superior (Tab. Peut. 6,2), probably on the Vuka river in modern Croatia; by contrast, its identification with the mutatio Leutuoano (Itin. Burdig. 563,1) is not very probable. TIR L 34 Budapest, 1968, 73f., s. v. Leutuoanum.

PONTIA

[14] Pons Vetus. Roman settlement in Dacia inferior (> Dacia), straddling the river Alutus (the modern Olt), the modern Ciineni (district of Vilcea, Romania). A

military camp was located on the left bank (c. 150x150m), the civilian settlement was on both banks of the river. It is assumed that the settlement also included a customs post. TIR L 35 Bukarest, 1969, 33, s. v. Ciineni.

J.BU.

Pontarches see > Achilles [1]

Pontecagnano. Little more than its dimensions is known about the Etruscan-Campanian settlement on a plain rising slightly above the Piana del Sele near the present-day site of P. (10 km south of Salerno) of ¢. 85 hectares. Only two shrines have been excavated in the western quarter along with some workshops (ovens of brickworks from the 6th and sth cents. BC and a dye works) in the eastern. The large necropoleis southwest and east of the ancient settlement have been systematically investigated since 1954. The Italian excavations confirm the existence of the Etruscan-Campanian P. from the early Iron Age (9th/8th cent. BC) to the declining years of the 4th cent. BC. Rich ‘royal graves’ of the stone coffin type, similarly attested in > Cyme [2]/Lat. Cumae and — Praeneste (e.g. oriental and Greek imports), witness P.’s 7th cent. BC flourishing. In 268 BC, members of the tribe of the Picentes from the region of Adria were settled in the Roman colony of Picentia (Str. 5,4,13), likewise located near modern P. The graves of the necropoleis of the 9th-7th cents. demonstrate the region of P.’s closer connection with the ~ Villanova Culture of Etruria and that to the north of Latium than with the Fossa Grave culture of its nearer environs. Cremation and storage of the ashes in biconic urns was practiced side by side with burial. — Etrusci, Etruria; > Necropoleis [VII] B. D’AGOSTINO (ed.), P., vol. 1, 1990; S. DE NaTALg, P., vol. 2,2 (La necropoli di S. Antonio. Tombe della prima eta del ferro), 1992; L. CeRCHIAI, s. v. P., EAA 2. Suppl., 1971-1994, vol. 4, 1996, 425-427; P. GASTALDI, Strut-

tura sociale e rapporti di scambio nel IX secolo a P., in: La presenza etrusca in Campagna meridionale (Atti del Convegno, P. — Salerno 1990), 1994, 49-59; A. SERRITELLA, P. vol. 2,3, Le nuove aree di necropoli del IV e III secolo a. C.,

1995.

M.M.

Pontia {1] (Movtia/Pontia). Uninhabited rocky island in the Gulf of Bengazi; together with the Skopelos islands, i.e. Misynos and Gaia, P. formed the Pontiai nésoi (Ptol. 453,46; Stadiasmus maris magni 74f.; Ps.-Scyl. 109). The Pontiai nésoi and the Leukai nésoi (‘White Islands’) were apparently identical [1. 1812], the latter likely owing their name to the guano deposited by the sea birds. 1 H. TREIDLER, s. v. Syrtis, RE 4A, 1796-1829.

PONTIA

V.J. BRUNO, E. Lypinc Wit, The Island of P., in: Archaeology 38,1, 1985, 40-47; H. TREIDLER, s. v. P. (2), RE DA DISH W.HU.

[2] P., Pontiae (Movtia/Pontia). Small, densely populated volcanic island (7.3 km*, height 283 m) in the + Mare Tyrrhenum off the Italian coast at Formiae and Martacinan(Str 2555093) 553363), Lt. 3,157.93) buna EIN. 3,81), modern Ponza (province of Latina). Together with — Palmaria and Sinonia (modern Zannone;

0.94 km’, height 185 m), P. formed the group of islands called the imsulae Pontiae (Varro, Rust. 3,5,7; Mela

2,121). The Romans created a Latin colonia here in 313 BC during the 2nd > Samnite War (326 BC-304 BC) (Diod. Sic. 19,101,3; Liv. 9,28,7). In the Roman Imperial Period, P. was a place of banishment (e.g. for Nero Caesar, the oldest son of Germanicus [2]; Livilla [2] and her sister Julia Agrippina [3]; Flavia [3]). Several underground passages (i.a. the passage connecting Punta della Madonna and Cala Chiaia di Luna), the port and quay at Santa Maria, above and below ground aqueducts, cisterns, villas (Sant? Antonio, Santa Maria, Punta della Madonna), two necropoleis (Colle Guarini, Bagno Vecchio), a mithraeum (3rd—4th cent. AD) have been identified. G.M. De Rossi (ed.), Le isole Pontine attraverso i tempi,

1986; J. LrvpeRskI, The Death of Pontia, in: RhM 133, 1990, 86-93; L. LomMBARDI, Ponza. Impianti idraulici romani, 1996, 55; V.J. BRUNO, s. v. P., PE, 728.

=M.M.MO.

Pontianus became bishop ordinary of Rome in 230 opposite of > Hippolytus [2]. In a persecution under ~ Maximinus [2] Thrax, P. and Hippolytus were exiled to Sardinia in 235, where P. resigned his office on 28 September 23 5 (MGH AA 9,74f.) and both died (still in

2352), ending the schism in the church of the city of Rome. P. is buried in the catacombs of St. Callistus in Rome (MGH AA 9,72; burial inscription: [LCV no.

953). E. Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anfangen bis zur Hohe der Weltherrschaft, vol. 1, 1930, 43-50; W. ENSSLIN, s. v. P. (2), RE 22, 25.

592

591

M.HE.

Pontic Vases. The use of the term PV for the Etruscan ~ black-figured vases of the 2nd half of the 6th cent. BC goes back to F. DUMMLER, who, starting from a representation of mounted Scythian archers, erroneously associated this important genre with the Black-Sea area (amphora Rome, MV 231; cf. Hdt. 7,64). On the basis of their style and their sole finding site Etruria, the ca. 200 PV have been identified as Etruscan ones; there are

no inscriptions whatsoever. PV are modelled on Attic black-figured vase painting, though they show influences of + Corinthian and > East Greek pottery as well. Besides the early and influential > Paris Painter and the > Tityus Painter, three other leading masters can be distinguished in the production of PV.

Vessel types in Pontic pottery

OOG Belly amphora

Neck amphora

Oinochoe

z-%OQ Goblet

Kyathos

Plate

Especially popular pottery forms (- Pottery, shapes and types of) are strikingly slender amphorae and oinochoai, followed by kyathoi, plates and long-stemmed goblets (kylix); less frequent are > kantharoi [1] and cauldrons. The vessels of PV show a light-yellow to orange surface, the glazed clay being often discoloured into a brownish-reddish hue. The additional colours red and white are abundantly used for figures and ornaments. ~ Ornaments assume an important role in the PV: whole vessels are sometimes decorated purely with ornaments, while the figures on the amphorae and oinochoai are always surrounded by rich ornamental bands. The pictorial subjects of PV are of great variety. Animal friezes, riders, Romastai, mythical creatures, satyrs and maenads are frequently portrayed. Images from Greek mythology appear as well, again giving evidence, as they do in other genres of Etruscan art, of the familiarity with these myths. Especially popular are images from the > Trojan legend, which may also have to do with > Aeneas’ [1] significance in Etruria (esp.: judgment of Paris by the Paris Painter; sacrificing of + Polyxena by the Silene Painter, Paris, LV E 703); local myths and beliefs are recorded by Heracles’ fight against Iuno Sospita (Paris Painter) or by a wolf demon by the Tityus Painter (plate Rome, VG 84444). This aspect makes PV, besides their significance for art history, into an important source for Etruscan studies as well. > Etrusci, Etruria

P. Ducati, Pontische Vasen, 1932; F. DUMMLER, Uber eine Classe griechischer Vasen mit schwarzen Figuren, in: RhM 2, 1887, 171-192; L. HANNESTAD, The Paris Painter, 1974; ead., The Followers of the Paris Painter, 1976; M.A. Rizzo, La ceramica a figure nere, in: M. MARTELLI (ed.), La ceramica degli Etruschi, 1987, 31-35. MST.

593

594

Pontica. Title of an anonymous Latin didactic poem on marine life. Only the first 22 hexameters of the praefatio survive, in some manuscripts of the works of

B. FUNCTIONS From the Middle Republic, the duties of the sacred collegia were described in detail in the books De sacerdotibus publicis (‘On Public Sacred Offices’) (Gell. 10,15,1). Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2,73,2-3 provides the most detailed ancient description of the duties of the pontifices. They were in a manner of speaking ‘bureaucrats’ of the > pax deorum (deum). Their main duty was to advise the Senate, officials and private persons by means of their decreta (‘resolutions’) and responsa (‘requested appraisals’) on the correctness and effectiveness of cultic actions and, in general, of any action that could impair the pax deorum (Cic. Dom. 107). Closely related was a monopoly of knowledge of both cultic language and actions and the correct reaction to portents (— prodigium; Cato apud Fest. 342 L.; Plin. HN 10,3 5f.); supervision over qualifying dates for the + fasti (Macr. Sat. 1,15,9-13); and supervision of all aspects of care for corpses (Cic. Leg. 2,45-57). These warrants led directly to the pontifices’ participation in two other areas of public life, civil law and the daily protocolling of important events (> Annales maximi) by the scribes (scribae) of the pontifex maximus. Their supervision of religious concerns is apparently based on literacy. The basis for their authority was a considerable recorded collection of originally spoken formulas and prescriptions indispensable for the correct performance of cultic actions. In public cultic actions a pontifex recited the required words (praeire verbis) to be repeated by the sacrificing officials. The protocolled events listed portents and ritual answers in tune with them that eventually came to constitute an

+ Solinus (Anth. Lat. 1,2, no. 720 Riese).

K.BRO,

Ponticus. Epic poet of the Augustan Period, friend of Ovid (Trist. 4,10,47). > Propertius addresses Elegies 1,7 and 1,9, to P. as the author of a Thebais, achieving a

contrast between erotic elegy and epic by representing P. as desperately in love. PIR? P 785.

ED.C.

Pontifex, Pontifices A. GENERAL

B.FuNcTIONS

VELOPMENT

D. PONTIFICES

C. HISTORICAL OUTSIDE

DE-

OF ROME

A. GENERAL | The pontifices were the most eminent college of priests in Rome. Their traditional founder was Numa Pompilius (Liv. 1,20,5-7). According to the accepted

modern etymology (pont- = ‘way’, cf. Sanskrit panthah, ‘path’), pontifex means ‘path maker’ [1]; some ancient etymologies, though wrong, more clearly illustrate Roman views: Q. Mucius [I 9] Scaevola, himself pontifex maximus, suggested an etymology from posse and facere: ‘those who have the power (to act)’ (Varro, Ling. 5,83; cf. Plut. Numa 9,2). The collegium had the duty, at least from the time of the Middle Republic, of generally supervising the religious life of the Roman state. It was also responsible for all religious matters not explicitly assigned to the other original colleges of priests, the — augures, — decemviri [4] sacris faciundis and probably the — fetiales (later also the > septemviri). The composition of the college of pontifices was more complex than that of other colleges (whose functions were also more limited). The regular members were: a) the actual pontifices, whose original number (three, four or five) is unknown, led by the pontifex maximus; the lex Ogulnia (300 BC) increased their number to nine (> Ogulnius [r]), Sulla to fifteen (Liv. Per. 89), and Julius Caesar to sixteen (Cass. Dio

42,51,4); b) the representatives of an earlier (royal) order of priests, the > rex sacrorum and the three ~ flamines maiores; and c) from at least the Late Republic on, three pontifices minores (Cic. Har. resp. 12). Closely related with the pontifices though not entirely regular members were: a) the six Vestals, who were under the general supervision of the pontifex maximus, and b) the twelve flamines minores. All pontifices held their office for life. The traditional residence of the pontifex maximus was the domus publica on the slope of the Palatine, but the collegium gathered (— comitia calata) in the > regia on the Forum Romanum [2]. The official escort or the assistants (> calatores) lived in rooms in the immediate vicinity. A sacrificial knife with an iron blade, the secespita, was the only sign of pontifical office (Suet. Tib. 25).

PONTIFEX,

PONTIFICES

archive of precedents (Liv. 8,18,11-2). Apparently, it

was customary in the Early Republic for the pontifices to observe the new moon each month, announce the religious status of each day (dies — fasti et nefasti or + feriae), and insert intercalary months as needed. Even after 304 BC, when the publication of the calendar made this procedure largely superfluous (> Calendar [B. 4]), the pontifices’ responsibility to organize sacred and profane time remained (Varro, Ling. 6,27f.).

The pontifices’ responsibility for sacred law (— Ecclesiastical/Religious law [II]) led directly to their early influence on profane and civil law. The speech formulas for legal actions exhibit a marked similarity to sacred formulas. On the other hand, the origins of the ius civile do not lie in sacred law but in the interpretation of determinations based upon customary law, after 45 1/0 BC, the ‘XII Tables’ (> Tabulae duodecim) [4], issued by a series of outstanding pontifices specialized in drafting the legis actiones (types of procedure) (Pompon Dig. I,2,2535-53) [5]. Until the time of Ti. > Coruncanius (cos. 280 BC), the collegium retained a strong influence on civil law by strictly regulating access to the responses (ibid. 1,2,2,3 5; 38).

C. HisToRICAL DEVELOPMENT The early restriction of the pontificate to patricians (> Patricii) probably had its origin in the role gentilic

PONTIFEX, PONTIFICES

595

596

cults of the Italic peoples played in the genesis of Roman public religion [6]. The early history of the collegium, and with it the process by which the > rex sacrorum and the flamines maiores became members, is entirely obscure; the Roman antiquarians were of the opinion that at an early time the pontifex maximus was fifth in the Roman priestly ranking (Fest. 198 L.). Still, it has been thought that the office of rex sacrorum existed already under the monarchy so that the religious functions of the king were divided between the consuls and the pontifex maximus at the beginning of the Republic [7]. If this theory is correct, the seniority of the rex was always purely formal. The question of the powers and membership of the collegium came to be increasingly disputed in the late 4th cent. BC. In 304 BC, Cn. Flavius [I 2] published the fasti and the verbal formulas for the actiones legis (Liv. 9,46,5-6). The lex Ogulnia (300 BC), by adding four plebeians to the collegium (Liv. 10,6,1-9,2), broke the patricians’ sole authority. Around the same time, the office of pontifex maximus was opened for restricted election by 17 out of the 35 — tribus. The general principle of co-option was dissolved only in 104 BC (> Cn. Domitius [I 4] Ahenobarbus) when the same electoral process was introduced for all candidates. Despite the increasingly fierce aristocratic competition, the pontifices’ decision-making authority in questions of the sacred law was never seriously threatened in the Middle Republic [8]. The right to membership in the collegium was always reserved for a small elite of the best (patrician and later also plebeian) families. In 44 BC, a Senate resolution declared the office of pontifex maximus hereditary in the family of Julius — Caesar (Cass. Dio 44,5,3). After the death of M. Aemilius [I 12] Lepidus, Augustus took the office in 12 BC [9], and it remained a fixed component of the imperial honours until AD 382/3 (?) (Gratian). A seat in the collegium was routinely assigned to junior members of the imperial family (e.g., AE 1988, 546: Tiberius, 11-9 (2) BC; ibid. 550: Drusus the Younger, AD 14). The nomination of others as pontifices became a sign of special imperial favour. Upon the creation of the pontifices Solis (+ Sol) by the emperor Aurelian, the pontifices were called the pontifices maiores and are epigraphical-

byters and esp. bishops, though uncommon in this sense before the 2nd half of the 4th cent. 1 Latre, 196 2R.T. Scott, s. v. Regia, LTUR 4, 189-92 3 A.K. MIcHELLS, The Calendar of the Roman Republic, 1967, 19f.,71 4M.H.Crawrorp (ed.), Roman Statutes,

2 vols., 1996 (esp. vol. 2, 555-721) 5 F. WIEACKER, RGG, 310-340 6C.J. Situ, Early Rome and Latium, 1996, 185-202 7T1.J. CoRNELL, The Beginnings of Rome, 1995, 232-236 8 J. BLEICKEN, Kollisionen zwischen Sacrum und Publicum, in: Hermes 85, 1957, 446480 9 J. ScHErD, Auguste et le grand pontificat, in: Revue historique de droit frangais et €tranger 77, 1999, I-19. M. BearD, J. NortH, R. Price, Religions of Rome, 1998, vol. 1, 24-28, 102-106; G. DE SANCTIS, Storia di Roma,

vol. 4.2.1, 1953, 353-361; J. SCHEID, Les prétres officiels sous les empereurs

julio-claudiens, in: ANRW

II 16.1,

1978, 610-654; L. SCHUMACHER, Die vier hohen romischen Priesterkollegien unter den Flaviern, den Antoninen und den Severern, 69-235 n. Chr., in: ANRW II 16.1, 1978, 655-819; G.J. SZEMLER, The Priests of the Roman Republic (Coll. Latomus 127), 1972; Id., s. v. Pontifex,

RE Suppl. 15, 332-396; G. Wissowa, Kultus der Romer, *1912, 501-523.

Religion und R.G.

Pontius. Oscan praenomen and Oscan/Lat. gentilic. SALOMIES, 107;

I. REPUBLICAN

1133; SCHULZE, 212.

PERIOD

K.-L.E.

JI. IMPERIAL PERIOD

I. REPUBLICAN PERIOD {I 1] Pontius, Gavius. Samnite general who in 321 BC

famously defeated the Romans at > Caudium and sent them ‘under the yoke’ (Liv. 9,2,6-6,4). The fact that the Samnite leader in the Social War (— Social Wars [3]), P. {I 4], had the same name is no proof that P.’ name entered the tradition only later. The annalistic tradition (in Liv. 9, 15,8), however, of P.’ being taken as prisoner

and being ‘under the yoke’ himself in the course of the supposed Roman victories of 320 are unhistorical and must be regarded as an expression of the Roman need to soften the humiliating defeat; likewise, the report that P. was captured and executed by the Romans in 292 during the 3rd Samnite War (Liv. Per. 11). E.T. SALMON, Samnium and the Samnites, 1967, Index s. Wale C.MU.

ly attested to the end of the 4th cent. (e.g., ILS 1264). {1 2] P., T. Centurion under P. Cornelius [I 70] Scipio

D. PONTIFICES OUTSIDE OF ROME Coloniae and municipia imitated Rome

in many respects, including with respect to the pontifices. Every colonia and municipium had a collegium of pontifices whose members were exempt from military service and other duties, as in Rome (e.g., ILS 6087 § LXVI = [4.

vol. 1, 393-454], lex Ursonensis). Such offices are usually emphasized in inscriptions as the climax of a local public career (e.g., AE 1982, 356: ager Volaterranus; ILGN 635 = AE 1987, 750: Narbonensis). Some pontifices were also responsible for the local imperial cult (ILS 6910 = CIL Il2.7 68: Urgavo). As early as Cyprian [2], the term pontifex was also used for Christian pres-

Aemilianus as well as his neighbour, like the satirist + Lucilius [I 6], who preserved several anecdotes about Cornelius (Lucil. 2,89f. M.; Cic. Fin 1,9; Cic. Cato 33; Macrob. Sat. 3,16,4). K-LE. {[13] P. Aquila. Tr. pl. in 45 BC (MRR 2,308) who, much to Caesar’s chagrin, remained obviously seated when the dictator passed him in the triumphal march. P. was possibly dispossessed as a result (Cic. Att. 14,21,3). In 44 he was among the murderers of Caesar (Cass. Dio 46,38,3). As D. Iunius [I 12] Brutus’ legate, P. attempted to free the besieged city of Mutina, defeated T. Munatius [I 5] Plancus at Pollentia, reached the army of the consuls and fell on 21 April 43 in the battle at

597

598

Mutina (+ Mutina, war of /Bellum Mutinense). Upon Cicero’s motion, he received a statue of honour (Cic. Ad Brut. 1,15,8). JO. [1 4] P. Telesinus. From Telesia in Samnium, general of

dependent province at the time. In office from AD 2636/7 in Iudaea, P. became involved in a bitter conflict with parts of the Jewish population by not considering the views of many Jews, esp. the religious status of > Jerusalem. This, however, must be tempered by recognizing contemporary tradition as always representative of his opponents. Jesus was condemned by P. to crucifixion without any clear evidence of the involvement of the Jewish > syn(h)édrion (Le 22,66-23,253 Mt 26,3-27,26; Mk 15,1ff.; also cf. Tac. Ann. 15,44,3). When P. brutally beat down a revolt of the Samaritans (+ Samaria), he was charged in front of L. Vitellius, the governor of Syria, who sent him to Rome. Jews and Christians alike saw P. first as a cruel persecutor — though for different reasons. Later, Christian condemnation was dropped, wavering under considerations of salvation history: P. entered into Christian creeds (— Nicaenum; ~ Nicaeno-Constantinopolitanum) and, in the apocryphal Martyrium Pilati (> New Testament Apocrypha), became a Christian martyr (feast day in the Coptic Church: June 19). The famous P. inscription from Caesarea [2] Maritima probably reports the construction of a watchtower at the harbour named Tiberieum [1. 85ff.]. Whether P. was condemned by > Tiberius upon his return to Rome and his further destiny are unknown. PIR’ P 815.

the + Samnites in the Social War (-> Social Wars [3]) in 90 BC (Vell. Pat. 2,16,1). In 82 he and M. + Lamponius

led the army of the Samnites and Lucani in an effort to liberate C. Marius [I 2], encircled in Praeneste by the troops of C. Cornelius Sulla [I 90] (App. B Civ. 1,416). Upon failing, he turned against Rome but was defeated and killed on 1 November 82 in the battle at the Porta Collina (Vell. Pat. 2,27,1-3; Plut. Sulla 29; App. B Civ. 1,431). His younger brother and Marius brought about each other’s death in Praeneste. K.-L.E. Il. IMPERIAL PERIOD {11 1] L.P. Allifanus. Son of senator L. Pontius; prob-

ably proconsul of + Cyprus under > Vespasianus; his son accompanied him to the province. A friend of Plinius [2], who wrote several letters to him. PIR* P 794. {I 2] P. Laelianus. Mentioned in the will of > Domitius

{II 25] Tullus in AD 108 (CIL VI 10229,20). His descendents were probably P. [II 3] and [II 4]. PIR? P 804. {fl 3] M.P. Laelianus. Cos. ord. in AD 163; consular

legate of + Moesia inferior, probably under the joint rule of > Marcus [II 2] Aurelius and Lucius > Verus. Son of P. [II 2]. PIR* P 805. {11 4] M.P. Laelianus Larcius Sabinus. Senator, descendent of P. [II 2]. His career began under > Hadria-

PONTIUS

1 G. ALFOLDY, P. Pilatus und das Tiberieum von Caesarea Maritima, in: Scripta Classica Israelica 18, 1999, 85-108 (with earlier bibl.).

nus [11], advancing from a praetorian governorship in — Pannonia inferior to the consulate, probably in AD 144. Thereafter, he was consular legate in Pannonia superior (146-149) and in Syria, probably c. 150-154.

J.-P. LEmonon,

In the > Parthian War, he was the > comes of Lucius — Verus in the East, for which he received > dona militaria. He was comes in the war against the Germans at

1992, 741-778; J. BLINZLER, Der Prozef Jesu, 31960; F. MILLar, Reflections on the Trial ofJesus, in: P.R. DAvIEs, R.T. Wuire (eds.), Essays on Jewish and Christian Litera-

the Danube as well. For this he was honoured by the senate with a statue in Trajan’s Forum (CIL VI 1497 and 1549 = 41146). PIR* P 806. [I 5] C. Petronius P. Nigrinus. Cos. ord. in AD 37.

Adopted by one of the senatorial Petronii of the Augustan-Tiberian Period. PIR* P 812. {11 6] C.P. Paelignus. Probably an eques who was accepted into the senate. His career quaestorship to praetorship is known (cf. [1. 249ff.]). He was special legate in Asia ex senatus consulto upon a motion of — Tiberius. PIR* P 813. 1 W. Eck, Prosopographica II, in: ZPE 106, 1995, 249-

254.

[II 7] P. Pilatus. Roman eques during whose magistracy in Iudaea > Jesus was crucified. P. was praefectus Iudaeae, i.e. responsible for Iudaea, at that time still a part of the province of Syria (cf. > Palaestina [III]), and thus a subordinate of the consular governor of Syria. To call him ‘governor’ — as often occurs on the basis of the title procurator or Greek hégemon (e.g. Tac. Ann. 15,4453; Mt 27,2 et passim) — is incorrect: he was not an independent provincial governor, Iudaea was not an in-

Pilate et le gouvernement de la Judée,

1981; Id., Ponce Pilate: Documents profanes, Nouveau Testament et traditions ecclésiales, in: ANRW II 26.1,

ture. FS G. Vermes, 1990, 355-381; E. SCHURER, A His-

tory of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 1973, 383 ff.; G. THEISSEN, A. MERZ, Der historische Jesus. Ein Lehrbuch, 71997.

{II 8] M.P. Sabinus. Senator. Cos. suff. in AD 153; consular governor of Moesia superior, documented for W.E. 159/160. PIR* P 822. [II 9] P. of Carthage. Christian deacon; supplemented a Vita Cypriani with the Acta Cypriani, anonymously written in the style of a protocol [1; 2; 3]. The vita shows a rhetorical hand esp. at beginning and end (Exordium, ch. 1, Addubitatio, ch. 2; Adynata, ch. 2, Vaticinium, ch. 17, Peroratio, ch. 19). P. was the first to represent a bishop in a Latin > biography; his work, much praised by Jer. Vir. ill. 68, should have the title Vita et passio, as Jerome correctly notes [4. 58-65]. — Cyprianus EpiTions:

1A.A. R. BASTIAENSEN, Vita di Cipriano,

Vita di Ambrogio, Vita di Agostino, 1975 2 W.HarrTEL, Cypriani opera 3 (CSEL 3/3), 1871 3M. PELLEGRINO,

Vita e martirio di San Cipriano, 1955. BIBLIOGRAPHY 4 W. BERSCHIN, Biographie und Epochenstil im lateinischen Mittelalter, vol. 1, 1986. WB.

599

600

Pontos (Mlovtoc; Pontos). Greek personification of the sea (cf. > Oceanus, > Uranus), born of Ge/— Gaia without spouse (Hes. Theog. 132); with her, P. fathered + Ceto, Eurybia, > Nereus, > Phorcys and > Thaumas (ibid. 233-239). LK.

The northeastern coast is dissected more intensely than the other coastal sections. Here the Chersonesus [2] peninsula projects from a narrow 8 km-wide isthmus far into the sea. In the north it exhibits flat or undulating lowland, which rises southwards to the Crimean Mountains (height 1545 m) and then falls steeply to the sea. In the east it adjoins Lake > Maeotis. Farther to the east is a coastal section where foothills of the ~» Caucasus approach close to the sea. Only a few small bays offer protection for navigation here, there are no more good harbour inlets until — Pityus and > Dioscurias. From here on the broad marshy estuarine plain of the > Phasis [1] opens up. The western and northern coasts were known for their fertility (grain, wood,

PONTIUS

Pontos Euxeinos I. GEoGRAPHY

Ii. ARCHAEOLOGY,

CULTURE,

HISTORY

I. GEOGRAPHY (Ilévtoc EvEewoc; Pontos Euxeinos), modern Black Sea. The ancient description may trace back to the Iranians, who described the sea as achshaenas, ‘dark’; transcription into Greek gives dxeinos ‘inhospitable’ (cf. Ov. Tr. 4,4,55), a description which was euphemistically reinterpreted by sailors as evxeinos, ‘hospitable’; the Greeks also knew the PE as the ‘Black Sea’ (Eur. Iph. T. 107: ROVtoS Wéhac; Pontos mélas). The PE, a subsidiary sea of the Mediterranean (> Mare Nostrum), extends, including Lake > Maeotis, over an area of about 450,000 km? (extent 980 km east-west, 530 km northsouth; average depth 1270 m, greatest depth 2245 min the centre, which is almost level); on the northern and western coasts it has an extended coastal shelf; apart from the northern coastal region it is almost without islands. Abundant streams such as the — Ister [2], ~ Hypanis, > Borysthenes, > Tanais and > Halys provide the PE with fresh water; in the > Bosporus [1] it has a salt water inlet. The uppermost stratum of water is low in salt, the lowest has quite a high salt content, is low in oxygen and does not participate in the circulation of water, and for this reason no higher forms of life live there. The surface current, anti-clockwise in direction, is limited. In winter solid ice, as well as ice floes, can form on the coasts, especially in the north and in the west. There is only little tidal oscillation. In the south a Mediterranean climate dominates, in the north a continental-temperate one. The prevailing wind direction is northwest (important for navigation and ports). The PE is characterised by severe storms and a great deal of fog in winter. The average annual rainfall is about 1500/2500 mm in the east and southeast, 300/500 mm in the northwest and west. The coastal waters are shallow throughout the south and there are few natural harbours (Heraclea [7], Sinope, less good at Amisus and Trapezus). Inland here in many places the northern Anatolian peripheral mountain range rises directly out of the sea with heights increasing eastwards to over 3000 m. Few mountain passes give access to the uplands (at Heraclea and Amisus). The western coast is much more open. Although in the Istranca mountains (Turkey) and in the Balkans (Bulgaria) limestone rocks do reach the coast, farther to the north the coastal region opens up into the Dobrudja plains with the Ister delta and the estuaries of the Tyras, Hypanis and Borysthenes. From the mouth of the Ister to the Chersonesus [2], lagoons cut deep into the land.

cattle, honey, wax, wine, oil), and the coastal waters in

the north and south were considered particularly abundant in fish. These were the reasons for the prosperity of a lively home and foreign trade (including slave trade; to Hellas but also far beyond; cf. Pol. 4,38). From the

middle of the 8th cent. BC, interrupted for a short time on the southern coast by the actions of the > Cimmeri, the great Greek — colonization reached the coasts of the PE (cf. the legend of the > Argonautae; Megara [2], > Miletus [2]). The earliest accounts of the PE are brought to us by — Herodotus [1] (4,85f.), also the historians — Polybius (4,39-42), — Ammianus Marcellinus (22,8), + Procopius (Proc. BP 2,15; 30), and the periploi (— periplus), which go under the authors’ names — Scylax, > Scymnus and > Arrianus [3], and the geographer > Ptolemaeus [65] (Ptol. 5,1; 6f.; 9-12). For the western coast cf. also the description by the poet > Ovidius, banished to > Tomi (e.g. Ov. Tr. 5,10; Ov. Pont.

4,14), who in his depressed state of mind sees this region as very much gloomier. ~— Argonauts; > Caucasus; > Colchis; > Colonization IV.; — Getae; + Goti; — Medea; — Miletus [2]; + Mithridates [6]; > Pontos; ~ Scythians

> Regnum Bosporanum;

Cu. M. Danorr, s. v. P. E., RE Suppl. 9, 866-1175, with map 870; G.I. BRaTIANU, La Mer Noire, 1969; E. OLs-

HAUSEN, Einfiihrung in die Historische Geographie der Alten Welt, 1991, 171-177.

E.O.

II. ARCHAEOLOGY, CULTURE, HISTORY N. BO. A. IRON AGE AND CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY (c. L000 BC TO THE 3RD CENT. AD) B. LATE ANTIQUITY TO

EARLY MIDDLE AGES (C. 3RD-13TH/1I5TH CENT. AD)

A. IRON AGE AND CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY (c. 1000 BC TO THE 3RD CENT. AD)

Discoveries of anchors and ingot in the region from + Apollonia [2] to — Mesambria [1] and Aegaean finds between the mouth of the > Halys and = Iris [3] indicate the first contacts between the Greek area and the PE during the Late Bronze Age (2nd half of the 2nd millennium BC) (legend of the Golden Fleece, > Argonauts, > Jason [r]). From the Iron Age, written infor-

601

ulejUNOY[/asues Ras

ul}e7 JO/pue 000 0002 wooode

WHOSt OSL OOZ

43915 Ppauuiju0o WspoY oWweu

sJeZPY

eiddisi05

adouls

=f.

1WOL

ayquog Piapfe1aH

/S04}5| BLISIH

pue yuediiusis saizid 4y}Z/4}9"9 |WUN) (D@ "s}Ua2

aweu

33Nn27°

d1uy33 pue sdnougqns sdno8 pue Ayesa}] (aouapina jHUN) (GV pig ‘wad 2 sajdoad s1ipewon pig WO4}) (Gy Ua. >

PONTOS

sopey Ua] ZA

JUuaWas}}as |e21Sojoaeyoe

pul4 yods

yORIgeas

:ease

puly

/uoIsay

Jea1Sojoaeyoe)

-099RID UPWOY

sjods

PAYJo PAIIP aouan|ul

diuyja

‘sdnoid

602

EUXEINOS

603

604

mation has survived through the > colonization of the PE by Greek settlers that commenced in the 8th cent. BC (among others in Herodotus, bk. 4; > Pontos Euxei-

The entire northern coast of the BS included tribes that were known under the collective term — Scythians. From the outset there were disputes between Greek colonists and Scythians (e.g. around Olbia) and also with the > Tauri. In the east, between Tanais/Don and Hypanis [1]/Bug settled the Iranian Sauromatae or ~ Sarmatae to whom the Asaei on the sharp bend of the

PONTOS

EUXEINOS

nos).

The advance of the Greeks in the PE started with + Miletus. From the 8th cent. BC onwards, we know of names and territories of various peoples from the coasts of the Black Sea (=BS) although the sources partly contradict each other (among others the contentious — Cimmerii with — uncertain — archaeological classification of the finds of the Cernoles-/Cernogorovka and Novoéerkassk type as well as links to the west as far as the Carpatian Basin and to central Europe). In the 7th and 6th cents. BC, new areas of the southern coast, the west and north of the BS were opened up as a result of further establishment of colonies above all by Miletus (Sesamus; > Sinope; Apollonia [2] Pontica; Istrus/— Histria;

> Panticapaeum) and Megara (— By-

zantium, > Calchedon: control of the Bosphorus [1]; Heraclea [7] Pontica, Mesambria [1], Chersonesus [2]

Taurice, > Callatis). The Milesian foundations among others of — Dioscurias, — Gorgippia, — Odessus, > Olbia [1], — Phanagoria, — Phasis [2], — Pityus, — Tanais, > Theodosia, > Tomi, > Tyras, ~ Cerasus,

— Cotyora, > Cytorus and > Trapezus reinforced the contacts and made the area of the > Caucasus and of ~» Colchis accessible. In the west, the Greeks encountered the — Getae, — Moesi/Mysi and > Thraces — Thracian tribes that settled the western bank of the BS and its hinterland;

they are also attested archaeologically from the 6th cent. right through to modern Moldavia (Greek influence in all areas of life). Later the Getae were associated with the > Daci (in late antiquity neither of them are distinguished from each other any more), the most important Thracian tribe north of the lower Danube (under — Burebista in the rst cent. BC and under — Decebalus in the 2nd half of the rst cent. AD, attacks on the Greek colonies of the western BS coast; in the

2nd cent. AD attacks by the Dacian tribe of the Costoboci recurred on the Roman

Danube limes). Other Thracian tribes were e.g. the > Astae (south of Apollonia), > Bessi in the Rhodopes (resettled around the time of Christ in the region between Tomi and Histria), Carpi (between Olbia and the mouth of the Danube), + Crobyzi and > Trogodytae (both in Dobrudja) or the + Odrysae to whose kingdom east of the Hebrus/ Marica several Greek cities had to pay tributes from the 5th cent. BC. In the hinterland, there were also major Scythian territories of which the territory of the > Agathyrsi (in modern Transylvania) was the most important and it was still attested epigraphically until AD 165. Thracian-Dacian art, particularly toreutics, was clearly influenced by the Greek and Scythian but was put into practice in a highly individual way (in the south mainly known from grave finds, in the north from hoard finds). Grain, horses, pickled fish and slaves were important trading goods.

Tanais, Dose on the > Macotis, > Sirac and Toretae

belonged. The Sarmatic > Rhoxolani in particular during the time of > Aurelianus [3] often had border skirmishes with the Romans. From the rst cent. AD, the Sarmatians also drove the Scythians out of the northern and western parts of the Scythian territory and advanced as far as the area of the lower Danube. Between Phanagoria and Gorgippia lay the territories of the — Sindi who were related to the Scythians or Sarmatians. Here and further south of the area of the Sindi (see map), various peoples of the Caucasus were amalgamated as the - Maiotae. Individually known are the + Achaei [2], > Heniochi, > Cerketae, > Moschi and ~ Zygii among others who traded with the Greek cities. In the process —as in the case of the control of the passes through the Caucasus — disputes arose repeatedly and cities like Dioscurias and Pityus were abandoned in the rst cent. AD or were plundered by the Heniochi. Under Hadrian, Pityus was again a — limes base and served from the 4th cent. AD as a diocesan city. As a result of the rich tree stock of Colchis, > shipbuilding was an important industry here. Grain and salt had to be imported; a small but milk-rich species of cattle was bred locally. The most important goods of the Caucasus and of Colchis were metals, precious stones, various luxury goods (e.g. pheasants, named after Phasis [1] and [2]), > flax and slaves. On the southern coast of the BS (> Asia Minor III.),

the mountain peoples of the > Drilae, - Macrones (also Macrokephali) and > Sanni had settled in the area

of Trapezus. West of the Halys as far as Sesamus lived the Paphlagones (— Paphlagonia). Their neighbours in the west were Thracian tribes like the > Mariandyni or Bithyni (also Thyni). In the Colchis direction, from the time of Vespasian, several forts of the Pontian limes were located east of Trapezus (abandoned under Justinian). On the Asia Minor

south coast of the BS, states

formed under Greek and Persian influence from the 5th cent. BC (e.g. kingdom of > Bithynia with the newly founded capital city of > Nicomedia). Furthermore, Celtic bands (— Celts III. B.) played a part from the late 3rd cent. BC; they had been brought to Asia Minor by Nicomedes [2] I and obtained territories in > Galatia (until the end of the rst cent. BC). From the 6th cent. BC, states were also formed in the western Thracian area — probably based on the Greek model, since

prior to contact no developments of such kind are discernible. Further north, Germanic tribes (especially the + Bastarnae) penetrated from the Vistula region from

the 3rd cent. BC; they settled in the area between Olbia

605

606

and the Danube delta and are still mentioned in Thrace at the end of the 3rd cent. AD. The situation was similar in the northern Scythian area where from the 5th cent. BC on the Chersonesus and on the Maiotis the > Regnum Bosporanum was situated that from 437 BC was ruled by the Spartocids (Hellenized Thracians; ~ Spartocus) until it was incorporated in 107 BC by > Mithradates [6] VI. Eupator into the Regnum Ponticum. This therefore comprised the greatest part of the southern, eastern and north-eastern coast of the BS,

from Heraclea [7] Pontike to Sinope, Trapezus and as far as Panticapaeum and Tanais. N. BO. B. LATE ANTIQUITY TO EARLY MIDDLE AGEs (C.

3RD-13TH/15TH CENT. AD) Late antiquity is marked in the PE are by the destruction caused by the Germanic -> Goths (archaeologically linked with the Sintana de Mures-Cernjachov culture): from the mid—3rd cent. AD, the modern regions of Moldavia and the Ukraine were captured, in the 4th cent. there were attacks together with the related tribes of the > Gepidae and > Herulion other parts of the PE. In the 3rd cent., the Chersonesus suffered from incursions from Goths, and Istrus was pillaged, in 258 the bishopric of Calchedon was plundered, Paphlagonia attacked and in 267 Athens invaded. On the coasts of the BS during the 3rd and 4th cents., Apollonia [2], Niconium, Nymphaeum, Olbia, Panticapaeum, Tanais and Tyras among others were destroyed and did not recover again. Cities like Gorgippia, which was renamed Eudusia in the 5th cent., continued to be inhabited by the Goths. They did not advance far on the east coast of the BS where in Colchis in the 2nd cent. AD with Roman help the kingdom of the > Lazae had formed (> Lazika). They too had been repeatedly embroiled in disputes with the Byzantine and the > Sassanid empires right through to the 6th cent. over control of the passes of the Caucasus. From the 4th cent. when Byzantium/~ Constantinopole became a Christian orthodox centre, > Christianity also spread in the western PE, with dioceses for instance in Mesambria [1] and Odessus. The first ecumenical council took place in Nicaea [5] in AD 325. At the end of the 4th cent., the Goths were defeated by the > Huns, whose fast mounted archers were greatly feared, and their allies (including the Gepidae and Heruli). The Gothic population stayed even longer on the Chersonesus (see above). The Huns built their own

empire in the area north of the BS and from there invaded the Caucasus, the Lower Danube as far as Thrace

and the regions further west until at the end of the sth cent. they merged with other groups of peoples. The southern coast of the Black Sea was controlled from the 7th cent. partly by Byzantium and partly by the Sassanids or Arabs. North-west of the BS, from the 6th cent. — in modern Wolhynia and on the upper Dnepr — > Slavs settled who from the 7th cent. had been expanding to the south-east and mixed with > Antae, > Avares and ~» Bulgari. The find of the treasure of Martynovka can

PONTOS EUXEINOS

be regarded as typical archaeological evidence of this period; it combines Avar, Byzantine, Baltic, late Sar-

matian and Danubian elements. The Avars fled the (primarily) Turkish tribes penetrating from the east in the 6th cent., and on their way westward defeated the Gepidae, destroyed Istrus und Odessus and settled in the Carpatian Basin. The Bulgari, who had inhabited the Danube-Volga region since the 5th cent., formed the Old Bulgarian kingdom at the beginning of the 7th cent. around Lake > Maeotis. At the end of the 7th cent., they were driven out by the - Chazars, crossed the Danube and established the first Bulgarian kingdom south of it. In the course of the 9th cent., they mingled with the majority Slavic population and adopted their language. The relationship with Byzantium relaxed through Christianization (> Cyrillus [8] and > Methodius [4]). In the east, the Chazars, of Turk descent, formed a kingdom with a governor residing in Phanagoria. In 737 it was conquered by the Arabs and numerous Chazars converted to Judaism a short time later. They colonized the city of Chersonesus [3] until the 15th cent. The border between the Chazar kingdom and that of the Slavs was inhabited by the > Alani, an Iranianspeaking people identified with the Saltovo-Majaki culture. Also associated with the Chazars were the Magyars (also Ugri or Ungari) who were located north of the BS, probably between Don (Tanais) and Dnepr (Borysthenes), advanced towards the end of the 9th cent. as far as Vienna and settled in what is now Hungary. > Billaeus; + Chersonesus [2]; > Daci; > Hypanis [1] and [2]; — Iris; > Caucasus; > Celts III.; > Colchis; ~ Lazica; > Limes (with maps); > Lycus [16]; > Maetis; — Pontos Euxeinos; > Sarmatae; — Scythians; — Slavs; > Thraces GENERAL

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

M.

MELLINK,

M.

GATEs,

A.M. Greaves, B. HELwine, Archaeology in Turkey, in: AJA bis 2001; Archeologija Ukrainskoj SSR I-III, 1985 (Archaeology of Ukraine; Ukrainian/Russian); C. Datcoviciu et al., Istoria Romaniei, vol. 1, 1960 (History of Romania; Romanian); C.M. DANoFF, s. v. Pontos Euxeinos, RE Suppl. 9, 866-1175; O. LoRDKIPANIDZE, Drevn-

jaja Kolchida. Mif i archeologija, 1979 (Ancient Colchis. Myth and Archaeology; Russian); M.J. TREISTER, YU. G.

VinNoGRADOV, Archaeology on the Northern Coast of the Black Sea, in: AJA 97, 1993, 521-563. On II. A.: P. ALEXANDRESCU,

W. SCHULLER

(ed.), His-

tria. Eine Griechenstadt an der rumanischen Schwarzmeer-Kiiste, 1990; M. Bases, Die Poienesti-LukaSevkaKultur, 1993; E. BELIN DE BALLU, Olbia, cité antique du littoral nord de la Mer Noire, 1972; G. BicHrr, The Archaeology and History of the Carpi from the Second to the Fourth Century AD, 1976; D. BRAUND, Georgia in Antiquity, 1994; H.-G. BucHHo1z, Doppelaxte und die Frage

der Balkanbeziehungen des Agaischen Kulturkreises, in: A.G. Poutter (ed.), Ancient Bulgaria, 1983, 43-134; G. A. CveTAEvA, Bospor i Rim, 1979 (The Bosporus and Rome; Russian); N. EHRHARDT, Milet und seine Kolonien, 1983; S. FELD, Bestattungen mit Pferdegeschirr- und

Waffenbeigabe des 8.-6. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. zwischen Dnestr und Dnepr, 1999; R.F. Hopprnort, Bulgaria in

PONTOS EUXEINOS

Antiquity, 1975; K. Jerrmar, Die friihen Steppenvolker, 1980; M. KoromILa, The Greeks in the Black Sea, 1991; G.A. KosELENKO, Anticénye gosudarstva Severnogo Priéernomor’ja, 1984 (Ancient States of the Northern Black Sea; Russian); B. Kutt, Tod und Apotheose. Zur Ikono-

graphie in Grab und Kunst der jiingeren Eisenzeit an der unteren Donau ..., in: BRGK 78, 1997, 197-466; J.A. H.

Porratz, Die Skythen in Siidrussland, 1963; R. ROLLE, Die Welt der Skythen, 1980; S. Ju. SAPRYKIN, Ancient Farms and Land-Plots on the Kohora of Khersonesos Taurike, 1994; H. SauTeER, Studien zum Kimmerierproblem,

2000; V. ScHLITz, Die Skythen und andere Steppenvélker, 8. Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr., 1994; W. SCHULLER, Die bulgarische Schwarzmeerkiiste im Altertum, 1985; A.V. SIMONENKO, Sarmaty Tavrii, 1993 (Sarmatae, Taurians; Russian); A. SUCEVEANU, A.

Barnea, La Dobroudja romaine, 1991; G.R. TSETSKHLADZE, Die Griechen in der Kolchis, 1998; V. VASILIEV, Sciti agatirsi pe teritoriul RomAniei, 1980 (The Agathyrsian Scythians on Romanian Territory; Romanian); V. VELKOV, Geschichte und Kultur Thrakiens und Moesiens, 1988; ]. VINOGRADOV, Pontische Studien, 1997. On II. B.: B. ANKE, Studien zur reiternomadischen Kultur des 4. bis 5. Jahrhunderts, 2 vols., 1998; V. BlERBRAUER, Archdologie und Geschichte der Goten vom 1.-7. Jahrhundert. in: FMS 28, 1994, 51-171; C. DicuLEscu, Die Gepiden, 1922; I. Fopor, Altungarn, Bulgarotiirken und Ostslawen in Siidrussland, 1977; P.B. GoLDEN, Khazar Studies: An Historico-Political Inquiry into the Origins of the Khazars, 1980; Gy. GyOrFFY, Die Landnahme der Ungarn aus historischer Sicht, in: M.MULLER-WILLE, R. SCHNEIDER (ed.), Ausgewahlte Probleme der Landnah-

men des HANSEL hundert., rungszeit ans from Manco,

Friih- und Hoch-Mittelalters, 1994, 67-79; B. (ed.), Die Volker Sudosteuropas im 6.-8. Jahr1987; R. Haruotu, Die friihe Volkerwandein Rumanien, 1997; D.M. Lana, The BulgariPagan Times to the Ottoman Conquest, 1976; C. The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453,

1972; L.V. PexarskajA, D. Kipp, Der Silberschatz von

Martynovka (Ukraine) aus dem 6. und 7. Jahrhundert, 1994;

H. PILLINGER,

A. PULz, H. VeTrers

(ed.), Die

Schwarzmeerkiiste in der Spatantike und im friihen Mittelalter, 1992; P. SCHREINER, Byzanz, 1994; V. SPINEI, Ultimele valuri migratoare la nordul Marii Negre gi al Dunarii de Jos, 1996 (The Last Waves of the Migration Period North of the Black Sea and on the Lower Danube; Romanian); J. WERNER, Beitrage zur Archdologie des

Attila-Reiches, 1956.

N. BO.

Pontus (6 Ilovtoc/ho Pontos, Lat. Pontus). I. Positron II. H1sTORICAL OUTLINE PRIOR TO STATUS AS ROMAN PROVINCE III. LATE ANTIQUE AND BYZANTINE PERIODS

I. Posi1TION

Kappadokia hé peri ton Euxeinon (Pol. 5,43,1; cf. Hh MOOG TO Tlovtm Kannadoxialhé pros tdi Péntoi Kappadokia, Str. 12,1,45 3,2; but already known as 6vtoc/ Pontos and Tovtuxoi/Pontikoi in Str. 12,1,4 and 11,8,4).

II. HtsTORICAL OUTLINE PRIOR TO STATUS AS ROMAN PROVINCE P. was the heartland of a Pontic kingdom that developed from 301 BC under the dynasty of the Mithridatids: > Mithridates [1] I probably assumed the title of king in 281 BC and gained the port of Amastris [4] in 279 BC (Memnon FGrH 434 F 1,9,4) and with it access to the sea; his son > Ariobarzanes [6] secured Amisus (Memnon FGrH 434 F 1,16); - Mithridates [2] II, through a dynastic union with the > Seleucids, acquired part of Phrygia (Justin. 38,5,3); + Mithridates [3] III was the first of the dynasty to mint coins with his portrait [1. rof. No. 1-6]; > Pharnaces [1] I conquered Sinope in 183 BC (Pol. 23,9,2f.; Str. 12,3,11), transferring the royal residence from Amaseia there (Str. 12,3,11; perhaps this occurred under Mithridates IV), but failed in his attempt at further expansion because of the resistance of a coalition of Asia Minor that possibly came into being under Roman auspices (the ‘Pontic War’, 182-179); > Mithridates [6] VI, in three disputes with the Romans (> Mithridatic Wars), expanded his rule to practically the whole of Asia Minor and Greece [2] in 88/7 BC, but ultimately lost control completely and was forced by his son Pharanaces [2] (II) to commit suicide in 63 BC (App. Mithr. 522-540; Cass. Dio 37,126.; Just. Epit. 37,1,9). Whilst in 63 BC western P. was incorporated into the Roman province of Bithynia created by Pompey [I 3] (from the time of Nero, > Bithynia et Pontus) [3. 2646], the remaining parts of P. fell to various dynasts (cf. ~ Archelaus [5] and > Deiotarus). For a short time, Pharnaces II may well have hoped to regain his father’s empire— from his Bosporan kingdom (> Regnum Bosporanum) (Cass. Dio 37,1 4,2) —, but at the battle of Zela on 2 August 47 BC, in the struggle against Caesar, this proved illusory (cf. Bell. Alex. 72ff.; Cass. Dio 42,47,1ff.). In his reorganization of P., Antonius [I 9] placed Darius, a son of Pharnaces II, on the throne (App. B Civ. 5,75); in 37 BC he appointed Polemon [4], a citizen of Laodicea [4], as heir to the throne (Cass. Dio 49,25,4; Plut. Antonius 38,6); the latter founded a dynasty; with its demise, in AD 64 Nero integrated this Pontic kingdom into the procuratorial province of Galatia as Pontus Polemonianus (cf. ILS 1017; [4]; also P. Polemoniacus in literature).

Region on the south coast of the Black Sea (+ Pontos Euxeinos) between Paphlagonia (west), Colchis (east) and Cappadocia

608

607

(south), divided into a narrow

nor-

thern coastal plain with various Greek towns (cf. Amisus, Cotyora, Pharnaceia, Trapezus) and an interior south of the northern Anatolian frontier mountain range around Iris [3] and Lycus [19], still known into the rst cent. BC as Kanxadoxia h megi tov EvEewov/

1RG1r,1,*1925 2 E. OLSHAUSEN,J.WAGNER, Kleinasien und Schwarzmeergebiet. Das Zeitalter Mithradates’ d.Gr. (TAVO BV 6), r981 3 CH. Marek, Stadt, Ara und Territorium in Pontus-Bithynia und Nord-Galatia (IstForsch 39), 1993 4R.D. SuLLivan, ANRW II 7.2, 1980, 913-930.

Dynasts

in Pontus,

in:

ANDERSON; ANDERSON/CUMONT/GREGOIRE; L. BALLESTEROS Pastor, Mithridates Eupator, 1996; A. BRYER, D.

609

610

WINFIELD, The Byzantine Monuments and Topography of the Pontosi, 2 vols., 1985; F. and E. Cumonrt, Studia Pontica, vol. 2, 1906; D. FRENCH, Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor, 1988; Macige; MITCHELL; OLsHAUSEN/BILLER/WAGNER; E, OLSHAUSEN, S. Vv. Pontos (2),

RE Suppl. 15, 396-442; E. OLSHAUSEN, Mithradates VI. und Rom, in: ANRW

I 1, 1972, 806-815; E. OLSHAUSEN,

Zum Hellenisierungsprozef am Pontischen K6nigshof, in: AncSoce 5, 1974, 153-170; E. OLSHAUSEN, Pontos und Rom (63 v. Chr.-64 n. Chr.), in: ANRW II 7.2, 1980, 903-912; E. OLSHAUSEN, Der Konig und die Priester, in: E. OLSHAUSEN,

H. SONNABEND

(ed.), Stuttgarter Kollo-

quium zur historischen Geographie des Altertums 1/1980 (Geographica Historica 4), 1987, 187-205; E. OLSHAUSEN, Gotter, Heroen und ihre Kulte in Pontos, in: ANRW II 18.3, 1990, 1865-1906; E. OLSHAUSEN, Pontica IV. Das rémische StrafSennetz in Pontos, in: Orbis Terrarum 5, 1999, 93-113; D.R. Witson, The Historical Geogra-

phy of Bithynia, Paphlagonia, and Pontus, D. B. Thesis, Oxford 1960, 239-244 (typescript). E.O.

II]. LarE ANTIQUE AND BYZANTINE PERIODS Dioecesis Pontus (> Diotkésis), established within

the framework of Diocletian’s administrative reforms (> Diocletianus, with map) comprised north-west and interior > Asia Minor. The vicarius resided in > Amasea. The dux Ponti et Armeniae had military control of P. Iustinianus [1] I restructured this office, after a temporary division between two duces (> Dux [2]), as magister militum Armeniae, which heralded the later organization by theme (+ Thémata) with its office of the > stratégds. Dioecesis P. was disbanded in the 7th cent. and the territory divided up among the themata of Armeniakon and > Opsikion. After Diocletianus, two provinciae within dioecesis P. also contained the name P.: Helenopontus (métrdpolis: Amasea) and P. Polemoniacus (Neocaesarea), paralleled by the ecclesial provinces. After a brief amalgamation under [ustinianus, this provincial division also disappeared in the 7th cent. in favour of the thema structure. Ultimately, in the Byzantine period, the term P. was also generally used for the south-western coastal areas of the Black Sea which, with their old metropolis > Trapezus, gained in importance in the Middle Byzantine Period. This usage continues through the present time. — Asia Minor; > Pontos Euxeinos C. Foss, s. v. Pontos, ODB 3, 1697, 1220 (with bibl.). JN.

Pope, Papacy see > Petrus [1]

Popillius (also frequently Popilius). Name of a Plebeian gens attested from the 4th cent. BC. The family maintained a joint funeral cult (Cic. Leg. 2,55). Its most famous branch was the Laenates (with regard to the cognomen ~ Laenas); insignificant from the early Imperial period onwards. SCHULZE, 173; 443; 449.

K.-L.E.

POPILLIUS

I. REPUBLICAN PERIOD

II. IMPERIAL PERIOD

I. REPUBLICAN PERIOD {1 1] P. Laenas. Augur (Cic. Att.

12,13,2), in 44 BC was

the adviser of the murderers of Caesar and may perhaps have been tempted to betray them to the dictator (App. B Civ. 2,484; 487). JOF. [1 2] P. Laenas, C. Praetor in 175 BC. In 172 he formed with P. Aelius [I 6] Ligus the first purely Plebeian collegium of consuls (MRR 1,410f.) and sabotaged the senatorial ruling against his brother P. [I 7]. In 169 he was the envoy in Greece. In 168 in Eleusis near Alexandria [1], he forced the Seleucid king Antiochus [6] IV to accept the ultimatum of the Senate to evacuate Egypt by creating a circle around the king which the latter was only permitted to leave after making a decision (Pol. 29,27,1-10); there he also organized the release of the pro-Roman Spartan > Menalcidas. Cos. IT in 158. + Syrian Wars 1 GRUEN, Rome, Index s. v. P. 2W. Orro, Zur Geschichte der Zeit des 6. Ptolemaers, in: ABAW rx, 1934, 74-80.

P.N.

{I 3] P. Laenas, C. Son of P. [I 8], in 107 BC as legate of the consul C. Cassius [I 11] Longinus, after the latter’s

defeat against the Tigurini, entered into a treaty for the free withdrawal of the army, was condemned for this in Rome for high treason (> perduellio) and had to go into exile (Rhet. Her. 1,25; Cic. Leg. 3,36). K-LE. [I 4] P. Laenas, C. Was defended by Cicero before 48 BC

(Val. Max. 5,3,4) and in 43 as tr. mil. (MRR 2,350; 3,168) was one of the murderers of the orator. Tradition characterizes him as the ungrateful ‘patricide’ (parricida) [1. 13f.]. 1H. Homeyer, Die antiken Berichte ber den Tod Ciceros und ihre Quellen, 1964. JOF.

{I 5] P. Laenas, M. Cos. in 359, 356, 354 (2), 350 and 348 BC (MRR 1, 121; 123f.; 127f.; 129f.). As cos. in 350, P. was victorious and triumphed over the Gauls (Liv. 7,23,1-24,9; 25,1; cf. Inscrlt 13,1,34f.; with regard to P.’s military successes in the other consulates cf. Liv. 7,12,1-4; 17,1f.). In his first consulate, P. was also flamen Carmentalis (- flamines), in which role, according to Cicero (Brut. 56) who here inaccurately explains the cognomen — Laenas, he left a state sacrifice — still clad in the > /aena — in order to calm a riot of the > plebs. His 3rd consulate is only attested by several annalists (in Liv. 7,18,10), while the rest of the tradition (in InscrlIt 13,1,540) mentions a T. Quinctius. According to Festus, P. as aedile in 364 held the first ludi (II. C.) scaenici in Rome (Fest. 436; cf. Liv. 7,2; in this regard [1. 40-72]); likewise probably as aedile, he sentenced C. Licinius [I 43] Stolo in 357 to a fine for infringing his own law (Liv. 7,16,9; cf. among others Val. Max. 8,6,3; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 14,12). 1 S.P. OaKLey, A Commentary on Livy, Books VI-X, vol. 2, 1998, Index s. v. P. CMU.

POPILLIUS

{I 6] P. Laenas, M. Son of P. [1 7], was envoy in 154 BC in Liguria (> Ligures) and in 146 in Corinth (MRR 1, 451; 468; [Magn. 123). Cos. in 139, procos. in 138 in Hispania citerior. Negotiations with the leader of the rebellious Spaniards, — Viriatus, failed because of the harsh conditions set by P. (Diod. Sic. 33,19; Cass. Dio 22,75,1). A defeat against the Numantians brought him criticism from Lucilius [I 6] (Lucil. 26,621 M.). A city gate (Porta Popillia) in > Carthago Nova was named after him (ILS 5333). [I 7] P. Laenas, M. Brother of P. [I 2], Praetor in 176 BC. As cos. in 173, he defeated the > Ligures at Carytum and with his brother prevented the release demanded by the Senate of the 10,000 prisoners whom he had sold after his victory (Liv. 42,7,3-9,6). In 169, P. was legate of Q. Marcius [I 17] Philippus in the war against > Perseus [2]. Censor in 159 (MRR 1, 445). P.N. [I 8] P. Laenas, P. Son of P. [12]. As cos. in 132 BC, punished the followers of Ti. + Sempronius Gracchus harshly (Cic. Lael. 37; Val. Max. 3,7,1), which is why he was forced into exile by C. Sempronius Gracchus in 123 (Cic. Clu. 95; Cic. Dom. 825 87; Cic. Leg. 3,26 and now and then), from which he was able to return in 121 after the latter’s death. As consul, P. built the via Popillia in north-eastern Italy. If the acephalus inscription from Polla (Campania) refers to him (CIL I? 638 = ILLRP 454), he was praetor in Sicily before the outbreak of the great Slave War (13 5?; > Eunus), built as consul another road from Capua to Rhegium with the road station of Forum Popilli and promoted an antiGracchian settlement programme (see — Annius

[I x5}).

1 L.A. BurcKHARDT, Gab es ein optimatisches Siedlungsprogramm?, in: H.E. Herzic (ed.), Labor omnibus unus. FS G. Walser, 1989, 3-20 2 T.P. WISEMAN, Roman Studies, 1987, 108-115; 122-125.

K.-L.E.

Il. IMPERIAL PERIOD [I 1] C.P. Carus Pedo. Senator whose career is passed

down to us in CIL XIV 3610 = ILS 1071 and IEph 7,1, 3028. Decemvir stlitibus iudicandis; participated in the war against > Bar Kochba as tribune of the /egio III Cyrenaica. Quaestor Hadrians; also as people’s tribune and praetor, he was candidatus Caesaris. He did not take on the command of the legio X Fretensis in SyriaPalestina. He was then curator viarum and praefectus aerarii Saturni, cos. suff. in AD 147. Attested as curator operum publicorum in 150. Consular legate of Germania superior in ¢. 151-155; under Marcus [2] Aurelius and Lucius > Verus, he conducted a > census in Gallia Lugdunensis. Proconsul of Asia in the first years of the rule of Marcus Aurelius. He belonged to the priesthoods of the > septemviri epulonum and the ~ sodales Hadrianales. He had a kinship relationship with P. [II 2] and [II 3]. PIR* P 838. [II 2] P. Pedo Apronianus. Cos. ord. in AD 191. As proconsul of Asia in c. 205, he was prosecuted in the Senate in his absence for magic and executed in Asia (Cass. Dio 77,35) wl bao Aan

612

611

[I 3] M. (P.) Pedo Vergilianus, Cos. ord. in AD 115; he died during his consulate; at that time he was possibly > comes of > Traianus in the > Parthian War (Cass. Dio 68,25,1). PIR* P 843. [I 4] P. Priscus. Cos. suff. under > Hadrianus; procos. of Asia in AD 149/150. PIR* P 844. W.E.

Poplar. Both the black poplar (aiyevgos/aigeiros, Hom. Il. 4,482-87; Od. 7,106; 10,510 and 17,208, Lat. populus nigra) and the silver poplar (Gyeowic/acherdis in Hom. Il. 13,389 and 16,482, then hevur/leuke, Lat. populus alba) are frequently encountered in ancient literature. Theophrastus (Hist. pl. 3,14,2) and Pliny (HN 16,85f.) provide good descriptions, the latter even including the woolly seeds. Medicinal use is to be found for the bark, the resin and the leaves. Dioscorides (1,83 WELLMANN = 1,110 BERENDES) mentions the leaves of the black poplar with vinegar as a poultice for gout, drinking the fruit with vinegar for epilepsy and the resin (from which amber supposedly originates), drunk in a grated form, for dysentery and diarrhoea. The bark of the white poplar was used, according to Dioscorides (1,81 WELLMANN = 1,109 BERENDES; cf. Plin. HN 24,47), ina drink as a remedy for sciatica and dysuria. The sap of the leaves, dribbled lukewarm into the ear canal, was said to assist with earache (Plin. ibid.). The finely crushed leaf buds as an ointment with honey were regarded as helping to combat poor eye-sight. It was said that edible mushrooms grew in garden beds from the mulched bark of both species of poplar. According to Pliny (HN 12,3), the poplar was dedicated to Hercules. Like Theophrastus (Caus. pl. 2,16,2 and 4,5,7), he also maintains (HN 17,242) that a white poplar oc-

casionally changes into a black. The small and darkleafed species, Populus Euphratita Oliv. (xeoxic/kerkis, Theophr. Hist. pl. 3,14,2, supposedly the aspen, Populus tremula; populus Libyca: Plin. HN 16,85) and Populus Libyca L. (aityewwog xontt/aigeiros krétiké with a fruit: Theophr. Hist. pl. 2,2, 10; cf. 3,3,4) play a minor part in antiquity. H. GossEn, s.v. Pappel, RE 18.3, 1081-1083.

C.HU.

Poplifugia. Festival in the city of Rome on 5 July (Fast. Antiates maiores, Fast. Amiterni, Fast. Maffeiani; cf. InscrIt 13,2,476f.), whose original significance ceased

to be clear already to Varro: “The day seems to have been called P. because on it the people (populus) fled (fugerit) into sudden uproar” (Varro Ling. 6,18; > Regifugium). Calpurnius Piso (fr. 34 FORSYTHE) saw its

origin in the flight before the Etruscans and a subsequent Roman victory, which was celebrated by a ~ vitulatio. The festival may have represented the reflex of a + lustratio of the army, which originally fell at the beginning of July [4. rof.; 2]. In this respect, in can be compared with the > transvectio equitum on 15

July [2. 325].

Connexion with the Nonae > Capratinae on 7 July is disputed. Plutarch (Romulus 29) accepts the identity

613

614

of the two festivals ([7; 6] follow him). His sources trace the P. to the apotheosis of Romulus or Rome’s early wars (Plut. Camillus 33), but these may have been constructs of the late Republic (for the difference between the two festivals see [3; 5. 8f. note r]). On the problems of its interpretation as a Jupiter festival cf. [3. 74]. Comparable festivals are recorded in Umbria [4. rof.] and Attica (Dipolieia; [1; 3]). > Calendar; > Ritual

his divorce from Octavia and marry P., who by then was pregnant with his child. Early in AD 63, P. gave birth to a daughter, who like her mother received the title of Augusta shortly after

1 DEUBNER, 158-174 2G. ForsyTHe, The Historian L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi, 1994, 321-330 3 W. Kraus,s. v.

P., RE 22, 74-78

4R.E. A. PatMer, Roman religion and

Roman Empire: five essays, 1974

5 N. ROBERTSON, The

Nones of July and Roman Weather Magic, in: MH 1987, 8-41

6J. RUpxKe, Kalender

44,

und Offentlichkeit,

1995, 556-561 7A. SCHWEGLER, Rémische Geschichte, vol. 1,1, 1853, 532-537: M.SE.

Poppaea {1] P. Sabina. Daughter of Poppaeus [1] Sabinus, married to T. Ollius, then, after his death, to P. Cornelius

[II 33] Lentulus Scipio (proconsul of Asia in AD 41/2). She was the mother of P. [2] Sabina by T. Ollius, and by Scipio probably of P. Cornelius [II 49] Scipio Asiaticus, whose cognomen indicates that he was born in Asia. P. was regarded as the most beautiful woman of her day (Tac. Ann. 13,45,2), was embroiled in numerous scandals (Tac. Ann. 11,2,1) and committed suicide in AD 47 to avoid the threat of incarceration (Tac. Ann. r1,2,2). W.ED. [2] P. Sabina. Lover, later wife, of > Nero, notorious for her machinations and famed for her beauty and extravagance. Born the daughter of T. Ollius and P. [1] Sabina the elder around AD 31 [2. 5], she was named after the father of her mother, C. Poppaeus [1] Sabinus, since her own father had been executed in the wake of the fall of Aelius [II 19] Seianus (Tac. Ann. 13,45,1) in AD 31. P.’s Pompeian origins (CIL IV 259; IV 6682; [x. 1025 2. 7]) are disputed [3]. P. was at first married to Rufrius Crispinus (Tac. Ann. 15,71,4). In AD 58, she began a liaison with the later emperor M. Salvius + Otho, then married him and, in the same year, became — Nero’s lover. According to Tacitus (Ann. 13,46,1), Otho praised P.’s beauty to Nero, either out of his own infatuation or because he wished to present her to Nero in order to gain influence (on the ambiguous source material, see [2. 21-39]). The driving force behind these events was P. (according to Tac. Ann. 13,45,4; but otherwise Tac. Hist. 1,13; Cass. Dio 61,11,2; Plut. Galba 19; Suet. Otho 3). The wedding of P. to Nero was obstructed by Nero’s marriage to > Octavia [3], who was popular among the people and to whom Nero’s mother Agrippina [3] (Tac. Ann. 14,1,1) and the praefectus praetorio Afranius [3] Burrus (Cass. Dio 62,13,1-2) were also loyal. After the matricide (March 59), for which Nero had arranged at the urging of P. [2. 39-46], according to Tacitus (Ann. 14,1,1; but cf. Suet. Nero 34,2), it was another three years [1. 98f.; 2. 48-55] before Nero could complete

POPPAEUS

birth; the child, however, lived only four months (Tac. Ann. 15,233 Suet. Nero 35,3). In AD 65, the once-more

pregnant P. died in unexplained circumstances. The allegation that Nero killed her by kicking her in the belly (Tac. Ann. 16,6; Suet. Nero 35,3; Cass. Dio 62,28,1) is a topos on tyranny [2. 130f.]. P. was not cremated, as would have been usual, but was embalmed and buried in the tomb of the Tulii (Tac. Ann. 16,6,2).

P. was an ambitious and intelligent woman of wide interests who showed a particular interest in Judaism [1. ror; 2. roff.] and met its representatives (Jos. Vit. 16; Jos. Ant. lud. 20,193-195). At the same time, she was regarded as corybantic and extravagant. To preserve her beauty, she was said to bathe daily in the milk of five hundred jennies (Cass. Dio 62,28,1; Plin. HN 28,182f.; 11,238); an unguent was also said to have been named after her (Juv. 6,461-464). In MONTEVERDi’s opera L’incoronazione di Poppea (libretto: 1642), the viewpoint of P.’s husband Ottone is also portrayed. 1M. Grirrin, Nero. The End of a Dynasty, 1984, roo— 103 2 F. HOLzTrATTINER, P. Neronis potens, Studien zu Sabina, 1995 3A. LOs, Les intéréts de Poppée a Pompéi, in: Eos 79, 1991, 63-70. B.GO.

Poppaedius (also attested epigraphically as Popaedius). Italian family name, possibly of Etruscan origin [2. 367]. It is well-known from Q.P. Silo, leader of the Marsi [1] in the Social War (— Social Wars [3])of 90-88 BC and, with C. Papius [I 4] Mutilus, one of the two commanders-in-chief of the secessionists (Diod. Sic. 3752,6; Str. 5,4,2; Liv. Per. 76 et passim; coins: [3; 4]).

As a guest-friend of the people’s tribune M. Livius [I 7]

Drusus, he regarded the latter’s murder as grounds for an uprising of the socii. As commander of the northern army, P. after fruitless negotiations with C. Marius [I r] (Diod. Sic. 37,15), defeated Q. > Servilius Caepio and, in the spring of 89, the consul L. Porcius [I 4] Cato (App. Civ. 1,196-198; 217; Liv. Per. 73; 75). After the successes of the consular army of Cn. Pompeius [I 8] Strabo, the rebels quit their capital of > Corfinium early in 88. P. gathered his army at Aesernia, but was defeated and killed by Q. Caecilius [I 31] Metellus Pius (App. Civ. 1,230; Liv. Per. 76). 1 A. KEAvVENEY, Rome and the Unification of Italy, 1987,

Indexs.v.P. 2 ScHULZE 3 E. A. SYDENHAM, The Coinage of the Roman Republic, *1952, no. 634 4 A. CAMPANA, La monetazione degli insorti italici durante la guerra sociale (91-87 a. C.), 1987. K.-LE.

Poppaeus [1] C.P. Sabinus. His family is presumably from Interamna Praetuttiorum, not Pompeii. Homo novus; his brother was P. [2]; father of > Poppaea [1] Sabina and

father-in-law of T. Ollius. Promoted by Augustus and above all Tiberius. In 9 AD, extraordinarily for a homo

POPPAEUS

615

616

novus, he became cos. ord. Shortly thereafter, probably in rz AD, he was sent to Moesia; he was presumably the first to organize it as an independent province. In 15, he was also placed over Achaea and Macedonia, and so held overarching command over three provinces. In Moesia he was represented by vice-governors such as Pomponius [II 10] Flaccus and Latinius [II 3] Pandusa. Campaigns against the client kingdom of the > Thraci, described by Tacitus (Ann. 4, 46-51), earned him > ornamenta triumphalia. He died in 35 in the province. He must have been one of > Tiberius’ most intimate friends. PIR* P 847. [2] Q.P. Secundus. Brother of P. [1]. Cos. suff. after his brother likewise in AD 9. Became famous for the lex Papia Poppaea (> Lex Iulia et Papia), which he brought to passage with his colleague > Papius [II 1] Mutilus, all the more since he himself as an unmarried, childless man was impacted by the its strict rules (Cass. Dio 56,10,3); this shows only that he carried through this law at the behest of > Augustus [1]. PIR* 848. WE.

shaped closed flower’s characteristic oblique posture in rainy weather [7. 389-398]. Papaver rhoeas L. exhibits the same posture; Virgil chooses this poppy in his imitation of the Homeric simile for its dainty form and red

Poppy. The names wxwv/mekon (Greek) and papaver (Lat.) denote in the proper sense (1.) red-flowered poppy species, which grow wild in fields (i.e., the field poppy, Papaver rhoeas L.) and which were eaten immature before harmful alkaloids accumulated in them (with purgative effect: Theophr. Hist. pl. 9,12,4; for more on this and on medical use [1. 2440f.]); (2.) the

yellow-flowered horned poppy, Glaucium flavum Crantz, which grows on coasts, and related species (Theophr. ibidem 9,12,3; [1. 2442f.]); (3.) the garden or opium poppy, Papaver somniferum L., cultivated in several varieties for its nutritious oil-bearing seeds and its narcotic milk. The last species, a type occurring only under cultivation, recently viewed to be a hybrid of the eastern Mediterranean Papaver gracile Boissier and the Irano-Turanian P. glaucum Boissier et Haussknecht, is accordingly considered to derive from Anatolia [2. esp. 240-242; 3. 35-40]. Archaeologically, it has been known in Europe since the Neolithic Period; in Egypt, in the recentmost estimation [4. 190], since the middle of the 2nd millennium BC (iconographically contemporaneous in Crete [5. 69, 72]); it is attested in literature throughout Graeco-Roman Antiquity — primarily for its seeds and the oil obtained from them. Since its oil, when cold-

pressed, can replace olive oil [3. 338; 6. 49], cultivation was concentrated in regions outside the olive tree zone such as northern Greece and the interior of Anatolia [7- 399f.]. Recent archeology has demonstrated the extraction of oil from poppies in the Roman period [8. 96, 102]. In the kitchen the seeds (particularly the variety with white seeds) found multiple uses [1. 2438]; poppy heads thus often appear alongside ears of grain in the cult of Demeter and related fertility deities [9. 13ff.; 1. 2445f.]. Its oldest use squares with Homer’s mention of the opium poppy ‘in the garden’ in the oftimitated simile of a poppy flower and a warrior’s head (Hom. Il. 8,306-308). The simile alludes to the shell-

flower (Verg. Aen. 9,433-437) [7- 393-395]. Virgil is familiar with the use of the opium poppy as a medicinal plant [10. 390-394]. Theophr. Hist. pl. 9,8,2 is the first to describe the extraction of opium (dndc/opoés, dmov/6pion; opium in Plin. HN 20,199, cf. commentary in [12]) by making an incision in the unripe head; Greek and Latin authors often mention its use as a sedative, soporific and anaesthetic [1. 243 6ff.]. In medical literature in particular, the poppy frequently appears as an element of medicine. In some passages, as early as the Corpus Hippocraticum ([1. 2436, 2440], this is in fact opium; also on its later use: [6. 47ff.; 9]). This explains the poppy’s connexion with Hypnos, the god of sleep, ({11. 32f. with note 49], containing recent bibl. on opium in ancient medicine; [11. 78, 80]). > Intoxicating substances 1 A. SrerER, s.v. Mohn, RE 15, 2433-2446 2 J. W.KabeEREIT, Papaver somniferum L. (Papaveraceae): A Triploid Hybrid?, in: Botanische Jahrbiicher fiir Systematik 106,

1986, 221-244

3 J. BERNATH, Poppy — The Genus Papa-

ver (Medical and Aromatic Plants — Industrial 1998 4C. DE VARTAVAN, V.A. AMOROS, Ancient Egyptian Plant Remains, 1997 5 H. Die griechische Pflanzenwelt, 41999 6G.

Profiles 3), Codex of BAUMANN, HecI, Illu-

strierte Flora von Mitteleuropa vol. 4,1, *1958, 16-49 7 B. HERZHOFF, Kriegerhaupt und Mohnblume — Ein verkanntes Homergleichnis (O 306-308), in: Hermes 122, 1994, 387-403 8K.H. KNOrRzER, R. GERLACH et al., Pflanzenspuren. Archaobotanik im Rheinland (Materialien zur Bodendenkmalpflege im Rheinland ro), 1999 9 M. SEEFELDER, Opium - Eine Kulturgeschichte, 31996 10 G. MaGGIuLLI, Incipiant silvae cum primum surgere —

Mondo vegetale e nomenclatura della flora di Virgilio, 1995 11G. WOuRLE, Hypnos, der Allbezwinger (Palingenesia 53), 1995 12R. Konic, G. WINKLER, Naturkunde. Buch XX. Medizin und Pharmakologie, 1979,

265f.

B.HE.

Popular assembly s. > Apella; - Comitia; > Concilium; > Ekklesia; > Assemblies

Popular etymology

(also called ‘folk etymology’),

from the German ‘Volksetymologie’, a term coined in the mid—roth cent. (probably first in [r]) to refer to the conscious or unconscious interpretation of words and their subsequent modification by native speakers as a result of that interpretation (making them more similar to words presumed to be related). Many examples of words modified through PE are found in the vocabulary of the classical languages. It is generally believed that the vowels contained in the Greek xhovic/klonis (‘tail-

bone’), which deviate from the Old Indo-Iranian sréni(‘thigh’), Latin clinis (‘hind leg’) (one would expect tyiobvic/kloanis), result from the influence of the verb xhovew/klonéo (‘to set in motion’), just as in the case of the German word Friedhof (‘cemetery’), where one

617

618

would expect Freithof, given the Middle High German frithof, but instead has been influenced by association with Frieden (‘peace’). PE is particularly apparent in the integration of -> loan-words; for example, the Greek word for ‘brass’, dgeixadxoc/oreichalkos (literally ‘mountain ore’) often became aurichalcum in Latin, as the first member of the compound was associated with aurum, ‘gold’; similarly, the Latin carbunculus, ‘piece of coal’, was borrowed by German as Karfunkel (‘carbuncle’) because of its similarity to funkeln (‘to twinkle’). In Greek, such modifications were often found in connection with Hebrew words. In the Chri-

An important role in conveying the ideas of popular philosophy must be attributed to the ‘pseudoepigraphic letters’ (of - Heraclitus I [1], the Socratics and the Cynics), which presented the essential content of the moral doctrines of the respective philosophers in a simple and animated style, probably with the aim of promoting and propagandizing these ideas. In the Greek and Roman world, popular philosophy was represented particularly by the Cynics and Stoics:

stian context, the term for the Jewish > Pesah celebra-

tion (Hebrew pesah) is probably affected by the Greek word for ‘to suffer’ (ndoxw/pdscho — na&oyalpdscha, ‘Easter festival’; cf. e.g. Lactantius PL 6, 531 A); in Latin, the Hebrew

word idbélaeus (annus) (< idbel,

‘ram’s horn’, probably via Greek iwPnAatoc/idbélaios) and the native word izbilare, ‘to call’, influenced each

other, so that ‘jubilee’ became imbilaeum and the meaning of i#bildre was restricted to ‘be jubilant’. + Etymology; > ETyMoLocy

POPULARES

+ Bion [1] of Borysthenes, — Teles, C. - Musonius Rufus, > Seneca, — Epictetus, > Dion [I 3] Chrysostomus, > Plutarchus [2], - Maximus [I 1] of Tyre, ~ Libanius; but also by Christians such as > Paulus [II 2] of Tarsus and the Christian apostles, as well as

~ Tertullianus. + Cynicism, > EPICUREANISM, ~> Protreptics 1 A. OLTRAMARE, Les origines de la diatribe romaine, diss. Genéve-Lausanne 1926.

R. BULTMANN, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe, 1910 (repr. 1984); P.P.FUENTES GONZALEZ, Les diatribes de Télés, 1998; A.J. MatHERBE, Paul and the Popular Philosophers, 1989. M.G.-c.

1 E. FORSTEMANN, Ueber deutsche Volksetymologie, in: KZ 1, 1852, 1-25.

K.G. ANDRESEN, Uber deutsche Volksetymologie, 1876; O. KELLER, Lateinische Volksetymologie und Verwandtes, 1892 (repr. 1974); H. Paut, Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, +1898, § 150-152, S. 198-202; R. THURNEY-

SEN, Wortschépfung im Lateinischen, in: IF 31, 1912-13, 276-281; J.B. HOFMANN, Zur Wortschopfung im Lateinischen, in: IF 60.3, 1952, 273-276; SCHWYZER, Gramm.,

38 f.; O. PANAGL, Aspekte der Volksetymologie, 1982; H. OLscHANsky, Volksetymologie, 1996. J.G.

Popular literature see > Light reading

Popular philosophy. This modern term refers to a collective ancient cultural tradition that is a product of ethical philosophy and consists primarily of topoi. These topoi were developed in the schools of the Hellenistic and Imperial periods, particularly in + Cynicism and — Stoicism, as well as by itinerant preachers. They hark back to the older — Sophists, the philosophical literature of the 4th cent. BC and Greek poetry (> philosophical literature, genres of), but their subjects were taken primarily from daily life: wealth, banishment, marriage, old age, fate, slavery etc. (a list of 94 topics can be found in [r]). Popular philosophy aimed primarily to be moral philosophy, to criticize the habits of contemporary people and to encourage them to think; they were supposed to change their behaviour and become more virtuous. Accordingly, the proposed principles were presented in an appealing manner with the goal of captivating the audience. These speeches (Greek diatribe, dialexis, didlogos, homilia, Latin sermo), which were given by popular moralists, are today referred to as diatribes (— Diatribe).

Populares I. MEANING OF THE TERM II. THEMES OF POPULAR POLITIcS III]. AIMS OF THE POPULARES IV. TRADITION AND POPULAR POLITICS

I. MEANING OF THE TERM The Latin term denoted politicians of the late Roman Republic who declared themselves to act with the assistance, and in the interests of, the people (> populus); however, terminological and not infrequently factual blurring arose from the fact that the root adjective popularis at first meant ‘belonging to the people’, ‘concerning the people’, then concurrently ‘popular’ and ‘in the interests of the people’. By definition, agitation by populares before the multitude in opposition to the established elite (pauci; ‘the few’) was almost de rigueur, and is encountered as early as the comedies of Plautus (Plaut. Trin. 3 4f.) and Terence (Ter. Hec. 44ff.); Accius, Pragmatica frr. 3-4W may offer the first evidence of the use of populares as a political term. Differences of opinion between people’s tribunes (— tribunus) and the senatorial majority are already discernible from the mid—znd cent. BC. The antagonism became more explosive in 133 BC, when Ti. > Sempronius Gracchus had an agrarian law passed by the people against the will of the Senate (> senatus) and triggered further conflict by removing a colleague from office, his regulation of financial affairs on his own authority and his attempt at re-election to the tribunate. His behaviour became seminal, as Cicero (Cic. Rep. 1,31) quite rightly asserts (cf. Sall. lug. 42,1), for the popularis ratio or via in contradistinction to the boni (the possessors) or > optimates. Ti. Gracchus, the first of the four ‘great populares’, was followed by his brother C. > Sempronius Gracchus (tr. pl. 123/122 BC), L.

POPULARES

620

619

Appuleius [I rr] Saturninus (tr. pl. 103 and 100 BC) and P. Sulpicius (the cognomen Rufus is doubtful: MRR III 202). Many other politicians conducted sporadic popular agitation or proposed populist measures, generally while people’s tribune. Few, by contrast, agitated on the people’s behalf as consul: with L. Cornelius [I x8] Cinna (cos. 87-84 BC) and M. Aemilius [I 11] Lepidus (cos. 78 BC), most worthy of mention in this regard is > Caesar during his consulate of 59 BC. Il. THEMES OF POPULAR POLITICS The objects of popular politics were above all the consolidation and extension of the liberties of the people, and the consolidation and improvement of the people’s material existence. In pursuit of the first were, for example, the laws on the right of provocation

tions of trust and intimacy — clientela (— cliens) and ~ amicitia — constituted an extensive network of social relationships of a uniquely Roman kind. However, as the elite centred on the Senate proved incapable of fundamental reform in 133 BC and thereafter, there did exist a continuity of problems, first among these being the agrarian question. The natural consequence of this continuity was the constant re-emergence of the populares and an increasingly coherent essential identity in popular politics. Cicero (Cic. Cat. 4,9f.) and Sallust (Sall. Catil. 38,3) were aware of this, although Cicero generally regarded the development as a negative one (Cic. Sest. 96ff.). However, Cicero did realize, albeit very late in the day, that both sides, optimates and populares, represented limited points of view and not the common weal (Cic. Off. 1,85).

(> provocatio), the introduction of secret ballots in

decrees of the people and legal proceedings (leges tabellariae), laws providing for popular participation in the election of priests and, finally, the treason laws (leges de maiestate) principally aimed at preventing magistrates (> magistratus) from disregarding laws and decrees of the people. The struggle of the years after 78 BC to restore the powers of the people’s tribunate, which had been curtailed by Cornelius [I 90] Sulla, also belongs in this context. The > agrarian laws were aimed at economic betterment, as were the later laws for providing veterans with land; the > grain laws were intended to assure the existence of the > plebs urbana, but agitation for debt cancellation may also have served the interests of members of the elite. From the time of Marius [I 1], the populares acted in support of ambitious individuals — for example, in the post-Sullan period, of > Pompeius [I 3], M. > Licinius [I 11] Crassus and > Caesar. Politicians sharing the purposes of the optimates could also avail themselves of the popularis ratio, as is shown esp. by the examples of the elder and younger M. Livius [I 6 and 7] Drusus (tr. pl. 122 and 91 BC). The strategies of the populares and optimates overlapped in certain areas, esp. the provision of grain (— cura annonae) to Rome. Important in this regard was the ever-resonant nuance of meaning of populares in the sense of ‘popular’, which a man like Cicero well knew how to exploit (e.g. in the second speech De lege agraria of 63 BC) in portraying his own policies as truly ‘people-friendly’ in contrast to the politics, to his mind misconceived, of the populares (Cic. Leg. agr. 2,6-19).

III. AIMS OF THE POPULARES As the Roman people had been incorporated in processes of voting and electing since time immemorial, it

was not a ‘democratization’ of Rome for which the strove. Nor did they constitute a closed ‘party’, for every politician worked to further his own personal > cursus honorum, and the people’s tribunate, restricted as it was in terms of time and by collegiality, offered no opportunity for a long-term project

populares

to achieve programmatic aims. Furthermore, connec-

IV. TRADITION AND POPULAR POLITICS As was the case with many fetures of the late Republic, the distinction between optimates and populares was projected back into the early history of Rome by the annalistic historians. This is evident in the depiction of people’s tribunes, of their agitation on agrarian and debt issues and in the characterization of the seditiosi (lit. ‘rabble-rousers’) Sp. Cassius [I 19], Sp. Maelius [2] and esp. M. Manlius [I 8] Capitolinus and their opponents, but also in the appearance of the decemvir Ap. Claudius [I 5] in Livy (Liv. 3,35). However, not all parallels are to be seen as retrospective projections, for the era of the struggles ot the orders remained crucial to the self-image of the people’s tribunate which grew out of it, and in their struggles the populares also often adopted methods and aims of the early Roman > plebs, or at least appealed to early Roman ideals (Plut. C. Gracchus 3,33 cf. also the popular orators in Sallust: C.Memmius {I x], M. Aemilius [I 11] Lepidus and C. Licinius [I 30] Macer).

In the absence of clear testimony, it is impossible to tell whether in the strictest sense the populares had a sense of continuity reaching back to early times. Cicero’s list of prominent populares (Cic. Acad. 2,13) may equally be his own invention. What is certain, however, is that the Gracchi and their mother > Cornelia [I x] were a point of reference for all subsequent populares, e.g. for C. Memmius [I 1] (Sall. Tug. 31; cf. Rhet. Her. 4,48) and L. Appuleius [I 11] Saturninus. It is also significant that Cicero immediately refers to the Gracchi when facing the people (Cic. Leg. agr. 2,10). The sequence of the four ‘great populares’ is also encountered before Cicero, in the Rhetorica ad Herennium (Rhet. Her. 4,31), although there M. Livius [I 7] Drusus (tr. pl. 91 BC) is included, who would later replace P. Sulpicius in the catalogue of the four seditiones of the Imperial period (Flor. Epit. 2,1-5; Ampelius 26). Without a direct progression or explicit links, then, a consciousness of togetherness can be discerned among the populares, a bond which the modern term ‘movement’ may be helpful in describing. + Agrarian laws; + Large estates; — Optimates; — Plebs

622

621

1 J.-M. Davin, ‘Eloquentia popularis’ et conduites symboliques des orateurs de la fin de la République: probleémes d’efficacité, in: Quaderni di storia 12, 1980, 171-211 2 J.-L. Ferrary, K.-J. HOLKESKAMP, Optimates et P. Le

probléme du réle de Pidéologie dans la politique, in: H. BRuuNS, J.-M. Davin, W. Nipret (ed.), La fin de la répu-

blique romaine, 1997, 221-235 3 U. Hackt, Die Bedeutung der popularen Methode von den Gracchen bis Sulla im Spiegel der Gesetzgebung des jiingeren Livius Drusus, Volkstribun 91 v. Chr., in: Gymnasium 94, 1987, 109-127 4M. JeHNE (ed.), Demokratie in Rom? Die Rolle des

Volkes in der Politik der romischen Republik, 1995 5 .N. Mackik, Popularis. Ideology and Popular Politics at Rome in the First Century B. C., in: RhM

135, 1992, 49-

73 6J. Martin, Die Popularen in der Geschichte der Spaten Republik, thesis Freiburg i.Br. 1965 7 CH. MEIER, s. v. P., RE Suppl. 10, 549-615 8 F. MILLAR, The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic, 1998

9 L. PERELLI, II movi-

mento popolare nell’ultimo secolo della repubblica, 1982 (review: Gnomon 58, 1986, 154-159) 10R. SEAGER, ‘P.’ in Livy and the Livian Tradition, in: CQ 27, 1977, 377-

390 11 L.R. TayLor, Forerunners of the Gracchi, in: JRS 52,1962, 19-27 12 L. THOMMEN, Das Volkstribunat der spaten romischen Republik, 1989 13 J. VON UNGERN-

STERNBERG, Die Legitimitatskrise der r6mischen Republik, in: HZ 266, 1998, 607-624 14 Id., Die popularen Beispiele in der Schrift des Auctors ad Herennium, in: Chiron 3, 1973, 143-162 15P.J. J. VANDERBROECK, Popular Leadership and Collective Behavior in the Late Roman

Republic

(ca.

80-50

B. C.),

1987

16 A.

YAKOBSON, Elections and Electioneering in Rome: A Study in the Political System of the Late Republic, 1999. J.v.U.-S

Population density see — Population, demographic history Population statistics see + Population, demographic history

Population, demographic history A. OBJECT OF RESEARCH, AND METHODOLOGY B. SourcES C. ANCIENT VIEW OF POPULATION DEVELOPMENT D. POPULATION STATISTICS E. DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS F. ANCIENT NEAR EAST A. OBJECT OF RESEARCH, AND METHODOLOGY

The object of demographic history is the description and explanation of structures and developments in (ancient) populations in their relationship to living space. So far, ancient demographic history has made studies of esp. ancient views of population development, the numerical values of ancient populations (at a particular point in time or over a particular period of time), the age and gender structures of ancient demographics and particular determinants of population development such as life expectancy, marriage practices, fertility and migration, all based on the one hand on ancient sources which, while qualitatively and/or quantitatively susceptible to evaluation, are not unproblematical, and on the other hand on consideration of modern model life tables and comparative ethnological

POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHIC HISTORY

material. In doing so, it has made use of the discoveries of adjacent disciplines such as the historical demography of other epochs, archaeology, anthropology, cultural geography and sub-disciplines of ancient history such as social, nutritional, economic and medical his-

tory, as well as epigraphics and papyrology. It is borne in mind here that there are natural and uncontrollable determinants of population development as well as controllable ones, and that the interwoven determinants

can simultaneously be cause and effect of such development. B. SOURCES The evaluation of the various types of source materials for demographic history faces fundamental problems which are also unique to the discipline: gaps and coincidences in the body of tradition firstly pose the question of how representative available materials are. It must also be noted that the sources available to us were only rarely created for the primary purpose of demographic statistics, but far more often primarily for fiscal, judicial, military, administrative purposes and for purposes of economic organization. The surviving numerical material must be examined both for reliability and for its possible topos-related nature. This applies in particularly large measure to literary sources, which are often enough internally contradictory, stereotypical or accidental, as well as dependent upon the narrative intentions and the purpose of the author. Legal sources contain little information (e.g. individuals’ legal age and age of criminal responsibility), but being prescriptive sources, they do not reflect reality but attempt to determine or influence it. Particularly important to the history of the discipline was a fragment of Ulpian (Dig. 35,2,68 pr.) concerning the ancient calculation of anticipated inheritance tax; at that time, it revealed, at the age of 20-24, a further life expectancy of 28 years was assumed, and at the age of 25-29 a further 25 years’. The life table prepared on the basis of the figures given by Ulpian [10;11] has come in for methodical criticism [26. 13-15], but its consistency with the Egyptian household censuses and modern model life tables is so substantial that its values may well reflect ancient realities. Inscriptions (esp. funerary) supply a plethora of data of interest in demographic history, but offer no statistically reliable sample, as they provide information only on the population they describe, but not the population as it actually existed at the time. Difficulties of evaluation arise esp. due to age, class and gender-specific deformations in the data as well as geographical (regional, urban/rural) and temporal distortions [26. 15-18; 14; 21. 5-19] and the imprecision of statements of age (caused by rounding up and down, exaggeration, ignorance and lack of interest in precision) [8. 79-93]. Archaeological and topographical observations (settlement areas and extent of territory as the basis for provisions, extent of canalization network, seating capacities of theatres, etc.) only allow the most qualified of conclusions as to population

623

624

sizes, because comprehensive surveys are only seldom possible, while housing construction and the number of inhabitants cannot be satisfactorily reconstructed. The reliability of anthropological material (esp. skeletal finds) is limited for the purposes of demographic history Owing to its small spread, its lack of age- and gender-specific representativeness, the standard of preservation of bones and the consequent variability of decisive markers of age and gender [26. 18-19; 21. 41-58]. Data on papyrus from Egypt (e.g. on tax receipts and esp. household declarations submitted at the provincial censuses held once every 14 years [1]) probably offer the best ancient demographic material, in spite of their regional specificity and the circumstance that certain groups of individuals are over- or under-represented, but even they are insufficiently reliable on their own to form the basis for the creation of, for instance, an age pyramid [26. 19-20; 18. 16-17]. In recent years, model life tables have gradually been increasing in importance, being created on the basis of propositions of the mathematics of demographics based on modern prototypes [6]. There are demands for the validity of ancient materials to be tested with their help [21. 67—

obligation to declare births and deaths (acta urbis), the process and data of the > census qualification, the Egyptian provincial census and the Diocletianic tax reform, with its rescheduling in a 15-year cycle. However, only a very small number of such lists are actually preserved, and each brings with it its own transmission-

POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHIC HISTORY

90].

C. ANCIENT VIEW OF POPULATION DEVELOPMENT Ancient demographic consciousness was only comparable to a very limited extent with modern considerations of the regulation, manipulation and evaluation of population quantity and quality. All the same, there were even then both legal measures and conceptual models for the regulation of a population surplus or deficit (in part only within certain classes of population). The connection between population size and birth control was also clearly recognized. The philosophical concepts of a Plato or an Aristotle and the political interventions in demographics on the part of legislators such as Augustus were primarily aimed at the utilitas publica, i.e. their purposes were the demographic, political and/or ‘moral’ stability, the economic prosperity and the strengthening of the military capacities of the commonwealth. D. POPULATION STATISTICS a) Official censuses for establishing the number of citizens fit for military service and taxation and for establishing or defining the citizenry and the extent of

those entitled to public or private provisions and gifts were part of political practice even in antiquity. Thus, for instance, in Athens during the Classical period, a register was kept by the > phratria of births and adoptions of the children of citizens, while the demoi kept demos citizen lists and a register of those demos members entitled to take part in the popular assembly, and the polis kept a central xatdAoyos (Ratdlogos) of those liable to military service. From Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, we have numerous declarations of property and of marital status, while from Rome we know of the

related and historical problems, as shown in e.g. attempts to explain the ‘leaps’ in the Roman census figures for 70/69 BC (the last Republican census) and 28 BC (Augustan census). b) Considering what has been said so far, it need come as no surprise that modern population calculations can be no more than rough estimates and demographic clues, in spite of access to such registers and to ancient statements on the size of settlement areas, the extent of foodstuff production, provision and consumption, the size of units and groups of recipients of grain provisions and imperial largesse, and in spite of their connection to epigraphical, archaeological and modern statistical materials. Not for nothing, then, do estimates of e.g. the number of male adult citizens of late 4th cent. BC Athens fluctuate between 21,000 and at least 30,000 [13. 91-95], the number of inhabitants of Augustan Rome between 750,000 and 2 million ({16. 448-457]; other population estimates: [2; 23;

24.50-1073 5; 7. 259-287]). c) Population growth and decline: a clear growth in population is generally postulated for Greece in the Archaic period, and it would seem that an overall state of overpopulation persisted at least into the 4th cent. BC, with the population growth in the western and northern regions and the stagnation and decline in population in the actual polis regions to some degree balancing each other out. The census lists reveal that the numbers of Roman citizens climbed clearly up to the end of the Republican period, but that this increase was primarily ‘artificially’ achieved by the increasing tendency to grant citizenship to non-Romans and freedmen. Scarcely more than general considerations allow it to be assumed that for all its regional fluctuations, the total population of the Imperium Romanum during the first two cents. of the Imperial period remained in an unstable equilibrium between births and deaths, naturalization and losses through war and epidemics. A slight, but nonetheless demonstrable growth in population has been postulated for the western provinces, which were rather sparsely populated prior to the Roman conquest [22. 49, 57], and a similar growth has been suggested for Egypt prior to the ‘plague’ (smallpox?) epidemic of AD 165/166 [1. 173-178]). — The theory that population collapse and sheer lack of people due to war losses, pestilence, etc., were decisively responsible for the crisis of the 3rd cent. [3] has been rightly rebutted, but the question remains whether a regressive population development (at least in parts of the Empire) was not at least a symptom (and determinant) of this ‘crisis’ [30]. Neither the lack of slaves nor a general population decline can be used as evidence for a constant decline of the Roman economy from the 3rd—5th cents. AD, as has

625

626

only recently once more been emphasized: both the shrinkage of cities and the decline in the surface area of cultivated land could just as well be explained by structural changes in settlement and agriculture [19. 64,

marriage. The low average human life expectancy in antiquity and the relatively high age at marriage of men (and the age difference between men and woman at marriage) are not only important to the reconstruction of family cycles and the composition of households, but also for the evaluation of the relationship between the head of the household and those people subject to his power. Demographic models are among the tools which allow, for instance, the correction of the former misleading image of inter-generational conflict between the authoritarian, omnipotent pater familias and his (adult) children, and the gaining of new insights into networks of family relationships and strategies for securing estates [26]. — 5. Ancient history is only beginning to consider the field of research into migration, after mortality and fertility the next most important demographic factor. In cases of deliberate cross-frontier (of a city, region, province or state) changes of residence in the ancient world, questions arise as to a) the motives of the migrants and the causes and circumstances of their migration, b) the procedure itself and c) its consequences (for the migrants and the populations giving them up and receiving them). ‘Classical’ studies of this type put forward have been of the Greek colonizations, Egyptian internal migration [4; 1. 160-169], the Greeks in Persia, the settlement policies of Alexander and his successors, regional mobility in Imperial Gaul [31] and certain groups of deportees, but often without incorporation into demographic contexts. As a whole in antiquity, it was probably rather migrations over short distances which were of consequence to the demographic profiles of ancient populations, contingent not least on the ‘relative immobility of a primarily agrarian population’ [29. 33].

182].

E. DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS If information supported by data is still rudimentary for Greece (but cf. [24; 12]), such is not the case for the

Roman world. 1. In spite of all the uncertainties inherent in all ancient testimonies and their modern interpretations, there can be no doubt that the average human life expectancy at birth in ancient times cannot have been higher than 20-30 years, by reason esp. of the high level of infant and child mortality. The main causes of the high mortality rates are regarded as having been epidemic disease and/or incorrect and insufficient nutrition. — 2. The age of a person at her/his (first) marriage determines the time span of legitimate fertility in wedlock (which was by far the predominant form of fertility in the ancient world), but is also, along with mortality

and fertility, important in the reconstruction of family cycles and the composition of households. Although demographically reliable information is absent to this day in the field of Greek history, evaluations of (pre-Christian) Roman inscriptions allowing the age at marriage to be deduced suggest an average age at marriage of 15 for women and 23-24 for men [15]. Attempts have recently been made to draw inferences on age at marriage from the shifts in inscription dedications (from parents and older relatives to spouses and children). The considerably greater and regionally specific sample of evidence thereby obtained has allowed the postulation of a somewhat higher age at marriage for women and men (late teens and late 20s respectively) for those outside the upper classes [25; 27]; however, methodological objections have been raised against this procedure and the results it has produced ([18. 28-29; 20; 9. 205] but cf. [26. 25-41]). — 3. A greater number of marriages in Roman antiquity were ended by the death of the husband than by that of the wife, often at a time when the wife was still young and had small children. In spite of all references to the remarriage both of widowers and widows (which was even sometimes required by law, for instance during the Augustan period), our evidence nonetheless indicates that older (above 30-3 5) widows without wealth and those with children only had a faint chance of marrying again [18]. — 4. Demographic calculations have yielded the result that in antiquity, in order to sustain the level of population without external immigration and at an average life expectancy of approx. 25 years, every woman of child-bearing age would have had to give birth to an average of five children. Only a slight shortfall from this figure would have had drastic consequences on the development of a population [26. 42; 21. 86-88]. An early female age at marriage in antiquity brought with it a relatively high level of female fertility at an early stage; however, the overall fertility level was cut by the constraints on re-

POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHIC HISTORY

1 R.S. BAGNALL, B. W. Frrer, The Demography of Roman Egypt, 1994 2J. BELOcH, Die Bevolkerung der griechisch-romischen Welt, 1886 3 A.E.R. Boax, Manpower

Shortage and the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West, 1955

4H.

Braunert,

Die Binnenwanderung,

1964

5 BRUNT 6 A.J. COALE, P. DEMENEY, B. VAUGHAN, Regional Model Life Tables and Stable Populations, *1983 7 DUNCAN-JONES, Economy 8 DUNCAN-JONES, Structure 9J.K. Evans, War, Women and Children in Ancient Rome, 1991 108B.W. Frier, Roman Life Expectancy: Ulpian’s Evidence, in: HSPh 86, 1982, 213-251 111d., Statistics and Roman Society, in: JRA 5, 1992, 286-290 12 T.W. GaLiant, Risk and Survival in Ancient Greece,

1991 13 M.H. Hansen, Die athenische Demokratie im Zeitalter des Demosthenes, 1995 14 K. Hopkins, Graveyards for Historians, in: F. Htnarp (ed.) La mort, les morts et l’au-dela dans le monde romain, 1987, 113-126

15 K. Hopkins, The Age of Roman Girls at Marriage, in: Population Studies 18, 1965, 309-327 16 F. Kors, Rom. Die Geschichte der Stadt in der Antike, 1995 17J.U. Krause,

Die

Familie

und

weitere

anthropologische

Grundlagen, 1992 (bibliography) 18 Id., Witwen und Waisen im rémischen Reich, I: Verwitwung und Wiederverheiratung, 1994— 19 J. MarTIN, Spatantike und Volkerwanderung, ?1995 20 P. Morizot, L’age au mariage

des jeunes Romaines a Rome et en Afrique, in: CRAI 1989, 656-668 2171.G. Parkin, Demography and Roman Society, 1992

22 H.W. PLexet, Wirtschaft, in: F.

POPULATION,

DEMOGRAPHIC

HISTORY

627

VITTINGHOFF (ed.), Europaische Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte in der romischen Kaiserzeit, 1990, 25-162

23 E. RUSCHENBUSCH, Untersuchungen zu Staat und Politik in Griechenland vom 7.-4.Jahrhundert v.Chr., 1978 24 R. Satiares, The Ecology of the Ancient Greek World, 199t 25R.P. SALLER, Men’s Age at Marriage and its Consequences in the Roman Family, in: CPh 82, 1987,

21-34 26Id., Patriarchy, Property and Death in the Roman Family, 1994 27 P.D. SHaw, The Age of Roman Girls at Marriage. Some Reconsiderations,

in: JRS 77,

1987, 30-46 28 W. SuDER, Census Populi. Bibliographie de la demographie de |’Antiquité romaine, 1988 29 F. VITTINGHOFF, Demographische Rahmenbedingungen, in: Id. (ed.), Europdische Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte in der romischen Kaiserzeit, 1990, 20-24 30L. WrerscHowskI, Die historische Demographie — ein Schliissel zur Geschichte?, in: Klio 76, 1994, 355-380 31Id., Die regionale Mobilitét in Gallien nach den Inschriften des 1. bis 3.Jahrhunderts n.Chr., 1995. —_J.W.

628

Populonia (IMomwvov/Poplonion, Etruscan Puplunal Fufluna). The only Etruscan city of any size on the + Mare Tyrrhenum (Str. 5,2,5; Plin. HN 3,51), facing

Elba, 14 km to the north of Piombino with a good natural harbour in the modern bay of Baratti. The settlement lies in the foothills of Piombino, enclosed by walls running north-south; an acropolis on the Poggio di Castello was also walled. Various traditional versions of its origin can not be confirmed by archaeological finds (Serv. Aen. 10,172), which trace the founding of

P. to > Corsica or > Volaterrae. The earliest evidence (two deposits of copper plates from the Bronze Age) attests to mining and metallurgical working by the 2nd millennium BC. The distribution of Iron Age necropoleis (9th to 8th cents. BC) are evidence of scattered settlement. The variety of forms of

burial (pozzetto graves in the oldest phase, fossa graves in the most recent, chamber graves with tumuli; > Fu-

F. ANCIENT NEAR EAST In ancient Near Eastern sources, too, information on

population figures is generally recorded with administrative purposes in mind (taxes, conscription, etc.). These sources thus only cover parts of the population in question. For Mesopotamia and Egypt, attempts have

been made to determine the population of village and town settlements on the basis of their surface and the intensity of their densities of construction and residence (often with the support of modern ethnological data). This has brought widely divergent results, oscillating between 100, 200, 250, even up to 1,200 inhabitants per hectare [1. 85f.; 2. 269; 3]. If — as it is done occasionally — this density of population is used as the basis for considering the entire settlement area of an urban settlement, the resultant population figures far exceed the capacity of the catchment area of such a settlement to sustain it with provisions, for the supply of the population depended in principle on the yields of the region in which it lived. Only in exceptional cases were there large-scale deliveries of grain from other regions, as at Athens, Rome and Byzantium. In the case of the agriculturally intensively exploited southern Mesopotamia, settlement surveys allow clearly defined regional entities to be discerned. Documents from the late 3rd and early 2nd millennia contain precise data on yields (max. 715 kg of barley/ha) and minimum dietary requirements (approx. 1 kg of barley per day for an adult male). On this basis, and excluding unusable land, maximum figures for harvest yields of a particular region can be calculated, as well as the number of people thus sustainable (after subtracting quantities kept back for seed and fodder): approx. 25,000 people in the approx. 310 sq.km. region of Uruk [4]. 1R. McC. Apams, Heartland of Cities, 1981, 2 B. Kemp, Ancient Egypt, 1989 3.N. PostGaTe, How Many Sumerians per Hectare?, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 4,

1994, 47-65 4 J. RenGeR, Landwirtschaftliche Nutzflache, Einwohnerzah! und Herdengr6éfSe, Mesopotamian History and Environment, Occas. Publ. 2, 1994, 251-254 (with bibliography). JRE.

nerary architecture III.C.1., + Necropolis VII.) probably implies a structuring according to family ties. 7thcent. BC monumental > tumulus graves can be demonstrated, suggesting an aristocratic upper class. Clay and bucchero vases and bronze utensils were produced in P. or imported from — Vetulonia, > Caere, — Sardinia, + Corinth, Ionia and the Near East. The city maintained far-reaching trade relations, as its products, such as minerals and ores (Campigliese, Elba), were very much in demand. In the 7th/6th cents. BC graves were covered with smaller tumuli, in the course of the 6th cent. > aedicula and cassone graves appeared. After the Syracusan fleet had defeated the Etruscans at Cumae (+ Cyme [2]) in 474 BC, it went on pillaging campaigns to P. and Elba in 453 BC (Diod. 11,88,4f.); this blocked the harbours of the southern Etruscan cities, but P.’s harbour boomed as a place of reshipment for minerals and ores. Iron ore from Elba (> Iron B.3) was now delivered and smelted here in great quantities; this period is the origin of the slag heaps spread over several acres on the bay of Baratti. The necropoleis were inland and no longer near the coast; in part they were now painted rock graves ( Grave paintings). P. was the first city in Italy to mint its own coins (5th cent. BC). In the 3rd cent. BC, the Roman sphere of influence extended to the city. In Rome’s war with the ~— Boil in 282 BC, P. found itself between the front lines (Frontin. Str. 1,2,7). In 205 BC it provided Cornelius

[I 71] Scipio’s actions against Hannibal [4] with iron (Liv. 28,45,15). At the same time decline began; at about the turn of the rst cents. BC and AD, at the time of Strabo (5,2,6) P. had been abandoned, apart from the

temple, a few houses and the harbour district, and mine working in the area had been given up; a decree of the Roman Senate prohibiting mining in Italy (probably at the end of the 2nd cent. BC; Plin. HN 3,138; 30,78) may have contributed to the collapse. In the Roman Imperial period nothing changed: — Rutilius Namatianus (1,404—414) visited the town in AD 417 and mentions only ruins. A settlement, certainly inconspicuous, may have continued to exist; nevertheless in late Antiquity,

629

630

P. was the seat of a bishop. The city was devastated in AD 546 by > Totila and ultimately totally destroyed in 570 by the > Langobardi.

Plutarchus [2] (Mor. 243¢) praises her bravery; she also plays a part in SHAKESPEARE’S Julius Caesar (especially

> Etrusci, Etruria (with maps) A. MINTO, P., 1943; F. FEDELI, P., 1983; A. ROMUALDI et

al., in: G. CAMpoREALE (ed.), L’Etruria mineraria, 1985, 18 5ff.;Id., P. in eta ellenistica, 1992; F. FEDELI et al., P. e il suo territorio, 1993; Id. (ed.), Studi sul territorio di P. GS A. Minto (Rassegna di Archeologia 12), 1994; A. ROMuALDI, P. fra la fine del VIII e Pinizio del VII secolo.a.C., in: G. Maetzke, P. Gastavpi (eds.), La presenza etrusca nella Campania meridionale, 1994, 171 ff.; M. TORELLI (ed.), Atlante dei siti archeologici della Toscana, 1992 >

447-470.

GLC,

Populus. The populus in historical times describes the totality of adult, male Roman citizens, i.e. excluding women and children as well as foreigners and slaves. From the late Republic, populus (Romanus) became a synonym for the > res publica (Romana), the Roman state (Cic. Rep. 1,25,39: est igitur ... res publica res populi), the populus being defined as the amalgamation of a group united in recognition of the law and of common purpose (v. [2. 31 5—318]). It was thus entirely possible that other populi might exist within the territory of the Roman state (v. > Quirites; cf. [2. 388-

393]). The etymology of the word is unclear. It is probably related to populari (‘to ravage’), in the sense of a ‘people in arms’. The old name for the > dictator, magister populi, would accord well with this. An Etruscan derivation from *puple (‘youth fit for military service’: [3. 99-101]) seems possible, while a link with the Etruscan town of Populonia appears less likely, as this name is mostly associated with > Fufluns (i.e. Dionysus). 1 P. CaTALANO, P. Romanus. Quirites, 1974

2L. PEPPE,

La nozione di ‘p.’ e le sue valenze, in: EDER, Staat, 312343, 388-393 3 C. DE SIMoNng, Gli etruschi a Roma: evidenza linguistica e problemi metodologici, in: G. Cotonna (ed.), Gli Etruschi e Roma, 1981, 93-103. H.GA.

Porcia [1] Sister of M. Porcius [I 7] Cato, married to L. Domitius [I 8] Ahenobarbus. She outlived her husband, who was killed in 48 BC, and died a highly respected woman before August 45;0n the model of M. (Terentius?) Varro and a certain Ollius, Cicero dedicated an elogy to her (Att. 13,37,33 48,2). JOR. [2] Daughter of M. Porcius [I 7] Cato, c. 95-42 BC; first married to M. Calpurnius [I 5] Bibulus and in a second marriage, from c. 44 BC on, to her cousin M. > Iunius

[I ro] Brutus (Val. Max. 3,2,15; Plut. Brutus 13,3; App.

B Civ. 4,136). In order to prove her courage, she inflicted a serious wound on herself and was initiated into Brutus’ plans to assassinate —~ Caesar (Plut. Brutus 13,4-11). After the death of her husband she committed suicide by inhaling the steam of glowing coals (Val. Max. 4,6,5; Plut. Brutus 53,6f.; App. B Civ. 4,136).

PORCIUS

1,25 2,15 3543 4,35 554): E.M. MoormMann, W. UITreRHoEve, Lexikon der antiken Gestalten, 1995, s. v. ME.SCH.

Porcis and Chariboea (IMdoxtc/Porkis and Xagifoua/ Chariboia). The two snakes that kill > Laocoon [1] and his son (Tzetz. on Lycoph. 344; 347) or sons (only schol. Marcian. on Lycoph. 347). In Serv. Aen. 2,211, however, the names occur in the forms Curifis and Periboea. For the traditions and problems of the nomenclature cf. [1]. The two snakes are from Calydna. Apollo’s epithet Calydneus (Steph. Byz. s. v. KaAvdva) also suggests a connexion with snakes. It is debatable, on the basis of the proportions between the two snakes and between Laocoon and his son, whether we are dealing with a pair of snakes or a full-grown one and a young one. 1G. Rapkg, s. v. Porkis, RE 22, 254-261.

S.T.

Porcius. Name of a Plebeian family from > Tusculum. In the belief that the family had been pig-breeders, in antiquity their name was derived from porcus (Varro Rust. 2,1,10 etc.). From the middle of the 3rd century BC, the Catones and Licinii branches belonged to Rome’s leading class and at the beginning of the 2nd century, they attained the consulship with > Cato [r] (Censorius) and P. [I 13]. The exact blood relationship between the most prominent bearer of the name, Cato [x], and his great-grandson, P. {I 7] Cato (Uticensis), is not completely clarified. K.-LE. I. REPUBLICAN PERIOD

II. IMPERIAL PERIOD

I. REPUBLICAN PERIOD [I 1] P. Cato, C. Son of [I 9] and grandson of Cato [1]; Master of the Mint in 123 BC (RRC 274), praetor and pro-praetor in Sicily c. 117 [1]. As cos. in 114 he fought

without success in Macedonia against the Scordisci and in 113 was therefore condemned for provincial exploitation (> Repetundarum crimen) (Cic. Verr. 2,3,184;

2,4,22; Vell. 2,8,1). In 109, he was again prosecuted by the Numidian king > Iugurtha for fraud and went into exile in Tarraco, where he died (Cic. Balb. 28; Cic. Brut. 128; Sall. Jug. 40,1-2). 1 E. Bapran, The Legend of the Legate Who Lost His Luggage, in: Historia 42, 1993, 203-210.

P.N.

[I 2] P. Cato, C. Grandson(?) of C. P. [I 1] Cato; a turbulentus adulescens (‘turbulent young man’, Non. 385 M.) in the troubles after 60 BC. Affiliated to the triumvir P. Licinius [I 1x] Crassus and P. Clodius [I 4] Pulcher (Cic. Ad Q. Fr. 2,1,2) in 56 during his tribunate, P. turned against L. Cornelius [I 54] Lentulus Spinther and Pompey [13], who had already been attacked (GassaDiowonnsasiks CicnAd/OVrrs 125152 2),3505 ate).

PORCIUS

The defection of his gladiator bodyguard to T. Annius [I 14] Milo was an embarrassing setback for P. (ibid. 2,5,3). Subsequently there was an rapprochement with Pompey, who benefited, together with Crassus, from the delay, caused by P., of the consular elections for 5 5 (Liv. Per. 105). Reconciliation with his previous adversary saved P. from prosecutions for his conduct as tribune (Cic. Att. 4,15,4; 16,5) and may have won him the praetorship in 55 (Cic. Ad Q. Fr. 3,4,1). MRR 2,209;

3,169f.

T.ER.

{I 3] P. Cato, L. Grandson of > Cato [1] and uncle of P. [I 8]; praetor no later than 92 BC. In 90, during the + Social Wars [3], he achieved a victory over the Etruscans (Liv. Per. 74). Consul in 89 with Cn. Pompeius [I 8] Strabo (MRR 2, 32), he was defeated and killed in an attack on the Marsi (Liv. Per. 75; Vell. 2,16,4 etc.). K.-LE. [I 4] P. Cato, M. Son of P. [I 5]. Praetor no later than 121 BC. He died as cos. in 118 in Africa, where he probably intended to settle the succession of > Micipsa. P. was considered an impressive orator (Gell. 13,20,10). PN. [I 5] P. Cato, M. Son of P. [13], father of P. [I 7]. As people’s tribune in 99 BC, he and Q. Pompeius [I 6] Rufus failed, in the face of opposition by C. Marius [I x], to recall Q. Caecilius [I 30] Metellus Numidicus from exile (Oros. 5,17,11; MRR 2,2). He was a friend of L. Cornelius [I 90] Sulla and married > Livia [1], the daughter of M. Livius [I 6] Drusus; he died before 91 (Gell. 13,20,4; Cic. Off. 3,66; Plut. Cato Min. 3,2). K-LE. {I 6] P. Cato, M. (Censorius) See > Cato [1].

[I 7] P. Cato (Uticensis), M. Acrimonious opponent of — Caesar and determined proponent of Senate rule in final phase of the Roman republic. The assessment of his role has always been ambivalent: if on the one hand P. appears to be a rigorous guardian of the tradition of the free state, steeped in the spirit of ancient Roman virtues and the Stoa (> Stoicism), and as an embodiment of inflexible opposition on behalf of lost causes (Lucan. 1,128), on the other hand he is considered an unworldly (Cic. Att. 2,1,8)

ultra-conservative, who obstinately clung to outdated political ideals and so acted as the ‘Don Quixote of the aristocracy’ [1]. The basis for the tradition is Plutarch’s biography of Cato Minor (contrasted with the Greek > Phocion) [2]; a copy of a bust of P. from the Imperial period was discovered in > Volubilis in Morocco in TCVisy |B, Dural A. CAREER

632

631

UP TO THE CIVIL WAR

THE CivIL WAR AND DEATH

B. CONDUCT

IN

C. LEGACY

A. CAREER UP TO THE CIVIL WAR P. was born in 95 BC, son of M. P. [I 5] Cato and grandson of M. P. > Cato [1] (Censorius). By c. 75, he had been co-opted into the college of the > OQuindecimviri sacris faciundis. In 72, he was a volunteer in the campaign against — Spartacus, in 67/6, a military trib-

une under M. (?) Rubrius in Macedonia, with orders to

block the Propontis (Plut. Cato Minor 4; 8-11; Flor. Epit. 1,41). His formative contact with the Stoics Antipater of Tyre and Athenodorus 2] of Cordylium also falls in these early years. As quaestor (in 65 or 64; MRR 2, 163; 3, 170f.), P. distinguished himself by his meticulous accounts-keeping and correctness (reclaiming the Sullan proscription premiums: Plut. Cato Minor 16-18; Cass. Dio 47,6,4; > Proscriptiones). The rigour with which P. as a designated people’s tribune (Plut. Cato Minor 20-23) at the end of 63 took action against corruption (he took the future consul L. Licinius [I 35] Murena to court for obtaining office on false pretences, but he was successfully defended by Cicero) and against the adherents of > Catilina caused a sensation (his demand for the death penalty was vehemently attacked by Caesar: Sall. Catil. 52). During his tribunate in 62, the special position of > Pompeius [I 3] offered a further target for attack (tumultuous disputes with his colleague Q. Caecilius [I 29] Metellus Nepos, Plut. Cato Minor 26,2-29,4). As senator, P. distinguished himself in the subsequent period in his opposition to Pompey, Caesar and the > publicani as a constant champion of the interests of the » Optimates. Yet he also risked intensifying the tensions of internal politics, undermining or breaking down the concordia ordinum (‘class concord’) by short-sightedly snubbing the equestrians or even completely blocking state business by filibustering (Cic. Att. 1,18,7; 2,1,8; Plut. Cato Minor 30-33). Thus Pompeius, Crassus and Caesar didn’t mind that in 58 P. should be sent on an honourable diplomatic mission at the request of P. Clodius [I 4] Pulcher; far from Rome, as quaestor pro praetore, he was tied up until the end of 56 with the annexation of Cyprus (> Cyprus; suicide of the king Ptolemaeus [19]), the disposal of crown estates for the benefit of the Roman state treasury and the repatriation of exiles to Byzantium (Plut. Cato Minor 34-39; [4]). After his return, P.’ obstruction in the Senate in the face of the dominance of the triumviri (he disputed the Lex Trebonia on the division of provinces; Plut. Cato Minor 43; Cass. Dio 39,34), and particularly his actions against Caesar (a motion to hand him over to the Germans; Plut. Caesar

22,43 Plut. Cato Minor 51,1f.; App. Celt. 18; [5. 31719]) took on more and more violent forms. His praetorship in 54 was characterised by a successful repetundae case (~ Repetundarum crimen) against Pompey’s follower A. Gabinius [I 2] and measures against electoral fraud (+ Ambitus; Cic. Att. 4,15,7). In the impending battle for power between Caesar and Pompey, P. perforce became close to the latter and in 52 did not turn against his election as sole consul (consul sine collega: Plut. Cato Minor 47,2-4; Plut. Pompeius 54,5-8; App. Civ. 2,84). As civil war was imminent (see > Caesar I. D.), the Optimates’ reactionary course of confronta-

tion could scarcely be maintained.

633

634

B. CONDUCT IN THE CivIL WAR AND DEATH After the outbreak of the Civil War in January 49, P. wore mourning dress (Cass. Dio 41,3,1) and ostentatiously neglected to tend his hair and beard (Plut. Cato Minor 53,1) as a sign of protest. He had supervision of troop recruitment and equipment (Sicily; Asia Minor) for Pompey, who out of distrust withheld from P. supreme command over the navy (Plut. Cato Minor 54,5f.). From the end of 49, he was in > Dyrrhachium with the task of securing it after the lifting of Caesar’s siege in the summer of 48. After the debacle of the Pompeians at Pharsalus and Pompey’s death in Egypt (48) he retreated to Africa. Although he voluntarily took second place behind his higher-ranking personal adversary Q. Caecilius [I 32] Metellus Pius Scipio (cos. 52), P. substantially coordinated (RRC 1, 473 no. 462; [5. 320f.]) the development of the provinces into the last strong reserve position of the Senate party. P. was commanding officer of the capital > Utica (spring 47); after the defeat of Thapsus (6.4.46) he prudently led the

denied that the figure of Cato Uticensis has a certain

evacuation of the remaining senators. P. rejected every

PORCIUS

theatrical dimension, but for the later observer the statesman’s actions, being reactionary, recalcitrant and

aridly rigid, appear in a more sobering light. ~ Caesar;

> Cicero; — Stoicism; > Triumvirate

1TH. MOMMSEN, Rémische Geschichte, vol. 3, 61875, 167 2J. GeiceR, A Commentary on Plutarch’s Life of Cato minor, diss. Oxford 1972 3 W.H. Gross, s. v. P. (16), RE 22, 211-213

(addendum to the pictures)

4 E.

Bapian, M.P. Cato and the Annexation and Early Administration of Cyprus, in: JRS 55, 1965, 110-121 SR. FEHRLE, Cato Uticensis, 1983 6 H.-J. TSCHIEDEL, Caesars Anticato, 1981

7 W. KiERDORE, Ciceros Cato, in:

RhM 121, 1978, 167-84 8K. BUcHNeER, Zur Synkrisis Cato-Caesar in Sallusts Catilina, in: Grazer Beitrage 5, 1976, 37-57 9 W. Wunscu, Das Bild des Cato von Utica in der Literatur der neronischen Zeit, diss. Marburg 1949 10 M. GELZER,

Cato Uticensis, in: M. GELZER, Kleine

Schriften 2, 1963, 275-285

11F. GUNDOLF, Caesar:

Geschichte seines Ruhms, 1925.

A. AFZELIUS, Die politische Bedeutung des jiingeren Cato, in: CeM 4, 1941, 100-203; E. FRENZEL, Stoffe der Welt-

intercession for him to enjoy Caesar’s clementia (‘clemency’) and in mid-April 46 fell on his sword (his last

literatur, 91998, 130-132; G. HAFNeER, Bildlexicon anti-

read was Plato’s Phaidon); as a benefactor of the city

168-211; MRR, vol. 2, 174f.; 198; 221f.; vol. 3, 170f.; A. PiGLeR, Barockthemen, vol. 2, *1974, 376f.

the epithet Uticensis was conferred on him posthu-

ker Personen, 1993, 81f.; F. MILTNER, s. v. P. (16), RE 22,

mously (Plut. Cato Minor 56-71; Cass. Dio 43,11, 6).

C. LEGacy Caesar begrudged P. this end (Plut. Caesar 54,2; Plut. Cato Minor 72,2; App. Civ. 2,420) and soon intervened in the animated public debate on P.’ memory (the malicious Anticato [6] and the eulogies preceding it have been lost [5. 279-302]). The Laudes Catonis of > Cicero [5. 322-324; 7], M. Iunius [I 10] Brutus and others were to have a more lasting resonance. The literary development of the antagonism between Caesar and Cato began with — Sallustius (Catil. 51-54) [5. 303-316; 8]. Under the influence of the schools of rhetoric in the Imperial period [9], the image of P. Cato changed from an archetypical adversary of the tyrant (Cic. Off. 1,112; Plin. Epist. 1,17,3) to a largely depoliticised martyr of virtue; an image arose of a ‘Roman Socrates’ of undisputed integrity. Even under Christian auspices there was high esteem for the suicide P., who in DanTE rose to the position of custodian of the Mountain of Purgatory (Divina Commedia, Purgatorio 1,3 1109). Later Enlightenment thinkers such as MonTAIGNE

(Essai 1,37), MONTESQuUIEU

and

RoussEAU

admired the high ethos of Cato, whose death was used by Baroque and Classicist painters (GUERCINO, LeBRuN, Gu£éRIN) and dramatists (ADDISON, GOTTSCHED) as a favourite motif of moral edification. P.’ accepted the consequences of his beaten cause, and his courage in downfall did not remain without influence (‘behind the stabbed Caesar extended Cato’s mighty shadow’ [10. 285]); the fame of this mediumterm political effect and his longer-lasting effect as a hero of virtue only began to fade with the veneration of Caesar in the roth century [r1. 20f.]. It cannot be

[1 8] P. Cato, M. Son of P. [17] from his marriage to > Atilia (Plut. Cato Min. 24,6). Fled from Rome in 49 BC with his father, at whose side he also stayed in Utica in 46, without being able to prevent his suicide (Plut. Cato Min. 52,4; 65,9; 66,3ff.; 68-70; Val. Max. 4,3,12). Pardoned by Caesar in 44 (‘representing his father’ [1. 176]; App. Civ. 2,416; Bell. Afr. 89,5; Val. Max. 5,1,10), P. allied himself with his brother-in-law, the Caesar-assassin M. Iunius [I ro] Brutus, (Cic. Ad Brut. 1,5,3; 14,1) and accompanied him to Asia (affair

with the Cappadocian princess Psyche). With P.’ death in the battle of Philippi (42) the Porcii Catones died out ({2. 60]; Plut. Cato Min.

73,1-5; Plut. Brutus 49,9;

App. Civ. 4,571; Vell. 2,71,1). 1 W. WILL, Caesar: eine Bilanz, 1992 Uticensis, 1983 3 MRR 2,354; 368.

2 R. FEHRLE, Cato T.FR.

{[9] P. Cato Licinianus, M. Lawyer, eldest son of - Cato [1]; was legatus in 168 in the third of the

+ Macedonian Wars; died in 152 BC as praetor designatus. He wrote numerous book scrolls (Dig. 1,2,2,38), including Commentarii Iuris Civilis (‘Commentary on Civil Law’, at least 15 books). These contained the texts of his legal opinions with precise delineation of cases together with the names of the parties involved (Cic. De or. 2,142), as well as abstract legal

propositions which were still the subject of jurisprudence in the late Principate (3rd century AD) (Dig. 21,1,10,1;

45,1,4,1).

The

Regula

Catoniana

(‘Cato

Rule’, Dig. 34,7,1 pr.), edited as a monograph by + Julius [IV 16] Paulus, requires that demands on a legate be laid down at the moment the will is made. WIEACKER,

M.

BRETONE,

Geschichte des romischen Rechts, 1992, 141f.

RRG,

539,

584f.,

586f.;

iG:

635

636

[I 10] P. Laeca, M. Senator initiated at an early stage in the intrigues of > Catilina (Sall. Catil. 17,3; Flor. Epit. 2,12,3). In his house the last gathering of the coup participants took place inter falcarios on 7 November 63 BC, before Catilina’s departure from Rome (Cic. Cat. T3932. 13 1@iceoullas2Salle @atilearaa tes T.ER. [111] P. Laeca, P. As tr. pl. in 199 BC, he forbade an + ovatio for L. Manlius |I 6] Acidinus (Liv. 32,7,4). P. was elected in 196 to the newly formed college of tresviri epulones (see + Septemviri). As praetor in 195, he led military actions from Pisa against the Ligures and the Gauls (Liv. 33,43,5 and 9) and probably also carried through a law on the expansion of the — provocatio, as a coin struck by a descendant of his indicates (RRC 301).

I]. IMPERIAL PERIOD [Il 1] M.P. Cato. Senator. In AD 28, in the rank of a

PORCIUS

ROTONDI, 268f.

P.N.

[1 12] P. Licinus. Latin poet, probably of the second half of the 2nd cent. BC. Of his life and person nothing is known. He is the author of a poem on the history of literature in trochaic septenarii (inspired by the Didascalica of > Accius?) in which (according to the synchronistic chapter in Gell. 17,21,45) the beginning of poetry (‘the entrance of the Muses’) in Rome was not in 240 BC, but in the second of the > Punic Wars (archegetes therefore > Ennius

[1] or > Naevius

[I r], but

hardly — Livius [III 1] Andronicus; thislate date was

conclusively refuted by Varro). The poem spoke of Terence, Ennius and the palliata poet Atilius [I 1], and

probably other, treating them biographically. P. belongs to the group of three Roman pre-Neoteric poets, for which Gell. 19,9,10-14 cites erotic epigrams, probably from an anthology (on P. fr. 6 cf. Anth. Pal. 9,15). EDITIONS:

FPL", 44-46; FPL’, 96-100 (7 Fr.); COURT-

praetorian, he and others indicted Titius Sabinus, a friend of Germanicus [2], in order to obtain the consulship; he did not achieve it until 36 (FO* 68). In 38 he was curator aquarum; but in the very same year, as it seems, he was replaced in office. PIR* P 856. [II 2] P. Festus. Equestrian. From AD 60 until 62 he was Rome’s highest representative in Judaea. Whether he was active there only as praefectus and subordinate to the governor of Syria, or whether he should be viewed as the praesidial procurator of an independent province of Judaea is still unclarified. He took over the case of the apostle > Paul [2] from his predecessor; when Paul appealed to the emperor P. sent him to Rome (Acts 24,7; 25f.). He died in the province. PIR* P 858. we. [I 3] M.P. Latro. Leading declamator and teacher of rhetoric in the Augustean period (Sen. Controv. 19, pr. 13; Quint. Inst. 10,5,18). He came from Spain, perhaps Cordoba; born in about 55 BC, he died according to Hier. Chron. p. 168f. H. (Hier. a.A. 2014) in 4 BC. He was a compatriot, fellow pupil (in > Marullus [1]) and old friend of — Seneca the Elder, who paints a lively picture of his character (Sen. Controv. 1, pr. 13-24) and cites him copiously (cf. esp. Sen. Controv. 2,7). In Rome, P. received a great deal of recognition; among his admirers was > Ovidius (Sen. Controv. 2,2,8), who is said to have taken over many of P.’ aphorisms into his poetry. On the other hand P.’ style is criticised by Messalla Corvinus (> Valerius), against whom he then acted in a lawsuit (Sen. Controv. 2,4,8; cf. 3, pr. 14); while by > Asinius [I 4] Pollio criticised his distance from court practice (Sen. Controv. 2,3,13; cf. 9, pr. 3). BARDON, vol. 2, 1956, 88-90; J. FAIRWEATHER, Seneca the Elder, 1981, 251-270 (index 4o1); PIR? P 859. PLL.

NEY, 70f., 82-92. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

R. BUTTNER, P. L. und der literarische

Kreis des Q. Lutatius Catulus, 1893; BARDON 1, 124-128; H. GuNDEL, s. v. P. (48), RE 22, 232f.; J. GRANAROLO, D’Ennius a Catulle, 1971, 32-40; W. SUERBAUM, in: HLL,

vol. 1, § 143.

W.SU.

[1 13] P. Licinus, L. According to an altogether phantastical account, he distinguished himself in 211 BC asa legate in the battle for Capua (Liv. 26,6,1-2). As plebeian aedile in 210, he and Q. Catius [I 1] erected statues to > Ceres financed with money from fines and organised lavish games (Liv. 27,6,19; > Munera). As praetor for Gaul in 207, he is said to have taken part with two legions (Liv. 27,36,11) in the victory over + Hasdrubal [3] (Liv. 27,48,4); a competing annalistic version places him in command as pro-praetor (Liv. 28,10,12).

WAS

[I 14] P. Licinus, P. Son of P. [I 13], praetor in Sardinia

in 193 BC. After a number of failed attempts he became consul in 184 (Liv. 39,32,8), and with his colleague P. Claudius Pulcher he marched against the > Ligures, but without militarily succes (Liv. 39,45,11). P. vowed a temple to Venus Erycina (— Eryx [1]), which his son dedicated three years later (Liv. 40,3 4,4). PN,

[I 4] P.P. Optatus Flamma. Senator, from > Cirta in Africa. Quaestor; adlectus inter tribunicios, praetorian ambassador from the Senate to > Septimius Severus and — Caracalla, when the latter as imperator designatus was publicly presented as the successor of his father. It must remain open whether his African origin played a role in his election as ambassador. Later probably praetorian governor of Raetia. PIR? P 861. we. [115] C.P. Priscus Longinus. Senator. In his career, during which he was twice elevated into a class of senatorial rank, without holding that office, he attained, under > Caracalla, the position of proconsul of LyciaPamphylia; later he even became cos. suff. PIR? P 864. {II 6] P. Vetustinus. Equestrian. Attested as praesidial procurator of Mauretania Caesariensis under Antoninus [1] Pius, in AD 133; he had evidently conducted in Africa a campaign in which troops from Pannonia also took part (CIL XVI 99). He probably was from Juliobriga in northern Spain. PIR* P 870. W.E.

Pordoselene (Mogdocehhvn/Pordoseléné). City on the island of the same name (Skyl. 97) in the > Hecatonnesi or near them (cf. Steph. Byz. s. v. Leino wodtc; Str.

637

638

13,2,5), in the late and post-Hellenistic Period Poroselene (Hogooedjvn, Paus. 3,25,7; Ptol. 5,2,5; Steph. Byz. s. v. II.), today probably Alibey or Alibey Adasi (c. 14 km’), off the coast of Asia Minor near Ayvalik, now joined to the mainland by a causeway. P. was settled by Aeolians. In 425/4 and 421/o the city is entered in lists of tribute quotas as a member of the > Delian League (ATL 1, 385; 541). There is evidence of a cult of Apollo. Remains of walls survive. In the early Byzantine Period P. is recorded as a bishopric under the metropolis of Rhodes (Hierocles, Synekdemos 686,9). Coins: HN 563; BMC Troas 219. Inscriptions: IG XII 2, 647; 650-

More clearly assignable to the realm of pornography are mainly graffiti and ostraca; in connexion with this, some rock inscriptions clearly indicate by their location their debt to the leisure pursuits of guards or travellers quartered there. These are even found in the vicinity of royal inscriptions, e.g in the Wadi Hamamat, which ought to discourage the interpretation of individual cases (supposed Hatshepsut satire at Thebes [7. 57]) as political statements. PCarlsberg 69 [x], in which obscenities are deliberately directed against an opponent in the context of a feast of Bastet (cf. Hdt. 2,60), lies somewhere between pornography and cult. The interpretation of PTurin 55001, the most famous Egyptian ‘erotikon’ [6], is likewise disputed. The papyrus contains one strip depicting animals in fabulous situations, the remainder of the surface showing people in erotic scenes with brief dialogue (?) captions.

652.

E. KirsTEN, s. v. P., RE 22, 240-247; J. Koper, Aigaion Pelagos (TIB ro), 1998, 266. AKU.

Poristai (nogvotai/poristat, ‘providers’, from xogitew/ porizein, ‘provide, supply’), officials in Athens in the last years of the + Peloponnesian War, whose duty was presumably to find sources of money for the city. They are mentioned for the first time in 419 BC, before Athens was in serious financial difficulty (Antiph. Or. 6, 49), and for the last time in 405 (Aristoph. Ran. 1505). Poristai are not attested in inscriptions. PJR.

1M. Derauw, A Companion to Demotic Studies, 1997,

95 2J. FiscHErR, Griechisch-rémische Terrakotten aus Agypten, 1994, 29-35 3 A.H. GarpINner, The Library of A. Chester Beatty. The Chester Beatty Papyri, No. 1, 1931, 8-26, tables I-XVI 4 L. MANNICHE, Sexual Life in Ancient Egypt, 1987 5 D. MONTSERRAT, Sex and Society in Greeco-Roman Egypt, 1996 6J.A. OMLIN, Der Papyrus 55001 und seine satirisch-erotischen Zeichnungen und Inschriften, 1973 7 D.P. SILVERMAN, The Nature of

Egyptian Kingship, in: D. O’Connor, Ancient Egyptian

Pornography I. ANCIENT NEAR East IV. ROME

PORNOGRAPHY

II. Ecypr

III. GREECE

Kingship, 1995, 49-92.

Av.L.

III. GREECE

I. ANCIENT NEAR EAST With the possible exception of the numerous depictions of the sexual act on terra cotta reliefs and lead tablets — many of which may have served as magical amulets or represented ex voto gifts [1. 265] — there is no evidence of pornography from the ancient Near East. In literary texts, explicit verbal depictions that refer to sexuality are found in literary texts (e.g. hymns to > Ishtar, who was, among other things, the goddess of sexual love) and therefore are to be taken as evidence of an open-minded attitude to sexual behaviour rather than as an expression of erotic fantasies. 1 J.S. Cooper, s. v. Heilige Hochzeit, RLA 4, 259-269.

IJ. Egypt Of the countless textual and pictorial depictions of naked human and divine figures and of sexual activity in Egypt [4; 5], most belong in the religious sphere. There also seems to have existed a thoroughly relaxed attitude towards physical needs. Thus, but few genres may be designated pornography in the strict sense. For instance, it is highly doubtful that the Egyptians themselves regarded the explicit descriptions of sexual adventures in literary works detailing the lives of the gods (e.g. Horus and — Seth [3]) as pornographic. The same applies to the phallic terra cotta figurines of the Late and Hellenistic Periods [2], which can with some certainty be said to belong to the cultic sphere, though it is no longer possible to interpret them in detail.

A. DEFINITION

B. MANIFESTATIONS

AND GENRES

C. CHARACTERISTICS

A. DEFINITION Greek erotica and pornography differ from modern examples principally in their greater range and public scope (including the worship of the gods, see below, B); they were, in addition, subject to fewer social and religious [6,12], and no legal, controls. Important factors underlying Greek pornography include: the centrality of agriculture and a concomitant emphasis on fertility (esp. phallic) symbolism; > Phallus); a disposition to regard erotic pleasure and admiration of the human body as both natural and divinely sanctioned; the restriction of ‘legitimate’ sexual exploitation to subgroups regarded as inferior (slaves, non-citizens); lack of concern to protect children from sexuality; and the institutionalization of sexuality (both heterosexual and homosexual) in Greek male citizen culture, esp. in the contexts of symposium, > gymnasium, > palaistra, and the military [4]. On the whole, Greek pornography was more the artful depiction of the actual pleasures enjoyed in such venues than a vicarious fantasy of the forbidden.

B. MANIFESTATIONS AND GENRES Voyeurism appears as early as Homer (Hom. Od. 8.306-42: Aphrodite and Ares) [10]. Male — nudity pervades Greek art from early times, whereas female

PORNOGRAPHY

640

639

nudes first appear in the late 5th cent. BC, initially on Attic vases depicting bathers (including brides), and in sculpture only a cent. later, beginning with > Praxiteles’ statue of Aphrodite at Cnidus. In Attica, frankly sexual vase depictions both hetero- and homosexual (many created for export to the west, esp. Etruria), are very common from c. 575 but gradually disappear in the period c. 470-440, a development perhaps connected with the rise of democratic culture (> Démokratia). In the 4th cent. and later, sensual painting and sculpture, as well as such mundane objects as erotic amulets and oil-lamps, become increasingly common. As in lit-

placed onto slaves, > barbarians, or such fantastic figures as the > satyr [12]. Explicit pornography is never found in serious poetry or (except for the novel) prose, which prefer euphemism [7], and obscenity is found only in iambus, epigram and Old Comedy (> Aristophanes [3]). Yet pornography was never subject to official sanctions, despite the recommendations of anhedonic philosophers (e.g. Plato, Resp. 395e9, Aristot. Pol. 1336b4, cf. Ath. 13.566ff.), and the cults displayed often highly eroticized content (phalléphoria, + aischrologia, ribald poetry, > hieroOs gamos) and only occasionally prescribed sexual purity [t2. 74-103]

erature, heterosexual themes in art [2; 3; 9] are much more common than homosexual. In Greek literature, erotic themes, which range from the graphically sexual to the morally didactic, first appear in the Archaic Period in the lyric genres (not in choral lyric [7]), e.g. in Archilochus, Hipponax, Semonides, Theognis, Mimnermus, Sappho, Ibycus and Anacreon. In the early 5th cent., Old Comedy (~ Comedy, I C) and the > satyr play featured the mimesis, often fantastic and grotesque, of erotic behaviour [8]. In part these dramatic genres portrayed for the whole polis the hitherto exclusive worlds of the brothel and the symposium, cf. Eupolis frr. 172, 261 (‘dirty jokes’ of the — parasite), Aristoph. Eccl. 943 (erotic songs by the hetaera Charixene). Hetaerae actual and fictitious became standard comic character-types in the fourth and later cents. (since Pherecrates, c. 430). In the Archaic and early Classical Periods erotic art, poetry and drama were still closely connected to the public cults of the gods (esp. > Aphrodite, - Demeter and —> Dionysus; cf. [r]), but in the 4th and later cents. greater decency prevailed in public contexts, and erotica were now produced largely for private consumption. In the Hellenistic and Roman Periods some old literary genres, esp. > epigram, were revived and new ones invented, e.g. sex-manuals [14; 17] (the most famous by Philaenis of Samos: “Techniques of Seduction’, Ilegi mewaoudv/Peri peirasmén) — probably meant to be entertaining, not seriously didactic [11:90111] (thus serving as forerunners of Ovid’s Ars Amatoria [14. 90-111]; cf. > Ovidius) — as well as collections of songs (cf. Glauce in Theoc. 4,32; Hedylus’ epigram in the appendix to Anth. Pal. 2,134,7 CoucGny) and witty sayings of hetaerae (e.g. Lucianus’ Hetairikoi; on ‘Hetaera Dialogues’ cf. e.g. Ath. 13,567a; 583d; 5 86a; 591d). Finally, the ancient > novel incorporated elaborate erotic plots of the sort already familiar in New Comedy.

(> Katharsis).

C. CHARACTERISTICS Some social inhibitions regulated erotic expression. ‘Pornography’ was often associated with sexual misbehaviour (asélgeia), vileness and immodesty (aischrologia), and sexual language with strife or abuse in both poetry and cult (esp. Demeter and Dionysos). The depiction of sexually offensive male behaviour (rape, masturbation, passive oral or anal penetration) was dis-

Though the pornographos (first in Ath. 13.567b3-8, for painters of pornography) technically depicted only the ambiance of prostitutes (primarily female, but note the kinaidoldogos, the male performer of pornographic songs, e.g. Sotades: Ath. 14,620d), not respectable women, adultery was a literary theme (e.g. Archil. 169a, the songs of Gnesippus, cf. Eupolis fr. 148, Telecleides fr. 36, the Moichoi of Ameipsias, Euripides’ Phaidra and Stheneboia, cf. Aristoph. Ran. 10431055), and the status of female subjects is often ambiguous in visual art [9. 159-67] and in such comic figures as Opora and Theoria (Aristoph. Pax 819-908).; Pornographic portrayals of women emphasized realism and objectification, cf. the theme of copulation with statues (Pygmalion at Ath. 13.1605f4-10) and the fetishism of clothing, which aroused interest in what was concealed, and pubic depilation [9. 133-158]. Heterosexual copulation (including anal) is shown in many modes, though the a tergo position predominates. Like boys, women are imagined as sources of sexual arousal, but not as aroused themselves. Violent and

sadistic elements are sometimes found [9. 103-32], but sadomasochism played a negligible role in Greek pornography. Homosexual erotica used the same language as did heterosexual; the relative merits of women and boys as lovers was a topos of > symposium literature. But Greek homosexuality was normatively pederastic (Zeus and Ganymedes were the divine archetype), and sexual relationships between adults were disapproved, so that they are not a subject for pornography [5]. In art homosexual copulation involving either sex is only very rarely depicted (except intercrural for males), though it seems to have figured in Sappho’s poetry [5. 173-179]. We have no certain representation of a male prostitute. Sexual behaviours featured in Greek literature and art include: group sex; fellatio (frequently performed by women, rarely — and never in art — by males); dildos, depicted only to penetrate women (by a man or another woman, or in female masturbation); urination (for both sexes, though not in literature). 1 C. BERARD, Phantasmatique érotique dans l’orgiasme dionysiaque, in: Kernos 5, 1992, 13-26 2 J. BOARDMAN, E. Larocca, Eros in Greece, 1978 3 O. BRENDEL, The

Scope and Temperament of Erotic Art in the GrecoRoman World, in: T. Bowrr, C.V. CurisTENSON (ed.), Studies in Erotic Art, 1970, 3-108 4J.N. Davipson,

641

642 Courtesans and Fishcakes. The Consuming Passions of Classical Athens, 1997 5 K.J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality, 1978 (German 1983), *1989 6H. FLuck, Skurrile

Riten in griechischen Kulten, 1931 7 J. HENDERSON, The Cologne Epode and the Conventions of Early Greek Erotic Poetry, in: Arethusa 9, 1976,

Maculate *r991

Muse.

159-179

Language

8Id., The

in Attic Comedy,

9M.F. Kitmer, Greek Erotica on Attic Red-Fi-

gure Vases, 1993 Antike,

Obscene

in: Wiss.

10 W. KRENKEL, Skopophilie in der Zschr.

Rostock

26,

1977,

619-631

11 A. LissaRAGuUE, De la sexualité des Satyres, in: Métis 2, 1987, 63-79 12R. PARKER, Miasma. Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion, 1983 13 C. REINSBERG, Ehe, Hetarentum und Knabenliebe im antiken Griechen-

land, 1989

14 A. RICHLIN (ed.), Pornography and Rep-

resentation in Greece and Rome, *1992

15 A. STAHLI, Die

Verweigerung der Liste: erotische Gruppen in der antiken Plastik, 1999 16 A. Stewart, Art, Desire and the Body in Ancient Greece, 1997 17 K. TSANTSANOGLOU, Memoirs of a Lady from Samos, in: ZPE 12, 1973, 183-95.

_J.HE.

IV. ROME

A. DEFINITION D. Art

B. EFFECT

C. LITERARY GENRES

E. RECEPTION

A. DEFINITION The term ‘Roman pornography’ requires specifica-

tion. For one thing, there is no categorical equivalent in Latin — or, probably, in Roman thought — to the Greek term pornographos (Ath. 13,567), ‘one who paints (or writes about) whores’. For another, the intertextual relationship between the relevant Greek and Latin texts (novels, epigrams) is too complex to extract genuinely Roman material. We can thus only investigate in what ways ‘pornographic’, i.e. erotically stimulating or obscene content in Latin texts, was designed and whether delineations, restrictions or exclusions can be detected within it. Although we know of no legal regulations, Roman authors were constrained to protect their social status as mares

(‘men’) by the rhetorical

strategy of excusatio (‘justification’): Catullus’ demand to distinguish between an author and producing a pornographic text (Catull. 16,5f.) is often cited with apologetic intent (Plin. Ep. 4,14,5; Apul. Apol. r1,2f.), with witty variations: Ov. Tr. 2,354, Mart. 1,4,8 (quote from Auson. Cento nuptialis 218,7 P., Apul. Apol. 11,3). Mart. 12,43 — contradicting Mart. 11,16! — pretends a strict line between erotic and pornographic poetry [8]: Sabellus is criticized for verse depictions of venturesome sexual positions (Veneris novae figurae) for puellae (‘girls’), fututores (heterosexual ‘fuckers’), exoleti (homosexual ‘pleasure-boys’) and groups (catena, symplegmata; see > symplegma). For such material, he argues, literary talent is superfluous, indeed out of place. B. EFFECT Pornography is meant to provide instant stimulation: this applies in particular to the sex collections of the Greek authoresses (?) Philaenis (cf. [2], see above

PORNOGRAPHY

IH) and Elephantis, whose fame with the Roman public can be assumed by virtue of their frequent mention. The molles libelli (‘risqué little books’) of Elephantis (Mart.

12,43,4) were apparently illustrated with obscenae tabellae (‘obscene images’) (Priap. 4,rf.) and kept for perusal and imitation in the bedrooms of the villa of Tiberius (Suet. Tib. 43). Similarly, Mart. 12,95 recom-

mends pornography (pathicissimi libelli, ‘really scurrilous little books’) be read only in the company of a female partner (puella). Mart. 11,104 parodies Ovid’s detailed advice to women on sexual positions (figurae Veneris, Ov. Ars am. 3,769-808): the wife (uxor) is ul-

timately encouraged to fulfil all sexual wishes of the speaker (mores nostri), including anal intercourse (pedicatio); by contrast, 12,96,9-12 strongly discourages the woman from willingness to submit to this practice [8. 62f.]. Even beyond erotodidaxis, however, the reader’s arousal is a desired effect: in Petronius’ [5] novel (88,1), Eumolpus’ pseudo-autobiographical tale of the Pergamene ephebos does not leave Encolpius unmoved (erectus his sermonibus). In a departure from 12,43, the speaker in Martial (> Martialis [1]) often

asserts that erotic stimulation is a generic marker of ~ epigram: jocular verse (carmina iocosa) obey the rule that ‘they are only fun if they turn you on’ (prurire, Mart. 1,35,10f.; (7. 321f.]); versus Saturnalicii have no morals (mores; 11,15,12f.). The speaker self-consciously warns of the physiological consequences of reading his verse (Mart. 11,16,5; 11,16,8). Logically, then, phy-

sicians recommend the reading of pornography in the treatment of impotence (fabulae amatoriae; Theodorus Priscianus, Logicus 34, p. 133, roff. ROSE). C. LITERARY GENRES Pornography, in the sense of erotically daring or tasteless portrayals, is found above all in the Roman genres of the > satire, > novel and > epigram. The obscenities in Lucilius [I 6] are remarkable and are quite comparable to the everyday speech found on many inscriptions (CIL 10,1,4483) (e.g. inbubinare: ‘befoul with menstrual blood’; imbulbitare: ‘smear with excrement’, Lucil. r205 K.); only Juvenal (> Iuvenalis) dares match this, in Sat. 2 (homosexual ‘perversion’, Julia’s abortion) or Sat. 9 (the ‘ass-fucker’ (pedico) Naevolus covered in filth during the sexual act). Highlights in > Petronius [5] include the orgy at Quartilla’s (19-26), Encolpius’ impotence (126-132), his healing by Oenothea (13 4-138) and the Philomela episode (140); in > Apuleius [III], Lucius’ coitus with Photis (Met. 2,9-17), the adultery stories (Met. 9) [ro] and the sodomy between Lucius-the-ass and a + matrona

(‘lady’; Met.

10,19-22).

However,

in its

choice of words, the Roman novel remained relatively measured, often drawing on metaphor and euphemism to depict sexual events [1]. Epigrammatists, by contrast, abjure every restraint: > Catullus [1] sets the standard early; obscene expressions [6] like mentula (‘prick’), futuere (‘fuck’), pedicare (‘butt-fuck’) or irrumare (‘get a blow job’) are often

643

644

encountered. Sexual punishments are the favoured theme of the ‘Carmina ~ Priapea’: in the Triporneia model [3. 87], the speaker > Priapus threatens female thieves with fututio, young boys with pedicatio, older (bearded) men with irrumatio (i.e., vaginal, anal and oral penetration, respectively; Priap. 12; 22; 74). Mar-

1J.N. Apams, The Latin Sexual Vocabulary, 1982 2B. BaLpwin, Philaenis, The Doyenne of Ancient Sexology,

PORNOGRAPHY

tial’s ceuvre (+ Martialis [1]) contains every conceiv-

able sexual act, perversity and obscene embarrassment. Most of the pornographic epigrams are in bk. r1, ‘Saturnalia’, and bk. 12; there is a surprising proportion of homosexual themes [8]; particularly striking are intertextual references to Strato’s Paidiké Moiisa (Anth. Pal. 12). + Ausonius offers masterpieces of intertextual learning with his epigrams and the Cento nuptialis, taking up group sex (Epigr. 59 P. 43) [1o], bisexuality (Epigr. 93) and all variants on the theme of oral sex (Epigr. 78f.; 86f.). D. ART Almost exclusively heterosexual subjects occur in Roman

art (> Eroticism

in: Corolla Londoniensis 6, 1990, 1-7.

3 V. BUCHHEIT,

Studien zum Corpus Priapeorum, 1962 4J.R. CLARKE, Looking at Lovemaking. Constructions of Sexuality in Roman Art roo BC-AD 250, 1998 5 F.C. FORBERG, Antonii Panormitae Hermaphroditus, 1824 (*1908 = repr. 1986) 6 W. GOLDBERGER, Kraftausdriicke im Vulgarlatein, in: Glotta 18, 1930, 8-65; 20, 1932, toI-150 7J. Ha.tett, Nec castrare velis meos libellos, in: C. KLopT (ed.), Satura lanx. Festschrift W.A. Krenkel, 1996, 321344 8H.P. OBERMAYER, Martial und der Diskurs iiber mannliche ‘Homosexualitat’ in der Literatur der frihen Kaiserzeit, 1998

9 P. PlERRUGUES, Glossarium eroticum

linguae Latinae, 1826 (repr. of 2nd ed. 1908)

10 V.

ScHMipT, Ein Trio im Bett: “Tema con variazioni” bei Catull, Martial, Babrius und Apuleius, in: Groningen Col-

loquia on the Novel 2, 1989, 63-73 Glossarium Eroticum, 1932 repr. 1965).

11 G. VORBERG, 12 A. VARONE,

Erotica Pompeiana. Iscrizioni d’amore sui muri di Pompei, 1994 (withcolour plates) 13 E. CANTARELLA, L. JacoBELLI, I volti dell’amore, 1998 (German 1999). H.-P.O.

II); one exception deserves

mention: the so-called ‘Warren Cup’, a silver beaker from the rst cent. AD [4], showing two scenes of pedicatio, the pedico (‘sodomizer’) in each case lying beneath the pathicus (‘the passive male partner’), one couple observed by a voyeur. The images of Pompeii may be regarded as exemplary not only of the style in which pornographic themes were depicted in the Late Republic and Early Empire, but also of the frequency and venues of their use (e.g. bedrooms, baths) [12; 13].

Poroi (xdQo0Vp6roi, literally ‘ways’; plural of pdros) in

E. RECEPTION The genres of epigram and > Milesian tales (cf. ~ Novella; e.g. Petronius’ ‘Widow of Ephesus’) were preferred by the Humanists: Boccaccio’s Decamerone was based on the ancient novel, esp. Apuleius’ tales of

nophon outlines a system aimed at the long term for raising and stabilising state revenues, the income from which was to ensure a daily income of 3 obols for each Athenian citizen, but was not thought of as a remune-

adultery, and Antonius BECCADELLI

(i.e., A. PANOR-

MITA) clearly refers in his collection of erotic epigrams Hermaphroditus (c. 1422) to his model Martial. For the first translation into German of the Hermaphroditus (1824), the Coburg Court Librarian FoRBERG [5] provided a Latin appendix (Apophoreta), an invaluable, complete compendium of Roman pornography, catalogued by sexual practice. FORBERG also quotes from the dialogue De arcanis Amoris et Veneris, which Nicholas CHorrer published in Latin in homage to ~ Lucianus’ [1]’Dialogues of the Hetaerae’ under the

pseudonym of Aloisia SIGEA. FORBERG’s Apophoreta initiated serious scholarly consideration of Roman pornography. PIERRUGUES (1826; German pirate edition 1833) [9] and VoORBERG (1932) [11] prepared special lexica revealing the erotic double meanings of often harmless sounding terms and refined wordplays; KRENKEL collated material on all sexual themes in a series of individual studies (catalogued in [7]). For anyone interested in Roman pornography, [1] is indispensable. ~— Erotica; > Eroticism;;

Hetaerae;

> Homosexua-

lity; > Nudity; — Paederasty; > Phallus; > Prostitution; > Sexuality;> GENDER sTUDIES; > VASES/VASE PAINTINGS

ancient Greece were ways of securing revenues (Xen. Hell. 1,6,42) and later also referred to incomes and

sources of income themselves, both in the private and in the public sector (> Chrématistiké; Aristot. Pol. 1259a 3-36; Syll.3 284,23). In public finances poroi include not only tolls and — taxes from non-citizens (> Métozkoi), but also income from rents and leases on state property, running state monopolies (mines), court fees and other incomes (— Poristai). In his Poroi > Xe-

ration for political activity (pro [1. 30-45; 2. 293-300] contra [3]). 1E.

ScHUtrrumpF

(ed.),

Xenophons

Vorschlage

zur

Beschaffung von Geldmitteln oder ‘Uber die Staatseinkiinfte’, r982 (with German transl.) 2 Id., Politische Reformmodelle im 4. Jahrhundert, in: EDER, Demokratie, 271-301 3 PH. GAUTHIER, Le programme de Xénophon dans les Poroi, in: RPh 58, 1984, 181-199. W.ED.

Porolissum (ITogdé\tooov/Porolisson). Settlement in northwestern Dacia (CIL III 7986; CIL XVI 132; Tab. Peut. 8,3: Porolisso; Ptol. 3,8,6; > Daci, Dacia), in the area of modern Moigrad-Jas (near Cluj in Romania). Already occupied by the Romans under Trajan (AD 98-117) and, owing to its strategic location, an important military base with two camps. P. played a signifi-

cant role as a centre of trade and administration in the province of Dacia Porolissensis, which was established in AD 124. The civilian settlement (vicus, canabae) was elevated by Septimius Severus (AD 193-211) to the status of + municipium (cf. ILS 7130). The garrison was made up of small mobile units (cohors I Brittonum miliaria, cohors V Lingonum, numerus Palmyrenorum sagittariorum, vexillationes). Ancient remains: two

645

646

stone warehouses, buildings, amphitheatre, temple of +> Liber Pater, conduits, a paved road, necropoleis.

Heracles hit him with an arrow (Apollod. 1,36). According to Pindar (l.c.) P. was defeated by Apollo. sin,

PORPHYRIUS

C. Daicoviciv, s. v. P., RE 22, 265-270; L. MARINESCU,

J.BU,

Porphyrius (Ilogdteioc; philosopher and scholar.

and

A. Lire B. Worxks C. PHILOSOPHICAL TEACHINGS D.IMpact E. COMMENTARY HARMONICS OF PTOLEMAEUS

s.v. P., PE, 729; TIR L 34 Budapest, 1968, 92f. (with older

bibliogr.).

Poros

([dgoc/Poros).

Personification

of ways

means and of riches. Son of > Metis. After the gods’ banquet for + Aphrodite’s birthday, P. lies drunk in Zeus’ garden; > Penia (poverty) approaches him and wishes to have a child with him. The product of this union is > Eros [1] (Pl. Symp. 203b; Lydus Mens. 4,154). Ina Christian context (Euseb. Praep. ev. 12,11),

Zeus’ garden is a symbol for Paradise, Penia for the evil serpent and P. for man himself. Sie

Porphyrio, Pomponius. Early 3rd-cent. author of a commentary on Horace for use in schools (in the form

of marginal

glosses), perhaps

from

Africa

(before

+> lulius [IV 19] Romanus, cf. Charisius p. 285,10 ff. Barwick); a short biography precedes the text. The

function of the work forced P. to dispense with textual variants; the source citations may have been mediated by > Helenius Acron’s scholarly commentary. P. himself was not very interested in archaisms; instead he emphasized the contemporary distance from obsolete customs, and quite often cites > Persius [2]. His glossed text was handed down from school text to school text, resulting in abridgements, and also (towards the end) textual losses; the more complete text influenced the two

late-antique versions of the Horace

scholia (by

Pseudo-Acron). A thin trickle of marginal glosses persisted until the early Middle Ages, which were transferred (probably not before the 8th century; in Italy?) into a lemma commentary. The tradition is based on two gth-cent. MSS from Lorsch (Vat. Lat. 3314; Munich, Clm 181) and Humanist copies of a further German exemplar. In the 9th cent. the lemma commentary — probably developed around Heiric of Auxerre — was transposed anew into a marginal explication, whose widespread influence contributed to a homogenisation of the mediaeval interpretation of Horace. — Horatius [7]; ~ Commentary Ep.: A. HOLDER, 1894. Lit.: P. WessNER, Quaestiones Porphyrioneae, in: Commentationes Ienenses 5, 1894, 155-196; P.L. SCHMIDT,

in: HLL, vol. 4, 259-261; E. MASTELLONE IOVANE, L’auctoritas di Virgilio nel commento di Porfirione, 1998; S. DiepeERIcH, Der Horazkomm. des P., 1999. P.L.S.

Porphyrion

(Mogdveiwv/Porphyrion).

King of the

Attic deme of Athmonon (Paus. 1,14,7), later identified

with the king of the > Giants (Pind. Pyth. 8,12ff.). Son of > Athamas and Gaea or of Erebus and > Nyx (Hyg. Fab. praef. r). An enemy of Zeus (Aristoph. Av. 1251). P. is incited by Zeus to lust for > Hera. When he tried to assault her, Zeus struck him with his lightning bolt and

Porphyrios),

Neoplatonist

ON THE

A. LIFE P. (c. AD 23.4 -305/3 10) came from a wealthy family

of Phoenician Tyre ( Tyrus). Nothing is known of his childhood. At Athens he studied mathematics under Demetrius, grammar with Apollonius, rhetoric with Minucianus and especially philology, literary criticism and philosophy with the great scholar > Longinus [1], a representative of + Middle Platonism. Possibly on Longinus’ recommendation, P. left Athens in 263 to join the school of > Plotinus at Rome. He had difficulty at first in accepting the latter’s teaching that ideas (— Ideas, theory of) were located in the intellect (votc/ nous); but an exchange of polemic papers with Plotinus’ favourite pupil > Amelius Gentilianus led P. to revise his own view, influenced by Longinus, that ideas were independent of the intellect. P. remained at Plotinus’ school at Rome for six years, gradually taking the place of Amelius with the master. He worked through Plotinus’ writings and corrected them, thereby making the preparations for his own edition of Plotinus’ Enneads. His keen philological awareness led Plotinus to ask P. to dispute with the writings of various competing (schools of) philosophers. P. wrote a report on the Platonic Ouestions of the Platonist Eubulus, refuted the laudatio of the rhetor Diophantes to Alcibiades in Plato’s Symposion and proved that a work attributed by the Gnostics to Zoroaster was in fact apocryphal. In 268, P. fell into depression and considered taking his own life. Plotinus diagnosed his condition and recommended travel; P. left Rome and went to > Lilybaeum on Sicily, where he lived on the estate of a nobleman by the name of Probus. Little is known of the course of the remainder of P.’ life. He mentions his age (68) in the Life of Plotinus (Iegi tod Thwtivov Biov/Peri tou Plotinou biou), as well as the fact that he had achieved the unio mystica, the mystical union with the highest principle (i.e. God) on one occasion (while Plotinus had experienced it four times). In his Letter to Marcella (Mledg Maexéddav/ Pros Markéllan), he mentioned his late marriage to Marcella, the widow of a friend and mother of seven children. Later sources report that P. wrote his Eisagoge (Introduction to the Categories of Aristotle, Eioaywyn gic tac "AguototéAous xatnyooiac/Eisagége eis tas Aristotélous katégorias) on Sicily, and that this was at the request of the Roman senator Chrysaorius, who wished to have Aristotle’s categories explained. He probably also wrote at least some of his writings Against the Christians (Kat Xeuotwav@v AOyoUKata Christianén ldgot) and On Abstemiousness (Megi anoxic gupbywv/ Peri apochés empsych6n) on Sicily; the same may apply

PORPHYRIUS

648

647

to On What Concerns Us (legit tév 颒 iytv/Peri ton eph’hémin) and one of the two treatises On the Difference between Plato and Aristotle (Meoi dSiaotdoews Tkdtwvoc xai “AguototéAovuc/Peri diastaseos Platonos kai Aristotélous; also dedicated to Chrysaorius). According to Eunapius, P. returned to Rome after Plotinus’ death in 270 to take over the direction of the school (SAFFREY [19] doubts this). Some of P.’ writings — especially the small commentary on the Categories in question-and-answer form (xatt mevow/katd peusin) — suggest formulation for school use. We know of a few of P.’ pupils, e.g. > Iamblichus and > Theodorus of Asine; others may be deduced with some degree of plausibility, e.g. the addressees of his works Anatolius, Eudoxius, Gaurus, Gedalius, and the Platonist Ptolemaeus. There is no reliable information as to the place or date of P.’ death. Eunapius’ supposition that P. died at an advanced age at Rome is probably confirmed by later authors (Libanius, Damascius, some Arabic sources) who refer to P. as the ‘old man from Tyre’. MLCH. B. Works P.’ literary oeuvre is characterized by remarkable en-

cyclopedic breadth. Along with his philosophical works, he wrote on mathematics, astronomy, music (see E), grammar, rhetoric and history. It is hardly a coincidence that these fieldscorrespond to branches of the seven liberal arts (> Artes liberales), which P. probably treated systematically himself. His philosophical works cover a broad spectrum of genres, from the protreptic letter (To Marcella) and the paraenetic treatise (On Abstemiousness), aimed at a wider public, to the polemic pamphlet (Ox the Soul Against Boethus, eoi Wuxis ted¢ BonOov/Peri psychés pros Boéthon, from systematic introductory writings (Eisagoge) to abstruse tracts (Adoeuat medc ta vonta/Aphormai pros ta noéta or Sententiae ad intellegibilia ducentes, ‘Propositions leading to the intelligible’). P. clearly felt at home in the genre of the commentary: he was the first philosopher to comment both on the dialogues of > Plato [1] and the writings of > Aristotle [6]. In both cases, his influence on subsequent — Neoplatonism was decisive (> Aristotle, commentators on).

mevow xai doxoow/Eis

tas Aristotélous Katégorias

kata peiisin kai apokrisin) are intended for philosophical beginners and offer a simplified account of the categorical teachings of Aristotle; by contrast, the surviving fragments of his commentary Ad Gedalium show that he also discussed the same work on a considerably higher intellectual level. These two features, which have often been misunderstood, have contributed to P.’ reputation as an inconsistent and contradictory, secondclass thinker. Such an appraisal is without justification. 2. LoGic P.’ most important contribution to the field of logic was his rehabilitation of the Aristotelean Organon, in particular the Categories, which enabled their integration into the Neoplatonist curriculum (cf. here the harsh criticism of Plotinus, Enneades 6,1-3). P. also

seems to have established the Neoplatonist reading canon, by which students began with the Categories (which dealt with simple words) before proceeding to De interpretatione (dealing with propositions/premisses) and then the Analytics (which taught the use of syllogism). 3. METAPHYSICS Before the 1950s, many scholars were of the view that P. merely popularized the philosophy of — Plotinus, but this picture has been revised ([20], [12] and esp. [16]). P.’ First Principle is no longer the Plotinic One, but Being understood as pure, undetermined existence (t6 eiva/to einai). This supreme principle can be equated with the first hypothesis of the Platonic Parmenides: it lies beyond plurality, activity, thought and singularity, beyond difference and identity, and transcends speech and thought. It is inexpressible, unnameable and only recognizable by means of a kind of non-knowing which is superior to thought. The closest possible approach toa suitable name might therefore be an expression

such as ‘being’ (t0 einai), ‘existence’

(hyparxis) or ‘the idea of being’ (1 iSéa tod dvtoc/hé idéa tou Ontos). Yet in spite of (or rather because of) its

complete individuality, the First Principle has no consciousness of its own. In order to recognize itself, Being pours itself out in a limitless stream which may be called ‘life’ (Cwr/z6e). This self-outpouring is limited by thought, or the intellect (vot¢/ nots), which disposes

C. PHILOSOPHICAL TEACHINGS 1.Dipactics 2.LoGic 3. METAPHYSICS 4. ETHICS 1. DipacrTics P.’ thought is guided by two main traits: a well-nigh irenic will to harmony and a strongly pedagogical purpose. The first trait leads him to see the common ground between Plato and Aristotle, Plotinus and the Chaldaean Oracles (~ Oracula Chaldaica). His pedagogical tendency is evident in his habit of carefully tailoring his teaching to the philosophical level of his audience. Thus, for example, the Eisagogé and the Commentary on the Categories ofAristotle in the Form of Questions and Answers (Eis tas ‘Aguototédous Katnyooiacg xatt

Being to return to itself. Thus determined, and provided with a form, pure activity becomes the Entity (to 6n), which corresponds to the Plotinic intellect (zo#s), in which intelligible ideas are contained. Thus, intelligence constitutes itself, in a threefold process of emergence, persistence and turning back, corresponding to the triad of Being, Life and Thought. These three stages are also synonymous with the Chaldaean intelligible triad, which consists of the Father (xatyo/pater), his power (vvaic/dynamis) and his intellect (vot¢/noiis). However, as in Plotinus, these three phases remain stages in a process rather than hypostases (+ Hypostasis) (Porph. in Pl. Prm. 9, 3-4); this latter development is not seen until > Iamblichus, > Proclus and subsequent — Neoplatonism.

649 When the intellect considers things subject to it, it

650

PORPHYRIUS

the adept begins to distance himself from the world of

creates the hypostasis of soul (wuyi/psyché), which is

sensation; the object is the passionlessness (d&éOeva/

divided, as in Plotinus, into the world-soul and a mul-

apatheia) of the Stoic sage. 3. Theoretical virtues of the soul: the soul turns towards the nous as its origin, its purpose being contemplation (Oemeia/theoria). 4. Virtues of the intellect: these are paradigmatic. Unlike Plotinus, P. seems to have believed in the possibility of permanent redemption from the cycle of rebirths. The reascension of the soul must be accomplished by rational means; — theurgy can only cleanse the inferior, imaginative soul. The aggregation of intellectual knowledge (aOhpwata/ mathémata), though, is still insufficient: the philosophical way of life must become second nature, a way of life (On Abstinence 1,

titude of individual souls; these retain substantial unity with the hypostasis of soul and among themselves even in their incarnated state. Like the hypostases above it, the soul is able to contemplate that which is above it and that which is beneath it. If it does the former, it behaves virtuously; if it does the latter, if falls into sinfulness and

begins the process of the creation of the material world. Matter, eternally created by the > démiourgés or the One, is intrinsically amorphous, without contours and without properties, but when the soul regards it, it is put into movement. By movement in the directions of width, length and depth, it becomes a three-dimensional body. If the movement is enduring, part of the substance is heated until it detaches itself and assumes a position adjacent to heaven: it thus becomes the element of fire. The body closest to that of fire moves more slowly and thus heats up less: air. Cooled by air and far from heaven, water is the next element, while the cold,

motionless element at the core of the world is earth. These bodies, furnished with their essential properties (hot, cold, wet, dry), constitute the first phase of the creation of the universe. 4. ETHICS In ethics, P. shows more interest than Plotinus in the

fate of the ordinary non-philosopher, including his religions, e.g. in On the Return of the Soul (De regressu animae), On Images (Tlegi &yakwatov/Peri agalmaton),

and On Philosophy from Oracles (Mei ti\¢ &x Aoyiwv birooodiac/Peri tés ek logion philosophias). But for P., as for Plotinus, the purpose of philosophy is the return to God, and the means whereby this is achieved is an ascetic life. All sensual pleasures and enjoyment reinforce the rule of the body over the soul; an immoral life leads, as was also the view of Plato, to reincarnation (> Soul, migration of the) on a lower plane of existence (with rebirth as an animal not necessarily excluded). At all events, excessive enjoyment of sexuality, choice foods and wines, soft beds etc., causes the finest essence of the soul (dynua/dchéma or mvetualpneima) to become damper and coarser; in death, this dense medium draws the soul down into Hades (cf. Porph. Sententiae 29). In contrast, an abstinent life dries the bearer medium out, and enables the soul at death to ascend into the planetary spheres, from which it came into the intelligible world. It thereby loses the strata of accretions which arose on the downward journey. Abstaining from meat and animal sacrifice also helps avoid the visitations by hostile demons (~ Demonology) which blood and greasy smoke attract. Following Plotinus (Enneades 1,2), P. constructed (cf. Sententiae 32) a four-stage model of virtue which was adopted by all subsequent Neoplatonists: 1. Political virtues, founded on the Aristotelean moderation of the passions (ttetovomd0eva/metriopatheia): they teach the philosophical beginner how to deal with his neighbour and live in a civilized society. 2. Cathartic virtues:

29).

D. IMpact P. had a wide influence on the Latin West and the Byzantine East of Europe and on the Islamic world. In the West, his works on logic were transmitted by > Boethius, who wrote two commentaries on the Eisagoge and also used P.’ other commentary on the Organon. P.’ influence on the trinitarian teachings of > Marius [II 21]

Victorinus,

on

Augustine

(— Augustinus)

and

Ambrose (~ Ambrosius) has been demonstrated ([12; 16; 20]). > Macrobius shows himself to have been

familiar with a great number of P.’ works, and > Calcidius’ Timaeus commentary owes him much. P.’ influence on Byzantine philosophy has as yet been little studied. P. was the first of the Neoplatonist Aristotle commentators

(— Aristotle, commentators

on),

but he was largely superseded by his pupil and philosophical opponent > Iamblichus. P. commented on some of the thirteen dialogues of Plato, lamblichus and Proclus later declaring these to be canonical, but significant fragments only survive of his Commentary on the Timaeus. The influence of P. is felt in Proclus, Synesius, Gregorius [2] of Nyssa, Euagrius, Ps.-Dionysius [54], Damascius, Philoponus, Simplicius, Johannes > Lydus [3] and Maximus [7] Homologetes. Cyrillus [2] of Alexandria quotes from many works of P.; for many of these, he is our only source. In the r1th cent., Michael + Psellos quickened interest in P.’ metaphysical writings, esp. the Sententiae, and in his commentary on the Chaldaean Oracles. Ascertaining P.’ influence on later Byzantine authors remains a scholarly desideratum. There also remain many questions to be answered concerning P.’ impact on Arabic authors. As in the European Middle Ages, his exhaustively annotated Eisagogeé was the foundation of Arabic logic. His influence on the pseudonymous Theology of Aristotle and similar Neoplatonizing works, such as the Letter on Divine Science, is widely recognized among scholars; extracts, translated from the Arabic, are gleaned from al-‘Amiri, Bar Hebraeus, al-Biruni, Ibn Abi Usaybi‘a, Ibn al-Nadim, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Sina, Ishhaq b. Hunayn, Miskawayh, Mubashshr b. Fatik, al-Quifti, al-Razi, alShahrastani, al-Tawhidi in the collection of P fragments [6]. As yet, no research whatever has been done into P.’

651

652

influence on Shiite and Iranian philosophy. It is entirely possible that, for example, the radically negative theology of Molla Sadra Shirazi (d. 1640) owed much to the Parmenides commentary of P. - Ascetism; — Middle Platonism; — Neoplatonism; + Plato [1]; > Plotinus

2,7). Introduction 1, which is dedicated to one Eudoxius, deals with the history of musicology, the author’s motivation for writing the Hypomnéma, and the character of Ptolemaeus. However, P. points out that Harmonikd was largely taken from the tract On the Distinction of the Music of Pythagoras and the Followers of Aristoxenus by > Didymus [1], and promises for his own part to declare his sources, as he duly does in his

PORPHYRIUS

EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS: 1 J. Brpez (ed.), Vie de

Porphyre, le philosophe néo-platonicien (with fragments of Peri agalmaton and ‘De regressu animae’) 1913 (repr. 1964 and later) 2 L. Brisson etal. (ed.), La Vie de Plotin, vol. 2, 1992 (with French transl., intr., comm. and bibli-

ogr.)

3 E. Des Praces (ed.), Porphyre, Vie de Pythagore,

1982 (containing also Pros Markéllan; text with French

transl.) 4E. LAMBERZ, 1975 (Aphormai); C. LARRAIN (Aphormai, German transl.) 5 W. POTSCHER, 1969 (Pros Markéllan, with German transl.) 6 A. SMITH (ed.), Porphyrii Philosophi Fragmenta, 1993. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 7 T.D. Barnes, Scholarship or Propaganda?: Porphyry Against the Christians and Its Historical Setting, in: BICS 39, 1994, 53-65 8R. BEUTLER,s. v. Porphyrios, RE 22.1, 275-313 9 E. Bicket (ed.), Diatribe in Senecae Philosophi fragmenta, 1915 10 P. COURCELLE, Les lettres grecques en Occident, de Macrobe a Cassiodore, *1948 11B. Croke, Porphyry’s Anti-Christian Chronology, in: Journal of Theological Studies 34, 1983, 168-185 12H. DorriE, P.’ ‘Symmetika Zetemata’. Ihre Stellung in System und Geschichte des Neuplatonismus (Zetemata 20), 1959

13 ST. EBBESEN, Commentators and

Commentaries on Aristotle’s Sophistici Elenchi, 3 vols., 1981 14 A.-J. FestuGi&re, La révélation d’Hermés Trismégiste, vol. 1: L’astrologie et les sciences occultes, 1944; vol. 2: Le dieu cosmique, 1949; vol. 3: Les doctrines de

lame, 1953; vol. 4: Le dieu inconnu et la gnose, #1954 15 I. Hapot, Arts libéraux et philosophie dans la pensée antique, 1984 16P. Hapot, Porphyre et Victorinus, 2 vols., 1968 17J. Macee (ed.), Anicii Manlii Severini

Boethii

De Divisione

liber (with English transl. and

comm.), 1998 18F. ROMANO, Porfirio di Tiro, 1979 19 H.D. SAFFREY, Pourquoi Porphyre a-t-il édité Plotin?, in: L. Brisson et al., La Vie de Plotin, vol. 2, 1992 (text, French transl., intr., comm., bibliogr.), 31-64 20 W. THEILER, Porphyrios und Augustin (Schriften der Kénigs-

berger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse, 10.1), 1933.

E. COMMENTARY ON THE HARMONICS OF PTOLEMAEUS Eis ta Harmonika Ptolemaiou Hypémnéma (Eis tu ‘Aguovixe tohkeuaiov taouvynuwa) is a full commentary on Ptolemaeus’ [65] Harmonikd 1,1-15 and 2,1-7. Long, uninterrupted lemmata show its relationship to the Alexandrian > hypomneéma (cf. also > Aristarchus [4]). P. was sceptical towards musical practice [3. 52—-

55]; the work belongs to the sphere of interest of his introduction (> Isagogeé) to Ptolemaeus’ Apotelesma-

tiké and his biography of Pythagoras [2]. The Hypomnema was often copied together with Ptolemaeus’ Harmonikad and thus achieved a wide distribution [13. xxxiii and 788-791]: DURING was able to use 70 MSS for his edition of 1932, used here below [1]. Introductions [1. 3-5, 29-38, 90-95] divide the Hypomnema into sections on methodology (on Ptol. Harm. 1,1-2), acoustics (1,3-4), and harmony (1,5-

arguments

on Harm.

1,1-5. Harm.

1,1-2

[1. 5-29],

which postulates reason and perception as the measures of musical validity, became the foundation of Neoplatonist epistemology (13) [1.13; 14. 201-202]. Harm. 1,3-4 gives quantity and quality as factors of the creation of sound [8. 153-158]; on the nature of the difference between high and low pitches, P. is in disagreement with Ptolemaeus [1. 58]. Introduction 3 cross-references different schools’ views on the suitability of numerical relationships and intervals as models for tonal relationships. From Harm. 1,6, P. refrains from quotation and from then on only paraphrases 1,9-15. The abruptness with which the Hypomnéma ends is only alleviated by the fact that all tonal systems have already been described by Harm. 2,7. The Hypomnéma contains the oldest evidence for Pythagoras’ discovery of numerical musical relationships (Xenocrates) [10. 207] and for the harmony of the spheres (+ Spheres, harmony of) (> Archytas [r]) [7. 159]. It was excerpted by Ptolemaeus scholiasts [6. lxxvi] and mentioned by GAFFuRIUS in De Harmonia (1518, 2,15 and 18). More recent studies mostly treat textual problems [9. 322; 15. 8; 14. 198; 3; 12]. Quotes from Aelianus [2], Didymus [1], Heraclides [21], Panaetius, Ptolemais and Theophrastus are translated in [4], from Thrasyllus in [5] and in [11. 131-132]. — Commentary; > Hypomnema; > Ptolemaeus [65] Ep1T1oNs: 11. DURING, Porphyrios’ Kommentar zur Harmonielehre des Ptolemaios, 1932. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 2H. Apert, Musikanschauung des Mittelalters, 1905 3B. ALEXANDERSON, Textual remarks on Ptolemy’s Harmonica and Porphyry’s Commentary, in: Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 27, 1969, 19-64 4A. Barker, Greek Musical Writings 2, 1989 5 H. Dorrie, La manifestation du Logos dans la creation, in: J. BONNAMOUR (ed.), Néoplatonisme, Festschrift J. Trouillard, 1981, 141-157 61. Dirinc, Die Harmonielehre des Klaudios Ptolemaios, 1930 7 Id., Ptolemaios und Porphyrios iiber die Musik, 1934 8 J. HANDSCHIN, Der Toncharakter, 1948 9 C. HGz«c, Review of [xr], in: Gnomon 10, 1934, 318-326 10F. Levin, m\nyn and taoig in the Harmonics of Klaudios Ptolemaios, in: Hermes 108, 1980, 205-229 11 Id., The Manual of Har-

monics of Nicomachus, 1994 12 S$. OLson, An Emendation in Porphyry’s Commentary, in: CQ 46, 1996, 596 13 T.J. MatTHtesen, Ancient Greek Music Theory. A Catalogue Raisonné of Manuscripts, 1988

14 W. THEI-

LER, Review of [1], in: GGA 198, 1936, 196-204 WIFSTRAND, EIKOTA 3, 1933-1934.

15 A. RO.HA.

653

654

Porphyrogennetos (xogpveoyévvytoc/porphyrogénnetos, ‘born in the purple’) was used as a cognomen (not a title) for children born to an emperor in his period of office (+ Konstantinos [1] VII). The Greek porphyrogénnetos was applied to both sexes, the Latin form distinguished (porphyrogenitus or porphyrogenita). A similar Latin version (matus in purpure) is recorded as early as for Honorius [3] (born AD 384), a Greek one (év th nogpbeq/en téi porphyrai) for Theodosius II (born 401). In official texts the adjective appears in

his son > Arruns [2] and withdrew to Clusium where, according to Pliny (HN. 36,91), his tomb is located.

Latin form in the 8th cent., in Greek not until the end of

town chronicle of Kyme and therefore was not subject to the tendency toward patriotic remodelling.

the 9th cent., probably to emphasize dynastic continuity and to legitimize power. It is possible that a birth ina special building of the Imperial palace which was faced with porphyry was connected with the word porphyrogénnétos from at least the 5th century AD.

PORTA TRIUMPHALIS

Only Arruns’ defeat at Aricia against a coalition of Latins and the ruler (‘tyrant’) — Aristodemus [5] of Cyme [2] (505/4 BC.; cf. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 7,3-11) put an end to the kingship and permitted the development of the Roman Republic. Parallel to the heroic tales, the memory lived on in Rome of a defeat against P. (Tac. Hist. 3,72; Plin. HN 34,139), a tradition which went back via Timaeus to a

1 A. ALFOxp1, Early Rome and the Latins, 1965

2T.J.

CoRNELL, The Beginnings of Rome, 1995, bes. 215-218. W.ED.

1G. Dacron, Nes dans la pourpre, in: Travaux et Mémoi-

de

Port of Trade describes, in Karl Potanyis’ theoretical

2 F. TINNEFELD, Review of

[x], in: Deutsches Archiv fiir Erforschung des MA, 51,

model, an establishment functioning as a control point in the trade between two cultures with differently struc-

1995, 618.

tured economic institutions. In a typical case, a port of

res (Centre de Recherche

d’Histoire

Byzance) 12, 1994, 105-142

Porrima

et Civilisation

W.ED.

(also Antevorta:

Macrob.

Sat.

1,7,20;

or

Prorsa: Gell. NA 16,16,4). P. is the superlative of the Latin word porro, ‘forward, far’, analogous to the derivation of Hekdté (> Hecate) from Greek hekds. As a companion (Ov. Fast. 1,633ff.; Macrob. l.c.) or sister (Ov. Lc.) of > Carmentis or identical with her (Gell. l.c.), P. knows the past, her sister > Postverta knows the future. P. is also considered a goddess of birth who looks after feet-first births, whereas care of head-first births (Gell. I.c.).

Postverta

takes Sur

Porsenna. P., Lars. Etruscan king of > Clusium (present-day Chiusi) at the end of the 6th cent. BC (Porsena in Hor. Epod. 16,4; Macrob. Sat 2,412; inscription. Porsina,

CIL

VI

32919;

Greek

Togoivac/Porsinas:

Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5,21,1); probably Etruscan proper name, possibly derived from > zilath purthne, the term for the highest office in Etruscan towns. According to Roman tradition (Liv. 2,9,1-14,9;

trade is situated between a society without a market and a market economy or professional long-distance traders who are part of a market system. A typical example of this is the early trade of the Carthaginians (—> Carthage) with the tribes of West Africa (Hdt. 4,196). The port of trade can be governed independently of the two societies engaged in the exchange, but also by the commercial or territorial power. POLANyI regards the port of trade controlled by a power without a market as an institution designed to protect the state against the influences of the foreign traders; it served both as a political and as an economic buffer zone between the traders and the hinterland, the products of which were sold or for which products were bought. Trade was strictly controlled and limited to the official channels, with the local retail trade and overseas trade being completely separated from each other. >» Commerce; > Harbours, docks Market K. Potanyt, Okonomie und Gesellschaft, 1979, 284-299. S.v.R.

Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5,21,1-34,5) P. wanted to rein-

state > Tarquinius Superbus, who had taken refuge with him, as king of Rome. However he withdrew, impressed by the heroic resistance of the Romans (see + Horatius [4] Cocles; — Mucius [I 2] Scaevola; + Cloelia [1]), and gave the Romans his encampment with all its supplies (hence allegedly the phrase bona Porsinae regis whenever booty was auctioned; Liv. 2,14; Plut. Poplicola 19,9-10). On the other hand, the historical gist of the story which was analysed primarily by [1. 44-81], shows P. against a setting of general unrest in Central Italy rather as a condottiere at the head of a group of warriors (cf. > Lapis Satricanus and [2. 143-14 5]),who drove Tarquinius away — perhaps in agreement with the Roman upper class- but then wanted to use Rome itself as a base for plundering raids or the conquest of Latium. This account makes P. the ‘eighth king’of Rome who left the city in the hands of

Porta Asinaria P. Aurelia; P. Caelemontana;

P. Ca-

pena; P. Carmentalis; P. Collina; P. Esquilina; P. Sanqualis; P. Trigemina (gates of Rome) see > Rome III. (with map).

Porta Triumphalis.

Construction

in Rome, about

which ancient evidence is scanty [1] and whose location and relationship to the city wall have always been disputed. The route of a > triumph always passed through this gate (Cic. Pis. 23,55; los. BI 7,13 0f.), which is to be sought on the sacred border of Rome, the > Pomerium, and not primarily in the city wall, even if the two may have coincided in certain phases of the history of the city. The ritual passing to the domi (‘at home’) region from the militiae (‘in the field’) one may have had a function of expiation, purification or transition and possessed a great symbolic power.

PORTA TRIUMPHALIS

656

655

The PT must have been in the area of the northern Forum Boarium between the > Capitolium and the Tiber, where neither the city wall nor the Pomerium is known to have run. Scholars have made a number of proposals [6] placing the PT in the north of the Forum Boarium, but also, incorrectly, in the south of the Forum Boarium [2], which have not stood the test however or have remained hypotheses, and finally theses interpreting remains of foundations in the area of the temple of Mater Matuta near Saint Omobono’s as part of a PT rebuilt by Hadrian [3] or equating the PT and the Porta Carmentalis [4]. It is certain, however, that the PT underwent numerous rebuildings until the height of the Imperial Period. — Pomerium; > Rome III. (with map); > Triumph 1 G. LuGLt, Fontes ad Topographiam Veteris Urbis Romae pertinentes 1, 1952, 196-199

2M. PFANNER, Codex

Coburgensis Nr. 88: Die Entdeckung der P. T., in: MDAI(R) 87, 1980, 327-334 3 F. CoareLti, Il Foro Boario dalle origini alla fine della repubblica, 1988, 363414 4 RICHARDSON, s. v. Porta Carmentalis, 301 5G. Branps, M. MaIscHBERGER, Der Tempel des Hercules Invictus, die Porta Trigemina und die P. T., in: Riv. di Archeologia 19, 1995, 102-120 6 F. COARELLI, s. v. P. TL TUR 3, 1996,.33 315 DLWI.

minii at P. (SEG 21, 527 Z. rof., 16) is not identical with the one in Sunium (SEG 21, 527 Z. 84, 94f.), hence P. does not describe the narrows at Puntazeza in the Sunium démos. 1 W. JuDEICH, Topograpie von Athen, *1930

MANN,

Wo

lag das

Herakleion

der

Tlog6ua@?, in: ZPE 133, 2000, 91-102.

2H. Lou-

Salaminier

éi H.LO.

[2] Coastal town in the southern bay of Euboea, 24 km to the east of Eretria [1] near modern Aliveri. Port of the ancient polis of > Tamynae; parts of the fortifications still survive. By the 5th cent. BC P. belonged to Eretria. P. is repeatedly mentioned by Demosthenes in the context of the contention for influence in Euboea between + Philippus [4] I and the Athenians. P. was occupied in 342 by the > Macedones, and the walls were destroyed (cf. Demosth. Or. 9,33 with schol. 57f.; 10,8; 18,71; Str. r0,1,10; Plin. HN 4,64). In the Byzantine Period, P. was a bishopric (Hierocles, Synekdemos 645,7). Inscriptions: IG XII 9, 96-121; suppl. 540-543. E. FREUND, s. v. Porthmos, in: LAUFFER, Griechenland, 562.

A.KU.

Porticus I. DEFINITION

II. FUNCTION

Portae Caspiae (Plin. HN 6,30; [via Kaoma/Pylai Kaspiat rlecatak Grit

28.6: sotta nies94sates ate

Ovea Kdomal/Thyrai Kdspiai: los. Ant. lud. 18,4,4). The modern Sirdara Pass in the Elburs mountains (> Caspii montes), between > Media and > Parthia, 60 km to the northeast of Teheran. At the same time the name was also used for the road from Darband to the western shore of the Caspian Sea. M. Scuorrkxy, Parther, Meder und Hyrkanier, in: AMI

24, 1991, 61-135, esp. 123.

Portent see — Augury Porthaon

— Divination;

APL.

— Omen;

(Mog@éwv/Porthdon,

— Prodigium;

I. DEFINITION Porticus is Lat. for the Greek > stod, a covered

colonnade with rear and often also side walls. The columns could be in antis, prostyle or between side walls. The porticus with one or multiple naves was normally linear and one-storeyed, but could also be round (porticus absidata) and two-storeyed. In contrast to the Greek stod the Roman porticus was seldom free-standing. Porticus lay mostly along a road or an open space in front of a building or on one or more sides of a courtyard. As a > peristylion, porticus also denoted an independent building. An exceptional example is the porticus Aemilia near the Tiber in Rome, built in 193 BC, a

‘the destroyer’,

also

TogGevc/Portheus: Hom. Il. 14,115 and Latin Parthaon: Ov. Met. 8,542; 9,12; Hyg. Fab. 175; Stat. Theb. 1,670; 2,726). Son of > Agenor [3] and Epicaste (Apollod. 1,59), husband of Euryte, king in Pleuron and

storage building with rows of vaulted spaces and thus not conforming to the usual definition of porticus. The term Cryptoporticus ( Crypta) is used for an underground corridor with slits for light, running along or around a courtyard and often the base of a porticus rising above it. (Plin. Epist. 2,17,16).

LN.

Calydon. Father of > Oeneus, Agrius and Melas (only

these in Hom. /.c., hence great-grandfather of > Diomedes [r]). Also father of Alcathous, Leucopeus, Ster-

ope (Apollod. 1,63) and Laocoon [2] (Hyg. Fab. 14,17; Apoll. Rhod. 1,191). Significant only as the father of Oeneus. Sat Porthmus (Tog6ud¢/Porthmos, ‘ferry place’). [1] Narrows of > Salamis and ferry place of the same name there (Hdt. 8,76,91; Aeschin. 3,158). Boundary

stones from the ferry harbour have been found in Piraeus (moQOueiwv SeEeuov be0c/porthmeion hdrmou horos, IGB 1104 [r. 446]). The Herakleion of the Sala-

Il. FUNCTION

Porticus, multifunctional buildings, were among the most common types of building in ancient cities. Although portictis were also introduced into private houses as peristylia under the influence of the Hellenization of Italy, in the Roman Empire porticus predominantly occurred in the public sphere. They protected from the sun and rain, and served both as a social meeting point and for political and religious activities. A porticus was often linked to a > basilica and often built in connexion with a > forum, e.g. in the Imperial fora in Rome. They could also perform various functi-

657

658

ons in sanctuaries and —as a porticus triplex — surround a temple, e.g. in the sanctuary of Hercules in Tibur and that of Juno in Gabii. In Rome temples were frequently built in peristylia, e.g. the Temples of Jupiter Stator and Juno Regina stood in the porticus Metelli (later called porticus Octaviae), built 146 BC. The peristylia that often lay behind the stage building in theatres, as e.g. in Pompeii (Vitr. 5,9) and Ostia, could be used by the audience. The porticus behind the Theatre of Pompey in Rome was furnished as a garden. In thermal baths porticus were used both to refer to the palaistrai surrounded by columns (first mentioned in connection with the

man (D). On side II, two seated figures observe a woman (F): a youth, left (E) and a woman holding a sceptre, right (G). The bottom disc depicts the upper

body of a youth in Phrygian garb. The portrayals are unique: the PV must have been a commissioned work. Like the court cameos (> Gem cutting), it was intended only for an exclusive circle of viewers to whom its meaning was known. Since the 17th cent., this piece has constituted one of the greatest of all challenges to the art of archaeological interpretation (overviews of interpretations: [11. 27-32; 20. 42-453 23. 77; 28. 172-176]). The identification of

Stabian Baths in Pompeii, 80-50 BC, CIL XII 829) and

Amor (B) is undisputed, and there is widespread agree-

to the enclosing walls provided with rooms (Imperial

ment that G is Aphrodite/Venus. Of the mythological interpretations, the most frequent is for side I: Peleus, Thetis, Poseidon or Zeus (WINCKELMANN and [1; 4; 10; 13; 14; 18]). Various interpretations of side II are connected with the Peleus-Thetis interpretation, e.g.: Achilles, Helen, Aphrodite on the Island of the Blessed [1; 4; 14; 15]; Lycomedes, Deidamia, personification of Scyros [3]; Aeneas, Dido, Venus [13]; Theseus, Ariadne, Aphrodite [18]; Paris, Helen, Aphrodite [10]. HAYNES [1I. 16-21; 12. 146-151] sees a narrative thread: on side I: Doris or Tethys greets Peleus in the presence of Nereus or Oceanus, and Amor leads him to Thetis, depicted on side II with Hermes and Aphrodite. Other suggestions include (a) side I: Theseus, Amphitrite, Poseidon, side II: Theseus, Ariadne, Aphrodite [9; 19]; (b) I: Dionysus, personification of Naxos, Poseidon, II: Ares, Ariadne, Aphrodite ([{2], but: [9. 136]); and (c) I: Perseus, Andromeda, Poseidon, II: Theseus, Ariadne, Aphrodite [6]; I: lasion, Demeter, Zeus, II: Adonis, Persephone, Aphrodite [5]. Seeing a reference to a maritime legend relies on interpreting the dragon as a sea monster (xf\toc/kétos). Its dog-like head, however, can no longer be used as an argument against its identification as a serpent [5. r11—114; 20. 38; 16.95-96; 28.133]; the three-pointed beard is comparable with the beards of serpents depicted together with the > Lares (> Genius). Essential to the interpretation are the erotic relationships between A and C and between C and the serpent (thus [T. 6; 6. 211; 23. 13-14], but: [9; 11; 12; 19]). The mythological interpretations posit either an unusual representation of a myth known in iconography, or the portrayal of legends otherwise only preserved in literature

Baths, SHA Alex. 25,6).

The porticus was also adopted into Christian architecture; church vestibules (+ Atrium) and monastery

courtyards normally had porticus. R. ETIENNE (ed.), Les cryptoportiques dans l’architecture Romaine,

1972;

A. NUNNERICH-AsMus,

Basilika

und

Portikus, 1994.

Portitor see — Portorium

Portland Vase I, OBJECT AND ITS HISTORY IJ. STYLE AND DATING II]. DEPICTION AND INTERPRETATION IV. TECHNIQUE V. RECEPTION

I. OBJECT AND ITS HISTORY Glass amphora with white relief figures on a blue background, London, BM, height: 245 mm; a cameoglass disc was used in antiquity to repair the absent bottom section. The PV was in the collection of Cardinal Francesco

DEL MONTE

in Rome

in 1600/1, was

acquired by the dowager Duchess of Portland in 1784 and deposited as a loan at the British Museum from 1810. In 1845, it was smashed and reassembled. Acquired by the British Museum in 1945, it was once more restored in 1948/49 and again in 1988/89 [11. 7-13; 23. I-23; 28. 24-102; 29]. E.Z-D. II. STYLE AND DATING Comparison with the so-called triumphal mint of Octavian gives a date shortly after 30 BC [23. 50-51; 30. 26]. The treatment of the bodies, less so of the heads and hair, approximates signed works by > Dioscorides [8] (cf. [30. 41]), to whose workshop the PV has been attributed [26. 62; 28. 125]. III. DEPICTION AND INTERPRETATION The Pan masks below the handles divide the frieze into two three-figured images: side I, with figures A, C, D (and Amor: B); side II, with figures E-G [115 20. 33; 28. 188-189]. In the centre of each side, a woman sits or lies in a sacral idyllic landscape. On side I, she (C) embraces a serpent-bodied dragon, clasping the outstretched arm of a youth approaching from the left (A); above her floats Amor (B), to the right stands a bearded

PORTLAND

VASE

[Tsaeasesi1:

Against this aporia, SIMON proposes an interpretation from Roman legend [16. 89-96; 23; 25]: reference

to a birth legend of > Augustus [I], according to which his mother > Atia [1] was said to have conceived him by a serpent during a ritual dormition in the Temple of Apollo (Lat. draco, Greek 59axwv/drakon) (Suet. Aug. 94,4; Cass. Dio 45,1,2). Side II: Apollo observes the sleeping Atia accompanied by Venus Genetrix, side I: Apollo Veiovis in human and serpentine form unites with Atia in the presence of Quirinus-Romulus [23. 2122], Chronos [25.165] or Tiberinus [16. 96]. This interpretation rests on contemporary evidence from the

PORTLAND

VASE

660

659

genre of gems, which, like the PV, belonged to the private or semi-official sphere (> Gem cutting): a cameoglass with a Sol-Apollo serpent of similar appearance to that on the PV, 37-16 (but probably before 31) BC [16. 95-96]; gems with the sleeping Atia, approached by a draco, c. 50-25 BC ([23. 17-19; 16. 95], comparable to the Atia legend: [25. 164; 247]). [20. 38-39; 28. 134] object that side II, as the prelude to I, has too little significance of its own. (C)’s embrace of her grandson (A), born in the year of her death, and the lack of erotic content are problematic for interpreting side I as depicting Marcellus, Atia, Quirinus (or Tiber) and II, Augustus-Apollo Veiovis-Terminus, lulia, Venus [22]. Amor’s presence on | and the disposition of II highlight A and Eas lovers and stand against the suggestion that I depicts Augustus, Atia, Neptune; II, Paris, Hecuba, Venus [20; 28. 130-136]. The bust in the bottom disc has been variously identified as Paris [7. 99-100, no. 5; 8. 66-67; I1. 25-26; 28. 21-23], Attis [23. 52; 16.92] or Iulus Ascanius

[13.25]. IV. TECHNIQUE

The pure dichrome prized in the Augustan Period for cameos — white figures on dark backgrounds — could not be achieved in agate vessels, but could be realized artificially in glass. The blank of the PV was probably manufactured by the so-called ‘furnace overlay’ technique, 1.e. the blue vase body, dipped in white glass, was blown with a glassmaker’s pipe [27. 27; 28. 108-118]. The figures are cut as in layered agate. This process was reproduced in copy [27]. Technically speaking, it was no novelty to cut the PV on a gem-cutter’s workbench fitted with rotating wheels. This method had been used in the Mediterranean region since the Middle Minoan II period and again since the 6th cent. BC, and large cameos in layer stone and agate vessels were created by it from the 3rd—2nd cents. BC (+ Gem cutting). Relatively novel, however, was the use of a glassmaker’s pipe, which had been invented in the 2nd quarter of the rst cent. BC [28. 129] (> Glass). According to a theory not actually tested, the PV may have been pressed in a mould from a wax or clay model thrown on the potter’s wheel [16. 67-89]. However, unmistakable traces of the gem cutter’s tools, including undercuts and the sculptural elaboration of the undersides of the toes on the right foot of G indicate otherwise [11. 23; 28. 128; ZO T|s V. RECEPTION

The PV was known from drawings from the early 17th cent. Many visitors to Rome with an interest in art viewed it [28. 24-37]. Copies of the PV by Josiah WeEDGWOOD in so-called ‘jasperware’ marked the beginning of production of the blue-and-white Wedgwood porcelain [28. 47-56]. In his poem The Botanic Garden (1791), Erasmus DARWIN offers an allegorical interpretation [11. 29-30; 30. 56-61]. — Gem cutting; > Glass

1B. AsHMo_g, A New Interpretation of the PV, in: JHS 87, 1967, I-17. 2F.L. Bastet, De Portlandvaas, in: Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 18, 1967, 1-29 3 E.L. Brown, Achilles and Deidamia on the PV, in: AJA 76, 1972, 379-391 4C.W. CLarrmont, A Note on the PV, in: AJA 72, 1968, 280-281 5B. FEHR, Die Portlandvase oder: Die kleinen Freiheiten einer entmachteten Elite, in: Hephaistos 13, 1995, 109-124 6 F. FELTEN, Neuerlich zur Portlandvase, in: MDAI(R) 94, 1987, 205-222 75.M.

GoxpstEIn,

L.S.

Raxow,

J.K.

RaKxow

(ed.),

Cameo Glass, 1982 8 D.B. HARDEN, K.S. PAINTER, in: D.B. Harpben (ed.), Glas der Caesaren, 1988, 53-67

9 E.B. Harrison, The PV: Thinking It Over, in: L. BonFANTE (ed.), Essays in Memoriam O. Brendel, 1976, 13 110 S.J. Harrison, The PV Revisited, in: JHS 112, 1992, 150-153 11D.E. L. Haynes, The PV, 1964, 21975 12Id., The PV: a Reply, in: JHS 115, 1995, 146—152 13 J.G. F. Hinp, Greek and Roman Epic Scenes on the PV, in: JHS 99, 1979, 20-25 14Id., The PV: New 142

Clues towards Old Solutions, in: JHS 115, 1995, 153-155 15 Id., Achilles and Helen on White Island in the Euxine Sea: Side B of the PV, in: G.R. TSETSKHLADZE (ed.), New Studies on the Black Sea Littoral, 1996, 59-62 16R. Lierke et al., Antike Glastépferei, 1999 17LIMC 1, 1981, Achilleus 184; Aineias 213; 2, 1984, Apollon/ Apollo 499; 4, 1988, Helene 378; 7, 1994, Skyros 2; 8, 1997, Ketos 33; Oceanus 106 18 H. Meyer, Griechische

Mythen in rémischen Kontexten: Die Ara Telesina und die Portlandvase, in: Boreas 12, 1989, 123-134 19H. Mosius, Die Reliefs der Portlandvase und das antike Dreifigurenbild (ABAW N. F. 61), 1965 20K. PAINTER, D.B. WHITEHOUSE, The PV, in: M. NewBy, K. PAINTER (ed.), Roman Glass. Society of Antiquaries of London. Occasional Papers 13, 1991, 33-45 21G. PLatz-Hor-

sTER,

Nil und

Euthenia

(BWPr

133),

1992

D2

Poxacco, II Vaso Portland, venti anni dopo, in: N. BoNna-

casa (ed.), Studi e Materiali 6. FS A. Adriani, 1984, 729743 23 E. SIMON, Die Portlandvase, 1957 24 Id., Drei antike GefaSe aus Kameoglas in Corning, Florenz und Besancon, in: Journ. of Glass Studies 6, 1964, 13-33, bes. 19 25Id., Augustus, 1986, 162-165 26 M.-L. VOLLENWEIDER, Die Steinschneidekunst und ihre Kiinstler in

spatrepublikanischer und augusteischer Zeit, 1966 27 J. WeLzEL, Die Amphore des Kaisers. Ausstellung Glasmuseum Wertheim, etc. (exhibition catalogue), 1992 28 D.B. WHITEHOUSE (ed.), The PV. (Journ. of Glass Studies 32), 1990 29 N. WituiaMs, The Breaking and Remaking of the PV, 1989 30 E. ZwIERLEIN-DIEHL, Das OnyxAlabastron aus Stift Nottuln in Berlin (BWPr 138), 1999.

Portorium. General Roman term for > toll. Originally imposed probably only in ports (portus; [x. s. v.], however, derives portorium from porta, ‘gate, door’), extended with the spread of Roman rule in Italy and the provinces to all land and sea tolls. The collection of p. was leased to companies (> Publicani), which used the additional services of an extensive staff of slaves and freed slaves, the portitores (‘toll officials’). From the 2nd century AD onwards the state Gradually collected tolls with its own personnel (cf. > Procurator). For tollable goods, rates and legal regulations see = toll. 1 WALDE/HOFMANN.

S. J. DE Laer, Portorium, 1949.

661

662

Portraits I. GENERAL

REMARKS

III. IraLtc AND ROMAN

II. GREEK

PORTRAITS

PORTRAITS

I. GENERAL REMARKS By the modern definition, a portrait is a rendering of an individual person’s appearance. Typological and physiognomic characterizations serve this end. However, portraits recognizable as portraits only through their intention or by furnishing a name lack such characteristics. A typological portrait uses canonical features to indicate that its subject belongs to a certain group. A physiognomic portrait guarantees the identification of its subject by reproducing physical characteristics. In a fictional portrait, psychologizing and typifying notions are translated into physiognomic traits. The totality of all the visual signals are taken from a contemporary and familiar repertoire. i.e. the forms and functions of a given portrait reflect the expectations and prejudices of the larger culture. The positive nature of a portrait’s depiction and its intentionality distinguish portraiture from ~ caricature and incidental documentation. The portrait represents one of the most extensive genres of Graeco-Roman > sculpture. From the Renaissance to the 18th cent., scholarship on ancient portraits was aimed at visualizing historic personages. It was not until the roth cent. that unidentified portraits were used for character studies and for moral and ethical assessments. During the early years of the 2oth cent., the study of ancient portraits led to the development of new artistic concepts like idealization and verism. Current scholarship has focused on the development and dissemination of portraits, as well as on their political and cultural function. It is primarily three-dimensional sculpture, mainly Roman copies, that has been available for scholarly consideration. Almost no painted portraits have been preserved, with the exception of Egyptian > mummy portraits. Identification with known historical figures reliably occurs only with the help of coin portraits and inscriptions. Cultural and historical interpretation of portraits depends on descriptions of the context in which they were displayed and on archaeological finds. In this effort, the ancient definitions and interpretations should be seen as fundamental. According to Pliny, in Olympia only three-time victors were entitled to a statue exhibiting physical similitudo (‘verisimilitude’), called (statua) iconica; the tyrannicides Harmodius and > Aristogiton were probably the first to be granted such a public statue (Plin. HN 34,16f.). Thus an ancient portrait does not necessarily present a physiognomically accurate rendition; it can also simply be descried through an epigraphic designation, in which case it is termed a ‘named portrait’ (Benennungsportrdt). Ancient literary descriptions of specific portraits usually concentrate on a few physiognomic or pathognomonic details whose meaning can be understood using the physiognomic writings of the 4th cent. BC

PORTRAITS

(> physiognomy); this or that individual trait of the person portrayed was less important. The interplay between formulaic and true-to-life portrayal was characteristic of ancient portraits into Late Antiquity. In Antiquity, the purpose of a portrait was always to bear a message

to society. Thus coin portraiture was an important means of state and political propaganda and self-presentation. The formulaic nature of ancient portraiture also allowed rendition of the bodies, with no physical similarities to their subjects, as bearers of further ‘portrait assertions’ through corresponding schemes of movement and dress. The body of a specific individual was not depicted in Antiquity. Because of the less important public role of women and children, portraits of them showed less differentiation and fewer distinguishing features, in terms of both typology and physiognomy. Formal possibilities for portraits were many. The most common in three-dimensional sculpture were the single-figure portrait statue or one placed within a group. Forms reduced just to the head, such as + herms, — busts and the > clipeus, spread beginning in the late Hellenistic Period. Portraits were often part of reliefs from the Archaic Period until Late Antiquity. They are found in narrative contexts in historical reliefs and decorative ones with literary subjects. Portraits of rulers were one of the most common coin motifs during the Hellenistic and Imperial Periods. Glyptic art (> Gem cutting) includes both historical, commemora-

tive portraits and those of rulers and private individuals. Painted portraits are documented in literary sources from the 5th cent. BC on. They were important in book painting for the transmission of named portraits. R.N. II. GREEK PORTRAITS After the earliest magical portraits from Jericho (7th millenium: plaster on skulls) and the heavily-typed portraits of Egypt and the Middle East, the physiognomic portrait appeared as a product specific to Graeco-Roman civilization. It too, however, developed out of typed depiction of individuals. Among the archaic aristocracy (6th cent. BC), statues (— Statue) of the kouros, kore, rider and writer types were often ‘named portraits’ identifiable only by the name attached to them; the smile and the portrait’s title reflected the subject’s position in the family and the social order and had nothing to do with the unmistakable features of a specific individual. During the Classical Period as well, portraits remained within the limits of a— gradually expanding — range of types: strategoi were defined only in terms of their status, shown wearing a helmet and a beard; on funerary reliefs (+ Relief), family members were distinguished by their age. The omission of personal physiognomic tell-tales reflects a conscious acceptance of the role of the citizen in a democracy. Only occasionally does a portrait contain apparently individual characteristics or pathognomonic formulae to highlight the

663

664

subject’s political or personal uniqueness, though the depiction does not necessarily render actual features (Themistocles). Beginning in the late 5th cent. BC, changing social norms led to a more intensive awareness of the individual and his unique characteristics. First reflected in portraits of personages from the intellectual sphere (e.g.

that the uniqueness of the person portrayed was impressed upon the spectator. In the rst cent. BC, other cultural groups, such as liberti (+ Freedmen) or provincial dignitaries, began to use veristic stylistic elements more frequently as an expression of success through determination, while among the upper classes classicistic elements came to the fore which led to a more poised portrayal of character. The contemporary portrait became a mass phenomenon in the Imperial Era. By restricting itself to the head, using the bust format, and by reuse with simple change of name or reworking, it became affordable for many. Portraits were used in funerary reliefs (“Kastengrabsteine’), on urns, and later on sarcophagi. Research on Imperial Era portraits distinguishes between portraits of rulers, including those of the imperial family, and so-called private portraits. Along with a reduced range of mimetic formulae, portraits of rulers exhibit certain physiognomically recognizable marks which are sometimes codes for political statements, particularly in the case of hairstyles (> Hairstyle) and the arrangement of curls. Coins have made it possible to identify portraits and most often also the historical placement of the lost original portrait that is the basis for replicas of a

PORTRAITS

philosophers), mimetic formulae for such characteri-

stics as vigor or a reflective nature show the most prominent traits of the subject and concomitantly of his accomplishments. The facial expressions of Epicureans are mimetically differentiated from those of Stoics, for example. The change from typological to physiognomic portraits during the Hellenistic Era is first apparent in -» Lysippus [2]. Facial impressions made in wax were

used to help create authentic features and even to render physical defects in a portrait. Interest in the individual led to an exaggeration of features (Demosthenes, 280 BC; > Polyeuctus [5]). Portraits of Alexander [4] the Great demonstrate how artistic interpretative portraiture of an exceptional individual shaped the portrayal of certain types; his unique features soon became part of the formula for later regal portraits. Portraits of Hellenistic dynasts sometimes exhibit a combination of generally applicable formulas to show power and dignity with personal distinguishing marks. The spread of physiognomically accurate portraits is connected with a change in the self-image of the Hellenistic citizen, and takes on increasingly veristic forms in Athenian and Delian exemplars up to the rst cent. BC, III. IraLic AND ROMAN PORTRAITS

From the early Iron Age on, human images in the Italic cultures were frequently limited to the head; in the case of the > cippi and terracotta votive heads (— Terracottas), they remained within the realm of intentional magic. Into the 2nd cent. BC, Etruscan full-figure portraits on sarcophagi (> Sarcophagus) were extremely typological in nature and, in general, influenced by Hellenistic formulae for depicting the subject’s status. Scholars have attached great importance to Roman portraits from the Republican Era in the effort to identify genuine ethnic art; however, the idea that veristic portraits derive from death masks is no longer accepted. Although archaeology has demonstrated that death masks were used by portraitists, they should not be associated with the ancestor images that played a significant role in funerals and family cults (Pol. 6,53). However, public honorary portraits were known in Rome beginning in the late 3rd cent. BC and correspond to current possibilities in Hellenistic portraiture. Simultaneously there is a reassessment of the formulae of realism; for example, they underscore auctoritas as a positive assessment of age among the city aristocracy of

Rome. Hellenistic formulae for pathos foreground the fortitude and strength of conquerers, or are joined with the elegance of a Hellenistic sovereign’s portrait (Pompeius [I 3]). Individual physiognomic details ensured

certain image type. A copy that incorporates various types is termed a > Pasticcio. Private portraits often adopt isolated codes from portraits of rulers. This frequent repetition of certain mimetic and physiognomic characteristics from depictions of rulers leads to the phenomenon ofthe so-called ‘period face’. 3rd cent. AD portraits exhibit several parallel developments in the ‘period face.’ Beginning with the Tetrarchy (AD 294), specific physiognomic features were increasingly neglected or distorted, and replaced by abstract forms that convey representative values such as calmness, elegance and aloofness. From these developed the Late Antique portrait exemplars of the charismatic ruler, the homo spiritualis and the vir illustrissimus bereft of any kind of individual physiognomy. In Antiquity, the portrait was an essential means of locating the individual in society. As a bearer of generally accessible messages, it plays an important role in research into political, social and cultural conditions

and how they changed over time. —+ Mummy

portraits; > Statue;

> PORTRAIT

Herrscherbild; J. Bazant, Roman Portraiture. A History of Its History, 1995; R. BIiANCHI BANDINELLI, s. V. ritratto, EAA 6, 1965, 695-738; B. Borc, Mumienportrats, 1996; K. FiTrscHEN (ed,), Griechische Portrats,

1988; Id., Prinzenbildnisse antoninischer Zeit, 1999; Id.,

P. ZanxKER, Katalog der rémischen Portrats in den Capitolinischen Museum und den anderen kommunalen Samlungen der Stadt Rom, vol. 1-3, 1983-1994; L. GIULIANI, Bildnis und Botschaft. Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Bildniskunst der rémischen Republik, 1986; H. von HEINTZE

(ed.), ROmische

Portrats, 1974; R. VON

DEN

Horr, Philosophenportrats des Friith- und Hochhellenismus, 1994; V. KOcKEL, Portratreliefs stadtromischer Grabbauten, 1993; R. Krumetcn, Bildnisse griechischer

665

666

Herrscher und Staatsmanner im 5. Jh. v. Chr., 1997; G.

LanuseEN, Die Bildnismiinzen der rémischen Republik, 1989; D. METz.Ler, Portrat und Gesellschaft. Uber die Entstehung des griechischen Portrats in der Klassik, 1971;

M. Nowicka, Le portrait dans la peinture antique, 1993; M.G.

Picozz1,

K.

FirrscHEN,

s.

v.

ritratto,

EAA,

2. Suppl., vol. 4, 1996, 742-760; G.M. A. RicHTeR, The

Portraits of the Greeks, 1965, Suppl. 1972; N. BONACASA (ed.), Ritratto ufficiale e ritratto privato. Atti della Il Conferenza internazionale sul ritratto romano (Roma 1984), 1988; K. SCHEFOLD, Die Bildnisse der antiken Dichter, Redner und Denker, *1997; J.M. C. ToyNBEE, Roman Historical Portraits, 1978; M. L. VoLLENWEIDER, Die Por-

tratgemmen der rém. Republik, 1974; P. ZANKER, Die Maske des Sokrates. Das Bild des Intellektuellen in der antiken Kunst, 1995.

Portunata. Island and city of the same name in the sinus

Flanaticus, the bay to the east of > Histria (Plin. HN 3,140). Identified, but not beyond doubt [1], with Dugi Otok (in Croatia) [2]. 1 E. POLASCHEK, s.v.P., RE 22, 400 2 J. CHAPMAN, The Changing Face of Dalmatia, 1996, Index s.v. Dugi Otok.

DS.

Portunus. With the derivation from Latin portus, ‘harbour’ (schol. Veronense in Verg. Aen. 5,241; Cic. Nat. D. 2,66), the Roman god P. was identified under Greek, perhaps even Corinthian, influence with Palaemon/—> Melicertes and Ino/— Leucothea (Fest. 279 L.; Oy. Fast. 6,543-548) [1]. Even before this derivation the Tiber harbour entrance fell within the sphere of the god: already in the 5th cent. BC, Latin portus meant ‘door’ (Fest. 262,19-22 L.; [2. 343f.; 3. 141-178]); P. carried a key (Fest. 48,25-27 L.). It is doubtful whether P. hada flamen (— Flamines) (Fest. 238,7—-9 L.) [3. 169171]. P.’ temple was in the Forum Boarium on the Tiber harbour (in portu Tiberino; Varro Ling. 6,19; [4]) near the Pons Aemilius. His festival, the Portunalia, took place on 17 August (InscrIt 13,2,496f.; ILS 7839). 1F. BOmer, Ovid. Die Fasten, vol. 2, 1958, 3736. 2 WALDE/HOFMANN, vol. 2 3L. TayLor, Janus and the

Bridge, 1961

4 C. Buzzerri,s. v. P., LTUR 4, 1999, 153. C.R.P.

Portus [1] An artificial harbour complex, created under the emperor Claudius (AD 41-54) to extend the harbour of + Ostia (with plan) and enlarged under Trajan (AD 98-117), c. 3 km northwest of Ostia. The Claudian harbour basin (c. 80 hectares) was protected from the sea by a mole structure (but not actually safe; in AD 62 almost 200 ships went down in a storm: Tac. Ann. 15,18) and marked by a lighthouse (cf. plan: r) (according to Suet. Claud. 20,3, a freight ship full of ballast, once used for transporting obelisks, provided the foundations; confirmed by excavations) and connected by a canal trench (fossa Traiani) to the > Tiber and thus Rome. Trajan’s extension was on the eastern side of the Claudian complex; it consisted of a hexagonal harbour

PORTUS

basin (c. 33 hectares) with a new canal to the Tiber. Finds: ships of various sizes, preserved in silt, from the area of the Claudian basin (discovered during construction of Rome’s Leonardo da Vinci airport at Fiumicino), horrea (‘storage complexes’; plan: 11) of enormous size (of different construction phases; cf. representations of the Trajanic complex on coins: RIC 2, no. 471 and no. 631, cf. comm. p. 241). The gradually developing settlement areas were in the south between the harbour basin and Trajan’s canal (here also a Christian basilica, pilgrims’ rest-house) and in the east, on the road to Rome; there an aqueduct (plan: 9) led into the settlement (in this settlement area a large, unidentified temple; plan: 8). Burial fields lay along the road to Rome or to Ostia (on what was known as the Insula Sacra, or so it was first called in Procop. Goth. 1,26). Some of the tombs on the Insula Sacra date from the rst cent. AD, though most of them are 2nd or 3rd cent. They are predominantly brick constructions with simple facades, but relatively elaborate internal fittings (exceptionally well preserved; burials and cremations). From the reign of Commodus (180-192) the fleet from Alexandria [1] with grain (— cura annonae) destined for Rome docked directly in P. instead of in Puteoli. Initially administered from Ostia, from the reign of Constantine the Great (307-337) P. was independent and now called civitas Flavia Constantiniana Portuensis or P. Romae, rather than P. Ostiensis or P. Augusti (cf. the splendid depiction of P. in the Tab. Peut. 5,5). The first bishop of P., Gregorius, took part in the Council of Arelate in 314. In 408, P. was plundered by + Alaricus. The significance P. still had in the sth cent. is mirrored in the building of a marble porticus, c. 200 m long, in 425 on the north bank of the canal. In the 6th cent., however, the harbour became heavily silted up and the disappearance of the population from Rome made the expense entailed in maintaining the harbour entrance and the harbour basin no longer viable. ~ Harbour, docks; > Ostia G. Lucu, G. Firrpeck, Il Porto di Roma PAgro Portiense,

1935;

O. Testacuzza,

Imperiale e P., 1970;

R.

Meiccs, Roman Ostia, *1973; G. Cauza et al., Ostia, 37982; Id., La Necropoli del Porto di Roma Imperiale nell’Isola Sacra, 1940; 1. BALDASSARRE et al., Necropoli di Porto. Isola sacra, 1996. VS.

[2] Small town in the northern Black Forest, modern Pforzheim. A milestone dating from AD 245/6 shows a Port(u) I(eugae) V (CIL XVII 563; [1]); P. is probably only part of the name in this case and is interpreted as a ‘depot on the river (Enz)’ [1; 5. 73-75]. Whether P. was the centre of a regional corporation (civitas? saltus?) is disputed (for [1; 5.95-r1o1], against [2. 23-28; 3. 126f.]). Settlement began simultaneously with the forts of the central Neckar limes (— Limes III) under Domitian. There is no evidence of Roman forces in P.

before the mid 2nd cent. AD. Large parts of the > vicus

PORTUS

668

667

Portus, the harbour district of Ostia Island with lighthouse Porticus Claudii Baths ‘Palace’ Baths Colossal statue of Trajan Temple of Liber Pater Temple of 'Portunus' Oo HDN BS ANAqueduct PWN 10 Constantinian wall

Portus Augusti

11 Horrea

Portus

Reconstruction

Traiani

Felicis

Fossa Traiani

with its buildings made of wood and earth burnt down in AD 130/150. After that, stone buildings were erected and P. underwent a period of prosperity, until it was destroyed or largely abandoned around AD 260. Besides trade, iron ore mining seems to have been important. 1H. Nesse.tuHaur, Neue Inschriften, in: BRGK 27, 1938, 121 no. 263 2P. GoEssLeR, Zum neugefundenen Leugenstein A Port (Pforzheim), in: Saalburg Jb. 9, 1939,

23-33 3J.W. Witmanns, Die Doppelurkunde von Rottweil und ihr Beitrag zum Stadtewesen in Obergermanien (Epigraphische Stud. 12), 1981, 126f. 4A. DAuBER et al.., Pforzheim, in: P. FILTZINGER et al. (ed.), Die ROmer in Baden- Wirttemberg, +1986, 477-485 5K. Kortum,

Portus-Pforzheim, 1995.

RA.WI.

[3] P. Arni. Staging post on the via Ouinctia (Faesulae — — (Tab. Peut.

Pisae) between — Valvata and Ad Arnum 4,2: in Portu) on the > Arnus.

A. Mosca, Via Quinctia, in: Journ. of Ancient Topography 2, 1992, 91-108. GU.

[4] P. Lemanae. Roman harbour base on the southeast coast of Britain near modern Lympne in Kent on the Lemana (Geogr. Rav 5,31; modern East Rother, formerly Lympne), consisting of a Roman fort (modern Stutfall Castle, Lympne [1]) and a harbour built in AD

270-275. For a very long time PL suffered from severe coastal erosion and the fortifications were badly damaged. The ground plan of the castle can be reconstructed as a square with equally distributed, projecting towers and two gates [2]. There are few indications of buildings within the fort. The fort was occupied until at least

the mid 4th cent. The Notitia Dignitatum occidentis names the garrison as numerus Turnacensium (28,13).

There are indications of an earlier complex, not neces-

sarily to be found under the 3rd-cent. cfort, a base for the classis Britannica, probably dating from the late 2nd cent. [3]. Stamps on seals of the classis Britannica likewise indicate the 2nd cent. AD. 1 C. ROACH SMITH, Report on Excavations Made on the Site of the Roman Castrum at Lympne in Kent in 1850, 1852 2B.W. CunLiFFE, Excavations at the Roman Fort at Lympne/Kent 1976-78, in: Britannia 11, 1980, 227288 3R.G. CoLLINGwoop, R.P. WriGHt, The Roman

Inscriptions of Britain, vol. 1, 1965, 66.

S. JOHNSON, The Roman Forts of the Saxon Shore, 1976, 53-56.

M.TO.

[5] P. Magnus. City on the coast of > Mauretania Caesariensis, 30 km east of Oran (Mela 1,29; Plin. HN 5,19; Ptol. 4,2,2; It. Ant. 13,8; Geogr. Rav 40,47; 88,8f.), modern Arzew. PM was situated on an eleva-

tion from which the coastal plain could be controlled. A sacred region, Neo-Punic inscriptions [1. 78f.] and other archaeological evidence indicate influences from Punic culture, including the cult of Baal Hamon (B‘l Hmn). Remains ofthe forum, of temples and houses are

preserved from the Roman period. Inscription: CIL VIII 2, 9753-9789; 10455-10460; suppl. 3, 21605-21623; 21659; 22589-22593.

1 P. SCcHRODER, Die phOnizische Sprache, 1869. AAA, sheet. 21, no. 6; §. LANCEL, E. LipiNsk1, s. v. PM, DCPP, 358f.; J. Lassus, Le site de Saint-Leu, PM (Oran), in: CRAI 1956, 285-293; M. Lectay, Saturne Africain. Monuments 2, 1966, 324-330; R. VILLoT, Arzeu et son histoire, 1952. W.HU.

669

670

[6] P. Menelaus (Mevékaoc duuyv/Menélaos limen). Harbour on the coast of > Cyrenaica (Hdt. 4,169,1; Scyl. 108; Str. 1,2,32; 17,3,22; in Ptol. 4,5,28 erro-

the Hydaspes and the - Acesines |2], was apparently the most powerful of the region. His name can probably be explained as a Middle Indian form of an Old Indian dynastic name Paurava (from Puru); Attempts to identify him personally in Indian sources (e.g. as Parvataka, ‘mountain king’) have failed (e.g. [1. 172-179]). He accompanied Alexander to the - Hyphasis during the Punjab campaign, and reported on the power of the peoples of the Ganges (Diod. Sic. 17,93,3; Curt.

neously counted as one of the k6mai mesogeioi ‘(small inland towns’); Stadiasmus maris magni 35), probably

modern Marsa Lahora (northwest of Bardia). Menelaus [r] is said to have landed there once when fleeing Egypt (Hdt. 2,119,3). The Spartan king Agesilaus [2] II

died here in 360/359 BC (Nep. Agesilaus 8,6; Plut. Agesilaus 40,3). PM became less important in the Hellenistic period and even less so in the Roman period.

POSEIDIPPUS

9,2,5-6). P. then ruled as satrap or viceroy in his own

former kingdom, which had been somewhat extended

A. LaRonpg, Cyréne et la Libye hellénistique, 1987, 22.4f.

in the east (Arr. Anab. 6,2,1; Curt. 9,3,22). As the pro-

[7] P. Pisanus. Harbour with the villa Triturrita descri-

tector of the eastern border of Alexander’s empire he probably had considerable autonomy. After the death of Alexander in 323, P. is documented as still satrap in

bed by Rutilius Namatianus (Rut. Namat. 527-531) on the Tyrrhenian coast of Etruria south of > Pisae and the mouth of the > Arnus, now buried under alluvial land

(Padule di Stagno).

his former kingdom (Diod. Sic. 18,3,2), but was killed by Eudamus [1] in 317 BC (Diod. Sic. 19,14,8). The

Poros battle was one of the main events in the history of

M. Pasquinuccl, G. Rossetti, Archaeology of Coastal Changes, 1988, 137-155. GU. [8] P. Pyrenaei see > Pyrenaei Portus. AL. [9] P. Veneris. Coastal town at the foot of the eastern Pyrenaei (Monts Albéres; > Pyrene), modern Port-

Vendres, with a sanctuary to Aphrodite, probably at Cap Béar, which for sailors marked the border between Gallia and Hispania (Str. 4,1,3; 6; Mela 2,84: insignis fano; Plin. HN 3,22: Pyrenaea Venus; Ptol. 2,10,2).

Alexander’s campaign. Hence P., his bravery, his maje-

stic behaviour and also his faithful elephant became a common topos of ancient literature. 1 H.C. Sern, Identification of Parvataka and Porus, in: Indian Historical Quarterly 17, 1941, 172-179. H. SCHAEDER, Ss. Vv. Poros (1), RE 22,1, 1953, 1225-1228.

[3] P. the Bad One (Il@eo¢ 6 xaxd¢/Péros ho kakos, Arr. Anab. 15, 21,2). Indian king (Hyparch in Arr. Anab 5,20,6) in the eastern > Punjab, between Acesi-

Identification with > Pyrene (Avien. 559) is a possibil-

nes [2] and Hyarotis. He was a cousin and enemy of the

ity.

great P. [3]. Through ambassadors he had initially promised — Alexander [4] the Great his surrender. When the latter had conquered P. [3], however, and was coming near, P. fled with many of his people (Arr.

G. BARRUOL, s. v. PV, PE, 733.

[10] P. Vindana

(Ovivdava

Auww/Ouindana

limen,

Oviwdéva Au, Ouinddna liméen). Harbour town in Gallia + Lugdunensis north of the mouth of the

Anab. 5,21). Also mentioned in Strabo (15,1,30). H. SCHAEDER, Ss. v. P. (2), RE 22, 1953, 1228f.

K.K.

~ Liger (Ptol. 2,8,1) on the south coast of Brittany, sup-

posed by [1] to be in the region of Port Louis. 1 P. MerRLaT, s. vy. Vindana portus, RE 8 A, 2206-2210. E.O.

Porus [1] (Ildo0¢/Po6ros).

Attic paralia(?) deme, Acamantis

phyle, from 307/6 BC Demetrias, three bouleutat. Location unknown, but certainly not in Laureum or Metropisi (otherwise [1; 2]), since no mining is recorded for P. 1 P. SrEWERT, Die Trittyen Attikas und die Heeresreform des Kleisthenes, 1982, 95, 173f. 2J.S. TRaILL, Demos and Trittys, 1986, 133. TRAILL, Attica, 9, 48, 68, 112 no. 117 pl. 5, 12.

H.LO.

[2] (I1Heo0¢; Péros). Indian king in the > Punjab to the east of Taxila, defeated by > Alexander [4] the Great in a battle on the > Hydaspes in the spring of 326 BC, and subsequently accepted as an ally (Arr. Anab. 5,8-19; Diod. 17,87-89; Curt. 8,13-14). The precise location of the site of the battle — despite many theories — will probably remain unknown, because the river bed had shifted. At the time P. already had adult sons, who took part in the fighting. His kingdom, which lay between

Poseidippus (Ilooeiéutmoc/Poseidippos). [1] Comic poet from the Macedonian city of Cassandrea [1. test. 1, 2], said to have begun performing plays in the third year after the death of > Menander [4] (291/o BC) [x. test. 1], four-time victor at the Dionysia [1. test. 7| and honoured with statues [1. test. ro. 11]. His "Aroxdetouévyn (Apokleioméné, ‘The Woman Shut Up for Shut Out]’) was revived several times in the 2nd cent. BC [r. test. 8, 9]. Of the ‘up to 30’ plays [1. test. 1] by P., 18 titles survive; along with the total of 45 frr. (most preserved by lexicographers and Iohannes > Stobaeus, and therefore revealing little), these betray concerns typical of New Comedy: cooking scenes (in fr. r, someone complains that a cook has listed for him all the errors ofhis professional colleagues; in frr. 2 and 25, unusually, slave-cooks appear; in fr. 28, a cook lectures his pupils on the benefits of arrogant show; in fr. 29, a cook is likened to a military commander; it may also be a self-absorbed cook who is speaking in fr. 34), a hetaera scene (in fr. 13, one seems to be speaking of her illustrious predecessor > Phryne) and the mocking of philosophers (fr. 16: against the Stoic > Zeno). Plays by

POSEIDIPPUS

P. also became models for Latin comic poets [1. test. 4]; like him, > Caecilius [III 6] wrote an Epistathmos (“The

Hellenistic Epigrams in Context, 1998, 18f., 121, 15 5f. 9 A. Cameron, Callimachus and His Critics, 1995, 243f.

10 M. GRONEWALD, Der neue Poseidippos und Kallima-

Governor’). 1 PCG VII, 1989, 561-581.

H.-G.NE.

[2] P. of Pella. Elegist and epigrammatist of the ‘Garland’ of + Meleager [8], who listed him alongside his imitator > Hedylus and his model > Asclepiades [1] (Anth. Pal. 4,1,45f.). With the latter, P. shared his admiration for Antimachus’ Lydé (Anth. Pal. 12,168) in opposition to — Callimachus [3], among whose enemies (Telchines) he and the same Asclepiades were counted (Schol. Flor. Call. fr. 1,1). The possibly anthological structure of his enigmatic Dwedg (Soros, ‘Heap’, ~ Anthology C; [8]) is disputed. Active in Egypt between 280 and 270 BC (Epigr. 11-13; 17 G.-P.; fr. qrf. F.-G.), honoured with the proxenia by Delphi in 276/2 and in 264/3 by the Aetolians (Test. B, A F.-G.), P. seems still to have been working around 240 (Epigr. 24 [2]; contra, [9]); possible stay at Athens (Epigr. 1; 16 G.-P.); perhaps to be identified with the P. addressed by Phoenix of Colophon (fr. 6 CollAlex). P. refers to his long life in an elegy on old age composed in Boeotian or Egyptian Thebes (fr. 37f. F.-G.). His authorship of another

brief elegiac fragment (fr. *30f. F.-G.: perhaps an epithalamion for Arsinoé II) which opens an anonymous collection of epigrams (SH 961) is disputed. Little more survives of two (hexametric or dactylic?) poems quoted in Ath. rr, 491¢ and 13, 596be-d than the uncertain title, which may refer to one single piece. The attribution of awork ‘On Cnidus’, probably in prose, (fr. *44f. F.-G.), is also uncertain. Recently, a papyrus from Milan (P Mil. Vogl. VIII 309, late 3rd cent. BC, cf. [1; 2]) has added a further hundred epigrams (amounting to over 600 vy.) to the 25 already known (praise of works of art, including perhaps a few inscriptions; erotic poems in the manner of Asclepiades; carousal and satirical poems; funerary epigrams). These epigrams (18 and 20 G.-P. were already known) apparently demonstrate consistent linguistic, stylistic and metrical characteristics (they contain no insertions of authors’ names). They range from 4 to 15 vv., and are divided into thematic sections of different lengths: stones and precious stones, omens, dedications, epitaphs, statues, horse races, shipwrecks, healings, types of behaviour (perhaps characters). As can be seen in the 24 previously published new texts (cf. [2]), an astonishing variety of subject matter is handled with great power of expression. Occasional delicate and ironic touches demonstrate a remarkable level of artistry. EpITIONs: 1G. BASsTIANINI, C. GALLAZZi, Sorprese da un involucro di mummia; il poeta ritrovato, in: Ca’ de Sass 121, 1993, 28-33; 34-39 2Id., Posidippo, Epigrammi, 1993 (mit transl., comm. on 25 epigr.) 3 P. SCHOTT, Posidippiepigrammata, 1905 4 GAT 1, 166-174; 2, 481-503 5 FGE 116 6SH 698-708 7 E. FERNANDEZ-GALIANO, Posidipo de Pela, 1987. C. AusTIN, G. BASTIANINI, Posi-

dippi Pellaei quae supersunt omnia, 2002. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

672

671

8K. J. GUTZWILLER, Poetic Garlands:

chos Epigramm 35, in: ZPE 99, 1993, 28f. 11M. GiGcanTE, Attendendo Posidippo, in: SIFC 86, 1993, 5-11 12 L. LEHNus, Posidippo ritorna, in: RFIC 121, 1993, 364-367 13 B. M. Patumso Stracca, Note dialettologiche al nuovo Posidippo, in: Helikon 33/34, 1993/94, 405-412 14£. Voutriras, Wortkarge Soldner?, in: ZPE 104, 1994, 27-31 15 M.S. CELENTANO, L’elogio della brevita tra retorica e letteratura: Callimaco, ep. 11 Pf. = A.P. VII 447, in: Quaderni Urbinati 49, 1995, 67-79

16 M. W. Dickie, A New Epigram by P. on an Irritable Dead Cretan, in: Bulletin of the American Soc. of Papyrologists 32, 1995, 5-12 17 F. Carrns, The New P. and Callimachus AP 7. 447 = 35 (G-P) = 11 (Pf.), in: R. FABER, B. SEIDENSTICKER (eds.), Worte, Bilder, Tone. Studien zur

Antike und Antikerezeption. Festschrift B. Kytzler 1996, 77-88 18M. W. Dicxte, An Ethnic Slur in a New Epigram of P., in: Papers of the Leeds Intern. Latin Seminar 9, 1996, 327-336

19 N. Kostas, A Poetic Gem: Posidippus

on Pegasus, in: Pegasus 40, 1997, 16f.

M.G.A.

[3] Athenian comic poet of the 2nd cent. BC, recorded with two victories on the list of victors at the Dionysia [x. test.]; otherwise nothing is known. 1 PCG VII, 1989, 582.

H.-G.NE.

Poseidium (Ilooetétov/Poseidion). [1] Sanctuary of > Poseidon Samios with a busy harbour on the coast of > Triphylia (probably meant in Hom. Od. 3,4ff.; Str. 8,3,13; 3,16f.; 3,20) in the Klidi coastal pass at the foot of the Kaiapha mountains, exact location not known. The P. was once the central sanctuary of Triphylia with a festival of its own. The cult statue of Poseidon at the time of Pausanias (2nd cent. AD) was in > Elis [2] (Paus. 6,25,6). + Samicum R. Batapté, Le Peloponnése de Strabon, 1980, 335; A. M. BrrAscui, Strabone e Omero, in: Id. (ed.), Strabone e la Grecia, 1994, 37-42; E. MEYER, Neue Peloponnesische Wanderungen, 1957, 74-79. sits

[2] The modern Cape Cassandra on the western coast of the Pallene [4] in the > Mende area bore, according to Liv. 44,11,3 the name P. [3] According to Hdt. 7,115,2, ancient name of Cape

Elefthero on the eastern coast of the Chalcidian peninsula between Stagirus and Acanthus, in Plin. HN 4,38 incorrectly described as a city. M. ZauenrT, Olynth und die Chalkidier, 1971, 214.

MZ.

[4] Cape on the coast of Epirus near > Buthrotum;

modern Cape Scala. Evidence: Str. 7,7,5; Ptol. 3,14,4. E. Meyer, s. v. Poseidion (16), RE Suppl. 14, 447.

KF.

[S] (Latin Posideum). Cape in the southwest of the peninsula of Miletus [2] (+ Milesia), formerly Cape Marmaras, Cape Monodendri, Cavo Clado, modern Cape

Tekagac, according to Strabo the border between Ionia

673

674

and Caria (Str. 14,2,1; 22; cf. Plin. HN 5,112) with an altar to Poseidon from the late Archaic Period (Str.

struck by the wild, nervous and powerful nature of the + horse. P. was especially connected with this aspect of the horse, and in Olympia he was worshipped with the epithet -» Taraxippos, or the ‘frightener of horses’

14,1,3; 5); cf. also Peripl. m. m. 268f. (= GGM 1, 496). E. OLSHAUSEN, s. v. Poseidion (7), RE Suppl. 14, 446; A. VON GERKAN, Milet, vol. 1,4: Der Poseidonaltar bei Kap Monodendri, 1915; K. Tucuett, Branchidai — Didyma

(Sonderh. Antike Welt), 1991, sof., ills. 80-82;W. D. NirMEYER, Die Zierde loniens, in: AA 1999, 400.

H.LO.

Poseidon (Mooew@v/Poseid6n, Doric MoteSav/Potei-

dan, along with other forms of the name). I. MyTH

AND CULT

I. MYTH

II. ICONOGRAPHY

AND CULT

A. GENERAL

REMARKS

C. POSITION

IN THE GREEK

B. FUNCTIONS PANTHEON

A. GENERAL REMARKS P. was the Greek “god of the sea, of earthquakes and of horses” (Paus. 7,21,7). He belongs to the older strata

of Greek religion: his name is already well attested in Mycenaean times. He was worshipped both in > Knossos and in > Pylus [2], where he also had a sanctuary (the Posidaion), a cult association (the Posidaiewes) and probably even a wife, Posidaeja [1. 181-185]; his local importance is still reflected in Pylian > Nestor’s [x] sacrifice to P. in Hom. Od. 3.4-8. The basically Ionian month name Posidedn, which derives from the

rarely attested archaic festival Posideia (also called Poseidéa, Pohoiddia, Poseidania) at the winter solstice [2; 3. 283f.], dates back to the end of the second millennium BC {3. 29f.]. The etymology of his name is not entirely clear and may be even pre-Hellenic [4. 229236]. B. FUNCTIONS 1. POSEIDON HipPios 2. POSEIDON AND THE EARTH 3. GOD OF SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS

4. GOD OF THE SEA GENRES

2. RESEARCH

3. EPOCHS AND

4. FIGURATIVE DECORATION

1. POSEIDON Hippios P. owned herds of horses in Pheneus and other cities in Arcadia (Paus. 8,14,5f. and passim) as well as in

Attica (Ar. Equ. 551; Ar. Nub. 83) and Thessalia (SEG 42,511-514), and was associated with horse racing and breeding, as illustrated by his well-known epithet Hippios [5. 171-173; 6. 284-290]. With > Medusa he becomes the father of the winged horse - Pegasus [1] (Hes. Th. 278-283), and myth spoke of the god as the father of the very first horse, Scyphius (EM 473,42), or, with Demeter, of the horse > Arion (Paus. 8,24,4f.; P Oxy. 61.4096 fr. 10). He is often associated with —» Demeter, another ‘eccentric’ deity [17. 1159]. P. received horse sacrifices (Paus. 8,7,2, cf. Eust. ad Hom. Il. 21.131; 23.148), which was unusual, as horses were not normally used for sacrificial purposes (cf. > Sacrifice III. B.). As the stories of the man-eating horses of ~ Diomedes [1] show, the Greeks were particularly

POSEIDON

(Paus. 6,20,15). At various places P. Hippios was asso-

ciated with Athena Hippia (> Athena C. 5.), yet the two gods did not perform the same function, as their relationship with Pegasus shows. P. was the father of the horse, but Athena was credited with its bridling: P. was generally connected with the horse’s power, but Athena was considered responsible for their proper handling. Accordingly, Athena was invoked during races, but P. before or after [7. 178-202]. 2. POSEIDON AND THE EARTH P. was also connected with the power of the earth. His anger was considered the cause of the earthquakes (+ Earthquake) that hit Greece regularly, and Homer already calls him the ‘Earth-shaker’ (Ennosigaios, Enosichthon; cf. Hom. Il. 20,57f.). He was also invoked to stop earthquakes; Xenophon (Xen. Hell. 4,7,4) reports that when the Spartans invaded Argos in 388 BC during an earthquake, a > hymn to P was started, in which all the Spartans joined. In many cities, especially on the western coast of Asia Minor, P. was worshipped under the epithet of Asphaleios; the epithets Themeliouchos (SEG 30,93) and Hedraios (SEG 40,1266) point in the same direction. In Colophon and Sparta, P., exceptionally (see below), was even worshipped in the city centre, an indication of his great local importance [5. 175]. His control over the earth may also explain his connection — as P. Epilimnios (Aeschyl. Sept. 304-11; Pind. O. 6,58; SEG 28,690; 32,1273) — with springs which inexplicably emerged from the depths of the earth. 3. GOD OF SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS In his role as progenitor, P. was also linked to men’s associations. His temples in Helice (from which his epithet Helikonios [5. 383]) and Calaurea [8. 215; 16] were the meeting places of the Pan-Ionic League (> Panionion) and the early > amphiktyonia that comprised Athens and its neighbours; the Triphylians all contributed to the maintenance of the Temple of P. Samios (Str. 8.3.13); located in P.’s sanctuary in Onchestus was one of the two federal shrines of the Boeotian League [9. 3 5f.]; and in Delphi the clan of the Labyadae took their oath of membership in the name of P. Phratrios [5. 207].

Other groups considered P. their ancestor (which explains his epithets Genesios and Genethlios), such as the Aeolians and Boeotians, whose eponymous heroes + Aeolus [3] and > Boeotus were his sons. According to Plut. Mor. 7308, all the descendants of the ancient Hellenes were expected to offer sacrifices to P. Patrogeneios. This connection with men’s associations cannot be separated from P.’s role in initiations (> Initiation), which may also explain his regular pairing with > Artemis [17. 1147]. In several places, P. was worshipped with the epithet Phytalmios, ‘the nurturer’, which indicates a concern for education [5.207]. A more explicit indication is found in Ephesus, where

675

676

boys acting as wine pourers at a festival for P. Heliko-

sea after the sons of > Kronos drew lots to divide the cosmos among them; a similar drawing of lots in the Akkadian epic > Atrabasis is apparently the original source for the Homeric passage [13. 85-88]. The sea, as well as its ruler, P., had strong negative connotations for the Greeks; while he was not to be neglected, he was situated literally at the margin of the civilized world.

POSEIDON

nios were

called

‘bulls’

(Ath.

10,425c;

Hsch.

s. v.

tavoot), just as P. himself was sometimes called by that name (Hsch. s. v. Tatooc) and received sacrifices of bulls (Str. 8,7,2; Cornutus 22). In Greece, the office of pouring wine was typical for youths on the brink of adulthood [ro]. In this way, the distinction between drinking adults and non-drinking youths was sharply marked. If we combine the function of P. as the god of men’s associations with that of his youths as ‘bulls’, it is suggestive to see in these ‘bulls’ the ‘civilized’ descendants of the ecstatic bull-warriors, who can also be found among early Celtic and Germanic Mdnnerbiinde

[5. 415f.]. The connection between P., initiation and ecstatic warriors is illuminated by the archaic myth of the Thessalian princess Caenis, who, after being forced into sexual relations with P., asked to be transformed into an invulnerable man. Now known as > Caeneus, she became king of the > Lapithae and ordered her spear to be worshipped. The link between a change in gender and the beginning of adulthood clearly reflects the custom of dressing male initiands as girls (cf. > Achilles’ [1] stay in the women’s quarters of king > Lycomedes [x] of Scyros before he left for Troy [11. r91f.]). In this myth, then, P. is associated not only with initiation, but also with the brute force of the archaic warrior, who, like Caeneus, had a tendency toward hybris and was perceived as a danger to the proper relationship between men and gods. This aspect of P. is also well illustrated by his fatherhood of wild and cruel men such as the > Cyclopes, > Aloads, > Busiris [3] and > Procrustes [17. 1154f.]. 4. GOD OF THE SEA Finally, P. was also worshipped as the ruler of the sea (Hom. Il. 13,27-30) and coupled with > Amphitrite. Many coastal settlements were named for P., such as ~ Poseidonia (Paestum), and his temples were regularly located on capes and islands, such as Sunium, Taenarum (Paus. 3,25,4; IG V 1,1226-1236), Tenos (IG XII

5,812), Mycale (Hdt. 1,148) and Cape Poseidium on the island of Chios (Strabo 14,1,35). P. arouses or calms

the brute force of the sea; he does not help the pilot guide his ship through the storms; such assistance is the province of Athena [7. 223-226]. The > Argonauts are

said to have dedicated their ship (the first in existence) to P. at the Panhellenic sanctuary on the Corinthian Isthmus (Ps.-Apollod. 1.9.27), where the Greeks also dedicated a statue of P. after their naval victories against the Persians (Hdt. 9,81,1). This was the seat of the Hellenic League first formed during the Persian Wars; cult activity continued until the end of the 4th cent. AD [18. 84-92]. In the post-Homeric period, P. was less the god of sailors than of fishermen, whose implement, the trident, became his symbol |[12. 15-20]. Homer’s depiction of P. as the ruler of the sea is apparently a theological innovation; the Greeks had many older > sea gods as well. In Hom. Il. 15,187-193 P. tells of how he was given the

C. POSITION IN THE GREEK PANTHEON This marginality is also expressed by a number of myths in which P., in a contest or a gift-exchange, loses to another god a part of Greece he had previously owned. In Athens, myth related, and the > Parthenon showed, a contest between P. and Athena for Attica. P. asserted his claim by producing a salt-water spring, Athena by planting the first of Attica’s famous olive trees. In the ensuing trial, Athena prevailed, and P. began to flood the plain of Eleusis until Zeus commanded him to stop [14. 198f.]. In Delphi the story was told that > Apollo had obtained Delphi from P. in exchange for the oracle of Taenarum; according to another version, P. ceded Delphi to Apollo as compensation for Calaurea [15. 233f.]. Earlier scholars explained these myths as reflecting the replacement of P. by Athena and Apollo, but historical and archaeological evidence does not support that view. Instead, these myths are interpreted today from a structuralist perspective. These myths describe the position of the gods within the Greek polis (> Pantheon[r1] III.). While P. occupied a place in the cult of Athens and Delphi, he was subordinate to Athena and Apollo. P.’s place at the fringe of the Greek polis was underscored by the location of his sanctuaries outside the city walls. As Strabo and Pausanias abundantly illustrate, many temples were near the sea (e.g., at Taenarum, Sunium and Hermione), while others were located at the foot of the mountains (Mantinea), on a river

(Methydrium) or in a sacred grove (Trikolonoi). The significance of these locations seems clear: despite his power, P. had no place within the society of the polis [16]. It is typical of this macho god that women were forbidden to enter several of his sanctuaries [19]. P.’s connection with the nervous energy of the horse, the unpredictable strength of sea and earth and the brute force of ecstatic warriors demonstrate that he was associated with the terrifying powers of man and nature. At the same time, in situating P.’s shrines outside the polis, the Greeks communicated a value judgment about the acceptability of brute force in human society, a judgment reinforced by the juxtaposition of P. and Athena or Apollo in Greek mythology: the god of brute force and chaos is always subordinate to the gods of intelligence and order [20. 12-30]. + Neptunus 1 GERARD-RoussEAU

2N. RoBerTson, P.’s Festival at

Winter Solstice, in: CQ 34, 1984, 1-16 Untersuchungen zu den altgriechischen und Monatsfolgen, 1997

3C. TRUMpy, Monatsnamen

4 C. J. Ru1jGH, Scripta minora,

vol. 1, 1991 5 GRAF 6 Jost 7 J.-P. VERNANT, M. DETIENNE, Les ruses de l’intelligence, *1978 8 BURKERT 9C.

677

678

Hasicut,

Pausanias’

Guide

to Ancient

Greece,

1985

10J.BREMMer, Adolescents, Symposion, and Pederasty, in: O, Murray (ed.), Sympotica, 1990, 135-148 11 Did., Transvestite Dionysos, in: The Bucknell Review 43, 1999, 183-200 12 C. BERARD, Iconographie — iconologie — iconologique, in: Etudes de lettres 1983, 5-37 13 W. BurKERT, Die orientalisierende Epoche in der griechischen Religion und Literatur, 1984 14 R. PARKER, Myths of Early Athens,

in: J. BREMMER

(ed.), Interpretations

of

Greek Mythology, 1988, 187-214 15 C. SourvINouINWOOD, ‘Reading’ Greek Culture, t991 16 R. ScHUMaCHER, Three Related Sanctuaries of P.: Geraistos, Kalaureia and Tainaron, in: N. Martnaros, R. HAGG (ed.), Greek Sanctuaries, 1993, 62-87 17 O. Gruppe, Grie-

chischer Mythos und Religionsgeschichte, vol. 2, 1906 The First City of Greece,

1 F. GHepint, Il gruppo di Atene e Poseidon sull’Acropoli di Atene, in: Riv. di Archeologia 7, 1983, 12-36 2F.P. Jounson, Lysippos, 1927 (repr. 1968) 3 U. HEIMBERG,

Corinth:

ence in the Greek Leges Sacrae, in: Helios 19, 1992, 104—

122

It was not until the pathos of the Hellenistic Era that nature and the turmoil of the elements were shown in connection with P.: riding on a hippocampus-drawn chariot (+ Hippocampus), with a trident and dolphin, and surrounded by sea creatures, the altar of Pergamum shows P. on his way to the battle of the giants [10. 63f.; 12. 253]; the P. of Melos of the end of the 2nd cent. [6] shows a theatrical, regal pose. P. continued to be depicted on Hellenistic coins as the god of naval victories; Octavian (> Augustus [1]) took up this topic after the Battle of Actium. ‘P. and Amphitrite’ was a particularly popular Renaissance and Baroque theme.

19S. G. COLE, Gynatki ou themis: Gender Differ-

18 R. M. Roruaus,

2000

POSEIDONIA, PAISTOS, PAESTUM

20 J. BREMMER, Gotter, Mythen und Heiligtiimer im

antiken Griechenland, 1996 (Greek Religion, 1994). FARNELL, Cults, vol. 4, 1907, 1-97; E. WusT, s. v. P., RE

22, 446-557; NiLsson, GGR, vol. 1, 444-452.

jB.

Das Bild des P. in der griechischen Vasenmalerei, 1968 4S. KAEMPEF-DIMITRIADOU, Die Liebe der G6tter in der attischen Kunst des 5. Jh. v. Chr., 1979 5M. B. Moore, P. in the Gigantomachy, in: G. Kopcxe, M. B. Moore (ed.), Studies in Classical Art and Archaeology. Festschrift

P. H. von Blanckenhagen, 1979, 23-27

Il. ICONOGRAPHY The oldest depictions of P. are from Corinth, where he was greatly revered; beginning in the 3rd quarter of the 7th cent., painted pinakes (> Pinax [6]) show P. standing, wearing a > chiton and himation and with a — diadema and trident, later on often surrounded by fish [3. 69f.]. Attic depictions began in the 2nd quarter of the 6th cent.; Amasis and > Execias as well as Antimenes, in the late period of black-figure vase painting, show him as a powerful Olympian present at mythological events (the birth of > Athena, the marriage of Peleus and Thetis), but he is often shown turning away; in the > Gigantomachy he is depicted with a powerful stride, shouldering the rock of — Nisyrus and sometimes swinging his trident [5]. Black-figure painting shows him as Hippios (above, I. B), as does the archaic coinage of Potidaea [7. 108; 9. 478]; ‘scenes of pursuit’ (P. pursuing Aethra, Amymone, Amphitrite) came to be popular c. 500 [4]. Beginning with the Persian Wars, in Athens P. was shown in the foreground of many works as the progenitor of the Athenians [7. 101-111], and the most impressive portrayal was at the western pediment of the ~ Parthenon and in the assembly ofthe gods in the eastern frieze. Paus. 1,24,3 saw a group with Athena and P. at the Acropolis (date disputed: [1], but see [9. 478]). It is often difficult to distinguish Zeus from P. if the respective attribute is missing (trident or bundle of lightning bolts), especially in the case of the bronze statue at Cape Artemisium, which dates from about 460 BC [8. 69f.; 13]. After the mid 4th cent., the Lateran type of portrayal emerged, which shows P. with his foot resting ona raised surface and holding a trident in his left hand, a picture of P. popular during the ancient era (replicas from Ostia and Ephesus, repeated in small-scale sculpture, painting, mosaic, on sigillate pottery); the original, often linked to Lysippus [2], may have stood on one of the piers of Cenchreae [2. 142-1515 9. 478; 11].

6 J. SCHAFER, Der

P. von Melos (Athen, NM 235), in: AntPl 8, 1968, 5 5-67

7H. A. SHapiro, Art and Cult under the Tyrants in Athens, 1989 8E. Simon, Die Gotter der Griechen, 31985 9Id.,s. v. P., LIMC 7,1, 1994, 446-479 THIEMANN, Hellenistische Vatergottheiten, 1959

Wave,

Die

Aufstellung

MDAI(A) 93, 1978, 99-107

des

aufgestiitzten

10E. 11E.

P.,

in:

12 E. WaLTeR-KaryDI, P.s

Delphin. Der P. Loeb und die Aufstellung des Meergottes im Hellenismus, in: JDAI 106, 1991, 243-259 13 R. WUnSCHE, Der ‘Gott aus dem Meer’, in: JDAI 94, 1979, 77PL

B.BA.

Poseidonia, Paistos, Paestum (IlooetSwvia/Poseid6nia: Aristot. Mir. 839a 30; Iatotoc/Paistos: Str. 54,13; Mooedéwvudc/Poseiddnids: Scymn. 248; ‘Oscan’ Matotov/Paiston: Ptol. 3,1,8; Posidonia: Liv. Per. 14; Plin. HN. 3,71; Latin Paestumi: Plin. loc. cit.; Pestum: Tab. Peut. 6,5). I. History

Il. ARCHAEOLOGY

I. History Town in Lucania

(Aristot. loc. cit.) on the south coast of the Gulf of Salerno (Str. loc. cit.: Tooetsavuatns x0Amoc/Poseidonidtés kélpos, Mavoravog xodsmo¢/Paistanos kolpos) in the fertile alluvial plain inhabited as early as the Paleolithic (roses: Verg. G. 4,119; generally an abundance of flowers: Mart. 9,26,3; 60,1). It was situated to the west of Monte Sottano between the mouth of the river Silarus to the northeast and the mouth of the Capodifiume river to the south, and founded around 600 BC (archaeological finds; cf. Hdt. 1,167: before 530 BC) by Achaeans from — Sybaris (Str. 6,1,1: tetyoc/teichos, ‘wall’). P. maintained an es-

pecially good relationship with its métrdpolis (cf. the treaty of the Serdaei with Sybaris, StV 2, 120; [1. 207—

210]). P.’s seizure by the > Lucani in 410/o BC (official language Oscan (~ Oscan-Umbrian), the town called

POSEIDONIA,

PAISTOS, PAESTUM

Poseidonia (Paestum) 1 City gates 2 City wall,

following course of Greek ring wall (Lucanian and Roman building phases) 3 Forum

4 5 6 7

Temple of Mens Bona? Comitium ‘Macellum' ‘Curia’

8 ‘Gymnasium’

9 10 11 12 13

Amphitheatre Ekklesiasterion ‘Basilica’ (old temple of Hera) Temple of Athena ‘Temple of Poseidon’

14 Museum 15 Heroon

679

680

681

682

Paiston/Paistos thereafter) is shown not only by a break in the continuity of settlement but also by the cultivation of the land anda change in the burial rites (spacious necropoleis). In 332 BC, P. was occupied for a short time by Alexander [6] (Liv. 8,17,9). After Rome’s war against — Pyrrhus, in which P. had fought on the side of the king, the Romans laid the foundations of a colonia of > Latin law in 273 BC

After P. was finally taken over by the > Lucaniat the end of the 5th cent. BC, a change in burial customs is especially noticeable. The emphasis on the social status of the deceased (tomba del tuffatore), which up to this point had only been observed in exceptional cases, now became the rule and was especially apparent in the magnificent appearance of the burial chambers with their > wall paintings. Alongside the tradition of wall painting which was handed down over several generations, the famous workshops of - Asteas and > Python [5] also developed the > Paestan ware. No great structural architectural changes occur until the Roman period: the location of the Greek agora was abandoned; the public institutions such as the ekklesiasterion were leveled; the network of streets was newly laid out and a new town centre was created with the new forum (no. 3) and its nearby buildings: comitium (no. 5), Temple of Mens Bona? (no. 4), the so-called macellum (no. 6) and the so-called curia (no. 7). The modest amphitheatre (no. 9) and the so-called gymnasium (no. 8) were built close to the forum. The old cults of the Greek city were renewed (Heroon) or nurtured further: the large temples were in use until the end of the Roman period. They have survived to the present day as testimony to the town’s former greatness. — PAESTUM

(Paestum; Vell. Pat. 1,14,7). As a civitas foederata, P.

remained loyal to Rome during the > Punic Wars (cf. Liv. 22,36,9; 26,39,53; 27,10,8). After the Social War (> Social Wars [3]) (91-88 BC) P. was a municipium,

tribus Maecia; following the Augustan reform of local government, P. became part of regio III (Plin. 3,71). In the Imperial Era, P.’s steady decline, due in particular to the numerous floods in the plain and the silting up of the port, was also in part probably brought about by violence (Guido, Geographia 74). It was completely abandoned by its inhabitants in the 8th cent. AD. A.MU. Il. ARCHAEOLOGY The Heraeum (‘Temple of Hera’) at the mouth of the river Sele (Foce del Sele), famous for its metopai

(+ Metope [1]), was built when the town was founded. Its position at the edge of the town emphasizes the significance of the relationship between the town and the adjoining Etruscan territories. The proof that P. already occupied a larger territory in the early 6th cent. BC (> CLassIcaL ARCHAEOLOGY [III] with ill. 5) is evinced

by further sanctuaries in Fonte di Roccadaspide and Santa Venera on the outskirts of the town, and in the south on the Agropoli promontory, by the sanctuary

whose history is being revealed through notable finds. The division of the town into clearly separated public, religious and private areas was likewise probably made in this early period, even if the street layout and the town centre with its large buildings were not developed until later (between 550 and 470 or 460 BC). The erection of the first city wall (cf. map, no. 2), whose surviving building materials go back to Lucanian and Roman times, probably also dates from this time. The so-called basilica (no. 11), whose two roomed cella carries on an early archaic tradition, was built around the middle of the 6th cent. on the sacred ground of Hera. The Temple of Athena (no. 12) with its unique decoration of raked

cornices with lacunars was put up in a separate temenos (‘sacred space’) c. 500 BC. Likewise still in the 6th cent., the agora which takes up an oblong area of c. 330 X 300 m. must also have been situated to the south of the Temple of Athena. On the agora’s northwest side lies the Heroon (no.15), which was walled up c. 510-500 BC and whose interior contained objects for the cult what was presumably the city hero. On the northeast side of the agora stands the ekklesiasterion (meeting place, no. 10), built c. 480-470 BC, whose round outline was embedded in the rock. The last of the great temples, the so-called Temple of Poseidon (no.13), dedicated to either Zeus or Apollo, was built c. 470-460 BC next to the basilica.

POSEIDONIUS

1 E. Kunze, 7. Bericht tiber die Ausgrabungen in Olympia, 1961.

G. AVAGLIANO, Citta e territorio nelle colonie greche d’occidente, vol. 1: Paestum, 1987; M. CrpRIANI, E. GRECO et al. (ed.), ILucania Paestum, 1996; E. Greco et al., Chronique, in: MEFRA 107, 1995, 510-520; 108, 1996, 460-

4743; 109, 1997, 448-472; 110, 1998, 503-5133 Id., F. LonGo (ed.), Paestum, scavi, studi, ricerche. Bilancio di un decennio (1988-1998), 2000; Id., D. THEODORESCU (ed.), P.-Paestum, vols. 1-4, 1980-1999;J.GRIFFITH PEDLEY, Paestum. Greeks and Romans in Southern Italy, 1990; K. JUNKER, Der altere Tempel im Heraion am Sele, 1993; E. KirsTEN, Siiditalienkunde, 1975, 362-407; F. Lonoco, P., in: E. GREco (ed.), La citta greca antica, 1999,

365-384; D. MERTENS, Der alte Heratempel in Paestum und die archaische Baukunst in Unteritalien, 1993;A.PoNTRANDOLFO, A. ROUVERET, Le tombe dipinte di Paestum, 1992; M. TorELti et al., P.-Paestum, in: Atti del XX VII Convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia (1987), 1992, 33115; A. D. TRENDALL, The Red-Figured Vases of Paestum, 1987;

P. ZANcARI

Montuoro,

U. Zanotti

Heraion alla foce del Sele, 2 vols., 1951-1954.

BIANCO,

MLLE.

Poseidonius (MooeSdvioc/Poseidonios). [1] Doctor at the end of the 4th cent. BC, who wrote about > mental illnesses and about ephidltés, a feeling of suffocation (cf. + demons V. C.; Aet. 6,12). P. was taken by Philostorgius (Historia Ecclesiastica 8,10) to be the source for the assertion that insanity is not the result of demonic affliction, but has a physical cause in the form of an imbalance in the bodily fluids (+ Humoral theory). VN. [2] Alexandrian grammarian of the 2nd cent. BC, pupil of > Aristarchus [4] of Samothrace, and known as his

683

684

Little written evi-

treatises (On the Passions, On Anger, a Consolation, On Appropriate Action and On Virtues); works on logic which deal with method and rhetoric rather than conventional logic (On Style, On Conjunctions, On the Criterion and a general methodological work, Against Hermagoras On General Inquiry, which was the published version of a talk which he had given in the presence of Pompey); numerous texts on natural philosophy (On the Cosmos, Natural Philosophy, at least two distinct treatises on meteorology, On the Size of the Sun, On the Soul, On Fate, On Divination, On Heroes and Demons and On the Gods).

POSEIDONIUS

‘reader’

(Gvayvotnc/anagnostes).

dence of P.’ commentary on Homer is preserved (schol. Hom. Z 5r1a; Z 510-1a'; P 75a; schol. Apoll. Rhod. B 105-106). The P. who is quoted in Apollonius [11] Dyscolus (De coniunctionibus, GG 2.1.1, 214,4-20; De syntaxi 4,65, GG 2.2, 487,11-488,4) as the author of a manuscript Ilegi ovvdéouwv/Peri syndésmon (About conjunctions) and the Stoic philosopher > Poseidonius

[3] of Apamea are probably one and the same person. 1 M. Baratin, La naissance de la syntaxe 4 Rome, 1989, 25 2A. Brau, De Aristarchi discipulis, 1883, 40-41 3K. Huser, Die Fragmente zur Dialektik der Stoiker, vol. 1,

1987, LXIV-LXV

4 J. Latiot, Apollonius Dyscole, De la

construction, vol. 2, 1997, 320 donios (4), RE 22.1, 826.

5 C. WENDEL, s. v. PoseiST.MA.

[3] Stoic philosopher, 2nd cent. AD A. Lire

B. Works

C. SPECIALIST FIELDS

D. PHI-

LOSOPHY

A. LIFE Bornc. 135 BC in Apamea (Syria), P. went to Athens to study under the Stoic philosopher > Panaetius. Although P. was his most prominent student, he did not succeed Panaetius as the head of the school in Athens following the latter’s death in 110/109 BC. On the contrary he settled in > Rhodes, Panaetius’ home town and the centre of philosophical and scientific research at that time. P. became a citizen of Rhodes, but travelled widely in the Mediterranean area: Spain, especially Gadeira (Cadiz), the south of Gaul, Italy, Greece, the Middle East, North Africa and Sicily. He wrote, taught and took part in the political life of Rhodes: he became both a magistrate (prytanis) and a member of the legation to Rome in (87-86 BC). P. was so outstanding that Roman politicians also became aware of him: Pompey [I 3] visited him twice in Rhodes during his campaigns (66 BC and 62 BC), > Cicero counted him amongst his friends and regarded him as one of his philosophical mentors. Also among his pupils were Asclepiodotus [2], who wrote about meteorology (Sen. Q Nat. 2,26,6; 6,17,3), Phanias (Diog. Laert. 7,41), possibly Athenodorus [2] of Tarsus and P.’ grandson Jason, who took

over his school. P. was in his eighties when he died around 51 BC. B. Works His writings encompassed the entire scope of Stoic

philosophy and included scientific subjects; his work on history (‘Iotogtat, Historiai) in 52 books continued the

work of > Polybius [2] and probably ended with events in the middle of the 80’s (only a few fragments of this extensive work are preserved). Included among his geographical works are a text About the ocean and possibly a distinct Periplous. The Comparison of Aratus and Homer concerning Mathematics deals with astronomy; in his work Against Zeno of Sidon he defended axiomatic geometry. Included among P.’ philosophical works are the following: Protreptica; some ethical

C. SPECIALIST FIELDS P. was known among the Stoics for his wide interests, his concern for causal explanations in physics and psychology, as well as his responsiveness to other learned opinions outside his discipline, especially Plato [1] and Aristotle [6]. This led him to reflect upon the relationships among intellectual endeavours. The first priority for P. was the study of philosophy in its traditional three categories (logic, physics and ethics); the various arts and special sciences such as mathematics, astrono-

my, geography and history were subordinate to it. However much might be explained by the special sciences, the fundamental principles of things were always to be grasped by philosophy itself. Historical study reveals the causal importance of the virtues and vices, but ethics is needed in order to explain them and their origin; careful research reveals the role of the moon in causing the tides, but the cosmic connectedness (ovprd0eva/sympatheia), which makes this possible is a doctrine of natural philosophy. P.’ analysis of the relationship between physics and mathematical astronomy, which clearly betrays its Aristotelian roots, is preserved in Simplicius

(F 18 E.-K.). Sextus

Empiricus

(F 88)

reports that P. himself emphasised the inseparability of the categories of philosophy and compared its unity to that of a living being (physics is the flesh and blood, logic is the bones and sinews, ethics is the soul). P.’ work on history revealed extensive ethnographic material about a variety of non-Greco-Roman peoples (Celts, Teutons, Cimbrians, Jews, Parthians and other near-Eastern groups). He took a special interest in the

causes of such phenomena as tides, the flooding of the Nile, volcanic activity and earthquakes. In particular, many fragments, respectively longer text extracts are preserved from his geographical, botanical and zoological reports on the western Mediterranean. His moralising discussion of mining and precious metals (F 239240 E.-K.) is probably typical of his integrated approach. His work also contained a mathematical approach to the description of the earth; he expressed views on the shape of the inhabited world, the size of the earth (determined by astronomical data) and about the position and climate of India. He developed a theory of five terrestrial zones determined by the annual movements of the sun and correlated them to climatic factors. In geometry he differed from > Euclides on some techni-

685

686

cal definitions (figure, parallel lines). The preserved documentary evidence points to a serious involvement in the area of advanced mathematical scholarship.

Chrysippus [2]. P. also put forward the new thesis that each power of the soul has its own oixeiwotc/oikeiosis

D. PHILOSOPHY P.’ positive contributions to logic appear to have been small, but all the same he must not be thought of as uninterested or heterodox. In physics and ethics he was more active and more independent, yet it should be remembered that in book 7 of Diogenes Laertius’ Lives of the Philosophers P. is regularly quoted as a philosopher who stands by traditional Stoic views: the world,

which is ruled by reason (/ogos), is an organic whole, a living being, characterised by the interdependence of all its parts and governed providentially by an immanent deity. As the laws of causality have a uniform effect everywhere in the cosmos, the latter can be understood both as a whole and in its parts. Kipp argues convincingly ([2] in F 92) that P.’ two basic principles (unqualified matter and an active shaping factor) represent a clarification of orthodox Stoic doctrine rather than an departure. There was no significant change in the doctrine of the four elements (> Elements, theories of the) though Aristotelian influence may be suspected on the doctrine of natural motion. We have ancient accounts of P.’ views on causality, change, space, time, God and fate. He seems, however, to have taken a particular inte-

rest in divination and the details of its operation (cf. primarily Cicero, De Divinatione), situating it alongside other means of predicting events (weather signs and astrology). None of this is out of keeping with the Stoicism of Chrysippus [2] and it fits in well with the doctrine that the cosmos is a single, organically connected whole. P. added his own contributions to astronomical theory (on the size and distance of the sun, eclipses, characteristics of the moon etc.), still more on meteorology (comets, rainbows and halos, hail, winds, tides).

His views about the physical nature of the soul (> Soul, theory of the) and its relationship to the body

appear entirely orthodox. By contrast, P. probably made significant changes to earlier theories on the internal structure of the soul. According to Galen’s Doctrines of Hippocrates and Plato P. differed significantly from Chrysippus on the issue of the divisions of the human soul, reverting to the view that reason, ‘anger’ (Oupdc/thymos) and desire are distinct powers. Galen traced this view back to Plato and Aristotle, and in do-

ing so made the distinction that Plato located each of these powers in a separate part of the body, while Aristotle and P. did not. Galen explains furthermore that Cleanthes adopted this position and that P. for his part held views which linked him to Pythagoras (F 151 EDELSTEIN-KIDD).

To what extent P. distanced himself from the earlier Stoic doctrine is disputed. In any case, in his revised moral psychology P. himself dealt with important issues on passions (1é&0n/pathé) and the central idea of the purpose of life (téh0¢/télos) and thereby was critical of

POSEIDONIUS

(> Oikeiosis,

‘natural

disposition

and

affiliation’).

These changes illustrate important features of P.’ thinking: they prove his receptiveness to the influence of Plato and Aristotle, however they are also always motivated by the challenges of methodical reasoning. As P. saw it, Chrysippus’ theory faced insurmountable difficulties if it was intended to explain how passions arise and die away; Chrysippus’ highly intellectualist theory could not account for the fact that passions could change, whilst the opinions related to them remain unwavering. This aspect has important implications not only for explaining passions but also for the analysis and treatment of psychological ailments (P. and Chrysippus used physical disease as a model for weaknesses and ailments of the soul). The changes to the teaching on oikei6sis mirror P.’ conviction that it is impossible to explain the genesis of moral failings without acknowledging a distinct facet of human nature which is intrinsically opposed to reason. Despite the uncertain reliability of some of Galen’s reports, it is clear that the analysis and treatment of passions and vices were at the centre of P.’ ethics and that his ethics were based on a more fundamental analysis of causes than those of the older Stoics. P. was completely orthodox in the rest of his ethics; the statement in Diog. Laert. 7,103, that Poseidonius considered health and wealth as commodities, is erroneous. The discrepancies between P. and Chrysippus concerning the classification of the virtues remain within the scope of traditional Stoic theory. P.’ views on télos reflect his recognition of an irrational component in the soul (> Teleology) and show the importance of physics to his theory (‘to live contemplating the truth and order of all things together, and helping in promoting it as far as possible, in no way being led by the irrational part of the soul’, F 186). The rational element in the soul is called daiuwv (daimon) and opposed to a beast-like component which is ultimately the source of human misery. This dualism constitutes the most important difference between P.’ Stoicism and that of Chrysippus; nevertheless a very significant continuity is identifiable within Stoic ethics. ~» Stoicism Ep.: 1L. Epetstern, I. G. Krpp (eds.), Posidonius. vol. 1, *1989 (text) 2I.G. Kipp, Posidonius. vol. 2.1-2.3, 1988-1999 (comm.) 31.G. Kipp, Posidonius. vol. 3,

1999 (Engl. tr.) 4 W. THEILER, P. Die Fragmente, 2 vols., 1982 (with comm.).

Lir.: 5K. BRINGMANN, Geschichte und Psychologie bei Poseidonios, in: ]. G. Kipp (ed.), Aspects de la philosophie héllenistique (Entretiens 32), 1986, 29-66 6J.F. Dosson, The Posidonius Myth, in: CQ 12, 1918, 197 7 L. EpELsTEIN, The Philosophical System of Posidonius, in: AJPh 57, 1936, 286-325 81. G. Kipp, Posidonius and Logic, in: J. BkuNscHwie (ed.), Les Stoiciens et leur logique, 1978, 273-283 9M. LaFFRANQUE, P. d’Apamée, 1964 10J. Matitz, Die Historien des P., 1983 11G. PFLIGERSDORFER, Studien zu P., 1959 12M. POHLENZ, Die Stoa, 1947, 208-238

13 K. REINHARDT, s.y. Posei-

687

688

14 K. SCHINDLER,

Arcadia and > Oppianus [1] (he lived earlier than the latter) as the author of ‘A\teutwxd/Halieutika (On fish-

fendant in an ownership case (— rei vindicatio) must have possessio, and according to > Pegasus, possessio protected by interdicts, according to Ulpian only possessio in general (Dig. 6,1,9). In many cases, the acquisition of possessio is the prerequisite for the acquisition of ownership ( dominium), thus for acquisition via traditio ex iusta causa (‘delivery based ona valid cause’,

ing).

Dig.

POSEIDONIUS donios von Apameia, RE 22, 558-826

Die stoische Lehre von den Seelenteilen ..., 1934.

BL.

[4] P. from Corinth, mentioned in Ath. 1,13b together with > Numenius of Heracleia, — Pancrates [2] of

12,1,9,9;

41,2,18,2),

and

for

usucaption

(+ usucapio). This connection refers to the old rule, which goes back to the veteres (jurists of the Republic),

SH 709.

‘No one can alter the reason for possession himself’ Poses (Moofj¢/Posés). Athenian comedian in the early rst century BC; his father was a comedian called Ariston [2. 569], as was his son [2. 570]; victor at the Sarapian Games in Tanagra in c. 85 [1. test. 1]. P. was also an archon (in 88/87 [1. test. 2]), a gymnasiarch [1r. test. 3] and together with his brother Timostratus a mintmagistrate (c. ror [1. test. 4]. Neither fragments nor

titles of his plays survive. 1 PCG VII, 1989, 560 2PCGII, 1991, 569-570 3 CH. Hasicut, Athen in hellenistischer Zeit, 1994, 296. BBA.

Posideia see > Poseidon

Posides. Freedman of Claudius [III 1], who placed a great deal of trust in him (Suet. Claud. 28,1). In AD 43,

P. accompanied Claudius to Britannia and at the ensuing triumph he was given a hasta pura like a freeborn military officer, whereby the position of trust he held with Claudius was also publicly revealed. PIR* P 878. W.E. Posideum see - Poseidium

Positional length see + Metre; > Prosody Possessio. ‘Possession’, primarily the actual control over a thing, but in contrast to dominium (‘ownership’)

as full legal power. As a technical term in Roman law, possessio has partly real, partly legal features (possessio non

tantum

corporis,

sed

et iuris

est, Papin.

Dig.

41,2,49,1). For example, > Ofilius and Nerva filius (> Cocceius [6]) consider the acquisition of possessio to be a de facto matter (rem facti non turis, Dig. 41,2,1,3). Therefore, a pupillus (minor, - minores) without the agreement of a guardian (tutoris auctoritas) and even a furiosus (mentally ill person) should be able to acquire possession. Julius [IV 16] Paulus is of the same view for minors who are old enough to be rational (Dig. 41,2,1,3). On the other hand, those subject to another’s power may hold private property (> peculium), but not possess it. If a purchaser becomes a prisoner of war, he loses his possessio, and the > postliminium (right of return) does not restore the possessio, because it only affects rights, while possessio is ‘very real’ (plurimum facti, Papin. Dig. 4,6,19). Possessio is protected by interdicts (— interdictum). This also applies to precarists (> precarium). The de-

(Nemo sibi ipse causam possessionis mutare potest, Paulus Dig. 41,2,3,19). Such is the case in a forbidden

donation between spouses: usucaption based on such a donation (usucapio pro donato) is impossible. Divorce does not necessarily change any thing about this (Cassius/Paulus Dig. 41,6,1,2). According to Iulianus [1], this rule refers not only to possessio civilis (possessio according to the > ius civile), but also to possessio naturalis and therefore affects rural tenants (coloni), custodians, borrowers (Dig. 41,5,2,1; more strictly:

Paulus Dig. 41,2,3,20). According to the doctrine valid in the 3rd cent. AD, possession is acquired ‘through taking and volition’ (corpore et animo, Paulus Dig. 41,2,3,1). For land, it is not necessary for the one acquiring possession ‘to walk around every clod’ (ut ... omnes glebas circumambulet); he only needs to step on any part of the property (Paulus loc. cit.) or even simply be shown the boundaries of the property from a tower on the neighbouring property (Cels. Dig. 41,2,18,2). Possessio is also maintained corpore et animo after acquisition. According to a doctrine represented by Quintus > Mucius [I 9] (cos. 95 BC), alone the will to possess (solo animo, Pompon. Dig. 41,2,25,2) is sufficient for this. According to this, a landowner on the way to the market initially still holds the possession and protection of the > interdictum uti possidetis despite the underhanded occupation of his property (Labeo/Ulp. Dig. 41,2,6,1). In accordance with the methods first used in his ius civile, Q. Mucius also divided the manifestations of possession into genera (genera possessionum; Paul. Dig. 41,2,3,23). To Trebatius Testa (1st cent. BC), it seemed possible that, among several people, one was a legitimate (iuste), the other an illegitimate (iiuste) sole possessor. According to > Sabinus [II 5], ina > precarium both the precarist and the grantor had possession; the one ‘through taking’ (corpore), the other through ‘volition’ (animo; Pomp. Dig. 43, 26, 15,4). Antistius Labeo and — with naturalistic reasoning — Paulus opposed Trebatius (Paulus Dig. 41,2,3,5). Into the 3rd cent. AD, it was true that, ‘Ownership and possession have nothing in common’ (Nihil commune habet proprietas cum possessione, Ulp. Dig. 41,2,12,1). Afterwards, the technical term possessio lost its form and also took on the meaning ‘ownership’. Justinian (6th cent.), on the other hand, returned to the clear distinction between possessio and ownership (dominium).

689

690

HONSELL/MAYER-MALY/SELB

131-141;

Kaser, RPR

1,

384-400; 2, 246-261; L. SoLIDORO Maruorti, Studi sull?’abbandono degli immobili nel diritto romano. Storici giuristi imperatori, 1989 (review in: Gnomon 703-708).

Possidius.

Bishop of

modern

Guelma

communications relays, staffed by riders and possibly also couriers set up on certain routes during the Civil War by Caesar and Pompey (Pompeius [I 3]) were similar (Caes. B Civ. 3,101; Bell. Hisp. 2). Such temporary arrangements, serving solely military purposes, seem also to have existed in some areas during the Roman

in

Imperial period (PDura 100; ror) [1. 59]. Documenta-

Algeria (d. after 437), wrote a biography of > Augustinus (d. 430), De vita et moribus praedestinati et suo tempore praesentati sacerdotis (1; 2; 3; 43 5, preface), some 5 years after his death. For Augustine’s youth, reference is made to his Confessiones; an essential theme is Augustine’s almost forty years as a bishop. The only Latin biographer of a Late Antique bishop, P. (like ~ Suetonius) presents his public and private life separately [7]; for his hero’s private life, P., in a way similar to Cornelius Nepos [2] in his life of Atticus, emphasizes everything he did zot do. The comprehensive index (indiculum) to the work [6] can be regarded as a coda to the biography [6. 231-233; 8].

tion of communications systems in the successor states

EDITIONS:

- Calama,

63, 1991, D.SCH.

POSTAL SERVICES

1 PL 32, 33-66 (Vita) und PL 46, 5—22 (Indi-

culum) 2H. T. WeIsKOTTEN, 1919 3 A.C. VEGA, 1934 4M. PELLEGRINO, 1955 5A.A.R. BASTIAENSEN, 1975 6 A. WILMART, Operum S. Augustini elenchus, in: Miscellanea Agostiniana 2, 1931, 149-233.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

7 W. BERSCHIN, Biographie und Epo-

chenstil im lateinischen Mittelalter, vol. 1, 1986

Luck, Die Form der suetonischen

8G.

Biographie und die

friihen Heiligenviten, in: A. STUIBER (ed.), Mullus. Festschrift Theodor Klauser, 1964, 230-241 9A. MUTZENBECHER, Bemerkungen zum Indiculum des P., in: Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes 33, 1987, 128-131. W.B.

Postal services. At no time in antiquity did PS exist according to modern definitions. PS today are defined as institutions of public service, operating permanently and regularly, conducting the carriage of messages, small consignments of goods and passengers to and from particular traffic locations according to established conditions of use. By contrast, ancient facilities lacked the chief criteria — public access and the regular transport of correspondence and goods. Senders had to worry about the delivery of private mail themselves (+ Communications).

For some ancient states ruled by monarchs and in some cases ranging over extremely large territories, the establishment of special systems for efficient and secure processing of communications in the service of the ruler is documented. If established across a whole kingdom, these might therefore at best be designated ‘state PS’. Examples of such services include the well-known institutions of the Persians, the Ptolemies and the Romans of

the Imperial Period and Late Antiquity. There are also indications of specially established communications systems in the Near Eastern territories of Antigonus [1] Monophthalmus (4th cent. BC), said to have stationed couriers at intervals (Diod. Sic. 19,57,5), and in Macedonia in the 2nd cent. BC, where on some routes horses

were kept ready for switching (Liv. 40,56,11). The

of Alexander’s empire may indicate the adoption rangements from the Persian Empire. In Persia Cyrus [2] Il a well-developed system existed for mitting royal orders and letters using mounted

of arunder transrelays

(Hdt. 8,98). This is confirmed by Xenophon (Cyr. 8,6,17—18), who ascribes the system’s establishment to

Cyrus himself, although he could have built it on precedent Assyrian institutions [2. 953, cf. 382-383]. The relay service, with relay stations at intervals of a day’s ride for the fastest possible transfer of communications, is also documented on clay tablets from Persepolis [2. 383]. The royal resting stations (Hdt. 5,52) could apparently also be used by travellers on government business [3. 692-693]. The Ptolemaic institution was always regarded as a reproduction of the Persian system [5. 24; 6. 195], asin the famed reconstruction by PreisicKe [4]. From PHibeh I 110 (259-253 BC), PREISIGKE inferred daily and nightly letter delivery by mounted relays at regular intervals of time, a system he also assumed applied to Persia. Furthermore, he inferred from POxy. IV 710 (r1r BC) a second, slower system using postmen on foot and involving camel-drivers for the package delivery. Recent analysis shows that neither the existence of two PS nor the regularity of letter delivery, station intervals or the round-the-clock courier service can be demonstrated from the meagre details contained in the two texts [7]. The participation of camel-drivers (POxy. 710) in this organization also appears doubtful. Only the existence of a letter delivery service by state couriers depositing their loads at defined stations for further distribution is certain. As yet, though, it remains uncertain whether these courier relays were organized with mounted support. In contrast to the Persian and Ptolemaic systems, the Roman > cursus publicus did not offer a delivery service: its system included no couriers of its own. Rather, it was an infrastructure consisting of changeover and resting stations (mutatio, > mansio) with means of transport kept at hand, for use by travellers on official business, such as couriers (> tabellarius, in the 4th cent. AD esp. veredarii of the > agentes in rebus), officials and soldiers, provided that they were in possession of a special pass (> diploma, from the 4th cent. evectio) [8]. Some maritime links were also included in the system, e.g. guaranteeing attachments of the imperial Adriatic fleet (Tac. Ann. 4,27,1) [9] for those on state business, as well as Nile skippers in Egypt (POxy. LV 3796) and local rowers on the Po (Sid. Apoll. Epist. 1,5). The institution of the cursus publicus endured until the fall of the Roman Empire, and was adopted by some

691

692

successor states in its increasingly limited form (esp. from 467/8: Cod. lust. 12,50,22). The well-rehearsed Roman procedure was continued in the east by the Byzantine Empire, as is shown by the legal texts of the Basilika (Bas. 56,17), lead seals [xo] and literary sources. Changes are known to have taken place in the administration of the Byzantine démosios drémos (‘state PS’), esp. in the 7th and 8th cents., when supervision passed to the logothétés toi dromou (roughly: ‘postal secre-

was supposed to have been metaphorically transferred to the boundary of Roman state territory, so that a prisoner of war, who on his return would be crossing back from beyond (post) the ‘threshold’ into the Roman state, would have the right to return to his earlier position before being taken prisoner. On being taken captive by enemies (-» Prisoners of war), a Roman citizen would become a slave. If he was e.g. ransomed, he would be entitled to the ius postliminii as a ‘right to return home’ (see also Digesttitle 49,15). Until then his rights remained in suspense (‘pendency’), like legal transactions before the happening of a contingency

POSTAL SERVICES

tary’) [11]. The Arabs, too, retained the existing insti-

tution for rapid communications in those territories of the Byzantine Empire which they conquered (PLond. IV 1347; 1414; 1434). In Italy, the Ostrogoths seem to have revived the system (6th cent.), as suggested by numerous indications in Cassiodorus’ Variae [12]. The code of laws of the West Gothic king Alaric II (> Alaricus [3]) gives a highly-abridged version of a provision of the Codex Theodosianus on the cursus publicus (Cod. Theod. 8,5,59). No clear sources exist for the

(— condicio). If, however, he died a prisoner, his rights

were considered expired at the time of capture. But his succession would be as if he had died a free man. The ius postliminii did not extend to a marriage contracted before captivity. Kaser, RPR 1, 290 mit Anm. 15; A. WATSON, The Law of Persons in the Later Roman Republic, 1967, 237-255.

Burgundian or Vandal kingdoms. In Merovingian, and later Carolingian France, only a few regulations were

GS.

preserved [13; 14]. In place of organizations covering

Postulatio is occasionally used generally for a demand or a request in Roman law as a synonym of > petitio. For a Roman > formula lawsuit in the 3rd cent. AD (in the context of the edict title de postulando; cf. also Cod. Tust. 2,6) Ulpian defines postulare as desiderium suum vel amici sui in ture ... exponere: vel alterius desiderio contradicere (‘to expound to the court one’s own or a friend’s request or to contradict somebody else’s

entire kingdoms there arose individually-managed courier systems established by kings, church representatives or rich landowners (later also trading companies, cities, etc.) [15]. — Communications; > Cursus publicus; > Letter 1R. W. Davies, Service in the Roman Army, 1989

2P.

BrIANT, Histoire de l’empire Perse, 1996 3 A. KUHRT, The Ancient Near East, vol. 2, 1995 4 F. PREISIGKE, Die ptolemaische Staatspost, in: Klio 7, 1907, 241-277 5 E. J. HOLMBERG,

Zur Geschichte des Cursus Publicus,

1933 6H. G. PFLAuM, Essai sur le cursus publicus sous le Haut-Empire romain (Mém. Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres de Institut de France 14), 1940 7S.R. LLEWELYN, Did the Ptolemaic Postal System Work to a Timetable?, in: ZPE 99, 1993, 41-56 8 A. Koxs, Transport und Nachrichtentransfer im Romischen Reich, 2000,

49-226 9 W.Eck, Die Verwaltung des rémischen Reiches in der hohen Kaiserzeit, vol. 2, 1997, 339-346 10V. LAURENT, Corpus des sceaux de |’empire byzantin, vol. 2, 1981, 196-244 11D.A. MILLER, The Logothete of the Drome in the Middle Byzantine Period, in: Byzantion 35,

1966, 442-445 157-159

12 P.SrorFEL, Uber die Staatspost, 1993,

13 F. L. GaANsHogr, La tractoria. Contribution a

Pétude des origines du droit de gite, in: TRG 8, 1928, 81-91 14 W. C. SCHNEIDER, Animal Laborans. Das

Arbeitstier und sein Einsatz in Transport und Verkehr der Spatantike und des frithen Mittelalters, in: Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo 31, 1985, 568-578 2, 484-487.

15 T. SZABO, s. v. Botenwesen, in: LMA

A. Ko.s, Transport und Nachrichtentransfer schen Reich, 2000, 49-226.

im R6miAK.

LeEquest) Dien 3516052)

By a postulatio actionis a plaintiff requested a — praetor to allow the action on which he had agreed with the accused by way of an > editio (‘declaration’). The ability to expostulate (as it is still called today) was not unrestricted in Rome: some (those under 17 or the deaf) could not expostulate, others (women, the blind, the infamous) could only do so ina limited way — therefore having need of an > advocatus. In earlier > legis actio cases a postulatio was the subject of its own action, legis actio per iudicis arbitrive postulationem. In the Roman penal process postulatio was synonymous with > accusatio (‘accusation’). J. A. Crook, Legal Advocacy in the Roman World, 1995, r59f.; M. Kaser, K. Hackt, Das rémische Zivilprozefrecht, *1996, 232f. CPA.

Postumia. Last member of the Postumii Albini gens. Born in c. 94, wife of the lawyer Servius Sulpicius Rufus (cos. in 51). Her children were a son of the same name and a daughter Sulpicia. Cicero mentions P. and her son (Cic. Att. 5,21,9; cf. SHACKLETON BalILey ad. loc.; Cic. Fam. 4,2,1; 4,2,45 Cic. Phil. 9,5.). Suetonius (Suet. Tul.

Poster see

» Communications; > Advertizing

Postliminium (‘right to return home’, more common in the combination ius postliminii) is explained in Just. Epit. 1,12,5 as deriving from limen (threshold), and this

50,1) mentions P. among ~ Caesar seduced.

the high-ranking women ME.SCH.

Postumianus. — Praefectus praetorio Orientis in AD 383. An orthodox Christian from the West, P. rose above various otherwise unknown officials to the prae-

693

694

torian praefecture of the East (Greg. Naz. Epist. 173). He took up office at the beginning of 383 (Cod. Theod.

(Cic. Acad. 2,137; see > Carneades |1r]) and ensured the denial of the release the Achaean hostages (Pol. 33,1,3—-8). In 154 he was a member of the Senate legation that induced > Prusias [2] II of Bithynia into peace with > Attalus |5] II of Pergamum (Pol. 33,13,4-7). As consul in 151 (MRR 1, 454f.), he and his colleague L. > Licinius [1 24] Lucullus conducted such a harsh levy for the war in Spain that the two were temporarily detained by the tribunes of the people (Liv. Per. 48). In 146/5 he was a member (unlikely as leader: [1. 726]) of the commission of ten in charge of reorganizing Ach-

9,42,10), but held it only until the end of the year (Cod.

Theod. 16,5,12). After returning to the west he was entrusted from 395 to 396 witha legation from the city of Rome’s Senate to the emperor (Symmachus Ep. 652253316526,2). W. ENSSLIN, s. v. P. (2), RE 22, 890; PLRE 1, 718 ‘iepirgittsyeelUae

(P. 2); cf. AG.

Postumius. Roman patrician gentilic name (from the praenomen-> Postumus), found in the highest offices from the 5th cent. BC on and politically significant until the 2nd cent. BC. As > dictator in 499 or 496 BC, an A. P. is supposed to have decided the battle at — Lacus Regillus (Liv. 2,19-20). The Albi or Albini (Regillenses), who withdrew from politics with P. [I 9]’s military failure in the Jugurthine War at the end of the 2nd cent. BC, are his descendants. I. REPUBLICAN PERIOD

II. IMPERIAL PERIOD

I. REPUBLICAN PERIOD {I 1] P., C. Etruscan haruspex (> haruspices), who in 89

and 83 BC purportedly made prophecies of military success for L. Cornelius [I 90] Sulla (Cic. Div. 1,72; Liv. 77 fr. 19 W.; Plut. Sulla 9,6; 27,7: following Sulla’s memotrs). K-LE. {[2] P., M. From Pyrgi; one of the tax farmers (= publicani) entrusted with supplying the army in the Second — Punic Wars; accused of fraud in 213 BC. Finally under popular pressure in 212 it turned into a suit for a > multa, which, for fear of conflict with the publicani, the Senate would have liked to avoid. First with the help of a tribune of the people, and then by fostering unrest, P. attempted to evade conviction, which led to his exile through a capital trial; strict measures were also adopted against his helpers (Liv. 25,3,85,2). The whole sequence of events is transmitted only by the Annalists, with potentially major anachronisms.

POSTUMIUS

aea (Cic. Att. 13,30,3;

13,32,3), and was honoured with statues in many places (Cic. Att. 13,32,3; IvOl 3223 SEG 1,152: Delphi). From youth on, P. dedicated himself so enthusiastically to Greek language and culture that he gave offence among his traditionalist contemporaries (Pol. 39,1,3), and composed a Greek poem (not known in more detail; Pol. 39,1,4) and a historical work in Greek (Cic. Brut. 81; Cic, Acad. 2,137; Gell. NA x21,8)2). His request in the foreword to excuse any errors in style or composition (Pol. 39,1,4; Gell. 11,8,2-3) incurred the mockery of + Cato [1] the Elder (Pol. 39,1,5—9; Plut. Cato Maior 12,6). Although only fragments up to the end of the period of the Monarchy have survived, the work must, given Polybius’ characterization of it as a ‘pragmatike historia’ (i.e. an especially useful analysis of causes of recent past events for his contemporaries, Pol. 39,1,4), also have covered the more recent history of Rome. Late antique citations from De adventu Aeneae (Schol. Servius Danielis ad Verg. Aen. 9, 707; Origo gentis Romanae 15,1-4) can hardly be from a separate work but from the first book of the history. The existence of a Latin translation remains debated (sceptical [2. LXX XII-II]]). In all, the work was little known. 1 F. W. WaLBANK, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, vol. 3, 1979, 726f. 2M. Cuassicne_t (ed.), L’ annalistique romaine, vol. 1, 1996.

Epitrons:

HRR

IP, 53f.; FGrH

812; M. CHASSIGNET

(ed.), L’ annalistique romaine, vol. 1, 1996, 59-61.

W.-K.

~ Pomponius [I 2]] E. BADIAN, Publicans and Sinners, 1972, 17-20.[1 7] [1 8]

or [1 9] {I 3] P. Albinus, A. Unable as consul in 242 BC to take

part in the decisive battle with the Carthaginians, because forced, as flamen Martialis, to remain in Rome (Val. Max. 1,1,2; > Flamines). In 234 he was censor during the consulate of his son P. [I 5]; d. before 218. J. BLerckEN, Gesammelte Schriften 1, 1998, 435.

‘TAS.

{1 4] P. Albinus, A. Roman senator and historian, son of A. P. [I ro] Albinus Luscus (cos. 180 BC). In 168/7, P.

participated — probably as tribunus militum —in the war with > Perseus [2] of Macedonia, who was placed in his

custody after his surrender (Liv. 45,28,r1). In 155 as praetor urbanus he chaired the Senate session in which the Athenian embassy of philosophers was received

{I 5] P. Albinus, L. As consul in 234 BC, fought the -» Ligures. In 229, again consul, he commanded a land army in the First Illyrian War, thereupon the winter camp in enemy territory, led the peace negotiations and had its outcome circulated in Greece (Pol. 2,11-12; ~ Teuta). No triumph is recorded. After an undatable first praetorship (233?, 228?) he assumed the office for a second time in 216. At the time of the battle of — Cannae (2.8.216; > Hannibal [4]) he and his troops fell victims to an ambush, on the Padus/Po, by the + Boii, who mounted his skull in gold, using it henceforth in religious ceremonies as a drinking vessel (Pol. 3,118,6; Liv. 23,24,6-13). Election to a third consulship in 215 is an annalist’s invention. T. Scumitt, Hannibals Siegeszug, 1991, 273-276.

695

696

[I 6] P. Albinus, L. Celebrated a triumph over the > Lusitani (Liv. 41,7,1-3) in 178; no reliable reports on the fighting in 180-179 (praetorship and > prorogatio) exist. As consul in 173, he secured the > ager publicus from private encroachments. The burdening of > Praeneste with coerced aid was traditionally represented as an altogether different sort of pressure on Italian allies, born of revenge (Liv. 42,1,6-123 9,7). In 171 he was an ambassador to northern Africa; one of the principes civitatis (> princeps) in 169, his candidacy for censorship failed; he then joined the staff of L. Aemilius [I 32] Paullus on his Greek campaign. TA.S. {I 7] P. Albinus, L. Son of P. [1 8], became flamen mar-

P. and probably P. [I 4] were members of the commission to establish the province of Achaia (Cic. Att. 1393 O52 Cis a3). [112] P. Albinus Paullulus, Sp. Brother of P. [I xo], probably the curule aedile, Sp. Albinus, mentioned in Plin. HN 18,42 (= Piso, fr. 33 HRR), following which he occupied that office in 185 BC. Praetor Siciliae in 183, cos. in 174. At the outbreak of the Third > Macedonian War in 172, P. was sent with an embassy to the Rhodians and other allies in Asia Minor (Liv. 42,45,1-4; cf. Pol. 27,3). PN. [1 13] P. Albinus Regillensis, M. Censor in 403 BC together with M. Furius [I 13] Camillus. As an inducement to marriage they instituted a tax on unmarried older men (Val. Max. 2,9,1; cf. Plut. Camillus 2,2f.). [1 14] P. Albinus Regillensis (?), P. (?) Consular tribune in 414 BC (P.’s praenomen and the authenticity of his cognomina are unclear). According to Livy (4,49,850-8; cf. Val. Max. 9,8,3), after the conquest of Bola P. came into violent conflict with his men over the distribution of plunder and land, and was stoned by them.

POSTUMIUS

tialis in 168 BC (Liv. 45,15,10; > Flamines) and was

praetor in 158 or 157. He died in 154 during his consulship either from illness (Obseq. 17) or poisoning, purportedly administered by his wife Publicia (Liv. Per. 48; Val. Max. 6,3,8). {1 8] P. Albinus, Sp. Praetor peregrinus in 189 BC. As cos. in 186 he and his colleague Q. Marcius [I 17] Philippus took action against the mystery cults (> Bacchanal(ia)) (CIL I? 581; Liv. 39,8-20; Val. Max 6,3,7). With his election to augur in 184 he was the first to represent his gens in a major college of priests. In light of his death by plague by 180 (Liv. 40,42,6; 13), his complaints about the burden of old age in Cic. Cato 7 are fictional. 1 M. GELzeER, KS 3, 256-269

2 MUNZER, 213.

P.N.

[19] P. Albinus, Sp. As consul in tro BC, despite a treaty concluded by L. Calpurnius [I 1] Bestia, he revived the war against > Iugurtha in Africa, but returned to Rome to hold the elections, handing command over to his brother Au. P. as legate. The latter was ambushed at Suthul and forced to surrender unconditionally; the Romans had to withdraw from Numidia. As proconsul in 109, P., no longer able to turn round the situation militarily, was replaced by Q. Caecilius [I 30] Metellus Numidicus. Both brothers, brought before a special court in Rome (cf. > Mamilius [4]), were condemned (Sall. Iug. 36-40; Cic. Brut. 128); subsequently this branch of the family was politically insignificant. KC-L-E[110] P. Albinus Luscus, A. The cognomen (only in Liv.) intimates the loss of an eye. P., a grandson of P. [1 3] and a brother of P. [I 6] and P. [I 12], was a legate in the war with > Antiochus [5] III, in 187 an aedile and praetor in 185. As consul in 180, he marched against the Ligures (MRR 1,387) and in 176 led a Senate commission in the northern Balkan peninsula (Pol. 25,6).

Two votive inscriptions record him in 175 as a duumvir aedi dedicandae (ILLRP 121; 281). In 174 he was a censor with Q. Fulvius [I 12] Flaccus and in 173 became a decemvir sacris faciundis. He led a ten-man delegation to > Pydna (168) to settle relations in the East (MRR

1,435; ~ Macedonian Wars). [1 11] P. Albinus Magnus, Sp. Praetor c. 151 BC; as cos.

in 148, constructed the via Postumia from the Ligurian Sea at Genua to Aquileia [1] (CIL I? 624; MRR 3,174).

R. M. Oertviz,

A Comm.

on Livy, Books

1-5, *1970,

609-611.

[1 15] P. Albus Regillensis, A. According to Livy (3,4,15,13; cf. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 9,62,2—66,4), as cos. in 464 (MRR 1, 34) P. is supposed to have taken extraor-

dinary defensive measures based on a senatus consultum (ultimum) after his colleague’s defeat by the + Aequi. This, like the subsequent dispatch of Ti. Quinctius Capitolinus pro consule, apparently represented a retrojection of the later practice (~ Emergency, state of; > proconsul; > propraetor); at the same time, he is said to have defeated marauding Aequi troops himself. Livy’s mention of P. in the 458 legation to the Aequi (Liv. 3,25,6) probably constitutes a ‘doublet’. The P. mentioned in 484 as dedicator of a temple to Castor which had been vowed by his father (Liv. 2,42,5) may be P. or his brother Sp. P. Albus Regillensis, cos. in 466 and decemvir in 451. R. M. Ocirvie,

A Comm.

on Livy, Books 1-5, *1970,

347f.5 398-402; 430f. [I 16] P. Megellus, L. Consul in 305, 294 and 291, propraetor in 295 BC (MRR 1, 166f.; 178f.; 182f.). The annalistic tradition on P. and his role in the military

accomplishments of his time is somewhat contradictory (cf. Liv. 10,37,13 for the year 294: ‘parum constans memoria’, ‘uncertain tradition’). In 305 he fought successfully against the + Samnites (Diod. 20,90,3f.; Liv. 9,44,5-16 with a triumph for P. according to part of the tradition; contra, InscrIt 13,1,70f.). According to Livy,

as cos. II in 294 he dedicated a victory altar (+ Victoria) and was victorious over the Samnites and the Etruscans, for which he received a > triumph which he obtained despite the opposition of the Senate, and only with the help of three tribunes of the people (Liv. 10,32,8-3 4,143 373 P.’s triumph is confirmed in InscrIt 13,1,72f.). His third consulship, which P., as > interrex

697

698

for holding consular elections, obtained by proclaiming

[If 5] T. Flavius P. Titianus. Descendant of P. [II 2]. Possibly of patrician rank; cos. suff. between 285 and 290. + Corrector Italiae and appeal judge by imperial commission. Later corrector Campaniae, consularis aquarum et Miniciae in Rome; proconsul Africae in 295/6. Cos. ord. I in 301 and praefectus urbi in 305/6. His great-grandfather P. [II 2] was his model as an orator (CIL VI 1418 =ILS 2941). He was also related to T. Fl. P. Varus, cos. suff. c. 250 and praefectus urbi in

himself consul (Liv. 27,6,8), was characterized by discord between P. and the Senate, the people and his coconsul, caused by P.’s autocratic behaviour. At the end

of his term, this conduct incurred him a fine together with considerable ill will over having proclaimed himself consul (Liv. Per. rx; cf. [x]; Dion. Hal. Ant. 17/18,4,2-5,4; Cass. Dio frr. 36,32; for the tensions between P. and the Senate [2. 187-189]). Nevertheless, in 282 P. was the head of a Roman embassy to demand satisfaction for a raid on Roman ships in Tarentum (+ Taras). Insulted by the Tarentines, the embassy declared war on them (Dion. Hal. Ant. 19,5,1-6,1; Cass.

Dio frr. 39,5-9; App. Sam. 7,1f.; cf. Pol. 1,6,5; Val. Mass 252552). 1B. Bravo, M. GrirFFin, Un frammento del libro XI di Livio?, in: Athenaeum N.S., 66, 1988, 447-521

2 HOLKESKAMP.

POSTUMUS

AD 271. PIR* P 900; P 899.

W.E.

Postumus [1] Roman ~ praenomen, like other numerical praenomina (+ Quintus) given to a child according to the order of his birth; the adjective postumus (‘last’) refers to the birth ‘after the father’s death’ (cf. P. [2]). The use of the name as a praenomen is evident in Rome up to the 3rd cent. BC, after that only as a > cognomen. The wider geographical spread of * Postumo- as an Ital-

to Livy (4,23,6,)

ic personal name can be concluded from its Etruscan

+ magister equitum to the dictator Mamercus Aemilius in 434 BC, although this dictatorship is probably unhistorical; the office is presumably attributed to P. only because of his own dictatorship, which he held — unusually, without previously holding high office — in 432 (Diod. Sic. 12,64,1) or 431 (Liv. 4,31,4: on the possible domestic political background to P.’s appointment [1. 945f.]). As > dictator, P. defeated and triumphed over the Aequi (and the Volsci) (Diod. Sic. 12,64,1-3; Liv. 4,26,1-29,8); having his own son executed for insubordination may be entirely historical, despite parallels with the better-known case of T. Manlius [I 12] Torquatus [2. 576f.].

derivative, where it led to the formation of a nomen gentile, Pustmi-na- (CIE 8715), the equivalent to the Roman Postumuus.

[117]

P. Tubertus,

A. According

1 F. MUNZER,s. v. P. (63), RE22, 945-948 2 R. M. OciLvie, A Commentary on Livy, Books 1-5, *1970. C.MU.

Il. IMPERIAL PERIOD [111] P.P. Acilianus. Equestrian, presumably from Astigi (CIL II* 7, 285). After his equestrian militiae he became — procurator of Achaia, and probably thereupon procurator in Syria, provided no other procuratorship intervened. In Syria he served in the year AD 102. PIR* P 883. [I 2] M. P. Festus. Senator from Africa, from a city not far from Cirta. Possibly a homo novus, whose advancement may have been due to Cornelius + Fronto [6], who for his part recommended him to his fellow citizens as a patron. Cos. suff. in AD 160; appointed proconsul of Asia but probably d. before taking office; his grandson T. Flavius P. [II 5] Titianus praised his eloquence in Latin and Greek (ILS 2929; cf. 2941). PIR* P 886. (I. 3] (T. Flavius) P. Quietus. Of patrician rank, his career is probably transmitted in CIL VI 1419 = 41 224. Cos. ord. in AD 272. PIR* 890. {I 4] P. Terentianus. Educated young Roman, dedica-

tee of the anonymous writing Peri hypsous (On the Sublime; > Pseudo-Longinus). PIR* P 898.

SALOMIES, 42-44.

[2] In Roman

D.ST.

law according to the Twelve Tables

(> Tabulae duodecim, 4,4), a child born within ro months (295 days according to the ancient Roman calendar) after the death of the > pater familias was seen as legitimate, because he or she was considered to have been fathered by the testator and would have been under his parental authority if born earlier. Whether a child born later was still subject to the same ruling, was a matter of dispute amongst Roman legal experts (Gell. NA 3,16,233 Dig. 38,16,3,11). As suus heres (legal heir; — sui heredes), a posthumous child had the right to intestate inheritance (— intestatus) and could be named in the testament (— testamentum) as an heir. A testament

that made no mention of a postumus was rendered invalid on the grounds of > praeteritio (‘passing over’). To avoid this, it was customary for testaments to mention potential postumi (si mihi filius genitur in X mensibus, unus pluresve, is mihi heres/exheres esto, “a child

or children born to me within ten months shall be my legal heir/shall be disinherited”‘:’ Cic. Inv. 2,42,122; Gell. NA 3,16,13). From C. > Aquillius [I 12] Gallus

(xst cent. BC) a grandchild, fathered by a predeceased son of the testator, enjoyed the same legal rights of a postumus, if he was born after the death of his grandfather, for the reason that he would still have been under the testator’s authority if he had been born earlier, only to leave this authority with the latter’s death, thus qualifying as a suus heres (postumus Aquilianus). The lex Iunia Vellaea (under Tiberius) defined the following as postumi: (1) a child of the testator, conceived before the execution of a will and born subsequently, but prior to the testator’s death, (2) a grandchild alive at the execution of the will, but whose father was no longer subject to the testator’s > patria potestas

POSTUMUS

700

699

either due to death or emancipation (postumus Vellaeanus). Salvius — lulianus [1] added a grandchild born after the execution of a will but before his father’s death, whose father had left the testator’s authority prior to the latter’s death (postumus Iulianus). All of these postumi could be considered in a testament, but could also render it invalid, if no such consideration was made (> praeteritio). However, if someone had become subject to the testator’s authority after the execution of the will as the result of a legal transaction (> Adoption), this testament was invalid, even if this person was mentioned by name, because the testator had not considered him in his capacity as swus. In the case of succession, children of other people, conceived but not yet born (postumi alient), were of no influence regarding the validity of the testament. Furthermore, as personae incertae (‘persons unknown’) under the provision of the ius civile they could not be named heir; however, if they had been named, the praetor granted them > bonorum possessio secundum tabulas (“possession of property according to the testament”). Justinian (Inst. ust. 3,9 pr.; Cod. Tust. 6,48,1) allowed postumi alieni to be named and => fideicommissum even granted to persons who were not yet even conceived at the time of the testator’s death (Dig. 31,32,6, the final clause is a Justinianic > interpolation); Nov. 159,2 (of AD 555) limited this to four generations. — Succession, laws of 1 HONSELL/MAYER-MALY/SELB, 459-460, 463 2 KASER, RPR 1, 684-685, 695, 706; 2, 487-488, 513-514 3F. LAMBERTI, Studi sui ‘postumi’ nell’esperienza giuridica romana, vol. 1, 1996 4U. RopsE, I ‘postumi’ nella successione testamentaria romana, 1937. UM.

[3] Imperator Caesar M. Cassianius Latinius Postumus

Pius Felix Invictus Augustus (e.g. AE 1958, 58). Founder of the Imperium Galliarum (AD 260-269). Of low birth (Eutr. 9,9,1), possibly of Gallic descent, P. served as praeses provinciae Germaniae inferioris under — Gallienus (SHA Trig. Tyr. 3,9; Zos. 1,38,2; Aur. Vict.

Caes. 33,8; Zon. 12,24 D.; [1. 222ff.]). After a victory over the > Franci, the capture of > Colonia Agrippinensis (Cologne) and the elimination of — Licinius [Il 6] Saloninus, he was proclaimed Augustus in AD 260. P. soon found recognition in Gaul, Britain and Spain, possibly also in Raetia (AE 1993, 1231). He set up these regions to form the ‘Gallic Empire’ with their own consuls, praetorian guard and probably also a Senate in the capital Colonia Agrippinensis. P. himself assumed the regular titles of Roman emperors, evident in the numerous and at times lavish coins issued on his behalf (e.g. RIC 5,2. 328-368; [2. 27-47 and plates 1-14]); however, in contrast with usual usurpatory practice, he had no intention of imposing his rule in the entire empire by military means. He succeeded in effectively securing the Rhine border (> Limes III, with map) against continuous incursions by Germanic tribes and in promoting trade, economy, jurisdiction and communication in his part of the em-

pire. After 263, P. suffered several military defeats by Gallienus and > Aureolus, but they never succeeded in re-integrating his Gallic empire into the empire as a whole. After > Laelianus had been proclaimed Augustus by the legions in Mogontiacum (Mainz) in 269, P. defeated him in a battle close to the city. However, not long after, probably in May/June 269, P. was himself killed by malcontent legionaries, because he had forbidden them from plundering and pillaging Mogontiacum (Eutr. 9,9; 9,11; Aur. Vict. Caes. 33,8; [Aur. Vict.] Epit. Caes. 32,3; SHA Trig. Tyr. 3,1-11; Zon. 12,24 D.; Zos. TieA'Os i)

1 Eck, Statthalter 2B. ScHuLTE, Die Goldpragung der gallischen Kaiser von P. bis Tetricus, 1983. J. F. Drinkwater, The Gallic Empire, 1987; K1reNasT’,

243f.; I. KONG, Die gallischen Usurpatoren von P. bis Tetricus, 1981;J.LaFAuRIE, L’empire Gaulois, in: ANRW II 2, 1975, 853-1012; PIR* C 466; PLRE 1, 720 (P. 2).

TE.

Postverta (Postvorta) was venerated as an aspect of + Carmentis, the soothsaying goddess of childbirth. Varro (Antiquitates rerum divinarum 103 CARDAUNS)

explained her name from the reversed position of the child ina breech delivery. According to Ov. Fast. 1,63 3636 (cf. Hyg. in Macrob.

Sat. 1,7,20), however, the

name indicates the goddess’ knowledge of the future. P. was the counterpart of > Prorsa, > Porrima and Antevorta. F. BOMER, P. Ovidius Naso, Die Fasten, 1958, vol. 2, 525 DUMEZIL, 385; RADKE, 259-261.

K.SCHL.

Potaissa (Ptol. 3,8,7: Mateovuwoa/Patrouissa; Geogr. Rav. 4,14: Potabissa; CIL III 1627; CIL III 2086: Patavisensis). Settlement in Dacia Porolossensis to the southeast of > Napoca, modern Turda (district of Cluj

in Romania). The significance of P. consisted in tary garrison, which from the outbreak of the manni Wars in AD 168/9 was formed by the Macedonica. The original vicus gained size and

its miliMarcolegio V signifi-

cance after the rise of the > Canabae (cf. > Logistics).

From Septimius Severus (AD 193-211) the civil settlement received municipal status. The population was ethnically mixed: besides Roman settlers in P., a local Daco-Getic stratum has been demonstrated. Nearby there were salt mines. Archaeological remains: stone warehouses in the southwest of Turda, buildings (temple, basilica) and necropoleis. C. Darcoviciv,

s. v. P., RE 22, ror4—1020;

L. MarRI-

NESCU, S. v. P., PE, 733; TIR L 34 Budapest, 1968, 93 (with older bibliogr.).

J.BU.

Potamiaena (Ilotauuaive/Potamiaina). Martyr (died c. AD 360; feast 7 or 28 June). Pupil of > Origenes [1] in Alexandria. According to an account by Eusebius [7] (Eus. HE 6,4) she suffered martyrdom under — Septimius Severus (193-211). She converted the soldier

7O1

702

Basileides who escorted her to her execution. Together with her mother Marcella she was executed by having hot pitch poured over her. After three days she is supposed to have appeared to Basileides, who was arrested for his conversion and then also martyred.

for P., it was not in the Potami valley north of Thoricus but outside the Attic mining region, possibly to the east of Ceratea, and bordering Deiradiotae [4. 24]. This would not be contradicted by Str. 9,1,22, which mentions a P. between Thoricus and Prasiae (cf. Plin. HN

J. BOLLANDus, G. HENSCHENIUS (eds.), Acta sanctorum, vols. 1, 1643ff.; 2, 1742, 6f.; 5, 1744, 355ff.; R. KNopr, G. KrUGER

(eds.), Ausgewahlte

Martyrerakten,

44f.

+1929,

KSA.

Potamon (Ilotauwv/Potdmon). Rhetor from Mytilene in Lesbos, son of the philosopher Lesbonax, known from the Suda (s. v. I., Lesbonax and Theodorus of Gadara), mentioned in Seneca (Suas. 2,15f.), Strabo (13,2,3), Lucian (Macr. 23) and several inscriptions (cf.

[x]). His life-span (90 years according to Lucian I. c.) reached probably from the 70s BC into the early reign of Tiberius. Three times he led a legation from his home

POTHEINUS

4,24). Paus. 1,31,3, attesting a burial monument of Ion,

rerers;to) Ps (3): 1M. K. LanGpon, Hymettiana 1, in: Hesperia 54, 1985, 257-270 2J. OBER, Rock-Cut Inscriptions from Mount Hymettos, in: Hesperia 50, 1980, 68-77 3J.S. TRAILL, Demos and Trittys, 1986, 14f., 55, 61, 67, 69, 117, 130 with n. 23. 4. E. VANDERPOOL, A South Attic Miscellany, in: H. F. Musscue, P. Sprraets (eds.), Thorikos and the Laurion in Archaic and Classical Times, in: Miscellanea Graeca, vol. 1, 1975, 1-42.

TRAILL, Attica, 8, 29 with n. 10, 44f. with n. 18, 59, 62, 69f., 112 no. 118-120,

134, pl. 4, 11, 12; WHITEHEAD,

Index s. v. Potamos

H.LO.

city, twice to Caesar (in 47 and 45 BC), once to Augu-

stus (in 27 or 25); his application for the position of teacher to the later emperor Tiberius also betrays good relations with the Roman leadership. > Theodorus of Gadara, however, was preferred to him. In Mytilene he enjoyed the highest esteem. The Suda mentions the following works: a history of Alexander [4], a local history of Samos, ‘The Perfect Rhetor’, and speeches in praise of Brutus and Caesar; Sen. Suas. 2,16 mentions the traditional theme of Leonidas and Thermopylae as the subject of one of P.’s declamations (De trecentis;

picium, which provided the oldest designation of magisterial power at Rome, and the more restricted > imperium, potestas did not only indicate the content of official power (cf. R. Gest. div. Aug. 34), but also, and esp., served as a reference parameter in the official hierarchy: it regulated the relationships among the Roman magistrates in the interests of the aristocratic society by means of the qualifying terms maior (‘great-

— Leonidas [1]); there are no frr.

er’), par (‘equal’) and minor

1 W. STEGEMANN, Ss. Vv. P. (3), RE 22, 1023-1027.

FGrH 147; PIR *P 675.

Potamophylax (xotapopbiak/potamophylax, ‘river guard’). The potamophylakes (Ptolemaic officials) used guard boats (attested from the 2nd cent. BC on) to

guard the Nile, its branches (in the Delta) and the canals

of Alexandria up to Syene (Aswan). They occasionally also carried urgent letters and were put to service collecting tolls and taxes. The potamophylakes were conscripted into service; the office of potamophylax was a — liturgy. E. KIgssLInG, s. v. P., RE 22, 10209f.

Potamus

(Ilotaydc/Potamds). Name

JRE.

borne by three

Attic demes of the phyle> Leontis: (1) and (2) were asty

demes in the upper Ilissus valley, divided into Upper P. (Il. xaOumeo0ev/P. kathyperthen) at the Kaisariani monastery with two bouleutai and Lower P. (II. bxéveo0ev/P. hypénerthen) in modern Panepistemioupolis with one or two bouleutai, from 307/6 to 201/200 BC in > Demetrias [2]. Boundary-rock inscriptions on Alepovouni [1; 2] presumably marked the border between Upper and Lower P. [3. 117]. (3) P. Deiradidtai (Tl. Aeipaéi@ta). Paralia deme, from 307/6 to 201/o0 BC allocated to the phyle> Antigonis, two bouleutai. Since no ore mines are recorded

Potestas. Abstract term for the official powers of the Roman magistrates (> magistratus). In contrast to aus-

(‘lesser’). Par potestas stood for the principle of collegiality which enabled official colleagues of equal rank (e.g. consuls) to control one another by means of the right of intercession (— intercessio I). The official actions of the other equal party could in this way be prevented or, if they already possessed the force of law, scrapped; they were then considered never to have been issued. This intra-official control mechanism compelled equal magistrates to cooperate. In a similar way, the superior power (maior potestas), e.g. of the > consul, could forbid acts emanating from a subordinate power (minor potestas), e.g. of the > praetor or > quaestor (right of suppression). This inter-official control mechanism prevented officials of lower rank from acting on their own authority. Potestas did not refer to a difference of rank between magistrates cum potestate and those cum imperio, since imperium represented a special authority alongside, and not superior to, potestas. + Magistratus; > Princeps; > Tribunus (plebis) J. BLeicKeN, Zum Begriff der r6mischen Amtsgewalt, 1981, 278-287; Id., Die Verfassung der romischen Republik, 71995, 98f., 103f.; W. KunKEL, Die Magistratur, 1995, 21f., 207-224. L.d.L.

Pothaeus see > Megacles [7] Potheinus

(IoOetvoc/Potheinos).

Eunuch,

nutricius

(‘tutor’) of > Ptolemaeus [20] XIII (Caes. B Civ. 3,108),

probably appointed guardian by the will of Ptolemy

793

704

[18] XII. His precise position at the court of Alexandria is unclear. If P. is indeed an amicus regis (Caes. B Civ. 3,104,1), this was probably not the same as one of the

siege to P. (Hdt. 8,126-129); in the battle of Plataeae (479), a contingent from P. fought on the side of the Corinthians (Hdt. 9,28,3; 31,3; Syll.? 31). As a member of the + Delian League, P. initially provided ships, shifting to monetary contribution only after 450; the original annual tribute of 6 talents was later raised to 15. In 433, Athens demanded that P. demolish part of its city wall, give hostages and break off relations with Corinth. After several months of negotiations with Athens on the one hand and Corinth and Sparta on the other and under the protection of the Macedonian king + Perdiccas [2], P. ultimately broke with Athens in the spring of 432. Surrounded after a battle lost to the Athenians, P. was besieged for two years until the inhabitants capitulated in the winter of 430/429 in return for assurance of free passage. The Athenians resettled the town and used it as a base as the > Peloponnesian War progressed (cf. Thuc. 1,56-65; 231,23; 583; 673 70; 793 4573 1201.3 129,33 135,13; Syl 74E£.). No later than the end of the war, P. was returned to its former inhabitants. Still confirmed in its independence in c. 390 (Syll.3 135, r8ff.), shortly before 382, P. became a member of the Chalcidian League, but went over to the Spartans the same year, who used it as a base in their war with > Olynthus (Xen. Hell. 5,2,24; 39; 3,6). In 364/3, Athens captured and secured P. by dispatching > klérotvichoi (Diod. Sic. 15,81,6; Syll.? 180), while P. remained formally free (IG IV* 1, 94 Ib 12). In 356, Philippus [4] Il conquered P., enslaved the nonAthenian inhabitants, and handed the city intact over to the Olynthians (Diod. Sic. 16,8,3; 5). On this site in 316, > Cassander founded Cassandrea, probably thought of as a capital, enlisting inhabitants of the former cities ofP.and Olynthus and from the towns of the Pallene and the region to the north of the isthmus to settle it (Diod. Sic. 19,52,2f.). From its beginning this new foundation was one of the most significant Macedonian cities. In the disputes after Cassander’s death (in 298) it changed occupiers several times; and after the death of Ptolemaeus [2] Ceraunus (279), it ultimately survived a rebellion of the under class, which ended with a reign of terror under Apollodorus, the leader of the uprising (Diod. Sic. 22,5). Antigonus [2] was not able to conquer the city until 276, now firmly part of the kingdom until the end of the Macedonian monarchy. P. was used as a naval harbour and arsenal in the first of the > Macedonian Wars (21 5205) and was besieged in vain in 199 and 169 by the Romans and their allies at the time (Liv. 28,8,14; 31,45,14f.; 44,10,11—-12,7). During the Triumvirate (after 43 BC), a Roman colonia was founded at Cassandrea. Under Augustus, it acquired further settlers and was given the name colonia Iulia Augusta Cassandrensis and the ius Italicum. In AD 269, it fended off a siege by the > Goti and their allies (Zos. 1,43,1). In 539/540, Cassandrea, its fortifications dilapidated, was captured by the Slavs and destroyed. Although Iustinianus [x] had the fortifications and the wall over the isthmus rebuilt (Procop.

POTHEINUS

+ court titles philos; Cassius Dio (42,36,1) describes

him as ten dioikésin ton tot Ptolemaiou chrémdton prostetagménos (‘administrator of the goods of Ptolemy’) — this may refer to the office of + dioikétes, which, however, P. can hardly have occupied before the end of July 48 BC. He may, however, have outranked the dioikétés as — epitropos [1] (App. B Civ. 2,84). Along with > Achillas and Theodotus, P. belonged to the group which, no later than the autumn of 50, ensured that Ptolemy XIII had a share of power, and which obtained a dominant role for the king from June 49 and saw to it that > Cleopatra [II 12] was driven out. In September 48, P. played an important part in the decision to kill Pompey (— Pompeius [I 3]) (Plut. Pompeius 77,2; Luc. 8,482-535) and thereafter attempted to protect the interests of an independent Egypt and the young Ptolemy XIII against > Caesar and Cleopatra. P. mobilized the Alexandrians against Caesar and summoned the army of Achillas to Alexandria. Even after the official reconciliation of Ptolemy and Cleopatra, he retained his link to Achillas, as well as attempting to incite Ptolemy XIII to military action — for which he was executed by Caesar in 48 (Cass. Dio 42,39,2; Caes. B Gives 2002)

The reference to a P. (PP VI 14621) in Plutarch (Antonius 60,1) is either propaganda of Octavian (> Augustus [1]) or an error on Plutarch’s part. H. Heinen, Rom und Agypten von 51-47 v. Chr., Diss. Tubingen 1966; L. Mooren, The Aulic Titulature in Pto-

lemaic Egypt, 1975, 72f. no. 028; PP V 14428; VI 14620. W.A.

Pothos (11d600¢/P6thos, Lat. Pothus). Daimon (> Demons); personification of pressing yearning, often for something distant; the initial distinction from — Eros [1] and > Himeros, longing for somebody or something present (Plat. Crat. 420a), becomes blurred in later times. P. is sometimes considered the son of Zephyrus or Eros (Plat. Symp. 197d) and > Kypris and the brother of > Peitho (Aeschyl. Supp. 103 8ff.). P. was also depicted among the followers of Aphrodite and Dionysus (Paus. 1,43,6; Plin. HN

36,25). An association

with death is also documented: P. is the name of a flower used to decorate graves (Theophr. Hist. pl. 6,8,3).

HE.B. Potidaea (Moteidata/Poteidaia). The Corinthian colony of P. was founded c. 600 BC on the Pallene [4] isthmus (western part of the Chalcidian peninsula) allegedly by a son of the tyrant + Periander (Nicolaus of Damascus FGrH 90 F 59). It began minting coins still in the 6th cent. and built a treasury shortly before 500 in > Delphi (Paus. r0,11,5). In 480 BC, it provided troops for Xerxes’ army (Hdt. 7,123,1; > Persian Wars), deserting him after his defeat at Salamis. In the winter of 480/479, the Persian Artabazus unsuccessfully laid

ies

706

Pers. 2,4,5; Procop. Aed. 4,3,21ff.), Cassandrea itself

red to state slaves [1. 213; 2. 60f.]. Conspicuous how-

did not rise again. Its name was transferred to the peninsula of Pallene, still called Kassandra today. The Alexander historian > Aristoboulus [7] and the comedian > Poseidippus [1], who had great success in Athens in the 3rd century BC, were also from P./Cassandrea.

ever is the absence of P. in the Fasti —[3. 293-308] and others concluded from this that the P. (from Lat. potiri

POTNIA

THERON

or potire, ‘seize power’; cf. [4]) were prisoners of war

ZAHRNT, Olynth und die Chalkidier, 1971, 214-218; F.

who had been handed over to the deity as a tithe from the booty. When their number fell below a particular limit, they were brought back to the necessary total number by the state in 3 12. In later times the cult on the Ara Maxima was endowed by the praetor urbanus (Varro, Ling. 6,54; CIL VI 313 =ILS 3402; with regard

PapazoGLou,

to Ara Maxima cf. [5]).

J. A. ALEXANDER, P., Its History and Remains, 1963; E.

MEYER, s. v. Poteidaia (1), RE Suppl. 10, 616-639; M.

romaine,

1988,

Les

villes

424-426;

de

Macédoine

M.B.

a l’époque

Hatzopoutos,

Une

donation du roi Lysimaque, 1988; Id., Le statut de Cassandrée a l’epoque hellénistique, in: Ancient Macedonia 5,

1993, 575-584.

M.Z.

1 Larre 2 R. M. Ocitvie, ACommentary on Livy, Books I-5,*1978 3R.E. A. Parmer, The Censors of 312 B. C. and the State Religion, in: Historia 14, 1965, 293-324 4 WALDE/HOFMANN 2, 350 5 F. COARELLI, s. v. Hercules invictus, ara maxima, in: LTUR 4, 1996, 15-17.

Potidania (Motetavia/Poteidania). City in Aetolia (> Aetolians, Aetolia, with map) in the lands of the Apodoti, identified with the ruins southeast of modern Kambos on the middle reaches of the Mornos river by liberation documents (SEG 41, 528) of 13 5/4 BC found there. Cf. Thuc. 3,96,2; Liv. 28,8,9. PRITCHETT 7, 49-52; D. STRAUCH, ROmische Politik und griechische Tradition, 1996, 301. DS.

Potin. French term for antimony, from which duced cast coins. The softness of lead lowers red degrees so that the low temperatures

an alloy of copper, tin, lead and the Celts in eastern Gaul prohigh proportion of tin and the the melting point to a few hundcoins could be cast at relatively

[1. 66]. Potin coins occur as anepi-

graphic, semiepigraphic and epigraphic types [1. 152184]. 1 A. BURKHARDT, W. B. STERN, G. HENNIG (eds.), Kelti-

sche Miinzen aus Basel. Numismatische und metallanalytische Untersuchungen, 1994

2 GOBL, vol. 1,37

3K.

GRuEL (ed.), Les potins gaulois: typologie, diffusion, chronologie, in: Gallia 52, 1995, 1-144 4 SCHROTTER, s. Va bs 5218.5 GES.

Potitii. Patrician family. According to tradition, the P. provided for a cult of > Hercules on the Ara Maxima in Rome

— together with the Pinarii (> Pinarius), with

respect to whom they took precedence. Supposedly at an extremely early time Hercules himself or > Evander [x] had entrusted the cult to them. In 3 12 BC, the censor Appius Claudius [I 2] Caecus converted it into a state cult (Verg. Aen. 8,268-72 with Serv. Aen. ad loc.; Liv. 1,7,8-15; 9,29,9-11; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1,40,1-5; Val. Max. 1,1,17; Macrob. Sat. 1,12,28; 3,6,12ff; Fest.

270). This transfer provoked the wrath of the gods so that, in one version, the P. with twelve adult family members died out within 30 days (Fest.), and according to another, the P. with twelve families and a total of 30 adults died out within a year (Liv.; Val. Max.), and Claudius himself went blind. If the tradition contains a historical kernel, the converse is probably true: the gens Potitia died out and the cult was subsequently transfer-

C.MU.

Potnia theron (Mlétwa. Ono@v/Potnia thérén, ‘Mistress of animals’). A. PRELIMINARY REMARK B,. LINGUISTIC CONSIDERATIONS C. MYTH AND ICONOGRAPHY D. FORM AND FUNCTION

A. PRELIMINARY REMARK In the study of Greek religion, the PT is the subject of several fundamental theses on the relationships between gods, humans and animals. The PT represented a vital experience in sacrifice and hunting, but also in the dangers of the human sphere of life: the sacralization of killing animals in order to save one’s own life. In India, on the other hand, the master of animals represented the prohibition against killing animals [1]. The PT, on the other hand, is the tie between the life of the hunters and the ‘wild’ deep dimension of ancient classical culture ([2; 3. 85-96]; critical: > Sacrifice I). The evidence

is too limited, however, to support such grand hypotheses. B. LINGUISTIC CONSIDERATIONS The expression ‘PT’ is found only in Hom. Il. 21,470 as an epithet of > Artemis. The lack of other attestations indicates that it was no (longer) a cultic epithet of this goddess (cf. Anac. PMG 348,3 déspoina thér6on). It is tempting to connect the epithet with the Mycenaean Potnia central to the Bronze Age > pantheon, but that goddess is distinct from Artamis and At(h)ana Potinija (> Athena A; discussion: [4]).

A distinction should be made between a genitive encompassing the mistress (e.g. potna thedon of Demeter as ‘mistress of the gods’, herself included: H. Hom. 2,118) and one opposing the mistress to those mastered. The first type is the basis of the ‘mistress of animals’ fable motif, the second of the mythical and iconographic motif of PT. C. MYTH AND ICONOGRAPHY In contrast to the ‘fable motif’ (cf. [5]), taming and domination of wild animals (+ Artemis C 1) is the central motif of Greek myths. These myths with their image

POTNIA THERON

708

707

Artemis (1965), in: K. MEULI, Gesammelte Schriften, vol.

of PT correspond to cultic reality, e.g. the zoo of + Circe in Hom. Od. 10,348ff. or the nymph Cyrene, who cultivates the land for a Greek polis by wrestling down a lion, like Heracles (Hes. fr. 215 M.-W.; Pind. P. 9;[6. 53-165]). The male master of animals is very rare (masculine form —ios not attested), although the Cretan Zeus > Zagreus in a cave on Mt. Ida comes close ([7. 2222-2231]: a find of shields and percussion instruments with the image of a man, represented in Assyrian style, his foot placed ona bull). Epithet [8. 22 note 22; 9. 56] and narrative and pictorial motifs are older, however, and contemporary examples can be found in the Ancient Orient. There is a rich PT iconography, with great differences in region and period (catalogues: [10. 99-131; II. 51-55, 129-154, 203-217; 12]. Mostly symmetrically placed between two wild animals, PT holds lions, griffins, stags or waterfowl. Power relations are expressed by size (anisocephaly). PT can also be represented as a naked goddess. The pictorial motif is attested in Crete in the Minoan period (~ Minoan culture and archaeology D 5) and again in the orientalizing pe-

Potniae

riod, also as ‘mountain mother’ (Eur. Kretes fr. 472,13

town c. 2 km south of > Thebes on the road to > Pla-

Nauck’ referring to the goddess alongside the Cretan Zeus/Zagreus; [13. 353]; male counterpart: [14]). The motif is also common in the Peloponnese in the Mycenaean period and again in the orientalizing period, primarily in Sparta and Corinth, radiating from there to colonies such as Corcyra [1]. The motif became ‘extinct’ in the second half of the 6th cent. BC [1z. 211].

taeae (Xen. Hell. 5,4,51) at the modern Tachi, with

D. FORM AND FUNCTION

Older religious studies models considered PT Greek ‘proof’ of an early stage of the human evolution from hunting to civilization (see A above) and an indicator of

animism: she was the theriomorphic bearer of the souls of the dead, the hunting of which was taboo. PT, however, provides no basis for reconstructing a hunter culture. She is not, therefore, a Greek expression of a psychological situation originating spontaneously in all hunter cultures. This raises the issue of her adoption from ancient oriental images and ideas: whereas in the Ancient Orient the power to dominate (also of a king

2, 1975, 1083-1118

3 W. BuRKERT, Homo necans, 1972

4M. Gérarp Rousseau, Les mentions religieuses dans les tablettes mycéniennes, 1968 5 L. ROHRICH, s. v. Herr der Tiere, EDM 6, 1990, 866-879 6F. STUDNICZKA, Kyrene. Eine altgriechische Gottin, 1890 7 W. FAUTH, s. v. Zagreus, RE 9 A 2, 2221-2283, esp. 2225

8 W. Bur-

KERT, Die orientalisierende Epoche in der griechischen Religion und Literatur, 1984 9M.L. West, The East Face of Helicon, 1996 10 E. Spartz, Das Wappenbild des Herrn und der Herrin der Tiere in der minoisch-mykenischen und friihgriechischen Kunst (diss. Miinchen), 1964 11 P. MULLER, Lowen und Mischwesen in der archaischen griechischen Kunst (diss. Ziirich), 1978 12 N. IcarpGIANIOLI, s. v. PT, LIMC 8, roz1-1027 13 NILSSON, MMR 14 E. Hattacer, The Master Impression (Studies

in Mediterranean Archaeology 69), 1985

15 C. CHRIS-

TOU, PT, 1968.

P. BLomgE, Die figiirliche Bilderwelt in der geometrischen und friiharchaischen Periode, 1982; H. P. DUrr, Sedna, Oder: die Liebe zum Leben, *1985, 128-208. CA.

(Ilotwwa/Potniai,

Motai/Potniai).

Boeotian

sanctuaries of Demeter, Kore and Dionysus Aigobolos, and a spring whose waters were said to madden horses (Paus. 9,8,1; Str. 9,2,24; Verg. G. 3,266ff.; Ael. NA 15,25). It was identified with the Hypothebae mentioned in Hom. Il. 2,505 (Str. 9,2,32). At the outbreak of the > Peloponnesian War, the population of the unfortified town, which belonged to one of the Thebancontrolled districts of the Boeotian League, was evacuated to Thebes (Hell. Oxy. 20,3,439). Fossey, 208-210; N. D. PAPACHATZIS, Tavoaviovu “EhAadoc Teguyynots 5, *1981, 65-69; SCHACHTER 1, 159f.,

182; P. W. Wattace, 1979, 936.

Strabo’s Description

of Boiotia, PF.

Potters I. INTRODUCTION, ORIGINS, SOCIAL POSITION II. ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL PERIODS III. HELLENISTIC AND IMPERIAL PERIODS II. ANCIENT CLASSICAL AND ADJACENT CULTURES

over (esp. ‘wild’) people) and to tame is a central motif,

the image of PT in orientalizing Greece oscillates rather ambivalently between ‘bringing death’ and ‘warding off death’ (cf. [15. 178]). She cannot be understood as a personification of a (reconstructed) comprehensive Bronze Age deity, nor is she identical with any one Olympic deity or any particular nameless female daemon (cf. [13. 352-388]). Only in the cults of Idaean Zeus and Artemis > Orthia in Sparta and Corcyra does the idea of a master or mistress over animals appear firmly connected with a cult. The motif from the Ancient Orient, shaped by indigenous artists, is used as an ‘icon’, which, however, does not assume the import of concomitant ancient oriental religious ideas. 1E. Horsretrer,

1980

Der Herr der Tiere im Alten Indien,

2K. MEuLI, Die Baumbestattung und die Gottin

I. INTRODUCTION, ORIGINS, SOCIAL POSITION The potter (xegapev¢/kerameus, Lat. figulus) carried

out his artistic work at the > potter’s wheel and in the creation of clay patrices (prototypes), models and sculptural ornamentation, though the profession included production processes such as mining and preparing the clay, painting, firing and selling the products. Despite at times enjoying good economic circumstances, the potter’s position in society remained modest; in Athens he was ranked amongst the > thétes, > zeugitai or metics (+ métoikos) and the lamp maker was evidently placed last (Philetaerus [1], cf. [z. 20,4]). On the other hand, the numerous potters’ votive offerings which have been found on the Acropolis are evidence of the economic upturn of the pottery trade in

709

710

Athens around 500 BC. The status which the Attic pot-

Evidently both products could be found in the workshop of the Athenian Ariston. Names now appeared frequently in the genitive case, and the word » ergasterion (‘workshop’) must be supplemented: the signature became a trade name of the factory which was also increasingly expressed in monograms. Signatures on reliefs were most common. In the Imperial Era the number of known potters’ names rises significantly. Company stamps of the most diverse shapes are innovative and standard on > terra sigillata. The genitive of the name refers usually to the officina (‘workshop’) and indicates the proprietor; the ‘slave artists’ who in many cases were Greek signed in

ters Bacchius und Cittus attained in the 4th cent. BC is

also remarkable; their workshop produced > Panathenaic prize amphorae on behalf of the city of Athens

[2]. Il]. ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL PERIODS Signing commences in the 7th cent. BC and is usually combined with the verb éxoinoev/epotésen (‘made’), also m’epoiésen (‘made me’) early on. The oldest Greek examples are concentrated in Euboea [1] and the west (cf. [3]). Somewhat later, the frequency of potters’ signatures becomes conspicuous on east Greek pots. In the early 6th cent., a group of finely worked Boeotian ~ figurine vases features numerous potters’ signatures [4]. Whilst the Corinthian potters seldom signed their wares despite considerable commercial successes, the signing increaséd rapidly in Athens in the course of the 6th cent. BC with the growing popularity of the Attic vases: ~— Sophilus [1], + Nearchus [1], — Execias, ~ Nicosthenes, Amasis (+ Amasis Painter), Andocides (— Andocides Painter). After 530 BC the potter, as the master craftsman of a workshop, often employed several — vase painters; according to the information from the signatures, the painters could also switch potters. As early as the 6th cent., shallow drinking cups were among the most desired pottery products; as favoured export commodities they bear signatures with particular frequency (— Little-Master cups). As clearly successful potters, Cachrylion, Euergides, Hischylus and Pamphaeus [5] traded in shallow cups of the later type (> Pottery, shapes and types of, figs. D 2-3). This tradition continued in the sth cent.: in addition to — Euphronius [2], Brygus (> Brygus Painter), Python (cf. also — Duris [2]) or Hieron (cf. - Macron) ran flourishing shallow-cup potteries. However, most vessels remained unsigned; only a few potters made a rule of signing their wares, often to be interpreted as pride in their own achievement. It is not by chance, for example, that the highquality geometric vessels of Charinus or Sotades (cf. + Sotades Painter) regularly bear clearly visible signatures. All told, c. 100 transmitted potters’ names are found on Attic vases, against c. 40 painters’ names — an indication of the priority given to the potter in the production process [6]. On the other hand, the unsigned ceuvre of leading Attic potters is still hardly completely collated, as the distinguishing marks of a personal design are ascertainable only in a limited way for ware thrown on the wheel [7]. III]. HELLENISTIC AND IMPERIAL PERIODS In the Hellenistic Period the matrix procedure, i.e. the production of clay vessels from bowl-shaped moulds, placed potteries on a new footing in the way in which they organized their work. Signatures are found in particular on matrix ware of the 2nd and rst cents. BC — on goblets with reliefs as well as on clay lamps.

POTTER’S ORACLE

the nominative. Successful factory owners in Arretium were Cn. Ateius, P. Cornelius and M. Perennius, among others. In the Roman provinces, Latin potters’ signa-

tures testify in considerable number to the expansion of the Arretine business, although local potters with names such as Contouca, Lepta, Urvoed or Masclus,

documented in Gallia, were increasingly working with them. ~» Pottery; > Pottery, production of; > Pottery, shapes and types of; > Pottery trade; > terra sigillata; > clay vessels; > Vase painters 1 J. M. EpMonps (ed.), Fragments of Attic Comedy, vol. 2, 1959 2M. Bentz, Panathenaische Preisamphoren, 1998, 27-31 3LSAG, 88, no. 22 (Pyrrhus); 234, no. 2 (Kallikrates); 241, no. 24 (Aristonothus) 41. K. RausirSCHEK, Early Boeotian Potters, in: Hesperia 35, 1966,

154-165 5H.R. IMMERwanR, The Signatures of Pamphaios, in: AJA 88, 1984, 341-352 6 BEAZLEY, ABV, 847-851; ARV*, 1553-1558

7H. MomMsEN, AMAXIZ

METIOIEZEN. Beobachtungen zum Toépfer Amasis, in: J. Oakey et al. (ed.), Athenian Potters and Painters, 1997,

17-34. J. C. Hoppin, A Handbook of Greek Black-Figured Vases, 1924; J.D. Beaziey, Potter and Painter in Ancient Athens, (1944) 71949; A. Oxf, H. Comrort, Corpus Vasorum Arretinorum, 1968; G. SIEBERT, Signatures d’ar-

tistes, d’artisans et de fabricants dans |’antiquité classique, in: Ktema 3, 1978,

111-131; D. P. S. PEACOCK, Pottery in

the Roman World. An Ethnoarcheological Approach, 1982; G. Zimmer, Antike Werkstattbilder, 1982; B. COHEN, The Literate Potter. A Tradition of Incised Signatures on Attic Vases, in: Metropolitan Mus. Journ. 26,

1991, 49-95; D. WILLtaMs, Potter, Painter and Purchaser, in: A. VERBANCK-PIE£RARD, D. Viviers (ed.), Culture et Cité, 1995, 139-160; T. SCHREIBER, Athenian Vase Construction, 1999. LS.

Potter’s oracle. Prophetic oracle, fragments transmitted in three Greek papyri of the 2nd and 3rd cents. AD (texts in [1. 195-209]; partly translated in [4. 412415]; on Imperial Period interest in the PO see [3. 194199]). On the ‘Island of the Sun’ a potter sent by > Thot unfolds, in the presence of a (fictional) king Amenophis (as spokesman of Chmunthe god of pottery? [x. 184 f.]), a terrible portrayal of the physical and moral decline of Egypt and its inhabitants [2. 168-170] ina period of foreign rule and foretells the arrival of a king

POTTER’S ORACLE

Gi)

Ga

who brings prosperity after the self-destructive fall of the foreigners. The PO is an oracle of resistance, certainly composed by Egyptian priests and directed against the (foreign) rule of the + Ptolemies. The time of its creation uncertain, the extant version was probably revised between 130 and 116 BC, perhaps by priests from > Hermupolis [2. 177 f.]. This is shown by allusions to > Harsiesis, a king who reigned 2 years and was killed in 130; the civil war between Ptolemy [12] VIII and Cleopatra [II 5] II; and the death of Ptolemy VIII (in 16 BC), who had ruled 54 years (the expected saviour-king was supposed to reign 55 years). 1 L. KoENeEN, Die Prophezeiungen des ‘Tépfers’, in: ZPE 2, 1968, 178-209 2 W. Huss, Der makedonische Konig und die agyptischen Priester, 1994, 165-179 3D. S. PorTER, Prophets and Emperors, 1994, 184-199 4 J.-D. GauGER (ed.), Sibyllinische Weissagungen, 1998, 404Ax: W.ED.

Potter’s wheel. The PW was used in three ways when producing — pottery: at high speeds as a PW, at low speeds as a PW for the > dolium and — pithos and, probably originally, for hand shaping in an almost stationary condition. At a low speed, the PW served as an auxiliary tool in a method of production probably still largely based on manual shaping. At high speeds, rotating at 50-150 rpm, the PW brought centrifugal forces to bear, accelerating the turning process over longer periods. There were three simple forms of the PW in antiquity. The earliest comes from — Ur (Uruk period, from

c. 3500 BC): a PW turning about a fixed axle mounted in the ground. From the 2nd millennium BC, there was a PW with a fixed axle which turned in a base. Thereafter, in Iron Age Greece and Italy, a more stable and larger PW developed with an elongated tube in which an axle, which was fixed to the ground, was sunk. The high-speed PW represented an important technological advance in ceramic production by permitting mass production for the first time. V. G. CHILDE, Rotary motion, in: C. SINGER, E. J. Ho1MYARD, A. R. HALL (ed.), History of Technology I, 1954, 187;R. Hamre, A. WINTER, Bei T6pfern und Topferinnen

mixture that hardens by itself, can be considered a precursor of pottery. Pottery, at first exclusively and later also partially, was freely formed. The introduction of the — potter’s wheel during the 5th or 4th millennium BC set in motion the mass production of pottery in the late 4th millennium. Scientific analyses confirm a plurality of clay mixtures, which in some cases were linked to pottery uses such as cooking pots and water flasks where a degree of porosity is required to create a cooling effect. Standardization is evident in regularly recurring forms. The readiness with which clay can be shaped and decorated by incising, coloured slips and painting allowed individuals and groups to identify themselves from the start of production. Currently, shared forms and decorations are used particularly to differentiate illiterate cultures from one another. The find context and tracing of residues in pottery occasionally permit conclusions regarding its purpose. Pottery was used in all spheres of life: household, temple, burial, ritual, commerce, storage, as ration vessels, etc. Ancient Near Eastern texts also contribute

valuable information in this regard, but they place the main emphasis on describing the content and not the actual pottery. In iconography, vessels are often identifiable as pottery, both in connexion with their manufacture (?) and with the processing and storage of foods. In the archaic tablets of + Uruk (early 4th millennium BC), cuneiform symbols show pottery that exactly corresponds to archaeological finds. Easy variability in shape and decoration fostered locally and chronologically distinguishable modifications that permit dating of even small clay shards. Pottery, found mostly as shards and rarely complete (mostly in graves), thus becomes an important dating instrument in archaeology. It is used particularly in surface studies to determine the age of buried settlements. P. R. S. Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, 1994; W. SALLABERGER, Der babylonische Topfer und seine GefafSe, 1996; P.M. Rice, Pottery Analysis. A Sourcebook, 1987; S. E. vAN DER LEEUW, A. C. PRITCHARD (ed.), The Many Dimensions of Pottery,

1984; D. ARNOLD, s. v. Keramik, LA 3, 1980, 392-409. AR. HA.

in Kreta, Messenien und Zypern, 1962; A. RIETH, 5000

Jahre Toépferscheibe, 1960; O. S. Rye, Pottery Technology. Principles and Reconstruction, 1981. RD.

Il. ANCIENT CLASSICAL AND ADJACENT CUL-

TURES A. FINE WARE

B. PLAIN WARE

Pottery I, ANCIENT

ORIENT

II. ANCIENT

CLASSICAL AND

A. FINE WARE

ADJACENT CULTURES

I. ANCIENT ORIENT Soon after clay appeared as a working material in the Near East at the end of the Pre-pottery Neolithic (PPNB, c. 7th millennium BC), pottery production began in the Pottery Neolithic (6th millennium BC). Previously, vessels had been made exclusively from organic materials (e.g., wood, leather) or stone. So-called ‘white ware’, of a naturally occurring lime and marl

1. DEFINITION Ancient fine ware is differentiated from plain ware by its careful potting technique, fine clay mixtures, dense, usually glossy glazes (> Pottery, production of) and, frequently, rich decoration in the form ofpaintings and reliefs. The variety of the preserved inventory reflects this. Painted Greek vases, some Hellenistic genres and the imperial > terra sigillata were much in demand as quality products in all parts of the ancient world.

7X3

Their value was ranked below that of bronze and precious metal vessels but surpassed them by offering a broader range of products and greater variety of images. 2. RESEARCH Ancient fine ware has survived in huge quantities. The preserved inventories of black- and red-figured fine ware alone are estimated at 60,000 vessels. The vast

bulk of painted Greek ware comes from Etruria, where it survived the ravages of time unharmed in spacious chamber tombs. The systematic description and classification of Greco-Roman fine ware began in the mid r9th cent. Classification criteria are vessel shape and type (— Pottery, shapes and types of, with figs.), chronological position, place of manufacture and workshop. Many genres are also defined by decorative techniques and motifs. Since 1923, CVA, an interna-

tional compilation of vases, has classified all museum inventories of ancient Mediterranean fine ware by genre, with on-going publication and documentation. Distinguishing characteristics and rapid changes in form aid clear-cut dating of fine ware; relatively stark variation still exists, apart from the early period, in the 7th cent. and the Hellenistic Period [1]. Find densities and workshop finds provide initial indicators for localizing pottery genres. The origin of some pottery of the 7th-6th cents. can also be determined from vase inscriptions (dialects, letter forms). Distinctions between

regional styles by vessel type and painting are now largely certain for this period (see below II. A. 3.). Pottery debris finds and factory stamps afford far greater precision in determining sites where terra sigillata was produced. As a supplement, modern archaeology also uses the archaeometric method of clay analysis for localizing pottery [2; 3]. The isolation of individual styles has proven an esp. distinctive method of attributing pottery to individual workshops and manufacturers in Greek and esp. Attic vase painting (— Vase painters). The extraordinary wealth of images on Greek vases with figure painting also requires specialized iconographic research (see below II. A. 4.). Since large amounts of pottery were initially found in Etruscan + necropoleis [VII], their pictorial themes were long related exclusively to the cult of the dead (~ Dead, cult of the) [4]. More recent research has emphasized the polyvalence of the images. Apart from individual questions of iconography, the iconological aspects of semiotics, anthropology [5] and sociology [6] are of interest. Otherwise, apart from the continuous refinement of identification methods, current interest in pottery emphasizes functional questions as well as the cultural and historical context. Since pottery was an object manufactured and traded, it has always been tied into contexts of daily life that must be reconstructed. This applies equally to the archaeological context in necropoleis [7] and sanctuaries [8], settlement areas and public buildings [9]. The attempt to use pottery as a source of economic history is being revived with the corollary recognition that certain phenomena in the history of pottery are due primarily to economic processes.

714

POTTERY 3. EPOCHS AND GENRES A) CRETAN-MYCENAEAN

CULTURE

The amount of fine turned pottery (— Potter’s wheel) rapidly increased in the Aegean from the 2nd millennium BC. In Crete, the Kamares vases, named after the

location of their discovery, are the first to exhibit an elevated quality. The dark-sided, red-and-white painted pottery bears rosettes, spirals and undulating lines as its preferred ornaments. After c. 1700 BC, large, naturalistically decorated fine ware was created in the New Palace Period, which was partially decorated with floral motifs such as palms, lilies, grasses and partially in the marine style with nautiluses, octopi, dolphins and cor-

als. This coloured painting over a dark slip gradually gave way to the opulent black-glaze painting over a clay ground. Its nature motifs were transferred during the 15th cent. BC to the more strict forms of the palace style and rigidified in the Late Minoan style (> Minoan culture and archaeology). On the mainland during the 2nd millennium, Middle Helladic pottery still differed considerably from contemporary Middle Minoan ware. Particularly characteristic is the light-coloured Minyan ware; its chief form is a single-handled chalice on a high foot. This stylistic development runs parallel with the Minoan style only after c. 1600 BC, with the Late Helladic Period being equivalent to Minoan-Mycenaean J-III. In the Late Mycenaean Period (13th—-12th cents. BC), conventional motifs became simplified beyond recognition, but a novel, narrative figure-painting style also appeared, as exemplified on the Warrior Vase from Mycenae. The impoverished Submycenaean and Subminoan fine ware reveals a general economic and cultural low point. Overall, Mycenaean pottery is more widely distributed than Minoan and surpasses its technical quality (> CRETAN-MYCENAEAN ARCHAEOLOGY; Aegean Koine, with maps). B) EARLY GREEK PERIOD (I11TH-7TH CENTS.

BC) After the decline of the Cretan-Mycenaean culture, the Protogeometric style signals a new period c. 1000 BC. Innovative vessel forms included the amphora, pitcher and lekythos, which subsequently continued as the main Greek types. C. 900 BC saw the advent of > Geometric pottery with dense ornament zones (> Ornaments). The main motifs were the > meander [1], circle, rhomboid chain and checkerboard. In the 8th cent., figural representations in the image zone and frieze were added; they disrupted the old decorative systems c. 700 BC. Simultaneously, the > orientalizing vase painting style with a new ornament system emerged (palm leaf, lotus, rosette, braided band). The geometric figurative style of ciphers changed to more organic forms with rich detail that used new painting techniques such as the outline and reserve technique, polychromy and the black-figured technique, which used incising and applied colours (— Proto-Corinthian vases). Local styles are already evident in geometric pottery and reflect the gradual consolidation of the polis states [10].

TES

716

They only become more pronounced in the 7th cent. BC. Towns engaged in maritime commerce, such as the favourably located port city of > Corinthus as well as

D) CLASSICAL PERIOD (5TH-4TH CENTS. BC) The invention of the red-figured painting style and consistent quality continued to secure Attic fine ware a leading position in overseas markets even after the Persian invasion in 480 BC, while the red-figured technique found only weak imitators in Corinth, Boeotia and other areas. Some Attic potteries continued to specialize in bowls and smaller drinking vessels while others produced in considerable quantities krateres, stamnoi and pelikes (cf. krater; > stamnos; + Amphora [x]). Etruria continued to be a major consumer of pottery, but in the mid sth cent. this trade slowly began to recede. This was compensated for by increased demand in Athens itself, which experienced an increase in the numbers of > choes pitchers, loutrophoroi, nuptial lebetes (— lebes [2] gamikos) and especially the west Greek lekythoi (> lekythos [1]), high in artistic value. All of these were used for rites and in funerary contexts. Other potters turned to producing > black-glaze ware (see - Addenda) as a new tableware. A third group emigrated to Lower Italy seeking new markets in the prospering Greek colonies. In their wake, in Greater Greece and Sicily new centres of red-figured vase art

POTTERY

various

east

Greek

centres

(~ East Greek

pottery),

exported their top-quality pottery, esp. the generally utilitarian forms such as pitchers, drinking and ointment vessels. By contrast, the potters of autonomous agrarian areas such as Argos, Boeotia, Attica, some of the Cyclades (Paros, Naxos) and the Sicilian colonies (Megara [3] Hyblaea) covered a predominantly local

demand for large cultic vessels. Elaborate funerary rites also periodically resulted in very specialized vessel production there [rr]. c) ARCHAIC PERIOD (620-480 BC)

Near 600 BC, the Corinthian potteries again increased their capacities (+ Corinthian vases). Athens soon followed, turning to pottery exports after the Solonic economic reforms (— Solon [1]) at the latest. Etruria (cf. + Etrusci, Etruria [II. C. 5.]), in the 7th cent. only a sporadic consumer of Greek ceramics, began importing them in consistently increasing quantities during the

6th cent. BC [12. 131-150]. It was predominantly Attic potteries that covered the new Etruscan demand for drinking vessels (— cylix) and amphorae (> Amphora [1]). The firing quality of the pottery continuously improved there, especially through three-stage firing, which reached about 900°C (> Pottery, production of). Black-figured vase painting (> Vase painting, black-figured), with its well-proportioned, consolidated figures and precise incision lines, came to dominate. In overall vessel decoration, the narrative figure image achieved a conclusive dominance (see below II. A. 4.), while the

conventional ornamentation of handles, the edges of mouths and frame strips continued. In the workshops of the potters Amasis (+ Amasis Painter),

> Andocides

[2] and > Nicosthenes, > red-figured vase painting was developed c. 530 BC. This new style pushed a series of talented painters such as > Epictetus [1], > Euphronius [2], > Euthymides and others on to extraordinary achievements. Palaestra, komos and symposium scenes offered opportunities for a more detailed study of the human figure. Numerous workshops working in the black-figured style could still hold their own c. 500 BC alongside the red-figured style (cf., e.g., > Antimenes Painter, > Leagrus group). Last but not least, some

rarer, value-adding techniques such as > white-ground pottery, or Six’s technique (applied paint work on a dark ground) and glazes with a coral red glossy slip attest to the high flowering of Attic pottery at that time. Rising Etruscan demand led several non-Attic pottery centres also to improve their techniques in the early 6th cent. and for several decades to supply the markets with bowls, krateres and amphorae (> East Greek pottery, ~ Laconian vase painting, > Chalcidian vase painting). In Etruria one encounters black-figured ceramic production (> Pontic vases, — Caeretan hydriae; cf. ~> Etrusci, Etruria [II. C. 5.]) only rarely, with some later red-figured Hellenizing ware. Some Apulian subgeometric genres retained their style (> Daunian vases, with fig.; > Messapian pottery, with fig.).

arose (— South Italian vases, > Apulian vases, > Campanian vases, > Lucanian vases, — Sicilian vases), pro-

duced for the domestic funerary cult. Opulently painted pseudo-vessels were particularly characteristic [13]. Athens continued to export drinking vessels to Etruria in the 4th cent. BC, along with a particularly diverse range of forms to Cyprus and later esp. to the Black Sea colonies in the Crimean region (> Kertsch ware). While the narrative figure style achieved a late flowering, there were clear signs of an artistic exhaustion. Furthermore, economic factors, the loss of the old markets and the changing demand and taste of the buyers probably contributed to the end of red-figured ceramics. E) HELLENISTIC

PERIOD

At the beginning of this period, c. 300 BC, late Classical vessel types were still in use, while at its end, c. 30 BC, production of the Italian — terra sigillata had set in. New leading forms in the Hellenistic Period were the + lagynos, the compressed neck amphora (> Pottery, shapes and types of, figs. A 6; B 10), spindle-shaped unguentaria (ointment flasks) and, from the late 3rd cent. on, following metal models, half-spherical handleless and foot-less relief cups with ornamental decoration (Megarian cups, cf. — Relief ware [IJ-III]). Common plate forms are plates, bowls, skyphoi and pyxides (> skyphos; > pyxis). Hellenistic fine ware cannot always be localized with certainty because there were many pottery centres that produced similar standardized wares [14]. Elaborately painted but not locally delimited fine ware genres were occasionally still created for funerary cult (+ Canosa vases, >» Centuripe vases). > Gnathia ware, decorated with applied paint on a dark glossy slip, continued a late Classical technique. The decorative motifs and technique in > West Slope ware, originating in Athens and imitated elsewhere, is related. In several genres, a simple dark black-

717

718

glaze painting on a clay ground was maintained (+ Hadra ware). The introduction of press-moulding bowls and sprig stamps in the serial production of ceramic reliefs had a revolutionizing effect. Less widespread was the predominantly Pergamene appliqué ware (cf. + Relief ware) [15]. The glazes of Hellenistic pottery vary. While a dark glossy slip was customary in the west to the rst cent. BC, a red ceramic found in great numbers in Pergamum dominated in the east from the 2nd cent. (~ Samia vasa). In Syria and Egypt, a yellowish-glazed faience pottery (+ Faience) arose among others. On occasion,

The most important forms include: 1) A jug with a neck ridge along with a pitcher with mushroom-shaped mouth that developed from the aforementioned form in the 8th cent. and is a chief form in Phoenician fine ware; disappeared in the 6th cent. but continued long thereafter in a hybrid form in Sardinia. 2) The pear-shaped

as Macedonian

finds show, there were silver or gold

coatings [16]. Generally, noticeably lighter, ringing shards reveal that from the 2nd cent. BC higher firing temperatures were achieved in the kiln. F) ROMAN

IMPERIAL PERIOD

+ Terra sigillata established itself as the most popular tableware during the Empire. In the potteries of > Arretium, new kilns with built-in vent tubes, which helped

avoid bothersome reduction processes, guaranteed for the first time a consistent colour quality for red slip. However, the conventional decorative techniques for red ware (appliqué, barbotine, modelling, stamp, punch-marking) were also used for ware of other colours. A genre of colour-glazed skyphoi of the early Imperial Period still stands entirely in the Hellenistic tradition [17] (> Glaze). The ACO cups, named after their potter, are among the special forms of early Imperial relief vessels. The Republican Roman pocola, black glossy slip cups with light-coloured painting, were succeeded by widely distributed cups inscribed with toasts (Spruchbecher) from Trier and related dark-sided vessels [18]. The Wetterau ware produced in the RhineMain area c. AD roo-150 was of unusual quality but rather short-lived. Apart from numerous decorative motifs, it had flamed and marbled glazes [19]. In Late Antiquity, red Tunisian ware dominated along with variants from other centres of production [20]. In some areas, colour-glazed ware and simpler ceramics with black-glaze painting were once again revived. While some genres were distributed over significant distances, some small potteries were dedicated full-time to supplying limited local markets. LS. G) PHOENICIAN PERIOD

Phoenician fine ware developed from the Syro-Palestinian shape spectrum in the early Iron Age (with its own characteristics since the rrth cent.) on the Levantine coast between northern Galilee and > Al-Mina. It was especially pronounced in > Tyrus; reciprocal influences from — Cyprus. Figurative painting is absent (a few exceptions based on Greek models). Three variants are characteristic: bichrome ware (initially with concentric circles painted on open and closed vessels, but later zone and stripe painting over a clay-coloured or whitish ground only on closed vessels), red ware (coating with red slip, often polished) and an unslipped, carefully smoothed ware.

POTTERY

pitcher with a narrowed, cloverleaf-shaped mouth, a

red ware vessel that also dropped from use in the 6th cent. (continued in > Sardinia). 3) Particularly characteristic among jugs, bottles and little pitchers are small anointing oil bottles, almost always of Levantine origin. 4) Plates that have an unslipped surface in the east but usually a red slip coating in the west. As a typical western variant, a plate with a smooth, increasingly broader edge developed; edge width and overall proportioning are significant in chronology. 5) Lamps derived from the plate shape by impressing one (later two) nibs to hold the wick. The double-nibbed form, mostly on a clay ground, but also as red ware, is the characteristic form in Phoenician colonies in the west. 6) Bowls. Fine or Samaria ware, which was produced in the mother country towards the end of the 9th cent., was a very high quality, thin-walled pottery with a highly polished red slip surface. Its main forms are a flat bowl with a steep, sharply bending wall and a calotta-shaped, cup-like bowl. The former is chronologically well delimited and, since it occasionally arrived as an import with the earliest settlers in the west, an important chronological indicator. Plates, bowls, lamps and pots as fine ware are part of tableware. Pitchers are relatively rarely found in the colonies but occur in pairs in graves from the 8th cent. BC on. The numerous plate finds above burials speak for meal rituals on the grave. Beginning in the 6th cent. BC, local styles of Phoenician fine ware develop that are more strongly influenced by Greek surroundings. From the 4th cent. on, the black-glaze ware of the Hellenistic world dominated and was imitated, e.g., in Carthage. However, in artistic terms Phoenician fine ware, which was very characteristic and of a high quality, cannot compare with Greek ware. G. M.-L. ~» Citium; > Phoenicians, Poeni 4. FIGURATIVE DECORATION Painted Greek pottery’s repertoire of images reflects ancient life and its imagination with considerable complexity. It was, however, rather selective with respect to the reality of the ancient world since it related messages primarily by way of exemplars; the meaning to the ancient observer must now be decoded [21]. Despite increased incorporation of realistic traits, the images remain code-like; still, the wide distribution of painted Greek vases in the ancient world indicates the effectiveness of these images. The fact of serial production combined with the low percentage recovered, an estimated 1-3% of those produced, make interpretation and evaluation of the images difficult. Alongside some rare careful executions, the great quantity is of routine repetitions and hasty variants of older image versions. But they should not for this reason be dismissed as meaning-

719

720

less decoration: they, too, are expressions of a collective, period-bound imagination. The function of a vessel was often decisive in the selection of topics (+ Pottery, shapes and types of, with fig.): the subject matter of the images illustrates or comments on the purpose of the image bearer and is particularly multifaceted. Symposium vessels, e.g., depict revelry (> Banquet), a ~ k6mos or Dionysian scenes, while funerary vessels bear representations of the + prothesis, > ekphora and cult of the dead (> Dead, cult of the). Some Greek vessels for cultic use are limited to specific significant themes (+ Choes pitchers, > lebes [2] gamikos, > lekythos [1], > loutrophoros); indeed, the iconography of the > Panathenaic prize amphorae remained highly stereotyped. Likewise, the image inventory of fine ware provides important source material for cultural history with representations of warfare, agones in sport and music, feasts and rites

main buyer. Elements from the world of ancient legend are encountered one last time, still as the equals of early Christian themes, on Late Antique relief vessels of the North African red ware [30].

POTTERY

[22], and education [23]. Basic situations such as mar-

riage, battle and death could also be expressed through the mythological simile. Beyond that, depictions of legends on Greek vases played an important role (cf. the comprehensive iconography of individual legendary figures in [24]). The selection and narration style of legendary episodes is highly indicative of changes in mentality, e.g., the preference for battles against monsters such as Gorgo, Hydra, Chimera and Polyphemus in early Greek art [25] versus the increase in Trojan themes in 6th-cent. vase painting [26]. Divine myths reflect changes in religious imagination: characteristic of the consciousness of the late Classical Period, e.g., is a marked increase in personifications of abstracts (> Personification) [27]. Myth versions from drama (— Tragedy [I]) influenced vase iconography, esp. Lower Italian red-figured fine ware [28], ina small way from the sth cent. on. Political allusions remain rare or were expressed indirectly by means of mythological similes. With respect to society, a predominance of male aristocratic themes is characteristic of the Archaic Period while, by contrast, crafts,

commerce and agriculture are underrepresented. Women are preferentially depicted on the earlier pottery in public roles on the occasion of ritual events (e.g., sacrifices, marriage) or as members of the > o7kos in scenes

of departure for war. Only in the 5th cent. do painters enable views of women’s domestic lives [29]. A rapid reduction of the variety of themes followed the end of red-figured vase painting. Dionysian and erotic themes survive on Hellenistic pottery as do symbols of victory and good luck. The Trojan legend experienced a brief renaissance with richly labelled scenes on Homeric cups (> Relief ware [IV]). The eclectic ico-

nography of the early Imperial terra sigillata follows the Classical and Hellenistic Greek tradition with mythical, religious, erotic and Bacchic scenes; the same applies to its varied, finely worked ornamentation. The repertoire was supplemented with gladiators, animal chases, hunting scenes and rural life on the figurative bowls of provincial Roman workshops, since the army was the

+ Faience (with fig.); > Glaze; > Ornaments (with fig.); > Potters; > Pottery, production of (with fig.);

+ Pottery trade; > Red-figured vase painting; > Terra sigillata; + Vase painters; > Vase painting, black-figured (with fig.); > Vases 1S. Rorrorr, Athenian Hellenistic Pottery. Toward a Firmer Chronology, in: 13. Internationaler Kongress fiir Klassische Archdologie (Berlin 1988), 1990, 173-178 2G. R. Jones, Greek and Cypriot Pottery. A Review of Scientific Studies, 1986 3 G. SCHNEIDER, B. HOFFMANN, Chemische Untersuchungen italienischer Sigillata, in: E. ETTLINGER et al., Conspectus formarum terrae sigillatae, 1990, 27-38 4E. LANGLOTZ, Der Sinn attischer Vasenbilder, in: Wiss. Zschr. Rostock 1967, 473-480 5H. HoFrrMann, Why Did the Greeks Need Imagery? An Anthropological Approach to the Study of Greek Vase Painting, in: Hephaistos 9, 1988, 143-162 6 C. BERaRD et al. (ed.), Images et Société en Gréce Ancienne, 1987 7B. p’AGostTINo, Archaologie der Graber. Tod und Grabritus, in: A. H. BorBeEIn et al. (ed.), Klassische Archadologie,

2000, 313-331 8R. HAGce (ed.), The Iconography of Greek Cult in the Archaic and Classical Periods, 1992 9 M. C. Monaco, Syssitia, in: AION, N. S. 2, 1995, 133140 10J.N. CoLDsTREAM, Geometric Greece, 1977 11 E. Kister, Die ‘Opferrinne-Zeremonie’. Bankettideologie am Grab, 1998 12N. Spivey, Greek Vases in Etruria, in: Id., T. RASMUSSEN (ed.), Looking at Greek Vases,

1991, 131-150 13 H. LOHMANN, Zu technischen Besonderheiten apulischer Vasen, in: JDAI 97, 1982, 191-249 14 J. W. Hayes, Fine Wares in the Hellenistic World in:

[12], 183-202 Pergamon, 1993

15 G. HUsner, Die Applikenkeramik von 16S. DRouGou

(ed.), Hellenistic Pot-

tery from Macedonia, 1991, 37-45 17 A. HocHUuLtGyseEL, Kleinasiatische glasierte Reliefkeramik, 1977 18 R. P. Symonps, Rhenish Wares. Fine Dark Coloured Pottery from Gaul and Germany, 1992 19 V. Rupp, Wetterauer Ware, 1988 20 J. W. Hayes, Late Roman Pottery, 1972; Suppl. 1980 21H. HOFFMANN, Knotenpunkte. Zur Bedeutungsstruktur griechischer Vasenbilder, in: Hephaistos 2, 1980, 127-154 22H. LaxanpDeEr, Indivi-

duum und Gemeinschaft im Fest, 2000 Album

of Greek Education,

1975

23 F. A. G. BECK, 24 LIMC

(passim)

25 K. SCHEFOLD, Gotter- und Heldensagen der Griechen in der frith- und hocharchaischen Kunst, 1993, 76-114 26 Id., Gotter- und Heldensagen der Griechen in der spatarchaischen Kunst, 1978, 184-270 27H. A. SHapirRo, Personifications in Greek Art, 1993 28 A. KossatzDEISSMANN, Dramen des Aischylos auf westgriechischen Vasen, 1978 29H. Kittet, Zur Ikonographie der Frau auf attischen Vasen archaischer und klassischer Zeit, 1994 30 J. Garsscu, B. OVERBECK, Spatantike zwischen Heidentum und Christentum, 1989, 161-206.

R. M. Coox, Greek Painted Pottery, 1960, *1972; I. SCHEIBLER, Ss. v. Vasen, RE Suppl. 15, 663-700; Id., Griechische Tépferkunst. Herstellung, Handel und Gebrauch der antiken Tongefafe, 1983, *1995; B.A. SPARKES, Greek Pottery. An Introduction, 1991; K. GREENE, Roman Pottery, 1992; B. A. SparKes, The Red and the

Black, 1996; J. W. Hayes, Handbook of Mediterranean Roman Pottery, 1997; Céramique et peinture grecques.

oul

722 Modes d’emploi (Actes du Colloque, Ecole du Louvre 1995), 1999; J. P. CRIELAARD et al. (ed.), The Complex Past of Pottery. Production, Circulation and Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery, 1999. BIBLIOGRAPHY

ON THE

PHOENICIAN

AREA:

R. AMI-

RAN, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land, 1970; W. P. ANDERSON, A Stratigraphic and Ceramic Analysis ... at Sarepta, vol. 1, 1988; P. Bikar, The Pottery of Tyre, 1978; Id., The Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus, 1987; P. Barto-

LONI, Studi sulla ceramica fenicia e punica di Sardegna, 1983; C. Brikse, Friiheisenzeitliche bemalte phénizische Kannen von Fundplatzen der Levantekiiste, in: Hamburger Beitr. zur Arch.

12, 1985, 7-118; G. MAass-LINDE-

MANN, Orientalische Importe vom Morro de Mezquitilla, in: MDAI(Madrid) 31, 1990, 169-177; A. PEsERICO, Le brocche ‘a fungo’ fenicie nel Mediterraneo, 1996; H. SCHUBART, Westphonizische Teller, in: Riv. di studi fenici 4, 1976, 179-196; M. Vecas, Phéniko-punische Keramik aus Karthago; in: F. Rakos (ed.), Die deutschen Ausgra-

bungen in Karthago, vol. 3 (Karthago 3), 1999, 93-219. Ss

B. PLAIN WARE 1. DEFINITION AND DELIMITATION 3. EPOCHS AND GENRES

2. RESEARCH

1. DEFINITION AND DELIMITATION Ceramic vessels not part of the fine ware category (see above II. A.) are difficult to reduce to a common denominator. Their modern names are based on technical and functional criteria, e.g. > transport amphorae. A unifying main characteristic is the absence of a decorative surface design, resulting in the English terminological designation, ‘plain ware’ (simple, roughwalled or clay-based ware). However, the typology based on surface treatment includes the most varied ware, clay and production groups. Plain ware is only partially identical with > everyday crockery because the latter also includes the simpler versions of painted pottery. A more common archaeological technical term for the segment of pottery discussed here is also coarse ware, which subjectively differs by weight and size from lighter utilitarian ceramic vessels. Plain ware was used in all spheres of ancient society: house, agriculture, trade, commerce, funeral rites and cult. It was made by hand as well as on the > potter’s wheel. 2. RESEARCH Methodological approaches to plain ware research generally parallel those for — transport amphorae. Relatively little has been published on plain ware finds in most ancient locations; nor does its low value for chronology add to its popularity. Recent research, however, exhibits an increased occupation with plain ware in its functional context [r]. 3. EPOCHS AND GENRES A) MINOAN-MYCENAEAN CULTURE

Most preserved plain ware consists of large storage vessels (cf. > Pithos). On the Mycenaean mainland 75 % of the ceramic production was unslipped (less in palaces, more in villages; > Mycenaean culture and archeology

POTTERY

[C. 3]). In the Mycenaean palace of > Pylus [2] more than 7,000 household vessels were found in storage chambers, most unslipped, among them over 2,800 kylikes (> cylix) [2]. In Minoan-Mycenaean craft contexts, plain ware for special purposes was found, including perforated cylindrical vessels that have been interpreted as bellow nozzles [3]. B) GREECE

For some Greek sites, e.g., Athens and Corinth [4; 5],

there are surveys of plain ware production. Plain ware vessels are found in storage and transportation areas (other than transport amphorae and especially pithoi). Greek plain ware also includes handmade Argive monochrome ware (e.g., from Athens and Corinth). The aryballoi (> aryballos [2]) and small pitchers of this early Iron Age genre were widespread because of their content (perhaps a kind of drug): throughout the Aegean region, Italy and Sicily, where Greek colonies took up their production [6]. Plain ware is typically found in households. Apart from the production of the usual vessels, some regions specialized in certain vessel forms for export (— Pottery trade; > Pottery, production of) [7]: basins with a pouring lip at the edge and mortars (mortarium, > Mortar) [5] for grinding grain and coagulating milk are familiar as a Corinthian specialty [8]. Beginning in the 3rd quarter of the 7th cent., Corinthian louteria (> Labrum) or perirrhanteria occur; interpreted as wash basins, their distribution extends to Athens, Italy, Sicily and the Black Sea region [9; 10]. These are usually ornamented with relief decoration (— Relief ware). Coal basins (> Heating [A]) comprise an independent plain ware genre [12]; some of these basins were supplied with relief sprigs in the form of male heads (— Silens or > Hephaestus?); some stamped sprigs with Greek inscriptions are also known. They were presumably created in a single location in the Aegean from a clay with a high mica content and distributed over large distances (Athens, Aegean, Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, Italy, Sicily, Carthage and Bengazi/Berenice [8]). Tubeshaped components (ldsana), formerly interpreted as supports or bellow nozzles in the oven, probably functioned as braziers or supports for cooking pots [13]. Clay ovens for use in > metallurgy are known from the 7th and 6th cent. in > Pithecussae [14]. Beehives were also made from clay but these were not considered ideal (> Apiculture) C) PHOENICIAN-PUNIC

CULTURE

There are relatively numerous publications on the plain ware of the Phoenician and Punic urban culture [15; 16; 17; 18], including handmade ware [19]. Pottery workshops in > Tyrus (2nd half of the 8th cent. BC) and on Cerro del Villar (> Malaca; early 6th cent. BC) show that the entire ceramics repertoire (Phoenician fine ware, plain ware and transport amphorae) was made on the wheel [15; 20]. Strikingly, large pottery played nearly no role in storage. Unslipped pithoi (> Pithus [2]) are hardly ever found, while > transport amphorae are common. Single-handled, ‘pear-shaped’ pots of the

POTTERY

724

723

8th to sth cents. BC were used for cooking and transportation [16] and travelled from Carthage to Spain [21]. Typical vessel shapes of the 7th to 6th cents. BC are tripod basins, oil bottles, lamp bowls with one, two or three nibs (> Lamp), and braziers and bread ovens, known as tabouna. In Carthage, the latter were made also from metal [22]. In the Hellenistic Period, increased regard for Greek forms and motifs is unmistakable in plain ware (> Phoenicians, Poeni [IV. B]) [17;

233 24].

(ed.), APOIKIA. Festschrift G. Buchner, 1994, 192, figs.

31,5-6 15 P. M. Brxat, The Pottery of Tyre, 1978 16 G. Maass-LINDEMANN, Toscanos. Die Westphonikische Niederlassung an der Miindung des Rio de Vélez, 1982, 28 17M. Vecas, Phoniko-punische Keramik aus Karthago, in: F. Rakos (ed.), Die deutschen Ausgrabungen in Kar-

thago, vol. 3 (Karthago 3), 1999, 93-219 18 G. LEHMANN, Untersuchungen zur spaten Eisenzeit in Syrien und Libanon: Stratigraphie und Keramikformen zwischen ca. 720 bis 300 v. Chr., 1996 19 K. MANSEL, Handgemachte Keramik der Siedlungsschichten des 8. und 7. Jh. v. Chr. aus Karthago, in: [17], 220-238

D) ITALIAN REGION

In Iron Age Italy, plain ware vessels consist primarily of + impasto and — bucchero ware, the latter mainly coarser bucchero pesante: the finer bucchero sottile possesses the quality of fine ware. In Etruria (> Etrusci, Etruria [II. C. 5]), dolia (> dolium), rotund doublehandled vessels (> olla) and transport amphorae were used as storage and transport vessels. In houses there were braziers [25] and coal basins (foculus) used for heating and cooking. With the introduction of the ~ potter’s wheel, pottery was also made of purified clay [26]. E) ROME AND BYZANTIUM

On plain ware in the Roman and Byzantine world cf. [27; 28; 29; 30]. Important plain ware genres of this

period are the > dolium |31] and - esp. in terms of quantity — — transport amphorae. In some regions, spe-

cialization in producing particular pottery types is recognizable, e.g., cooking pots (with volcanic leaning material) produced on the island of Pantelleria (> Cossura) with wide distribution [30]. Local developments in Rome are discernible into the early Middle Ages [32]. ~ Everyday crockery; > Kylix; — Pithus; — Pottery, shapes and types of (with figs.); > Transport amphorae 1A. S. JAMiESON, Identifying Room Use and Vessel Func-

20J. A. BaRcELO et al.,

El area de producci6n alfarera del Cerro del Villar (Guadalhorce, Malaga), in: Riv. di Stud. Fenici 23, 1995, 147r8r 21R.F. Docrer, Karthagische Amphoren aus Toscanos, in: MDAI(Madrid) 35, 1994, 130-131 22S. Lancet (ed.), Byrsa, vol. 2: Rapports préliminaires sur les fouilles 1977-1978: niveaux et vestiges puniques, 1982, 217-260 23 A. RINDELAUB, Thymiateria in Form einer

Frauenprotome im Rijksmuseum van Oudheden in Leiden, in: Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden 75, 1995, 55-62 24S. LancEL (ed.), Byrsa, vol. 1: Rapports préliminaires des fouilles (1974-1976), 1979, 311-331 25 C. SCHEFFER, Acquarossa, vol. 2: The Cooking Stands, 1981 26A. J. NiyBOER, From Household Production to Workshops, 1998, 73-195 27M. Vecas, Ceramica comutn romana del Mediterraneo occidental, 1973 28 J. A. RiLey, The Coarse Pottery from Berenice, in: J. A. LLoyp (ed.), Excavations at Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi (Berenice) vol. 2.5, 1979, 91-467

29M.

Bats (ed.), Les céramiques com-

munes de Campanie et Narbonnaise (I* siécle avant J.-C. — II* siécle aprés J.-C.). La vaisselle de cuisine et de table, 1994 30M. G. FuLForD, The Coarse (Kitchen and Domestic) and Painted Wares, in: Id., D. P. S. PEAcocxk (ed.), Excavations at Carthage: The British Mission, vol. 1.2,

1984, 155-231

31G. Devos etal., The ‘pithoi’ from the

Ancient Anatolian City of Pessinus, in: BABesch 74, 1999, 79-110 32 J. M.ScHuRING, The Roman, Early Medieval

tion, in: G. BUNNENS (ed.), Essays on Syria in the Iron Age,

and Medieval Coarse Kitchen Wares from the San Sisto

2000, 259-303

2C. W. BLEGEN et al., The Palace of

Vecchio in Rome, in: BABesch 61, 1986, 158-207.

Nestor

in Western

at Pylos

Messenia,

vol.

3 R. D. G. Evety, Note on the ‘Bellows’ Nozzle’, in: P. A. Mountjoy, Four Early Mycenaean Wells from the South Slope of the Acropolis at Athens (Miscellanea Graeca 4), 1981, 80-85 4B.A. Sparkes, L. Tatcorr, Black and Plain Pottery (Agora 12),1970 5 G. R. Epwarps, Corin-

thian Hellenistic Pottery (Corinth 7,3), 1975, 109-111 6 N. Kourou, Handmade Pottery and Trade: the Case of the ‘Argive Monochrome’ Ware, in: J. CHRISTIANSEN, T.

MELANDER (ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Greek and Related Pottery (Copenhagen

314-324

ROD.

1, 1966

1987), 1988,

7F. BLonpg&, J. Y. PERRAULT (ed.), Les ateliers

de potiers dans le monde grec (BCH Suppl. 23), 1992

8 F.

J. DE WAELE, The Sanctuary of Asklepios and Hygieia at Corinth, in: AJA 37, 1933, 447 9 G. KapirAn, Louteria from the Sea, in: International Journ. of Nautical Archaeology 8, 1979, 97-120 10M. Iozzo, Corinthian Basins on High Stands, in: Hesperia 56, 1987, 355-416 11 I. K. WHITBREAD, Greek Transport Amphorae. A Petrological and Archaeological Study, 1995, 299 f. 12 A. Conze, Griechische Kohlenbecken, in: JDAI 5, 1890, 118-137 13 J. K. PAPADOPOULOS, Lasana, Tuyéres and Kiln Firings Supports, in: Hesperia 61, 1992, 203-221 14 C. GIALa-

NELLA, Pithecusa: gli insediamenti di Punta Chiarito. Relazione preliminare, in: B. D’AGostino, D. RipbGway

Pottery trade. In Antiquity, manufacturers of simple utilitarian pottery generally met only the local demand of their region, while finer, decorated ceramics were also intended for the transregional market. However, the latter could also stimulate the export of poorer goods. The distribution of pottery finds in many cases indicates corresponding trade links, but there are also other factors to consider: the extended find radius of Mycenaean pottery is more a reflection of the presence of Mycenaean settlers. With the rise of Greek maritime trade in the 8th cent. BC, Corinthian potteries began to supply esp. the western apoikiai (> apoikia) and Etruria; eastern Greek animal-frieze vases, on the other hand, mostly reached the Ionian colonies on the Black Sea. Dealers’ marks (dipinti and graffiti on vessel bases) begin to appear in Corinth, Ionia and Attica around 600 BC. They apparently served organized long-distance trade. Attic black- and red-figured vases dominated the markets of the ancient world for some 200 years after 550 BC. The same cultural horizon is later illuminated again with the distribution of > black-

726

725

glaze ware and Hellenistic + relief ware from production centres such as Pergamum. During the early years of the Principate, > terra sigillata became a prime fine ware export. While fine ware constituted traded goods in its own right as tableware or cultic pottery, transport amphorae served only as containers for various commodities such

POTTERY, PRODUCTION OF 16

15

14

I

12

adel ao 18

=

17

.

as wine, oil or fish. The economic significance of fine

ware and what portion of maritime trade it constituted are matters of dispute. Even larger batches may generally have gone overseas only as extra items in mixed cargos. Epigraphical evidence from the Principate attests to traders who specialized in pottery (ILS 4751: negotiator cretarius Britannicianus; ILS 7531: negotiator Lugdunensis artis cretariae; cf. ILS 7587). The prices of vessels are recorded occasionally, esp. by mercantile graffiti on the vessels themselves. According to these clues, the price of larger vessels in Classical Athens fluctuated between 4 oboloi and 3 drachmai. Pottery was a rather inexpensive product compared to the cost of other artifacts, but special orders or serial production evidently guaranteed potters commensurate proceeds. > Pottery, production of; > TRADE/TRADE ROUTES 1 K. Ararat, C. MorGAn, Pots and Potters in Athens and

fo)

Ww

Greek pottery kiln (reconstruction by A. Winter) 1 Stoke-hole 2 Fender

10 11

Firing chamber Vessels to be fired Intermediate ceiling

3 Flue

12

4 Firing

13. Plastered-up stacking port

5 Furnace 6 Kolonna

14 1s

7 Diaphragm 8 Flame channels 9 Kiln casing

16 Vent hole 17 Spy-hole 18 Spy-hole

Smoke dome Dome

Corinth: A Review, in: Oxford Journal of Archeology 8, 1989, 311-346 2B.L. Bartey, The Export of Attic Black-Figure Ware, in: JHS 60, 1940, 60-70 3 C. DEHL, Die korinthische Keramik des 8. und friihen 7. Jahrhun-

derts y.Chr. in Italien, 1984

4J. DE LA GENIERE, Les

acheteurs des cratéres corinthiens, in: BCH 112, 1988, 83-90 5D.W. J. GILL, Positivism, Pots and Long-Distance Trade, in: I. Morris (ed.), Classical Greece, 1994, 99-107 6 L. HANNESTAD, Athenian Pottery in Etruria, in: AArch 59, 1988, 113-130 7A. W. JOHNSTON, Trademarks on Greek Vases, 1979 8R.E. Jones, Greek and Cypriot Pottery, 1986 9B.R. McDonatp, The Distri-

bution ofAttic Pottery from 450 to 375 B.C., 1979, *1985 10 D. P. S. PEAcocK, Pottery in the Roman World, 1982 11 G. Pucci, Pottery and Trade in the Roman Period, in: GARNSEY/HOPKINS/WHITTAKER, 105-117 121. SCHEI-

BLER, Griechische Topferkunst. Herstellung, Handel und Gebrauch der antiken Tongefae, 1983, *1995 13 Y. Tuna-Nor ING, Die Ausgrabungen von Alt-Smyrna und Pitane. Die attische schwarzfigurige Keramik und der attische Keramikexport nach Kleinasien, 1995 141. K. WuiTBREAD, Greek Transport Amphorae, 1995. LS.

Pottery, production of

In central Europe, > pottery thrown on potters’ wheels in local shops from the early Celtic ‘princely seats’ (> Princely graves, Princely seats) of the Late Hallstatt period was known from the 6th and 5th cents. BC. The potter’s wheel remained in use over the entire Celtic period until around the birth of Christ, and made possible the mass production of clay pots in the late Celtic oppida (> Oppidum). Scarcely documented in Germanic regions, it appears only in the areas in contact with late Celtic and Roman potteries. In addition to the shaping process, firing was an important advance in PP. It took place first of all in pit fires and, from the Celtic period on, in kilns divided into two parts with a separate furnace and firing chamber and with facilities for regulating the air supply. In a reduction firing the pottery becomes more greyish black, while oxidation makes it more reddish-brown. + Celtic Archaeology; — Crafts, Trade; + Germanic archaeology H. Krier

(ed.), Die Germanen, vol. 1, 1976, 145-151,

I. CELTIC-GERMANIC CIVILISATIONS II]. CLassi1cAL ANTIQUITY

456-459; A. Lane, Geriefte Drehscheibenkeramik der Heuneburg: 1950-1970, 1974; V. PINGEL, Die glatte Drehscheibenkeramik von Manching, 1971; J. RIEDERER,

I. CELTIC-GERMANIC CIVILISATIONS The manufacture of pottery in the Celtic and Germanic world is characterized by two shaping processes: 1) freehand moulding without any technical aids and 2) shaping on the - potter’s wheel. Until the early + Celts adopted the high-speed wheel from the Mediterranean world, coiling pots by hand and other freehand shaping methods were the sole methods and remained in practice into the Middle Ages to varying degrees.

Archdologie

und

Chemie,

1987,

175-201;

A. RIETH,

5000 Jahre Topferscheibe, 1960; A. O. SHEPARD, Ceramics for the Archaeologist, 51965; A. WINTER, Die Technik des griechischen Topfers in ihren Grundlagen, in: Technische Beitrage zur Archaologie 1, 1959, 145. V.P.

POTTERY,

PRODUCTION

OF

728

727

of

ee

foe

a

¥

Dy A

|C 10000 = PM, yy, 1333999 »>yo» Poo» [OOOO

= —

3 }

| 3D9)9IF >>| DDD IIIIII |CCCCCC] 0LDP} |CCCCCC19IIII.| DDDD. D»»»m» yo», Soe

>> [33 >), 7 |9999 DW? PY DDDD DMM a cee =o S wy T)))))))) SOOlOO f2»» P>>>>9>9 DY), 21333292 2??? OO p77, |OOO. por), [22222 Soom» SOD DY DDDD. 99]a | Homo» EE KK,

Db» (je) =| Rs Bsa LAKE DOM,

oo) [222222202 DY >» >» Loom~~ Pom __ XY.9}”’”» >o»». Doo» 0»? .| oy Goole P»» DY «fo» fo» EE Do)

a

(| fess

‘E II. CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY A.SourRcEsS B. TECHNIQUES

C. WORKSHOPS

A. SOURCES Apart from the references to pottery in the Geoponika (1,87f.), the literary sources lack coherent information on antique PP. It is primarily the products themselves with the marks of their production, the types of clay, and pottery rejects which offer important visual material on pottery production techniques. Drawings of workshops convey an idea of the production processes, and the signatures of potters and vase painters, factory stamps and the potters’ financial accounts from La Graufesenque supply information on workshop organization. Kilns, buildings and entire workshop facilities from the Greek and Roman periods can be reconstructed with the help of unearthed potters’ workshops from Antiquity. Our knowledge about ancient PP is further extended by ethnological similarities in present-day potteries where traditional methods of production are still followed. B. TECHNIQUES In its raw state, potters’ clay (xéoapoc/kéramos; Lat.

creta figularis) is formed by the effect of weathering on earth. In its purest chemical form it is a white feldspar sediment (kaolin, china clay). This is turned into the

:we

Potter's kiln of the Imperial period at La Graufesenque (Aveyron), Ist—2nd cents. (reconstruction by A. Vernhet). Foundations with 80-cm-thick

walls and central firing channel preserved up to a height of2 m; upper part reconstructed. Clay tubes and slabs (45 x 62 cm), stilts and wasters found at the site confirm the reconstruction of the order in which the vessels to be fired were stacked.

‘secondary’ clay coloured, depending on its geological formation, by trace minerals that wash through it. Ancient clay was mined mostly in open pits, more rarely underground; the centres for PP were most frequently not too far away from the clay mines. It was also possible to transport the clay over wide distances or by ship. In the workshop, mined clay was purged of coarse particles and refined by sifting and elutriation (separation into coarse and fine samples through washing). Long storage, mixing with bacteria (ageing) or the incorporation of old clay resulted in the desired elasticity of the clay. Types of clay were mixed or ‘tempered’ with sand, chaff, volcanic crushed rock and pulverized, fired clay according to the intended qualities of the finished products; an all too ‘highly plastic’ clay proved to be particularly unsuitable for the production of heat-resistant cookery ware or thick-sided, coarse pottery. Clay artifacts are proven to have existed as early as the Neolithic Age with the economic system associated with sedentary culture. Before the invention of the potter’s wheel vessels were worked by hand or were ‘coiled’ — techniques that long endured in some regions. Early forms of the potter’s wheel were simple round work trays, from which the slowly revolving die plate developed. The transition to the high-speed wheel at the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC changed pottery

729

730

production radically. Surviving Greek and Roman examples of the the potter’s wheel (todyoc/tréchos; Lat. rota figularis) were made of stone or fired clay. Two forms of construction were common: the shaft (wooden axle, ‘spindle’) could be securely connected to the wheel and could turn within a socket set deep in a supporting

outlines and other features. The average size of ancient kilns is 1-2 m in diameter; so far, the largest known oven from the Principate, at La Graufesenque, measures 6.80m X 11.30m. The capacity of normal ovens amounted to around 150-200 vessels; at La Graufesenque the volume of the pottery firing chamber was calculated at 64 m3 with a capacity of c. 30,000 small vessels. During the firing the filled shaft kiln was covered from above with layers of bricks. The enclosed dome oven which was required for the three stages of firing has been documented in Corinth from the 6th cent. BC. The air-dried kiln run was piled on the diaphragm, a perforated kiln floor, or placed on shelves; stilts or tubes took care of the uniform heat supply; saggars protected especially fragile wares. The progress of the firing was checked by means of sample sherds. During the firing, oxygen reached the pottery firing chamber through the flue (oxidation); restricting the flow to the oven led to the production of carbon monoxide (reduction). Large piles of brushwood provided the fuel for the heating; around 6 tonnes of wood were required to fire the La Graufesenque oven. The firing lasted from 3-6 days according to the capacity of the oven. Pre-firing allowed the last drops of moisture from between the clay particles to evaporate from the pots, the vessels began to glow at 500°, the main fire caused sintering at 900°, the glazing of the wares occurs at 1200°. The oven took at least a day to cool down slowly.

block, or the block sat on the wheel with the shaft

anchored in the floor. Large vessels were shaped on lower wheels with the potter standing and smaller ones on wheels which had a taller shaft with the potter seated. Hand driven fly wheels were usually used in ancient PP: To this day, methods of production such as centring the clay on the wheel, throwing the pot, piecing together separately shaped parts, hand movements and ‘ornamentation’, i.e. attaching handles and spouts, for example, have changed very little. The use of matrices, utilized from the Helladic Period in the duplicating of relief decorations, was well known. In order to pivot the vessels into the dish mould the latter was centred on the wheel; rims and feet were turned afterwards. The combination of methods using wheels and matrices was es-

pecially common in the production of > terra sigillata. ~ Brickyards used rectangular-shaped negative moulds and other special devices. After drying out to a semihard condition, clay vessels were further worked on and, if required, liquid clay slips of varying compositions and decorations were added. Coatings sealed the sherds and refined the wares. The surface lustre was achieved through the glossy slurry (‘varnish’), a powerfully elutriated slip whose higher iron content fired the clay red during the process of oxidation and black in the opposite process of reduction. Lustre and density were produced by sintering during the firing. Popular coating colours were also coral-red (illite), white (lustreless koalin), metal imitations (lead additives), green, blue or

yellow for glazes (copper additives). However, only the exact monitoring of the three levels of firing (oxidation, reduction, reoxidation) made possible a uniform contrast of dark shapes against the light clay background (black-figure style) or shapes which remained the colour of the clay against the black background (red-figure style). Relief decorations were created by decorative stamps, superimposing an appliqué, or the free application of thick slips of clay (barbotine technique). Patri-

ces were used at first in order to make dish moulds of Hellenistic beaker reliefs; later the stamping of patterns directly into the dish moulds proved to be superior. Most of the risks were connected to the firing of the wares, a process which was carefully prepared and monitored. Whilst the primitive pit or charcoal firing still gave mixed results, a shaft oven, which has been shown to have existed since the early Archaic Period in Greece, fulfilled higher expectations with a flue and up-draught kiln. As a rule, potters built and repaired their kilns from bricks or stones with loam. The foundation walls of many ancient ovens have been unearthed in the Mediterranean region. The types are distinguished according to their round, oval or rectangular

POTTERY,

PRODUCTION

OF

C. WORKSHOPS Potteries mostly lay outside the settlements; important factors in the choice of location were their proximity to water, wood, clay deposits and, last but not least, good marketing opportunities. Larger works had sites for storing clay, elutriation basins, rooms for wheels, drying halls and kilns. Most of the work processes took place in the open air. Many workshops specialized in fine or coarse ceramics, in clay lamps or matrix ware, in

clay bricks or terracotta roof tiles, though workshops with mixed production can be proven to have existed. Industrial groupings ranged from modest home-based potteries to commercially oriented family businesses of 4-6 workers and larger éoyaotneua (ergastéria) and officinae with 20-40 workers. Estates often possessed their own potteries; conversely a potter who was underemployed also did seasonal work on the land. Conclusions about workshop organization during the 6th cent. BC in Athens can in fact be drawn from the signatures of potters and vase painters. According to these, several painters often worked for one potter, though this co-operation was liable to changes. This militated in favour of merging several workshops into one district (potters? communes) in which the elutriation basins and kilns were shared and workers were exchanged. From the sth cent. BC some larger ergasteria had begun to dominate. As a general rule pottery workshops were owned by potters. In Athens, votive offerings are evidence of the social status and good in-

POTTERY, PRODUCTION OF

731

come of this group of craftsmen. While there is hardly any organized division of labour documented for the 6th and sthcents. BC, it may have noticeably increased in the 3rd cent. BC with the introduction of matrix techniques. The factory hallmarks of the terra sigillata workshops in Arretium allow insights into Roman workshop conditions. Up to 60 slaves’ names are documented for individual workshops (Rasinus), though other potteries appear to have been smaller (13 or fewer

73” BLE, The Techniques of Painted Pottery, *1988

16J.H.

Oak ey, W. D. E. Coutson, O. Paraaia (ed.), Athenian

Potters and Painters, 1997 17J.K. PAPADOPOULOS, Lasana, Tyéres and Kiln Firing Supports, in: Hesperia 61, 1992, 203-221

18S. PAPADOPOULOS, L’organisation de

espace dans deux ateliers de potiers, in: BCH r19, 1995, 591-606 19D.P.S. Peacock, Pottery in the Roman World: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach, 1982 20G.

PRACHNER, Die Sklaven und Freigelassenen im arretinischen Sigillatagewerbe, 1980

21 K. REBER, Untersuchun-

names). However, the name stamps do not allow any

gen zur handgemachten

definite conclusion to be drawn about size: unnamed

22 G. M. A. RicuTeR, The Craft of Athenian Pottery, 1923 231. SCHEIBLER, Formen der Zusammenarbeit in attischen Tépfereien, in: Festschrift S. Lauffer, 1986, 787804 24Id., Griechische Topferkunst. Herstellung,

labourers have to be taken into account, and not all the

named slaves could have been employed in a workshop at the same time. In the manufacturing of the southern Gallic terra sigillata in the rst and 2nd cents. AD, workshops can be visualized operating alongside one another without any rivalry; here the potters worked for the centrally operated kilns. It is clear from the ‘potters’ invoices’ from La Graufesenque that several potters were involved at any one time in filling the kiln, and their share of the items for firing was accurately denoted by the graffiti. The signatures on the southern Gallic terra sigillata give clues about job organization through the positioning of names and additions such as FE(cit), OF (ficina) or MA(nu) (‘made’, ‘workshop’, ‘hand of ...). The potter usually put his signature in the pattern, the dish mould manufacturer underneath, and the person who finished the individual vessel on the rim. The spread of the manufacture of terra sigillata from Italy to Gaul and later to Germania as well as North Africa occurred partly through the establishment of branches and partly through the migration of experienced potters to foreign pottery centres. Publicly owned potteries are rarely documented in the ancient world. In Greece, amphorae for export, vessels conforming to a standard measurement or specially produced vessels for religious festivals (Panathenaic prize amphorae) were made on the orders of the polis. In the Principate, some potteries were operated by the military or the fleet. > Crafts, Trade 1K. Ararat, C. MorGan, Pots and Potters in Athens and

Corinth: A Review, in: Oxford Journal of Archaeology 8, 1989, 311-346 2C. BEMONT, J. P. Jacos (ed.), La terre sigillée gallo-romaine, 1986 3 F. BLONDE,J.Y. PERRAULT (ed.), Les ateliers de potiers dans le monde grec (BCH Suppl. 23), 1992 4H. A. G. BriypDer (ed.), Ancient Greek and Related Pottery, 1984 5 N. Cuomo pi Caprio, La ceramica in archeologia, 1985 6D. Every, The Potter’s Wheel in Minoan Crete, in: ABSA 83, 1988, 83-126 7R.

Hamre,

A. WINTER, Bei T6pfern und Tépferinnen in

Kreta, Messenien und Zypern,*1976 8 Id., Bei Topfern und Topferinnen in Siiditalien, Sizilien und Griechenland, 1965 9F. Lana, Archaische Siedlungen in Griechenland, 1996 10F. LAUBENHEIMER, Salléles d’Aude. Un com-

plexe de potiers gallo-romain, 1990 11S. E. VAN DER LEEUW, Studies in the Technology of Ancient Pottery, 1976 12F. LeNy, Les fours de tuiliers gallo-romains, 1988 13 R. Maricuat, Les graffites de La Graufesenque, 1988 14M. Massa, La ceramica ellenistica con decorazione a rilievo della Bottega di Efestia, 1992 15 J. V. No-

Keramik Griechenlands,

1991

Handel und Gebrauch der antiken TongefaSe, 1983, 21995 25 A. VERNHET, Un four de La Graufesenque, in: Gallia 39, 1981, 25-43 26 A. WinTeER, Die antike Glanztontechnik, 1978 27G. Zimmer, Antike Werkstattbilder, 1982. LS.

Pottery, shapes and types of A. FORMS, FUNCTIONS, C. TyPOLOGY

NAMES

B. MATERIALS

A. FORMS, FUNCTIONS, NAMES The variety of ancient pottery (Gyyetov/angeion; vas) results primarily from the diversity of uses, such as transport, storage, scooping, pouring, mixing of solid or fluid contents (functional shapes) and secondarily from differences of form determined by period and region (types). The functional shape indicates only the basic functional structure, which is given its concrete expression only by a type. The fixed functional characteristics of an > amphora (cf. fig. A) include two symmetrically arranged vertical handles on the upper part anda tall restricted body. Types (A 1-6) were developed particularly in fine wares. In addition, form could be determined by a special function. Globular-shaped amphorae were useful for ladling (A 7-8); A 7 was also used as a measure of capacity (> Everyday crockery). The slender form of a > loutrophoros (A 12) facilitated pouring. Panathenaic prize amphorae (A 9) imitated the closed neck and small foot of Attic trade amphorae [r].

Similarly, pointed amphorae, intended for wine or water, rary > transport amphorae. an angle, placed in stands or A jug (fig. B) has a vertical

which in fine wares were correspond to contempoThe latter were stored at planted in the ground [2]. handle opposite the lip (cf.

in contrast > mushroom-lip jug, > stirrup jar). Beyond

that the multiplicity of forms is great — in Attic red-figure pottery alone ro types (including B 4-8) can be distinguished [3; 4]. The simplest form is the > chous (B 6), also used as a measure of capacity. Jugs with (trifoil) ‘clover’ lip are described as wine-jugs (oinochoai), those with round lips as water-jugs (hydriai) [5], those with wide bases may have been used particularly as libation jars (B 9). The restricted closable mouth of a > lagynos (B 10) is intended for transportation. A > hydria (B

11~12) could be used like a jug with its vertical handle,

Ve3

734

POTTERY, SHAPES AND TYPES OF

Vessel shapes in Greek pottery (8th-2nd cents. BC)

BEOS5

andbal 1

A Amphorae

B Jugs, Hydriai

1 Amphora with handles on shoulder 2 Amphora with handles at neck (8th cent.) 3 Neck amphora (Attic standard type, 6th cent.)

1 Oinochoe (7th cent.) 2 Corinthian ‘olpe’ 3 Attic ‘olpe’ (6th cent.)

C Kraters,

mixing vessels

4 5 6 7

Nicosthenic amphora (6th cent.) Nolan amphora (5th cent.) Hellenistic neck amphora Belly amphora, type B (6th cent.)

4-8 Attic oinochoai 6 type

3-chous;

4type1;

5 type 2;

7 type 4;

8type10

1 Volute krater

3 Calyx crater

5 Chytra

2 Colonette krater

4 Bell krater

6 'Stamnos'

7 Lebes gamikos

8 Psykter

8 ‘Pelike’ 9 Panathenaic amphora (6th cent.) 10 Panathenaic amphora (2nd cent.) 11 Kados 12 Loutrophoros

9 Epichysis 10Lagynos

11 Shoulder hydria 12 ‘Kalpis’

9 Lebes with stand

POTTERY,

SHAPES

SS

AND

TYPES

736

OF

yy

ae

a

PogeuwNa D Drinking vessels

1-4 Attic kylikes (6th cent.): 1 Little Master cup; 2 Eye cup; type A; 3 Type B; 4 Type C

5 Kantharos 6 Kyathos

7 Skyphos, Corinthian type 8 Skyphos, Attic type

9 Mastos

10 Kothon

ol E bsshisae E Oil and oint-

1 Corinthian lekythos (7th cent.)

5 Lydion

9 Exaleiptron

ment vessels,

2 Attic lekythos, Deianira type (6th cent.)

6 Alabastron (7th cent.)

10 Nicosthenic pyxis

pyxides

3 Attic shoulder lekythos (5th. cent.) 4 Belly lekythos

7 Alabastron (6th—5th cents.) 11 Attic pyxis 8 Aryballos (5th cent.)

12 Lekanis 13 'Askos'

14 'Guttus' 15 Kernos

The names in inverted commas are modern conventions.

while its two horizontal handles were used for lifting the vessel. The wide-mouthed — krater (fig. C) generally had two horizontal handles (the vertical volute handles of form C 1 are added false handles). Only the basin-like krater type called — lebes (C 9) exhibits neither foot nor handle, its stand is fashioned separately. Some kraters had a lid, as did the stamnos (C 6). The > psykter (C 8), used as a cooler, was also a wine vessel. The lebes gamikos with a tall attached foot (C 7) was used in the wedding rite. As in the case of jugs, most variants of drinking vessels (fig. D) belonged to the symposion. There were diverse types of drinking cups, including D 1-4 (kylix), the > kantharos (D 5), the > kyathos, which was at the same time a ladle (D 6), the drinking horn (keras) and

the mastos in the shape of a woman’s breast (D 9). The hemitomos, a hemispherical cup without foot or handle, is a Hellenistic form. The > skyphos (D 7-8) can mostly be seen in the hands of komasts, whereas the kothon (D ro) was originally a drinking cup for wanderers and warriors [6]. Ointment containers (fig. E) held oils and scents for the care of the body and for ritual anointing. A slender jug with a narrow funnel-shaped mouth (E 1-4) was

called > lekythos. The lydion shaped — alabastron (E 6-7) sometimes, the latter had eyes footless > aryballos was used

(E 5) and the teardropwere without handles; for attaching cords; the in a similar way (E 8).

Among the lidded pots (E 9-12), the exaleiptron (E 9),

with an in-turned rim for swirling or transporting fluids, and the pyxis (E ro-11) were part of a woman’s toilet equipment, whereas the lekanis (E 12) was a covered bowl for food [7]. The small vessel types > askos and — guttus contained cooking oils and the like (E 13-14). Examples of the multitude of vessel forms used in rites are the kernos (E 15), the > phiale, the > perirrhanterion and the > thymiaterion. On the whole, the forms of utilitarian ware (A 11; C 5) are less distinctive.

The function of pottery is determined by studying the composition of the vessels themselves, sometimes aided by the site and the context in which they were found and by residues of their contents [8; cf. 9], but in particular with the help of pictorial representations, which provide information about their use (symposion, rites, sport, mortuary cult, home or market) and their practical handling [2; 8; 9; 10; rr]. Our knowledge is augmented by literary sources, the analysis of which, however, requires that the correct ancient term for a vessel is known. Although a large number of names for

Tod:

vessels are known

738

from authors, esp. Aristophanes,

Athenaeus and late lexicographers [12], and by means of epigraphic evidence such as temple inventories and auction lists [13], a connection with surviving pottery forms is only occasionally possible. It can sporadically result from ancient labelling of the pottery itself [14], from ancient descriptions of vessels or the combination of texts and depictions. Some names can be traced back to the Mycenaean period [15; 16]. Only few refer to the form as such, e.g. > kylix, tripous, hemitomos or mastos, others to the contents (hydria: water, oinochoe: wine) or how they are handled (chous — yéw/ché6,

‘pour’; krater —xegavvupwkerdnnymi; ‘mix’, amphora— cupVamphi, péow/phéro, ‘carry (by the handles) on both sides’ [12. 165, no. 23]). Less frequently, names derive from exotic precursors such as the lydion and the alabastron [13. 213-214]. Antiquity made much less consistent use of pottery terminology than the consensus-oriented scholars of today. E.g. amphora was used synonymously with stamnos, > kados, metretes; drinking vessels of the most varied forms were called kylix or simply poterion, collective terms such as lekythos, lekane [7] and kalpis (hydria) have been applied to specific types only by modern scholars. On the other hand, some rg9th century terms, such as dinos (lebes), pelike (amphora) and olpe (B 2-3), have been retained by convention, even though they have long been proven to be inaccurate. Like the Greek ones, the Latin names of vessels are only sporadically recorded [16; 17]. Many can no longer be connected with a particular form or only generally assigned a to a functional area. With the adoption of Greek drinking culture, the terms for Greek symposion vessels were Latinised as scyphus, cantharus and + cyathus. In the household, however, names of Latin origin (> dolium, mortarium, catinus, — olla) predominated. Ointment containers were called ampullae or unguentaria. The latter term is also usual today for a tube-shaped oil vessel, mistakenly called a ‘tear vial’, which was placed in graves from the Hellenistic period onwards [18]. B. MATERIALS Generally, ancient names of vessels are used independently from the material they are made of. In surviving material culture, — pottery vessels predominate, but originally they were accompanied by a considerable number of vessels made of bronze and precious metals [x9]. Apart from smaller shapes, jugs, hydriai, basins and kraters, in particular, were made of metal (— Toreutics). Typically toreutic details such as handle attachments, rotelles, profiled feet and sharp-edged side profiles were often imitated in pottery from the 7th cent. BC onwards. However, it would be a mistake to rate

black-figure and red-figure vases, including their figurative decorations, as mere copies of contemporary metal vessels [20]. In the Imperial period too, imitations

of metalwork and autonomous pottery types can be clearly distinguished [21. 23, fig. 6]. Production of

POTTERY,

SHAPES

AND

TYPES

OF

glass in the 5th cent. BC was still limited to coreformed ointment containers and other miniature forms. Hellenistic luxury glass took the form of shallow dishes without handles; it was only with the invention of glassblowing in the rst cent. BC that ampullae, jugs, tumblers and bottles became mass produced. Stone vessels were produced in the Cyclades by the 3rd millennium BC, in Crete such vessels were inspired by Egyptian stone vessels [22]. In the Classical period, pyxides were made from the finest marble, whereas vessels made of semi-precious stone only increased in the Hellenistic period [24]. Monumental versions of pottery vessels in stone became common in the 4th cent. BC, initially for placing on graves (lekythos, loutrophoros), later as display objects (krater). To a greater degree than suggested by surviving material culture, there were containers made of wood (pyxis), basketwork [13. 264-275] or leather, which to some extent can still be seen in their ceramic imitations. C. TYPOLOGY A basic classification of vessels distinguishes the main two groups of ‘open’ wide-mouthed vessels, also described in prehistoric terminology [25] as ‘wide shapes’, (dishes, kraters, cups) and ‘closed’ vessels, tall shapes with narrower openings (amphorae, jugs, lekythoi, bottles). Parts of vessels are foot and base, body (with belly and shoulder), neck and mouth (lip, rim). The shape of the body is often compared to a cylinder, sphere or cone, but rarely corresponds exactly to this, rather egg, pear, bag and cup shapes predominate. In addition, the shape of the sides is represented in profile, oriented on the axis of rotational symmetry of turned vessels [26]. Whereas the functional forms only need to be defined in accordance with generally functional characteristics, different shape criteria are applied to typology. A vessel type is in the first place determined according to overall construction and the profile of the sides (e.g. egg-shape or cylinder; defined neck or flowing contour; flat or rounded shoulders). Other features that determine a type are the manner of attachment, shape and number of handles, which might run horizontally or vertically and might be shaped as a loop, bow, omega or volute. Sub-types and variants result from differing foot shapes (e.g. ring, disc, echinus, or bell foot), wall profiles, which can be smooth, thickened, angular, carinated etc. and from the cross-section of the handle (rod, band, triple, braided); e.g. the characteristics of Attic belly amphorae type A are an angular rim, flanged handles, contoured foot, of type B (fig. A7)anangular rim, rod handles, echinus foot, of type C a taller neck with torus rim, rod handles, echinus foot [27; 28; 29]. Common types, which were produced for a long time, passed through early, mature and late stages (cf. fig. A 9-10). This morphological process can often be analysed chronologically and it is often made more obvious by the creation of sub-types, although the transitions are usually fluid [30]. In Greek fine ceramics attempts are made to identify individual potters

POTTERY,

SHAPES

ANID

TYPES

OF

740

739

through careful comparison of rim and foot profiles

[31]. Typological classification is necessary for any examination of vessel types and of large pottery assemblages. Usually the types are simply numbered. Roman + Terra Sigillata has produced a strikingly large number of variations of small open vessels. Their type numbers derive from H. DRAGENDORFF [32]. The typology according to tituli pinti introduced by H. DrEsSEL is also still commonly used for transport amphorae [33]; it is continually extended by areas in which the amphorae are found and were produced [3 4]. Throughout Graeco-Roman Antiquity small-format figurine vessels were in use; their classification follows plastic archetypes. — Figurine vases; > Vase painters

Gefafe aus Edelstein, 1973 25 J. KuNow et al., Vorschlage zur systematischen Beschreibung von Keramik. Bonn, RL, Fiihrer 124, 1986, 66 26 C. STECKNER, Samos: Dokumentation, Vermessung, Bestimmung und Rekon-

struktion von Keramik, in: Akten des 13. Internationalen Kongresses fiir Klassische Archaologie 1990, 631-637 27BEazLEy, ABV XI

(Berlin 1988), 28 Id., ARV

XLIX 29G.M.A. RicuTER, M. MILNE, Shapes and Names of Athenian Vases, 1935, figs. r-r1 30 K. GREENE, Roman Pottery, 1992, fig. 12 31H.J. BLorscn, Formen attischer Schalen, 1940 32H. DRAGENDORFF, Terra sigillata, in: BJ 96, 1895, 18-155 33 CIL XV 2,1

plate.2 34 D. P. S. Peacock, D. F. Witt1ams, Amphorae and the Roman Economy, 1986, 4-9; 80-217. G. M.A.

RicuTer,

M. Mitne,

Shapes and Names

of

Athenian Vases, 1935; E. GosE, Gefatypen der romischen Keramik im Rheinland, 1950; repr. 1975; W. SCHIERING, Die griechischen Tongefafe, 1983; G. KANOWSKI,

1A. W. Jounston, R. E. Jones, The SOS-Amphorae, in: ABSA 73, 1978, 103-141

2C.G. KOEHLER, The Han-

dling of Greek Transport Amphorae, in: BCH Supplement 13, 1986, 49-67

3 BEAzLEY, ARV* XLIX

4G.M.A.

RICHTER, M. MILNE, Shapes and Names of Athenian Vases, 1935, Figs. 118-134 5 W. GAUER, OIF 8, 1975, 83

Containers of Classical Greece, 1984;J.C. GARDIN, Code pour l’analyse des formes de poteries, 1976; repr. 1985; G. P. CaraTELtt, Atlante delle forme ceramiche 1, 1981; 2, 1985 (EAA Supplement); Conspectus formarum terrae sigillatae italico modo confectae, 1990; S. TASsINARI, Il vasellame bronzeo di Pompei, 1993. LS.

6 I. SCHEIBLER, Kothon Exaleiptron, in: AA, 1968, 389-

397 7 A.Lioutas, Attische und schwarzfigurige Lekanai und Lekanides, 1987. 8M.H. CaLLENDER, Roman Amphorae, 1970, 37-41 9S. I. RoTRoFF, J.-H. OAKLEY, Debris from a Public Dining Place in the Athenian Agora, in: Hesperia Supplement 25, 1992, 46-50 10 H. GerIckE, Gefadarstellungen auf griechischen Vasen, 1970 11 W. OENBRINK, Ein ‘Bild im Bild’-Phanomen — Zur Darstellung figiirlich dekorierter Vasen auf bemalten attischen Tongefa%en, in: Hephaistos 14, 1996, 81-134

Poultry see > Meat dishes

Poultry farming see > Breeding, of small domestic animals Pous (xovc/pous, ‘foot’, Lat. > pes). A pots is a Greek

nelle inscrizioni dei vasi stessi, in: ArchCl 1973-74, 341375 15 A. Morpurco, Mycenaeae Graecitatis Lexicon, 1963 16 W. Hircers, Lateinische GefaSnamen, 1969 17 R. MarIcHAt, Les graffites de La Graufesenque, 1988

unit of length, taken from the proportions of the human body, of 4 madmotai (palaistai; — palaisté; ‘hand width’, Lat. > palmus) or 16 Sdxtwaroi (daktyloi; ~ daktylos; ‘finger width’, Lat. digitus). Owing to differing regional calculations its length varied between c. 270 and 350 mm; an Attic foot was c. 300 mm. The pous is a subunit of larger units; 100 pddes correspond

18 V. R. ANDERSON-STOJANOVIC, The Chronology and

to a mA€Ogov

Function of Ceramic Unguentaria, in: AJA 91, 1987, ro5—

(> stddion); cf. table.

12 P. Raprct CoLace (ed.), Lexikon Vasorum Graecorum 1, 1992 13B. Amyx, Attic Stelai III, in: Hesperia 27, 1958, 163-310 14M. L. Lazzarini, [nomi dei vasi greci

122

19J.R.JANNOT (ed.), Vaisselle métallique. Vaisselle

céramique, in: REA 97, 1995 20M. VicKkerRs, D. GILL, Artful Crafts, 1994 (review: E. SIMON, in: JHS 116, 1996, 230-231) 21R. PErRovszxy, Studien zu rémischen

(> pléthron),

1F. Huttscu, *1882,s. Index

600 pddes to a otddiov

Griechische und rémische Metrologie, 2R.C. A. RoTriAnper, Antike Langen-

ees

le

Bronzegefafen mit Meisterstempeln, 1993 22 P. GerzGENTLE, Stone Vessels of the Cyclades, 1996 23 P. WarREN, Minoan Stone Vases, 1969

24 H. P. BUHLER, Antike

Greek units of length and the relationships between them Unit oflength

— ddxtvdoc

TAACLOTI

oman

TLOUG

IHXUS

TAEDQOV

OTAOLOV

daktylos

palaisté

spithame

pous

péchys

pléthron

stadion

finger

hand width

hand span

foot

cubit

4 12 16 24

= 1 palaiste

= 1 pléthron = 6 pléthra

= 1 stadion

daktyloi daktyloi daktyloi daktyloi

= 1 spithameée = = 4 palaistai =6palaistai

=2spithamai

= 1 pots =1.5 pots 100 poddes 600 podes

=x

péchys

741

742

Poverty. The term poverty indicates a situation in life marked by privation, often not to be improved out of one’s own efforts, and comprises both descriptive analytic as well as judging and normative aspects. In spite of differences in the perception and judgment of poverty during the course of history, which were determined by their historical and cultural background, several basic observations on problems concerning poverty do also apply to pre-industrial societies and especially to Antiquity: absolute poverty is understood as a social situation in which it is not possible to adequately meet the basic human needs — which include food, clothing, housing and health (cf. already Pl. Resp. 2,372a-d; Plut. Mor. 523e). Besides these material basic needs, immaterial aspects connected with problems of poverty are

of the population. Under the circumstances, it was indispensable for these poor to socially distance themselves from the real have-nots, who did not possess any means of production (land, workshop or tools) and were subject to varying degrees of social stigma. Although Greek language covered manifestations of poverty in a highly differentiated terminology, predominantly to meet the general need for moral judgment and social differentiation, there was always an awareness of the fundamental difference to begging, as shown by Aristoph. Plut. 5ooff. To have esteem for, or even to idealize poverty, which was at best regarded as ill fate, or asa disease, being hardly ever perceived as a social and economic problem, was unknown to Greeks and Romans before Late Antiquity — apart from some isolated philosophic and then Christian statements. Rejection and scorn of poverty were rather the norm, moral depravity and criminal disposition themselves being regarded as its natural consequences [1]. Economic dependence and infringement of personal dignity, which were consequences of poverty, determined at the same time the social evaluation: a proximity of poverty to slavery was diagnosed (Aristot. Pol. 1,13,1260) and poverty, as illustrated by the idealizing opposite assessment of Pericles for Athens in his funeral speech, as recounted by Thucydides (2, 37, 1), was also commonly regarded as an argument against participation in political activity. The very really threatening proximity to slavery, from which poverty, regarding the factual living conditions, often did not differ much anyway, and the pitiless severity in dealing with the poor are shown in early Greece and Rome by the law of obligations. So it was not by chance that after periods of agrarian and economic crises, the demands of the poor in Greece and Rome aimed at relief in the law of obligations (debt redemption) and in land distribution. Economic independence and political rights, as prerequisites for landed property, were just as inseparably connected as the respective political demands. Compared to the not very complex archaic society, the socio-economic development, in specific areas even overpopulation and the external expansion of these societies, led to increasing social differentiation. Frequent warfare with all its consequences, debts, the growing money economy and the expansion of large estates led to the impoverishment of parts of the farmers’ class and to a strong increase of the number of the poor and the landless in Greece and Rome. The exacerbation of poverty in Athens is well documented starting from the end of the 5th cent. In Greece, the severity of a growing number of inner conflicts (otéoetc; stdseis) led not only to the periodical expulsion, but also to the impoverishment of large sections of the population. The likewise expanding mercenary warfare of this time was for many the last hope in the face of a definite plunge into poverty. The impoverishment of small farmers in some regions of Italy, brought about by constant warfare as well as by the contemporaneous rise of slave-based large estates, and the consequent migration

mentioned as well, like scarce involvement in culture

and education or an insufficient participation in the political life. On the other hand, the attempt of measuring poverty by comparing the life situations of different social classes, or of defining it on the basis of the subjective perception of single individuals, is questionable. Even in Antiquity, social and legal definitions of poverty depended on socia! and cultural norms, indicating the complex social, political and economic context, in

which the phenomenon poverty was embedded. In pre-industrial, agrarian societies, absolute poverty was a generally widespread phenomenon: already a few bad harvests, not to talk of natural disasters, epidemics or wars, were able to trigger real life-threatening crises and famines. For Antiquity, though, such frequently occurring plights are only in a few cases adequately documented; the fragmentary surviving historiographic literature, which rarely tackles social problems, hardly ever lets poverty, its various forms and facets, not to talk about its causes, make an appearance. The actual ubiquity of poverty in ancient societies is reflected, therefore, in only a few genres of sources, such as in the writings on dream interpretation (— Artemidorus) and — astrology (Ptolemy), as well as in the papyri. We will not go wrong by the assumption that a considerable part of the population, if not its majority, lived permanently on the verge of or below the subsistence level. In Antiquity, as in all pre-industrial societies, poverty can be considered as the basic social problem. It is only superficially connected with the question of work, depending in fact decidedly on problems concerning property, since for the majority of the population, merely the possession and use of land, of a workshop or tools permitted a, usually meager, livelihood. While wealth — foremost in the form of landed property -, in the view of Antiquity, exempted one from the constraint to work, poverty was defined by the fact that one had to work physically in order to make a living. This concept of poverty, which did not imply total lack of possession, meant that all small producers working on their own — farmers as well as workmen -, even in the case of economic independence and relative affluence, were to be regarded as poor, including thus the majority

POVERTY

POVERTY

of these farmers to Rome, let poverty become virulent in the city. This indirectly lent its topic a decisive influence in the politics of the Late Republic, though only as a problem of provision, land distribution and settlement concerning the strengthening of the threatened class of farmers and soldiers class (Ti. Gracchus). During both

the Republican and the Imperial periods, poverty was not perceived or fought against as such. There existed also no form of public welfare for the poor whatsoever. This is shown by the terms of the frumentationes of the big cities, occasionally misinterpreted as ‘poverty policy’, as well as by the institution of public funds for the poor (> alimenta) of the 2nd cent., the condition for the receiving of which was Roman citizenship, but not necessarily neediness. The miserable external conditions [6] of urban poverty, which — in contrast to countryside poverty — is relatively well documented for the Imperial period, did not bring about any political measures towards a fundamental improvement of the social situation. Consequently, the caritas concept of rising Christianity with its systematic welfare for the poor, organized by the Church hierarchy in the communities, meant a far-reaching change in the perception of and in the way of dealing with poverty: in fact, it discovered poverty as a social phenomenon and an ethical problem. By so doing, Christianity fell back, however, on a highly developed Jewish perception, theology and experience of poverty, based on the OT. This tradition attached extraordinary importance to the welfare of the poor, valued > almsgiving, especially if directed at the poor, as a religious deed, and ran for them a highly organized as well as generous relief work (tithe for the poor, Deut 14:28f. among others) [2]. In the NT, poverty substantially obtained a function in the history of salvation and at the same time a fundamentally new value, which paved the way for an ideal of poverty, casting the seed of the future monastic life. Christian welfare for the poor was basically directed to everybody in need. The differentiation in widows, orphans, prisoners, beggars, strangers, the sick and the needy reflects the growing awareness, which is to be noticed even in the sources, of all the socially and materially disadvantaged persons (such as Joh. Chrys.), letting thus for the first time emerge even such large groups as widows and orphans, that were structurally affected by poverty [4]. Starting from the 3rd/4th cents., a growing institutionalization of the welfare for the poor took place, which went beyond almsgiving and the registration in lists of permanently supported widows and orphans; it came to a temporary end in the poorhouses and hospitals of the Middle Ages and in Byzantium. Asa result, the Church dominated completely the field of social assistance; since Constantine, it has also

been sponsored by the state for exerting this duty. — Alms; ~ Alimenta; + Beggars; — Citizenship; ~ Debt; + Economy; — Slavery; > Stasis; > Town, City;

> War; > Wealth; > Work

744

743

1H. BorkesTEIN, Wohltatigkeit und Armenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum, 1939, 185-191 2G. HAMEL, Poverty and Charity in Roman Palestine, 1990, 1os5ff., 2orff., 217ff. 3 A. R. Hanps, Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome, 1968 4 J.-U. Krause, Witwen und Waisen im

romischen Reich IJ: Wirtschaftliche und gesellschaftliche Stellung von Witwen, 1994, 161-173, 193-197 5 E. PatLAGEAN, Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale a Byzance. 4iéme —7iéme siécles, 1977 6 A. ScosiE, Slums, Sanitation, and Mortality in the Roman World, in: Klio 68, 1986, 399-433 7G. E. M. DE STE. Croix, The Class Struggle in the Ancient World, 198r. J.H.

Pozo Moro see > Pyrenean peninsula

Practical philosophy A. Concert B. PLATO AND THE ACADEMY C. ARISTOTLE AND THE PERIPATOS D.HELLENISM AND LATIN ANTIQUITY E. INFLUENCE

A. CONCEPT Beginning with Aristotle, the term ‘practical philosophy’ (oaxtixt pirocogia/praktike philosophia, Latin philosophia practica) or ‘practical science’ (meaxtixh émotnun/praktike epistemé, Latin scientia practica) was used primarily in the context of classifying knowledge; it refers to the ways of knowing characteristic for those scientific and philosophical disciplines that concern ‘what can be done’ (or ‘what can be achieved in

action’: t0 meaxtov/to prakton, Latin agibile). Later on the term was increasingly used as a collective designation for the disciplines of acting: ethics, economics and politics, which were distinguished as ‘practical’ from both theoretical and poietic disciplines. B. PLATO AND THE ACADEMY The first significant conception of philosophical knowledge as relevant to practical life, in the sense that — unlike purely contemplative, theoretical knowledge — its insights affect one’s actions, is found in > Plato [r]. In the Politicus, which deals with the essence ofpolitical science and its method of gaining knowledge, he uses the diaeretic method to divide sciences into two groups (258e): those which are practical, or which act (neaxtinai/praktikai), and those which are theoretical, or only apprehend (uovov yvweuotxai/mdonon gnoristikai). He identifies the ‘use of one’s hands’ (xevooveyia/cheirourgia) as a criterion for distinguishing between the two: if a science involves the hands, then it is ‘practical’ (259e). Plato thus clearly construes practical science as knowledge that is practical in the sense of technical. He further divides the sciences which merely apprehend into two subgroups: those which judge (xoitixov uéeoc/kritikon méros) and those which command (émutaxtxdv uéeoc/epitaktikon méros). The former sciences (e.g. arithmetic) merely formulate theoretical judgements and are independent of practice (ikat tov med&ewv/psilai ton praxedn), the latter also give rise to commands (260a), like politics, and provide orientation for our actions (26ob).

74S

746

The division and categorization of sciences in accordance with the diaeretic method was an important topic of discussion in the Platonic +» Academy, along with the identification of the essence and purpose of practical science. Since in the Academy Plato’s teachings were regarded as ‘philosophy itself’, a systematic division of the Platonic /6goi into logical (logika),

a) While the theoretical sphere focuses on the contemplative recognition of > truth, in the practical realm the aim is to achieve success in action itself, edmoaEia (eupraxia), ‘good acting and good living’, ev medrttewv (eu prattein) and ev Ci (ed zén; Aristot. Eth. Nic. 2, 2, 1103b 26-29). Accordingly, theoretical and practical philosophy possess their respective knowledge in different ways; the former observes and merely states what there is, while the latter, equally scientific, exerts an effect on human action by attending to its success (ibid.

physical (physika) and ethical (éthikda) was tantamount

to a three-part division of philosophy itself. According to Sextus Empiricus, this division may therefore date back to Plato himself, but specific mention of it is not found until Xenocrates (fr. 1 HEINZE = 82 ISNARDI ParENTE = Xenokrates Adversus logicos 1,16). Cicero confirms Sextus’ statement in his reference to a ratio triplex (Acad. 1,4,19). In the later history of the Academy, the three-part division was passed down in a variety of versions, many of which showed the influence of the Aristotelian classification, for example in Albinus [3] (Didaskalikos 3,158,21-25).

C. ARISTOTLE AND THE PERIPATOS Aristotle (— Aristoteles [6]) was the first to intro-

duce the term ‘practical philosophy’, and he also formulated its authoritative definition. He took up the problem of the classification of knowledge that had been raised by Plato and offered a new basis for such a classification by developing his own conception of the essence and structure of scientific knowledge, and for the first time sharply delineating practical philosophy or epistemé from both theoretical and poietic knowledge. This resulted in a division of philosophy into the theoretical, the practical and the poietic (exhaustive tripartition: Aristot. Top. 6,6,145a 14-18, Metaph. 6,1; 11,7, Eth. Nic. 6,2,1138a 27-28; the distinction between theoretical and practical philosophy in Aristot. Top. 7,1,152b 4 and Metaph. 2,1,993b 20-21, cf. also Aristot. Cael. 3,7,306a 16 and Metaph. 12,9,1074b 3 81075a 2). In this context, practical philosophy or epistemé refers not so much to the collective of politics, economics and ethics (as it did later on in the Hellenistic, late ancient and medieval traditions), but rather toa

certain practice-relevant form of scientific knowledge, in particular that found in political science (and ethics — which, however, was not an independent discipline for Aristotle, but part of politics). The essence of the practical is determined through its dual distinction from both the theoretical and the poietic. 1. PRACTICAL VERSUS THEORETICAL 2. PRACTICAL VERSUS POIETIC 3. PRACTICAL PRUDENCE AND PRACTICAL SCIENCE

1. PRACTICAL VERSUS THEORETICAL Aristotle distinguishes between performing an action (modattew/prdttein) and engaging in contemplation (Oewostv/thedrein); between the dianoetic virtues of practical > prudence (podvnorc/phronésis) and of + wisdom (codia/sophia); and between practical and theoretical science, based on the following:

PRACTICAL

PHILOSOPHY

6,2,1139a 26-27).

b) The manner of being of the respective intended object differs as well: Theoretical philosophy (first philosophy or theology, mathematics, physics) has to do with what exists of necessity (&vayxatov/anankaion) and cannot be otherwise (ta wh évdexoueva GALoc &xew/ ta me endechomena Allés échein, Aristot. Eth. Nic. 6,3,1140a 1-2), while practical philosophy has to do with human affairs (t& GvOQd@muwa/ta anthropina). Such affairs have the contingent manner of being of that which occurs with a considerable degree of regularity (@¢ éxt t0 tOdU/hOs epi to poly; ‘for the most part’), and as such allows for epistemic observation. Accordingly, the practical knowledge of phronésis ranks below the theoretical knowledge of sophia. However, it has an advantage that theoretical knowledge lacks, which is the practical power to demand: phronésis gives commands (it is émtaxtimt/epitaktiké, ‘commanding’ ibid. 6,10, 11434 8).

c) Given the mutability of human affairs, practical science cannot seek to achieve the same degree of precision as theoretical philosophy. Yet this does not lessen its epistemic character (ibid. 1,3; 1,7,1098a 26ff.; 2,2; 9,2,1165a 12-14), as its lesser degree of precision is a function of its practical focus. Thus it is not a less valuable kind of philosophy; it is a type of knowledge that is just as scientific as theoretical knowledge. 2. PRACTICAL VERSUS POIETIC It is important to distinguish the characteristic nature of action (moeGEic/praxis) from that of production (moinouc/poiésis). This is made more difficult by the fact that action and production are both types of doing, so they can be easily confused. Criteria for distinguishing between the two in Aristotle are the ‘autotelic’ nature of action, which contains within itself its end or aim (té\0¢/télos; + Teleology), and the ‘heterotelic’ nature of production, which has its end in the work that is produced (#gyov/érgon), i.e. outside itself. Accordingly, success in production is determined based on the work that is produced, while good action is recognized only by its virtue (4gett/arete), i.e. by the quality and perfection of the action performed (which is a > motion, xivynoic/kinésis, and in its perfect performance an évéoyeva/—> enérgeia, an ‘activity’). Accordingly, Aristotle draws a sharp distinction between the practical moral knowledge that is ~ prudence (pedvnotc/phronésis) and the practical technical knowledge that is > art or technology (téyvn/téchne). Unlike téchné, phronésis is concerned with actions or

747

748

spheres of action not individually, but with regard to their role as means to achieving the overall objective of life, which is happiness. It aims at success in life as a whole (10d¢ 10 et Shy bAwC/pros to eu zén holos, Aris-

As Aristotelian doctrine became systematized, the tendency took hold to view practical philosophy or epistemé no longer as a specific form of knowing, but as a field of disciplines, namely all those that concern action. This development, along with other factors — such as the Aristotelian distinction between various forms of phronésis (Aristot. Eth. Nic. 6,8) and the influence of the ps.-Aristotelian Oikonomikos — led already in the ancient era to a three-part division of practical philosophy into ethics as the knowledge of individual action, economics as the knowledge of actions relating to the

PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY

tot. Eth. Nic. 6,5,1140a 28). Moreover, for téchné there

is virtue (Ggetn/arete), i.e. gradual progress toward perfection and the possibility of achieving various levels of perfection, while this is not true of phronésis (ibid. 6,5,1140b 24-25): phronésis is either completely successful or it fails entirely to achieve its goal. Aristotle says that ethical virtue, which is the basis of phronésis, is OTOYAOTLXT] TOO LEGO (stochastike toi mésou, ‘aiming at the intermediate’); hence it is able to achieve its goal,

the correct mean, in only one single way, and this is precisely what makes things so difficult. By contrast, there are many ways of making a mistake, so it is easy to err (ibid. 2,5,1106b 26-31). For this reason, perfection is achieved in téchné through practice and even through error; but not so in the case of phroénésis, as one does not

become virtuous by practising depravity. Accordingly, in téchné preference is given to those who err intentionally, while in phronésis those who err unintentionally are to be regarded as preferable (ibid. 6,5,1140b 2224).

3. PRACTICAL PRUDENCE AND PRACTICAL SCIENCE Aristotle draws a vital distinction between practical prudence and practical science, the action-oriented knowledge of phronésis and the practical scientific knowledge of epistemé praktiké. The difference is fundamental: practical prudence is not a science (Aristot. Eth. Nic. 6,8,1142a 23-24), but rather knowledge of how to conduct one’s life, a knowledge that both the pater familias and the politician — someone like Pericles —need to possess. Practical philosophy goes beyond this kind of experience-based knowledge; it is the kind of science that Aristotle himself developed in his treatises on ethics and politics. It deals with the neaxtov cyabdov/ prakton agathon, the ‘good that can be done’ (i.e. that can be achieved in action) — not with the noaxtéov/ praktéon, that which is ‘to be done’ (for example in the sense of the Stoic ethics of duty or the modern Sollensethik, the ethics of what one ought to do), nor with

praxis as the object of a descriptive theory of action. Since, furthermore, the realization of the good that can be achieved in action presupposes a good education (madeta/— paideia) of citizens with their appetitive life, their habits and customs, but education is conducted in

accordance with the laws of the > polis, practical philosophy is primarily the science of the best possible political > Constitution. Already in the > Peripatos, the Aristotelian view of practical philosophy underwent substantial changes. + Theophrastus and > Dicaearchus shifted the emphasis to the controversy regarding the primacy of a theoretical or practical way of life; Dicaearchus gave preference to practical life (Biog meaxtixdc/bios praktikos), a position the Aristotelians found offensive (fr. 25 WEHRLI = Cic. Att. 2,16,3).

household (home economics) and politics as the knowledge of actions of the political community. D. HELLENISM AND LATIN ANTIQUITY

The Stoic doctrine of practical knowledge offers eloquent testimony to the way in which, in Hellenism, the Aristotelian definition of practical philosophy, including the distinction between practical prudence and practical science, came to be forgotten as a result of the fate of the Corpus Aristotelicum. Despite the Aristotelian distinction, the Stoics confused phronésis and epistemé praktiké, as is evident from the definition believed to date back to > Chrysippus [2]: Phronésis is the ‘science (émuothunfepistemeé) of that which should be done (xowtéov/poiétéon), should not be done or should be indifferent, or the science of the good, the bad and

the indifferent with respect to the nature of political beings’ (SVF 3, 262). This confusion was carried over into Latin philosophy by Cicero. He translated phronésis as prudentia and defined it as rerum expetendarum fugendarumque scientia, the ‘science of things to be pursued and rejected’ (Cic. Off. 1,43,153) —in the household (domestica) as well as in the political arena (civilis; Cic. Part. or. 76-79) — and distinguished it from sapientia (codia/ sophia; > wisdom’) as rerum divinarum et humanarum scientia, the ‘science of divine and human things’. Important links in the further tradition of practical philosophy include > Boethius with his commentary on the Eisagogé of > Porphyrius (PL 64, 73-74) and ~ Cassiodorus with the second part of his Institutiones (De artibus ac disciplinis, 3; PL 70, 1167-1169). They provided a systematic presentation of the three-part division of philosophy into the theoretical, the practical and the poietic, and the subdivision of practical philosophy into ethics (philosophia moralis), economics (philosophia dispensativa) and politics (philosophia civilis), and passed it on to the Latin mediaeval period. E. INFLUENCE The disciplinary tradition of practical philosophy was maintained particularly in the encyclopaedias of the Middle Ages — for example in the Etymologiae of Isidorus [9] of Seville (2,24; 8,6), the Didascalicon by Hugo of St. Victor (2, 2; 2,19), the Speculum Doctrinale of Vincent of Beauvais (2,46), Dominicus Gundissalin’s De divisione philosophiae (2,2) and Robert Kildwardby’s De ortu scientiarum (ch. 36) — and at the univer-

749

750

sities. After the rediscovery of Aristotle’s Ethics and Politics around the middle of the 13th cent., the study of practical philosophy was separated from theology. In addition to lectures by the organicus, the philosophus naturalis and the metaphysicus, the study of philosophy also included lectures by the ethicus, i.e. the study of ethics and politics, with economics or chrematistics being added later on. Thus the three-part philosophia practica became an official course of study, particularly at German universities up to the 18th cent. Christian WotrFr’s treatise Philosophia practica universalis (1738-1739) can be considered the last testimony of

Praecia. Proper name derived from praeco (‘herald’). Known because of P., the mistress of P. Cornelius [I 15 | Cethegus c. 75 BC. By giving her impressive gifts L. Licinius [I 26] Lucullus secured Cethegus’ support and with it the province of Cilicia (Plut. Lucullus 6,2—4). JOR.

this scholastic tradition that descended from Aristotle,

although it shared only formal characteristics with him; here philosophia practica is called universalis because it constitutes the systematic basis, yielded more mathematico, for Philosophia moralis sive Ethica, oecono-

mica and Philosophia civilis sive Politica. + Duty; > Ethics; > Philosophy; > Political philosophy; > PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY; > THEORY/PRACTICE P. AUBENQUE, La prudence chez Aristote, 1963, 31986; R. C. BarTiett, S$. D. Coitins (eds.), Action and Con-

templation. Studies in the Moral and Political Thought of Aristotle, 1999; E. BertI, Le ragioni di Aristotele, 1989;

G. Bren, Die Grundlegung der politischen Philosophie bei Aristoteles, 1973; R. BopgUs, Le philosophe et la cité, 1982; S. BRoapIE, Ethics with Aristotle, 1991; D. CHarR-

LES, Aristotle’s Philosophy of Action, 1984; H.-G. GaDaMER,

Praktisches

Wissen,

in: Id., Gesammelte

Werke,

1985ff., vol. 5, 230-248; I. Hapor, Arts libéraux et philosophie dans la pensée antique, 1984; W. F. R. Harpie, Aristotle’s Ethical Theory, 1968; W. HENNISs, Politik und praktische Philosophie, 1963, *1977; O. HOrre, Prakti-

sche Philosophie.

Das

Modell

des Aristoteles,

1971,

*1996; H. KrAmer, Arete bei Platon und Aristoteles, 1967; C. Lorp, D. K. O’ConNor (eds.), Essays in the Foundation of Aristotelian Political Science, 1991; H. Mazer, Die Lehre der Politik an den alteren deutschen Universitaten (1962), in: Id., Politische Wissenschaft in

Deutschland, 1985, 31-67, 247-262; A. W. MULLER, Praktisches Folgern und Selbstgestaltung nach Aristoteles, 1982; C. NaTALI, La saggezza di Aristotele, 1989; C. PacCHIANI (ed.), Filosofia pratica e scienza politica, 1980; P. PETERSEN, Geschichte der aristotelischen Philosophie im protestantischen

Deutschland,

Rehabilitierung

der praktischen

1921; M. RiepeEL

Philosophie,

(ed.),

2 vols.,

1972-1974; Id., Metaphysik und Metapolitik, 1975; J. Ritter, Metaphysik und Politik, 1969; L. Srrauss, The City and Man, 1964; G. TEICHMULLER, Neue Studien zur Geschichte der Begriffe, vol. 3: Die praktische Vernunft bei Aristoteles, 1879; A. Vico, Die aristotelische Auffassung der praktischen Wahrheit, in: Internationale Zeitschrift fiir Philosophie, 1998/2, 285-308; E. VOEGELIN, Order and History, vol. 3: Plato and Aristotle, 1957; F.

Vo.ri, Réhabilitation de la philosophie pratique et néoaristotélisme, in: P. AUBENQUE,

A. TORDESILLAS

(eds.),

Aristote politique, 1993, 461-484; Id., Filosofia pratica, in: Enciclopedia del Novecento, 1998, 10, 630-638; J. WatteR, Die Lehre von der praktischen Vernunft in der griechischen Philosophie, 1874; G. W1ELAND, Ethica — Scientia practica, 1981. F.Vo.

PRAEDA

Praeco (‘town crier’). The praeco publicus (Cic. Sest.

57) was one of the auxiliary personnel of a Roman magistrate (> apparitores). He was not an office-holder in the Roman legal sense (> magistratus), but served at the lowest level in the hierarchy of state-salaried subalterns (cf. CIL I? 594, LXII Z. 32-39). His activities, for which fundamentally he needed only a loud voice (mockingly: Mart. 5,56), did not bring high social esteem, and even less political influence. Praecones were mostly freed-men and their sons, but could be freeborn; in any case they were Roman citizens (CIL I? 587, Il. 12f.; cf. I> 594, LXII Il. 18-20 = [2]). They were organized into a professional corporation ({3]; > collegium). Magisterial announcements both within and without Rome could be achieved vocally: for example, praecones called citizens to the people’s assemblies (+ comitia) and senators to the curia, proclaimed bills, announced the results of elections, and in a criminal proceedings summoned the participants [1. 125; 6. 363-365]. 1 W. Kunxe1, Die Magistratur, 1995 2M.H. CraWFORD (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. 1, 1996, 293-300; 355-391 3B. CoHEN, Some Neglected ordines: the Apparitorial

Status-Groups,

in: C. Nico.eT

(ed.), Des

ordres 4 Rome, 1984, 23-60 4.N. PuRcELL, The apparitores. A Study in Social Mobility, in: PBSR 51, 1983, 125-173 5 F.Hinarp, Remarques sur les praecones e le

praeconium dans la Rome de la fin de la Republique, in: Latomus 35, 1976, 730-746

6 MOMMSEN, Staatsrecht r.

Ld.

Praeda.

By praeda, Roman jurists primarily meant + war booty (Labeo Dig. 49,15, 28). Under the ius gentium (+ ius C 2), original acquisition of property by ~ occupatio was possible in the case of items taken from the enemy (Gai. Dig. 41,1,5,7). Captured enemies were enslaved (Florentinus Dig. 1,5,4); conquered land was forfeit to the Roman state. Soldiers ordered to plunder were bound by oath to deliver up all praeda. This was mostly sold by commanders, and the proceeds (manubiae) distributed among the soldiers. The commander and the > aerarium (public treasury) also received shares. The embezzlement of items considered war booty was > peculatus (criminal appropriation of state assets, Mod. Dig. 48,13,15). The jurists also used praeda to denote improperly acquired pecuniary advantage (Ulp. Dig. 25,5,1

pr.)

and the booty of robbers and looters (Paul. Dig. 47,9,451; Callistratus Dig. 48,19,28,10). Looting could even, where there were aggravating circumstances, be punished by death (Paulus, Sent. 5,20,1). > Slavery; > War; > War booty

PRAEDA

751

F. Bona, Osservazioni sull’acquisto delle ‘res hostium’ a seguito di ‘direptio’, in: SDHI 24, 1958, 237-268; KASER,

RPR 1, 425; A. Watson, The Law of Property in the Later Roman Republic, 1968, 63-74.

R.GA.

Praedium. Derived from the Latin praes, ‘bondsman’, who acted as guarantor with his property for another in the leasing of public duties (and from time out of mind probably also in civil law: cf. Lex XII tab. 1,4). Praedium is used almost synonymously with fundus (— Large estates); where more closely defined, a praedium is usually denoted by the place in whose territory it lay, a fundus by the name of the original owner (e.g. praedium Nomentanum, fundus Sextilianus). Praedium includes the estate in the literal sense as well as the buildings on it. Depending on the location or owner, Roman law refers to praedia urbana and praedia rustica, praedia decurionum (> decurio [1]) and praedia fiscalia (— fiscus). Praedia Italica were quiritary property (> Quirites), that is free of duties, while praedia stipendiaria or tributaria (— tributum) in the provinces were subject to taxation (> Taxes). According to Gaius (Inst.

2,21), the praedia stipendiaria were in provinces which belonged to the Roman people (populus Romanus), while the praedia tributaria were in imperial provinces (praedia stipendiaria sunt ea quae in his provinciis sunt quae propriae populi Romani esse intelleguntur; tributaria sunt ea quae in his provinciis sunt quae propriae Caesaris esse creduntur). A. Hue, s. v. P., RE 22, 1213-1224.

H.GA.

Praefatio see > Authors; > Circles, literary; > Dedication + Muse, acclamation of the; > Prooemium III. M.SE.

ie

ry troops (> auxilia), regardless whether they were infantry (cohortes; see > cohors) or > cavalry (alae). Beginning with Augustus, praefecti generally had the rank of equites. After the reign of Claudius [III 1], 1.e. from c. mid rst cent. AD on, a ranking developed whereby the praefectus cohortis was the first, the praefectus alae the third position in a military career. Essentially, these positions could only be nominally transferred (Suet. Claud. 25; AE 1932, 34), but it cannot be said how often this occurred. Unusual military assignments could also be given to a praefectus, e.g., as praefectus auxiliorum omnium adversus Germanos (ILS 990 and 991). The administrator of Egypt (— praefectus Aegypti), the head of the imperial guard (+ praefectus praetorio) and the emperor’s representative in Rome and later also in Constantinople (> praefectus urbi) — because directly appointed by the emperor and responsible to him only — bore special responsibilities and a certain prominence. In the private sphere, e.g., estate organization, the foremen of work crews were occasionally called praefecti. Individually attested office holders of praefecturae are listed below. Deviyver; H. Devijver, The Equestrian Officers of the Roman Imperial Army, vol. 1, 1989; vol. 2, 1992;W. Eck,

Die Laufbahn eines Ritters aus Apri in Thrakien, in: Chiron 5, 1975, 365-392, esp. 381; W. ENSSLIN, s. v. Praefectus, RE 22, 1257-1347; NICOLET, vol. 1, 423-439;

D. B. SADDINGTON, The Development of the Roman Auxiliary Forces from Caesar to Vespasian: 49 BC — AD 79, 1982; J. SUOLAHTI, The Junior Officers of the Roman Army in the Republican Period, 1955.

[1] Praefectus Aegypti see > praefectus Aegypti

[2] Praefectus aerarii 1) Praefectus aerarii militaris: Created in AD 6 by Augustus as the treasurer for provisioning legion veterans (— aerarium militare); there

Praefectiani see > Praefectus praetorio Praefectus (‘Superior, head’, from praeficere; his office or area of responsibility = praefectura). The praefectus is the Roman functionary appointed by a > magistratus as a proxy with comprehensive responsibilities for a defined period or for a specific task per > mandatum (see praefectus iure dicundo/dando). In the Empire, his appointment by the > princeps generally resulted in the functions becoming permanent.

In the non-military field, the designation praefectus was still used only under > Augustus [1] for new functions; later it was used exclusively in analogy to already existing functions. Praefecti were normally appointed by the princeps without Senate involvement, unlike for instance the Roman curatores (> cura [2]).

With increasing frequency during the Republic, praefecti are found with the army and fleet, a phenomenon that continued into the Imperial period. While the praefectus initially commanded the mounted troops (see > ala [2]), since Augustus’ time the term praefectus was applied in particular to commanders of the auxilia-

were three office holders at a time; they are found in the record until the 2nd quarter of the 3rd cent. AD. This office ranked high in a praetorian career. 2) Praefecti aerarii Saturni: State treasurers in Rome, always organized as a college of two. In 28-23 BC, they carried the designation praefecti aerarii Saturni (> aerarium); then they were drawn as praetores (aerarii) from among the ~ praetors, and from Claudius [III 1] on as quaestores (aerarii) from among the > quaestors. The latter term had definitively established itself by AD 56 and is attested until AD 360. In the praetorian career, this function was usually assumed immediately before that of the consulate. Its precise function within the state’s financial administration is uncertain. M. Corpsier, L’aerarium Saturni et l’aerarium militare,

1974. [3] Praefectus alimentorum. Senator who controlled the administration of alimentary moneys (— alimenta) in Italian towns but did not have to issue payments. The praefectura alimentorum was often combined with a cura viae (~ cura [2]). This office has been attested

TSS

754

from > Traianus [1] (AD 98-117), who established the alimenta on a grand scale (AE 1984, 426 = 1987, 421).

From Claudius [III 1] on, the position of praefectus castrorum was usually the final position of a primipilar career (> primipilus), with a tribunate (> tribunus) usually preceding it. From the early 2nd cent. AD on, after being praefectus castrorum, tenure of a procuratorship as centenarius (> procurator) was occasionally possible. The praefectus castrorum was responsible for the technical functioning of the camp and control of guard duty with an > officium to support him (cf. Veg. Mil. 2,10).

W. Eck, L’Italia nell’impero romano, 1999, 15 1ff.

[4] Praefectus annonae. To secure the city of Rome’s food supply, > Augustus [1], who had held the > cura annonae since 22 BC, appointed a permanent praefec-

tus annonae of equestrian rank after AD 7. The first praefectus annonae, > Turranius [2] Gracilis of Gades,

held the office until AD 48. Beginning in the Flavian period (AD 69-96), the position was incorporated into the equestrian career (+ equites Romani [D]); the prae-

fectus annonae was frequently promoted to > praefectus Aegypti. The preceding career varied con-

siderably, with no recognizable specialization. The office continued to the 6th cent. AD and from the early 4th cent. on was subject to the > praefectus urbi. Beginning in the 2nd cent., the praefectus annonae carried the rank title vir egregius; from the early 3rd cent. on, he was called vir > perfectissimus, in the 4th > vir clarissimus, finally in the 6th vir > spectabilis (x. 60-62]. The praefectus annonae organized the transport of grain (+ Grain trade, Grain import), later also that of other foods (wine, oil, etc. from the provinces) and the supervision over the quality and storage of imports in — Ostia and Rome. For this purpose numerous personnel consisting of soldiers and esp. imperial slaves and freedmen were available to him in Rome and Ostia; to what extent such personnel were regularly active in the provinces is disputed. However, the praefectus annonae must have maintained continuous contact with the gov-

ernors of particular provinces. A hierarchical structure of command is unlikely to have developed before the 3rd cent. Most of the work was handled by contractually bound ship owners and the corporations (see > collegium [x]) in Ostia. The praefectus annonae received jurisdictional powers (— iurisdictio) at an early point in time. 1 H. Pavis D’Escurac, La préfecture de l’annone, 1976.

P. Herz, Studien zur romischen Wirtschaftsgesetzgebung. Die Lebensmittelversorgung, 1988, 70-81; 117-120; 176-178; B. StrKs, Food for Rome, 1991; PLRE 1, 1057;

2, 1256f.

[5] Praefectus castrorum (also praefectus castrorum legionis and praefectus legionis; ‘camp prefect’). Office created by > Augustus [1] as a consequence of the general establishment of a standing army; the earliest examples: Vespasius Pollio (Suet. Vesp. 1) and Hostilius Rufus (Obseq. 72). A praefectus castrorum was appointed for each legion from the start, though the name of the military unit was initially not included in the title; however, from Claudius [III 1] on this can be increasingly observed in the inscriptions; from the late 2nd cent. on, castrorum is increasingly frequently omitted; from Septimius Severus on, the general term was only praefectus legionis, though the position remained the same. From the time of the emperor Gallienus (253268), the praefectus legionis rather than the senatorial ~> legatus assumed command of the unit.

PRAEFECTUS

B. Dosson, The Significance of the Centurion and Primipilaris ..., in: ANRW II 1, 1974, 392-434, esp. 396f.; 413-317; B. Dosson, The Primipilares in Army and Society, in: G. ALFOLDy, B. Dopson, W. Eck (ed.), Heer und Gesellschaft in der rémischen Kaiserzeit, 1999, 139ff.; esp. 141ff.; 147f.; D. B. SappINGTON, Early Imperial praefecti castrorum,

in: Historia 45, 1996, 244—-

DS2

[6] Praefectus civitatium. Officials, usually also military commanders, appointed by the Roman emperor or the respective governors to head large individual districts requiring firmer on-site control (e.g., praefectus Asturiae, praefectus civitatium Treballiae, praefectus Iudaeae, probably also praefectus Raetiae and praefectus Norici). They were not independent provincial governors (even in Judea) but subject to a senatorial governor such as the legate of Syria or that of the army of Germania superior. Only the governors of Egypt, Sardinia and, beginning with Septimius Severus (193-211), of Mesopotamia et Osrhoena carried this official designation as independent governors. H. Zwicky, Zur Verwendung des Militars in der Verwaltung der romischen Kaiserzeit, 1944.

[7] Praefectus classis. During the Republic a praefectus classis was appointed supreme commander of the Roman navy only as needed (see > Navies). This was, for example, the official title of Sex. > Pompeius [I 5] in 44 BC (Vell. 2,73,1-3). From > Augustus’ [1] time, the two Italian fleets in > Misenum and > Ravenna were headed by praefecti classis who at first were frequently ~ freedmen, but from the late Neronic period on, i.e. the 6os of the first century, were regularly equestrians (— equites Romani). The same praefectus classis often commanded both fleets one after the other, always that of Ravenna first, then that of Misenum; the term of office could vary. The rank title was initially > vir egregius, later vir > perfectissimus; the salary was 200,000 sesterces (ducenarius). The praefectus classis had powers of decision-making in the area of voluntary jurisdiction (FIRA Iz Nr. 49 |. 44). The provincial fleets were also commanded by an equestrian praefectus classis (cf. [x. ro5rff.]). [2. 85ff.] contains a list of praefecti classis in Italy. 1 PFLAUM, vol. 3 and suppl. 2 W. Eck, H. Lies, Ein Diplom fiir die classis Ravennas, in: ZPE 96, 1993, 75-88 (suppl. by: RMD 4).

PRAEFECTUS D.B.

SADDINGTON,

Praefectus

classis and

755

756

praefectus

[11] Praefectus iure dicundo see — praefectus iure dicundo [12] Praefectus legionis. Title borne by equestrian commanders of the legions (> /egio) in Egypt and, from Septimius Severus’ (193-211) time, by those of the legiones Parthicae. From > Gallienus on, every legionary commander bore the title; praefectus legionis (= p.l.) can also be an abbreviation for praefectus castrorum legionis (see > Praefectus |5| castrorum).

castrorum, in: H. Verrers, M. KANDLER (ed.), Akten des

14. Internationalen Limeskongresses (Carnuntum 1986), 1990, 67-70.

[8] Praefectus fabrum. Nothing is known of the original function of the praefectus fabrum that gave it its name. The first attested praefecti fabrum have nothing to do with ‘sapper’ units. In the late Republic, the praefectus fabrum is selected by an imperium holder (consul, praetor or proconsul; > imperium) and registered with the aerarium. This duty is attested into the late 2nd cent. AD. The praefectus fabrum served his > magistratus as a confidential agent, which is why the name of the imperium holder often appears in inscriptions (e.g., AE 1964, 255); he could be used for many services. The connection to one-year magistracies rendered the praefectura fabrum capable of being held repeatedly (cf. the mention of iteration in inscriptions, e.g., ILS 2690; 6286). Until Claudius’ time [III 1] (AD 41-54), praefecti fabrum are often found in a military context; if the activity of the praefectus fabrum as the head of the legions’ arms manufacture (— fabrica), as described in Vegetius (Mil. 2,11), has any historical context, then it

is limited to the late Republic and the early Empire. Later, the function appears only before a military career; it may have often consisted of civilian duties. In that case, it was often granted as a purely honorary position without specific duties since even minors were called praefecti fabrum (CIL VI 3512; IX 223). Praefecti fabrum were active also in the municipal sector, but their function cannot be specified. E. BapiaAn, Notes on a Recent List of Praefecti fabrum under the Republic, in: Chiron 27, 1997, 1-19; B. Dosson (ed.), The praefectus fabrum in the Early Principate, in: D. J. BREEZE, B. Dopson, Roman Officers and Frontiers, 1993, 218-241; K. E. Wetcu, The Office of

Praefectus fabrum in the Late Republic, in: Chiron 25,

1995, 131-145. [9] Praefectus feriarum Latinarum causa. Representa-

tive of the city of Rome’s magistrates with > imperium during the Latin festival (> Feriae Latinae) on > Mons Albanus. In the Empire, the office was used to present young members of the senatorial order to the public (list in [r. 124-131]). 1S. Pancigera, L. Pomponius L.f. Horatia Bassus Cascus Scribonianus, in: RPAA 45, 1972/73, 105-131.

[10] Praefectus frumenti dandi. Under > Augustus [1] from 22 BC on two senators of praetorian rank were appointed by the Senate to dispense the free grain in Rome; from 18 BC on, four. The office was little desired, which is why its four occupants were actually active for only three months each. The whole series of holders is known up to the mid 3rd cent. AD. G, RIcKMAN, The Corn Supply of Ancient Rome, 1980, Logit: 203 ite 2 5 3Uk.

[13] Praefectus praetorio see > praefectus praetorio

[14] Praefectus urbi see > praefectus urbi [15] Praefectus vehiculorum. Equestrian head of the vehiculatio or the > cursus publicus. Appointed for Italy presumably as early as > Augustus [1]; from the late 2nd cent. AD, there are even regional praefecti vehiculorum active in Italy; outside Italy, a praefectus vehiculorum was sometimes employed for various provincial complexes [1. 1037ff.]. Their main duty consisted in the control of the mansiones (> mansio) and mutationes and in making contracts with lessees of these stations. Frequently, they were also responsible for military reinforcements. 1PFLAUM

3.

2W.

Eck, L’Italia nell’impero Romano,

1999, 93ff. [16] Praefectus vigilum. Appointed by > Augustus [1] in AD 6as head of the seven cohorts of the > vigiles for fire protection in Rome; over time the office was extended to cover > police functions. An equestrian office, from the late rst cent. AD it was highly valued in an equestrian career because of the holder’s proximity to the emperor. A praefectus vigilum was often promoted to praefectus annondae (see Praefectus [4]) or ~ praefectus praetorio. Under the Severans, the official title was

> eminentissimus,

but from Severus Alex-

ander (222-235) on only vir > perfectissimus and from Constantine [1] the Great on > vir clarissimus. Cassiodorus (Var. 7,7,1; 7, 7,8; 6th cent. AD) still refers to the

praefectura vigilum. Holders are no longer known after the mid 4th cent. Beginning with > Traianus [1], an equestrian subpraefectus vigilum was also appointed. In the context of the cognitio extra ordinem (see > cognitio), the praefectus vigilum exercised jurisdiction in Rome over arsonists, thieves, receivers of stolen

goods (Dig. 1,15,3), i.e. disrupters of the public order (particularly serious cases and crimes by persons of standing were excepted). Appeal to the emperor or +> praefectus praetorio was possible. The jurists Julius [IV 16] Paulus and Ulpian each wrote a Liber singularis de officio praefecti vigilum. The official seat of the praefectus vigilum is currently unknown. R. SABLAYROLLES, Libertinus miles. Les cohortes de vigiles, 1996.

WE.

Praefectus iure dicundo. PID were officials of the urban Roman legal magistracy (> praetor), who dispensed justice in Italy in the Republican period, among Roman citizens living far from Rome in communities

HST

758

where political organization was either lacking or rudimentary (forum, > conciliabulum, > oppidum |.). PID neither had the right to scrutinize existing law courts, nor did they constitute an instance of appeal (+ appellatio). A praefectura was thus both the (tempo-

the administrative personnel at the imperial court and

rary) seat of the official and the legal district for which

he was responsible. With developing urban organization in Italy, (cf. + municipium), PID became superfluous as officials of the praetor, until finally no further mention is made of them by the Augustan period. H. GarsTerer, Herrschaft und Verwaltung im republikanischen Italien, 1976, 27-36.

W.ED.

Praefectus praetorio (‘praetorian prefect’; Greek émaoxoc/eparchos or bragxos tig addAfc/hyparchos tés aulés). Holder of one of the most important posts in the administration of the Roman empire. A. PRINCIPATE

B. Late ANTIQUITY

A. PRINCIPATE ~ Augustus [1] established the post in 2 BC when he placed two men of equestrian rank (+ equites Romani) at the head of his bodyguard, the > praetorians (cohortes praetorianae) (Cass. Dio 55,10). The PP’s original task was to command the imperial bodyguard that protected the emperor in his headquarters (— praetorium). As early as the reign of — Tiberius [II 1], however, the PP relinquished direct command of the guard in favour of other, mostly civilian duties [1.56], while retaining paramount powers over military activity throughout the Principate. Thus he personally commanded the praetorian guard when there was a change of ruler, occasionally took over the command of additional troops in Italy (though see Cass. Dio 52,24,3-4) and acted ultimately as chief of the general staff in civil and border warfare. In this capacity and increasingly unaided, he commanded the legions from the middle of the 3rd cent. AD on [4.28-29]. In peace, the PP was involved predominantly with legal and administrative duties, albeit ones that had arisen from the duty, military in itself, of protecting the emperor’s life. For example, in the reign of Tiberius, » Naevius [II 3] Macro was entrusted with investigating cases of high treason (Cass. Dio 58,21,3; 24,2). From the beginning of the 2nd cent. AD, the PP’s role was transformed increasingly into that of a judge (iudex): acting first as a legal adviser in the > consilium principis (permanent post only after the > Antonine period), after > Septimius [II 7] Severus he also presided over a separate court of law in Rome. In the 3rd cent. AD, the PP increasingly received appeals (> appellatio) against legal verdicts by provincial governors. From the beginning of the 3rd cent. on, his decisions, which were enacted in the name of the emperor, could no longer be challenged (cf. Dig. 1,11,1,1). As his administrative role developed into something markedly more powerful in the 3rd cent., the PP acquired disciplinary powers over

PRAEFECTUS PRAETORIO

in the provinces (Cass. Dio 52,24,4). This concentration of the highest military and administrative powers led finally to transferring to the PP the administration of the annona militaris (> cura annonae), which was raised as a special tax and paid in kind — supposedly by Septimius Severus (Zos. 2,32,2; see also SHA Gord. 282-5).

The PP’s great complement of duties not confined to any specific geographical area (Cod. lust. 1,26,2) and his close proximity to the emperor gave his office a special status. Even in the early Principate the PP was regarded as the most powerful office holder after the emperor (Philostr. VA 7,18); at that time the praefecti praetorio, — Aelius [II 19] Seianus under Tiberius, and ~ Afranius [3] Burrus and - Nymphidius [2] Sabinus

under Nero, attained special importance. However the praetorian prefecture reached the pinnacle of its power only in the 3rd cent. AD (Hdn. 5,1,2; Aur. Vict. Caes. 9,10-11; Zos. 2,32,2), when office holders such as Opellius ~ Macrinus, + Philippus [II 2] Arabs, + Annius [II 4] Florianus and Aurelius > Carus [4] ascended the imperial throne. The praetorian praefecture remained principally an equestrian post until the end of the Principate (Cass. Dio 52,24; ILS 8938). From the time of > Domitianus [x] on, it was the pinnacle of an equestrian career [1.39]. Under > Hadrianus [II] the high-ranking title vir > eminentissimus appeared for the first time. No PP became a senator on the basis of his office (but see SHA

Alex. Sev. 21,3-5). The > ornamenta consularia used by emperors to honour many praefecti praetorio from the time of Tiberius implied only the honorary title of a senator, > vir clarissimus, not a seat in the senate. In

any case, only a PP who had been given an ordinary consulate for his final posting embarked upon the ordinary senatorial career (increasingly the case in the 3rd cent. AD) [2.2399-2400]. B. LaTE ANTIQUITY The PP’s remarkable influence on imperial politics ended with the start of Late Antiquity. Constantinus [x] I fundamentally reformed the office of the PP. In doing so, he was reacting to a praetorian prefecture overburdened with copious amounts of duties (Cass. Dio 52,24), to the PP’s ambiguous position in the empire’s administrative system, and above all to the political danger a capable PP confident of his power could represent to an emperor. Constantine disbanded the praetorian guard in AD 312 (Aur. Vict. Caes. 40,25), removing the PP’s authority to command other troops, now transferred to the new post of > magister militum, c. AD 320 (Zos. 2,32,2). The majority of the former duties of the PP at court devolved upon the newly created — magister officiorum (Lydus, Mag. 2,10-11; 2,253 3,41). Lhe civil powers of the PP were, however, simultaneously strengthened. Duties in administration of justice (court of appeal), taxation (annona militaris) and general supervision of public order in the provinces

PRAEFECTUS PRAETORIO

760

759

(esp. leadership and control of civilian administrative personnel), up to then only occasionally delegated, were transformed into a comprehensive civil and judicial administration [3. ch. 2]. The praetorian prefecture retained this structure throughout the whole of Late Antiquity. Constantine’s reforms firmly integrated the office of the PP into the administrative system of the empire. A geographically defined administrative district (praefecture) was allocated to each PP (Lydus, Mag. 3,33; cf. Zos. 2,33,1). At the beginning of the sth cent. AD, the empire was divided into four such regional praefectures: Galliae and Italia in the western empire, I/lyricum and Oriens in the eastern (for a scheme of the imperial administration, see > Diocletianus). In his administrative diocese the PP stood at the head of the respective civil administration and its stages of appeal. At the beginning of the sth cent. AD, the administration of the praefectus praetorio Orientis, e.g., consisted of c. 1,000 praefectiani who worked in two departments, the general and legal department and that of finance [5. 1057**]. The office of the PP thus became the central link between territorial administration and > court (D), i.e. the central administration, contributing in a special way to the unity of the parts of the empire. In spite of the PP’s new job duties and his new position in the empire’s administrative system, his title remained unchanged; it was simply expanded in the official context by adding the name of the respective administrative district (e.g., praefectus praetorio Italiae). The Late Antique PP was a public official ordinary with exclusively civil powers. The PP in this period usually lacked political influence. This is attributable to: (a) the loss of his military command; (b) lack of permanent duties to deal with at the court, i.e. in the > consistorium, by virtue of his position; and (c) lack of

Praefectus urbi (Town prefect (of Rome later also of Constantinople); Greek modtagyoc/poliarchos). According to Roman tradition, by the early Roman period a PU (‘town administrator’ in [4. 663]) who was authorized first by the king and then by the highest magistrate, supervised the business of the state, mainly the administration of justice in their absence (Liv. I,59,12; 3,3,6; lac. Ann. 6,11; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5575).The post — should it have ever existed — must have become insignificant with the introduction of collegiality (> collega) in senior magistrature, and obsolete with the creation of the praetura as the court magistrature in 367 BC; thereafter it is no longer reliably documented. + Augustus re-introduced the post; > Tiberius elevated it to a permanent institution (cf. Tac. Ann. 6,11). In

Rome, the PU, mostly a > consularis, was a representa-

tive of the emperor, mainly in the jurisdiction. He had to uphold law and order in the town and had forces at his command for that purpose (Tac. Ann. 6,11; Cass.

Dio 59,13; Dig. 1,12; 4,4,163 §,1,12; 4,8,195 [3]). In Late Antiquity the PU who was of the same rank as the > praefectus praetorio (Cod. Theod. 6,7,1), was under the emperor’s direct command. His area of duty, which now extended to a radius of roo miles (cf. Cod. Theod. 1,6; Cassiod. Var. 1,32; 6,4; Not. Dign. Occ. 4), remained essentially unchanged, though the power of the PU grew in many spheres and he now also acted as the president of the Senate. A > vicarius was a permanent representative. From the time of > Constantius [2] II. there was also a PU for Constantinople (> Byzantium). His powers were to a great extent the same, though, however, limited to the city area. 1 A. CHASTAGNOL, La préfecture urbaine 4 Rome sous le Bas-Empire, 1960 21Id., Les fastes de la préfecture de Rome, 1962 3H. Freis, Die cohortes urbanae, 1967 4 MoMMSEN, Staatsrecht 1, 661-674 5 E. SACHERS, Ss. Vv. P.u., RE 22, 2502-2534. AG.

regular contact with the emperor. Only in exceptional cases was he able to build up a personal relationship with the emperor and gain political influence over him (e.g., Ablabius [1], Secundus Salutius, Rufinus, Anthemius [1], Johannes [16] ‘the Cappadocian’). This fact did not shake the high standing of the praetorian praefecture at all. Under Constantine the former equestrian post became senatorial and moved immediately to the top of the senatorial cursus honorum [2. 2448]. From then on, in matters of protocol the praetorian praefecture enjoyed precedence over all other posts (Amm.

+ Egypt, which > Augustus created in 30 BC after the taking of Alexandria [1]; the full official title was praefectus Alexandreae et Aegypti (Greek tmagyocg Aiytatov/ éparchos Aigyptou, P.Oxy 237; 6 tic Aiyiatou aoxywv/ho tés Aigyptou archon, Cass. Dio 54,51). The first incumbent was Cornelius [II 18] Gallus, an equestrian; he had three legions at his disposal. The po-

Marc. 21,16,2; Zos. 2,46,2), and many praefecti prae-

litical situation still uncertain, Octavian ( Augustus)

torio on their retirement were thanked for their service with an ordinary consulship. — Magister militum; > Magister officiorum; > Politi-

had him granted by /ex ‘the jurisdiction of a magistrate comparable to that of a proconsul’(Dig. 1,17,1: imperium ad similitudinem proconsulis), so that he could legally command the legions and function asa full court

cal administration; > Praetorians

Praefectus

Aegypti.

Governor

of the province of

4 Com-

magistrate (Tac. Ann. 12,60,1). At the same time, the

mode. 2 av. J.-C.-192 ap. J.-C., 1997 2 W. ENSSLIN, s. v. PP, RE 22, 2391-2502 3A. GuTSFELD, Die Macht des Pratorianerprafekten. Studien zum PP Orientis von 313

princeps forbade all senators and ‘leading equestrians’ (equites illustres) to enter the country without his permission. By this means, the PA became in all respects and without limitation his representative, constituting the final authority in all government business in the province. In Egypt itself, the PA played the part, as rep-

1M. Assit, Les préfets du prétoire d’Auguste

bis 395 n. Chr. (Historia ES), 2001 4L.L. Howe, The Pretorian Prefect from Commodus to Diocletian (A.D. 180-305), 1942 5 JONES, LRE 6E. STEIN, Untersuchun-

gen

uber

das Officium

Diokletian, 1922.

der Pratorianerprafektur

seit NG:

761

762

resentative of the Emperor, of the successor to the + Pharaoh (Str. 17,1,12; 17,1,53). Thus he had to make annual sacrifices to the > Nile and was not permitted to travel by river after the onset of the Nile floods (Plin. HN 5,57). In Egypt, all government officials answered to him: praefecti legionum (v. > praefectus {12]), > iuridicus (2.), > idios logos, > dioikétés, epistratégot, archiereus. From the 2nd cent. AD it is certainly possible to speak of a hierarchical system to the extent that the PA was superior to all these officials; however, they were named by the Emperor and not by the PA. The latter chose only the nome’s strategoi, who all came from Egypt. The term of office of the PA was not fixed: periods ranging from a few months to seven years are attested (it is only cautiously concluded that Galerius [x] may have served for 15 years under the Emperor

tensions between the Greeks and Jews (until the later years of the Emperor Trajan (-» Traianus)). In the 4th

Tiberius).

From the beginning, the PA was the most powerful and prestigious of all the equestrian functions; it was only ever surpassed (from the 2nd half of the rst cent. AD) by the > praefecti praetorio. In the rst/2nd cents., his honorific title was ho kratistos, and for a while also in general ho lamprotatos (which must not, however, be taken to mean

— vir clarissimus); from the late 2nd

cent., as courtly titles were systematized, the designation was often ho diasémnotatos (= Latin perfectissimus); ho lamprotatos disappears almost entirely after the second half of the 3rd cent. [1. 5834]. The iuridicus usually took on the role of deputizing for the PA. In his official residence of Alexandria [1], the PA had at his disposal a staff of soldiers, imperial slaves and freedmen, but also freeborn people of the province [2. 518ff.]. An ever more comprehensive archive was developed, some of the documents of which were also made available to the population of the province. The most important duties of the PA were to represent the Emperor, command the legions and auxiliaries, manage the population in terms of its taxable capacity (> Taxes), to which the > epskrisis of veterans and other groups of people belonged, and exercise jurisdiction over inhabitants of various classes. The annual circuit, usually undertaken between January and April, served judicial purposes, the monitoring of local administration and the balancing of accounts (dialogismos) in the nomes (v. > xomos [2]). The abundance of submissions to a large extent reduced the PA’s activities to the delegation of decisions to judges (iudices) in his entourage or to senior local administrators (stratégoi). The administration of criminal justice remained in his personal jurisdiction; he could impose the capital (in the Roman sense, i.e. involving a diminutio capitis) punishments of flagellation, banishment, hard labour in the mines and execution. An appeal to the Emperor was possible for certain classes of people. Not infrequently, the PA was preoccupied with

duties concerned with the problems of the cosmopolitan city of > Alexandria [1], and its diverse population groups, e.g. under > Tiberius and + Caligula with the

PRAEFECTUS AEGYPTI

cent., the PA was often drawn into ecclesiastical con-

troversies at Alexandria. The stationing of at first two legions, then from Hadrian (> Hadrianus) just one, essentially served the purpose of controlling the unruly populace of Alexandria in particular. Finally, the PA also had to guard the entire province’s sanctuaries, temples and priests, a task in which he was supported from the 2nd cent. on by the archiereus (‘High Priest’). From the Emperor, the PA received mandata (v. ~+ mandatum); he issued a provincial edict by which the province had to be governed; where necessary, he himself issued edicts in Greek, which, according to their content, were published in all or only some of the nomes. Such edicts remained in force throughout the period of office of the man who had issued them, as did individual rulings and regulations, which could therefore be drawn upon as precedents in later judicial proceedings. Many edicts corrected deficiencies which had been caused by the administration or the military; the most comprehensive is the edict of Ti. Iulius Alexander (v. > Alexander [18]) of 6 July 68. At the centre of the PA’s duties lay the securing of tax yields and the continuous monitoring of accounts; he also had to check canal and dyke installations and ascertain the extent of flooding. When necessary, the PA was then authorized to grant tax relief owing to low water levels. Under Diocletian (— Diocletianus), the province of Egypt was divided. The PA remained of the rank of the higest governors active in Egypt. His domain varied during the course of the 4th cent., but he was always assigned at least the Delta, including Alexandria. No later than 383, the title of PA was altered to praefectus Augustalis, which may have been connected with a limited superintendence of the office over all provinces in the light of the creation of the Diocese of Egypt (— diotkésis Il). However, the change may have been considerably earlier (cf. comm. on POxy. 4376, 6f.; 4382, 6f.). From the late Constantinian period, the PA did hold the honorific title > vir clarissimus. Responsibility for troops was withdrawn from him, as from the other provincial governors from the Diocletianic period. 1 A. BASTIANINI, "Exagyooc¢ Aiytatov nel formulario dei documenti da Augusto a Diocleziano, in: ANRW II ro.1, 1988, 581-597. 2R. HaENscH, Capita provinciarum

(Kolner Forschungen 7), 1997.

A. BASTIANINI, Il prefetto d’Egitto (30 a. C.-297 d. C.), in: ANRWII 10.1, 1988, 503-517; P. A. BRUNT, The Admin-

istrators of Roman Egypt, in: Id., Roman Imperial Themes, 1990, 215-554; P. BureTH, Le préfet d’Egypte .., in: ANRW

II ro.1,

1988, 472-502; J.-M. CarRRIE,

Séparation ou cumul? Pouvoir civile et autorité militaire dans les provinces d’Egypte de Gallien a la conquéte arabe, in: Antiquité tardive 6, 1998, 105-243; G. CHaLON, L’édit de Tiberius Julius Alexander, 1964; R. Haenscu, Das Statthalterarchiv, in: ZRG 109, 1992, 209-317; Id., Die Bearbeitungsweisen von Petitionen in

der Provinz Aegyptus, in: ZPE roo, 1994, 487-546; Id.,

763

764

Zur Konventsordnung in Aegyptus und den ubrigen Provinzen, in: B, KRAMER (ed.), Akten des 21. Internationalen

e.g. the exceptio quod praeiudicium hereditati non fiat (‘exception that no praeiudicium exists in the matter of the inheritance’, cf. Gai. Inst. 4,133). The demand for a separate prior ruling on such preliminary questions was also called a praeiudicium, Gai.

PRAEFECTUS

AEGYPTI

Papyrologenkongresses 1995, 1997, 320-391; H. HUsNER, Der P.Ae. von Diokletian bis zum Ende der rémi-

schen Herrschaft, 1952; M. HumBert, La juridiction du préfet d’Egypte d’Auguste a Dioclétien, in: F. BURDEAU et al. (ed.), Aspects de empire Romain, 1964, 97-142; R. Katzorr, Sources of Law in Roman Egypt: The Role of the Prefect, in: ANRW II 13, 1980, 807-844; J. LALLEMAND, L’administration civile de "Egypte de l’avénement de Dioclétien a la création des diocése (284-382 a. J.-C.), 1964; O. W. REINMUTH, s. v. P.Ae., RE 22, 2353-23773

Inst. 4,44,94. K. Hack, P. im klassischen rémischen Recht, 1976; M.

Kaser, K. Hackt, Das roémische Zivilprozefrecht, *1996, 247-250, 347f.; M. Lemosse, Les questions incidentes dans le procés romain classique, in: Revue historique de droit frangais et étranger 66, 1988, 5-14. CPA.

A. STEIN, Die Prafekten von Agypten in der rémischen Kaiserzeit, 1950;J.D. THomMas, Communication between

the Prefect of Egypt, the Procurators and the Nome Officials, in: W. Eck (ed.), Lokale Autonomie und rémische Ordnungsmacht, 1999, 181-195. W.E.

Praemia see > Delator; > Dona militaria Praeneste (Iloatveotoc/Prainestos; Ptol. 3,1,61: Toatveotov/Praineston). City in Latium c. 40 km east of Rome, on the southern slopes of Monte Ginestro, a

tral heating chamber in Roman thermal bath systems.

foothill of the Appennines, modern Palestrina. The tradition gives various founders: — Caeculus, son of

~ Baths; > Heating; > Thermal baths

CHO.

Vulcan (Solin. 2,9; Verg. Aen. 7,678f.); > Telegonus,

Praegustator (‘Food taster’). Food tasters, used to protect persons in positions of high authority from poisoning, had been employed since the time of the Persian Achaemenidae [2], then also by Alexander [4] the Great (e.g. Xen. Cyr. 1,3,9; Just. Epit. 12,14,9). Mark Antony

son of Odysseus and Circe (Plut. Mor. 316b 1); Praenestes, son of > Latinus [1] (Steph. Byz. s. v. II.). Contacts with Etruria (esp. with > Caere and ~ Vetulonia) in the 7th cent. BC; orientalizing graves survive in the Columbella necropolis (Galeassi, Castellani, Bernardini, Barberini) [1]. The Latin colony (Dion. Hal. Ant.

(> Antonius [II I 9]) is said to have been the first of the Romans to employ a praegustator (Plin. HN. 21,9,12).

Rom. 5,61) attached itself to Rome even before the battle of Lake Regillus in 499 BC (Liv. 2,19,2), but distan-

Praegustatores were put in the employ of Roman rulers beginning with > Augustus [1]. It is unclear whether their profession was always in reality dangerous. A certain Coetus Herodianus, praegustator divi Augusti, did not die until between AD 39 and 42, i.e. more than 25 years after Augustus (ILS 1795). At first the praegustatores were probably slaves and later frequently also freedmen; there were so many that they organized themselves into a > collegium led by a procurator praegustatorum (CIL VI 9003-9005; AE 1976, 504).

ced itself from Rome again in 3 81 BC in the wake of the Gallic invasion (387/6), turning to the Latin League (— Latini, with map), until conquered by Rome in 338 BC (Liv. 8,14). Thereafter, P. was a civitas foederata. It was badly affected in the Civil War of 83-80 BC, in which the city took the side of the > populares (Cic.

Praefurnium. Hearth of limekiln or furnace; also cen-

L. SCHUMACHER, Der Grabstein des Ti. Claudius Zosimus

aus Mainz. Bemerkungen zu den kaiserlichen praegustatores, in: Epigraph. Stud. 11, 1976, 131-141. W.E.

Sull. 61; Cic. Leg. agr. 2,78; App. BCiv. 1,94). In 82 BC, it became a Sullan colonia (Cic. Cat. 1,8; > Cornelius

[I 90] Sulla); then under the emperor Tiberius (AD 1437), a municipium (Gell. NA 16,13,5), tribus Menenia (CIL XIV 2888; 2972; 2974), regio I (Plin. HN 3,64).

The city, led by two praetores (> Praetor) and two ~ aediles and its own Senate, had the right of asylum (> asylia) and minted its own coins. P. provided Rome

Praeiudicium (lit. ‘prior legal proceedings’). Already under Roman law, the fact that different law-courts had different jurisdictions could in certain circumstances prevent the final resolution of a case until the legal question at issue had been clarified by the competent court. Examples of such questions might include the allocation of inheritances, the ownership of a piece of land or the existence of a capital offence. There was, however, no general precedence of the iudicia publica (> iudicium) over actiones privatae. To resolve the tensions between the as yet unresolved preliminary question, the praeiudicium and the plaintiffs claim, the ~ praetor could either refuse the appeal pending a decision on the preliminary question, or temporarily defer the proceedings in iure. Later, an exception (+ exceptio) would often be granted to the respondent,

with a cohors Praenestina under the command of one of the praetores (cf. Liv. 23,19,17f.). P. was also drawn into the Civil War triggered by > Catilina (cf. Cic. Cat. 1,8). The city was elevated to a municipium by Tiberius (cf. CIL XIV 2889; 2941; 3004), and rose to become the favoured summer residence of Roman ‘high society’ (cf. Hor. Epist. 1,2,2; Stat. Silv. 4,4,15; Mart. 4,64,33; Juv. 14,88; Plin. Ep. 5,6,45).

Town layout: four distinct urban planning phases from the Archaic to the Sullan periods (with insulae of 200 X 150 feet) [2]; TORELLI discerns two phases, one of the 6th and one of the 4th cent. BC [7]; division into upper and lower towns [3]. In the Archaic strata were located temple terracottas allowing inferences to be drawn as to the site and design of temple districts. Remains of the 4th-cent. BC ring wall (4.8 km long) in opus polygonale of various building phases survive, as

765

766

do square towers and an enclosure in opus quadratum on the lower terrace (+ Masonry). In the 4th cent. BC, the necropoleis were concentrated along the roads leading into the city, while votive objects and the remnants of a pedestal beneath S. Agapito indicate the sacred district. The sanctuary of -» Fortuna Primigenia (cf, Plin. HN 33,61; renovated by Sulla: Plin. HN 36,189) is gen-

lan vase painting, were inspired by ancient drama. A noteworthy example is the ‘Ficoroni Cista’ (Rome,

erally dated to the last decades of the 2nd cent. BC [4].

The famous + Nile mosaic was found in the ‘apsidal hall’ there. New structural surveys highlight the organic ensemble of the oracle site in the cave of the sortes Praenestinae (‘Praenestine Lots’) with its own temple (tholos; architect C. or Q. Mucius: [5]). $. Agapito (city temple) was probably part of the forum and separate from the more elevated sanctuary (contra, [6]). In the forum, the > aerarium, the basilica (the so-called area sacra) and sanctuaries of Isis (aula with apsis) and Sarapis (in the cave of the sortes) have been traced. On the

fibula Praenestina, see pins. + Praenestine cistae 1 P. BAGLIONE, La necropoli di P. Periodi orientalizzante e medio-repubblicano. Atti del 2. convegno di studi archeologici, 1992

2 L. Quizicret al. (ed.), Urbanistica ed archi-

tettura dell’antica P. Atti del convegno di studi archeologici, 1989, 29-67 3H. RIEMANN, Zur Sidmauer der Oberstadt von P., in: RhM 92, 1985, 151-168 4N. DE

Grassi, Epigraphica IV, in: Memorie della classe di scienze morali e storiche dell’Accademia dei Lincei 14, 1969/70,

t11-129

5 F. ZeEvi, Considerazioni vecchie e

nuove sul Santuario di Fortuna Primigena ..., in: B. COARI (ed.), Le fortune dell’ eta arcaica ... (Atti del 3° convegno di

studi archeologici, Palestrina 1994), 1994, 137-183

6G.

GuLLINI, L’architettura e l’urbanistica, in: B. ANDREAE (ed.), Princeps Urbium. Cultura e vita sociale nell’ Italia romana, 1991, 488ff. 7M. ToRELLI, Topografia sacra di una citta latina. P., in: Atti del Convegno di Studi archeologici 1989, 15-30. F. Fasoio, G. GuL.int, II santuario della Fortuna Primigenia a Palestrina, 1953; P. ROMANELLI, Palestrina, 1967; F. CoareELLi, I santuari del Lazio in eta repubblicana,

1987; Id., Revixit ars. Arte e ideologia a Roma, 1996; Atti del Convegno di Studi archeologici, 1989, 1992, 1999; L.

RICHARDSON JRr., Ss. v. P., PE, 73 5.

M.M.MO.

Praenestine cistae. Vessels for toiletries, mainly produced in — Praeneste (Palestrina), in the form of a ~ cista. The usually cylindrical body of the vessel was either made completely of bronze or consisted of a wooden or leather core with bronze ornamentation. The figured lid-handles, the feet and the holders for small chains on the walls of the vessels were fitted by various craftsmen at different stages of manufacture. Production of PC had already begun by the middle of the 5th cent. and reached its peak in the 4th and 3rd cents. BC. Only a few cistae have been found outside Palestrina — in Tuscany (Etruria) and in Servigliano (Picenum).

PC were particularly noted for the elaborate engravings on the lids and bodies of the vessels. The myths illustrated, like those in contemporaneous ~> South Ital-

PRAENOMEN

Villa Giulia), whose pictorial themes are traced back to

a satyr play by Sophocles. The signature identifies Novios Plautios, a freedman of the Roman gens of the Plautii, as the artist who executed the work. This and other Old Latin inscriptions on other cistae suggest classification of the entire genre in mid-Republican art. > Etrusci, Etruria II G. BORDENACHE BatraGiia, A. EM1LozzZ1, Le ciste prenestine, vols. r and 2, 1979-1990 (rev: E. SIMON, in: Gnomon

68, 1996, 252-255); M. MENICHETTI, ‘Quoius

forma virtutei parisuma fuit.’ Ciste prenestine e cultura di Roma medio-repubblicana, 1995. MILE.

Praenomen. An ancient name for individuals, the praenomen takes the first position in a Roman or central Italian + personal name (esp. in the masculine), before (prae) the nomen, the > gentile. It is usually written in abbreviation; the Latin sigla had been introduced by the 6th century BC (as can be seen in K = Kaeso, W = Manius, C = Gaius). After the introduction of the family name (> Gentile), the number of praenomina to choose from decreased considerably, in Rome to eleven (seven more in some noble families), in Etruscan > Perusia to

five. In this way the praenomen indicates citizenship in an urban community. In Rome, it was no longer used by women (cf. + Personal names III.B.). The eldest son was usually given the praenomen of his father; from c. 100 BC a libertus (> Freedmen II.) that of his patron (— Patronus). The unification of Italy and increasing manumission of slaves impaired the function of the praenomen, which was replaced as a name for an individual by the > cognomen, initially in colloquial speech (Crispe Sallusti, Hor. Carm. 2,2,3), then increasingly also in official texts (list of centurions, ILS 2452, 161 AD), until it disappeared in the 4th century AD. Of the Indo-European compound names it is traces at best that survive in Italy (+ Opiter, Agrippa). Praenomina are only partly identical to appellatives or understandable as such (not e.g. Latin Titus, Oscan Vibis).

Many

are

derived

by means

of -io- (Latin

Poplios, later — Publius, from poplo- > populus army’ > ‘people’; Etruscan Spurie, Latin Spurius from Etruscan spura ‘community’; Oscan Niumsis, Latin ~ Numerius), which can replace the end of the appellative (Oscan Dekkis = Latin > Decimus; Latin > Lucius for lacidus ‘bright’?). Ordinal numbers as praenomina (Latin > Quintus, Oscan Seppis = Latin Septimus) may be taken from the month of birth. Derived from names of gods (> Gods, names of) are > Marcus (Mars) and ~ Tiberius (river god Tiberis). Praenomina of good omen are Latin Lacius and > Gaius, Oscan Gaavis (if for *gavidus ‘joyful’, cf. *gavided > gaudeo), or Oscan Klovats ‘deserving of honour’ (*kleuo-m), Oscan Heirens ‘desired’ [1. 255-258]. Some praenomina are loanwords: Latin Aulus is from Etruscan Aule < Avile (for avil ‘year’), Etruscan Mamerce from Oscan Mamereks (for Mamers ‘Mars’, Mamercus).

767

768

A monograph on the etymology of the praenomina of Italy would be welcome.

1R. GuiLLanp, Recherches sur les institutions byzantines, vol. 1, 1967, 333-380 2 N. O1konomipEs, Les listes de préséance byzantines des [X* et X° siécles, 1972 3 W. ENSSLIN, s. v. P., RE Suppl. 8, 1956, 539-5 5635. V. P. sacri cubiculi, 556-567 4 ODB 3, 1709. ET.

PRAENOMEN

1G. MetsEr, Das Gerundivum im Spiegel der romischen Onomastik, in: F. HEIDERMANNS, H. Rix, E. SEEBOLD (ed.), Sprachen und Schriften des antiken Mittelmeerraums. Festschrift J. Untermann, 1993, 253-268. SCHULZE, 487-521; SALOMIES, passim; R. ScumitT, Das

indogermanische und das alte lateinische Praenomen-System, in: O. PANaAGL, T. Kriscu, Latein und Indogerma-

nisch., 1992, 369-393.

H.R.

Praepes. Technical term of Roman augural language (Gell. NA 7,6), etymologically connected with Latin praepetere (Fest. 224; 286f. L.; [1. s. v. peto]); it denoted birds that ‘flew forwards’ high in the observer’s field of vision and were of favourable significance (Serv. Auct. Aen. 3,246). Along with birds hovering low (aves inferae: Nigidius Figulus in Gell. NA 7,6; Serv. Aen. 353613; [2. 2279]), praepetes belonged to the category of alites (augural term for “birds’) that gave signs by means of their flight (Serv. Auct. Aen. 3,246). In Ennius’ description of the founding auspices of Rome (Ann. 8689; cf. [3. 233-236]) the avis praepes — adopting the usual orientation of the view towards the east [2. 22802287] — appears in the left, i.e. northeastern, corner of

the field of vision. After their appearance, the birds of Romulus “return to the high-lying and_ beautiful places” (‘praepetibus sese pulcrisque locis dant’); Etruscan and Roman theory located the dwelling place of the gods in the northeast, where Jupiter resided and summa felicitas, ‘greatest happiness’, ruled (Serv. Auct. Aen. 2,693; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2,5,2-4; Plin. HN 2,142144; [2. 2282-2284]). ~ Augures; > Divination 1 ERNOuT/MEILLET 2 J. LinpERski, The Augural Law, in: ANRW II 16.3, 1986, 2146-2312 3 O. SkuTSCH (ed.), The Annals of Q. Ennius, 1985 (with comm.).

gee

Praepositus. A term used during the Roman Imperial Period and in Late Antiquity to refer to leadership functions in a variety of areas of public service [3], in the 4th—6th cents. AD in the expanded form praepositus sacri cubiculi (Greek praipositos toi eusebestatou koitonos) to refer to the court position of imperial high chamberlain, which was reserved for > eunuchs, under whom the chamberlains (see > Cubicularius) served. The office of praepositus is first attested under Constantius [2] II for > Eusebius [3]. As a confidant of the emperor, the praepositus often played a key role in the central bureaucracy of the empire. Beginning in the late 8th cent. this position was taken over by the ~ parakoimomenos. During the 9th-11th cents. the term praepositus (attested up to 1087) was reserved for a position of lower rank, corresponding with functions in administration and court etiquette. In many cases two praepositi are mentioned in the same context; the higher-ranking of the two is sometimes referred to as protopraepositus

2. 300].

(Greek

prdtopraipositos)

[1.3403

Praerogativa centuria (also briefly praerogativa: e.g. Cic. Ad Q. Fr. 2,14,4; Cic. Phil. 2,82; Liv. 24,7,12) was the name in Rome of the > centuria, determined by + lot from the centuries of the first wealth class, which probably since the reform of the > comitia centuriata (between 241 and 218 BC) had advance voting in ~ elections (uncertain whether this also applied to legislative decisions). Since the result of the PCwas announced immediately (Liv. 24,7,12; Cic. Phil. 2,82), it had a considerable impact on further voting. This effect had probably been intended when creating the PC, to avoid a split in the votes; more extensive speculation about political backgrounds is controversial. Apparently the candidate named first by the PC was always elected for the year in question (Cic. Planc. 49). The vote of the PC was therefore regarded as an omen comitiorum (Cic. Div. 1,103; 2, 83; cf. Cic. Mur. 38: omen ... praerogativum). The PCwas last mentioned as a live institution in 44 BC (Cic. Phil. 2,82). It had become obsolete at the latest

by AD 5, replaced by the ten destinati centuries of the lex Valeria Cornelia (> Tabula Hebana, lines 6-13). MomMSEN,

Staatsrecht 3, 290-298; C. MEIER, s. v. PC.,

RE Suppl. 8, 567-598; L.R. TayLor, Roman Assemblies, 1966, 91-96.

Voting W.K.

Praescriptio longi temporis. The PLT (‘defence with long duration’) is a defence of the possessor as opposed to the owner because the latter has not claimed his right for such a long time. The introduction or recognition of the PLT are linked with a > rescriptum of Septimius Severus and of Caracalla of AD 199 which continued an already existing practice. The PLT concerned provincial land that was not accessible to acquisition by prescription (~ usucapio), but it was also related to moveable objects (Mod. Dig. 44,3,3; Marcianus Dig. 44,3,9). Its precondition was ‘legal commencement of possession’ (iustum initium possessionis, Paulus, Sent. 5,2,4) that then had to be undisturbed for ro to 20 years. The position of the possessor was protected after that by interdicts (Just. Epit. 7,39,8 pr. of 528) and to this extent was similar to ownership. HONSELL/MAYER-MALY/SELB, 178f.; KaAsER, RPR 1, 424f.; 2, 285-288; M. Kaser, K. Hacxr, Das rémische

Zivilprozefrecht, *1997, 489.

D.SCH.

Praeses (literally: ‘chairman/president’) initially used in 2nd and 3rd cents. AD as a special honorific Latin title for governors, later becoming established in official usage for an equestrian > procurator. Subsequently, in the wake of the administrative reorganization under

769

770

Diocletian and Constantine [1] I, it became a special ti-

Praeteritio (‘passing-over’). According to Roman ius civile, all > sui heredes (natural heirs) had to be mentioned in the will, either by being expressly appointed heirs or by being disinherited (> exheredatio). Sons and > postumi (posthumous children) of both genders could be effectively disinherited only when this done by name (nominatim), while for all others (daughters, wife

tle for the lowest group of provincial governors after the ~> consularis and ~ corrector, esp. in the many newly created small provinces. The ranking hierarchy, however, was subject to changes. In the -» Notitia dignitatum, 40 praesides are mentioned for the east and 31 for the west. In the west, the praeses, who had at his disposal an office (> officium [6]), usually came froma distinguished family; in the east, he frequently rose from subordinate positions. His responsibilities were administrative and jurisdictional; in Isauria and Mauretania Caesariensis alone he also had military authority. The title could also be honorarily conferred and still occurs in the 7th cent. IRGEAY

Praestigiator see > Entertainers

in

PRAETEXTA

manu, grandchildren, etc.), disinheriting across the

board sufficed (inter ceteros). Omission (praeteritio) of sons or postumi rendered the will and all its provisions null and void; if others were omitted, the will remained

valid, but they received a lawful share with sui or half with extranei (‘external heirs’, > Succession, laws of,

Ill A). The praetorian law of succession granted the > bonorum possessio intestati (‘possession of goods without testament’, for sons or postumt) or contra tabulas (‘against a testament’, for daughters, etc.). + Statutory portion; —> Succession, laws of, III. E.; + Testamentum

Praesul see + Salii (Priests) Praesus (Ilgawodc/Praisos). City in eastern Crete (Scyl. 47) on the peninsula of Sitia, near the modern village of

1 HONSELL/MAyYER-MALY/SELB, 463-464

Nea Praisos (Vaveli) between three acropoleis. The location was already settled in the Neolithic Period (cult

OV1T7 5—LLSO:

I, 705-709; 2, 513-514

2 KASER, RPR

3 G. WESENER, Ss. v. p., RE Suppl. U.M.

site in a cave to the north west of the town). Numerous

remains from the Minoan and Mycenaean periods survive (megalithic building in the south; tholos tombs in the necropolis north of the town, in use from the 15th2nd cents. BC). P. and Polichne [2] are said to have been the only cities not to have participated in the Minoan expedition to Sicily (Hdt. 1,170). P. was the heartland of the Eteo-Cretans (Str. 10,4,6); a large number of their inscriptions has been found here in Greek script, but in a non-Greek language, up to the 3rd cent. BC ({z. 55-85, 119-124]; > Eteo-Cretan). P. was one of the most important cities of Crete during the Hellenistic period. Its territory extended to the northern and southern coasts of the Sitia peninsula. The sanctuary of Zeus Dikaios at the modern Palekastro in the east probably also belonged to P. Archaeological remains (residential houses) survive from this period. The reconstruction of the political history relies almost entirely on epigraphical evidence. This indicates repeated conflicts with the major cities of western Crete during the Hellenistic period. Preserved are alliances, peace treaties and border agreements with > Hierapytna [2. no. 5, p. 185-190, no. 21, p. 236], > Lyctus [2. no. 12, p. 213f., no. 23, pp. 237-239] and — Itanus [2. no. 47, pp. 303-306]. Around 145 BC, P. was destroyed by Hierapytna and its territory annexed. With the exception of a few graves from the late Roman Period, there are no further traces of settlement after this time [3. 137]. 1 Y. Dunoux,

Les Etéocrétois, 1982

2A. CHANIOTIS,

Die Vertrage zwischen kretischen Poleis in der hellenistischen Zeit, 1996

31. F. SANDERS, Roman Crete, 1982.

R. C. BosaNQuET, Excavations 1901/2, 231-270; J. W. Myers

at P. I, in: ABSA 8, et al., Aerial Atlas of

Crete, 1992, 256-261; R. SCHEER, S. v. Praisos, in: LAUF-

FER, Griechenland, 564f.; J. WHITLEY, From Minoans to Eteocretans ..., in: W. G. CavanaGu, M. Curtis (eds.), Post-Minoan Crete, 1998, 27-39. H.SO.

Praetexta. Ancient term (particularly Diom. 3, GL 1,489,14ff.; on the pattern of the termini cf. [2]) designating the historical drama of the Romans in the Republican Period. Like the historical epic, the genre was introduced in Rome by > Naevius [I 1]. A more rarely realized type —cf. Naevius’ Lupus (vel Romulus?) — portrayed exemplary figures of early Roman history, while most of the pieces (Naevius’ Clastidium, —> Ennius’ Ambracia, > Pacuvius’ Paulus) were intended to honour patrons posthumously by praising their victories, i.e. they were probably performed at their ludi funebres (funeral games; cf. > Death); performance while the patrons were still alive was precluded by a socially binding norm as contrary to aristocratic equality (Cic. Rep. 4,12; otherwise [6. 177ff.]). The term praetexta refers to this panegyric type (derived from the > toga praetexta of the Roman main actors).

magistrates, the costume

of the

The genre reached its highpoint and end with > Accius, who went his own way in the indirect panegyric of his famous Brutus (for D. Iunius [I 14] Brutus, cos. 138; on a revival cf. Cic. Sest. 123) and the glorification of Roman history (Aeneadae vel Decius). In the Aeneas by + Pomponius [III 8] Secundus the mythical drama resounds selectively after 150 years. A generation later the dramas of Curiatius Maternus (Cato and Domitius, the failed heroes of the dying Republic) as well as the + Octavia [4] (probably early 2nd cent. AD), transmitted in the corpus of the Seneca tragedies, form an independent group only in so far as history is not portrayed in a panegyric or exemplary fashion but with a critical distance and in the form of tragedy; the use of the term praetexta is unjustified in this case (otherwise [4]); conversely the tragic element seems to be missing from the older triumphal praetexta.

PRAETEXTA

ap

FRAGMENTS: 1 TRF 41953, 358-368 2L. PEDROLI, 1954 (with comm.) 3G. DE DuRANTE, 1966 (with Ital. transl.). BiBLIOGRAPHY:

4N.

Zorzetti,

La pretesta,

1980

5 P. L. SCHMIDT, Postquam ludus in artem verterat, in: G.

Vocrt-Spira (ed.), Studien zur vorliterarischen Periode im friihen Rom, 1989, 77-135 6H.L. Flower, Fabulae praetextae in Context, in: CQ 45, 1995, 170-190 7G.

Manuwatp, Fabulae praetextae: Spuren einer literarischen Gattung der R6mer, 2001 (with comm. on the fragments).

P.L.S.

Praetextatus. Roman cognomen (‘boy dressed in a toga praetexta’). Epithet of L. Papirius [I 23] P. and in the Sulpicii family (> Sulpicius); widespread in the Imperial Period. KajANTO, Cognomina, 300.

K-LE.

[1] Vettius Agorius P. c. AD 320-384. Having started his career as quaestor and praetor, he became corrector Tusciae et Umbriae before 362, as a favourite of Julianus [11] proconsul Achaiae in 362/4, praefectus urbi in Rome in 365/7, then a praetorian prefect of Illyria, Italia, and Africa; designated a consul in 3 84; several times a Senate legate. He was a leading representative of the non-Christian circles in the Roman Senate and, holding

several priesthoods, attempted to integrate a large number of pagan cults (CIL VI 1779). Correspondent and friend of > Symmachus (Symmachus Ep. 1,44-5 53 cf. Symmachus Relat. 10-12); participant in the conversations recorded in the Saturnalia by > Macrobius [1]. PLRE 1, 722-724. HLL. Praetor (older praitor, ILS 3141; the etymological explanation from qui praeiret exercitui/‘he who walks before the army’ in Varro, Ling. 5,87; cf. Cic. Leg. 3,8 is probably correct; Greek equivalent oteatnydc/stratégOS). I. Rome

II. ITALIAN CITIES

I. ROME A. REPUBLICAN

PERIOD

B. IMPERIAL PERIOD

A. REPUBLICAN PERIOD At Rome, praetores were originally the eponymous senior officials (later > consul: Liv. 3,5 5,12; Paul. Fest. s. V. praetoria porta, 249 L.). Contentions that there were already praetores in the monarchical period and that the supreme authority in the early Republic was triple (e.g. [2. 428]) have no secure foundation. As well as the two senior officials, another (initially only patrician) praetor (later praetor urbanus) appeared from the leges Liciniae Sextiae (trad. date 367 BC) onwards, apparently for the particular purpose of judicial administration (Liv. 6,42,11; Pomponius Dig. 1,2,2,27), but in

fact possessing comprehensive > imperium, which was, however, subordinate to that of the consuls (imperium minus: Messalla in Gell. 13,15,4; on this [4]), so that the latter could, in cases of competition, give direc-

772

tives or interdictions to the praetor. The appointment of a second praetor from 242 BC (praetor peregrinus: praetoe qui inter peregrinos ius dicit, ‘foreigners’ praetor’: ‘he who dispenses justice to the foreigners = noncitizens’) initially served military ends rather than those of judicial administration [1. 296f.]. Two further praetores were appointed from 227 (Liv. Per. 20) for the administration of the provinces of Sicilia and Sardinia, and another two from 197 for the Spanish provinces (Liv. 32,27,6; 32,28,2). After a temporary fluctuation between four and six praetores (Liv. 40,4 4,2), the figure long remained at six, though further provinces were added and permanent juries were set up at Rome (s. > quaestio) under praetorian direction. Only under L. Cornelius [I 90] Sulla in 81 BC was the number ofprae‘tores increased to eight (deduced from Vell. Pat. 2,89,3). From the early rst cent. BC, the period of office was to all intents and purposes two years, as the praetor was initially involved in urban judicial administration, but left Rome before the end of his year of office to take over the running of a province as > propraetor, often even with the rank of a > proconsul. Caesar raised the number ofpraetores to 10 in 47 BC (Cass. Dio 42,51,3), and later even to 14 and 16 (Cass. Dio 43,47,2;

4304951). The praetores were elected in the > comitia centuriata. From 180 BC, a requirement was a minimum age

of 40 (Liv. 40,44,1); previous occupation of the quaestorship was usual from the 3rd cent. (s. > cursus honorum), but probably only compulsory from Sulla (App. Civ. 1,466). Like the consuls, the praetores had the —> toga praetexta and the > sella curulis as their official insignia, but owing to their subordinate imperium they only had six = lictores (only two for civil jurisdiction: [1. 120f.]). Regions of responsibility (> provincia) were generally distributed by = lot (I C 3) before taking office. The originally comprehensive powers of the praetor applied later esp. to provincial commands, while the urban praetores were almost exclusively involved in judicial administration. They led the first stage of proceedings (7 iure) in the older — legis actio proceedings — and in the more recent formulary proceedings (> formula); they published the principles of their adjudication on taking office in the praetorian ~ edictum [1], which was primarily based on existing praetorian edicts but also adopted innovations. In criminal proceedings, the praetor led the preliminary proceedings, and, from the 2nd cent. BC, part of the quaestiones. From the time of Sulla’s reforms, all praetores apart from the praetor urbanus and the praetor peregrinus served as chairmen of the permanent quaestiones. B. IMPERIAL PERIOD During the Imperial period, the number of praetores changed according to need. Under > Augustus, it generally lay between ro and 12, sometimes reaching 18 under > Claudius [III 1] (Cass. Dio 60,10,4), which

(ao)

774

was the normal number under Hadrian (> Hadrianus)

in 44 BC, M. Antonius [I 9] assembled a bodyguard of 6,000 from his veterans. In 27 BC, > Augustus [1] created a standing corps of praetorians who held elite status due to their better pay

(Dig. 1,2,2,32). The minimum age by then had been reduced to only 30. The praetor’s responsibilities in the field of criminal law diminished sharply; instead, some

praetores were entrusted with particular assignments, e.g. from 23 BC to AD 44, two praetores aerarii were directors of the state treasury (> aerarium; Cass. Dio

5353252; 60,24,1), from the reign of Claudius there were two praetores fideicommissarii (— fideicommissum; after > Titus only one: Dig. 1,2,2,32), and from

the reign of Marcus [2] Aurelius there was a praetor tutelaris for the administration of guardianships (SHA Aur. 10,11; further [6. 1600]). Moreover, from 22 BC

(Cass. Dio 54,2,3f.), the college of praetores had to arrange all urban Roman games (-> /udz) at considerable expense. None the less, the office long retained great importance as a precondition for the occupation of senior military and administrative posts. Only when the assignment of former praetores to attractive positions fell into disuse under Constantine I (+ Constantinus [1]

I) did the praetorship > munus.

finally become

an

onerous

Il. ITALIAN CITIES In many Italian cities, too, the office of praetor existed, sometimes organized according to the Roman model (e.g. at Beneventum: ILS 3096; 6492). By contrast, in originally Oscan communities, the praetor may have been a Latin paraphrase of the traditional — meddix [5. 130], and in Latin towns (such as Praeneste: ILS 4020; 6246; Cora: ILS 6131) it may even have described the indigenous offices of the pre-Roman period [5.117], especially since the Latin League (> Latini with map) seems to have been led by two praetores before 338 BC (Liv. 8,3,9). While the urban praetores were generally superseded by > duoviri iure dicundo in the course of the rst cent. BC, some cities retained their praetores even into the Imperial period (e.g. Anagnia: ILS 6259f.; Cumae: ILS 4175). + Consul; > Magistratus; > Penal law; > Political administration; > Procedural law 1 W. KunxeL, R. WITTMANN, Staatsordnung und Staatspraxis der romischen Republik, vol. 2, 1995 2 MarTINo, SCR 1, 427-436 3 MomMsEN, Staatsrecht 2, 193-238 4 J.-C. RicuarD, P. collega consulis est, in: RPh 3. Ser. 56, 1982, 19-31 5 A. N. SHERWIN-WHITE, The Roman Citizenship, 71973 6 G. WESENBERG, C. Kocu, s. v. P., RE 22, 1581-1605.

W.K.

Praetoriae cohortes see > Praetorians Praetorians

(cohortes praetoriae). In the Roman Republic, the cohors praetoria was a small military unit which guarded the > praetorium and acted as an escort for the commander. According to Festus (Fest. 223M.), Cornelius [I 71] Scipio Africanus was the first to have selected ‘the bravest’ for his protection. Freed from other duties, they also drew higher pay. In the late Republic, powerful commanders had strong bodyguards; thus

PRAETORIANS

and shorter period of service (ultimately, 16 years). In AD 14, there were at least nine cohortes praetoriae, each probably at 500 men (Vespasian AD 76: ILS 1993). Three of these cohortes praetoriae were statio-

ned in Rome, the rest in neighbouring cities; some may have been based intermittently in Aquileia. While serying in Rome, these troops wore civilian dress with side

arms and shields, perhaps in an attempt to placate senatorial feeling since normally no troops were stationed in Rome. Augustus recognized the potential political importance of the only substantial military force at the centre of power and maintained control over the cohortes praetoriae himself, eventually appointing two prefects (> Praefectus praetorio) only in 2 BC. In Dio’s view the establishment of the cohortes praetoriae symbolized Augustus’ personal autocracy (Cass. Dio 53,11,5). In addition, Augustus maintained a small corps of Germans whom he had recruited from Rhineland tribes as a personal bodyguard (corporis custodes). Starting in the Flavian Period (69-96), the cohortes praetoriae were supported by a cavalry unit, the + equites singulares Augusti. In AD 23, L. Aelius [II 19] Seianus, at the time the sole prefect of the cohortes praetoriae, persuaded Tiberius to concentrate the cohortes praetoriae in a single camp in Rome, which lent them greater weight (Tac. Ann. 4,2; Suet. Tib. 37,1). From then on, the cohortes praetoriae were stationed in the castra praetoria on the + Viminalis. Either Tiberius, Gaius, or Claudius increased the number of cohortes praetoriae to twelve (AE 1978, 286). During the Civil Wars, Vitellius temporarily strengthened the cohortes praetoriae to sixteen cohortes of 1,000 men in AD 69 (Tac. Hist. 2,93,2).

Under Domitian (81-96), there were ultimately ten cohortes praetoriae, each of 1,000 (cf. for AD 221 ILS

2008); thus, the total troop strength of the cohortes praetoriae was equivalent to two legions. Although the number of soldiers from Italy continually decreased in the legions, praetorians could be recruited primarily in Italy since service in Rome was considered attractive. Every > cohors was under the command of a + tribunus, who was usually the highest ranking > centurio in a legion and had served as tribunus of the > vigiles and > urbanae cohortes. The cohortes praetoriae served primarily as the official escort of the > princeps, who was also the commander of all Roman legions. Ultimately, they accompanied and protected him and his family at every official occasion in Rome and Italy and, when necessary, suppressed any disturbances in Rome. A detachment of the cohortes praetoriae accompanied members of the princeps’ family on journeys outside of Italy or on campaigns; thus in 14, two cohortes went to Pannonia with Drusus [II r] (Tac. Ann. 1,24). However, there is no indication that the cohortes praetoriae played a particu-

PRAETORIANS

IES

776

lar tactical role in combat. After their discharge from service, the praetorians received a diploma confirming their privileges and always bearing the name of the princeps, not of the praetorian prefect. The praetorians were soon drawn into imperial political intrigue, though this was the result of circumstance or the ambition of individual prefects, rather than any real political awareness ofthe troops. After the murder of Gaius Caligula in 41, Claudius [III 1] hada very large sum of money paid to the cohortes praetoriae to gain their support. Henceforth, every new princeps upon accession awarded the praetorians and the soldiers of the legions a > donativum; if the princeps was in Rome, he made a formal address to the praetorians. In crucial moments, the praetorians had considerable influence on political events; thus, they played an important role in the appointment of > Nero as princeps in

the central square (cf. ground plan in > limes). Praetorium could also denote quarters for public servants travelling on official business along long-distance roads (CIL III 61423), as well as a palace of the princeps or of a

54 and Galba [2] in 69 (Tac. Ann. 12,69; Tac. Hist. 1,3 6ff.). Toward the end of the 2nd cent., the praetori-

ans became increasingly undisciplined and mutinous. In 193, they murdered —> Pertinax because they considered him greedy and feared that he wanted to impose stricter discipline on them; they then offered their support to Didius [II 6] Iulianus, who had promised the highest donativum, but abandoned him just as quickly (SHA Pert. rof.; Did. 2). After — Septimius [II 7] Severus deposed Iulianus, he dismissed the praetorians and replaced them with soldiers from the Danube legions. He thus broke with the preference for citizens from Italy, although they were soon recruited again. The cohortes praetoriae continued until Constantinus [1] I dissolved them after the defeat of his rival Maxentius in Bien (Zosuaaia2))s + Praefectus praetorio 1H. BELEN, Die germanische Leibwache der rémischen Kaiser des julisch-claudischen Hauses, 1981 2 D. L. KENNEDY, Some Observations on the Praetorian Guard, in: AncSoc 9, 1978, 275-301 3L. Keppre, The Praetorian Guard before Sejanus, in: Athenaeum 84, 1996, 101-124, esp. 108 4A. PassERINI, Le coorti pretorie, 1939. —J.CA.

king (Suet. Cal. 37,2; Juv. 10,161) and — derived from

the praetorium of the princeps at Rome — of the praetorian cohorts (> Praetorians) themselves (Tac. Hist. 2,11,3).

+ Castra; > Legio 1 A. JoHNSON, Roman Forts of the rst and 2nd Centuries A. D. in Britain and German Provinces, 1983. J.CA.

Praetuttii, Praetuttiana regio. People and region (with vineyards: Plin. HN 14,60, 67; 75) on the Italian Adriatic coast (+ Ionios Kolpos); the PR corresponded to the ager Praetuttianus of regio V (Plin. HN 3,110) between the river Helvinus (identification uncertain — presentday Salinello? Vibrata? Acquarossa? Aso?) in the north, the Abruzzi in the west (mons Fiscellus, present-day Gran Sasso; Monti della Laga) and the river Vomanus (present-day Vomano) in the south. Siculi and Liburni are said to have originally settled here (Plin. HN 3,112). In 290 BC, the P. were conquered by the Romans (Liv. Per. 11; Flor. Epit. 2,10); at first they had the status of cives sine suffragio, then from 241 BC cives optimo iure (— civitas). Centres of population were Interamna [3] Praetuttiorum (abbreviated in the Middle Ages to Abrutium, hence the modern name Abruzzi for the mountain

range;

modern

Téramo),

Hatria

(modern

Atri), Castrum [3] Novum and Truentum. The sanctu-

ary on the Monte Giove was important. The PR was crossed by the via Caecilia (CIL VI 3824). The necropoleis of Campovalano are significant (graves roth—8th, 7th—5th and 4th—znd cents. BC). V. D’ERcOLE et al., Antica terra d’Abruzzo ..., 1990; L. FRANCHI DELL’OrRTO (ed.), Le valli della Vibrata e del Salinello, in: Documenti e testimonianze dell’Abruzzo Teramontano; M.P. GuiposBaLpi, La romanizzazione dell’ager Praetutianus, 1995. M.M.MO.

Praetorium. The praetorium was the tent of the commanding officer of a Roman army in the Republic. The term betrays the fact that the > praetor was originally the supreme Roman commander. Once camp was reached on the march, the location of the praetorium

Praevaricatio (literally more or less: ‘to be obstructive from the outset’) mostly refers to loss of faith in Medi-

was first decided (Pol. 6,27; cf. Caes. B Civ. 1,76,2); it

the accused in public criminal trials (> indicium publicum). In a wider sense the term covers other public (Dig. 44,3,10) and even private proceedings (Just. Epit.

occupied centre stage in the camp (> Castra) and was flanked by an open square serving as the market and by the tent of the > quaestor. The via praetoria and the porta praetoria were probably the street and gate adjoining the praetorium. The word praetorium also denoted the advisory meeting of the officers in the commander’s tent, and later became the title given to the official seat of a provincial governor (Cic. Verr. 2,4,65). During the Principate, the praetorium in the legion camps was the residence of the legion commander; it lay adjacent to the headquarters building (principia), which now occupied

eval Christian Lat. authors; rare in this sense in ancient

Roman legal sources (Cod. Theod. 16,7,3,1: AD 383). Praevaricatio is connivance between the prosecutor and

2,7,1) and other parties involved

(Dig. 47,15,1 pr.).

Praevaricatio encompasses all activities for the protection of the accused from punishment. The prerequisite was not profit and collusion with the accused or the acceptance of money from the accused (for the latter the person would be independently criminally liable!). The effect of praevaricatio was that the corrupt decision did not become legally effective. The perpetrator (not only with the lex Iulia iudiciorum publicorum, therefore already before Augustus), as in the case of a

777

778

groundless charge (+ calumnia), was penalized through the loss of his civil rights (> infamia) and of the right to prosecute. Later (towards the end of the rst cent. AD) praevaricatio was also punished in the ‘extraordinary’ imperial procedure (extra ordinem > cognitio) — through exile (Tac. Ann. 14,41),

PRASIS EPI LYSEI

Eevima@v,

in: Chronique

d’Egypte

30,

1955,

107-111;

Corpus Papyrorum Raineri, vol. 15, 1990, 88ff.; H. SCHAEFER, Ss. v. P., RE 22, 2538-2548; S.L. WALLACE,

Taxation in Egypt, 1938, 507.

W.A.

Prandium see > Meals

> relegatio (Plin. Ep. 3,9,29-34), ultimately with the

same punishment meted out to the person with whom there had been in collusion (Dig. 47,15,6). The person sentenced for praevaricatio was therefore not publico iudicio damnatus (‘condemned in a public criminal procedure’), but the consequences typical of this (Dig.

Prasia, Prasiai (Noaocta/Prasia, Moactav/Prasiai). Attic

48,2,4) were partly extended to him.

Steph. Byz. s. v. I.; [4. 67ff.]). Settlement remains can be found in the boundaries of Natso [1; 2]. Paus. 1,3 1,1 records a Temple of Apollo, IG II? 4977 a cult of the Heraclides. In 286/5 BC, P. and Stiria were relocated to the Coronea peninsula and fortified [3; 4]; in 262 BC, the Macedonians took the fortress by storm.

B. SanTaLucia,

Diritto e processo

penale nell’antica

Roma, *1998, 18of., 264f.; E. Levy, Von den roémischen

Anklagervergehen, in: ZRG 53, 1933, 177-233; MOMMSEN, Strafrecht, 501-503. C.E.

Praktor (xeaxtwe/praktor, xeaxto/prakter: Poll. 8,114, ‘executor’, ‘manager’, from prdttein, ‘do’). I. CLASSICAL PERIOD PERIAL EGYPT

II. PTOLEMAIC AND IM-

paralia deme, phyle Pandionis, three bouleutai. P. and + Stiria lay on the Bay of Porto Raphti (modern Limen Mesogeias), where the place name has survived as Pras(i)as

(Str

-9,2,22%

Thue

Liv.

4154 5310;

1 O. KAKAVOGIANNI, Ioeto Madty (Moaotés), in: AD 39,

1984 (1989), 45 21d., Mdooto Madty (Meaotés), in: AD 40, 1985 (1990), 66f. fig. 6 pl. r9a 3H. Laurer, Some Remarks on Fortified Settlements in the Attic Countryside, in: S. VAN DE MaELE, J. M. Fossey (ed.), Fortificationes Antiquae, 1992, 77-91

I. CLASSICAL PERIOD Greek official of a state executory authority, who, on instruction, recovered state claims, particularly fines. In Athens ten praktores chosen by lot annually were in service. Informed by the authorized court magistrate of penalties imposed, they entered them in the list kept on the Acropolis when state debtors did not pay immediately (IG II* 45; And. 1,77-79; Dem. Or. 25,4; 25,28; 43,71) [1. 270f.]. An authority of the same name with essentially similar functions existed in Amorgos, Imbros, Ios, Ceos, Rhodes, Tenos, Thera, Delphi, Cyme, Medeon, Miletus, Mylassa, Pergamum and Sicinos. In Crete these officials were called ereutai (‘seek-

8,95,05)

4H. LauTerR-BuFfeE, Die

Festung auf Koroni und die Bucht von Porto Raphti, in: MarbWPr 1988, 67-102. C. Hasicut, Athen, 1995, 149f.; TRAILL, Attica, 42, 62, 68, 112 no. 121, pl. 3; J. S. TRarLL, Demos and Trittys,

1986, 33f., 38, 43ff., 55ff. notes 7, 67, 69, 89, 129; WHITEHEAD, Index s. v. P. H.LO.

Prasias limne (Iloaovds dMuvn; Prasias limné). Lake in the > Strymon valley (modern Limni Kerkinis in

Greece). The > Paeones lived there in palafittes as Hdt. 5,15f. describes them. N. G. L. Hammonp,

A History of Macedonia,

1972, 193f.; MULLER, 8of.

vol. 1,

MALER.

ers’).

M. H. Hansen, Die athenische Demokratie im Zeitalter des Demosthenes, 1995.

II. PrOLEMAIC AND IMPERIAL In Ptolemaic Egypt, praktores duties mentioned above originally, (mid 3rd cent. BC) given greater fiscal and private lawsuits (cf. e.g.

K-W.W,

EGyPT probably had the but they were soon executive rights in UPZ 153ff.). They

often had their own assistants (hypérétat). In exception-

al cases praktores were even charged with the collection of taxes. In the Imperial period, praktores levied various kinds of taxes — e.g. the poll tax of the praktores laographias (> laographia). In 107, the praktor argyrik6n was charged with bringing all direct taxes into the state coffers. Until the 3rd cent. AD at least, praktores were nominated to their > liturgy [I. C] by officials. The term praktoreion described, primarily in the Imperial period, the prison for debtors to the > fiscus. R. BoGAERT, Trapezitica Aegyptiaca, 1994, 134ff.; 371fF.; 38xff.; 434; CL. Préaux, Sur les fonctions du medxtwo

Prasii (Iloco.oW/Prdsioi; Lat. Prasii). People in eastern India on the lower reaches of the Ganges in modern Bihar, Old Indian prachya, ‘the Easterners’ (e.g. in the Mahabharata). Situated in their territory was— Palimbothra, the capital of the kingdom of Maurya (> Mauryas). The first information about the P. comes from the ~ Alexander historians (Diod. Sic. 17,93, Curt. 9,2,3); from the time of Megasthenes (in Str. 15,1,36), they were considered to be the most powerful people in India. Their territory was known as [eaovaxi/Prasiaké (Ael. NA 17,39, Ptol. 7,1,53). Many passages in which the P. are mentioned without notation of the source (e.g. in Ael. NA) are presumably based on Megasthenes. H. TREIDLER, s. v. P., RE 22, 2548-2559.

K.K.

Prasis epi lysei (mQGouc émi Moet; prasis epi lysei). In Greek in general, the noun prasis refers to the act of selling, the addition epi lysei (which in the sources is

PRASIS EPI LYSEI

never connected with the noun, but only with the verb Metv/Iyein) means ‘upon redemption’. The phrase indicated a transaction, similar to the later > One en pistei (there also on the terminology of > purchase in Greek), serving to safeguard a loan. The borrower (cf. + ddneion) sold some property to the lender; as soon as the loan amount was paid out, the creditor became owner of the property saving as surety. The seller reserved the right, however, to redeem the property by repaying the loan within a certain deadline. Otherwise, the creditor remained owner. In compliance with the + hypothéké, the borrower continued to keep possession of the property, which he, however, took on lease (— misthosis) from the buyer. In this case, rent replaced

the interest on loans. These transactions have been handed down by > héroi (mortgage market stones), which were placed on the property serving as surety. They are known from numerous poleis (Athens, Amorgus, Lemnos, Scyros; cf. also Sardis, Aedone, DuraEuropus [1. 654] and Amphipolis [6]) and sometimes refer to privately or publicly deposited deeds. The héroi were meant as a warning that the possessor had sold the property and could not any longer legally dispose of it. That is why in the poleis, this transaction was named from the seller’s point of view (prdsis), unlike the one (purchase) en pistei of the papyri, which dispensed with horoi and applied to movables as well. 1 E. BERNEKER, Ss. V. P.e.1., RE Suppl. 10, 652-664 (with older literature) 2A. Biscarp1, Diritto greco antico,

1982, 219-235

3M.I. FIntey, Mehrfache Belastungen

von Grundstiicken im attischen Recht, in: E. BERNEKER (ed.), Zur griechischen Rechtsgeschichte, 1968, 534-558 4E. M. Harris, When is a Sale not a Sale? ..., in: CQ 38, 1988, 351-381 5 M. B. Hatzopou_os, Actes de vente de la Chalcidique centrale, 1988, 30, 57-64 6Id., Actes de

vente d’Amphipolis,

r991, no.1

and p.59

7G.V.

LALONDE, Horoi, in: The Athenian Agora 19, 1991, nos. H 84-H113 8D.M. MacDoweELt, The Law in Classical Athens, 1978, 142-145 9S. C. Topp, The Shape of

Athenian Law, 1993, 252-255.

7,3,6, -» Marcianus

[1] (Periplus maris exteri 1,44 =

1,44) and Anon. Geographia Compendiaria 32

(= GGM

farers away from the gold lands of the south. But there is no indication whatsoever of a Greco-Roman presence south of Zanzibar. > Prason H. TREIDLER, s. v. Prasodes Thalassa, RE 22, 1699-1703.

B.B.

Prason

(Ilecoov dxeotnguov/Prason akrotérion). Southernmost cape on the African coast reached by the Greeks. It was considered to be the northwestern border of the legendary ‘land of the south’ (Ptol. 7,2,1) the counterpart to > Cattigara as the corner of Asia. According to the longitudinal data of several seafarers, it lay south of the equator, see Ptol. 1,8. It could have been Cape Ra’s Kansi near Dar as-Salam. P. was reached by the owners of trading vessels who were either driven south while on their way to the Indus or trading on the east African coast. Mention is made of captains by the name of Diogenes, Theophilus and Dioscorus (Ptol. 1,9). H. TREIDLER, s. v. P., RE 22, 1705-1719.

BB.

Prastina [1] C. P. Messalinus. Senator. Praetorian legate of legio III Augusta in Numidia AD 143-146. Cos. ord. in 147. He was probably also legate of Moesia inferior, if CIL III 7529 and [1. 14] refer to him; but they may instead refer to P. [3]. PIR* P 926. 1 B. Gerov, Inscriptiones Latinae in Bulgaria Repertae, 1989.

[2] P. Messalinus. Consular legate of Pannonia superior under Commodus, perhaps AD 188-191. Probably son of Pa [1 ]5PIR2 Bonz: [3] C. P. Messalinus. Related to P. [1] and [2]. Consular legate of Moesia inferior under > Philippus [II 2] Arabs (AE 1981, 743). PIR* P 928. W.E.

GT.

Prasodes thalassa (meaowdn¢ Odhacoa/prasddes thalassa, the ‘green sea’). Described by Ptol. 7,2,1 and GGM

780

779

2,32) as the part of the region of the Indian

Ocean that is coloured by a leek-like “sea moss”. The appearance of this seaweed points to a shallow zone probably close to a coastline, which could have been near the East African coast north of Zanzibar. From the Augustinian era on, Greco-Roman ships reached this

region on the return trip from India when the ships missed the entry to the Red Sea. Apparently there was no exploration of the East African coast. Madagascar and the opposite coast seem to have remained unknown to the Greeks and Romans. The false belief in a southern continent may have prevented the exploration of the south. Like for the West African coast, this could also have been a myth designed to keep competing sea-

Prasutagus. British client king of the > Iceni; husband of > Boudicca (from before AD 45). May have been one of the eleven kings subjugated by Claudius [III 1] in AD 43 (CIL VI 920 = ILS 216); it is likelier, however,

that his loyalty to Rome led to his being installed as (sole?) client king during the revolt of the Iceniin AD 48 (Tac. Ann. 12,31) in place of the king SAEMV attested on coins [1. 433]. P.’ attempt to secure the kingdom after his death (AD 59) by pronouncing the Emperor Nero his heir alongside his own daughters failed (Tac. Ann. 14.31). 1 R. P. Mack, The Coinage of Ancient Britain, *1964. PIR* 931; D. F. ALLEN, An Icenian Legend, in: Britannia 7,

1976, 276-278; Id., C. HASELGROVE, The Gold Coinage of Verica, in: Britannia 10, 1979, 258f.; S. FRERE, Britan-

nia. A History of Roman Roman Britain, repr. 1984.

Britain,

+1987; P. SaLway, C.KU.

781

782

Pratinas (Mgativac/Pratinas) of Phlius (in the Pelopon-

could imply a > dithyramb [5; ro]. Under discussion remain: the dating (end of the 6th [5] or middle of the

nese), according to the Suda x 2230 (IrGF I 4 T r) the inventor of the > satyr play; son of a Pyrrhonides or Encomius (descriptive names: son of a ‘red-head’ or of ‘a member of a — Dionysian — komos’; on the red hair and beards of satyrs cf. Dioscorides, Anth. Pal. 7,707,3 and Soph. Ichn. 358). Two dates are attested for his life: between 499 and 496 he entered a tragedic agon against > Aeschylus [1] and + Choerilus [2] (T 1); and 467 is a terminus ante quem for his death: that year his son +> Aristias [2] entered with plays by P. (‘Perseus’, ‘Tantalus’, a satyr play ‘The Wrestlers’/Modatotai, Palaistai), placing second after Aeschylus, who was victorious with his Theban tetralogy, and ahead of > Polyphrasmon (DID C 4 =T 2). The note in the Suda making P. an inventor (> protos heurétés) probably ought to be taken to mean that ancient literary historians were not familiar with any satyr plays older than P.’ and that P. created the form typical of the sth cent. — perhaps by combining Doric and Attic elements -, firmly establishing it in the agon, possibly with the intention of lending a more Dionysian character to dramatic productions. This may be connected with what Aristotle says about the genesis of the genre of — tragedy, if P.’ ‘invention’ of the > satyr play can be seen as a reversion to the cultic Dionysian origins of drama [7]: according to Aristot. Poet. 4,1449a 19-21, tragedy developed from a preliminary ‘satyrical’ stage (satyrikon). It is striking, however, that between 520 and 510, the > satyr comes to be increasingly represented in Attic vase painting [9]. The surprising account in the Suda, that of 50 plays by P. 32 were satyr plays and only 18 tragedies, may be explained by the fact that in the early period of dramatic production after the Cleisthenic reforms (508 BC), satyr plays did not yet have to conclude tetralogies; to the contrary, the + tetralogy as a form was only gradually developing [3. 63]. The Suda also notes that at one of P.’ productions, the wooden

stands

(ikria) collapsed. The rel-

evance of this passage for locating drama in the first half of the 5th cent. is still disputed by scholars [6]. Of the 50 dramas by P., apart from the titles of plays produced in 467, only one further title is recorded (Dymainai or Caryatids). The satyr play “The Wrestlers’ could have been about either Heracles’ wrestling bout with the giant > Antaeus or Theseus’ fight with the Eleusinian king ~ Cercyon [1]. Athen. 14,617b-f cites 17 vv. as a > hyporchéma under the name of P. (TrGF F 3); their date, genre, and even attribution are highly controversial [5; 8; 10]. In these vv. — composed

in a mixture of anapaests, dactyloepitrites and iambs—a chorus, evidently with a close relationship to Dionysus, reacts to the predominant role allotted the aulos (+ Musical instruments [V.B.1]) in another performance, perhaps even an aulos solo. Underscoring song’s leading role as a directive from the Muse, it dedicates to Dionysus his traditional Doric dance. It is debatable whether the verses are froma satyr play [8] or part of an independent poem. The strongly mimetic character

PRAXAGORAS

5th cent. [10]?); whether the text represents a reaction

> music of the 2nd halfof the sth cent. [10]; and even other authorship [4]. The other frr. (TrGF I F 4-6) are also occupied with to mimetic tendencies in the ‘new’

musical issues. -» Dithyramb;

> Music; > Satyr play; > Tragedy

1B. Gauty et al. (ed.), Musa tragica, r991, 48-53 KruMEICH,

N. PECHSTEIN,

B. SEIDENSTICKER

griechische Satyrspiel, 1999, 74-87

2R.

(ed.), Das

3A. Lesxy, Die tra-

gische Dichtung der Hellenen, 31972, 62-64 4 H.LLoypJones, Greek Epic, Lyric, and Tragedy, 1990, 225-237 5M. Napouitano, Note all’iporchema di Pratina, in: A. C. Cassio, D. Must, L. E. Rossi (ed.), Synaulia. Cultura musicale in Grecia e contatti mediterranei, AION 5, 2000, 109-155 6H.-J. NewiGer, Drama und Theater, 1996, 70-79 7M. POHLENz, Das Satyrspiel des P. von Phleius, in: B. SEIDENSTICKER (ed.), Satyrspiel, 1989, 29-

57 8R.A.S. SEAFORD, The ‘hyporchema’ of P., in: Maia 29/30, 1977/78, 81-94 9 E. SIMON, Satyrspielbilder aus der Zeit des Aischylos, in: B. SErDENSTICKER (ed.), see [7],

1989, 362-403 10 B. ZIMMERMANN, Uberlegungen zum sogenannten Pratinasfragment, MH 43, 1986, 145-154

B.Z.

Pratum see > Anthology I. Praxagoras (Meakayooas; Praxagoras) of Cos. Doctor, at the end of the 4th cent. BC, teacher of > Herophilus [1], > Phylotimus, > Pleistonicus and > Xenophon. His family claimed its descent from > Asclepius; his grandfather who shared the same name and his father, Nicarchus, were likewise doctors. His family continued to be very prominent on Cos for generations [1]. A poem composed by > Crinagoras still survives on a statue in his honour (Anth. Plan. 273). Amongst the works of this doctor are a treatise on therapy in at least 4 books, a work about diseases in at least 3 books as well as a treatise on anatomy. Some of these works survived at least until the time of > Galen (2nd cent. AD), who wrote a work criticizing P.’s teaching on the humours. An Epistula Praxagorae is a medieval pseudepigraph [2]. Galen, who represents the main source of information about P., sees him as a continuator of > Hippocrates [6], not only in his views on prognostics (fr. 93), dietetics (fr. 36) and > phlebotomy (fr. 98), but also in his preference for treating the whole body rather than the affected part (fr. 97). Galen often plays down differences of opinion with the Hippocratic doctrine. Thus, for example, P.’s belief in ten humours, particularly of a ‘glassy’ humour is taken as confirmation of Hippocratic teaching on humours (fr. 21), whilst + Rufus of Ephesus saw in it a newer development (fr. 22)

P.’s anatomical studies rested on his examination of dissected animals, e.g. the uterus (fr. 12-14). He considered the brain to be a mere appendage of the spinal cord (fr. 15); sensation came from the heart, the seat of the

783

784

soul (fr. 10, 30). He recognised the difference between

completed by Androsthenes from 335-327 BC, after P.’s death. Signatures of P. from the period 368-338 BC survive from Oropus and Athens; others in Delos and Thasos are from his son of the same name.

PRAXAGORAS

veins, containing blood, and arteries. Following in the steps of his father he was convinced that arteries could only contain > pneuma, and that by progressively dividing they would terminate in delicate ‘nerves’ (mevra, fr.

OverRBECK, Nr. 857, 860; LIPPOLD, 193, 243; J. MAR-

ro). P. described the movement of the arteries as the

caApbf£, Recueil des signatures de sculpteurs grecs, vol. 2,

pulse; this movement was independent from that of the heart. P. was the first to attribute diagnostic significance to its changes, although he did not distinguish the pulse from similar cardiac muscular movements, e.g. tremors or palpitations. The doxographical entries in the > Anonymus Parisinus show how P. explained diseases by changes in the balance of the humours, caused occasionally by a change in body temperature. Thus, for example, > epilepsy, apoplexy and paralysis are the result of phlegm (fr. 70-74), > melancholy of black bile (fr. 69). Pleurisy, phrenitis and pneumonia are the result of an inflammation of the heart and lung regions. (fr. 62-66). Some of his treatments made use of dangerously strong remedies such as —> hellebore (frr. 113, 118, 119). His treatment procedure for ileus, which may have involved abdominal surgery, was cynically called a ‘magnificent death’ (fr. 109) by Caelius [II 11] Aurelianus. — Humours, theory of

1957, 109-113; EAA 6, s. v. P. (2)-(4), 1965, 431-4325 B. S. RipGway, Hellenistic Sculpture, vol. 1, 1990, 17-21, 54; F. CroIssanrt, s. v. P., EAA, 2. Suppl., vol. 4, 1996, 462-464; Id., Les Athéniens a Delphes avant et aprés Cheronée, in: P. CARLIER (ed.), Le IV° siécle av. J. C., 1996, 127-139.

Praxidice

RN.

(Mou&ixn/Praxidiké).

Greek goddess of

oaths (‘Executrix ofJustice’), sister of > Zeus Soter and

by him mother of + Homonoia, Arete (who are also known as the Praxidikai) and Ctesius (Mnaseas FHG 3,

152 fr. 17). According to Panyassis fr. 18 K MATTHEWS, wife of Tremiles, mother of Tlos, Pinarus, Cragus. The

SCHUBRING, Epistula Praxagorae, in: Sudhoffs Archiv 46,

plural Praxidikai is also found as the byname of a threesome of goddesses (Dionysius of Chalcis FHG 4, 394 fr. 3) and the singular P. as the byname of > Persephone (Orph. H. 29,5). An open-air sanctuary of the Praxidikai was located at > Haliartus in Boeotia; only carefully considered oaths were made there (Paus. 9,33,3). P. was also widespread in Laconia (Paus. 3,22,2), Attica and Lycia. P. was probably pictorially depicted only as

1962, 295-310.

a kephale (head sculpture) (Suda, Hsch. s. v. IT.).

1S. M. SHERWIN-WHiITE, Ancient Cos, 1978, 216

2K.

3 F. STECKERL (ed.), The Fragments of P. of Cos and his

School, 1958

4K. BARDONG,s. v. P., RE 22, 1735-1743

5 E. D. BAUMANN, P. von Kos, in: Janus 41, 1937, 167-

185

J. E. Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, 31922, 188; M. C. VAN DER KOLF, s. v. Praxidike, RE 227

i — NGO:

NI. JO.

6C.R.S. Harris, The Heart and the Vascular Sys-

tem, 1973, 108-113.

V.N.

Praxeas. Christian teacher from Asia Minor, active in Rome and North Africa (?) between 190 and 220. The main source is Tertullian (Adversus Praxean, after 210).

P. convinced Bishop — Victor [5] of Rome to exclude — Montanism from Church fellowship (Tert. Adversus Praxean 1,4f.). As a proponent of modalist > monarchianism, he taught the identity of Father and Son so as to preserve the unity of God (ibid. 2,1.3; 13,1; 23,7). P. explained the relationship between the divine and human natures in Christ by equating God the Father with the divine element and Jesus, the Son, with the human element (ibid. 27). The Father does not fully share the suffering of the Son, he ‘suffers with him’ (compatitur; ibid. 29,5). This is a less strict form of monarchianism. In his dispute with P., > Tertullianus [2] developed the basic outlines of his doctrine of the Trinity. — Trinity Bibl. at

> Monarchianism.

Praxilla (Med&vka/Praxilla). Lyric poetess from Sicyon, chief date c. 451 BC. (Eusebius, Jer. Chron. Ol. 82,2). Author of hymns (747 PMG), dithyrambs (748 PMG) and skolia (749, 750 PMG). Two verses about a girl seen at a window (754 PMG) are written in the praxilleion metre, named after her; the beginning syllables can be found as inscriptions on a Boeotian vase from the middle of the 5th cent. Her treatment of myth was innovative: Dionysus was the son of Aphrodite and not Semele (752 PMG); Zeus, not Laius, kidnapped Chrysippus (751 PMG). Fr. 747 PMG was considered to be amusing, and “dumber than P.’s Adonis” became an adage. Tatian believed (Or. ad Graecos 33) that — Lysippus [2] had created a bronze statue of P. “even though she had not said anything useful in her poems”. Antipater [9] nevertheless calls her one of the nine poetesses (analogous to the nine Muses; Anth. Pal. 9,26). D. A. CAMPBELL, Greek Lyric 4, 1992.

ER.

GE.MA.

Praxias (Ioatiac/Praxias). Son of Lysimachus, sculp-

tor from Athens, pupil of > Calamis. His pediment groups on the Temple of Apollo at > Delphi, which are described by Pausanias (10,19,4), survive. They were

Praxiphanes (Ioatupavns; Praxiphdnés). Peripatetic philosopher of the 4th/3rd cents. BC, son of Dionysophanes, disciple of +>Theophrastus. P. was born in Mytilene, but later resettled in Rhodes. A decree from Delos, in which he is honoured as an euergétés (‘benefactor’) and proxenos (‘public guest’) (fr. 4 WEHRLI), is

785

786

dated to around 260; hence his birth can hardly have been before 330. A report according to which + Epicurus was his disciple (fr. 5 WEHRLI) is certainly incorrect. Very little is recorded of P.’ doctrines. One doxographic note says that his teachings resembled those of

Praxiteles (Moa&wtéAnc/Praxitélés).

Theophrastus (and Aristotle) (fr. 2 WEHRLI), referring

to P.’ natural philosophy, of which we know nothing further. His theory of friendship was attacked by the Epicurean — Carneiscus (fr.7 WEHRLI), Otherwise the

only recorded works by P. are on literary scholarship, and he was seen as one of the founders of ‘higher’ grammar (frr. 8—-ro WEHRLI). His criticism of > Callimachus [3] gave rise to a written rejoinder from the latter. WEHRLI,

Schule, vol. 9, *1969,

93-115;

M. Capasso,

Prassifane, Epicuro e Filodemo. A proposito di Diog. Laert. X 13 e Philod. Poem. V IX r1o-X 1, in: Elenchos 5, 1984, 391-415.

H.G.

Praxis (moeGEic; praxis). [1] Legal term for the execution of a monetary decision in a Greek private lawsuit (> diké [2]), which in Athens

was the affair of the successful creditor and was termed praxis generally (And. 1,88) and also in the text of contract documents (Demosth. Or. 35,12). The usual word for ‘execution’ was cionedttew (eisprattein) (Demosth.

Or. 47,333 475373 479415 575633 57,64). Praxis was not allowed against the person of the debtor, but merely permitted the seizure of items of his property (> enechyrasia). For praxis in the Second Athenian League (IG P 41 A 17; B 40-43; 68,1; 118,20f.) cf. also [2]. Outside Athens see e.g. Syll.> 364,76; 742,34, 35, 57. (Ephesus); 577,63 (Miletus); 976,67 (Samos); 578,58 (Teos); 527,44 (Dreros); 712,37 (Lato).

Just as in the contract documents preserved from Athens the praxis clause is a fixed constituent of Egyptian papyrus documents [3. 147f.]. Execution of a judgement by seizing items of the debtor’s property requires application to the > praktor (‘bailiff’), descriptions of the objects to be seized (magddetktc, parddeixis)

and auction with knocking down to the purchaser (xo0oBoah, prosbole), entry in the register of real estate conveyance (xatayoadn, katagraphé) and entering into possession (éufadeia, embadeia). Summary proceedings are also a preliminary to praxis based on an enforceable document [3. 149f.]. 1A. R. W. Harrison, The Law of Athens, vol. 2, 1971, 185-190 2C. Kocn, Volksbeschliisse in Seebundangelegenheiten, 1991 3 H.-A. RupprecuT, Kleine Einfiihrung in die Papyruskunde, 1994. GT.

[2] See > Practical philosophy

I. BlocrarHy

PRAXITELES

II. Works

III. StyLe

I. BloGRAPHY Sculptor from Athens, active c. 370-320 BC. Since + Timarchus and - Cephisodotus [5] were P.’ sons, > Cephisodotus [4] is assumed to be his father. By using later namesakes, a family of sculptors can be pieced together extending into the rst cent. BC. However, this is just as controversial as the suppositions about the wealth and political influence of the family in the 4th cent. P.’ anecdotal biography and fame sound a note of caution with regard to c. 55 named works. Even so, the abundance of sources has led to many, often inconsistent identifications with Roman copies. Il. Works

P.’ most famous sculpture, the marble statue of ~ Aphrodite in Cnidus, is certainly acknowledged as typical of his work. P.’ main creative period (364-361 BC) corresponds to its date of origin. P. created her for Cos as the first nude of Aphrodite (> Nudity [D]), making a clothed alternative at the same time. The latter remains unknown just like further representations of Aphrodite located in Carian Alexandria and later in Rome. The model for the Cnidian Aphrodite may have been the hetaera > Phryne, often associated with P. Portrait statues of her by P. in Thespiae and in Delphi are likewise to be considered representations of Aphrodite. Phryne also appears in an anecdote about which of two of his masterpieces P. valued most of all, the statue ofan Eros ora satyr. Through Phryne’s agency, the Eros ended up in Thespiae, where it became the artistic destination for admirers of art (cf. Plin. HN. 36,22 or Cic. Verr. 4,60,135), until it was taken to Rome and replaced in Thespiae by a copy. Amongst the versions which have been transmitted in copy it is frequently identified with the ‘Farnese-Steinhauser Eros’ (Paris, LV), though further Eros statues by P. are well known in

Parium and in Sicily. The satyr statues mentioned as by P. are of uncertain number. In addition to that already named, there was a satyr on Tripod Street in Athens, one ‘pouring wine’ in the nearby temple of Dionysus and finally a marble in Megara. A further, or already named, bronze satyr was the Peribdétos (the ‘farfamed’), adduced in connection with Dionysus and ebrietas nobilis (‘noble intoxication’, Plin. HN. 34,69). Two versions of the satyr copied in large numbers are linked to one of these statues known from the tradition: the so-called ‘satyr pouring wine’ more likely with the early one of Tripod Street; and the later so-called ‘leaning satyr’ most frequently with the Periboétos, whether in Megara or Athens. P. created the Apollo Sauroktonos (‘lizard-killer’) in bronze; its unusual motif has allowed it to be identified in Roman copies. In the Heraeum of Olympia Pausanias (5,17,3) saw P.’ Hermes with the child Dionysus, found during excavation; it is not, however, considered by many to be the original, but a Hellenistic copy.

787

788

In the temple of Leto in Mantinea, P. created a group of devotional figures whose base is described by Pau-

even with the acceptance of guaranteed copies. At the same time, slimmer body proportions and motifs of standing figures with curved body axes are regarded as typical of P. P. accordingly preferred youthful deities in whom a certain chdris ’(gracefulness’) is revealed. By comparison with deities by > Phidias, this gave expression to a changed image of the gods. -» Sculpture; > Statue

PRAXITELES

sanias (8,9,1) as being decorated with reliefs of Marsyas

and the Muses. On account of their inferior quality the reliefs found there are attributed to P.’s workshop only. Various types transmitted as copies have been proposed for the devotional figures themselves and for further devotional figures by P.: statues of Hera with Athena and Hebe likewise in Mantineia, the Twelve Gods, Tyche, further Letoids and Peitho and Paregorus in Megara, an Artemis in Anticyra, a Hera Teleia and Rhea in Plataeae, Leto with the Niobid Chloris in Argos, Trophonius in Lebadea, the Labours of Heracles in Thebes (probably as figures on pediments) and a bronze Dionysus in Elis. Pausanias (1,2,4) saw marble statues of Demeter, Kore and Iacchus in Athens, which according to an inscription on the temple wall were created by P., and even the grave stele of a warrior with a horse in the Kerameikos. An Artemis Brauronia by P. was situated on the Acropolis in Athens; it was frequently identified with the Gabii one (Paris, LV) on account of its motif; the original remains of its stele were recently discovered by G. DEsPINIs. Other works later arrived in Rome in temples and collections, namely, Thespiades, Agathodaemon and Agathe Tyche, Demeter, Triptolemus and Flora, groups of Maenads, Thyiads, Caryatids and Sileni, Apollo and Poseidon, and a bronze representation of the rape of Persephone. It is disputed whether the Niobids in the Apollo Sosianus temple, Janus Pater and an Eros-Alcibiades were the works of P. or Scopas. Pliny (3 4,69-70) mentions other works by their going names, which makes their identification more difficult: for instance, a catagusa (‘woman spinning’), a crying matron with a

laughing hetaera, the bronze statues of a stephanusa (‘a woman crowning herself’), a pseliumene (‘woman putting ona bracelet’) and an Opora (ripe-fruit deity). Other ancient attributions to P. are likely due to the fame attached to his name: e.g., a Tyrannicide group, collaboration

on

the - Mausoleum

at Halicarnassus,

reliefs on the altar of Artemis in Ephesus, the driver of a four-horse chariot by > Calamis, a group consisting of Danae, nymphs and Pan, a Leda in Myra, even silver chasing. Some surviving inscriptions of lost honorary statues on the Athenian Agora, in Olbia and in Leuctra refer to P. himself and allude to an important, but lost, part of his ceuvre. Other inscriptions derive from an associate of the same name in the early 3rd cent. BC. Further questionable artists’ inscriptions are to be found in the Imperial Era. WI Sryie The basis for the identification of P.’ works and with it the awareness of his style is slighter than might be expected from the large number of current attributions. P.’ exterior configuration was praised in classical antiquity and, on his marble works, had been finished to an exceptional standard of perfection by the encaustic painting of > Nicias [3]. Nevertheless this is absent

OVERBECK (see Index); Loewy (see Index); J. MARCADE,

Recueil des signatures de sculpteurs grecs, vol. 1, 1953, 89; vol. 2, 1957, 114-122; G. BEcaTTI s. v. Prassitele, EAA

6, 1965, 423-431;

DAVIES,

286-290;

A. Corso,

Prassitele. Fonti epigrafiche e letterarie. Vita e opere, vol. 1-3, 1988-92; A. SrewartT, Greek Sculpture, 1990, 277281; C. M. Havetock, The Aphrodite of Knidos and Her Successors, 1995; A. Corso, s. v. Prassitele, EAA, 2.

Suppl. vol. 4, 1996, 456-462; A. AJooTIAN, P., in: YCIS 30, 1996, 91-129; G.I. Despinis, Neues zu einem alten

Fund, in: MDAI(A) 109, 1994, 173-198, pls. 31-45; B. S. RipGway, Fourth-Century Styles in Greek Sculpture, 1997, 261-267,

329; G. Desprnis, Zum

Athener Brau-

ronion, in: W. HOEPENER (ed.), Kult und Kultbauten auf der Athener Akropolis, 1997, 209-217. RN.

Praxithea (Ioa&wWéa/Praxithéa). [1] Daughter or granddaughter of Cephisus; on the one hand, she is the wife of > Erechtheus (Demaratus FGrH 42 F 4) and mother of several children (amongst them — Creusa [2], > Oreithyia, > Procris); on the other, the wife of > Erichthonius [1] and mother of > Pandion [1] (Apollod. 3,190; @®gaoWea/Phrasithéa Tzetz. Chil. 1,174). According to an oracle, Erechtheus can only win the war against > Eumolpus after sacrificing one of his daughters. In his play ‘Erechtheus’, Euripides allows P. to give detailed reasons for his decision to sacrifice his daughter. The two sisters of the doomed girl follow her to their deaths voluntarily (Eur. Erechtheus fr. 65 AusTIN; Lycurg. In Leocratem 98-100; Apollod. 3,196; 203). After the death of her daughters and husband, P. is instated by Athena as her priestess. [2] (Variations of her name, Phrasithéa/PoaciwWéa and Phasithéa/®aowWéa, are based upon the inaccuracies of

later authors). Daughter of King Leos who, together with her sisters, either is sacrificed because of an oracle

or sacrifices herself in order to free Athens from a famine or plague. They were worshipped in the Agora in the Leocorium (Ael.VH 12,28). BIBLIOGRAPHY:

R.E.

Harper,

Die Frauenrollen

bei

Euripides, 1993, 336-342, 405f.; U. Kron, Die zehn attischen Phylenheroen, 1976, 195-201; A. SPETSIERI-CHOREMI, S. v. P., LIMC 7.1, 505; M. C. VAN DER KOLB, s. v. P. (1)-(3), RE 22, 1809-1811.

IMAGES: A. SPETSIERI-CHOREML, s. v. P., LIMC 7.2, 397.

R.HA.

789

790

Prayer I. ANCIENT ORIENT II. JuDAIsm ROME IV. CHRISTIANITY

III. GREECE AND

I. ANCIENT ORIENT A. GENERAL POTAMIA

REMARKS

AND

B.EcGypt

C. MESo-

SyYRIA-PALESTINE

A. GENERAL REMARKS Several hundred prayers have been preserved from the ancient Orient, dating from as far back as the 3rd

millennium BC. In some cases, the history of their texts can be traced back for several centuries. A variety of genres usually classified as lamentations, hymns, etc., are actually prayers, since lamentations or hymns of praise to a deity simply represent the occasion for a following prayer, which constitutes the underlying reason for that hymn or lamentation. LRE.

B. EGypr Invocations of the gods, followed by a petition for oneself or an intercession for another, were common in Egypt and can be found in texts of widely varying genres: as original prayers of repentance, in formulaic funerary inscriptions, in literary school texts, in rituals and as rock graffiti. Prayers consisted of an invocation, eulogy or hymn and the actual petition, and less commonly of an expression of gratitude to a deity. The relative importance of these components was dependent on the purpose of the prayer. In prayers of the temple ritual, for example, the hymn is far longer than the subsequent petition. In some cases the gods were asked to intercede in a specific situation, but frequently (particularly in formal prayers) the petition addressed such general requests as ‘life, salvation and health’. A spoken prayer could include a variety of gestures of recitation or veneration. Most common was a posture with raised, bent arms, the palms of the hands facing the object of worship (> Gestures). Early morning is often said to have been the time of prayer, and the preferred locations were holy places of any kind (especially the temple gates). The importance of prayers is shown by the variety of epithets for the gods indicating that prayers had been answered. 1J. Assmann,

Agyptische Hymnen

und Gebete,

2 H. BRUNNER, s.v. Gebet, LA 2, 452-459.

1975

K J-W.

C. MESOPOTAMIA AND SYRIA-PALESTINE The prayers we know of were mostly part of recurrent cultic and incantation rituals, so they were handed down in written form. They were usually accompanied by sacrifices. In Mesopotamia, during the rst millennium some prayers were referred to as ‘incantations’ [2. 168f.], although it was recognized that reciting such prayers did not magically cause the deity to act. The literary form of prayers was lyrical. In cultic practice, prayers were generally sung and only rarely spoken. Their classification as cultic lyric poetry indi-

PRAYER

cates that they were accompanied by stringed and percussion instruments. Ritual scenes of prayer and their accompanying gestures were depicted on seals [5. fig. 139a]) and reliefs [5. fig. ror, 107, 242, LXIII] or described in texts (standing while praying, raising one’s hands, kneeling, prostration, etc.; -» Gestures) [3. 156f., 161, 171, 175-177]. Only in rare instances have prayers of individuals been preserved ([4. 750752] for missives addressed to gods, sometimes with ex-votos [1]; [4.

715-717]). Here too, however, written

form represented a departure from the original spoken prayer. Personal piety manifested itself primarily in the Semitic onomastica of Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine (OT) and the Hurritic region of Anatolia. These are found in the form of prayers or supplications (‘God have mercy on me’; or the Hurritic Ulli-kummi ‘Destroy [the city of] Kummi’) or, in the name of a newborn child, reflect the hearing and answering of a prayer (for offspring) (‘The god-XX-has answered my prayer’). In Mesopotamia there were many ways in which one could be constantly present in prayer before a deity: statues depicting prayer (which sometimes included a prayer text) in the cella of a temple; prayers on cylinder seals and amulets; dedication of a daughter to (prayer) service in a temple. Prayers are sometimes used in epic texts as stylistic

devices in place of the (reflective) soliloquy (of the modern novel) [4. 713-715]. — Gestures; > Psalms 1B. Bock, ‘Wenn Du zu Nintinugga gesprochen hast ...’ Untersuchungen zu Aufbau, Inhalt, Sitz-im-Leben und Funktion sumerischer Gottesbriefe, in: Altorientalische Forschungen 23, 1996, 3-23 2 A. FALKENSTEIN et al., s.v.

Gebet, Gebetsgebarden und Gebetsgesten, RLA 3, 156177 3 A. FALKENSTEIN, W. VON SODEN, Sumerische und akkadische Hymnen und Gebete, 1953 (translations) 4 TUAT 2 5 PropKg 14. JRE.

Il. JUDAISM

Judaism stipulates three times each day when the pious (except for women, who are not included in this obligation) are expected to pray, either alone or as part of the synagogue community: the morning prayer (Sakharit; the most extensive prayer), the afternoon prayer (Minkha) and the evening prayer. (Ma‘ariv). For practical reasons the evening prayer follows immediately after the afternoon prayer. While the elements of these prayers are fundamentally the same, on Sabbat and other holy days certain changes and additions are made (Musaf; cf. the Machzorim, the prayer books for the holy days). The two most important components of these prayers are the ‘Hear Israel’ (Soma‘ Jisra’el; cf. Dt 6:4-9; 11:13-21; Nm 15:37-41), which is included in the evening and morning prayers, and the Eighteen Petitions, also called Tofilla (‘prayer’) or ‘Amida (‘standing’, because it is prayed while standing), which are part of each of the three daily prayers. Other psalms and prayers are recited as well (e.g. the ‘Alenu and Kaddis at the conclusion of the morning prayers), as are a variety of Berakhot (blessings or benedictions).

PRAYER

791

This prayer liturgy, which was Biblical in origin, was largely shaped during the Tannaitic and Amoraic periods (> Tannaites,

> Amoraim) asa replacement for the

service in the Temple, which was no longer possible after the Temple’s destruction in AD 70. The oldest extant prayer book (Hebrew Siddur) comes from Rav Saadja ha-Gaon (882-942; cf. also the Siddur Rav Amran from the 9th cent.; this contains only the liturgical order and not the prayer texts themselves). During the Middle Ages additional material was added in certain regions. Thus a distinction can be made today between a Spanish rite (most closely related to the ancient Babylonian)and German, Roman and Italian rites. I. ELBOGEN, Der jiidische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, 1913; G. FoHRER, Glaube und Leben im Judentum, 1979, 52-71; J. HEINEMANN, Prayers in the Talmud. Form and Patterns, in: Studia Judaica 9, 1977; L. A. HOFFMANN, s.v. Gebet III. Judentum, TRE 12, 4247; P. MAsER, An uns ist es zu preisen. Eine Auswahl aus dem jiidischen Gebetbuch, 1991; E. Munk, The World of Prayer, 2 vols., without date B.E.

II]. GREECE AND ROME Prayer (evyh, euché; precatio, preces) involved call-

792

second and third parts may be reversed as a means of emphasizing the urgency of the request. Sometimes the second part may be omitted, as in the oath prayer in Hom. Il. 3,288-301, which is more a curse than a prayer. Likewise, an ejaculatory prayer referring to a specific situation is much less formal; for example, Agamemnon’s ejaculatory prayer (Hom. Il. 4,288f.) is made up only of a petition that includes a brief invocation of the gods. The liturgical and literary > hymn as well as the epideictic transformation of a prayer into a prose hymn of the Imperial period follows this basic structure, although they are far more ornate (Menander 2,17,437-446) [4]. Christian prayers also follow that formal pattern (cf. the Lord’s Prayer). The basic forms of Roman prayers were similar, but — at least in their archaic form, used by writers such as Cato - their invocation rarely referred to myths, and they were much more formalized so as to adapt to different circumstances, at least in the case of public prayers. The numerous examples given in Cato’s De agricultura, which are part of the pontifical tradition, provide insight into the traditional forms of Roman prayer (Serv. Aen. 9,641 counts Cato Agr. 132 among the libri pontificales).

ing upon the gods to express a wish. Documented forms in antiquity range from situational ejaculatory prayers to very formal prayers like those used in the context of a sacrificial offering. It is not always easy to distinguish prayer from a > curse, since the latter also expresses a desire, and the Greek terms are ambiguous: Greek G04 (ard) refers to both a prayer and a curse; in Homer aréter, ‘praying person/one who curses’ is a term used to refer to priests in general; Aeschylus (Aesch. Cho. 142; 145f.) uses euchai for blessing or perdition, as well as aratkalai and arekaké [1]. A. LINGUISTIC

FORM

B. RITUAL SETTING

C. IDEOLOGY OF PRAYER

A. LINGUISTIC FORM The form of prayers mostly followed a fixed tripartite system [2; 3] (and changes in this form may convey specific messages). Even the first prayer in the Iliad, Chryses’ invocation of > Apollo (Hom. Il. 1,37-42),

exhibits that structure. An initial segment (invocatio) calls for the attention of the deity (‘hear me’) or summons him (Latin ades), listing epiclesis and certain cha-

racteristics in a relative clause, which is often supplemented by participles. The often large amount of information has a specific function: it is critical that the appropriate deity be invoked if the wish is to be fulfilled. A second part (pars epica) presents a justification of the person praying, and formulates what one might call a ‘legal claim to be heard’. It makes reference to earlier sacrifices or other rites (“when I...for you’), or mentions past occasions when the deity answered a prayer; in the case of esoteric and magical prayers, a mention might be made to particular myths or secret names. A third and last part (preces) comprises the actual petition. The

B. RITUAL SETTING Prayers were part of nearly every major ancient ritual (Plin. HN 28,10), and in particular of every animal

sacrifice. The individual who carried out the sacrifice would recite a prayer invoking the respective deity; this was done prior to the actual sacrifice, but after the opening rites (for example Hom. Od. 14,423: after the cutting of the forelocks; or Eur. El. 803-807: after throwing the sacrificial barley). When no animal sacrifice was performed, most prayers were coupled with other ritual acts, such as the burning of incense or a ~ libation. In Greece and Rome, prayers were usually offered while standing, with raised hands and with the face turned to where the deity was thought to be (the heavens, the ocean, the Underworld). In Rome, the person who was praying normally kept the back of his head covered (capite velato) and would turn in a circle (Liv. 5,21,16; Suet. Vit. 2,5; Plut. Marcellus 6,12,301b and Varro in Plut. Quaest. Rom. 14,267b). It was considered to be especially effective to sit down after praying (Plut. Numa 14,7-9, 69f.), probably because this expressed a certain degree of intimacy with the deity invoked (cf. Achilles’ invocation of Thetis while seated, Hom. Il. 1,3 5 1-3 56). Obsequious kneeling in the oriental style was extremely rare and viewed as un-Greek or un-Roman [5]. Generally prayers were said aloud (Homeric evVxonat, evchomai, is ‘marked speech’ [6]). Quiet prayer was frowned upon in antiquity because it did not permit social control, and in later years it occasionally brought charges of using magic [7] — not least because of the difficulty of distinguishing between prayers and curses. In order to avoid formal errors it was permissible for a Roman prayer text to be prompted, while an

723

794

PRAYER

accompaniment on the flute helped to cover any extra-

Faith, Hope and Worship. Aspects of Religious Mentality

neous sounds (Plin. HN 28,11). When particular times

in the Ancient World, 1981, 193-2145 5 F. T VAN STRATEN, Did the Greeks Kneel before their Gods?, in: BABesch

of prayer are mentioned — especially in the philosophical piety of the later era— morning prayer, which might be addressed to the rising sun, is considered to be especially important (Cic. Phil. 3,11; in Christianity for example Ambrosius Hymni 1,33); next in importance is evening prayer (to the moon: Marinus, Vita Procli 11).

C. IDEOLOGY OF PRAYER The wishes expressed in prayer refer to specific situations, and in the urban rituals of sacrifice during the later era they tended to be general wishes for the health and prosperity of all residents of the city (for example [8]). Private prayers sought fulfillment of individual desires (‘egotism in prayer’); it was only when prayers were said aloud that a certain degree of control was possible. The invocation of the gods as part of a magic ritual echoed the structure of canonical prayer; the difference was not so much in the use of quiet prayer as in the use of certain» > magical spells as secret names for the deities [9]. Ethical reflection and prayer criticism focus on the degree to which prayer is compatible with a philosophically refined image of the gods; Aristotle’s lost book ‘On Prayer’ addressed this issue (Aristot. fr. 49 Rose). Heraclitus criticized praying to material idols (22 B 5 DK, cf. Sen. Ep. 41,1). Most of all, however,

there was criticism of egotism in prayer and materialistic demands, which were seen as contradictory to the image of the divine. The recommendation that one should not formulate any specific wishes, since the gods knew better what a mortal required, was attributed to Pythagoras (Diod. Sic. 10,9,8, cf. also Philostr. VA I,I1; 4,40), but this view is already found in the prayer of Athena-Mentor in Homer (Od. 3,58). Since divine works were seen as determined by fate ever since the time of the Stoa, the question arises as to whether prayers are even necessary: Seneca used tradition to justify

the rite of prayer (fr. 38 Haase). The idea of prayer asa request — which although not without problems was still taken for granted by Plato (Plat. Euthphr. 14c; leg. 7,801a) — was rejected by later philosophers, who considered prayer to be a conversation with the deity (Max.Tyr. 5,8 with a distinctly polemic approach). Neoplatonic thought adopted this view, going as far as to see prayer as a way of becoming one with the deity, something that was possible only in silence (Damascius, Vita Isidori 64f. Zintzen). — Liturgical prayers like the Hermetic prayer of thanksgiving (Asclepius 41b in the Corpus Hermeticum) reflect this view, as they ask not for material goods, but for knowledge. > Curse; > Magic; > Sacrifice 1 O. Masson, Vocabulaire grec et épiphanie: dou ‘priere,

ex voto’, in: Studies in Mycenaean and Classical Greek Presented to John Chadwick (Minos 20/22), 1987, 383388 2C. AusFELD, De Graecorum precationibus quaestiones, 1903 3 E. NorDEN, Agnostos Theos. Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religidser Rede, +1923 4]. M. Bremer, Greek Hymns, in: H. S. VERSNEL (ed.),

49, 1974, 159-189 6L.C. MUELLNER, The Meaning of Homeric evyeo0at through its Formulae, 1976 7P. W. VAN DER Horst, Silent Prayer in Antiquity, in: Numen 41, 1994, 1-25 8LSAM 32,21-31 9F. GRag, Prayer in Magic and Religious Ritual, in: C. A. Faraone, D. OsBInkK (ed.), Magika hiera, 1991, 188-213.

S. SCHMIDT, Veteres philosophi quomodo iudicaverunt de precibus, 1907; G. AppEL, De Romanorum precationibus, 1909; E. VON SEVERUS, s.v. G. I, RAC 8, 1134-1258; A.

Hamman, La priére chrétienne et la priére paienne, formes et differences, in: ANRW II 23.2, 1190-1247; H. Limet, J. Rugs (ed.), L’expérience de la priére dans les grandes

religions. Actes du Colloque de Louvain-La-Neuve

et

Liége 1978, 1980; H. S. VERSNEL, Religious Mentality in

Ancient Prayer, in: Id. (ed.), Faith, Hope and Worship. Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World, 1981,

1-64; J.D. Mrkatson,

Unanswered

Prayers in

Greek Tragedy, in: JHS 109, 1989, 81-98; D. AUBRIOTSEVIN, Priéres et conceptions religieuses en Gréce ancienne jusqu’a la fin du V° siécle av. J.-C., 1992; F. V. Hickson, Roman Prayer Language. Livy and the Aeneid of Vergil, 1992; A. DEREMETZ, La priére en représentation a Rome. De Mauss a la pragmatique contemporaine, in: RHR 211, 1994, 141-165; S. PULLEYN, Prayer in Greek Religion,

1997. IV. CHRISTIANITY In its form and structure, Christian prayer was very

similar to pre-Christian prayer. A feature that was unfamiliar in the Graeco-Roman world is the dominance of a single prayer, the Lord’s Prayer, which took on a special status because of Jesus (Lk 11:2/4) but basically conforms to the Jewish prayer tradition (cf. the main Jewish prayers). This set the pattern for the departure of Christian prayer from the Graeco-Roman attitude of a mutual give and take, and allowed for the possibility of communicating with God in prayer, directly and independently of any ritual structure. Both of these aspects of Christian prayer were also found in Neo-Platonic prayer criticism. In a literal interpretation of the commandment found in the NT (Lk 18:1) and expressed by Paul, that one should pray constantly (1 Thess 5:17), the early ascetics and monks made prayer the central component of the ascetic lifestyle (Evagrius Ponticus, or. 54, PG 79, 1177 D; Johannes Cassianus, Collationes 9,18,1). Central to the monks’ liturgy of the hours, developed by Johannes Cassianus, Benedict of Nursia and Columban, were the Lord’s Prayer and, similar to Judaism, the psalms. Within the monasteries, praying aloud was replaced by quiet or even internal prayer, a development for which > Gnosticism laid the groundwork (Clem. Al. Stromateis 6,1021), but which was opposed by Clement (ibid. 4,171,1) and Origen (De oratione 12,1f). The work by Origen was important for a theological review of prayer, while Tertullian’s short work De Oratione (Ch. roff.) sheds light on the practical aspects of prayer: the washing of hands, praying with raised hands and after removing one’s outer garment, a brotherly kiss following prayer. FG.

795

796

Precarium (‘that which is requested’). The grant of an item until revoked (‘... quod precibus petenti conceditur tamdiu, quamdiu is qui concessit patitur’, Ulp. Dig. 43,26,1 pr.) in Roman law. The origin of precarium was the loaning of land by patrician landowners to their clients. Elsewhere, for example, a pledgor could retain

e.g. against bewitchment, in the Roman Empire pulverized stones and PS were constituents of medicines, as in Dioscorides (5,123-150 [3. 91-103] and 5,140-168 [4. 543-554]). Ancient gems and cameos (~ Gem cutting) served as > jewellery and were used for magic in the Middle Ages, cf. Thomas of Cantimpre, 14,69-70

the pledged item as precarium (lulianus Dig. 13,7,29),

[5. 370-373].

PRECARIUM

or a credit purchaser might receive the purchased item as precarium (Ulp. Dig. 43,26,20). Initially, precarium was not a legal relationship, but solely an actual grant which could be terminated at any time by the grantor. In relation to the grantor (precarium dans), the precarist (precarium habens) was an unentitled possessor

(iniustus possessor); he thus had only vitiosa possessio (defective possession, Gai. Inst. 4,151) and was not protected against the grantor by the possessorial interdicts, which stipulated that possession exercised by the party entitled to protection must be nec vi nec clam nec precario (‘neither by violence, nor secretly, nor as precarium’) (+ interdictum). However, according to the Sabinian school, the grantor too, was the (entitled) possessor (iustus possessor); but according to the — victori-

ous — Proculian school, the sole possessor was the precarist (Paulus Dig. 41,2,3,5, also —> possessio). The grantor enacted repossession by means of an interdic-

tum de precario (Ulp. Dig. 43,26,2 pr.). In relation to third parties, however, the precarist was the possessor, and was protected by the possessorial interdicts (Ulp. Dig. 43, 26,4,1). During the Principate, the precarium developed into a special loan relationship. In late antiquity, it appears linked to > leasehold. In Justinian (6th cent.), the precarium is an innominate contract (originally an unenforceable contract, see > condictio C.), to which was linked an > actio [2]praescriptis verbis (‘action according to prescribed wording’) (Dig. 43,26,2,2; 19,2 interpolation). HONSELL/MAYER-MALY/SELB, 13 5f.; KASER, RPR 1, 141,

388f., 400; 2, 407f.

D.SCH.

Precious stones In the Greek world, archaeological excavations have yielded jewellery but not PS, detectable only from the 5th cent. on. Mineralogical knowledge was almost absent in Antiquity. Plato (Plt. 303e) considers diamonds, for example, as a constituent of

gold. The names of PS, such as Gdduac (addmas, ‘the invincible’), &ueé8votos (améthystos, ‘that which does not make one drunk’) and d¢itys (ophites, ‘that which

wards off snakes’) reveal the magical effect ascribed to them. Theophrastus is the author of the first scholarly treatment, ITegi AiOwv (Peri lithon, ‘On Stones’ [1]); Plinius (HN 37) is a rich source. The pseudo-scholarly Greek ‘stone books’ (> Lithikd) were favoured, as was instructional verse, e.g. by Orpheus (774 hexameters) [2], and were especially widespread in Latin as lapidaria in the Middle Ages (cf. Thomas of Cantimpré, bk. 14). PS such as crystal are also encountered in lithomancy (> Divination). In addition to their use as an > amulet,

1D.E. 1965

ErcHHo1z (ed.), Theophrastus. De lapidibus, 2R. Hatteux, J. ScHamp (ed.), Les lapidaires

grecs, 1985 (ed.), Thomas

3 WELLMANN

3

4 BERENDES

5H. BOESE

Cantimpratensis, Liber de natura rerum,

1973.

C.HU.

Predestination, theory of I. GENERAL COMMENTS II. GRAECO-ROMAN THEORIES OF PREDESTINATION III. CHRISTIAN

I. GENERAL COMMENTS Predestination (Lat. praedestinatio, a Christian concept) is most precisely the Christian doctrine according to which history and individual lives are predetermined. A groundbreaking idea in the history of the Church resulting mainly from the dispute between > Augustinus and the Pelagians (— Pelagius [4]), its roots go back to the OT and Graeco-Roman philosophy and religion. It is, ultimately, the Christian version of a conflict, fundamental to most religious systems, between the omnipotence of the divine, which would include the predetermination of the future, and the claim of the individual to free will, as well as che conflict between the definition

of the divine as good and the existence of evil (> Theodicy). I]. GRAECO-ROMAN THEORIES OF PREDESTINA-

TION In the Homeric epics, the relationship between the gods, particularly + Zeus, who controls the present world order, and — fate, is ambivalent. The gods may be subject to fate, or they may be its master; mortals as well may act in a way that goes beyond fate (hyper aisan) or against it (para moiran) [1]. While the > Presocratics made a few comments on fate (Heracl. 22 A 5 and 8; B 137 DK; Democr. 68 A 32 DK; cf. Epicurus in Diog. Laert. 10,134), > Stoicism’s formulation of the

relevant philosophical problems decisively shaped the thinking of those who followed. Debate with the Stoa formed the arguments that were also used by Christian authors in their discussion, beginning with the apologists. Stoicism posits a divine > logos (simultaneously ‘reason’) as the foundation of the cosmos (> Cosmo-

logy, + World); accordingly, everything that happens is part of an endless causal chain (Chrysippus fr. 917, SVF 2,265) into which only the wise have insight, and to which they submit because of that insight (Sen. Ep. 107,10). Providence (Greek neovowa/pronoia, Lat. pro-

videntia) and fate (Greek heimarméné, Lat. fatum) are

therefore identical. The attempt by Chrysippus [2] to elude the loss of free will was already recognized by Cicero (Fat. 41) as unsuccessful [4; 5].

727

798

The influence of the heavenly bodies on individual lives, esp. as defined by -> Posidonius [3], gave the stamp of ‘astrological fatalism’ to the ensuing discussion, in which + Middle Platonism and + Neoplatonism in particular argued against the Stoic view of fate (the Christian discussion joined in at this point). The main documents in this context are the works De fato (Peri heimarmeénes) by > Alexander [26] of Aphrodisias (2nd—3rd cent. AD, CAG Suppl. 2,2; 1897; [6; 7]), the pseudo-Plutarchan treatise De fato (Plut. Mor. 586b-574f; 2nd cent. AD) [8] and part of the Timaeus commentary by the Christian — Calcidius (3rd4th cent. AD) [9]. In contrast to the Stoa, the Platonists separated a person’s individual fate from a superordinate divine will (pronoia); following the Platonic conception of an individual’s free choice over his lot in life

knowledge (Aug. Expositio quarundam propositionum ex epistola ad Romanos 52), in AD 397 he began to interpret Rom 9 as proof of unconditional election by grace (Aug. Ad Simplicianum 1,2) [4. 165-169, 211245]. Even foreknowledge of future belief is not the basis of predestination; rather, belief is the consequence of mercy for those who are predestined. Obduracy is evidence of being part of a massa peccati (‘mass of sin’).

(Pl. Resp. 10,617e ff.), it was possible to affirm free will

by understanding fate to be the conditions within which individual actions are taken — we act ‘within fate’, not ‘by fate’ (Calcidius, In Timaeum 150). Thus, divinely ordained fate merely provides the framework; within it individual decisions, and hence responsibility, remain possible. — Fate;

> Theodicy

Fate and the Gods, 1967

2B. C. Drerricu, Death,

3 H. Ltoyp-Jones, The Justice 4 J.B. GouLp, The Stoic Concep-

tion of Fate, in: Journ. for the History of Ideas 25, 1974, 17-32 5 R. W. SHARPLES, Necessity in the Stoic Doctrine of Fate, in: Symbolae Osloenses 56, 1981, 81-97 61d. (ed.), Alexander of Aphrodisias On Fate: Text, Translation and Commentary, 1983 7 P. THILLET (ed.), Alexandre d’Aphrodise: Traité du destin, 1984 8 E. VALGIGLIo (ed.), Plutarco, II Fato: introduzione, testo critico, tra-

duzione e commento, 1964

9 J. DEN BoErt (ed.), Calci-

dius On Fate. His Doctrines and Sources, 1970.

LANGUAGES

For Augustine, predestination affirms the idea of grace;

he elaborated it in connection with the doctrine of original sin particularly in the Pelagian dispute (— Pelagius [4]) beginning in 411 [5]. In world history, two civitates (‘cities’) confronted each other: the civitas dei (‘city of God’), i.e. the community of the predestined, and the civitas terrena (‘earthly city’, Aug. Civ.) [6]. Opposition arose to Augustine’s view of predestination even during his lifetime, gaining only limited acceptance in Latin theology beginning in the 5th cent. (— Semipelagianism). The Synod of Orange/— Arausio in 529 rejected only the idea of being predestined to evil [7. no. 397]; this concept later re-emerged in Gottschalk (+ 866/9) and in Calvinist theology (Synod of Dordrecht, 1613). ~ Gnosis, Gnostics, Gnosticism; — Pelagius [4] 1G.

1 U. Brancut, Dios Aisa, 1953 of Zeus, 1971 (71983)

PRE-GREEK

RGHsER,

Pradestination

und

Verstockung,

1994

2 M. SpaNneUuT, Le stoicisme des péres de l’Eglise, 1957 3 H. Kocn, Pronoia und Paideusis, 1932 4 V. H. DreECOLL, Die Entstehung der Gnadenlehre Augustins, 1999 5 G. NyGreEn, Das Pradestinationsproblem in der Theologie Augustins, 1956 6J. VAN Oorrt, Jerusalem and Babylon, r991 7H. DENzINGER, P. HUNERMANN, Enchiridion Symbolorum 1991.

definitionum et declarationum

(...), V.DR.

Prefix see > Inflection;

> Word formation

Pre-Greek languages I. GENERAL REMARKS

IJ. FORMAL ISSUES, WORD

F.G.

III. CHRISTIAN Praedestinare is found in the NT (pro)(h)orizein (‘predetermine’) in Rom 1:4; 8:29-30, 1 Cor 2:7 and Eph 1:5; 1:11 [1]; the Latin noun praedestinatio entered

FORMATION III. MEDITERRANEAN SUBSTRATE, ANATOLIAN SUBSTRATE IV. ’PARA-GREEK’, ‘PELASGIAN’; THE LANGUAGE OF LINEAR A

into specifically Christian Latin usage beginning with ~ Novatianus (De trinitate 94). In Greek theology, predestination developed as a doctrine of providence

I. GENERAL REMARKS The pre-Greek languages (PGL, cf. > Greece, Languages) that were spoken on Greek soil prior to the settlement of the Greeks did not leave behind any comprehensible text: The language of > Linear A, as well as and + Lemnian, ~— Eteo-Cretan ~ Eteo-Cyprian remain undeciphered. It has not proved possible to link the autochthonous > ethnic names that were documented in the ancient world with any known language, and archeological finds are of little help for a linguistic assessment. The PGL are only indirectly identifiable ina number of words — particularly the names of plants, animals (cf. > Onomastics), implements, as well as titles such as tWw0avvoc/tyrannos, Baowebs/— basileis — and to some extent in proper names based on them (place names and ethnic names, persons’ names and names of > gods) as well as in suffixes that are shown to be non-Greek (i.e., as words that are not of Indo-Euro-

[2. 93, 236-241, 398-409], namely in contrast to the

Stoic doctrine (— Stoicism) of heimarméné or fatum (— fate) and the Gnostic doctrine ( Gnosis, Gnostics, Gnosticism) that nature/physis determines who will be saved (only the pneumatics, not the psychics or sarcics). > Origenes [2] in particular emphasizes acts of free will (Orig. De principiis 3,1, cf. > Methodius [1], De autexusio). He views predestination as a reward, test or

punishment based on ‘providence’ (cf. Rom 8,29): moovoua. (prdnoia), Lat. providentia, affects the entire

life of the soul even beyond the limits of earthly life [3]. Leading the way for chosen souls is the chosen soul of Jesus (Orig. De principiis 2,6; cf. Athan. c. Ar. 2,75-76).

-» Augustinus goes substantially further. While he, too, initially saw praedestinatio as a matter of God’s fore-

PRE-GREEK LANGUAGES

799

pean etymology, or that do not conform to Greek sound laws). Yet non-Greek does not always mean ‘of preGreek origin’. Not included in that category are Semitic loanwords, e.g. yovods ‘gold’, yitmv ‘undergarment’ (Mycenaean ku-ru-so, ki-to), 5é\tog ‘tablet’ or pweea ‘myrrh’, that were adopted through — language contact (trade etc.) [8]. -» Mycenaean represents something of a terminus ante quem for the adoption of pre-Greek words. However, loanwords were adopted as long as PGL coexisted with Greek, i.e. into the rst millennium BC. Many of them have been handed down by glossographers, but without indication of their age. II. FORMAL

ISSUES, WORD

FORMATION

Phonemic variations are common among pre-Greek

800

(Mycenaean

wo-no,

Latin

uinum,

Hethitic utiana-),

woos ‘ivy’, vagxiooos ‘daffodil’, vxdtieov ‘fig’, baxuw0oc ‘hyacinth’, place name OfjPar (Mycenaean teqa).

The characteristics of other PGL and their geographical distribution are less clear. The fact that place names and formants are found both in the Aegean region and in Anatolia would indicate that there was a Luwian (or, in a wider sense, Anatolian) substrate in Greece, particularly in the Minoan world. This plausible hypothesis is based on the following assumptions: Place names ending in -ooo¢ correspond to Anatolian names ending in -(§)Sa- (actually the plural neuter of the possessive suffix *-s(s)a/i-), cf. Magvaoodc : Parnas(s)a from Luwian parna- ‘house, temple’, those ending in -vOoc (and -avéa) correspond to names ending in

words, e.g. teQéBivO0c/téQULVOOg ‘terebinth’; oifda ‘garnet’/2t6y (place name); or wOdv/Bdo0c/Mycenaean mo-

-(a)nda; the god’s names or epithets that end in -vvva are comparable to the Anatolian -uuan(n)i- (late

ri-wo-dolwoMog ‘lead’; some have been adapted to a certain degree, e.g. modtavic (following mgo-) along

Luwian -un(n)i), while those ending in -(e)vos, -u(e)va might be an adapted variation. However, these correspondences cannot be accepted entirely without reservation: -oo/ttog points to *t5o- [12], Anatolian -s(s)a- more probably to -s’a-, -ssd-; -vOocg and -véa can not be simply explained as representing the Anatolian -(a)nda. Other possibilities

with nebtavic/Boutavevw. In purely formal terms, some

formants

are recognisably

pre-Greek,

including

(a)

-Vsso- (in part Attic Boeotian - Vtto-): xohooadg ‘statue’, boods ‘javelin’; place names IIlagvacods, ‘A\xaovao-

00c, AvzxaByttds. (b) -Vso/a-: xegaodc ‘cherry tree’, xitioog ‘type of clover’; place names Kyuodc, Tudwodc, Onpaoa, Mbraoa. Because of the place name Kvmodc¢ (Mycenaean ko-no-so), with the (Argive) ethnic name Kvohiav (with *-s- > -’-), -Vso/a- should probably be distinguished from *-Vsso-, even if pairs with -ooc¢/-oo0¢ (Ilaodc/lacodc) have been documented. (c) *-Vat'o-: GodutvOoc ‘bathtub’ (Mycenaean a-sa-mi-to), toéBw00¢ ‘chickpea’, d6A0/vvO0¢ ‘wild fig’ (also a place name); place names Eetuav0oc, ZaxvvO0c, KdoguvO0¢ (Mycenaean ko-ri-to). (d) -nda-: Kaovavéa, Adoavéa. (e) -m(e)no/a-: place names “Ogyouevoi (Mycenaean e-kome-no), Ativos, Aceuuva, Mnduuva. (f) -(u)nnd-: gods’

name Aixtuvva (: place name Aixtm, Mycenaean di-kata-de/Diktan-de/), Aehpbvy (: Aedooi, PIE *g%elb’-!), also Mycenaean pi-pi-tu-na (Knossos). (g) -dn(d)-: cf. atv wheeled cart’; place names ’AOfva/-cu, Muxfvan; possibly ethnic names “Axaovaves, “EdAyvec. It remains unclear whether (c) and (d) are variations exhibiting

consonant shifts or represent two different formants. Based on the same root, place names are formed using several different formants, e.g. KOguw0o0¢ and Koenoodc; Ade.oa, Adevuva, Adevv80c/Aaevouov, Aaeiva and Adeavéa; Iteav80g (Crete), IIveacocg (Thessaly), IIvetwdoc¢ (Caria), Luwian Puranda.

can by no means be ruled out: (a) a common pre-PIE substrate (perhaps Aegean; cf. > Aegean Koine) [11],

(b) the extension of linguistic material from Anatolia, whether Indo-European or non-Indo-European, or (c)

merely the development of common traits (such as *-(0)Fevt- ‘endowed with’ [Mycenaean /-wont-/]: Anatolian -vant- from Indo-European *-vent-), either within or outside Greece [9. 111 ff.]. In the case of ér€ag (Mycenaean e-re-pa) and Hethitic lahpas ‘ivory’ and xvavocg (Mycenaean ku-wa-no-) ‘lapis lazuli’ and NA,kuuannan [9. 106].

both

(a) and

(b) are

possible

IV. ‘PARA-GREEK’, ‘PELASGIAN’; THE LAN-

GUAGE OF LINEAR A The question of how many pre-Greek languages there were (and which linguistic families they were part of), whether there were different layers in each region (and what they were), and to what extent the PGL influenced proto-Greek will have to remain largely unanswered. It is possible that Indo-European PGL existed; indeed, certain words deviate from the expected Greek pronunciation but still appear to be Indo-European, e.g. oc ‘pig’ (Mycenaean su-qo-ta: ovBwrtye, cf. late Avestic ha, Old High German s#) with a preserved s-

III. MEDITERRANEAN

SUBSTRATE, ANATOLIAN

SUBSTRATE The existence of an indistinct, probably heterogeneous Mediterranean substrate in the Greek language (as well as in other Indo-European languages) can be considered certain. This substrate formed the origin of a number of words like atc ‘olive’, wivOn ‘mint’? (Mycenaean e-ra-wa, mi-ta, xumaeioo/ttog ‘cypress’

cf. Latin oliva, menta), (ku-pa-ri-so), oivoc ‘wine’

(alongside

the

Greek

tc,

Mycenaean

we-e-wi-ja

/’uéwia/: bevos) or the Homeric &otw ‘city’ (Mycenaean

wa-tu) as opposed to the expected *ijotv (Indo-European *uastu-: Vedic vastu- ‘residence’, Tocharian B ost,

A wast ‘house’). For words like these, a purely conventional category of ‘para-Greek’ seems justified [7. 118— 124]. Nevertheless, it is impossible to draw more precise conclusions.

801

802

Attempts to identify concrete Indo-European preGreek languages (prime example: so-called ‘Pelasgian’ with its variations) appear doomed to failure: Indeed, the identification of ‘Pelasgian’ words, such as mieyoc ‘tower’ with the place name Ilégyapog (from *b’rg’o-, German Burg ‘castle’), twuBog (and tiuoc) ‘burial mound’ (from *d!mb'o-: Greek tadog ‘tomb’?; more

Preist construction Method of constructing fortifications from wood, stones and soil widespread through Central Europe during the Iron Age, in which the drystone wall fronts had vertical gaps positioned at regular intervals. Basically two types can be distinguished according to their construction: one in which the rear of the wall was similar, and layers of crossbeams were incorporated in the body of the wall, linking the two surfaces (Altk6nig-Preist type), and another in which a raised earth ramp replaced the opposite wall, and the crossbeams at the base were absent (possibly only in the upper part — Kelheim type). Both types of wall were especially widespread in the areas of Celtic settlement; the first type mainly in the 6th—4th cents. BC, the second especially in the late Celtic oppida (2nd/rst cents.

likely related to Latin tumulus, Middle Irish tom ‘hill’)

or the place names Toetug, Puetmv (from *g’ord’-: Old Church Slavonic gradi, Russian gorod from *g’orto-: Greek yootdc ‘pasture’, Latin hortus, Old High German

garto) is based on imprecise sound laws or false etymologies [4].

Certain characteristics of the language of Linear A (i.e. of the Minoan civilization, cf. cultural words such

as G&oautvOo0c) can be identified: the variation between eft (démac/Mycenaean di-pa/dipas/, —ni®oc/ge-to/ k“et’os/), probably also i/u (place name *Itavoc/Mycenaean u-ta-no), the parallel occurrence of

/d-l/ vs. /r/ (transformed into Mycenaean /d/ vs. /I-r/, cf. da-pu,-ri-to-jo, gen.): AaBvewoc [6. 616 f.], like Saovy/Aaxvy ‘laurel’). + Eteo-Cretan; — Eteo-Cyprian; — Geographical

names; - Greece, Languages; > Greek; > Indo-European languages; > Lemnian; > Linear A; > Mediterranean languages 1J. CHapwick,

80-98

Greek

and Pre-Greek,

in: TPhS

1968,

2E. FurRNEE, Die wichtigsten konsonantischen

Erscheinungen des Vorgriechischen,

PRE-ROMANCE

BC; + Oppidum II.), as a counterpart,

(LANGUAGES)

north of the

Rhine, to the + murus Gallicus in Gaul. In-> Manching there is a particular instance of a murus Gallicus which is overlaid by a PC (Kelheim type). The PC played no role in the Germanic area. + Celtic archaeology; — Fortifications J. Cotiis, Defended Sites of the Late La Téne in Central and Western Europe, 1975; D. VAN ENDERT, Das Osttor

von Manching, 1987, 83-86.

Preparatory

drawing

see

V.P.

~ Inscriptions

IL.D.;

— Mosaic II.C.

1972 (collection of

3 L. Gr, El sustrato pregriego: ojeada historica

Prepelaus (IgenéAaoc/Prepélaos). General in the serv-

y panoramica actual, in: Estudios clasicos 12, 1968, 249285 4D. A. Hester, ‘Pelasgian’ —- a New Indo-European Language?, in: Lingua 13, 1965, 335-384 5Id., PreGreek Place Names in Greece and Asia Minor, in: RHA 61, 1957, 107-119 6A. HeuBEcK, Uberlegungen zur Sprache von Linear A, in: Id., G. NEUMANN (ed.), Res Mycenaeae, 1983, 155-170 7 A. Leukart, Die frithgriechischen Nomina auf -tdas und -ds, 1994 8 E. Masson,

ice of + Cassander. In 315 BC he brought Alexander [8] to their side. He and Asander [2] were sent to Asia in 303, where — Polemaeus annihilated a company of 8,000 of their army. In 3 r1 he participated in the peace negotiations (OGIS 5, |. 10 and I. 28). In 303, he lost Corinth to > Demetrius [I 2]. In 302, Cassander sent him to Asia with reinforcements for > Lysimachus [2], where he quickly conquered several cities (cf. Syll.3 3.53, Ephesus), but lost most of them just as quickly to Demetrius. Perhaps he is the P. honoured in Delphi in c. 287 (Syll.3 378/9; Diod. Sic. 19,64,3; 68,5-73 20,102,1;

material)

Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts semitiques en grec, 1967 9 A. Morpurco Davies, The Linguistic Evidence: Is There Any?, in: G. CaDoGAN (ed.), The End of the Early Bronze Age in the Aegean, 1986, 93-123 10 M. S. RutpéREZ, Sobre el sustrato lingiistico en Grecia, in: D. M. Pipprpr (ed.), Assimilation et résistance a la culture gréco-romaine (Madrid Congr. 1974), 1976, 529-

536 11F. SCHACHERMEYR, S. v. Prahistorische Kulturen Griechenlands, RE 22, 1350-1548 12 W.F. Wyart, Greek -oooc/-tt0¢, in: Glotta 46, 1968, 6-14. J.G-R.

Preietos (Ilogietoc/Preietos). Port and episcopal city in Bithynia (> Bithynia et Pontus), on the southern coast of the Bay of Astacus or Nicomedia, probably near modern Karamiirsel, named after the Bithynian god of war P., who had one of his main cult sites there (Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos, De thematibus 1,27: Toaivetoc/Prainetos; Tab. Peut. 9,2: Pronetios; Plin. HN 31,23: Brietium). F. K. Dorner, s. v. Preietos (2), RE 22, 1832-1835; Id.,

Inschriften und Denkmaler in Bithynien (IstForsch 14), I941, 37-40, 65-67, NO. 39-42.

K.ST.

103,I-4; 107,2—5; III,3).

K. ZIEGLER, Ss. v. Prepelaos, RE 22, 1836-1838.

E.B.

Pre-Romance (languages) The spread of the Latin language beyond Latium (> Latini) as a result of Roman expansion brought — Latin into contact with various indigenous languages, which to some extent (where + Romanisation penetrated more deeply) were replaced by Latin. Important traces of the pre-Romance substrate languages (> Language contact) live on in the Romance languages and are among the factors important to their differentiation. Study of the pre-Romance heritage in the Romance languages can to some extent be supported by attested historical finds (in cases where there are — more or less extensive — direct records of the pre-Romance languages, e.g. the > Celtic languages, + Oscan-Umbrian,

— Venetic,

- Messapic,

— Etrus-

803

804

can), but also draws on inferences about prehistorical peoples and cultures, a process which always involves some uncertainty (> Mediterranean languages). Thus, interesting word parallels between Alpine dialects and Iberian Romance languages (e.g. Alpine ganda/ganna ‘rubble’, Portugese gdndara ‘stony land’, or Friulian roje ‘channel’, Spanish arroyo) point to an ancient preIndo-European substrate. Here, study of the pre-Romance linguistic heritage leads to new insights into European and Mediterranean pre- and early history. ~ Latinisation; > Mediterranean languages; > Language contact; ~ ROMANCE LANGUAGES

9,7-11; Xen. Hell. 2,2,13). The freedom to negotiate of a presbeia could be strictly limited or considerable (Thuc. 5,45; And. 3,33f.5 3,41). Occasionally, a presbeia received new instructions by letter. On its return to Athens, a presbeia had to report to the council and popular assembly (Dem. Or. 19,18; 31). The présbeis, though unpaid, could receive honours. If they failed in their mission, they could expect impeachment (> parapresbeias graph). As institutionalized diplomatic representation was unknown in antiquity (+ Diplomacy), the presbeia played an important mediatory role in relations between states. -» Diplomacy; > Legatio; > Legatus

PRE-ROMANCE (LANGUAGES)

J. Hupscumip,

Praeromanica,

1949; Id., Alpenworter

romanischen und vorromanischen Ursprungs, 1951; C. Taciiavini, Le origini delle lingue neolatine, °1972 M.B.C.

Presbeia, Presbeis (moeofeia/presbeia, moéofetc/ présbeis, ‘embassy’, ‘emissary’). The terms presbeia and présbeis in this sense are known only from the 5th cent. BC on, but there is evidence of ‘diplomatic traffic’ in Greece considerably earlier than this in Homer, in the form of the sending of ‘messengers’ (Hom. Il. 4,384; 5,804; 10,286). The term présbeis is explained by the fact that originally it was generally ‘elders’ (présbys: ‘old’) who were sent out as emissaries, though by the 5th cent. this was no longer the custom (Aristoph. Ach. 599ff.). Présbeis acted on behalf of their commonwealth by, e.g., negotiating beneficial treaty terms, ap-

F. Apcock, D. J. Mostey, Diplomacy in Ancient Greece, 1975; D. Krenast, s. v. Presbeia, RE Suppl. 13, 499-628; D. J. Mostey, Envoys and Diplomacy in Ancient Greece,

1974. Presents I. GREECE

K.-W.W.

II. ROME

I. GREECE A. RESEARCH

HISTORY

B. TERMS

C. TYPES AND

OCCASIONS

sent relatives on important assignments (Justin. 9,4,5;

A. RESEARCH HISTORY There are numerous terms for presents and gifts in Greek and Latin. The giving of gifts was a highly ritualized act and shaped by convention and tradition. Gifts were only rarely voluntary in nature, and generally carried with them the expectation of receiving something in return. This was the case for presents between people of equal social status, between relatives, neighbours and friends, and between men and women, as well as for those exchanged between people of a higher and lower social class, between members of different political groups and between mortals and the gods. Because of the great significance which gift-giving had in ancient communities, not only for social and religious relationships, but also for the political and economic spheres, reference is sometimes made to the gift-giving societies of antiquity. During the late roth cent. this concept was developed by economists and legal historians in contrast to the modern view of exchange and gift-giving, and in the early 2oth cent. it was incorporated into a theory of gifts by the sociologist of religion Marcel

Plut. Dion 5,8).

Mauss. This was based, first, on a redefinition of what

Unlike kérykes (> kéryx [2]), Greek présbeis were not inviolable (Thuc. 1,53; 2,67; 7,32). They had to expect surprise attacks (Pol. 21,26,7ff.). At Athens, emissaries were received by the > prytdneis. They had to present their case to the next meeting of the council (> boulé), which would issue a preliminary decree (probouleuma) for the next popular assembly (Thuc.

it meant to give a present under civil law, making clear how the modern concept differed from earlier views of gift-giving; in addition, crises rooted in modernization led to criticism of economic liberalism and a search for alternative means of exchange. While legal historians emphasized the mutuality of gifts in pre-modern societies, in contrast to modern gift-giving, which was viewed as an act that unilaterally benefited the recipient, economists argued in moral terms and considered an exchange of gifts to be an altruistic transaction that ran counter to the egotistical striving for profit which

pealing for help (Thuc. 2,7; 3,86,3; Aeschin. 3,132),

presenting grievances (Dem. Or. 19,306), seeking the release of hostages or prisoners (Aeschin. 2,15f.; Diod. Sic. 17,15) or —in the Hellenistic and Roman periods — presenting honours to rulers or Roman magistrates. Individual groups within a community also sometimes sent présbeis (Thuc. 8,49; 8,53f.). In Athens and other poleis, the order to send présbeis was generally given by the popular assembly (Xen. Hell. 254,383 352,23). In 4th-cent. Athens, non-citizens

as

well as citizens were appointed as présbeis (Plut. Phocion 27,1—-6). In Sparta, kings and military officials also took on ambassadorial assignments (Xen. Hell. 3,2,22;

6,5,4). When choosing présbeis, their > proxenia or relationship to the destination was important; ideally they should also stay with ‘guest friends’ (prdéxenoi) there. Macedonian kings and Hellenistic rulers often

5,45; Aeschin. 2,58; Dem. Or. 18,28). Procedures were

in principle similar in other poleis. However, at Sparta, the — éphoroi conducted negotiations from the sth cent. BC without involving the popular assembly (Hdt.

805

806

was inherent in modern exchange. For Mauss, the exchange of presents had the character of a social contract; in his view, gifts originally served to create and reinforce social ties. More weight was given to economic aspects by the economic historian and anthropologist Karl PoLanyi, from whom the social anthropologist Richard THURNWALD adopted the term ‘reciprocity’ for ‘gift-exchange’, referring to a socially-linked form of goods exchange that was not geared to a profit motive. Both of these views had a great deal of influence on classical scholarship.

1,5,136ta-b). Gifts given to friends in need (for example a dowry for a friend’s daughters) are also called doreai (Demosth. Or. 18,312; 53,8f.). Another example of an obligation between individuals and collectives is that of dotinai (found mainly in

B. TERMS

The general term for present in Greek is 5@Qov (doron). It was used both for gifts given to the gods (as in the Mycenaean Linear-B tablets: PY Tn 316) and for those given to human beings. Derivatives such as 5«¢ (dos) — only in Hes. Op. 356 (in the context ofthe ethics of neighbourliness) -, Swoea (dored), Sdonua (doréma), dS0o1¢ (dosis), Swtivy (dotiné) are sometimes

used synonymously, but they can also have specific meanings, for example > dosis or dotiné. The terms used for a gift given in return were GvtidMeov GvtdwMoea (antidoreda), (antidoron), GvtiSoois (— antidosis). In addition, there were a number of terms

for gifts in specific contexts, such as the bride-price (€5va,

> hédna),

the gifts given

by a host

(Eévov/

Eewniov; xénion/xeinéion) and those given for the purpose of honouring someone (yéQac; géras), or those that include the aspect of mutuality, such as the words for a gift expressing gratitude (you, chdris) or a gift as repayment (duowBy, amoibe). Votive gifts to the gods were a separate category, called dvaOnua/éva0ectc (> anathémalanathesis).

C. TYPES AND OCCASIONS Dosis, also translated as ‘gift-giving’, is a gift that was promised for the future by shipowners or granted to shipwrecked strangers like Odysseus (Hom. Od. 6,208; 14,58) or people in need of a ship (Hom. Od. 4,651) in return for services to be rendered (scouting services: Hom. Il. 10,213-217; mercenary services: Thuc. 1,143,2). The term dodsis may also mean the fulfillment of a request for which nothing is given in return because the recipient is in a position of inferiority, as in the case of the Lydian king > Croesus, who was defeated by Cyrus (Hdt. 1,90,1-2), or citizens who were excluded because of misconduct (Hdt. 9,93,4; Soph. OT 1518); dosis also refers to an inheritance to which one is entitled based on a will (Isaeus 4,7; Isocr. or.

19,45): The word dore(i)d is often found in inscriptions and

writings by political speakers of the 4th cent. BC to refer to gifts given by the community to meritorious citizens or foreign benefactors, in the form of statues in their honour, places of honour in the prytaneion or wreaths, as well as to contributions to the polis by citizens or foreign benefactors (liturgies, gifts of grain, etc.) (Demosth. Or. 20,15; Lys. 21,11; Aristot. Rh.

Homer

PRESENTS

and Herodotus), which were also viewed as

taxes by earlier scholars. Here the recipients often had a god-like status (Hom. Il. 9,155; temple: Hdt. 2,180,r) or were identified as high-ranking representatives of foreign communities

(Hdt.

1,61,3;

1,69,4). In many

cases the donors were collectives which had certain types of property such as herds (Hom. Il. 9,155), gold (Hdt. 1,69,4), > alum (Hdt. 2,180,2) or ships (Hom. Od. 11,350; Hdt. 6,89,1), so the dotinai can be seen as

part of an exchange of resources between different regions that was facilitated by political means. Gifts for privileged groups within a community or for gods are also referred to as gér(e)a. Recipients of honorary gifts included accomplished warriors (Hom. Il. 2,237; 9,334; Egypt: Hdt. 2,168,1), athletes (probably meant in Pl. Resp. 460b), basile?s (Thuc. 1,13,1), gods (Theocr. 17,109), priests and priestesses (Aeschin. Ctes. 3,18; Syll. 1037; 1025,22; Hdt. 3,142,4) and the dead (Hom. Il. 16,457; Thuc. 3,58,5). Such gifts might include shares of the loot (in the epics, women who knew how to weave), estates that were not subject to duties (as in Egypt under > Amasis), sacrifices (as in the case of cultic personnel and the gods) or hair sacrifices or lamentations for the dead. Gifts given on the occasion of a > marriage or as part of the establishing of — hospitality clearly had social connotations. Hédna is the term used for goods which the bridegroom was expected to give to the bride’s father (only in Homer and Hesiod), probably cattle (Hom. Il. 16,190; Hom. Od. 16,391; 18,276279). Gifts given by the bridegroom to the bride were referred to by the general term for gifts, dora. In the epics and myths these were presents of jewellery and clothing (Hom. Od. 18,291-300). Special gifts presented by the groom at the moment when the bride’s veil was removed (dvaxahuntijoua, anakalypteria) were called éntijoua, opteria (Poll. 2,59; 3,36). In classical Athens the bride sent a cloak to the groom for the wedding (Aristoph. Av. 1693; Poll. 3,39f.). A specific day of the wedding ritual was devoted to receiving presents from the family or friends of the bride (Hesych. and Suda s.v. émavia/epadlia). Xénia was the term for the gifts presented to guests from other places by their hosts. These might include meals for guests and emisSaniesm( oma ll. 117779; oma Odi04.33-5 [Geile 102,1,13-16) as well as gifts of weapons (Hom. II. 11,20-23; Xen. Hell. 4,1,29-40), tributes (Hdt. 7,29,1) or goods brought in from foreign lands, such as gold, rugs, purple robes (Hom. Od. 24,273-279). Specifically associated with — feasts are the terms for gifts of thanksgiving (chdris) and repayment (amoibe). Amoibé refers to a gift given by the gods in return for a sacrifice (Hom. Od. 3,58; Pl. Symp. 202e) or for a votive offering (yagieooa &porpa [1]), but also

807

808

to retaliation by the gods for a mortal’s evil deeds (Hes. Op. 334; Eur. El. 1147), as well as to compensation owed to the gods for violations committed by mortals (Hom. Od. 12,382; Pind. P. 2,24). In addition, amoibée is the term used for the necessary repayment of services rendered in the context of kinship (Eur. Med. 23), hospitality (Hom. Od. 1,318), paederasty (Thgn. 1263-

GouLp, Give and Take in Herodotus, 1991; T. LINDERS, G. Norpauist (ed.), Gifts to the Gods, 1987; M. Mauss, Essai sur le don, in: Année sociologique N.S. 1, 1923/24, 30-186; B. MacLacHLan, The Age of Grace, 1993; L. G. MircHELL, Greeks Bearing Gifts, 1997; I. Morris, Gift

PRESENTS

1266), trade services (Aristot. Eth. Nic. 9,1,1163b 35) and relationships (tia, philia) in general (Aristot. Eth. Nic. 9,1,1164br). In a positive sense, this aspect of mutuality is part of the term chdris, which describes favours and services as well as the reciprocal thanks or contributions in all significant relationships, whether in the context of the polis (Archil. fr. 133; Syll.3 4933 354), the transregional community of warriors or mutual arms aid (Hom. Il. 15,744; Hdt. 3,140,4) or marital ties (Hom. Il. 14,235; Soph. Aj. 522; Eur. Med. 1155), or in one’s relationship to the gods (Hom. Il. 5,874; 23,650; Aeschyl. Ag. 581f.; 821-823; Bacchyl. 3,38). The deities who ensured reciprocity were the > Charites (Aristot. Eth. Nic. 5,4,1133a 1-6), the goddesses of festive celebrations who, in the Homeric imagination, performed services themselves, such as weaving patterned cloth (Hom. Il. 5,338), and hence were viewed as divine incarnations of women’s work before they came to be seen as an abstract personification of giving, receiving

and giving in return, as in Stoic philosophy (Sen. Ben. I,3,2-I0).

Both concepts of reciprocity were reflected not only in the context of the exchange of gifts, but also at the level of language, inasmuch as amoibé also refers to a response to speech and chdaris is the effect achieved by images in language and crafts (Hom. Od. 8,175; Hes. Op. 65; Thgn. 574-584; Thgn. 763). This dual meaning sheds light on the symbolic character of gifts, as evident particularly in ritual contexts. While gifts of clothing were interpreted as symbols of the ties between couples or of the cohesiveness of a community, presents of drinking vessels and weapons were symbolically linked to the symposion and the community of warriors. Related to their symbolic meaning was the destructive effect attributed by tragedians to gifts of clothing and weapons (which were often called doréma: Eur. Med. 1188; Soph. Trach. 758; Soph. Ai. 662, as in the case of gifts given to the gods and the dead that were linked with a request: Aristot. Eth. Nic. 1,9,r099b 11; Aesc.

Retswsa gre bur One 123) + Friendship; ~ Hospitality; > Marriage; > Reciprocity; > Wedding customs and rituals 1H. Cotirz et al. (ed.), Sammlung griechischer Dialekt-

Inschriften, 1884-1915, 3119¢. E. BENVENISTE, Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-europeennes I, 1969; W. DoNLAN, Reciprocities in Homer, in: CW 75, 1981/82, 137-175; L. GeRNeET, La notion

mythique de la valeur en Gréce, in: Journal de psychologie normale et pathologique 41, 1948, 415-462; G.B. GIGLIONI, Gratitudine e scambio. Economia e religiosita tra Aristotele e Teofrasto, in: Scienze dell’antichita. Storia

archeologia antropologia 3-4, 1989/90, 5 5-64; G. KocHHaARNACK, Knabenliebe und Tiergeschenke, 1983; J.

and Commodity in Archaic Greece, in: Man N.S. 21, 1986, 1-17; S.v. REDEN, Exchange

in Ancient Greece,

1995; E. SCHEID-TISSINIER, Les usages du don chez Homére, 1994;R. A. S. SEAFORD, Reciprocity and Ritual, 1994; B. WaGNeER-HasEL, Geschlecht und Gabe. Zum Brautgiitersystem bei Homer, in: ZRG ros, 1988, 32-733 Ead., Wissen mythen und Antike: Zur Funktion von

Gegenbildern der Moderne am Beispiel der Gabentauschdebatte, in: W. SCHMALE, A. Mythen-Machte, 1998, 33-63.

VOLKER-Rasor

(ed.), B.W.-H.

Il. ROME Presents were received on the occasion of personal celebrations. On their dies lustricus, the day on which they were named, newborn children were given presents (crepundia, ‘rattles’) in the form of rattles, dolls, small hatchets or metal figurines. They were used as toys or strung together as a necklace (Plaut. Mil. 1399), serving as an important means of identifying children who were exposed or kidnapped (Cic. Brut. 313; Plaut. Cist. 664f.). Children and adults received a present on their > birthdays (natalicium munus; Symmachus Epist. 6,48), from family members (Plaut. Rud. 1171) as well as friends (Mart. 8,64; 9,53). There was a great deal of variation in these presents and their magnitude, depending on the wealth of the giver (Mart. 10,87) and his situation. Authors, for example, liked to give small

books (Tib. 1,7; 2,2; Censorinus). On becoming engaged, men usually gave their intended a present (— arra; > sponsalia; Dig. 16,3,25; 23,2,38); this might be jewellery in addition to the engagement ring. Sometimes another bride-gift was given at the time of the wedding (Cod. Iust. 5,3). It was also not unusual for the bride to give the groom a present, or for third parties to give something to the newly married couple (Dion. Hal. JeXsohin, Bi 8)

The festivals during which presents were regularly exchanged between friends were the > Saturnalia and New Year’s Day. Clay dolls that were initially dedicated to Saturn (sigilla) became common presents for general use (Macr. Sat. 1,11,46-50), and a market called sigillaria was established, where all kinds of goods were sold as Saturnalia presents (also called sigillaria). The saepta at the Campus Martius offered a ‘luxury market’ for expensive Saturnalia gifts (luv. 6,153-157; cf. the abundance of possible gifts to give one’s host at Saturnalia events in Mart. 13). The presents exchanged on New Year’s Day were called strenae. The ‘sweet’ gifts of dates, figs and honey that were originally given to bring luck in the new year (Oy. Fast. 1,183-192) were replaced during the Imperial period by coins, lamps and money-boxes (sometimes inscribed with good wishes). Generous hosts provided table presents (apophoréta) for their guests, often having them draw lots (Mart. 14,1,5; a list of possible apophoréta in Mart. 14

809

810

and Petron. 56,7—9). In addition to their wages, paid in money or food, clients (> cliens) would occasionally receive from their patrons presents like items of cloth-

the four Aristotelian causes (aitiat/aitiai). Interestingly,

PRESSES

in the Metaphysics (1,3-10), were gradually developing

(Mart.

Aristotle simply calls the thinkers we call Presocratics ‘the first philosophers’ (cf. tolls mOdTEQOV HUY ... tAo-

10,11,5) Or in exceptional cases a small estate (luv.

Oopyoavtac; THV 5} TEMTHV Pirooodnodvtwy; Aristot.

9,59; Mart. 11,18); this was probably a regular occurrence during the Saturnalia (Mart. 7,53; clients also gave presents to their patrons: Mart. 5,18). Some emperors, reflecting their self-image as patrons of all the people, took up this tradition on a large scale, as they would have coins and small presents thrown into the crowd at public games (missilia, ‘thrown gifts’; Suet.

Metaph. 1,3,983b 1 f.), making clear that they belonged to a single movement, beginning with > Thales, the founder of > natural philosophy. The term ‘Presocratics’ should thus be used with caution. Many thinkers before Socrates aimed at developing a cosmological system (— Milesian School; -» Cosmology), but they were not strictly ‘natural scientists’ (suffice it to single out > Heraclitus I [x]); almost all of them also reflected on ethics, religion or the destiny of man (as is evident in the case of the + Sophists, but also particularly so in the case of > Empedocles [1]). And - Parmenides, who in the history of the emerging philosophy represents the turning point of philosophical thinking before Socrates, rejected the possibility of ‘physics’ in the first part of his poem. Of all the alternatives proposed to address the deficits of the term ‘Presocratic philosophy’, such as ‘Presophistic philosophy’ [5; 6], ‘cosmologic period’ (as opposed to the ‘anthropological period’), the Aristotelian term ‘first philosophers’ remains the best (cf. [7. 217}]), although it raises the question to what extent all of the thinkers Aristotle mentioned can really be called ‘philosophers’ [8; 9]. — PRESOCRATICS

ing (Mart.

2,46;

8,28;

Pers.

1,54),

money

Cal. 18,2; Nero 11,2; often also in the form of balls or

tokens on which the type of present was indicated, cf. Cass. Dio 61,18,1f.; 66,25,5). The largesse (+ liberalitas) of the emperor was also

demonstrated in gifts of money (congiaria) to the people on certain occasions, such as his ascension to power, victories or jubilees. Similar public gifts given to soldiers were the donativa (> dona militaria). Rulers in the

late Republican era already used such presents to secure the loyalty of their troops (Suet. Tul. 38); during the Imperial period these special gifts made up a substantial portion of military pay (Tac. Ann. 1,8,2; 15,72; Cass. Diol59,2,13 2,34):

> Euergetism; > Friendship A. STUIBER, s.v. G., RAC 10, 685-703.

K.-W.WEE.

Presocratics. Since the influential edition by H. Diets [x], the term ‘Presocratics’ usually refers to a very diverse group of Greek thinkers. Not all of them lived before > Socrates [2] (some of them — such as the Sophists, Democritus [1] and Philolaus [2] — were his contemporaries), but they were all not (yet) influenced by

his thought (cf. [2. VIII]). The popularity of the term under the influence of NreETzSCHE, who had stopped using the term ‘Preplatonic philosophers’ [3]. Although the term ‘Presocratic philosophers’ (from which the shorter ‘Presocratics’ is derived) is not attested before the 18th cent. [4], it is supported by a number of ancient sources that discuss (at first in an apologetic context) the break between Socrates [2] and his predecessors (Pl. Ap. r9c; Xen. Mem. 1,1,11; Pl. Phd. 96a 6100a 7; Cic. Tusc. 5,8). The nature of this ‘rift? was a matter of debate. Plato (in the Apology) and Xenophon [2] insisted that Socrates was interested exclusively in arose

‘matters

concerning

man’

(ta avOoMmuva/ta

anthro-

pina). In contrast, his predecessors devoted themselves to ‘investigations into nature’ (meQi PvoEmc totogia/peri physeds historia, Pl. Phd. 96a 6 ff.), investigations which were deemed theologically dangerous. Thus they made Socrates the founder of > ethics (Diog. Laert. 1,4). Aristotle [6] (Metaph. 1,6,987b 1-4; 13,4,1078b 17-32; Part. an. 642a 24-31) at the other hand points to Socrates’ thematic focus on the ‘idea’ or ‘formal cause’ (gi50c/eidos) as his philosophical merit. This restores some degree of continuity between Socrates and his predecessors, who, according to the famous account

1H.

Diets, Die Fragmente

der Vorsokratiker,

2 W. KRANz, in: DIELS/KRANZ, vol. 2

‘1903

3 F. NIETZSCHE,

Die vorplatonischen Philosophen, in: G. Coxtiet al. (ed.), Nietzsche, Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. II 4, 205-362 4 J. A. EBERHARDT, Allgemeine Geschichte der Philosophie, 1796 ('1788), 47 5 F. UEBERWEG, Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie des Altertums, *1894 6 W. NESTLE, in: ZELLER, vol. 1.1., °1919, 225 note 7A.

Lone, The Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy, 1999 8A. Laks, Philosophie présocratique. Remarques sur la construction d’une catégorie de l’histoire philosophique, in: Id., C. Loucuert (ed.), Qu’est-ce

que la philosophie présocratique, 2002, 17-38 9G.E.R. Lioyp, Le pluralisme de la vie intellectuelle avant Platon,

in: [8], 39-53J. MaNnsFELD, Die Vorsokratiker, 1987 (Greek and German, without Sophists); G. S. K1rk,J. E.RAVEN,M. ScHoFIELD, The Presocratic Philosophers, *1983; A. P.D. Mowvretatos (ed.), The Presocratics. A Collection of Critical Essays, 1992; B. SijaKovic, Bibliographica Presocratica/I 450-2000, 2001. A. LA.

Presses I. Use

II. Construction

III]. ECONOMIC

sIG-

NIFICANCE

I. Usz In Antiquity presses wine production and cloth, fruit, herbs and oils. By the time of Old

were used primarily in oil and for processing papyrus leaves, roots and producing essential Kingdom Egypt treading grapes

PRESSES

812

81r

Roman presses

Orbis Miliarium

Sea

J) 1

Mortarium

Trapetum according to Cato

in vats was customary; for further processing of the mash, bag-presses were used: by winding two sticks fastened on each end of a bag towards one another, additional must could be wrung out of the mash in the sack, In the ancient Mediterranean olives were first pounded or mashed with stones in a mortar, but not entirely

4

| | —

0

_—————

squeezed out; later a trapetum (see below, II.) or an oil mill (mola olearia) was used for that purpose; the oil

obtained by crushing was considered of particularly high value. After that the flesh of the fruit was placed under presses in baskets, bags or a wooden construction (Hero, Méchanika 3,16f.). According to Varro one pressing amounted to 120-160 modii of olives (c. 9301250 kg), which were pressed in several phases, each producing oil of decreasing quality (Varro Rust. 1,24,3; Colum. 12,52,11; cf. Plin. HN 15,5; 15,23). Grapes for pressing were first trodden by workers in vats with outlets; from the mash left over further must was obtained by mechanical pressing in a manner similar to that for oil production (Varro Rust. 1,54,2f.; Plin. HN 14,86; 18,317).

Il. CONSTRUCTION A trapetum consisted of a round stone tub (mortarium) in whose middle was a pedestal (miliarium) on which a beam was pivoted parallel to the ground. On the beam two running millstones (orbes) were fixed in such a way that their lower halves were only a limited distance from the wall of the tub (cf. fig.). By moving the beam the running stones were moved and the olives were rubbed between these and the tub wall. Use of the trapetum by the 4th cent. BC can be assumed on the basis of archaeological evidence from — Olynthus. Cato gives a detailed guide to constructing a trapetum, which in his time (2nd cent. BC) cost — transport aside —

384 sesterces in Pompeii; Columella, however, preferred oil presses (Cato Agr. 20-22; Colum. 12,52,6). The beam-(lever-)press was used in the Aegaean and in the Levant from the late 2nd millennium on, as archaeological finds show. The lever principle was exploited, in that a pressing beam (dQ0¢/6ros, dgov/6ron; Lat. prelum), suspended with one end fixed, was pulled down with weights and muscle power on the other end to exert pressure on what was under the beam. A Greek

1 Press described by Cato (Cato, Agr. 18f.)

2 Lever and screw press according to Pliny (Plin. HN 18, 317) 3 Heron's single-screw press (Méchanika 3, 21)

vase painting from the 6th cent. BC shows such a press (Boston, MFA, [3.185]). Further development of the press concentrated primarily on mechanisms to assist in pulling the beam down. Cato Agr. 18,2 recommends the use of a winch (sucula; cf. fig. 1). Hero describes a beam-press in which a weight hung froma reel attached to the beam; with a winch this weight could be raised so that the beam was pulled down (Hero, Méchanika 3,13-15). In the beam-(lever-)press, probably developed as late as the rst cent. BC, and the screw-press a large wooden spindle is screwed into a thread at the rear end of the pressing beam. In most of the cases known from Antiquity it was firmly connected to a weight; when the screw was tightened and moved upwards, the weight lifted off the ground and exerted a downward force on the beam (Plin. HN 18,317; cf. also Hero, Méchanikd 3,15; see fig. 2). Presses were often installed in a building; Cato (Agr. 18-22) gives precise instructions for

813

814

constructing such a torcularium with four beam-presses each 7.5 min length and four trapeta. No later than the 1st cent. AD, a newly devised type was used with the direct screw-press: one or two large screws fixed in a frame, when turned downwards, pressed directly onto a horizontal plate, under which lay what was to be pres-

Presuppositions of rhetoric

PRESUPPOSITIONS

OF RHETORIC

I. TERMINOLOGY AND CLASSIFICATION Il. ’Natrura/Ars Diacectic’ III. Basic TRAINING OF ORATORS

I. TERMINOLOGY AND CLASSIFICATION If > rhetoric is divided up into ars, artifex, and opus

sed (Hero, Méchanika 3,18-21, see fig. 3; cf. Plin. HN

18,317). The direct screw-press required less material

(art form, artist, work; Quint. Inst. 2,14,5), it is also

and installation space (Vitr. De arch. 6,6,3) and could

necessary to address the question which presuppositions or prerequisites the artifex (the appropriately proceeding practitioner) must bring with him to ensure successful production of his text: the so-called ‘natura/ars dialectic’ [6. §§ 37-41; 5] belongs to the triad of natura,

be easily transported. The direct screw-press was also used as a cloth press in the production of cloth (> Textiles, production of). The wedge-press, known primarily from the production of essential oils in Pompeii, drives a wedge between

boards, the lowest of which transferred the pressure to what was to be pressed (cf. Hero, Méchanika 2,4).

Numerous archaeological finds and representations in reliefs, wall paintings and vases document consider-

able regional variations in the construction of presses. In Spain, presumably only from the 3rd cent. AD on, there was increased use of the beam-press with screw, whereas in Africa and Numidia the press without screw, which underwent constant improvement, is still

predominant in Late Antique find material. The spread of the direct screw-press is hard to estimate, as it was often constructed entirely of wood and hence is archaeologically recognizable only under certain conditions. III. ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE Progress, remarkable under ancient circumstances, in the technical development of presses into types that were not replaced before the course of industrialization is surely also a consequence of their economic significance. » Thales of Miletus is supposed to have taken out a lease on all the oil presses in Miletus and Chios on favourable terms in winter and made a considerable financial gain from leasing them out at harvest time (Aristot. Pol. 1259a). Lease contracts for presses, pressbuildings and estates with presses explicitly enumerated among their equipment in contracts survive from Graeco-Roman Egypt (SB 12518; P Aberd. 181; P Giss. 95; cf. P Mich. 620; Dig. 19,2,19,2; Babylonian Talmud, Baba Bathra 4,5). + Oils for cooking;> Wine 1H. ALTENMULLER, s. v. Pressen, LA 4, 1083f. 2 M.-C. AmourettI, Le pain et I’huile dans la Gréce antique, 1986 3 Id. und J. P. BRuN

(ed.), La production du vin et de

Phuile en Méditerranée, 1993 4 BLUMNER, Techn., vol. 1, 332-356 5 J.-P. Brun, L’oléiculture antique en Provence, 1986, 68-132 6 A.G. DracHMann, Ancient Oil Mills and Presses, 1932 7 R. FRANKEL, Wine and Oil Produc-

tion in Antiquity in Israel and other Mediterranean Countries, 1999 8 J. HOrLE, s. v. Torcular, RE 6 A 2, 17271748 9L.KteEss, Die Reliefs des Alten Reiches (AHAW 3), 1915, 57-59 10D.J.MatTINGLy, Olive Presses in Roman Africa: Technical Evolution or Stagnation, in: M. KxHanoussi (ed.), L’Africa romana, vol. 11, 1996, 577-

595

11H. Scunerper, Einfiihrung in die antike Technik-

geschichte, 1992, 63-66, 7of. 31f., 67-72.

12 WuitE, Technology, BJ.O.

ars

(or téyvn/>

téechné),

> exercitatio

(“nature,

art-

form, practice”; cf. Cic. De or. 1,96-159). Rhetoric must, however, also be seen in the context of other arts

and sciences which it itself has to employ. The significance of these extrinsic factors for rhetoric is not undisputed. The term praesuppositiones (sc. artis, ‘presuppositions of rhetoric’) is not attested in Classical Latin,

and neither is txd0yeoud/hypdschesis as a technical term in rhetoric in this meaning; it is also misleading to define the ars in terms of its own presupposition (cf. summary to the lemma on > rhetoric). Il. ‘Natura/Ars DIALECTIC’ Whereas the poet of the Archaic Period could see himself as a medium for the - Muses (C.; cf. > Muse, acclamation ofthe), and was able to legitimize form and content by appealing to supernatural forces (inspiration, cf. > Enthousiasmos), Pindar [2] firmly related his poetic ability to natural disposition (@ud/phyd), which he claimed was far superior to all acquired technique

(Pind. Ol. 2,83-88). This conception lay counter to the téchné concept developed by the > Sophists. Protagoras (fr. B 3 DK) regarded natural disposition (vouc/

physis) combined with practice (Goxnouc/dskésis) as a presupposition for successful instruction. Plato Phdr. 269d, in naming knowledge (émotypn/epistemé) and practice as presuppositions for oratorical success in an orator already gifted by nature, follows this Sophist line ([4. 164, n. 342]; cf. Isoc. Or. 13,14-15). Aristotle [6] ascribes to natural disposition the ability to create effective metaphors (Aristot. Poet. 1459a 6f.; Rh. 1410b 7f.): that is to say, such an ability cannot actually be taught [1]. While Plato [1] treats divine inspiration with some degree of irony (Pl. Ion 533¢ 9-536d 8; [3. 5477); differently [2. 25 5-365]), declaring it to be creative uavia/mania (‘madness, frenzy’; Pl. Phdr. 248e), Aristotle seeks a physiological basis for special talent in + melancholy (Aristot. Poet. 17; Aristot. Pr. 30,1); Democritus in frs. nos. B 18, B 21 DK had already regarded particular dispositions as being especially receptive to inspiration. Aspects of natura, in respect of quality of voice (figura vocis: Rhet. Her. 3,19) and + mnemonics (3 ,2829), are raised in the so-called > Rhetorica ad Heren-

nium. In both areas it is the function of technical instruction, in the form of practice (cura) and theory

815

816

(ars, doctrina), to reinforce and develop natural capaci-

Prexaspes (Ilon§comns/Préexdspes). [1] Prominent Persian, who (according to Hdt. 3,30; 65) at the behest of king -» Cambyses [2] disposed of

PRESUPPOSITIONS OF RHETORIC

ties. For Cicero, intellectual agility was an aspect of ingenium (natural disposition), but could be stimulated by ars. Aspects of physical disposition, such as fluency, sound of voice, lung capacity and outward appearance, were so vital that deficiencies in them, even in the presence of intellectual talent and training, regularly brought oratorical success to nothing (Cic. De or. 1,113-133). And propriety (decorum), which was precisely not a matter of ars (ibid. 1,132), was manifested in the sermo corporis (‘body language’, ibid. 3,216). In Quintilian’s concise wording (Inst. 2,19), natura pro-

vides the material of ars: without predisposition ars is powerless, whereas the highest degree of artifice can still be enhanced in its effect by natura (cf. Isoc. Or. 15,

the king’s brother Smerdis (— Bardiya [1]). Although loyal to the demented king, after his death P. denied murdering Smerdis, but ultimately revealed before the assembled Persians the usurpation by the Magi (> Patizeithes), called for their overthrow and committed suicide (Hdt. 3,66ff.; 74ff.). [2] Son of Aspathines, the ‘bow-carrier’ of — Darius [rx] I (and possibly grandson of P. [1]), naval commander of > Xerxes [1] I in 480 BC (Hadt. 7,97). 1R. BrcHLer, Herodots 2 BRIANT, Index s. v. P.

Welt,

2000,

esp.

269-281 JW.

189-90).

+ Pseudo-Longinus’ On the sublime (8) traces two of five sources of the sublime, namely intellect and > pathos, back to natural disposition. The author nevertheless sets himself the task of teaching techniques for achieving the sublime (twoc/hypsos; 1,1; 2): the genius may commit the occasional error, but that does not mar the rhetorical effect, whereas that effect can by no means be guaranteed solely by adhering to the rules (33-6). III. BASIC TRAINING OF ORATORS

Cicero juxtaposes the ideal of the universal competence of oratory, according particular worth to moral philosophy (Licinius [I ro] Crassus in Cic. De or. 1,69; 1,64), with the confinement of the orator to his own artistic skill as artifex (appropriately proceeding practitioner), whose acquisition of other knowledge, so far as required, is left to his receptiveness to matters of dayto-day existence (Antonius [I 7] in Cic. De or. 1,214; 1,248). Before him, Plato (Phdr. 269d-274b) had sought to ground rhetoric in philosophical dialectics, which would reveal how all things interact. Quintilian in Inst. 1-2 developed an educational model for the future orator which begins during infancy and thus embraces everything from the acquisition of speech to advanced instruction in grammar (linguistics and interpretation of poetry). These were joined by rhetorical + progymndsmata: aphorisms (sententiae, > gnome), + chreia, ethology with the help of character studies. From the > enkyklios paideia, the subjects of music (> Mousike sc. téchné; > Music, IV. Greece E. Education, Ethos) and geometry were recommended as pre-

suppositions of rhetoric (ibid. 1,10). + Art; > Enkyklios paideia; + Rhetoric; > Techne 1D. BrEMER, Empedokles, Aristoteles und die Erkenntnisleistung der Metapher, in: Poetica 12, 1980, 350-376 2S. BUTTNER,

Die Literaturtheorie bei Platon und ihre

anthropologische Begriindung, 2000 3 H. FLasnar, Der Dialog Ion als Zeugnis Platonischer Philosophie, 1958 4 E. Heitscu, Platon, Phaidros, 1993 (German transl. and comm.),*1997 5 F. NEUMANN, s. v. “Natura-Ars Dialektik”, HWdR 6 (2003) 6 LAUSBERG. TH. SCH.

Priam Painter. Attic late-black-figure vase painter around 515-500 BC, who was named after a picture on a hydria (water vessel) showing the harnessing of + Priam’s wagon (Madrid, Mus. Arqueologico 10920). Almost 60 large vessels are attributed to the PP, mainly hydrias and belly amphorae type A, which are painted with carefully devised scenes; he has a preference for harnessed teams in different scenes as well as for women in the fountain house. Distinctive features of his pictorial designs link him to the > Leagrus-group of the same period, e.g. the only half visible horses, which allow the image area to appear as a section froma larger scene. He is closer to > Psiax and the > Rycroft Painter in his calm execution which sometimes takes delight in its details (in part with written descriptions). His artistic supremacy shows itself in some extraordinary scenes such as those on the amphora ‘Lerici-Marescotti’ (Rome, VG) of women bathing in a grotto. Attic; BEAZLEY, ABV, 330-335; BEAZLEY, Paralipomena, 146-148; BEAZLEY, Addenda’, 89-91; W. G. Moon, The Priam Painter, in: Id. (ed.), Ancient Greek Art and Iconography, 1983, 97-118; Id., Some New and Little-Known Vases by the Rycroft and Priam Painters, in: J. FREL (ed.), Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum 2, 1985, 62-70.

HM.

Priamel. The German term Priamel, neuter, but feminine since LESSING, derives from the Latin adjective praeambulus (first in Mart. Cap.; ThLL s. v. praeam-

bulus), ‘preceding’; it has been used in modern literary scholarship for small German poems of the r2th-16th cents. that place exempla in series [2; 7. 8-12]. F. DoRN-

SEIFF introduced Roman literature Priamels may eratures because

it into the interpretation of Greek and [8. 2]. have come into existence in many litof the simplicity of their serial struc-

ture [8. 1]; in ancient texts they occur as early as > Homerus [1] (Hom. Il. 9,379-387 [9. 7-16]) and can be

demonstrated until Late Antiquity [3]. Priamels appear in prose and verse and share a formal commonality. The concluding pronouncement (— Gnome) in such a series of examples — that can be summarily abbreviated — stands out most as a contrasting or particularizing

817

818

[6. 85; 8. 7-17] climax. Particularly distinct is the pria9 West, Hor. Carm. 1,1; Paul, 1 Cor 13), in which a high value, presented by the author as objectively given or subjectively selected, is contrasted with others [9]. The priamel eludes unequivocal classification in the ancient theory of rhetoric [4; mel of values (e.g. Tyrtaeus

53 8. 17-30].

PRIAPEA

to later Homeric interpreters Troy’s allies on the coast of Asia Minor as far as the river > Hermus [2] are sub-

ject to his sovereignty (Str. 13, 1,7; cf. Apollod. epit.

3533) As a young man P. supports the Phrygians in the battle against the Amazons (Hom. Il. 3,184ff.); Vergil

2K. EuLinc, Das Priamel bis Hans Rosenpliit, 1905 3 G. Fatouros, Die Priamel als Exordium des antiken literarischen Briefes, in: Symbolae Osloenses 74, 1999, 184-194 4H. HOMMEL, s. v. Priamel, LAW 2, 2429 5 J. T. Kirpy, Toward a Gen-

mentions a journey to Salamis and Arcadia (Verg. Aen. 8,157ff.). The main interest of the literary and pictorial tradition is directed towards the aged P. and his role in the Trojan War: P. becomes the archetypal man broken by his destiny (Hom. Il. 24,518ff.; Aristot. Eth. Nic. 1,10,110ta; Juv. 10,258ff.; for iconography concern-

eral Theory of the Priamel, in: CJ 80, 1985, 142-144

ing P. see [1; 25 4. 926-93 5]).

1 F. DornseirF, Pindars Stil, 1921

6T.

KRISCHER, Die logischen Formen der Priamel, in: Grazer Beitrage 2, 1974, 79-91 7 W. KROHLING, Die Priamel

(Beispielreihung) als Stilmittel in der griechisch-r6mischen Dichtung, 1935 8 W.H. Race, The Classical Priamel from Homer to Boethius, r982 9 U. ScHMID, Die Priamel der Werte im Griechischen von Homer bis Paulus, 1964. H.A.G.

Priam (Igiawoc/Priamos, Lat. Priamus). Last king of ~ Troy, son of + Laomedon [1]; frequently called Dardanidés (‘descendant of Dardanus’) in the Iliad after his oldest known ancestor Dardanus (family tree: Hom. Il. 20,21 5ff.; Apollod. 3,13 8ff.; > Dardanidae). Husband of the Phrygian - Hecabe, he had numerous concubines, including

> Castianera from Thrace (Hom. II.

8,304f.) and > Laothoe [3], daughter of the king of the

Lelegians (ibid. 21,85ff.; 22,48). His polygamy typifies P. as an oriental ruler: his marriage politics serve to further international relations [3. 464]. According to Hom. Il. 6,244ff. and 24,495ff. P. is the father of 50 sons (19 by Hecabe), most of whom die during his lifetime in the battle for Troy, and 12 (50 according to Verg. Aen. 2,501) daughters (list of names in Apollod. 3,151-153 and Hyg. Fab. 90). The most well-known children are > Paris/Alexander, - Hector, > Deiphobus, > Helenus [1], > Cassandra, > Lycaon [2], > Polydorus [2], > Polyxena and > Troilus. The name P. is most probably derived from the Luvian compound personal name Prita-muua- (‘having matchless courage’) [3.'458]. Later mythography gives it a folk-etymological interpretation: after the first conquest of Troy by > Heracles (+ Laomedon [1]), > Hesione [4] uses her veil interwoven with gold to buy the freedom of her youngest brother Podarces whose name is thus changed to P. (from the Greek priasthai, ‘to buy’) (Lycoph. 33 5ff. with Tzetz. on 335 and 337; Apollod. 2,136 and 3,146; somewhat different in Diod. Sic. 4,32,5 and 4,49,3-6). P. assumes sovereignty and rebuilds Troy (according to Apollod. 2,136, Heracles killed his older brothers; Homer, on the other hand, construes P. as the proper heir to the throne after Eos’ abduction of Laomedon’s son > Tithonus, since P.’s brothers > Lampus [1], > Clytius [4] and Hicetaon are still alive at the time of the action in the Iliad, Hom. Il. 3,147; 20,237f.). His kingdom is bordered by Lesbos, Phrygia and the Hellespont (ibid. 24,544f.); according

In the Iliad P. appears as a clever, conciliatory ruler respected by his opponents (Hom. Il. 3,ro5ff.). Often interpreted as a sign of weakness, his leniency towards Paris upon his refusal to hand over - Helena [1] in the Trojan assembly (Hom. Il. 7,345ff.) is probably based on the realization that the war, having taken ona life of its own, can no longer be halted through negotiations (cf. ibid. 7,365-367 and 400-404), although Hom. Il. 2,796f. suggests that from time to time, P. is lacking in initiative: he leaves the supreme command of the army to his son Hector (whilst the aged Nestor [1] is still actively participating in the fight on the side of the Greeks). P’s friendliness towards Helen is typical: he does not want to blame her for the war (ibid. 3,164f.; cf. ibid. 24,770). In Hom. Il. 22,37ff. he tries in vain to prevent Hector from fighting a duel with > Achilles [1] and must watch the latter kill his son and defile his corpse (ibid. 22,408ff.). He shows heroic courage by going to Achilles at night, from whom he obtains the return of Hector’s body (ibid. 24,160-691; the episode was also the theme of a lost tragedy by Aeschylus, Phryges, IrGF 3, fr. 263-272). Later mythographers assign P. other roles: in Dictys (esp. 1,8; 2,20) he allows him-

self to be completely tyrannized by his sons, while in Dares he pursues an active war policy. P’s end (anticipated by P. himself in Hom. Il. 22,66ff.) is described in

the > Epic Cycle, both in the > Iliupersis (where Achilles’ son + Neoptolemus [1] kills him on the altar of Zeus Herkeios: PEG I, 88; as in Pind. fr. 52f,r13-115) and in the ‘Little Iliad’ (— Ilias parva) (where Neoptolemus drags him from the altar beforehand: PEG I, fr. 16). In Vergil, the scene is graphically embellished (Verg. Aen. 2,469-558); cf in addition Quint. Smyrn. 13,220ff. and Triphiodorus 63 4ff. ~ Troy [II] 1M. MItter, Priam, King of Troy, in: J. B. CARTER, S. P. Morais (ed.), The Ages of Homer, 1995, 449-465 2J. NEILS, s. v. Priamos, LIMC 7.1, 507-522 3 F. STARKE, Troia im Kontext des historisch-politischen und sprachlichen Umfeldes Kleinasiens im 2. Jahrtausend, in: Studia Troica 7, 1997, 447-487 4 P. WaTHELET, Dictionnaire des Troyens de I’Iliade, 1988, no. 287. MAST.

Priapea. Collection of Latin poems dedicated to the ithyphallic god of fertility, > Priapus, bringer of blessings and ward against evil. While eighty epigrams have

PRIAPEA

been transmitted, some editions contain eighty-six, two of which are attributed to Tibullus (82f.) and three (84-

86) of which belong to the > Appendix Vergiliana. There are also other priapea by, e.g., > Catullus [1], ~+ Horatius [7] (Sat. 1,8) and > Martialis [1]. Authorship and dating of the anonymously transmitted collection are disputed. Research tends to assume either several authors with beginnings in the rst cent AD (in the early Flavian period?) or a single author in the period following Martial [1]. The poems show close links with Ovid and Martial, in particular — the epigraphic origin of individual priapea is also considered possible. The most likely explanation is that they are the work of a poet-editor who compiled the present corpus from the wealth of available priapea [2. 28-34, 42]. Crudely erotic in content, funny and witty in tone, the epigrams

(> Epigram) are shaped with technical brilliance, elegance and refinement in their style, verse construction and composition. Greek priapea dating from the early Hellenistic period and including those of + Leonidas [3] of Tarentum (> Anthology) were forerunners of Latin Priapus poetry; the Alexandrian poet Euphronius is said to have assembled a collection of priapea. Unlike in Roman poetry, which shows only the sexual aspect of the god, in Greek epigram Priapus is earnestly invoked as a god of deliverance especially for fishermen and seafarers [1. 55-62]. The subject matter of the eighty epigrams is limited. They combine and vary three basic motifs — the symbol of Priapus, his gigantic > phallus; his use of it to punish thieves; the sacrifices made to the god — and adopt motifs from other poetic works, e.g. comparisons of the gods, verse riddles, mockery of physical infirmities, oaths, plays on mythology. Alongside the artistic composition of each individual epigram, the book of poems manifests a deliberate arrangement in respect to both formal metre and content [z. 37-40]. As in Martial, there are only three types of metre, which succeed one another ina pattern: distichs, hendecasyllables and choliambs (> Metre). The metric art of the priapea is marked by effortless care and elegance in the versification. The language and style are cultivated, in spite of vulgar turns of phrase and colloquial elements driven by their subject matter, showing an affinity with Augustan poetic language and with Martial [1. r9-28; 2. 4of.]. The priapea have found enthusiastic readers, commentators and imitators [2. 28-34, 43f.], especially since the Renaissance

(the oldest known MS: codex

Laur. 33,31, written by Boccaccio himself). LEssinc and GOETHE paid tribute to the priapea with emendations and free renderings [3. 176-191] + Epigram; > Pornography; > Priapus 1 V. BUCHHEIT, Studien zum Corpus Priapeorum, 1962 2 C. GOLDBERG, Carmina P., 1992 (trans., comm.) 3B. KyTZLER (ed.), Carmina P., 1978 (with German trans. and notes) 4E.M. O’Connor, Symbolum Salacitatis, 1989

5 W.H. comm.) *1992.

820

819

Parker (ed.), P., 1988 (with Engl. trans. and 6 A. Ricuin, The Garden of Priapus, 1983,

CH.G.

Priapus

(Iloianos/Priapos,

Ionian

Iginnxos/Priepos,

Lat. Priapus). Ithyphallic god of fertility and sexuality and, more generally, of affluence and protection from harm. P. originally comes from the region in northwestern Asia Minor situated on the Hellespont (+ Lampsacus most frequently cited as the place). In the Greek heartland where he was “still unknown to Hesiod” (Str. 13,1,12), like > Hermaphroditus (Diod. Sic. 4,6), he generally did not appear until the 4th cent. BC and afterwards (cf. Xenarchus’ comedy ‘Priapus’, PCG VII fr. ro). His spread was promoted particularly by the earlier existence of ithyphallic deities ( Phallus), the campaign of Alexander and the mystery cults, primarily the > mysteries of Dionysus, with whom P. was closely associated (Diod. Sic. 4,6,4). The > Ptolemies’ cult of Dionysus spread P. widely in Alexandria [x] and Egypt (esp. through identification with + Horus and > Min); likewise the Italian cult of + Mutunus Tutunus, another indigenous predecessor, paved the way ultimately for P.’ spread throughout the empire. In myth, P. is regarded chiefly as the son of Dionysus and > Aphrodite (Diod. Sic. 4,6,1; Paus. 9,31,2) or a

nymph (Str. 13,1,12). One of the few mythical tales is connected with the genealogy: when Aphrodite is about to give birth, Hera, out of jealousy, touches her stomach with an enchanted hand; the child comes into the world deformed (kakOmorphon). For fear of disgrace, the goddess of beauty exposes the child in the mountains where he is raised by shepherds; because of the abnormality of his sexual member (pathos aidoiou), he is worshipped as a fertility god (Ps.-Nonn. in Greg. Naz. Or., PG 36,1053). P.’ chief functions are the fostering of vegetable and animal fertility and, derivatively, protection from harm. In the Greek context, P. is therefore also a guarantor of affluence and protector of fishermen and sailors and, probably under influences from — Hermes, also of wanderers. Only in the Roman context, where the sexual aspect is emphasized more strongly, is P. also attested as a tomb watchman in the cult of the dead. In later periods, P. was elevated to a principle of nature (e.g. CLE 1504 = CIL XIV 3565 pater rerum; CIL III 139 Pantheus); the Gnostic lustinus [7], for instance, identifies him with the creator of the world. The statuette roughly hewn primarily out of fig wood with a phallus that is most frequently red and the terracotta figurine in Egypt in particular are characteristic. Typical religiously inspired physical postures, apart from the ‘noble P.’ (the phallus stands out under the garment), are the /orddsis (upper part of the body bent back, pelvis thrust forward and arms put on the hips from behind) and andsyrma (a garment - raised up above the phallus - whose hanging fold is often filled with fruits). P. was worshipped “not only in the city but also in the country” (Diod. Sic. 4,6,4), and esp. in gardens, vineyards, meadows and groves where the wooden statuettes, generally on the edge of the parcel of land, were

821

822

simply stuck into the earth (the parallel with the ‘phallic display’ by which primates mark out their territory is amazing [1] even though it has not yet been satisfactorily classified). Monumental buildings, apart from the image of a six-pillared temple ona coin [5. 1035 no. 91]

at the royal necropolis of > Thebes [1] (Dair al-Madina; 16th—1 5th cents. BC) [7. 17]. Other price data are

(of the Lampsacene?), do not survive, but P. was also worshipped in naiskoi (aediculae). Small gifts (flowers, fruits, cakes, wine, etc.) and fish and smaller animals

(piglets, goats, etc.) constitute his chief offerings. The ill-evidenced report about the sacrifice of a donkey in Lampsacus, as eccentric as it is costly (Ov. Fast. 1,391

and 439f.; 6,345; mythical aetiologies: the > Lotis story, Ov. Fast. 1,393-440; Hyg. Poet. Astr. 2,23), should be treated with care. Although P.’ role as the brunt of jokes, particularly in the Roman — Priapea, may leave the impression of waning veneration, these poems from literary circles have to do far more with effects than with the religiosity of mainly (but not exclusively) simpler social classes. The Church Fathers’ violent criticism demonstrates,

in any case, that P. was

worshipped well into Late Antiquity. ~ Phallus; > Priapea

PRICE

too scanty, sporadic and geographically highly dispersed to allow comparison. The same can be said for the numerous price indicators from the Levant (> Ugarit, » Alalah) from the rsth to the r2th cents. BC [6]. Under the conditions of the > oikos economy of the 3rd millennium in Mesopotamia, equivalents were as a rule

set administratively for inter-institutional exchange of commodities, goods and services. This also applies to later epochs, as is shown by many royal ‘tariffs’ [9. 247f.]. Whether attempts were made in Egypt to regulate prices is a matter of dispute [7. 17f.; 4. 1082]. Price fluctuations over the course of the agricultural year can be discerned in Mesopotamia, esp. for the food staple, > grain; by contrast, the Egyptian evidence from Dair al-Madina shows no significant fluctuations in the price of grain [7. 21]. The brief, massive explosion in the grain price during the 2oth Dynasty (1196-1080 BC) is exceptional; its causes can only be guessed [4. 1082]. The Babylonian astronomical diaries (6th— 3rd cents. BC) note, in addition to meteorological and

1 D. FEHLING, Phallische Demonstration, in: Id., Etholo-

gische Uberlegungen auf dem Gebiet der Altertumskunde, 1974, 7-38; repr. in: A. K. Stems (ed.), Sexualitat und

astronomical phenomena, the (daily) equivalents for the six most important subsistence products (barley, dates, mustard, cress, sesame and wool) in Babylon.

2 H.

They do not demonstrate any seasonal fluctuations.

31d., De

Moreover, a decline can be discerned for these six com-

4Id., De dis Atticis Priapi similibus, 1926

modities from the sth cent. to Antiochus [5] III (222-

5 W.-R. MeGow, s. v. Priapos, LIMC 8.1, 1028-1044; 8.2, 680-694 6 M. OLENDER, Priape 4 tort et de travers, in: Nouvelle rey. de psychanalyse 43, 1991, 59-82 7Id., Priape le mal taillé, in: Le temps de la réflexion 7, 1986,

187 BC), a possible cause of which is considered to have been state intervention [1o. 105]. In Mesopotamia, the value of silver in relation to barley scarcely changed

Erotik in der Antike, 1988, 282-323 (with addenda)

HERTER,

s. v. Priapos, RE 22, 1914-1942

Priapo, 1932

373-388 8Id., L’enfant Priape et son phallus, in: J. Cain et al. (ed.), Souffrance, plaisir et pensée, 1983, 141-164 9 Id., Elements pour une analyse de Priape chez Justin le Gnostique, in: M. B. DE Borr, T. A. Epr1pcE (ed.), Hommages a M. J. Vermaseren, 1978, vol. 2, 874-897. = T.H.

Price I. ANCIENT Near East II. CLassicaL ANTIQUITY II]. EARLY MIDDLE AGES

I. ANCIENT NEAR EAST Prices or equivalents for numerous fungible items had a generally recognized value in both Egypt and Mesopotamia, though nothing is known of how this came about. Prices in Egypt were at first expressed in a value unit §7‘(tj) (perhaps ‘silver ring’?), in the New Kingdom also in copper and sacks of grain (though neither served as media of exchange) [7. 13]. In Mesopotamia, they were generally expressed in weights of silver (in Assyria, occasionally also tin). Indications as to equivalents are preserved to varying degrees of abundance and informative value from Mesopotamia, Egypt, Syria [1] and the Levant [6]. Price

indicators for a number of epochs in Mesopotamia are so copiously documented (esp. from the 21st, 18th, 17th and 6th—1st cents. BC) that they enable comparative studies [3; 10; rr]. From Egypt, the relevant indications almost all come from the craftsmen’s settlement

from the 26th cent. BC into the second half of the rst millennium [8. 98]. It is possible to form an impression of the proportionality of prices to > wages by making comparisons with the institutionally distributed rations that guaranteed the necessary minimum provision for the sustenance of life. An interesting piece of evidence from Egypt for the establishment of prices indicates that the value ofabasket corresponded to the value of the quantity of grain (expressed in copper) the basket held [7. 15]. A literary text from Mesopotamia connects the high equivalents of various metals to silver with military conflicts which had hampered trade. Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian rulers > Sargon [3] Il and > Assurbanipal state that they were wont ‘to match the equivalent for silver to that of copper’ for various goods because of the substantial influx of war booty. What looks to us like inflation is here portrayed as something worthy of praise [9. 252].

While price levels in Egypt and Mesopotamia depended only to a limited extent on supply and demand in internal processes of exchange, and were determined essentially by the value in use, supply and demand did play a larger role in long-distance trade (~ Commerce). Among other things, a Commodity’s price was determined by the considerable transaction costs it involved. The debate surrounding the establishing of prices in the ancient Near Eastern economic system, esp. the issue of

823

824

the influence of market mechanisms (supply, demand, price), is in essence determined by assumptions deriving either from neoclassical (i.e. market economy) theory or the theory propounded by K. PoLanyi (> Money, money economy; > Market). There are numerous indications of price for large and luxury commodities and for property, from all regions of the Near East and Egypt. But as there was no real ‘market’ in the sense of supply and demand for these items, nothing concrete can be said about the establishment of these prices. An impression of a price level can only be gleaned from the general ratio of grain (mostly barley) to silver decreed as minimum subsistence for the staff of institutional households.

the function of money as a measure of value. In less monetarized regions, the price of a commodity was certainly expressed in monetary units, though often not paid for in money. In an analysis of the Greek and Roman economy, the issue of the establishment of prices is important; it occurred on the one hand through the equilibrium of supply and demand, and on the other through public control or social standardization

PRICE

+ Market; — Money, money economy; — Rations; ~ Wages

economy;

+ Oikos

1 A. Arcui, Prices, Worker’s Wages and Maintenance at Ebla, in: Altoriental. Forsch. 15, 1988, 24-29 2M.A. DanpDaMayEV, Wages and Prices in Babylonia in the 6th and 5th Centuries B. C., in: Altoriental. Forsch. 15, 1988,

53-58 3H. Farper, A Price and Wage Study for Northern Babylonia during the Old Babylonian Period, in: Journ. of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 21,1978, 1-53 4 W. HELck,s. v. Preis, LA 4, 1081-1083 5 Id., Das Problem der Léhne und Preise im Alten Reich, in: Altoriental. Forsch. 15, 1988, 3-9 6M. HELTZER,

Goods, Prices and the Organisation of Trade in Ugarit, 1978 7 J.J. JANSSEN, Prices and Wages in Ancient Egypt, in: Altoriental. Forsch. 15, 1988, 10-23 8 M. A. POWELL, Identification and Interpretation of Long Term Price Fluctuations in Babylonia, in: Altoriental. Forsch. 17, 1990, 76-99 9J. RENGER, Zur Rolle von Preis und Léhnen im Wirtschaftssystem des alten Mesopotamiens an der

Wende vom 3. zum 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., in: Altoriental. Forsch. 16, 1989, 234-252 10 A. L. SLorsxy, The Bourse of Babylon — Market Quotations in the Astronomical Diaries of Babylonia, 1997 (with list of studies on prices in ancient Mesopotamia)

11D. SNELL, Ledgers and Prices,

1982 12P. Varcyas, Les prix des denrées de premiére nécessité en Babylonie a l’€poque achéménide et hellénistique, in: J. ANDREAU et al. (ed.), Economie antique: Prix et formation des prix (Entretiens d’archéologie et d’histoire 3), 1998, 335-354 (with extensive bibliography) 13 K. R. VEENHOF, Prices and Trade. The Old Assyrian Evidence, in: Altoriental. Forsch. 15, 1988, 243-263 14 C. ZACCAGNINI, On Prices and Wages at Nuzi, in: Altoriental. Forsch. 15, 1988, 45-52 15 Id., Prices and Price Formation in the Ancient Near East, in: see [12], 361-384 16 D. Genet, J. MAaNcouRANT, Une étude critique de hausse des prix a |’ére Ramesside, in: DHA 17, 1991,

13-31.

J.RE.

II. CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY A. GENERAL POINTS B. SOURCES AND METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS C, STAPLE PRICES AT ATHENS (5 TH-4TH CENTS. BC) D. STAPLE PRICES IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC AND PRINCIPATE E. PRICE FORMATION F. CRISES AND INFLATION

A. GENERAL POINTS Price (twin/time; Lat. pretium) expresses a quantita-

tive equivalent for goods and services, and presupposes

(normal price; just price). The relationship between ~ wages and prices can also shed light on the living standards of individuals and the stability of an economy.

B. SOURCES AND METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS Information on prices in antiquity is preserved primarily in the form of inscriptions and papyrus records, with the Greek papyri from Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt providing the most detailed information. This information, however, does not necessarily apply across the board. The papyri give information only on some areas of the rural dry zone (ywoa/chora), while Alexandria [1] is only indirectly documented in this material. One important source for ascertaining Greek prices in the 5th cent. BC are the so-called ‘Attic stelai’ (415/414 BC; IGT 421) that list the sale proceeds of the objects confiscated in the wake of the Mutilation of the Herms (> Herms, mutilation of the) at Athens. The accounts of the priests of the Temple of Apollo on — Delos for the years 314-166 BC (IG XI 2,290-371; IDélos 372-509) can also be consulted. Architectural and votive inscriptions and honorary decrees from Greece, Rome, Italy and the Roman provinces of Africa also offer important information for the Principate, while the Diocletian’s Price Edict of AD 301 does the same for Late Antiquity. Literary sources provide reliable testimony only in exceptional cases. References in poetry, comedy and the novel are today not regarded as directly admissible in economic history, while the works of some Roman historians and the texts of — Cicero and Pliny the Elder (— Plinius [1]) are of value esp. for qualitative estimates of price levels. It is always necessary to bear in mind the highly lacunose nature of the evidence in any analysis of price developments. For example, even for Roman Egypt, no more than 20 to 50 prices per year are known for staple provisions such as grain and wine. For other goods, the price indications are scantier yet. Grain prices, moreover, were subject to seasonal fluctuation, harvest quality and perhaps also supply and demand. Prices for wine, livestock and slaves are as a rule not to be regarded as generally valid, as they varied radically according to quality. Nor were > weights and > measures standardized from region to region. Yet another difficulty lies in the ancient sources’ frequent failure to distinguish between ‘wholesale’ and retail prices, although the distinction was clear in practice. Prices of imported raw materials and grain often depended on political agreements, and did not correspond to the real market value. Price information in most cases obtains for liter-

825

826

ate classes and monetarized regions, thus affording only partial insight into the general price structure in the Mediterranean region.

and more for milled wheat: Plin. HN 18,90; but cf. the controlled price for imported wheat of 3 HS per modius after the fire of Rome in AD 64: Tac. Ann. 15,39). In some provinces, esp. those which were exporters of grain, the price was lower. Price information for grain in Roman Middle Egypt allows sophisticated analysis: price fluctuations are clearly discernible, but cannot be explained solely by factors of season or shortage. Rather, they may also derive from unknown differences in wholesale and retail prices, special agreements and other, non-market-related price determinations. In fact, poor harvests in Egypt announced themselves early in the form of too low or too high a level of the Nile flood, and could be largely countervailed by private and public measures. The price the same seller could obtain per artabe of wheat (c. 40 1), then, fluctuated between 4 and 8 drachmai before the expected poor harvest in the summer of the following year (P Mich. II. 127 i 8-17). Aside from such short-term fluctuations, the price level for grain was relatively even in the first two centuries of Roman Egypt, at between 6 and 12 drachmai per artabe in private and public shops. The set price for compulsory sale to the state during the same period was 8 drachmai per artabe. Over the following 80 years (until c. AD 265), the market price for grain still never exceeded 12-20 drachmai per artabe, until it multiplied many times over in the late 3rd cent. Overall, it is thought that the annual inflation rate crept along at no more than 1-2% in the Roman Empire until the reign of Septimius Severus, this being concealed by a similar rate of inflation in the pay of Roman legionaries over the same period.

C. STAPLE PRICES AT ATHENS (5TH—4TH CENTS. BC)

In the ‘Attic stelai’, prices for 1 phormos (= 1 medimnos = c. 55 |; Lys. 22,5) of wheat fluctuate between 6 and 6'/,drachmai (IG P 421,137-9). Early in the 4th cent. BC (IG II* 13 56,17; 21), the price of wheat is given as 6 drachmai per medimnos. A decree of the 2nd half of the 4th cent. shows the normal import price of wheat at this time at 4 drachmai and 3 oboloi, and of barley at 2 drachmai and 3 oboloi (IG I? 408,10-15). Demosthenes gives the state-regulated price of imported wheat as 5 drachmai per medimnos (Dem. Or. 34,39). The accounts from the Sanctuary of Demeter at Eleusis [x] for 329/8 BC give the purchase price of wheat as 5 or 6 drachmai per medimnos (IG II? 1672,282-8). The price of barley in these inscriptions is 3 drachmai or 3 drachmai and 5 oboloi per medimnos. An honorary decree from 324 BC shows that the price for imported grain was 5 drachmai that year (IG II* 360). The average price of grain seems to have been stable over the long term at Athens, and to have lain at c. 5 to 6 drachmai per medimnos. Barley cost half this amount, a ratio that endured into the Romanera. The daily needs of an adult male were assumed to be 1 choinix (= '/,, medimnos) of wheat (Hdt. 7,187; Pol. 6,39,13); an Athenian citizen

would therefore have had to spend c. 42 drachmai per year for 7 medimnoi of wheat. Less information is available for the staples > wine, olive oil (> Oils for cooking [II]) and honey. In the ‘Attic stelai’, the price of unmixed Attic wine is given at 4 drachmai per metretes (39 l), agreeing with the testimony

of Demosthenes

(Dem.

Or. 42,20; 42,37:

12

drachmai being three times the usual price). The price of olive oil is given in IG Il* 1356 (early 4th cent. BC) as "/, obolos per kotyle (0.3 1) and honey as 3 oboloi per kotyle. If these prices are compared to the daily wage of skilled and unskilled labourers (1 drachme per day for skilled labour in IG B 475: 409 BC, and 2 drachmai per day for unskilled labour in IG II* 1672: 329/8-327/6 BC), the prices of staple provisions at Athens seem low. However, it must be borne in mind that continual employment was not a given in antiquity (> Unemployment).

D. STAPLE PRICES IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC AND PRINCIPATE It is virtually impossible to make general estimates of price levels in the territory of Roman rule, due to its great geographical and chronological extent. In the Principate, the controlled price in Italy for imported + grain during a time of shortage was 4 HS (= 1 denarius) per modius (c. 8.7 1) (CIL XI 6117, Forum Sempronii; cf. also Cic. Verr. 2,3 on the same price in Sicily

in 63 BC) [rr]. In the city of Rome, the retail price in the rst cent. was considerably higher (12 HS per modius

PRICE

E. PRICE FORMATION Apart from exceptional cases (> Price control), prices in the ancient Mediterranean formed by bringing

supply and demand into equilibrium. However, transmitted prices are not always equivalent to market prices. Prices recorded in Egypt, for instance, are mostly farm-gate prices, i.e. prices set by estate owners for their employees and day-labourers. These will certainly have been set with market prices in mind, but were subject to caprice and did not in the strict sense form anonymously. The situation is similar with the lists of prices preserved from the Temple of Apollo on Delos. Commodity prices were individually negotiated with traders by the priests, but there is no reason to suppose that they deviated from market rates or even that they were set. If local and temporary deviations from a transregional average value of all preserved prices is calculated, a deviation rate of no more than 5% is obtained for the private sector (highest rate in Middle Egypt, first 2 cents. of the Principate). We may therefore infer considerable interrelations between the local markets. However, the material from Hellenistic Delos makes it clear that price formation did not rely on the existence of transregional markets. The pricing history of olive oil shows that the island initially depended on imported oil (from Athens, later from Rhodes). This led to high prices in the first

PRICE

quarter of the 3rd cent. BC. Thereafter, a striking decline and considerable stability in prices can be seen, denoting a period in which oil was locally produced or imported from markets in the immediate vicinity. Overall, the theory of an integrated price formation in the Mediterranean region, even during the Hellenistic period or the Roman Empire, is nowadays discounted. Rather, the favoured view is of a multiplicity of local markets which joined together only temporarily and under certain political circumstances. F,. CRISES AND INFLATION Up to the mid 3rd cent. AD, the entire GraecoRoman Mediterranean region was characterized by a striking stability in monetary values and thus prices. Financial crises impacting land prices, interest rates and the general price level can be seen only at the time of the outbreak of the Civil War (49 BC, cf. > Caesar [I.D]) and the late 3rd and 4th cents. AD. The so-called ‘Ptolemaic copper inflation’ of the late 3rd and 2nd cents. BC, by contrast, was not an inflation, but only a resetting of the relationship of bronze to silver money from its original ratio of 1:1 to 60:1, 120:1 and finally 240:1. The crisis of 49 BC was above all a ‘credit crisis’ affecting the Roman urban elite. A shortage of money (nummorum caritas, Cic. Att. 9,9,4; cf. Cass. Dio 41,37,2) set in due to high military expenditures and generally weak monetary circulation, leading to excessive interest rates (> Interest). According to Tacitus, a similar financial crisis occurred under Tiberius (AD 33) (Tac. Ann. 6,16-17; cf. Suet. Tib. 48). The crisis of the 3rd and 4th cents. was more complex and of greater historical consequence; it became evident from AD 270 in the quintupling of the grain price in Egypt and the eight- or fifteen-fold increases in the prices of slaves and mules. These extreme rises in price led to the setting of price ceilings under Diocletian in AD 301 (— Edictum [3] Diocletiani), though without long-term success. The price increases continued to intensify considerably through the 4th cent., esp. after AD 350, when prices for a time rose a hundredfold. Important reasons for the deficient purchasing power of the silver currency may either have been its gradual debasement, from 75% before Septimius Severus (AD 193) to 1% when Aurelian ascended the throne (AD 270), ora loss of popular faith in the currency after its detachment from the gold standard in 274 and its repeated retariffing between AD 274 and 301. Attempts at explanation based on the absolute increase in the money supply and corresponding increases in > taxes (IV. C.), wages and prices are de-

rived from modern theories of inflation and not demonstrable for antiquity, as it is not possible to ascertain empirically such decisive factors as money supply and rates of circulation. + Grain; + Wages

— Market;

—+ Money,

money

economy;

1 J. ANprReAU et al. (ed.), Economie antique: Prix et formation des prix (Entretiens d’archéologie et @’histoire 3), 1998

828

827

2A. BuRNETT, Coinage in the Roman World, 1987

3H.J. DRexHace,

Preise, Mieten/Pachten,

Kosten und

Léhne im rémischen Agypten bis zum Regierungsantritt des Diokletian, 1991 4Id., Preise im romischen Britannien (1.-3. Jh.), in: K. RUFFING, B. TENGER (ed.), Miscellanea oeconomica, Festschrift H. Winkel, 1997, 13-25 5 R. Duncan-Jones, Money and Government in the Roman Empire, 1994 6 Id., The Economy of the Roman Empire,*1985 7 L. Foxuatt, H. A. ForBEs, Sitometreia: The Role of Grain as a Staple Food in Classical Antiquity, in: Chiron 12, 1982, 41-90

10 T. FRANK, An Economic

Survey of Ancient Rome, vol. 2 and vol. 5, Appendix, 1936, 1940 11C. HowGeco, Ancient History from Coins, 1995, 125-140

12 K. MareEscu, Bronze und Sil-

ber. Papyrologische Beitrage zur Geschichte der Wahrung im ptolemdischen und rémischen Agypten bis zum 2. Jahrhundert n. Chr., 1996 13 W.K. Pritcuertt, The Attic Stelai, Part II, in: Hesperia 25, 1956, 178-321 14D. RATHBONE, Monetisation, Not Price-Inflation in ThirdCentury AD Egypt?, in: C. E. Kine, D. G. Wice (ed.), Coin Finds and Coin Use in the Roman World, 1996, 321-

339.

Sv.R.

III. EARLY MIDDLE AGES The extant written evidence on prices between the price edicts of the later Roman emperors after Diocletian (301) and those of Charlemagne (794, 806) can neither be processed statistically by scholars and interpreted in terms of economic cycles, nor characterized as exchange practices appropriate to the times. The texts contain no indication of systematic thinking on economic phenomena. Occasional indications from the legal literature of Late Antiquity, customary laws, documents, books of formulae, recreational mathematics, hagiography and rulers’ decrees (capitularies) each give only fragmentary information on prices, the social value of exchanged goods, the process of price formation and methods of payment. The acquisition of prestige and luxury goods (pepper, ivory, silk) by palatinates, episcopal residences and monasteries differed radically from the transfers of land between neighbours and gifts of land to saints, the sale of salt and wax in ex-

change for slaves among long-distance traders, the sale of grain by landowners to intermediaries, the purchase of bread by a shoemaker ina shop, the sale of cattle by a farmer in the marketplace, the sale of eggs by the farmer’s wife at the church entrance or the provisioning and accommodation of travellers at taverns. Derived from the idea of the fixed, just price and in consideration of an appropriate trading profit (Iucrum), control by local custom

or impartial aesti-

matores, boni homines or indices took different forms. There were different ways to negotiate (haggle) and pay

(with real assets, in kind, with coins, weights of precious metals or combinations of these). Such exchange trading in so many different forums and forms was not worthy of record, and thus remains largely lost to scholarship on the early Middle Ages. However, tendencies did emerge, in the context of general economic and social development, which were also of importance in the history of price: by the 7th cent., market-mediated exchange and official controls

829

830

diminished in the kingdoms founded in the Age of Migrations. Subsequent developments — the shift in longdistance trade from the Mediterranean to the Frankish and Anglo-Saxon northwest, the profound agricultural recovery, seigneurial accumulation and the development of regiona! trades fostered by location — led the Carolingians, in consort with the bishops, imperial

the Gracchi (> Sempronius [I 11-1 16]) the supply of grain was a political matter regulated by several > grain laws. In the Principate the distribution of grain was under the supervision of the prefect of the > cura annonae; the number of recipients was limited and free grain, which came as a tax from the provinces — esp. Africa and Egypt -, was distributed only to a privileged group of people, the plebs frumentaria. In acute need, the principes or rich private individuals intervened by arranging importation and price control (AD 51: Tac. Ann. 12,43; Suet. Claud. 18; AD 64: Tac. Ann. 15,39,25 cf. also CIL XIV 3608=ILS 986 on grain deliveries from the provinces on the Black Sea). In Pisidian Antioch during a grain shortage in AD 93, the provincial governor L. Antistius [II 4] Rusticus ordered by edict the sale of stored grain at a fixed maximum price (4 HS per > modius [3]; AE 1925,126). In the face of sharply rising prices, Diocletian’s Price Edict (AD 301) provided for maximum tariffs for a comprehensive list of goods and services. Although according to Lactantius (De mort. pers. 7,7) the Price Edict led to goods being even more scarce and hence prices having to be raised, in Late Antiquity maximum prices were fixed locally just for grain, as, e.g., in AD 362 by Julian in Antioch (Iul. Mis. 368-369; Lib. Or.

monasteries and sections of the nobility, to react with a

coinage reform (fixing silver money; silver denarius at c. 1.6 g), the establishment of public markets at domain centres and in rural areas and, finally, minimum price edicts for grain applicable across the entire empire. Such measures were, of course, responses to de facto crises (famines, 792-4, 804-6), but also bear witness to the distributive fairness, on ethical oikos principles, of the ruling strata. + Commerce; + Money, money economy; > Wages 1D. CLaupE,

Zu Fragen der merowingischen

Geldge-

schichte in: Vierteljahrschrift fiir Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 48, 1961, 236-250 2R. DOEHAERD, Le haut moyen age occidental, 1971 3B. EMMERICH, Geiz und

Gerechtigkeit. Okonomisches Denken im frithen Mittelalter, 2000

4 S. ENGELER, Altnordische Geldworter, 1991

5 J.HERRMANN,

Der ‘Gerechte Preis’, 1982, 9-19

6H.

SreMs, Handel und Wucher im Spiegel friihmittelalterlichen Rechtsquellen, LMA

7, 183-185

1992

7R. SPRANDEL,

s. v. Preis,

8M. Wett1, Der Gerechte Preis, in:

ZRG Germanist. Abteilung 113, 1996, 424-433.

LU-KU.

Price control. In Antiquity, > price was normally the result of the balance of supply and demand. Basic foodstuffs such as > grain, oil (+ Oils for cooking [II]) and meat (> Meat, consumption of) were the exception. On the basis of a 4th-cent. BC law the grain supervisors (-> sitophylakes) in Athens had the task of seeing that unmilled grain was offered honestly (dikaios) at market, that millers then sold the flour at a price corresponding to that for grain, that bakers sold bread at a price corresponding to what they had paid for the wheat, and that their loaves had the prescribed weight (Aristot. Ath. Pol. 51,3; cf. SEG 26,72, ll. 18ff.). Transgressing these laws was punished with the death penalty. In times of crisis the price retailers could ask for grain was fixed in relation to the wholesale price. Thus in 386 BC retailers were forbidden to buy more than 50 medimnoi a day or in total, or to add more than 1 obolos per > medimnos to the wholesale price (Lys. 22,6; 22,8). Both Athenian citizens and benefactors (> euergétés) from friendly regions imported grain to Athens in times of crisis and sold it there at a controlled price or one fixed by the polis (Dem. Or. 34,393; IG II* 360,8-10; 28-30; 1672). In Ptolemaic Egypt the prices for oil were fixed annually by decree (P Revenue Laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus, 55). The Roman Republic fixed prices in the grain-producing provinces for grain requisitioned either for export (frumentum imperatum) or for the governor’s use (frumentum in cellam; cf. Cic. Verr. 2,3,163; 2,3,188; 2,3,214f.; 2,3,217). In Rome, from the time of

PRICE

THEORY

1,126; Amm. Marc. 22,14,1). Whereas Ammianus re-

jected fixing maximum prices because in his opinion they caused shortages, Libanius after AD 387 criticized the governor Eutropius’ decontrolling prices in Antioch (ibs Ore4a35))5 + Edictum [3] Diocletiani; > Grain laws; > Grain trade, Grain import; > Plebs; > Price 1R. Duncan-Jones, The Prices of Wheat in Roman Egypt, in: Id., Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy, 1990, 143-156 2P. GARNSEY, Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World, 1987 3S. LAUFFER, Diokletians Preisedikt, 1971

4L. MiGeotTTe, Le contréle des

prix dans les cités grecques, in: J. ANDREAU et al. (ed.), Economie antique: Prix et formation des prix (Entretiens d’archéologie et d’histoire 3), 1998, 33-52. Sw.R.

Price edict of Diocletian see > Edictum [3] Diocletiani Price theory. Because the exchange of goods was not seen in Antiquity in the framework of a market process but as a series of individual exchanges in trade, ancient theories of price are, at base, not comparable with those of neoclassical economic theory. The central question was not how > prices arise as a result of different interests and regulate themselves within a given timeframe, but rather in what way the price of a good is connected to its value, and under what conditions a discrepancy arises between the two. Aristotle makes the distinction between the values of utility and exchange (Aristot. Pol. 1257a 6-13). For him the price of a good is initially only the quantitative standard of its value by which exchange of qualitatively differing goods is possible (5 minae = 1 house = 5 beds = a particular amount of grain = a particular number of

831

832

pairs of shoes, etc.; Aristot. Eth. Nic. 1133b 2sf.).

that the value of money was based on agreement and was also liable to public control (Xen. Vect. 4,6; Paulus

PRICE THEORY

What, however, does

> money measure when it makes

qualitatively different substances quantitatively comparable with one another? For Aristotle the answer was need (yoeia/chreia), understood not as the collective need of a mass of participants in a market, but rather as the objective need of an individual for goods he himself does not produce. This need is quantified by social compact (vouoc/> nomos) through money (vouopa/ nomisma) and determines the price of a good (Aristot. Eth. Nic. 1133a 30). When fair exchange obtains and each party receives what it is due, utility value, exchange value and price are hence identical. People trade, however, not only within their community but also beyond its boundaries. Hence, for traders the value of a good consists not in its utility value, but only in its exchange value. The separation of exchange and utility value is, according to Aristotle, contrary to nature and leads to the equally unnatural situation of money functioning as a good in its own right and not merely as a means of acquiring other goods (Aristot. Pol. 1257b 28-1258a,15). Aristotle regarded price, therefore, not as a variable of supply and demand or of money supply, but as an expression of exchange value determined by people’s natural need for utility goods, but which could be distorted by traders’ unnatural need of money. In the financial crises of the late Roman Republic and early Principate a connexion appears to have been discerned between prices and money supply, in the sense of BODIN’s quantity theory (see [3. 107]). This did

Dig. 18,1,01; Gai. Inst. 1,122).

The praefatio to Diocletian’s price edict of AD 301 demonstrates clearly Antiquity’s distance from arriving at an economically-based theory of price: avaritia (‘avarice’; > Edictum Diocletiani 6ff.) is held responsible for rising prices; hence the price of foodstuffs does not depend on a good or bad harvest. It is nevertheless assumed that under normal conditions a surfeit of goods leads to lower prices (ibid. 16). The occasion of Diocletian’s intervention was soldiers demanding excessive prices for goods delivered. -» Interest;

» Money; — Price; > Price control

1S. Merkxe, Aristotle’s Economic Thought, 1995 2C. NIcOLeT, Prix, monnaies, échanges. Les variations des

prix et la ‘théorie quantitative de la monnaie’ 4 Rome de Cicéron a Pline |’Ancien, in: Annales 26, 1971, 1203-1227 3 F. SCHINZINGER, Ansatze 6konomischen Denkens von der Antike bis zur Reformationszeit, 1977. Sv.R.

Pricking see > Ruling (of MSS) Priene (Moujvn/Priené). I. HisTORICAL

CONTEXT

IIJ. CONSTRUCTION

IJ. TOWN

LAYOUT

HISTORY

I. HISTORICAL CONTEXT

According

to Paus.

7,2,10,

P. was

originally a

due to the influx of great quantities of money after the

Carian town on the Milesian-Latmian Gulf, which was seized by the Ionians and Thebans, probably before the 7th cent. BC. It was a member of the Ionian League, whose communal shrine (> Panionium) was on the site

capture of Alexandria [1], land prices rose and interest rates fell (Suet. Aug. 41,1; cf. Cass. Dio 51,21,5). Cicero observes, conversely, that credit and the money supply

of an earlier sanctuary and lay in P.’s territory, as did the port town of Naulochus. In the 6th cent. BC, P. was the home of Bias [2], one of the > Seven Sages. During

(fides et ratio pecuniarum) in Rome were affected by a scarcity of money caused by the > Mithridatic Wars (Cic. Leg. Man. 19). Similarly, he traces rising interest, loan default and falling land prices in AD 49 to the general shortage of coins (caritas nummorum) and not e.g. to profiteering lenders or dishonourable borrowers

Bias’ lifetime, P. came

not, however, lead to the formulation of a general theory of price. Thus Suetonius remarks that in Rome,

(Cic. Att. 9,9,4; 7,18,4). Caesar and Tiberius appear to

have acted correctly (viewed from quantity theory) in limiting the hoarding of coins in periods of money scarcity (Cass. Dio. 41,38; cf. Suet. Tul. 42,2) and in requiring creditors to invest two thirds of their wealth in land (Suet. Tib. 48,1; Tac. Ann. 6,17,3). This stimulated both money circulation and the real estate market. We can, however, hardly rate this as an insight into quantity theory: the relationship between the amount of money circulating and the level of prices was observed only in times of crisis with no general price-theoretical connexion. Intimations towards a theory of price can also be found in considerations of the relationship of the value of money to the value of precious metals. The rise and fall of gold, silver and bronze prices due to over- or under-demand were observed, whereas it was noted

under the domination of the Lydians, who were replaced by the Persians in 546 BC. P. took part in the > Ionian revolt (499/494 BC) and was a member of the > Delian League for parts of the 5th cent. The location of the town in archaic and classical times is unknown (possibly near present-day Séke). As a result of the continual silting up of the Gulf through the river Maeander [2], P. was rebuilt in the middle of the 4th cent. BC to the west of present-day Gilliibahce, below the Teloneia (c. 370 m high) on the muddy, southern slope of the > Mycale promontory. Since then, the chéra (‘territory’) of P. covered the eastern section of the Mycale as well as the plains to the south and north of the range. In 283/2 BC, Lysimachus [2] settled the dispute with Samos over the ownership of land (IPriene no. 37). Alexander [4] the Great granted autonomy to the democratic polis, which later came under the changing sovereignty of the Hellenistic kings. The chora of P., though not P. itself, was devastated by the Celts in 277 BC. Around 155 BC, Ariarathes V (+ Cappadocia) and Attalus [5] Il threatened P. because the inhabitants did not want give back the 400 talents which Orophernes [2] of Cappadocia had entrusted to them.

PRIENE

Modern Coastline Magnesia 8 ©

SS \

Maeander

Plain Maeander

Priéne Rock Temple Aqueduct Clearing tank Temple of Demeter and Kore Fountain “Theatre Street’ Theatre Main church PNAARWNS . Byzantine chapels Burial vault 11. Temple of Athena Polias 12. Altar of Athena Polias

13. Temple of Zeus?

“Athena Street’ . Upper gymnasium

. . . . .

Roman baths Sanctuary of the Egyptian gods ‘West Gate Street’ Sacred stoa Bouleuterion

. Sanctuary of Asclepius . Byzantine castle . ‘Gate of the Spring Street’ . Lower gymnasium . Stadium . City fortifications

. Byzantine reinforcements of fortifications

. Prytaneion

. West gate

. Temple of Cybele . ‘Sacred house’

. Gate of the Spring

. Synagogue

. Fish and meat market . Agora

. Spring . Rock tombs . East Gate

. Paved ramp

Plain

PRIENE

836

835

After 129 BC, P., nominally free, was part of the Roman Province of Asia [2], but, unlike Miletus [2], had not shared in the general upturn in the middle of the Imperial period. There is evidence that bishops were present in P. from the 5th cent. AD until AD 1270. A little later, P., which was last called Samson, came under the control of the Turks, who abandoned the original area of the town (IPriene p. V-XXI; [7. 11831189; 12. I-15; 15. 12-25, 228f.]). Excavations, led by Tu. Wiecanb, H. SCHRADER and H. ScHLEIF, took place in AD 1894-1899. Il. TOWN LAYOUT In the 4th cent. BC, the town which is situated on a steep hillside had a rectangular (‘Hippodamic’) plan, laid out according to the main points of the compass (> Hippodamus of Miletus). Each > insula (block of buildings) of the residential district was originally probably divided up into eight oblong plots of land for houses with courtyards. In Priene these houses typically consisted of a group of four main rooms facing northwards: a prostas (hall), andron (room set aside for men to entertain visitors), oikos (main salon/dining room) and a room adjoining the oikos (~ House II B). Areas were left vacant in the town centre for the Agora (plan no. 26) and the most important shrines. Springs to the northeast above the town supplied P. with water by means of clay pipelines (plan no. 2) and street canalisation disposed of the sewage [2; 5. 188-225; 15. 26-35].

20) and the altar of Athena (no. 12) in place of an earlier building. In the 2nd cent., the older Prytaneion (no. 21) and the ‘sacred stoa’ (no. 19), which was financed by the son of a Cappadocian king before c. 130 BC, followed in the area of the agora in place of an earlier north stoa. Likewise, the remaining positions for the columns on the east and street stoai as well as the market gate [6] were built in the 2nd half of the 2nd cent. At the same time, the south stoa of the Athena

sanctuary, including the imposing terraced wall beneath it, the lower gymnasium [ro] (no. 30), the subsequent stadium stoa (No. 31) and finally the Asclepius temple (no. 27) were built. Around 140/130 BC, a fire destroyed the western half of the town, which was only partly rebuilt, so that much household equipment, including terracotta figures and a wealth of coins, were preserved [11]. The first peristyle houses (+ House II B 4) originated probably in the Hellenistic period. The antae in the annexe north-east of the sanctuary of Athena are also Hellenistic; they are probably to be identified with the shrine of Zeus. Probably still in the rst cent. BC, baths (no. 16) were built in the northern

district of the upper gymnasium (no.15); in the Augustan period, a monumental tomb (no. ro) was put up on the pathway to the eastern theatre parados (gangway on which chorus and actors made their entrance).

In early Imperial period, the Athena sanctuary acquired a monumental propylaeum, its temple was completed and it, like the altar, was additionally dedicated to > Augustus. Later the Prytaneion (no. 21) on the old

III. CONSTRUCTION HISTORY (On the general construction history [13; 15]; cf. map of the area). Marble was available on the eastern slope of the Teloneia rock which was itself the site of the largest quarry [15. 6 fig. 5]. Construction began with the building of the town wall (plan no. 32) with its West, East and Source Gates (nos. 34, 38, 35). The Teloneia, which is connected to the residential area by a steep flight of rock steps, was fortified too. In the 4th century, the residential quarter was laid out, as were the terraces of the sanctuaries of Athena Polias (no. 10) and of Demeter Kore (plan no. 4). Work commenced on the famous temple of Athena which was built by > Pytheus in the Ionic order [8] (plan no. 11); a maos and a devotional image, a copy of the Athena Parthenos [1], were completed before 323 BC (dedicatory inscription of Alexander the Great), while building work on the peristasis continued over centuries [14. 22-25]. The extension of the agora began in the 3rd cent. BC at the latest (plan no. 26; cf. also the plan of the area under — agora): initially with rows of small rooms, including those of the Street Stoa towards the east, then with column fagades in front of the rooms; these latter were completed on the west stoa [6; 9]. In addition to these, the north stoa of the Asclepius sanctuary [17] (no. 27), the stone version of the earlier theatre [3] (no. 7), the sanctuary of the Egyptian gods (no. 17) and possibly the upper gymnasium (no. 15) were built, and, in the decades around 200 BC, the Bouleuterion (no.

square was renovated. No more major building activity took place again until late antiquity: a synagogue (no. 24), a Christian basilica with a nave and two aisles [16] (no. 8), possibly with an adjoining bishop’s palace, several chapels [4] (no. 9), a fort (no. 28) to the east of the agora as well as repairs to the town wall and fortifications in the north of the Teloneia (no. 33), continuing into the 13th cent. — Agora (with map of the area); > PRIENE 1 J. C. Carter, The Sculpture of the Sanctuary of Athena Polias at P., 1993 2 D. P. Croucu, P.’s Streets and Water Supply, in: BABesch Suppl. 4, 1996, 137-143 3 A. VON GERKAN, Das Theater von P., 1921 4A. HENNEMEYER, Die Kapelle bei der Basilika von P., in: MDAI[(Ist) 48, 1998, 341-348 5 W. HOEPFNER, E.-L. SCHWANDNER,

Haus und Stadt im klassischen Griechenland, *1994

6A.

VON KIENLIN, Zur baulichen Entwicklung der Agora von P., in: Boreas 21/2, 1998/9, 241-259 7 G. KLEINER, S. V. P., RE Suppl. 9, 1181-1221 8 W. Koenics, Der Athena-

Tempel von P., in: MDAI(Ist) 33, 1983, 134-176 9Id., Planung und Ausbau der Agora von P., in: MDAI (Ist) 43, 1993, 381-397 10 F. KriscHEN, Das hellenistische Gymnasion von P., in: JDAI 38/9, 1923/4, 133-150 11 J. Rag-

DER, P. Funde aus einer griechischen Stadt im Berliner Antikenmuseum, 1984 12K. REGLING, Die Miinze von P., 1927. 13 F. RUMscHEID, Untersuchungen zur klein-

asiatischen Bauornamentik des Hellenismus, 1994, on cat. no. 293-315 14 Id., Vom Wachsen antiken Sadulenwalder, in: JDAI 114, 1999, 19-63 15 Id., P., 1999 (with bibliography) 16 S. WesTpHALEN, Die Basilika von P., in: MDAII(Ist) 48, 1998, 279-340

17 A. VON KIENLIN, in:

837

838

Bericht tiber die 40. Tagung fiir Ausgrabungswissenschaft und Bauforschung, Wien 1998 (Koldewey Gesellschaft), 2000, 79-85.

B. Fer, Kosmos und Chreia. Der Sieg der reinen tiber die praktische Vernunft in der griechischen Stadtarchitektur des 4. Jh., in: Hephaistos 2, 1980, 155-185; M. ScHEDE, Die Ruinen von P., 1934; SCHRADER, P., 1904.

*1964; TH.

WieGanb, H. FR.RU.

Priest king see > Basileus; -» Hattusa II. C.; > Priests; ~ Rex Sacrorum

Priestly document. Based on its choice of words, style and motifs, Julius WELLHAUSEN (1844-1918) was able to identify a certain segment of the OT > Pentateuch as distinct from the other documents that have been preserved, using the findings of older Pentateuchal criticism in the context of the ‘Documentary Hypothesis’ (1876f.). Characteristic of this document are not only certain concepts and phrases (e. g. ‘@da, ‘assembly’, ‘community’; m“gurim, ‘sojourning’; b“rit ‘olam, ‘everlasting covenant’), but also numbers, lists and geneal-

ogies as well as an emphasis on the subject of cultic matters (hence the name ‘priestly document’). Owing to the heterogeneity of the material, a further distinction is

PRIESTS

creation, which also represents God’s universal power. The focus is on Israel (cf. the sequence of the covenant with Noah, Gn 9:1-17, for the entire world of humankind and animals, and the covenant with Abraham, Gn 17, for Abraham and his descendants) and its commu-

nity with God (cf. the entry of kabod, ‘glory’, into the tabernacle: Ex 40:34; cf. also the structural parallels between the work of creation and the construction of the tabernacle). Sabbath (Ex 31:13) and circumcision (Gn 17), as signs of Israel’s special relationship with God, represent moreover distinguishing features in the > diaspora that work against the assimilation of the Jewish nation. 1 R. SMEND, Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments (Theologische Wissenschaft, vol. 1), 41989, 47-59 2E. ZENGER, Die Biicher der Tora/des Pentateuch, in: E. ZENGER et

al., Einleitung in das Alte Testament, +1998, 66-124, 142176 (with further bibliography). B.E.

Priests I. MEsopoTAMIA II. Ecypr III. SyriaA/PALeEsTINE AND OLD TESTAMENT IV. HITTITE AREA V. GRAECO-ROMAN VI. CHRISTIAN

I. MESOPOTAMIA

6:9-9:17*); the covenant with Abraham (Gn 17); the

From the 3rd millennium to the end of Mesopotamian civilization, the staff of Mesopotamian temples consisted of the cult personnel in the narrower sense — i.e. the priests and priestesses who looked after the official cult in the temples, the cult musicians and singers — and the service staff (male and female courtyard clean-

death of Sarah and the use of the cave of Machpelahasa

ers, cooks, etc.). In addition, there was the hierarchical-

burial site (Gn 23); the establishment of the nation, oppression in Egypt and lamentation (Ex 1:1-5;

ly structured administrative and financial staff of the temple households, which constituted large economic units in Babylonia. Organization and composition of the priesthood differed significantly between Assyria [7] and Babylonia [ro], and between northern and southern Babylonia. In order to understand religious practice in Mesopotamia, it is important to keep in mind that the experts of > divination and incantations were not cult priests, but should instead be regarded as erudite specialists [4; 8; 11]. A strict separation between the > temple and the + palace took place in the 24th cent. in Babylonia. Asa consequence, in individual Babylonian temples, a high priest assumed the place as the representative of the city god on earth and as the highest representative of the community in the cult before the city god and the other gods of the (local) > pantheon that had originally been held by the ruler (— Rulers). The inter-dependence of state and religion continued to be manifest in the person and role of the ruler. Since the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC, the rulers in Babylonia had been taking a rather passive part in cult events. By contrast, the Assyrian ruler took an active role in celebrating the cult. From the 24th cent., a tripartite hierarchy can be attested in the cult priesthood of southern Babylonia, whose basic structure can be demonstrated until the 18th cent. BC [2; ro]. The highest priests, often mem-

made between an original PD (P*) and secondary additions (P*).

The most significant texts of P® are traditionally considered to be accounts such as the creation story (Gn 1:1—2,4a); the Flood and the covenant with Noah (Gn

1:7aab; 1:13f; 2:23aB—-25); > Moses’ [1] calling and the promise of redemption (Ex 6:2—12); the plagues, — Pesah, exodus and rescue (Ex 7-14*); grumbling, manna and the > Sabbath (Ex 16*); the revelation on — Sinai (Ex 19:1f.; 24:15b-18); instructions for build-

ing a tabernacle, its construction and God’s presence in it (Ex 25-29*; 40%); the first sacrificial acts (Lv 9); the commissioning of Joshua (Nm 27:12-23), and Moses’ death (Dt 34:1a0; 34:7-9). P® includes, among other things, detailed instructions regarding the tabernacle, descriptions of the tabernacle’s construction (Ex 3 5ff.) and a variety of instructions on sacrifices (Lv 1-7) (cf. the comprehensive summary of P* and P* in [1]}). More recent scholarship has raised new questions about the delimitation of the material, how to determine for example the end of P*. There has also been discussion of whether the PD was originally a separate literary entity or merely represented an editorial draft (on this debate, cf. literature in [2]). The PD dates from the late Exile or the early postExile period (2nd half of the 6th/sth cent. BC) and can be viewed as a response to the theological crisis of the Jewish Exile, which sought to find a constructive way of coming to terms with the present. In contrast to that present, reference was made to the goodness of God’s

839

840

bers of the ruling clan, were appointed through divination. Priestesses were restricted to the highest priestly classes. Until the 18th cent. BC, a priestess (En-priestess) was allocated to a god and a priest (En-priest) to a goddess at the temples of the city deities of the largest cities of southern Babylonia. The priesthood of the other temples of southern Babylonia was led by a priestess (nin-dingir, possibly ‘Mistress Deity’), whilst in northern Babylonia a priest (Sumerian sanga, Akkad. sangi) was always at the head of a temple. This office passed in numerous cases from father to son. For the two lower priestly classes, a family-related succession in the office can be established in northern and in southern Babylonia [9; 14]. The precondition for holding a priestly office was to be physically flawless and to attain purity through performing a ritual [1] (> Purification). In northern Babylonia, the image of the priesthood cannot be reconstructed as easily. Essentially, however, the structures characteristic of northern Babylonia were also effective for the whole of Babylonia [5] in the rst millennium. Numerous ritual texts (e.g. ~ New Year’s celebra-

II. EcyPr A sophisticated hierarchy of priestly offices is attest-

PRIESTS

tion ritual; > Ritual), according to which the priests conducted — sacrifices and recited > prayers (> Cult;

— Songs), provide information on their activities. The

priests were provided for through a share in the regular offerings (mostly supplied by the ruler) and through constant rations from the temple. For numerous priestly offices, this support was guaranteed in the form of a ‘living’ (sinecure) that could be bequeathed or sold [33 639. Vol. 59. r4zf., 165-167, 184f., 194]. — Cult; > New Year’s celebration; > Prayer; > Religion; > Ritual; > Sacrifice;

> Temple

1 R. BorGErR, Die Weihe eines Enlil-Priesters, in: Biblio-

theca Orientalis 30, 1973, 163-176

2D. CHarpIn, Le

Clergé d’Ur au siécle d’Hammurabi, 1986

3 Chicago As-

syrian Dictionary 7, s. v. isqu, 1960, 200f.

4S. M. Maut,

Zukunftsbewaltigung, 1994 5G. J.P. McEwan, Priest and Temple in Hellenistic Babylonia, 1981 6 J. MCGINNis, Some Comments on the Ebabbara in the Neo-Babylonian Period, in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 120, 2000, 63-67 7B. MENZEL, Assyrische Tempel, 8 A. L. OPPENHEIM, Ancient Mesopotamia, *1977, 227 (for bari et al.) 9 J. RENGER, Untersuchungen Priestertum in der altbabylonischen Zeit, in: ZA 58, 110-188; 59, 1969, 104-230 101d., Ortliche und che Differenzen in der Struktur der Priesterschaft

1981 207zum 1967, zeitli-

baby-

lonischer Tempel, in: A. FineT (ed.), Le temple et le culte

(Compte Rendu de la XX™* Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale), 1975, 108-115

11 F. ROCHBERG-HaL-

TON, Empiricism in Babylonian Omen Texts and the Classification of Mesopotamian Divination as Science, in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 119, 1999, 559569

12M. Sierist, Les satukku dans Il’ESumeSa durant

les periodes dynastiques d’Isin et Larsa, 1984 13 P. STEINKELLER, On Rulers, Priests and Sacred Marriage: Tracing the Evolution of Early Sumerian Kingship, in: [14], 103—137 14K. WaTanaBeE (ed.), Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East, 1999 15 R. ZETTLER, The Genealogy

of the House of Ur-me-rne, in: AfO 31,1984, 1-14.

J.RE.

ed in Egypt. The most detailed source is provided by the still unpublished instructions in the ‘Book of the Temple’ [4]. Priests were appointed to their positions for life and it was the rule for sons to succeed their fathers. For most offices, rotation in the form of a system of four phyles (Egyptian z?) was usual: the respective officebearers belonged to a particular phyle that did a month’s service in the temple and then pursued other activities for three months. Under Ptolemy III, a fifth phyle was introduced through the Canopus Decree (238 BC; > Canopus [1]). Continuous service without

rotation is only attested for a few specialists. A major local sanctuary was headed by the chief of the > prophets, with up to four further ‘prophets’ working under him. The duty of these subordinates was to perform the rituals and sometimes also the sacrifices, but not to predict the future. In the cult, the celebrant emphasized his royal delegation. For the highest offices, locally-specific special titles existed that were normally associated with mythical situations of the deity worshipped. Various specialists, like the lector priest, were responsible for the cult practices, for human funeral services, and for those surrounding the deceased god — Osiris, to which access was strictly limited. Specialists in magic, medicine and veterinary science were also

firmly integrated into temple life (scorpion conjurers, priests of Sekhmet). In addition to priests, artisan specialists and numerous assistants also performed services in the temple. Especially worthy of mention are the door-keepers who are called > pastophoroi in Greek texts. Depending on the size of the sanctuary, various offices could be combined and held by one person and in an extreme case one man could simultaneously be a ‘prophet’, ordinary priest, pastophoros and incumbent of every office in the temple. Strict > purification regulations applied to temple service. When priests were ordained, they were required to give oaths that they had never committed serious sins or that they would in the future refrain from certain behaviours. Women were appointed as priestesses in the cult of female deities, especially Hathor, and it was also usual to have a ‘female office of priestess’ in a major temple. From a material perspective, the priests’ living was provided through set shares of the rations from the offerings; according to the gnomon of the > Idios Logos, the prophet received a fifth of the entire amount; this also corresponds to the details given in the Demotic pRylands IX [6.447 and 490]. Regulations also ensured the support of surviving dependent wives and children. Chairemon [2] (in Porph. De abstinentia 4,6-8) outlines an ideal picture of the Egyptian priests who had an ascetic existence and were interested in philosophy [1], and this image seems at least to have corresponded with the ideals of the Egyptian priesthood. > Cult; > Ritual

841

842

1 P. VAN DER Horst (ed.), Chairemon, *1987 (with Engl. translation andcommentary) 2H. Kers, Das Priestertum im agyptischen Staat, 1953-1958 3 W. Orro, Priester

und Tempel im hellenistischen Agypten, 1905-1908 4 J. F. Quack, Das Buch vom Tempel — Ein Vorbericht, in: Archiv fiir Religionsgeschichte 2, 2000, 1-20 5S. SauNERON, Les prétres de Egypte ancienne, 1988 6 G. ViTr-

MANN,

Der

demotische

Papyrus

Rylands

IX,

1998. JO.QU.

PRIESTS

Temple developed into a king-like role. The high priest was anointed (Ex 29:7; Lv 8:12), he wore official robes (Ex 28:1-43;

39:1-31)

and a crown

took on the kingly office in Jerusalem again. 1M. G, AMapasi Guzzo, E. LipINskt, s. v. Clergé, DCPP, 114

2J. BERGMANN, H. RINGGREN, W. DOMMERSHAU-

SEN, Ss. v. Rohen, ThWAT 4, 62-79

III. Syr1A/PALESTINE AND OLD TESTAMENT Priests (kbnm) were not part of the rituals of > Ugarit, as the latter were dominated by the king (although this could also refer to priests officiating in his name). We do not have any direct information about the role of priests in the cult of Ugarit. On the basis of administrative documents it is clear that priests were servants of the king (bus mlk) and they were supported by him through allocations of land, natural produce and silver [4. 433f.]. As the prosopography of the administrative documents shows, the priestly office was hereditary. The priests were headed by a chief priest (rb khnm) [4. 433]. Priestesses are not attested in Ugarit. From Emar, a nine-day ritual for the appointment of

(Ex 28:36-38;

39:30f.; Sach 6:11), he sat on a throne (Sach 6:13) and was the mediator between God and man (Lv 17). In the Hasmonaean period (143/2-37 BC), the high priests

3 D. E. FLEMING, The

Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar, 1992

4M.

HELTzeER, The Economy of Ugarit, in: W. G. E. WaTson, G. Wyarr (ed.), Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, 1999, 423-454 5R. Krumeicn, Darstellungen syrischer Priester an den kaiserzeitlichen Tempeln von Niha und Chehim im Libanon, in: MDAI(Dam) 10, 1988, 171-200 6E. Liptnski, The Socio-Economic Condition of the Clergy in the Kingdom of Ugarit, in: M. HELtzer, E. LipiNski (ed.), Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean, 1988, 125-150 7A. Maes, Le costume phénicien des stéles d’?Umm el-‘Amed, in: E. LiprNskt (ed.), Phoenicia and the Bible, 1991, 209-230 8 H. NreEHrR,

Religionen in Israels Umwelt,

1998, 49-51,

133-135,

165-166, 181-182, 189 9R. Stucky, Prétres syriens I, in: Syria 50, 1973, 163-180. H.NI.

the high priestess (et) of the weather god has been

passed down to us, which provides a unique insight into the investiture of a priest during the late Bronze Age in Syria [3]. The priests at the Phoenician temples likewise held

the title kn. Even kings held this title (KAI 13,1-2); the feminine form khnt (‘priestess’) is also attested (KAI 14,15). Greek inscriptions from the Phoenician home-

land indicate that priests were divided into various classes (e.g. seven priestly classes in > Sidon). Duties of priests that went beyond the sacrificial cult cannot be determined on the basis of the Phoenician sources [r1]. In the Aramaic inscriptions (KAI 225,1-2; 226,1; 228 A 23; B 2; 239,33 246,1 and others), we encounter

kmr as a priestly title. As for the Phoenician priests, there is no evidence concerning the work of priests. Depictions of priests are attested from Nairab, Umm al--Amad and > Palmyra [6]. The OT indicates that priests worked as royal officials in the First Temple of Jerusalem (c. 950 to 586 BC); and priests officiated at various municipal sanctuaries. For the Royal Period, there is no evidence of any restriction of the cult to > Jerusalem as at the time of the Second Temple (515 BC to AD 70). The priests’ work consisted of altar service, teaching and the performance of judicial duties. Information about the prerequisites and duties of the priestly office and lifestyle in the period of the Second Temple originates from laws in the Book of Leviticus, which presents some older material. The priests of Jerusalem, whose office was hereditary,

traced their role back to Sad6q, a chief priest from the time of Solomon (roth cent. BC). The later priestly class of the > Sadducees was also named after him [2]. With the discontinuation of the Jewish kingdom in exile, the leadership of the high priest at the Second

IV. HITTITE AREA Priests and priestesses were people in the service of a temple who had a knowledge of the rituals and who were hierarchically organized. Others were only loosely connected with the official temple cults. The temples of the gods were mostly under the control of a priest and the temples of the goddesses were headed by a priestess. The foremost priestly couple in the kingdom of

> Hattusa or of the highest state deities —the > weather god and the sun goddess of Arinna (> Sun god) — were the great king and the great queen with the sacred titles of Tabarna and Tawananna. The priestly class of the sankunni (from Sumerian sanga, ‘priest’) was responsible for directing the great festival rituals that were led by the king or the royal couple; they were the ritual master and mistress. The ritual and sacrificial acts, however, were not performed by the king who was responsible only for individual parts of the ritual, but instead by a sankunni priest. A large number of priestly classes with special duties were actively involved in the festival rituals. The incantation priests mainly performed cathartic rituals (> Purification). In the course of Hittite history, the system of rituals became more and more differentiated in its structure (taking over of the cults of the entire country by the state and their standardization, and growing ritualization of the life of the royal couple). This resulted in the development of a large number of specialists, who had their own rituals and belonged to various ritual schools or traditions. Designations of priests in the texts passed down to us also provide us with the means of understanding the historically or regionally determined tradition.

PRIESTS

Occasionally, priestly offices were also held by royal princes. As the temples of the great gods owned important land, such priestly offices were an important element of power for the royal house. The fact that certain priestly offices could be inherited is demonstrated by the order of Hattusilis II (1265-1240 BC), according to which the priestly title of star of Samuha was said to be reserved solely for his family. Then again, there are signs that priestly offices could also be held for a limited term. — Cult; > Ritual; > Temple 1 O. R. Gurney, Some Aspects of Hittite Religion, 1977,

33-43 2 V. Haas, Geschichte der hethitischen Religion, 1994, 640-875 3H. OrreN, Puduhepa. Eine hethitische Konigin in ihren Textzeugnissen, 1975

Dapp,

844

843

Mestieri,

Professioni

Ittita, 1982.

V. GRAECO-ROMAN B. GREECE

A. GENERAL

4 F. PECCHIOLI-

e Dignita

nell’Anatolia V.H.

C. ROME

A. GENERAL (iegevc/hiereus, doxieoevc/archiereus, with feminine igoeia/ hiéreia; Lat. sacerdos masculine and feminine). The idiosyncrasy of Graeco-Roman priesthoods can be understood through a dual contrast: (1) between the priesthoods of the complex states of the ancient Near East and those of the Graeco-Roman world and (2) between Greek and Roman concepts. (1) The temple staff in the civilizations of the ancient Near East belonged to a large social class that was divided up in many ways and that held both political and economic power. In the Greek poleis (> polis) and in Rome, the state (and not the temple) was responsible for relationships between men and gods. Therefore it had the authority to regulate precisely the competencies and obligations of the priests, who were regarded as servants and mediators in these relationships. (2) Whilst official priests were appointed individually in the Greek world to serve the cult of an individual deity, the priests of the official religion in Rome were with some few exceptions brought together into colleges that had a primarily consultative role, advising the Senate in religious matters.

With the establishment of oligarchy and democracy towards the end of the archaic period, the newer state cults [1] opened up to broader social groups although the géné kept control of the gentilician priestly offices. In Athens from c. 450 BC, access to priestly offices reflects demands for democracy; this was organized in a similar way to the regulations for admission to the state offices: an annual election decided by lot (> Lot), followed by a financial audit after the end of the official year (> evthynai). There, as also in other democratic states, the only qualifications were physical integrity (OAOxdneod/holdkléros) and familial descent on both sides from citizens of the polis, as well as occasionally (in the case of female priestly offices) virginity (e.g. Paus. 2,33,2; 8,47,3). The social prerequisites and financial conditions in oligarchical states are mostly unknown. Priests were paid a small salary and they received both a set share of the sacrificial meat (hierdsyna, géré, theomoria) and votive gifts (trapezomata) and honours such as a particular seat in the theatre (> prohedria), a crown (sometimes golden) and a special robe (+ Ceremonial dress). Their main duties were to perform sacrifices (regarding Greek hiereus cf. hiereuein, ‘to sacrifice, to slaughter’) including prayers (> Sacrifice III. B.), and to supervise the temple complexes and temple property (PI. Leg. 6,759a 1-760a 5). In most cases a priestly office could be held simultaneously with a public political office, cf. e.g. > Callias [4] (Plut. Aristeides 5, 321de). From c. 250 BC, there is no longer evidence of many priestly offices from the earlier period; sale of the office superseded selection by lot, and often the buyer was promised an exemption from = liturgies and taxation (— atéleia), whilst life-long practice of the office replaced annual incumbency. Just as democracy degenerated into a matter of form in Hellenism, so public priestly rank tended to become a symbol of the sociopolitical power of the leading families. In late Hellenism (3rd/2nd cents. BC), the public priesthood both in Greece and in the states resulting from the former empire of Alexander came closer to the euergetic model of state offices (> Euergetism; e.g. OGIS 533, Ancyra; [2. 107-113]).

ready existed in the Mycenaean period, but in view of other parallels (also of a cultic nature) with the ancient Near Eastern civilizations, it is unlikely. In the period

In all periods, also particularly in literary texts, hiereus/ hiéreia could be used to describe both common people, mostly > métoikoi (resident immigrants) who held a cult or sacred role outside the state cult and holy officials of foreign (high) cultures (e.g. Hdt. 2,2,5; Plut. De Is. et Os. 7,353d; Porph. De abstinentia 4,12,3;

after the minor rulers (> basilevis B.-C.) were deprived

ay)

B. GREECE It is not known whether the later Greek model al-

of their rights, the religious authority of each polis was with the > drchontes [1] and the aristocratic Council of Elders; important priestly offices were held exclusively by the noble families (yévn/géné). Homer’s priest of Apollo, Chryses (cf. - Chryseis), is paradigmatic for the responsibility for an individual deity and the close relationship between priest and god (Hom. Il. 1,8—52; 2nd half of the 8th cent. BC).

C. ROME The Roman priestly colleges (cf. pontifices, > augures, — (quin)decemviri sacris faciundis, — fetiales, > septemviri

epulonum,

~ Salii,

> Arvales

fratres,

Vestales/—> Vestals), many of which, according to annalistic tradition, were said to have been established in the first years after the foundation of Rome, primarily by King > Numa

(Liv. 1,20; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2,67-

845

846

73), represented the sacred sphere as opposed to the domains of secular power. The separation of the spheres is evident from the rule that the > rex sacrorum was not allowed to hold any state offices, and from the taboos that surrounded the person of the flamen Dialis [3]. Apart from the > flamines minores, these offices were all initially accessible exclusively to the Patricians (> patricit), a monopoly that was broken by the lex Ogulnia (300 BC) that admitted Plebeians to the pontificate and augurate (Liv. 10,6,1-9,2). Shortly after-

wards, the position of pontifex maximus was awarded through a limited public election. The lex Domitia of 104 BC ended the usual process of co-optation (> cooptatio) by extending the same election method to the most important colleges (Suet. Nero 2,1). In the rst

cent. BC, the respective number was increased by Cornelius [I 90] Sulla, Caesar and Augustus. The great respect for the priestly colleges was justified by the importance of the duties, at least of the pontifices, augures and X(V)viri sacris faciundis, for the social and political life of Rome. With the beginning of the Principate, the rule originating from the time of the Middle Republic, preventing any accumulation of priestly offices in favour of the emperor, was broken, initially by > Augustus and other members of the imperial family. After Augustus’ installation as pontifex maximus (R. gest. div. Aug. 5,20-6,6; 12 BC), the pontifical college gained in importance. Nomination for a priestly office, the number of which continuously increased through the introduction of the flamines divorum (priests of the deceased emperors; > Ruler cult), was an important aspect of imperial patronage. In the 4th cent. AD, the colleges of priests played a particular role in the socalled ‘pagan revival’ of the highest Roman nobility against Gratian’s and Theodosius’ measures in favour of the Christianization of the western empire [4] (> Christianity D.). For other aspects of cult office bearers in Rome, see — sacerdos and > vates.

Because coloniae and municipia copied the organization of the municipal Roman priestly colleges (cf. + lex Irnitana) on a small scale, they became the norm, both in the cities of the Latin-speaking western part of the empire and in the coloniae in the east. In addition, the Roman concept and social function of the priestly offices played an important part in the transformation of indigenous religious ideas and role models, particularly through the spread of the cult of the emperor. This change was part of a general process of re-organization of the societies in the Roman provinces (~ Romanization). — Mantis;

+ Prophets;

— Religion;

-> Sacerdos;

— Vates 1S. B. ALESHIRE, Towards a Definition of State-cult for Ancient Athens, in: R. HAce (ed.), Ancient Greek Cult Practice, 1994, 9-16 2S. MircHett, Anatolia, vol. 1, 1993 3J.SCHEID, Le prétre et le magistrat, in: C. NicoLET (ed.), Des ordres a Rome, 1984 4H. Biocn, The

Pagan Revival in the West at the End of the Fourth Century, in: A. MomiG.tano (ed.), Paganism and Christianity

in the Fourth Century, 1963, 193-218.

PRIESTS

C. SourviNnou-INwoob, Further Aspects of Polis Religion, in: R. BuxTon (ed.), Oxford Readings in Greek Religion, 2000, 38-55; R. Parker, Athenian Religion, 1996;

M. Bearp,J.Nortu (ed.), Pagan Priests, 1990; T. DERKS, Gods, Temples and Ritual Practices, 1998; D. LADAGE, Stadtische Priester- und Kultamter im lateinischen Westen des Imperium Romanum

zur Kaiserzeit, thesis, Cologne

1971; J. ScuErp, Les prétres officiels sous les empereurs julio-claudiens, in: ANRW II 16.1, 1978, 610-654; Id., Romulus et ses fréres, 1990; Id., Aspects religieux de la municipalisation, in: M. Donpin-Payre (ed.), Cités, municipes, colonies, 1999, 381-423. RG:

VI. CHRISTIAN Although Christ is called high priest in the NT (Hebr 2:17; 3:1 and elsewhere) and the idea of a priesthood of all believers (which, however, was not very influential in antiquity) appears in 1 Petr 2:4-10; Acts 1:6; 5:10, Christian office bearers were not designated as priests (iegeve/hiereus, Lat. sacerdos) until the late 2nd cent. This originated probably in order to delineate them from the OT Jewish priesthood, which was regarded as outdated, and the pagan cult priests. With the increasing understanding of the Eucharist as a (bloodless) sacrifice, those in charge of its celebration, especially the bishop (> episkopos [2]) and less frequently the presbyters, could be called priests from the 3rd cent. onwards — often, to distinguish them from the laymen. With the increasing importance of the liturgy in the notion of the priestly office, the office of bishop and later also the office of presbyter gained in significance without continuously dominating clerical theology. This development often took place together with an explicit reassociation with the OT institution of priests and partly also with reference to the high priesthood of Christ. Sacerdos as the titular description of the bishop is only attested in Ambrosius. Until the 6th cent., sacerdos or hiereus mostly referred to the bishop, after that primarily to the presbyter, from whom the bishop (sometimes also the metropolitan and patriarch, except for Africa) as the high priest was distinguished in the sense of hierarchical differentiation. The background to this was probably the increasingly independent leadership of the celebration of the Eucharist by presbyters who were in charge of pastoral care for their own districts in major cities and in the countryside. Aside from church office bearers, however, the emperor — and this is attested from > Eusebius [7] of Caesarea onwards — could also be acclaimed priest or high priest without being allocated any concrete ranking in the official Church hierarchy. The interpretation of this fact is debated and difficult: in Eusebius, it can be a matter of regarding the emperor as a reflection of the heavenly high priest, Christ (Eus. De laudibus Constantini 2,5; 3,1). It is also possible that the Melchisedek typology (cf. Ps 110:4; Hebr 5:6) is applied to the emperor. OT or pagan-inspired ideas of the priestly kingdom of the emperor could have led to the view that the emperor as a priest was the guardian of the faith and had the authority to intervene in the internal affairs of

847

848

the Church, for instance through the calling of synods. However, there was great resistance to this, particularly in the west (Gelasius I).

endos, and finally proconsul of Africa probably in AD

PRIESTS

P. F. BRADSHAW, s. v. Priester/Priestertum III/1., TRE 27,

1997, 414-421 (Lit.); K. M. GrrarbeET, Das christliche Priestertum Konstantins des Groen, in: Chiron 10, 1980, 569-572; F.-L. HossFELD, G. SCHOLLGEN, s. v. Hoherpriester, RAC

16, 1994, 4-58 (literature); B. KOTTING,

Die Aufnahme des Begriffs ‘Hiereus’ in den christlichen Sprachgebrauch, in: Ecclesia peregrinans 1, 1988, 356364; J. WALDRAM, Van presbyter tot priester, in: W. BEUKEN (ed.), Proef en toets, 1977, 144-165. G.SCH.

Prifernius [1] T. P. Paetus Cos. suff. AD 96. P. [3] and [4] bear his name. PIR2 P 934. [2] A. Pomponius Augurinus T. P. Paetus. Knight who

served as a tribunus militum legionis X Fretensis, then as a praefectus cohortis I milliariae and finally as a praefectus alae II Flaviae; in this capacity he took part in the first Dacian War, after which he was honoured by + Traianus [1]. Procurator of the province of Achaia; procurator of the > Idios Logos in Egypt c. AD 105/6. The family connection with P. [1] is uncertain. PIR* P

160/1. PIR* P 939.

W.E.

Prima Porta. Late Antique designation of a station on the via Flaminia — the place name can be found on a brick arch (probably an aqueduct, 4th cent. AD) where, at the 9th milestone north of Rome near > Saxa Rubra at the junction of the via Tiberina and a road to > Veii branching from the via Flaminia, the remains of a compitum (+ compitalia) are located. There, in the vicinity of a laurel grove where white chickens were kept for religious reasons and that served as the source for the branch for the triumphator (> Triumph) from the time of Augustus, stood the villa ad Gallinas albas of Livia [2] (Plin. HN 15,13 6f.; Suet. Galba 1; Cass. Dio 48,52,3f.), decorated with mosaics and frescoes and surrounded with gardens and baths. The famous armoured statue of > Augustus [1] is said to derive from the triclinium of this villa (Rom, VM). C. Cacti, G. MEssIngEo, La villa di Livia a P. P., 1984; G. MessINnEO, La torre di P. P., in: Archeologia Laziale 8, 1987, 130-134; A. Kinng, P. LrirJENSTOLPE, Where to

Put Augustus? A Note on the Placement of the P. P. Statue, in: AJPh 121, 2000, 121-128.

M.M.MO.

935. [3] T.P. Paetus Memmius

Apollinaris. Knight from

Reate, connected to P. [1], though it can hardly be a

matter of a complete adoption as he did not achieve senatorial rank. After the > tres militiae, during which he was awarded the > dona militaria by Trajan, he commenced upon a career as a procurator: procurator provinciae Siciliae, procurator provinciae Lusitaniae,

procurator vicesimae hereditatium in Rome, procurator provinciae Thraciae (before AD 110), procurator provinciae Norici (CIL IX 4753 = ILS 1350). PIR* P

936. [4] T. P. Paetus Rosianus Geminus Laecan[ius Bassus?|

Senator, perhaps adopted by P. [1]. Decemvir stlitibus iudicandis, tribunus militum legionis I Minerviae in Germania inferior before AD 100, in which he was quaestor of the younger Pliny [2] (Plin. Ep. 10,26). He presumably took part as legatus legionis in the Dacian Wars of > Traianus [1]. Pliny lobbied Trajan for official positions in Rome for P. His career probably suffered a setback due to illness for he did not become proconsul of Achaia until c. AD 122, then cos. suff. c. AD 125. He is documented as consular legate of Cappadocia in AD 129 (AE 1976, 675). He ended his career c. AD 1440/1 as proconsul of Africa. His son is P. [5]. PIR* P 938. [5] T. P. Paetus Rosianus Nonius [Agric?]ola C. Labeo [T]et[tius ? Geminus?] Son of P. [4], presumably from Trebula Mutuesca, where he undertook numerous municipal tasks (AE 1972, 153). He completed his senatorial career, attaining the praetorship whilst still under Hadrian, then became a legatus legionis, praetorian governor in Aquitania for Antoninus [1] Pius, cos. suff. in AD 146. Curator alvei Tiberis in Rome, possibly praefectus alimentorum in Italy, consular legate of Dalmatia, consular legate in Aquitania ad census accipi-

Primianus. In 393 he became the successor of > Parmenianus in Carthage and primate of the Donatist (> Donatus [1]) Church (Aug. Contra epistulam Parmeniani 3,2,11); not long after his election he was removed from office by opposing clerics led by Maximianus (Maximianist Schism), but in 394 he was reinstated in office in the Council of Bagae (modern Ksar Baghai in Algeria). Weakened by his brutal actions against the followers of Maximianus, he gained no Church-political traction against the Catholic primate Aurelius at the Conference of Carthage in 411. Nothing is known of his life after 411. A. ManbouzE, Prosopographie de |’Afrique chrétienne (303-533), 1982, s. v. P., 905-913; G. FINAERT, A. C. DE VEER (ed.), Bibliothéque augustinienne, vol. 31: Traités antidonatistes,

1968,

789-790

(Lat.

and

French).

O.WER.

Primicerius. Literally ‘the first’ (primus) on the ‘wax tablet’ (cera) of a roster, primicerius describes the head of an office (offictum) or section in military and civil Roman departments (-> Chancellery). There were primicerii, for example, for the domestici et protectores (> domesticus), the duces (+ dux), the scholae and fab-

ricae of the > magister officiorum, among the offices at + court [C], and in the central administration and the schola notariorum. The rank of a primicerius depended on his activities. The primicerius sacri cubiculi, who was subordinate to the > praepositus sacri cubiculi, was highly respected. Primicerii, however, are also recorded in the officia of the > praefectus praetorio and the + praefectus urbi and for the collegia. In the Christian Church, primicerii (esp. primicerii notariorum) are

recorded from the 6th cent. AD on.

849

850

PRINCELY GRAVES, PRINCELY SEATS

R. DELMairg, Les institutions du Bas-Empire romain de Constantin a Justinien, vol. 1, 1995. K.G.-A.

oned in 1812 during the Mamluk Wars. P. was the most significant Meroitic settlement in Lower Nubia. In 23 BC, it was conquered by Petronius (Str. 17,53f.; Plin.

Primipilus. In the Republican Period a centurio primi pili, later described as primipilus or primus pilus, was the highest ranking — centurio in a Roman legion. He was in command of the outmost > manipulus of the triarit or pilani on the right flank. Normally he was a member of the general’s consilium and like other centuriones had served several years as a soldier. As legions were originally recruited year by year, a p. served only for one year and was then a simple centurio again; a p. could hold the position several times, however. In 171 BC Spurius Ligustinus reports that during his military career he had been a p. four times in a few years (Liv.

HN 6,35); there are Roman buildings dating from this

42,3411). In the army during the Principate a p. remained the highest ranking centurio of a legion; he was in command of the first > centuria of the five centuriae of the first > cohors, whose centuriones were the primi ordines. A p. probably held this position for a year and as a rule attained the status of an eques Romanus (> Equites Romani) immediately afterwards, and related to this

was the chance of a promotion to praefectus castrorum or to > tribunus in the > urbanae cohortes. C. Gavius [II 9] Silvanus, for example, was the highest ranking centurio of the legio VIII Augusta and then tribunus of the — vigiles,

of the urbanae

cohortes

and

of the

— praetorians (ILS 2701). Subsequently appointment to > procurator was possible (ILS 1339), sometimes also after a second period in office as p. (primipilus bis: ILS 1326; 1356; 1385; iterum: ILS 1339; 1349). A p. could also take command of a unit expressly formed for special duties. Thus C. Velius Rufus was sent on a diplomatic mission to the Parthians, when presumably he was the highest ranking centurio of the legio XII Fulminata; he was then appointed prefect and in Domitianus’s [x] German War in 83 he led divisions drawn from nine legions (ILS 9200). Primipili were trustworthy men of good education and with administrative abilities; before their promotion they had served in a legion or, more likely, in the cohortes praetoriae; often they had military decorations (ILS 1385; 2701). On the basis of their high pay and their good opportunities for advancement they were loyal to the political system and the ~ Princeps, whose favour their promotion depended on. — Legio 1B. Dosson, Die Primipilares. Entwicklung und Bedeutung, Laufbahnen und Persénlichkeiten eines romischen Offiziersranges, 1978. J.CA.

Primis (modern Qasr Ibrim; Latin Primis, Prima; Greek Moju(v)ic/Moipc/Prém(n)is/Primis, Coptic/Old Nubian Tow, Meroitic Pedeme), 235 km south of Aswan on the east bank of the Nile. Fortified settlement (military garrison), which originated probably from the time of the New Kingdom. It was destroyed and aband-

period. Two years later, P. was Meroitic again. It was also a strategically important location in the Christian period and was only conquered and Islamicized by Sams al-Daula in 1172. Hundreds of texts in Coptic, Greek, Latin, Meroitic, Old Nubian and Arabic have been found in P. In addition, textiles (examples from 250 BC through to AD 1812) and objects of organic materials (leather, paper, parchment, papyrus, wood, bast), e.g. shoes, sandals and basket-wares, have been excellently preserved because of the climate. The Temple of > Amun dates to the period of Taharka (689-663 BC) and may have had predecessors: blocks from the period of Amenophis I (1525-1504), Amenophis II (1428-1402), Thutmosis I (1504-1492), Thutmosis III (1479-1458), Hatshepsut (1479-1425) and Ramses III (1183-1152) have been recovered. During the Christian period, the temple was converted into a church. A temple of the late Meroitic period remained unfinished. There are also rock tombs of viceroys of Kush, Thutmosis III, Amenophis II and Ramses II (1279-1213) in P., as well as a Meroitic cemetery and graves of the ‘X-Group type’ (burials from the 4th—6th cents. AD). + Nubia K.-H. Priese, Orte des mittleren Niltals in der Uberlieferung bis zum Ende des christlichen Mittelalters, in: Meroitica 7, 1984, 484-497; R. A. CaMINOS, s. v. Qasr Ibrim, LA 5, 1984, 43-45; Ongoing publication: Qasr Ibrim (Egypt Exploration Society — Excavation Memoirs, London, since 1982). ALLO.

Princely graves, princely seats A. GENERAL POINTS B. BRONZE AGE C. IRON AGE D. IMPERIAL PERIOD TO THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES

A. GENERAL POINTS In most periods of ancient and early European history- as also in other ancient cultures (e.g. Mycenae, Anatolia, Etruria) — some burials can be identified as standing out particularly from the mass of ‘normal graves’, and these are mainly described as ‘princely graves’ (PT) [5; 14; 22]. Right through to the early Middle Ages, there is no direct information available about the actual status of these dead, so that PG is only a useful label. Accordingly, other descriptions are also used such as ‘noble’s’, ‘chieftain’s’, ‘royal’, ‘aristocratic’, ‘rich’, ‘elite’, ‘ruler’s’, ‘priestly grave’, etc. For some areas, there are — aside from the graves of men — also corresponding burials of women. The criteria for such burials are by no means uniform for all periods of time; these are primarily the monumentality (mounds) and especially the position of the graves, the expense of the entombment (chamber building), the ‘richness’ of the funerary gifts and the

PRINCELY

GRAVES,

PRINCELY

852

SEATS

Dz ur e

@Diirnberg te

Princely graves and princely seats in Central Europe (late Hallstatt and early La Téne periods) and their trade connections with the Mediterranean world 6th - 4th cents. BC A

‘Princely seat’

~

@ = Hallstatt period princely grave (6th— mid 5th cents. BC)

0

Pass 200

500

1000

200 3

+

Oo

La Téne period princely grave (mid 5th — 4th cents. BC)

Find spot of black- figure or red- figure Greek pottery

FS

{ Altitude in meters

100

200

fitting out of the deceased with expensive materials

(> copper, > tin, > gold, > salt, etc.) or a favourable

(precious metals, > amber, etc.), lavish work (bronze

strategic position play a large part in the development as economic, power and also cultural centres with probably complex functions.

vessels or similar), imported or luxury goods, prestige items (ceremonial devices, wagons, boats, etc.) and also the special treatment of the deceased (cremation, position of the body, > sarcophagus, etc.) as well as traces of special ritual acts (> sacrifice of animals, food etc.) in and around the grave. Depending on the status of scholarship, these criteria are however only partly determined, In certain periods and cultural areas, PG appear more commonly, whilst in others they are absent to a large extent. Before the beginning of the Metal Ages, they do not play a part. To the PG, ‘princely seats’ (PS) can also sometimes be allocated that are distinguished, in comparison with ‘normal’ settlements, by similar criteria (monumentality, special position and building method, conspicuous size and rich finds, imports, etc.) [22. 220-232] and for which, too, various descriptions are used (e.g. ‘aristocratic seat’, ‘chieftain’s seat’, ‘power centre’). The actual reasons for the development of the PS are to a large extent unknown and were certainly many and varied;

undoubtedly

e.g. access

to

+ raw

materials

B. BRONZE AGE In the Bronze Age, PG are relatively common; they are often connected with the emergence of metal work. For the early Bronze Age (end of the 3rd to the mid— 2nd millennium BC), PG are worthy of mention for central Germany (Leubingen, Helmsdorf among others), south-west England (Wessex culture) and Brittany [8; 9; r1. 85-90, 435-492]. As monumental mounds containing chambers, gold grave goods, splendid items, etc., they stand out from the relative uniformity of the widespread early Bronze Age flat-grave cemeteries. Connections with copper, tin or gold deposits (Cornwall, Erzgebirge/Ore Mountains) or with salt mining (central Germany) are being evaluated [11. 85-90]. Settlements belonging to these (PS) are unknown. In the Middle Bronze Age (15th-13th cents. BC), PG do not play a special part. Not until almost the end of the Bronze Age (Urnfield and neighbouring cultures, r2th-8th cents. BC) — albeit in another form (simpler

853

854

and containing more cultural or votive elements) — do they reappear more commonly. The descriptions also take account of their differing nature: e.g. the ‘chieftain’s grave’ of Hagenau near Regensburg, fitted out prominently with weapons, the ‘priest’s grave’ of Acholzhausen (Franconia) with a mobile miniature ves-

especially Roman bronze tableware, — terra sigillata, > glass from the ‘Liibsow Group’ that are spread out from Scandinavia to central Germany in ‘Free Germania’ [7]. They are regarded as burials of Germanic tribal princes or members of the nobility, who were shaped by intensive contacts with the Roman world and its lifestyle. In the later Imperial period (1st half to the mid—3rd cents. AD), PG are represented in two regional groups in central Germany (‘Hassleben/Leuna Group’) and southern Scandinavia [1; 23], which demonstrate similar characteristics to those from the older Imperial period and are also interpreted in a similar manner. In the subsequent centuries, initially in the period of the peoples’ migrations, graves richly furnished with gold grave goods (jewellery, decorated weapons, horse harnesses) are to be found over almost the whole of Europe, which are clearly indicative of the influence of mounted nomads (Huns, etc.) [2; 21]. The Merovingian period brings with it, in the grave of > Childeric (d. AD 481/z), the first burial historically identifiable as a PG or royal grave. Numerous comparable graves are known from Transylvania (Apahida) to England (> Sutton Hoo), although those buried cannot be identified. From the vast regions of the ‘row-grave culture’, graves with special fittings, layout and badges of rank (e.g. gold-handled spathas) stand out repeatedly, with their more precise status a matter of debate. The advance of Christianity brought with it a stronger connection between the PG and early church buildings [2;

sel, numerous

‘aristocratic graves’ of the — Urnfield

Culture with lavish stone chamber construction and relatively rich votive gifts or the ‘royal grave’ of Seddin (Brandenburg), with a unique grave chamber and rich bronze tableware [11. 437-438; 12; 18; 19; 24]. Here too there is a lack of PS connected with this. C. IRON AGE In the Iron Age (end of the 8th—rst cents. BC), PG

and PS appear for the first time as interrelated phenomena [3; 6; 10]. Incontrast to the beginning of the Bronze Age, neither the start of iron technology (beginning already in the Bronze Age) nor intensive salt mining of the older > Hallstatt Culture (end of the 8th-end of the 7th cent. BC) brought about the development of PG and PS that only appear in isolated cases during this period. Only in the ‘Celtic’ Late Hallstatt and Early La Téne periods (6th—5th/4th cents. BC) was there a network of typical PG and PS from eastern France to Switzerland and to south-west Germany (see map). The best known

are Mt. Lassois with the grave of Vix (Burgundy), the Heuneburg near Sigmaringen, the grave of > Hochdorf near Stuttgart, > Glauberg near Biidingen (Hessen) and ~ Waldalgesheim near Bingen on the Rhine [4; 6; ro]. Here all the essential characteristics of PG and PS are attestable in relation to the tomb layout, votive gifts and settlement structures. Close contact with the Mediterranean world is demonstrated on the one hand in the graves by Greek > pottery (among others Attic blackfigured and red-figured amphoras), Etruscan-Greek bronze tableware as well as by finds of > corals and + ivory (cf. > Etruscan archaeology with map regarding trade), and on the other hand through indications of symposia-like funeral ceremonies, the Graeco-Italian method of construction (e.g. mud-brick walls) or the city-like structures of the PS [6; 15]. A woman (‘princess’) was buried at least in the grave of Vix. In the eastern region of the early Celtic world, there is a noticeable decrease in PG and PS; worthy of emphasis here is above al! the > Diirrnberg [13] which was associated with salt mining. In the course of the later Iron Age > La Téne Culture, the number of PG shows a noticeable decline. There are only isolated examples from the Middle and Late La Téne periods (3rd-1st cents. BC), especially in the territory of the > Treveri [16]. D. IMPERIAL PERIOD TO THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES

In the Roman Imperial period (1st-4th cents. AD), PG were likewise distributed in varying ways. To the early Imperial period (1st-2nd cents. AD) date the inhumation burials (men and women) with rich votive gifts,

PRINCELY GRAVES, PRINCELY SEATS

1178 PASI|e

Whilst PG of such kind can be demonstrated right through to the Middle Ages in vast parts of Europe (Vikings, Magyars, — Slavs etc.), PS are hardly known. ~— Cult; — Funerary ~ Aristocracy; + Commerce; architecture; > Navigation;

~» Settlements; Chariot

> Religion; > Resources;

> Shipbuilding;

— Traffic; + Wagon,

BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1M. Becxer, Die rémischen Fundstiicke aus dem germanischen ‘Fiirstengrab’ der spatr6mischen Kaiserzeit bei Gommern, Landkreis Burg, in: Germania 71, 1993, 405-417. 2H. W. Boume, Adelsgraber im Frankenreich, in: JRGZ 40, 1993 (1995), 397534 3P. Brun, B. CHAuME (ed.), Vix et les epheméres principautés celtiques. Actes du Colloque Chatillon-surSeine, 1997. 4M.K.H. EGGert, Riesentumuli und

Sozialorganisation: Vergleichende Betrachtungen zu den sogenannten ‘Fiirstenhiigeln’ der spaten Hallstattzeit, in: Archaologisches Korrespondenzblatt 18, 1988, 263-274 5 J. Firp, Fiirstengraber, in: Id. (ed.), Enzyklopadisches Handbuch der Ur- und Friihgeschichte Europas, 1966 6F. Fiscuer, Friihkeltische Fiirstengraber in Mitteleuropa, 1982 7 M. GeBunr, Zur Definition alterkaiserzeitlicher Fiirstengraber vom Lubsow-Typ, in: PrZ 49, 1974,

82-128 8S. GerLorF, The Early Bronze Age Daggers in Great Britain and a Reconsideration of the Wessex Culture, in: Prahistorische Bronzefunde VI,2, 1975 9 P.-R. GioT, J. Brrarp, L. Pape, Protohistoire de la Bretagne, 1979, 59-107. 10 A. HaFener, Die keltischen Fiirstengraber des Mittelrheingebietes, in: R. CORDIE-HACKENBERG et al. (ed.), Hundert Meisterwerke keltischer Kunst,

855

856

1992, 31-61 11J. HERRMANN (ed.), Archaologie in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, 1989 12H.-J.

The aristocratic behavioural code only rarely permitted individuals to be elevated into the circle of the

Hunpt, Ein spatbronzezeitliches Adelsgrab von Behringersdorf, Landkreis Lauf a.d. Pegnitz, in: Jahresberichte

principes (on > Pompeius [I 3] cf. Cic. Manil. 41: “qui

PRINCELY

GRAVES,

PRINCELY

SEATS

der Bayerischen Bodendenkmalpflege 15/16, 1974/5, 42-

57 13 T. Knez, Hallstattzeitliche Fiirstengraber in Dolenjsko (Unterkrain), in: Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 123/4, 1993/4, 105-113 14 G. Kossack, Prunkgraber, in: G. Kossack, G. ULBERT

(ed.), Studien zur vor- und friihgeschichtlichen Archaologie. Festschrift J. Werner vol. 1, 1974, 3-33

15 Luxusgeschirr keltischer Fiirsten — Griechische Keramik ndrdlich der Alpen. Exhibition cat. Wiirzburg, 1995 16 J. METZLER, Clemency et les tombes d’aristocratie en Gaule Belgique, 1991 17H. MULLER-WILLE, KOnigsgrab und K6nigsgrabkirche, in: BRGK 63, 1982 (1983), 349412 18 CH. PESCHECK, Ein reicher Grabfund mit Kesselwagen aus Unterfranken, in: Germania 50, 1972, 29-56

19 P. F. Stary, Das spatbronzezeitliche. Hauptlingsgrab von Hagenau, Kreis Regensburg, in: K. SPINDLER

(ed.),

Vorzeit zwischen Main und Donau, 1980, 46-97 20 F. Stein, Adelsgraber des 8. Jahrhunderts in Deutschland, 1967 21H. STEvER, Frithgeschichtliche Sozialstrukturen in Mitteleuropa, 1982 22 Id. etal.,s.v. Fiirstengraber und Furstensitze, RGA 10, 168-232 23 J. WERNER, Bemerkungen zur Skelettgrabergruppe HafSleben-Leuna, in: H. BAUMANN (ed.), Festschrift W. Schlesinger vol. 1, 1973, 1-30 24H. WiusTEMANN, Zur Sozialstruktur im Seddiner Kulturgebiet, in: Zeitschrift fiir Archaologie 8, 1974, 67—

107. FOR THE Map: F, FISCHER, Frithkeltische Furstengraber in Mitteleuropa, 1982, fig. 2 W. Kimmic, Die griechische Kolonisation im westlichen Mittelmeergebiet und ihre

Wirkung auf die Landschaften des westlichen Mitteleuropa, JRGZ 30, 1983, 5-78, figs. 28 and 29.

V.P.

Princeps (‘the first’) indicates in Latin the primacy of an individual as recognized by (aristocratic) society. Gen-

erally, princeps in both singular and plural (principes) describes the leading men in any — even a non-Roman — state, the members of an order or other elites. I. ROMAN

REPUBLIC

II. INSTITUTION

OF THE

PRINCIPATE

I. ROMAN REPUBLIC In the Roman Republic, princeps (civitatis) particularly denoted membership in the group of the most influential and most prominent citizens (Varro apud Serv. Aen. 1,740; Cic. Sest. 97f.). Through their own political and military achievements and those of their family (> gens) in the service of the > res publica, the principes had the greatest authority (> auctoritas) and were held in the highest esteem (dignitas) [1]. Principes can be considered synonymous with > nobiles (Cic. Leg. 3,32) but also with homines novi; M. Porcius > Cato [1], C.> Marius [I 1] and M. Tullius — Cicerowwe-2-s were called principes. Chiefly consuls or consulares were considered principes viri. Among those called principes, differences of rank (gradus dignitatis) resulting esp. from various activities on behalf of the state were evident despite the noble principle of equality.

dignitate principibus excellit’; Cic. P. Red. Quir. 16; Cic. P. Red. Sen. 5). Symptomatic for the crisis of the Roman Republic was the striving of powerful principes after a quasi-monarchical position in the state, which should not be designated a — principate as in the case of — Caesar’s sole rulership (Cic. Off. 1,26; Cic. Fam. 6,6,5; cf. Nep. Cato 2,2).

Those who wanted to be considered principes in public (tudicio hominum or iudicio omnium, Cic. Fam. 4,8,2; Cic. Dom. 66) had to conform to social ideals. As a role model to the general public, the princeps acting on behalf of the res publica had to have various qualities and characteristics: bravery (virtus), wisdom (sapientia), dignity (gravitas), decency (honestas), ambition for glory (gloria), rhetorical skill (eloquentia), knowledge of the state order (leges, instituta, iura, mores, Cic. Pis. 30), of social obligation towards a — cliens (fides) and of a proper lifestyle (elegantia) [2; 3]. Wealth, though not part of the ‘catalogue of virtues’, was a precondition. A princeps had to abstain from excessive enrichment (avaritia) and desire for luxury (/uxuria) (but cf. the Senate resolution of 161 BC against luxury at the table of the principes civitatis, Gell. 2,24,2). The ideal profile of the princeps in Cicero’s treatise De re publica is based on the Republican tradition [4]. Il. INSTITUTION OF THE PRINCIPATE After his victory over M. Antonius [I 9] in 31 BC, Octavian (> Augustus [1]), a princeps civitatis, at-

tempted to legitimate the power he had usurped during the Civil War (Nep. Att. 19,2). For this purpose, he first required the recognition of the politically and socially influential senatorial aristocracy on whose experience he depended in the administration of the large empire [53 6]. In turn, the involvement of the ruler in the public legal order promised the senatorial elite safety and retention of its social status (libertas; > Freedom). It boiled down to a ‘compromise between might and right’ (Kompromifs zwischen Macht und Recht) [5. 62]. The > senatus, from Jan. of 27 BC, granted Octavian/ Augustus various official powers, privileges and partial rights by which his unlimited power was cloaked in legal forms. The legal bases of his supreme power were the + imperium proconsulare and the tribunicia potestas (— tribunus) [5]. Political power relationships and one individual’s authority over a huge army and the resulting internal supremacy were thus integrated with Republican legal conventions. The ruler’s might, composed of the greatest variety of powers, was early on blended into a uniform legal authority; was conferred on successors en bloc by the Senate (cf. the lex de imperio Vespasiani, CIL VI 930; [7]); and remained

the constitutive arrangement

be-

tween autocrat and Senate for more than two centuries. By harking back to the aristocratic values of the Republican Period, the military potentate now called him-

857

858

self princeps (R. Gest. div. Aug. 13; 30; 32). He assumed absolute primacy (principatus; — Principate)

The princeps as primus inter pares (‘first among equals’) had to maintain a citizenly sensibility (civilitas). And yet, both his worship as a deity in the empire [18] (cf. > Ruler cult) and his attempt to establish a hereditary dynasty ran counter to the principate as a legal arrangement. However, since the princeps could not bequeath the power bestowed upon him by the Sen-

within the senatorial leadership (+ ordo senatorius), to

which he felt himself to belong. This primacy he viewed as being officially based not upon de facto power relationships (as commander of the army) or his legal titles (> potestas), but upon his > auctoritas (R. Gest. div.

Aug. 34). The sole ruler was, quite simply, the princeps [8], though well-respected men continued to be called principes civitatis or also principes viri. The princeps,

though no > magistratus, could hold offices. Although princeps was used as a title, it did not enter the official title system [9; ro]. From > Tiberius [II 1] on, princeps became associated with honorific superlative predicates (e.g., optimus, Optimus maximusque, tustissimus, indulgentissimus, sacratissimus, providentissimus; very rarely divinus [9; 113; 12]). > Imperator and princeps could also be used as synonyms (Tac. Hist. 1,1,4; 1,56,3; [8]), just as princeps was used into the 8th cent. as a general term for — ‘Kaiser’ (Caesar, Emperor) [13]. Femina princeps denotes female members of the imperial family (Ov. Pont. 3,1,125; Tac. Ann. 2,75,1; see > Imperial family, women of the). A firm Greek equivalent for princeps cannot be found, though fyyeumv (hégemon) is common (e.g., R. Gest. div. Aug. 13; 30; 32; cf. also use of the Greek autokrator6n mégistos for principum maximus in the bilingual edict of Sotidius: SEG 26, 1392; early Tiberian).

The princeps understood his powerful position as statio (Augustus, Epist. fr. 22 MALcovati; SC de Pisone: AE 1996, 885, |. 130: ‘paternae stationis’; cf. Vell. Pat. 2,124,2; Plin. Pan. 86,3 etc.). This term of military derivation was intended to refer to the ruler’s self-imposed obligation to care for the well-being of all in unremitting regard for the position assigned to him by the consensus omnium (Tac. Hist. 1,49) (> pater patriae). He alone was the patron of all inhabitants of the empire and his care was esp. directed at his soldiers (R. Gest. div. Aug. 26; 30: exercitus meus, classis mea),

whose willingness to follow represented the foundation of his power, and the depoliticized > plebs urbana of Rome, the moody audience of imperial self-staging. All expected him to secure their provisioning (e.g., soldier’s pay, grain and money donations, provisions for veterans, > pax [14; 15]). To protect his rule against possible competition and opposition from the circle of the senatorial aristocracy, the princeps sought to deprive noble Roman families of their inherited followings and simultaneously to reduce their opportunities for establishing new social relationships [16]. The welfare policy was financed by the princeps’ enormous wealth (> patrimonium, > fiscus). His generosity (> liberalitas) was thus one of the many virtues (virtutes; see > Virtue) that the princeps —like the Republican princeps — needed to demonstrate. On top of those virtues now, however, were also, chiefly, imperial clemency (~ clementia), dutiful behaviour (+ pietas) and justice (iustitia). However, there was no fixed canon [17].

PRINCEPS

CASTRORUM

ate, he needed to transfer to his presumed successor,

either a biological or an adoptive son, the imperium proconsulare and the tribunicia potestas while he was

still alive. Upon succession, the new princeps had to recognize the Senate as the legal source by pretending to refuse the succession (recusatio imperii). The Senate then confirmed his imperial office. With the gradual waning of the Senate’s power, which had become dispensable in the imperial administration (+ ordo equester), the princeps definitively detached himself from the Augustan imperial ideal in the 3rd cent. though it remained alive until well into Late Antiquity (Cod. lust. 1,14,4; [5; 19]).

— Augustus [1]; > Nobiles; + Principate;

+ Optimates; — Patricii;

> RULER; > Senatus

1 J. BLeIcKEN, Die Verfassung der rémischen Republik, 71995 21d., Die Nobilitat in der ro6mischen Republik, in: Gymnasium 88, 1981, 236-253

3G. THOME, Zentrale

Wertvorstellungen der ROmer, 2000 4 P. Martin, L’idée de royauté a Rome, vol. 2, 1994 5 J. BLEICKEN, Verfassungs- und Sozialgeschichte des romischen Kaiserreichs, vol. 1,31989 6 R. TALBERT, The Senate of Imperial Rome, 1984 7P.A. Brunt, Lex de imperio Vespasiani, in: JRS 67, 1977,95-116 8 L. WIcKERT, Neue Forschungen zum

romischen Principat, in: ANRW

II 1, 1974, 3-76

9R.

FrEI-STOLBA, Inoffizielle Kaisertitulaturen im 1. und 2. Jahrhundert n. Chr., in: MH 26, 1969, 18-39 10D.

Musca, Le denominazioni del principe, 1982, 147-158 11 P. KNetsst, Die Siegestitulatur der romischen Kaiser, 1969 12M. PEacHiIn, Roman Imperial Titulature, 1990 13 P. CLassEN,

Romanum

gubernans

imperium,

in: G.

Wor (ed.), Zum Kaisertum Karls des Grofen, 1972, 4-29 14 J. B. CAMPBELL, The Emperor and the Roman Army, 1984 15 P. VeynE, Le painet le cirque, 1976 16 P. HERRMANN, Der Kaisereid, 1968 17 C.J. CLASSEN, Virtutes imperatoriae, in: Arctos 25, 1991, 17-39

Kaiser und Gott, 1999 romain, 1992.

18 M. CLauss,

19 A. CHASTAGNOL,

Le sénat LL.

Princeps castrorum. PC peregrinorum or princeps per-

egrinorum was the designation of the highest-ranking + centurio in the > frumentarii stationed at Rome in the castra peregrina. Until the late 2nd cent. AD, the PC had no further opportunity for promotion, but from the 3rd cent. on, he could attain the highest offices of state (governor, > praefectus praetorio) (Cass. Dio 78,14;

GID Ville s20nllsi3 72): A. VON DoMAszEwskI, Die Rangordnung des romischen Heeres, *1967.

K.G.-A.

859

860

(Greek medxeutog tig veotntoc/

W. BERINGER, S. v. PI, RE 22, 2296-2311 (witha list of all principes iuventutis); A. VASSILEIOU, Caius ou Lucius

PRINCEPS IUVENTUTIS Princeps iuventutis

prokritos tés neotétos, Cass. Dio 55,9,9; 78,17,13 ‘the

first/most select among the youth’; the English word ‘prince’ derives from it). In the Republic, the term was used in the plural for the patrician equestrians organized in special units (— turma); as only the younger patricians served actively in the > cavalry, the principes iuventutis could be described as the seminarium senatus (‘nursery of the Senate’) (Liv. 42,61,5). Cicero was already applying the term to individuals, already employing the distinction respective of the princeps civitatis (— princeps): ‘alterius (i.e. of Pompeius [I 3]) omnium saeculorum et gentium principis’, ‘alterius (i.e. of Brutus) iam pridem iuventutis, celeriter, ut spero, civitatis’ (Giewhamms nmr. aie

As > Augustus [1] more or less monopolized the use of the term > princeps within the res publica (cf. princeps noster in the SC de Cn. Pisone patre from 20 BC [x]), there was a political logic to transferring the designation PI to his young, presumptive successors. Thus, in 5 and 2 BC, C-. Tulius [II 32] and L. Tulius [II 33] Caesar, grandsons and adoptive sons of Augustus, were acclaimed principes iuventutis by the full company of equites Romani, with the approval of the Senate, after assuming the toga virilis (AE 1984, 30) and having been presented with the insignia of a silver shield and lance (R. Gest. div. Aug. 14,2f.). Augustus, for his part, was princeps senatus, and had received a golden — clipeus virtutis (‘shield of virtue’) in 27 BC. The parallel was no coincidence, so that Ovid (Ars am. 1,194) could say to Gaius Caesar: ‘nunc iuvenum princeps,

deinde future senum’ (‘today first among youths, tomorrow first among old men’, i.e. the senators). Both grandsons of Augustus are shown on gold and silver coins minted at > Lugdunum, presented thus primarily for the army (RIC Iz Augustus nos. 205-212). Almost all Latin inscriptions give both of them the honorific title (occasionally also used in Greek inscriptions in the east for G. and L. Caesar, but not thereafter). The designation PI was subsequently bestowed from time to time on young successors of the emperor, e.g.,

Caesar proclamé p.i. par l’ordre equestre, in: H. WALTER (ed.), Hommages a L. Lérat, 1984, 827-840; F. HuRLET, Les collégues du prince sous Auguste et Tibére, 1997, 120f. W.E.

Princeps senatus see > Senatus Princes’ mirror. The term Prince’s mirror (PM), used to describe a literary genre that provides a code of conduct for rulers, originated in the Middle Ages with Godfrey of Viterbo’s Speculum regum (c. AD 1180); however, guidelines for rulers — whether explicit in direct address or implicit in the form of idealized portraits of kings and noblemen —~ are attested in Egypt and Mesopotamia as early as the 2nd millennium BC. + Hesiod’s ‘Theogony’ not only contains myths that resemble their predecessors in the Near East, but also an encomiastic portrayal of the god/king Zeus, comparable to accounts of royal victories in neighbouring non-Greek cultures. The ‘Works and Days’, in which Hesiod holds up a frugal farmer as a model to his brother, instructs the powerful on how to act justly in economic and social matters (esp. in the fable of the hawk and the nightingale, addressed specifically to kings; Hes. Op. 201-204). Parallels with Homer’s epics and Hesiod’s didactics on the one hand and with Indo-Iranian and Old Irish texts on the other hand reveal common traditional themes, e.g. the need for sincerity and a rhetorical talent; this suggests Indo-European roots for a code of conduct addressed to kings. Just like Old Indian epic poetry, the I/iad illustrates the consequences of leaders’ mistakes through a number of key scenes in which the heroes are given ethical and military advice (in the Iliad, especially by wise characters such as Nestor and Phoenix: 1,254-291; 9,434-6053 11,65 5—803). The Odyssey contains instructions suitable for young aristocrats, such as the account of the education of the — initially reluctant — youth Telemachus to become a hero (B. 1-4, 15-24), Odysseus’ thoughts on

under Vespasian (— Vespasianus), on > Titus [II 2] and

royal ideals (8,166—181; 19,107—122), and the negative

Domitian (~ Domitianus); following his acceptance of

example of the bad rule brought about by the suitors on Ithaca. Although epic poetry cannot simply be called didactic, it nevertheless exercised an extremely influential function in the education of the elite of the Greek poleis and provided material for later texts of a more practical and didactic nature: Philodemus (1st cent. BC) used it for his instructions for rulers (On the Good King According to Homer) and Dio Chrysostom for his four

the tribunicia potestas, Titus relinquished the title. The title was assumed until the late 4th cent. AD, last by Gratian [2] and Valentinian II. Although all of the > equites Romani conferred the title, the PI was linked publicly only with the > iuniores who led them in their + transvectio equitum |2.258-260| — analogously with the legendary > Dioscuri Castor and Pollux. This connection, still found in the reign of Marcus [2] Aurelius (HA Aur. 63), dissolved beginning in the Severan period (early 3rd cent. AD). The PI was associated with the epiclesis nobilissimus beginning with the son of Maximinus [2] Thrax. 1 W. Eck, A. CABALLOS, F. FERNANDEZ, Das Senatus consultum de Cn. Pisone patre, 1996 2S. DEmMouGIN, L’Ordre equestre, 1988.

treatises On Kingship (1st cent. AD). In short: Homeric

poetry formed the basis for the tradition of the PM fora millenium. Archaic and classical Greek literature provides further examples in terms of non-epic poetry and prose: the hexameter poem Xeigwvoc boOryxau (Chelronos hypothékai, ‘Cheiron’s Instructions’), attributed to Hesiod, belongs to a group of didactic texts — now lost — that supposedly contained the wise words of Amphiar-

861

862

aus, Rhadamanthys,

good fortune that while others are working hard all day cutting stones, !am now a principalis and stand around doing nothing’ (PMichigan VIII 465,13; AD 107). The term principales appears in inscriptions of the > praetorians and the > vigiles in Rome (ILS 2078; 2160). Some of the principales performed their duties in the > centuria, for instance the > tesserarius (soldier who was responsible for communicating the password), the optio (responsible for administrative duties), the signifer (bearer of the - ensigns) who in addition administered the - depositum of the soldiers. In the commanding order of the centuria, the optio was in second place and several soldiers of this rank express in inscriptions their expectation that they will be promoted to centurio (‘op[tlionis ad spem ordinis’: ILS 2441; cf. 2442). Other principales served in the headquarters of the legion, for instance as aquilifer (bearer of the eagle of the legion), imaginifer (bearer of the imperial

Pittheus, Sisyphus, Nereus, and other mythical figures. » Pindar (P. 6,21-27) alludes to this Hesiodic poem in his description of Achilles’ education through the centaur Cheiron. Pindar’s epinikia, characterised both by gnomic instructions and models of exemplary conduct from mythology, form one strand

of the tradition;

the writings

attributed

to

+ Theognis are another strand. Aphoristic collections of various historical sages circulated in the late archaic period; in Hesiod’s historical work they served as advis-

ers for kings (see esp. 1.2733); aphorisms by sages in poetic form circulated also (Diog. Laert. 1,13ff). Grounded in this literary tradition and against the background of the Attic paedagogic ideal (> paideia), the Attic orators, philosophers, and historiographers developed ethical standards in texts addressed to historical rulers (Isocrates: To Nicocles, 327 BC; To Evagoras, 368 BC; Plato: Seventh Letter) or in discussions about the ideal form of government (PI. Resp. 5-9). In the > Second Sophistic and its aftermath the genre was revived by > Aristides [3] P. Aelius, > Libanius (Or. 2; 8), > Synesius (De regno), and > Themistius.

In Latin literature philosophical treatises were the preferred form, cf. > Cicero, De officiis (44 BC), > Seneca, De clementia (addressed to Nero, AD 55/56), and Marcus Aurelius, Meditations. These continued to influence later authors and their works; for example, Pliny the Younger (— Plinius [2]; Panegyrici, AD 100), + Sidonius Apollinaris (AD 469), > Augustinus

(De

civitate Dei, AD 413-426); the Via regia by Smaragdus of St. Mihiel (812), De rectoribus christianis by Sedu-

lius Scottus

(855), John of Salisbury’s Policraticus

(1159), Dante’s De monarchia (c. 1310), and Erasmus’

Institutio principis christiani (1516) as well as numerous texts in the vernacular, culminating in Macchiavelli’s Il Principe. — PRINCES’ MIRROR W. Bium, Byzantinische Furstenspiegel, 1981; T. COLE, Pindar’s Feasts or the Music of Power, 1992, 113-131; P.

FRIEDLANDER, Hypothekai, in: Hermes 48, 1913, 558616; P. HADotT, s.v. Fiirstenspiegel, RAC 8, 55 5-632; L. Kurke, Pindar’s Sixth Pythian and the Tradition of Advice Poetry, in: TAPhA 120, 1990, 85-107; R. MartTIN, Hesiod, Odysseus, and the Instruction of Princes, in: TAPhA r14, 1984, 29-48; R. MarTIN, The Seven Sages as Performers of Wisdom, in: C. DOUGHERTY, L. KURKE (ed.), Cultural Poetics on Archaic Greece, 1993, 108-128.

M.RO.

Princes’ tombs, Princes’ seats see — Princely graves, Princely seats

Principales. The principales of the Roman legions were soldiers who performed special duties, for this were exempted from the usual camp service and received one and a half times or double the pay of common soldiers (Veg. Mil. 2,7); the immunes on the other hand received no increased pay. The enhanced standing of a princtpalis is illustrated in a letter by Iulius Appollinaris, a Roman soldier in Egypt: ‘I give thanks to Serapis and

PRINCIPATE

portrait), speculator (scout) or as beneficiarius (soldier

in the administrative service). These positions often led to promotion to centurio (usually after 13-20 years of service), with the structure of such careers remaining unclear. The status of principales in the service of the legion depended on the rank of the officer to whom they were subordinate. The highest positions were those of the cornicularii (worked in the administrative service) and commentarienses (worked on legal judgements) at the headquarters of a provincial governor. They supported the centurio who was responsible for the > praetorium and often had assistants (adiutores) themselves. -» Beneficiarii; > Corniculum; > Legio 1D. J. BREEZE, Pay Grades and Ranks below the Centurionate, in: JRS 61, 1971, 130-135

2Id., The Career

Structure below the Centurionate during the Principate, in: ANRW II 1, 1974, 435-451 31d., The Organization of the Career Structure of the immunes and principales in the Roman Army, in: BJ 174, 1974, 245-292.

J.CA.

Principate (Lat. principatus). Principatus denotes the senior rank of a community’s most influential man by virtue of origin and accomplishments (— princeps) and refers esp. to the form of state, monarchical in character and created by + Augustus [1], which rested upon the traditional legal structures of the Roman Republic [1; 3]. In 27 BC, the de facto power of the military potentate came to be legally established through the Roman Senate (> Senatus) by according the former powers of Republican office and personal authority. As a legal construct, the principate was a compromise between the wielder of power and the senatorial aristocracy, whose social status was recognized and whose participation in the administration of the empire was indispensable. The term ‘Principate’ has also, since MOMMSEN, served the scholarly division of the Roman empire into + periods: it denotes the period from 30 or 27 BC to AD 235 or 284, when it was superseded by Late Antiquity (> Dominatus). The justification for this division

PRINCIPATE

into epochs is not uncontroversial, since the imperial institution is hereby defined solely froma constitutional perspective, and developmental components as well as extra-judicial factors are disregarded [2]. ~» Dominatus; > Princeps 1J. BLerckeNn, Verfassungs- und Sozialgeschichte des romischen Kaiserreichs, vol. 1,31989 2 Id., Prinzipat und Dominat, 1978 (=Id., Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 2, 1998, 817-842) 3J. BERANGER, Recherches sur l’aspect idéologique du principat, 1953, 55-6r. L.d.L.

Principia. The headquarters or commander’s office of a Roman legion camp or fort, located at the heart of the facility as its administrative and religious centre, at the intersection of the two main streets (~ Cardo, > Decu-

manus). The principia consisted of an open courtyard with a sanctuary for the standards, enclosed by the grouping of the legion’s administrative buildings, arsenal and assembly rooms for the officers. — Castra; > Praetorium

A. JOHNSON, Roman Forts of the 1 and 2"¢ Century AD in Britain and the German Provinces, 1983; H. VON PETRIKoviTs, Die Innenbauten rémischer Legionarslager wahrend der Principatszeit, 1975. C.HO,

Principle A. GENERAL REMARKS B. PRESOCRATICS C. PLATO AND ARISTOTLE D.STOICISM E. ROMAN PHILOSOPHY F. BIBLE G. MIDDLE PLATONISM AND NEOPLATONISM

A. GENERAL REMARKS The English word ‘principle’ is derived from the Latin principium, in turn a translation of the Greek coy (arché); in a general sense, this means ‘beginning’, both in the spatial and temporal senses. In the language of Greek science, it can mean ‘foundation’ or ‘source’, i.e. the cause of being and becoming of a thing or, finally, that which allows a thing to be known, e.g. its basic principle. All these meanings were described by > Aristoteles [6], who distinguished between them as follows: 1) that part of a thing from which a > motion originates; 2) the point from which each thing may best come into being; 3) the original part inherent in the thing, from which the thing itself comes into being; 4) the first cause, not inherent in procreation, or the original cause of motion and change (Aristot. Metaph. 5,1,1012b 34-1013a 8). Aristotle himself elsewhere also refers to etSo¢ (eidos: ‘form’ or ‘formal cause’), tAy (hylé: ‘matter’ or ‘material cause’) and otéonotc (stérésis: ‘privation’, Aristot. Ph. 1,7) as principles, sometimes also adding tédog (télos: ‘purpose’ or ‘final cause’). He is thus able to state that ‘in the same number

of ways these are also understood as causes, for all causes are principles’ (Aristot. Metaph. to13a 16-17), although the principle inherent in the thing may be referred to as a otoweta (stoicheia: ‘elements’; > Elements, theories of the), while the external causes may

simply be called ‘causes’.

864

863

In this context, Aristotle describes two further mean-

ings of arche in everyday usage: 5) that by whose will that which moves is moved, and that which changes is changed, such as oligarchies, authorities, monarchies and despotisms (Aristot. Metaph. 5,r1013a 10-14) (this ‘political’ meaning of arché is dual: on the one hand ‘office’, ‘office-holder’ (Latin magistratus), on the

other hand rule’, ‘force’ or ‘power’ itself (Latin imperium, dominatio, principatus); 6) the point of origin for the knowledge of a thing; e.g., bro0éoets (bypotheseis: ‘suppositions’) are the principle of proof (ibid. 5,1,1013a 15-16).

B. PRESOCRATICS The general meaning of ‘principle’ as ‘beginning? is found in Homer (Hom. II. 11,604), Xenophanes (21 B to DK) and Heraclitus (22 B 103 DK). It is assumed by

Parmenides, when he defines being as Gvagyov (dnarchon), i.e. ‘without beginning’ (28 B 8; 27 DK); the

same is true of Melissus (30 B 2 DK). The ‘political’ meaning too is assumed by Homer, calling those dnarchos who are without a ‘leader’ (G4ox6¢; archds) (Hom.

Il. 2,703; 726). The meaning ‘origin of being’ in Greek science probably derived from — Anaximander. Simplicius presents a testimony of Theophrastus: ‘Anaximander... said that the principle and the element (oto.yeiov, stoicheion) of existing things was the in(de)finite (Gmevwov, apeiron), and he was the first to

introduce this name of the principle (arché)’ (Simpl. in Aristot. Ph. 24,13 = Anaximander 12 A 9 DK). Aristotle

represents this thought as follows: ‘Everything is a principle or derived from a principle; but for the limitless (apeiron) there can be no principle, for that would be its limit’ (Aristot. Ph. 3,2,203b 6-7 = Anaximander 12 A 15 DK). Therefore, it is possible that all ‘natural philosophers’, i.e. the > Presocratics predating the Sophists, used the term ‘principle’ in this sense (Aristot. Metaph. 1,3-5,983b 6-987a 28). This may be inferred from Philolaus [2] (44 B 6 DK: ‘the numerals are principles of being and knowledge’; 44 B 13 DK: ‘the brain is the principle of thought’) and Empedocles (B 38 DK: ‘the principles are the first realities from which originate all the things we perceive’). C. PLATO AND ARISTOTLE The sense of ‘principle’ as ‘cause of knowledge’ or ‘condition of proof’, on the other hand, may have been introduced by the Greek mathematicians. Aristotle refers in this sense to ‘principles of the sciences’ (Goya anodextixat, archai apodektikai), dividing them into principles unique to a particular science (e.g. those of arithmetic or geometry), and those which several sci-

ences hold in common (e.g. the mathematical principles; Aristot. An. post. 1,2,71b 16-32). Examples of the former are the assumption of the existence of numerals and geometrical figures, or the definitions of number,

point, line or triangle; an example of the latter would be the statement ‘if even is subtracted from even, the result is even’, It is in this latter sense that Aristotle speaks of

865

866

the ‘principle of contradiction’ (Aristot. Metaph. 4,3,1005b 12) and the ‘principle of the excluded third’

F. BIBLE The term arche found another use with the Greek translation of the OT, the Septuagint, in the 2nd cent. BC; ‘In the beginning (év Geyf/en archéi) God created the heaven and the earth’ (Gn 1,1). > Philo [I 12] of Alexandria understood this not in the chronological sense (i.e. not as ‘at the beginning of time’), ‘because time did not exist before the world, but arose together with it or afterwards’, but in the numerical sense: ‘the first thing was that he created the heaven’ (Philo, De opificio mundi 7,26). Another meaning, likewise not chronological, is found in the famous prologue to the Gospel according to St. John: ‘In the beginning was the > logos’ (év Gey] Hv 6 KOyos, Latin ‘In principio erat verbum’), which probably means that the /6gos existed before any other thing, i.e. for eternity. The Church Fathers, on the other hand, generally interpreted ‘beginning’ in Gn 1,1 as the chronological beginning, their purpose being to exclude the possibility of the eternal existence of the world (cf. Basil. Hexaemeron 1,5,6—

(Aristot. Metaph. 3,2,996b 29).

Both scientific meanings of principle can also be found in > Plato [1], who polemized with the math-

ematicians because they called ‘principles’ what in Plato’s view were not principles, but mere ‘hypotheses’ (bx00Eoetc; hypothéseis). The ‘principle of all things’ for Plato was the Idea of the Good, the original cause

both of being and of knowledge of all other Ideas and hence of all things (PI. Resp. 6,5 11a-b; > Ideas, theory of). He also calls the ‘errant cause’ (mAavpévy

aitia;

planomené aitia) a principle, or the ‘breeding ground of all that comes about’, ‘nurse’, ‘mother’, ‘receptacle’ or ‘space’ (ywea, chéra). For it too, along with ideas and the + démiurgos, contributes to the existence of per-

ceptible reality (Pl. Ti. 48b—5 2b). According to testimony of Aristotle, Plato in his ‘unwritten doctrine’ posited

the elements of numerals as thus of all things), i.e. the Small’, or the indeterminate former as the formal cause

the principles of ideas (and ‘One’ and the ‘Great and duality, understanding the and of the latter as the ma-

terial cause (Aristot. Metaph. 1,6).

D. STOICISM According to Aristotle, the Stoics > Cleanthes [2] and + Chrysippus [2] often used the term arché in the sense of the ‘foundation of being’; for them, there were two principles of all things: the active (God) and the passive (matter; SVF 300; 310; 493). For Chrysippus, it was important to distinguish the principles from the elements (water, air, earth and fire), because they nei-

ther arose nor passed away (while the elements would be destroyed in the moment of the ekpyrosis) and because they — although corporal like the elements — were without form (while the elements adopted a given form: SVF 299; > Elements, theory of the). E. ROMAN PHILOSOPHY With its two meanings from Greek scientific language (‘origin of being’ and ‘source of knowledge’), the term principium enters Latin literature (but not in the general meaning of ‘beginning’). For instance, there is an interesting example of the word’s use in the sense of ‘source of knowledge’ in Lucretius [III 1]: he formulates the Epicurean principle, according to which ‘nothing comes from nothing’: ‘Hence, our starting-point shall be this principle: no thing (res) whatever is generated from nothing by divine influence’ (Lucr. 1,150). An important piece of evidence for principium in the sense of the ‘origin of being’, or more precisely the ‘source of movement’, is found in Cicero: only that which moves of itself and therefore never ceases to move can be for other things the source (foms), i.e. the principle of movement (principium movendi, Cic. Rep. 6,25). ‘Neverthe-

less, a principle can have no origin (principi autem nulla est origo), for all things arise from it; nor can it derive its existence (nasci) from any other source, for that would no longer be a principle which arose from elsewhere.’ (loc. cit.).

PRINCIPLE

6,4). G. MIDDLE PLATONISM AND NEOPLATONISM The meanings of ‘principle’ elaborated by Plato and Aristotle return in the work of ancient Platonists and Peripatetics. The Didaskalikos attributed to > Albinus speaks of ‘theological principles and teachings’; it describes the three ‘first principles of the world’: matter, ideas and God (in the sense of ‘foundations of being’, 8-9). All meanings of the term from Aristotle and from the later Neoplatonist commentaries are found in > Alexander [26] of Aphrodisias. Alexander is also believed to be the author of a Letter on the First Principle of the Whole, According to the Opinion ofAristotle (it survives only in Syrian and Arabic). In spite of dubious authenticity, this work attests to the survival of the Aristotelean concept of ‘first principle’ into all mediaeval Aristotle commentaries. In > Neoplatonism, > Plotinus defined the first principle as the One-Good, the Original Cause of Being and of Becoming and the Origin of knowledge, although the principle itself cannot be known. The principle is not itself athing, but it engenders all things (Plot. Enneades 3,8,9): the principle is the potential of all things (Stvayis tov mavtwv, dynamis ton panton, 3,8,10), it transcends being, life and substance, is an inexhaustible source and is indivisible (loc. cit.); it is unknowable (5,5,12) and beyond essence (ééxewa. tis ovoiac, epékeina tés ousias, 5,4,2), it is inexpressible and without existence (5,3,13), it has not become (5,1,4) and needs nothing to come after it (6,9,6). However, alongside the One, Plotinus also mentions other

‘first principles’: intelligence, being, difference, identity, motion and rest (5,1,4), which appear not merely to be

causes of being, but also of knowledge. Truly original is Augustine’s thought that the principle according to which God created the heaven and the earth is also the word (verbum) for God (Aug. Conf. 11,9,11).

867

868

1, 477-

P.’s name before that of her husband Aquila in four out of a total of six places (Acts 18:2; 18:18; 18:26; Rom 16:3f.; r Cor 16:19; 2 Tim 4:19). In later texts her missionary-apostolic characteristics recede: > Eusebius [7] of Caesarea (Euseb. Hist. eccl. 2,18,9) mentions her only as a victim of the Jews’ expulsion from Rome. For > Iohannes [4] Chrysostomos, P. represents an example of the ‘manly spirit’ (&vdgetov podovnua/andreion phroneéma) of Early Christian women (PG 58,677); but she simply gave private lessons (ibid. 60,664-669). P. and Aquila appear as a model of aChristian marriage in which the woman can fulfil perfectly the leading role regarding faith (ibid. 51,187-208; 62,658). The theory that P. might have written the Epistle to the Hebrews was not debated until the Modern Era. > Christianity [D]; > Mission; > Woman [IV]

PRINCIPLE PHILOSOPHY:

1G. DELLING,s. v. Gexh, ThWB

483 2K.v. Fritz, Die APXAI in der griechischen Mathematik, in: ABG 1, 1955, 13-103 (= K. v. Fritz, Grundprobleme der Geschichte der antiken Wissenschaften,

1971, 335-429) 3B. JoRDAN, Beitrage zu einer Geschichte der philosophischen Terminologie, in: AGPh 24, 1911, 449-481 4A. Lumps, Der Terminus ‘Prinzip’ (arché) von den Vorsokratikern bis auf Aristoteles, in:

ABG 1, 1955, 104-116 5G. Moret, De la notion de principe chez Aristote, in: Archives de Philosophie 23, 1960, 487-511; 24, 1961, 497-516.

Potitics: 6 Buso.t/Swosopa, 313f., 634f., 1os4f. 7 M. RieEDEL, Metaphysik und Metapolitik, 1975, 44-52 8 A. Kamp, Die politische Philosophie des Aristoteles, 1985, 194-198 9 Syll.3, Index s. v. Goxh (magistratus).

E.BE.

Prinkipos Démonésoi

(Mletyxutoc/Prinkipos). (Hesych.

s. v.

AnwovyooU

Anwovnjows

yoadxos)

or

Teuyximiot vioo/Prinkipioi nésoi (Synaxiarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae 158,26 DELEHAYE) is the description by which an archipelago of nine islands in the northern > Propontis is known in the Byzantine literature of Late Antiquity: (from north to south) Prota (modern Kinali ada), Orea (modern Sivri ada), Panormus (later Antigone, modern Burgaz adasi), Pita (modern Kasik adasi), Chalce (modern Heybeli adasi), Plate (modern Yass adasi), P. (modern Biiyiik ada), Terebinthus (modern Sedef adasi), Neandrus (modern Balikgi adasi). The islands were places of punishment (exile) and contemplation (monasteries). At over 6 km? P. is

the biggest of the islands (Plin. HN 5,151: Megale). J. JANIN,

Constantinople

Byzantine,

*1964,

506-512.

E.O. Prinus (Iloivoc; Prinos). 1210 m high pass (8a Teivou xahovpevys: Paus. 8,6,4) leading from Argos [II 1] to + Mantinea over Mount — Artemisium [2], to the

north of the main peak (modern Malevo). E. MEYER, s. v. P., RE 22, 2314f.; PRITCHETT 3, 32-46.

1P. Lampe, Die stadtromischen Christen in den ersten

beiden Jahrhunderten. Untersuchungen zur Sozialgeschichte, 1987, 156-164 2A. VON Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, 41924, 589-611 3 R. Hoppin, Priscilla. Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and Other Essays, 1969 41. RicHTER REIMER, Frauen in der Apostelgeschichte des Lukas. Eine feministisch-theologische Exegese, 1992.

R.A.

[2] Wife of > Diocletianus, who, unlike other empresses of the 3rd cent., was not given the title Augusta and played no public role. After the death of > Maximinus [1] Daia she and her daughter Galeria Valeria were put to death by Licinius [II 4] in 314/315 AD in Thessalonica. B.BL.

Priscianus. The last important Latin > grammarian, b. in Mauretanian Caesarea [1], pupil of Theoctistus, worked as professor of grammar at Constantinople into the first decades of the 6th cent. AD. On his circle, cf.

[s-(8].

E.O.

His main work, the (1) Institutio de arte grammatica (‘Textbook of Grammar’), consists (after an introduc-

Priolas (IlowAac; Pridlas). Local hero of Priola near Heraclea [7], brother of > Bormus and > Mariandynus (Poll. 4,55). Killed in battle; > Heracles [1] takes part in

tory epistle) of 18 books (1-7: De nomine; 8-10: De praepositione; 15: De adverbio et interiectione; 16: De

his funeral games; every year ritual threnodies are held

coniunctione; 17-18: De constructione = ‘syntax’) and

in his honour (Apoll. Rhod. 2,780-785

seems to have been written in several stages, cf. the second introduction at the beginning of book 6. His main sources (cf. 2,1,8ff.; 195,8f.; 3,107,2f. in [z]) were Greek grammarians (Apollonius [11] Dyscolus and his

with schol.).

LK. Prisca [1] (Iletoxe/Prisca, in Acts Tetoxdda/Priskilla; Latin Prisca, Priscilla). In the middle of the rst cent. AD, P.

and her husband > Aquila [4] worked as Christian missionaries. Asa result of the edict of emperor > Claudius [III x] (expulsion of the Jews, Acts 18:2; Suet. Claud. 25), the Jewish-Christian couple left Rome to continue their tent making in Corinth (spreading the Gospel whilst supporting themselves through additional, unrelated work). They encountered > Paulus [II 2] c. AD 50, accompanying him to Ephesus. P.’s importance as a

missionary, apostle, teacher and leader of a house church is emphasized by the NT accounts, which place

verbo; 11: De participio; 12-13 De pronomine; 14: De

son Herodianus [1]; cf. [10. 11,23ff.]), who are in part

translated verbatim; of the Romans, esp. in books 3-10, ~> Flavius [II 14] Caper (c. 200) is drawn upon — most of the quotations of older grammarians and literary authors appear to derive from him (but cf. [23]; on the use of more recent antecedents cf. [r1. 7ff.; 13]). The Institutio, the most comprehensive summary of Latin grammar, distinguishes itself by its incipient comparative linguistic approach, by its consideration of syntax and finally by its plenitude of evidence from older literature (scarcely beyond Juvenal). Its general distribution

869

870

PRISCILLIANUS, PRISCILLIANISM

in the Middle Ages, when the first 16 books were used as P. maior and the last two as P. minor, is demonstrated by the excess of 800 MSS (from the 8th cent.;

SCHMIDT, De Prisciani grammatici Caesariensis carminibus, thesis, Breslau 1907. P.L.S.

[14]-[17]), which according to [18] divide into insular-

Priscianus Lydus (Ilowxtiavos Avddc/Priskiands Lydos). Neoplatonist of the 6th cent. AD, from Lydia. According to Agathias (II 30-31 = Suda, s. v. oéofetc, Vol. 4, p. 192,18-29 ADLER), P. was part of the group of philosophers who (along with + Simplicius and » Damascius) adhered to the old religion and sought refuge at the court of the Persian king + Chosroes [5] I when the emperor Justinian [1] closed the Academy in Athens in 529. It was not long before their hopes in that regard proved to be illusory, and the philosophers returned to the Roman Empire in late 532, having been assured of their safety. No information on P. after his

Carolingian

and Beneventan-Cassinese

traditions, as

well as numerous adaptations and commentaries ([{19]-

[21]). By contrast, (2) the so-called Institutio de nomine, a

precis of books 6-13 of the main work in the form of rules, and (3) the Partitiones, a metrical and grammati-

cal analysis of the first verses of each of the 12 books of the Aeneid in the form of questions and answers [22], have a paedagogical purpose. Four smaller works deal with particular problems; the first three of these (written before 525), combined in a dedication to Symmachus (cos. 485), are: (4) De figuris numerorum, a disser(5) De metris fabularum Terenti, a study of the verse character of Roman dramatic iambs and trochees [23]; (6) Praeexercitamina, a translation of the Progymnds-

return from Persia survives; neither where he lived nor the date of his death is known. Upon the instigation of Chosroes I, P. wrote a work dealing with various scientific questions, of which only a Latin translation still exists: Solutiones eorum de

mata of Hermogenes

[7] ({24]). The fourth of these

quibus dubitavit Chosroes Persarum rex (‘Answers to

works, (7) De accentibus, exists — if authentic — only ina

questions by Chosroes, king of the Persians, and scientific problems’). There is also a paraphrase by P. of a work by ~ Theophrastus (Metaphrasis in Theophrastum). Owing to the striking similarity of the paraphrase to the commentary on Aristotle’s De anima, long believed to be the work of Simplicius, the latter has come to be attributed to P. as well [1]. — Neoplatonism

tation on Roman numerals, coins and numeral words;

late revised edition [25]. There are also two poems, (8) a panegyric on the emperor Anastasius (before 518) and (9) the Periegesis,

an adaptation of the geographical didactic poem of the same name by Dionysius [27] Periegetes, which was already translated by Avienus (Ora maritima). EpiT1ons: 1M. Hertz, GL 2/3, 1855/60 (Nr.1) 2M. PassALACQua, Opuscula 1/2, 1987/1999 (nos. 4, 5, 6, 2,

3)

3A. CHauvot, Procope de Gaza etc., 1986, 52-83,

92-95, 98-107, 116-119, 188-195 (Nr. 8, with transl. and comm.) 4P.v.p. WoEsTIJNE, La Périégése de P., 1953 (Nr. 9).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: 5M. SALAMON, P. und sein Schiilerkreis, in: Philologus 123, 1979, 91-96 6R. KASTER, Guardians of Language, 1988, 346-348 7G. BALLAIRA, P. eisuoi amici, 1989 8 F. Conti Bizzarro, P. fra Oriente e Occidente, in: Filologia antica e moderna 7, 1994, 35-49 9L. Jeep, P., in: Philologus 57, 1908, 12-51; 68, 1909, I-51; 71, 1912, 491-517

ciani studiis Graecis, 1912

10 A. LuscHeRr, De Pris-

11S. JANNACCONE, Due ricer-

che suP., 1957 12 G. PERL, Die Zuverlassigkeit der Buchangaben, in: Philologus 111, 1967, 283-288 13 F. BerTINI, Nonio e Prisciano, in: Studi Noniani 3, 1975, 57-96 14 M. PassaLacqua, I codici di Prisciano, 1978 15G. Batarra, Per il catalogo dei codici di Prisciano, 1982 16 C. JeuDy, Complement, in: Scriptorium 36, 1982, 313325 171d., Nouveau complement, in: Scriptorium 38, 1984, 140-150 18M. DE Nonno, Le citazioni di Pris-

1F. Bossier, C. STEEL, Priscianus Lydus en de ‘In de Anima’ van Pseudo(?)-Simplicius, in: Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 34, 1972, 761-782.

Ep.:

I. Bywater,

in: CAG,

Suppl. Aristotelicum

I.2,

1886.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. STEEL, The Changing Self. A Study on the Soul in Later Neoplatonism: lamblichus, Damascius and Priscianus, 1978.

L.BR.

Priscilla (Motoxdda/Priskilla, Woioxa/Priska). P., together with Montanus and > Maximilla [2], founded ~ Montanism, a Christian revivalist movement, in the 2nd cent. AD (frr. of her oracles in > Tertullianus [2], De resurrectione

11,2 and De exhortatione castitatis

10,5). Tradition confuses her with > Quintilla. C. TreveTT, Montanism. Gender, Authority and the New

Prophecy, 1996, see Index.

M.HE.

ciano, in: RFIC 105, 1977, 385-402 19R. W. Hunt, Collected Papers, 1980, 1-116 20M. Gipson, Mile-

Priscillianus, Priscillianism. Spanish ascetic and Christian theologian of Late Antiquity; term used for

stones in the Study of P., in: Viator 23, 1992, 17-33

the ascetic movement he founded.

21 C. H. KNEEPKENS, The Priscianic Tradition, in: S$. EBBEsEN (ed.), Sprachtheorien in Spatantike und MA, 1995, 239-264 (with bibl.) 22 M. GLUtck, Priscians Partitiones,

PRISCILLIANISM

1967 23H.D. Jocetyn, The Quotations of Republican Drama, in: Antichthon 1967, 60-69 24 M. PassaLacqua, Note su Prisciano traduttore, in: RFIC 104, 1986,

443-448 25M. G.La Conte, La tradizione manoscritta del Liber de accentibus, in: Atti della Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 115, 1981, 109-124 26P. DRATH-

I. LIFE OF PRISCILLIANUS AND HISTORY OF II. Works

III. THEOLOGY

J. LIFE OF PRISCILLIANUS AND HISTORY OF PRISCILLIANISM A great deal of P.’ biography remains unknown and has been distorted by a hostile tradition. P. was probably born prior to AD 350; he is believed to have been

PRISCILLIANUS, PRISCILLIANISM

from a wealthy Spanish family. His training in rhetoric indicates an education befitting his class. In connection with his decision to lead an ascetic life, he chose to be baptized as an adult. From 373 on he was the leader of an ascetic movement that included men and women, clerics and laity; reports point to southern Spain (documentation: [16. 490f.]). P. interpreted Biblical texts within the community, probably also apocryphal writings (see II. below). Among his followers during this period were not only his rhetoric teacher, Helpidius, but also the bishops Instantius and > Salvianus, whose sees were apparently situated in > Lusitania. Probably in 378 or 379, the group was denounced by three other bishops under the leadership of Ithacius of Ossonoba (modern-day Faro) to the responsible metropolite of > Augusta [2] Emerita (Lusitania) and charged with heterodoxy. From the very beginning it was accused of adhering to Gnostic theologoumena of Eastern origin (+ Gnosis: Sulp. Sev. Chronica

872

871

2,46).

These accusations constituted the beginning of an intense escalation of the affair, which ended in 386 with the public execution of P. and his companions in Treves (— Augusta [6] Treverorum); apparently the group’s increasingly critical view of anti-ascetic forces in the Church hierarchy was perceived early on as extremely threatening, in a time of both political [15] and ecclesiastical unrest. One reason for this may be that unlike other ascetic movements in the empire, this group did not simply withdraw to pursue a certain kind of lifestyle, but actively sought to bring that lifestyle to the urban communities. Moreover, it apparently protested against the increasingly common practice of selecting bishops (> episkopos [2]) and other representatives based on their social class. This interpretation is supported by the Canones of the synod of > Caesaraugusta/Saragossa, which had already sentenced the group in absentia in 380 [r1. 450f.], as well as the circumstances under which P. became Bishop of Avila in 381. After an unsuccessful attempt (through personal contacts) to gain the support

of the influential Milanese bishop > Ambrosius, who also leaned towards asceticism, and his Roman

colleague > Damasus, P. was able to use his influence at court to persuade Emperor > Gratianus [2] in 382 to countermand a rescript he had imposed against the Priscillianists two years earlier (Sulp. Sev. Chronica 2,47,6)

at the insistence of Spanish bishops. After the murder of Gratian in 383, P. was convicted at a synod in Bordeaux in 384. He subsequently appealed to the imperial court at Treves and was sentenced to death under the Spanish usurper > Maximus [7]; he confessed under torture to magical and immoral practices. A certain Latronianus, who died with him (Sulp. Sev. Chronica 2,51,3), was

described by Jerome as an outstanding poet (Jer. Vir. ill. T22))

Both Christians (Ambrosius and_ particularly + Martinus [1] of Tours: Sulp. Sev. Dialogi 3,11-13 and Chronica 50,5) and pagan authors (Pacatus, Paneg.

2,29,2f.) regarded such punishment of religious dissent

by Roman state officials as highly problematic. P.’ followers buried him as a > martyr and withdrew from the official Church. The term Priscillianism is misleading, however, since P. was not revered by an organized group or church; all the same, documents from Spanish synods from 400 to 561 and 572 clearly show that his regional influence was felt over a long period of time ([7. 234-239] edited the protocol of an interrogation of Priscillianist bishops at the synod of Toledo in 400). Il. Works Just as in the case of other individuals who were expelled as heretics by the established Church, no writings under the name of P. have been transmitted, although they must have existed: Jerome refers to Opuscula (Vir. ill. 121); Orosius quotes from a letter [3. 153]. Ninety canones which briefly and elegantly summarize the teachings of the apostle Paul and which are illustrated with Biblical passages are attributed to P. in a foreword [3. 109]; codicological and textual factors attest to the accuracy of this attribution. Of particular interest, however, are eleven anonymous and in some cases fragmentary texts contained in a 5th/6thcent. codex now in Wiirzburg (Mp. Th. q3), first attributed to P. by G. ScHEPPs in 1886 and edited in 1889 ({2]; critical: [13]; cf. [7. r1 with 69f.]). The three initial texts are the remaining fragments of exculpatory writ-

ings in which certain charges of heresy are rejected. The other pieces belong to the context of worship services: sermons and an elaborate benedictio (benediction, tract. 11). Apocryphal writings like the letter to Titus, written in poor Latin (CPL 796, according to [12. 204223]), may have come from the environment of the Priscillianist movement; a bibliography of the texts and fragments in question is contained in CPL 790-796c. Ill. THEOLOGY It is difficult to precisely reconstruct the tenets of Priscillianism. There is clear documentation of its ascetic orientation and apparently also of a certain esoteric tendency: ‘Swear and forswear, but do not reveal the secret’ (cited in Aug. De haeresibus 70). The Priscillianists based their beliefs on the Bible, which was inter-

preted by an inspired teacher and avidly studied by his pupils (tract. 2,52; 3,66f.). In addition, they thought highly of apocryphal writings as revelatory texts and probably produced them as well. It is rather unlikely that P. was an adherent of the outspoken anthropological and cosmological dualism attributed to him by his enemies; however, P.’ strict asceticism and pronounced view of conversion imply a certain dichotomy between true and halfhearted

Christians, between God and Satan. The originial treatises reveal a theological autodidact [7. 11] who attached particular importance to ‘the occult and charismatic’ [7]. — Ascetism; > Heresy EDITIONS:

1CPL 785-787

2G. ScHeEpps (ed.), Trac-

tatus, CSEL 18, 1889, 3-106 (cf. J. MARTIN, in: Traditio 31,1975, 317f.) 3 G. ScHEpps (ed.), Canones, CSEL 18, 1889, 109-147.

873

874

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

4M. BaRAHONA SIMOES, Prisciliano e

as tensOes religiosas do século IV (2002) 5 H. Cu. BRENNECKE, s. v. P./Priscillianismus, LMA 7, 1994, 219 6V. Burrus, The making of a heretic (1995) 7H. CHADWICK, P. of Avila, 1976 8J. Diericu, Die Quellen zur

Geschichte Priscillians, 1897 9 D. pe BRuyNer, Fragments retrouves d’apocryphes Priscillianistes, in: Rev. béenédictine 24, 1907, 318-335 10 Id., Etude sur les origines de la Vulgate en Espagne, in: Rev. bénédictine 31, 1914/19, 378-401 11 J. FONTAINE, s. v. P., TRE 27, 1997, 449-454 12 A. von Harnack, Der apokryphe Brief des Paulusschiilers Titus, in: SPrAW, philos.-histor. Klasse 1925, 180-213 (= Id., KS zur Alten Kirche 2, 1980, 696-729)

13 G. Morin, Un traité priscillianiste inédit sur la Trinité, in: Id., Etudes, textes et découvertes. Anecdota Maredso-

lana 2, 1913, 151-205 14 A. OxtvarEs GUILLEM, Prisciliano a trevés del tiempo: historia de los estudios sobre el Priscilianismo (2004)

15 R. VAN Dam, Leadership and

Community in Late Antique Gaul, 1985, 87-114, 126f. 16 B. VOLLMANN, s. v. P., RE Suppl. 14, 1974, 485-559 17Id.,

Studien

zum

Priszillianismus

(= Kirchengesch.

Quellen und Stud. 7), 1965.

C.M.

Priscus Common Roman cognomen (‘venerable’). KaAJANTO, Cognomina, 288.

K.-L.E.

[1] (Ileetoxoc/Preiskos). The 3rd cent. AD PTurner 39 (Plenensis inv. 267), a book catalogue from a private library, presents at line 4 ‘a commentary on epic verses by P.’ [2], who is identified as one of the two Prisci mentioned in Oy. Pont. 4,16,10 (Priscus uter); he may be identical to + Clutorius Priscus, the Roman equestrian and poet mentioned in Tac. Ann. 3,49 and Cass. Dio 57,20,3-4. 1SH710A 2R. Orranto, Antiche liste di libri su papiro, 2000, 73-77 (with bibliogr.). S.FO.

[2] L. P. May be identical to T. Iulius P., the governor of Thrace (AE 1932, 28 = SEG 7,784 [1. 103f. note 4]). In

AD 250 he was proclaimed emperor by his troops in + Philippopolis (modern Plovdiv), which was under siege by the Goths — possibly by arrangement with them — when relief by the emperor Decius [II 1] failed to turn up [2. 111, 162]. In negotiations with the Goths, surrender of the city and simultaneous recognition by them of P. as emperor were agreed, but P. — now declared an enemy of the state (hostis) by the Senate — was killed, probably in the turmoil during surrender of the city (Aur. Vict. Caes. 92,2.; lord. Get. 18,ro1ff.; Dexippus FGrH roo F 26). PIR? P 971 und I 489. 1 A. STEIN, Die Legaten von Moesien, 1940 2 F. HarrMANN, Herrscherwechsel und Reichskrise, 1982. TE.

[3] (Ioicxoc/Priskos). Neoplatonist of the 4th cent. AD, b. probably before AD 305 in Epirus (as a Thesprotian: Lib. Or. 1,123 or as a Molossian: Eunap. VS 7,1,10). P. was a pupil of > Aedesius [1] in Pergamon (Eunap. ibidem 7,1,103 8,1,9) and taught philosophy in Greece (ibidem 7,1,14; 7,4,4,12), more specifically in Athens (Lib. Ep. 760). He was militantly attached to the old religion and an ardent adherent of > theurgy. When

PRISCUS

+> Julian [11] was still Caesar he invited P. to Gaul (Julian. Ep. 13) and later—as Augustus — he also invited him to his court in Constantinople (Eunap. VS 7,4,3—-7). In

AD 362, P. was with Julian in Antioch (Lib. Or. 14,32 and 34; Ep. 760); in AD 363, he accompanied him on the Persian campaign (Julian. Ep. 96; Eunap. ibidem 74,9). P. and > Maximus [5] of Ephesus, who were among the emperor’s personal advisors, were present at his deathbed after he had been fatally wounded (Amm. Marc. 25,3,23; Lib. Or. 18,272). After Julian’s death, P. returned to Antioch (Lib. Ep. 1426). Initially he still enjoyed Jovian’s favour (Eunap. VS 7,4,10), but, under Valens he was arrested with Maximus on suspicion of conspiracy. After his release he was allowed to return to Greece (tbidem 7,4,11-12). He was still teaching there in AD 390 (Lib. Ep. 947). P. probably died in AD 3.95/6 at the age of ninety (Eunap. VS 8,2,11). He and his wife Hippia had several children (Julian. Ep. 13). L.BR. [4] 5th cent. AD Greek historian and rhetor, b. at the latest around AD 420 in Panion in Thrace, died after 472. Probably initially a teacher of rhetoric, then + adsessor of the > comes Maximinus [4], in whose entourage in 449 he took part in an embassy to > Attila, king of the Huns, commissioned by the emperor Theodosius II (fr. 8 FHG 4, 77-91 = fr. 11,2 BLOCKLEY). In 450 he visited Rome (fr. 16 FHG 4, 98f. = fr. 20,3 B.) and in 452/3 he accompanied Maximinus to Arabia and Egypt (frr. 20-22 FHG 4, roof. = frr. 26-28 B.). Around 456 he was adsessor of the > magister officiorum Euphemius (fr. 26 FHG 4, 1o2f. = fr. 33,2 B.). As well as letters and declamations, P. wrote a history of his age in eight volumes, probably entitled Historia Byzantiakeé (Suda, s. v. P.), the fragments of which cover the period from 433/4 to 471. Some fairly large extracts of it have remained extant in the roth-cent. Excerpta de legationibus by Constantinus [1] Porphyrogenetus. They are the most important source for the history of Attila and the Huns. Where the story is based on eyewitness reports it gains great vividness and animation. P.’ clear and unpretentious language with Herodotean turns of phrase (> Herodotus) and many digressions proves him to be a sophist trained in the Atticizing style. His work acted as source for > Cassiodorus (extant only as an extract by > Iordanes; cf. Jord. Get. 178 MGH AA 5, 104), > Euagrius [3] Scholasticus, the Chronicon Paschale and - Theophanes; it was continued in the years after 473 by > Malchus [4]. EpiT1ons: FHG 4, 69-110; 5, 24-26; C. DE Boor (ed.), Excerpta de legationibus, 1903, vol. 1, 121-155; vol. 2, 575-591; R. C. BLockLey (see below), vol. 2, 1983, 222— 400 (with Engl. transl.).

TRANSLATIONS:

E. DoBLHOFER,

Byzantinische Diplo-

maten und ostliche Barbaren, 1955, 11-82.

LITERATURE: B. BALDWN, Priscus of Panium, in: Byzantion 50, 1980, 18-61; R. C. BLockLeEy, The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 1, 1981, 48-70; 113-123; E. V. MALTeEsE, A proposito

dell’opera storica di Prisco di Panion, in: Quaderni di Storia 5, 1979, 297-320; PLRE 2, 906; G. Wirtn, Attila.

Das Hunnenreich und Europa, 1999.

K.P].

875

876

Prison sentence. Neither Greek nor Roman law is familiar with prison sentences as punitive detention in the modern sense (otherwise [1]). As a rule, until the trial the accused remains free (in Rome a kind of pre-trial confinement is permissible for political crimes), a convicted criminal only stays in prison until the execution of the sentence. Also, private detention of a debtor fora creditor, precisely regulated in Rome from the time of the Law of the Twelve Tables onwards, is not to punish but rather to force payment. — Addictus; > Carcer; > Desmoterion

Ancient Orient that were characterized by agricultural production only to a limited extent, as — if deployed in great numbers — they would have been hard to control. Hence their individual status was adapted to that of the rest of the subordinate population. In New Kingdom Egypt, POW were occasionally placed in border fortresses as barracked troops [3]. In

PRISON SENTENCE

1W.

Ers—ENHUTH,

Die

rémische

Gefangnisstrafe,

ANRW I 2, 268ff.

in: W.ED.

Prisoners of war I. ANCIENT ORIENT

II. GREECE

III. ROME

I. ANCIENT ORIENT In the early period (4th-3rd millennia), both in Egypt (sqr-‘bh, ‘those tied up for killing’ [3]) and in Mesopotamia, POW were often killed on the battlefield. Killing — as a ritualized act — or parading POW and plunder before the ruler was ideological in character and hence a theme of pictorial representation (southern Mesopotamia in 3 100 BC: the killing of chained, naked POW in the presence of the ruler [5. 9]; 24th cent: naked male POW — probably immediately after their capture — in stocks [7. 98; 103; 183]; Assyria: 8th— 7th cents.: the impaling of POW [7. fig. 214]); the parading of the POW in front of the ruler [7. fig. 210; 239]; the leading away of captured women and children [7. 223]; Egypt: the killing of a POW by the pharaoh Narmer [8. fig. 238a]). Inscriptions from Mesopotamia speaking of dead enemies in connection with a battle do not always make it clear whether they have fallen in the battle or were killed afterwards as POW; the OT speaks of killing or allowing POW to live in 2 Sam 8:2; 4; their blinding is mentioned in 2 Sam 11:2. POW were considered plunder (> War booty) of the ruler (Sumerian nam.ra.ak terms POW as booty; the Akkadian term for POW in the 18th cent. is asirum, ‘enclosed, confined’; in Assyrian inscriptions POW are mostly subsumed under ‘booty’). Sources do not always strictly distinguish between soldiers and non-combatants taken prisoner. POW were distributed as slaves (chattel slaves) among palace and temple households and to members of the upper classes as rewards (e.g. Hittite Empire 18th cent. [2. 92]; Egyptian New Kingdom [3]; Assyria 2nd half of the 2nd millennium [4. 245]). In 21st-cent. BC Mesopotamia women and children were allocated to temples where, presumably, they worked in the workshops (+ ergastérion). Enslaved POW should be distinguished from indigenous people in bonded labour. POW (probably primarily women) were subject to trade as slaves. Section 32 of Hammurabi’s Code regulates Babylonian PW’s purchase of freedom. Enslaved POW were an option as an appreciable resource for the workforces of those societies of the

the Hittite Empire, for the Assyrians [6. 106] and according to the OT, contingents of military units of POW (e.g. > War chariot troops) were incorporated into armies. The exchange, systematically organized by the Assyrians and the neo-Babylonian ruler -» Nebuchadnezzar in the rst millennium BC, of population groups — mostly members of the upper classes — from conquered regions (deportation; e.g. ‘exile’ of the Judaean upper class) primarily served the purpose of militarily and politically securing these areas. Those deported were not considered slaves, but subjects. Deported craftsmen were employed as specialists in the construction and decoration of Assyrian palaces; the employment of POW is also attested in the OT (2 Sam 12:31). As a rule, data on numbers of POW in texts from Mesopotamia, the Hittite Empire, the OT and Egypt permit quantitative conclusions only with reservations.

— Slavery 1 Chicago Assyrian Dictionary A/2, 1968, 331f., s.v. asirum 21. J. GELB, Prisoners of War in Early Mesopotamia, in: JNES 32, 1973, 70-98 (with comparative

bibl.) 3 W. Hetck, s.v. Kriegsgefangener, LA 3, 786-788 4H. KLENGEL, s.v. Kriegsgefangener, RLA 6, 243-246 5 H. J. LENzEN, Die Tempel der Schicht Archaisch IV in Uruk, in: ZA 49, 1949, I-20 6M. De Oporico, Num-

bers and Quantifications in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, 1995 7PropKgvol.14 8PropKgvol.15. RE.

II. GREECE There existed no umbrella term for POW in Greece;

they were the property of the victor, who could treat them after his own discretion. Accounts of the actions of individual poleis in wars and statements of ancient philosophers testify to this (Pl. Resp. 468a-b; Aristot. Pol. 1255a 6f.). The philsophers, however, criticized the enslavement of Greeks by Greeks (PI. Resp. 469b-c; cf. Aristot. Pol. 125 5a 21-31). There were various possibilities for dealing with POW: killing, enslaving, temporary incarceration and forced labour, expulsion or deportation, recruitment into one’s own army, eman-

cipation after a peace treaty, for ransom or in exchange, or even unconditionally. Along with hatred and thirst for revenge, decisions regarding the treatment of POW may also have been influenced by political and military opportunism, economic interests, the status of the prisoners, efforts to

render the enemy unable to fight, the toughness of the resistance, or rules imposed on signatories to a treaty before and during the battle. According to Ducrey, in approximately 25% of known cases (other than in Homer and tragedy) after an open battle or a successful

877

878

siege at least half of the POW were killed; it was during the Peloponnesian War that there was a large number of mass slaughters (Mytilene: Thuc. 3,50; Plataeae: Thuc.

treaties

3,68; Melos: Thuc. 5,116): after the conquest of a city, men were often executed, whereas women and children

were sold into slavery. A lengthy imprisonment was rare and subject to the condition that the victor could expect economic or political advantage from it. Thus the defeated Athenian army was held under particularly hard conditions in the quarries near Syracuse (Thuc. 7,86,1; 7,87; on the fate of a captured Dem. Or. 57,18).

Athenian

cf.

Expulsions and deportations of the populations of conquered cities occurred throughout Greek history (cf. on Sparta: Xen. Hell. 2,3,6; Philip II: Diod. Sic. 16,3 4,5; Philip V: Pol. 23,10,4-6); Athens often settled > klerouchoi in the territories of subjugated allies (Thuc. 3,50,2). After a victory an army could accept enemy soldiers into its own ranks; this is particularly true of mercenaries, who had no intrinsic ties with the warring parties, and is hence attested primarily for the Hellenistic period. A freeing of POW was normally agreed in negotiations and conducted on the basis of a peace treaty (Thuc. 5,18,7; 5,35,4). If a victor wanted to demonstrate his magnanimity, POW could even be set free without condition: for example, after the conquest of Potidaea (in 356 BC) Philip II enslaved the citizens but granted the Athenians who had taken part in the defence of the city their freedom (Diod. Sic. 16,8,5). + Lytron; > Mercenaries; > Slavery; > War booty 1 P. Ducrey, Le traitement des prisonniers de guerre dans la Gréce antiques des origines a la conquéte romaine, 1968.

LB.

Ill. ROME A. ROMANS

PRISONERS

AS PRISONERS

OF WAR

B. FOREIGN

OF WAR

A. ROMANS AS PRISONERS OF WAR Roman lawyers defined imprisonment in war, or captivitas, as a ‘loss of freedom’ (deminutio capitis maxima); captivitas brought about the loss of civitas Romana (‘Roman citizenship’) and connected rights, such as those of active and passive suffrage during the Republic; at the same time in the civil sphere all rights and legal relationships were nullified (marriage, ownership, the right of peculium castrense, the ability to bequeath and inherit). The legal position of a POW therefore corresponded to that of a dead person (Dig. 49,15,18). In all legal systems of Antiquity, a POW was reduced to the status of a slave and became an object of contempt in general opinion: nothing had less esteem in Rome than a POW (Liv. 22,59). The Roman Republic did not feel in any way obliged towards POW and in particular was not prepared to buy their freedom: the Senate refrained from doing so

after the catastrophe at Cannae in spite of the critical military situation (Liv. 22,59,1). Nevertheless, peace

PRIVATE SPHERE AND PUBLIC SPHERE provided

for the return

of prisoners

(Pol.

1,62,8—9). Rome’s policy in this area was in fact very

clever: while Rome abandoned POW to their fate so that they could not be used to exert pressure, the loss of Roman citizenship still was not final, as the institution of > postliminium shows. A citizen who had been taken prisoner by the enemy could appeal to the ius postliminit (Dig. 49,15,4) if he managed to escape, and was then given his freedom and citizenship back (Dig. 49515553

49515,133

49,15,19).

Someone

who

had

obliged himself by oath to return to the enemy did not fall into this class, as in the case of M. Atilius Regulus. Taken prisoner in North Africa, he travelled to Rome on behalf of the Carthaginians in order to get the Senate to set Carthaginian prisoners free (Cic. Off. 3,99-108). Before that he had bound himself by oath to return to Carthage; hence he was not able to claim to himself the ius postliminii (Dig. 49,15,5). The same applied to a man released by the enemy (deditus): the lawyers Brutus and Scaevola debated whether after fleeing he could reclaim Roman citizenship. Tradition answered this question in the negative (Dig. 49,15,4). Freed POW were often interrogated in order to gain information about the adversary. B. FOREIGN PRISONERS OF WAR Although Rome did not go to war with the primary purpose of enslaving people of foreign nations and supplying the economy of Italy with a workforce, it was customary to capture and enslave the soldiers of enemy armies and the populations of conquered cities. Often the POW were immediately sold in the theatre of war (Cic. Att. 5,20,5), but occasionally POW were made servi publici (Pol. 10,17,9). Enslaved POW arrived in Italy in great numbers, e.g. after the Second Punic War (Liv. 32,26,6). The 2nd cent. BC witnessed downright mass enslavements; Ti. Sempronius Gracchus boasted that under his command in Sardinia 80,000 had been killed or enslaved (177 BC; Liv. 41,28,8), and in Epirus in 167 BC, 150,000 are supposed to have been enslaved

(Liv. 45,3455). > Slavery; > War booty 1M. HerNAnpdeEz-TEJERO, Aproximacion historica al origen del ‘ius postliminii’, in: Gerion 7, 1989, 53-63 2 J. KOLENDO, Les romains prisonniers de guerre des barbares au I* et au II® siécles, in: Index 15, 1987, 227-234

3H.

VoOLKMANN, G. Horsmann, Die Massenversklavungen der Einwohner eroberter Stadte in der hellenistich-romischen Zeit, *1990.

Y.L.B.

Private sphere and public sphere I. GENERAL

IJ. GREECE

III. RoME

IV. PATRON-

AGE

I. GENERAL Private sphere as a term denotes that area of life possessing an individual quality, and contrasts with the public sphere by virtue of its intimate character. While the term derives from the Latin privatim/privatus (‘per-

PRIVATE SPHERE AND PUBLIC SPHERE

879

880

sonal, discrete, private’), the pair of opposites denoting a polarization of two more or less strictly segregated spheres has existed only since the advent of a middleclass conception of standards in the late 18th cent. Be-

and with it for the first time a separation ofthe state and the public sphere from the economic and legal living arrangements of citizens. On representations of the family, cf. > family [IV C]. Clear and intentional separation of the private from the public sphere, however, is found in town planning from the time of > Hippodamus of Miletus. Here, personal-private, political-public and cultic-religious spheres are strictly segregated.

fore that, even events such as a ruler’s toilet visits or

dressing ceremonial could, at least in the context of the royal household, assume a public and representative character. Il. GREECE In ancient Greece, a separation of these spheres, while not completely unknown, was less sharp, its dividing line occupying a different location. The — polis in itself was a public entity of great importance, impacting on every individual citizen more or less permanently, including in domestic life. The life of the > oikos (‘house’) was strictly separated from the operation of this public sphere, however, only insofar as women and children were concerned. Men, on the other hand, acted through almost their entire spectrum of activity more or less in the public sphere; their action and withholding of action were intrinsic components of a collective behaviour, were observantly noticed and measured against the social norms set by the prevailing system. This is particularly evident in the ‘leisure activities’ of wealthy aristocrats, or, in the sth cent. BC, of free citizens: these were activities not to be understood in the sense of hobbies, but as socially necessary actions in the sense of a public demonstration of one’s own status (> Leisure). The architecture of the Greek home (> House) quite clearly shows this ambivalence between the spheres in tangible terms. The ‘private rooms’ were structurally the most separated (e.g. the yuvaixwvitic/> gynaikonitis, ‘women’s chamber’on the upper floor); they were fronted not only by business premises facing the street, but — as in the form of the > andron [4] or the guest room (xen6n) — also by a complex of buildings with an equally extroverted orientation meeting the social concerns of the men. Nor was life in the ‘women’s chamber’ even hidden from the public sphere. Numerous pictorial representations of the 5th and 4th cents. BC (esp. funerary reliefs) reveal — and not infrequently even in the most public arena conceivable (cemeteries) — the most intimate life, thereby formulating in these pictorial excerpts, limited as they were by the demands of the occasion, a completely-conceived, and hence idealized, system of socially accepted patterns of behaviour and norms of ‘private’ conduct. The relationship between the private and public spheres shifted not insignificantly from the 7th to the 3rd cents. BC. While esp. at Athens in the sth cent., virtually all aspects of life were infused with the public sphere, from around 400 BC, coinciding with the loss of democratic

self-conception

(> démokratia),

the nas-

cent need for individualization (luxury objects, portraits) and the development of a previously unseen economic diversification among the family clans living in the polis (development of large pecuniary fortunes), a ‘withdrawal’ into the private sphere can be discerned,

Ill. ROME The relationship between public and private spheres in ancient Rome was at first defined primarily judicially, starting with the laws of the Twelve Tables (— tabulae duodecim). The tus privatum here objective-

ly formulated the norms by which the rights and obligations of citizens were regulated for and amongst them; no less regulated were the relations of citizens or families to the > res publica, the public polity, though this did not mean that this ius privatum was systematically distinct from a ius publicum in the modern sense. Within this system, which essentially laid down a dividing line that seems reminiscent of that of the civic laws of the roth cent., the family became a ‘state within a state’ under the unrestrained rule of the > pater familias, who again embodied the link between the private sphere and the res publica (— Family [IV]). Here, too, meanwhile, the boundary between private and public spheres occupied a location that differed fundamentally from modern understandings. At least in the upper echelons of Roman society, the public sphere was a matter concerning the most intimate aspects of life, reaching into the home itself. Both the domus (> house) and the > villa of a moneyed Roman contained spaces structurally separate from the private chambers, serving public and representative purposes, such as for a — banquet or receiving a — cliens (e.g. the > atrium, usually decorated with a family lineage and images of ancestors less for the appreciation of the residents than intended as a demonstration of venerability of the line to the public gathered here). IV. PATRONAGE Patronage (+ Euergetism) also gave expression to an

undifferentiated relationship between private and public spheres from the Hellenistic period on: imperial and royal houses and wealthy private individuals sponsored construction or social or religious services, generally not for altruistic reasons, but in return for a reciprocal service (whether in the form of an honour or increased social or political prestige). Sometimes the private nature of the action was particularly emphasized, although in reality it was a highly public act. Thus, for example, Augustus had ‘his’ > Forum [III 1] Augustum expressly built on land purchased ‘from private means’ (R. Gest. div. Aug. 21). + Family; Gender roles; > House; + Leisure; > Polis; > Res publica; > Woman

881

882

J. BERGEMANN, Demos und Thanatos. Untersuchungen zum Wertsystem der Polis im Spiegel der attischen Grabreliefs des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. und zur Funktion der gleichzeitigen Grabbauten, 1997; N. Evtas, Die héfische Gesellschaft, 51981; M. GRAHAME, Public and Private in

the Roman

House. The Spatial Order of the Casa del

Fauno, in: A. WALLACE-HapbrILL, R. LAURENCE (ed.), Do-

mestic Space in the Roman World, Journal of Roman Archaeology Suppl. 22, 1997, 137-164; J. HABERMAS, Strukturwandel und Offentlichkeit,

5r971; M. HAKKARAI-

NEN, Private Wealth in the Athenian Public Sphere during the Late Classical and the Early Hellenistic Period, in: J. FROSEN (ed.), Early Hellenistic Athens —- Symptoms of a Change (Conference, Helsinki), 1997, 1-32; H. von HeEsBERG, Privatheit und Offentlichkeit in der frithhellenistischen Hofarchitektur, in: W. HOorPFNeER (ed.), Basileia.

Die Palaste der hellenistischen K6nige (Congress, Berlin 1992), 1996, 84-96; T. HOtscuer, Offentliche Raume in

frihen griechischen Stadten, 1998; S.G. HUMPHREYS, Public and Private Interests in Classical Athens, in: CJ 73, 1977/78, 97-107; M. JAMESON, Private Space and the Greek City, in: O. Murray (ed.), The Greek City. From Homer to Alexander, 1990, 171-195; A. M. RicGsBy,

Public and Private in Roman Culture — The Case of the Cubiculum, in: Journal of Roman Archaeology 10, 1997, 36-56; K. SCHNEIDER, Villa und Natur. Eine Studie zur

Oberschichtskultur im letzen vor- und ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhunderte, 1995; L. SCHNEIDER, Die Domane

als Weltbild. Wirkungsstrukturen der spatantiken Bildersprache, 1983; E. STEIN-HOLKEsKAmMP, Adelskultur und Polisgesellschaft, 1989; J..P. VERNANT, L’individu, la mort, l’amour. Soi-méme et l’autre en Gréce ancienne, 1989.

C.HO.

Private wealth I. GREECE

II. ROME

I. GREECE A. DEFINITION Era

B. ARCHAIC

D.HELLENISTIC

ERA

C. CLASSICAL

ERA

A. DEFINITION

A fragment of Lysias distinguishes between ‘invisible’ (&mavijc/aphanés) wealth (ovoia/ousia), such as — money, animals, slaves and equipment, and ‘visible’ (paveodc/phaneros) wealth, such as land (Harpocr. s. v.

&pavijs). B. ARCHAIC ERA The Protogeometric grave finds at > Lefkandi (c. 1050-850 BC) reflect the assets of aristocratic warriors in the > "Dark Ages’: weapons, horses, and tools and equipment such as whetstones, snaffle bits and spits. In Homer, Odysseus’ wealth is measured solely by the size and number of his herds of cattle, goats, sheep and pigs (Hom. Od. 14,96-106). The value laid on herds of livestock, traceable into the early Archaic era, reflects a

scale of wealth which already existed among the immigrating Greeks. However, the Homeric heroes also attached great value to precious metals and slaves, and used these goods to trade for fine wine from Lemnos (Hom. Il. 7,467-475). In turn, private landowners

PRIVATE WEALTH

among the Greeks were more respected than the > thetes, who had to earn wages for their living (Hom. Od. 11,487-491). The timocratic organization of Athens under - Solon [1] betrays the high esteem placed on landowners (cf. Aristot. Ath. Pol. 7,3f.). Under favourable circumstances, large profits could be made through long-distance trade, as is shown by the example of > Colaeus, who dedicated 6 talents — one tenth of his trading profits — as an offering vessel at the Heraeum of Samos (Hdt. 4,152). There are no benchmarks for the wealth of the earlier tyrants: > Polycrates [1] of Samos, who could afford to pay the doctor ~ Democedes of Croton two talents annually (Hdt. 3,13 1), stood out in his display of magnificence. The gradual spread of coined money (yoqarta/chréemata) c. mid 6th cent. BC (> Minting) expanded the erstwhile basis of wealth, while little value was attached to it in aristocratic circles (Alc. 49; Pind. Isthm. 2,11). In Sparta, the > homozoi [II] were supposed to live only from the proceeds of their property, and their wives to forego every luxury (jewellery, etc.). The exclusive validity of iron coinage was to prevent the private accumulation of precious metals (Xen. Lac. 7); however, in 479 BC, the spoils from the Persian War, including gold and silver, were distributed among the whole citizenry (Hdt. 9,81).

C. CLASSICAL ERA For this period, it is the wealth of Athenians, in both the order of its magnitude and its organization, that is recorded in the most detail: > Themistocles was said to have owned three talents before his political career and over 100 after his ostracism (Critias 88 B 45 DK; Ael. VH 10,17; [3. 215]). Callias [4], his son > Hipponicus and grandson Callias [5] were considered to be the richest Greeks throughout the 5th cent. BC, with a wealth of 200 talents each (And. 1,130; Isoc. Or. 16,31; Lys. 19,48). Hipponicus earned a daily income of a mina from leasing 600 slaves at one obol each for mining silver at > Laurium (Xen. Vect. 4,15), and Nicias [x] was said to have amassed a wealth of over roo talents in the same way (Lys. 19,47; Xen. Vect. 4,14). Land ownership remained a significant factor: the lands of Oeonias on Euboea, which were confiscated after the mutilation of the Herms (415 BC; > Herms, mutilation of the), were sold for 81 talents 2,000 drachmas (IG P 422 Il. 375ff.). The wealth of the tannery owner and demagogue Cleon [1] was significantly less at 50 talents (Critias 88 B 45 DK; Schol. Aristoph. Equ. 44). > Hyperbolus, a lamp seller, and Theodorus, the father of + Isocrates and owner of an ~ ergastérion whose slaves manufactured tes, increased their wealth through commerce and long-distance trade, like Cleon (Aristoph. Equ. 1304; 1315; Plut. Mor. 836e; Lys. 32,4). Besides land ownership, mine leasing led to the greatest wealth in Athens. In the urban areas of Athens, people allowed part of their wealth to circulate for further accumulation, as is shown by the example of Diodotus: his wealth consi-

883

884

sted of five talents of silver, while he had seven talents

[x] was executed in 330 BC for removing the supporting pillars in his mines, his wealth, amounting to 160 talents, was distributed to all the citizens of Athens.

PRIVATE WEALTH

4,000 drachmas invested in —+ maritime loans (+ nautikon ddneion), one talent 4,000 drachmas loaned to a friend to settle an interest debt and 2,000 drachmas to another on the Chersonese, who provided him with grain as interest (Lys. 32,4-6; 32,8; 32,1315). Xanthippe could only dream of such wealth — the wealth of her husband > Socrates [2], including the house, amounted to five minas (Xen. Oec. 2,3). On the other hand, some Athenians struggled without any reserve in order to earn their daily living (Aristoph. Vesp. 300ff.). The sons of rich Athenians were the target group whom the > Sophists taught how to manage wealth. Toward the end of the 5th cent. BC, broad sections of the population in Athens entered the income and expenses from their wealth in an account book (grammateion). Plato and Aristotle contain suggestions for limiting wealth to avoid triggering > stasis among the citizenry by greed for riches. After the victory over Athens (404 BC), some Spartiates achieved wealth from money which they brought home, although according to the law it should have been confiscated (Xen. Lac. 7,6). In practice, the prescription did not prevail; rather, some Spartan families in the 4th cent. were said to have amassed more gold and silver than anywhere else in Hellas (Pl. Alc. 1,122d). Parallel to this was the concentration of land ownership: Spartan women from the royal dynasties and other wealthy families allegedly owned */, of all the land (Aristot. Pol. 1270a 15-30). By contrast, themajor Athenian wealth had already begun to decline beginning with the Spartan occupation of Decelea (413), which led to the flight of slaves from the mining areas of Laurium: in 387, the wealth of Callias was less than two talents (Lys. 19,48). After the Civil War of 404/3, Niceratus [1], the son of Nicias, still owned 14 talents (Lys. 19,47). After 400 BC, mining leases once again became lucrative, but no longer led to the development of wealth on the same scale as earlier. The freedman Pasion [2] (370/69) was the richest Athenian of his day, with means valued at more than 60 talents, composed of land, including real estate (20 talents), a shield factory and bank deposits in the amount of 50 talents (Dem. Or. 36,5; [3. 431-435]). Another tabulation of wealth concerns the homonymous father of Demosthenes [2]; he left his son 52 slaves from a sword and bed factory with a total value of four talents 5,000 drachmas; in addition to that, ivory, ore and wood

(8,000 drachmas), dyes (7,000 drachmas), the

family home (3,000 drachmas), furniture and jewellery (10,000 drachmas); besides these material assets, cash (8,000 drachmas), a maritime loan (7,000 drachmas), bank deposits (3,000 drachmas) and other outstanding loans (7,600 drachmas).

The total wealth of Demo-

sthenes’ father thus had a value of 13 talents 4,600 drachmas (cf. Dem. Or. 27,9-11; [3. 126-128]). Because of his wealth, Demosthenes was obligated to perform liturgies (> Liturgy [I]); the assessment threshold was three to four talents in the 4th cent. When Diphilus

D. HELLENISTIC ERA With the conquest of the Persian Empire, Alexander [4] the Great was said to have an income of 30,000 talents (Justin. 13,1,9). Following his example, the + Diadochi considered the tribute from the conquered peoples as private income. The size of some fortunes (Lysimachus: 9,000 talents, Str. 13,4,1; Ptolemaeus [3] II Philadelphus: 14,800 talents, Jer. Comm. in Dan 3, 11,5) is disputed, but they document the immeasurable resources of the Hellenistic kings [9]. The upper and lower members of the civil administration and military benefited from this. Outside of this sphere, individual Greeks were able to build respectable fortunes in the 3rd cent.: > Zeno [2] of Citium (Cyprus), later founder of the Stoa, was said to have a wealth of 1,000 talents, invested primarily in maritime loans (Diog. Laert. 7,13). In Sparta, meanwhile, roo families had gained possession of all of the land, which Agis [4] wanted to redistribute together with the rest of their assets. His grandmother and mother were considered the richest women in Sparta (Plut. Agis 4,1); besides land, Agis himself supposedly had 600 talents in cash (Plut. Agis 9,5). Agis’ plan failed, as did that of his successor Cleomenes [6], through the influence of other rich Spartan families. In the 2nd cent., the Greek mainland was home to comparatively few wealthy private individuals: Alexander Isius of Aetolia was said to be the richest Hellene with more than 200 talents (Pol. 21, 26,14). In the rst cent. BC,

Pythodorus of Nysa lived in the province of Asia witha fortune of 2,000 talents (Str. 14,1,42). In the Hellenistic

Era, land ownership remained the most important foundation of major private wealth, followed by trade and banking (> Banks). > Latifundia/Large estates;

> Leasehold; money economy; > Slavery; > Wealth

- Money,

1 A. BRAUNING, Untersuchungen zur Darstellung und Ausstattung des Kriegers im Grabbrauch Griechenlands zwischen dem ro. und 8. Jh. v. Chr., 1995, 37-43 2 A.B. BUCHSENSCHUTZ, Besitz und Erwerb im Altertum, 1868/repr. 1962, 15-40 3 Davies 4R. J. Hopper, The Attic Silver Mines in the Fourth Century B.C., in: ABSA 48, 1953, 200-254 5S. LAUFFER, Prosopographische Bemerkungen zu den attischen Grubenpachtlisten, in: Historia 6, 1957, 287-305 6N. Lewis, Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt: Case Studies in the Social History of the Hel-

lenistic World, 1986

7 C. Mossé, Women in the Spartan

Revolutions of the Third Centuries B.C., in: S.B. Pomeroy (ed.), Women’s History and Ancient History, 1991, 144-149 8 W. RICHTER, Die Landwirtschaft im homerischen Zeitalter (ArchHom 2 = H), 1968, 32-41 9 RostovizeFF, Hellenistic World, vol. 2, 918-924

10 P.

Spaun, Die Anfange der antiken Okonomik, in: Chiron 14,1984, 301-323 11 C. G. Srarr, Economic and Social Conditions in the Greek World, in: CAHIII.3,*1990, 425AGN

JO.SP.

885

886

Il. ROME

A. PRIVATE WEALTH socieETy

IN ROMAN

B. DATA ON ROMAN

ECONOMY

slaves; for this reason, it was not necessary to found large, permanent financial companies; the only signifi-

AND

PRIVATE WEALTH

A. PRIVATE WEALTH IN ROMAN ECONOMY AND

SOCIETY The wealth of Roman citizens, and later of the in-

habitants of the imperium Romanum, was extremely unequal, both in value and composition; the same

PRIVATE WEALTH

is

true for private incomes. We are particularly well-informed about the wealth of the political and social elites, the senators (-» senatus), knights (> equites) and members of the local upper classes. Members of these elites often owned large landholdings — farmland and pastures — as well as houses, animals, slaves, objects of great value and precious metals (primarily in the form of coins). They drew their incomes from the proceeds of their lands and from political or cultural activities as well as from making loans. Regardless of whether such loans were given to slaves or freedmen (for example, to conduct commercial transactions), impoverished debtors or members of their own social class, they contributed to general indebtedness and debt crises. The scope of incomes not from agriculture is difficult to estimate for the Roman upper class. Financial activities included minting coins, money changing, storing coins and valuable objects, bank deposits (> Banks), making loans (> Loan) — also in the form of > maritime loans (> fenus nauticum) — and money transfers. In Rome, this sort of business was already conducted, in part, before coins began to be minted. Metal in the form of bars — often with a fishbonelike pattern — was an element of mobile wealth, serving as a measure of value or means of exchange. The bars could also be used for payment of fines or loaned. For the early Republic, the historiographic tradition tells of + debt redemption and debt repayment; some texts probably show patricians as creditors (cf. to Manlius Capitolinus Liv. 6,11; 6,14~-20). Between 318 and 310 BC, money changers (> argentarius [2]) established businesses in the forum. They not only changed money, but also participated in the auctiones through loans to buyers in the period from the 2ndcent. BC to the mid 3rdcent. AD. Coactores argentarii collected outstanding debts, and nummularii (~~ nummularius) at first tested coins and then became actual bankers in the 2nd cent. AD. In 342 BC, the lex Genucia banned lending money at — interest (Liv. 7,42,1; Tac. Ann. 6,16,2); however, the law was probably applied for only a short time. Afterwards, loans at interest were common in Rome. Usury was heavily criticized (Cato Agr. praef. 1), but openly practised. Many equites, senators and members of the local upper class loaned money at interest, some sporadically and more in exceptional cases, some as a regular business. Moneylenders, who specialized in this business, were called feneratores. Members of the upper classes frequently operated their business via middlemen, including friends, relatives, freedmen or

cant financial companies of the late Republic and the early Principate were the societates publicorum (> publicani), which collected - taxes [IV] in the provinces, but also transacted private monetary deals. If a senator who was not a fenerator wanted to lend money, he usually turned to someone experienced in financial matters. Towards the end of the Republic, senators and equites often consulted members of their own class on financial matters; the money

was then transferred to

businessmen or moneylenders who did not belong to the upper class. Thus, Cicero was advised in financial matters by T. Pomponius [I 5] Atticus, who in turn loaned money via Cluvius and Vestorius. Senators and equites like Pompeius [I 3], M. Iunius [I 10] Brutus or C. Rabirius [I 3] Postumus granted loans in the provinces. The wide spread of loans in all classes of the population led to indebtedness and cessation of payments; such crises, sometimes also politically based, are mentioned for 193/2 BC, for the period between 88 and 82 BC, for 64/3 BC and again for 49 BC; the financial crisis under Tiberius in AD 33 must also be mentioned (Tac. Ann. 6,16f.). There was a close connection between the financial crisis of 64/3 BC and the Catilinarian conspiracy; > Catilina’s revolt had its origins in the indebtedness of many people across social classes, including Sullan veterans, the > plebs urbana and part of the senatorial leadership class. A cancellation of debt was demanded, but Cicero and the majority of the senators rejected it (Cic. Off. 2,84). B. DATA ON ROMAN PRIVATE WEALTH There is a certain amount of valuable information on the wealth of individual senators from the period of the 2nd cent. BC, the late Republic and the Principate: P. Cornelius [I 71] Scipio Africanus was said to have promised both of his daughters each a dowry of 50 talents (= 1.2 million HS); the father of the younger Cornelius [I 70] Scipio Africanus, L. Aemilius [I 32] Paullus, left behind a fortune worth 60 talents (= 1.44 million HS); the younger Africanus himself owned 32 pounds of silver (Pol. 32,13f.; Plin. HN 33,141). In the rst cent. BC, M. Licinius [I 11] Crassus had more than 7,100 talents (= 170.4 million HS, Plut. Crassus 2), Pompeius [I 3] was even richer after his campaigns in the east: the Senate awarded his sons 700 million HS as compensation for the auction of his possessions (Cic. Phil. 13,11f.); Caesar’s cash wealth amounted to 4,000 talents (= 96 million HS) for the year 44 BC (Plut. Antonius 15). However, even senators who were not among the truly rich still had considerable fortunes, for example the younger Cato (> Porcius [1 7]) was worth 220 talents (= 5.28 million HS, Plut. Cato minor 4; 6). Cicero states that he had received an inheritance of a total of 20 million HS (Cic. Phil. 2,40). The major senatorial fortunes of the Principate amounted to sums between roo and 400 million HS

887

888

(Seneca: 300 million HS, Tac. Ann. 13,42,4; Q. Vibius Crispus: 300 million HS, Tac. Dial. 8,1f.; T. Clodius > Eprius Marcellus: 200 million HS, Tac. Dial. 8,1; Cn. Cornelius [II 25] Lentulus: 400 million HS, Sen. Ben. 2,27,1). Pliny the Younger, who probably had more than 15 million HS and thus cannot be considered as very rich, invested his wealth primarily in real estate (Plin. Ep. 3,19,8). This certainly did not apply to all senators; Seneca must have loaned significant amounts (Tac. Ann. 13,42,4). In the Principate, as in the late Republic, the accrual of especially large fortunes was often due to special political circumstances; this is true, for example, for Seneca and Cn. Cornelius [II 25] Lentulus, who owed at least a part of their possessions to gifts from the princeps. It is difficult to determine how monetary wealth and financial transactions developed quantitatively over the course of Roman history. There is no doubt that the amounts of money greatly increased between the 3rd

peius [I 3]). In the last days of the Republic, M. Tullius + Cicero spoke for the right of the privatus to act in the interests of the state privato consilio (‘on private initia-

PRIVATE WEALTH

and rst cents. BC, as did the number of bankers. This

also suggests a growing scope of monetary wealth. By contrast, the political, economic and monetary instability after AD 270 resulted in a decline in money transactions; however, this impression may arise from the state ofthe scholarship: to date, the financial dealings of Late Antiquity have not been well researched. + Loan;

— Money,

money

economy;

— Taxes;

+> Wealth

tive’) (e.g. Cic. Leg. Man.

61f.; Cic. Rep. 2,46; Cic. Fam. 11,7,2; cf. R. Gest. div. Aug. r) [2]. The > princeps, not a magistratus, was technically a privatus, in spite of his official powers and tenure of office. The distinction between princeps and privatus developed in the course of the rst cent. AD (e.g. Tac. Fister. dOy4si347Osnaere [al)): — Magistratus 1 J. BERANGER, Le privatus dans |’Histoire Auguste et dans

la tradition historique, in: Bonner Historia Augusta Colloquium 1982/83, 21-55 2 Id., Die Machtiibernahme des Augustus und die Ideologie des ‘Privatus’, in: H. KLOFT (ed.), Ideologie und Herrschaft in der Antike, 1979, 315335 3P. BruGaisseER, Privatus dans l’ceuvre de Symmaque: une incidence de la lexicographie sur la datation de L’Histoire Auguste, in: Historiae Augustae Colloquium Barcinonense 1996, 111-132 4M. Humbert, Institutions politiques et sociales de l’antiquité, °1997 5 W. KunKEL, R. WITTMANN,

Die Magistratur (HdbA

1995.

Ld.

Privernas. Roman cognomen (‘Victor over‘ > Privernum’’), byname of L. Aemilius [J 24] Mamercinus P. (perhaps invented later). KAJANTO, Cognomina, 182.

1J. ANDREAU, Patrimoines, échanges et préts d’argent: économie romaine, 1997 2 Id., Vie financiére dans le monde romain, Les métiers des manieurs d’argent, 1987 3C.T. Bartow, Bankers, Moneylenders and Interest Rates in the Roman Republic, 1978 4R. BoOGAERT, Tra-

10,3,2,2),

K-LE.

Privernum (lIlgifegvov/Pribernon). City of the + Volsci south of the Mons Lepinus on the upper reaches of the > Amasenus in Latium (Str. 5,3,10; Ptol.

pezitica Aegyptiaca. Recueil de recherches sur la banque

3,1,63: Ilovovegvov/Priovernon; the region ager Priver-

en Egypte gréco-romaine, 1994

5 D’ARMS

Jones, Economy, 17-32, 343f.

7M. W. FREDERIKSEN,

nas, cf. Cic. De or. 2,224. Wine growing: Plin. HN 14,65), modern Madonna di Mezzagosto near Pri-

6 DUNCAN-

Caesar, Cicero and the Problem of Debts, in: JRS 56, 1966, 128-141

8S. MRATSCHEK- HALFMANN, Divites et

verno. After ferocious battles with the Romans (the tri-

ratur der Principatszeit, 1993 9 I. SHATZMAN, Senatorial Wealth and Roman Politics, 1975 10H. ZEHNACKER,

umphs de Privernatibus in 357 and 329 BC, Liv. 7,16,6 and 8,20,7ff.; CIL I 1, p. 44f.), P. became a Roman praefectura (Fest. 262,12), later a civitas sine suffragio

Rome. Une société archaique au contact de la monnaie

(Liv. 8,21,10), c. 160 BC a colonia (Liv. Per. 46), tribus

(VIe-IVe siécles av. J.-C.), in: Crise et transformation des

Oufentina (Lucil. fr. 1260); from Augustus on, P. belonged to regio I (Plin. HN 3,64). Archeology: regular city complex, wall in opus incertum with towers; on the forum: two temples, a theatre, an arch, remains of the baths and house complexes (among others the socalled domus dell’Emblema with Nile mosaic).

praepotentes, Reichtum und soziale Stellung in der Lite-

sociétés archaiques de I’Italie antique au Ve siécle av. J.-C., 1990, 307-326.

J.A.

Privatus. Generally speaking, in Roman constitutional law, a citizen not employed by the state, opposite of + magistratus (e.g. Cic. Inv. 1,35; Isid. Orig. 9,4,30); in the narrower sense, someone who had not occupied a political office, either ever or in the recent past (Cic. Fam. 8,10,2).

Privati cum imperio — like promagistrates who, strictly speaking, were also privati (Liv. 38,42,10) — were in possession of official powers (— imperium) granted by the Senate or the people. They were also called > proconsul or > propraetor [5]. In the rst cent. BC, a lex populi transferred extraordinary commands to privati to meet the task of Roman world mastery and perhaps the ambitions of certain individuals (> Pom-

M. CANCELLIERI, Lo sbocco meridionale della valle dei

Lepini, in: Bollettino dell’Ist. di storia e di arte del Lazio Meridionale 11, 1979-1982, 35-413 Id., P.: ’area archeologica, 1998; Id. (ed.), Museo archeologico di Priverno. Frammenti di vita quotidiana, 2001 M.M.MO.

Privilegium A technical term in Roman law, and as such not to be understood in the broad sense of ‘privilege’ in the medieval and early modern periods, still less to be equated with the same word in modern colloquial usage, Roman privilegium was a ‘law for an individual’, and according to the Twelve Tables (tab. 9,1) impermis-

889

890

sible as a law of proscription at the expense of an individual: it was forbidden to propose it in the popular assembly (ne inroganto, Cic. Leg. 3,4,11). During the Principate, prerogatives of certain institutions and groups of people were denoted by means of privilegium. Thus, Papin. Dig. 49,14,37 calls of the precedence of the state (> fiscus) regarding the assets of a debtor within the law of pledge as a privilegium in contrast to the ius commune

(civil law). Such special legal rules

PROBA

8 D.C. Younc, The Olympic Myth of Greek Amateur Athletics, 1984, 115-127. 9H. BuHMANN, Der Sieg in Olympia, 1972, 53 no.

4. 10H. W. PLexer, Zur Sozio-

logie des antiken Sports, in: Mededelingen van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome, n.s. 36, 1974, 56-87, esp. 67, 71f. 11 Id., Games, Prizes, Athletes and Ideology, in: Stadion r,

1975, 49-89, esp. 54-71 12 M. Yacous, Splendeurs des mosaiques de Tunisie, 1995, 274 fig. 137 13 J.-P. THUILLIER, Les jeux athlétiques dans la civilisation étrusque, 1985, 440-444 with fig. 52. W.D.

were particularly common in law dealing with soldiers, e.g. the right to repatriation of a prisoner of war (> postliminium) or the formal simplifications and ex-

tensions to allowable formulations (capability of Latins and non-Romans

to inherit) for soldiers’ wills (Ulp.

Dig. 29,1,1 pr.; Gai. Inst. 2,r09f.; 114).

It is not possible to discern a clear distinction between the privilegium and the ‘legal benefit’ of the > beneficium; the term ius singulare (special law, > ius E.2.) also occurs for the privilegium. V. SCARRANO UsSANI, Forme del privilegio, 1992.

GS.

Prizes (games). Evidence that prizes were given out in athletic competitions exists as early as for the Sumerians [1], Egyptians [2] and Hittites [3; 4] (silver ring; banquet; cake, silver, ram, the courtly office of royal bridle keeper). The woman as a prize in the bridal agon legitimizes rule (examples: the Egyptian tale of ‘The enchanted Prince’ [2. 67, 78]; myth of Pelops in Olympia [5]; Odysseus’ archery competition: Hom. Od. 21; Agariste, daughter of Cleisthenes of Sicyon: Hdt.

Proaeresius (Ileocteéowoc/Pro(h)airésios). Christian Sophist (cf. Second Sophistic), b. c. AD 276 in Caesarea (Cappadocia) to an Armenian family; studied in Antioch [1] and Athens (Eunap. VS 10,3,3-9), where he was subsequently a celebrated teacher for many years, reflecting the continuity of the education provided there. His provenience from Asia Minor apparently attracted students particularly from that part of the Roman Empire. > Constans [1] honoured him numer-

ous times; as a Christian, he did not want to be exempted from the edict proclaimed by emperor Julian (> Iulianus [11]) regarding the teaching of rhetoric. P. was married; he died in AD 366/7. His pupil > Gregorius [I 3] of Nazianzus wrote an epitaph (Greg. Naz. Epitaphios 5); his rival Diophantus gave the eulogy at his funeral (Eunap. VS 12,1-3). PLRE s. v. Proaeresius, p.

731W. ENSSLIN, s. v. Prohairesios, RE 23, 30-32; G. A. KENNEDY, Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors, 1983.

CM.

6,126-130). The riches that Achilles offers at Patroclus’

funeral agon are vast: women, animals, precious bowls,

weapons, raw metal, banquet [6]. Prizes are also known from historical funeral agones [7]. In Athens, the winners of the Panathenaea received up to 140 amphoras of oil (one fifth for the runners-up) [8]. The victors of pan-Hellenic agones received wreaths (cf. [9]). After its introduction, money was increasingly used as a prize, but the wreath was retained at the most prestigious festivals [r0; 11]. In later periods, prizes could entail honorary residences (proedria), tax exemption (atéleia), lifelong board (sitésis), or exemption from liturgies (aleitourgésia;> Liturgy). Up to 60,000 sesterces per race were given out as prizes in the chariot races of the Roman > circus (CIL VI 10048,16), and large amounts of money could also be won in the venationes (> munera; e.g. on a mosaic from the Amphitheatre Smirat in the Sousse Museum [12]). The Etruscans used skins (with wine) i.a. as prices [13]. 1 R. Rotuincer, Aspekte des Sports im Alten Sumer, in: Nikephoros 7, 1994, 7-64: 30f., 56 no. 261 2 W. DECKER, Sport und Spiel im Alten Agypten, 1987, 71, 115, 153 3 I. SINGER, The Hittite KI.LAM Festival I, 1983, 103-104 4 J. Punve, Hittite Athletics as Prefigurations of Ancient Greek Games, in: W. Rascuxe (ed.), The Archaeology of

the Olympics, 1988, 26-31, esp. 27, 30 5 H.-V. HERRMANN, Olympia, 1972, 136-142 6S. Laser, Sport und Spiel (ArchHom T), 1987, 79-81 7 E. ROLLER, Funeral Games for Historical Persons, in: Stadion 7, 1981, 1-18

Proba. The Christian Faltonia Betitia (contra, [1]) P. (d.

before 3 80), b. into Roman senator’s partly pagan family, wrote a poem, since lost, on the usurpation of +» Magnentius (351-353). In her Cento Vergilianus de laudibus Christi (‘Virgilian Cento on the Benefactions of Christ’; cf. + Cento) she presents episodes from the OT and NT (Genesis to Christ’s death) in the manner of Virgil. > Hieronymus [8] (Jer. Ep. 53,7) criticized P.’s poem, concluding that P.’s dogmatic errors and poetic deficiencies stemmed one from the other. The Decretum Gelasianum (Decretum Gelasianum 287, cf. [4. 299f.]), a pseudonymous work from the 4th cent. AD that contained, among other things, a kind of index of books permitted or forbidden in the Roman Church, calls Cento a conpaginatum apocryphum (‘a reprehensible work of poetry’). By contrast, > Isidorus [9] expressed his respect for it (Vir. ill. 22; cf. Orig. 1,39,26). Opinion varies on P.’s theological contribution. The view that P. wanted to depict a wrathful Christ [2] is today called into question. God’s loving Son and an affirmation of earthly life are recognized as the central message of the Cento [3]. ~» Cento; > Women authors 1 D. SHANZER, The Anonymous ‘Carmen contra Paganos’

and the Date and Identity of the Centonist P., in: Rey. des Et. Augustiniennes 32, 1986, 232-248 21. OpELT, Der

891

892

ziirnende Christus im Cento der P., in: JoAC 7, 1964, 106-

Il. RHETORIC Probationes (Quint. Inst. 5,1,1; 5,9,1) were — like mioteic/pisteis (Aristot. Rh. 1355b 35; > pistis), Latin argumenta, argumentationes (Consultus Fortunatianus 2,23) — the means of persuasion used in the + argumentatio. Aristot. Rh. Al. 1428a 17-19 contrasts those pisteis obtained from speeches, actions and

PROBA

116 3 A. JENSEN, Eine Spiritualitat fiir das Leben in dieser Welt. Zum theologischen Werk der Faltonia Betitia P., in: S. SPENDEL (ed.), Weibliche Spiritualitat im Christentum, 1996, 50-61

4E. VON Dosscnurz (ed.), Das Decretum

Gelasianum, 1912. EpITIONS:

K. SCHENKL,

CSEL

16,1, 1888,

511-609;

E. A. CLark, D. F. Hatcu, The Golden Bough, the Oaken Cross, 1981 (Engl. transl. and comm.). BIBLIOGRAPHY: R. HERZOG, Faltonia Betitia P., in: HLL

5, § §62; J. MatrHEws, The Poetess P. and Fourth-Century Rome, in: M. CuristTo1 (ed.), Institutions, société et vie

politique dans l’Empire Romain au IVe siécle ap. J.-C., 1992, 277-304.

HE.HA.

Probalinthus (TMeoBddw0oc/Probdlinthos, with the demoticon IleoBadiowoc/Probalisios). Attic paralia deme of the phyle Pandionis [2], from 200 BC of the phyle Attalis, with five bouleutai; name pre-Greek; on the eastern coast of Attica at modern Nea Makri, where there is also a significant Neolithic settlement [1; 2]. P., Marathon, Oenoe [5] and Tricory(n)thus formed the cult union of the Tetrapolis of Marathon (Str. 8,7,1; 1G

II’ 2933). At the time of Pliny in the rst cent. AD, P. had been depopulated (Plin. HN 4,24). 1M.

PaNTELIDOU-GopHA,

H veodOixh

Maxon,

1991

2D. R. THEocHarts, Nea Makri, in: MDAI(A) 71, 1956,

I-29. TRAILL, Attica 8, 42 with notes 14, 63,67,

112 no. 122, pl.

3, 14; J. S. TRAILL, Demos and Trittys, 1986, 33, 35, 38, 43, 45f., 86f., 89, 129, 146ff.; WHITEHEAD,

Index s. v.

Probalinthos

H.LO.

Probatio (‘probation’; ‘test’; ‘evidence’; ‘proof’.) I. Law II. RHETORIC

I. Law In Roman law, probatio included, without clear distinction, the central phase in every civil trial: the hearing of the evidence as a whole, the issue of apportioning the

burden of proof and, finally, the list of submissions of evidence. The hearing of evidence by the > index (‘judge’) is scarcely treated in the juridical writings; it was not regarded as an issue of law. The apportioning of the burden of proof was probably not observed as strictly as it is today, but there were certainly some rules, e.g. the burden lay essentially with the claimant, but in respect of objections (> exceptio) the respondent acted as claimant (Dig. 22,3,21; 22,3,9; 44,1,1). As well as witness statements, documents and oaths, evidence could also include fama, rumor (‘hearsay’) or

> praeiudicia (cf. e.g. Quint. Inst. 5,1-12). M. Kaser, K. Hack, Das rémische Zivilprozefsrecht, *1996, 361; G. PuGLiEsE, L’onere della prova nel processo per formulas, in: RIDA 3, 1956, 349-422; A. WAcKE, Zur Beweislast im klassischen Zivilprozef$, in: ZRG 109, 1992, 411-449. CPA.

individuals themselves with those added to what the individual has said and done (éxiOetoVepithetoi). From the time of Aristotle (Rh. 13 5 5b 35), the distinction was made between genera of probatio belonging (évtexvou éntechnoi, Latin artificiales) and not belonging (Gteyvodtechnoi, Latin inartificiales) to the rhetorical > téchné. The éntechnoi must be found through the téchné. The dtechnoi are given from outside, added (Cic. Inv. 2,46), but must be fashioned, supported or refuted with the greatest eloquence by the orator (Quint. Inst. 5,1,2). The latter were generally regarded as more effective, because everyone was in general agreement about them. Among the dtechnoi mentioned in Aristot. Rh. Al. 1428a 23-24 were witness statements and statements made under > torture or oath (Rh. 135 5b 37); Aristot. Rh. 1375a 24-25 adds laws and contracts. Cic. De or. 2,116 differentiates further into documents, witness statements, contracts, agreements, investigations under

torture, laws, Senate resolutions, judicial rulings, official decrees and legal opinions. Quint. Inst. 5,2,1-7; 5,3

treats the praeiudicia obtained by judgment, the reputation of a person and rumours, torture, documents, oaths and witnesses, incl. the so-called divine testimonies, i.e. prophecies, oracles and portents. Developing the Sophistic téchné further, Aristot. Rh. 1356a I-20 mentions three species (ein/eidé) of probatio secured by oration: the character of the speaker (+ éthos), the sentiment he evokes in the hearer (> pathos), the oration itself (AOyoc/logos), i.e the evidence and apparent evidence. The individual pistis is, for Aristot. (Rh. 1356a 35-b 6), either an enthymeme (évObunna/enthyméma; Cic. Inv. 1,57: ratiocinatio; Quint. Inst. 5,10,11: argumentum, commentum, commentatio; 5,14,1: argumenti elocutio) or an example (maQaderya/parddeigma; Latin exemplum). To the enthymeme corresponds, in — dialectics, the syllogism (ovAhoytoudc; syllogismos), to the example the induction (énaywyn/ epagoge, Latin inductio). Formally, the enthymeme is an abbreviated, incomplete syllogism, in which premisses are either abridged or entirely omitted (Aristot. Rh. 1357a 16-21); even the drawing of the conclusion can be left to the listener (Quint. Inst. Sst 4ei) In contrast to logical proof (addetEtc/ apddeixis; Quint. Inst. 5,10,7: evidens probatio), in which a compelling conclusion is drawn from true antecedents, the antecedents of dialectical and rhetorical syllogism are for the most part apparently true and probable (&vd0§oc/éndoxos) statements from which only an apparently true conclusion can be drawn (Aristot. Rh. 1357a 22-29). Like the dialectical, the rhetorical syl-

893

894

logism, too, can be merely apparent, the premisses being not really probable or the conclusion being incorrect. Aristot. Rh. 1396b 22-27 and 1400b 26-29 distinguishes between demonstrative (Sevmtxdc/deiktikos, amodetixoc/apodeiktikos) enthymemes, deduced from matters conceded (Quint. Inst. 5,14,25: ex consequentibus), on the one hand, and _ confutative (€Aeyutindc/elenktikos) enthymemes, based on matters

larity (ibid. 1430a 40-1430b 29). According to Aristot. Rh. 1394a 25-28, the major premise and the conclusion of an enthymeme which is not put into the form of a syllogism together constitute a maxim. The maxim can stand without peroration (émiAoyoc/epilogos), if it expresses something that is generally accepted; if it states something paradoxical or controversial, it requires justification. Linked to a peroration, the maxim can either form part of an enthymeme or be enthymeme-like. If the peroration is prefixed, the maxim forms the conclusion (ibid. 1394b 7-34; Quint. Inst. 8,5,4). Particularly suitable as conclusions are laconic aphorisms (a6p0eyuo/ — apophthegma) and dark allusions (aiviywa/ ainigma; Aristot. Rh. 1394b 34-35). Proverbs, too (magowia/paroimia), can be used as

not conceded

(ex repugnantibus),

on the other. The

confutative were more valued, being more illuminating. Only the confutative were still recognized by most later rhetoricians as enthymemes (contrarium), while the de-

monstrative were by then known as epicheiremes (Quint. Inst. 5,10,3). Aristot. Rh. 1402a 29-37 divides the confutative enthymeme into antisyllogism (GvtiovAAoyiopdcd/ antisyllogismos) and objection (évotaotc/énstasis). The antisyllogism can be’obtained from the same topoi as the

syllogism, the objection either from the matter itself, a similar matter, its opposite, or existing rulings (Aristot. Rh. Al. 1430a 40-1430b 29; Quint. Inst. 5,13f.): the enthymeme is formed from the probable (eixdta/ eikota), examples (xagddetyua/ parddeigma), proof (texurjouov/tekmeérion) or signs (onueiov/sémeion) (Aristot. Rh. 1357a 30-b 10; 1402b 13-14). In Aristot. An.

pr. 70a 3—6, the eikos is defined as a statement which is probable because it is known that the matter usually happens thus or does not happen thus, is usually so or is not. For Aristot. Rh. Al. 1428a 26-27, someone hearing an ezkos will immediately bring examples to mind. Proof is compelling, so that from it a syllogism can be formed and knowledge gained, but the sign is év50Eo¢/ éndoxos (‘probable’), so that a conclusion drawn from it merely constitutes an opinion (Aristot. An. pr. 70a

6-7; Aristot. Rh. Al. 1430b 30-1431a 6). Although the example (loc. cit., 1429a 21-1430a 13), rhetorical induction, is given by Aristotle as a mode of reasoning in its own right alongside the enthymeme, he really regards it as a prerequisite for the enthymeme (1393a 27). Examples are divided (1393a 28-31) into pre-existing facts and fictions with the subspecies parables (e.g. Socrates) and fables (e.g. Aesop). According to Quint. Inst. 5,11,1f., the exemplum corresponds to the naoaderyua/ parddeigma, fiction (magapod/parabole) to similitudo

and the Ciceronian

collatio

(Cic. Inv.

1,40). Among examples, Quintilian (Inst. 5,11) also mentions the image, the correspondence and the verdict, which counts as probatio by virtue of its auctoritas: thoughts and statements from tribes, peoples, wise men, important poets, that which is generally said among a people, has found its place in the convictions of a people and has taken root in that people’s customs, traditions and proverbs. In Aristot. Rh. Al. 1428a 20-21, maxims (> gnome) are also named among the technical probationes, defined as expressions of a personal view of general behaviour and action. They either bring a dominant view to expression or contradict it; they are obtained from the peculiarities of the case, an exaggeration or a simi-

PROBOULOS

maxims (1395a rof.). Consultus Fortunatianus (2,29)

and others declare the évOvunua yv@uixdov/enthymema gnomikon to bea separate species alongside the demonstrative, confutative and syllogistic enthymemes and those depending on examples. + Argumentatio; > Rhetoric LAusBERG; J. MarTIn, Antike Rhetorik, 1974.

O.B.

Probole (xeofodt/probole). Generally a ‘putting forward’, e.g. of candidates for an office (Plat. Leg. 6,765 br). In Athens, name of a procedure by which the assembly (> Ekklésia) could be asked to vote on certain kinds of accusation before a lawsuit was brought; Demosthenes’ [2] attack on Meidias [2] (Dem.. Or. 21) began with a probole. A. R.H. Harrison, The Law of Athens, vol. 2, 1971, 59-64; J. H. Lipsius, Das attische Recht, 1905-1915, 211-219; D. M. MacDowe tt, The Classical Law in Athens, 1978, 194-197. PLR.

Probolion (xeopdMtov/probélion). Short spear (Hdt. 7,76), or rather hunting spear (Hesych. s. v. tgofpdAtov), especially for hunting boar (Xen. Cyn. ro; Philostr. Imag. 1,28,5) or lions; hardly ever used as a term in

modern archaeological research, even if there have been attempts to identify probolia in Minoan-Mycenaean and Geometric hunting scenes (on the attribute of the komos described in Philostr. Imag. 1,2,2 as a probolion see [1]). Furthermore, probdlion was also the term fora fortified place, a fortress (Xen. Mem. 3,5,7; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 10,16,4). ~ Hunting 1 A. Kossatz-DEISSMANN,

s. v. Komos, LIMC

6, 1992,

94f., no. 1. H.-G. BUCHHOLZ, G. JOHRENS, I. MAULL, Jagd und Fischfang (ArchHom. II J), 1973, 75-77. R.H.

Proboulos (xedfovioc/proboulos). [1] Member of a small body with the function of preliminary deliberation, e.g. in Corcyra (IG IX 1, 682; 686 =[1. 319, 320]). In Athens a board of ten probouloi was appointed in 413 BC after the military disaster in

895

896

Sicily in the + Peloponnesian War (Thuc. 8,1,3), seems to have taken over some functions of the council (+ Boule) and the — prytdneis, and in 411 helped to bring the oligarchy of the ‘Four Hundred’ (> Tetrakosioi) to power ({Aristot.] Ath. Pol. 29,2). Aristotle regarded prdébouloi as characteristically oligarchic (Aristot. Pol. 4,1298b 26-30; 1299b 30-38).

+ Licinius [II 4], who knew him well from a joint embassy to -» Maxentius in 307 (Origo Constantini imperatoris 7), appointed him praetorian prefect of his (eastern) part of the Empire, presumably shortly after his ascent to the throne in 308. P. remained in office only a few years. In 310 he held an ordinary consulship and then probably took his retirement. PLRE 1, 740 (P.

PROBOULOS

1 C. MicHEL, Recueil d’inscriptions grecques, 1900 (repr. 1976).

[2] Prdboulot is used also of the delegates to meetings of

6).

AG.

[4] P., M. Valerius. Latin philologist of the second half of the rst cent. AD; according to the vita in Suet. Gram. 24 [19] he came from the Roman colony of Berytus

[1] Imperator Caesar M. Aurelius Probus Augustus. Roman emperor 276-282 AD. Born on 19 August 232 AD in Sirmium; the information about his father in SHA Probus 3,2 and in [Aur. Vict.] epit. Caes. 37,1 is probably fictitious. P.’s career prior to his elevation to emperor in the East in the summer of 276 (Zos. 1,64) (in SHA Probus he is confused with a dux Tenagino P.) is unknown. During his six-year reign (cos. I-III 277279, cos. IV 281, cos. V 282) he fought first on the Rhine against the — Alamanni, then against the > Franci, > Burgundiones and > Vandali (Zos. 1,67-

(Beirut); on the form of his name see [28; 29]. Initially a professional soldier and following unsuccessful efforts to become a commissioned officer, he applied himself, in his later years and as a wealthy private scholar, to the study of literature, probably in Rome (Gell. NA 13,21). The elementary schooling of his homeland had steered P.’s interest towards the Republican authors disregarded in the capital; there, by means of collation, punctuation and critical and exegetical annotation of his personal copies [14; 15], he produced a series of private recensions of works by Terence, Lucretius, Horace and Virgil, and probably also Plautus and Sallust. His significance lies less in the area of editorial technique, than in paving the way for a new interest in the Republican classics [13]. P. himself published only a few small works on questions of detail: 1. an explanation of abbreviations in

68; > Got(h)icus in 277,

> Germanicus [1] maximus in

public correspondence, De notis iuris (extant); 2. the

279). He marched to the Danube and in 279 into the East, where — Saturninus had elevated himself to antiemperor but was soon killed (Zos. 1,66,1). In Isauria, P. combatted brigands (> Brigandry) (Zos. 1,69,1ff.); in Egypt the > Blem(m)yes were defeated by his generals (Zos. 1,71). It is only in papyri that P. bears the titles Parthicus (P. Amherst 2,106) or Persicus (POxy. 156,2). While he was still in the East the rebellion of > Proculus [3] and > Bonosus [1] began in the western provinces, defeated by him in 280/281 (Eutr. 9,17; Aur. Vict. Caes. 37,3). He completed the Aurelian Wall in Rome (Zos. 1,49,2). Before a planned Persian campaign and after the elevation of Aurelius > Carus [3] to anti-emperor, P. was killed by his own men in Sirmium

Epistula ad Marcellum on prosody and on problems of grammatical detail; 3. De genetivo Graeco and 4. De

the Ionians at the > Panionion (Hdt. 6,7), and to the

meetings of the Greek cities that united in the ‘Hellenic League’ against Persia in 481-479 BC (Hdt. 7,172,1). PLR.

Probus

in the autumn of 282 (Eutr. 9,17,3). KIENAST’, 253-257; PIR* A 1583; PLRE 1, 736-740; RIC 5,2,

I-121.

A.B.

[2] P. Flavius. Nephew of the emperor Anastasius [1], cos. in 502 AD, recorded as a > patrikios [1] in 526 and probably also as a general (stratélatés) in the same year. He was prosecuted in 528 for defamation of — Iustinianus [1] I, but pardoned by him. Suspected of complicity with the rebels in the > Nika Revolt in 532, he was banished but soon recalled by the emperor. As a Monophysite (~ Monophysitism) he allowed fellow believers to live in his house in Constantinople in the years 540-542 (last mention). PLRE 2, 912f. (P. 8). [3] Pompeius P.

FT.

+ Praefectus praetorio in the East 308 (?)—310 (2?) AD.

temporum conexione (2.—4. lost). His estate contained

rich material on individual observations on archaic style that had resulted from collation (cf. Gell. NA 15,30,5); their citation as De inaequalitate consuetudinis (Charisius, Gramm. p. 274,22 B.) shows P.’s interest in the unregimented multiplicity of ancient language. A Commentarius on Caesar’s cipher is mentioned in Gell. NA 17,9,rff. P.’s fame spread beyond the circle of his adherents (> Annianus, ~ Favorinus, cf. Gell. NA 1,15,18; 3,1,5f.; 6,7; 9,9,126f.); by 88 he was considered by Martial (3,2,12) a fearsome literary critic; he exercised influence over Quintilian (cf. [2. 85ff.]). In the archaizing 2nd cent. his reputation grew further. The influence of annotated personal copies can be seen in scholia on Terence and Virgil [16; 17; 18], although the dependency of one of the transmitted recensions of authors such as Virgil or Horace on copies by P. is hard to prove. Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages considered P. one of the primary exponents of grammar ([21], testimonia: [2. LIII ff.]), ascribed to him grammatical treat-

ises and commentaries (in part demonstrable secondary attributions); this increased his fame and inspired new

attributions: 1. Instituta artium, an early 4th-cent. treatise on morphology by — Palladius [4] [2r. rr6119]; 2. a sth-cent. conglomeration of grammatical excerpts transmitted as an annex to the Instituta[4. 2125], the so-called Appendix Probi; 3. Catholica, in re-

897

898

ality the second book of a grammar by > Plotius [II 5] Sacerdos [21. rr5f.]; 4. De nomine; 5. De ultimis Syllabis (addressed to a Caelestinus; [21. 120; 22]); 6. a commentary on Virgil’s Eclogues and Georgics [24;

claim their rights [7]. On the basis of Old Babylonian letters and some stipulations of the Codex Hammurapi it is certainly the case that self-help played a legally recognized role [8], and modulated self-help is furthermore mooted for + Hittite law [5]. Widespread use of the word ‘judge’ (DI.KU/ dajjanum) from the Old Akkadian period (24th/22nd cents.) onwards shows that the administration of justice was universal. The state of knowledge in this respect varies according to sources and preliminary studies (New Sumerian/Old Babylonian (21th/17th cents.): [4; 2]; Old Assyrian (zoth/roth cents.): [14]; New Assyrian (ast half of rst millennium): [9]; Late Babylonian (6th/5th cents.): [12. 125]; Hittite (16th—r3th cents.): [5] (+ Hittite law C.); Nuzi (c. 1460-1330): [6]). Directly and indirectly accessible jurisdiction on the part of the king or city potentate is attested or to be assumed for all periods (in principle not in the sense of an appellate authority); this must also apply — de facto or by delegation — to functionaries (for example in New Sumerian the king’s messenger, 1-kin-gi,-a-lugala). This is in part a question of special jurisdiction, for example in questions of loans, etc. [2. 25off.; 11]. There is no evidence of temple jurisdiction [2. 23 3-239], even in New Sumerian (pace [4. 3 1f.]); the temple was the usual location for the taking of oaths. Apart from the judges / royal judges there were the local courts, such as the ‘city quarter’ (Old Babylonian babtum), ‘the city and the elders’ (Old Babylonian alum u sibutum), ‘the assembly’ (Old/New Babylonian pubrum) and ‘the commercial authority’ (Old Assyrian / Old Babylonian karum), which made legal judgements, sometimes with the judges or magistrates. The prolonged training of — scribes at the tablet-house ensured that there was always a ready supply of high-status, knowledgeable judges. It is not always possible to determine the functions of individual participants in legal proceedings unequivocally (for example New Sumerian maskim, ‘commissioners’); court organisation also varied in individual instances. Judges were relied upon to open proceedings (e.g. [4. 59-62; 2. 304-11]). Evidence was heard from ‘expert witnesses’ (New Sumerian / Old Babylonian; by this is meant individuals who exerted influence on the court in arriving at its decision; they were sometimes attached to the court), witness statements, under oath or otherwise, statements under oath by the parties, and documentary evidence (e.g. [4. 62f.; 2. 326-39]). Trial by ordeal, insofar as it is attested, had no evidential status within court proceedings (e.g. [4. 62; 2. 334; 1]). No absolute rules of evidence are discernible. Proceedings were recorded (e.g. [4; 6. 8]), and separate records kept of investigations (e.g. [18]). It is apparent that judges proceeded carefully and with regard for the merits of the cases before them. The verdict was either pronounced or declared by means of an oath, which concluded proceedings; already in the Old Babylonian period (but perhaps not yet in the New Sumerian period) it appears to have been binding, whether or not it was accepted by the parties [2. 366-77]. It was in any event decisive in

25]; 7. a commentary on - Persius [2], of which only

the (ultimately Suetonian [26]) vita survives; branch of the Juvenal scholia [27]. +> Archaism; > Literary activity; > Philology EDITIONS:

1GL 4, 267-276 (De notis iuris)

8. a

2 J. Ars-

TERMANN, De M. Valerio Probo Berytio, 1910, frr. II-LI.

EDITIONS OF THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA:

4,45-192

3 Instituta: GL

4 Appendix Probi: F. StTOK, 1997

5 Catholica:

GL 4, 1-43 6 De nomine: M. PAssALAcqua, Tre testi grammaticali Bobbiesi, 1984, 61-75 7 De ultimis syllabis: GL 4, 217-264 8 Virgil comm.: Serv. 3,2, ed. H. HAGEN, 1902, 321-390. INDEX: 9G. DE La-CHICA CassINELLO, Ps. Probus,

1991.

:

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

10 J. Steup, De Probis grammaticis,

1871, in: J. AISTERMANN,

s. [2], 1-156

11N. Scivo-

LETTO, Studi di letteratura latina imperiale, 1963, 15 5221 (first edn. 1959) 12 A. DELLA Casa, Grammatica e letteratura, 1994, 117-140 (first edn. 1973) 13 G. Pascuccl, Scritti scelti 1, 1983, 397-422 (first edn. 1976) 14 J. E.G. Zerzex, Latin Textual Criticism in Antiquity,

1981, 41-54, 73f., 237f.

15 H. D. Joceryn, The Anno-

tations of M. Valerius P., in: CQ 34, 1984, 464-472 (Bibliogr. 464, n. 4); 35, 1985, 149-161 16S. TIMPANARO, Per la storia della filologia virgiliana antica, 1986, 18ff., 27-30, 46ff., 77-127 17 M. L. DELvico, Testo virgiliano e tradizione indiretta, 1987 18 L. LEHNUus,s. v. P., EV 4, 1988, 284-288 19R. A. KasTeEr (ed.), Suetonius, De grammaticis et rhetoribus (with transl. and comm.), 1995, 242-269. BIBLIOGRAPHY

ON

THE

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA:

20 Id.,

Guardians of Language, 1988, 348-350 2p ve SCHMIDT, in: HLL, vol. 5, 1989, 117. 22 M. DE Nonno, in: G. CavALLO (ed.), Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica 5, 1991, 529f. 23 Id., L’auctor ad Caelestinum, in: Dicti studiosus. FS S. Mariotti, 1990, 221-258 24M. GioSEFFI, Studi sul commento a Virgilio dello Pseudo-Probo,

1991

25 1d., Problemi di fonti nel Comm. alle Bucoliche

dello

Ps.-Probo,

in:

C.

MorescuHIni

(ed.),

Esegesi,

parafrasi e compilazione in eta tardoantica, 1995, 131145 26P.L. ScHmipT, in: HLL, vol. 4, 36f. 27 W.S. ANDERSON, Valla, Juvenal and P., in: Traditio 21, 1965,

383-424.

:

ON THE NAME: 28 O. KeLLer, Uber ... Scholiasten des Horaz, in: O. RipBeck et al., Symbola. FS F. Ritschl, 1864/67, 491,n.1 29P.L. ScHMIDT, s. v. P., RAC 16,

1993, 4918.

P.L.S.

Procedural law I. ANCIENT ORIENT II. PHARAONIC EGyPT Ill. Juparc raw IV. GREEK AND ROMAN ANTIQUITY

I. ANCIENT ORIENT Even in the cuneiform laws (> Cuneiform, legal texts in) going back to the middle of the 3rd millennium, it is impossible to discern an epoch in which it was true that virtually only the strong were able to

PROCEDURAL

LAW

PROCEDURAL

LAW

determining the validity or otherwise of the case presented, and the victorious party was free to implement it with society’s approval [8]. There are occasional indications that fees were charged (e.g. [2. 361]).

It is not possible to establish that the community exercised any claim to the punishment of offences between private individuals. The ‘state’ confined itself to pursuing cases that affected its immediate interests, such as disrespect for its prerogatives, high treason, and offences against religion (pace e.g. [13]). It may be supposed that the culprit was often punished without undergoing any specific trial process. In the case of isolated instances that may be regarded as ‘criminal trials’ in the actual sense of the term, there appear to be no fundamental differences between them and their ‘civil’ counterparts (e.g. [1 5; 3]); the same applies to similarly isolated instances of ‘administrative cases’ [4. 139-45]. (‘Criminal law’ is normally regarded in the specialist literature as covering all offences resulting in what would nowadays be regarded as punishment; see e.g.

[ro].) ~ Punishment, Criminal law 1G. Carpascia, L’ordalie fluviale dans la Mésopotamie ancienne, in: Revue historique de droit francais et étranger 71, 1993,

119-184, 269-288

2E. Domprapt, Die Dar-

stellung des Rechtsaustrags in den altbabylonischen ProzeSurkunden, 1996 3 J. DURAND, Une condamnation a mort a l’époque d’Ur III, in: RAssyr 71, 1977, 125-136 4 A. FALKENSTEIN, Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden, 1956f. 5 R. Haase, Zum hethitischen Prozefrecht,

in: ZA N. F. 23, 1965, 55-57

6R.E. HayDEN, Court

Procedure at Nuzi, thesis, Brandeis, 1962

7 J. HENGSTL,

Zu moéglichen Spuren archaischen Rechtsdenkens in den literarischen Quellen Mesopotamiens, in: G. WESENER (ed.), FS A. Kranzlein, 1986, 11-19

lichen’

Exekution

in

8 Id., Zur ‘zivilrecht-

altbabylonischer

Zeit,

in:

J.

ZLINSZKY (ed.), Questions de responsabilité, 1993, 15 1-

165 9R. Jas, Neo-Assyrian Judicial Procedures, 1996 10S. LAFONT, Femmes, droit et justice dans l’antiquité orientale, 1999 11 W. F. LEEMANS, King Hammurabi as Judge, in: H. ANkuM (ed.), Symbolae M. David, vol. 2, 1968, 107-129 12 J. OELSNER, Recht im hellenistischen Babylonien, in: M. J.GELLER, H. MAEHLER (ed.), Legal Documents of the Hellenistic World, 1995, 106-148

13 E. Orro, Zur Stellung der Frau in den altesten Rechtstexten des AT (Ex 20,14; 22,15f.) — wider die hermeneu-

tische Naivitat im Umgang mit dem AT, in: Id., Kontinuum

goo

899

und Proprium, 1996, 30-48

14K.R. VEENHOFR,

Private Summons and Arbitration among the Old Assyrian Traders, in: M. Mort (ed.), FS Prince Takahito Mikasa, 1991, 437-459 15 E. WeIDNER, Hochverrat

gegen Nebukadnezar II. Ein GrofSwiirdentrager vor dem Konigsgericht, in: AfO 17, 1954-6, 1-9 16R. WERNER, Hethitische Gerichtsprotokolle, 1967. JO.HE.

Il. PHARAONIC EGYPT The sources are uneven. From the Old Kingdom we have only hints, for example in the official titles of the viziers (‘President of the six courts’, jmj-r3 hwt-wrt 6; 17 instances in all from the 5th/6th dynasties) or in documents (e.g.. trial “before the ministry officials’, m-b3h

srw; attested from the 4th dynasty onwards). Nothing further is known from the Middle Kingdom. Only from the New Kingdom do we have trial documents. Our knowledge of the court system of the Late Period (1st millennium BC) can again be said virtually to comprise only one official title, ‘College of judges’ (wpjjw; cf. [1r. XI f.]). Achaemenid institutions are found during the Persian period [9. 34; 12]. As well as members (srw) of the royal court of justice, djadjat (d3d3t; attested from the Old Kingdom to the 13th dynasty), and the local collegiate courts, genbet (qnbt; attested from the 11th to the 25th dynasty), the pharaoh, too, administered justice, and, on feast days, so did the gods (19th dynasty to the Roman

period). Functionaries (z3b, sdmw), in-

cluding the vizier (#3t7), were also active in mediating and deciding disputes in all periods. Little is known of the pharaoh’s jurisdiction (e.g. [8. 23 5—44]). In the case of divine jurisdiction, called upon primarily in property disputes, the god might pronounce judgement by returning one of two previously provided versions of a question that is to resolve the dispute, or by means of the ‘barque oracle’ [8. 107-41; 2. 73-82]; there may also have been hearings by the gods [6] and ordeals [1]. Information on the genbet, its proceedings and organization, is provided primarily by the rich material from Dair al-Madina [8; 2]. Cases were often opened by means of submissions to officials and reference onwards or at audiences. Evidence was presented through the medium of inspection, witnesses, documents, and sworn statements by the parties. The verdict imposed a purifying oath on a party, or embodied an immediate decision. The parties were required to submit to the decision arrived at on the merits of the case. Nothing further is known in respect of implementation; it could embrace property and children. State aid was evidently possible. Legal protection could be restricted by advance agreement, and it was no doubt very unusual for people of modest status to proceed against their social superiors. Jurisdiction was complemented by legal protection in the form of imprecation [3]. As in other legal systems, the trial could serve to establish fictitious rights (e.g. [ro. 62]). There is nothing to indicate that self-help was legally recognized as a means of pursuing private legal redress in Ancient Egypt. It was no doubt prevented by the omnipresent administrative apparatus, and it is accordingly scarcely possible to decide when functionaries undertook to pursue offences between private individuals, and when they were pursuing a criminal prosecution on behalf of the state: criminal jurisdiction may be assumed in those cases that were subject neither to divine jurisdiction nor to the collegiate courts (cf. [8. 187234]). There was also a merging of the power to administer justice and ordinary administrative responsibility, even in the case of the genbet. Ancient Egyptian justice survived beyond the end of the epoch by virtue of the continued recognition of officials and special jurisdiction for native Egyptians (/aokritat) [13]. + Demotic law; > Egyptian law

901

902 1S. ALAM,

Sur Vordalie en Egypte pharaonique,

PROCEDURAL LAW

in:

The hearing was oral. Forms of evidence were wit-

Journ. of the Economic and Social History of the Orient

nesses, possibly an oath of purification (Ex 22:9f.), exhibits (Ex 22:12), and ordeal (Ex 22:7.) [2. 7of.; 3.

34, 1991, 361-364 2Id., Das Verfahrensrecht in der altagyptischen Arbeitersiedlung von Deir el-Medine, 1973 3 J. ASsMaNN, When Justice Fails: Jurisdiction and Imprecation in Ancient Egypt and the Near East, in: JEA 78, 1992, 149-162 4 W. Boocns, Altagyptisches Zivilrecht, 1999, 112-117 S$ Id., Strafrechtliche Aspekte im altagyptischen Recht, 1993 6F. DE CENIvAL, Le papyrus Dodgson. Une interrogation aux portes des dieux?, in:

t13f.; 5. 266f.]. In the absence of extant instances, the precise significance of documents in the trial process is uncertain |2. 71]. There were strict rules of evidence: for example (perhaps only in criminal cases) two witnesses were necessary for a conviction (Dt 9:15); judging for an earlier age on the basis of the Talmud, women

and

Revue d’Egyptologie 38, 1987, 3-11 7G. Husson, D. VALBELLE, L’Etat et les Institutions en Egypte des premiers

slaves were ineligible as witnesses. In the (Judaeo)Aramaic documents from — Elephantine, instances

pharaons

can be found of the relinquishment of proof [8. 86], as

aux

empereurs

romains,

1992,

125-138

8 A. G. McDowELL, Jurisdiction in the Workmen’s Community of Deir el-Medina, 1990 9 E. SerpL, Agyptische Rechtsgeschichte der Saiten- und Perserzeit, *1956, 29-44 10 Id., Einfiihrung in die agyptische Rechtsgeschichte bis zum Ende des NR I, 71957, 21-31, 32-40, 62 11 G. VitTTMANN, Der demotische Pap. Rylands 9, 1998 12 J. Wir-

SEHOFER, Prtrk, rb b-yP und mr’. Zur Verwaltung Siidagyptens in achaimenidischer Zeit, in: AchHist 6, r991,

305-309 *1970.

13 H. J. Woxrr, DasJustizwesen der Ptolemaer, JO.HE, and O.WI.

III. JuDaic Law The Torah (+ Judaic law A.; on Talmudic PL see [3])

permits us to trace the development of procedural law from the tribal stage to the Hellenistic age. In particular contexts self-help was a recognized means of seeking legal redress [2. 36f., 67f.; 3. 93-8]. Jurisdiction originally lay with the family (Gn 38:24 — a selection of instances), then with the clan elders or tribal leaders

(Nm 11:16f.), continuing under the kings (2 Sam 14:7), who could also operate as appellate authorities (2 Sam 15:2-4). During the Exodus, Moses was initially sole judge (Ex 18:25); later, only important cases were still to be presented before him (Dt 1:13). The establishment of ‘public’ courts was by divine command (Dt 16:1819). Local courts were created after the settlement of Canaan (Dt 22:18, also attested later, see Jdt 6:16; [1. 9—16]); the priests and the judge in Jerusalem had jurisdiction over important cases (Dt 17:8f.). The judge Samuel specified three court cities (1 Sam 7:16); King Jehoshaphat subsequently established judges in each town, and in Jerusalem a High Court where the king sat with the high priests (2 Chr 19:5—11). The concern for justice is clearly apparent (2 Chr 19:6; also cf. Solomon as judge). A characteristic of Judaic PL was the designation of asylum cities in association with court proceedings for crimes involving killing (+ Killing, crimes involving; Dt 19:1-12) [4. 116-57]. Proceedings were opened by the injured party, usually orally, later in all probability also in writing (Job 31:3 5f.). According to documents from Jewish communities under foreign rule, court procedure corresponded to that of the prevailing non-Jewish culture; the Jewish population had recourse to the normal judges [7] or functionaries [6; 8], or, in the Jewish > politeuma attested for Ptolemaic Egypt, perhaps in the traditional manner to the dignitaries associated with that institution: there as in the Torah, the elders (presbyteroi) were also judges (kritai) [t. 9-16].

in Egyptian procedural law (see above II.). Implementation normally followed immediately upon pronouncement of the verdict (Dt 25:2); in the implementation of a death sentence the witnesses were supposed to throw the first stone, and the community to participate (Dt 17:7). The particular religious background of ~> Judaic law made the verdict a binding one (cf. 2 Chr 19:6), and the punishment of offences a communal obligation, in the sense of a public requirement for punishment [5. 254-65]. 1 J. Cowry, K. Marescu, Urkunden

des Politeuma der

Juden von Herakleopolis (144/3-133/2 v.Chr.), 2001 2 Z. W. FALK, Hebrew Law in Biblical Times, 1964, esp. 56-72 31d., Introduction to Jewish Law of the Second Commonwealth, vol. 1, 1972, 93-143 4 J. CHR. GERTZ, Die Gerichtsorganisation Israels im deuteronomistischen Gesetz, 1994

5S. E. LOEWENSTAMM, Law, in: B. MAZAR

(ed.), The World History of the Jewish People, vol. 1.3, 1971, 231-267 (265-267) 6J. WIESEHOFER, Prtrk, rb h.yP und mr. Zur Verwaltung Siidagyptens in achaimenidischer Zeit, in: AchHist 6, 1991, 305-309 7D. Norr, Prozessuales aus dem Babatha-Archiv, in: M. Hum-

BERT (ed.), Mélanges A. Magdelain, 1998, 317-341 8R. YaRON, Introduction to the Law of the Aramaic Papyri, 1961, bes. 27-35. JO.HE.

IV. GREEK AND ROMAN ANTIQUITY B. GREECE C. ROME

A. CoNcEPT

A. CONCEPT A category of PL as distinct from substantive law was foreign to the Greek and Roman worlds, as it was to Antiquity in general. Whereas today we distinguish substantive subjective rights (such as property or entitlement) from their implementation before the court, from Antiquity on until far into the roth cent. the two aspects were combined. The equating of (subjective) law with the legal enforceability of a case, characteristic of legal thinking in Classical Antiquity, is today normally included under the term aktionenrechtliches Denken (‘litigation-oriented conception of the law’), thus embracing the concept of the > actio [2] (claim) in Roman law. The most highly developed instance was the catalogue of actiones in the > edictum [1] prepared by the praetor. Windscheid 1856 was first to separate out what was set down in the relevant — formula in each case as the promise of legal protection [1], and since then entitlement under substantive law has char-

PROCEDURAL LAW

904

903

acterized our understanding of the law. This is of course entirely separate from the entitlement to recourse to justice, which provides access to the law in court. The modern concept of PL thus characterizes the sum of all those precepts that relate to proceedings by means of which legal issues are presented before a neutral third party, the judge. Whether the latter is an appointee of the state or a (respected) private individual, whether the facts or opinions necessary for reaching a verdict are the result of an official investigation or their production is left to the parties concerned, whether, finally, the seat of justice is occupied by one or more than one judge, or, as in the case of Roman legis actions (> legis actio) and formulary trials, power of decision is shared among several individuals acting in succession, does nothing to alter the basic function of any system of PL: this is, essentially, to regulate the proceedings in which two parties (one of which, as in the case of a criminal trial, can be the state) contest a legal issue (in-

cluding the state’s entitlement to exact punishment), and to this end (in person or through the medium of others) provide a neutral arbiter with the information required for him to resolve the dispute in accordance with the law. It is also true to say that the conception of law in the Greek and Roman worlds cannot be assessed on the basis of modern norms: the verdict could depend on social factors (the prestige of the parties, or the differing degree to which they stood in need of the law’s help) as well as, or even instead of, strictly legal considerations.

B. GREECE Our primary source of information for the institutions of PL in Ancient Greece is Aristot. Ath. Pol. 63-9; for its practical features, on the other hand, we rely mainly on extant Attic legal speeches (in particular — Demosthenes [2], > Isocrates, > Lysias [1]; cf. also ~ logographos). Attic PL developed from the king as judge (— archontes I.) via the judge as an appointed official (> thesmothétai) to the democratically structured popular court (with a decisive breakthrough in the conception of the jury, probably by Solon, beginning of the 6th cent. BC, > dikastérion). Eventually in Athens, every morning a complicated mechanism was set in train to select the courts and judges that would have jurisdiction for that particular day, the intention being that the judges would be impartial and incorruptible, and their verdicts ‘correct’. With rules for the allotment of fixed durations for the speeches of the parties, and for strictly anonymous voting by the judges when casting their final verdict, a solid foundation was provided for system of PL. As PL developed further, secu-

larization inevitably meant that the guarantee of truth for the cases presented by the parties lost its central role, just as the - oath declined in significance (Pl. Leg. 948b-e); it is also attested that in Athens > rhetoric was in essence more relevant to the verdict than rigorous legal argument. Cf. also — Athenian law C.

C. ROME The development of Roman law began with the explicit standardization of court proceedings in respect of legis actions in the first three of the Twelve Tables (5th cent. BC, > Tabulae duodecim). The distinction between the question of law and the establishment of the facts is already found here: while the latter function was left to a private individual, the determination of the question of law was reserved for the jurisdiction of a magistrate (— aediles, » praetor). Having been refined in the context of the formulary procedure, from about the beginning of the Principate (end of the rst cent. BC) this distribution of roles was gradually replaced by the quasi-official individual judge (see > cognitio). In the sphere of criminal law, too, the individual judge displaced the more elaborate > quaestio procedure, with its separate jurisdictions for particular offences and sizeable board of judges. On the basis of some more recent finds of local laws in the form of inscriptions (in particular the > lex Irnitana) it is possible to conclude that PL as practised in the provinces was based on the urban Roman model, transferred and adjusted to local circumstances. In Rome, too, there were procedural measures to ensure the neutrality of judges: the > praetor had a list of judges from which the parties had to select a mutually acceptable individual. While the first stage of proceedings (im iure, that is to say before the praetor) took place in public, the second (apud iudicem, before the judge) was in the judge’s private house. The first stage was accordingly dominated by legal considerations, while the purpose of the second was to hear and assess the evidence, thus leaving room in Rome, too, for rhetorical presentations. In criminal proceedings, in order to ensure greater legitimacy, the most suitable prosecutor (see — delator) could be chosen from several available candidates; the most celebrated instance of such a proceeding (— divinatio) is

+ Cicero’s first speech against > Verres, by which he excluded his rival Caecilius [I 33] on account of suspected bias. As the procedure before the praetor already had a substantial content of (material) law, in Roman PL there were less elaborate rules for the actual presentation of the verdict (> iudicium) than was the case in Greece. In Late Antiquity proceedings were transferred to an officially appointed judge sitting alone (e.g. the proconsul of the province), who bore sole responsibility for trying the case. Thus in the final analysis the arrival at justice became the ruler’s exclusive prerogative: a basic principle that was not to be questioned again in continental Europe until the r8th and roth cents., with the call for lay participation (a sworn jury) in the legal process. + PENAL LAW; > Quaestio 1B. WinDsSCHEID, Die Actio des rémischen Civilrechts,

vom Standpunkte des heutigen Rechts, 1856. Greece:

A.

Biscarpi,

Diritto

greco

antico,

1982;

A. R. W. Harrison, The Law of Athens, 2 vols., r968— 71; D.M. MacDowe tt, The Law of Athens, 1978; S.

906

905 Topp, The Shape of Athenian Law, 1993 Rome: K. Hacxt, Der Zivilprozef des frithen Prinzipats in den Provinzen, in: ZRG 114, 1997, 141-159; M. KaseR, K. HACKL, Das rémische ZivilprozeSrecht, *1996;

W. KunkeL, Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung des rémischen Kriminalverfahrens in vorsullanischer Zeit, 1962;

L.S. Maruorti, Aspetti della ‘giurisdizione civile’ del ‘praefectus urbi’ nell’eta Severiana, in: Labeo 39, 1993, 174-233; D. SIMON, Untersuchungen zum justinianischen Zivilprozef, 1969; W. SIMSHAUSER, Stadtrémisches Ver-

fahrensrecht im Spiegel der lex Irnitana, in: ZRG 1992, 163-208; A. STEINWENTER, durch Urteil ..., 71971.

Procession I. DEFINITION

Die Streitbeendigung CPA.

II. GRAECO-ROMAN

III. CHRISTIANITY

IV. SECULAR

ro9,

ANTIQUITY

PROCESSIONS

I. DEFINITION A procession (Greek xouxt/pompe, Latin pompa)

can be defined as the action of a group of people who are ‘proceeding’ (Latin procedere) in a formalized and orderly sequence. A distinction can be made between two types of formal processions: those that take place irregularly and those that are held at regular intervals. II. GRAECO-ROMAN ANTIQUITY A. IRREGULARLY OCCURRING PROCESSIONS B. REGULAR PROCESSIONS

A. IRREGULARLY OCCURRING PROCESSIONS During Classical antiquity, processions that took place irregularly were ritualized events involving a variety of social groups, from the > family and locally and regionally organized religious or social associations to the politically organized community of the city-state. 1. FAMILY 2. POLITICAL COMMUNITY 1. FAMILY In both the Greek and the Roman world, following a wedding ceremony a procession was held from the home of the bride to that of the bridegroom (~ Wedding customs and rituals). As an important part of the wedding festivities, it was often depicted on Attic vases [x]; in Greece the newly married couple was escorted by the best friend of the groom, the mother of the bride, servants, and musicians who accompanied the ~— hyménaios [2]; in Rome by three young boys. Processions were also part of > burials (~ Dead, cult of the); a procession would accompany the deceased to the cemetery (on Rome: [2]). The opulence of such processions might be limited for political reasons; Solon (Plut. Solon 21) is said to have been the first to restrict the funeral-related excesses of the aristocracy after 600 BC. Similar restrictions were imposed elsewhere as well from time to time (LSCG 77C; 97; LSCG, Suppl. 31; LSAM 16). 2. POLITICAL COMMUNITY Magistrates were often responsible for organizing the occasional processions held by the political commu-

PROCESSION

nity. Upon taking office, Roman > consuls would proceed to the » Capitolium, along with the > equites and representatives of the senators. There they took their vows to > luppiter Optimus Maximus, assumed their seats on the > sella curulis and led a session of the Senate (e.g. Ov. Pont. 4,9,3-38).

Roman

military com-

manders held a massive procession, marching in > triumph through the Porta Triumphalis, around the Palatine, across the Forum and up to the Capitoline Hill,

where they presented sacrifices to Iuppiter Optimus Maximus [3. 94-131]. Included in the procession were prisoners (who were subsequently executed), freed Roman prisoners of war, booty, the army, as well as animals to be sacrificed (cf. Plut. Aemilius Paullus 3 234 on the triumphal procession in the year 167 BC). A procession of leading officials and other public representatives was usually held to greet kings or emperors upon their arrival in the city (e.g. Plin. Paneg. 22f.;

[4. 17-89]). B. REGULAR PROCESSIONS Regular processions were a fixed part of the > calendar of each city, included in the annual rituals and festivals held in honour of rulers and the gods. These festivals were carefully planned to underscore their specific character. An idealized version of the procession held on the + Panathénaia is depicted on the frieze that runs around the cella of the > Parthenon. Extensive literary accounts tell of the processions that are believed to have been associated with the > Ptolemaia in Alexandria (Callixenus FGrH 627 F 2 in Athen. 5,196a—203b) and of the processions during the ludi Romani (Fabius Pictor in Dion. Hal. Ant. 7,72) [5. 254-268; 3. 258270]. In the Greek world, cultic officials, designated by special names, usually carried the sacred objects (kanephoroi, hydrophéroi, liknophoroi, kistophoroi, + pastophoroi) during the religious procession. In Rome it was more common for images of the gods to be carried in a procession from their temples to the Circus or the theatre. Their thrones were included in the procession during the > sellisternium, their couches during the — lectisternium. The route of a regular procession was precisely determined. It might lead from the centre of the city to a shrine located outside: e.g. the road between Ephesus and the shrine of Artemis (Xenophon of Ephesus 1,2), the 20 km-long road between Miletus and Didyma [6.37] or the 30 km-long ‘Sacred Road’ between Athens and Eleusis (e.g. Plut. Alcibiades 3 4,3-6; > Mysteria). The procession’s route might also run between important sites within a city, e.g. the Panathenaea procession in Athens (> Panathénaia) or the Artemisia in Ephesus [7]. A procession usually ended with a bloody + sacrifice at an altar or before the shrine of the deity to be honoured; indeed, the procession was an integral part of ancient — feasts [5. 253f.]. The importance of the procession in the life of ancient cities is underscored by the Christian admonition to avoid evil: ‘abjure the devil and his procession (pompa diaboli)’ [8]. + Festivals, Feasts;

> Ludi; > Ritual

907

908

1J.H. Oaktey, R.H. Stnos, The Wedding in Ancient Athens, 1993 2S. Price, From Noble Funerals to Divine Cult: The Consecration of Roman Emperors, in: Id., D. CANNADINE (ed.), Rituals of Royalty, 1987, 56-105 3. H.S. VeRSNEL, Triumphus, 1970 4S. MacCoRMAck, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity, 1981 5 F. BERN-

of the pre-Christmas period of repentance, the Marian feasts, the feast of the cleansing or presentation in the temple (cf. Lk 2:22-40) on 2 Feb. (procession of candles), feast days of the martyrs. During the 7th and 8th cents. there were many popular processions in Rome, some of which were led by the poor people of the city [2. 105-166]. It may be that pilgrimages were introduced in Rome in the 6th cent. because of the influence of the rich tradition of pilgrimages in Constantinople; there is no evidence that pilgrimages were held in Rome prior to that time. Processions on the feast days of the ecclesiastical year were not mentioned in Constantinople in documents until later on, although there is evidence for Rome as well as elsewhere of processions on special occasions: processions to translate > relics and on the occasion of the consecration of a church, processions of supplication in cases of disaster (with processions of thanksgiving and commemoration on the subsequent anniversaries), in earthquakes, droughts, war, processions as a demonstration of ecclesiastical power in disputes about > Arianism and > Monophysitism, processions in connection with political events (death of an emperor, coronation processions). The political importance of ecclesiastical processions is also evident in the fact that beginning in the sth cent. the prefect (éparchos) of the city led the procession [2. 167-228; 9]. The way processions were organized, with their antiphonal

PROCESSION

STEIN, Ludi publici, r998 6S. Price, Religions of the Ancient Greeks, 1999 7G. M. Rocers, The Sacred Iden-

tity of Ephesos, r991 8 G. BINDER, ‘Pompa diaboli’ — Das Heidenspektakel und die Christenmoral, in: Id., B. EFFE (ed.), Das

antike

Theater

(Bochumer

schaftliches Colloquium 33), 1998,

altertumwissen-

115-147.

F. BOMER, s. v. Pompa, RE 21.2, 1878-1994; F. GraF,

‘Pompai’ in Greece: Some Considerations about Space and Ritual in the Greek Polis, in: R. HAGG (ed.), The Role

of Religion in the Early Greek Polis, 1996, 55-65; S. Price, Rituals and Power, 1984, 110-112; S. WEINstock, Divus Julius, 1971, 282-286; G. Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Romer, *1912, 449-467.

SLPR.

III]. CHRISTIANITY It was not until the 4th cent. that large-scale Christian processions were held, as they began to be tolerated and promoted by the state. They represented a further development of the stational liturgy (liturgies of an urban community led by the bishop outside the main church, at a so-called statio: church, tomb, square) that had been performed occasionally in the pre-Constantine era. Despite vehement condemnation of pagan processions as pompae diaboli (‘devil’s processions’) and the clear distinction that was made in matters such as terminology (usually duti/lite or litania instead of the Classical terms noun pompeé and pompa) [2. 206209], some of the public processions held by Christians took up the pre-Christian tradition (e.g. the rogationes, introduced in Gaul during the 5th cent., were based on the > Ambarvalia; the litania maior on 24/25 April on the > Robigalia [6; 11. 424]). Generally the procession would go from a gathering place (collecta) to one or more stations (stationes) where a liturgy of the word was held and/or the Eucharist was celebrated (usually at the final destination). The procession was characterized by the (sometimes antiphonic) singing of psalms and hymns, prayers, torches or candles and sometimes cultic objects as well (relics, palm branches, evangelia-

tion with celebrating the Eucharist (procession of the

ries).

celebrant

The earliest evidence of public Christian processions, found in Egeria’s - Peregrinatio ad loca sancta (probably from 381-384), shows that they were a firmly established part of the emerging ecclesiastical year. In Jerusalem, processions were held on Epiphany (6 Jan.), Saturday before Palm Sunday, Palm Sunday (palm procession), Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday, Easter and Pentecost. These processions re-enacted the events described in the Gospels

communion processions, gospel processions), processions as part of a baptism (dressed in white robes, those to be baptized proceeded from the baptistery into the

[2. 45-104]. In Rome as well, where processions should also be seen in the context of > pilgrimages, the feasts of the liturgical year included processions: in addition to Good Friday and Easter, the Wednesdays and Fridays

song, is seen by some sources (e.g. Soz. 3,20) as rooted

in Antioch [1], the home of Iohannes [4] Chrysostomos, in whose episcopate (beginning in 398) the first known

processions in the capital were held. However, owing to the sparseness and late date of the available sources, one can only speculate about the beginnings of the practice of holding processions in Antioch [3]. References to processions in other regions (Alexandria

[4], Gaul [r1. 424], Ravenna

[ro], etc.),

however, would indicate that public Christian processions in the 5th and 6th cents. took on a significance similar to that of processions in the pre-Christian era. In addition to the major urban and rural processions, during the early Christian era there were also processions on a smaller scale [7]: processions in connecwith

his assistants,

offertory

processions,

church for the celebration of the Eucharist) and funeral

processions. When the deceased was an individual of note, the funeral cortége would sometimes become a procession of the people, as shown in the detailed account by > Gregorius [2] of Nyssa of the burial of his sister (Vita Macrinae iunioris) |12. 187-235]. -» Pilgrimage 1 T. BarLey, The Processions of Sarum and the Western

Church, 1971 2 J. F. BaLDovin, The Urban Character of Christian Worship, 1987 3 A. BauMsTARK, Das Kirchenjahr in Antiocheia zwischen 512 und 518, in: RQA 11,

909

910 1897, 31-66 and 13, 1899, 503-523

4H. BRAKMANN,

ZYNAEIZ KAOOAIKH in Alexandreia, in: JbAC 30, 1987, 74-89 5A. Cuavasse, La liturgie de la ville de

Rome du V° au VIII siécle, 1993 6 G. DeBruyne, L’origine des processions de la Chandeleur et des Rogations, in: Revue bénédictine 34, 1922, 14-26

7M. FEROTIN (ed.),

Monumenta Ecclesiae Liturgica 5, 1904 8 S, FELBECKER, Die Prozession, 1995 9 R. JANIN, Les processions religieuses de Byzance, in: REByz 24, 1966, 68-89

10M. Maz-

ZOTTI, [tinerari processionali ravennati, in: Felix Ravenna

109/110, 1975, 141-156 11 W. Pax,s. v. Bittprozession, RAC 2, 1954, 422-429 12 A. C. Rusu, Death and Burial in Christian Antiquity,

1941

13 R. F. Tarr, The Great

PROCLES

Procilius. Roman antiquarian, datable by the testimony of Pliny the Elder (HN 8,4) to the time of the > triumph of > Pompeius [I 3] (in about 81 BC). As the few testimonies [1] are connected with the route of the triumphal procession, the work might under certain cir-

cumstances

have

been

a periegesis

for Rome

(cf.

> Travel literature) [2. 165-167]. Cicero (Att. 2,2,2)

preferred > Dicaearchus’s writings on cultural history to those of Procilius. > Antiquarians 1GRF 129

2F. Moénzer, Beitrage zur Quellenkritik der

AN.M.

Naturgeschichte des Plinius, 1897 3 E. Rawson, Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic, 1985, 265.

IV. SECULAR PROCESSIONS Regarding secular processions in late antiquity, see [2], for specific information on non-religious processions in Byzantine court rituals, see [1].

Procleides (MeoxAeidync; Prokleidés). Attic comedic poet, victorious at the Dionysia in 332 BC [t. test. r] and at an agon at the Lenaea [T. test. 2]; otherwise nothing is known.

Entrance, 1975.

1 A. CAMERON, The Byzantine Book of Ceremonies, in: D. CANNADINE, S. PRICE (ed.), Rituals of Royalty, 1987, 106-

136 2M. McCormick, Eternal Victory. Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Early Medieval West, 1986.

Procharisteria

SLPR.

(I90(c)ycouotmova/Pro(s)charistéria).

Possibly identfiable with Pro(s)chairéteria (cf. Sudas. v.

Tloooyaontie.a). Attic festival of the first blossom of fruits of the field, to which ol év th doy mavtes (hoi en téi archéi pantes, “all officials’ or ‘all within the Delian League’) presented a traditional sacrifice (Suda s. v. Tlooyaeuotjoua; Anecd. Bekk. 1,295,3). In the early tradition, the sacrifice was for Kore (— Persephone) to mark the occasion of her ascent out of the Underworld, imagined as happening every year at the beginning of

1 PCG VII, 1989, 582.

H.-G.NE.

Procles (Mooxi\¢/Proklés). [1] The legendary Spartan king. P. was considered to be a son of Aristodemus [1] — and hence a direct descendant of Heracles [1] — and the ancestor of the > Eurypontids, named after Eurypon, his son (Hdt. 8,131) or grandson (Plut. Lycurgus 1). As late as the 5th cent. BC, P. and his twin brother Eurysthenes [1] and not, e.g., Lycurgus [4], appear in Hellanicus (FGrH 4 F 116) as the framers of the Spartan constitution. Ephorus (FGrH 70 F 117) also attributes the division of the Lacedaemonian settlements into districts to them. The competition between Sparta’s two royal houses, attested only from c. 500 BC, was also traced back to an on-going

spring (Lycurg. 7, fr. ra-b Conomis; Harpocr. s. v.

quarrel between the brothers (Hdt. 6,52; Paus. 3,1,7).

Toooyaouotijoua); according to the Suda, of > Athena (ibid.; cf. Anecd. Bekk. ibid.). Lycurgus (ibid.) mentions

Thera’s alleged guardianship of the two still under-age kings (Hdt. 4,147) connects the foundation story of ~ Thera to the list of Spartan kings. P. is interesting principally as an exemplary ‘crystallizational’ figure in the construction of Spartan history: contemporary conditions and claims were legitimated by constructed images of the past (cf. generally [1]). -» Sparta

the Procharistéria in the context of a dispute between the géné of the Croconids and the Coeronids, both descendants of > Triptolemus (Anecd. Bekk. 1,273,7s. v. Kotomvidat). DEUBNER, 17; R. ParKER, Athenian Religion, 1996, 302-

304.

BK.

1 L. THOMMEN, Spartas Umgang mit der Vergangenheit, in: Historia 49, 2000, 40-53. M.MEI.

Prochyta (Mooyxtt/Prochyté, Lat. Procida). Island in the Bay of Puteoli (Plin. HN 3,82), modern Procida, separated from > Pithecussae by an earthquake in prehistorical times(Str. 5,4,9; Plin. HN 2,203). It is an aetiological invention of the poet > Naevius [I r] from Campania that the grave of > Aeneas [1]’s nurse is on P. (Serv. Aen. 9,712; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1,53,3ff.). The most recent excavations demonstrate that P. was a significant centre of trade in the 16th/r5th cents. BC. Right next to P. is the island of Vivara, with AegeanMycenaean finds. NISSEN 1, 266; 2, 729; A. CAZZELLA et al. (ed.), Vivara, 2 vols., 1992 and 1995. M.M.MO.

[2] Tyrant of > Epidaurus in the 2nd half of the 7th cent. BC. A member of the Greek nobility, he married Eristhenea, the daughter of Aristocrates [1] of Orchomenus, and gave the hand of his daughter Melissa to + Periander of Corinth to create a marital alliance. After Melissa’s early death he stirred up Periander’s sons against him. After a military conflict between the two, Epidaurus was conquered by Periander and P. was taken captive (Hdt. 3,50-52; Heraclid. Pont. fr. 144). H. Berve, Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen, 1967, 20, 34f.; L. De LiBEro, Die archaische Tyrannis, 1996, 218, 404, 406.

B.P.

PROCLES

git

[3] Descendant of the Spartan king -» Damaratus, dy-

nastic ruler of the cities of > Pergamum, > Teuthrania and > Halisarna [1]. He brought the Greek army the news ofthe death of > Cyrus [3] and took part in one of its plundering raids (Xen. An. 2,1,3;7,8,17). In 399 BC, he joined the Spartan army in Asia Minor under + Thibron [1] (Xen. Hell. 3,1,6).

[4] Aristocrat from Phlius, son of Hipponicus; guestfriend of the Spartan king > Agesilaus [2] (Xen. Hell. 553,13). P. championed an alliance between Athens and Sparta with two speeches in Athens in 369 BC (Xen. Hell. 6,5,38-483 7,1,1-11). J. BucKLEeR, Xenophon’s Speeches and the Theban Hegemony,

in: Athenaeum

60, 1982, 180-204; P. CarT-

LEDGE, Agesilaos, 1987, 264-266.

HA.BE.

Proclisis see > Accent B.

Proclus (Ilo6xhoc/Proklos). [1] Bishop of Constantinople (434-446). Probably born before 390 in Constantinople, after a thorough schooling, P. occupied a position of trust under bishop Atticus (406-425). In 426, Atticus’ successor Sisinnius

consecrated him bishop of Cyzicus, but, in face of local opposition, P. was unable to occupy his bishop’s chair. Passed over on many occasions, he eventually became bishop of Constantinople in 434. He stood in high esteem as a preacher; besides letters - among them the epistle of 435 Tomus ad Armenios (CPG 5897) [4] addressed to the Armenian Church in the dispute over > Theodore of Mopsuestia — many of his homilies survive, 38 of them being regarded as authentic (CPG 5 800-5 836; 4692; published in part in [1; 2]). Especially celebrated is his sermon in defence of Mary the Mother of God (theotdkos; > Maria), in the presence of + Nestorius (Homily 1: CPG 5800). Close to Cyrillus [2] of Alexandria, P. in his christology consistently strove after a balanced position and was first in asserting the unity of the human and divine nature of Christ in one sole > hypostasis [2]. EDITIONS:

1F.J. Leroy, L’homilétique de Proclus de

Constantinople, 1967 2 .N. Constas, Four Christological Homilies of Proclus of Constantinople, 1994 (with Engl. translation and commentary). BIBLIOGRAPHY: 3J.H. BARKHUIZEN, Proclus of Constantinople,

in: M. B. CUNNINGHAM,

Preacher and Audience, 1998, 179-200

P. ALLEN

(eds.),

4 J. Rist, Proklos

von Konstantinopel und sein Tomus ad Armenios, diss. Wirzburg 1993. JRL

[2] Philosopher; leader of the Neoplatonist school of

Athens (7.2.412-17.4.485). A. Lire

B. Worxs

C. INFLUENCE

A. LIFE Sources: Marinus [4], P., or On Happiness (speech, given on the first anniversary of P.’ death) [1]; Damascius, Life of Isidorus |2; 3].

912

Although born in Constantinople, P. was of Lycian extraction. His life extended over almost the entire sth century AD. He received the education due to a son of good family (grammar at Xanthus, rhetoric at Alexandria [1]), and, like his father, was destined to pursue a legal career. But, after following his teacher of rhetoric to Constantinople, he decided in favour of philosophy on the basis of a dream. In Alexandria he began his studies with Aristotelian philosophy and mathematics; in Athens he joined the school of the Platonist > Syrianus. Through him the 18-year-old became acquainted with > Plutarch [3], founder of the Neoplatonist school of Athens, who taught him from 430 to 432. When Plutarch died, Syrianus became official leader of the School. Under him P. followed the entire curriculum of philosophical studies: two years of Aristotle, then Plato’s dialogues in the sequence laid down by > Iamblichus [2]. At the age of 27 (i.e. in 439) P. wrote a commentary on Plato’s Timaeus (Marinus, Proclus 13). Syrianus, al-

ready dead by then, is much cited in this work; P. took office as his designated successor at the age of 26-27. He led the School from about 438 to 485, that is to say for a period of almost 50 years. P.’ daily timetable was that of a professor who devoted himself to his work with tireless and exemplary regularity: in the morning he taught exegesis for 5 hours, and in the afternoon undertook the drafting of 700 lines; in the evening he gave further courses. His religious life was ruled by prayer and asceticism. At night he held fixed sessions of prayer, while during the day he carried out prayers to the > sun at sunrise, midday, and sunset. Some of his hymns (see below) bear witness to his personal piety. If this rhythm of work was in fact maintained for almost 50 years, it becomes comprehensible how P. was able to produce his enormous volume of work, for the most part probably as the outcome of his teaching activities; virtually all his extant works, however, have come down to us but incomplete. The Neoplatonist school of Athens flourished under P.’ leadership (~ Academy V. The Neoplatonist school in Athens); of its great number of students — in all probability adherents of the ancients cults, not Christians — many subsequently taught philosophy in Athens, Alexandria, or Aphrodisias (Marinus [4], Ammonius, Asclepiodotus [3]); others, either already the holders of official municipal or imperial office or seeking such a career, listened at no cost. P. demonstrated his thaumaturgical powers by bringing about the healing of Plutarch’s [3] great granddaughter by > Asclepius. Believing that the cosmic cycles would bring back one day the old religion, he bore with equanimity the hardships imposed on Greek and Roman religious institutions by the Christian government (cf. Marinus, Proclus 15 and 30). P.” energies declined markedly during the final years of his life (Marinus, Proclus 22), and problems arose over the choice of a successor, > Marinus eventu-

ally prevailing over his rivals Asclepiodotus and Isidorus.

913

O14

B. Works 1. PHILOSOPHY

2. THEOLOGY

3. OTHER WORKS

1. PHILOSOPHY

In the course of his teaching P. read and commented on Aristotle’s [6] most important treatises with his students; any commentaries that may have been written for teaching purposes have been lost. P. also read the Platonic dialogues belonging to the curriculum mentioned above; the associated commentaries are extant:

On the Timaeus [4; 5], On the Alcibiades |6; 7], On the Cratylus [8], On the Parmenides [9; 10; £1; 12], as well as a collection of discussions On the state [13, 14], among which may be found the celebrated commentary on the myth of

> Er, dedicated to Marinus. Attested

but lost are further commentaries on the Phaedo, Gor-

gias, Philebus, Phaedrus, Theaetetus, and Sophist. A commentary on the Exneads of > Plotinus has also been lost. P.’ commentaries follow a strict scientific methodology. For each dialogue he establishes a single theme (generally the one already chosen by Iamblichus), which gives direction to the exegesis of the dialogue as a whole. He divides the text systematically into sections of varying length; to each section he provides a general explanation (the thedria), derived by applying the single theme to the passage in question and based on the opinions of past authorities (many references to authorities in On the Timaeus, less in On the Alcibiades and On the Parmenides); there follows a word-for-word interpretation (the /éxis), where P. explains each difficult word with a wide degree of freedom. His commentaries became models; his method outlived the closing of the Academy in Alexandria and was further developed in the Arabic and Latin commentaries of the Middle Ages (an exception: the commentaries of Simplicius, which were designed to be read, and were never used for teaching purposes). 2. THEOLOGY P. also devoted himself to the writing of theoretical works. He published a treatise on theurgy (Ileot tic xa’ “EAknvac tegatimis téyvns/Peri tés kath’Héllenas hieratikés téchnés (On the art ofthe priesthood according to the Greeks); publication of what may be a short fragment from this: [15]); for P., ‘> theurgy is better than all wisdom and all human knowledge, because it combines all the advantages of prophecy, the purifying forces deriving from the implementation of rites, and all the effects of enlightenment, which make of man a creature possessed by the gods’ (Procl. Theologia Platonica 1,25 S.-W.). The substantial commentary (more than 1000 pp.; cf. Marinus, Proclus 26) on the Chaldaean oracles (» Oracula Chaldaica) [16] provided a collection of theological prophecies, inspired by Plato, which were studied and used by Porphyrius and Iamblichus, and to which P. accorded the highest authority. P. also revised and published a book by Syrianus entitled Parallels between Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Plato and the Chaldaean oracles (Svudmvia “Oghéews, Tv0ayogov,

PROCLUS

Tatwvog medg ta Adyta/Symphonia Orphéds, Pythagorou, Platonos pros ta Logia). This book brought the great theological traditions of antiquity into mutual accord, and provided the fundamental programme of P.’ theology. Two important theological treatises are extant: the Elements of theology (Ztoweimors Oeodoyat/StoichetOsis theologiké [18; 19; 20], a comprehensive presenta-

tion of metaphysics in the form of propositions followed by proofs) and the Platonic Theology (Negi tijc xata Thatwva Oeohoyiac/Peri tés kata Platona theologias, in 6 books [21], a substantial compendium of all Platonic doctrine, providing a comprehensive presentation of the theology). After Book x (fundamental principles), each book investigates a stage of the hierarchy of the gods: the first god, the intelligible gods, the intelligible-intellectual gods, the intellectual gods, the gods of the upper world, and the gods of the inner world. Each stage of this hierarchy is accompanied by discussion of the relevant texts from the Platonic dialogues. The source of P.’ theology was the interpretation of Plato’s Parmenides provided by Syrianus and implemented by P. P. was aware that it was not immediately evident that ‘the generality and entirety of theology’ (Procl. Theologia Platonica 1,7, p. 31 S.-W.) were con-

tained in this dialogue. Syrianus’ interpretation was based on the symmetry between the negative conclusions of the first hypothesis (‘if the one is ...’) and the positive conclusions of the second (‘if the one is not...’). The first hypothesis thus provided a treatise on negative theology; the second made it possible to develop the theology of all stages of the divine hierarchy. Syrianus had introduced P. to his theological method, further developed by him in the treatise Parallels between Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Plato and the Chaldaean oracles. This presentation of the parallels between the ‘theologians’ (Homer, Orpheus, Pythagoras), the philosopher (Plato), and the oracles was then developed

into a research programme, which led in general terms to the Platonic Theology. This made it possible to describe Plato as a theologian, and to give theology a scientific basis in Platonic philosophy (Procl. Theologia Platonica 1,4, p. 20 S.-W.). 3. OTHER WORKS

P.’ work also embraced mathematical and astronomical treatises, in particular the celebrated commentary On the first book of Euclid’s elements [223 23] (Eis TO @ tov EvduAetdovu otoyetwv/Eis to a’ ton Eukleidou stoicheion; modelled after the commentaries on Plato, with two prefaces on the history of mathematics), the of astronomical Brief presentation hypotheses (YrotlnMOis TOV GOTEOVOLLXDY VOVEGEWv/

Hypotyposis ton astronomikon hypothéseon [24]; on

the hypotheses of + Ptolemaeus duction to the physical sciences Stoicheiosis physikeé; an analysis 6-7) [25; 26]. He wrote works religion:

On providence

[65]), and the Intro(Ztovyetmors pvorxn/ of Aristot. Ph., books on the philosophy of

(Mei ths moovotac/Peri

tés

pronoias) and On the existence of evil (Ilegi tig tov

PROCLUS

xaxdv Urootdoewe/Peri tés tin kakOn hypostaseos |27; 28], used by the Christian writer Isaac Sebastocrator in the rrth century). He produced other treatises in the form of the monobibla, and a (partially extant) collection of Hymns [29; 30], which were sung in the school at religious festivals. Seven hexametrical hymns survive, each composed on the same pattern (first strophe: salutation and aretalogy; then P.’ personal pleas), to (1.) the Sun, (2.) Aphrodite, (3.) the Muses, (4.) the gods of the Chaldaean oracles, (5.) the young Aphrodite of Lycia, (6.) Hecate and Janus, and (7.) Athena (cf. [30]). C. INFLUENCE P. was the last universal scholar of antiquity; his work may be described as the high point of > Neoplatonism. His successor-but-one > Damascius, the last leader of the School in Athens, retained the key elements of the teaching (although he criticised the positions taken up by P., evincing a return to Iamblichus). P. was only indirectly known in the Middle Ages: through the anonymous Ps.-Dionysius [54] Areopagites, whose Christian theology was founded on philosophical elements of P.’ teaching, the Latin version of which was very influential in the Middle Ages; and through P.’ own Elements of Theology; translated into Arabic, the latter contributing much to the development of Islamic theology; the later Latin translation at the end of the r2th century was used by Christian theologians. Extracts from the Elements were even reconciled with (Latin and Arabic) monotheism, translated into Latin under the title Liber de causis, attributed to Aristotle, and thus adopted into the official syllabuses of medieval universities. Thomas Aquinas in his commentary on Liber de causis was first to remark upon its Neoplatonist character. The problem of the fictitious character of Pseudo-Dionysius was revealed only by Lorenzo VALLA (1407-1457). Some of P.’ major works were translated into Latin in the 13th century by Willem vAN MOERBEKE, and were also known in that form in the Middle Ages. The Platonic Theology was not published for the first time until the 17th century, by Emile Portus. The great commentaries were published in the roth century, for the most part by V. Cousin and F. Creuzer; they played some part in the philosophy of G. W. HEGEL. E. DIEHL, W. KROLL, and E. R. DoppDs continued the tradition of learned editions of P. in the 2oth century. ~ Academy; > Neoplatonism; > Plato [1] EDITIONS: SOURCES FORP.’ LIFE:

1H. D. Sarrrey et al., Marinus,

Proclus ou sur le bonheur, 2001

2 C. ZINTZEN, 1967 3 P.

ATHANASSIADI, 1999. COMMENTARY

ON THE TIMAEUS:

4E. DIEHL, 3 vols.,

1903-1906 5A.J. FESTUGIERE, 5 vols., 1966-1968 (Fr. transl.). COMMENTARY ON THE ALCIBIADES: 6L.G. WESTERINK, 1954 7A. PH. SEGONDS, 2 vols., 1985-1986. COMMENTARY

916

OS

ON

THE

CRATYLUS:

1908 (repr. 1994). COMMENTARY ON THE PARMENIDES:

8G. PasQUALI,

9 V. COUSIN,

1864, 71961

10C. STEEL, F. RumBacH, G. Maclsaak,

The Final Section of Proclus’ Commentary on the Parmenides, in: Documenti e Studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 8, 1997, 211-267 11 C. STEEL, Commentaire sur le Parménide de Platon/Proclus. Trad. de Guillaume de Moerbeke, 2 vols., 1982-1985 12G.R. Morrow, J. DILLON, 1987. COMMENTARY ON THE STATE: 13 G. KROLL, 2 vols.,

1899-1901, *1965

14A.J. FESTUGIERE, 3 vols., 1970

(French transl.).

THEURGY: 15 J. BrpEz, in: Catalogue des manuscrits alchimiques grecs, vol. 6, 1928, 139-151. CHALDAEAN ORACLES: 16 E. DES PLACES, 1971, 31996 17 R. MAJERCIK, 1989. ELEMENTS OF THEOLOGY: 18E.R. DODDs 1933,

*1963 19H. Boese, Proclus. Elementatio theologica. Transl. a Guillelmo de Moerbecca, 1987 20 J. TROUILLARD, 1965 (with Fr. transl.) PLATONIC THEOLOGY: 21H. D.SAFFREY, L. G. WESTE-

RINK, 6 vols., 1968-1997. On Euciip’s ELEMENTS (BK.1): 22 G. FRIEDLEIN, 1873,°*1967 23 G.R. Morrow, 1970 (Engl. transl.). ASTRONOMICAL HYPOTHESES: 24 C. MANITIUS, 1909

(repr. 1974, with German transl.). INTRODUCTION TO THE PHYSICAL RITZENFELD,

1912

SCIENCES:

25 A.

26H. Boesr, 1958 (ed., with Latin

translation of W. van Moerbeke). ON PROVIDENCE, ON THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL:

27H.

BOESE, 1960 28D. Isaac, 3 vols., 1977-1980. Hymns: 29E. VoctT,1957 30H. D. Sarrrey, 1994 (Fr. transl.) 31 R. M. VAN DEN BERG, 2001 (with essays, Engl.

translation and commentary). BIBLIOGRAPHY:

W. BEIERWALTES,

Denken

des Einen.

Studien zur neuplatonischen Philosophie und ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte, 1985; Id., P. Grundziige seiner Metaphysik, 1965, 71979; R. BEUTLER, s. v. P. (4), RE 23.1, 186-247; G. Boss, G. SEEL (eds.), Proclus et son influence (Actes du Colloque de Neuchatel 1985), 1987; GGPh', "1926, 621-635; E. R. Dopps, Theurgy and Its Relationship to Neoplatonism, in: Id., The Greeks and the Irrational, 1951, 283-311; H. DOrRRIE (ed.), De Jamblique a Proclus (Entretiens 21), 1975; G. ENDREss, Proclus Arabus,

1973; A. J. FestuGierg, Procliana, Etudes de philosophie grecque, 1971, 535-596; S. GERSH, KINH=IZ AKINHTOX. A Study of Spiritual Motion in the Philosophy of Proclus, 1973; J. JoLivet, Pour le dossier du Proclus arabe: al-Kindi et la Théologie platonicienne, in: Studia Islamica 49, 1979, 55-75; H. Lewy, Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy, 1956, *1978; J. Lowry, The Logical Principles of Proclus’ STOIXEIQSIZ OEOAOTIKH, 1980; Nixtsson, GGR 2, 459-464; J. PEpin, H. D. SAFFREY (eds.), Proclus, lecteur et interpréte des Anciens (Actes du

Colloque International du CNRS, Paris 1985), 1987; K. PRACHTER, Richtungen und Schulen im Neuplatonismus, in: Genethliakon C. Robert, 1910, 103-156 (= Id., Kleine Schriften, ed. H. DOrRIE, 1973, 165-216); L. J. ROSAN, The Philosophy of Proclus, 1949; H. D. Sarrrey, Recherches sur le néoplatonisme aprés Plotin, 1990; A. Pu. SEGONDS, C. STEEL (eds.), Proclus et la théologie platonicienne (Actes du Colloque International, Louvain 1998 en l’honneur de H. D. Saffrey et L. G. Westerink), 2000; A. D. R. SHEPPARD, Studies on the sth and 6th Essays of Proclus Commentary on the Republic, 1980; L. SIORVANES, Proclus: Neo-Platonic Philosophy and Science, 1996; J. TROUILLARD, L’un et l’4me selon Proclos, 1972; Id., La

917

918

mystagogie de Proclos, 1982; R. T. Waris, nism,

1972,

borFF,

71995;

Die Hymnen

zungsberichte

U. von

Neoplato-

WiLtamow1rz-MOELLEN-

PROCONNESUS

crime by silently indicating the corresponding passage in Ovid,

des Proklus und Synesius, in: Sit-

der Preufgischen

Akademie

der Wissen-

schaften 14, 1907, 272-295 (=Id., Kleine Schriften vol. 2, 1971, 163-191); ZELLER 3.2, 41923, 834-890. H.SA,

1 W.

Burkert,

Homo

Necans,

MoorMANN, W. UITTERHOEVE, Gestalten, 1995, 583f. O. HOFER, s. v. P., ROSCHER

Procne (Ilgdxvy/Prokneé, Lat. Progne, Procne). Daugh-

ter of the Attic king > Pandion [r], wife of > Tereus, sister of Philomela. Out of gratitude for support in a war, P.’s father gives her in marriage to the Thracian Tereus. In Thrace her son > Itys is born. When P. wishes to see her sister Philomela, Tereus is supposed to bring her from Athens to Thrace. He violates her on the way, cuts out her tongue to secure her silence and hides her in the country. Philomela weaves what happened to her into a garment, however, and sends this message to her sister, who consequently looks for her. Together they kill Itys in revenge and serve himas a meal to Tereus; he then pursues the two of them with an axe. In + Daulis in Phocis, in response to their supplication, they are turned into birds by the gods: P. into a nightingale; Philomela, a swallow. Tereus becomes a hoopoe (Apollod. 3,193—195). This Attic version can be traced to Sophocles’ tragedy “Tereus’ (frr. 581-595b TrGF IV). Further (non-surviving) versions of the myth in the 5th and 4th cents. BC: a ‘Pandionis’ tetralogy by Philocles (IrGF I p. 141); comedies by Cantharus (Tereus frr. 5—9 PCGIV) and Anaxandrides (Tereus frr. 46-48 PCG II). Allusions to Sophocles’ ‘Tereus’ can be found in Aristoph. Av. 93-101 (cf. Lys. 563f.). The myth, however, is also attested in diverging older and local variants: the related tale of > Aedon and her son —> Itys belongs to Thebes. According to Paus. 1,41,8—9, Tereus dies in Megara, where his grave was on display, while the women flee to Athens and die there of grief. Daulis in Phocis is where the transformation of the sisters takes place (Apollod. 3,195) and, according to Paus. 10,4,8, also the killing of Itys (cf. Thuc. 2,29,3; Str. 9,3,13); P. is supposed to have brought a wooden image of Athena to Daulis (Paus. ibid.). Antoninus Liberalis 11 moves the story to Asia Minor. A further version is given in Hyg. Fab. 45. Dem. Or. 60,28 assesses the sisters positively; according to Paus. 1,5,4 they were forced into revenge by the behaviour of Tereus. Roman poetry often alludes to the myth (e.g. Sen. Hercules

Oetaeus

957;

Ov.

Am.

2,6,7;

Ov.

Pont.

3,1,119), and there is also evidence of tragedies by Livius Andronicus (Tereus, TRF p. 4 = p. 26f. KLorz) and Accius

(Tereus, TRF

p. 252-254

= p. 293-295

Kiotz). Ov. Met. 6,424-674 offers the most detailed treatment: he links the sisters’ reunion with the motif of a festival for Dionysus (6,587f.) and the killing of Itys with a sacrificial rite (6,648). On the connection also of the Greek myth with ritual cf. [x]. Later versions up to Modernity are based on Ovid [2]. SHAKESPEARE’S reception in Titus Andronicus (4,1,45f.) is striking: Lavinia, who suffers the same as Philomela, reveals the

1972,

201-207

Lexikon

2E.

der antiken

3.2, 3017-3026; Id., s. v.

Philomela, ROSCHER 3.2, 2343-2348; S. D. KAUFHOLD, Ovid’s Tereus: Fire, Birds, and the Reification of Figurative Language, in: CPh 92, 1997, 66-71; M. C. VAN DER KOLF, s. v. Philomela, RE 19.2, 2515-2519; G. RADKE, s.

v. P., RE 23.1, 247-252; E. TouLoupa, s. v. P. et Philomela, LIMC 7.1, 527f. K.WA. Proconnesus

(Ilgox6vvyood/Prokdnnéssos,

Lat. Pro-

connesus). Largest island of the > Propontis, with an

area of c. 130 square km, c. to km to the northwest of Arctonnesos, present-day Marmara Adasi. The name P. is derived from 2Q6E/prox, ‘doe’ (Schol. Apoll. Rhod. 148); Plin. (HN. 5,151) in addition also calls the island

Elaphonnesos (derived from é\adoc/élaphos, ‘stag’, cf. *Ehadovnooc/Elaphonésos, Schol. ibid.) and Neuris (from veteov/neiron,

‘sinew, bow-string’).

EM

s. v.

Tleowmdvvnoos/Proikonnésos offers a derivation from neoté/proix, ‘gift? (namely ‘of marble’); according to

Schol. Apoll. Rhod. 148, P. is also derived from a consecrated vessel (medyo0¢/prdéchoos) connected to the

founding legend of P.; others derived P. from the in

island’s ‘heaping up’ (moocywvvuuwproschonnymi) the Propontis.

The town of P. in the southwest of the island near modern Marmara was founded by Greeks from Miletus [2] (ast half of 7th cent. BC; Str. 13,1,12). When Darius [x] I marched against the > Scythians in 513 BC, the town belonged to the Persian Empire and was under the tyrant Metrodorus (Hadt. 4,138); joining the > Ionian Revolt in 499 BC, upon its demise it was destroyed by the Phoenician fleet (Hdt. 6,33). After 478 BC, P. wasa member of the > Delian League with a levy of three talents (ATL 3,36). C. 360 BC, P. was conquered by ~» Cyzicus, its population deported thither (Paus. 8,46). In the Byzantine period, P. was a cathedral town [2. 1, 55] and a place of exile, e.g., of St Stephen the Younger (AD 754) and the patriarchs Michael I Keroullarios (AD 1058) and Arsenios Autoreianos (AD 1264) [3]. P. was famous for its marble quarries in the north of the island (cf. the plant at present-day Saraylar; > Marble, with map). A white marble veined with blue (Precambrian rock [4]) was quarried here and was used in the building of the palace of king > Maussolus in Halicarnassus (4th cent. BC; Vitr. De arch. 2,8,10; Plin. HN 36,47) as well as for buildings in Constantinople (cf. Zos. 2,30,4; on sarcophagi: [1]). The epic poet > Aristeas [1] hailed from P. 1 J. B. Perxins, Four Roman Garland Sarcophagi in America, in: Archaeology 11, 1958, 98-104 2 J. DARROUZES (ed.), Notitiae Episcopatuum Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, 1981 3H. Evert-Kapresowa, L’archipel de Mar-

mara comme lieu d’exil, in: ByzF 5, 1977, 27-34. Ascari, The Proconnesian

Production

4N.

of Architectural

Elements in Late Antiquity, in: C.MANGO (ed.), Constantinople and Its Hinterland, 1995, 263-288. —_E.O. and VS.

919

920

Proconsul (originally pro consule, ‘instead of the > consul(es)’: attested in inscriptions from ILS 5945, i.e. 135 BC, on; in literature, e.g., Cic. Phil. 10,26; Liv. 8,23,12; for linguistic use cf. [1]; Greek GvOUmatoc/ anthypatos) was a state official in Rome who in the sphere of his office outside the city exercised full consular authority (> imperium), but was not authorized to consult the auspicia (see > augures) (Cic. Div. 2,76). I. REPUBLICAN PERIOD II. IMPERIAL PERIOD

tory of the Proconsular and the Propraetorian Imperium to 27B.C., 1950 3 A. GIOVANNINI, Consulare Imperium, 1983 4 Martino, SCR 4, 725-728 5 F. Hur et, Les collégues du prince sous Auguste et Tibére, 1997. = WK.

PROCONSUL

I. REPUBLICAN PERIOD When there were insufficient magistrates with imperium, the Senate and the people extended imperium beyond the regular period of office by > prorogatio for the first time in 326 BC; more often after the second of the > Punic Wars [II] (218-201 BC) — to one or both consules so that they served on pro consule; or they extraordinarily appointed a citizen without office (> privatus) as proconsul (the first being P. Cornelius [I 71] Scipio in 211 BC for the war in Spain: Liv. 26,18,9). Praetorian governors with the rank of proconsul were occasionally sent to some provinces (in the 2nd cent. BC to Spain: [2. 41-47]; in the rst cent., e.g., continuously to Asia: Cic. Div. 1,58; Val. Max. 6,9,73 generalizing: OGIS 441,114f.). In the rst cent., after completing his duties in the city, a consul would regularly go to a province for at least a further year as a proconsul (contrary to Sulla’s popularly adopted provincial law: [3. 73-1o1]). In 52 BC the lex Pompeia (Cass. Dio 40,56,1) prescribed a definite interval of at least five years between a consulship and a proconsulship. Ignored under Caesar’s autocracy, this regulation was ultimately adopted in the new order of > Augustus [1] (Cass. Dio 53,14,2).

I]. IMPERIAL PERIOD

Beginning in 27 BC, all the governors of the so-called ‘senatorial provinces’ were called proconsules, although most were only praetors (Cass. Dio 53,13,3; on the details of the appointment [4]). After the imperial reform of > Diocletianus there were proconsules only in Asia and Africa proconsularis, in the 4th cent. AD also in Achaia

(ILS 1217;

1258f.). Proconsular

im-

perium was also one of the most important bases of the power of the > princeps, who also had it bestowed by law on important members of staff and relatives as needed (e.g. M. Agrippa [1]; C. Iulius [II 32] Caesar; Germanicus [2]; Nero [1] under Claudius [III 1]; cf. esp.

[5]). Augustus possessed this imperium in a qualified form from no later than 23 BC (Cass. Dio 53,32,5), though it did not appear among his titles. It was not until the time of Trajan that the emperor was called proconsul outside Italy (CIL XVI 62: Trajan; CIL XVI 69; 70: Hadrian); from the time of Septimius Severus on, also in Italy but outside Rome; and from Diocletian on (ILS 615; 617; 639 et passim), unrestrictedly. + Consul(es); > Imperium; > Magistratus 11. Hajpt, Pro consule oder proconsul?, in: MH 56, 1999, 119-127 2 W. F. JASHEMSKI, The Origins and His-

Procopius (Ileoxdmto¢c/Prokopios). [1] Usurper in AD 365-366. He was born in 326 in Corycus (Them. Or. 7,86c; cf. Amm.

Marc. 26,9,11)

and was a relative of the emperor > Julianus [11] (Amm. Marc. 23,3,2). In 358 he was a delegate to Persia with the rank ofatribunus (Amm. Marc. 17,14,3), later he held a high position at the schola notariorum (Amm. Marc. 26,6,1). During Julian’s Persian campaign, he commanded

a division as

a > comes

(Amm.

Marc.

23,3,5). After Julian’s death (363) he retired to private life (Zos. 4,4,3) but — Valentinianus [1] and Valens were suspicious of him as a potential usurper (Amm. Marc. 26,6,3). On 28 September 365, he was proclaimed emperor in Constantinople (Amm. Marc. 26,6,

12—

18). He conquered Thrace and Bithynia but suffered a defeat at > Nacolea on 27 May 366 against Valens and was executed (Zos. 4,8,3f.; Them. Or. 7,87a/b). P. GraTTAROLA, L’usurpazione di Procopio e la fine dei Constantinidi,

in: Aevum

60, 1986,

82-105;

7426.

PLRE

1,

WP.

[2] P. of Gaza. Rhetor and theological writer, born in AD 465 in > Gaza (Palestine), returned to live in his hometown after his studies in Alexandria [1], and died

there about AD 528. P. was the head of a group of Christian rhetors in Gaza that also included Aeneas [3] of Gaza and > Choricius, a student of P. to whom some works of P. are attributed and who also composed a

funerary oration on his teacher. As a theological author, P. was one of the founders of the genre of ~ catenae, that is the form of Bible commentary that systematically collects quotations from earlier theological writers ona particular passage, regardless of whether their contents agree or contradict each other. His great catena on the Octateuch and the other historical books of the OT (> Bible), the “Exdoyai &nyntuxai/

Eklogai exégétikat, were still available to the Patriarch > Photius [2]. Scholars have identified it with several still extant anonymous catenae [11], but it probably only served as a main source for these [1; 9]. An excerpt probably compiled by P. himself, the Exitowh éxhoy@v/ Epitome eklogén, is only preserved in fragments [2]. Partially or wholly preserved are the catenae on Isaiah (Isa), the Song of Songs (S of S) and Ecclesiastics (Eccles)

[3; 4]. An apologia against the Neoplatonic philosophy of + Proclus [2], which is occasionally attributed to P., is almost certainly not his work [12]. Of P.’s non-theological rhetorical works the following are preserved: a historically important panegyric (+ PANEGyRIC) on the emperor Anastasius [r] I (cf. [5;

14]), about

160

letters

[6] and

two

ekphrdseis

(> ExpHrRasis). The first describes an artistic mechani-

cal clock in which a figure of Hercules appeared every hour to perform one of his twelve labours [7], and the

921

922

other describes a painting cycle based on the tragedy Hippolytos by Euripides [1] (cf. [8]). A monody on the destruction of Antioch by an earthquake in 526 is lost.

3. ON BUILDINGS

+ Catenae;

> Choricius;

EDITIONS:

> Photius;

1220, 1545-1754

t. HistTORY OF THE WARS

2. SECRET HISTORIES

3PG 87, 1079-

t. HistoRY OF THE WARS Essentially during the 540s, P. wrote, based largely on older diary entries, the Bella in eight books: Bellum

4S. LEANZA, Procopii Gazaei Catena

Persicum, The Persian War (BP; books 1-2), Bellum

1PG 87, 1221-1544,

the spurious catenae)

> Proclus [2]

PROCOPIUS

1755-1780 (parts of

2 PG 87,21-1078

in Ecclesiasten, 1978 (Suppl.: Id., Un nuovo testimone

Vandalicum,

della catena sull’Ecclesiaste di Procopio di Gaza,

Bellum Gothicum, The Gothic War (BG; books 5-8). By 5 50/1, books 1-7 were completed [4. 9; 6. 1133; 13].

5 K. Kempen,

1983)

Procopii Gazaei in imperatorem Anasta6 A. Garzya, R. J. LOENERTZ,

sium Panegyricus, 1918

(Pagal Diets, Uber die von Prokop beschriebene Kunstuhr von Gaza (Abhandlungen der Kéniglich-Preussischen AkadeProcopii Gazaei epistolae et declamationes,

mie

der

Wissenschaften,

1963

philosophisch-historische

Classe), 1917 8 P. FRIEDLANDER, Ein spatanter Gemaldezyklus in Gaza (Studie testi 89), 1939 (repr. 1969).

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

9 H.-G. BEcK, Kirche und theologische

Literatur, 1959, 414-416

The Vandal

War (BV; books 3-4) and

Events of the years 552 and 553 were appended in book 8 (= BG, bk. 4), which was certainly completed by 554 [4. 8, 86, 190] but probably already during the summer of 553 [13]. The Bella constitute a significant work both in terms of quantity and quality. They are the main and often only source for the wars in which the emperor ~ lustinianus [1] I defended the eastern boundary of

10 L. EISENHOFER, Procopius

the Roman empire against the Persians (> Sassanids; cf.

11 E, LINDLE, Die Oktateuchkatene des Prokop von Gaza und die Septuagintaforschung, 1902 12 I. StiGLMayer, Die ‘Streitschrift des Prokopios von Gaza’, in: ByzZ 8, 1899, 263-301 13 ODB3,1732 141. Tot, Poredenje u panegiriku Prokopija iz Gaze posve¢ce-

~> Parthian and Persian wars) and reconquered Roman territory in North Africa and Italy from the Vandals and Ostrogoths. As their title suggests, the Bella largely limit themselves to these wars [7] and omit a general presentation of this period. Their special value lies in P. largely writing as an eyewitness. Books 1-6 are essentially dedicated to the successes of Belisarius. He, not the emperor, is the actual hero of the events and his possible failures are excused. Starting with the 7th book (= BG, bk. 3), the author appears increasingly disappointed with his hero and, simultaneously, there are more critical comments on the emperor and especially his fiscal policies and innovations, which regardless of their purpose are negatively assessed. In general, P. rarely asks questions about the actual reasons for historical events. Rather, he sees his task in faithfully reporting and for this purpose adds detailed geographic digressions to his work. The primary literary source of the Bella is ~ Thucydides. P. shares his estimation of the value of eyewitness testimony, and learned from him linguistic reworking of inserted speeches and descriptions, e.g., of battles and the plague in 542, without descending into mere imitation. 2. SECRET HISTORIES P.’s Secret Histories, whose title Anékdota (neutral plural: ‘Unpublished Materials’) was first quoted in the ~ Suda but is probably not attributable to P. [4. 50], are still disputed. It isa pamphlet directed against Justinian, his spouse > Theodora and partially also Belisarius. P. wrote it during the emperor’s life-time with the intention of publishing it after Justinian’s death, but was presumably prevented by his own premature death from carrying out this plan. This would explain why the HA is only mentioned for the first time as late as the Suda (about 1000). In any case, it is now considered as haying been entirely written by P. (in agreement with the editor J. Haury). The dating of the HA’s completion varies in recent research, with most scholars preferring 550/z ([4. 9, 535 6; LO. 146; 13], but some also suggest 5 58/9 ({9]; [10]; by contrast [6]) and even the period after Justinian’s death in 565 [5]. However, arguments for a late dating are not conclusive.

von Gaza, 1897

nom

Anastasju I, in: Zbornik Radova

33, 1994, 7-19.

ALB.

[3] Born about AD 507 [5. 522] in Caesarea [2] (Pales-

tine) as the son of estate-owning Christian parents, died (soon?) after 555. He is considered the most important historian of Late Antiquity [4. 3]. A. Lire

B. Works

C. APPRECIATION

A. LIFE After rhetorical and legal studies and perhaps a short activity as an advocate, P. joined Belisarius, the important general of the emperor Justinian [1] I, as symboulos (advisor) or parhedros (assessor, > Adsessor) no later than in 530, but probably some years earlier. > Belisarius then was dux of Mesopotamia and Procopius accompanied him until 531 in the Persian War, 533 in the Vandal War and 536-540 in the Gothic War. In the spring of 540, he witnessed the conquest of Ravenna but appears to have left Italy soon after and gone to Constantinople where he lived out the rest of his life. In 542 he witnessed the great plague there but did not return with Belisarius to Italy in 544, though he remained well informed of subsequent military events. There is no certain evidence of him after 555 [4. 14f.]. The occasionally produced reasons for dating his Secret Histories and On Buildings to after 555 are not conclusive (see below B.). B. Works

P. has left three works: a History of the Wars ("Yn&o tov mohéguwv/Hyper tén polémon, Latin De Bellis, abbreviated Bella), the Secret Histories (Avéxdota/ Anékdota, Latin Historia arcana, abbreviated HA) and a description of Justinian’s building activity (Iegi xttoudatwv/Peri ktismaton, Latin De aedificiis, abbreviated Aed.).

PROCOPIUS

923

The main concern of the text is a political indictment. It essentially consists of the accusation that the emperor and his officials have destroyed the Roman Empire (hé ton Romaion arche) with wars and ruinous financial policies. More than anything else, the pornographic and demonological passages in the work have made an objective assessment difficult. The demonization of Justinian and Theodora (HA 12,14-32; 18,1; 30,34) has confused historians, who have misunderstood the Bella as a work characterized by a consistently rational worldview. However, these passages can be attributed without a doubt to P. The dark sides of the emperor — his war policy, which P. explains with unbridled blood-lust, the merciless persecution of heretics that P. equates with the persecution of Christians by ~» Domitianus[1] — did not appear explicable in natural categories to a miracle-believing age such as the 6th cent. Furthermore, demonization is a topos in Classical invective, and since pornographic defamation is part of its arsenal, the all too graphic passages in the HA 9,1-29 (see [3. 89-98]) on the sexual escapades of the youthful Theodora [4. 56-59] are explainable from this perspective. The overall image that P. draws of the empress is undoubtedly dictated by sentiments of hatred and vengeance and, therefore, can only with reservations be considered as a historical narrative [2]. Recently, ADSHEAD [1], modifying an observation by Leopold Von RAnkE, has taken the view that the HA consists of three opuscula written separately by P., one on Belisarius and his spouse Antonina in the form of a satirical novel (HA 1,11-5), a second containing a general defamation of the imperial couple (HA 6-18), and

finally a critical presentation of imperial economic and financial policy, the value of which as a source is considerably limited by the accumulation of anecdotal material (HA 19-30). These opuscula were merged in the roth cent. for an audience that delighted in anecdotal reading materials in the style of the patriographic literature originating at that time. However, the uneven character of the work, which has also been observed by others [4. 50, 53], is sufficiently explained by the fact that this is a draft that was not intended for publication in this form. The satirical, romance-like first part is to be taken the least serious as a historical source. 3. ON BUILDINGS Undoubtedly, this panegyric work on Justinian’s building activity, which essentially treats the churches, fortifications and water lines built by the emperor as his great contribution to the restoration of the empire, was the final work to be written. It has convincingly been dated to 554/5 [4. 9-11; 6; 13], to the period after the successful conclusion of the Gothic War (see > Narses [4]), when praise of the emperor would have appeared appropriate. The assumption that this text was written in 560/r is based on a mention of the bridge across the Sangarius (Aed. 5,3,8-ro) being under construction, which according to a remark by the chronicler Theophanes (p. 234, 15-18 DE Boor) points into this period ({10. 145-147]; cf. [9]). However, a series of convinc-

924 ing arguments has been put into the field against this dating [6. 107-113]. Because of the positive image of the emperor Justinian related in this work, it was often dismissed as untruthful with a view towards a pamphlet such as the HA. However, if it makes a pious Christian ruler of the destructive demon Justinian, this may be understood as the necessary tribute of P. to the genre of the > PANEGYRIC in a period in which the imperial restoration policy appeared to prove itself as successful. This work, like the HA, was not edited in the end by the author and in its present form is very uneven. Only books 1-3 and 6 are finished, while books 4 and 5 partially only consist of lists of buildings that are not discussed. However, both the listed and the detailed materials have gaps, e.g., buildings in Italy are completely missing. Also, many questions that modern architects ask ofthe buildings remain unanswered (e.g., regarding building technology). C. APPRECIATION In the opinion of CAMERON [4. X, 262f.], it is only possible to do justice to P. if his three works are understood and interpreted as a unit despite their manifest differences. The differences in content and tone are primarily explained by the different literary genres to which they belong: The Bella generally follows the traditional concept of secular historiography, the HA that of invective or satire and the Aed. that of > PANEGYRIC. Compliance with these concepts is demanded by the law of literary imitation (> Mimesis); the selection of

the genre is related to the various phases of political development in Justinian’s age, which affected the historian’s perspective. In any case, one and the same

author, who presents the emperor and other persons of the age from his individual perspective is evident in all three works. The view of historical events in P. by no means only reflects his relationship to Belisarius, as RUBIN [8] believes. Rather, it relates the tense situation in the transition period, in which the ancient pagan ideological world, which only survived among the elite, was permanently displaced and made way for a new, uniform worldview. The emperor not only proceeded against the adherents to the ancient tradition [4. 21-23] but also against Christian deviants (see also > Heresy; + Tolerance). This provoked P.’s criticism because he abhorred any repression on ideological grounds. Though P. makes himself out as a rationalist in his work, he was undoubtedly a Christian. He emphasizes the rule of fate, but elsewhere shows himself as being convinced of the action of God and is even susceptible to Christian miracle belief and supernatural explanations. Especially in the vocabulary and morphology, P. is concerned with writing in a classicizing Greek. Thus, he uses, for example, the optative and the dual, which had long ago disappeared from spoken language. However, much that is post-classical is found, especially in syntax

925

926

and the use of prepositions. P.’s literary style is essentially simple, unaffected and comprehensible. > Goti; > Historiography; — Parthian and Persian wars; > Vandals; > HisTORIOGRAPHY Ep1t1ons: J. Haury (ed.), Procopii Caesariensis opera omnia, vols. 1-4, 1905-1913 (2nd edn. corrected by G. WirTH, vols. 1-4, 1962-1964: authoritative edn.); O. VeH

(ed.), P., vols.

1-5,

‘1961-1977

(with

German

transl.); Id., P., HA, 1981 (with German transl.); H. MinAescu (ed.), P. diu Caesarea, Istoria secreta, 1972 (in-

dependent, critical edn. w. Romanian transl.). 1 K. ADsHEAD, The Secret History of P. and Byzantion 63, 1993, 5-28 2M. ANGOLD, Theodora, in: C.N. CONSTANTINIDES Dredd. FS R. Browning, 1996, 21-34

its Genesis, in: P.’ Portrait of et al. (ed.), 3 H.-G. BECK,

Kaiserin Theodora und P. Der Historiker und sein Opfer, 1986 5G.

4A. CAMERON, Farouros,

P. and the Sixth Century, 1985

Zur P.-Biographie,

in: Klio 62,

1980,

517-523 6 G. GREATREX, The Dates of Procopius’ Works, in: Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 18, 1994, ro1-114_ 7 W.E. Kael, P. the Military Historian, in: ByzF 15, 1990, 53-85 8 B. Rusin, P. von Kaisareia, 1954 (= Id., s. v. P. (21), RE 23, 273-599) 9R. ScorTrT, Justinian’s Coinage and Easter Reforms and the Date of the Secret History, in: Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies Ir, 1987, 215-222 10 M. Wuirsy, Justinian’s Bridge over the Sangarius and the Date of P.’ De Aedificiis, in: JHS 105, 1985, 129-148 11 G. Welss,s. v. P. (3), LMA7, 246f. 12 B. BALDwin,s. v. P. of Caesarea, ODB 3, 1732 13 PLRE 3, 1060-1066.

FT.

Procris (Iodxotc/Prékris, Lat. Procris). Daughter either of —Erechtheus and — Praxithea (Apollod. 3,196) or > Pandion (Hyg. Fab. 189; 241) or Iphiclus (Serv. Aen. 6,445). Renowned hunter, married to the Athenian hunter > Cephalus [1], who, disguised, tests her fidelity by seducing her with gifts (cf. Pherecydes acc. to Schol. Hom. Od. 11,321, Ov. Met. 7,690-865, Antoninus Liberalis 41). Ashamed, she flees to

PROCULUS 7.2, 420; I. Lavin, Cephalus and Procris. Transformati-

ons of an Ovidian

Myth, in: JWI 17, 1954, 260-287. RHA.

Procrustes (Meoxeovotnc¢/Prokrousteés, ‘stretcher’, Lat. Procrustes). Highwayman in Attica who would lie in

wait for travellers and torture them to death by stretching them and hitting their limbs with a hammer (alternative name: Heoxonty¢/Prokoptes, ‘persuader’), until they fitted his enormous

bed (‘Procrustes’ bed’). Together with > Sinis and — Sciron, P. represents a ‘plague on the land’ from which > Theseus with civilizing intentions liberates the region (Bacchyl. 18,19-30; Xen. Mem. 2,1,14; Diod. Sic. 4,59; Hyg. Fab. 38; Ov. Met. 7,438; Plut. Theseus 11, sbc). In ancient pictorial representations it is not his bed, proverbial today, but his hammer that dominates [1]. 1 F. BROMMER, Theseus, 1982, 22-24.

RE.N.

Proculeius C. P., friend of Octavian, the future > Augustus [1]. P. accompanied Octavian, apparently with-

out official position, in the wars against Sex. Pompeius {I 5] in Sicily and against M. Antonius [I 9] in Egypt. A military commission could, of course, be inferred from

the coins struck with his name in Cephallenia (RPC I 1359-1362). P.’ siblings were > Terentius Murena, + Terentia [2] the wife of Maecenas [2], and a Scipio; his mother must therefore have been married more than once. P. was considered the model of a close friend of a ruler who nevertheless himself kept out of public political life (Tac. Ann. 4,40,6). He killed himself by drinking plaster dissolved in water because of stomach pain (Plin. HN 36,183). PIR* P 985. W.E. Proculiani see > Law schools II. A.

swift hunting hound (Eubulus fr. 89 PCG 5) and an unerring spear, which she gives to Cephalus after they are reconciled. Now for her part distrusting him, P. attempts to watch him, and he kills her by mistake. P. is buried (Eur. Hypsipyle fr. liv r-9 BonpD), and Cephalus is sentenced to exile by the Areopagus. Sophocles treated the subject in his P. (fr. 533 TrGF 4). P. is also one of

Proculus. Roman > praenomen (P. Iulius, a contemporary of > Romulus [r]), and secondarily a > cognomen. Depending on the form, a diminutive (older *prokelo-) of the stem *proko- (~ classical procus ‘wooer, suitor’), it originally perhaps meant ‘the one who demands or claims (the inheritance?)’. Proca (King of Alba Longa) can also be regarded as etymologically connected. The praenomen, which had already become rare at an early time, survived in derivatives, the gentilician names Procilius and Proculeius.

the famous women in Hades (Hom. Od. 11,321; Verg. Aen. 6,445; Paus. 10,29,6). On the endurance of her myth, cf. [1. 216f.].

G. KLINGENSCHMITT, Die lateinische Nominalflexion, in: O. PANAGL, T. Kriscu (ed.), Latein und Indogermanisch, 1992, 90; SALOMIES, 44f., 186. D.ST.

+ Minos or > Artemis, her hunting companion (Callim. H. 3,209). From Artemis or Minos, P. receives a

1 Huncer, Mythologie. G. Davis, The Death of Procris. ‘Amor’ and the Hunt in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, 1983, 125-148; J. Fabre, La chasse amoureuse: A propos de l’épisode de Céphale et Procris, in: REL 66, 1988, 122-138; J. FONTENROSE, Orion: The Myth of the Hunter and the Huntress, 1981, 86-111; G. RADKE, s. v. Prokris (1), RE 23, 600-609; E. SIMANTONI-BourNlIa, Ss. v. Prokris, LIMC 7.1, 529; LIMC

[1] The jurist from the time of the Julio-Claudians, presumably a student of — Antistius [II 3] Labeo - also thanks to his political influence (Dig. 1,2,2,52: plurimum potuit) — became the successor of M. > Cocceius

[5] Nerva pater (probably in AD 33) as the head of the + law school [1. 119-127] that was named the Proculian after him. P. was a capable legal expert (citations without listing the work: [4. 169-184]), but he wrote

PROCULUS

only Epistulae (‘Epistles’, probably 12 bks.) with his case decisions from practice and with discussion of fictitious legal cases [2]. In addition he annotated, often disapprovingly, the texts of Labeo [2; 4. 166-169]. 1 R. A. Bauman, Lawyers and Politics in the Early Roman Empire, 1989

2H. HAUSMANINGER, Proculus v. Labeo,

in: Israel Law Review 29, 1995, 130-150

Proculi epistulae, 1970 Civilis, vol. 2, 1889.

3 CH. KRAMPE,

40. LENEL, Palingenesia Iuris T.G.

[2] Senator who is mentioned in Fronto (Ad amicos 2,7 VAN DER Hout 1988, p. 195). P. was involved as a

judge in the case of Volumnius Serenus, a decurion of the city of Concordia. In this way, he — who also appears in Fronto as Proculus Iulius and who was quindecimvir sacris faciundis (p. 195 |. 8) — could be identicalto C. > Julius [II 116] P., cos. in AD 109 (cf. [1. 23 1236]). PIR* P 991. 1 A. R. BirLey, Hadrian and Greek Senators, in: ZPE 116, 1997,

928

927

209-245.

W.E.

[3] Possibly of Frankish origin, he came from Albingaunum (modern Albengo) in the Ligurian Alps (SHA Quatt. tyr. 12,1) and was called upon in AD 280 by the inhabitants of > Lugdunum (Lyons) for assistance in warding off the > Alamanni (ibid. 13,1-4). After his victory over the invaders, urged by his wife Vituriga, he had himself proclaimed emperor (ibid. 12,3) together with — Bonosus [1]. Shortly afterwards, both were defeated by > Probus [1] who had hurried over from the Orient (Eutr. 9,17,1; Aur. Vict. Caes. 37,2); P. fled to the Franks, who however delivered him to the enemy. Probus had the usurper executed (SHA Quatt. tyr. 133549) KIENAST, 71996, 255f.; PIR? P 995; PLRE Vitucci, L’imperatore Probo, 1952, 66-73.

1, 745; G. TF.

[4] Bishop of Massilia (modern Marseille), envoy of Gaul at the synod in Aquilia (381). At the synod of Turin (> Augusta [5] Taurinorum) (around 400), he was given the metropolitan rights to the province of Narbonensis II ad personam. He therefore came into conflict with > Patroclus of Arelate (modern Arles) when Pope > Zosimus granted these rights permanently to the Bishop of Arelate. Because P. granted asylum to the murderer of Patroclus (+ 426), Pope Coelestinus I (422-432) threatened to excommunicate him. E. Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anfangen bis zur Hohe der Weltherrschaft, vol. 1, 1930, 3.48f.; 3853 W. ENSSLIN, s. v. P. (32), RE 23, 81 (literature).

M.HE.

[5] Eastern Roman official under Emperor Justinus [x] I, attested as quaestor sacri palatii in 522/3-526, died in 526/7. He was considered intelligent, influential, just and incorruptible. PLRE 2, 924f.(P.5). Fv.

Procuratio see > Expiatory rites

Procurator (from Latin procurare, ‘to take care of’;

Greek éxiteomoc/epitropos). [1] In the administration and organization of large fortunes, the political elite of Republican Rome employed ~ freedmen or free persons, who as procuratores were authorized to represent the owners legally (Cic. Caecin. 57f.). Augustus used this legal institution after the legalization of his position in order to manage both the private and the public tasks in his responsibility that were associated either with finance or with any other of his assets. He was unable to send > quaestors to any of the (imperial) provinces (+ provincia II.) given to him after 27 BC, because these officials were not available in sufficient numbers. For that reason, he authorized procuratores to receive and account for the public taxes and payments collected by the cities or tax contractors (> publicani). Procuratores were also responsible for pay to the troops (Str. 3,4,20). In addition, they were charged with the administration ofthe princeps’ private assets in the provinces, which included domains, mines and quarries. Whereas initially freedmen could be appointed to this administrative responsibility (as e.g. — Licinus in Gallia Comata, Cass. Dio 5 4,21,3—8), very soon, even as early as under Augustus, these positions became exclusively filled by equestrians. They could be described as financial procuratores and were responsible for the finances in a single province, but sometimes also in several concurrently (e.g. Aquitania et Lugdunensis).

Augustus also appointed procuratores in the provinciae populi Romani; however, there they were solely concerned with the administration of his — patrimonium and thus originally did not administer any public funds. For that reason, they can be described as patrimonial procuratores. While, possibly as early as under Augustus, financial procurators were granted (or respectively tolerated in their usurpation of) some jurisdictive authority because of the — at least in nature — public quality of their task, the same authority was only granted to patrimonial procurators for their area of responsibility under > Claudius [III 1] at the latest (Tac. Ann. 12,60; Suet. Claud. 12,1) — but equally to the imperial freedmen, also entitled procuratores, who were responsible for the administration of individual assets of the princeps (e.g. > domains) or respectively acted as deputies to provincial procuratores, either in general or specifically for a particular kind of revenue (cf. e.g. [Eph III 855 or CIL VI 8443 = ILS 1546 and [1. 240ff.]). Beginning with the rule of the emperor Claudius, there is also evidence of equestrian praesidial procuratores as governors of certain provinces (e.g. Raetia, Noricum, Thracia, and both Mauretanian provinces). In contrast with praefecti (> praefectus), from whom they took over some aspects of provincial administration, they were independent governors, not subordinate to a senatorial legate; in provinces of the latter, praefecti bore only partial responsibility (as e.g. in Iudaea or in Raetia). These equestrian procuratores also took on the responsibilities of financial procurator alongside those of governor.

930

929

Procuratores were also increasingly used in other areas of the imperial administration, e.g. for large imperial domains (procurator saltus), for mines (procurator aurariarum

in Dacia), for > minting (procurator

monetae) in the city of Rome, for the administration of gladiatoral schools in Rome and in the provinces (procurator ludi magni/matutini, procurator familiarum gladiatoriarum in larger provincial areas) and to oversee the collection of the 5 % taxes of — vicesima

PRODICUS

zeit, vol. 1, 1995, 327-340; Id., Die nichtsenatorische Administration: Ausbau und Differenzierung, in: Id., Die Verwaltung ... (see above), vol. 2, 1998, 67-106 (expanded version of ch. 6 in CAH 11, 2000, 238ff.); NICOLET, 423-439; PrLaum; H.-G. Priaum, Les procurateurs équestres sous le Haut-Empire romain, 1950; Id., s. v. P., RE 23, 1240-1279 (French: Id., Abrégé des procurateurs equestres,

1974); CH. SCHAFER,

Spitzenmanagement

in

Republik und Kaiserzeit. Die Prokuratoren von Privatpersonen im Imperium Romanum vom 2. Jahrhundert v.

hereditatium (estate duty) and vicesima libertatis (tax

Chr. bis zum 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr., 1998; A. N. SHER-

payable on manumission of a slave).

win-Wuirte, P. Augusti, in: PBSR 15, 1939, WEAVER, Familia Caesaris, 1972, 267-281.

In the course of the 2nd cent. AD, ever more aspects

of financial administration were removed from the responsibility of the general financial procurator and assigned to specific procuratores, e.g. overseeing the vicesima hereditatium. Starting under — Vitellius with the immediate imperial circle, then increasingly more generally from + Domitianus, functions not directly involving financial tasks and previously carried out by imperial freedmen were given to equestrians (> equites). Even though these officials frequently did not bear the title of procuratores, their office fell into the same category: ab ~ epistulis (e.g. ILS 1448: procurator ab epistulis), a — libellis, a> rationibus (e.g. IEph II 73.6; VIL 1, 3046: epitropos apo ton logon = procurator a rationibus). The position of a procurator was never considered an honorary office (> honos) in contrast with that of a Roman

~> magistratus.

For that reason, procuratores

were always paid a salary. The earliest documentary record refers to a salary of 200,000 sestertii (ducenarius) under Claudius (Suet. Claud. 24,1; cf. Apul. Met. 7,6). Later, distinctions were made between salary levels of 60,000, 100,000, 200,000 and 300,000 sestertii. The total number of procuratores, under Augustus initially very small, increased slowly but continuously. In the course of this development, individual positions were distinguished according to the importance of their remit and thus associated prestige; probably from the latter half of the 2nd cent AD, they were placed into a hierarchical order. This was based on the salary levels, which then doubled as designators for the hierarchical levels: sexagenarti, centenarii, ducenarit, trecenarii. Inscriptions detailing the careers of equestrian office holders used these descriptions as titles, also in abbreviated form (LX, C, CC, CCC). Only the princeps appointed procuratores by > codicilli; one such document is extant in AE 1962, 183. In summary, procuratores were responsible for the greatest part of the empire’s administration, a system slowly and continuously expanded by successive emperors. ~ Praefectus; > Provincia 1 W. Eck, Ein Prokuratorenpaar von Syria Palaestina in P. Berol. 21 652, in: ZPE 123, 1998, 249-255. J.-J. AUBERT, Business Managers in Ancient Rome, 1994; P. Brunt, Procuratorial Jurisdiction, in: Id., Roman Imperial Themes, 1990, 163-187; W. Eck, Die Leitung und

Verwaltung einer prokuratorischen Provinz, in: Id., Die Verwaltung des rémischen Reiches in der Hohen Kaiser-

11-26; P.

[2] General non-technical term for all procurators in-

volved in the finances of the > fiscus , basically comprising all praesidial and financial procurators in the emperor’s provinces as well as all patrimonial procurators (for details see [1] above). W.E. [3] see > Library (II. B.2.)

Procyon see > Constellations Prodicus (I1@65ixo0c¢/Prodikos) from Ceos. Sophist and

philosopher, b. in Iulis on the island of Ceos (84 A DK) probably between 470 and 460 BC; contemporary of Democritus [1], Gorgias and > Protagoras [2], who may have been P.’ teacher. He apparently outlived Socrates, as can be deduced from the mention of him in

Pl. Ap. 19e (as did Gorgias and Hippias). Like the latter two men, he was an envoy for the city of Ceos and an itinerant sophist (Pl. Hp. mai. 282c). Aristophanes [3]

linked P. with Socrates (Aristoph. Nub. 360-362), and in Plato’s works > Socrates called himself P.’ pupil (PI. Prt. 341a, Pl. Men. 96d, Pl. Crat. 384b, Pl. Phdr. 267b); the Suda indicates (probably erroneously) that P. died after drinking hemlock. Tradition has it that P.’ pupils — in addition to those Socrates reported having sent to him (Pl. Tht. 151b) — also included Theramenes, Isocrates and Euripides [1] (84 A 6,7, 8 DK), perhaps also Thucydides and Damon (84 A 9, 17 DK). According to Plato, P. was concerned mainly with semantics and lexicography; there are at least two passages (Pl. Prt. 337a-c; Pl. Euthd. 277e) in which Plato

relates how skillful P. was in differentiating between apparent synonyms. Socrates, too, reported having learned from P.’ ability to make distinctions (cf. Pl. Chrm. 163d). The famous story of Hercules at the crossroads that Xenophon passes down as part of a work by P. on Hercules (Xen. Mem. 2,1,21-34) — according to other sources (84 B 1 DK) it is from the “Qoat (Ho6rai, ‘The Hours’ or ‘The Seasons’) — shows that P.

wasalsoa moral philosopher or at any rate an exponent of epideictic rhetoric ( Rhetoric). Several documents (84 B 5 DK) are in agreement in attributing to him a rationalist explanation (even before the emergence of ~» Euhemerism) for the origins of religion, which is why he was regarded as an atheist. According to Galen, he also dealt with physiology, and wrote a work entitled ‘On the Nature of Man’ (84 B 4, B 11 DK). Cicero

PRODICUS

reports that P. — like Thrasymachus and Protagoras — also wrote ‘On the Nature of Things’ (De natura rerum;

Cic. De or. 3,32,128 = 84 B 3 DK), which may explain why Aristophanes referred to him as a petemeooodtotn¢ (meteorosophisteés, ‘sophist of celestial phenomena’; Aristoph. Nub. 360). > Sophists Ep1T1oNns:

Dg

931

DteLs/KRANZ,

no.

84; M.

UNTERSTEINER,

Sofisti, Testimonianze e frammenti, *1961, 156-201. BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. B. KERFERD, H. FLASHAR, s. v. P., GGPh? 2.1, 1998, 128-129. LiveRATURE: H. Gomperz, Sophistik und Rhetorik, 1912 (repr. 1965), 90-126; H. Mayer, P. von Keos und

die Anfange der Synonymik bei den Griechen, 1913; M. UNTERSTEINER, I Sofisti, *1967 (repr. 1996), X—XI.

MINA.

Prodigium. In the context of Roman - divination, the prodigium was the second important category of signs along with the auspicia (> augures). (Natural) events perceived as extraordinary were considered to be prodigia (or also portenta, ostenta); they were unprovoked signs that were not linked with the actions of magistrates from the point of view of time. The prodigium could concern individuals but during the Republic it was mainly referred to the community through Senate recognition (prodigium publicum, ‘state prodigium’). A prodigium had negative import — the word rarely stood for positive signs: it indicated that the > pax deorum, the harmony between the gods and the > res publica, had been disturbed, that misfortune threatened and had

to be warded off through acts of purification (procurare, expiare). For Cicero the placation (placatio) of divine wrath (ira deorum) often seen as caused by cult

failings was an essential feature of Roman religio (— Religion [X]) and central to the existence and success of the res publica (Cic. Nat. D. 3,5). The signs passed down particularly through Livy and Iulius Obsequens in the form of prodigium lists ultimately derived from priestly records range wide, from lightning in a temple to the birth of a hermaphrodite to earthquakes (cf. Cic. Div. 1,97f.). Observation of signs intensified in times of crisis such as in the 2nd of the > Punic Wars [II] (Liv. 21,62,1), but was not limited thereto. Central to recognizing an event as a prodigium and

determining the subsequent > expiatory rites (procuratio prodigiorum) was the Senate. On the basis of the report from the magistrates, mostly the consuls, and sometimes after questioning witnesses, the Senate initially confirmed whether the signs — reported from Rome or outside — should be regarded as prodigia and hence as concerning the res publica. It thereupon determined the expiatory rites to be performed. Here the Senate could rely on the pontifices (> pontifex) and the + quindecimviri sacris faciundis, who on the order of the Senate consulted the ‘Sibylline Books’ (> Sibyllini libri) and the Etruscan > haruspices. The task of interpretatio did not involve establishing future events but determining the acts of expiation that would suffice to

placate the gods. These acts ranged wide, from > sacrifice carried out by the magistrates to a > supplicatio involving the citizens and sometimes even the destruction of the signs — symbolic or material (e.g., ‘burying’ a thunderbolt, exposing hermaphrodites). The basis for the rules for assigning rites to particular signs can be only partially discovered from practice (e.g., stone rain was as a rule atoned for by means of a > novendiale sacrum). Questioning the Sibylline Books however often led to cult innovations. The origin and development of prodigium expiation are problematic because of the situation of the tradition. Regular acts of expiation have been passed down to us only from the beginning of the 3rd cent. BC; and the excerpts in Iulius Obsequens from the prodigium lists of Livy begin in 249 BC. It therefore appears to be an institution of the Middle and Late Republic, with the increasing disintegration of the aristocracy affecting both the recognition and the expiation of the prodigium. Liv. 43,13,1 thus lamented the decreasing import of prodigia in his time. For the Imperial period only small numbers of expiatory acts are known, though the institutions involved in them certainly continued to exist. In Imperial literature, omina (> Omen) directed at

persons (more precisely: at the emperor) became more important.

Acts of prodigium expiation can be interpreted as a means of reducing uncertainty in view of inexplicable happenings: the prodigium’s violation of the concepts of order and boundaries corresponded with the restoration of order through the acts of expiation [1; 2]; the interpretation of an occurrence as a prodigium despite alternative explanatory models as well as the control by the Senate indicate the importance of the prodigiumasa medium of communication in which the relationship between the Roman aristocracy and other groups (plebs, Italian confederates) was negotiated and above all confirmed. — Divination; > Expiatory rites 1B. GLapicow, Konkrete Angst und offene Furcht: Am Beispiel des Prodigienwesens in Rom, in: H. vON STIETENCRON (ed.), Angst und Gewalt, 1979, 61-77 2 V. ROSEN-

BERGER, Gezahmte Gotter, 1998, 91-175. R. BLocu, Les prodiges dans l’antiquité classique, 1963; D. J. DETREVILLE, Senatus et religio, thesis, Chapel Hill

1987; B. MacBarn,

Prodigy and Expiation,

1982; J.

Rupke, Livius, Priesternamen und die ‘annales maximi’,

in: Klio 75, 1993, 15 5-179.

G.DI.

Prodigus. A prodigus (‘spendthrift’) was placed by the Twelve Tablets (7,4c) under the care (cura) of their closest agnates (~ agnatio) who were to administer his wealth, so that their future right of inheritance (— inheritance law III. C.; > intestatus) should not be at risk. In

the classical law of the rst-3rd cents. AD, a prodigus would be equated with a minor under the protection of a guardian (- tutela); a cura prodigi was now also arranged not only in the interests of the agnates but also for the protection of the prodigus.

ee)

934

1 HONSELL/MAYER-MALY/SELB, 96-97 2 Kaser, RPR, 120 3G. WESENBERG, S. V. P.,

vol. 1, 85, 278-279; vol. 2,

RE 23, 1279-1283.

U.M.

Proditio. Actually Latin for ‘surrender’, in a more specific sense treachery in war, or treason. The word was probably never a legal technical term; in particular, proditio was not a sub-category of > perduellio (‘treacherous links with an enemy of the fatherland’). Proditio was related to the specifically military crimes of trans(> transfuga, fugium ‘defector’) and desertio (> desertor). Like these, it fell under the jurisdiction of the field commander, and like these it was generally punished by lashing and execution by axe (cf. the exemplary case of the sons of Brutus in Liv. 2,3—5). The right of appeal (— provocatio) may have been granted to one accused of treachery in the late 2nd cent. BC; from the rst cent. BC, proditio was treated as a sub-category of high treason (> maiestas). + Military penal law; > War, law of M. FUHRMANN,

s. v. P., in: RE Suppl. 9, 1221-1230.

A.VO.

Prodosia (xeodocia; prodosia). There is evidence of constant efforts to punish ‘treason’ (prodosia) and ‘high treason’ (> katdlysis toi demon) in Athens. Prodosia is

the infringement on the external security of the state, which could extend to the failure of recovering the corpses of the fallen or saving the shipwrecked (Battle of Arginusae, 406 BC; Xen. Hell. 1,7,22 and 32, where a law against temple-robbers and traitors is referred to). Later prodosia fell under the law on > eisangelia, but often ad hoc decisions on prodosia were enacted (thus after the Battle of Chaeronea, 338 B.C.; Lycurg. 1,53; 1,77). The punishment was death with hereditary + atimia, forfeiture of property, destruction of the home and the prohibition of burial in home soil. E. BERNEKER, Hochverrat und Landesverrat im griechischen Recht, in: Symbolae. Festschrift R. Taubenschlag, vol. 1, 1956, 105-137; Id., s. v. P., RE 23.1, 90-95; J. BLEICKEN,

Die

athenische

385f.; E. RuscHENBUSCH,

Demokratie,

41995,

211f.,

Zur Geschichte des atheni-

schen Strafrechts, 1968, 14f.; K.-W. WELWEI, Das klassische Athen, 1999, 236-240. Gal:

Prodromoi

(mod5Qou0U/prédromot,

‘advance

run-

ners’).

[1] The north winds which blow for seven days before the heliacal rise of Sirius in the Mediterranean region. Compared with the later > Etesiai, they are supposedly cooler. The seven days — like their purported relationship with Sirius and the nine days from their onset until the Etesiai — are arbitrarily determined [1; 2]. Their dates vary between 7 and 23 July (Julian calendar) (= 420 July in the Gregorian calendar). —+ Winds 1R. Boxer, s. v. Windfristen, RE Suppl. 9, 1697-1705 (esp. 17orf.)

2Id.,s. v. Prodromoi, RE 23, 97-102.

PROEISPHORA

A. REHM, s. v. Etesiai, RE 6, 713-717

(esp. 714f.); A.

SCHULTEN, s. v. Winde, RE 8A, 2211-2388 2212-2214),

(esp. A. 2., C.HU,

[2] In Greek military terms, the word prodromoi describes the (mounted) advance guard; Herodotus generally uses the word to specify the military advance guard of the Greek troops (Hdt. 7,203; 9,14); elsewhere prodromoi refers to the Scythian mounted advance guard (Hdt. 4,121f.). In the 4th cent. BC, a special troop of lightly armed prodromoi probably served as scouts in the Athenian army, possibly replacing the unit of > hippotoxotai (Aristot. Ath. Pol. 49,1; cf. Xen. Hipp. 1,25; Xen. Mem. 3,3,1). In Alexander [4] the Great’s army the prodromoi, also called cagiooddeot (sarisophoroi/‘sarissa-bearers’; > Sdrissa), served as part of the > cavalry. Made up of Macedonians, they were divided into four lai (‘troops’; Arr. Anab. 1,12,7; 1,14,13 1,14,6; cf. Pol. 12,20,7; Diod. Sic. 17,17,4). Their duty was mainly reconnaissance (Arr. Anab. 3,7,7), but they also took part in battles (Arr. Anab. 2,9,2). This type of prodromot in the Seleucid army is documented in Josephus [4] Flavius (Jos. Ant. Iud. 12,372). + Exploratores 1 KROMAYER/VEITH, 53, roof. 2R.D. Mrtns, Alexander’s Macedonian Cavalry and Diodorus XVII 17,4, in: JHS 86, 1966, 167-168 3 W.K. PrircHett, The Greek Statevat War, vol: 1, 197m a30L; voly2, 1974, nSSt. 4L. J. Wor ey, Hippeis. The Cavalry of Ancient Greece,

1994. Proegoros

LB. (meonyoood/proégoros,

Doric

me0cyoooc/

prodgoros, ‘spokesman’; from pro-agoreuein, ‘speak publicly for somebody’). Spokesman of a group or legation (Xen. Hell. 1,1,27; 2,2,22; Xen. An. 5,5,7). In the

Sicilian poleis of > Acragas (IG XIV 952: 2nd cent. BC), > Tyndaris (Cic. Verr. 2,4,85) and possibly also ~ Tauromenium (IG XIV 423) the term for an official. In + Catane even, according to Cicero (Verr. 2,4,50),

the proégoros was the highest magistrate, though this may be exaggerated. In + Sardeis, stratégot and proégoroi feature (as leading officials) in the prescript of a decree passed by the people’s assembly [1. 7ff.]. These persons could, however, have been identical. In the Hellenistic and Imperial East proégoros is also used with the meaning ‘advocate’ (IGR III 63; 65; 778; SEG 2,3.66,201-) Poll 2yn262 heme 1orye265326a): Proégoros also occurs as a Greek equivalent for a Roman consul who bears the fasces. 1L. Rosert, Inscriptions et reliefs d’Asie mineure, in: Hellenica 9, 1950, 7-38. H. SCHAFER, s. v. P., RE 23, 104-107.

K-W.W.

Proeisphora (xooewpoed/proeisphorda, ‘property tax advance’). Because the > eisphord (‘property tax’) in Athens yielded necessary funds too slowly in times of crisis, a > liturgy [I B] to ‘give an advance’ as a proeis-

PROEISPHORA

935

936

phord on the whole of the sum to be raised, without interest, was imposed (presumably before 362 BC) on the 300 richest citizens of the city. Deducting their own contributions, they could at their own risk collect the proeisphora from fellow members of their > symmoria

requirement for aparchai). The assumption that the annual sacred ploughing of the ‘Rarian Plain’ (Rarion pedion) in the Eleusis region was carried out according to the model of a mythical proérosia by > Triptolemus is based on the reconstruction of the > Marmor Partum (FGrH 239 F 12-13; Plut. Mor. 144b).

(tax bracket). The proeisphora is attested also of other

democratic poleis (e.g., Priene and Lindus [3. 1232f.]). 1 J. BLEICKEN, Die athenische Demokratie, 41995, 296f. 2 HANSEN,

Democracy,

112-115

3H. SCHAEFER,

Ss. Vv.

Proeisphora, RE Suppl. 9, 1230-1235 4R. W. WALLAce, The Athenian proeispherontes, in: Hesperia 58, 1989, 473-490 5 K.-W. Wetwel, Das klassische Athen, 1999, 305. Gir

Proerosia

(Ileongooia/Proérosia

or

Teonedota/

Proérésia, also Wonedoa/Prérosia and Th yeooia/ Plérosia sc. 0vota/thysia). ‘Sacrifice before ploughing’, an agrarian sacrificial rite, possibly a festival, performed before ploughing and sowing, for a good inerease’ of the crop (Suda sv. I; Hsch> s. -v. Ils ef. Lycurg. 14, fr. 4 CONOMIS; Hyp. fr. 75). The ‘sacrifice before ploughing’ was one of several rites or festivals in the Attic demes running through the agricultural year in Attica. The nature and timing of the sacrifice varied by deme. The proérosia pertained to > Demeter (Paiania: IG B 250 A 8; 18; B 4; 16f. (in the month of Boedromion); Eleusis: IG IP 1363,6 (in the month of Pyanopsion); presumably Piraeus: IG II* 1177,9), but also — Zeus (Myrrhinus: IG II* 1183,33; perhaps Thoricus: SEG 33, 1983, 147,13 (Boedromion); cf. Hes. Op. 465f.; Plut. Mor. r119e). Max. Tyr. 292,17 implies a bloodless proérosia sacrifice by farmers; the calendar of Thoricus differs. The proérosia in > Eleusis [1] on the 5th day of Pyanopsion, announced by the hierophant and a herald (IG II* 1363,4-7), was probably quite a large festival in the 5th cent., exceeding the bounds of the deme; and in the

rst cent. BC it included among other things a ritual in which the ephebes lifted oxen up and carried them to an altar (IG II* 1028,28). Lexicographers connect the proérosia in Eleusis with the aparchai (‘first-fruits sacrifices’) the states allied to Athens (IG I} 78 = ML 73, 435-415 v. Chr.) were obligated to perform. According to the only transmitted ation for proérosia, in the face of a general famine the Delphic Oracle (so Lycurg. 14, fr. 4 CONOMISs) ordered a proérosia sacrifice by Athens in the name of all Greeks and even, to some extent, non-Greeks; according to some texts the Athenians are supposed to have received the aparchai in thanks for having been saved (Schol. Aristoph. Equ. 729a/d; Plut. Mor. 1054). The connection between proérosia and aparchai in one and the same festival raises problems. The Eleusinian > Mysteria, for example, have also been proposed as a destination for delivering aparchai ({1]; but cf. [2]). In later tradition, by contrast, the proérosiai are also connected with Athens’ claim to have received the art of agriculture from Demeter (Schol. Aristid. 105,18; according to Isoc. Or. 4,31 this myth is the basis of the

1 B. SMARCzy«k, Untersuchungen zur Religionspolitik und politischen Propaganda Athens im Delisch-Attischen Seebund, 1990, esp. 188-196 2R. Parker, Athenian Religion, 1996, 143 and note 85.

DEUBNER, 68f.; R. PARKER, Festivals of the Attic Demes, in: T. Linpers, G. Norpauist (ed.), Gifts to the Gods,

1987, 137-147, esp. 141f.; N. RoBERTSON, New Light on Demeter’s Mysteries: The Festival Proerosia, in: GRBS 37, 1996, 319-379.

B.K.

Proetids (IMoowtidec; Proitides). The P. (‘daughters of ~ Proetus’) are the subject of a mythical tradition, that narrates their maddened wandering and the subsequent curing of that madness. Several versions of the tale exist. According to most of them, the P. are driven mad by + Hera after they have mocked her or her temple, or have stolen ornaments from her statue. Hes. fr. 131 M.-W. says that > Dionysus drives them mad because they rejected his rites. They leave Argos or Argive Tiryns and, believing that they are cows (animals sacred to Hera), wander the wild meadows.

Hesiod tells of their contracting a hideous skin disease and exhibited lewd behaviour (fr. 132; 133 M.-W.). Their cure is brought about either through their father, king Proetus, or through > Melampus [1], the seer of Dionysus, and his brother > Bias [1], whom Proetus hired, or also through Artemis. In many versions the P. kill and eat children from the area during their madness. This, in addition to Dionysus’ involvement in some versions, indicates that the story was intermingled with that of the > Minyades [1. 70-95; 2]. Some elements (e.g. the P. are still virgins and one of

them also dies a virgin) rank them alongside other girls or groups of girls from Greek mythology [3. 221-223]. The myth was connected to rituals concerned with girls reaching maturity [1. 70-95] and in particular with the tension between the girl’s attachment to her place of birth and the necessity to leave this home on her marriage [2] (— initiation). Furthermore the myth was seen in connection with rituals which were said to grant peace to girls who had died, so that they would not plague living girls [3. 66-70]. The most important ancient sources for the various versions are Hes. fr. 129133 M.-W.; Bacchyl. 11; Pherecydes FGrH 3 F 14 and Acusilaus FGrH 2 F 28; for further sources and elabo-

rations on the various versions cf. [1. 70-95]. 1K. DowpbeN, Death and the Maiden: Girls’ Initiation

Rites in Greek Mythology, 1989 2 R. SEAFORD, The Eleyenth Ode of Bacchylides: Hera, Artemis and the Absence of Dionysus, in: JHS 108, 1988, 118-136 3S. I. JoHNsTON, Restless Dead, 1999

4 L. Kani, s. v. P., LIMC 7.1,

522-525 und 7.2 ad loc.

JB.

937

938

PROFESSIONAL

ASSOCIATIONS

Proetus (Igoitoc/Proitos, Lat. Proetus). Mythical king

professions in the Ancient Orient, such as merchants,

of Argos (Hom. Il. 6,157; Pind. Nem. 10,77), or Tiryns

craftsmen and > priests, but there is no proof of PA in

(Apollod. 2,25; Schol. Eur. Or. 965), son of Tersander

the sense of voluntary federations for the protection and defence of political and economic interests

and father of Maera [1] (Pherecydes FGrH 3 F 17ob), more commonly however son of > Abas [1] and Aglaea (Schol. Eur. Or. 965; Paus. 2,16,2; Apollod. 2,24f.). P.’

conflict with his twin brother —> Acrisius originates as early as their time in the womb (Apollod. 2,24f.) or after P. has seduced Acrisius’ daughter -» Danae (Apollod. 2,34f.). In the historical period, a pyramid (Paus. 2,25,7) and a festival by the name of Daulis (Hsch. s.v. Aavats) [1. 416] recalled the battle (Bacchyl. 10,66) between the two. There are two versions of the dispute’s outcome: according to Paus. 2,25,7, it ends in a draw,

with Acrisius attaining rule over Argos and P. over Tiryns. In the second version, P. is defeated, is to emigrate in the coming spring to a land across the sea but procures help for himself that winter (in Thebes, so Schol. Eur. Phoen. 1109, where he marries the daughter of King > Iobates), and fights once more, resulting in a tie and the aforementioned division of rule (Schol. Eur.

Or. 965) or his return to Argos led by Iobates (Schol. Eur. Phoen. 1109). According to Ov. Met. 5,236-241, P. is victorious and it is > Perseus [1] who kills him with the Gorgon’s head, reinstating his grandfather Acrisius as king. Independent ofthis is the story of > Bellerophontes’ stay with P.: P.’ wife, > Antea [1], falls in love with Bellerophontes. Rejected by him, she takes revenge by slandering him to P., stating that he had tried to seduce her against her will. Though not wishing to kill him, P. sends him on a dangerous mission to Lycia. When he passes the test, the King of Lycia recognizes him as a son of the gods and gives him his daughter’s hand in marriage (Hom. Il. 6,15 5-180; Hyg. Fab. 57; Hyg. Poet. Astr. 2,18; Eur. Stheneboea, TGF fr. 661-674). Again in an independent story the daughters of P., the > Proetids, go insane. P. has them healed by > Melampus [1] and promises him half the kingdom and the hand of a daughter (Lactantius Placidus, Comm. to Stat. Theb. 3,453). According to others, P. attempts to escape his duties, whereby the madness becomes even worse. Melampus then demands that P. share out his rule, a third each for himself, his brother > Bias [1] and P., who ultimately agrees [2; 3]. In the fine arts, P. was depicted primarily in conjunction with Bellerophontes [4]. 1 Nitsson, Feste 2H. MAgrHter, Die Lieder des Bakchylides I 2, 1982, 196-202 3L. KAppEL, Paian, 1992, 131-133

4L. Kant1,s. v. Proitos, LIMC 7.1, SDS LATO,

414-417. G. RADKE, s. v. Proitos [1], RE 23.1, 125-133.

LK.

Professional associations I. ANCIENT

ORIENT

II. GREECE AND ROME

I. ANCIENT ORIENT Certainly there is evidence of the emergence and activity of joint representatives of specific branches of the

[1. 79-82; 2. 16rf.]. 1A.L.

Oppennermm,

Ancient

Mesopotamia,

1964

2H. M. KUmmeL, Familie, Beruf und Amt im spatbabylonischen Uruk, 1979. H.N.

Il. GREECE AND ROME

Three different types of association in the economic life of Antiquity can be distinguished. 1. a fixed-period partnership e.g. of merchants, 2. official associations for ensuring particular services, controlled by the administration, as in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, and 3. voluntary associations, to some extent also connected with administration [3]. Only the second and third groups are to be considered PA. Aristotle had recognized the fundamental necessity of associations (Aristot. eth.Nic. 1160a8-30). Primarily those who remained excluded from the traditional associations, such as, among citizens, craftsmen (Bivavoot, banausoi), or foreigners had reason to join forces with other members of their own professional group, or with people from the same country, for social or religious purposes or for mutual support. The Italians in Delos, the Sidonians and Thracians in Athens and the Alexandrians in Perinthus and Tomi were traders who kept their stock in foreign ports. Associations of members of the same professional group are first attested in early Hellenism, though their origins stretch further back. The groups of traders that in the 4th cent. BC acquired e.g. land for a sanctuary (IG II* 337) can be seen as predecessors of such associations. In Delos the koinon (xowov) of Poseidoniasts from Berytus met in its own

complex of sanctuaries and meeting rooms arranged around a court which had a colonnade [7. 788ff.]. Many associations used the term for their profession as aname, the linen sellers for example, whereas others

hid the identity of their profession behind a cult name, as in the case of the Heracleistae from Tyrus in Delos. The names and constitutions of associations were often modelled on those of the city in which they were formed or of cult associations already in existence there [10]. Concepts from the domain of city federations were also used by many associations; thus the Dionysian teyvitat (technitai) from Ionia and from the Hellespont formed a koinon; in addition other terms such as ovvédetov,

ovvodoc and ovotnuwa (synédrion, synodos, systema) also appear. Names, derived from the word éoyov and indicating economic interests, were also used for associations, but not for those of craftsmen. Until late Antiquity, the technitai remained members of an association of people connected with the > theatre. The activity in such associations offered officers an opportunity to gain esteem: the Athenian Council, which had re-

ceived a donation from Diognetus, the treasurer of the vavxrnoor xal Eurogot (naukléroi kai émporoi) of Zeus

939

940

Xenios, resolved that the association should honour Diognetus with a portrait on a shield (IG II* 1072).

being struck with the administration; this gave rise to the impression that PA had now become guilds, which persisted until the Byzantine period [4. 859-860]. In the roth cent..the guilds in Constantinople did have to perform services for the state and were subject to strict market controls, but at the same time they were responsible for their own working conditions and had a substantial influence on urban affairs [5]. ~ Collegium

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

Without doubt, generosity towards their own association was expected from such men, and in return they expected honour and prestige. The Dionysian teyvitat honoured Crates, their priest and aywvo0étng (agonothétés), with an annual coronation and three statues. The attraction of associations was also based on the right to exclude others, a right that conversely increased the value of membership. The rules for accepting members were undoubtedly strict, but it was unclear whether only financially well-established fellow professionals were admitted. Slaves were probably excluded, even if some acted for their owners as administrators with great responsibilities, and their professional qualifications were consequently certainly sufficient for membership. The revenues of associations covered expenses for honours, perhaps even for deceased members. Even if the members discussed issues relating to their profession, associations were hardly able as such, however, to directly influence working conditions (unlike e.g. modern trades unions); the grain traders in Athens during the 4th century BC (Lys. 22) were not a professional association in their actions, but simply small traders who collaborated in such a way as to dictate the market. Because, however, common economic interests contrib-

uted to the founding of associations, they could indirectly have a lasting influence on the economic situation of their members, in that they, e.g. by means of honours, formed contacts with influential persons. Thus the moayuatevtal (pragmateutai) of Piraeus honoured the wife of Herodes Atticus (Syll.3 3,856), the vavxrneo xat gusogot honoured the general Argeius (IG II’ 2952) and the Dionysian teyvitar honoured Ariarathes V of Cappadocia (IG II’ 1330). The benefits of such associations to their members can therefore not be denied. The question arises, however, of why the PA were not wider spread and did not encompass a greater spectrum of professions. The dominance of textile workers contrasts with a very limited number of potters. In the Greek world proper more than just isolated examples of PA can be found only in Athens, Delos and

Rhodes; the associations in Argos probably had only a cult use. In the coastal cities of Asia Minor only few associations are attested, far more existed in the Hellenized inland cities such as Tralles, Thyateira, Hierapolis

and in Egypt, in regions therefore, which had already been centres of industrial development in the period before the Greek conquest. In the Roman Principate the pressure on producers and dealers grew; under these conditions the PA gained a greater influence on economic life and consequently attracted the Roman administration’s mistrust. This was the case for the fabri of Nicomedia (Plin. epist. 10,33) and the bakers of Ephesus, whose PA was disbanded by a proconsul in the 2nd cent., in order to end their strike (SEG 14,512). Later there were also fre-

quently conflicts with bakers in other places. Disputes with the building workers of Sardes led to agreements

1M. Austin, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest, 1981 2 ESAR, 2,392-400; 4,841849 3H. Francorrte, L’industrie dans la Gréce ancienne Il, 1901, 206 4 Jones, LRE 5 A. Kazupan, s.v. Guilds, ODB

6F.

POLAND,

Vereinswesens,

1909

7M.1.

RostovizerFF, Hellenistic World, ‘1941 8 Ders., Roman Empire, 619 9 STOCKLE, s.v. B., RE Suppl. 4, 155-211 10 M. N. Top, s.v. Clubs Greek, OCD, 1970 11 J. VELIsSAROPOULOS, Les naucleéres grecs, 1980.

BoC

Professionalism, sense of see > Konnensbewuftsein

Progenitors I. ANCIENT NEAR East

II. Ecypt

III. GREECE

IV. ROME

I. ANCIENT NEAR EAST Knowledge of one’s own progenitors in the ancient Near East legitimized one’s status and material and immaterial rights in the individual and societal spheres. Such knowledge was based on patriarchal relationships of > kinship. Evidence for this comes, for example, from lineage lists (> Genealogies; OT: Gn 5; 11:10-32; 22:20-24; 25:1-9; Judges 4:18-22: progenitors of ~ David [1]; 1 Sam 9:1-2: progenitors of Saul; Mt 1:1— 17: progenitors of Jesus), the Assyrian > Kings’ Lists, the reference to royal progenitors in the inscriptions of Assyrian and Achaemenid > rulers and the choice of the name of a distant (even fictitious) progenitor as regnal name, programmatically intended to serve as reminder of the progenitor (> Naramsin; > Sargon [3]; cf. also the epic tradition linked to both names). Much of this evidence contains fictitious elements. This applies, for instance, to the claim of the rulers of the 3rd Dynasty of Ur (21st cent. BC), to be brothers or descendants of > Gilgamesh, by which they sought to bestow particular value and legitimacy on their rule. While in these examples the depth of memory of a real or fictitious nature reaches back over considerable spans of time (in the case of the inscriptions of the Assyrian rulers, many hundreds of years), this can only be demonstrated in occasional instances in the individual sphere. Where it can be demonstrated, memory is linked, for example, to legal documents concerning the estate-related transactions of a family, which would be archived. [6. 185; 7. 348]. In the rst millennium BC in Babylonia, threefold naming (name, patronymic, surname) was customary. Here, the surname often referred to a progenitor who can be demonstrated to have live many hundreds of years earlier.

941

942

The custom of recalling the progenitors also manifested itself in ancestor worship. In the cult itself, knowledge of the progenitor manifested itself in the type of the OT God of one’s fathers (‘God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’) and in Nabataean inscriptions [1]. + Family; > Genealogy; — Kinship, Relatives

but generally not more than two generations back. The progenitors were of more importance to families of the > nobility and rulers. Homeric heroes boast of their lineage in lengthy genealogies (e.g. Hom. Il. 14,113120; 20,208—241), but also feel this to be an obligation (Hom. Od. 24,506-512). Pindar mentions the progenitors in his praise of victorious noble athletes (e.g. Pind. Pyth. 7,13-17; Pind. Nem. 6,1 5-26); from the 4th cent. BC, they were often mentioned at the beginning of rhetorical panegyrics (Isoc. Or. 9,1 2-20; first rhetorical theory in Anaximen. Ars rhet. 3 5,5—10), and aristocratic defendants defended themselves in court with the accomplishments oftheir progenitors (And. 1,14 1-143; Isoc. Or. 16,24-28; generally Lys. 30,1). Into the Hellenistic period, > rulers in particular led their lineage back fictitiously to well-known progenitors, or even deities (Peisistratus [4]: Hdt. 5,65,3; Macedonian kings: Hdt. 8,137-139; Diadochi: OGIS 54,4 f.; Plut. Aemilius 12,9; Justin. 15,4,2-4). In politics and diplomacy, claims and rights of a people were often founded upon the accomplishments of its common progenitors (e.g. Hdt. 7,159; Thuc. 1,73-74; 3,54,3 f.). The progenitors were praised in the Attic > epitaphios [2]logos (Lys. 2,3-66; Pl. Menex. 237a 6-241e 5) and held up as examples in speeches before declarations of war (Thuc. 1,144,4; Isoc. Or. 7,84; 8,36 f.) and battles (Thuc. 7,69,2; Xen. An. 3,2,11-1). From the end of the 5th cent., the > pdatrios politeia served as the model of a good > constitution; in the 4th cent., Isocrates (esp. in Or. 4; 7; 12) put forward his ideal of a model state of the progenitors (esp. [3. 13 5-

1A. Att, Der Gott der Vater, 1929, in: Id., KS 1, 1953,

1-78 2 J.J. FINKELSTEIN, The Genealogies of the Hammurapi Dynasty, in: JCS 20, 1966, 95-118 3D.0. Epzarp, A. K. Grayson, s. v. Kénigsliste, RLA 6, 77135 4F.R. Kraus, Konige, die in Zelten wohnten, 1965 5 A. Matamar, King Lists of the Old Babylonian Period and Biblical Genealogies, in: W. W. Hato

Speiser, 1968, 163-165

zum 1969,

Priestertum 104-230

(ed.), FS E.

6]. RENGER, Untersuchungen

in altbabylonischer 7C. Wunscu,

Zeit, in: ZA

59,

Die Geschaftsurkunden

der Familie Egibi, in: J. RENGER (ed.), Babylon. Focus mesopotamischer

Geschichte,

Wiege frither Gelehrsamkeit,

Mythos in der Moderne, 1999, 341-364.

|.RE.

II. EGypr In attitudes towards the progenitors, the Egyptian

tradition of respect for elders combined with belief in the great power of the ‘justified dead’. Moreover, the more distant progenitors were closer, in the Egyptian

mind, to the world order (+ Ma’at) deployed in the Creation. They constituted a permanent cultural point of reference: on the one hand, their works were norma-

tive, and on the other, the surpassing of these works also formed a theme in royal and private inscriptions. These rather abstract concepts found their practical implementation in the imitation of historical models of their own or earlier dynasties by kings (e.g. copies of reliefs of Ramses II by Ramses III). A connection with the progenitors was also shown in naming customs (e.g. use of regnal names of kings of the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom during the New Kingdom and Late Period/rst millennium). The veneration of the progenitors also produced phenomena of an ancestor cult, such as ancestor busts. Rows of statues, king lists or private lineages brought the progenitors to mind in the succession of generations, and those named could be honoured with offerings in the manner of a litany. However, such a cult is to be distinguished from true > deification. — Dead, cult of the 1 R. J. DemareE, The ship in Ancient Egypt, Kinglists, Annals and Essai sur la conscience nique, 1995

3h igr n R‘-Stelae on Ancestor Wor1983 2 D. B. REDFORD, Pharaonic Day-Books, 1986 3 P. VERNUS, de I’Histoire dans "Egypte pharao4G. ViTrMann, Der grofe Priesterstamm-

baum in Karnak, in: Studien zur altagyptischen Kultur 30, 2002, 351-371, tables 20-22. Aw.L.

III. GREECE The progenitors (Greek nodyovo/progonoi; rarely nattoec/patéres: Hom. Il. 6,209; Pind. Pyth. 8,45) were honoured with offerings to the dead on the > Genésia and other commemorative days (-> Dead, cult of the),

PROGENITORS

154]). IV. ROME The progenitors (maiores; also patres, e.g. Liv. 22,14,4) were of central importance in Roman society (esp. [5. 2-33]). Every family venerated its progenitors (esp. at the > Parentalia) (probably the past three generations: Fest. p. 247) as the di(vi) parentes (ILS 7519)

or dei parentum (CIL XI 4327, etc.). The ancestor ven-

eration of the nobility, decorating their atria with lineages (stemmata: Plin. HN

35,6; Sen. Ben. 3,28,2) and wax masks of the progenitors (— imagines maiorum) and recalling their deeds with coin images (list: [2. 33 3338]), was non-cultic in nature [1. 115-117]. Magistrates praised their progenitors on taking office (Cic. Leg. agr. 2,1; Suet. Tib. 32,1). Progenitors participated in effigie in the — burial of their descendants, and were praised in the funerary address (+ laudatio funebris) (Pol. 6,54,1). For the accomplishments of the progenitors legitimized the leading political role of the family, helped their descendants in applying for office (commendatio maiorum: Cic. Planc. 67; Pis. 1 f.) and in court cases, while also serving to inspire and challenge them (Sall. Iug. 4,5 f.), as the descendants confronted in them a considerable pressure of expectation (e.g. Pol. 31,24,10; Cic. Planc. 51; ILS 6) and sometimes failed to live up to it (e.g. Cic. Fin. 1,24; Cael. 33 f.).

PROGENITORS

944

943

The high regard for the esteem of the progenitors, to whom all institutions of public and private life (details: [4. 82-114]), esp. state institutions (Cic. Sest. 137; Sall. Catil. 5,9) were ascribed, led many traditionally-minded Romans (Cic. Off. 1,121; Sulpicius Rufus in Cic. Fam. 4,11,1; Cato Uticensis: Cass. Dio 37,22,4) to regard the model of the progenitors as of decisive overall importance. With the emergence of a consciousness of decline in the 2nd cent. BC, a thorough renewal of custom in adherence to the example of the progenitors

tion or constantly gives rise to new goals [2]. In this sense, the idea of progress did not exist in the ancient world, or at any rate in pre-Christian antiquity; only certain aspects of the modern concept are found in the distant past [3; 45 5]. A lack of a clear and uniform idea of progress explains why varied terminology existed at that time, with terms corresponding to ‘progress’ as both a noun and a verb. Words like avixésis (atEnows), epidosis

(+ mos maiorum) was often demanded

(and the respective verb forms) do not necessarily imply a change for the better or even a movement that would continue into the future [6. r41f.; 4. 353].

(Cato, fr. 58

Matcovati; Scipio Aemilianus in Gell. 4,20,10; Edict in Suet. Gram. 25,1).

(&id001c), prokope (meoxomn), progressus, progressio

~ Dead, cult of the; > Imagines maiorum; - Mos mai-

und Vorbild der Vorfahren bei den attischen Rednern und Geschichtsschreibern bis Demosthenes, 1936 4H.

B. GRAECO-ROMAN In the ancient world, the concept of progress in the sense of improvement competed with the opposite theory, evident since the time of Hesiod, that a decline had taken place following an original ‘Golden Age’ — although this might also imply that such an age could

Ro oFF, Maiores bei Cicero, 1938

5 J. VoctT, Ciceros

come again [7; 8].

Glaube an Rom, 1935 (repr. 1963).

W.K.

orum 1 F. Bomer, Ahnenkult und Ahnenglaube im alten Rom, 1943

2H.I. Flower, Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic

Power in Roman Culture, 1996

3K. Jost, Das Beispiel

Prognostic see > Parapegma Programma (1ed0yeauna/programma).

[1] In Athens a programma was a public announcement used by the > prytdneis to summon the > boulé and the + ekklesia and to fix the agenda (Poll. 8,95; Aristot.

Ath. pol. 43,35 44,23 [1. 993]). [2] In Egyptian papyri, programma can denote any official proclamation, from a royal decree (e.g., BGU 1212 C) to an arrest warrant [2. 62] [3].

[3] Greek authors use programma to translate Roman > edictum [1] (e.g., Cass. Dio [4. Index]). 1 Busott/Swosopa,

vol. 2

the

2 J. E. Powe.t (ed.), The

Rendel Harris Papyri of Woodbrooke College, Birmingham, 1936 3C.B. WELLES, New Texts from the Chancery of Philip V, in: AJA 42, 1938, 245-260 4U.P. BOISSEVAIN, Cassius Dio, vol. 5, 662.

H.BE.

Progress, idea of A. DEFINITION TIAN

Ideas related to partial elements of progress can be documented beginning in the late 6th cent. BC. They reflect a consciousness of increasing human domination over the world, as first articulated in Ionic natural philosophy. The earliest evidence — although its context cannot be clearly reconstructed — is a statement found in a fragment (fr. 18 D-K) from Xenophanes of Colophon (approx. 570 — approx. 475 BC), in which he observes that the gods did not reveal all things to humankind, but instead mortals would in time use their own resources to find something better. In the course of the sth cent., the idea gained credence that advancements in cultural techniques had opened up new opportunities for humans to shape their environment; Sophocles (Ant. 332-375) underscores the magnitude of human action, the consequences of which can be either good or bad. As the Athenian democracy developed, this >> K6nnensBewuftsein’ [5] was reflected in the realization that opportunities for action far exceeded their traditional limits, both in foreign policy and in shaping the political order; at the same time, however, the corresponding

B. GRAECO-ROMAN

C, CHRIS-

risks were equally amplified (Thuc. 1,70f.; 3,37,3f.; 3,38,5). The extent to which the political order was

A. DEFINITION In what sense, or whether, the idea of progress existed in the ancient world has been the subject of dis-

perceived as amenable to planning and to efforts to perfect it is also demonstrated by the draft by Hippodamus of Miletus of a ‘best constitution’ which provided for rewards for useful suggestions for improvement (Aris-

pute since the roth cent. [1. XI-X XXIII]. More recent

tot. Pol.

attempts to demonstrate the existence of such an ancient concept [1] have not been entirely successful; it depends largely on how progress is defined. A definition must inevitably be based on a modern-era perspective, reflecting how progress was seen in the late 18th cent. This concept is rooted in the philosophy of history and presumes that humankind is evolving in a positive sense, in a process of advancement (and acceleration) that is independent of intentional action and contingent events, and that either seeks to reach a state of perfec-

tory from its earliest days to his own time, Thucydides described how the ever-increasing availability of material resources led to greater political and military

1268a 6-8). In his reconstruction of Greek his-

power [9]. Beginning in the late 5th cent., origin myths were

formulated according to which the emergence of civilization — seen as compensation for the frailty of the flawed human race - was a result of the discovery of fire and the development of tools, then of the transition to farming and settlement in cities [10]. Although the basic

945

946

outlines of such theories can be found in Protagoras (PI.

salvation history, that concepts of progress were linked to historical-philosophical models [20]. Christian writers combined the OT teachings on the fall of mankind with elements of traditional origin myths and interpreted human physical weakness as an indication of divine providence, which led mankind to develop technical skills and establish communities, and ultimately prepared the way for acceptance of the Gospel (Orig. C.

Prt.) and Democritus, among others, particularly in the case of Democritus the reconstruction of specific con-

tent based on later tradition gives cause for doubt as to its authenticity [11; 12]. A variation which points out the increasing interconnections between ethnographic discourse and speculation on - origin myths [13] can be found beginning in the 4th cent. in a pattern showing the sequence of subsistence levels (hunter-gatherers,

PROGRESS, IDEA OF

Celsum 4,76; Lactant. Div. Inst. 6,10; Eus. HE 1,2,23).

herdsmen, farmers) that is first seen in Aristotle (Pol.

In the context of apologetic strategies of argumenta-

1256a 30ff.) and Dicaearchus (fr. 48 WEHRLI). The idea of civilization’s progress was sometimes linked to the idea of periodically occurring natural disasters and their consequences, which had to be overcome (PI. Leg. 677A ff.; cf. Pol. 6,5,5ff.). Origin myths lived on during the Hellenistic and Roman eras, specifically in Epicurus [14], Posidonius (Sen. Ep. 90,3ff.) and Lucretius

tion, in terms of providential history the birth of Christ was linked with the stabilization of the Empire under Augustus, and further expansion of Christianity was seen as necessary for consolidating and expanding the pax Romana [21]. As long as the Roman Empire was included in the theory of the > four empires, widely accepted since Tertullian (Apol. 32,1), and its continued existence was believed to postpone the coming of the Antichrist at the end of days, this did not offer a perspective for the future. It was only after the conversion of Constantine that Eusebius, in particular, saw the Roman Empire as leading to the development of everlasting peace and the perfection of humankind [20. 5 53ff.]. However, with the fall of Rome Christians were again required to justify themselves. While Augustine sought to lower expectations placed on the (Roman) state concerning the course of salvation history, Orosius saw the horror of Rome’s defeat in relative terms, pointing to the steady improvement in the Empire’s fortunes during the Christian era, in contrast to earlier times; in seeking to demonstrate God’s hand in history he constructed a theory of progress until his own time, but made no prediction of continual devel-

(5,988ff.), sometimes elaborated on after observation

of less advanced peoples during the Macedonian and Roman expansion [15]. There was often also a perception of tension between the civilizing progress on the one hand and moral decline on the other, which led to interest in the ‘noble savage’, among other things [16]. The various theories of the origin and development of human civilization created a bridge between a rationally reconstructed earlier state and the present; however, this development was not projected into the future. Embryonic ideas of progress that encompassed future developments are found in reflections on the emergence of diverse cultural skills and sciences that might be termed téchnai (téyvat); however, these thoughts tended to remain fixated on the past in an attempt to identify a ‘first inventor’ [17; 18]. The possibility was raised in the late 5th cent. that earlier knowledge might become obsolete (Pl. Hp. mai. 28 1b; Hippocr. De vetere medicina 2; De arte 2); a number of later texts point out that knowledge might increase in the future, although this was usually seen as limited to certain disciplines (Manil. 1,95ff.; Plin. HN. 2,62; Sen. Q. Nat. 7,25; Sen.

Ep. 64,7). None of these ideas, to some degree equivalent to an idea of progress, were incorporated in a historicalphilosophical concept of progress in the development of humanity (the oikouméné) as a whole. The necessary

intellectual framework for such a concept was provided by the insight contained in Polybius’ Histories, namely that diverse and formerly separate histories had come together to form a single course of history in Roman domination of the world, but at first no prognosis for the future course of history was formulated. During the Imperial period, ideas about the beneficial consequences of the pax Romana contrasted the fortunate present with earlier times, and were associated with an expectation of lasting stability, although they did not anticipate new developments in the future [19]. C. CHRISTIAN

It was only in Christian literature, in which traditional theories were revised to accommodate the idea of

opment toward perfection [22].

— Anthropology 1 L. Eperstetn, The Idea of Progress in Classical Antiquity, 1967 2R. KosELLeck, s.v. Fortschritt I. (Einleitung), Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe 2, 1975, 351-353 3 E.R. Dopps, s.v. Progress in Classical Antiquity, Dic-

tionary of the History of Ideas 3, 1973, 623-633 4C. MEIER, s.v. Fortschritt II. (‘Fortschritt’ in der Antike), Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe 2, 1975, 353-363 5C. Meter, Ein antikes Aquivalent des Fortschrittsgedankens, in: HZ 226, 1978, 265-316 6K. THRAEDE, s.y. Fortschritt, RAC 8, 141-182 7A.O. Lovejoy, G. Boas,

Primitivism and Related Ideas in Antiquity, 1935

8B.

Gatz, Weltalter, goldene Zeit und sinnverwandte Vorstellungen, 1967 9 J. DE RoMILLY, Thucydide et l’idée de progrés, in: ASNP 35, 1966, 143-191 10 W. UXKULLGYLLENBAND, Griechische Kultur-Entstehungslehren,

1924 11 W. SpoerRRti, Spathellenistische Berichte iber Welt, Kultur und Gotter, 1959 12 T. CoLe, Democritus and the Sources of Greek Anthropology, 1967 13 W. Nipret, Griechen, Barbaren und ‘Wilde’, 1990, 22-29

14R. 1974

Murer,

Die epikureische

Gesellschaftstheorie,

15K.E. Miter, Geschichte der antiken Ethno-

graphie und ethnologischen Theoriebildung, 1972, 1980 16 J. F. KinDsTRAND, Anacharsis, 1981 17 A. KLEINGUNTHER, Io@toc evoety¢, 1933 18K. THRAEDE, s.y. Erfinder II (geistesgeschichtlich), RAC 5, 1191-1278 19K. D. BRACHER, Verfall und Fortschritt im Denken der frihen

romischen

Kaiserzeit,

1987,

270ff.

20 W.

Kinzic,

947

948

Novitas Christiana. Die Idee des Fortschritts in der Alten Kirche bis Eusebius, 1994 21H. A. GARTNER, s.v. Imperium Romanum, RAC 17, 1170ff. 22 R. HERZOG, Orosius oder Die Formulierung eines Fortschrittskonzepts aus der Erfahrung des Niedergangs, in: R. KOSELLECK, P. WipMe_r ed.), Niedergang, 1980, 79-102. W.N.

Prohedria (nooedoia/pro(h)edria). The right to occupy a place in the front row in institutions of various kinds; it was conferred by the state on prominent fellow citizens and visitors and is recorded for many poleis. In the 6th cent. BC pro(h)edria was bestowed by Delphi on + Croesus of Lydia (Hdt. 1,54,2), and Olympia gave it

PROGRESS, IDEA OF

to a Spartan > proxenos (SEG 11, 1180a). In Athens Progymnasmata

(xeoyuuvaouata,

Lat. praeexercit-

amina ‘preliminary exercises’). In the context of rhetoric, progymnasmata refer to a series of practice speeches that are meant to prepare the future orator gradually for the more difficult study of > rhetoric (e.g. Nicolaus, Rhetores Graeci 11,1,15ff. FELTEN). They provide the transition from the school of the > grammaticus to that of the rhetor (cf. Quint. Inst. 2,1,1). Although the oldest testimonial (in Aristot. Rh. Alex. 1436a 26) may be a forgery, progymnasmata must have been practised before Theon and Quintilian (who discuss the progymnasmata for the first time in the rst cent. AD). Aelius + Theon himself makes it clear that he was looking back upon an established and elaborated tradition (Rhetores Graeci 2,59,11ff. SPENGEL; cf. Cic. Inv. 1,27; Rhet. Her. 1,13). The best known and most frequently commented-on text in Antiquity is that of > Aphthonius (Rhetores Graeci ro RABE), certainly because of the large number

of examples that accompany the description of the rules; less widespread were the treatises of > Libanius and the Sophist Nicolaus. The canonical series of progymmnasmata included 1) mythos, 2) narration (diégéma), 3) > chria, 4) + gnome,

5) anaskeueé, 6) kataskeué (refutation and

positive proof), 7) commonplace, 8) enkd6mion (praise), 9) psogos (censure, invective), 10) synkrisis (compari-

among the recipients of pro(h)edria were the oldest living descendents of Harmodius and ~ Aristogiton (Isaeus 5,47); Demosthenes [2] provided the ambassadors of Philip [4] Il of Macedonia with pro(h)edria at the Dionysia of 346 BC (Aeschin. In Ctes. 76). In Athenian inscriptions from the late 4th century BC pro(h)edria is enumerated among the various honours [x]. Seats in the Theatre of Dionysus in Athens bore the title or name of their proprietor (IG II* 5022-5064): the earliest inscriptions are from the late 4th or early 3rd cents. BC [2], i.e. from the period after the reconstruction of the theatre by Lycurgus [9]; but in the pre-Lycurgan theatre similar places were also assigned to individual persons [4]. In Rome theatres and other places of public performance were not fitted out with seats of honour for individual persons identifiable by name or title. Rather, parts of the theatre were collectively reserved for particular individual groups or classes (senators or equites) [3] and (e.g., in the Amphitheatre) accessible only by way of special passages. 1A.S. Henry, Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees, 1983, 291-294 2M. Maass, Die Prohedrie des Dionysostheaters in Athen, 1972 3 MOMMSEN, Staatsrecht 3, 519-521, 893f. 4 E. POHLMANN, Die Prohedrie des Dionysostheaters im 5. Jh. und das Buhnenspiei der Klassik, in: MH 38, 1981, 129-146. PR.

son), 11) éthopoiia (imitation), 12) — ékphrasis (de-

scription), 13) hypothesis (problem), 14) introduction of a law: materials not only for practising the various parts of a speech but also for the three genres of speeches ( Genera causarum; cf. Nicolaus, RABE 11,5,1118). In this way, 1, 3 and 4 were regarded as exercises for the > prooimion, 2 and 12 for the narratio, 5 and 6 for the > argumentatio; the commonplace was part of the training in epilogues (> epilogus; ibid. 36,4ff. et alibi). 1, 3, 4 and 13 prepared the student for the genus deliberativum, the advisory oration (ibid. 8,14f.; 23,11f. et alibi), 5/6 and 14 for the judicial oration (ibid. 33,14ff.; 78,15ff.), 7-9 for the > epideixis (ibid. 47,2f.), and 2 and ro-rz for all genres (ibid. 15,17ff.; 62,6ff. et alibi). ~» Genera causarum; > Partes orationis; > rhetoric S. BONNER, Education in Ancient Rome, 1977, 250-276; D. L. Crark, Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education, 1966, ch. 6; G. KENNEDY, Greek Rhetoric under Christian Em-

perors, 1983; Id., A New History of Classical Rhetoric, 1994; Id., Progymnasmata,

1999; G. REICHEL, Quaestio-

nes progymnasmaticae, 1909.

Prohairesis see > Will

L.C.M.

Prohedros (mededeo0¢/pro(h)edros, pl. modedooV pro(h)edrot) denotes that person who (in a leading position) ‘sits in front’ (‘chairman’ or ‘president’). I. GREECE

IN THE CLASSICAL AND HELLENISTIC

Perrops

II. BYZANTINE

OFFICE

I. GREECE IN THE CLASSICAL AND HELLENISTIC PERIODS In early 4th cent. BC Athens, the duty of the chair-

man of the council (> boule) and the people’s assembly (> ekklesia) was passed from the > prytaneis to a newly created collegium of nine prd(h)edroi. The pro(h)edroi were summoned each for one day, one from each > phyle of the council, excepting the prytany conducting business at just that time. One could be pro(h)edros only once during a prytany and epistdtés (‘supervisor’) of the pro(h)edroi only once a year ([Aristot.| Ath. Pol. 44,2-3). The > nomothétai of the 4th cent. BC had their own pro(h)edroi. Thucydides (8,67,3) uses the word for the five men who nominated roo men, who in turn named another 300 in order to form the Four Hundred (— tetrak6sioi)

of the year 411 BC. While there were also five leading

949

959

officials (without title) in the ‘future constitution’ men-

(> epikléros) was always married without a proix. Since in this case the closest relation entitled to marry

tioned in the pseudo-Aristotelian Athenaion politeia (30,5) —and five appear to be enumerated epigraphically, as well (ML 80) -, it is prytdneis Thucydides reports on after the appointment of the Four Hundred. Thus it is uncertain whether pro(h)edros was even an official title in the year 411. The Hellenistic alliance revived by Antigonus [1] Monophthalmus in 302 BC had five pro(b)edroi who convened and presided over the > syuhédrion (StV 446 § IH). P. J. RHopes, The Athenian Boule, 1972, 25-28.

P.J.R.

Il. BYZANTINE OFFICE Chairman

(of the senate in Byzantium), from mid

rithcent. AD on also protopro(h)edros (‘first chairman’), high-ranking Byzantine court title (> Court titles [D]), at first only for eunuchs; introduced in AD 963 by Nikephoros [3] II for the > parakoimomenos Basileios, attested more frequently in the 11th cent. and down to c. 1150. ODB 3, 1727. ET.

Proix (mooiE; proix). Etymologically ‘gift bestowed with an open hand’ (in the epics known only in the genitive in the sense of ‘free’), in the agnatic family order of Greek poleis proix denotes the ‘dowry’ (in contrast to the > pherné of small families in HellenisticRoman Egypt). It is not before the 3rd cent. AD (precursor FIRA I* 58,25; AD 68) that proix occurs as a translation of the Roman > dos. The legal structure of the proix is best known from Athens (on the Hellenistic inscriptions from Myconos, Tenos, Amorgos, Naxos and Syros cf. [6. 135-137, 149f.]). On the occasion of her marriage (— engyésis), the bride’s > kyrios (‘person having control over her’) gave (or promised) the bridegroom material assets (plots of land, slaves, even jewellery and household items, always valued in money) or money ‘for’ the bride. Whether a mere promise was enforceable or was left to honour, is contentious in literature [2. 51f.; 6. 144f.]. The husband, the wife’s new kyrios, had free right of disposal over the objects constituting the proix and could even dispose of them without her approval, provided no collateral security had been agreed, [6. 149]. The objects the wife brought to the marriage for her personal use (later called > pardpherna) did not count as proix. A legitimate marriage without proix, though unusual, was permissible, but there was no proix for non-marital cohabitation. The economic purpose of the proix was to maintain the wife during and possibly after termination of the marriage [4. 127]; it contributed at least symbolically (gold jewellery) to the family fortune. The size of the proix was left to the bride’s kyrios. The ratio of the value of the prozx to the paternal fortune is examined in [6. 140f.]; the contributions remained far below any hypothetical portion of an inheritance — in Athens only sons could inherit. A daughter left without a brother

PROKLESIS

her inherited the house of the dead father-in-law, he would recover the value of the proix anyway. If a rich relation with a claimant’s right did not wish to take an epikléros from the lowest property class of the > thétai as his wife, he had to provide her with a proix, amounting to the minimum sum set by law, for another marriage (Dem. Or. 53; 54). If third parties, private individuals or —as a particular honour — the state, contributed to a proix, the bride’s kyrios was still the person who arranged the proix [6. 14rf.]. If the wife died, the proix went as special property to her sons from this marriage. If she left the marriage or was dismissed, her kyrios from now on (her father or his closest male relation) had the right to demand the proix from her former husband by dixyn mooixds (diké proikos, ‘action for dowry’); the person sued could free himself from this responsibility by paying the previously estimated sum. The same applied if the wife had died childless during the marriage. Unlike in the case of the > pherné, there was no provision for supplementary penalties or lapsing of the proix because of misdemeanours of the husband or the wife. If the husband was still in possession of the proix after termination of the marriage, he was liable for the wife’s maintenance with a dixn oitov (diké sitou, ‘bread’) amounting to 18 % of the value of the proix annually. The person who arranged the proix normally safeguarded its reclaim: the husband provided either a separate plot of land or one which was part of the proix as an — apotiméma (surety; apparently by setting up > horoi), to which the entitled person had direct access. On the proix registers of Myconos and Tenos see

[6. 135]. Because of the social structure, the proix was superfluous in Sparta and Gortyn, probably owing to the Doric division of land into kléroi (> kléros) [4. 128© 0: -» Marriage; > Marriage contracts; > Succession, laws of 1 A. Biscarpi, Diritto greco antico, 1982, 101-105, III

2 A. R. W. Harrison, The Law of Athens, vol. 1, 1968, 45-60 3D.M. MacDowe tt, The Law in Classical

Athens, 1978, 87-89, 144f.

4G. TuHtr, Ehegiiterrecht

und Familienvermégen, in: D. SIMON (ed.), Eherecht und

Familiengut in Antike und Mittelalter, 1992, 121-132 5 S.C. Topp, The Shape of Athenian Law, 1993, 215f. 6 H. J. Wotrr, s. v. P., RE 23.1, 133-170. GT.

Proklesis (modxAnoic; proklésis), literally ‘challenge’. The concentration in cases before the Athenian courts of justice (> dikastérion) on a single time-limited trial created a need for careful preparation of material before the case, or ina preliminary trial before the relevant court magistrate (— andkrisis, — diaitétai). Proklesis was an opportunity to provoke the opponent to make binding statements before the trial. This means both the act, before witnesses, of making a deposition aimed at

PROKLESIS

951

952

the opponent and its content and the fixing of that in regularly refused. The refusal of proklesis then led to writing as a document. The content of the deposition — the conclusion that the opponent had admitted the fact. and the reaction of the opponent were confirmed by ~ Torture witnesses before the jury. Despite Aristot. Ath. Pol. 5353, proklesis was no proof (as in [2]), but only a basis for conclusions of likelihood. Typically prokleésis called

1G. THUr, Beweisfiihrung vor den Schwurgerichtshéfen Athens. Die P. zur Basanos, 1977 2 D. C. Mirnapy, Torture and Rhetoric in Athens, in: JHS 116, 1996,

on the opponent to torture (Sd&oavoc, bdsanos) slaves about a particular fact or swear an oath, and this was

3 M. Gacarin, The Torture ofSlaves in Athenian Law, in: CPh 91, 1996, 1-18. GT.

119-131

aS) aa

g be ag

ea

=}

dn oa ATES "7

aeeecp

*, ae K

Ci

bei i

‘un

ISBN 978 90 04 14216-9

7B2004