Hellenism in the East: Studies on Greek Intellectuals in Palestine 3515106170, 9783515106177

Citation preview

Joseph Geiger

Hellenism in the East Studies on Greek Intellectuals in Palestine

Alte Geschichte Franz Steiner Verlag

Historia – Einzelschriften 229

Joseph Geiger Hellenism in the East

historia

Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte | Revue d’histoire ancienne |

Journal of Ancient History | Rivista di storia antica

einzelschriften

Herausgegeben von Kai Brodersen, Erfurt |

Mortimer Chambers, Los Angeles | Martin Jehne, Dresden | François Paschoud, Genève | Aloys Winterling, Berlin Band 229

Joseph Geiger

Hellenism in the East Studies on Greek Intellectuals in Palestine

Franz Steiner Verlag

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über abrufbar. Dieses Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist unzulässig und strafbar. © Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2014 Druck: AZ Druck und Datentechnik, Kempten Gedruckt auf säurefreiem, alterungsbeständigem Papier. Printed in Germany. ISBN 978-3-515-10617-7

CONTENTS Preface .................................................................................................................... 7 Part I: A Prosopography of Greek Intellectuals in Palestine ................................. 11 Appendix A: Visitors ...................................................................................... 44 Appendix B: The Circle of Herod .................................................................. 48 Appendix C: Jews and Samaritans ................................................................. 50 Appendix D: Intellectuals from Petra............................................................. 53 Appendix E: Verse Inscriptions from Palestine.............................................. 56 Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon ............................................................. 57 Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................. 57 Chapter 2: Two Early Witnesses .................................................................... 61 Chapter 3: The Flourishing of Hellenic Culture............................................. 65 Chapter 4: Euenus of Ascalon ........................................................................ 82 Chapter 5: The Second Flourishing: Late Antiquity ...................................... 88 Chapter 6: Julian of Ascalon ........................................................................ 109 Addendum to Chapter 6: Julian of Ascalon ............................................ 125 Chapter 7: Two Shrines in Ascalon .............................................................. 127 7a: Asclepius λεοντοῦχος...................................................................... 127 7b: The tsrif of Ascalon .......................................................................... 128 Appendix to Part II: Marianus of Eleutheropolis ......................................... 130 Part III: Latin Literature in Palestine .................................................................. 135 Bibliography ....................................................................................................... 151 Index ................................................................................................................ 171

PREFACE Hellenism in the East can be appreciated either in general syntheses or, in certain instances, as most prominently those of Alexandria and Antioch, in special studies. In either case the Greek point of view is the one generally adopted, and only relatively recently has evidence from the local cultures been given more than fleeting consideration. Graeco-Roman Palestine has been exceptional in this regard for two reasons. On the one hand there exists a large body of literature composed by people in that country who were not members of the political and social elites of the Empire,1 and in literary languages other than Greek or Latin, and on the other hand one has to reckon with the special, and often personal, religious or national, interests in the points of view represented in these writings by modern scholars. Accordingly the approach to Greek civilisation in Palestine was mostly from a perspective not encountered in other parts of the Graeco-Roman world. The great interest shown in the influence of Hellenism on Judaism is readily understood against the background of students both of Christianity and of Judaism and of both Christian and Jewish scholars. The first often reveal a special engagement with the early stages of this relationship, perhaps best demonstrated in the title of that late nineteenth century classic turned into a late twentieth century classic, Emil Schürer’s The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B. C.–A. D. 135).2 The influence of Hellenic culture and of the Roman Empire on the development of Rabbinic Judaism inevitably attracted the notice of whoever wished to understand a main component of both historic and present-day Judaism. Nevertheless, less attention than would have been desirable has been paid to the immediate circumstances and surroundings of the Sages, the authors of the vast and complex body of Hebrew and Aramaic writings emanating from Roman-ruled Palestine:3 to the degree it was influenced by Greek culture, it must have been in the first place by that of their time and place, not by some bygone age, however resplendent its achievements. One example will demonstrate this: the huge majority of the two and a half thousand or so Greek (and some Latin) loanwords in Rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic (hundreds of them still in everyday use in Modern Hebrew) derive from the Greek of their 1

2 3

Even if we count the Jewish Patriarchs as in some way part of the Imperial elite, R. Judah the Patriarch, to whom the redaction (whatever this may exactly mean) of the Mishnah is credited in the first third of the third century is the only exceptional person of that class who is also a quasi-author. Revised edition by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black and M. Goodman: Schürer 1973–1987. The by far most important and influential Rabbinic work, the Babylonian Talmud, was not composed or edited within the confines of the Roman Empire. However, the relationships between the Jews of Palestine and those of Babylonia were such – e. g., Babylonian Sages star in the Palestinian Talmud and other writings emanating from Palestine, and Palestinian Sages are likewise prominent in the Babylonian Talmud – that it is extremely difficult to separate the traditions of the two countries.

8

Preface

time and place, not from the writings of the classical canon. Yet the debate focussed on the degree of Hellenic influence with the entire variety of opinions to be expected from minimalists to maximalists, with only the slightest attention given to a couple of well-known cases of attested acquaintance of the Sages and Greek intellectuals.4 All this said it is of course clear, that the Palestinian provenance of some important Greek poets, writers and philosophers did not go unnoticed by classical scholars. From the Cynic Menippus, the poet Meleager and the poet and philosopher Philodemus, all of Gadara in the Hellenistic Age, to Marinus of Neapolis, the last Head but two of the Neoplatonic School in Athens and Procopius of Caesarea, the historian of the Age of Justinian and the last to uphold the tradition of classical historiography, the place of their birth, and in some of the cases the place of their activity, were duly noticed. Among intellectuals from Ascalon only the philosopher Antiochus, and to a lesser degree the mathematician Eutocius (and to an even lesser degree, the poet Euenus and the architect Julian) have received special attention. Nevertheless, with the sole exception of the so-called School of Gaza in the fifth and sixth centuries it has never been attempted to position a group of Greek intellectuals in their Palestinian surroundings, or of analysing the contribution to Greek cultural life of the inhabitants of one city in that country; Part II of this book will attempt to rise to this challenge. But there is another lesson to be learned from concentrating on Greek intellectual life in one particular country. Great Greek cultural centres, like Antioch or Alexandria, or Roman Imperial Athens have been the subjects of particular studies with noteworthy conclusions concerning their achievements. Investigations of the Second Sophistic enabled a wider view of the easy movements of Greek intellectuals and of the unity of the Greek world. The prospect of surveying one part of that world by collecting the available evidence on intellectuals active there will provide a point of observation at the transfer of some of the most successful ones to greater centres of learning, but also at the visits of well known persons in their cities. From a more general point of view the survey of a city of the second rank may illuminate our image of Hellenism from a different angle than the study of the great centres of learning. Moreover, there is a more wide-ranging question to be asked. Had Greek civilisation in a well defined country (though not necessarily during the entire time coterminous with a province) with some particular characteristics (viz., the well defined distinct civilisation of its Jewish inhabitants) a distinctive character of its own or was that section of the Greek world part and parcel of it without any distin4

A good representative of a maximalist approach is Lieberman 1942 and 1950 (these two works have been united and updated in a Hebrew edition as Lieberman 1962); of the minimalist the criticism of that book by Alon 1976, I, 248–277. For the earlier part of our period the extensive work by Hengel 1969 (1974) is on the maximalist side, while Feldman 1993 insists on the uniqueness of the Jews. The only safe case of a relationship between a Jewish Sage and a Hellenic intellectual is of course that of Oenomaus of Gadara and his alleged friendship with R. Meir and acquaintance with other Sages. A more problematic one is the identification of the Greek ‘philosopher’ in the Bath of Aphrodite in Acre bathing with Rabban Gamliel with Proclus of Naucratis: see for both in detail their respective entries in the Part I.

Preface

9

guishing features? The approach here chosen was collecting the available evidence in its entirety. Even a cursory review of the Prosopography (Part I) will leave no doubt that the second of these alternatives is the correct one, and that the Greek writers, poets, philosophers and scientists originating in Palestine or active there were in no way distinct from their counterparts in the rest of the Greek world. This conclusion is by no means obvious or self-evident, though possibly more investigations into particular cases may yield similar results.5 A special study is devoted to Latin in Palestine (Part III). Again, it was thought helpful to investigate the vexed question of Latin in the Greek speaking half of the Empire in a specific case study. All the dates, unless otherwise indicated, are CE. The problems here under consideration have been one of my main interests for some time, and I have extensively published on these questions, much of it in Hebrew: as will be seen from the bibliography, much in this book had Hebrew precursors. My Hebrew book The Tents of Japheth: Greek Intellectuals in Ancient Pales­ tine (Jerusalem 2012) contained, as Part II, a Prosopography that appears, in a somewhat different and updated format, as Part I of the present book.6 I am most grateful to the publishers, Yad Ben Zvi, for their kind permission. I am most grateful for permissions to reprint papers to Scripta Classica Israelica for Part II, chapters 4 and Appendix to Part II, to the Hellenic Society to reprint from Journal of Hellenic Studies Part II, chapter 6, and to Mnemosyne to reprint Part II, chapter 7a: all these papers have been reset, and their bibliographical references have been unified and in some cases updated. My debts are too numerous to specify: in a lifetime of study one never ceases to learn from teachers, colleagues and students. Among those most helpful, directly or indirectly, in the preparation of this book I would like to single out Hannah Cotton, Daniela Dueck, Deborah Gera, John Glucker, Howard Jacobson, Avshalom Laniado, Ra’anana Meridor, Hannah Rosén, Israel Shatzman, Nurit Shoval, Yoram Tsafrir and Nigel Wilson. None of them is to be held responsible for any mistakes, infelicities or other shortcomings of this book. I am also most grateful to the Editors of Historia Einzelschriften to have accepted once again a manuscript of mine for publication. To say that Kai Brodersen went far beyond the call of duty in helping me with the editorial work on this book would be a gross understatement. Last but not least: there is an abundance of books on intellectual life in Jewish Palestine in the classical world: it is my hope that the present one on intellectuals in Greek Palestine will be only the first on a deserving subject.

5 6

Cf., e. g., Bowie 2011 on the ‘regionally unmarked Hellenism’ of Potamon and Crinagoras, and on the seemingly little importance Theophanes attached to his Greek identity. That book was dedicated to my teacher, friend and colleague Ra’anana Meridor; it has received the 2013 Ben Zvi Prize for Land of Israel Studies.

PART I: A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF GREEK INTELLECTUALS IN PALESTINE The study of persons carries with it many hazards, even when it operates by selection. An attempt to establish any kind of complete catalogue incurs the added risk of omissions. For the Roman Empire, the material is vast and forbidding: an editor can hardly fail to miss some names and facts, even within restricted categories, whatever his sagacity and industry. (Syme 1955, 52)

The following Prosopography aims at listing all the known intellectuals from Palestine. Since it prefers to sin by commission rather than by omission none of the definitions is taken very strictly: intellectuals include not only known authors and rhetors, but also pepaideumenoi; and though the geographical limits (not implying any modern political stance) are those of Palestine west of the Jordan, Gadara is included. While it was the aim to collect and present all relevant information it was thought right to forego this in the case of such known figures as, e. g., Meleager, Philodemus, Procopius (of Caesarea and of Gaza) etc., about whom one may find abundant information elsewhere, and to dwell mainly on their local connections: these persons have been marked with an asterisk *. The approach to Christian authors has been variegated. Authors on purely Christian subjects, such as Eusebius of Caesarea or Jerome, have been excluded – these receive ample attention elsewhere; authors whose work is divided between Christian and Hellenic subject matters, such as Procopius of Gaza, have been considered for the latter part of their writings, and of course Christians, whose work does not concern Church matters, but belong to the Hellenic tradition, have been included. Also writers of the so-called JewishHellenistic literature have been excluded, since there is no need to add to the already formidable literature on them, but Appendix C lists some Jews (and Samaritans) whose subject matter was not specifically Jewish. Acacius Rhetor, native of Caesarea and contemporary of Libanius; he died young. According to his biography in Eun. VP 497 he imitated the style of the classics and surpassed Libanius himself, who acknowledged (in a lost work devoted to him) the superiority of his rival’s talent though he insisted on his own supremacy in applying his art. He is often referred to in Libanius’ letters, perhaps already in the 350s, though the identities of the men with that name are not safe – he is no. 2 in Seeck’s list (1906, 39–43). He taught rhetoric in Phoenicia, and later (until 361) in Antioch and finally in Caesarea. He was certainly an adherent of the Old Religion. Was he also a poet? Libanius (ep. 1380 from 364) refers to an Ὠκύπους and to epics (ep. 127), but it is neither safe to credit these to our man nor to ascribe to him the pseudo-Lucianic Ὠκύπους.

12

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

He was the teacher and uncle of Eutropius and the teacher of Eutropius’ translator Paeanius. RE I, 1140–1141, s. v. Akakios, no. 3 (O. Seeck); RE Suppl. VIII, 734, no. 8 (K. Gerth); Seeck 1906, no. 2, pp. 36–47 (esp. 39–43); PLRE I, no. 6 Achillius Doctor from Ancyra, active in Palestine, 4th c., in 362 returned to his homeland. PLRE I, no. 2, Seeck 1906, no. 3, p. 48 Aedesius Sophist, late 4th c. Libanius (or. 4.9) refers to a sophist of that name who died in old age; some would identify him with the Ascalonite mentioned in or. 36.10 of 386, though probably this refers to Ulpianus 1. PLRE I, no. 1; RE Suppl. VIII, 734, no. 6 (K. Gerth) Aelianus Christian scholasticus, late 5th c. Acta S. Theognii 18 = Anal. Boll. 10 (1891), p. 100; PLRE II, no. 3 *Aeneas 1 The well-known sophist and Christian Neoplatonic of Gaza, author of the Theo­ phrastus and of twenty-five letters. Only the facts pertinent to his provenance will be discussed. Beside the letters the main source for his life is the Ammonius of Zacharias 1, who may have been his pupil and who certainly admired and imitated him. Aeneas 1 was born about 430, studied in Alexandria with Hierocles in about 450, and is attested in 488; the fact that Zacharias 1 referred to him in 514 without a formula confirming his death should not be taken as proof. He visited Constantinople and had connections in Antioch and other cities. Among his Palestinian correspondents were Iohannes 3 (not sure, see s. v.), Zonaeus, Diodorus, Zosimus 2, Epiphanius 2, the iatrosphist Gessius of Petra, and Julianus 1, as well as the sophist Diogenes of Antioch, who corresponded also with Hierius and with Eutocius 1. The absence of any correspondence between him and Procopius 1 must be due to both of them residing in the same city and should not be construed even as an argumentum e silen­ tio against their acquaintance. Colonna 1958, Massa Positano 1962; Legier 1907; Wacht 1969, Aujolat 1986. RE I, 1021–1022, no. 7 (J. Freudenthal); RE Suppl. VIII, 734, no. 7 (K. Gerth); PLRE II, no. 3; Szabat 2007, no. 7; DPhA I, no. 64 Aeneas 2 Correspondent of Procopius 1 (5th–6th c.), studied law, defensor civitatis of a number of towns. PLRE II, no. 4

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

13

Agapetus Rhetor of Elusa, returned from Alexandria to his city; correspondent of Procopius 1 (5th-6th c.). PLRE II, no. 1; RE I, 734, no. 4 (W. Schmid) M. Flavius Agrippa Latin orator, priest and duumvir of the colony Caesarea, c. 100 CE. The suggestion by Zangemeister 1890 that he was a son of the historian Josephus seems to be of low probability. CIL III, Suppl. 12082; ILS 7206; InscrCaes no. 3; CIIP II, no. 2095 Alexander 1 Christian scholasticus of Ascalon, 5th–6th c. Acta S. Theognii 17 = Anal. Boll. 10 (1891), pp. 97–8; PLRE II, no. 13 Alexander 2 Doctor from Caesarea, 2nd–3rd c. InscrCaes no. 152; CIIP II, no. 1446 Alypius Grammaticus of Gaza, 5th–6th c., correspondent of Procopius 1 together with Hierius and Stephanus 3. PLRE II, no. 6; Kaster 1988, no. 7; Szabat 2007, no. 13 Anastasius Bishop of Eleutheropolis; he had a Hellenic education; brother of Marcianus, Anonymus 1 and Anonymus 2, 6th c. Choricius 7, title, 7–8; PLRE III, no. 2 Anaxertus Pupil of Libanius from Caesarea, or. 45 Andromachus 1 Sophist from Neapolis, son of Zonas or Sabinus, active in Nicomedia under Diocletian and one of the two best known teachers of rhetoric in Athens; teacher of Siricius (Suda). PLRE I, no. 2; RE I, 2154, no. 20 (L. Cohn) Antibius ‘Famous Stoic’ philosopher from Ascalon; under Augustus or Tiberius? See discussion in Part II, ch. 3 below. Steph. Byz. s. v. Ascalon; DPhA I, no. 190

14

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

*Antiochus 1 The famous philosopher from Ascalon, c. 130 – after 69 BCE. Here only his provenance and his social ties, rather than his philosophy, will be surveyed. As quite usual in such cases, we know nothing of his youth and education in his place of birth, though he must have been sufficiently well prepared when he started studying in Athens with Dardanus and Mnesarchus. Cicero lists him among those philosophers, who never returned to their native city – which does not necessarily rule out short visits. Indications of ties to Ascalon are his studies with the Stoic Sosus of that city, later the main speaker in the dialogue named after him, and his being succeeded in his School by his brother Aristus. His first attested ties with members of the Roman aristocracy are his being in the company of L. Licinius Lucullus in Alexandria in 87–86 BCE – he may have arrived there from Athens, from where Rome’s friends fled, via Rome. He returned to Athens some time after Sulla’s reconquest in 86, and was teaching there certainly by 79 in the Ptolemaeum, when Cicero, his brother Quintus and their cousin Lucius were among those attending his lectures. Another pupil of his was the Roman statesman and polymath Varro, and M. Pupius Piso, cos. 61 was among his close acquaintances. He joined Lucullus in or after 74 in the Mithridatic war and died some time after the victory of Tigranocerta in 69. Luck 1953, J. Glucker 1978, Mette 1986/87, J. Barnes 1989, Fladerer 1996 with the caveats of J. Glucker 2002, Bonazzi 2009, DPhA I, no. 200. The important recent volume edited by Sedley 2012 contains most comprehensive discussions of the philosopher. Amont these Hatzimichali 2012, though containing precise analyses, by the nature of the evidence cannot contribute to the known facts. Most important is Sedley 2012, 334–346 (Appendix: A guide to the testimonies for Antiochus), with the text and a translation of the non-Ciceronian testimonies; it includes a new reading by D. Blank of Index Academicorum 34.34– 35.16. Blank 2012 discovers Antiochean influences in a variety of Varro’s writings. Lévy 2012 extends to pupils’ pupils, such as Brutus and Horace. Antiochus 2 Correspondent and compatriot of Procopius 1 of Gaza (5th–6th c.), studied medicine in Alexandria. PLRE II, no. 16 Antonius ‘Pagan’ rhetor from Alexandria who tried to advance the case of his religion in Gaza in the mid-5th c.; the case of his sister, whom he assisted, got as far as Constantinople. Szabat 2007 guesses that he may have played host to Damascius and to Isidorus 3 in Gaza. Dam. fr. 133 = Suda A 2763; PLRE II, no. 3; Szabat 2007, no. 22 Apelles The tragic actor from Ascalon and favourite of Caligula must have attained at least the basics of his art in his native city. According to Philo he was, like all his fellow-

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

15

citizens, a Judaeophobe, and thus advised the emperor, together with Helicon, to put up his statue in the Temple of Jerusalem. He lost favour with the emperor and was tortured; according to Petr. Sat. 64 he was the greatest actor; the MS tradition is not beyond doubt whether he was the actor who received from Vespasian 400,000 sesterces at the reopening of the theatre of Marcellus (Suet., Vesp. 19.1). RE I, 2688, no. 8 (P. v. Rohden) ; RE Suppl X, 23 (M. Bonaria); PIR2 I A 907, 908; Smallwood 19702, 264–266; O’Connor 1908, 79–80, no. 38; Leppin 1992, 203–204, Stephanis 1988, no. 232 ?Apollonides Apoll. Ty. ep. 11 recommends him in a letter to Caesarea, but it is not clear from the text whether he was a citizen of the city; the recommendation vouches for his intellectual standing. DPhA I, no. 258 Apollonius 1 Stoic philosopher from Ptolemais (Acre); like Antiochus 1 (though no acquaintance is attested) pupil of Dardanus and Mnesarchus in Athens, thus likely that he received prior philosophical education in his city. RE II, 146, no. 96 (H. v. Arnim); DPhA I, no. 282; Merkelbach 1985. Apollonius 2 Historian from Ascalon; under Augustus or Tiberius? See discussion in Part II, ch. 3 below. Steph. Byz. s. v. Ascalon; RE II, 135, no. 74 (E. Schwartz); FHG IV, 312 *Apsines Rhetor and writer on rhetoric from Gadara, mid-3rd c. His identity, his family relationships as well as his connection to Gadara are to be elucidated from the conflicting and confusing data in Suda A, nos. 4734, 4735, 4736, and see also Oliver 1941, 260–261, Oliver 1950, 78–81; cf. Millar 1969, 16 (= 2004, 273); Avotins 1971. Philostr. VS ad fin. lists Apsines ‘the Phoenician’ among the sophists he refrains from discussing because of their friendship. Apsines and Nicagoras attended a party honouring Plato’s birthday at the beginning of the second half of the third century (Eus. PE 10.3) and the Suda must be corrected accordingly – his consular honours were due to Maximinus rather than to Maximianus. His teachers were Heraclides in Smyrna and Basilicus in Nicomedia and eventually he may have occupied an official chair in Athens. Though nothing straightforward Palestinian is to be found in his text, a suggestion may cautiously be put forward here. A subject of declamations was the story of Scythians, the archetypal nomads, having settled in a city but forced to leave it because of an epidemic or other cause; now they are advised to return to their original way of life. It is mentioned by Philostratus as a common subject twice (572–573, ‘Clay-Plato’; 620, Hippodromus of Thessaly); in Apsines it appears no less than

16

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

five times: 1.48, 1.54, 1.72, 2.15, 3.8. Could it be that Scythopolis (whose name has never been satisfactorily explained), adjacent to the territory of Gadara, made Apsines especially interested in the subject? Dilts/Kennedy 1977; Heath 1998; Patillon 2001; Heath 2002. Argyrius Rhetor famous in Antioch in the mid-4th c., where he was a rival of Zenobius 1. He was councellor in an unnamed city, a relative of Zenobius 1, and accordingly also of Zenobius 2, thus almost certainly from Elusa. An adherent of the Old Religion, Libanius tried to make him a member of the Antioch council; Libanius’ correspondents Obodianus and probably Eubulus were his sons; they were already Antiocheans and thus are not included in the present list. Mayerson 1983. Aristus Younger brother, pupil and successor in his School of Antiochus 1 of Ascalon, see bibl. there: we know nothing definite about his ties with his native city. J. Glucker believes that he studied with his brother already at the time of the ‘Sosus affair’, and accordingly may have met then Lucullus. Among his pupils were Aristo, Dio of Alexandria and Cratippus of Pergamum. He was a friend of Cicero and was his host in Athens when Cicero was on his way to Cilicia in 51, and perhaps also on his return in 50. Cicero also mentions a number of times that Brutus attended his lectures and Aristus may have played for him a role comparable to that of his brother for Lucullus, whom he may have joined on their Eastern journeys. RE I, 1010, no. 9 (H. v. Arnim); Mette 1986/87, 56; J. Glucker 1978 in Index; DPhA I, no. 406 Artemidorus Historian from Ascalon, mentioned by Stephanus of Byzantium together with Apollonius 2. He wrote a history of Bithynia, certainly after 63 BCE, perhaps under Augustus or Tiberius and certainly before Herennius Philo, Stephanus’ source. There is no knowing what made him display an interest in Bithynia.1 See discussion in Part II, ch. 3 below. Steph. Byz. s. v. Ascalon; FGrH 698 Basilides Stoic philosopher from Scythopolis. Hieron. a. Abr. 2163 (CE 149) refers to him as a teacher of Marcus Aurelius, he is however not named by the emperor himself. He may, or may not, be identical with a person mentioned by Sextus Empiricus 8.256. RE III, 46, no. 8 (H. v. Arnim); GLAJJ II, p. 219; PIR2 B 62; DPhA II, no. 14

1

Diller 1955, 278, compares him with Pausanias of Damascus, who may have written on Bithynia c. 100 BCE.

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

17

Bassus Poor Phoenician rhetor who came to Palestine to make money. Lib. ep. 175, 605; Seeck 1906, no. 2 Flavius Boethus From Ptolemais, interested in Peripatetic philosophy and medicine, known only from Galen and the inscription quoted below, according to which he may have been consul in 161 or 162 and governor not before 164 or 165: he is the only person from Palestine in the Early Empire to become governor of the province. It may be conjectured that Galen’s visit to Palestine (see GLAJJ II, nos. 382, 384, 385, 390) was connected with their relationship: Galen restored to health Boethus’ wife and one of his sons, and was handsomely rewarded and introduced to Mark Aurel; Galen eventually dedicated to him not less than nine of his works. His intellectual connections were probably much wider than those known to us: his studies of Peripapetic philosophy started with Alexander of Damascus, and it was the philosopher Eudemus who introduced him to Galen; he was host to the famous sophist Hadrian of Tyre in Rome, who was also the teacher of Proclus 1, so that it is perhaps not too bold to connect Boethus with the visit of Proclus 1 in Acre. The name Boethus and the proximity to Sidon do not vouch for any family connections with the Stoic Boethus of the 2nd c. BCE (RE no. 4) nor with the Augustan Peripatetic (no. 9) of that city. RE III, 604, no. 10 (A. Gercke); DPhA II, no. 49; PIR2 F 229; Geiger 1994b; Eck/Isac/Piso 1994. Bur(r)ichius Scholasticus from Ascalon who visited the royal tombs of Egyptian Thebes in the 4th c. The three inscriptions he left display an interest, not easy to interpret, in Platonic philosophy. In one of the inscriptions he is described as a friend of Besas, a scholasticus from Panopolis, perhaps attesting to having studied together in Alexandria,2 and in another he mentions his brother Sapricius, also a scholasticus. The name is attested since Hellenistic times, so that there is no need to connect it with the Semitic root BRKh (‘to bless’). Indeed, a Barochius of Caesarea (inscr. 1292) also visited the tombs; other visitors from Ascalon included a Demetrius (204, 305) and Theotecnus Himerius (1460). Baillet 1926, II, nos. 1266, 1279, 1405; DPhA II, no. 57 Castor Correspondent of Procopius 1 (5th–6th c.), lawyer; possibly the case mentioned was conducted in the capital of the province, so that he may have been a resident of Caesarea. PLRE II, no. 3

2

DPhA II, B 29 (Bèsas de Panopolis), pp. 106–107.

18

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

*Choricius The famous orator from Gaza. Though he spent all his life in his city teaching rhetoric, we know the names of only a handful of his students, partly also because, unlike Aeneas 1 and Procopius 1, he left behind no correspondence. His funeral oration for his teacher Procopius 1 is not only a fitting memorial, but also a vivid picture of rhetorical education in Gaza. Orations 1 and 2 are eulogies on bishop Marcianus and include the valuable ekphraseis on two churches in the city; for important information on his city and the province in his time in his speeches see the Hebrew paper by Rabinowitz 1949, and Saliou 2005b; Mayerson 1986; Abel 1931, Hamilton 1930, Mango 1972, 60–72; Maguier 1978; Thümmel 1997; Litsas 1982. Mime: Cresci 1986; Morfakidis 1988; Albini 1997. Text: Foerster-Richtsteig (Teubner 1929); new edition with French translation and commentary by Eugenio Amato is to be expected, and a German translation of all the speeches is promised by P. Grossardt, see Gnomon 82 (2010), 271. Translations not mentioned above: Caffiaux 1862; funeral speech for Procopius 1: Amato 2010, 507–527 (A. Corcella); Stephanis 1990, 19–23, 27–30; Stephanis 1983; contra Laniado 2005. Papers in Amato 2006; Saliou 2005b. Webb 2002; Webb 2006. New text: Sideras 1990; Litsas 1980. RE III, 2124–2131 (W. Schmid); PLRE III, s. v.; Szabat 2007, no. 45 Chromatius Palestinian, studied with Libanius in Athens, helped him in Antioch, died 355 in Cilicia. Lib., ep. 393; Seeck 1906, no. 1, p. 107 Clematius (Lematius?), Palestinian, studied with Libanius in Athens, High Priest of the province under Julian, later acquitted of persecuting Christians. His identity: Seeck 1906, no. 3, pp. 111–2 sees in him and in his no. 2, the governor of the province, two different persons. PLRE I, nos. 1, 2. Cosmas Author of Homerocentones from Jerusalem, thus perhaps belonging to the circle of Eudocia; perhaps also author of AP 16.1143. Most probably not to be identified with the ecclesiastical poet of the 8th c. (see Krumbacher 1897, 674–676). PLRE I no. 1 = PLRE III no. 7 Craterus The ‘first’ (ὁ τότε πρωτεύων)4 among the people of Ascalon, he appeared as orator in court (ὑπεραγωνίζεται), probably in the 3rd–4th centuries; see discussion in Part II, ch. 5 below. Suda E 3770 3 4

Cf. Holum 2002, 220, n. 10. See Laniado 2002, 201–211.

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

19

?Danaus Grammaticus, father of Diphilus, attested 390, his activity in Palestine is conjectured from that of his son in 388. He is known from Libanius only, except if we identify him – the name is quite rare – with the addressee of an epitome of a work on prosody by Herodian, see Suda A 3915. Kaster 1988, no. 43 (following Kaster 1983, 157–158), corrects PLRE I s. v. Dio Academic philosopher from Gaza, pupil of Carneades. He is probably identical with the philosopher mentioned by Cic., Luc. 12 (cf. J. Glucker 1978, 94–97), where it may be conjectured that he was a pupil of Antiochus 1. Probably not identical with the Alexandrian envoy murdered in Rome in 57 BCE (cf. DNP s. v. no. 2 [W. Ameling]). Dio and Olympiodorus of Gaza are mentioned together in the papyrus, Olympicus of Gaza and another Dio, perhaps the Alexandrian, each on his own. Dorandi 1991, 161; DPhA II, no. 165 Diodorus Scholasticus from Gaza, active in Caesarea, the addressee of letters by Aeneas 1 and Procopius 1 (5th–6th c.). PLRE II, no. 3 ?Diogenes Stoic philosopher from Ptolemais, though there is no certainty that this is the town in Palestine and not one of the other towns by that name. Diog.La. 7.41; RE V, 777, no. 48 (H. v. Arnim); DPhA II, no. 144 Dionysius 1 Monophysite scholasticus from Gaza, mid to second half of 5th c. (Petrus the Iberian p. 95; Zach., VIs p. 6). PLRE II. no. 9 Dionysius 2 Scholasticus from Gaza. Zach. KG II, Anhang II, p. 268 Diphilus Grammaticus and poet, son of Danaus, attested in Palestine 388. In that year he started an unsuccessful tour of reading his poetry in Cilicia and in Antioch (see Kaster 1983). Kaster 1988, no. 49 *Dorotheus 1 Grammatical writer from Ascalon; detailed discussion in Part II, ch. 3 below. RE V, 1571, no. 20 (L. Cohn)

20

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

Dorotheus 2 Pupil of Procopius 1 and the iatrosophist Gessius of Petra, lawyer, 5th–6th c.; not to be identified with the ‘Great Old Man’ from Egypt (Brown 1988, 232–5). RE V, 1571–2, no. 17 (W. Schmid) Elasius or Gelasius, known from a fifth century synagogue inscription in Diocaesarea (Sepphoris), CIJ 991: comes, scholasticus, vir clarissimus. If he was the donor he was probably a Jew, but he may have been the official at the time of the donation; after 438 Jews were not allowed to carry titles like those in the inscription, see CIC Nov. 3.2. PLRE II s. v. Elias Pupil of Choricius, 6th c., addressee, with Procopius 3 and Iohannes 6, of his or. 6. PLRE III, no. 1 Epiphanius 1 Pupil of Procopius 1, lawyer, governor, perhaps identical with Epiphanius 2 (cf. also Amato 2010, 451 n. 119), 5th–6th c. PLRE II no. 4; RE VI, 196, no. 9 (W. Schmid) Epiphanius 2 Sophist, correspondent of Aeneas 1, 5th c, perhaps identical with Epiphanius 1 (cf. also Amato 2010, 451 n. 119). PLRE II, no. 5 Euangelus Rich rhetor from Caesarea, 6th c. Proc. Anecd. 30.17–19; PLRE III, s. v. Eubius ‘Famous Stoic’ philosopher from Ascalon (under Augustus or Tiberius?), mentioned together with Antibius by Steph. Byz. s. v. Ascalon; see discussion in Part II, ch. 3 below. DPhA III, no. 68 Eudaemon Poet and lawyer from Pelusium, active in Elusa, where he had relatives, as lawyer, sophist and rhetor, writer on language and rhetoric. A coeval of Libanius (he was already a rhetor in 357 and is last attested in 392) he also taught for some time in Antioch; some time after 360 he travelled in the same year to Constantinople, Egypt and Antioch; his place of activity in the last thirty years or so of his life is unknown, and it may well have been Elusa. According to the Suda (E 3407) he wrote ὀνοματικὴ ὀρθογραφία, τέχνη γραμματική as well as ‘various poems’.

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

21

PLRE I, no. 3; Kaster 1988, no. 55; Seeck 1906, p. 131; Sivan 2008, 80–81; cf. also RE VI, 885 (L. Cohn) *Eudocia The Empress composed almost all her extant writings in Palestine. She may have formed in Jerusalem some sort of intellectual circle, with Cosmas and Optimus among others; certainly Orion 1, who dedicated to her his work in Caesarea, must have been closely connected. General discussions: Holum 1982, 112–130, 175–194; Al. Cameron 1982; Hunt 1984, 222–225, 229–244; Sivan 2008, 210–219 discusses at length her religious, but not her literary activity. Texts: Ludwich 1897. New editions of the Homerocentones based on different revisions of the texts: Rey 1998; Usher 1999; Schembra 2006; Schembra 2007; see also Bevegni 2006. An occasional poem: Green/Tsafrir 1982;5 see also Mango 2004. Appreciation: Hunger 1978, II, 100– 101. AE 1989, no. 743; PLRE II, s. v. *Euenus Poet: Geiger 1991/92, again as Part II, ch. 4 below. Eumathes Rhetor from Caesarea in the early 3rd c., attested in the Palestinian Talmud, see discussion in Eutocius 2 and Part II, ch. 5 below. Other possible forms of the name: Eumathidas, Eumathion, Eumathius. Eunomus Rhetor and lawyer from Elusa, cousin of Eudaemon, attested by Libanius in 357 (ep. 315) and 360 (ep. 164). PLRE I, no. 2 Eustochius Lawyer, native of Palestine but residence uncertain; attested by Libanius 360–390. PLRE I, no. 3; Seeck 1906, no. 1, p. 149 *Eutocius 1 Mathematician, but also philosopher and astrologer from Ascalon, the well known commentator on Archimedes and on Apollonius of Perge; detailed discussion in Part II, ch. 5 below. Eutocius 2 Rhetor from Caesarea attested in the Palestinian Talmud, (Megillah = The Roll of Esther, 3:2, fol. 74a) together with Eumathes and Thalassus as contemporaries of R. 5

It is noteworthy, that also the Empress Eudoxia was commemorated, on an inscription under her statue in Scythopolis, with two hexameters with Homeric reminiscences, see Di Segni 1999, 631.

22

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

Abbahu (early 4th c.): a coded letter recommends the three rhetors,6 named in the Hebrew as equivalents of ‘Goodchild, Goodlearn and Tharsis (= Tarsus?)’, and the text goes on to decipher the names: ‘BDWKYS, ‘BMSYS TLTSYS. Already the traditional Talmudic commentators interpreted the first name as Εὔτοκος7 (and the correction to Εὐτόκιος is slight): it is the very rarity of the name, which of course could not have been known to the Talmudic scholars, that gives it the force of a lectio difficilior, in fact difficillima. This lends authority also to the two others, Eumathes and Thalassus. He may well have been the donor mentioned in the building inscription from Caesarea CIIP 1346. See also discussion in Part II, ch. 5 below. Eutocius 3 Rhetor from Elusa, addressee of some half a dozen letters by Libanius, but the only hint at his whereabouts is his being a counsellor in a city where Eudaemon was active, thus certainly Elusa. The context and style of the letters vouch for his education, though his exact interests are unknown. Seeck 1906, p. 131, 151; Kaster 1988, pp. 279–282; Mayerson 1983; however, Mayerson changed his mind and argued 1987, 254 n. 6, that it is ‘far more likely’ that Eutocius 3 was active in Gaza. *Eutropius The author of the Breviarium. There are a number of reasons for preferring Caesarea as the patria of the historian, see discussion in Geiger 1996b. Chief among these is the translation by Paeanius of Caesarea, a fellow-student (if the identification is accepted) with Acacius, and it seems to be the reluctance to accept Latin authors from the East even in the century of Ammianus Marcellinus and Claudianus that is at the root of the alternative explanation. At any rate there is no reason to assign any weight to the assertion of the Suda (E 3775) that he was an Italian sophist, a gratuitous deduction from the next statement, that he wrote the Epitome in Latin. The claim about other works is proven by a quotation by his fellow Caesarean Priscianus 2 (GLK II, p. 8 [Prisc., Inst. 1.3.8]), a work that attests his bilingualism. The existence of a School of Roman Law confirms the spread of Latin in the city far beyond what one would expect from the provincial capital and the seat of the governor (see Part III below). The provenance from Caesarea was the common opinion, see Seeck 1906, no. 4, pp. 151–153 and Seeck 1893, CXXXII–CXXXIII; the proposed identification with the Gaul from Bordeaux mentioned in Marcell., medic. praef. 2 by Matthews 1975, 96–97, has been accepted by PLRE I, no. 2; cf. Martindale 1980, 483–4; Herzog 1989, 202, rejects both identifications, the one relating to Caesarea without 6 7

Sperber 2012, 44 n. 19 still prefers to interpret the Hebrew LYTWRYN as lictors rather than rhetors; the substitution of l for r in Rabbinic texts is most common; he also backs up the form Eumathes (see next n.). The two other names, Eumathes (or, perhaps, Eumathis, Eumathion, Eumathidas, Eumathius) and Thalassos (or, perhaps, Thalassius, Thalassis, Thalassion), are of no concern here, though it may be noted that since Eutocius the rhetor refers to a real person so should the other two be considered, and see discussion in Part II, ch. 5.

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

23

argument; den Boer 1972, 115–116 is undecided. The entire issue is discussed and the Caesarean provenance successfully defended by Bonamente 1977, 183–187. Texts: (with Paeanius) Droysen 1879, Ruehl 1887/1919, Santini 1979/1992. Hellegouarc’h 1999, Müller 1995, Bird 1993. RE VI, 1521–7, no. 10 (P. Gensel); Herzog 1989, 201–207 (by P. L. Schmidt) is better at collecting evidence than at appraisal. See also Burgess 2001; Ratti 2010, 17–22, 43–50 Eutychius or Eutychianus and the word scholasticus are tentatively read on a stamp of the sixth-seventh centuries found in Caesarea. CIIP II, 1772 ?Gaianus Known only from the Suda (Γ 9), according to which he was an Ἀράβιος, a sophist and pupil of Apsines and active in Berytus; he wrote περὶ συντάξεως in five books, a τέχνη ῥητορική as well as μελέται. Both his designation as Arab – well suited for the neighbourhood of Gadara – and studies with Apsines make a Palestinian provenance not unlikely. RE VII, 484, no. 2 (W. Schmid) Gelasius He and his brother Theodulus, both monks and eventually heads of monasteries, came from Isauria, but settled and died in Palestine. They were both architects, and built Mary’s Church at the laura with many other buildings, as well as the ‘Monastery of the Cave’, Cyr. Scyth., VS 32 (p. 117), 37 (p. 126). ?Georgius Grammaticus and poet (6th c.), perhaps from Gaza. Kaster 1988, no. 63; Szabat 2007, no. 91 assigns him, hesitatingly, to Egypt; Ciccolella 2005 assigns six of the poems to Palestine, most probably to Gaza, and the other two or three to Egypt; she also points out (Ciccolella 2007) the closeness of his themes and those of Iohannes 7 of Gaza, especially the story of Hippolytus and Phaedra, also the subject of the great artwork in Gaza described by Procopius 1. Germanus Correspondent and former pupil of Procopius 1, went on to study elsewhere (Proc., ep. 4). Helpidius Sophist, perhaps from Caesarea, lawyer, known from letters of Libanius from 357 on; studied in Athens in 361 and moved on to Bithynia and Constantinople. RE VIII, 208, no. 4 (O. Seeck); Seeck 1906, no. 3, p. 171

24

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

Hierius Latin grammaticus from Gaza, addressee, with Alypius and Stephanus 3, of Proc. ep. 13; the three went to teach in Daphne – an interesting piece of information about the spread and availability of Latin education in Gaza and on their reputation. In ep. 145 Procopius recommended him to a governor, perhaps because he also possessed legal training, not unexpected in a Latin rhetor. Addressee of ep. 32 of Diogenes of Antioch. PLRE II, no. 8, Kaster 1988, no. 75 Hieronymus 1 Rhetor from Elusa, studied with Libanius, attested in 357 (ep. 334, 335). PLRE I, s. v. Hieronymus 2 Grammaticus or rhetor from Elusa, correspondent of Procopius 1. He taught in Hermopolis in Egypt and returned to his city to marry; Kaster 1988, 414, rejected his identification with Stephanus 2 (proposed by the editors of the letters of Procopius 1). RE VIII, 1565, no. 5 (K. Münscher); PLRE II, no. 2; Szabat 2007, no. 120 Hilarius The descendant of a philosopher, he was a pupil of Libanius and governor of Palestine 392–3; Libanius (ep. 1105) asked the Jewish Patriarch to be of assistance to him. Seeck 1906, no. 7, pp. 178–9; GLAJJ no. 503 Hypatius Phoenician student of Libanius, became governor of Palaestina Prima. Seeck 1906, no. 1, pp. 180–181; PLRE I, no. 1 Iohannes 1 From Caesarea, pupil of Paulus (see s. v.), styled by him ὁ πάνυ, and commentator of Hermogenes’ στάσεις, he probably reworked his master’s introduction to Hermogenes’ περὶ ἰδέων; fl. c. 450. Nothing is known about the life of either of them, though their names – but not the fragments of their works – betray their Christianity. Walz, RG VII; Keil 1907; PLRE II, no. 47; Szabat 2007, no. 129 Iohannes 2 Scholasticus and theologian from Scythopolis, second half of 5th c. PLRE II, no. 27 Iohannes 3 Correspondent of Procopius 1; due to the popularity of the name his identity is problematic – he may be a man known to have taught in Caesarea. If he is identical

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

25

with the correspondent of Aeneas 1 (ep. 1) who borrowed a book from him he must have stayed, at least for some time, in Gaza. See Amato 2010, 442 n. 36. Iohannes 4 Scholasticus from Scythopolis, ‘son of the tax-farmer’, attested 518 and 528 (Cyril Scyth., VS 61, 70). PLRE II, no. 64 Iohannes 5 Grammaticus and theologian from Caesarea, a presbyter, author (extant texts in Greek and Syriac) and adversary of Severus of Antioch. Which Caesarea? Apparently that in Palestine, so PLRE II, no. 74; Helmer 1962, 160; contra Moeller 1944/45, 103 n. 1 (Cappadocia); Kaster 1988, no. 82 undecided (prefers Cappadocia); Richard 1977 (undecided on provenance). N. b. that in Justinianic times Caesarea in Palestine is often referred to without epithet. PLRE II, no. 74; Kaster 1988, no. 82; Szabat 2007, no. 134 Iohannes 6 Pupil of Choricius and addressee, with Elias and Procopius 3 of the speech celebrating their marriages. PLRE III, no. 4 *Iohannes 7 The well known poet and grammaticus from Gaza. Accepting the ekphrasis as pertaining to Gaza (with, e. g., Kaster 1988) as against Antioch (with, e. g., somewhat hesitantly, Al. Cameron 1993b) it provides another piece of important testimony to the cultural life in the city, as do also his anacreontic poems. Even if not dating by Choricius’ reference from 353 or 356 to a planned winter-bath or, alternatively, by the Antioch earthquake of 526, the unmistakable influence of Nonnus dates our poet to the last third of the fifth or first of the sixth centuries. Kaster 1988 also raises the possibility of his identity with the poet mentioned in Chor. or. 4; he may also be the grammaticus who authored AP 9.628 (on a bath in Alexandria) and perhaps also of 9.629. Friedländer 1912, Al. Cameron 1993b; Gigli Piccardi 2005. Nissen 1940; Ciccolella 2000, 118–173; Ciccolella 2006; Rosenmeyer 1992, 227. Kaster 1988, no. 83; Szabat 2007, no. 141 Iohannes 8 Lawyer from Gaza, πρεσβευτής. Zach. KG 7.1 Irenaeus According to Jos. BJ 2.21 a brilliant rhetorician who supported Antipas after the death of his father Herod. Otto 1913, 90, and Schürer 1973, 311 assume that he was a Greek: this is probably so, though it cannot be totally excluded that he was a Jew;

26

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

his provenance is unknown. Despite the suggestions of Roller 1998, 59, I saw no reason to include him in App. 2 below. Isidorus 1 Scholasticus, friend of Procopius 1. PLRE II, no. 6 Isidorus 2 Of Gaza, one of the seven philosophers who went to Persia in 529 following Justinian’s ban on ‘pagan’ teaching: Agathias 3.30. Av. Cameron 1970, 101, draws attention to the fact that Agathias does not say that all seven left from Athens; this is rather construed from the case of Damascius, the Head of the School. At any rate all seven were Orientals, Diogenes (PLRE III, no. 1) and Hermias (PLRE III, no. 1) are called Phoenicians, a designation that may include citizens from some Palestinian coastal cities. Al. Cameron remarks on the typically philosopher name Isidorus (18) and suggests, that Isidorus 2 studied with Damascius for a lack of philosophical teaching in Gaza; however, see for Christian philosophy in Gaza Aeneas 1, Procopius 1, Ulpianus 2, Zacharias 1 and cf. Wallis 1972, 159. Av. Cameron 1969/70. 166–176; Al. Cameron 1969, 7–29. Szabat 2007, no. 148; DPhA III, no. 32 *Iulianus 1 Architect and engineer of Ascalon, he may have had some legal training, was certainly interested in philosophy, correspondent of Aeneas 1. Geiger 1992 (reprinted as Part II, ch. 6 below); Saliou 1996; Saliou 1995. Iulianus 2 Stamp of a scholasticus from Caesarea, sixth-seventh centuries. CIIP II, 1782 *Iulius Africanus The famous Christian chronographer from Jerusalem earns his inclusion in this list to his secular Kestoi: Vieillefond 1970; Wallraff/Mecella 2009. This work is the only one of the encyclopedic genre known to us from Palestine. The latest general reconsideration, with an ample bibliography: Roberto 2011. His origin in Aelia Capitolina is vouched for by POxy III, 412, l. 59; his mention there of the Odyssey in the archives of this city is a controversial point. There is no indication that he was born a Jew (see Habas [Rubin] 1994), though it may be noted that the name Africanus is attested on Jewish sarcophagi in Jerusalem of the 1st c. BCE and the 1st c. CE, see CIIP I, nos. 416, 421, 423, 424. His times are determined by his embassy to Elegabalus between 219 and 221, acquiring the name Nicopolis for Emmaus, and by mentioning the Baths of Severus Alexander, whose building was concluded in 227, and dedicating his work to that emperor, who died in 235. According to Eus., HE 6.31.2 he studied with Heracles in Alexandria. RE X, 117–125 (W. Kroll); PIR2 I, 124

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

27

Iullus Palestinian pupil of Libanius. Petit 1957, 39; Seeck, 1906, p. 193 Leontius Teacher of rhetoric and poet from Armenia, fellow student of Libanius (ep. 43) apparently governor of Palaestina Secunda (Seeck 1906, no. 4, p. 195), or perhaps of Palaestina Tertia (PLRE I, no. 9). Macarius Studied law, probably in Berytus; correspondent (ep. 153), with Zosimus 3, of Procopius 1, recommended by him. PLRE III, no. 5 Marcianus Bishop of Gaza, studied rhetoric and poetry with Procopius 1 before entering an ecclesiastical career, encomia to him (no. 1 and 2) by Choricius. Anastasius, Anonymus 1 and Anonymus 2 were his brothers. PLRE III, no. 1 *Marianus Poet, emigrated to Palestine from Rome. Geiger 2009; again as Part II, Appendix below. *Marinus The philosopher and mathematician from Neapolis, Head of the Neoplatonic School in Athens in 485. As in so many cases, we know nothing about his education in his native city. According to Damascius he was born a Samaritan, but converted to the Hellenic religion.8 His Proclus, On Happiness, contains some hints at his Palestinian provenance: for the reference (19) to Proclus 2’s admiration for Marnas of Gaza and Asclepius Leontouchos see discussion in Part II, ch. 5 below; he mentions (9) Ulpianus 2 of Gaza, a fellow student of Proclus 2 for attesting the master repeating by heart a lecture by Olympiodorus – it was perhaps not by chance that he turned to a fellow Palestinian. Athanassiadi 1999; Asmus 1911. Masullo 1985: Saffrey/Segonds 2001; Guthrie 1986; Edwards 2000. As for his mathematical work, it should be noted that his revered teacher Proclus 2 was also a commentator on Euclides. Menge 1896; Michaux 1947; Taisbak 2003; Oikonomides 1977. Two astronomical scholia quoting Marinus have been identified by Tihon 1976: one on the fixed stars on the margins of Claudius Ptolemy’s Almagest, Vat. gr. 1594,

8

Upheld by Hult 1992 against the doubts of Oikonomides 1977; the contention that the name is not Samaritan or Jewish does not hold water: Ilan 2002, I, 335.

28

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

f.167v, the other on lunar parallaxes on the margins of Theon’s Little Commentary, Paris. gr. 2394, pp. 794–842. See also AP 9.196, 197. Sambursky 1985; Luz 1990. PLRE II, no. 3; Szabat 2007, no. 171; DPhA IV, no. 429 Martialis “The learned teacher” (ὁ καθηγηγτὴς ὁ φιλόλογος) “and his friends” are mentioned in a dedication to Kore from Samaria; the lettering is 50–150 CE. Rockefeller Mus. Inv. 33.2188; Crowfoot, PEFQS 1933, p. 67 Maximus From Raphiah; when governor of Galatia he instituted rhetorical agones and multiplied the number of official teachers in Ancyra, so it is to be assumed that he himself possessed a rhetorical education. Seeck 1906, no. 6, p. 207; PLRE I, no. 19 T. Flavius Maximus Attested as a philosopher on an inscription from Caesarea, dated after the establishment of the colony (71) and before the reign of Probus (276–282). He may be identical with a number of known philosophers: the first editor, Burrell 1993, mentions a philosopher from Gortyna buried in Carthage (RE VI, 2606, no. 133 [A. Stein]); other possibilities include RE XIV, 2541, Maximus no. 13 (A. Stein); T. D. Barnes 1973, 137, draws attention to a philosopher Maximus with the nom de plume Hero in PLRE I, a volume containing philosophers of that name from Athens (no. 9, 10), Ephesus (no. 21), and see also nos. 22, 26, 29 – though most of these are later than our philosopher. InscrCaes no. 12, CIIP II, no. 1266 *Meleager The famous poet and collector of the Garland, the first constituent of what was to become the Anthologia Palatina, was born in Gadara, moved to Tyre and died in Cos. The main sources are his autobiographical poems detailing his connections to his place of birth (AP 7.417, 418, 419, 421), while displaying some healthy localpatriotic pride, and note also his (for a Palestinian author) singular reference to Jews (AP 5.160, GLAJJ no. 43) – indeed, he is quite exceptional in not disregarding the multilingual (viz., multicultural) atmosphere in his city. On the other hand we cannot tell, whether his assertion, that Homer was a Syrian, since his heroes abstained from fish like the Syrians, despite their fighting near an abundance of fish of the Hellespont (Ath. 4, 157b) was serious, joking, or half-joking. His father’s name, Eucrates, implies that he was not the first generation of Hellenic culture in his family. On top of the suggestions of an ideological connection to the Cynics Menippus 9

Two collections of essays on Proclus 2 contain also much material on Marinus: Pèpin/Saffrey 1987; Bos/Meijer 1992.

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

29

and Oenomaus of his hometown a cautious proposition to a similar effect is made below concerning Theodorus 1. Gow/Page 1965, I, 214–253; II, 591–680; Jacobson 1977; Geiger 1986; Luz 1988; Giudorizzi 1992; Luz 2003; DPhA IV, no. 90. See also the on-line bibliography https://sites.google.com/site/hellenisticbibliography/epigram/meleager *Menippus The biography of the famous Cynic, though not his birthplace of Gadara, in Diog. La. 6.99–101 is problematic. One should probably accept the contention that he was a slave (Gell. 2.7.18), in all likelihood freed. It is notable that he is the only person from the 3rd c. BCE to figure in this Prosopography. Though of course his influence on Greek and Latin literature is immense, and thus also at second hand on modern European literatures (see, e. g. Robinson 1979), there is absolutely no basis to the supposition of a more than casual similarity between his writings and Rabbinic literature as Hengel 1969, 153–154 (= 1974, 84), and the literature quoted by him, would have it. Helm 1906; Macarthy 1934; Howard 2005; Relihan 1993. DPhA IV, no. 129 Narses From Smyrna, bishop of Ascalon; addressee of an anacreontic poem by Sophronius of Jerusalem, thus certainly possessed of Hellenic education. PLRE III, no. 11 Nestorius 1 Scholasticus and city councillor in Gaza. Zach. KG Anh. II, p. 267; VIs. 5; PLRE II, no. 5 Nestorius 2 Former pupil of Procopius 1 (ep. 66, 70, 75, 150); Amato 2010, 468 n. 359 perceives a possible allusion to Elusa. Nilus Pupil and correspondent of Procopius 1. PLRE II, no. 4 Noesius Or Anoesius, scholasticus in Scythopolis, attested in inscription from 536/537. Vincent 1931; PLRE III s. v. *Oenomaus The well known Cynic philosopher from Gadara, of the mid-2nd c., is unique among Cynics in that considerable chunks of his writings have survived. He is also

30

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

unique (but see Proclus 1) in being attested in Talmudic literature (as ‘Abnimos’)10 – the only Greek11 intellectual for whose connections with the Sages we possess evidence. AP 9.749 is probably not by him (Page 1981, 73). Luz 1986/7; Hammerstaedt 1990; Luz 1992; Hammerstaedt 1998; Luz 2003 DPhA IV, no. 9; FGrH IVA.7 no. 1070 Olympicus Academic philosopher from Gaza. Dorandi 1991, 161. Olympiodorus Academic philosopher from Gaza, Dorandi 1991, 160; the bust of the homonymous general found at Caesarea (InscrCaes no. 1) may have been mistaken for his, Geiger 1997, denied by CIIP II, no. 1399. N. b. the supporting evidence that also a bust of Carneades, the teacher of the philosopher from Gaza, has been found at the site – such busts were popular for decorating libraries, like the well-known one at Caesarea (for which see Carriker 2003; Grafton/Williams 2006). ?Optimus ‘Philosopher’ mentioned in title of Eudocia’s Homerocentones, though unclear whether active in her circle in Jerusalem; Holum 1982, 220, n. 10. RE XVIII, 805–6, no. 3 (R. Keydell); DPhA IV, no. 33 *Orion 1 Born in Egyptian Thebes into a priestly family, but referred to at the head of his works as γραμματικὸς Καισαρείας. He taught at Alexandria, where Proclus 2 was among his pupils (Marin., Procl. 8). Since his gnomological treatise is dedicated to Eudocia one may assume with confidence that the city is Caesarea in Palestine where he composed his works and that he was active in the circle of the empress; lost works listed in the Suda, extant the abbreviated Συναγωγὴ γνωμῶν, Ἁνθολόγιον: Haffner 2001; περὶ ἐτυμολογίας: Sturz 1820 (in his Etymologicon Magnum vol. II). PLRE II, no. 1; FGrH IVA7, no. 1093; Kaster 1988, no. 110; Szabat 2007, no. 198; DPhA IV, no. 44

10 The identification is denied, utterly unconvincingly, by Fitzgerald, 2004, 94–96. 11 This is the place to warn classical scholars (and such warning is needed!) from dealing with texts to which they have no real access: OCD3 s. v. Oenomaos claims that he was ‘perhaps a Hellenized Jew’ (repeated by the same scholar in a more assertive mood, ‘Jewish Cynic’: Moles, 2006, 97), and repeated without comment by Sartre, 2005, 285; as a matter of fact in a number of places in Rabbinic literature the Biblical Balam and Abnimos are named as the greatest philosophers among the Gentiles, see Pirkei deRav Kahana 15.5; Genesis Rabba (ed. Theodor-Albeck), p. 734; Lamentations Rabbati, prologue 2.

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

31

Orion 2 Pupil and correspondent of Procopius 1, studied law at Berytus and went on to Constantinople. PLRE II, no. 3 *Paeanius It is safe to identify the translator of Eutropius with the pupil of Acacius in Caesarea (see Seeck 1906, Index); the translation is dated 380 (see 9.24), not long after the completion of the original by his fellow-student. His studies with Acacius and his translation are a solid buttress for the Caesarean provenance of Eutropius. It must be assumed that Latin was his second language, apparently not a rare phenomenon in Caesarea; for his Latin see Fisher 1982. Text in Droysen 1879, 8–179; Venini 1981–1983; Schulz 1870. A painstaking comparison of Paeanius’ translation of Eutropius and that by the later Capito: Reichmann 1943, 62–87. Palladius 1 Addressee of letter of Procopius 1 (14; cf 69), probably governor of Palaestina Prima. According to Amato 2010, 448 n. 84 perhaps identical with Palladius 2. PLRE II, no. 16 ?Palladius 2 Gifted speaker, brought letter (165) to Procopius 1, may have been resident of the city. According to Amato 2010, 448 n. 84 perhaps identical with Palladius 1. PLRE II, no. 17 Pancratius Pupil and correspondent of Procopius 1 (see ep. 119, 120 with nn. ad loc. in Amato 2010) who continued his studies in Alexandria. PLRE II, no. 2 Panegyrius Teacher of rhetoric in Palestine (Caesarea?) and rival of Priscio, attested 390. RE XVIII, 581 s. v. (W. Ensslin), PLRE I, s. v. Paulinus Doctor from Scythopolis and pupil of Plotinus in Rome, nicknamed ‘Mikkalos’; he died before the death of the master (270). Porph. VPlot. 7; PLRE I, no. 1, RE Suppl. XV, 296, no. 5a (E. Fischer) Paulus Teacher and rhetor of Caesarea, called by his disciple and admirer Iohannes 1 ὀ πάνυ, fl. c. 420 (most references in Walz, RGr VII). Keil 1907 has shown that he is the author of the introduction to and commentary on Hermogenes’ στάσεις and that Iohannes 1 reworked his introduction to Hermogenes’ περὶ ἰδέων. The ‘School’ of

32

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

Paulus and Iohannes 1 was among the first to canonise Hermogenes, at a period when there was still resistance to accepting his teachings. I am not aware of later studies, and Keil’s analysis seems to have become the communis opinio (see, e. g., Hunger 1978, 80, 82; Kennedy 1983, 116). Petrus From Caesarea, studied grammar and rhetoric in Caesarea, law at Berytus and became a monk. Zach., VSev p. 26 Philippus Brother of Procopius 1, Victor and Zacharias 3, lawyer; he obtained some high office in Constantinople. PLRE II, no. 7 Philo Mathematician from Gadara, mentioned only by Eutocius 1: his calculation of π was better than Archimedes’;12 he taught Sporus of Nicaea, though we cannot tell where. Heath 1921, I, 234–6; on Sporus: RE IIIA, 1879–1883 (F. Kliem) *Philodemus The vast bibliography cannot be reproduced or discussed here, but note that the only reference to his native city of Gadara (Strabo 16.2.29 [C759]) is erroneous, see Dorandi 1987); GLAJJ I, 293. There is no knowing whether he composed anything in Palestine. Some speculative connections with Palestine: a. he was most influenced by his compatriot Meleager; b. he refers to the Palestinian philosophers Dio, Olympicus, Olympiodorus, and Sosus; he also refers to Aristus as brother of Antiochus 1, and to Apollonius of Ptolemais as his ‘friend’. See online: www.classics.ucla.edu/index.php/philodemus Polybius Son of Priscianus 1 while governor of Palaestina Prima, student of Libanius. Lib., ep. 1150, cf. 1258 Ponton Studied rhetoric with Aeneas 1, later lawyer who pursued an administrative career. PLRE II, s. v. Priscianus 1 Orator, fellow student (thus probably pupil of Zenobius 1), close friend and correspondent of Libanius, native of Berytus. He had a long and successful political ca12

This probably meant that he reckoned with more sided polygons inscribing and circumscribing the circle than Archimedes, see, e. g., Geymonat 2010, 17–18.

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

33

reer; while governor of Palaestina Prima his son Polybius studied with Libanius. Libanius wrote to him (ep. 1251) concerning the Jewish Patriarch. PLRE I, no.1; Seeck 1906, no. 1, pp. 244–245; GLAJJ no. 504, II, pp. 598–9 *Priscianus 2 On the issue which Caesarea was his patria see Geiger 1999, 606–612 (his description as a doctor of Constantinople does not affect the question13); it seems that the main point of opposition to the traditional assigning to Caesarea Maritima is a refusal to believe that such an important Latin linguist – the by far most widely used Latin grammarian in the Middle Ages – hails from the Greek East. This disregards the tradition of Latin in Caesarea, for which see not only above on M. Flavius Agrippa, Eutropius and Paeanius, (and add to them Gelasius, the continuator and translator of Eusebius), but also the existence of a School of Roman Law in the town, see CIC const. omnem 7, and, generally, Part III below. Indeed, explanations of Latin by way of Greek are fitting for the bilingual situation, see recently Biville 2009; also the name of his teacher Theoctistus fits well the East. On the other hand next to nothing is known of intellectuals in Mauretanian Caesarea. His praise of Anastasius is close to that of Procopius 1 and probably to the lost work of Timotheus 1 – the abolition of the chrysargyron seems to have been a major concern in the country; his praise for the rebuilding of harbours (186–192) may refer to his home town. For the grammatical writings see GLK II, III; panegyric: Chauvot 1986; Coyne 1991; this work dates him to the time of Anastasius (491–518), see also Al. Cameron 1974; Chauvot 1977. Translation of Dionysius the Periegete: Müller 1882, II, 190–9 (Latin); Brodersen 1994 (German); see also discussion in Part III below. Kaster 1988, no. 126; PLRE II, no. 2; Szabat 2007, no. 230 Priscio Pupil and correspondent of Libanius (Petit 1957, 34, 39) and fellow student of his only son Cimon (Arabius). Lawyer, later sophist and teacher in Palestine (Caesarea?), attested 390–393. Among his lost speeches were a panegyric to the emperor, a speech at the Antioch Olympics (both 392) and an obituary of Cimon. PLRE I s. v., Seeck 1906, p. 245 *Procopius 1 The famous Gazan orator and ecclesiastical writer of the late 5th and early 6th c. The main sources for his life are his correspondence, Choricius’s funeral oration, and Photius. Born in Gaza and educated also in Alexandria, he returned to his native city and refused to take up positions in Caesarea, Antioch, Tyre and Berytus (ep. 12, 129). He died at the same age as Demosthenes (viz., 62), probably briefly before 530, after he lost children and his wife. Among his pupils was the bishop Marcianus. His brothers were Philippus, Victor, and Zacharias 3, and his correspondence is one of the richest sources for the present Prosopography. Among his corre13

I do not know whence the certainty of Portmann 1988, 118, that he composed his works in Constantinople.

34

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

spondents, on top of his brothers Philippus and Zacharias 3, the following Palestinians can be identified: Agapetus, Alypius, Antiochus 2, Castor, Diodorus, Dorotheus 2, Epiphanius 1, Hierius, Hieronymus 2, Iohannes 3, Nilus, Orion 2, Stephanus 2, Stephanus 3, Thomas 2 and Zosimus 3; also mentioned in the correspondence are Aeneas 2, Isidorus 1, Theon, Zonaeus and the iatrosophist Gessius of Petra. Like the Caesarean Priscianus 2 (and cf. on Timotheus 1 below) he wrote a panegyric to Anastasius and he composed ekphraseis, like his Gazan compatriots Choricius and Iohannes 7. His extant works include (on top of the Biblical catenae, a genre perhaps invented by him): Garzya 1963; Westerink 1967; Maltese 1984; Amato 2005; Diels 1917; Friedländer 1939 (see also Talgam 2004); Chauvot 1986; Matino 2005. See also Gigli Piccardi 2006; new edition: Amato 2009; with Italian translations and German and Italian essays: Amato 2010. PLRE II, no. 8; Szabat 2007, no. 238 *Procopius 2 The references of the great historian of the age of Justinian to his patria Caesarea are few and far between (beginning of Wars and Anecd. 11.25 and a few more references to Jews and Palestine) and little can be known about his education there, but see the interesting conjectures of Howard-Johnston 2000; in Buildings he shows extraordinary acquaintance with and interest in buildings in this country (5.6–9), and especially in Jerusalem, see Tsafrir 2000; for possible reference to his city see Hohlfelder 1988; local interests: Z. Rubin 1989, 388. B. Rubin 1954 is still a mainstay of his bibliography; anybody not acquainted with the astonishing biography of this (neo?)Nazi, not irrelevant to his academic work, should immediately google him:14 complaining in the foreword of his book (of 1954!) about the unlawful construction of a collective guilt (‘die rechtswidrige Konstruktion einer “Kollektivschuld”’) and the hard times in Germany he looks for and detects ‘Semitic thought’ etc. in his author; his work should be used with special care. The bibliography is vast; the standard work of Av. Cameron 1985 has been challenged by the much more positive evaluation of Kaldellis 2004. Procopius 3 Choricius composed a speech for the wedding of this pupil, who may have been a grandson of Procopius 1.15 RE XXIII, 272–3, s. v. Prokopios no. 20a (W. Aly) *Ptolemaeus 1 The grammarian from Ascalon, probably of Augustan date; see Baege 1882, and detailed discussion in Part II, ch. 3 below; for his identity with Ptolemaeus 2 see Geiger 2012b and discussion in Part II, ch. 3 below. 14 15

One hint: he talks about ‘Hitlers Freiheitspartei’ – but this is nothing compared to some of his exploits, such as his attempt to repeat Rudolf Hess’s flight to Scotland, and his serving jail for a staged political abduction. There is absolutely no basis for the suggestion of Haury 1896, 14–18, that he is identical with Procopius 2 and that his father was the Stephanus for whom Choricius gave a speech.

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

35

?Ptolemaeus 2 The historian of Herod, GLAJJ no. 52; for his identity with Ptolemaeus 1 see Geiger 2012b and discussion in Part II, ch. 3 below. Ptolemaeus 3 Rhetor from Gaza attested in an inscription from Eleusis, late 3rd c. He was the son of Serenus the φοινικάρχης, a title not otherwise attested, but surely the High Priest of the provincial cult. OGIS 596; Perdrizet 1899, 36–38; C. Glucker 1987, 51 and App. 46 M. Aurelius Pylades If the name is correctly restored; for Pylades as a common name for pantomime actors see Leppin 1992, 181–183; pantomime auctor from Scythopolis. CIL XIV Suppl. no. 4624 (Ostia); see also Wickert 1928, 36–70. His main activity was in Rome, but his being a councillor in Ascalon and Damascus must attest an earlier successful career in the East. Latest discussion, including whether he was of Jewish descent: Noy 1993, I, no. 15, pp. 28–30; for other Jewish actors see below on Halyturus; on the question, whether Menophilus was Jewish, see Juster 1914, II, 239, n. 2; GLAJJ I, no. 243; Cohen 1979, 358–359; see also Bieber 1961, 236. Romanus He is mentioned in a mid-fifth to seventh c. inscription from Mampsis; rather than ἰατρὸς ὁ φ(ιλόχριστος) we should read ἰατροσοφ(ιστής). Since his place is mentioned as Gebalene, the area south of the Dead Sea, one may possibly connect him with the famous iatrosophist Gessius from Petra. SEG 31 (1981), 1416; SEG 50 (2000), 1507; BE 2001, 504; Samama 2003, no. 385. Sapricius Scholasticus from Ascalon, mentioned by his brother Bur[r]ichius, see there. Serapion Author of a dream-book from Ascalon, pre-500, perhaps later than Artemidorus (2nd c.); detailed discussion in Part II, ch. 5 below. ?Severus 1 Libanius recommends him (ep. 1478) to Aphobius, the governor of Palestine; he was a man of culture and rhetorical abilities, and since he owned property here he may have been a resident. Severus 2 Monk with rhetorical abilities; not to be confused with Severus of Antioch. Zach. KG 7.10, pp. 131–2

36

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

Siricius Sophist from Neapolis, pupil of Andromachus 1, first half of 4th c. He taught in Athens, composed προγυμνάσματα καὶ μελέτας, and is probably identical with the man mentioned in Walz, RG V, 592.14, VIII, 393.3, and with a commentator on Hermogenes (Hunger 1978, 80). A 5th c. rhetor remarks that οἱ περὶ Σιρικίου engaged in the division of gnomai, see Felten 1913, p. 28.7. PLRE I s. v.; RE III A, 309 (M. Fluss) Sosianus Lawyer in Caesarea, perhaps assessor of the governor, correspondent of Procopius 1. Letter 107 is addressed to him jointly with an otherwise unknown Julius associated with him, who may have been a resident of Caesarea. PLRE II, s. v. Sosus Stoic philosopher from Ascalon, pupil of Panaetius and elder contemporary of Antiochus 1.16 The latter composed in 86 BCE a Sosus (Cic., Luc. 11–12), apparently a dialogue, making him the main speaker. The early relationship between the two, including the conjecture that Antiochus 1 owed him his first encounter with (Stoic) philosophy is a matter of some controversy.17 The Index Stoicorum 75.1–4 informs us, that he spent some time in Teanum in Campania, and died there. Sozomenus Ex-pupil of Procopius and recipient of ep. 151, not otherwise known. Stephanus 1 Brother of Zacharias 1, studied medicine in Alexandria but became a monk. If Zacharias 1 and Zacharias 3 are one person, then he was also the brother of Philippus, Victor and Procopius 1 – though, contrary to the others he was not a correspondent of the latter, a possible argument against the identification. Zach., VSev p. 39; PLRE II, no. 7 Stephanus 2 Grammaticus, taught also poetry in Alexandria, correspondent of Procopius 1. Kaster 1988, no. 142 (denies identity with Hieronymus 2, proposed by Garzya/ Loenertz 1963, 57); Szabat 2007, no. 266 Stephanus 3 Grammaticus from Gaza, correspondent of Procopius 1, went to Daphne with Alypius and Hierius. Kaster 1988, no. 141; PLRE II, no. 8; Szabat 2007, no. 265 16 17

Dorandi 1994, mentions him only at 75.1 (p. 124), not at 72, where he apparently rejects the expansion of his predecessor. See J. Barnes 1989, 53–54, 64 and the literature quoted there, especially J. Glucker 1978, 14, 28.

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

37

Stephanus 4 Scholasticus who died at Eleutheropolis (apparently in 555). Pal. Quart. 1920, p. 21 no. 4; SEG 8 (1937), no. 301 Thalassus Rhetor in Caesarea attested in the Palestinian Talmud; the name may have been Thalassius, Thalassion vel sim.; see above on Eutocius 2. *Theodorus 1 Rhetor from Gadara, teacher of Tiberius (thus older than his pupil, b. 42 BCE) and one of the two leading rhetoricians of his age (the other was Apollodorus, the teacher of Augustus, see on both Granatelli 1991, and now, with some additions, French translation and extensive annotation, Woerther 2013). His rivals before becoming the teacher of Tiberius were Potamon of Mytilene and Antipater (probably Antipater of Damascus). Apparently he accompanied Tiberius on his ‘exile’ in Rhodes and hence called himself a Rhodian. He may have been a freedman (see SEG XIX [1963], no. 208; Grube 1959) but the statement of the Suda, that his son was a senator under Hadrian is chronologically impossible. Though by profession a teacher of rhetoric (see in detail Granatelli 1991 and Woerther 2013), some works of his, unfortunately known by title only, display a marked local (and probably local-patriotic) interest: On Coele Syria, On History (FGrH 850). Woerther 2013, 92–94, warns of possible confusions arising from the commonness of the name Theodorus. In the following I make a cautious suggestion: we have seen the sequence of Cynic philosophers from Gadara with the distinct personalities of Menippus and Oenomaus and the at least temporary adherence to the movement of Meleager (see in their respective entries). Now it is known that a certain Theodorus composed an epitome of the 3rd c. BCE Cynic Teles, an important testimony for early Cynic thought, preserved only in Stobaeus.18 Of course Theodorus is a fairly common name, but Meleager’s express recourse to Menippus may have served as an example – and as his political (Περὶ πολιτείας in two books), historical (and geographical?) writings show, the interests of Theodorus 1 went far beyond rhetoric. Theodorus 2 Scholasticus turned monk, and eventually the successor of Peter the Iberian as Head of the Monastery. PLRE II, no. 28; RE V A, 1915, no. 173 (W. Ennslin) Theodorus 3 Sophist or rhetor from Smyrna who studied with Aeneas 1 and taught later in a town in Syria, Aen. ep. 18. PLRE II, no. 49; Szabat 2007, no. 284 18

There are a number of editions: Hense 1909 (his dating in the 1st c. CE would well agree with our man); RE V A, 1831–1833, no. 34 (A. Modrze); O’Neil 1977, XVI, followed by Fuentes González 1998, 3, denies any possibility of identification or of dating.

38

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

Theodorus 4 Seal from Caesarea of Theodorus the scholasticus. CIIP II, no. 1753 Theodulus He and his brother Gelasius, both monks and eventually heads of monasteries, came from Isauria, but settled and died in Palestine. They were both architects, and built Mary’s Church at the laura with many other buildings, as well as the ‘Monastery of the Cave’, Cyr. Scyth., VS 32 (p. 117), 37 (p. 126). Theon Apparently rhetor, recommended by Procopius 1 to his brother Philippus; for the suggestion that he was the teacher of Zosimus 2: see Part II, ch. 5 below. PLRE II, no. 5; Szabat 2007, no. 297 Theophilus Friend of Libanius and addressee of ep. 1051 (cf. Seeck 1906, p. 312), the only letter in the correspondence sent from Antioch to Antioch; from the letter it appears that Theophilus was a Palestinian interested in rhetoric and philosophy. Thespesius Rhetor, probably erroneously called grammaticus, or else this is a reference to an earlier stage in his career; Gregory Nazianzen was one of his pupils (hence the error of PLRE I, no. 2, who identifies his city as Cappadocian Caesarea) in the forties of the fourth century; he died between 357 and 367. He imitated the style of Polemon. RE II VI A, 60, no. 1 (W. Ennslin); Kaster 1988, no. 268 Thomas 1 Sophist from Gaza, attested in Alexandria. Zach., VSev 2; PLRE II, no. 4; Szabat 2007, no. 302 Thomas 2 Governor of Palaestina Prima, described by Procopius 1 as lover of literature; see also Amato 2010, 459 n. 217. PLRE II, no. 8 *Timotheus 1 Author, poet and grammaticus under Anastasius from Gaza (see evidence in Kaster 1988, 368). According to the Suda he composed a ‘tragedy’ under Anastasius on the abolition of the chrysargyron. Whatever the true nature of this work, indeed a tragedy (thus Baldwin 1982, 101 = 1984, 67), a speech or a poem (see M. Heath in SOL; C. Glucker 1987, 52),19 it is highly significant, that he chose to eulogize Anastasius, as did also his Palestinian compatriots Priscianus 2 and Procopius 1. 19

For the possibility, that this work is alluded to in a MS from Mt. Athos, see Kaster 1988, 369.

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

39

A Byzantine prose excerpt from his didactic poem, mainly on exotic animals: Haupt 1869; Bodenheimer 1950; Kruk 2001 provides examples for more detailed information on Gaza than that contained in the Byzantine epitome. On his κανόνες καθολικοὶ περὶ συντάξεως see Cramer 1841, 239–244; Wilson 1983, 31; RE VIA, 1339–41, no. 18 (A. Steier). Kaster 1988, 369–370 discusses the likelihood of his being a student of the younger Horapollo, with whom he may have shared an interest in zoology; see also Athanassiadi 1999, 356.20 RE VI A, col. 1339–1341, no. 18 (A. Steier); Kaster 1988, no. 156; Szabat 2007, no. 303 Timotheus 2 The ekphrasis of Procopius 1 (para. 42) implies the classical education of the patron who no doubt paid for the work of art.21 Tribunus Doctor from Palestine, according to Procopius 2 a learned man who healed King Chosroe – and the grateful king freed Roman captives. It has been cautiously suggested (DPhA III, no. 175, s. v. Eutocius, p. 396) – the name is quite rare – to identify him with an otherwise unknown Aristotelian commentator. PLRE III, no. 2 Ulpianus 1 Sophist from Ascalon and teacher of Libanius and others. The Suda has, in all probability, two entries for one person – he commented on Demosthenes, see Dilts 1983; Christ-Schmid-Stählin 1924, II, 1100, n. 3; RE IXA, 569 no. 3 (A. Lippold); Schemmel 1907; PLRE I, no. 1; no. 4 and detailed discussion in Part II, ch. 5 below. Ulpianus 2 Philosopher from Gaza, studied with Marinus in Alexandria (v. l. Olympianus). PLRE II, no. 3; Szabat 2007, no. 200 Uranius According to Dam., VIsid. frg. 70 he hailed from Apamea in Syria, was governor of ‘Caesarea in Palestine’ and could identify sorcerers by their gaze. RE II, XVII, 947, no. 5 (K. Deichgräber) identifies him with an Uranius described by Agathias 2.29– 32: a ridiculous person pretending to being a philosopher, a theologian and a doctor 20 21

Frost 2010, 167–172, draws attention to the similarity of Timotheus 1’s description of capturing tiger cubs to a mosaic piece in Piazza Armerina, but his conclusion of his acquaintance (at first or second hand) with the mosaic seems to me far less likely than a shared source. The name Timotheus seems to have been popular among the upper classes of the city – and we may have a member of the family of either Timotheus 1 or of Timotheus 2, in the two funerary inscriptions for the daughters of a Timotheus from the sixties and probably seventies of the sixth century, see CIIP 2499 and 2490 (forthcoming), often published, ed. pr. Germer-Durand 1892.

40

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

in Constantinople, who eventually was appreciated for travelling to Chosroe and knotting ties with the magicians (see RE IXA, 946–947, no. 2 [E. Wüst]); on the other hand PLRE III s. v. discusses only the person described by Agathias and disregards the governor. RE ibid. no. 4 (H. Pappenhoff) discusses an author of an Ἀραβικὴ Ἀρχαιολογία, whose fragments are preserved almost exclusively by Stephanus of Byzantium, and dates him to the 1st c. BCE. FGrH no. 675 dates him, with a query, to the 6th c. and identifies him with the person mentioned by Damascius and Agathias. In a renewed discussion H. v. Wißmann, RE Suppl. XI, 1278–92, no. 4, places him some decades before the establishment of the province of Arabia (106). Bowersock 1997, 180–185, rejects the identifications and insists on the trustworthiness of the author of the work entitled Ἀραβικά, a contemporary, and perhaps acquaintance, of Stephanus of Byzantium; see also Part II, ch. 5 below, in the discussion of Ulpianus 1. Victor Brother and correspondent of Procopius 1; his education is to be deduced from the style of the letter and the education of his brothers. PLRE II, no. 6 *Zacharias 1 Born in Maiumas of Gaza in 465–466, he may, or may not, be identical with the brother of Procopius 1 (see Zacharias 3). Though mainly an ecclesiastical figure (eventually he became bishop of Mytilene; he died before 553, when his successor was already in place), he is called ‘rhetor’ or ‘scholasticus’; he enjoyed a good classical education and his works (esp. VSev but also other works) are a rich mine for classical education in his times and contain many references to his Palestinian contemporaries. His Ammonius vel de opificio mundi, where Gessius of Petra is one of the interlocutors, is strongly influenced by the Theophrastus of Aeneas 1, also referred to him in VIs 8 as a most learned man, and whom accordingly some scholars conjecture to have been his teacher. The Syriac epitome of his Greek work on Church history is now Books 3–6 of the Ecclesiastical History of 569, and is the most important source for the reigns of Marcianus, Leo and Zeno.22 Spanuth 1893; Nau 1900, 26–98; Kugener 1903; Watts 2006–2007; Merlan 1968. Question of identity with brother of Procopius 1: Minitti Colonna 1973; Watts 2005, 445, n. 26. (Online) bibliography: Rist 1998. Zacharias 2 The head pupil of Choricius and addressee of or. 5, on his nuptials. PLRE III, no. 1

22

See Honigmann 1953, 194; his authorship was recently defended by Greatrex 2009, though some remain unconvinced, see King 2010.

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

41

Zacharias 3 The brother of Procopius 1 enjoyed a rhetorical and legal education; his identity with Zacharias 1 is a moot question. PLRE II, no. 1. Zenobius 1 Sophist from Elusa, a cousin of Argyrius, he was the official rhetor in Antioch and the teacher of Libanius (our only source for him) and others. He died in 354 and despite their complicated relationships in later years Libanius composed both an obituary and a panegyric on him. He is perhaps the grammaticus who composed AP 9.711 (not acknowledged by Al. Cameron 1993a, 268); at any rate that grammaticus is a rare absentee from Kaster 1988. PLRE I, s. v.; Seeck 1906, no. 1, pp. 315–316; Schemmel 1907, 52–53; RE X A, 12–14, no. 5 (H. Gärtner); cf. no. 2 (H. Gärtner) for possible confusions. Zenobius 2 Pupil of Libanius, from Elusa, attested in 360 (ep. 170). Seeck 1906, no. 3, p. 316 Zenodorus From Gaza, studied law in Berytus and was later a lawyer in Constantinople. PLRE II, no. 3 Zonaeus or Zonaenus. Sophist, correspondent of Aeneas 1, and mentioned by Procopius 1. He wrote some lost works, like ‘On Ballgames’ and erotic letters, though his authorship is not always safe. PLRE II s. v.; RE X A, 717–8 s. v. Zonaios (H. Gärtner); Szabat 2007, no. 316 Zosimus 1 Rhetor from Gaza, executed under Zeno, thus not identical with Zosimus 2; see detailed discussion in Part II, ch. 5 below. PLRE II, no. 2 Zosimus 2 Sophist from Ascalon under Anastasius, thus not identical with Zosimus 1; at least as a working hypothesis it is best to assign to him the works attributed to a man of that name; there is absolutely no reason to identify him with the author of the New History (see, e. g., OCD3 s. v.); the arguments for identification of Athanassiadi 1999, 350–357 are unconvincing in themselves, but also in view of the anti-Christian stance of the historian, hardly to be expected in the Ascalon, or Gaza, of the time. See detailed discussion in Part II, ch. 5 below. Szabat 2007, no. 317; PLRE II, no. 4; Kaster 1988, no. 276; RE X A, 790–795, no. 7 (H. Gärtner); Oomen 1926

42

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

Zosimus 3 Studied law, apparently in Berytus; correspondent (ep. 153) and former student (with Macarius) of Procopius 1. PLRE II, no. 5 ?Zosimus 4 For the possibility, that the author of the Historia Nova hailed from Ascalon (even though not identical with Zosimus 2) see discussion in Part II, ch. 5 below. Anonymus 1 Brother of Marcianus, Anastasius and Anonymus 2, judge and apparently governor of Palaestina Prima, see Chor. 7, title, para. 5, 8, 21, 22. PLRE III, Anon. 49 Anonymus 2 See Anonymus 1; studied rhetoric and law; Chor. 7, 5; 8. PLRE III, Anon. 63 Anonymus 3 Studied rhetoric in Gaza, brought epistle 143 of Procopius 1 to Constantinople, where he went to study law. ?Anonymus 4 The anonymous author of the expositio totius orbis et gentium (Rougè 1966), composed under Constantius II in wretched Latin by an adherent of the Old Religion, displays an unproportionate interest in the Syrian-Palestinian lands and has many laudatory observations on Palestinian cities, so that it has been conjectured that he may be a native, or had been a resident, of the country (see also GLAJJ II, pp. 495–498). It is impossible to tell whether the text is a poor translation from the Greek or whether the translation process was performed in the head of the Greekspeaking author; at any rate his poor Latin is to be contrasted with what we saw about Eutropius and Priscianus 2 (and probably also Paeanius); see also Part III below. Anonymus 5 A lawyer and high official from Gaza, known from a recently published funeral oration. Laniado 2005 rejects the assigning of the speech to Choricius; he also provides a French translation. Anonymus 6 Father of Elias, the pupil of Choricius, a lawyer. Chor., 6.36 Anonymus 7 Pupil of Choricius who came to Gaza to study with him. Chor., 3.25

Part I: A Prosopography Of Greek Intellectuals In Palestine

43

?Anonymus 8 A sophist, who advised Diocletian in Caesarea Philippi: Palestinian Talmud, She­ biit (= Sabbatical Year) 9.2, fol. 38d; he may have been a local sophist – if the story is historical. ?Anonymus 9 Meliadò 2008, republished with great care and ingenuity this difficult papyrus. It is from the second half of the second century or the beginning of the third, the hexameter poems it contains probably not much earlier. According to Meliadò’s analysis remains of three poems can be identified: a hymn to Aphrodite, a poem on divine genealogy and an epyllion on Andromeda. It is cautiously suggested (‘Ambientazione palestinese?’, pp. 28–32) that both the reference to Mt. Carmel in the first poem, not found otherwise in Greek literary contexts, and the traditional story of Andromeda at Jaffa may point to an author from this country. ?Anonymus 10 Relief with tragic mask, probably of an actor, in an archaeological context of the mid-second to mid-third centuries; the possibility of it belonging to the cemetery of Palmyrenes has been raised. Pinkerfeld 1955 Anonymus 11 An inscription mentioning an official of Flavius Boethus, ca. 165. CIIP II, 1229

44

Part I: A Prosopography of Greek Intellectuals in Palestine

APPENDIX A: VISITORS (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) I list here visitors with a short stay in the country. I do not include the certainly unhistorical visit of Pythagoras with the Jews or on Mt. Carmel (see GLAJJ I, p. 537, no. 250; II, pp. 443–4), nor Antimenidas, the brother of Alcaeus, who took part in the conquest of Ascalon by Nebuchadnezzar in 604 BCE,23 nor the learned men assumed in the entourage of Alexander the Great while besieging nearby Gaza. Also Christian pilgrims, including those who eventually settled here, are excluded. Herodotus His statement (2.104.3) concerning ‘the Syrians in Palestine’ as one of the peoples who practice circumcision, and his reference to Gaza (called by him Cadytis) and its size (2.159.2, cf. 3.5), combined with his attested stays in Tyre and Egypt make a visit at least to Palestine’s coastal cities virtually certain, see detailed discussion in GLAJJ no. 1. [Strabo] Dueck 2000, 190, n. 52 shows that such a visit never took place. Augustus For Augustus as a man of letters see, e. g., Malcovati 1962. During his visit to Syria in 30 BCE, Jos. BJ 1.394, AJ 15.199 mentions his sojourn at Ptolemais and in the following his subsequent route to Egypt, presumably along the coast and then through ‘the (scil. Sinai) desert’ (AJ 15.200; BJ 1.395, where both Pelusium and the return journey are mentioned). On his visit to Syria in 20 BCE (BJ 1.399) he resolved the quarrel between Herod and the people of Gadara (AJ 15.356–9): though this is not expressly stated, it is implied that the event took place in Gadara. M. Vipsanius Agrippa For Augustus’ admiral and administrator, advisor and man of action, builder and diplomat, and eventually also the Princeps’ son-in-law and father of his destined heirs, see, e. g., Roddaz 1984; for his autobiography and other intellectual expoits see most recently Geiger 2011. He visited his friend Herod in 15 BCE and offered a hecatomb at the Temple of Jerusalem (Jos., AJ 16.12–15; Philo, legatio 294–297). C. Caecilius A…ous Comic actor from Antiochia (Daphne), attested at Caesarea, 1st–3rd c., InscrCaes no. 126, CIIP II, 1135 Hadrianus The emperor was also a man of letters, author of an autobiography (HRR II, 117–8) and of a variety of speeches as well as occasional poetry: Schanz-Hosius 1922, III, 6–9; for his visit to the site of Jerusalem and the foundation of Aelia Capitolina as 23

See GLAJJ III, pp. 1–4; Kaplan 2002, 235, and most recently L. E. Stager 2011, 3–5.

Part I: A Prosopography of Greek Intellectuals in Palestine

Appendix A: Visitors (in chronological order)

45

well as his passing through Gaza on his way to Egypt see discussion in Halfmann 1986, 207. Pausanias All we know about the author of the Description of Greece derives from his work. Though he describes only Greece, he visited Rome, Egypt, Syria and Palestine (GLAJJ II, no. CVIII, pp. 191–200), where in a passage describing the Jordan (5.7.4) he explicitly says ‘I saw’. He also tells about a spring close to Jaffa red from the blood of the monster killed by Perseus (4.35.9), and the tomb of Helen in Jerusalem (8.16.4–5) – this last was probably not an eye-witness account. Aelius Aristides The famous orator informs us about his visit to Scythopolis, probably in 142 or close to that date (see GLAJJ II, pp. 218–219) though we do not know what the purpose of the visit was or whether he visited, as is probable, other cities in this country. A contemporary inscription boasting of the city’s Hellenic identity (Foerster/Tsafrir 1986–1987) assures us that he must have received a friendly, and probably an enthusiastic, welcome. We are told that Basilides was a teacher of Marcus Aurelius, and in the third century the doctor and philosopher Paulinus and the actor M. Aurelius Pylades are examples of the Hellenic culture of the city. Galenus The great doctor testifies that he ‘went… to Coele-Syria, which constitutes a part of Palaestina, because of the asphalt and some other things worthy of investigation…’ (De simpl. medic. 9.1.2 = GLAJJ II, p. 321 no. 382), describes his visit to the Dead Sea (ibid. 9.2.10 = GLAJJ II, p. 322 no. 384) and his return from the country (ibid. 9.3.8 = GLAJJ II, p. 323, no. 385) taking with him opobalsamum (de antidotis 1.2 = GLAJJ II, p. 325, no. 390); see also Flavius Boethus on their acquaintance and friendship in Rome. Marcus Aurelius For his passing through Palestine on his way to Egypt (in late 175, or perhaps on his way back in the next year) see Amm. Marc. 22.5.5; GLAJJ II, pp. 605–6; Halfmann 1986, 213. Proclus 1 The Mishna, Avoda Zarah (=Idolatry) 3.4, tells about a ‘philosophus’ (vv. ll.) who bathed with Rabban Gamliel in the Aphrodite Baths in Acre; both the question of the identity of the Sage (early second c., or his descendant in the early third), and of the Greek are controversial. Here it is recommended to accept the proposal of Wasserstein 1980 and to opt for the later Sage and to read ‘Proclus’, referring to the well-known Egyptian sophist from Naucratis. A piece of supporting circumstantial evidence is the fact, that the famous sophist Hadrian of Tyre was both familiar with Flavius Boethus of Ptolemais and was the teacher of Proclus 1 – he may well have established the connection.

46

Part I: A Prosopography of Greek Intellectuals in Palestine

Iamblichus Eunapius, VP 459 tells about the visit of the Neoplatonic philosopher from Chalcis in Syria at the not very distant hot springs of Gadara (not in GLAJJ); see also Geiger 1986. Eustathius Rhetor from Caria who studied in Athens and settled in Tyre, and eventually became, after lesser offices, governor of Syria. Already in his youth he declaimed in Phoenicia and Palestine, and his son studied with Libanius (or. 55). RE VI, 1447–1448, no. 4 (O. Seeck); Seeck 1906, no. 5, pp. 147–8; PLRE I, no. 6 Rufinus This Christian architect was brought from Antioch in 402 in order to build the Church of Eudoxia in Gaza: Marcus Diaconus, Vita Porphyri 78 (Gregoire-Kugener p. 62). ?Proclus 2 Marinus, Proclus 19 tells us, that among the gods specially revered and also made subjects of hymns by his master were Marnas of Gaza and Asclepius Leontouchos of Ascalon (on whom see Geiger 2012a = in this volume Part II, ch. 7a below) as well as Arabian Theandrites. This may well be evidence for a visit to this country, especially since the said Asclepius is not mentioned anywhere else. Iulia Marcus Diaconus, Vita Porph. 85–91, tells us the story of Iulia,24 a Manichean preacher,25 not young, who came to Gaza from Antioch around 400 and met with the resistance of Porphyry, who cursed her and eventually caused her death and the conversion of her companions. She is here included because Marcus emphasises the Manichean insistence on Hellenic thought and their belief in astrology (85) and connects them with Philistion, the Augustan inventor of the mime, and with Hesiod (86) – though it is not quite clear whether this is a connection of the sect or specifically of Iulia. At any rate, according to Marcus she possessed κοσμικὴ παιδεία to a higher degree than the four youths partaking in the discussion. Constantinus Aen. ep. 9 recommended the Latin ‘wandering’ poet (cf. Al. Cameron 1965). RE IV, 1032, no. 12 (W. Schmid) ?Damascius The last Head of the Neoplatonic School in Athens may have visited Gaza with his teacher Isidorus, see Dam. frg. 133 and discussion in Part II, ch. 5 below. 24 25

For the problems of the text see Z. Rubin 1998, 31–66. The lengthy and tedious discussion of Scopello 1997, 187–209 is based on the Greek text alone and does not take account of the Georgian, where she is described as a ‘pagan’; Lim 1995, 82–87 leaves the question of her being a philosopher open.

Appendix A: Visitors (in chronological order)

47

?Isidorus 3 The last Head but one of the Neoplatonic School in Athens may have visited Gaza with his pupil Damascius, see Dam. frg. 133 and discussion in Part II, ch. 5 below. Theodorus 5 Architect sent by Justinian to build the Nea Church in Jerusalem, Cyr. Scyth., VS 73 (p. 177).

48

Part I: A Prosopography of Greek Intellectuals in Palestine

APPENDIX B: THE CIRCLE OF HEROD A much wider, and more loosely defined, list will be found in Roller 1998, 54–65.26 Andromachus 2 Herod’s adviser, ambassador and tutor of his sons (Jos. AJ 16.141–5; on the education of Herod’s sons see Mahieu 2008), accordingly certainly possessed of a rhetorical education, and possibly the Greek educator with the Latin Gemellus, both termed by Josephus ‘not undistinguished’; Andromachus 2 was dismissed because of the close friendship between his son Demetrius and Alexander, the son of Herod. Diophantus Herod’s secretary (Jos. BJ 1.529; AJ 16.319: γραμματέυς) and expert on falsifying handwriting – his office certainly required a notable accomplishment in Greek. Gemellus Herod’ adviser, ambassador and tutor of his sons (Jos. AJ 16.141–145). Judging by his name and the fact that he accompanied Alexander, Herod’s son, to Rome he was probably the Latin tutor with the Greek tutor Andromachus 2. The two were termed by Josephus ‘not undistinguished’; Gemellus was dismissed because of his close relations with Alexander (on the education of Herod’s sons see Mahieu, 2008). *Nicolaus of Damascus, the famous historian and philosopher, was of course the by far most important and most influential among the king’s intellectual friends. His stay at the court of Jerusalem was the third stage of his career after his birth and upbringing in Damascus and his time at the court of Cleopatra and Antony in Alexandria, where he was tutor to their children; a fourth, in Rome, was to follow. Born about 64 BCE into a high class family he was interested in both Peripatetic philosophy and in history. He is attested at the court of Herod in 14 BCE but probably came there much earlier, perhaps not long after the defeat and decease of his former patrons, and served there as diplomat and intellectual adviser: FGrH 90, F 135 attests to his part in Herod’s interest in philosophy, rhetoric and history, and no doubt he influenced the decision of the king to compose an autobiography (Jos., AJ 15.165–174). Nicolaus himself composed a great number of works, the most important being his Universal History in 144 books, from earliest times to the death of Herod in 4 BCE, according to the historian written at the initiative of the king. In its later parts Jewish affairs occupied a considerable part and became the main source for Jos., AJ 15–17. In Rome he composed his Autobiography as well as the biography of Augustus’ early years based on the Princeps’ own Autobiography and some philosophical works, of which parts survive in Syriac and Arabic.

26

The recently deciphered Homeric inscription in Herodium (Ecker 2012) is one more piece on circumstantial evidence for the Hellenic culture at the court of Herod.

Appendix B: The Circle of Herod

49

The very concept of an intellectual circle around the figure of Nicolaus is but a hypothesis, though a fairly credible one. The bibliography is extensive, for a somewhat overhauled overview see Wacholder 1962; see also GLAJJ I, 227–260; Schürer 1978, 28–32, and recently, Parmentier / Prometea Barone 2011, a reprint of FGrH 90 along with a facing-page translation into French and extensive footnotes. ?Olympus Friend and ambassador of Herod (Jos. AJ 16.332, BJ 1.535). It has been proposed to identify him with Cleopatra’s doctor (Plut., Ant. 82), and indeed he may have been a source for Plutarch’s biography (Cichorius 1922, 317). The name is not uncommon, but it is not unreasonable to assume that a number of people from Cleopatra’s court joined Nicolaus, like ?Olympus and Philostratus. Philostratus Like Olympus, this name in not uncommon. The Augustan poet Crinagoras of Lesbos27 devoted to him an epigram (AP 7.645), according to which he attained high honours from kings on the Nile and in Judaea, and was buried in Ostracina, east of Pelusium, but the text is difficult (Cichorius 1922, 314–317). The identification with Philostratus, a sophist at the court of Cleopatra, who eventually became an Academic philosopher (Plut., Ant. 80.3, Philostr. VS 1.5) is very likely and it is probable that he moved on to the court of Herod as a sort of court philosopher (see Roller 1998, 62–63, and more cautiously GLAJJ I, 217–219). It is possible to identify him with the philosopher met by the Younger Cato in Sicily in the Civil War (Plut. Cato min. 57.4 and see Geiger 1971, 347, but rejecting the identification with the unnamed philosopher, whom Cato encountered in Cyprus). On the other hand it is most difficult to accept the identification with the Philostratus who wrote a history of Phoenicia and of India (and with a slight correction (Ἰνδικαῖς -> Ιουδαικαῖς), of Judaea (rejected by FGrH 789, see Jos., AJ 10.228, cAp 1.144): we have no evidence for the sophist-philosopher’s interest in history, and we should not heap on the reasonable hypothesis of his moving to the court of Herod the unnecessary one of writing (at the king’s request?) a Jewish history. ?Ptolemaeus 4 The brother of Nicolaus is mentioned as one of Herod’s closest friends in the context of the king’s death (Jos., BJ 2.21, AJ 17.225) and one may assume, that he was educated like his brother (Suda s. v. Antipatros A 2705 mentions them together in the matter of their father’s testament), but at any rate in that dispute Antipas preferred the rhetorical services of Irenaeus.

27

Roller 1998, 62, n. 74 discusses the possible connections between Crinagoras and Herod, but these are certainly not sufficient to include him in this Prosopography.

50

Part I: A Prosopography of Greek Intellectuals in Palestine

APPENDIX C: JEWS AND SAMARITANS These Jews and Samaritans do not come under the heading of Jewish-Hellenistic literature, viz. literature in Greek according to the rules of Greek literature and its genres but devoted to Jewish contents. This literature, discussed in a wide variety of publications, is usually assumed to have ceased after the Bar-Kochba rebellion (132–6). This Appendix will list some Jewish men of letters who wrote in Greek without a special reference to their Jewishness, and thus also provide some indirect evidence for those who were no doubt responsible for the Greek education of these Jews. The list is roughly chronological. ?Dositheus Netz 1998 proposed, that Dositheus of Pelusium, the addressee of most of the pure mathematical works of Archimedes, was a Jew. This is based mainly on the name, widely used by Jews (but not uncommon with non-Jews), and to a lesser degree on the provenance close to Palestine. ?Dositheus was apparently an astronomer, and perhaps studied pure mathematics for that purpose. Herodes For the king’s interest in philosophy, rhetoric and history see FGrH 90 F 135 (Nicolaus). He composed an autobiography (Jos. AJ 15.165–174), like many Hellenistic rulers, no doubt in Greek, as it was used by Nicolaus, the source of Josephus (cf. Geiger 2011). Though we possess only a single fragment of the work it is clear from its very genre, entirely absent from Jewish literature, that it may not be subsumed under the heading of Hellenistic-Jewish literature, nor would one expect this knowing all we do about Herod. ?Halityrus The ethnic identity of this late first century actor is unclear, see Leppin 1992, 247 and Index. Iustus The author of one or two works on Jewish history (see Schürer 1978, 35–37), is included here for his possible authorship of a work of not Jewish contents. Diog. La. 2.41, in the biography of Socrates, says: ‘Justus of Tiberias in his book entitled The Wreath (ἐν τῷ Στέμματι) says that in the course of the trial Plato mounted the platform and began: “Though I am the youngest, men of Athens, of all who ever rose to address you” – whereupon the judges shouted out, “Get down! Get down!”’ On the face of it this is a work on Greek philosophers rather than on Jews, though it is of some interest to note that although Plato mentions himself as present at the trial (Apol. 38B) the anecdote is otherwise unknown, and is probably a late invention. Most scholars reject an independent work and prefer to see this as a passage from Jewish chronography.28 Their reasons are, first, Phot. Bibl. 33, who quotes a 28

See Rajak 1973 and cf. GLAJJ II, p. 334, who praises Rajak, but sums up: ‘However, it is more

Appendix C: Jews and Samaritans

51

work by Justus: χρονικόν, οὗ ἐπιγραφὴ Ιούστου Τιβεριέως Ιουδαίων βασιλέων τῶν ἐν τοῖς στέμμασιν, taken as referring to the same work; second, we have no evidence for Justus dealing with non-Jewish subjects and the passage in Diogenes Laertius may have been a digression in a work on the Jewish war. However, the arguments on the other side are not less compelling: Josephus admits the Greek education of his hated rival (Jos., Vita 40, 66), he and the ecclesiastical writers interested in Justus had no reason to mention non-Jewish works by him, if they existed. Thus a second look at the passage in Diogenes is indicated. He displays no interest in Jews and on top of our quote he refers to Jews only once more (1.9; GLAJJ II, pp. 332–3) – how than did the story from a Jewish work by Justus reach him? Also there is the disparity in the number of στέμμα. Of course there exists the possibility of an extensive work with different parts devoted to different subjects given different titles, and it seems that the question has to be left open. Rufus The doctor from Samaria, mentioned by Galen some half a dozen times (some preserved in the original and some in the Arabic translation of Ḥunein ibn Isḥak, see the comprehensive discussion of Pfaff 1932, followed by Walzer 1949, 9, 17, 80), may have been a Jew or a Samaritan (and Galen may not have known the difference, see GLAJJ II, p. 309, n. 7). We do not know about Jews living in Samaria in the second century, and thus Rufus is included here with a doubtful identity. According to Galen’s not very sympathetic account Rufus did not have any Greek when coming to Rome, where he acquired the commentaries on Hippocrates and wrote his own commentaries based on them, diligently but unoriginally. Galen contrasts him with Rufus of Ephesus, but still uses sometimes his textual traditions. The proposal of Muntner 1972, that Rufus took his name because of its resemblance for the Hebrew word for ‘doctor’ (viz., rofe) has to be rejected, since the name is fairly wide spread among Jews, see Ilan 2002, I, 338; II, 539–540. ?Iudas Leppin 1992, 251–252 and Index, thinks that like his son Pylades he may have been a pantomime; the name points at a Jew. ?Gamaliel Marcellus, de medicamentis 23.77: ‘ad splenum remedium singulare, quod de experimentis probatis Gamalielis patriarchas proxime ostendit’ may refer to a Greek book on medicine. The patriarch in question is Gamaliel VI, who died before 429, cf. GLAJJ II, 581–3. Libanius’ letters to the patriarch (GLAJJ II, 589–599), never referred to by his name, are cast in a style assuming a Hellenic education – but of course one cannot dismiss the possibility of the patriarch relying on help with his Greek correspondence; see also van der Horst 2003. natural to assume that Diogenes Laertius used not a work by Justus bearing on an exclusively Jewish subject, i. e. the Jewish king-lists, excerpted from a history of the Jewish war, but one having more general purport.’

52

Part I: A Prosopography of Greek Intellectuals in Palestine

?Son of Gamaliel The young man mentioned in the letter studied with Libanius, but there are doubts about the addressee, see GLAJJ II, 595–6. ?Symmachus A funerary inscription from Caesarea displays Jewish symbols, and the word μη] ΧΑΝ[ικοῦ, but the occupation of the man remains controversial, see Schwabe 1950/51; Lifshitz 1960. InscrCaes 171; CIIP II, 1550 Domnus The famous doctor and teacher of Gessius. PLRE II, no. 2 Arsenius Arsenius and his two sons, Sallustius and Silvanus, all three scholastikoi, are mentioned in an inscription at Scythopolis from 500/1 or 515/6, see Di Segni 1999, 638–640. They (viz., Arsenius and Silvanus, and implicitly Sallustius) are known as Samaritans, though not as scholastikoi, from Cyr. Scyth. VS 61, 71. Sallustius See on Arsenius above. Silvanus See on Arsenius above.

Appendix D: Intellectuals from Petra

53

APPENDIX D: INTELLECTUALS FROM PETRA Petra was the capital of Palaestina Tertia (Salutaris) and had lively connections with the other Nabataean cities of the Negev. Arrianus Eight verse defective funerary inscription of twenty-six year old, alluding to him as an expert on Roman law (Αὐσονίων … θεσμῶν); between third and fifth centuries: Merkelbach/Stauber p. 445, no. 22/71/03. Callinicus The famous sophist, also called Suctorius or Suetorius, the son of ?Gaius, was apparently active in Athens in the second half of the third century (his dating to Constantine is erroneous, except if he lived for very long). Among his many speeches were exemplary panegyrics to the patria, and speeches at the ship’s anchoring (Men. Rhet. 2, 370, 386–387); he is mentioned in the same breath with the great rhetors Aelius Aristides, Polemon and Hadrian of Tyre. According to the Suda he composed a public speech to the emperor Gallienus, a speech to Lupus (identified by Stein as a high official in the East) on bad taste in rhetoric, a work on the history of Alexandria (addressed to Cleopatra, identified by Stein as Zenobia), a work on the renewal of the Romans and a polemical work against the philosophical sects. Of all this there remain few fragments, but a part of his εἰς τὰ πάτρια Ῥώμης has been preserved in a MS (see FGrH 281 F 1). His rhetorical, historical and philosophical writings combined with a possible participation in political life make him an exceptionally interesting figure. From our point of view it is notable that his main rival in Athens was Genethlius of Petra. Pernot 2010 reconsiders him and prints a far longer collection of fragments than Jacoby. In a passage taken from Hier., in Dan. 11.21 dealing with the wars between Syria and Egypt there is a reference to the defeat of Judas Maccabaeus; Jerome quotes as his source Porphyry, who followed ‘Sutori[us] (v. l. Suctorius) videlicet Callinic[us]’. GLAJJ II, no. 464n, prints this among the texts of Porphyry, and rather amazingly does not refer to Callinicus even in the Index – the passage was printed already as FGrH 281 F 2. However, it should be admitted that not every detail quoted by Jerome derives necessarily from Callinicus. Stein 1923; RE X, 1649–1650 (F. Jacoby), Kallinikos no. 1, cf. no. 2, 4 (the identity of the rival of Genethlius and of the author of the work attributed to Menander is at issue); PIR2 C 229; PLRE I, no. 1; FGrH 281 Dusareius He took part in a philosophical discussion on language; Bernays 1862 (1885) identified him and his city in a reference in Ammonius. Epiphanius 3 Sophist, son of Ulpianus, known from Eun., VS, where he is referred to as ‘Syrian’, and the Suda. First among the Eastern students in Athens, he taught both there as a

54

Part I: A Prosopography of Greek Intellectuals in Palestine

rival of Prohaeresius and in Petra. He was famous in Libanius’ youth, though he did not study with him, and died quite young before 362. According to the Suda he composed Περὶ κοινωνίας καὶ διαφορᾶς τῶν στάσεων, προγυμνάσματα, μελέτας, Δημάρχους, Πολεμαρχικόν, λόγους ἐπιδεικτικούς and diverse other works. Like many other sophists he apparently wrote poetry, and he should be identified with the sophist Epiphanius who composed a hymn to Bacchus together with Theodotus, later bishop of Laodicea (Soz., HE 6.25.9–10). It is also possible to identify him with the Epiphanius who wrote commentaries on Dem. 8 and 18 (here he is mentioned together with Genethlius). If so, he may have continued the work on Demosthenes of Ulpianus 1, who may have been his father, see discussion in Part II, ch. 5 below. N. b. that we hear only about his teaching in Petra, not his provenance from the city. Another possibility is to identify him with the author on στάσεις, of which a few fragments survive, perhaps identical with the first of the works mentioned by the Suda (see Gloeckner 1901, 93–94). RE VI, 195–6, no. 8 (W. Schmid); cf. no. 7, 10 (J. Brzoska): the above discussion is based on the possibility of identifying the men in the three entries. ?Gaius The father of Callinicus, perhaps identical with an author of declamations quoted by Stobaeus. PLRE I, no. 1 Genethlius Our main source is the Suda. A sophist, the son of Genethlius and rival of Callinicus in Athens in the second half of the third century, he died aged twenty eight. He was a pupil of Minucianus, thus he studied (also?) at Athens, and could memorise a declamation at a single hearing. He composed informal talks and declamations – one subject from ancient history was on one who has no city after Alexander destroyed Thebes -, propemptica for two of his friends, and panegyrics. He was a commentator on Demosthenes (schol. Demosth. 18.8), and the περὶ ἐπιδεικτικῶν attributed to Menander Rhetor is assigned to him by one MS, perhaps rightly: one of the reasons for this attribution is his praise of deserts (see Russell/Wilson 1981, XXXVI–XXXVII, 226). RE VII, 1134–1135, no. 2 (W. Schmid); PLRE I s. v. Gessius The famous iatrosophist under Zeno was a correspondent of Aeneas 1 and Procopius 1 and one of the speakers in Zacharias 1’s de opificio mundi. He was a pupil of the Jewish doctor Domnus and of Ammonius in Alexandria: we are told that he taught there and that, though baptised, he remaned secretly loyal to the Old Religion. Watts 2009 is an interesting analysis of his fame unto the Arabic tradition. Until now no texts of Gessius were extant, but recently it has been argued by Kessel 2012 that a Syriac manuscript written before 705, formerly in Jerusalem and now in

Appendix D: Intellectuals from Petra

55

˘

Damascus, contains a translation by Sergius of Rēs aynā of part of Gessius’ commentary, based on Galen, of Book Six of the Hippocratic Epidemics. RE VII, 1324, s. v. Gessios (W. Schmid); PLRE II, no. 3; Szabat 2007, no. 94

56

Part I: A Prosopography of Greek Intellectuals in Palestine

APPENDIX E: VERSE INSCRIPTIONS FROM PALESTINE Verse inscriptions may have been composed here, or abroad and only inscribed in this country. Though as a rule anonymous, they testify to an acquaintance with literary Greek by the versifier, but probably also by whoever commissioned the inscription, if a different person, and probably also by some, at least, of the intended readers: this cannot be asserted about most prose inscriptions. Merkelbach/Stauber 2002 have collected the relevant material; some of it has been, and the rest will be, republished and updated in CIIP, with some additions. It is remarkable, that verse inscriptions have been found also on sites where we have no other literary evidence for educated Greeks. In the following I will only indicate, exempli gratia, some inscriptions that may point toward local authorship or have other interesting features. In the twelve verse funerary inscription of a son for his mother from Gophna (Imperial date) the acrostich Ῥούφος ἔκτισε may indicate the son as the author.29 In the funerary inscription of twenty-five year old Marcellinus from Paneas (Caesarea Philippi), of Imperial date, two lines directed at the dead were added on the side of the stone and beneath, in small letters, φίλος ὑπέγραψε; at least these two lines were composed by a local person.30 Eight verses of iambic trimeter from Hippos, refer to neighbouring Gadara as χρηστομουσία; the local-patriotic pride as well as the meter and the ἅπαξ λεγόμενον suggest a local author.31 A four verse Christian inscription from Beer Sheva (between 494 and 522), in poor Greek and taste displays, among others, the influence of Nonnus. It describes a wonderful artwork (not extant) depicting the heavens and was thus certainly locally composed.32 The same may be assumed of the two inscriptions of four verses each in the baths of Gadara (Emmatha) accompanying the two rich mosaics, one with the story of Hippolytus and Phaedra, the other of Dionysus and Heracles. Emmatha also contains an inscription of sixteen hexameters by the Empress Eudocia on the hot springs (cf. her entry in the Prosopography), as well as a number of verse inscriptions referring to renewed restoration of the baths.33 By far the most interesting, and most discussed, verse inscription from this country comes from Hellenistic Marissa, written before the destruction of the town towards the end of the second century BCE. The eight lines of difficult meter are a dialogue between a woman, now with another man, and her lover.34

29 30 31 32 33 34

Merkelbach-Stauber 2002, 332, no. 21/11/01. Merkelbach/Stauber 2002, 287, no. 20/16/02. Merkelbach/Stauber 2002, 343–4, no. 21/21/01. Merkelbach/Stauber 2002, 323–4, no. 21/07/01. Merkelbach/Stauber 2002, 346–351, nos. 21/22/01-06. Merkelbach/Stauber 2002, 327–8, no. 21/09/01.

PART II: GREEK INTELLECTUALS FROM ASCALON CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION In Part I above we had opportunity to consider the evidence for Greek intellectuals in Palestine in its entirety. Even a brisk perusal of it will endorse the brief conclusion hinted at in the Preface: intellectuals from this country were part and parcel of the great Greek world, with no specific characteristics to set them apart from their counterparts in other provinces of the Empire. A few indications of that Greekness may be noted. First and foremost, the language. Of course our evidence for spoken Greek, here as elsewhere, is extremely poor, but surely no local distinguishing mark can be attached to the literary language used by the numerous surviving authors. The same can be said about the literary genres employed by local poets, philosophers, historians, epistolographers and writers on scientific subjects. The adherence to the models of the past, the attempt to imitate the language and style of the classics of the various genres was common to every person with the slightest literary aspiration in the Greek world.1 The inevitable changes that occurred during the centuries did not make a distinction between the diverse parts of that world – Demosthenes, or what was perceived as the language and style of Demosthenes, was the same everywhere.2 Trying to imitate the style of the Athenian orators one took care not to sound like an Antiochian, Alexandrian, or Ascalonite – or even an Athenian eight hundred years or so after the Ten Attic Orators. Add to this the constant traffic between the various cities – study in Alexandria, connections with Antioch and Constantinople, lecturers and visitors coming and going – and one realises the truly global nature of Greek civilisation. If nevertheless some distinguishing characteristic of their language escaped writers from Palestine it does not seem to have been noticed by their contemporaries, or by modern scholars.3 All this, of course, has its parallel in the architectural and artistic developments of the Eastern Roman Empire. As for manifestations of Greek identity, Meleager of Gadara’s funerary epigram for himself, including the farewell words in Greek, Syrian (=Aramaic) and Phoenician (where the corruption is perhaps not textual, but by the poet himself), is unique, as is unique his reference to his Jewish rival (see Part I above, s. v.). Otherwise ignoring the Aramaic speakers of the land was an integral part of the Greek identity of the speakers of that language, living in a literary world far removed from their actual time and place. A vivid testimony are the scholars concerned with the purity of Greek, such as Dorotheus and Ptolemy from Ascalon (see in detail Part II, 1 2 3

In fact this adherence to the models of the past is the main parallel one can draw between the Greek and the Rabbinic authors in Palestine, see Geiger 2007. See on this particular point Part II, ch. 5 below. No Greek parallel to Adams 2007 is known to me. On the contrary Palestinian Aramaic has been thoroughly studied.

58

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

ch. 3 below), Theodorus 1 from Gadara (see Part I above, s. v.), and Orion 1, active much later in Caesarea (see Part I above, s. v.). All this of course does not mean that local patriotism, so evident elsewhere in the Greek world, was absent from the Greek cities of Palestine.4 Meleager described his city as Attic in Syria (AP 7.417.1–2), and another son of the city calls her an excellent dwelling of wisdom (χρηστομουσία) and labels the neighbouring town of Hippos, birthplace of his mother, wise (σοφή)5 – no doubt in Greek wisdom. Accordingly, when Josephus is recounting the conquests of Alexander Jannaeus, he calls Gadara, Hippos and Gaza Greek cities, and implicitly contrasts them to Straton’s Tower, Sebaste, Jaffa and Jerusalem (Jos., BJ 2.97; AJ 17.320). Scythopolis prides itself in being a Hellenic city,6 and a Late Antique rhetor from Gaza describes his city as ‘the shared mother of speeches’.7 To these pronouncements one may add the various encomiastic speeches on festive occasions, like those of Choricius, the ekphraseis praising local works of art by Choricius, John and Procopius of Gaza, all testifying to the local pride in belonging to Greek civilisation and, at least in their own eyes, of excelling in it. But not only in their own eyes: the first century neoPythagorean saint Apollonius of Tyana praises in a letter to the council of Caesarea their Greek customs.8 On the contrary, there is nothing in this local patriotism of the wider kind, beyond the limits of the city and including the entire country: the division into provinces was, in the first place, a matter of imperial administration. The above mentioned reference of Meleager of Gadara to his town as Attic in Syria (AP 7.419.7–8) comes to distinguish it from Aramaic and Phoenician speakers and is a linguistic definition. Moreover, this comes after a reference to his earlier compatriot Menippus – however both Meleager and his later compatriot Apsines are mentioned as Phoenicians by various writers.9 More examples may be added from the vicinity of Palestine:10 Ulpian of Tyre, the participant in Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae and almost certainly identical with the famous jurist, is called a Syrian-Attic (Συράττικος),11 viz., of pure Attic speech and Syrian descent; Heliodorus, the author of Aethiopica introduces himself as a Phoenician from Emessa, and, probably the most interesting case, the woman who asks Jesus to heal her daughter is called a Canaanite, viz. a gentile, a non-Jew, by Matthew (15:22) and ‘Greek, of SyrianPhoenician descent’ by Mark (7:26). Accordingly the woman spoke Greek, and the locality, not far from Tyre, made her a Syrian and Phoenician. Such contrasting 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11

See Geiger 1990. Perdrizet 1899, 49–50; Porter 1897. Foerster/Tsafrir 1986/87. Proc., ep. 110: ἡ κοινὴ τῶν λόγων μήτηρ. Philostr., Ap. Ty. ep. 11: ἥσθην ἥθεσιν Ἑλληνικοῖς φαίνουσι τὸ ἴδιον ἄγαθον καὶ διὰ γραμμάτων κοινῶν. The last two rather simple words have been so understood by C. P. Jones in his excellent new Loeb translation (Jones 2006, 19): ‘I was delighted by your Greek customs, which reveal your particular excellence by means of your public letter’, and cf. the previous translation in the same series (Conybeare 1950, II, 419: ‘I am pleased to see the manners of Hellenism revealing their own excellence, and doing it by means of public inscriptions’. See Diog. La. 6.99 (Meleager); Philostr., VS ad fin. (Apsines). See Geiger, 1990 and id. 2002. See Ath. 3.126f, and cf. 3.126a; 4.174c, 8.361f, 346c, 13.571a, 15.697c.

Chapter 1: Introduction

59

between pure Greek and the geographical setting, already emphasized by Meleager, occurs also in the inscription referred to above, in which Scythopolis prides itself of being one of the Hellenic cities of Coele Syria. No doubt the ‘other’ in these definitions of Greekness are the local Aramaic speakers.12 The few and rather uncertain indications of local concern, like Apsines’ repeated references to the Scythians (see Part I above, s. v.) or Genethlius’ interest in deserts (see Part I above, s. v.) hardly make for a country-wide awareness. Any wider identification was Syrian, and its main purpose was to emphasise Greekness despite the geographical location. Yet it is not uncalled-for to look at one city for its own sake, not in the context of wider questions, nor is it contrary to the due appreciation of Hellenism in the East to study the achievements of centres of the second rank. Quite the opposite, it is the accomplishments of a large number of such towns that will imply the true extent and depth of the progress of Hellenism. Ascalon has been singled out among Palestinian cities for the relatively long span of documentation, from the time of the Late Republic almost to the eve of the Muslim conquest. The only other Palestinian city with a similar range of evidence is Gadara, extending from Menippus in the third century BCE to the rhetorician Apsines in the third CE. Intellectuals from Caesarea, for a long time the capital of the province, and later of Palaestina Prima, start appearing in our evidence at a relatively late date, when the city has been at the centre of interest for a number of reasons, including its Christian learning and the library connected with it, and as the seat of Jewish Sages where one part of the Palestinian Talmud has been edited. The flourishing of Hellenic culture in Gaza was a matter of two or at most three generations only in the fifth and sixth centuries, with only a smattering of evidence from earlier times, and this period and its main figures have received ample attention. On the contrary Ascalon, regardless of the relatively rich and enduring, though not gapless, evidence seems to have been neglected in this respect.13 Ascalon is remarkable also for a different reason. It is the only city in Western Palestine, with the exception of the borderline case of Acre, that has never been under Jewish rule in Antiquity, and unlike Acre it has also not been known as a place where Sages have been active, though of course a Jewish presence in the city is well attested.14 Thus the insight offered is one into Hellenism without the admix12 These conclusions fit exactly with those of Millar 2007 and, less extensively, Millar 2009: the Orient of Libanius is entirely Greek without any reference to Aramaic speakers, and with few, and unsympathetic, mentions of Latin. 13 Two Hebrew books have been dedicated to it in relatively recent years: Fuks 2001 has little to say on intellectual history and clings to the strange convention of Israeli archaeologists, who divide the period into ‘Roman’, up to 324, and ‘Byzantine’ from that date on; see also Sasson/ Safrai/Sagiv 2001. 14 The main interest of the Sages in the city pertains to the rules of the Sabbatical year (viz., whether they apply there); for the archaeological evidence for Jewish presence see E. Stern 1993, I, s. v.; if there is an historical kernel in the story of Simon b. Shatach executing eighty women (witches) in Ascalon (Mishna, Sanhedrin 6.4; Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin 6.4, fol. 23c) it eludes me, though various scholars have found it convenient fodder for their hobby horses:

60

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

ture of the intriguing but entirely different question of Hellenism in Jewish Palestine – indeed the subject of the present book is Hellenism in Greek Palestine. The history and archaeology of Ascalon have been dealt with by experts in those fields. The following sketch does not pretend to originality or innovation and is meant only as a suitably minimal background for the studies that follow.15 The city is attested already in Egyptian sources of the 19th and 18th centuries BCE, and was under Egyptian suzerainty for most of the Late Bronze Age. The Philistines arrived in the city c. 1175 BCE, and it is known in the Hebrew Bible as one of the Philistine Pentapolis. In 734 the city acknowledged, except for a short revolt, Assyrian suzerainty, but revolted again, unsuccessfully (until 701), jointly with Hezekiah king of Judah. After a period of Egyptian rule the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Ascalon in 604 BCE. Under Persian rule the city became a ‘city of the Tyrians’. After Alexander Ascalon, like the rest of Palestine, was first ruled by the Ptolemies and after 198 BCE by the Seleucids, and was exceptional in that it succeeded in maintaining its independence against the Hasmonaeans. In the first century BCE Ascalon was autonomous, and Herod’s generous building activity there may be connected in some way to the story, according to which he or his family hailed from the city. Ascalon defended itself from the Jewish rebels in the Great Rebellion, but later, when the city was flourishing in the Roman Empire and Late Antiquity, it had also a sizeable Jewish population. The city was conquered by the Muslims in 636. Ascalon has yielded rich excavation results, starting with the Neolithic period. For our purposes we may start with Greek imports from the 6th to 4th centuries BCE and the remains of some buildings of the Hellenistic period. The traces of the theatre belong already to the first-second centuries CE, and a complex interpreted as a bouleterion combined with a peristyle with impressive sculptural remains may date from the Severan dynasty, as does the imposing basilica. Other remarkable finds of this period include a tomb with extensive paintings and some coffins with artistic adornments. A bathhouse of the fourth century and rich amphora finds attest the city’s wealth in Late Antiquity, and its religious life is vouched for by the remains of two churches and a synagogue. The history and archaeology of this relatively sizeable city, in its prime perhaps comprising 55 ha and boasting of some 15,000 inhabitants, are both well known and are still being investigated on a large scale. It is time to turn to the Greek intellectuals originating from that city.

15

Efron 1988 sees the story (and generally Talmudic myths) as historical; Hengel 1984 believes the story to tell a moral, and for Ilan 2001 it is grist to the feminist mill. For basic information see E. Stern 1993, I, 103–112.

Chapter 2: Two Early Witnesses

61

CHAPTER 2: TWO EARLY WITNESSES Our earliest indications about Greek intellectual life in Ascalon are inscriptions found in Greece. The first of these is a monument discovered in the Kerameikos at Athens at the end of the nineteenth century.16 The Phoenician script has been dated to the late fourth to early third centuries, the Greek script to the late third-second centuries, with the epitaph and the epigram carved by different hands. Given the far from exact dating by the style of the letters a date somewhere in the third century, viz. at a fairly early stage of Hellenism, may be presumed. The monument consists of three parts. The first is a relief of a dead man lying on a bier, on his one side an attacking lion and on the other a man trying to rescue the corpse; in the background the prow of a ship can be seen. The second part is a bilingual inscription, in Greek and Phoenician, telling us that the name of the deceased is Antipatros son of Aphrodisios from Ascalon or Shem17 son of Abdashtart from Ascalon, respectively; the monument has been erected by Domsalos son of Domano from Sidon (in Greek) or Domseleh son of Domhano from Sidon (in Phoenician). One should note here the appearance of double names, Semitic and Greek, of the Ascalonite quite some time before this became fashionable among the Jews of Palestine, while the Sidonians were content with giving their Semitic names also somewhat more Greek sounding forms. Since the monument belongs to the first generations of the Hellenistic age this is most significant – the Semitic name suggests that the man was not a Greek settler but of local stock. The process of Hellenisation is also clearly to be seen in the equation of Aphrodite with Ashtarte. Interestingly enough, the first piece of evidence of the awareness of the Greeks of this equation (Hdt 1.105; cf. also Paus. 1.14.7) is connected with the temple of ‘Aphrodite Urania’ in Ascalon, according to Herodotus’ informants the oldest of the shrines of the goddess. In fact what we have here is the Ascalonites’ acceptance of the interpretatio Graeca – or did they arrive independently at the same conclusion as the Greeks? At any rate, the equation was already known to the grandparents of Antipatros when naming their son, so it must have been quite close to Alexander’s conquest – indeed, to his camping not far from Ascalon at the time of the siege of Gaza. Nevertheless, even in this third generation or so of Hellenisation, both the Semitic name and the language were still retained. In contrast, the Sidonian Abdashtart, literally ‘servant of Ashtarte’, did not use a Greek equivalent of his name.18 More interesting still is the third part, a Greek epigram consisting of six hexameters. Put in the first person of Antipatros-Shem it describes, not entirely clearly, the story of his death, the rescue of his body and his burial by his friends. We are informed that they travelled in a ‘sacred ship’, obviously on a religious mission. It is 16

17 18

See the exhaustive discussion, with full bibliography, J. M. S. Stager 2005; however, she is not yet aware of the analysis by Fantuzzi/Hunter 2004, 329–330, emphasising the Oriental connections of the monument; see also Hölscher / v. Möllendorf 2008; the interpretation of Korenjak 2013 in unconvincing. A letter may be missing and the name could be Shem-. Millar 1983, 60–61 (= Millar 2006, 40) puts these names in a wider context.

62

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

stated that he left Phoenicia and is buried ‘in this land’, thus assuring us that he was indeed an inhabitant of his native city and not a member of the sizeable Phoenician colony at Athens.19 Though nothing is known about the matter except for what can be learnt from the monument a few conclusions may easily be reached. Whatever the Phoenician religious associations of the relief commissioned by the deceased’s friends, it is inconceivable that they would care to inscribe the monument in a language he had not mastered, if it was not his first language anyway, nor in a literary idiom he would not be capable to appreciate. The dating of the monument is an important witness to the early spread of even the deeper and more fundamental aspects of Hellenism, way beyond the use of Greek names: though well known already in the classical age, it is in Hellenistic times that the epigram gained its great popularity. It is momentous to encounter evidence for this development in the once Philistine city of Ascalon. Though the second part of the monument does not discriminate between the two languages used, the recourse to Greek as the literary idiom in the third clearly privileges that language as the preferred cultural medium. Of special interest is the use of ἐχθρολεών, a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, in the epigram: whatever its exact reference, it testifies to some confidence in the use of the language. We may assume without much hesitation that Ascalon provided already at that early stage of the Hellenistic age an education and a cultural ambience commensurate with the appreciation of quite sophisticated Greek poetry. The other man from Ascalon celebrated by epigrams found in Greece belongs to a considerably later time. Philostratos the son of Philostratos is known from some dozen and a half inscriptions from Delos, attesting to his wealth, social position and his generous donations on the island.20 These included a double portico and an exedra with Ionic columns and pilasters in the forum of the Italians, altars to the Syrian deities and an exedra on Mount Cynthus. He also contributed a sum to the theatre at the Syrian Sanctuary (ID 2628). On a great cylindrical altar there is a dedication on his own behalf and on behalf of the city of Ascalon, as well as on behalf of his unnamed wife and children, to Ἀστάρτη Παλαιστινὴ Οὐρανία Ἀφροδίτη, as well as a similar dedication, repeated on two faces of an altar, to Ποσειδὼν Ἀσκαλωνίτης (ID 1719). Beside a number of statues of Philostratus, there also existed a statue to his sons. One of these is known by name from the epigram to be discussed as Philadelphus, another from a different inscription as Theophilus, and so is a nephew of his, Diodotus the son of Antipater of Ascalon, as well as one of his slaves by name of Chaereas. The best evidence, however, for the personality of Philostratos is a statue base, from which we learn that he was a Neapolitan – the city in question can only be Naples where he must have secured for himself the citizenship -, banker (τραπεζιτεύοντα) in Delos and formerly a negotiator ([χ]ρεματί[ζ]ον[τα) in Ascalon; the dedicators of the statue to their benefactor were Publius, Gaius and Gnaeus, the sons of Quintus Egnatius, the sculptor was Lysippus the son of Lysip19 20

For which see Garland 1987, 64–66 and cf. J. M. S. Stager 2005, 443–4. Mancinetti Santamaria 1989.

Chapter 2: Two Early Witnesses

63

pus (ID 1724).21 Also Philostratus’ son Theophilos is attested as a Neapolitan, and an ephebe in the late nineties of the first century BCE. Not less than four statues were dedicated to Philostratus, by his nephew Diodotus, by the Egnatii, by the Italici in their forum respectively, and lastly by the same Italici a statue, whose base contains two epigrams. Of course, it is neither his wealth nor his philanthropy that earns Philostratus a place in the present discussion, but these epigrams and the few facts in the other inscriptions that shed some light on them. These last include the Greek names of all known members of his family without any recourse to Semitic ones, the mention of Palestine and of Ascalon in the inscriptions as well as the dedications to deities associated with that city – clearly, despite the residence in Delos and the Neapolitan citizenship, no doubt advantageous in many ways, the connection with Ascalon was proudly maintained. Now for the epigrams. They consist of twelve lines, viz. six elegiac distichs, each and each is signed by the poet, Antipater of Sidon and Antisthenes of Paphos, respectively. Their state of preservation is poor and their restoration is not above disagreement.22 The similarity in contents, combined with the uniformity of length, could not have been a coincidence, and must be ascribed to the Italians, commissioners of the statue. There is no knowing in what way, if at all, Philostratus himself was involved in all this. Both epigrams celebrate Philostratus’ generosity, that included, on top of the double portico already mentioned, also a tripod to Zeus, a silver vessel to Artemis, referred to in both epigrams as ‘daughter of Leto’, and two golden cups to Apollo. Nevertheless it seems to be the best bet, that he himself was the ultimate source of the uniform enumeration of his generosity. Most pertinent for our quest is the fact, that both epigrams praise Philostratus’ Palestinian provenance – hardly a circumstance that would have run contrary to the wishes of the dedicatee. The two compositions look very much like a poetic contest, in which the exact details of the contents have been prescribed. If so, this is an additional indicator of Philostratus’ standing: Antisthenes of Paphos is also the author of another epigram on Delos of the same length with subscription23, but it is noteworthy that he is competing with Antipater of Sidon, one of the foremost poets of his times and one of the best known and best appreciated epigrammatists of the Hellenistic age.24 Whether Ascalon’s Sidonian connections play a part in this we cannot know – note also the above mentioned brother or brother-in-law of Philostratus named Antipater – but for sure no effort has been spared to gain the best available poets for the epigrams (and one assumes something similar for the sculptor of the statue on whose base they were inscribed). Our main interest is, however, in Philostratus and the other members of his family. Even if not actively involved in the commission of the epigrams, they must 21

22 23 24

RE XIV, 64, no. 8 (A. Lippold); another sculpture signed by him on Delos is of Roma. He hailed from Heraclea, though we don’t know which town by that name. One wonders whether this family of sculptors did not take their names in honour of their great fourth century predecessor. On the whole the best reconstruction is by Peek 1941. ID 1533 is an epigram on Simalos of Salamis. See Clack 2001, 6–10 for an appreciation.

64

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

have been in a position to appreciate the poetic production, including that by one of the most celebrated poets of the age. (Incidentally, Antipater’s presumed dates, ca. 170–100, agree well with the dated ephebic inscription of Philostratus’ son.) Though we cannot reconstruct in detail the course of his life, the repeated emphasis on Palestine (also in both epigrams) and the half a dozen or so references to his being an Ascalonite, alongside the reference to his doing business there in the various inscriptions, would not harmonise with the assumption that he came late in life to Delos and acquired only there his Greek education. On the contrary, the entire dossier creates the impression that he was an utterly hellenised, and apparently welleducated, person already in Ascalon. In fact, the only hint at an un-Hellenic component in Ascalon is the inscription equating Aphrodite Urania with Astarte – an equation, as we have seen, at least as old as Herodotus. All this of course would reflect on the city and the cultural attainments of at least a certain social milieu in it in the last quarter of the second century BCE. It would indeed be perverse to assume that the two monuments that survived by chance and discussed here were utterly unrepresentative.25 This impression may be put in the wider context of time and space. As we shall see (Part II, ch. 4 below) Ascalon was, a hundred years or so later, home to an epigrammatist some of whose poems are preserved in the Anthology, and on whom the influence of Antipater of Sidon is readily discernible. More or less contemporary with the Ascalonite banker, though at the other end of the country – still, not more than a hundred miles as the crow flies – Gadara was the birthplace of Meleager, himself one of the best poets of the Hellenistic age, and the editor of the Garland that was the foundation of what was to become the Greek Anthology, and this just early enough to leave out his fellow citizen, the poet and Epicurean philosopher Philodemus. Incidentally, one of the extant poems by Meleager (AP 7.428) is a sepulchral epigram for Antipater of Sidon – it seems that the ties of Antipater with Palestinian cities went far beyond the compliments paid to the rich and educated banker on Delos. Indeed, the epigrams for Philostratus are just forerunners to the great cultural flourishing of Ascalon that will be the subject of the next chapter.

25 Indeed, just to give examples of the identification of Ascalonites as Tyrians one may mention that in 218 CE an Ascalonite refers to Heracles-Belos, that is Tyrian Melkart, as his ancestral god, see IGRR I 1092; also in the third century a Gazan is attested as φοινικάρχης, see OGIS 596, and Part I, s. v. Ptolemaeus 3.

Chapter 3: The Flourishing of Hellenic Culture

65

CHAPTER 3: THE FLOURISHING OF HELLENIC CULTURE The most compact witness to the great flourishing of Hellenic culture, that is to say an impressive group of Greek intellectuals from Ascalon between the late 2nd century BCE and the 1st century CE, is a passage in Stephanus of Byzantium under the entry Ascalon: And many from her became famous, on the one hand Antiochus ‘the Swan’, Sosus, Antibius and Eubius the famous Stoics, and on the other hand the grammarians Ptolemaeus, the acquaintance of Aristarchus, and Dorotheus, and the historians Apollonius and Artemidorus, who wrote on the affairs of Bithynia, and others.26

Stephanus lists here eight persons from three major disciplines, philosophy, grammar and history, some of them well known from other sources and others that are entirely unknown. We cannot tell whether the ‘others’ added at the tail end of the entry is an all-purpose statement devoid of any concrete contents or whether the epitomator of Stephanus decided to delete some items found in his source.27 Be this as it may, as we shall see even our meagre and random sources preserve evidence of persons who were not but deserved to have been included in Stephanus’ list. All those persons mentioned by him about whom we have adequate information or about whom educated guesses can be made are identified as belonging into the time-span indicated above, so that it is reasonable to place the otherwise unknown persons into the same period. This has obvious consequences for the identification of Stephanus’ source, who is universally believed to be Herennius Philo’s work Περὶ πόλεων καὶ οὓς ἑκάστη αὐτῶν ἐνδόξους ἤνεγκε.28 I For a variety of reasons it will be best to start with the grammarians. Needless to say, the very basis and most important component of Hellenism is the Greek language.29 Teaching Greek, as it has always been done by the medium of literature, was the fundament on which everything else was built. Yet Greek itself continued to be not only the medium, but one of the main subjects of study throughout Antiquity. The fact that Ascalon could pride itself in the period here under consideration of two men at the very cutting edge of the study of Greek tells of course much about the broader tiers that must have supported this peak of the pyramid. 26 Stephanus, s. v. Ἁσκάλων (Α 476), ed. Billerbeck 2006. 27 Telling instances of the difference between our abridged Stephanus and the original text may be found in Billerbeck 2010, where a baker’s dozen of instances of the original (Δ 139 Δυμᾶνες – 151 Δώτιον) have survived. These contain also an example from Palestine: under Δῶρος the abridged text cites two authors, the original nine (the abridged article on Ascalon, about six times the length of that on Dora (Doros), quotes three authors). On the other hand while the abridged article on Ascalon lists eight famous sons of the city even the full article on Dora has none – an argumentum e silentio supported by all extant evidence (see Part I). 28 RE VIII, 650–661 at 654, s. v. Herennius no. 2 (A. Gudeman). 29 For a recent contribution see Anson 2009.

66

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

Dorotheus30 is referred to as Ascalonite, not only in Stephanus of Byzantium, but also in a number of other places.31 However, once (Ath. 11.497e) he is called a Sidonian; this may be a mistake, or an indication that at some stage in his career he transferred his activities to Sidon. A third possibility would be to refer to an Ascalonite, because of the close association of that city with Sidon32 as a Sidonian, or a deduction from a source that referred to him as Phoenician. His main work appears to be an Ἀττικαὶ λέξεις (Schol. Il A, Ι 252 mentions the thirty-first book) or Λέξεων συναγωγή; a quotation from its hundred and eighth book (Ath. 7.329d) will give some idea of its extent. We are told by Porphyry (Schol. Il. B, Θ 90) that he devoted an entire book to the discussion of one word: did κλισίον (a fairly frequent word in both epics) in Homer have the same meaning as in Attic? was its correct spelling κλισιον or κλεισιον? was it paroxytone or proparoxytone? It seems not too hasty an assumption that this book was one part of the hundred-odd books of the great lexical work, and it may give us a taste of much of the whole’s contents. Also the Περὶ τῶν ξένως εἰρημένων λέξεων mentioned by Photius (cod. 156) may have been a part of the comprehensive work, though it cannot be ruled out that this was a monographic study. Be this as it may, at any rate we should note the fascination with the purity of the language (see below). Another work that may have been part of the longer one had as its subject the delicacy ματτύη (or ματτύης), much favoured in New Comedy.33 The few surviving fragments and testimonia reflect as much on the concerns of the authors quoting them as those of Dorotheus himself, the majority having been preserved by Athenaeus. Thus not only a discussion of the ματτύη, but also one where the name of the fish θράττα in a quotation from the Middle Comedy writer Mnesimachus has been substituted by Dorotheus by θέττα ‘either because he had before him a corrupt edition of the play, or else because the name θράττα displeased him and he expunged it by an emendation of his own. But the word θέττα does not so much as occur anywhere in Attic writers’ (Ath. 7.329d).34 At 9.409f410a Athenaeus brings a quotation from Anticleides’ Ἐξηγητικός35 and tells us that the text is also quoted by Dorotheus, who also alleges (φάσκων) to quote from the ancestral ritual (πατρίοις) of the Eupatridae. At 11.497e and 11.481d Dorotheus is quoted for the names of two kinds of cups, ῥυτά and κυμβία, and lastly, at 14.658d he explains a name in Eupolis. 30

RE V, 1571–2, no. 20 (L. Cohn); Baege 1882, 7–8, repeats the main facts and draws the obvious conclusion about the status of Greek studies in Ascalon. 31 Ath. 7.329d; 14 658d; 14.662f; Schol. Il. B, Ι 90; he is referred to by name without mentioning his city in Ath. 9.409f-410a; 11.481d; Phot. cod. 156. 32 See Part II, ch. 2 above. 33 Ath. 14. 662f σύγγραμμα Περὶ Ἀντιφάνους καὶ περὶ τῆς παρὰ τοῖς νεωτέροις κωμικοῖς ματτύης. 34 In fact it does not earn an entry in LSJ. 35 FGrH 140 F 22, printed under ‘Zweifelhaftes’. According to Jacoby’s commentary (II D, p. 525) this early Hellenistic writer was more of an antiquarian than an historian. However, Jacoby doubts the ascription, since this is the only reference to this work by Anticleides, and since such a work is attested for Autocleides. For our purposes, viz., the question of the erudition of Dorotheus, it makes no difference which of the two authors is referred to.

Chapter 3: The Flourishing of Hellenic Culture

67

The concerns of Dorotheus seem clear enough even from the sparse surviving quotations and references, centred as they are on the by now accepted canon of Greek literature and the efforts to maintain the purity of the language, and they will be discussed below within a wider context that will also include his fellow Ascalonite grammarian Ptolemy. Even from this very limited assortment of quotations one is quite impressed with Dorotheus’ range: if he was writing in Ascalon – and we have no good reason to think otherwise – he must have had a well-stocked library, private or public, at his disposal. Not just comedy, only to be expected in quotations from Athenaeus, but antiquarian history and Athenian documents were part of his reading. And there is Athenaeus’ open question: did he peruse a corrupt text of Mnesimachus or did he engage in textual emendation? As for the date of Dorotheus, we are informed by the Homeric scholia (Κ 252) that he referred much to (ἀποτεινόμενος πολλὰ πρὸς) Aristonicus and Trypho. Since both these Alexandrian grammarians belonged in the Augustan age36 we may surmise that Dorotheus was a younger contemporary or of the next generation, viz., late Augustan or Tiberian. Though the remains of his works are many times those of Dorotheus, there is little that can be established about the life of Ptolemy.37 His provenance is vouched for by the account of Stephanus, and from the Suda entry (Π 3038). There we also learn that he taught at Rome, if true a sure sign of his success and reputation. Baege 1882, 7, surmises that he had there his own school, and he is certainly right if by that he means that he taught independently, as was the rule with grammarians at the time. However, since this single entry stands against the many references to him as Ascalonite, including the references where he is called ‘the Ascalonite’ without mentioning his name,38 his sojourn in Rome may have been short, perhaps towards the end of his life, if we may trust the Suda at all. At any rate no mention of him is being made by any Romans who may have been his pupils or acquaintances. More difficult is ascertaining his date. Stephanus describes him as an acquaintance or pupil (γνώριμον) of Aristarchus – that is Aristarchus of Samothrace, whose activity falls into the first half of the second century BCE. Baege 1882, 3–6, in an exhaustive discussion rejects the claim of Stephanus, assuming that it derived from the frequent pairing of Aristarchus and Ptolemy by Herodian in the Homeric scholia, and shows that Ptolemy belonged in the late first century BCE or the very beginning of the first century CE. First, his reasons for Ptolemy’s terminus post quem. Herodian in the scholia on the Iliad often pairs Ptolemy with Alexio and seems to see in them contemporaries. Since Alexio excerpted Didymus, who lived in the first century BCE this would provide a terminus a quo for Ptolemy as well. The earliest to refer to Ptolemy are Apollonius Dyscolus and Nicanor of Alexandria,39 36

For Aristonicus, one of the authors of the so-called Viermännerkommentar, see Dickey 2007, 19; for Trypho, see Dickey 2007, 84–85. 37 The exhaustive, and excellent, discussion is still Baege 1882; see also RE XXIII, 1863, no. 79 (A. Dihle). 38 He is referred to dozens of times simply as ὁ Ἀσκαλωνίτης in the Homeric scholia deriving from Herodian, on top of the places where he is specified by both name and ethnicon. 39 On Apollonius Dyscolus, the author of the most important and influential surviving grammati-

68

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

and he is not referred to by the scholia emanating from Didymus. This carries extra weight since Ptolemy wrote on Aristarchus’ recension of the Odyssey (see below), a subject treated by Didymus as well. It also emerges from Herodian (schol. Il A, Υ 234) that Ptolemy did not live before Apollonius the son of Theon.40 As for Ptolemy’s terminus ante quem the following considerations apply. Eustathius quotes (e. g. schol. Il, Ε 887, Χ 351) him at second hand from Apion (first century CE) and Heliodorus,41 and from Ammonius it emerges that Ptolemy was referred to by Heraclides of Miletus, who was active around 100 CE.42 Thus all the circumstantial evidence points to an Augustan or Tiberian date for Ptolemy. Since the Suda provides a list of Ptolemy’s writings it will be best, following Baege 1882, to take its order as a guide for our discussion. First, a Homeric Prosody (Προσωδίαν Ὁμηρικήν). It was quite naturally divided into a Prosody of the Iliad and a Prosody of the Odyssey, each consisting of two books at least.43 This of course was a traditional subject for grammarians44 and a basic ingredient in the teaching of the most fundamental of Greek literary texts, and it could not have been missing from the arsenal of any grammarian worth his salt; however, Ptolemy reached the more advanced stage of publishing a work on the subject; whatever he may have owed his predecessors, it could not have been entirely devoid of innovations or novel observations. Nothing is known, except for the notice of the Suda, on the next item, On Hel­ lenism, i. e. Correct Diction, in fifteen books (Περὶ Ἑλληνισμοῦ ἥτοι ὀρθοεπίας βιβλία ιε), and its significance will be discussed in the wider context below. Nor do we fare much better with the book On Metres (Περὶ μέτρων), of which we seem to have one fragment, a discussion of twelve-syllabic hexameters.45 Here Baege (1882, 13–14), inserts a short discussion of a work περὶ συναλοιφῆς, quoted in the Homeric scholia at second hand from Herodian.46 It will be best to follow Baege 1882 and see the reference as pertaining to the contents rather than as a title, and thus make it part of the work On Metres. No fragments are left from the work On Aristarchus’ Textual Criticism of the Odyssey (Περὶ τῆς ἐν Ὀδυσσεία Ἀριστάρχου διορθώσεως)47 and there is no cal treatises (mid-2nd c. CE) see Dickey 2007, 73–75; on Nicanor, also of the 2nd c. CE, see Carnuth 1967. 40 Theon is to be dated in the Augustan age, see RE V A, 2054–9, no. 9 (C. Wendel). 41 Baege 1882, 5 corrects the name from Herodorus, though that emendation would result in an easier version. Heliodorus cannot be easily identified: Dickey 2007, 25 n. 9; 29 n. 13; 80 no. 8 lists the persons with whom Heliodorus can not be identified; RE does not come to our succour and does not accord this person an entry (unless one wishes to identify him with RE VIII, 28– 40, no. 16 [O. Hense]). The personality, works and times of Herodorus are far from clear, see RE VIII, 988, no. 5 (A. Gudeman). 42 See RE VIII, 491–2 Herakleides no. 52 (H. Schultz). 43 Ammonius, s. v. σταφυλή; cf schol. Il, Β 765. 44 See Baege 1882, 10–11. 45 Schol. L. V., Ε 500. 46 Schol. Il B, Β 461; cf. Baege 1882, 64 and see there references to other discussions of syna­ loiphe, assigned by Baege to the book on metres. 47 Baege 1882 allocates the two references by Ptolemy to Aristarchus’ readings, schol. Il. Β 662 and Ν 246, to the work on prosody.

Chapter 3: The Flourishing of Hellenic Culture

69

way to test the assertion by Baege 1882, 14–15, that he treated other subjects than Didymus, in the first place prosody and orthography. This, of course, would annul Baege’s use of Didymus for the dating of Ptolemy. At this state of affairs it will be best to declare our ignorance on the matter of this work by Ptolemy. As for the work On Differences of Diction (Περὶ διαφορᾶς λέξεων48), it will be discussed below in a different connection. The Suda entry ends with ‘and other works on grammar’ (καὶ ἕτερα γραμματικά). There is no knowing whether this was a general statement or whether the Suda withheld other titles found in his source, but at least one other work is attested (assuming, as stated above, that the one on synaloiphe was part of the work on metres). We have a single reference to a work of Ptolemy’s On the School of Crates (περὶ τῆς Κρατητείου αἱρέσεως).49 The Stoic Crates from Mallus in Cilicia seems to have been more interested in Homeric philology than in philosophy. Ptolemy certainly employed a polemical tone against Crates’ school in Pergamum. Since all we know of Ptolemy points to a strict analogist attitude, this must have been the gist of his attack on the Cratetians, and Baege 1882, 26–27, may well be right in his assessment, that on the whole this work scrutinised and defended Aristarchus’ Homeric scholarship. Whether this may in some way be connected with Ptolemy’s biography must remain uncertain. The fact, that in the polemics between the Alexandrian school of Aristarchus and the Pergamene one of Crates he strongly came down on the side of the Alexandrians may of course have pure factual reasons. On the other hand a personal scholarly connection with Alexandria, such as studying at the relatively nearby great centre of learning, is not too daring a conjecture. Another work, on orthography, cautiously suggested by Baege 1882, 22–23, relates to three mentions of a Ptolemy in the Etymologicum Gudianum. Judgment should be withheld both because the name is not specified by ‘Ascalonite’ and because, even if deriving from him, they may be fragments of one of his known works, such as the one on Homeric prosody. Though his assigning of the fragments is not without its difficulties, the careful collection of them by Baege 1882, 39–66, is a fine example of the capriciousness of transmission. Of the close to two hundred fragments, almost all of them from the Homeric scholia, he identifies four as belonging to the work on metre, one to the polemical work against the school of Crates, and some half a dozen he deems to be of uncertain location,50 while all the rest belong to the work on Homeric prosody.51 While little can be learned from this on the other works, we may at least be assured that the Viermännerkommentar on the Iliad, or at any rate Herodian,52 allotted con48 Adler prints λέξεως, presumably the reading of the other MSS, but the reading λέξεων of the Parisinus 2623 is surely preferable. 49 Schol. Il. A, Γ 155, from Nicanor, cf. Baege 1882, 21–22. 50 But some of these, quoted in the EtGud, may well belong to the work on orthography, as mentioned above. 51 He is referred to expressly as Ptolemy of Ascalon in some ten instances, over thirty times as plain Ptolemy, and in the great majority of cases simply as the Ascalonite; see also the discussion of Baege 1882, 23–25. 52 See Baege 1882, 23–31.

70

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

siderable weight to Ptolemy’s Homeric scholarship. Indeed, it is Herodian’s use of Ptolemy, and his frequent moderation of his predecessor’s strict analogist attitudes, that provides us with the vast majority of our information on him. Ptolemy is not quoted on textual criticism proper, and his domain is ‘accent, aspiration, punctuation, orthography, quantity, the joining and separation of words.’53 It is quite remarkable that the city of Ascalon brought forth in the same period, or periods not very far removed from each other, two highly productive grammatical writers. More remarkably still, in this seemingly quite remote corner of Hellenism, both were concerned with the Attic purity of language, Dorotheus in writing Περὶ τῶν ξένως εἰρημένων λέξεων (and it matters little whether this was an independent work or part of a larger one) and Ptolemy composing a work in fifteen books On Hellenism, i. e. Correct Diction (Περὶ Ἑλληνισμοῦ ἥτοι ὀρθοεπίας). To appreciate this achievement in a somewhat wider context it will be incumbent on us to draw in the only other Palestinian city, about whose famous men we get a list similar to that of Stephanus on Ascalon, namely Gadara.54 Not only did her famous poet Meleager describe her as Attic in Syria (AP 7.417) but, more significantly for our present concern, the city gave birth in the time here under consideration, to one of the two great teachers of rhetoric of the time, Theodorus the instructor of Tiberius (the other being Apollodorus of Pergamum, the teacher of Augustus).55 Among the variegated literary produce of Theodorus we find a work On Questions in Pro­ nounciation (3 books) (Περὶ τῶν ἐν φωναῖς ζητουμένων γ); and another On the Similarity of Dialects and its Demonstration (2 books) (Περὶ διαλέκτων ὁμοιότητος ἀποδείξεως β). It seems hardly necessary to point out the similarity of interests of the Gadaran teacher of rhetoric and his Ascalonite counterparts. These people were defenders of Greek purity not only in their own eyes, but were accepted as such by the upper crust, as can be seen from the example of the future emperor Tiberius – and surely, the rhetorical powers of Tiberius are not to be belittled.56 Thus Ascalon and Gadara provided not only the two most influential Greek philosophers in Rome in the last generation of the Republic (see below), as well as important poets (see end of preceding chapter) but could also prescribe pure Attic Greek to the entire educated world. There is, however, one work whose authorship is both controversial and of some bearing for a number of reasons. At issue is a single reference to a Ptolemy who wrote about Herod: if by the Ascalonite it would testify to his wide interests far beyond grammar and Homeric philology, but it would also provide a unique piece of evidence for some concern of a Greek from Ascalon for the history of the Jewish inhabitants of the country. However, this piece of evidence is neither straightforward nor easy to appreciate. It will be best to look at it closely before trying to in-

53 54 55 56

Baege 1882, 34. Strabo 16.2.29 (C759). See for them Granatelli 1991; Woerther 2013. See, e. g., Syme 1958, II, 700–703.

Chapter 3: The Flourishing of Hellenic Culture

71

terpret it.57 In the work De adfinium vocabulorum differentia, ascribed to one Ammonius, we find the following entry:58 Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ Ἰδουμαῖοι διαφέρουσιν, ὥς φησι Πτολεμαῖος ἐν πρώτῳ Περὶ Ἡρώδου τοῦ βασιλέως. Ἰουδαῖοι μὲν γὰρ εἰσιν οἱ ἐξ ἀρχῆς φυσικοί· Ἰδουμαῖοι δὲ τὸ μὲν ἀρχῆθεν οὐκ Ἰουδαῖοι, ἀλλὰ Φοίνικες καὶ Σύροι, κρατηθέντες δὲ ὑπ’ αὐτῶν καὶ ἀναγκασθέντες περιτέμνεσθαι καὶ συντελεῖν εἰς τὸ ἔθνος καὶ τὰ αὐτὰ νόμιμα ἡγεῖσθαι ἐκλήθησαν Ἰουδαῖοι. Iudaeans and Idumaeans differ, as Ptolemy says in his first book of On King Herod. On the one hand Iudaeans are those who are so by origin and nature, on the other Idumaeans were not Iudaeans by origin, but Phoenicians and Syrians. They were called Iudaeans after being overcome by them and compelled to undergo circumcision and join the nation and have the same customs.

Before discussing the text it should be noted that the similarity of the words Ἰουδαῖοι and Ἰδουμαῖοι – the reason for the entry in the first place – brought about their confusion and substitution for each other in the manuscripts.59 This, however, is a minor issue compared with the problem of the identity of this Ptolemy, a problem that is in itself connected with that of the authorship of the synonym lexicon, where it is found. The following considerations speak for the identification with Ptolemy of Ascalon: the name, the time, viz., it is preferable to seek a writer contemporary with the king, and Herod’s well known associations with Ascalon,60 and, of course, the wish not to multiply data. Needless to say, all these are factors in favour of the probability of the equation, rather than proof. On the other side, beside the commonness of the name it has been argued that Ptolemy of Ascalon is known as a grammatical writer only, and not as an historian.61 This last argument carries little weight, considering that all the writers (with the exception of the Suda) who refer to Ptolemy of Ascalon were grammatical writers and quote only what matters to them; and nobody would argue e silentio relying on the Suda. In parentheses it may be noted that Ptolemy’s Palestinian contemporary, Theodorus of Gadara (mentioned above), the rhetorician and grammarian, also wrote, among others, On Coele Syria and On History.62 As for Ptolemy’s work, we cannot guess its extent except for the fact that it was in more than one book; our notice, no doubt pertaining to Herod’s family and his alleged Idumaean descent, naturally belongs to the begin57 58 59

The present discussion is in essentials repeated from Geiger 2012b. Nickau 1966, 63–64, no. 243. This is not the only instance where this confusion occurs, see e. g. Verg. G. 3.12 and cf. GLAJJ I, 316; Jos. cAp. 2.112 (Lat.) and cf. Bar-Kochva 2010, 208. 60 See, e. g., Schalit 1969, 677–8. 61 Among those undecided (though perhaps slightly preferring the identification) should be noted GLAJJ I, no. 146; Schürer 1973, I 27–28, and more positively Otto 1913, 5–6 and following him Schalit 1969; among the sceptics FGrH 199, II D pp. 625–6 and, following him, RE XXIII, 1862 no. 75 and 1863 no. 79 (both A. Dihle), ignores the issue; see also DNP no. 63 (St. Matthaios). Rather surprisingly it is also ignored by Baege 1882, almost the only criticism that can be levelled against his dissertation. It goes without saying that because of the tendency of the fragment, no doubt referring to the question of Herod’s Idumaean descent, it cannot be ascribed to his friend Ptolemy, the brother of Nicolaus of Damascus, see e. g. Schürer 1973 and FGrH locc. citt. 62 See FGrH 850 and Part I, s. v.

72

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

ning of the work. It may be readily conjectured that it was biographical – one may be reminded of Nicolaus of Damascus’ On the Young Caesar,63 – and thus perhaps in some way a response to the king’s Autobiography,64 or at least stimulated by it. There remains the matter of the text carrying the quotation, and it cannot be discussed without reference to the Περὶ διαφορᾶς λέξεων ascribed by the Suda to a Ptolemy. This was a well-known subject of grammarians,65 and there exists indeed a text with the title περὶ ὁμοίων καὶ διαφόρων λέξεων ascribed to one Ammonius.66 There also survive a number of closely related texts, presumably derived from this: one of these is entitled Πτολεμαίου Περὶ διαφορᾶς λέξεων.67 ‘Ammonius’ quotes ‘Ptolemy’ under the entry τρίετες and again under σταφυλή, where the quotation is ascribed to the work on Homeric prosody, thus assuring us that it is indeed Ptolemy of Ascalon whom he has in mind: this is confirmed by the item’s recurrence under Ptolemy’s name also in schol. Il. Β 765. Accordingly in the third quotation, concerning Herod and cited above, the author must have believed that the Ptolemy he is referring to is indeed Ptolemy of Ascalon. To complicate matters, the entry σταφυλή occurs not only in the work ascribed to Ptolemy but, as mentioned above, also in his Homeric Prosody: Baege 1882, 17, contends that there is involved in this place the difficulty that, on the face of it, Ptolemy would have discussed the same item twice, in two different works. He makes this issue the cornerstone of his argument denying the existing work on synonyms to Ptolemy, since it would be unthinkable that ‘Ammonius’, otherwise very careful in quoting his sources, would excerpt that work without ever mentioning this fact. Moreover, as Baege 1882, 19, continues in his argument, since the lexicon of ‘Ptolemy’ never quotes its sources it is quite unthinkable that ‘Ammonius’ would have excerpted him and added the references. Baege 1882, 19–21, concludes that on the contrary it is ‘Ptolemy’, magistellus quisdam, who excerpted ‘Ammonius’. Still, though denying him the existing assemblage Baege 1882, 20–21, does not doubt the Suda’s contention that Ptolemy did compose a work On Differences of Diction. Certainly an entry discussing Iudaeans and Idumaeans would eminently fit such a work. Now the entry of ‘Ammonius’, that ascribes it to ‘Ptolemy’, as we have seen by implication the Ascalonite, On King Herod, is repeated, as usual without the ascription, in ‘Ptolemy’.68 It is now time to turn to ‘Ammonius’: since his editor arrives at the conclusion (lvi–lvii) that in all probability the author of this 63 64

65 66 67 68

Mark Toher’s new commentary on the text is eagerly awaited; in the meantime for a concise overview see Schürer 1973, I, 28–32; Wacholder 1962. See Jos., AJ 15.165–174 and Geiger 2011. The Autobiography was far from widely known – we are informed about it by the single quotation in Josephus, certainly at second hand from Nicolaus of Damascus, perhaps again slightly increasing the likelihood that an Ascalonite would be acquainted with it. See Baege 1882, 16. The modern edition was prepared by Nickau 1966, a pupil of Hartmut Erbse. See the edition of Heylbut 1887. It is worth the while mentioning that it appears also in somewhat different form, in another parallel text, ascribed to ‘Eranius Philo’: Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ Ἰδουμαῖοι διαφέρουσιν. Ἰουδαῖοι μὲν γὰρ οἱ ἐξ Ἰούδα τοῦ τετάρτου παιδὸς Ἰακὼβ κληθέντες· Ἰδουμαῖοι δὲ οἱ ἐξ Ἰσαῦ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ Ἰακώβ.

Chapter 3: The Flourishing of Hellenic Culture

73

work is Herennius Philo, whose work περὶ διαφόρων σημαινομένων is often quoted by Eusthatius, mostly by name of author, three times also with the title of the work.69 As it happens Herennius Philo is best known as an historian, who beside an history of Hadrian, under whose rule he lived, wrote also a rather problematic history of the Phoenicians.70 Whether a σύγγραμμα περὶ Ἰουδαίων71 was indeed a separate work or rather part of the Phoenician history may be a matter of contention.72 Be this as it may, both these and his other references to Palestine, viz. to Ioppe and Iamnia, testify to his acquaintance with Jewish history and Palestinian geography, not very surprising in a Phoenician interested in the ancient history of his country: no doubt he would regard the coastal cities of Palestine, probably down to Gaza, as part of Phoenicia. To sum up this issue: Herennius Philo (‘Ammonius’) believed that the Ptolemy whom he quoted about King Herod was Ptolemy of Ascalon. Herennius Philo’s closeness to the subject makes his ascription at least highly probable. Thus the wider interests, and possible political involvement, of the grammarian from Ascalon lend some depth to his intellectual stature. II Next, the two historians mentioned by Stephanus are not known from any other source. As for Apollonius,73 no further information is attached to his name, while we are told that Artemidorus wrote about Bithynia.74 This at least dates him in all probability after the establishment of the province by Pompey in 63 BCE. No special ties are known between Ascalon, or Palestine, and Bithynia, and it must be assumed that it was Artemidorus’ personal connections, or interests, that provided the subject matter. Here perhaps some speculation – expressly admitted as such – may be allowed. The extinction of the Bithynian royal house and the establishment of the province is not only a terminus a quo, but surely also the chief reason for the interest in the country. Nor should this interest be divorced from that in the great general, at the time the foremost political figure of the Roman world. Now, as part of the settlement of the East, not only of Bithynia and the various parts of the Seleucid kingdom, Pompey also used the occasion of the war between the Hasmonaean brothers Hyrcanus and Aristobulus to settle the affairs of Judaea.75 It so happens that we are in the possession of Josephus’ very detailed account of the arrange69 70 71 72 73 74 75

See RE VIII, 650–661, Herennius no. 2, at 652 (A. Gudeman). This ascription seems now to be universally accepted. See Attridge/Oden 1981. The question of Philo’s alleged source Sanchuniaton is of no concern here. See GLAJJ II 139–145: no. 325, Origen, cCels 1.15 (FGrH 790 F 9); no. 326, Eus., PE 1.10.42 (FGrH 790 F 10 + 3b). Its fragments are printed as a separate work in an Appendix by Attridge/Oden 1981, 98–101; see also Palmieri 1988, 27–28. RE II, 135, no. 74 (E. Schwartz); FHG IV, p. 312. FGrH 698. For the entire settlement of the East see the concise account of Seager 1979, 44–55.

74

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

ments in his country (BJ 1.127–158 AJ 14.34–79). For these, however, at least in the Antiquities, Josephus had recourse not only to Nicolaus of Damascus, but also to Strabo and Livy (AJ 14.68). These accounts very naturally are written from an almost exclusively Jewish point of view. Nevertheless, while the report in the Jew­ ish War unsurprisingly speaks only of the various Jewish embassies sent to Pompey in Damascus, the somewhat more detailed account in the Antiquities also mentions (14.34) embassies from ‘all Syria’ and Egypt – indeed, it is almost inconceivable that any city that could afford it would neglect to pay homage to the new master or fail to attempt and receive advantages and privileges from him. It is perhaps here that Artemidorus of Ascalon’s interest in Bithynia, and surely in Pompey, may have awoken. It is to be noted that Pompey was interested in particular Greeks, not only local dynasts, while arranging the affairs of the East: Mitylene was granted freedom out of gratefulness to Pompey’s historian Theophanes76 and, closer to Ascalon, he rebuilt Gadara to gratify his freedman Demetrius, a son of the city.77 Such, then, could well have been the background for a writer from Ascalon to take serious interest in the affairs of Bithynia. As for his work, the best chance would be to assume that it belonged to the genre of histories of countries told as a sequence of their rulers,78 now that these have been replaced by Roman governors. There is of course no knowing what to make of the pairing of the two historians in the list, nor can we guess how they related to the grammarian Ptolemy, who was also the historian (or biographer) of Herod. III Stephanus names four philosophers in his list: two are otherwise unknown, one is known to some extent thanks to the fourth, a very famous one indeed. Antibius (DPhA I, no. 190) and Eubius (DPhA III, no. 68) ‘the famous Stoics’ may well have earned some limited fame in their time, or just received the epithet from Stephanus to embellish his catalogue – and of course a hint at the source of their fame may have been contained in the original text of Stephanus. Although the list itself derives in all probability from Herennius Philo,79 in this case one must not stop here and should try and enquire further. Now, the obvious place to look for otherwise unknown Stoics is the papyrus of Philodemus’ Index of Stoics.80 An interesting feature of Philodemus of Gadara’s surviving parts of his history of the philosophical schools is the interest he seems to have exhibited in fellow Palestinians. He obviously had to mention Antiochus of Ascalon, whose name actually has to be restored,81 but he also refers to his brother Aristus82 (on whom see below); much 76 77 78 79 80 81 82

Vell. 2.18.1; Plut. Pomp. 42; cf. Strabo 11.5.1 (C503); 13.2.3 (C617). Jos. BJ 1.155; AJ 14.75; cf. Plut. Cato mi. 13; Pomp. 40.1–5; Julian, Misop. 358A–359A. See the examples collected in Geiger 1985a, 50–51. See RE III A, 2382–3, s. v. Stephanos no. 12 (E. Honigmann). Dorandi 1994. Dorandi 1991, col. 34. Dorandi 1991, col. 57.

Chapter 3: The Flourishing of Hellenic Culture

75

more significant is the reference to three philosophers of the Academy, pupils of Carneades, from Gaza, Dio, Olympus (DPhA IV, no. 13) and Olympiodorus (DPhA IV, no. 18).83 The last two are not known from elsewhere, and may perhaps be ascribed to Philodemus’ Palestinian interests. Dio on the other hand has been identified with the philosopher mentioned at Cic., Luc. 12.84 This identification seems most probable also because in that passage he is closely associated with Antiochus of Ascalon and his brother Aristus; the fact of his provenance added in the Index Academicorum may well be due to Philodemus’ specific local knowledge. Moreover, though the commonness of the name is evident, it has also been proposed to identify Dio with the leader of an embassy from Alexandria in 57 BCE who was murdered in Rome.85 However, this identification is made unattractive by the fact that the list of Philodemus contains both Dio of Gaza and an otherwise unidentified Dio, thus most probably to be identified as the Alexandrian ambassador. Could it be that Philodemus tried to correct the wrong impression, that the man was an Alexandrian by birth, by referring to his true provenance from Gaza? Perhaps a long shot, but not impossibly so. Last but not least, the Stoic Apollonius of Ptolemais (Acre), a pupil of Dardanus and Mnesarchus, who were also among the teachers of Antiochus (see below). Philodemus expressly refers to him as his friend,86 though of course there is no telling whether the friendship was forged in Palestine or at some later stage in their lives, most probably while studying with the same teachers in Athens. Be this as it may, it seems likely that Philodemus exhibited a more than common interest in Palestinian philosophers, and thus may well have been the ultimate source (via Herennius Philo?) of our notice on the two ‘famous Stoics’, or else it may have been Herennius Philo himself, Stephanus’ source, who displayed the interest or added the epithet: in all probability, as far as he was concerned, Ascalonites were Phoenicians (see above). The possibility that the two ‘famous Stoics’ from Ascalon were linked in Philodemus’ account in a similar way to the two Gazans Dio and Olympiodorus should not be dismissed. Sosus (who will be discussed presently), Eubius and Antibius of Ascalon and Apollonius of Ptolemais are not the only Palestinian Stoics known to us. A single mention of a Stoic Basilides of Scythopolis, a teacher of Marcus Aurelius87 widens the chronological as well as the geographical scope within the country, while the Stoic Diogenes of Ptolemais88 may perhaps belong to another city by that name. From the otherwise unknown Eubius and Antibius we may proceed to the Stoic Sosus, famous for being at the centre of one of the great philosophical affaires of his times, named (by modern scholars) after him. It will be thus best to discuss him 83 84 85 86 87

88

Dorandi 1991, coll. 160–161. J. Glucker 1978, 94–7. Cic. Cael. 23; 51; Cass. Dio 39.14; Strabo 17.11.1 (C796). Dorandi 1994, 78; see on him RE II, 146, no. 96 (H. v. Arnim); DPhA I, no. 282; see also Merkelbach 1985. Hier., chron. a. Abr. 2163 (149 CE); it is possible to identity him with the philosopher named in Sex. Emp. 8.256; see also RE III, 46, no. 8 (H. v. Arnim); GLAJJ II, p. 219; PIR2 B 62; DPhA II, no. 14. It is noteworthy, however, that Marcus himself does not name him among his teachers. Diog. La. 7.41; cf. RE V, 777, no. 48 (H. v. Arnim); DPhA II, no. 144.

76

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

in this connection, linked as he is to his far more prominent townsman Antiochus. His time is established by his being a pupil of Panaetius,89 this making him an older contemporary of Antiochus. Antiochus in 86 BCE composed a treatise, probably a dialogue, with the title Sosus (Cic., Luc. 11–12), in which he must have made him an interlocutor, perhaps the principal one, the others being Heraclitus of Tyre and the author himself.90 The entire affair is accorded a most thorough examination and another critical assessment by two rather formidable scholars,91 but it will be best discussed in connection with Antiochus himself. As for him, this is not the occasion, nor the present writer the suitable person, to discuss in detail his philosophy and his impact on the history of the Academy.92 A short resumé will have to do, and our main concern will be with Antiochus’ connections with his native city. Unfortunately, this is exactly the subject about which our information is the haziest.93 Beside the certainty, that indeed he hailed from Ascalon94 the only on the face of it safe report is that he was one of those philosophers who left their city never to return there.95 It is difficult to know how literally is this statement to be taken – after all Cicero would not be untruthful if Antiochus briefly visited his city, once or even several times, during his attested sojourns in the East. Be this as it may, more disappointing is the fact that we know nothing of his familial background and early education, though by what we have learned already about Ascalon it should be clear that there was no difficulty there in obtaining a proper Hellenic schooling. Both this last assumption and what can be divined from it about the standing of his family are confirmed by the presumably similar education of his younger brother Aristus (see below). Another connection must remain unsolved: did he first encounter Sosus already in Ascalon? It has been proposed to assume, that the connection between the two fellow-citizens was formed in Athens.96 At any rate it seems safe to believe that by the time we meet Antiochus in Athens he arrived there from Ascalon as well educated as any aspiring young philosopher. It is indeed in Athens that we first have definite knowledge about him. He studied there with Philo of Larissa, the Head of the Academy. Since Philo attained the 89 90 91 92 93

94 95 96

In Dorandi 1991 he is mentioned only in col. 75.1 (p. 124), while in col. 72 Dorandi does not accept the proposed restoring of the name. See J. Glucker 1978, 417–9. J. Glucker 1978, 13–97; J. Barnes 1989, 53–4, 64. See, in addition to the works of J. Glucker 1978 and J. Barnes 1989, the important recent volume Sedley 2012 with comprehensive discussions of all aspects of the philosopher. For his life see the excellent discussion of J. Barnes 1989, 52–59; now also Hatzimichali 2012; D. Sedley, ‘Appendix. A guide to the testimonies for Antiochus’, in Sedley 2012, 334–346, with the text and a translation of the non-Ciceronian testimonies. It is an unfortunate facet of the transmission, that contrary to the other important Palestinian philosopher of the Late Republic, Philodemus of Gadara, all we know about him is at second hand – more often than not by way of Cicero. Beside the passage quoted at the beginning of this chapter from Stephanus of Byzantium see also Strabo 16.2.29 (C759); Plut., Brut. 2.3; Ael., VH 12.25. Cic., TD 5.107. Cf. J. Barnes 1989, 53–54.

Chapter 3: The Flourishing of Hellenic Culture

77

succession in 110 BCE we may put Antiochus’ date of birth in about 130. Thus he was already in his middle years and, as will be noted, of very definite philosophical views of his own, when we encounter him in the company of Sulla’s quaestor L. Licinius Lucullus in Alexandria in 87–86. It is but a guess that he came there from Rome, where he is thought to have fled in 88 during the persecution of Rome’s friends in Athens; yet it should be noted in this connection that we have no evidence for Antiochus’ attitude to Rome or connections with Romans prior to his stay in Alexandria. It is here that the celebrated affaire took place. Two books containing lecture notes of his erstwhile teacher Philo that have been brought from Rome provoked from him an angry response, the above mentioned Sosus. The main controversy concerned epistemology, though this was closely connected with the history of the Academy. It transpires, that Philo defended a position of the unity of the Academy from Plato to his own day. As for epistemology, Philo stood for a skeptic stance, though apparently he did not entirely deny the possibility of knowledge. In his reply in the Sosus Antiochus made a case for knowledge through sensual perception and rejected Philo’s skepticism. He also maintained the unity of the views of Plato, Aristotle and Zeno, thus in fact establishing an eclectic school of his own, though he advertised this as a return to the Old Academy. It appears that he and his brother Aristus, who eventually succeeded him, were the only scholarchs of this school. The other known works of Antiochus included Canonica on epistemology in at least two books (the second book providing us with the only literal quotation from the philosopher) and On the Gods. As for his further fortunes after the Alexandrian affair, we do not know when exactly Antiochus returned to Athens, though this must have taken place between the Roman reconquest of the city in 86 and 79, when we meet him there teaching in the Ptolemaeum, though surely not as a successor to Philo in the Academy. In 79 Cicero, his brother Quintus and their cousin Lucius were among those attending his lectures. At some later point he rejoined Lucullus, who returned to the East in 74 to fight Mithridates, and Antiochus died some time after the victory of the general over Tigranes at Tigranocerta in 69. It is of particular significance for the present enquiry to realize that the two most influential philosophers with the Roman aristocracy of the last generations of the Republic, Philodemus of Gadara and Antiochus, came from the same small country in the Eastern Mediterranean. In contrast to Philodemus, whose writings already deciphered and in the process of being deciphered now from the Herculaneum papyri are the main source of his philosophy, it is in the main Cicero’s writings from which we have to try to reconstruct the views of Antiochus and to disentangle them from those of his transmitter. Whatever the exact results of that project,97 it is of some relevance to quote Cicero’s characterisations of his erstwhile teacher, dubbed ‘the Swan’ by Stephanus of Byzantium. These include, among others, ‘nobilissimus et prudentissimus philosophus’ (Brut. 315), ‘politissimus et 97

To the most important discussions by J. Glucker 1978 and J. Barnes 1989 one should add Fladerer 1996, with the serious caveats of J. Glucker 2002, and the important recent paper by Bonazzi 2009.

78

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

acutissimus omnium nostrae memoriae philosophorum’ (Luc. 113), ‘prudens et acutus et in suo genere perfectus’ (leg. 1.54), ‘e philosophis ingenio scientiaque putaretur … excellere’ (Luc. 4), surely not just rhetorical compliments and exaggerations by a man, who considered himself the principal exponent of Greek philosophy in Rome. Furthermore, founding a School (however short lived in the event) of his own does reflect on the self-esteem, and perhaps also his standing among his peers, of Antiochus. Nor were Lucullus and the Ciceros Antiochus’ only contacts among the Roman upper class. M. Terentius Varro, the most learned Roman of them all, converted to Antiochus’ view of philosophy, and the cultured M. Pupius Piso, cos. 61, was among his acquaintances. M. Brutus was in all probability too young to study with him, but did so with his brother (see below). All this of course does not prove – and certainly not disprove – that his influence with the Roman aristocracy went beyond pure philosophy and had practical political aspects. IV Obviously Stephanus’ list (even the original) could not be full on any account. One person evidently and rather surprisingly missing from it is Antiochus’ brother, and successor as head of his school – in all likelihood the only one in that position -, Aristus.98 The Index Academicorum (35) expressly names him his brother’s pupil and successor, and lists as his fellow pupils the Alexandrians Aristo and Dio (on whom see above), and Cratippus of Pergamum. A similar list of Antiochus’ pupils, Aristus, Aristo and Dio, and in addition Heraclitus of Tyre is recorded by Cicero (Luc. 12).99 We know nothing of Aristus’ early life, though obviously he must have been Antiochus’ younger brother, perhaps by some considerable span, and also born (and probably brought up?) in Ascalon, thus some, perhaps substantial, time after 130. Whatever Aristus’ philosophical accomplishments, he certainly continued his brother’s close ties with the highest echelons in Rome. On his way to his province Cicero stayed with him in Athens in the summer of 51, as maintained by him the only bastion of philosophy in the city at the time.100 According to Plutarch (Brut. 2.2) Brutus made him his φίλον τε καὶ συμβιοτήν. Plutarch’s verdict there, that Aristus was inferior to many philosophers in learning, but among the best in good sense and gentleness (ἄνδρα τῇ μὲν ἐν λόγοις ἔχει πολλῶν φιλοσόφων λειπόμενον, εὐταξίᾳ δὲ καὶ πρᾳότητι τοῖς πρώτοις ἐνάμιλλον) must be seen as part of the biographer’s emphasis on character rather than on philosophical ten98

See Mette 1986–1987, 28–29, 56; J. Glucker 1978, in the Index; DPhA I, no. 406; the entry by H. v. Arnim, RE I, 1010, no. 9, is dated. 99 According to the Index Academicorum Aristo and Cratippus deserted to the Peripatetics; on the fate of Dio see above; Heraclitus did not follow Antiochus when he left the Academy (Cic. Luc. 11). 100 Cic., Att. 5.10.5. On the question of whether Cicero lodged with Aristus also on his way back from Cilicia see Shackleton Bailey ad loc. His contention that he apparently did not rests on Cic., Att. 5.20.5, where his place is described as in arce Athenis.

Chapter 3: The Flourishing of Hellenic Culture

79

ets.101 Be this as it may, Cicero repeatedly102 confirms that Brutus studied with Aristus in Athens so that the connection must have been close indeed.103 With Aristus we have, after his brother Antiochus and Philodemus of Gadara, the third Palestinian philosopher with strong connections with, and one presumes some influence on, the highest echelons of Roman society. Indeed, it has been suggested that Aristus may have been with his brother already when the latter first met Lucullus in Sulla’s camp104 and have been in his company at the time of the ‘Sosus-affair’.105 At any rate the interpretation proposed106 according to which it was relevant geopolitical advice rather than philosophy that was expected of him is just one of a number of possible views, though it goes well along with Plutarch’s verdict. In any event Cicero, who refers a number of times to Brutus’ studies with Aristus never mentions any travels of his with the Roman statesman in the East, and indeed we have no evidence for his teaching – or sojourning – at any other place than in Athens. As with his brother, we have no indication of him ever revisiting the place of his birth. However, considering Cicero’s praise of him as referred to above, his witness e silentio in not numbering him among the philosophers who never returned to their homeland (TD 5.107) may be given some weight, though of course even that praise does not assure us that he was one of the nobilissimi philosophers recorded there. V Another mid-first century person’s claims to be regarded an intellectual and included in the present survey may perhaps be in some doubt, yet will certainly add to our understanding of the intellectual climate of Ascalon. We are told107 that Gaius (Caligula) always kept with him, even in public, the most famous tragic actor of his day, Apelles. This is supported by an anecdote in Suetonius (Gaius 33) about the emperor having the actor whipped when he hesitated to decide whether the emperor or Juppiter was greater. A more detailed account of Apelles and his milieu is given by Philo (leg. 203–6) in connection with the background to Caligula’s attempt to place his own statue in the Temple of Jerusalem. Here we are expressly told that Apelles was an Ascalonite and like all his townspeople – thus Philo – hated the Jews: it was he and Helicon the slave-aristocrat (εὐπατρίδης δούλος) who gave Caligula the momentous advice about his statue. Philo’s assertion of the Ascalonites’ hatred for the Jews of the Holy Land (thus explicitly) together with the mention of 101 Moles 1978, on 2.3 provides a good evaluation of Antiochus’ ‘more amiable brother Aristus, a much less important philosopher.’ 102 Acad. 12; fin. 5.8; TD 5.21; Moles 1978 shows that most probably we have to date Brutus’ studies with Aristus later than 68, but still in the sixties. 103 For a recent discussion of Aristus’ influence on Brutus, and on other Romans, see Lévy 2012. 104 J. Glucker 1978, 21. 105 J. Glucker 1978, 18. 106 J. Glucker 1978, 25. 107 Dio 59.5.2.

80

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

their common frontier with them implies, that at least in part a political and territorial dispute may have been an important reason for this attitude. This would well agree with Ascalon happening to be the only city (with the exception of the borderline Acre) in Western Palestine to escape Jewish rule both under Alexander Jannaeus and under Herod (see Part II, ch. 1 above). As for Apelles’ background, Philo says that as an adolescent he traded with his youth – a common enough theme in ancient slander – and became a tragic actor when he was too old for such activities. (This provides Philo with a suitable opportunity to give us a piece of his mind about the morals of actors.) Whatever the truth in these allegations, Apelles must have been still fairly young under the reign of Caligula since we are told that he received a gift of four hundred thousand sesterces from Vespasian at the reopening of the theatre of Marcellus,108 so that he has not yet retired from the stage some thirty five years or so after Caligula. Incidentally, also Philo tells us about the tortures the actor had to undergo under that emperor.109 In all the passages discussed Apelles is described as a tragic actor, and he is implied to be the greatest of these also by Petronius (64.4). Of course we do not know anything about his youth and education, except for Philo’s insinuations, but there is no reason to assume that he arrived in Rome tabula raza and starting from nil climbed to the top of his profession. On the contrary it is but natural to suppose that he was educated in his native city, viz. that he had received a good Greek education – there is no hint anywhere that he performed in Latin – which must have included not only a clear pronunciation110 but obviously a reasonably good acquaintance with Greek mythology and literature. Did Apelles perform already in Ascalon? We do not know. Though a great number of theatres are known and have been revealed in Palestine,111 both from the time of King Herod and from the second and third centuries, none are known in this time in the important cities of Ascalon and Gaza. This in all probability does not reflect the real state of affairs, and indeed we have evidence from the fourth century of a theatre and an odeon in the city.112 Also a theatre ticket found there provides circumstantial evidence for performances in the city.113 There is no need to describe what theatrical performances – and certainly Greek tragedy at this time! – would imply for the cultural level of at least a part of Ascalon’s inhabitants. 108 Suet. Vesp. 19.1; for the vv. ll. and emendations see Ihm’s apparatus; Apellae is Bücheler’s emendation. 109 RE I, 2688, no. 8 (P. v. Rohden); RE Suppl. X, 23 (P. v. Rohden); PIR2 I, A 907, 908; Smallwood 19702, 264–6; O’Connor 1908, 79–80, no. 38. Leppin 1992, 203–4; Stephanis 1988, no. 232. 110 Cf. Cic., de or. 3.221–222. 111 Segal 1995; Segal 1985–1988. 112 Schwabe 1954 (Hebr.), discusses P.Ryl. 627, ll. 213–4, where both a theatre and an odeon are mentioned. A theatre in Gaza is attested in the Madeba mosaic map, and anyway it is well nigh impossible to imagine Choricius’ defense of the mimes (see Part I, s. v.) if no performances were presented in his city. The 3rd century pantomime M. Aurelius Pylades (see Part I, s. v.) was made a councillor of the city, probably after performing there. 113 See CIIP 2397 (forthcoming), from L. E. Stager 1991 – a small bone token serving as a theatre ticket.

Chapter 3: The Flourishing of Hellenic Culture

81

To return to the list of Stephanus which includes the most important genres of Greek prose, what above all is missing from it is poetry. This appears to be the more surprising as Palestine, or rather one city in it, Gadara, produced in the period here under consideration two of the most important and influential poets of epigrams of the Hellenistic age, Meleager and Philodemus.114 The next chapter will discuss an epigrammatist from Ascalon.

114 This is not the place to discuss these poets and certainly Philodemus’ contributions to Epicurean philosophy are beside the point here. Meleager’s provenance is vouched for by himself in his autobiographical poems, AP 7. 417, 418, 419; for Philodemus’ patria see Dorandi 1987.

82

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

CHAPTER 4: EUENUS OF ASCALON115 GP contains eleven epigrams attributed to a poet or poets named Euenus; nine of these were preserved in AP, two additional ones in APl only. They are all in distichs and amount altogether to forty-six lines. One of the poems is assigned to Euenus of Ascalon, one to Euenus of Sicily, one to Euenus of Athens and one to Euenus the grammaticus;116 in the rest the name appears without further qualification. Gow and Page117 despair of resolving the question of authorship and of assigning the various poems to their authors. It is the purpose of the present paper to investigate which poems and what characteristics are attributable to Euenus of Ascalon. Euenus is one of the thirteen named poets in the Proem of Philip.118 This in itself should create a very strong presumption in favour of the view that most, or all, of the epigrams ascribed to Euenus are the work of one poet. Gow and Page maintain that “there is an obvious and presumably not fortuitous correspondence between the order of the authors in the Proem and the number of epigrams” of each author preserved in the Anthology,119 and indeed Euenus would hardly fit into the Proem – he is mentioned in the last, thirteenth place – were he the author of much less than the eleven epigrams with forty-six lines preserved under that name. Among the other poets mentioned in the Proem120 fifteen epigrams of Parmenion, twelve of Automedon, ten each of Tullius Geminus and Antiphanes and nine by Zonas are preserved, while all the other poets are represented by considerably more poems. By total of lines Euenus’ forty-six compare with forty-eight of Tullius Geminus, fifty of Parmenion, fifty-four of Zonas and fifty-eight of Antiphanes; again, all the other epigrammatists mentioned in the Proem are represented with considerably more lines. Clearly, Philip must have regarded the Euenus mentioned in his Proem as he author of more or less everything preserved under that name.121 115 Slightly modified and updated from the original version Geiger 1991/92. I read an earlier version of this paper at a colloquium to mark the retirement of my teacher, colleague and friend Ra’anana Meridor. I would like it to be received as a small mark of affection and gratitude. It is a pleasure to thank again Ewen Bowie for his criticism of an earlier draft, as well as the Editors of Scripta Classica Israelica and their anonymous readers, who went far beyond the call of duty in improving this paper. As always, I alone am to blame for the remaining faults. The following abbreviations will be used: AP = Anthologia Palatina; APl = Anthologia Planudea; GP = Gow/Page 1968; HE = Gow/Page 1965. 116 ‘Ascalonite’, like the ethnic ‘Siceliote’, the designation grammaticus, as well as a host of such attributes to other poets, have been added by the corrector: for the good authority of the corrector see GP I, Introd., p. 1–2. 117 The poems are printed at GP I, pp. 254–260, ll. 2296–2341; the commentary at GP II, pp. 289–294. 118 AP 4.2.13 = GP I, l. 2640. 119 GP II, p. 329. 120 The solitary exception is Antigonus, who appears in the eleventh place though only one six-line poem by him is preserved: as far as I can see neither Gow and Page (see GP II, p. 329) nor any of the other commentators know how to explain his inclusion. 121 “Only one [poem of Euenus] (AP 9.251 = no. i [i. e., GP I, ll. 2296–2301]) stands in the alphabetical sequence, the remainder owe their position to their themes or stand in quite miscellane-

Chapter 4: Euenus of Ascalon

83

A discussion of some of the features of the poems will strengthen this presumption and suggest that in all probability this poet was Euenus of Ascalon. Let us start with the epigram expressly mentioning that ethnic in the title (AP 9.75 = GP I, ll. 2308–9 [no. iii]). The attribution has never been doubted since the name of the city does not occur elsewhere in the Anthology and the assumption of a corruption would in fact conjecture a lectio facilior. In the two-line epigram, according to Gow and Page one of the cleverest in the Garland of Philip,122 the vine speaks to the goat: κἤν με φάγῃς ἐπὶ ῥίζαν, ὅμως ἔτι καρποφορρήσω ὅσσον ἐπισπεῖσαι σοί, τράγε, θυομένῳ. Though you eat me to the root, yet I shall still bear fruits enough to pour libation, goat, upon you when you are sacrificed. (Trl. Gow and Page)

Gow and Page’s favourable judgment corresponds with that of antiquity: the epigram is quoted in Suet., Dom. 14123 and appears on a Pompeian fresco depicting the scene;124 its second line is identical with the last line of a six-line version of the theme by Leonidas of Tarentum (AP 9.99 = HE I, ll. 2161–6 [no. xxxii]). Moreover, it has been translated by Ovid (Fasti 1.357–8),125 although there it is not the vine that speaks. If the borrowing of the second line by Euenus is a compliment to Leonidas,126 demonstrating at the same time his own elegant brevity, it accords well with the fact that the latter’s influence is traceable elsewhere among the poems attributed to Euenus. Of course Leonidas had great influence, on nobody more than on Antipater of Sidon:127 thus it is remarkable that two of the poems of Euenus (APl 165, 166 = GP I, ll. 2336–37 [no. x], 2338–41 [no. xi]), on the Cnidian Aphrodite of Praxiteles, are variations on a theme also dealt with by Antipater (cf. GP II, p. 294); two more are variations on a highly popular theme, Myron’s statue of a cow (AP 9.717, 718 = GP I, ll. 2332–3 [no. viii], 2334–5 [no. ix]) introduced in all probability by Leonidas, on which six out of the thirty-six extant versions128 are ascribed to Antipater of Sidon. It should be noted that Gow and Page, although they refrain from discussing the ascription of the various poems, are of the opinion that the four

ous contexts” (GP II, p. 289). For their policy of inclusion in the Garland of poems other than those in alphabetical sequences cf. GP I, Introd., p. xii. 122 GP II, p. 289. 123 And much later in Schol. Tzetzae Ar. Plut. 1129, p. 227 Massa Positano. 124 Kaibel 1878, no. 1106. It is found on the via Stabiana, north of the house of L. Caecilius Iucundus, and was first published by Dilthey 1876; our epigram is discussed at 307–311, facsimile on Tavola P. Note that the inscription has ποτὶ for ἐπὶ in the first line: Dilthey preferred this to the reading of P and of the indirect tradition. 125 Cf. Wilkinson 1955, 265. The common features of the versions of Euenus and Ovid as against that of Leonidas make it clear that Ovid translates Euenus’ two-liner rather than the last line only of Leonidas’ six-line epigram. 126 It goes without saying that Leonidas, active in the first half of the third c. was earlier than any conceivable poet from Ascalon. 127 Cf. HE II, p. 32. 128 AP 9.713–742, 793–8.

84

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

epigrams on works of art were probably composed by one author.129 Whatever Antipater’s influence on Euenus, his connections with Ascalon are well established: he composed a long epigram in honour of the rich banker from Ascalon Philostratus the son of Philostratus, inscribed in Delos, where the latter’s business was located.130 Remarkably enough, Antipater of Sidon’s plant in the introductory poem of Meleager is the kypros (= henna), according to Dioscurides best grown is Ascalon and Canope.131 But the influence of both Leonidas and of Antipater of Sidon on Euenus need not depend on personal ties. The translation of Ovid (see above) helps reduce the time of composition of the poem from BCE 90–CE 40 (the dates of the Garland of Philip)132 to BCE 90–CE 8 (the terminus ante quem for the relevant part of the Fasti).133 The Late Republican and Augustan periods were times of flourishing intellectual activity in Ascalon, the birthplace of the famous philosopher Antiochus and his brother and successor Aristus and his older contemporary Sosus, the grammarians Dorotheus and Ptolemy and the historian Artemidorus, who no doubt wrote his Bithynian History after the establishment of that province; it is highly probable that the other persons mentioned by Stephanus of Byzantium, the historian Apollonius and the Stoic philosophers Antibius and Eubius also, belonged to the same period.134 An elegant epigrammatist suits this milieu to perfection. So much for the poem ascribed to Euenus of Ascalon. How many of the other ten epigrams is it possible to ascribe to the Ascalonite?135 Could one and the same person have written all of them? Such a solution would require us to assume, in the first place, that the adjective Ἀσκαλωνίτου has been corrupted to Σικελιώτου, that Euenus moved at some stage to Athens and was henceforth regarded as a resident of that city, and that he was a grammaticus as well as a composer of epigrams. None of these assumptions is difficult. The first, the paleographically easy corruption of the adjective, would suggest the jettisoning of a lectio difficilior – moreover, one that occurs nowhere else in the Anthology – for the sake of a much more common attribute. For the second – the emigration of Euenus from Ascalon to a great cultural centre like Athens – a number of parallels could be found among Euenus of Ascalon’s compatriots in the Late Republican and Augustan periods: Antiochus was active in Athens, Alexandria and Rome and Aristus followed in his footsteps; Sosus was a pupil of Panaetius, apparently in Teanum, and perhaps he was also active in Athens; and we are told that the grammaticus Ptolemy taught in Rome.136 Clearly, 129 GP II, p. 289. 130 HE no. xlii; see discussion in Part II, ch. 2 above. 131 Dios., 1.95; cf. HE II, p. 32 n. 1; 596; 603; Jos., BJ 4.469 describes it as growing in Jericho; see discussion of the possible significance of this in Geiger (forthcoming). 132 GP I, Introd. p. xlv–xlix.; for the purposes of the present study the objections of those who prefer a later terminus ad quem (e. g. Al. Cameron 1968, updated in Al. Cameron 1993a, 19–48) may be disregarded. 133 Bömer 1957, I, 11–17. 134 See detailed discussion in Part II, ch. 3 above. 135 Though there is some similarity in the conclusions, the present paper argues on lines entirely different from those of Preisendanz 1918. 136 For all these see Part II, ch. 3 above.

Chapter 4: Euenus of Ascalon

85

the emigration of Euenus from Ascalon to Athens137 would well suit the social circumstances of the times.138 Lastly, in the epigram ascribed to Euenus the gram­ maticus (AP 9.251 = GP I, ll. 2296–2301 [no. i]) the bookworm suits well a gram­ maticus-epigrammatist, or else the attribute could have been easily inferred from the contents of the poem. Thus, it is possible to assign all eleven epigrams to Euenus of Ascalon: are there any positive arguments for such an attribution? Gow and Page, who do not even attempt to ascertain the number of poets called Euenus, fail to discuss a characteristic feature of these epigrams, often noted by them elsewhere. Rare vocabulary and the coining of hitherto unknown words and phrases are fashionable traits of Hellenistic and later epigram, often becoming a mannerism. Thus the followers of Leonidas of Tarentum indulged in “the exercise of ingenuity in word-coining and phrase-making, extravagantly picturesque, applied to the description of common-place objects or the narration of uncommon events. Such elaboration of vocabulary and phrasing, often over-strained and occasionally ludicrous, is applied also to descriptions of dedications or of works of art. The themes are as a rule conventional or novel variations on the conventional, and the epigram is designed simply to exhibit the composer’s skill in the Leonidan style”.139 The eleven epigrams of Euenus, forty-six lines in all, contain no less than six hapax legomena. Though probably less than a valid statistical sample, it is worthwhile to compare this with some of the most explicitly mannerist poets of the Anthology. Antipater of Sidon, who seems to have influenced Euenus, and was “too fond of adjectives and especially long compounds, with a number of which he enriched the lexica” (HE II, p. 32) has, by my cursory count, some twenty hapax legomena in 496 verses – less than a third of the ratio found in Euenus. Another near-contemporary, Argentarius, “often indulges, but seldom over-indulges, the fashionable taste for exotic vocabulary and phrasing” (GP II, p. 166). His 208 lines exhibit some eleven hapax legomena, a ratio of about 1:2.5 to Euenus. Close to Euenus is Maccius, whose seventy-eight lines contain seven words not found elsewhere, a ratio of about 2:3 to Euenus. He was “a blender of simple with exotic words, a coiner of ingenious and picturesque phrases” (GP II, p. 310). Some poets have an even higher ratio of hapax legomena per number of lines than the one found in the poems ascribed to Euenus. The ratio of Zonas “an exceptionally skilful wordcoiner and phrase-maker” (GP II, p. 413), is about one-and-a half times higher, that of Philip himself, who is “distinguished only by the exceptionally large number of new word-formations, mostly compound nouns, adjectives and verbs” (GP II, p. 329), has a ratio twice as high as Euenus. Nevertheless, it may be possible to discern some characteristic features in Euenus. His hapax legomena exhibit some aspects that could indicate the idiosyncratic usage of one poet. The six words are divided in two groups. The first contains the female adjectives and participles λωβήτειρα, λαλόεσσα and πανωπήεσσα, and the second the verbale Rektions­ 137 It is not advisable to connect ‘Athenian’ in the ascription with the appearance of ‘Chalkis’ in the poem (AP 9.602, l. 7 = GP I, l. 2316 [no. iv, l. 7]), which is in any case an emendation. 138 The case of Ascalon was far from isolated: I have discussed a similar phenomenon of emigration from Gadara in Geiger 1985b (Hebr.). 139 GP I, Introd., p. xxxiv.

86

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

komposita140 σελιδηφάγος, Τρωοφθόρος and μελίθρεπτος. It goes without saying that such compounds belong to the most common in Greek: it is their accumulation that is remarkable. That these two groups do not derive from two different poets is made probable by the fact that the words σελιδηφάγος and λωβήτειρα are directed at the same book-worm of Euenus “the grammaticus”, while both μελίθρεπτος and λαλόεσσα appear in the same charming epigram on the swallow and the cicada (AP 9.122 = GP I, ll. 2318–23 [no. v]).141 It should also be noted that πανωπήεσσα occurs in one of the epigrams on works of art, all four of which are assigned by Gow and Page to the same author.142 Admittedly, the epigrams ascribed to Euenus could derive from a number of homonymous poets who all indulged in the same fashionable pursuit of word-coining, but assigning them all to the same author, who now acquires something of a personality is by far the more economical solution. In addition to the possible influence of Leonidas of Tarentum and of Antipater of Sidon on the author of these poems (assuming there is only one), one may also detect that of Theognis: it has been noted that AP 11.49 = GP 1, ll. 2324–9 (no. vi) “has some resemblance in theme to Theognis 467ff.”143 and there is a borrowing of Theognis 240 W at AP 9.62.6 = GP I, l. 2307 (no. ii).144 On the other hand there seems to be nothing significantly local in the poems of Euenus, unless we so understand the description of the swallow as belonging to the summer rather than to the spring.145 “Style and subject-matter, unreliable witnesses in this court”,146 may receive some possible linguistic peculiarities as supporting testimony. Thus one would hardly endorse the suggestion of Gow and Page that the “commonplace and dull” epigram attributed to Euenus of Sicily147 is not by the author of the clever epigram ascribed to the Ascalonite; similarly AP 9.251 = GP I, ll. 2296–2301 (no. i), “a vigorous and picturesque composition by a master of this style” can derive on the evidence of the similarly invented compounds σελιδηφάγος and Τρωοφθόρος from the author of AP 9.62 = GP I, ll. 2302–2307 (no. ii), which itself is “an unin140 141 142 143 144

145

146 147

Schwyzer 1953, 429. To the parallels adduced by Gow/Page 1968, II, 292, add Longus, Daphnis and Chloe 1.26. GP II, p. 289. See GP II, p. 289 n. 7 for a discussion of the problematic nature of the resemblance of the two passages. The ascription of Theognis 467ff. to Theognis rather that to Euenus of Paros is disputed: see e. g. Young 1971, apparatus ad loc. and West 1972, Euenus frg. 8a–c with apparatus. Though GP II, p. 291 ad loc. speak of “ready made phrasing”, according to the TLG Theognis’ πολλῶν κείμενος ἐν στόμασιν has its only exact parallel in Euenus’ πάντων δ’ Ἑλλήνων κείσομαι ἐν στόματι, the two phrases also occupying the same position in the line. There is also a late allusion in John Chrysostom, adv. oppugn. vitae mon. 2.5 (PG 47.339). AP 9.122.4 = GP I, l. 2321 (no. v). For the swallow as the proverbial harbinger of spring see Thompson 1936, 319; Keller 1887, 308–310. Though both quote from our epigram neither refers to the adjective θερινός. No connection between the swallow and summer could be found in Jewish sources. GP II, p. 289. Hartigan 1979, 70–71, argues rather absurdly that the epigram on the fate of Troy must have been composed later than the city’s prosperity under Hadrian and thus not by a poet of the Garland of Philip. Consequently she retains for him the appellation Sicilian.

Chapter 4: Euenus of Ascalon

87

spired variation on a common theme” (containing, incidentally, the allusion to Theognis). Like other poets in the Anthology, Euenus may well have written with varying success in a very wide range of styles. On the present evidence it seems not implausible that most, and perhaps all, the epigrams of Euenus in the Anthology were written by a poet from Ascalon, perhaps a grammaticus who possibly also emigrated to Athens and some of whose poetic antecedents and linguistic peculiarities are still recognizable.

88

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

CHAPTER 5: THE SECOND FLOURISHING: LATE ANTIQUITY I Late Antiquity offers us an entirely different picture from the one we saw in the relatively short span of time of the first century BCE and the first CE. Not only do we lack a list aiming at comprehensiveness like the one provided by Stephanus of Byzantium (or rather the one that was provided in his original text), for the entire period between the mid-first century CE and the fourth we are short of even chance references to any persons who might qualify for our survey. That this state of affairs does not reflect in any sense the real circumstances in the city can be made manifest by two sets of evidence. On the one hand the cultural splendour of the city in this period is reflected in its archaeological remains, and on the other the remarkable flourishing of intellectuals in the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries does not mash with the picture of a cultural desert in the second and third. Also the rich material remains, dating from the Severan Age until almost the end of the Greek city (see end of Part II, ch. 1 above) can best be understood as the background to a productive intellectual life. II But there exists also some accidental evidence on intellectuals in the period between the two acmes. These notices, mostly of rather uncertain date, have reached us wholly by chance. The first of these is contained in the story told in the Suda (E 3770) concerning the Thracian soldier Eutocius, who absconded with the money of his unit and settled first in Eleutheropolis, and later in nearby Ascalon. This story will be quoted in full and discussed below. The relevant part for our present concerns relates to Eutocius arriving in Ascalon. There he was well received by one Craterus, described as the first man there at the time (ὀ τότε πρωτεύων);148 when eventually Eutocius was taken to court by the soldiers of his unit it was Craterus who defended him (ὑπεραγωνίζεται), and consequently he prevailed in the case. Whatever the exact political and social status of Craterus in the city, it is obvious that he also appeared as an advocate in court and accordingly must have had the necessary credentials. It is the time of Craterus that is more difficult to ascertain. The fragment is anonymous, but some have attempted to attribute it to Eunapius (346–414),149 whose fourteen book universal history started in 270 and ended in the early fifth century, probably with the death of the author. This attribution is based solely on stylistic criteria, and thus quite rightly the fragment is quoted

148 On this term see Laniado 2002, 201–211. 149 CSHB I: Dexippi, Eunapii, Petri Patricii, Prisci, Malchi, Menandri etc., (ed. Niebuhr et alii, Bonn 1829), p.115; 271, 273.18 – 274.5 Dindorf; FHG frg.106 [IV p. 55]). The editors of LGPN IV place Eutocius in the IV–V c. and assign him to Eunapius.

Chapter 5: The Second Flourishing: Late Antiquity

89

as anonymous by its last careful editor.150Another attempt to date the fragment must take its cue from the rarity of the name. Hitherto the extreme uncommonness of the name Eutocius seems not to have been noticed, perhaps not quite perversely because the name looks like a perfectly simple Greek composite with an obvious meaning. There is of course the famous mathematician Eutocius, to be discussed comprehensively in the following; yet the volumes of LGPN that have appeared until now, comprising some quarter of a million appearances of some 33,000 names (though not including yet Syria and Palestine) have the embezzling Thracian soldier as the sole representative of the name. Moreover, rather surprisingly it is the only name151 in the entire lexicon that is compounded with -τοκιος or -τοκος. Now the only other representatives of the name that I have found are all Palestinian, or Egyptian from a very late period.152 A survey of all these Palestinian Eutocii is in order, not only in an attempt to establish the time of Craterus, but also, perhaps more importantly, to find out as much as possible about the likely antecedents of the mathematician Eutocius. First of these is a person appearing in a (for most classicists) obscure source and, as far as I am aware, never noticed in a classical context. The Palestinian Tal­ mud (Megillah = The Roll of Esther, 3:2, fol. 74a) tells us a story about an adulterous woman called Tamar, who took her complaint about her punishment to the proconsul (‘NTYPWT’ = ἀνθύπατος). When R. Abbahu, a sage of the early fourth century well known for his acquaintance with Greek and Greek ways and good relations with the authorities,153 was approached on the matter he replied in a coded letter, recommending three rhetors, named in the Hebrew as equivalents of ‘Goodchild, Goodlearn and Tharsis (= Tarsus?)’, and the text goes on to decipher the names: ‘BDWKYS, ‘BMSYS, TLTSYS. Already the traditional Talmudic commentators interpreted the first name as Εὔτοκος154 (and the correction to Εὐτόκιος is slight): it is the very rarity of the name, which of course could not have been realised by the Talmudic scholars, that gives it the force of a lectio difficilior, in fact difficillima. Thus the early fourth century rhetor Eutocius of Caesarea becomes a 150 Blockley 1983, 476–478. See also discussions in Dan 1984, 76–78 (Hebr.), who interprets πρωτεύων as head of the boule and Laniado 2002, 16–18, for our passage, including a French translation of the Suda article. 151 By my check of the reverse indices, but note that I have not checked vol. I, which does not have a reverse index. The above numbers did not include vol. V, greatly expanding the number of persons; in that volume there appear, once each, Amatokos, Satokos, and Spartokos, all from Asia Minor, but still no names in -tokios. 152 On top of the instances discussed in the text we have the following evidence from Egypt: an inscription of a Blue charioteer from Alexandria dated to 608–610 (SEG 31 [1981], 1494); a lamp-inscription (SEG 36 [1986], 1526) in all probability belongs to the same person; the variations of the name also appear in two papyri, see Preisigke 1922, s. v. Εὔτοκος; Foraboschi 1971, s. v. Εὐτόκιος. 153 See on him Levine 1975. 154 The two other names, Eumathes (or, perhaps, Eumathis, Eumathion, Eumathidas, Eumathius) and Thalassos (or, perhaps, Thalassius, Thalassis, Thalassion), are of no concern here, though it may be noted that since Eutocius the rhetor refers to a real person so should the other two be considered, and see discussion in Part I, ss. vv.

90

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

real person: was it that the Thracian soldier fled to a province where he had relatives – say, a first cousin named after the same grandfather? In addition to the Thracian soldier we have another fourth-century Eutocius in this country, the addressee of some half a dozen letters by Libanius. From the only one of these that contains a hint as to the man’s identity, from 359/360, we learn that he was a city councillor in the city of the sophist, or rhetor, Eudaemon; this city is Elusa.155 This Eutocius is of course as good a candidate to be a relative of the Thracian soldier as is the Caesarean rhetor – in fact all three may well have been descendants of the same person. The other instances of the name may be given short shrift. A building inscription from Caesarea names Eutocius and his wife Euphimia as donors,156 a Eutocia appears in a fifth-century inscription in Hammat Gader,157 and, finally a Eutocius is mentioned, in the second half of the sixth century, in a mosaic inscription of a church not far from Gerasa, also in the Transjordan.158 All this does not add up to very much, though it increases perhaps somewhat the likelihood of the Thracian soldier, and his advocate Craterus of Ascalon, to belong in the early fourth century. We may now proceed to another chance notice about two educated Greeks from Ascalon. Very possibly it is only the deficiency of our sources that for a long time we do not hear of associations of the city with Platonic philosophers. However a fortuitous find of three inscriptions from the royal tombs in Egyptian Thebes comes to our rescue:159 among the tourists visiting there the sights in the fourth century was a certain Bur(r)ichius of Ascalon, who described himself as a scholasticus; in one inscription Besas, a scholasticus from Panopolis documents his visit together with Burichius διὰ Πλάτωνος,160 in another inscription Bur(r)ichius attests to his visit with his brother Sapricius, also a scholasticus, διὰ Πλάτωνα and the inscription finishes by saying οὐδε τούτου ἔνεκα ἀποδεετε (= ἀποδεῖται) με Πλάτων.161 Whatever the exact Platonic affiliations of the two scholastici from Ascalon, it is a welcome, and chance, reminder, that it is only the scarcity and rather accidental survival of our sources that render our acquaintance with Ascalon intellectuals, and specifically self-styled Platonists, so random. Again, one may reiterate that neither Platonists (whatever this may exactly mean) nor lawyers are created in a void and apply the self-evident conclusions to Ascalon. Notable is also the association of a legal career and an interest in philosophy. Lastly, the name. There is absolutely no need to connect Bur(r)ichius with the Semitic root B-R-KH (‘to bless’), as is done by the editor of the inscriptions, since the name is attested since Hellenistic times. 155 See Seeck 1906, 131, 151; Mayerson 1983, 248; Kaster 1988, 279–282. 156 CIIP II, 1346; no date is suggested by the editor, the inscription is to be dated by the bathhouse. Could this donor have been the rhetor mentioned in the Palestinian Talmud, as suggested by the rarity of the name? 157 Di Segni 1997, no. 55, pp. 240–1; SEG 47 (1997), 2034. Di Segni dwells on the rarity of the name. 158 SEG 33 (1983), 1305. 159 Baillet 1920–26, II, nos. 1266, 1279, 1405. 160 DPhA II, B 29 (on Besas of Panopolis), 106–7 conjectures, that the acquaintance may have been formed during their studies in Alexandria. 161 For the possible meanings of these references to Plato see DPhA II, no. 57.

Chapter 5: The Second Flourishing: Late Antiquity

91

By the way, other visitors to the royal tombs from Ascalon included a Demetrius (nos. 204, 305), and a Theotecnus Himerius (nos. 1460, 1468). These persons must have been well-to-do, and thus perhaps also educated. Another most fascinating piece of evidence has been preserved by Fulgentius the mythographer.162 His 14th chapter, de lauro, contains the following notice: At vero amica Apollinis ob hoc re vocitata est, quia illi qui de somniorum interpretatione scrip­ serunt, ut Antiphon, Filocorus et Artemon et Serapion Ascalonites promittant in libris suis quod laurum si dormientibus ad caput posueris, vera somnia esse visuros. And indeed it is called the friend of Apollo, since those who wrote about the interpretation of dreams, like Antiphon, Filocorus and Artemon, and Serapion of Ascalon, asserted in their books that if you put a laurel above the heads of those asleep they will see dreams that come true.

As far as I can see this is the only mention of the man and his book (not in RE); of the others only Artemon seems to be known.163 We can only fix Serapion’s time as earlier than the late fifth century Fulgentius, though one may construe his not being mentioned in the dream-book of Artemidorus as a possible clue for a terminus post quem. One may also guess that his provenance had been provided in the title, or first sentence, of his book, thus perhaps known at first hand to the mythographer. The topic of the passage is one of the best known, if not the best known, of writers on dreams, the separation of true from false dreams. Also his being listed with a number of other authors as having the same opinion on a certain issue shows him to belong to the well-trodden path of his chosen expertise. Conceivably no lone wolf, but a writer well acquainted with the pertinent literature, perhaps easily accessible in his native city, though of course the alternative that Fulgentius quotes at second hand a set of authors mentioned together cannot be excluded. Evidently the very existence of such a writer in Ascalon adds another dimension to our perspective and more than confirms our view of the breadth of Hellenism in the city. Yet our notice contains another, and rather intriguing aspect, the man’s name. Now of course the name Serapion could have been given to him by chance – the cult of Serapis in Ascalon is discussed elsewhere (see Part II, ch. 7b below) and this in itself could be a good enough reason for the naming. However, the connection of Serapis to dream solving is well known, so that it seems a distinct possibility that Serapion was the chosen name, or nom de plume of the author – the above mentioned Artemon seems to have devoted most of his work to solutions by Serapis.164 Here a particular Palestinian aspect may be added: the equation of Serapis with the great Biblical provider of solutions of dreams, Joseph, has been repeatedly considered, and a rather exhaustive discussion has been devoted to it.165 Whether Serapion may have been acquainted with the Jewish equation with Joseph, or whether there was sufficient knowledge of this in ‘pagan’ circles – one would hardly expect Serapion as a chosen 162 The question of his identity with the bishop of Ruspe is of no import for our quest, especially since the two, if not identical, were at any rate contemporaries. 163 RE II, 1448, no. 22 (E. Riess). 164 Artem., 4.24. 165 Mussies 1979, 199–205. Strangely enough this author refers to the Fulgentius passage (192) but calls Serapion an astrologer!

92

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

name of a Christian – will add speculation on speculation. Be it enough for now to posit this writer as a unique example known to us of the genre in Ancient Palestine and another proof for the depth of the penetration of Greek literature there. III As is well known, our most important source for the social history of the Roman East in the fourth century, beside the Theodosian Codex, are the voluminous writings of Libanius, in the first place his correspondence, but also his orations. Not quite unexpectedly most of his Palestinian ties seem to connect him to Caesarea, the capital of the province,166 with Elusa in the Negev coming a surprising second.167 However, also Ascalon is not totally beyond the reach of Libanius, and indeed a fourth century rhetor, who has not yet been accorded a satisfactory biography may have been closely linked to him. As will be seen, the questions concerning the biography of Ulpian and of his achievements as a sophist are closely tied up with the problem of the sources. At present we have before us a number of distinct sources, ostensibly concerning three or four different persons. It can be shown, however, that indeed in all probability all this evidence pertains to one and the same man. Eunapius (VS 487) tells us that Ulpian was the outstanding teacher (κρατοῦντα … ἐπὶ λόγοις) at Antioch when Prohaeresius went to study with him. Since this would also be the times of Libanius as a student168 it is a fair guess to identify him with Libanius’ nameless first teacher in his ‘Autobiography’ (or. 1.8) and again with the unnamed ‘Ascalonite’ (or. 36.10) – obviously every contemporary reader must have been able to decode the clue. Thus as official sophist at Antioch he was the predecessor of Zenobius of Elusa,169 the predecessor of Libanius himself. Although there has been some hesitation whether or not to identify the ‘Ascalonite’ with Aedesius, mentioned by Libanius in or. 4.9,170 both the matching dates and the assumed prominence seem to speak in favour of Ulpian. Admittedly a rather roundabout piece of evidence, it is of crucial importance for the present study as it is the one that establishes his link with Ascalon. It seems a fairly safe bet to identify this sophist with one appearing under two different entries (O 911, 912) in the Suda; the identification of the two is given as probable by SOL (= Suda On Line – www.stoa.org). The first of these reads: 166 The following persons are known (Roman numerals in this and next note as in Seeck 1906): Acacius II, Helpidius III, Priscianus I, Polybius, Hilarius VII, Hypatius I, Priscio and Panegyrius (these two are attested in Palestine and assigned to Caesarea only by conjecture); see Part I, ss. vv. 167 On top of Eutocius and Eudaemon mentioned above also Argyrius, Eunomus, Hieronymus (see Lib., ep. 334, 335) Zenobius I, Zenobius III, see Part I, ss. vv. 168 Schemmel 1907, 52–54 = 1983, 3–5. 169 Seeck 1906, no. 1, pp. 315–6; PLRE I, s. v. Schemmel 1907, 53 = 1983, 4 does not identify the teacher praised by Libanius; see also RE X A, 12–14 no. 5, cf. no. 2 (both A. Gudeman). 170 See, e. g., PLRE I, no. 1.

Chapter 5: The Second Flourishing: Late Antiquity

93

Οὐλπιανὸς Ἐμεσηνὸς, σοφιστής. Πάτρια Ἐμεσηνῶν, Ἡλιοπόλεως, Βοσποριατῶν καὶ ἄλλων πλείστων, προγυμνάσματα, τέχνην ῥητορικήν. Ulpianus of Emesa. Sophist. [He wrote] Traditions of Emesa, of Heliopolis, of Bosporus, and of many other peoples; Progymnasmata; Art of Rhetoric. The second: Οὐλπιανὸς Ἀντιοχοεὺς τῆς Συρίας, σοφιστής, παιδεύσας πρότερον εἰς Ἔμεσαν, ἐν τοῖς κατὰ τὸν βασιλέα Κωνσταντῖνον χρόνοις. Λόγους διαφόρους, μελέτας, διαλέξεις, καὶ ἄλλα τινά. Ulpianus of Antioch in Syria, Sophist. Previously he taught in Emesa, in the time of the emperor Constantine. [He wrote] miscellaneous discourses; declamations; informal discourses; and certain other works. (Both translated by Malcolm Heath, SOL).

Even a fleeting acquaintance with the Suda’s manner will tell us that to grade the identification as only ‘probable’ extends the very limits of scholarly caution. In fact Jacoby (FGrH 676) prints both Suda entries as if one, though he accords question marks both to the name Ulpianus and to the provenance he prefers, Emesa. It is only one further step to add to the identification the origin in Ascalon.171 Adding up the two Suda entries the following assertions materialise. First, the teaching in Antioch (hence ‘Antiochene’) at the time of Constantine, is in agreement with what we know from Eunapius about the teacher of Libanius and match the latter’s early student days. Since no rivals are mentioned one could also assume that he was at the time the most eminent teacher, that is the official sophist in the city, as he is indeed described by Eunapius. His teaching previously in Emesa (hence ‘Emesan’ – one presumes that Jacoby, too, thought ‘Antiochene’ to derive only from his teaching there) agrees well with what one would expect of the advancement of a highly successful sophist. It is the list of his writings that is our main gain from the Suda, though of course always with the proviso concerning the reliability of this source. Starting with the obvious, there are the miscellaneous discourses, the declamations, the progymnasmata, and the informal discourses. All these were of course the daily bread of the sophist, and certainly of one preeminent in Antioch, though evidently not all sophists necessarily left behind an extensive written œuvre. Less expected is the Art of Rhetoric – our sophist was engaged also in the theoretical side of his profession, no doubt the reserve of its upper reaches. Much more intriguing are the Πάτρια credited to him. We have some idea of the genre of these writings. As Al. Cameron has argued172 these πάτρια were ‘versified histories of the founding and antiquities of cities after the pattern of Hellenistic κτίσεις.’ He also asserts173 that these πάτρια were ‘successors of the κτίσεις performed by the Hellenistic poets at the various θυμελικοὶ ἄγωνες.’ The best evidence for this assertion seems to be the Suda article on Christodorus of Coptos in Egypt, described as an epopoios. Among his poems we are expressly told that the 171 This identification of the OCD3 (Nigel Wilson) is accorded by SOL a ‘sic’ – well beyond proper scholarly caution. 172 Al. Cameron 1965, 492. 173 Al. Cameron 1965, 489, referring to Christ-Schmid-Stählin 1922, II, I6, 141.

94

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

πάτρια of Constantinople and of Thessalonice were composed in the epic manner (ἐπικῶς), and the same may be assumed of the other πάτρια and works mentioned there, the Isaurica, the πάτρια of Nacle near Heliopolis, the πάτρια of Miletus, of Tralles and of Aphrodisias. We are fairly well acquainted with Christodorus’ poetry from his long hexameter poem on the statues in the Baths of Zeuxippos in Constantinople, constituting the second book of the Palatine Anthology.174 This was also the meter of the various πάτρια, some, as we have seen, expressly described as written ἐπικῶς, and we may postulate the same for Ulpian’s efforts in this genre. His are the sole examples known to us of such compositions in Late Antique Ascalon, but nearby Gaza could boast of a number of hexameter poets. John of Gaza, also the author of six extant Anacreontic poems, composed a long hexameter ekphrasis (with iambic introductions to the two parts of the poem) on the winter baths in Gaza175 while Timotheus of Gaza’s didactic (and accordingly certainly hexameter) poem on zoological curiosities is extant only in a Byzantine prose epitome.176 Typically, both these poets were grammatici as well – or, rather more probably, the other way round: also these grammatici, like Ulpianus, devoted some of their spare time to poetry. Other evidence from Gaza is more obscure: the great rhetor Procopius composed a dirge on the earthquake in Antioch177 while his contemporary Aeneas wrote a letter of recommendation for the ‘wandering’ Latin poet Constantinus.178 As we have seen above (Part II, ch. 3 above, on Ptolemy), Ulpianus was not the first scholar in his city combining a rhetorical activity with an interest in history. Now, Ulpianus may have been an historical writer interested in the antiquities of people even closer to Ascalon than the Emesans and Heliopolitans, not to mention the far away (and queried) Bosporans. FGrH 675 (Uranius) prints under F 11 and again under 676 (Ulpian) F 1 the following entry from Stephanus of Byzantium: Τάιν(ν)οι(?): ἔθνος ἀπὸ τῶν Σαρακηνῶν πρὸς μεσημβρίαν, ὡς Οὐλπιανὸς(?) ἐν Ἀραβικοῖς καὶ Οὐράνιος ἐν Ἀραβικῶν β. Tain(n)oi(?): a people to the south of the Saracens, as (write) Ulpian(?) in Arabika and Uranius in the second (book) of Arabika.

The reading Ulpianus is queried, and the apparatus provides the alternatives οὐλπιανός, οὐπιανός, οὐλυμπιανός, Ὀλυμπιανός, that is either Ulpianus or Olympianus. This is not the place to discuss Uranius, a writer posing problems of his own,179 but Ulpianus, if indeed interested in the antiquities of a city where he taught, and other cities, among them one not very far from the place of his teaching, and apparently also in those of a far away people, with whom his connections are totally hidden from us, would be eminently fit to write about a people, the Arabs, 174 His provenance is given there as Egyptian Thebes. 175 Best known thanks to the model edition of Friedländer 1912; see Part I, s. v. Iohannes 7. 176 See Bodenheimer/Rabinowitz 1950; an Arabic source seems to be based on a fuller text: Kruk 2001; see Part I, s. v. 177 See on this Amato 2010, 8–9, 38–39. 178 Aen., ep. 9. 179 See on him Bowersock 1977.

Chapter 5: The Second Flourishing: Late Antiquity

95

practically on the doorstep of his native city. Unfortunately this is as far as we may go, and no final conclusion concerning the authorship of the Arabica is likely to emerge without further evidence. Nevertheless one may be reminded of the coincidence of his earlier compatriot Artemidorus writing about far-away Bithynia (see Part II, ch. 3 above). In a further entry from Stephanus Jacoby prints 676 F 3 as Zweifelhaftes: Δούλων πόλις· πόλις Λιβύης· Ἑκαταῖος ἐν Περιηγήσει (1 F 345) … ἔστι καὶ χωρίον ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ Δουλόπολις, ὥς φησιν Ὀλυμπιανός. Dulon polis [Slavetown]: a city of Libya: Hecataeus in the Periegesis [Round Journey] (FGrH 1 F 345) … there is a place in Egypt (called) Dulopolis, as Olympianus says.

It is to be noted that here the apparatus does not provide alternative readings, and the fragment is included, albeit as dubious, under Ulpianus only because of the earlier passage, where the name is given the alternative Olympianus. If indeed the passage is to be ascribed to Ulpianus his ethnographic interests may have been very wide indeed. On the whole, the probabilities of assigning the Arabica to Ulpianus or to Olympianus seem to be fairly balanced: for the first speaks the combination of the πάτρια with a writing also on neighbouring Arabia (note the καὶ ἄλλων πλείστων in his first Suda entry), for the second the unchallenged name Olympianus, even though not known from elsewhere in such a connection.180 Regrettably, nothing beyond the notices quoted above survives of the writings discussed until now. However, some significant remains of Ulpian’s output seem to have been preserved in a context eminently befitting a sophist. Moreover, as will be seen, the problems surrounding these remains may be linked to the work of another hitherto not fully accounted for person from Ascalon. A concern with the canonical Greek orators, and above all with the greatest of them, Demosthenes, was of course a principal constituent of the calling of a rhetor and in the education of his pupils. Now the name of Ulpianus is intimately connected to the tradition of ancient Demosthenes scholarship. It will be best to start with the extant evidence and try to tie the threads later. The Olynthian and Philippic orations have come down to us, both in the MS tradition of Demosthenes, as well as in an independent MS, with scholia ascribed to Ulpianus. These have been first edited by Aldus Manutius 1503 and most recently by Dilts 1983. It is an obvious suggestion lacking a viable alternative that the Ulpian in question is the Ascalonite rhetor. Although the editor of the Demosthenic scholia refrained, with commendable caution, from identifying Ulpian,181 in fact the only alternative to equating him with the Ascalonite rhetor is to assume an otherwise unattested scholar by that name. Thus the identification with the Ascalonite is in the worst case the only practical working hypothesis. The omission of the Demosthenic efforts by the Suda hardly needs explaining, though of course they may have been subsumed under the ‘certain other works’, in the opinion of the Suda perhaps too 180 N. b. that also the fellow student in Alexandria of Marianus of Neapolis is called Ulpianus or Olympianus in the various MSS, see Part I, s. v. Ulpianus 2. 181 Dilts 1984, 199, following RE X A, 12–14, no. 5 (A. Gudeman).

96

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

lowly to be mentioned specifically. Be this as it may, the full significance of these commentaries will only be appreciated when discussed together with the achievement of a somewhat later compatriot of Ulpian.182 In contrast to the case of Ulpian, where the Suda has split one person in two, in the entry on Zosimus (Ζ 169) it has, in all probability, amalgamated two persons into one. It will be best to start our discussion with this entry. Ζώσιμος, Γαζαῖος ἢ Ἀσκαλωνίτης, σοφιστής, κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους Ἀναστασίου τοῦ βασιλέως. Ἔγραψε λέξιν ῥητορικὴν κατὰ στοιχεῖον καὶ ὑπόμνημα εἰς τὸν Δημοσθένην καὶ εἰς Λυσίαν. Zosimus, of Gaza or Ascalon. Sophist. In the time of the emperor Anastasius. He wrote a Rhetorical Lexicon (alphabetically arranged); commentary on Demosthenes, and on Lysias (tranlated by Malcolm Heath, SOL).

The main obstacle to accepting the contention, that we are dealing with one person of uncertain residence or residing at different times in the two cities named is a notice by George Cedrenus (I, p. 622 Bekker) according to whom Zosimus, a sophist of Gaza, was executed on orders of the emperor Zeno in 477, a considerable time before the rule of Anastasius (491–518).183 Though some have attempted to accept the statement of the Suda and interpret it to say that the Ascalonite may have been active in Gaza,184 that solution would mean to accept the information that there was a sophist Zosimus active in Gaza but to reject the only solid piece of evidence concerning him, his death by order of Zeno. On the other hand as we shall see the only reference to Zosimus’ city in what remains of his writings (in the Paris MS 2935 of Demosthenes, see below) assigns him to Ascalon. Thus it will be best, at least as a working hypothesis,185 to attribute to this man all that we know of the works of Zosimus. It would be much less reasonable to assume a contamination of the works of two different people, since we do not have any evidence for works published by the sophist from Gaza.186 Admittedly, one might contemplate the possibility that the Suda is wrong in putting the time of Zosimus in the reign of Anastasius, since in what remains from the works we can only say with safety that they were composed after the time of Constantine. Accordingly, one cannot reject out of hand the likelihood that the Ascalonite was also active in nearby Gaza. The possibility that there were two sophists called Zosimus active in Gaza, one in the reign of Zeno and one under Anastasius should be shaved by Occam’s Razor.187 182 In Part I, s. v. Epiphanius 3 (Appendix D), it was suggested that Epiphanius, son of an Ulpianus, who taught at Athens and at Petra was not necessarily a native of that city, and that he may have been the son of Ulpianus of Ascalon. He may be identified with a commentator on Demosthenes and thus may have continued the tradition of his father. 183 The statement of Cedrenus receives some circumstantial confirmation from the story of Zonaras (14.2.25–31 Bekker) about the judicial murders of Zeno. 184 See, e. g., DNP s. v. no. 6 (St. Matthaios), but the possibility is also considered in the important paper by Wilson 1967. 185 Thus, e. g., RE X A, 790–795, no. 7 (H. Gärtner). 186 Downey 1958, 309, ascribes the commentaries on Lysias and Demosthenes to Zosimus of Gaza. 187 For different entries for the two men see, for the Gazan, PLRE II, no. 2; Szabat 2007, no. 318,

Chapter 5: The Second Flourishing: Late Antiquity

97

Very tentatively one may add a further consideration to enhance the probability of the ascription of the writings of Zosimus to the Ascalonite. There is some justification to proceed in source criticism with the same rules governing textual criticism. Since in the period we are discussing Gaza is by far the more famous city – and even more emphatically so with regard to sophistic and literary activity – Ascalon in fact receives the preferred status of a lectio (or should we say fons?) diffi­ cilior. Of course not too much should be made of this consideration, but on the whole one feels justified in proceeding with discussing what we know of Zosimus as pertaining to the man from Ascalon. Before considering the writings of Zosimus two points of possible relevance to his biography, one positive, the other negative, may be mentioned. The first relates to Theon, referred to as his teacher (see below). Although the name is fairly common, it is worth the while to point out a contemporary by that name, an ‘eloquent’ person, recommended to his brother Philip by Procopius of Gaza.188 (This would entail the assumption that the letter of Procopius is among the earlier ones in the collection and that Zosimus was active not necessarily at the beginning of Anastasius’ reign.) The residence of this man is not known, but he may well have been an inhabitant of Gaza away at the time of the correspondence, or even of nearby Ascalon. This Theon would be as good a candidate as any for being the teacher of Zosimus (see below). The other point should quickly be put out of our way. It is most frustrating that very little is known of the personality of the historian Zosimus, the ‘pagan’ author of the Historia Nova; nevertheless, one should withstand the temptations of the hor­ ror vacui – the identity of the name is certainly far from sufficient.189 One should also consider that the historian’s firm anti-Christian stance seems far removed from what we know of the atmosphere in both Gaza and Ascalon, and there is certainly no hint of it in what remains of the rhetor’s writings. On the other hand it should also be noted that there is absolutely no evidence to confirm the suggestion190 that Zosimus of Ascalon was a Christian. However, we shall return to the issue of the author of the Historia Nova further below. It is now time to discuss Zosimus’ literary output. As we have seen, the Suda attributes to him a rhetorical lexicon in alphabetical order and commentaries on Demosthenes and Lysias. Nothing remains of the lexicon and from the commentary on Lysias, but we are more fortunate with his work on the other orator. The Paris MS 2935 of Demosthenes contains a biography, evidently meant as an introduction and for the Ascalonite, PLRE II, no. 4; Szabat 2007, no. 320; Kaster 1988, no. 276; Frost 2010, 168 attributes, without argument, the commentaries mentioned in the Suda to the Gazan. 188 Proc., ep. 25: τῷ λογίῳ Θέωνι. 189 See, e. g., OCD3, s. v.: ‘His identification with either the sophist Zosimus of Ascalon or the sophist Zosimus of Gaza is very unlikely’ (J. F. Matthews). The efforts of Athanassiadi 1999, 350–7 (with earlier literature) to identify the historian with either of the sophists (!) are utterly unconvincing. Dihle 1989 confuses, rather than equates, Zosimus the rhetorician with the historian, see references in his Index; it also has a shared entry for Procopius of Gaza and Procopius of Caesarea. 190 In the otherwise excellent dissertation of Oomen 1926, 60.

98

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

to a commented edition, ascribed to Zosimus of Ascalon.191 It appears that at least part of the surviving scholia may also be attributed to him, since in a note on Oration XXIV there is a reference ‘as we told in his Life’.192 We shall later return to the question of the final redaction of these scholia. Admittedly, the appreciation of that biography has been very low indeed, though it should not go without mention that it has been seen193 as key evidence for the early composition of scholia. The Life of Demosthenes contains evidence for the identification of Zosimus as the author of yet another surviving work. In that Life the author tells us that the father of the rhetor was a sword-smith who did not work himself, but was the owner of a factory manufacturing swords and adds ‘as we have also said concerning the father of Isocrates’. In an anonymously transmitted Life of Isocrates we are told that although his father Theodorus was described as a flute-maker he did not work himself but had slaves (παῖδες) working for him. On this evidence, combined with similarities in diction, we may ascribe this biography too to Zosimus – and regrettably it is not more favourably appreciated than the one on Demosthenes.194 Moreover, since the Life of Demosthenes served as an introduction to a commentary to (some of) his orations, so must have the biography of Isocrates introduced a commentary to (some of?) his speeches. Indeed, the hypothesis to Isocr. 1 hints at the biography, and it also promises commentaries on all speeches. Accordingly it has also been asserted195 that the hypotheses prefaced to the public orations of Isocrates, except for the Panathenaicus and the Panegyricus, should be attributed to Zosimus. As for the rest we should consider in the first place that all the hypotheses have a common tradition, summarizing the contents of the speech and discussing authenticity, date and arrangement; the scholia then analyse the speech point by point, giving preference to philological over historical issues.196 The existence of scholia on Isocrates and on Demosthenes and the Suda’s testimony concerning scholia on Lysias raises the possibility that Zosimus commented, or perhaps only planned to comment, on the Ten Attic Orators. Indeed, such a plan is hinted at in the hypothesis to Isocrates. Such an ambitious scheme not only reflects on its author, but should be taken as evidence for the availability of Greek literature in Ascalon – the composition of scholia required of course far more than the texts of the authors to be considered – and thus, in a wider sense, on the intellectual climate in the city. We shall return to the composition of scholia in Ascalon, but first we should consider another side of Zosimus’ scholarly activity. It appears that in addition to his commentaries he also edited texts: Rabe has published a text of some ten pages in print from a MS under the title ‘The Most Useful Things from the Writings of the

191 192 193 194

Conveniently accessible in Westermann 1845, 253–9. Dilts II, 1986, 361.271. See Wilson 1967. See, e. g., Mathieu/Brémond 1972, I. In this edition the biography is printed at the head of the text (it was already accessible in Westermann 1845, 297–302). 195 Oomen 1926, 13–25. 196 Cf. Gibson 2002, 21.

Chapter 5: The Second Flourishing: Late Antiquity

99

Sophist Athanasius of Alexandria, edited by Zosimus the pupil of Theon’.197 I have already conjectured above as to the identity of Zosimus’ teacher Theon, but there is no knowing whether the scribe found the notice concerning the teacher in the MS he copied, or whether it derives from independent information or from guesswork.198 The text of Athanasius is a commentary on the στάσεις of Hermogenes. Though in the Byzantine world the writings of the second-century prodigy have acquired an authoritative status this was a development that took some time and encountered for a length of time serious opposition, and thus it is of some interest that a roughly contemporary school of Hermogenes admirers seems to have been active in Palestinian Caesarea.199 At any rate this edition by Zosimus is welcome testimony that he was interested also in the more theoretical sides of rhetoric, well in line with the assertion of the Suda that he composed a rhetorical lexicon. Commenting on the classical orators, editing texts and contributing to the theory of rhetoric all add up to the picture of a well-rounded scholar, even if not of the highest accomplishments. Indeed, it has been suggested that he was the editor of the entire scholia.200 Moreover, like many of his contemporaries Zosimus regarded Aelius Aristides of a stature commensurate with the Attic orators and accordingly well worth commenting on. It appears that actually he composed commentaries on the Leuctric orations, and some remains of these have been detected in the MSS.201 This evidence completes the picture of Zosimus as a many sided scholar of rhetoric, though we are missing any hints that he also engaged in the practical sides of his profession.202 About four generations separate Zosimus from Ulpian.203 Are we dealing with a mere coincidence with two scholars from the same city, not celebrated in this period to be one of the great seats of learning, pursuing similar quests or is it rather that we are gazing at two islands that were peaks of a mountainous country long since inundated by the ocean of time? It is now time to return to the vexed question of the identity of Zosimus, the author of the Historia Nova.204 It is usually stated that the only solid piece of evidence concerning his identity is provided by Photius, codex 98, where he is described as κόμης (καὶ) ἁποφισκοσσυνήγορος, viz., comes and former advocatus 197 Rabe 1909, 548–557 Ἐκ τῶν Ἀθανασίου τοῦ σοφιστοῦ Ἀλεξανδρείας, ἃ Ζώσιμος ὁ Θέωνος διωρθώσατο μαθητής, τὰ χρησιμώτατα. 198 But note that Rabe 1909, followed by H. Gärtner, RE X A, 791, thought that Theon was most probably (‘ehestens’) the Alexandrian rhetor and teacher of Damascius (see on him RE V A, 2054 [W. Stegemann]). 199 See Keil 1907, 176–222, on Paul, and his admiring pupil John who refers to his teacher as ὁ πάνυ, and Part I, ss. vv. Iohannes 1 and Paulus. 200 RE II A, 701, s. v. Scholien (A. Gudeman). 201 See Lenz 1964, 13–14, 83–85, 89–94. Lenz corrects here some of the proposals of Oomen 1926. 202 For the rejection of various attempts to ascribe to Zosimus further works see RE X A, 754. 203 But see n. 182 above for the possibility that a son of Ulpianus was continuing the tradition. 204 On the whole I find myself in the following in agreement with F. Paschoud, RE X A, 795–841, no. 8, at 799–800.

100

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

fisci, though we cannot tell the city of his activity. However, the Constantinian ex­ cerpta de legationibus quote three times passages from the historian and ascribe them to Zosimus the Ascalonite. This may come from original information in the MS of Zosimus, the most probable source also of Photius. Yet it can also be a later conjecture by a scribe, perhaps intending to equate the author with our rhetor. We have seen above, that such an equation is to be rejected, but one may contemplate the existence of two men by that name in the city. Though this would multiply instances, one should also remember the Greek custom of papponymy – men possessing the same name may well be members of the same family. However, it is not the ascription of the Constantinian Excerpts alone, but also some circumstantial evidence that can be adduced for the possible Ascalonite provenance of the historian. Chief among these is his reference (2.38.4) to the hated tax of the chrysargyron, now (after 498 – this is usually adduced to provide a terminus post quem for the historian) abolished by Anastasius. We have seen205 that this was a favourite theme with contemporary Palestinian writers from Gaza and from Caesarea – an Ascalonite Zosimus would readily fit in. Moreover, Procopius of Gaza’s letter 153 is addressed to his former pupils Zosimus and Macarius, now studying law – the lawyer and future historian may well have been influenced by his teacher’s panegyric of Anastasius and his enthusiasm for the abolition of the tax. He may also be identical with the Zosimus, the addressee of Aeneas, ep. 8 and 10. All this of course does not amount to anything like proof, though it should be considered a distinct possibility. Indeed such a possibility has been very cautiously (‘Philistine coast’) considered by Paschoud – and we may add now that it would be well in line with what we know of intellectual life in Ascalon at the time. IV And now for somebody entirely different. We had opportunity above to observe the extreme rarity of the name Eutocius, virtually confined to Late Antique Palestine and a couple of very late instances in Egypt. This issue would have never come up were it not for the one significant bearer of the name, who may well have been descended from one of the above mentioned Eutocii, the most likely candidate being the Thracian soldier who absconded with his unit’s money and settled eventually in Ascalon. In fact previous proposals advocating that connection206 were, without the support of the LGPN, not in a position to back up their claim. Though one of the most influential Greek intellectuals coming out of Palestine the unanimous verdict on Eutocius of Ascalon pronounces him a learned but unoriginal man. This view will be modified to some extent in the following. Before discussing his contributions to Greek science and philosophy it will be best to survey the chance facts that can be elicited from his writings, almost the only source for his life. 205 See Part I, ss. vv. Priscianus 2, Procopius 1, Timotheus 1. 206 E. g. Tannery 1884.

Chapter 5: The Second Flourishing: Late Antiquity

101

1. Eutocius dedicated his commentary on Archimedes’ On the Sphere and the Cylinder to Ammonius of Alexandria, labelled by him as ‘the most excellent of philosophers’ (κράτιστε φιλοσόφων). It may be deduced from the form of address that Ammonius was the teacher of Eutocius. This work was written when Eutocius was at the beginning of his career (see p. 2.13). 2. At the end of the commentary on Book I of On the Sphere and Cylinder we find the following notice: ‘The commentary of Eutocius of Ascalon on the edition (ἐκδόσεως) of Book I of On the Sphere and Cylinder of Archimedes has been edited (παραναγνωσθείσης) by our teacher Isidorus of Miletus the engineer (μηχανικῷ)’, and similarly at the end of Book II and at the end of his commentary on Archimedes’ Measurement of the Circle. ‘Our teacher Isidorus’ is mentioned also in the text of Eutocius (p. 84.8). 3. The commentary on Archimedes’ Equilibrium of Planes is dedicated to one Petrus. 4. The commentary on Apollonius of Perge’s Conics is dedicated to his ‘dear friend’ Anthemius: the dedication is repeated at the head of all the first four books that have survived in Greek and on which we have commentaries by Eutocius. A few words are in order on these dedications, not necessarily in the above order. We know nothing of Petrus, except the obvious deduction from his name that he was a Christian. Anthemius of Tralles,207 mathematician and architect, was the builder of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople after the destruction of the church in the disturbances of 532; he died before the collapse of its dome in the earthquake of 558. Isidorus of Miletus208 was Anthemius’ partner in the building of the Hagia Sophia; incidentally, it was his homonymous nephew209 who rebuilt the dome after its collapse. One wishes to know more about these connections of Eutocius – were they forged in Constantinople or was the acquaintance purely epistolary? At any rate, even if personal relationships played a role it is evident from the dedication of mathematical works that the association must have been in the first place professional – a welcome glimpse into the cobweb of relationships in the Greek World and the prominent place an intellectual from Ascalon could hold in it. Indeed, it is not too difficult to guess at the shared professional interests of Eutocius and the architects of the Hagia Sophia. At their basis one should posit the writings of Archimedes and the problem of their availability. As we have seen Isidorus was engaged in an edition of Archimedes’ works with Eutocius’ commentary. Moreover, it has been suggested that the plan of the great church may have been indebted to Archimedes’ geometrical discoveries.210 Of Anthemius we know that he wrote a treatise On Burning Mirrors, in which he refers to Archimedes, who was of course himself the first author of a work on this subject.211 Possibly the few remain207 208 209 210 211

PLRE III, no. 2. PLRE III, no. 4 PLRE III, no. 5 See Netz/Noel 2007, 76–77. The Greek original of Anthemius’ treatise is lost, but an Arabic version survives; this version

102

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

ing facts hint at Eutocius sitting at the centre of a Greek world-wide cobweb of Archimedes scholarship.212 Another interesting connection of Eutocius is Ammonius.213 The head of the Neoplatonic school in Alexandria and a pupil of Proclus was a commentator on Aristotle and an expert on geometry and astronomy. He is attested in 517 and must have died some time between that year and the early twenties. In this connection it will be as well to recall some of the characteristic features of the Platonic School of Alexandria. As is well known, we have no evidence for the teaching of the School prior to Ammonius Saccas and after him Theon and his martyred daughter Hypatia.214 Despite her tragic fate it is interesting to note that relations between members of the School and the often extremely militant Christians of Alexandria were not always hostile. The School contributed its part to this state of affairs by avoiding extreme positions of adherence to the Old Religion that characterised the School in Athens. A safe haven was presented by an emphasis on that other mainstay of the Late School, Aristotelian commentary. Notwithstanding these facts, the relations between Athens and Alexandria remained close, and Alexandrians studying at Athens remained a regular feature of the Platonic tradition. At any rate definite information of the succession in Alexandria we only possess at a later stage, with Hermeias, a pupil of Syrianus and his son Ammonius who studied with Proclus. With Ammonius the School reached its acme and its greatest influence. Also the end of the succession is well known: Olympiodorus was the last Head who was an adherent of the Old Religion, succeeded by Elias, David, and Stephanus – this last one transferred his activities to Constantinople. As should be clear alone from the enumeration of their names, the last three were already Christians. However, it is between Ammonius, who appears to have died sometime around 520, and Olympiodorus, still attested in 565, that a gap may be registered, and it is here that Eutocius of Ascalon seems to find his place. In a text published over fifty years ago by Westerink and ascribed to Elias, the successor of Olympiodorus as head of the school in Alexandria, and the first Christian in that position, Eutocius is referred to in the dispute concerning the place of logic in the study of philosophy: was it part of the course or only ancillary? It was Eutocius’ opinion that the Εἰσαγωγή, that is Porphyry’s Introduction to Aristotle’s Categories, should be placed at the beginning of the course.215 It seems to me, that such an attitude accords well with an emphasis on the importance of logic, the very gate to enter before admittance into the edifice of philosophy – a stance hardly surprising in a man best known as a mathematician. Thus he seems to have been not involved in, if not directly opposed to, the mystical leanings in the school. To what extent does this place him in the same camp as his older contemporary from Pales-

212 213 214 215

has been translated into French; see the references to Archimedes in Rashed 2000, 303, 309, 317, esp. 319. See now for a full appreciation Netz 2011, I, ch. 9; on the possible uniqueness of the commentaries in Late Antiquity see 270. DNP s. v. no. 12 (P. Hadot); PLRE II, no. 6. Wallis 1972, 139. Westerink 1961. The reference to Eutocius is at f. 131v, Westerink 1961, 134.

Chapter 5: The Second Flourishing: Late Antiquity

103

tine, Marinus of Neapolis,216 and whether this is to be ascribed to pure coincidence remains to be seen. Westerink (1961) in his further reconstruction of the fortunes of the school in Alexandria shows that, as mentioned, Ammonius must have died in 520 or slightly later. Olympiodorus must have been appointed to head the school at an early age and died after 565 and it seems to be the case that Eutocius succeeded Ammonius for some time, and it is in that position that he lectured on logic. What else he may have taught at Alexandria we cannot tell, though Aristotelian commentaries remain a distinct possibility, as will be presently seen. Whether he returned to his native city or whatever his later fate it is impossible to tell. Although we know only of Eutocius’ lecturing in Alexandria, there seems to exist some little noticed evidence for his being also a commentator on Aristotle. Richard Goulet, in the DPhA article on him, says that our Eutocius is ‘perhaps’ identical with an ‘Atocius’ mentioned in a list of Aristotelian commentators.217 In fact, considering the rarity of the name Εὐτόκιος, and the absence of other names ending in -τόκιος discussed above, thus rendering ‘Atocius’ implausible, the identification is not only possible, but highly probable, or rather all but certain. It also accords well with the Aristotelian connections discussed above. It seems that we are getting a glimpse into the philosophical activities of Eutocius, and they may have played a much larger part in his career than can be conjectured from the remains of his mathematical works. And indeed Eutocius is best known as a mathematician or, to be more precise, as a commentator on mathematical works, and to this activity we must turn now. It is his commentaries on various writings of the great mathematician Archimedes and on the On Cones of Apollonius of Perge that constitute the base to whatever fame he may lay claim. These works are nowadays very much at the centre of scholarly activity: on the one hand there is renewed interest in Archimedes and the commentaries, not unconnected with the rediscovery of the Archimedes palimpsest, and on the other hand a truly major edition of the Greek texts as well as Arabic translations of Apollonius of Perge is under way.218 One disputed point of some interest is the 216 Marinus destroyed his commentary on the Philebus when Isidorus asserted that there was no need for it since there existed a commentary by Proclus, and on the Parmenides Marinus maintained that it dealt with the ideas rather than with gods; see Damascius frgs. 38A, 97I. In this context one may refer also to Tihon 1976, thus establishing the connections Theon-Marinus, Theon-Eutocius (see below), and making the connection Marinus-Eutocius more plausible. 217 Dörrie/Baltes 1993, no. 76.5, pp. 20–21 (quoted from ‘Krönert, Canones S. 8 = de Lagarde, Symmikta S. 175’); the name appears in a list of commentators, of whom according to the editors in their commentary, pp. 153–5, not only Atocius, but also Arrian, Eucaerus, Zacharias and Tribunus are unknown. DPhA III, s. v. Eutocius p. 395 conjectures identifications also for these; if accepted this would leave ‘Atocius’ the odd man out – an additional reason, if one needed, to identify him with Eutocius. DPhA’s assigning of Eutocius to Alexandria has been corrected in the subsequent volume. 218 See the following recent editions: a. Archimedes: Netz 2004; see also the popular work by Netz/Noel 2007 and now the magnificent edition of the palimpsest Netz/Noel/Tchernetska/ Wilson 2011. b. Decorps-Foulquier/Federspiel 2008; I do not list here the edition of the books that exist only in Arabic. See also McKinney 2010, a mainly text critical study.

104

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

language of Archimedes’ texts Eutocius had before him: were they in Doric, and standardised by Eutocius, or did he have before him already a koine text?219 If the former view could be maintained, it may be interesting to compare Eutocius’ work with that of Marianus of Eleutheropolis (see Part II, Appendix). Another work whose attestation is still sub judice is a commentary on the first book of Ptolemy’s Almagest dealing with basic arithmetical operations. This commentary was based on earlier sources, including both Pappus and Theon, and has been attributed to Eutocius,220 but this attribution has been contested by Knorr.221 However, this same scholar is also the author of the most sustained discussion of Eutocius’ contributions, and this in a highly positive approach. Among others he analysed ‘Eutocius’ Anthology of Cube Duplications’ (part I, ch. 5, 77–129); he maintained, against Wilamowitz, the authenticity of Eutocius’ text of Eratosthenes’ letter to Ptolemy (part I, ch. 6, 131–153): if indeed authentic, this is the longest text we possess by Eratosthenes. In ch. 9, 225–249, comparing Pappus and Eutocius, he battled against the portrayal of Eutocius as ‘the scholastic pedant characteristic of the decline’, and generally against underrating him. Here he also assumes that he was active in Alexandria,222 and discusses his major role in present text of Apollonius’ Conics, that survive thanks to him. Another fact we may deduce from the reconstruction of the Alexandrian succession is, that placed between Ammonius and Olympiodorus, he too was an adherent of the traditional religion, and Elias, the successor of Olympiodorus, was indeed the first Christian at the head of the school. Eutocius’ dedication to the ‘pagan’ Ammonius on the one hand, and his ties to the Christian builders of the Hagia Sophia, and the obviously Christian Peter on the other may provide a clue to his personality, and to a stance well in line with what we know of the school of Alexandria. He may of course have converted at some stage, but it seems far more likely that his religious persuasion had little influence on his intellectual ties.223 Unfortunately, we know absolutely nothing of Eutocius’ connections, philosophical or otherwise, in Ascalon. However, some ties may be surmised. We happen to be in possession of a short letter devoid of any significant contents addressed to him by the sophist Diogenes of Antioch. Another correspondent of Diogenes was Aeneas of Gaza. Though a generation older than Eutocius, and residing in a neighbouring city, he may have met the younger man in his old age. Another possible point of contact is an extant letter of Aeneas to Julian of Ascalon (see Part II, ch. 6 below). Thus the attested parts of the correspondence are Diogenes-Aeneas, Dio219 The former view is cautiously suggested by Netz 2011, 178, the latter is maintained with some conviction by Knorr 1989, 528. 220 Hultsch 1878 provides an edition of two parts of an anonymous commentary on Ptolemy at xvii–xix and 1138–65, the latter with Latin translation; Mogenet 1956 maintained that the scholia on fifteen chapters of the first book of the Almageste contained ‘une sorte de commentaire’, followed by Ver Eecke 1960, 394; Neugebauer 1975, 769, 838; Dickey 2007, 67. 221 Knorr 1989, 155–211, tentatively ascribes the commentary to the barely known Arcadius. 222 He also assumes that Eutocius had philosophical interests, but seems to be ignorant of contributions on this subject from the classical side, such as that by Westerink 1961. 223 Knorr 1989, 167, following a suggestion by Tannery 1884 maintains that it is ‘feasible, although by no means assured’, that Eutocius was a Christian.

Chapter 5: The Second Flourishing: Late Antiquity

105

genes-Eutocius, Aeneas-Julian; the missing part of the puzzle is Eutocius-Julian. These two were contemporaries or near-contemporaries living in by our standards a fairly small town and shared interests in the various branches of science so that it would be carrying scholarly caution too far to deny that they must have been acquainted, though of course the degree of acquaintance cannot be specified. Possibly we see only the remaining threads of an entire web of connections. To return to Aeneas,224 he was a Christian, and had been a pupil of the ‘pagan’ Hierocles in Alexandria. His dialogue Theophrastus bridges the gap between Christianity and Neoplatonism: in the event Theophrastus rejects reincarnation but accepts the immortality of the soul and resurrection and leaves the School. Despite all this, the text is much more heir to Greek philosophical teaching than to Christian theology, quoting the Gorgias and Plotinus rather than the New Testament. Thus it is not only the above recounted connections, including the surmised one EutociusJulian, that make the acquaintance of Eutocius and Aeneas highly probable, but also the evident assumption that a Gazan Neoplatonist who studied in Alexandria and an Ascalonite Head of the School there must have formed some sort of relationship. Aeneas leads us inevitably to Zacharias Rhetor.225 As is well known, Zacharias, who earned both the titles of rhetor and of scholasticus, was a most devout Christian and in the event bishop of Mytilene, and is the author of, among other works, an Ecclesiastical History. His own dialogue Ammonius or de opificio mundi is to a large extent homage to Aeneas’ Theophrastus – he may well have been a pupil of the former – and upholds the Christian doctrine while showing due respect to a philosopher who still professed the Old Religion. Zacharias was a contemporary of Eutocius and it is difficult to imagine that the two men never encountered each other while studying in Alexandria. Of course far be it from me to invent an entire school, or branch of Neoplatonic teaching in Ascalon in the late fifth and early sixth centuries. However, a degree of mutual tolerance shown on both sides of the religious divide seems to be fairly well established. Eutocius appears to fit into this picture extremely well. Indeed, it is quite probable, that despite the scarcity of direct references we succeeded to a certain degree to go beyond the mathematician Eutocius and to connect him to the wider historical context of the last half century of the School of Alexandria and to the scholars and philosophers of Ascalon so greatly influenced by it. Even though it is Eutocius’ mathematical commentaries that mainly merit him his place in the history of ancient science, it is heartening to learn that he was also the author of at least one independent mathematical work. It appears that he was the author of an astrological treatise, and it has even been conjectured that the latest entry in the collection of Greek horoscopes, for October 28, 497,226 may well be

224 For bibliography see his entry in Part I above. 225 For a conveniently accessible bibliography (also on the internet) see Rist 1998, and see the entry in Part I. 226 Neugebauer / van Hoesen 1959, 152–7 (no. L 497), 170–3, 188–9; even though only one MS ascribes it to Eutocius, the correctness of the ascription is maintained by the publishers.

106

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

Eutocius’ own.227 At any rate the astrological work is safely attested.228 Needless to say, astrology was not separate from astronomy – in fact that separation took place only in the seventeenth century – and its practice did involve considerable mathematical skills. It is time to sum up. Eutocius of Ascalon was a man of the world, with close ties to the most important seats of learning in the Greek world, Alexandria, Constantinople and Antioch, and on friendly terms with both Christian and Hellenic men of science. His mathematical studies, including an expertise in the history of the subject, were of the most profound, and his grasp of some of the greatest achievements of Greek mathematics, thus saving them from oblivion, earns him our eternal gratitude. But it is only of relatively late that the all-round quality of his scholarship can be appreciated. A commentary on Ptolemy may perhaps be added to the other mathematical works and may have been of comparable worth. More intriguing are the independent work on astronomy and the lectures on logic, and conceivably on other philosophical subjects, including commentaries on Aristotle. That he was properly appreciated in his time may readily be deduced from his conjectured appointment as Head of the Neoplatonic school in Alexandria. One may unhesitatingly maintain that there was nothing in his Ascalonite background that stood in the way of his career in that great city. V Another feature reflecting on the intellectual life in Ascalon pertains to the visits of Greek philosophers or men of letters in the city. At least one instance may be reconstructed with some confidence. Marinus, Proclus 19, asserts that the philosopherhero of the biography229 composed hymns not only to Greek gods, but also to ‘Marnas of Gaza, Asclepius Leontuchos of Ascalon, another Theandrites, a god much honoured among the Arabs, Isis who is still honoured in Philae, and in a word all the rest.’230 Elsewhere (see Part II, ch. 7a below) I discuss the unique epithet of Asclepius and its meaning, here a different aspect comes to the fore. This very distinct Asclepius from Ascalon, nowhere else referred to in extant literature, makes it highly likely that it was autopsy of the shrine that moved Proclus to celebrate the god in a hymn. Moreover, the entire assemblage of gods, from Ascalon, Gaza, from among the Arabs and from Egyptian Philae suggests a tour of the southern shore of Palestine and of Egypt, probably the route from Gaza to Alexandria being made by sea. Of course such a tour by the Head of the Neoplatonic School in Athens would entail much more than the adoration of some particular local gods, and likeminded persons, in philosophy and religion, would no doubt crowd to listen to the utterances of the great philosopher, or even just to see him. One may readily imagine the gathering of (also self-styled) Neoplatonist adherents of the Old Religion around 227 228 229 230

Toomer 1976, 18 n. 2 CCAG codex 82, cod. Paris. gr. 2425, p. 37, f. 216v: νβ. Ἐκ τῶν Εὐτοκίου ἀστρολογουμένων. Different aspects of Proclus are discussed in Pépin/Saffrey 1987; Bos/Meijer 1992. Translation: Edwards 2000, 87–88.

Chapter 5: The Second Flourishing: Late Antiquity

107

the current Head of the School, perhaps composing on the spot his hymn to the particular local manifestation of the god. Once we assume a visit by Proclus we may turn to his biographer. Marinus of Neapolis231 succeeded to the chair of his revered teacher in 485, the only safe date about his life. Damascius (frg. 97A) tells us that Marinus was born a Samaritan and converted to the religion of the Hellenes and consequently nothing would be more natural for him than to learn as much as possible about the various gods worshipped and their shrines in his native country. It is a reasonable assumption that it was in the company of his pupil and eventual successor Marinus that Proclus visited some cities in Palestine. According to another conjecture Marinus’ successor Isidorus visited Gaza with his disciple and eventual successor and biographer Damascius. There they seem to have been deeply impressed by the ‘pagan’ zeal of Antonius.232 The story gives us two clues. One, it supports the conjecture that the fact that the self-effacing Marinus does not mention that he travelled alongside his revered teacher should by no means taken as an indication that such a joint journey never took place. On the contrary, if Proclus did visit Ascalon and Gaza he is most likely to have done so in the company of his disciple and future biographer, a native of the country. Second, the visit to Gaza of Isidorus and Damascius may well have included a trip to nearby Ascalon, even though of course this is not attested in the surviving fragments of Damascius’ work. Indeed, Isidorus setting out, at least in part, in the footsteps of his teacher Proclus (and of Marinus, his fellow-student and immediate predecessor as Head of the School, who was constantly made light of by Damascius) is an attractive hypothesis. Needless to say, such instances give us only a glimpse of the likely visits in a Greek world in which travel was still relatively safe and easy. In this context it would be wrong not to mention that one of the seven philosophers who preferred to go to Persia following Justinian’s ban on ‘pagan’ teaching in 529 (Agathias 3.30) included a man from Gaza, also called Isidorus.233 If indeed we have evidence, or may easily conjecture, visits in Gaza (and possibly nearby Ascalon) or Ascalon by all four last Heads of the School in Athens, Proclus, Marinus, Isidorus and Damascius we may have gained an indication of one aspect of Ascalon’s intellectual reputation in the Greek world. This indeed is the point to sum up this chapter. VI Comparing Ascalon in its heyday in the Late Republic and Early Empire with its second flourishing in Late Antiquity would but recapitulate the preceding chapters. Nevertheless a word on our sources is in order: while Stephanus of Byzantium provided a convenient list for the first period, including a number of people otherwise 231 See on him Sambursky 1985; Luz 1990; DPhA IV, no. 42. 232 See Szabat 2007 on Antonius (her no. 22), interpreting Dam. frg. 133: the extensive description of Antonius’ activities in Gaza may be based on an eye-witness account. 233 See Part I, s. v. Isidorus 2.

108

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

unattested, for Late Antiquity a painstaking search was necessary: no doubt a source similar to Stephanus would have added considerably to our knowledge. A more pertinent comparison is that with Gaza, famous as an intellectual centre in Late Antiquity. This fame rests on the achievements of half a dozen persons: the three rhetors constituting the misnamed ‘School of Gaza’, Aeneas, Procopius and Choricius, with the addition of Zacharias Rhetor or Scholasticus, the poet John of Gaza, author of both a long ekphrasis and of anacreontic poems, and Timotheus, the author of the (originally verse) Animal Book and other writings. Ascalon can boast as against these an author of a Dream Book, two rhetors who also wrote commentaries on the Attic orators, a mathematician, who also dealt with astronomy, as well as with Aristotelian philosophy and perhaps other branches of science, and, finally (to be discussed in the next chapter) an architect with interest in philosophy and probably a legal education: Ascalon was hardly just Gaza’s poor relative (or neighbour).

Chapter 6: Julian of Ascalon

109

CHAPTER 6: JULIAN OF ASCALON234 I Students of ancient metrology have long since been acquainted with a short tract, though so far none seems to have been aware of the fact that it has been published235 in four different versions: (1) The manuale legum, or Hexabiblos, of Constantine Harmenopulos, a Byzantine compilation dating from 1345 and transmitted in a great number of manuscripts, has been published a number of times since the editio princeps of 1540; the most accessible edition, with Latin translation and some notes, is that of Heimbach 1851.236 In book 2 ch. 4 (De novis operibus), there appears (but not in all MSS) a page-long metrological table (# 12), purporting to derive from an architect Julian of Ascalon, according to the editors not attested elsewhere. The text in the still basic collection of Hultsch 1864, I 54–57 ; 200–201, on which all students of ancient metrology depend, derives from this authority. Though there is nothing in the text of Harmenopulos that indicates the end of the excerpt of Julian, it is implicit in the discussions of modern scholars that only the metrological table is Julian’s work and that the paragraphs devoted to building laws which follow it derive from a different source. (2) Another version of the metrological table, based on two Vatican MSS, was published by Viedebantt in 1917.237 This version, beside a number of other differences, lacks the title, and the ascription to Julian.238 (3) Our table appears (again, without the title) also in a Byzantine tract on taxation preserved in cod. Marc. gr. 173; the tract has been published, without our table, in 1915 and with it (f. 276r) in 1927.239 The MS is from the 12th c., but our table was added by a second hand (13th c.?) which is also responsible for the corrections in the work on taxation. This treatise was composed between 913 and 1139. Julian’s table is preceded by a version of the Tabula Heroniana II (Hultsch 234 Slightly modified and updated from the original version Geiger 1992. This paper was written while on Sabbatical leave in Oxford; it is a pleasure to thank again Corpus Christi College for their hospitality. I am greatly indebted to Ewen Bowie, Hannah Cotton and to the late Abraham Wasserstein who read and commented on various drafts of this paper; needless to say, I alone am responsible for the remaining faults and shortcomings. 235 There exist at least two unpublished MS versions, cod. Marc. Gr. 174 f. 38v (see Mioni 1981, 272) and cod. Scor. R II 11 f. 276 (see Revilla 1936, 117); cf. Svoronos 1964, 58. 236 Heimbach 1851; see also Krumbacher 1897, 607. A volume dedicated to the sixth hundredth anniversary of the work in 1945, Tomos 1952, does not contain anything of relevance for the present investigation. 237 Viedebantt 1917, 123–125. The texts were copied by E. Pernice from Codd. Vat. Gr. 852 f. 152 and 914 f. 1882. 238 It has been suggested by Diller 1950, 22, that these MSS were the antiquissimae schedae referred to by Casaubon’s note in his edition (Paris 1620) on Strabo 7.7.3 (C322) and cf. on 518. However Casaubon could have been referring to any of the Venetian or Escorial MSS (see above), all unknown to Diller, as well as the Geneva MS of the tactica inedita (see below). 239 See Dölger 1927; the text of Julian is pp. 113–4. The earlier publication is Ashburner 1915.

110

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

1864, I, 33–34, 186). No note seems to have been taken by students of metrology of either of these tables. (4) In 1938 A. Dain published a military treatise erroneously ascribed to the Emperor Leo VI the Wise (886–912).240 As ch. 3 of this work features, without the title, Julian’s metrological table, again with minor differences from the other versions.241 The name of Julian of Ascalon has been noted by the editor in the margin. The tradition of the text is still to be disentangled from the relations between these versions. Metrologists, however, were by and large more interested in the contents of the Julianic Table and in its exact place in the history of ancient metrology than in the history of Julian’s text. Moreover, they were so absorbed in their own subject, that they did not take note of the fact, that Julian of Ascalon has aroused in the meantime some mild interest among scholars of Byzantine law. Significantly, Julian of Ascalon is acknowledged as a purely metrological writer in such reference works as RE and Der kleine Pauly.242 Are we then to blame students of Byzantine law if they totally ignored the significance of Julian for ancient metrology? II (5) In 1893 J. Nicole published from a Geneva MS an important collection of laws dealing with the guilds of Constantinople, ascribed to none other than Leo VI.243 This ascription, never entirely safe even according to Nicole, has been challenged by subsequent scholars.244 The collection of laws is followed in the MS by another text, attributed to Julian of Ascalon. This text is composed of (a) the title given to Julian’s Table in the text of Harmenopulos (with exception of the first word, eparchika), (b) a short preface explaining the division of the laws 240 Dain 1938. The text is based on cod. Laur. 75–6. It had been thoroughly discussed by Vári 1927. 241 The chapter had been published already by Vári 1907 (Hungarian) from cod. Bern. 97, an apographon of cod. Laur. 75–6. 242 RE X (1917) 17–18 no. 10 (O. Viedebantt); DKP no. 20 (H. Chantraine). DNP (1999) has, under no. 22 (M. Folkerts), a four line entry, referring to the metrological table as extant, and references to Hultsch and Viedebantt. There are no entries in OCD2, 3, or 4, LAW or PLRE (but for this last work cf. below). The ODB which appeared after this paper was first accepted for publication, has an entry on Julian (by M. Th. Fögen) with discussion of Harmenopulos, the Geneva MS and the legal contents, but ignores altogether the metrological chapter and its problems and does not attempt to date the author. 243 Nicole 1893: Λέοντος τοῦ Σοφοῦ τὸ Ἐπαρχικὸν Βιβλίον. Le livre du Préfet. L’Édit de l’Empereur Léon le Sage sur les corporations de Constantinople. Texte grec du Genevensis 23 publié pour la premier fois par Jules Nicole, avec une traduction latine, des notices exégétiques et critiques et les variantes du Genevensis 23 au texte de Julien d’Ascalon. Though elaborate subtitles are not in vogue now, it is worthwhile to reproduce this one, including as it does a reference to Julian of Ascalon on the title-page. 244 See the review of Nicole 1893 by Zachariä v. Lingenthal 1893. Stöckle 1911, 142–148, dates the compilation certainly between Leo VI (886–911) and 968, and possibly between 963 and the latter date. Zoras 1931 accepts the dating under Leo VI.

Chapter 6: Julian of Ascalon

111

which follow according to their connections with the four elements of fire, air, water and earth, (c) the metrological table known as Tabula Heroniana V245 (in a marginal note, according to the editor), which displaces here the table of Julian, and (d) a long text identical in the main with the laws following the metrological table of Julian in the text of Harmenopulos, altogether the equivalent of some twenty-five printed pages of Greek. In (d) there are some transpositions in the text of Harmenopulos as well as some interpolations, compared with the text of the Geneva MS. Nicole printed the introduction on the four elements and added a collatio of the MS with Harmenopulos, but did not print the main, legal, part of the MS. This legal text has been discussed by students of Byzantine law who dismiss the metrological part as an interpolation from the Heronian Table V and also do not realise the significance of Julian for ancient metrology.246 None of the scholars concerned with this text raised doubts as to the ascription to Julian of Ascalon. (6) Parts of this text have been published from yet another source. In 1899 A. Papadopoulos- Kerameus noted in his catalogue of the MSS from the Metochion of the Holy Sepulchre in Constantinople that cod. 25 contained on fol. 33a-36b a text of Nicole’s eparchikon biblion.247 In 1937 D. Gines discovered that in fact a large part of the text was identical with eight sections (# 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 47, 50, 51) of Julian of Ascalon as found in Harmenopulos, preceded by the ascription to Julian and by a short introduction on fire, and published a transcript of the text.248 This publication in a Greek journal of Byzantinology has been all but ignored by subsequent scholars. Unfortunately it is not possible to disentangle the tradition of the text completely. Some lines, however, are clear. Since the Heronian table V was substituted for Julian’s own in the text of the Geneva MS and since all three texts – Harmenopulos, the Geneva MS and the Constantinople MS – share a common interpolation (see below) it is not possible to accept the suggestion of Nicole (1893, 67–75) that Harmenopulos copied from the Geneva text, but rather one has to assume that all three texts were derived from a (lost) common archetype. In all probability Harmenopulos interpolated some passages and changed the order of some paragraphs to meet the needs of his compilation, the Geneva MS substituted the Heronian table for the table of Julian, and the Constantinople MS excerpted only a few sections from the same text. How easily a substitution such as that in the Geneva MS could be made is shown by the text of codex Marcianus 173, where the second Heronian table precedes that of Julian. Finally, we shall see that the analysis of the contents of the legal part of the work of Julian of Ascalon proves beyond reasonable doubt that this and the metrological table are of a piece. That the archetype of Harmenopulos, of Nicole’s text and of the Constantinople MS was at least one remove from Julian is established by the fact that they share the interpolated section # 47–51 or parts of it. On the other hand the two Vatican MSS, the codex Marcianus 173 and the chapter 245 246 247 248

Hultsch 1864, I 37–38; 187–191. Ferrini 1902a–c; Scheltema 1946. Papadopoulos-Kerameus 1899, 37–38. The codex is from the end of the fourteenth century. Gines 1937.

112

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

inserted into the Tactica inedita published by Dain 1938 are aligned against Harmenopulos in that they all feature at the end of the metrological table a passage on the parasang which is absent from Harmenopulos. Elsewhere the Marcianus 173 is aligned with Harmenopulos on the ratio of the geometric and simple fathom (see below) while Dain’s text alone contains a reference to Xenophon in the passage on the parasang. Apparently we have before us a contaminated tradition which, on the present evidence, cannot be satisfactorily disentangled, especially since the different strands of the tradition contain different sections of the work of Julian. Moreover, the text of Harmenopulos is extant in a great number of MSS, and the two unpublished MSS (n. 235 above) have not been collated. Consequently not even a tentative stemma can be offered. III We may now consider the contents of the extant part of Julian’s writing. (The title in all three extant versions clearly indicates that only extracts of the text are preserved). The laws relating to building preserved in the Geneva and Constantinople MSS and in the compilation of Harmenopulos were compiled by Julian of Ascalon: there is the definite ascription,249 supported by # 42250 which contains explicit references to the customs of Caesarea and of Ascalon, in all probability attributable to our author. Can the metrological table be an interpolation foreign to the text of Julian? This would assume either the interpolation of two different metrological tables in the same position in the two different traditions of the legal text of Julian – surely an absurd supposition251 – or the interpolation of a metrological text and then the substitution of a different one for it in a subsequent stage of the tradition. Needless to say, no reason for such an interpolation could be found. It is far more reasonable to assume that a metrological table formed indeed part of the text of Julian and that at one stage of the tradition another text of similar contents has been substituted for

249 That is, in the Geneva and Constantinople MSS; in Harmenopulos one must assume that the title is not restricted to the metrological table. 250 The references are to the paragraphs of the text of Harmenopulos. Curtis 1991, 188–189 refers to paragraph 22 of our text as belonging to the Byzantine period ‘and perhaps referring to the area of Phoinicia or Palestine’: this may be taken as implying his awareness of the authorship of Julian. 251 The only scholar to date who has tried to reconstruct the tradition of the text – and the only one, to my knowledge, who has been aware of, though not interested in, the twofold tradition of Julian (though he, too, was not aware of the texts preserved in the Marciana and Constantinople MSS) – was Diller 1950. Focusing on a definite section of Julian’s metrological table – on which later – he asserted that it was not Julian’s work. He maintained in fact that the metrological texts are interpolations, though he does not attempt to show how two different, but not dissimilar, interpolations got into the same place in the two branches of the tradition. Nor does he prove his contention that ‘the original home’ of the metrological excerpt was the Tactica inedita Leonis (Dain 1938).

Chapter 6: Julian of Ascalon

113

it.252 A reason for the inclusion of a metrological table in Julian’s legal work will be suggested below, when the connection between the table and the laws will become apparent. The process of the substitution and the reason for it are not far to seek. The table of Julian is in some respects unusual, while the Heronian Table provides us with standard Roman measures. Thus, even before discussing the contents and peculiarities of Julian’s table we may assume with confidence that it was replaced in the strand of tradition represented by the Geneva MS by a standard table available, a clear case of the versio facilior displacing the versio difficilior. The main lines of the tradition are plain. The text of Julian comprised, presumably among other parts now lost, the title, the preface of the Geneva MS, of which a part is preserved also in the Constantinople MS, the metrological table extant in a number of slightly differing versions, and the legal chapters more or less as preserved in the Geneva MS and in Harmenopulos and – a very small part – in the Constantinople MS.253 Thus the extant parts of Julian’s work and the texts preserving them may be summarized as follows (I use the numerals (1)–(6) as in sections I and II above): 1. Title: (1), (5), (6) 2. Introduction on four elements, especially on fire: (5); fire only: (6) 3. Metrological Table: (1), (2), (3), (4) 4. Laws and Customs: (1), (5), (6) (small part only). Furthermore, the exact confines of the legal chapters can be clearly delineated. Nicole 1893, 67–75, followed with some inaccuracies by Scheltema 1946, 352, has already shown that it is the Geneva MS as against the text of Harmenopulos that preserves the correct order of Julian. This order reflects Julian’s division of the laws in the preface as relating to the four elements of fire (# 13–22), air (# 23–44), water (# 75–80, 82, 85) and earth (# 83, 86, 88).254 In fact a further criterion can now be introduced to test Nicole’s analysis and incidentally to establish the connection between the metrological table and the building laws. I have given reasons for believing that the metrological table formed part of Julian’s work. The peculiarities of this table will be discussed in the following: in the meantime let it be said only that this table, in common with all Eastern (Babylonian, Egyptian, Jewish etc) systems has the cubit as its basic unit, while Greco-Roman systems are based on the foot. An analysis of the paragraphs of Harmenopulos following the metrological table yields unequivocal results. # 13–22, dealing with laws concerning safety measures with regard to fire risks in certain industries, state the minimal distances between the industries and other buildings required in the various cases. These minimal distances, about one score instances, are all given in cubits. The same is true about the 252 Both recent learned commentaries on Posidonius, Edelstein/Kidd 1989 and Theiler 1982, apparently unaware of the publication of Nicole 1893, follow Diller 1950 and assign the table to the anonymous author of Dain’s Sylloge tacticorum: see fr. 203 Edelstein/Kidd with commentary = fr. 469 Theiler with commentary. 253 That Harmenopulos manipulated the text of Julian both by means of transpositions and interpolations has been convincingly demonstrated by Scheltema 1946, 349–355. 254 On # 47–51, counted by Nicole 1893 as part of this section but shown by Scheltema 1946 to be an interpolation, see below. The excerpts in the Constantinople MS come from the section on fire and from the interpolated section # 47–51.

114

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

paragraphs concerning water (# 75–80, about a dozen instances; there are no measurements in 82 and 85) and earth (there are half a dozen instances in # 87–88). On the other hand the interpolations of Harmenopulos are clearly shown for what they are by employing feet as the unit of measurement: # 45–46 and 52–74, not in the Geneva MS, have six and thirteen measurements by feet respectively, and none in cubits. (There are no measurements in # 81 and 84). It is instructive that # 89–91, following the text of Julian, have eight sets of measurements in feet and two in fathoms. # 47–51, at the end of the Geneva MS and shown by Scheltema 1946 on criteria of both contents and of style to be an interpolation, has one case of cubits and two255 of feet, as well as two measurements in miles, which never occur elsewhere in Julian: we may conclude without hesitation that the measurement in cubits is due to contamination. We are still left with # 23–44, laws concerning the air and the spaces surrounding real estate. Here again we seem to have a case of contamination. The chapter as a whole exhibits thirteen cases of measurements in cubits and nine of feet (as well as two measurements given in fingers, which may belong to either of the two systems). The distribution is telling: in # 23 there is one instance of feet, in # 24, absent from the Geneva MS (see Nicole 1893, 72) two of feet, in # 28 three of feet, in # 30 one of feet256 and one of cubits; # 32 once feet, # 33 once cubits and once feet; from then on all measurements are given in cubits. Considering the results reached above we may assume that some sort of contamination has taken place in the first half of the chapter of laws related to the air. Having thus defined the extent of the compilation of Julian on the laws and customs of Palestine we have gained a text of some importance on the social, economic and legal history of that country in late antiquity. Until now there have been, apart from the purely legal discussions, only two attempts to examine these laws. The first, by Susumov,257 deals mainly with the relations between Harmenopulos and the two texts preserved in the Geneva MS; the greater part of his article is taken up by a Russian translation of the text of Julian from the Geneva MS – as far as I know the only translation of the text into a modern language but, unfortunately for most Western scholars, obscurum per obscurius. The other study, even less accessible to most readers, deals with the laws of Julian with special attention to their connection to the local laws and customs as preserved in Talmudic literature.258 No doubt there is still scope for a full-scale analysis of the text. Here only one passage will be discussed. In # 42, in enumerating the laws and customs relating to the construction of buildings when the different floors belong to several landlords,

255 Not three: see Heimbach 1851, n. 49 on # 47, vindicated by the text of the Constantinople MS. 256 Confirmed by the Geneva MS; some scholars have emended the place in Harmenopulos, see Heimbach 1851, n. 93 ad loc. 257 Susumov 1960, 3ff. I am most grateful to Mr Robert Powell of Columbia University Library for procuring for me a copy of a journal published in Sverdlovsk – now again Ekaterinburg – and not easily available in the West, and to Dr D.-B. Kerler who disembarrassed me of my ignorance of Russian. 258 Lieberman 1970–71 (Hebr. with Engl. summ.; the latter is reprinted in Lieberman 1974, 309).

Chapter 6: Julian of Ascalon

115

Julian juxtaposes the customs of Caesarea and of Ascalon:259 according to the custom of Caesarea, once the building is erected a deficiency on the first floor should be dealt with by the landlord of that floor. According to the custom of Ascalon on the other hand, the landlords of the upper and of the lower floors should be responsible in equal shares. The juxtaposition (in men … de clauses) and the provenance of the writer make it clear that whatever his sources for the first half of the sentence, here he is taking up an opportunity to introduce something of which he has personal knowledge from his own town. Moreover, Lieberman260 has endeavoured to demonstrate that the laws ascribed to builders and preserved in the Palestinian Talmud were those of Caesarea, according to Lieberman’s well-known thesis the place of redaction of a large part of the Palestinian Talmud.261 Thus we may have here the prevailing customs of the provincial capital contrasted with the deviant local custom, of which the author happens to have personal knowledge. Unfortunately it would be idle to try and deduce from this observation something about the date of our author. In all arrangements of the provincial boundaries Ascalon remained in the province of which Caesarea was capital, so that we cannot infer from this passage that it was composed before the ascendancy of Jerusalem in the second half of the fourth century. IV We may turn now to the metrological table of Julian of Ascalon. Here there are two issues which transcend the highly respectable but altogether unexciting boundaries of metrology. We shall start with the first and more important of these, the assertion that Julian’s table reflects Jewish measures. This suggestion was first made in 1859 by Fenner v. Fenneberg,262 but after incorporation in the standard work of Hultsch no references seem to have been made to the original author of the thesis. The importance of this suggestion should be obvious, so there is no getting away from examining it even at the peril of entanglement in a highly complicated specialist subject. An analysis of Julian’s table (as known from Harmenopulos) will show that it employs three different measures of the fathom. In the sixth sentence, or equation, of the table there are two alternative measures of the fathom, the fathom of six feet and the fathom of nine spans + four hands263 = seven feet. In the tenth sentence we are given the equation 100 geometrical fathoms = 112 simple fathoms. Fenner v. Fenneberg was no doubt right in recognizing that since the basic unit of measurement is the cubit rather than the fathom, which is a derivative measure universally 259 Lieberman 1970–71, 416 may be right in suggesting that such references to local customs may have been frequent in Julian’s work but have been omitted by the excerptor. 260 Lieberman 1970–71, 411–416. 261 Lieberman 1931 (Hebr.). 262 Fenner v. Fenneberg 1859, 87–113. It should be kept in mind that Fenner v. Fenneberg knew Julian’s table only from the work of Harmenopulos. 263 τέταρτον in Dain 1938 is evidently a wrong expansion for δ (δακτύλους).

116

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

reckoned at four cubits, the table reflects a system based on different cubits. The Jews used, according to Fenner v. Fenneberg, (a) the simple or regular cubit, the measure derived from the arm of a man (Ezek. 40:5, Dtr. 3:11, Josh. 3:4), (b) the ancient measure of the Tabernacle and the Temple, also called by the Rabbis, according to Fenner v. Fenneberg, the cubit of the building, the sacred, Mosaic or middle cubit, and (c) the mystical cubit of the vision of Ezekiel, a cubit and a hand in length (Ezek. 40:5). These three cubits are identical with those in our table: the regular cubit of six hands, the mystical one of seven and the middle one, which should be equated, one understands from Fenner v. Fenneberg’s argument, with the geometric cubit (on which presumably the geometric fathom is based). Hebraica (et Aramaica) non leguntur. Fenner v. Fenneberg’s ingenious argument, accepted unquestioningly by Hultsch264 and, via Hultsch, apparently by many metrologists since,265 does not in fact reflect accurately the evidence of the Jewish sources, quite apart from the point that according to Fenner v. Fenneberg’s system the geometric cubit should have been halfway between the two other cubits, viz. six and a half hands in length. A survey of Talmudic concordances (admittedly not available to Fenner v. Fenneberg and Hultsch) will show that the Rabbis were acquainted with two cubits: the normal cubit of six hands, also called the cubit of the building, the middle cubit etc, and the cubit of five hands employed, in Rabbinic discussion, for some of the vessels and implements of the Temple (and hence called the cubit of vessels).266 It is these two cubits that are constantly in use in Rabbinic discussions. No doubt as far as the Jews were concerned, the seven-hand cubit of Ezekiel was only a prophecy of things to come. Similarly, the cubits described267 on the gate of the Temple known as ‘Susa, the capital’, respectively one-half a finger and a finger longer than the normal, ‘Mosaic’ cubit, were in use for tenders concerned with work on the Temple and its implements only, and are in Rabbinic discussion of purely theoretical value.268 Moreover, Fenner v. Fenneberg’s conclusion that there were three different cubits in Julian’s table (based only, it should be kept in mind, on the text as transmitted in Harmenopulos) is wrong. The ratio between geometric and simple cubits269 according to that text is 100 : 112 (ριβ); this, too, is the text of the codex Marcianus 173; in that of both Vatican MSS 100 : 118 (ριη), emended by Viedebantt 1917 so as to conform with Harmenopulos; in Dain 1938, 27 the figures are missing altogether. There exists a perfectly simple solution which will emend the corruption as well as resolve the inconsistency in Julian’s text. After giving two different cubits 264 Hultsch 1882, 437; cf. Hultsch 1864, 54–55. 265 E. g. Lehmann-Haupt 1915; Viedebantt 1917, 123–125; contra Oxé 1963, who does not quarrel with the main proposition here under discussion, but insists on the use of the Babylonian-Persian system in Palestine. 266 Talmudic Concordances s. v. ‫ אמה‬will provide all the necessary evidence; the most comprehensive for our subject is Scheftel 1969 (Hebr). For a succinct survey see e. g. Krauss 1911, II, 388–390. 267 mKelim 17. 10; bPesachim 86a. 268 Cf. Böckh 1838, 270–271. 269 It has been shown that the relationship expressed in fathoms is based on one in cubits. For the sake of convenience I shall speak of cubits, even though the text deals with fathoms.

Chapter 6: Julian of Ascalon

117

with a ratio of 6 : 7 one would expect the same cubits and the same ratio the next time two cubits (labelled ‘geometric’ and ‘simple’) are mentioned. This ratio could be expressed as 100 : 116 2/3, written in Greek ριϛβ’.270 This figure could easily be corrupted to ριβ in Harmenopulos and the Marcian codex (or in a common ancestor), and to ριη (ϛ + β = η) in the Vatican MSS, and could be altogether misunderstood, and hence left out, by the scribe of the Tactica inedita (Dain 1938). Consequently in the equation 1 mile = 750 geometric fathoms, 875 simple fathoms has been corrupted to 885 simple fathoms (see Appendix). The existence of two cubits, a simple one of six hands, and a ‘geometric’ one, viz. one employed for the measurement of plots, buildings, areas etc on the other hand agrees not only with the Eastern, that is Babylonian and Egyptian systems, which employ besides the simple cubit the ‘royal’ cubit of seven hands,271 but is expressly attested by a Palestinian author, who was, as will be shown, not far removed in time from Julian. Epiphanius, a native of Palestine and the bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, best known for his fanatical Medicine-Chest for Heresies, the Panarion, composed in 392 a work normally referred to as On Weights and Measures. The work survives only in part in Greek, but is available in its entirety in a Syriac translation: intended as a sort of Biblical Realencyclopädie,272 a large part of it deals indeed with biblical weights and measures.273 Evidently Epiphanius collected the material earlier in Palestine,274 as can also be seen from his frequent references to local conditions. It will be seen in what follows that besides his definition of the cubit as equivalent to six hands the measuring-rod of five cubits described by him employs seven-hand cubits, presumably ‘geometric’ ones used for the measurement of buildings, plots, etc. Negligence of, and by, scholars may sometimes be beneficial. Fenner v. Fenneberg, having argued that the Julianic table reflected a Jewish system of measurements, and tacitly assuming, as he had a right to, that Julian was not a Jew himself, tried to establish the historical circumstances of this composition and suggested (Fenner v. Fenneberg 1859, 109–110), that it may have been connected with Julian the Apostate’s attempt to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem. This suggestion was ignored by all authors275 concerned with that intriguing historical episode – it may be mentioned that in the Bodleian I found the pages of Fenner v. Fenneberg uncut276 – but it has sent me on an extended wild-goose chase, of which the present study is an indirect outcome. Whatever the theories concerning the measures, Jewish or other, in use in Palestine, two important pieces of archaeological evidence have since come to light that have bearing on the matter. The first is an inscription of the Jerusalem aqueduct 270 Cf. Oxé 1963, 267. 271 Hultsch 1882, 349–362; 437–443. Needless to say Hultsch’s calculations, based as they are on the ratio of 100 : 112, should be disregarded. 272 RAC V 917 s. v. Epiphanius von Salamis (W. Schneemelcher). 273 The Greek text was published by de Lagarde 1880, 150–216, where he also refers to an earlier publication by him of the Syriac in Hebrew characters; it is available in an English translation by Dean 1935. 274 Moutsoulas 1971, 120. 275 Including myself, see Geiger 1982 (Hebr.). 276 It is now available online. Tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis.

118

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

from the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, first published in 1926.277 Apparently from the time of Justinian, the inscription threatens with the appropriate legal measures whoever builds at a distance of less than fifteen feet from the aqueduct: in order to make the order as clear as possible, at the end of the inscription is depicted the exact size of the foot by which the distance will be measured. It equals 308 mm., almost exactly the size of the Attic foot.278 The second and more recent discovery is more remarkable still. It consists of a measuring rod, discovered on the mosaic floor of a room on an ecclesiastical farm in Western Galilee, dated fairly conclusively to the years 610–617.279 The length of the rod is 2.59 m. – exactly five cubits of 518 mm., if we calculate these cubits at seven hands and the cubit of six hands at 444 mm.: this length of the cubit has been established by the measurement and the inscription of Hezekiah’s tunnel.280 This is most remarkable indeed, since exactly such a measuring rod of five cubits is described by Epiphanius.281 No doubt here, too, conditions in Palestine did not change until at least the end of Byzantine rule. Thus the archaeological evidence enables us to assert with certainty that at least two measuring systems were in operation in Palestine: the official one, based on the (probably Attic) foot, and the local one, which had as its basic unit the long cubit of seven hands, probably alongside the cubit of six hands.282 Moreover, there exists evidence of Christian employment of the seven-hand cubit of this measure, very close in time, as will be shown, to Julian of Ascalon.283 The church of St Polyeuktos at Constantinople was erected about 524–7 by the princess Anicia Juliana:284 the long verse inscription describing the building is copied in AP 1.10 and has been partly recovered in the excavations. It has also been revealed that the plan was that of a quadrangle of 51.45 x 51.90 m., that is exactly 100 cubits of our measure: according to the excavator of the site it was the builder’s intention to imitate the Temple of Solomon.285

277 Abel 1926. 278 The foot was not a Jewish measure: see e. g. Hultsch 1882, 434–443. The foot is never used as a unit of measurement in the Hebrew Bible or in Talmudic literature. 279 Dauphine 1982. This seems to be the only whole Byzantine measuring rod discovered to date as well as the only one discovered in Palestine from any period. 280 For these measurements cf. Scott 1960, 368. Kaufman 1984 arrives at very similar results (446 mm. for the standard cubit), but by far less reliable methods; see also Büsing 1982. 281 Epiph. de mens. 59, 69 Dean. He discusses the cubit of six hands at 69–70. 282 Ben-David 1978, 27–28 should be disregarded. 283 For what follows I am indebted to Michael Vickers, who also enabled me to consult his ‘Wandering stones: Venice, Constantinople and Athens’ (1990) ahead of publication. 284 On her life see Mango/Ševčenko 1961, 244. 285 Harrison 1986, 410; Harrison 1989, 137–144.

Chapter 6: Julian of Ascalon

119

V Another part of the table of Julian has aroused the interest of scholars for quite different reasons. First, the tradition of this part. Towards the end of the text in Harmenopulos we are told that according to Eratosthenes and Strabo the mile equals 8 1/3 stadia, according to the prevailing custom 7 1/2 stadia. The Vatican MSS and the Marcianus 173 add to this a paragraph on the parasang, which most reckon at 40 stadia, some at 60; and Strabo cites Posidonius as witness that sometimes it was reckoned at more than 60 stadia. Finally, a sentence defines the schoinos as a Greek measure equivalent to the parasang.286 Dain’s Tactica agrees with the Vatican and Marcian MSS, but it gives the mile an unparalleled 8 1/4 instead of 8 1/3 stadia, probably a copyist’s error, and in the passage on the parasang it also mentions that Xenophon reckoned it at 30 stadia.287 The reference to Eratosthenes’ measurement of the stade – the only one of its kind in an ancient metrological writer – has aroused interest far beyond the circle of specialists in ancient metrology, since it appears to bear on the subject of the accuracy of Eratosthenes’ measurement of the circumference of the earth.288 However, we shall deal here only with the question of the accuracy of the quotations and what could be learned from them about the person of Julian. It has been universally held that the reference to Eratosthenes and Strabo means that the first is quoted in a secondary manner via the latter, but since no such reference to Eratosthenes can be found in Strabo’s extant work in all probability we have here a confusion with Plb. 34.12.2a, quoted at Strabo 7 C 322.289 It should be noted, however, that one recent authority is prepared to consider the reference to Eratosthenes as genuine.290 Still, the reference to Strabo as quoting Posidonius is very much an argument in favour of taking the first reference, too, as at second hand. Moreover, here too the quotation may be erroneous, since Strabo 17,1.24 (C804) quotes Artemidorus rather than Posidonius.291 Nevertheless, according to Theiler (ad fr. 469) a genuine quotation in the lost final section of Book vii of Strabo is a possibility; Edelstein/Kidd are prepared to see here (ad fr. 203) a reference to Strabo 11,11.5 (C518), where however Posidonius is not mentioned. Finally, the reference to Xenophon – or, what passed for the text of Xenophon – is correct. It emerges from these passages that Julian was indeed somewhat reckless with checking his sources, though not quite as careless as most modern scholars dealing with him.

286 Diller 1950, 24 n. 16, has drawn attention to the fact that similar statements occur in schol. Lucian Icarom. 1, 99 Rabe. 287 See Xen. Anab. II 2.6; V 5.4; VII 8.26. N. b. that all three passages have been bracketed by Krueger: this reference may be an argument in favour of authenticity. 288 The bibliography on the subject is enormous. The latest contribution known to me, which may also be consulted for some earlier bibliography, is Engels 1985. 289 See Viedebantt 1915; Oxé 1963, 269–274; Diller 1950, 24; Engels 1985, 299 n. 3. 290 Cf. Dilke 1988, 89. 291 Cf. Viedebantt 1915, 233; Oxé 1963, 269; Diller 1950, 24.

120

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

VI Having thus defined the contents of his writing we may now try to elicit from our text some information concerning the person and time of Julian of Ascalon. Julian’s time is assumed as unknown by all writers, nor is the inclusion of his writing in various compilations between the ninth and the fourteenth centuries helpful, since one is on safe ground in assuming that he predates the second third of the seventh century, that is to say the Arab, and presumably also the Persian conquest of Palestine. He is also certainly later than Strabo, the latest writer quoted by him.292 The name Julian, though very popular in the later Empire, is attested already in the latter half of the first century.293 However, scholars concerned with the legal parts of Julian’s work have tried to establish more exact time-limits. Ferrini (1929, 409 n. 1) dated Julian to about the beginning of the sixth century, after the Emperor Zeno, whose constitution is referred to (# 46) and before the Digest, as may be deduced from the direct quotation of Papinian (# 51). However, Scheltema 1946, 352–353 has shown that the last sections of the Geneva MS, identical with Harmenopulos # 47–51, form an appendix which was not part of the original work by Julian,294 so that there is no need to deal with the question whether the quotation of Papinian is direct or drawn from a Novel.295 On a similar line of reasoning the reference to the constitution of Zeno at # 46 should be eliminated as evidence, since the paragraph does not appear in the Geneva MS and is thus not part of the text of Julian. But Scheltema 1946, 359–360 tried to establish a terminus post quem of his own in arguing that # 26 reflects the legislation on the praescriptio longi temporis attributed by modern jurists to Justinian. Whether this is so or not, it has been shown above that # 26 belongs to the contaminated part of Julian’s text, and thus on its own will not serve as an indicator of the time of its composition. It seems to me, however, that it is possible to make a fairly safe identification as to the time and the person of Julian.296 Aeneas of Gaza directs the last of his twenty-five letters to an architect Julian.297 The subject of the letter is a highly praised water-pump invented by Julian for Aeneas’ garden and built by a tekton; something, however, with the machine is amiss and should be mended, an unmistakeable invitation to the inventor. We may 292 Regrettably nothing in the Nachleben of the authors mentioned in the various recensions of the text admits conclusions as to its date. 293 E. g. Jos. BJ 6. 81; Martial 3. 25.2; CIL XIII 10010.1063. 294 Three of these five chapters appear also in the Constantinople MS. 295 It is altogether unintelligible why Scheltema 1946, 360 has to discuss the point after having (correctly) asserted that the relevant passage did not form part of Julian’s work. 296 This identification has been already suggested, perhaps overcautiously, by Dan 1984, 182 (Hebr.), an excellent work that deserves to be better known. The identification has been also made by van der Wal/Lokin 1985, 50, who also try to fix the date between September 531 and December 533. Their dating is based on the interpolated parts of the text. I am indebted for this reference to the kindness of Ranon Katzoff. 297 Most accessible in Hercher 1873, 24–32 or Massa Positano 1950 (with introduction, Italian translation and commentary). This Julian is duly registered as no. 16 in PLRE ii, where however no notice is taken of, and needless to say no identification is attempted with, Julian of Ascalon.

Chapter 6: Julian of Ascalon

121

thus deduce that the inventor lived at such a distance from Gaza as made it practicable to come and solve the problem. There being no indications to the contrary, the existence, on the one hand, of an architect Julian of Ascalon and, on the other hand, of an architect Julian, presumably not far from Gaza,298 makes the identification at least plausible. Aeneas was born perhaps ca. 430, was studying by ca. 450 with Hierocles and is attested in 488 as active in Gaza.299 We do not know into which period of his adult life the letter belongs, so that it can be only dated to the second half of the fifth century. Nor do we know whether Julian was a coeval, a younger or an older contemporary, so that his life-span may be put into any time between the beginning of the fifth and the middle of the sixth centuries.300 Here one more piece of evidence should be considered. An architect Julian is attested in two church inscriptions from Brad, on the road from Antiochia to Chalcis in Syria, dated respectively to 402 and 399.301 This Julian may have been, though this does not seem very probable, the father or grandfather of our Julian: if so, they may well have been Christians.302 We may now sum up what is known about the person of Julian. Both the references in # 42 and in the letter of Aeneas testify, that he lived in, not only hailed from, Ascalon. He was an architect (thus designated by both himself and acquaintances), perhaps from a family of architects, and an engineer given to (not faultless?) mechanical inventions. The classification of the laws according to the four elements may attest some sort of interest in the more theoretical side of the physical sciences.303 It cannot be said whether he was a pagan or a Christian (unless we accept the connection with the church-building Julian in northern Syria), but at least a modicum of classical upbringing, not unexpected in a cultural centre like Ascalon, is evident both from his writing in a simple, unaffected and clear Greek style and from the references to classical authors – even if some are second-hand or faulty – at the end of the metrological table. Some education of the correspondent can also be inferred from the letter of Aeneas with its classical allusions: his garden is like the garden of Alcinos, the machine if not mended will resemble a painting of Helen 298 The distance between the two cities is approximately 22 km. 299 See Legier 1907; Schemmel 1912, 17. The absence of a formula appropriate to the dead in a reference to him in 514 by Zacharias Scholasticus does not seem to me sufficient evidence that he was still alive at the time, as Legier would have it. Nothing is gained by the fact that Aeneas’ Theophrastus was composed prior to 534. 300 The dates of Aeneas are far from safe. If we put his birthdate at roughly 450 (as Legier 1907 would have it) we can put the date of birth of Julian between c. 420 and 480. It will be clear (cf. previous n.) that these dates do not enable us to decide with certainty whether Julian composed his work before or after the codification of Justinian, though on chronological grounds the former possibility seems much more likely. 301 Lassus 1947, 257 inscr. no. 1, 259 inscr. no. 9. See also a discussion of the building activities of Julian in Tchalenko 1953, I, 108–109. 302 This is an almost certain deduction from the text of the first inscription. 303 For an interest in the subject at approximately the same period see the Excerptum de quattuor elementis, printed in Mynors 1937, 167–168. Al. Cameron 1976, 59; 64 discusses the writers who trace the colours of the factions to the four elements; note among them Malalas, p. 176 Bonn, approximately a contemporary of Julian of Ascalon.

122

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

without the head.304 Interest in the law of the country and in local customs may attest a healthy dose of local-patriotism. Metrology, Byzantine law, Rabbinics and archaeology all had to join in our quest for the elusive Julian of Ascalon. Philology, however, is still the fountainhead of the study of classics. A synopsis of the MS tradition and the easy equation of the architect Julian of Ascalon and of the architect Julian mentioned in a letter of Aeneas of Gaza might have saved much ink and some outlandish theories.

304 This last reference would enhance the temptation to accept # 49 as genuine: in the discussion of laws governing the viewing of public pictures Achilles and Aiax are given as examples.

Chapter 6: Julian of Ascalon

123

APPENDIX The following passages are offered as an aid to the reader and are not intended as part of a critical edition: for this see ADDENDUM, below. The notes on variants are in the main restricted to issues discussed in the text of this paper; expansions of numerals are disregarded. I use (1)–(6) from sections i and ii above as sigla. 1. Title jEparcika; ajpo; tw`n tou` jAskalwnivtou jIoulianou` tou` ajrcitevktonoς ejk tw`n novmwn h[toi ejqw`n tw`n ejn Palaistivnh/ ejparcika; om. (5), ejparcika;... tou` om. (6), peri; novmou (6), ejqw`n (1), (6): hjqw`n (5) 2. Introduction Tessavrwn o[ntwn tw`n stoiceivwn, puro;ς, ajevroς, u{datoς, gh`ς, ajpo; dh; touvtwn ajmfisbhthvseiς toi`ς ajnqrwvpoiς ejggivgnontai: o{qen ajnagkai`on hJghsavmeqa ta; kata; mevroς ejk touvtwn kai; tacumerevsteron sumbaivnonta eu\ tavxai, eu\ qevnteς kai; ta;ς aijtivaς kai; ta;ς dialuvseiς h] blavbaς. To; pu`r kai; oJ kapno;ς kai; hJ ajtmi;ς pro;ς ta;ς tw`n kauvsewn dunavmeiς h] kai; ta; plhvqh th;n diafora;n tῶn blabw`n kai; tw`n diasthmavtwn e{xousin: o{qen tau`ta ajforivsanteς, ou{tw kai; ta; diasthvmata ejn peivra/ touvtwn genovmenoi. tessavrwn … puro;ς om. (6) 3. From the Metrological Table 1. o{ti oJ davktuloς prw`tovς ejstin: w{sper kai; hJ mona;ς ejpi; tw`n ajriqmw`n. 2. hJ palaisth; e[cei daktuvlouς d. 3. oJ pou;ς e[cei palaista;ς d h[toi daktuvlouς iς. 4. oJ ph`cuς e[cei povda aL’ h[toi palaista;ς ς h[toi daktuvlouς kd. 5. to; bh`ma e[cei phvceiς b h[toi povdaς g h[toi palaista;ς ib. 6. hJ oujrgiva e[cei bhvmata b h[toi phvceiς d h[toi povdaς ς h[goun spiqama;ς q daktuvlouς d. 10. to; mivlion kata; jEratosqevnhn kai; Stravbwna tou;ς gewgravfouς e[cei stavdia h kai; g, h[toi oujrgivaς wlg. kata; de; to; nu`n kratou`n e[qoς stavdia me;n e[cei zL’ h[toi oujrgivaς yn h[toi bhvmata ,af  h[toi phvceiς g. 11. dei` de; ginwvskein, wJς to; nu`n mivlion oujrgivaς me;n gewmetrika;ς e[cei yn, aJpla`ς de; woe. aiJ ga;r r oujrgivai gewmetrikai; riςb’ ajpotelou`sin aJpla`ς oujrgivaς. 12. oJ parasavgghς persikovn ejsti mevtron, ouj para; pa`si de; to; aujtov, ajlla;

124

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

me;n toi`ς pleivstoiς tessarakontastavdiovς ejsti, para; de; Xenofw`nti triavkonta stavdioς, par’ a[lloiς de; kai; eJxhkontastavdioς. Kaiv ejsti pollw`/ plevon ejn a[lloiς kaq’ a{fhsi Stravbwn profevrwn mavrtura tou` lovgou to;n polumaqh` Poseidwvnion. 13. hJ scoi`noς JEllhnikovn ejsti mevtron taujto; tw`/ parasavggh/, pote; me;n tessarakontastavdioς, pote; de; eJxhkontastavdioς. 3 om. (1) 6 spiqama;ς q daktuvlouς d (1); spiqama;ς qd’ (2), (3); spiqama;ς q tevtarton (4). 10 stadivouς kg h[toi oujrgivaς wlς (3); stadivouς h kai; tevtarton (4); tou;ς ajkribei`ς gewgravfouς (4); ejpikratou`n (4) 11 woe scripsi; wm (1), (3); wpe (2); vacat (4); riςb’ scripsi; rib (1), (3); rih (2); vacat (4) 12 para; de; Xenofw`nti triakontastavdioς (4)

Chapter 6: Julian of Ascalon

125

ADDENDUM TO CHAPTER 6 Saliou 1995 has delivered an exhaustive attack on the attribution of the metrological table to Julian; the tradition of the text is indeed highly complicated, but I am not impressed by the number of MSS carrying different versions and stick to my argument above. I leave it best to the reader to judge – and it has to be noted that a most eminent authority on Byzantine MSS mentions the controversy, but fails to offer an opinion.305 However, this is only one small detail of Saliou’s work on Julian; she already relied on his text to a considerable extent in the relevant parts of Saliou 1994 and eventually published the text in Saliou 1996, with an introduction, a facing French translation, and a commentary; on 21–27, 133–6 she repeats her reasons for excluding the metrological table, and prints it (133–4) down to # 10 as an ‘Annexe’. Hakim 2001 is written against an urbanistic rather than a classical background and does not add anything of relevance to our concerns; there is also a short discussion – in Catalan – in Ribalta i Haro 2005, 26–32.

305 Wilson 1998, in reviewing Saliou’s edition of Julian, presently to be referred to in the text; for fairness’ sake it should be added that he also opines that ‘the attempt to identify Julian with a correspondent of the sophist Aeneas of Gaza (c. 500) is risky (it is regrettable that PLRE is of no help in this matter).’ I cannot see the reasons for this latter over cautiousness.

126

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

CHAPTER 7: TWO SHRINES IN ASCALON CHAPTER 7A: ASCLEPIUS ΛΕΟΝΤΟῦΧΟΣ* Marinus of Neapolis, in his Proclus, or On Happiness (19) tells us that his Neoplatonist hero celebrated in hymns not only the gods of the Greeks, but also ‘Marnas of Gaza, Asclepius λεοντοῦχος of Ascalon’ and a number of other local deities. It may be noted with great regret that although some of the hymns of Proclus did survive, these did not. The epithet, according to LSJ a hapax legomenon,306 is translated in the Lexicon by the simple meaning of its components as ‘holding a lion’. Mark Edwards in his excellent annotated translation (Edwards 2000, 87, n. 210) has the following note: This title means ‘lion-headed’; such figures are common in the ancient Near East, and under the Empire lion-headed serpents represent the malevolent Ahriman in Mithraic shrines and the purblind Demiurge in Gnostic literature. Neoplatonists may have thought that they saw a Chaldaean symbol: Psellus, Exegesis 1133 (Des Places, OC, 171). Porphyry, Abst. 241–2 Nauck defends the representation of gods in the form of non-human creatures, on the ground that divinity permeates all things.

Though Edwards seems to have sensed something of the truth one suspects that he will be hard pressed to explain why the epithet should mean ‘lion-headed’, and, more acutely, since when has Asclepius to do with lions? The animal most closely associated with the god is of course the serpent. In fact the solution to this strange epithet, which has escaped not only Edwards and others but the authors of the Lex­ icon themselves, is to be found in LSJ s. v. λέων. Under that entry we read: III a kind of serpent, Nic. Th. 463, f. l. in Artem. 2.13.

The Supplement to LSJ inserts another reference: add: Afric.Cest.p.16 V

Of course Asclepius holds a serpent, as a rule by holding a staff in the grip of a serpent (e. g. Ov. Met. 15.655,659), or very rarely directly the serpent itself (e. g. Paus. 2.10.3)307: one assumes that the image of the god in Ascalon did conform to *

First published as Geiger 2012a. For improving this note in various ways I owe thanks to Fred Brenk, Ra’anana Meridor, Guy Stiebel, and especially to the editor and the anonymous referees of Mnemosyne. 306 It recurs in Michael Psellus (Duffy/O’Meara 1992, 2.134), in an entirely different context and far beyond the reaches of LSJ. 307 LIMC II.1 863–5 and II.2 ad loc. provides copious examples of the iconography, however none from Ascalon or from Palestine. This deficiency may now be satisfied to some extent. A statue of Asclepius in Ascalon has been identified on stylistic grounds, without the attributes, as were statues at Caesarea and Shuni-Miamas, see Fischer 1998, 138 no. 103, repeated at id. 2008, 489. For a partially preserved relief with a snake, probably from a temple of Asclepius in Jerusalem see Rousée 1965, 69–76; in Ascalon there was found a lead disc from the Roman period with the figure of Asclepius, see Decloedt 1914, 442, no. 16. Asclepius, without a snake and accompanied by Hygieia, both identified by inscriptions, clasps hands with Straton, the founder of the city on the now famous Louvre cup, see Will 1983, 1987; for Asclepius on coins see Meshorer 1985, no. 86 (Tiberias), no. 143 (Neapolis).

Chapter 7: Two Shrines in Ascalon

127

the prevailing version, though we cannot know why the kind of serpent should have been specified. Nicander’s Theriaca, in his description of snakes, has a long section (458–482) dedicated to the κεγχρίνης, ‘which men call the spangled lion, dappled with scales’ (463–4: ὅν τε λέοντα / αἰόλον αὐδάξαντο, περίστικτον φολίδεσσι)308 and the Scholia explain: λέοντα αὐτόν φησι καὶ λέγει ἢ διὰ τὸ πολύστικτον καὶ ποικίλον τῶν φολίδων ἢ διὰ τὸν γενναῖον. Ἄλλως. λέοντα ἐκάλουν τὸν κεγχρίνην ἢ διὰ τὸ ἑαυτὸν μαστίζειν τῇ οὐρᾷ καὶ διεγείρειν εἰς μάχην ὡς λέοντα [λέων] ἑαυτόν, ἢ διὰ τὸ δάκνειν καὶ ῥοφᾶν τὸ αἷμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἅτινα δὴ καὶ λέων ποιεῖ. ῥοφᾷ δὲ τὸ αἷμα διὰ τῶν κατακλείδων. They call it lion either because of the much-spotted and many-coloured scales or because of its nobility. Another explanation. They called the κεγχρίνης [LSJ: ‘serpent with millet-like protuberances’] lion either because it flips with its tail and arouses to battle like a lion or because it bites and gulps the blood of a human, things that also a lion does. And it gulps the blood from the region of the collar-bone.

As for the identification of the snake – for which the present writer disclaims any expertise, but on which also the experts seem to be in some doubt – Philumenus 261.1 equates the κεγχρίνης with the ἀκοντίας, which in its turn is identified with the Zornnatter, Zamenis gemonensis Laurenti, the European Whip-Snake.309 We may now turn to the second item in the LSJ entry, the ‘falsa lectio’ in Artemidorus 2.13, a chapter on the inauspiciousness of snakes. There, with the σήψ (LSJ: ‘a kind of serpent, the bite of which causes intense thirst’) and the διψάς (LSJ: ‘venomous serpent, whose bite caused intense thirst’) is listed in the Teubner edition of R. A. Pack ὁ καλούμενος χαμαιλέων ‘and the others enumerated by Nicander’; the apparatus tells us that V (Marcianus 268), one of the two main MSS (considered by many the best) of the author, has λέων, which now proves clearly to be the correct reading, and not only because to anybody unfamiliar with the serpents λέων it seems to be the lectio difficilior; the chamaeleon – nowhere classified as a snake – was an obviously unfortunate emendation found in the Laurentianus and its followers. Both from Nicander and from Artemidorus’ addition ὁ καλούμενος it appears that the word was unusual, a popular, perhaps ‘slang’ name. Why the people of Ascalon should have employed such a word is not known. Especially enlightening is the reference added in the Supplement to LSJ: Julius Africanus, a native of Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem), lived not very far from the shrine of Asclepius in Ascalon. He mentions the λέων, among a number of snakes, and adds that there are small and great varieties. Most interestingly he adds the information about its occurrence in Syria: πολὺς δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν Συρίᾳ γεννώμενος. This sentence is bracketed by the editor, who explains in his note that the gloss resembles an earlier one in the text.310 It may be worth the while to reconsider the deletion. 308 Translation by Gow and Scholfield 1953, ad loc. 309 RE IIA, s. v. Schlange 522–3 (H. Gossen and A. Steier) with the reservations of Gow and Scholfield 1953 in their n. ad loc, and see further the notes of Spatafora 2007, 139 and Overduin 2010, 356–7. 310 Viellefond 1970, 121 (text), 335 (note). (The reference in the Supplement to LSJ was to an earlier edition of the text alone, Paris 1932.)

128

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

Our short search has not only restored a Greek word to its rightful position, but also rid the good people of Ascalon from a bizarre worship311 and reinstated them into the mainstream of Greek religion CHAPTER 7B: THE TSRIF OF ASCALON The Babylonian Talmud (Avoda Zara = Idolatry, fol. 11b) tallies five places of permanent idolatry, among them the tsrif312 (tsrifa, with the Aramaic definite article) in Ascalon. A fairly straightforward and indeed attractive strategy is to view the spelling ṢRYP, notwithstanding the apparently misplaced or inappropriate Y, as the Hebrew transliteration of the name of Serapis/Sarapis.313 This proposed deciphering of tsrifa also receives some support from the fact that the Sages were aware of the cult of Serapis:314 whatever the exact interpretation of the context,315 the name SRPS – note the spelling, though that is more often than not inconsistent in Rabbinic texts – appears as that of one of the forbidden deities.316 Moreover, Ascalon is attested among the places of Isis worship in Palestine.317 Indeed, it has been proposed to identify the male figure behind a Tyche-Isis in a series of figured pilasters in the city as a priest of Serapis. It is dated, because of the resemblance to the young Caracalla type, to c. 208.318 This suggestion concludes319 that ‘[p]ossibly another pilaster of the series depicted Serapis as its main deity.’ Another proposal connected tsrifa with the place-name Saraphia, one mile to the south of Ascalon and in Late Antiquity known as Diocletianopolis.320 A third proposal, to connect the shrine with the Hebrew root ṣ-r-p, related to the activities of gold-, silver- and coppersmiths321 hardly stands up to scrutiny. Though the paper’s discussion of metalworkers and their produce in Palestine is worthy, the 311 See, e. g., the speculations of Fuks 2000, 39–40 and of Belayche 2001, 231–2, not to mention the fantasies of Finkielsztejn 1986, 419–428. 312 Transliteration according to the conventional modern pronounciation. 313 This is, e. g., the version of the standard German translation of Goldschmidt. 314 See the detailed discussion, including also non-Jewish evidence from Palestine, of Mussies 1979; the intriguing equation of Serapis with the Biblical Joseph is of no relevance to the present quest. 315 See the elaborations of Liberman (sic) 1962, 151–152 (Hebr.). 316 Tosefta Avoda Zara (=Idolatry) 5.1. 317 POxy xi (1915) 1380 (‘Invocation of Isis’, writing probably Trajanic or Hadrianic) lists among Palestinian places of worship at ll. 95–6 Ascalon (Ἀσκάλῳ κρατίστην); van Groningen 1921, 29–30, equates her, unnecessarily, with Venus Caelestis. Short survey of the cult of Serapis in Palestine: Schlüter 1982, 127–8; according to Belayche 2007, 448–469, the cult is not very prominent in Ascalon. 318 See Krug 1995, 135–138. 319 Krug 1985, 138. 320 For the evidence for the ‘unknown location’ of the Episcopal see, attested in the 4th–6th c., that ‘[m]ay be identical with Saraphia’, see Tsafrir / Di Segni / Green 1994, 112; for the suggestion concerning Sariphaea see Alt 1931, but n. b. that this paper has not been included in his Kleine Schriften; Jacobs 2000, 150. 321 Dvorjetski 1993 (Hebr. with Engl. summ.).

Chapter 7: Two Shrines in Ascalon

129

connection of this with the name of a shrine is highly artificial and absolutely unnecessary in face of the fact that there exists for it a clearly acceptable solution.322 I repeat here what I wrote some years ago, in discussing quite exceptional Rabbinic evidence for the topography of Rome.323 I adduced the Sages’ definition of tsrif, a Mishnaic (post-Biblical) Hebrew word employed in modern Hebrew to designate a hut, a barrack, or any not stable or not permanent building. It appears a number of times in the Mishnah and is explained (Mishnah Sukkah [= Tabernacles] 1.11]) in no uncertain terms: ‘He who makes his tabernacle like a tsrif or who adjoins it to the wall: R. El`azar prohibits, since it has no roof.’ It is not difficult to imagine the form of a roofless tabernacle or other structure. Hebrew dictionaries refer to a cone or a pyramid,324 and indeed my discussion was concerned with the so-called ‘Pyramid of Romulus’ (the son of Maxentius rather than of Mars, demolished in the late fifteenth and in the sixteenth century) in Rome, to which also the the name Meta has been applied – the counter piece to the ‘Pyramid of Remus’, viz., the Pyramid of Cestius. While for the fourth-century Pyramid of Romulus this explanation of tsrif was perfectly fitting, we are still a step away from the shrine in Ascalon. Since there is no hint for any pyramid-like structure in the city the question may be raised, whether the word is applicable to any sort of Egyptian or Egyptianising building.325 For indeed such a shrine has been identified. It has been suggested326 that the tsrif of Ascalon may have been identical with the unusual shrine in the city depicted on a coin of Julia Domna. ‘The coin shows that the structure is a temple of Phanebal who is seen standing within it. The Egyptianizing cornice, the columns widening in the middle and the uraei on the upper beams show the influence of Egyptian architecture.’ It is noteworthy that this description is unaware of the problem raised here. Yet it is important to note that in a recent discussion of Phanebal327 no Egyptian connections have been detected. Disregarding the two rather outlandish suggestions referred to briefly above, it seems to me, that we are left with two solutions, one relating to Serapis, and the other to the Hebrew word for pyramid. Neither of these appears to be utterly convincing, yet both have merits that cannot be dismissed. Moreover, the two share a basic characteristic, viz., their Egyptian connection. Do we have to chose the one over the other, or is it possible that in the eyes of a Jewish observer somehow the two elements converged, so that a shrine of the Egyptian god Serapis, whose cult in Ascalon is attested, as we have seen, was given the name of the best-known architectural structure of that country? 322 See also Palistrant Shaick 2012; Hirschfeld 1990 (Hebr.). 323 Geiger 2004. 324 Jastrow 1903, s. v. explains the Mishna passage ‘in the shape of a cone’ and translates in the Palestinian Talmud ‘two huts’. Ben Iehuda’s historical Hebrew dictionary (1959) learns from the passage in the Mishna that a tsrif is wider at the bottom than at the top; the widely used modern Hebrew dictionaries of Even-Shoshan (1975), Kenaani (1975) and the Encyclopedic Sapphire Dictionary (Avneyon 1998) all explicitly interpret ad loc. that such a building resembles a pyramid. 325 In general see Roullet 1972; also Hermann 1964. 326 Meshorer 1985, 28. 327 Shenkar 2009.

130

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

APPENDIX TO PART II: MARIANUS OF ELEUTHEROPOLIS328 The Suda tells us, in an entry some nine lines in length (M 194), all that is known about this person. The main problem that has been hitherto raised, his identity, has in my opinion been satisfactorily solved. However, it appears that there are other points of some interest of which no account has been taken. A re-evaluation is in place. According to the above mentioned source Marianus, a consul, praefect and patrician under Anastasius (491–518) – all the offices may well have been honorary329 – emigrated from Rome to Eleutheropolis in Palaestina Prima together with his father Marsus, an advocate at the court of the Praefect of the City of Rome. He paraphrased into iambics the hexameter poems of all the important Hellenistic poets: Theocritus, the Argonautica of Apollonius, Callimachus’ Hecale, hymns, the Aitia and epigrams, Aratus, the Theriaca of Nicander330 and many more paraphrases (μεταφράσεις).331 The customary identification of this man with Marianus Scholasticus, a poet of the Cycle of Agathias, was exploded over forty years ago,332 and seems to have been abandoned by virtually everybody.333 This has been later upheld and enhanced by each of the two authors of that groundbreaking paper separately,334 and even those critics who doubted the attribution of the crucial poem (9.657) or its dating under Justin II335 did not advocate the identification. The reasons for the rejection of the identification are three. First, chronology: the Cycle of Agathias, differently from the Garlands of Meleager and of Philip, contains only contemporaries of the anthologist; even though the Camerons have somewhat rescheduled the publication of Agathias from the reign of Justinian to the early years of Justin II, there obviously is no place in it for a poet of the age of Anastasius. To this point a further argument has been added in Alan Cameron’s book: the poem in question has been attributed by Zonaras not to Marianus, but to Agathias himself. Though Zonaras is in this instance anyway an inferior source it can also be shown by text-critical points that this attribution is untenable. Second, 328 First published as Geiger 2009. I delivered a Hebrew version of this paper in October 2008, in a colloquium at Tel-Aviv University to mark Netta Zagagi’s retirement – may it be both an enjoyable and a fruitful one. 329 Thus PLRE II s. v. no. 3. 330 The present author admits that he is one of the ‘few who regret the loss of Marianus’ literary productions’ (Wilson 1983, 32). 331 These metaphrases should be distinguished from the rhetorical metaphrases of the schools. An example of these, close in time and space to Marianus, is ascribed to Procopius of Gaza (ca. 465–528). Phot. cod. 160 attests that he did Homeric paraphrases in various styles and Rabe 1908, 515 n. 2 prints two on M 322–8 from Vat. 2228 (Johannes Diaconus, commentary on Hermogenes περὶ μεθόδου δεινότητος), discussed by Brinkmann 1908. 332 Cameron/Cameron 1966, 17, 21. 333 But note that in DNP no. 1 (M. of Eleutheropolis [G. Damschen]) is ‘possibly’ (möglicherweise) identical with no. 2 (M. Scholasticus [M. G. Albiani]) while the entry for no. 2 labels the identification with no. 1 as ‘improbable’ (unwahrscheinlich). 334 Av. Cameron 1967, 15–16; Al. Cameron 1993a, 70–72. 335 See McCail 1969, 94 n. 29; Baldwin 1980, 334.

Appendix To Part II: Marianus of Eleutheropolis

131

the humble title of ‘Scholasticus’ would run counter to the custom of Agathias to boast with the titles of ‘his’ poets, and he would hardly conceal the fact that the man in question had been a consul, praefect and patrician. Third, the composition of entirely conventional epigrams in elegiac distichs would be the exact opposite to the iambic paraphrases attributed to Marianus of Eleutheropolis; these were obviously meant for middlebrow readers, losing their feeling for the lengths of syllables owing to the change from pitch to stress accent in Greek. The first two arguments are not irrefutable. Although Marianus had been honoured by Anastasius, he may well have started his poetical career already in the last years of Justinian or the first of Justin II. Similarly, while still only a scholasticus under Justin II, his future honours under Anastasius could not have been divined by Agathias. It is the last argument that all but clinches the matter. I find it exceedingly difficult – though admittedly still not absolutely impossible – to believe that a thoroughly conventional poet later in life underwent a conversion that engaged him in an apparently long-term and well thought out program that was completely opposed to all that he stood for earlier in life. Before taking leave of Marianus Scholasticus and turning to his namesake I would like to draw attention to an apparently neglected issue. We seem to know very little about the poetry books or other collections on which Agathias drew. Now of the six poems attributed to Marianus in the Anthology five have Eros as their subject: 9.626 and 627 are on a bath called Eros, 9.668 and 669 on a park called Eros, and 16.201 (preserved only in the Planudean Anthology) is ‘To Garlanded Eros’. The remaining poem, the controversial one on the Palace Sophianae (9.657), dated to Justin II’s reign, may have been later than the rest (all the others are undatable) and would thus perhaps not belong to a hypothetical collection on the subject of Eros. To return to Marianus of Eleutheropolis. Accepting the Suda’s information on his works he should be evaluated in the due perspective of Late Greek iambic poetry.336 The first author to come to mind is the Egyptian Helladius, known from Photius’ résumé (cod. 279) of his iambic Chrestomathia, as well as of a number of other works in the same metre mentioned towards the end of that codex: Athens, the Nile, the Egyptian, the Protrepticus, Rome, Fame (φήμη), Victory, and City of Antinous. Photius dates him early in the fourth century, to Licinius and Maximin (viz., Daia, thus probably for the text’s Maximian). Photius reports in the same place that the following works in the same metre are to be found in the same manuscript: Hermias of Hermupolis337 on the antiquities of his city as well as other writings, Andronicus of the same city to his compatriot, the comes Phoebammon, Cyrus of Antinupolis338 to the dux Mauricius (these must have been panegyrics); mixed metres were employed by the above mentioned Phoebammon for dramatic works, by the grammarian Horapollon339 on the antiquities of Alexandria as well as for dramas, and for 336 See Al. Cameron 1965, 482; Al. Cameron 1970, 120–121. 337 On his possible identification see Kaster 1988, 291 (no. 71). 338 PLRE III no. 12. 339 On his possible identifications see Kaster 1988, 294–5 (no. 77).

132

Part II: Greek Intellectuals from Ascalon

dramas by the grammarian Serenus.340 Al. Cameron dates Andronicus, and Cyrus as a probable contemporary, to the second half of the fourth century. One may go along with his judgment not to make too much of the significance of Marianus, whose innovation did not catch on and was actually reversed with the hexameter revival of Nonnus and his school; nevertheless, Marianus’ activity should at least be seen as an attempt, even if in the event not successful, to take Greek poetry to new – not necessarily more glorious – horizons. As hinted above, it is also a rather rare opportunity to appreciate the taste of not-elite readers. However another aspect of our poet seems to have been totally kept out of sight. The Suda tells us only that he emigrated from Rome to Eleutheropolis, without any indication of the stage in his life when this occurred. Thus it will be only right and proper to look at Marianus’ possible Roman, viz. Latin, background, especially so since we are informed that already his father – and we know nothing about earlier generations – was an advocate at Rome. Now as is well known also in Latin poetry there was a movement away from the hexameter, and towards the iambic metre: eventually the iambic dimeter was to become the main vehicle of Christian hymns. This is not the place to attempt an evaluation of this trend, but a short discussion of two or three authors may be relevant to our present quest. The first among these is Avienus, who according to Servius turned Virgil and Livy into iambics.341 Also the identity of this Avienus has been discussed by Al. Cameron:342 showing that Avienus, rather than Avianus, was the name of the fable writer, he identifies him with the iambic poet (albeit the alternative of identifying him with the translator of the Aratea, whose correct name according to Cameron is Avienius has also been put forward on the authority of S. Weinstock). Though Cameron notes the similarity of the versifications of Avienus and Marianus, for some reason he fails to mention the latter’s Roman connection. He also conjectures that Avienus only put into iambics some fabulae out of Virgil and Livy, unlike Marianus, who seems to have gone the whole hog. Be this as it may, the similarity is undeniable. As for the date of Avienus, both his identification with the fable-writer, a contemporary of Macrobius, and his quotation by Servius put him early in the fifth century, thus conveniently allowing his example to be followed by Marianus. Another poet who comes to mind is Alfius Avitus.343 He composed a poem on Excellentes in iambic dimeters, perhaps in the early or middle third century, but that date is not certain.344 If the Excellentes were summi viri – one dare not suggest that they were (some of) those represented in the Forum Augustum345 – the author seems 340 Kaster 1988, 354–5 (no. 134). 341 Serv., ad Aen. 10.272 … Avienus, qui iambis scripsit Vergilii fabulas; 10.388 Avienus … qui totum Livium iambis scripsit … 342 Al. Cameron 1967, 394–5; Murgia 1970, 185–197, who also discusses the identity and the date of Avienus, rejects the versification of Livy. Turning only Virgil into iambics would make him even more similar to Marianus. 343 Courtney 1993, 403–4. 344 Al. Cameron 1980, 374; see there also for identifications. 345 A suggestion not made in Geiger 2008, ch. 7 (‘The Impact of the Gallery of Heroes’).

Appendix To Part II: Marianus of Eleutheropolis

133

to have employed a modern form for an antiquarian task. If so, he indeed seems to have found a follower, a poet whose only extant fragment of five iambic dimeters comes from a poem called Lupercalia (or similarly) and deals with the name of Rome, derived from the daughter of Aesculapius. His name is Marianus.346 Obviously in the present context this information cannot be left unexplored. Though the name is not very frequent, it alone would not suffice for the identification. The Latin Marianus’ time entirely depends on the conveyor of his fragment, Filagrius. Iunius Filagrius of Mediolanum347 is dated by the subscriptio of his commentary, dedicated to Valentinian III (425–455). If the Latin Marianus was his contemporary and if Filagrius wrote towards the end of Valentinian III’s reign, we could just identify him with the future émigré to Palaestina Prima if the latter attained to his honours in old age early in the reign of Anastasius – a Procrustean bed, but perhaps one not impossible to survive. Alternatively the Latin versifier could have been the Greek’s grandfather, either the father of the advocate Marsus or else, somewhat less probably, his maternal grandfather. In that case he would have been a contemporary of Avienus, creating something like a poetic trend. Of course a sheer coincidence of the names348 is not impossible; but even in that case it would have been wrong to ignore the Roman background of a poet from Rome.

346 Filagr., ad Verg. Buc. 1.19; Courtney, op. cit. 405. 347 RE X 1077–9, Iunius no. 127 (Tolkiehn); DNP s. v. Iunius no. III.2 (P. L. Schmidt). 348 The published volumes of LGPN list half a dozen or so instances of the name and there are about as many occurrences in the city of Rome.

PART III: LATIN LITERATURE IN PALESTINE The spread of Latin in the Eastern part of the Empire, dominated by Greek as the language of the cultural elites, has received due attention both as a general topic1 and in the exploration of isolated instances of linguistic singularity.2 On the other hand discussions of the linguistic situation in Palestine tend to concentrate on the Jews and on their use of Greek versus Aramaic and Hebrew and on the influence of the former on the latter.3 Even important papers with titles such as ‘Language, Power and Identity in Ancient Palestine’4 are liable totally to disregard the nonJewish inhabitants of this country.5 Thus a discussion of the diffusion of Latin and intellectual achievements in that language among the non-Jewish, Hellenised or Hellenic, part of the population is a desideratum by itself.6 To what extent the situation in Judaea/Syria Palaestina may be indicative of other Eastern provinces may be left for further studies, though we will see in the following at least some signs that local circumstances may have influenced the linguistic state of affairs at any rate to some degree. Unfortunately our evidence for the early part of the advent of Latin is entirely speculative, derived from general considerations. Latin may have played some part even before the conquest by Pompey, and this must have increased steadily with the 1 2

3 4 5

6

Hahn 1905; Hahn 1906; Zilliacus 1935; Palm 1959; Rochette 1997; see also Dagron 1969; Mihaescu 1973, 144–153; Millar 1993, 527–8. See, for some sample cases, Hahn 1912; from the considerable literature on Berytus as a Latin island see, e. g., Collinet 1925; see also Cumont 1936, 626 on ‘Berytus and Heliopolis (Baalbek) under Augustus, Ptolemais Acre under Claudius’ as ‘Latin islands in the Semitic ocean’. Indeed under Claudius Ptolemais became a colony and veterans were settled in it (see Schürer 1979, 125), but Cumont’s assertion is a wild exaggeration. See also Millar 1990, 10–23 (= 2006, 168–182); Millar 1999 (= 2004) gives a good instance of a lawyer from the East and his Latin studies; see also Levick 1967, 130–162, with the criticism of Bowie 1970. Rosén 1980 (= 1982). See Schwartz 1995, discussing also the (lack of) use of Hebrew by the Jews of the Diaspora; the epithet in the text above does not imply concurrence with its theses. On the contrary my own more modest efforts were directed at the inhabitants of the country as a whole, see Geiger 2002b. Regrettably the evidence for Aramaic spoken by non-Jews in Palestine, perhaps mostly in the countryside, is small in quantity – they neither left behind a literature nor were they possessed of the epigraphic habit; these deficiencies should not be translated into underestimation either of their numbers or of their weight in the cultural composition of the country. Though it has never been collected I believe that there exists enough circumstantial evidence for some idea about the life and activities of these Aramaic speakers; an attempt of sorts is Safrai 2003 (Hebr.). I have devoted an English and a Hebrew paper to the subject, overlapping only in part, see Geiger 1994a (Hebr. with Engl. summ.); Geiger 1996b. The important studies by Eck 2009 and Isaac 2009 approach the subject from altogether different angles and deal only in part with the cities of Palestine. A concise text with extensive bibliography: Eck 2008; Price 2003 deals only cursorily with Palestine.

136

Part III: Latin Literature in Palestine

growing Roman influence and interference in the affairs of the country, and eventually with the imposition of direct rule by governors installed by the Emperor and with the integration and stabilisation of the Empire. To mention only two key aspects, there were the Roman governors and their staff and the Roman army who all must have been instrumental in the spread of some acquaintance with Latin by some of the inhabitants of this country. Indeed it is the communis opinio that Latin was restricted, in the main, to the Roman army and administration. However, even in this general view we should beware of dogmatism. True, some units in the Roman army have been recruited from among Aramaic speakers7 – their grasp of Latin may have been similar to, say, the German of the non-German units in the Austro-Hungarian army – but we should not imagine their officers as some caricature drill-sergeants. Among the papyri found on Masada, left by the conquering Legio X Ferrata, a scrap contains on one side part of a line from the Aeneid – in fact the oldest written evidence of the poem – and on the other, part of a hexameter by an unknown poet.8 Equestrian, and later senatorial, governors, and some of their staff, will have been mostly well educated and intellectually involved:9 will they always have kept to themselves? Plutarch’s Table­Talks provide a fascinating picture of the intellectual mixing of Roman officials and Greek domi nobiles.10 Are we to assume that this was an extraordinary situation, or rather quite on the contrary, only that Roman Palestine did not happen to have a Plutarch of its own? Of course this intellectual mingling took place in Greek, but can we be sure that other members of the local elites did not display an even greater interest in matters Roman, including their language, than Plutarch? One remarkable instance is the only governor of the province in the Early and High Empire born in this country, Flavius Boethus. Considering his career it is inconceivable that he had no command of Latin, and his intellectual interests, including in Peripatetic philosophy and medicine, are vouched for (see Part I above). It is a safe bet that he must have acquired his Latin before embarking on his political career, and unwise to assume that he restricted his interest in Latin to practical purposes. He was successful – what about the Also-Runs? Did they spend part of their enforced leisure in reading Latin literature? In some respect related to these persons is the question of the education of the Herodian princes, and perhaps of other Jewish aristocrats. It has been conjectured (see Part I, Appendix B above) that Gemellus acted as Latin tutor to Herod’s sons, whose education got its final touch in Rome, perhaps in the house of the aristocratic historian Asinius Pollio.11 As for Herod’s grandson, Agrippa I, who lived for a con7 8 9 10 11

See, e. g., the illuminating incident during the siege of Gamla described by Jos., BJ 4.37–38. Cotton/Geiger 1989, no. 721. In Late Antiquity, when governors were Greek-speaking, we have evidence for a number of them attested as pepaideumenoi: see, in addition to Flavius Boethus discussed in the text, Part I, ss. vv. Hilarius, Hypatius, Leontius, Priscianus 1, Thomas 2, Uranius, Anonymus 1. See Jones 1971, 48–64. Jos., AJ 15.342–43; the educators of Mariamme’s sons were Andromachus and Gemellus (ibid. 16.242–43). Antipater, the eldest son, came to Rome for purely political purposes, and not for educational ones, see AJ 17.52–53; BJ 1.573. Archelaus and Philip educated at Rome: AJ 17.80; BJ 1.602–3; Archelaus and Antipas: AJ 17.20–21. The name Gemellus points with great

Part III: Latin Literature in Palestine

137

siderable time in Rome, our evidence is inconclusive. Certainly Claudius’ permission to him and to his brother Herod of Chalcis to address the Senate in Greek (Dio 60.8.2) does not necessarily prove their ignorance of Latin, though it probably implies their less than complete mastery of the language and their preference to show off their rhetorical abilities in the language in which they have acquired them. To what extent one may assume analogies to these scattered pieces of information among the non-Jewish population of the country, about which we are much less well informed, may be anybody’s guess. This goes for the somewhat related issue of the public inscriptions as well.12 To what extent did these take account of the likelihood of their being read by their intended public? Certainly the bilingual, Greek and Latin, inscription prohibiting non-Jews from entering the sacred confines of the Jerusalem Temple13 was meant to fulfil its purpose. Josephus’ accounts about the inscriptions recording Jewish privileges by Julius Caesar and Mark Antony are intriguing: these should be in Greek and Latin, according to a letter by Caesar to Sidon (AJ 14.191); in another letter, to Hyrcanus, he commands that the inscription shall be set up on bronze tablets on the Capitol, in Sidon, Tyre and Ascalon and their temples (AJ 14.197). M. Antonius in a letter to Tyre directs to set up the bilingual inscription in a prominent place, so that people can read them (AJ 14.319), and the same instruction he sent to Sidon, Antioch and Aradus (AJ 14.323). Whether these precautions reflect a degree of linguistic reality we cannot tell – shouldn’t one be reminded of the Ancyra version of the Res Gestae Divi Augusti, where the Latin text, in monumental characters, is set up inconveniently high above the spectators, while the much smaller script of the Greek translation is at apposite eye-height of the beholder? However it is remarkable that we do not encounter any instructions concerning the languages of the inscriptions in the correspondence with Asia Minor and the Greek islands. And of course there exists the distinct possibility that what we have here is not awareness of a linguistic situation, but rather the arbitrariness of unrestricted rulers. Nevertheless, it is as well to be reminded of probably the most famous inscription, though lost, from the ancient world: the titu­ lus crucis was inscribed in three languages, Latin, Greek and Aramaic (the most probable meaning of Ἑβραιστί, John 19:19) – the only official Roman inscription to acknowledge in such a manner a vernacular – possibly a testimony to some sensitiveness to inscriptions being read by the local population.14 Yet another aspect of Roman rule was the establishment of Roman colonies. Some of the linguistic manifestations advertising their newly won status are far from conclusive as to the actual penetration of the Latin language. Public inscriptions15 are, as we have seen, a poor guide as to their readers. Nor should we be

12 13 14 15

probability, though not certainty, to a Roman, cf. Schalit 1969, 414 n. 936. It seems that Archelaus and Philip were educated in the house of Asinius Pollio: Feldman 1953; Feldman 1985; contra Braund 1983, 239–242; see also Hadas-Lebel 2003; cf. also Hoehner 1972, 12–14. On an estimate and evaluation of the Latin inscriptions of Caesarea see Eck 2009, 34–40. Greek and Latin inscriptions: Jos., BJ 5.194. CIIP I, 2 has parts of two copies of the Greek text. See Geiger 1996a. The most famous extant inscription (less famous of course than the lost titulus crucis, see previous note) from this country is that set up in Caesarea for Pontius Pilatus, CIIP II, 1277. For

138

Part III: Latin Literature in Palestine

impressed by the Latin legends on their coinage – one may remember with profit, e. g., the Latin, and lately also the Welsh, inscriptions on British coins. Still, while disappointed by sources that should provide the evidence a chance find comes to our succour. A Latin inscription on a statue base, dated ca. 100 CE, set up to honour M. Flavius Agrippa, orator, priest and duumvir of the colony Caesarea (CIIP II, 2095 and see Part I above, s. v.) plainly reveals the language of his rhetorical accomplishments, which may have served well him, and his city, in diplomatic missions, perhaps as far as Rome and the Imperial court. However Latin orators do not spring in full rhetorical armour from the head of Juppiter (or actually Mercury, the pertinent god). Though we cannot even guess at the sources of Flavius Agrippa’s skills, it would be rash to conclude that our chance find indicates also a unique phenomenon and that our Latin orator was a Robinson Crusoe on a Greek island unoccupied by anybody, but for the governor, his staff and army officers, who could appreciate his talent or with whom he could have an exchange of minds concerning, say, Cicero’s speeches (some of which, at least, must have been available to him). As so often in our prosopographical queries information concerning a single proficient practitioner of a profession of higher education indicates teachers, fellow students, sometimes pupils, not to mention a public. Of course Flavius Agrippa may have been a freak instance, and the find of his inscription a further piece of good luck – but then, is it so unlikely that the newly founded Flavian colony made a point of being represented by a Flavius – a first, or already a second generation Roman citizen? – who could actually deliver speeches in Latin? Though our concern here is with the non-Jewish inhabitants of the country the issue of the knowledge of Latin among the Jews, or rather, among the Rabbinic class, the only one about which we are well informed, should be put out of our way. The oft quoted saying concerning the four languages used in Palestine16 confirms at least some awareness of a main characteristic of Latin, perhaps only as conceived by people with a very limited acquaintance with it. Indeed, Rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic have close to two thousand five hundred Greek loan-words (in a rather restricted vocabulary of not much more than ten thousand), many of them no doubt also contained in other Aramaic dialects and not loaned directly, while the number of Latin loan words is somewhere in the neighbourhood of one tenth of that, many arriving through the mediation of Greek, in whose military and administrative jargon they have been already current.17 The state of affairs observed among the Jews no doubt reflects on a similar situation among the non-Jewish inhabitants of the country: the dissemination of Latin was by no means wide, and the question facing

16

17

the praise contained in Apollonius of Tyana’s letter 11 to the people of Caesarea see discussion in Part II, ch. 1, n. 8 above. The inscriptions of Caesarea are now most conveniently available in CIIP II. Pal. Talmud, Megilla (= Scroll of Esther) 1.8, fol. 71b; Sotah (= The Woman Suspected of Adultery) 7.2, fol. 21c: R. Jonathan of Beth Govrin (= Eleutheropolis) said: There are four languages in the world proper to use, and these are foreign (= Greek) for song, Roman for battle, Syrian (= Aramaic) for lament, Hebrew for speaking. For Greek and Latin loan-words in Talmudic literature the replacement of Krauss 1898–1899 has been (and may remain) a long standing desideratum.

Part III: Latin Literature in Palestine

139

us is whether it penetrated into a well-defined section of the population only and affected some particular individuals or whether its spread was wider. A partial answer to this question will be provided in the following. Like in many other areas also with the spread of Latin our evidence becomes more plentiful with the relatively rich flow of evidence in Late Antiquity. It will be perhaps best to start with an indirect indication of the successful invasion of Latin, expressed by a jealous guardian of Greek. Though Libanius resided in Antioch – as a matter of fact not that far from Palaestina, where he maintained many contacts – there is no reason to assume that the concerns voiced by him were less relevant for the neighbouring province.18 Latin had great practical advantages – above all, it was essential for the study of law – and, for those with more modest ambitions, it was used in stenography.19 He warns those, who set their eyes on Rome and a career there that they will be disappointed, and will have made a bad deal in exchanging Latin for Greek culture.20 Not surprisingly it is especially the danger of leaving the school of Libanius in order to study law in Berytus or Rome that agitates the rhetor,21 though his sincere confidence in the superiority of Greek education can duly be perceived when censuring a Roman correspondent for writing to him in Latin despite the fact that he is possessed of a good Hellenic education.22 Libanius may also have been defensive as against even more exacting opponents of Latin: in his Autobiography (3) he denies that his great-grandfather came from Italy, and insists that his grandfather has been a native Antiochene. The suspicion arose because of a Latin speech by Libanius’ grandfather – thus incidentally providing us with evidence for a Latin orator in the city two generations before Libanius. He may not have known his fellow-countryman Ammianus Marcellinus, described by himself, no doubt tongue-in-cheek, as miles and Graecus,23 but he had good opportunity to observe the background, against which the last great Latin historian of Antiquity had acquired his linguistic skills. Less well-known, but perhaps even more suggestive of the successful penetration of Latin is the grammarian Rufinus, whose patria Antioch cannot be questioned. Known only from his works printed in GLK 6.547– 578, commentarii de metris comicorum and de numeris oratorum he dates, at the latest, to the early sixth century.24 We have good reason to believe that Libanius’ concerns were as relevant for the Greek cities of Palestine as they were for Antioch. Latin was a basic requirement for the study of law, which consisted mainly in the study of Latin legal texts, so that one may assume a good working knowledge of Latin for the more than forty lawyers, some half of whom are expressly termed scholastikoi, known to us.25 The fact that 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Wolf 1952 has a very good survey of this issue, and will be followed in the text above; for a brief repetition of his arguments see Wolf 1954, esp. 241 (= 1983, esp. 81–82); on Latin in Antioch see also Matthews 1989, 71–72; Geiger 1999. See Wolf 1952, 53–55. Lib., or. 43.3–5, and cf. Wolf 1952, 54 for more examples and elaboration. See discussion in Wolf 1952, 78–79. Lib., ep. 1036. Amm., ad fin. See Geiger 1999, 615–6. They are contained in the Prosopography (Part I).

140

Part III: Latin Literature in Palestine

they all belong to Late Antiquity, the majority of them known to us from the correspondence of Procopius of Gaza and from the studential memories of Zacharias Rhetor of the same city, is only due to the state of our sources. For many of these lawyers, not only the fellow-students of Zacharias, study in Berytus is attested, and for a number we have evidence that they went to Constantinople to pursue there a legal career. As for the way they have acquired their Latin we can only guess, though a chance notice tells us about the Latin grammaticus Hierius in Gaza.26 This attests only the middle stage of the study of the language and its literature, while for the necessarily existing lower, and wider, layer of the pyramid we have to turn to a rather obscure corner of the country; later we shall also have opportunity to observe its rhetorical peak. Among the papyri of Nessana, on the present-day border of Israel with Egyptian Sinai, and sharing its dry climate with the latter country, were found a papyrus with a glossar for Aeneis 1, 2 and 4, and another with parts of books 2–6 of that epos, both to be dated, like Procopius of Gaza’s letter referring to Hierius, to the fifth-sixth centuries.27 Obviously these texts served the primary study of Latin, unique only because of the unique conditions for the preservation of papyri.28 Unfortunately all this, like so much evidence from Antiquity, tells us little about its quantitative aspect. Another intriguing problem may provide a clue also to that. The only safe fact concerning a School of Law in Caesarea is Justinian’s prohibition of 533 of teaching there: …audivimus etiam in Alexandrina splendidissima civitate et in Caesariensium et in aliis quos­ dam imperitos homines devagare et doctrinam discipulis adulterinam tradere: quos sub hac in­ terminatione ab hoc conamine repellimus, ut, si ausi fuerint in posterum hoc perpetrare et extra urbes regias et Berytensium metropolim hoc facere, denarum librarum auri poena plectantur et reiciantur ab ea civitate, in qua non leges docent, sed in leges committunt.29 …we have heard that even in the most splendid cities of Alexandria and Caesarea and others there are unqualified men who take an unauthorised course and impart a spurious education to their pupils. We warn them off these endeavours, under the threat that shall they dare to perpetrate such deeds in the future and act thus other than in the royal capitals and the metropolis of Berytus, they are to be punished by a fine of ten pounds of gold and will be expelled from the city in which they don’t teach the law, but commit a crime against it.

The singling out of Caesarea together with the ‘splendid’ city of Alexandria as against the ‘aliis’ presumes that the teaching there has acquired some reputation, as do the heavy fines and penalties by which the teachers are threatened. Of course we cannot tell in how far the emperor’s condemnation of the teachers and their teaching was based on unbiased information or to what degree it reflected the selfish interests of the established schools. However, it is an intriguing observation that none of the attested lawyers from Palestinian cities is known to have studied in Caesarea. One would not expect evidence for such people in Zacharias’s memories of student life 26 27 28 29

See on him Proc., ep. 13 and discussion in Part I. Casson/Hettich 1950, 2–78. It is perhaps not excessive to mention in this context some Latin texts from the scriptorium of the monastery of St. Catharina on Mount Sinai, see Lowe 1955; Lowe 1964; Lowe 1965. CIC, Constitutio omnem, 7

Part III: Latin Literature in Palestine

141

in Berytus, but also the correspondence of Procopius and our other chance sources do not reveal such an instance. This raises the question of the history of the School of Caesarea, as far as it can be recovered from hints and some faint traces. The story of the young Theodorus from Neo-Caesarea, in the event to become famous as Gregorius Thaumaturgus and the bishop of his native city, is well known. He arrived in Palestinian Caesarea, where his sister was married to the governor, in 231, and instead of continuing as planned to Berytus to study law there he remained in the city and fell under the spell of Origenes, who became his revered teacher. His studies with that great scholar, far beyond the confines of theology, are of no concern here. However the young man, orphaned from his father – on arrival just a boy of fourteen – was meant to study the law for the practical purposes as a rule associated with these studies, and it is difficult to envisage that his sister and brother-inlaw would have consented to his totally relinquishing his prospects. Fortunately we do not have to rely on guess-work. Origenes, in praising his disciple30 asserts that he could have been a Roman lawyer. This, even if somewhat exaggerated, can hardly have been based on Theodorus’ studies in his native town up to the age of fourteen, and we may assume with some confidence, that a modus vivendi had been reached and that the youth found a way of dividing his time between his studies with Origenes and Roman Law, that is legal texts in Latin.31 This does not necessarily entail a full-blown School of Law – one should not think of an ancient equivalent of a modern faculty – but there must have been available both means of improving the young man’s Latin and some guidance in reading the relevant texts (that of course must have been readily available).32 Also the assumed legal training of the architect Julian (see discussion in Part II, ch. 6 above), of whom we know that he was an Ascalonite and that he could compare the customs of his city with those of Caesarea could well accord with the study of law in the last named city. Another piece of circumstantial evidence derives from the nature of the vivid intellectual life in Caesarea, capital of the province Palaestina, and after its partition of Palaestina Prima. Origenes, followed by his pupil Pamphilus and Pamphilus’ pupil Eusebius maintained an important tradition of Christian teaching, centred on the library based on Origenes’ books.33 Of course Caesarea was also a centre of Hellenic culture, and among other evidence for Greek rhetors residing there (see Part I above) we also have good reason to believe that a rhetorical school, devoted to a large degree to the teaching of Hermogenes was active there.34 Another point comes from Rabbinic literature. The so-called Palestinian Talmud, in Hebrew as a rule referred to as The Talmud of Jerusalem, was in fact edited, somewhere around 400 CE, in Tiberias. However Saul Lieberman, the greatest twentieth century au30 31 32

33 34

Orig., ep. ad Greg. 1–2. See Greg. Thaum., laus Orig. Schemmel 1925 puts the establishment of the School after 212, assuming that Gregorius Thaumaturgus had no knowledge of it when he came there, but states as fact that he studied there law for five years, thus correcting somewhat his earlier assertion, Schemmel 1923, dating the foundation of the School in 212. Carriker 2003; Grafton/Williams 2006. See Part I on Iohannes 1 and Paulus.

142

Part III: Latin Literature in Palestine

thority in Talmudic studies, has shown in a publication of his youth that a portion of that work, dealing mostly with civil law, was edited in Caesarea.35 In fact, in a later publication he alerts to the acquaintance of the Sages of Caesarea with specific regulations of Roman Law.36 This, of course, is far from amounting to proof, but one wonders, whether the Roman authorities in the capital of the province would not encourage the study of that most Roman of subjects, law, as some counterweight to the Christian, Hellenic, Jewish (and possibly Samaritan?) schools in the city. To sum up this point: in 533 the School of Law in Caesarea was closed.37 Though we do not know for how long, and (despite Justinian’s scorn) in what manner the teaching was conducted there, we have indications for it from the thirties of the third century on, indications that would well harmonise with the intellectual life of an important city. Such a School of Law would require teachers of Latin and Latin texts well beyond those pertaining directly to law and would provide opportunity to interested people to study the language and its literature. Though our concern here is with the literary summit of Latin studies, a brief recounting of some evidence for the everyday use of the language may be conducive for an evaluation of its upper reaches. Latin speakers, in addition to the administrative staff of the governor and the army, must have of course visited the country in all periods of Roman rule. However, with the rise and eventual victory of Christianity the influx of pilgrims, – among whom the Pilgrim of Bordeaux in 333 is only the first of whom we have definite knowledge38 – some of whom elected or were forced by the circumstances to stay on, must have become a component of some substance in the population.39 Of more impact than these were important personages who founded monastic houses, such as Melania the Elder and her followers on the Mount of Olives, and then, a few years later, Jerome, Paula and their adherents in Bethlehem, and lastly Melania the Younger, granddaughter of Melania the Elder. This influx increased apparently quite dramatically after the sack of Rome in 410, and included such personalities as Pelagius and Orosius. Even if they did not compose any works in this country one may assume with some confidence that they were at the centre of a literary coterie or literarily active in some other way.40 Some vivid instances of the use of Latin may illustrate the impact of these Westerners. The pilgrim Egeria tells us, how towards the end of the fourth century some persons in the Jerusalem congregation could understand neither the Greek sermon of the bishop nor its Aramaic interpretation and had to rely on the Graeco­ latini brothers and sisters for help.41 This comes, I believe, as a rather unsurprising 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

See Lieberman 1931 (Hebr.). Lieberman 1970/71 (Hebr. with Engl. summ., repr. in Lieberman 1991, 339–347; the English summary is reprinted in Lieberman 1974, 309). I could not discover whence Schemmel 1925, 1280, derived the notion that the school was active again in 554 and that accordingly Justinian’s prohibition had been revoked. Cuntz 1965, 1–16. See, e. g., Jerome, ep. 71.5. frequentia commeantium et turbae peregrinorum. See Hunt 1984, ch. 9, on post-410 Western refugees. See Geiger 2002a.

Part III: Latin Literature in Palestine

143

revelation about the Christian community in Jerusalem. In fact, Egeria’s travels provide also some clues for the smattering of Latin used by locals meeting these Westerners and their needs, something one may have assumed even without a shred of express evidence. As a counterpart to Egeria’s story of the use of Latin in Jerusalem one may refer to the fact that at Paula’s funeral psalms were sung in Greek, Latin and Aramaic.42 It is one chance piece of circumstantial information that gives us an idea about the strength of the Latin-speaking community in this country, and it concerns the most important Latin speaker and writer here, of whom we will have more to say, Jerome. It appears that beside his translations and other activities he also established a Latin school in Bethlehem. Rufinus, after reminding him of his vow to renounce the reading of ‘pagan’ literature, casts in his teeth that ‘Maronem suum comicosque et lyricos et historicos auctores traditis sibi ad discendum Dei timorem puerulis exponebat’.43 It is not by chance that this information in strongly connected with the impact of Christianity and the Christian community in Palaestina. But in all probability long before Jerome44 there is an important Christian author, whose provenance however is a bone of contention. Commodianus, the author of the accented hexameter poems Carmen apologeticum and Instructiones reveals his name, and possibly hints at his origin in the last poem (2.9) of the Instructiones. The title of the poem is nomen gasei, the last line is curiositas docti inveniet nomen in isto and the bottom to top acrostichon reads Commodianus mendicus Christi. Though various proveniences have been proposed, from Africa45 to Rome46 I believe we best follow B. Baldwin:47 ‘When all is said or done, the simplest and least subtlety-plagued explanation is to take Gaseus as indicating a native of Gaza.’48 I agree. He, however, continues: ‘If Commodianus came from the East to Africa, does this not imply that Latin was not his first language? Should he be taken as a precursor of Ammian and Claudian? Are foreign origins part of the explanation for his supposed deficiencies of metrics and Latinity?’ On face of the evidence presented here one should be less surprised by a Latin speaker (whether as first or second language) from Gaza. On top of the obvious meaning of Gaza it seems that Commodian’s preoccupation with Judaizers is particularly apt for a person living in this country. Another point may be his highly sophisticated use of acrostichs, the first Christian poet to employ this device. Now it has been observed that this was also the time when this technique developed in Hebrew and Samaritan poetry in Palestine,49 and one should 42 Jerome, ep. 108.29. 43 Rufin., Apol. 2.11; note that Jerome in his reply did not deny the accusation. 44 The consensus now seems to be the mid-third century, see the latest contributions of Poinsotte 2009. 45 The latest among those entertaining that view is Poinsotte 1996. 46 Sordi/Ramelli 2004. For a list of the various earlier contributors to the discussion see Geiger 1996b, 49, n. 72. 47 Baldwin 1989, 336. 48 The alternative explanation is to refer to the meaning ‘treasure’ of gaza. 49 Fleischer 1993, 72–76 (Hebr.).

144

Part III: Latin Literature in Palestine

not dismiss the possibility of (mutual?) influences. It seems to me that the scales are weighted in favour of Commodian being a native of Gaza. However, it is not isolated instances that resolve the importance of Christianity for Latin in the Holy Land, but rather its mission. The Church was not only Sacred, Catholic and Apostolic but also, and above all, One. True, there was the Eastern and the Western Church, and significantly only three Western bishops attended the Council of Nicaea. On the other hand, Constantine’s Oration to the Council of Saints, interpreting the Greek translation of Virgil’s Fourth Eclogue, but relying on the Latin text, is a powerful reminder of the efforts to overcome the division. The bridges spanning the gap, if not abolishing the separation, between the Latin and Greek Church had to be built. It seems that nowhere were the efforts to that effect greater than in the Holy Land. It was not by chance that it was here that the most influential translator of the age was active. True, Jerome came here to study the Hebraica veritas of Holy Writ, but at the same time also a great number of other translators were active, some probably inspired by Jerome himself. Urgent business was awaiting the Church: not only Holy Writ was to be made accessible in an authoritative version, there were among other writings also the Lives of the Saints, the most powerful example of the workings of God on Earth, that had to be made available to the entire Christian nation. I might as well start with a story involving Jerome himself, revealing for the linguistic situation in this country. Jerome’s biography of Hilarion, the founder of Palestinian monasticism could hardly have come into being had not Jerome before him the beginnings of Greek hagiography with Athanasius’ Life of Antony. (A text, by the way, of which we possess two distinctly dissimilar fourth-century Latin translations.50) Moreover, Jerome acknowledges his acquaintance with Epiphanius’ letter, of course in Greek, which contained a brief sketch of the life of the saint. One may as well recount a famous anecdote in Jerome’s biography (13). The fame of Hilarion spread far beyond the borders of the Holy Land, indeed of the Greekspeaking world. A candidate of the Emperor Constantius, whose origin was among the Saxons and the Alemanni was possessed by a demon from early infancy on. The German met Hilarion in his monastery in Gaza walking and murmuring Psalms. Interrogated by Hilarion he levitated above the ground and responded in the language used by the saint, Syrian – that is, Aramaic. The barbarian, or rather the demon inside him, who spoke hitherto only Frankish and Latin, spoke such pure Aramaic, that you couldn’t tell that he was not from Palestine by any characteristic of his speech. But since his interpreters spoke only Greek and Latin the saint interrogated him also in Greek, and it was in that language that he eventually exorcised the demon. I shall leave here this anecdote and the one in the next chapter of the Life, where the saint addresses in Aramaic a demon that possessed a camel and shall return to my actual subject. There are extant no less than three Greek versions of the Life of Hilarion, two quite literal ones and a rather free translation. This last one has been used by Sozomen and can thus be dated before the middle of the fifth century, while the two others cannot be dated even in such general terms. Such an abun50

Garitte 1939; Hopfenbrouwers 1960.

Part III: Latin Literature in Palestine

145

dance points, I think, to the presence of a plethora of translators and to a situation in which no great efforts were needed to find a translator for a work thought to be salutary as well as attractively written. The Greek translations of the Life of Hilarion raise another point. We happen to know, and from Jerome himself, the name of one of the translators, who accordingly completed his work already in the author’s lifetime. I shall in a moment quote what Jerome has to say about Sophronius, this is the name of the translator, and remark in the meantime only that scholars have argued whether one of the extant translations of the Life of Hilarion should be attributed to this man. This is what Jerome has to say about him:51 Sophronius, vir apprimo eruditus, laudes Bethlehem adhuc puer, et nuper de subversione Serapis insignem librum composuit. de virginitate quoque ad Eustochium, et Vitam Hilarionis monachi, opuscula mea, in Graecum eleganti sermone transtulit; Psalterios quoque et Prophe­ tas, quos nos de Hebraeo in Latinum vertimus. Sophronius, an exceptionally learned man, composed ‘Praises of Bethlehem’ while still a youth and not long ago (it occurred in 391) ‘The Destruction of the Serapeum’, and he also translated into Greek in the most elegant manner my slight works ‘to Eustochium on Virginity’ and the Life of the Monk Hilarion, and also the Book of Psalms and the Prophets, which I had translated from the Hebrew into Latin.

The passage of Jerome raises not a few questions. I would assume that the youth who composed ‘Praises of Bethlehem’ may well have been a native of the town, and at any rate lived there at an early age. I am not sure whether we can say with any certainty in what language this work and the ‘Destruction of the Serapeum’ were written; it has been suggested that Sophronius was a ‘Greek’ translating into his mother-tongue.52 It remains open to discussion whether Jerome’s application of the adverb elegantissime may not be praise for somebody’s proficiency in an acquired language, and at any rate I have already indicated for another group of contemporaries and nearby residents53 that there is no knowing which was the first and which the acquired language of such people. Can the same be said of Sophronius, could he have been a pupil of Jerome’s Latin school in Bethlehem, or may he have acquired the language by some other means? Also his urging of Jerome to translate the Psalms seems to me more appropriate to somebody concerned with providing his fellow Latin speakers with an accurate translation than to a native Greek speaker. Yet even on the assumption that his first language was Greek his translations are an important testimony for the acquaintance with Latin in Palestine. The case of Sophronius raises the more general question of translations. There are a considerable number of modern studies devoted to the matter,54 though none of these deals specifically with Palestine. Not surprisingly as far as I can see none 51 52

53 54

Jerome, vir.ill. 134; cf. his dedication to Sophronius, praef. in Psalmos PL 28, 1123–8. See Schanz2 (1914) IV, 450–451; he is described as ‘a learned Greek friend of Jerome’ in DCB, s. v. no. 7 (W. H. Fremantle); in LThK his entry is under ‘S. (v. Betlehem?)’ (B. Dümler); he has no entry in RE. I presume that his description as a Greek is based on his name (irrelevant – cf., e. g., Hieronymus!) and his assumed birthplace – preconceived ideas rather than proof. On Graecolatini see Geiger 2002a. Richter 1938; Reichmann 1943; Marti 1974; Fisher 1982.

146

Part III: Latin Literature in Palestine

of these studies raises the methodological question of the inferences one can draw from translations in regard to acquaintance with the languages. On the face of it the conclusion is simple and straightforward: the translator was master of both languages, his intended public were not. However, I believe that once we realise the everyday issues connected with the job of translation we will be inclined to cast a wider net. I shall start with an example. In the fourth century there is a marked and sudden increase in Latin writings on veterinary medicine, in all probability connected with the rise in the importance of cavalry in the Roman army. Very soon a considerable part of that body of writings was translated into Greek.55 One must of course assume that there were available translators for a quite specialist subject. But there was more. Though I would not wish to stretch the analogy with our own times, some substructure of people connected with such translations may be assumed. Copyists, booksellers, conceivably libraries and librarians may have had a role to play.56 One does not need to elaborate the fact, that translators did not appear in a void, but have studied the language, in all probability with teachers, fellow-students and eventually pupils of their own. In some cases people who first drew attention to the need to translate a book may have read it, though perhaps as often as not had only a second-hand acquaintance with it. All these points are difficult to visualise and impossible to quantify. Nevertheless here, as elsewhere, I believe that we should approach the ancient world as a real environment and base our conclusions on solid evidence, but also on the realisation that we must not bridle our imagination to an extent that would interfere with the recreation of a real and viable world. But I have already hinted that by far the most important factor in the spread of translations in Late Antiquity was the Church rather than the horse, and Palestine had more than its share in these efforts of reinforcing the unity of Christendom. It will be idle to recount here the mighty efforts of Rufinus of Aquileia, the erstwhile friend turned adversary of Jerome, in translating Greek ecclesiastical writings into Latin, including the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, a very considerable part of which was accomplished during his long sojourn in Palestine, nor is this the place to disentangle the primacy of his Latin continuation of Eusebius (Books 9–10) as against the Greek version of Gelasius, the bishop of Caesarea.57 Be this as it may, educated men, ecclesiastical or otherwise, in possession of both languages, were far from a rarity,58 and in Palestine, for reasons mentioned above, probably more prevalent than in many other provinces. 55 56

57 58

Scarborough 1984, and see also Doyen-Higuet 1984. One has to view Jerome’s complaints (ep. 75.4.2 quia in hac provincia Latini sermonis scrip­ torumque penuria est, and cf. one of his last letters to Augustine, ep. 134.2.3 = CSEL 56 263.1 grandem Latini sermonis in ista provincia notariorum patimur penuriam…) in the light both of his expectations and on the other hand in what we customarily would think of the availability of help in Latin in the province. I list some modern literature: Oulton 1929; Murphy 1945; Villain 1946; Winkelmann 1966a; Winkelmann 1966b; Wynn 1990; T. D. Barnes 1993, 7, with further bibliography. See, for examples, Matthews 1989, 467–8. The contention of Drijvers 1996 that utriusque lin­ guae could refer to Greek and Aramaic, is utterly unconvincing and has been dismissed by Woods 2001.

Part III: Latin Literature in Palestine

147

However, it is authors and translators of the Classical tradition, be they Christians or, in diminishing numbers with the times, adherents of the Old Religion, that are our main target in evaluating the achievements of Latin literature in Palestine. It would be idle to repeat what such accomplishments teach us about the wider aspects of the diffusion of the language. Alas, as with Commodian, also the other authors to be discussed in the following have to be scrutinised with reference to their provenance. These may be considered in the context of the wider issue of Latin authors in the East. Since one may assume that the Greek-speaking inhabitants of Palestine differed little, if at all, from their counterparts in the other Eastern provinces it is only fair to infer from one province to another. It has been a long-standing cliché that the Latin poet Claudianus and the Latin historian Ammianus Marcellinus were exceptional in their Eastern provenance. I have already mentioned above Ammianus Marcellinus’ Antiochene compatriot Rufinus. But not only he: Claudian and Ammianus were exceptional indeed only in the very high level of their achievement. Already Alan Cameron in a seminal paper59 written in preparation for his great work on Claudian, has shown that many of Claudian’s contemporaries and compatriots in Egypt were bilingual – as was Claudian himself. He first composed poetry in Greek and only at a relatively late stage in Latin, as he says in an epigram to the consul of 395 (carm. min. 41.13–14): Romanos bibimus primum te consule fontes Et Latiae cessit Graia Thalia togae I first drank from the Roman fountains under your consulate And the Greek Thalia ceded to the Latin toga.

It is also remarkable that one of the great recent discoveries in Latin literature, the find of the so-called Alcestis Barcinonensis may be relevant: its incredibly learned editor, the late lamented Miroslav Marcovich, put forward the suggestion that the text has been composed in Egypt, and at any rate in the East.60 But let us return to our main topic, It will be best not to follow a strict chronological order, and to start with Eutropius and his translator Paeanius. The arguments concerning his provenance have been summarised in Part I above, but perhaps one should be allowed to repeat the warning against disparaging the familiarity with Latin in Palestine only to deny him to this country. One more consideration may be added here. In the story of Vespasian’s conquest Eutropius (7.19.3) refers to Jerusalem quae fuit urbs nobilissima Palaestinae. In another passage he tells us (7.10.3) Tanto etiam [scil. Augustus] amore etiam apud barbaros fuit, ut reges populi Rom­ ani amici in honorem eius conderent civitates, quas Caesareas nominarent, sicut in Mauretania a rege Iuba et in Palaestina, quae nunc est urbs clarissima.61 Now the late Zeev Rubin in a series of articles has discussed the ecclesiastical rivalry be59 60 61

Al. Cameron 1965. Marcovich 1988, 101. This is the text of all MSS. However, the sentence sicut… clarissima is omitted by Paeanius and, following him, in the editions of Hartel and Rühl; Droysen, more cautiously and perhaps correctly, deleted only a rege Iuba. Müller brackets the sentence, contrary to his avowed method to give Paenius only an approving or refereeing role (“bestätigende oder schiedsrichterli-

148

Part III: Latin Literature in Palestine

tween the two sees in the fourth and fifth centuries,62 but it needs little imagination to realise that also on an entirely secular plane the inhabitants of the well established capital (first of Palaestina, and then of Palaestina Prima) must have been less than happy with the renewed importance of what was once caput Iudaeae. Of course any contemporary author could have written the above quotations, but it seems to me that they are particularly apt for a citizen of Caesarea: it is far from self evident that the author accorded space to the very founding of the city in the Brev­ iarium, and the contrasting of Jerusalem’s fuit with Caesarea’s nunc est is particularly striking. As for mentioning the foundation of the city, it should be kept in mind that the only other foundations mentioned in Eutropius (except for that of Rome, 1.1.2) are those of Ostia (1.5.2), Ariminus and Beneventum (2.16), and the resettling of Carthage (4.21), and, out of order of the narration and as a special aside, the foundation of Alexandria (2.7.3). The reference to the founding of the two Caesareas seems very much like revealing the author’s local-patriotic pride. But special weight is to be given to the translation of Paeanius.63 As for his provenance from Caesarea and his studies there with Acacius there are no doubts, and we are equally certain as to the proximity in time of that translation to the original: the circumstances can be easily imagined. All this fits perfectly with the equation of Acacius’ pupil Eutropius with the historian. Fits perfectly – and if short of mathematical proof, still better than any conceivable alternative. A few words on Paeanius. Obviously Latin was his acquired language, nonetheless he was self assured enough to produce a non literal translation, rather than sticking to the easier option of a literal one. To what extent the studies with Acacius were accidental to the interest in Latin of his pupils and whether there was a circle that included more scholars we cannot guess, nor do we know whether there were any connections between these authors and the School of Law, though the translation of course testifies to the need in a breviarium also for Greek readers – perhaps a need felt in Caesarea and communicated to the translator. Be that as it may, it should be emphasized again that translators, like other authors, do not act in a void, and that such accessories as books must have been available – a Latin library in Caesarea is easily imaginable, though of course possibly one may imagine some private libraries rather than a public one. And one more point: it seems reasonable to assume that Eutropius composed his work away from his home town, in the entourage of the Emperor; there is no reason to believe that Paeanius translated the Breviarium anywhere else than in Caesarea. I shall give short shrift to the author of the miserable expositio totius orbis et gentium (see Part I above s. v. ?Anonymus 4) and only repeat the distinct possibility that he may have been an inhabitant of this country and proceed to the by far most important representative of Latin literature in Palestine, Priscian of Caesarea. I shall restate here in brief the considerations for identifying his patria as Caesarea in Pal-

62 63

che Funktion”). It seems to me that the omission in Paeanius’ non-literal translation is very much easier to explain than an interpolation in Eutropius. Z. Rubin 1982; Z. Rubin 1984 (Hebr.); Z. Rubin 1996, 559–574 with further bibliography. See Part I, s. v. for discussions of his translation.

Part III: Latin Literature in Palestine

149

estine64 rather than the city of that name in Mauretania and then advance to a brief discussion of his work. Next to nothing is known about the life of Priscian. His time is established by his extant poetic encomium on Anastasius I (491–518) as well as by his being a contemporary of Cassiodorus, who also refers to his position in Constantinople65 while his provenance is mentioned in some of the MSS of his ars,66 supported by subscripts of his pupil Theodorus and by a later reference from Paul the Deacon. Cappadocian Caesarea, unimportant at the time, is generally disregarded, and the choice falls, almost without exception – and without clarification – on the city of that name in Mauretania. It seems that the sole basis for this assumption is that this city was part of the western, Latin speaking, half of the empire. However, no Latin writers and intellectuals are known from that city, and it is only a presumption that the two known bishops of the city were possessed also of some secular education. This should be contrasted with the vibrant intellectual life of Caesarea Maritima, of which we have seen examples above (and to which will be added, a generation after Priscian, the last great Greek historian of Antiquity, Procopius, who of course also knew Latin).67 The circumstantial evidence favouring Caesarea Maritima also includes, in the panegyric to Anastasius, his praise for the abolition of the chysargyron (the collatio lustralis) by that emperor. This features also in the panegyric to Anastasius by another Palestinian, Procopius of Gaza, and was the subject of a lost work by Timotheus of the same city (see Part I above, s. vv.). Moreover, in Part II, ch. 5 above the cautious suggestion has been put forward that Zosimus, the author of the Historia Nova, may also have been a Palestinian, from Ascalon (though not to be confused with his namesake, the rhetorical writer of that city). It has also been proposed, that Priscian’s praise of the rebuilding of cities with their walls and harbours (ll. 186– 192) should be interpreted as a direct indication of Anastasius’ reconstruction of Caesarea’s harbour, also praised by Procopius of Gaza (paneg. 19). At the time under consideration Palestinian Caesarea could be referred to without any qualifying epithet,68 and it is only later writers who objected to the idea that this city could have been the home of the best esteemed Latin grammarian in the Middle Ages, whose chief work is extant in over one thousand MSS, the grammarian whose writings constitute the largest part in Keil’s collection of grammarians. I shall not repeat here the arguments concerning Priscian’s bilingualism. Though in my estimate they tend to support an eastern provenance69 I must admit that they are far from constituting proof; this can also be said of the Greek name of 64 65 66 67 68 69

Based in the main on Geiger 1999 and see there and in Part I, s. v. Priscianus 2 for the references. Cassiodorus, de orthographia 1.13, GLK 7.207: ex Prisciano grammatico qui nostro tempore doctor Constantinopoli fuit. Priscianus Caesariensis doctor urbis Romae Constantinopolitanae and Priscianus Caesarien­ sis Grammaticus. On this see Wars 5.24.35–37 (he read the Sybilline Books in Rome in Latin). Const. omnem 7; D. 50.15.8.7; Cod. lust. 2.3.30; C.Th. 2.33.1. Add also the recent discussion of Biville 2009.

150

Part III: Latin Literature in Palestine

his teacher, Theoctictus. On the other hand, are there any arguments, beside the presumption based on geography, favouring Mauretanian Caesarea? Priscian’s works fill two entire volumes of GLK. The importance and the popularity of the Institutio de arte grammatica, by far the longest and most important of his works, should not obscure the range of his writings. This is not the place to discuss in detail a major author, but a short enumeration of his other works will remind us of his importance. These include de figuris numerorum quos antiquissimi habent codices, de metris fabularum Terentii, de nomine et praenomine et verbo, praeexercitamina (viz. a reworking of Hermogenes’ προγυμνάσματα), Partitiones duodecim versuum Aeneidos principalium as well as a hexameter translation of Dionysius’ periegesis (surely better fitting to a native of Palestine than to a Mauretanian).70 To these Latin authors and translators we may add, somewhat hesitantly, Marianus of Eleutheropolis. In the discussion in Part II, Appendix above, it has been shown that while he is known to us only as the person who rewrote in iambics the hexameter poetry of the Hellenistic period he may well have been a Latin poet before he left Rome for the East. Even if this were not so, one may presume with confidence that he was possessed of a good Latin education when he arrived in Eleutheropolis, though we cannot guess to what extent this had any impact on other residents of the city. The purpose of this chapter should be clear: the admittedly limited, but still much wider than usually thought, spread of Latin was part and parcel of Hellenism in the East.

70

The de accentibus is printed in GLK as unauthentic but has been lately defended, see Schönberger 2010, 147–155.

BIBLIOGRAPHY DCB = Dictionary of Christian Biography CCAG = Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum CIIP = Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae Palaestinae DKP = Der Kleine Pauly DNP = Der Neue Pauly DPhA = Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques FGrH = Fragmente der griechischen Historiker FHG = Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum GLK = Grammatici Latini (ed. B. Keil) GLAJJ = Stern 1974–1978 GP = Gow/Page 1968 HE = Gow/Page 1965 LAW = Lexikon der alten Welt LGPN = Lexicon of Greek Personal Names LIMC = Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae LSJ = Liddel/Scott/Jones, A Greek­English Lexicon L­Sh = Lewis/Short, A Latin Dictionary LThK = Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche OCD = The Oxford Classical Dictionary ODB = Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium PIR = Prosopographia Imperii Romani PLRE = Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire RAC = Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum RE = Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft RG = Rhetores Graeci SOL = Suda online (www.stoa.org) Abel, Félix-Marie. ‘Chronique. I. Inscription grecque de l’Aqueduc de Jérusalem avec la figure du pied byzantin’, RB 35 (1926), 284–288. — ‘Gaza au Vie siècle d’après le rhéteur Chorikios’, RB 40 (1931), 5–31. Adams, James N. The Regional Diversification of Latin 200 BC–AD 600 (Cambridge 2007). Albini, Umberto. ‘Il mimo a Gaza tra il V e il VI sec. d. C.’, SIFC 15 (1997), 116–122. Aldus Manutius. Oὐλπιανοῦ ῥήτορος προλεγόμενα εἴς τε τοὺς Ὀλυνθιακοὺς καὶ Φιλιππικοὺς Δημοσθένους λόγους. Ἐξήγησις ἀναγκαιοτάτη εἰς δεκατρεῖς Δημοσθένους λόγους (Venetiis 1503). Alon, Gedaliahu. Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple, the Mishna and the Talmud (Tel-Aviv 1976). Alt, Albrecht. ‘Diocletianopolis und Sariphaea’, ZDPV 54 (1931), 171–182. Amato, Eugenio. ‘Sei epistole mutuae inedite di Procopio di Gaza ed il retore Megezio’, BZ 98 (2005), 367–382. — (ed.). Approches de la Troisième Sophistique. Hommages à Jacques Schamp (Coll. Lat. 296, Bruxelles 2006). — Procopius Gazaeus, Opuscula rhetorica et oratoria (Berlin / New York 2009). — Rose di Gaza. Gli scritti retorico-sofistici e le Epistole di Procopio di Gaza (Alessandria 2010). — / Schamp, Jacques (eds.). Ethopoiia: La représentation de caractères entre fiction scolaire et ré­ alité vivante à l’époque impériale et tardive (Salerno 2005).

152

Bibliography

Anson, Edward M. ‘Greek Ethnicity and the Greek Language’, Glotta 85 (2009), 5–30. Ashburner, Walter. ‘A Byzantine Treatise on Taxation’, JHS 35 (1915), 76–84. Asmus, Johann Rudolf. Das Leben des Philosophen Isidoros von Damaskios aus Damaskos (Leipzig 1911). Athanassiadi, Polymnia (ed.). Damascius: The Philosophical History (Athens 1999). Attridge, Harold W. / Oden, Robert A., Jr. Philo of Byblos. The Phoenician History (Cath. Bibl. Monogr. Series 9, Washington DC 1981). Aujoulat, Noel. ‘Le Théophraste d’Énée de Gaza. Problèmes de chronologie’, Koinonia 10 (1986), 67–80. Avneyon, Eitan (ed.). The Encyclopedic Sapphire Dictionary (Israel 1998). Avotins, Ivars. ‘Prosopographical and Chronological Notes on Some Greek Sophists of the Empire’, CSCA 4 (1971), 72–80. Baege, Max. De Ptolemaeo Ascalonita (Diss. Halle 1882). Baillet, Jules. Inscriptions grecques et latines des tombeaux des rois ou syringes à Thébes (Le Caire 1920–26). Baldwin, Barry. ‘The Date of the Cycle of Agathias’, BZ 73 (1980), 334–340. — ‘Some Addenda to the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire’, Historia 31 (1982), 97–111 (= Studies on Late Roman and Byzantine History, Literature, and Language. Amsterdam 1984, 63–77). — ‘Some Aspects of Commodian’, ICS 14 (1989), 332–346. Baras, Zevi et alii (eds.). Eretz Israel from the destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim con­ quest (Jerusalem 1982). Bar-Kochva, Bezalel. The Image of the Jews in Greek Literature. The Hellenistic Period (Berkeley / Los Angeles / London 2010). Barnes, Jonathan. ‘Antiochus of Ascalon’, in: Griffin/Barnes 1989, 51–96. Barnes, Timothy D. ‘More Missing Names (A. D. 260–395)’, Phoenix 27 (1973), 135–155. — Athanasius and Constantius. Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge Mass. / London 1993). Belayche, Nicole. Iudaea­Palaestina. The Pagan Cults in Roman Palestine (Second to Fourth Cen­ tury) (Tübingen 2001). — ‘Les dévotions à Isis et Sérapis dans la Judée-Palestine romaine’, in: Bricault/Versluys/Meyboom 2007, 448–469. Ben-David, Arye. ‘The Hebrew-Phoenician cubit’, PEQ 110 (1978), 27–28. Bernays, Jacob. ‘Ein nabatäischer Schriftsteller’, RhM 17 (1862), 304–305 (= Gesammelte Abhand­ lungen, Berlin 1885, II, 291–293). Bevegni, Claudio. Eudocia Augusta, Storia di San Cipriano, con un saggio di Nigel Wilson (Milano 2006). Bieber, Margarete. The History of the Greek and Roman Theater2 (Princeton 1961). Billerbeck, Margarethe (ed., adiuvantibus J. F. Gärtner, B. Wyss, Chr. Zubler). Stephani Byzantii Ethnica (Berlin / New York 2006-). Bird, Harry W. Eutropius: Breviarium (Translated Texts for Historians 14, Liverpool 1993). Bitton-Ashkelony, Brouria / Kofsky, Aryeh (eds.). Christian Gaza in Late Antiquity (Leiden/Boston 2004). Biville, Fréderique. ‘ Le latin expliqué par le grec: les Institutions de Priscien’, in: Bortolussi 2009, 47–60. Blank, David. ‘Varro and Antiochus’, in: Sedley 2012, 250–289. Blockley, Roger C. The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire II (Liverpool 1983). Bodenheimer, Friedrich S. / Rabinowitz, Alfred. Timotheus of Gaza on Animals. Fragments of a Byzantine Paraphrase of an Animal­Book of the 5th Century A. D. (Collection des travaux de l’Academie internationale d’histoire des sciences no. 3, Leiden 1950).

Bibliography

153

Böckh, August. Metrologische Untersuchungen über Gewichte, Münzfüsse und Masse des Altertums in ihrem Zusammenhange (Berlin 1838). Bömer, Franz. P. Ovidius Naso, Die Fasten (Heidelberg 1957). Bonamente, Giorgio. ‘La biografia di Eutropio storico’, Annali Fac. Lett. Macerata 10 (1977), 183– 187. Bonazzi, Mauro. ‘Antiochus’ Ethics and the Subordination of Stoicism’, in: Bonazzi/Opsomer 2009, 33–54. — / Opsomer, Jan (eds.). The Origins of the Platonic System: Platonisms of the Early Empire and their Philosophical Contexts (Collection d’Études Classiques 23, Louvain etc 2009). Bortolussi, Bernard et al. Traduire, transposer, transmettre dans l’Antiquité gréco­romain (Textes images et monuments de l’Antiquité au haut Moyen âge 9, Paris 2009). Bos, Egbert P. / Meijer, Pieter A. (eds.). On Proclus and his Influence in Medieval Philosophy (Leiden / New York / Köln 1992). Bowersock, Glen W. ‘Jacoby’s Fragments and two Greek Historians of Pre-Islamic Arabia’, Most, Glenn W. (ed.). Collecting Fragments. Fragmente Sammeln (Aporemata 1, Göttingen 1997), 173–185. Bowie, Ewen L. ‘Review of Levick 1967’, JRS 60 (1970), 202–207. — ‘Men from Mytilene’, Schmitz, Thomas A. / Wiater, Nicolas (eds.). The Struggle for Identity: Greeks and their Past in the First Century BCE (Stuttgart 2011), 49–63. Braund, David. ‘Four Notes on the Herods’, CQ 33 (1983), 239–242. Bricault, Laurent / Versluys M. J. / Meyboom, P. G. P. (eds.). Nile into Tiber. Egypt in the Roman World. Proc. 3rd Intern. Conf. of Isis Studies, Leiden, May 11–14 2005 (Religions in the GrecoRoman World 159, Leiden/Boston 2007). Brinkmann, August. ‘Die Homer-Metaphrase des Prokopios von Gaza’, RhM 63 (1908), 618–623. Brodersen, Kai. Dionysius von Alexandria. Das Lied von der Welt (Hildesheim / Zürich / New York 1994). Brown, Peter. The Body and Society. Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (London 1988). Büsing, Hermann. ‘Metrologische Beiträge’, JDAI 97 (1982), 1–45. Burrell, Barbara. ‘Two Inscribed Columns from Caesarea Maritima’, ZPE 99 (1993), 291–292. Caffiaux, Henri. Choricius de Gaza, Éloge funèbre de Procope, traduit pour la première fois en français par Henri Caffiaux (Paris 1862). Cameron, Alan. ‘Wandering Poets: A Literary Movement in Byzantine Egypt’, Historia 14 (1965), 470–509. — ‘Macrobius, Avienus, and Avianus’, CQ n. s. 17 (1967), 385–399. — ‘The Garlands of Meleager and Philip’, GRBS 9 (1968), 323–349. — ‘The Last Days of the Academy at Athens’, PCPS (1969), 7–29. — ‘Pap. Ant. III. 115 and the Iambic Prologue in Late Greek Poetry’, CQ 20 (1970), 120–121. — ‘The Date of Priscian’s de laude Anastasii’, GRBS 15 (1974), 313–316. — Circus factions: Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium (Oxford 1976). — ‘Poetae Novelli’, HSCP 84 (1980), 127–175. — ‘The empress and the poet: paganism and politics at the court of Theodosius II’, YCS 27 (1982), 217–289. — The Greek Anthology: from Meleager to Planudes (Oxford 1993a). — ‘On the Date of John of Gaza’, CQ 43 (1993b), 348–351. Cameron, Averil. ‘Notes on the Sophiae, Sophianae and the Harbour of Sophia’, Byzantion 37 (1967), 15–16. — ‘Agathias on the Sassanians’, DOP 23–24 (1969–70), 67–183. — Agathias (Oxford 1970). — Procopius and the Sixth Century (London 1985). — / Alan Cameron. ‘The Cycle of Agathias’, JHS 86 (1966), 6–25. Carnuth, Otto. Nicanoris Περὶ Ὀδυσσειακῆς στιγμῆς reliquiae emendatiores (Amsterdam 1967).

154

Bibliography

Carriker, Andrew. The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea (Leiden 2003). Casson, Lionel / Hettich, Ernest L. Excavations at Nessana II: Literary Papyri (Princeton 1950). Chauvot, Alain. ‘Observations sur la date de l’éloge d’Anastase de Priscien de Césarée’, Latomus 36 (1977), 539–550. — Procope de Gaza, Priscien de Césarée. Panegyriques de l’Empereur Anastase Ier (Antiquitas 35, Bonn 1986). Christ, Wilhelm v. / Schmid, Wilhelm / Stählin, Otto. Geschichte der griechischen Literatur II2 (München 1912). Ciccolella, Federica. Cinque poeti bizantini. Anacreontee dal Barberiniano greco 310 (Alessandria 2000). — ‘Text, Interpretation and Fate of Some Anonymous Ethopoiiai of the Sixth Century’, in: Amato/ Schamp 2005, 163–175. — ‘“Swarms of the Wise Bee”: Literati and their Audience in Sixth-Century Gaza’, in: Amato 2006, 80–95. — ‘Phaedra’s Shining Roses: Reading Euripides in Sixth-Century Gaza’, SCI 26 (2007), 181–204. Cichorius, Conrad. Römische Studien (Leipzig 1922). Clack, Jerry. Dioscorides and Antipater of Sidon. The Poems (Wauconda, Ill. 2001). Cohen, Shaye J. D. The Beginnings of Jewishness. Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley / Los Angeles / London 1999). Collinet, Paul. Histoire de l’école de droit de Beyrouth (Études historiques sur le droit de Justinian 2, Paris 1925). Colonna, Maria Elisabetta. Enea di Gaza, Teofrasto (Napoli 1958). Conybeare, Frederick C. Philostratus, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana (London / Cambridge Mass. 1969). Cotton, Hannah M. et alii (eds.). From Hellenism to Islam: Cultural and Linguistic Change in the Roman Near East (Cambridge 2009). — / Geiger, Joseph. Masada II: The Latin and Greek Documents (Jerusalem 1989). Courtney, Edward. The Fragmentary Latin Poets (Oxford 1993). Coyne, Patricia. Priscian of Caesarea’s De laude Anastasii Imperatoris (Lewiston NY 1991). Cramer, John Anthony. Anecdota graeca Parisiensia IV (Oxford 1841). Cresci, Lia Raffaela. ‘Imitatio e realia nella polemica di Coricio sul mimo (Förster-Richtsteig)’, Koinonia 10 (1986), 49–66. Cumont, Franz. ‘The Frontier Provinces of the East’, CAH XI (1936), 606–648. Curtis, Robert I. Garum and salsamenta: production and commerce in materia medica (Studies in Ancient Medicine 3, Leiden 1991). Dagron, Gilbert. ‘Aux origines de la civilisation byzantine: langue de culture et langue d’état’, RH 91.241 (1969), 23–56. Dain, Alphonse. Sylloge Tacticorum, quae olim ‘inedita Leonis tactica’ dicebatur (Paris 1938). Dan, Yaron, The City in Eretz­Israel during the Late Roman & Byzantine Periods (Jerusalem 1984) (Hebr.). Dauphine, Claudine. ‘A VIIth century measuring rod from the ecclesiastical farm at Shelomi in Western Galilee (Israel) (with one plate)’, JOeB 32.3 (1982 = Akten, XVI Intern. Byz. Kongr. II 3), 513–522. Dean, James Elmer. Epiphanius’ treatise on weights and measures: the Syriac version (Stud. Anc. Or. Civ. 11, Chicago 1935). Debié, Muriel. L’historiographie syriaque. Études syriaques (Paris 2009) Decloedt, A. J. ‘Plombs de Musée Biblique de Sainte-Anne de Jérusalem’, RN ser. 4, 18 (1914), 440–447. Decorps-Foulquier, Micheline / Federspiel, Michel. Apollonius de Perge, Coniques. Tome 1.2: Livre I (Berlin / New York 2008). de Lagarde, Paul. Symmicta II (Göttingen 1880). den Boer, Willem. Some Minor Latin Historians (Leiden 1972).

Bibliography

155

Derda, Tomasz / Markiewicz, Tomasz / Wipszycka, Ewa (eds.). Alexandria: Auditoria of Kom el­ Dikka and Late Antique Education (The Journal of Juristic Papyrology, Suppl. VIII, Warsaw 2007). Dickey, Eleanor. Ancient Greek Scholarship. A Guide to Finding, and Understanding Scholia, Com­ mentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises, from Their Beginnings to the Byzantine Period (Oxford 2007). Diels, Hermann. Die Handschriften der griechischen Ärzte (Abh. d. Königl. Preuß. Akademie d. Wiss. 1905/1906, Berlin 1906). — ‘Über die von Prokop beschriebene Kunstuhr von Gaza’, Abh. Preuss. Ak. Wiss., Phil.­hist. Kl. 1917, 7. Dihle, Albrecht. Greek and Latin Literature of the Roman Empire: from Augustus to Justinian (London / New York 1989). Dilke, Oswald A. W. ‘Table ronde on Graeco-Roman cartography (Paris 1987)’, JRA 1 (1988), 89– 94. Diller, Aubrey. ‘Julian of Ascalon on Strabo and the Stade’, CP 45 (1950), 22–25. — ‘The Authors Named Pausanias’, TAPA 86 (1955), 268–279. Dilthey, Carl. ‘Dipinti pompeiani accompagnati d’epigrammi greci’, Annali dell’ Istituto di corre­ spodenza archeologica 44 (1876), 294–314. Dilts, Mervin R., Scholia Demosthenica I–II (Leipzig 1983–86). — ‘Editions of Scholia Demosthenica’, Sileno 10 (1984) (Studi in onore Adelmo Barigazzi), 197– 205. — / Kennedy, George A. Two Greek Rhetorical Treatises from the Roman Empire. Introduction, Text, and Translation of the Arts of Rhetoric attributed to Anonymous Seguerianus and to Apsines of Gadara (Mnem. Suppl. 168, Leiden 1997). Di Segni, Leah. ‘The Greek Inscriptions of Hammat Gader’, in: Hirschfeld 1997, 185–266. — ‘New Epigraphical Discoveries at Scythopolis and in Other Sites of Late Antique Palestine’, Atti. XI Congresso Intern. Di Epigrafia Greca e Latina, Roma, 18–24 Sett. 1997 (Rome 1999), 625–642. Dölger, Franz. ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte der byzantinischen Finanzverwaltung besonders des 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts’ (ByzArch 9, 1927, repr. Hildesheim 1960). Dörrie, Heinrich / Baltes, Matthias. Der Platonismus in der Antike: Grundlagen, System, Entwick­ lung III (Stuttgart – Bad Cannstadt 1993). Dorandi, Tiziano. ‘La patria di Filodemo’, Philologus 131 (1987), 254–256. — Filodemo, Storia dei filosofi: Platone e l’Academia (PHerc. 1022 e 164) (Napoli 1991). Downey, Glanville. ‘The Christian Schools of Palestine: A Chapter in Literary History’, Harv. Libr. Bull. 12 (1958), 309–319. Doyen-Higuet, Anne-Marie. ‘The Hippiatrica and Byzantine Veterinary Medicine’, DOP 38 (1984) (= Symposium on Byzantine Medicine, ed. J. Scarborough), 111–120. Drijvers, Jan Willem. ‘Ammianus Marcellinus 15.13.1–2: Some Observations on the Career and Bilingualism of Strategius Musonianus’, CQ 46 (1996), 532–537. Droysen, Gustav. Eutropius (MGH AA II, Berlin 1879). Duffy, John M. / O’Meara, Dan J. Michaelis Pselli Philosophica Minora (Leipzig 1992). Dvorjetski, Estee. ‘“Tzrifa in Ascalon” – A Talmudic Reality in the Art of Fine Metal Work in EretzIsrael in the Roman and Byzantine Periods’, Tarbiz 63 (1993), 27–40 (Hebr. with Engl. summ.). Eck, Werner. ‘Griechisch und Latein: Die Bedeutung der beiden Herrschaftssprachen in Palaestina von Alexander bis zum Ende der römischen Herrschaft’, Bolletino di Archeologia On Line: Roma 2008 (Intern. Congr. Class. Arch., Meetings between Cultures in the Anc. Mediterra­ nean), 34–39. — ‘The presence, role and significance of Latin in the epigraphy and culture of the Roman Near East’, in: Cotton 2009, 15–42. — / Isac, D./ Piso, I. ‘Ein Militärdiplom aus der Provinz Dacia Porolissensis’, ZPE 100 (1994), 577– 591.

156

Bibliography

Ecker, Avner. ‘Homer in Herodium: Graffito of Il. 6. 264’, ZPE 183 (2012), 15–20. Edelstein, Ludwig / Kidd, Ian G. Posidonius2 (Cambridge 1989). Edwards, Mark. Neoplatonic Saints. The Lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their Students (Liverpool 2000). Efron, Joshua. ‘Appendix: The Deed of Simeon ben Shatah in Ascalon’, in: Kasher 1990, 318–341. Engels, Donald. ‘The length of Eratosthenes’ stade’, AJP 106 (1985), 298–311. Even-Shoshan, Abraham. New Hebrew Dictionary (Jerusalem 1975) (Hebr.). Fantuzzi, Marco / Hunter, Richard. Tradition and Innovation in Hellenistic Poetry (Cambridge 2004). Fatouros, Georgios / Krischer, Tilman (eds.). Libanios (Darmstadt 1983). Feldman, Louis H. ‘Asinius Pollio and his Jewish Interests’, TAPA 84 (1953), 73–80. — ‘Asinius Pollio and Herod’s Sons’, CQ 35 (1985), 240–242. — Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton 1993). Felten, Joseph (ed.). Nicolai Progymnasmata (Lipsiae 1913). Fenner v. Fenneberg, Ludwig. Untersuchungen über die Längen­ Feld­ und Wegemaasse der Völker des Althertums insbesondere der Griechen und der Juden (Berlin 1859). Ferrini, Contardo. ‘Beiträge zur Kenntnis des sogenannten römisch-syrischen Rechtsbuches’, ZSS RA 23 (1902a), 101–143 (= Opere, Milano 1929 I, 397–437). — ‘Ambitus und Angiportus’, ZSS RA 23 (1902b), 431–433 (= Opere, Milano 1929, I, 439–441). — ‘Gli estratti di Giuliano Ascalonita’, RIL 2 ser. II 35 (1902c), 613–622 = Opere (Milano 1929) I, 443–452. Finkielsztejn, Gerald. ‘Asklepios Leontoukhos et le mythe de la coupe de Césarée Maritime’, RB 93 (1986), 419–428. Fischer, Moshe (with contributions by A. Krug and Z. Pearl). ‘The Basilica of Ascalon: marble, imperial art and architecture in Roman Palestine’, The Roman and Byzantine Near East: some Recent Archaeological Research (JRA Suppl. 14, 1995), 121–150. — Marble Studies: Roman Palestine and the Marble Trade (Konstanz 1998). — ‘Sculpture in Roman Palestine and its Architectural and Social Milieu: Adaptability, Imitation, Originality? The Ascalon Basilica as an Example’, in: Eliav, Yaron Z. / Friedland, E. A. / Herbert S. (eds.). The Cultural Environment of the Roman Near East. Reflections on Culture, Ideology and Power (Leuven / Dudley MA 2008), 483–508. Fisher, Elizabeth A. ‘Greek Translations of Latin Literature in the fourth century A. D.’, YCS 27 (1982), 173–215. Fitzgerald, John T. ‘Gadara: Philodemus’ Native City’, in: Fitzgerald/Obbink/Holland 2004, 343– 397. Fitzgerald, John T. / Obbink, Dirk / Holland, Glenn S. (eds.). Philodemus and the New Testament World (Suppl. to Novum Testamentum 111, Leiden/Boston 2004). Fladerer, Ludwig, Antiochos von Askalon. Hellenist und Humanist (Grazer Beiträge 7, Graz 1996). Fleischer, Ezra. ‘Early Hebrew Sacred Poetry in its Cultural Setting (Comparative Experiments), Geiger, Joseph (ed.). Moises Starosta Memorial Lectures I (Jerusalem 1993), 63–98 (Hebr.). Foerster, Gideon / Tsafrir, Yoram. ‘Nysa-Scythopolis: A New Inscription and the Title of the City on its Coins’, INJ 9 (1986–1987), 53–58. Foraboschi, Daniele, Onomasticum Alterum Papyrologicum. Supplemento al Namenbuch di F. Prei­ sigke (Milano/Varese 1971). Frakes, Robert M. / Digeser, Elizabeth DePalma / Stephens, Justin (eds.). The Rhetoric of Power in Late Antiquity. Religion and Politics in Byzantium, Europe and the Islamic World (London / New York 2010), 167–172. French, David H. / Lightfoot, Chris S. (eds.). The Eastern Frontier of the Roman Empire. Proceed­ ings of a Colloquium held at Ankara in September 1988, II (Oxford 1989), 383–420. Friedländer, Paul. Johannes von Gaza und Paulus Silentiarius. Kunstbeschreibungen justiniani­ scher Zeit (Leipzig/Berlin 1912; repr. Hildesheim 2008).

Bibliography

157

— Spätantiker Gemäldezyklus in Gaza (Città del Vaticano 1939, repr. Studi e testi 89, Città del Vaticano 1972). Frost, Frank J. ‘Two Philosophers from Gaza. Timotheos of Gaza and the Grande Caccia of Piazza Armerina’, in: Frakes/Digeser/Stephens 2010, 167–172. Fuentes González, Pedro Pablo. Les Diatribes de Télès (Paris 1998). Fuks, Gideon. ‘A Mediterranean Pantheon: Cults and Deities in Hellenistic and Roman Ashkelon’, MHR 15 (2000), 27–48. — A City of Many Seas. Ashkelon during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Jerusalem 2001) (Hebr.). Garcia González, Jesús et al. (eds.). Studia Graecolatina Carmen Sanmillán in memoriam dicata (Granada 1988). Garitte, Gérard. Un temoin important du text de la vie de Saint Antoine par Saint Athanase (Brussels/Rome 1939). Garland, Robert. The Piraeus: From the Fifth to the First Century B. C. (Ithaca 1987). Garzya, Antonio / Loenertz, Raymond-Joseph (eds.). Procopii Gazae epistolae et declamationes (Studia patr. et Byz. 9, Ettal 1963). Geiger, Joseph, A Commentary on Plutarch’s Cato Minor (Diss. Oxford 1971). — ‘The revolt under Gallus and Julian and the rebuilding of the Temple’, in: Baras 1982, 202–217 (Hebr.) — Cornelius Nepos and Ancient Political Biography (Historia Einzelschr. 47, Stuttgart 1985a). — ‘Athens in Syria: Greek Intellectuals in Gadara’, Cathedra 35 (1985b), 3–17 (Hebr.). — ‘Eros und Anteros, der Blonde und der Dunkelhaarige’, Hermes 114 (1986), 375–376. — ‘Local Patriotism in the Greek Cities of Palestine’, Kasher, Aryeh / Rappaport, Uriel / Fuks, Gideon (eds.). Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel (Jerusalem 1990), 141–150. — ‘Euenus of Ascalon’, SCI 11 (1991/92), 114–122; again in this volume as Part II, ch. 4. — ‘Julian of Ascalon’, JHS 112 (1992), 31–43; again in this volume as Part II, ch. 6. — ‘Latin in Roman Palestine’, Cathedra 74 (1994a), 3–21 (Hebr. with Engl. summ.). — ‘Notes on the Second Sophistic in Palestine’, ICS 19 (1994b), 221–230. — ‘Titulus Crucis’, SCI 15 (1996a), 202–207. — ‘How Much Latin in Greek Palestine’ (1996b), in: Rosén 1996, 39–57. — ‘Die Olympiodorbüste aus Caesarea’, ZDPV 113 (1997), 70–74. — ‘Some Latin Authors from the Greek East’, CQ 49 (1999), 606–617. — ‘Graecolatini’ (2002a), in: Sawicki/Shalev 2002, 151–153. — ‘Language, Culture and Identity in Ancient Palestine’ (2002b), in: Ostenfeld 2002, 233–246. — ‘The Tombs of Remus and Romulus: an Overlooked Source and its Implications’, Athenaeum 92 (2004), 245–254. — ‘Sophists and Rabbis: Jews and their Past in the Severan Age’, in: Swain/Harrison/Elsner 2007, 440–448. — The First Hall of Fame. A Study of the Statues in the Forum Augustum (Mnem. Suppl. 295, Leiden/Boston 2008). —‘Marianus of Eleutheropolis’, SCI 28 (2009), 113–6 (+ ‘Corrigendum’, SCI 29 (2010), 163); again in this volume as Part II, Appendix. — ‘The Augustan Age’, Marasco, Gabriele (ed.). Political Autobiographies and Memoirs in Antiq­ uity (Leiden/Boston 2011), 233–266. — ‘Asclepius λεοντοῦχος’, Mnem. 65 (2012a), 315–318; again in this volume as Part II, ch. 7a. — ‘Ptolemy of Ascalon, Historian of Herod’, SCI 31 (2012b), 185–190. — ‘GLAJJ: Addenda et Corrigenda’ (forthcoming SCI). Germer-Durand, Joseph. ‘Épigraphie Chrétienne. Épitaphes du Sixième Siècle Trouvées a Gaza, et sur le Côte de Palestine’, RB 1 (1892), 243–245. Geyer, Paulus / Cuntz, Otto. Itinerarium Burdigalense (CC 175, Stuttgart 1965). Geymonat, Mario. The Great Archimedes (Waco 2010).

158

Bibliography

Gibson, Craig A. Interpreting a Classic. Demosthenes and his Ancient Commentators (Berkeley / Los Angeles / London 2002). Gigli Piccardi, Daria. ‘AEROBATEIN: l’ecfrasi come viaggio in Giovanni di Gaza’, MEG 5 (2005), 181–199. — ‘L’occasione della Tabula Mundi di Giovanni di Gaza’, Prometheus 32 (2006), 253–266. Gines, Demetrios S. (Γκίνης). ‘Τὸ ἐπαρχικὸν βιβλίον καὶ οἱ νόμοι Ἰουλιανοῦ τοῦ Ἀσκαλωνίτου’ Ἐπετηρίς Ἑταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν 13 (1937), 183–191. Gloeckner, Stephanus. Quaestiones rhetoricae, Historiae artis qualis fuerit aevo imperatorio se­ lecta (Bresl. Philol. Abh. 8.2, 1901). Glucker, John. Antiochus and the Late Academy (Hypomnemata 56, Göttingen 1978). — ‘Review of Fladerer 1996’, Gnomon 74 (2002), 289–295. Glucker, Carol A. M. The City of Gaza in the Roman and Byzantine Periods (BAR Intern. Series 325, Oxford 1987). Gow, Andrew S. F. / Page, Denys L. The Greek Anthology. Hellenistic Epigrams (Cambridge 1965). — / Page, Denys L. The Greek Anthology. The Garland of Philip (Cambridge 1968). — / Scholfield, Alwyn Faber. Nicander (Cambridge 1953). Grafton, Anthony / Williams, Megan. Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea (Cambridge Mass. / London 2006). Granatelli, Rosella. Apollodori Pergameni ac Theodori Gadarei testimonia et fragmenta (Roma 1991). Greatrex, Geoffrey. ‘Le pseudo-Zacharie de Mytilène et l’historiographie syriaque au VIe s.’, Debié, Muriel (ed.). L’historiographie syriaque: Études syriaques (Paris 2009), 33–55. Green Judith / Tsafrir, Yoram. ‘Greek Inscriptions from Hammat Gader: A Poem by the Empress Eudocia and Two Building Inscriptions’, IEJ 32 (1982), 77–91. Griffin, Miriam / Barnes, Jonathan (eds.). Philosophia Togata. Essays on Roman Society and Phi­ losophy (Oxford 1989). Grube, George Maximilian Antony. ‘Theodorus of Gadara’, AJP 80 (1959), 337–365. Guidorizzi, Giulio. Meleagro, Epigrammi (Milano 1992). Guthrie, Kenneth. [Marinus of Samaria] The Life of Proclus or Concerning Happiness (Grand Rapids 1986). Habas[-Rubin], Ephrat. ‘The Jewish Origin of Julius Africanus’, JJS 45 (1994), 86–91. Hadas-Lebel, Mireille. ‘L’éducation des princes hérodiens à Rome or l’évolution du clientélisme romain’, in: Mor 2003, 44–62. Haffner, Medard. Das Florilegium des Orion (Stuttgart 2001). Hahn, Ludwig. ‘Zum Sprachenkampf im römischen Reich bis auf die Zeit Justinians. Eine Skizze’, Philol. Supplbd. 10.4 (1905), 677–718. — Rom und Romanismus im griechisch­römischen Osten. Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Sprache, bis auf die Zeit Hadrians. Eine Studie (Leipzig 1906). — ‘Zum Gebrauch der lateinischen Sprache in Konstantinopel’, Festgabe Martin v. Schanz (Würzburg 1912). Hakim, Besim S. ‘Julian of Ascalon’s Treatise of Construction and Design Rules from Sixth-Century Palestine’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 60 (2001), 4–25. Halfmann, Helmut. Itinera Principum. Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisen im römischen Reich (Stuttgart 1986). Hamilton, Richard W. ‘Two Churches at Gaza, as described by Choricius of Gaza’, PEFQ 1930, 178–191. Hammerstaedt, Jürgen, Die Orakelkritik des Kynikers Oenomaos (Beitr. klass. Phil. 188, Frankfurt/M. 1988). —‘Der Kyniker Oenomaus von Gadara’, ANRW II.36.4 (1990), 2834–2865. Harrison, R. Martin. A temple for Byzantium. The discovery and excavation of Anicia Juliana’s palace­church in Istanbul (London 1989). — Excavations at Saraçane in Istanbul I (Princeton 1986).

Bibliography

159

Hartigan, Karelisa. The Poets and the Cities. Selections from the Anthology about Greek Cities (Königstein/Ts. 1979). Hatzimichali, Myrto. ‘Antiochus’ biography’, in: Sedley 2012, 9–30. Haupt, Moritz. ‘Excerpta ex Timothei Gazaei libris de animalibus’, Hermes 3 (1869), 1–30. Haury, Jakob. Zur Beurteilung des Geschichtschreibers Procopius von Cäsarea (Programm München 1896). Heath, Malcolm. ‘Apsines and Pseudo-Apsines’, AJPh 119 (1998), 89–111. — ‘Notes on Pseudo-Apsines’, Mnem. 55 (2002), 657–668. Heath, Thomas. A History of Greek Mathematics (Oxford 1921). Heimbach, Gustav Ernst. Constantini Harmenopuli manuale legum sive hexabiblos cum appendici­ bus et legibus agrariis (Lipsiae 1851). Hellegouarc’h, Joseph. Eutrope: Abrégé d’histoire romaine (Paris 1999). Helm, Rudolf. Lucian und Menipp (Leipzig 1906). Helmer, Siegfried. Der Neuchalkedonismus: Geschichte, Berechtigung und Bedeutung eines dog­ mengeschichtlichen Begriffes (Bonn 1962). Hengel, Martin. Judentum und Hellenismus. Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berück­ sichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh. v. Chr. (Tübingen 1969). — Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (London 1974). — Rabbinische Legenden und frühpharisäische Geschichte. Schimeon b. Schatach und die achtzig Hexen von Askalon (Abh. Heidelb. Ak. 1984). Hense, Otto. Teletis Reliquiae (Tübingen 1909). Hercher, Rudolphus. Epistolographi Graeci (Paris 1873). Hermann, Alfred. ‘Porphyra und Pyramide. Zur bedeutungsgeschichtlichen Überlieferung eines Baugedankes’, JAC 7 (1964), 117–135. Herzog, Reinhart. Restauration und Erneuerung. Die lateinische Literatur von 284 bis 374 n. Chr. (Handb. Lat. Lit. V, München 1989). Heylbut, Gustav. ‘Ptolemaeus Περὶ διαφορᾶς λέξεων’, Hermes 22 (1887), 388–410. Hirschfeld, Yizhar. ‘Ashkelon in the Roman-Byzantine Period: Intensive Trade City’, N. Arbel (ed.). Ashkelon – 4,000 and Forty More Years I (Tel Aviv 1990), 138–165 (Hebr.). — (ed.). The Roman Baths of Hammat Gader (Jerusalem 1997), 185–266. Hoehner, Harold W. Herod Antipas (Cambridge 1972). Hölscher, Tonio / Möllendorf, Peter v. ‘“Niemand wundere sich, sieht er dieses Bild”: Bild und Grabstele des Antipatros von Askalon’, Poetica 40 (2008), 289–233. Hohlfelder, Robert L. ‘Procopius, De Aedificiis, 1, 11, 18–20: Caesarea Maritima and the Building of Harbours in Late Antiquity’, MHR 3 (1988), 54–62. Holum, Kenneth G. Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity (Berkeley 1982). Honigmann, Ernst. Zacharias of Mitylene (Patristic Studies, Studi e Testi 173, 1953). Hopfenbrouwers, Henricus. La plus ancienne version latine de la vie de Saint Antoine par Saint Athanase (Nimwegen 1960). Howard-Johnston, James. ‘The Education and Expertise of Procopius’, Ant. Tard. 8 (2000), 19–30. Hult, Karin. ‘Marinus the Samaritan: A Study of Damascius Vit. Isid. fr. 141’, Cl&M 43 (1992), 163–178. Hultsch, Fridericus. Metrologici scriptores (Leipzig 1864). — Griechische und römische Metrologie2 (Berlin 1882). — Pappi Alexandrini Collectionis quae supersunt III (Berlin 1878, repr. Amsterdam 1965). Hunger, Herbert, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner (München 1978). Hunt, Edward D. Holy Land Pilgrimage in the Later Roman Empire AD 312–460 (Oxford 1984). Ilan, Tal. ‘A Witch-Hunt in Ashkelon’, in: Sasson/Safrai/Sagiv 2001, 135–146 (Hebr.). — Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, Part I: Palestine 330 BCE–200 CE (Tübingen 2002). Isaac, Benjamin. ‘Latin in Cities of the Roman Near East’, in: Cotton 2009, 43–72.

160

Bibliography

Jacobs, Martin. ‘Pagane Tempel in Palästina: Rabbinische Aussagen im Vergleich mit archäologischen Funden’, in: Schäfer/Hezser 2000, 139–159. Jacobson, Howard. ‘Demo and the Sabbath’, Mnem. 30 (1977), 71–72. Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Mid­ rashic Literature (New York 1903). Jones, Christopher P. Plutarch and Rome (Oxford 1971). — Philostratus, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana (Cambridge Mass. 2005–2006). — Philostratus: Letters of Apollonius (Cambridge Mass. / London 2006). Juster, Jean. Les Juifs dans L’Empire Romain (Paris 1914). Kaibel, Georg. Epigrammata Graeca ex lapidibus conlecta (Berlin 1878). Kaldellis, Anthony. Procopius of Caesarea: Tyranny, History, and Philosophy at the End of Antiq­ uity (Philadelphia 2004). Kaplan, Philip. ‘The Social Status of the Mercenary in Archaic Greece’, Gorman, Vanessa B. / Robinson, Eric W. (eds.). Oikistes: Studies… Honor of A. J. Graham (Leiden/Boston/Cologne 2002), 229–243. Kasher, Aryeh. Jews and Hellenistic Cities in Eretz­Israel. Relations of the Jews in Eretz­Israel with the Hellenistic Cities during the Second Temple Period (Tübingen 1990). Kaster, Robert A. ‘The “Wandering Poet” and the Governor’, Phoenix 37 (1983), 152–158. — Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity (Berkeley / Los Angeles / London 1988). Kaufman, Asher S. ‘Determining the length of the medium cubit’, PEQ 116 (1984), 120–132. Keil, Bruno. ‘Pro Hermogene’, Gött. Gel. Nachr. 1907, 176–222. Keller, Otto. Thiere des classischen Alterthums in culturgeschichtlicher Beziehung (Innsbruck 1887). Kena’ani, Yaakov. Otzar HaLashon HaIvrit XIV (Jerusalem / Ramat Gan 1975). Kennedy, George A. Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors (Princeton 1983). Kessel, Grigory. ‘The Syriac Epidemics and the Problem of Its Identification’, in: Pormann 2012, 93–124. King, Daniel. ‘Review of Debié 2009’, BMCR 2010.10.10. Knorr, Wilbur Richard. Textual Studies in Ancient and Medieval Geometry (Boston/Basel/Berlin 1989). Kofsky, Aryeh / Stroumsa, Guy G. (eds.). Sharing the Sacred: Religious Contacts and Conflicts in the Holy Land (First­Fifteenth Centuries CE) (Jerusalem 1998). Korenjak, Martin. ‘Das Grabmal des Antipatros von Askalon’, ZPE 184 (2013), 66–72. Krauss, Samuel (mit Bemerkungen von I. Löw). Griechische und lateinische Lehnwörter im Tal­ mud, Midrasch und Targum (Berlin 1898–1899). — Talmudische Archäologie II (Leipzig 1911). Krug, Antje. ‘A Priest of Sarapis at Ascalon?’, in: Fischer 1995, 121–150. Kruk, Remke. ‘Timotheus of Gaza’s On Animals in the Arabic Tradition’, Le Muséon 114 (2001), 355–387. Krumbacher, Karl. Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur2 (München 1897). Kugener, Marc-Antoine. Vie de Sévère (Paris 1903). Lange, Ulrike / Sörries, Reiner (eds.). Vom Orient bis an den Rhein : Begegnungen mit der Christli­ chen Archäologie : Peter Poscharsky zum 65. Geburtstag (Dettelbach 1997). Laniado, Avshalom. Recherches sur les notables municipaux dans l’empire protobyzantin (Travaux et Mémoirs …civilisation de Byzance 13, Paris 2002). — ‘La carriére d’un notable de Gaza d’après son oraison funébre’, in: Saliou 2005a, 221–239. Lassus, Jean. Sanctuaires chrétiens de Syrie (Paris 1947). Legier, E. 'Essai de biographie d'Enée de Gaza', Oriens Christianus 7 (1907), 349–369. Lehmann-Haupt, Carl Friedrich. ‘Historisch-metrologische Forschungen 2: Die hebräischen Masse und das pheidonische System’, Klio 14 (1915), 345–370.

Bibliography

161

Leiwo, Martti. ‘Philostratus of Ascalon, his Bank, his Connections and Naples in c. 130–90 B. C.’, Athenaeum 77 (1989), 575–584. Lenz, Friedrich Walther. Aristeidesstudien (Deutsche Ak. Wiss. Schriften der Sektion f. Alterstumwiss. 40, Berlin 1964). Leppin, Hartmut. Histrionen: Untersuchungen zur sozialen Stellung von Bühnenkünstlern im Westen des römischen Reiches zur Zeit der Republik und des Prinzipats (Antiquitas 41, Bonn 1992). Levick, Barbara. Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor (Oxford 1967). Levine, Lee I. ‘Rabbi Abbahu of Caesarea’, in: Neusner 1975, 56–76. Lévy, Carlos. ‘Other followers of Antiochus’, in: Sedley 2012, 290–306. Lieberman, Saul. The Talmud of Caesarea: Jerushalmi Tractate Nezikin, Tarbiz Suppl. ii 4 (1931) (Hebr.). — Greek in Jewish Palestine. Studies in the Life and Manners of Jewish Palestine in the II–IV Cen­ turies C. E. (New York 1942) (updated in Lieberman 1962). — Hellenism in Jewish Palestine. Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the I Century B. C. E.–IV century C. E. (New York 1950) (updated in Lieberman 1962). — (spelled Liberman). Greek and Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (Jerusalem 1962) (Hebr.). — ‘A Few Words on the Book by Julian the Architect of Ascalon The Laws of Palestine and its Customs’, Tarbiz 40 (1970–71), 409–417 (Hebr. with Engl. summ., repr. in id., Studies in Pal­ estinian Talmudic Literature [Jerusalem 1991], 339–347). — Texts and Studies (New York 1974). Lifshitz, Baruch. ‘Fonctions et Titres Honoriques dans les Communautés Juives’, RB 67 (1960), 58–64. Lim, Robert. Public Disputation, Power and Social Order in Late Antiquity (Berkeley 1995). Litsas, Fotios K. Choricus of Gaza, An Approach to his Work. Introduction, Translation, Commen­ tary (Diss. Chicago 1980). — ‘Choricius of Gaza and his Descriptions of Festivals at Gaza’, JÖB 32.3 (1982 = Akten XVI In­ tern. Byz. Kongr. II.3), 427–436. Lowe, Elias Avery. ‘An Unknown Psalter on Mount Sinai’, Scriptorium 9 (1955), 177–199. — ‘Two New Latin Liturgical Fragments on Mount Sinai’, Revue Benedictine 74 (1964), 252–283. — ‘Two Other Unknown Liturgical Fragments on Mount Sinai’, Scriptorium 19 (1965), 3–29. Luck, Georg. Der Akademiker Antiochos (Diss. Bern 1953). Ludwich, Arthur. Eudociae Augustae, Procli Lycii, Claudiani carminum graecorum reliquiae (Leipzig 1897). Luz, Menahem. ‘Abnimos, Nimos, and Oenomaus: A Note’, JQR 77 (1986/7), 191–195. — ‘Salam, Meleager!’ SIFC 6 (1988), 222–231. — ‘Marinus: An Eretz Israel Neoplatonist at Athens’, Kasher, Aryeh et alii (eds.). Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel (Jerusalem 1990), 92–104. — ‘Oenomaus and Talmudic Anecdote’, JSJ 23 (1992), 42–80. — ‘The Cynics of the Decapolis and Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic Period’, in: Mor 2003, 97–107. McCail, Ronald C. ‘The Cycle of Agathias: New Identifications Scrutinised’, JHS 89 (1969), 87–96. McCarthy, Barbara P. ‘Lucian and Menippus’, YCS 4 (1934), 3–55. McKinney, Colin P. B. Conjugate diameters: Apollonius of Perga and Eutocius of Ascalon (Diss. Iowa 2010). Maguire, Henry. ‘The Halfcone Vault of St. Stephen at Gaza’, DOP 32 (1978), 319–325. Mahieu, Bieke. ‘The Foundation Year of Samaria-Sebaste and its Chronological Implications’, Anc. Soc. 38 (2008), 190–193. Maltese, Enrico V. ‘Un’epistola inedita di Procopio di Gaza’, PP 39 (1984), 53–55. Mancinetti Santamaria, Giovanna. ‘Filostrato di Ascalone, banchiere in Delo’, in: Coarelli, Filippo / Musti, Domenico / Solin, Heikki (eds.). Opuscula Instituti Finlandiae (Roma 1982), 78– 89. Mango, Cyril. The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312–1453 (Englewood Cliffs, N. J. 1972).

162

Bibliography

— ‘A Fake Inscription of the Empress Eudocia and Pulcheria’s Relic of St. Stephen’, Nea Rhome 1 (2004), 3–23. — / Ševčenko, Ihor. ‘Remains of the Church of St. Polyeuktos at Constantinople’, DOP 15 (1961), 243–247. Marcovich, Miroslav. Alcestis Barcinonensis. Text and Commentary (Mmen. Suppl. 103, Leiden etc 1988). Marti, Heinrich. Übersetzer der Augustin­Zeit. Interpretation von Selbstzeugnissen (Studia et Testimonia Antiqua 14, München 1974). Martindale, John Robert. ‘Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire: Addenda et Corrigenda to Volume I’, Historia 29 (1980), 474–497. Massa Positano, Lidia. Enea di Gaza, Epistole (Napoli 1950). Masullo, Rita. Marino di Neapoli, Vita di Proclo, Testo critico, introduzione, traduzione e commen­ tario (Napoli 1985). Mathieu, Georges / Brémond, Émile. Isocrate, Discours I (Paris 1972). Matino, Giuseppina. Panegirico per l’imperatore Anastasio (Quaderni dell’Acad. pontiana 41, Napoli 2005). Matthews, John. Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court A. D. 364–425 (Oxford 1975). — The Roman Empire of Ammianus (London 1989). Mayerson, Philip. ‘The City of Elusa in the Literary Sources of the Fourth-Sixth Centuries’, IEJ 33 (1983), 247–253. — ‘Choricius of Gaza on the Watersupply System of Caesarea’, IEJ 36 (1986), 269–272. — ‘Libanius and the Administration of Palestine’, ZPE 69 (1987), 251–260. Meliadò, Claudio (ed.). E cantando danzerò, PLitGoodspeed 2 (Orione. Testi e studi di letteratura greca 1, Messina 2008). Menge, Heinrich. Euclidis Data cum commentario Marini et scholiis antiquis (Euclidis Opera Omnia VI, Leipzig 1896). Merkelbach, Reinhold. ‘Ein übersehenes Fragment aus Arrians Bithyniaka’, Epigraphica Anatolica 5 (1985), 1–3. — / Stauber, Josef. Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten. Band 4: Die Südküste Kleinasiens, Syrien und Palaestina (München/Leipzig 2002). Merlan, Philip. ‘Ammonius Hermiae, Zacharias Scholasticus and Boethius’, GRBS 9 (1968), 193– 203. Meshorer, Ya’akov. City Coins of Eretz­Israel and the Decapolis in the Roman Period (Jerusalem 1985). Mette, Hans Joachim. ‘Philon von Larissa und Antiochos von Askalon’, Lustrum 28–29 (1986/7), 9–63. Michaux, Maurice. Le commentaire de Marinus aux Data d’Euclide, étude critique (Louvain 1947). Mihaescu, Haralambie. ‘La lingua latina e la lingua greca nell’impero bizantino’, A&R 18 (1973), 144–153. Millar, Fergus. ‘P. Herennius Dexippus: The Greek World and the Third-Century Invasions’, JRS 59 (1969), 12–29 (repr. Cotton, Hannah M. / Rogers, Guy M. [eds.]. Government, Society, and Culture in the Roman Empire [Chapel Hill / London 2004], 265–297). — ‘The Phoenician Cities: A Case-Study of Hellenisation’, PCPS 209 (1983), 54–71 (repr. in: Cotton, Hannah M. / Rogers, Guy M. [eds.]. Rome, the Greek World, and the East III: The Greek World, the Jews, and the East [Chapel Hill / London 2006], 32–50). — ‘The Roman Coloniae of the Greek East’, in: Solin, Heikki / Kajava, Mika (eds.). Roman Eastern Policy and Other Studies in Roman History (Helsinki 1990), 7–58 (repr. in: Cotton, Hannah M. / Rogers, Guy M. [eds.]. Rome, the Greek World, and the East III: The Greek World, the Jews, and the East [Chapel Hill / London 2006], 164–222). — The Roman Near East 31 BC – AD 337 (Cambridge Mass. / London 1993). — ‘The Greek East and Roman Law: The Dossier of M. Cn. Licinius Rufinus’, JRS 89 (1999), 90– 108 (repr. in: Cotton, Hannah M. / Rogers, Guy M. [eds.]. Government, Society, and Culture in the Roman Empire [Chapel Hill / London 2004], 435–464).

Bibliography

163

— ‘Libanius and the Near East’, SCI 26 (2007), 155–180. — ‘Libanios’ Vorstellungen vom Nahen Osten’, in: Blömer, Michael / Blömer, Margherita / Facella, Margherita / Winter, Engelbert (eds.). Lokale Identität im Römischen Nahen Osten: Kontexte und Perspektiven. Erträge der Tagung “Lokale Identität im Römischen Nahen Osten”, Münster 19.–21. April 2007 (Oriens et Occidens 18, Stuttgart 2009), 177–187. Minitti Colonna, Maria. Zacaria Scolastico. Ammonio (Napoli 1973). Mioni, Elpidio. Codices Graeci manuscripti divi Marci Venetiarum I (Roma 1981). Moeller, Charles. ‘Un représentant de la christologie néochalcédonienne au début du VIe siècle en Orient: Nephalius d’Alexandrie’, RHE 40 (1944–5), 73–140. Mogenet, Joseph. L’Introduction à l’Almageste (Coll. Mémoires de la Classe des Lettres et des sciences morales et politiques de l’Académie Royale de Belgique 51.2, Bruxelles 1956). Moles, John L. A Commentary of Plutarch’s Brutus (Diss. Oxford 1978). — ‘Cynic Influences upon first-century Judaism and Christianity?’, McGing, Brian / Mossman, Judith (eds.). The Limits of Ancient Biography (Swansea 2006), 89–116. Mor, Menachem et alii (eds.). Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land in the Days of the Second Temple, the Mishnah and the Talmud (Jerusalem 2003). Morfakidis, Moschos. ‘Reflexiones acerca de la Defensa de los mimos de Jorikios’, in: Garcia González 1988, 309–318. Moutsoulas, Elias D. ‘L’oeuvre d’Epiphane de Salamine “de mensuris et ponderibus” et son unité littéraire’, StudPatr 12 (1971), 120–122. Müller, Carl F. W. Geographi Graeci Minores II (Paris 1882, repr. 1965). Müller, Friedhelm M. Eutropii Breviarium Ab Urbe Condita, Eutropius, Kurze Geschichte Roms seit Gründung der Stadt (Stuttgart 1995). Murgia, Charles E. ‘Avienus’s Supposed Iambic Version of Livy’, CSCA 3 (1970), 185–197. Murphy, Francis Xavier. Rufinus of Aquileia: His Life and Works (Cath. Univ. of Am. St. in Med. Hist. n. s. 6, Washington DC 1945). Mussies, Gerard. ‘The Interpretatio Judaica of Sarapis’, in: Vermaseren, Maarten Jozef (ed.). Stud­ ies in Hellenistic Religions (Leiden 1979), 189–214. Mynors, Roger A. B. Cassiodori Senatoris Institutiones (Oxford 1937). Nau, François. Opuscules Maronites, seconde partie, Vie de Severe, Patriarche d’Antioche (Paris 1900). Netz, Reviel. ‘The First Jewish Scientist?’, SCI 17 (1998), 27–33. — The Works of Archimedes translated into English, together with Eutocius’ commentaries …. Vol. I: The Two Books On the Sphere and the Cylinder (Cambridge 2004). — / Noel, William. The Archimedes Codex. How a Medieval Prayer Book is Revealing the True Genius of Antiquity’s Greatest Scientist (Philadelphia 2007). — ‘The Place of Codex C in Archimedes Scholarship’, in: Netz/Noel/Tchernetska/Wilson 2011, 266–320. — / Noel, William / Tchernetska, Natalie / Wilson, Nigel. The Archimedes Palimpsest (Cambridge 2011). Neugebauer, Otto / van Hoesen, Henry Bartlett. Greek Horoscopes (Philadelphia 1959). — A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy II (Berlin / Heidelberg / New York 1975). Neusner, Jacob (ed.). Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco­Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, IV (Leiden 1975). Nickau, Klaus. Ammonii De adfinium vocabulorum differentia (Leipzig 1966). Nicole, Jules: Λέοντος τοῦ Σοφοῦ τὸ Ἐπαρχικὸν Βιβλίον. Le livre du Prefet. L’Édit de l’Empereur Léon le Sage sur les corporations de Constantinople. Texte grec du Genevensis 23 publié pour la premier fois par Jules Nicole, avec une traduction latine, des notices exégétiques et critiques et les variants du Genevensis 23 au texte de Julien d’Ascalon (Genève 1893). Nissen, Theodor. Die Byzantinischen Anakreonten (SB München 1940.3). Noy, David. Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe I: Italy (excluding the City of Rome), Spain and Gaul (Cambridge 1993).

164

Bibliography

O’Connor, John B. Chapters in the History of Actors and Acting in Ancient Greece: together with a Prosopographia Histrionum Graecorum (Diss. Princeton University, Chicago 1908). O’Neil, Edward. Teles (The Cynic Teacher) (Missoula 1977). Oikonomides, Alkibiades N. Marinus of Neapolis, The Extant Works (Chicago, 1977). Oliver, James H. ‘Greek and Latin Inscriptions’, Hesperia 10 (1941), 237–261. — The Athenian Expounders of the Sacred and Ancestral Law (Baltimore 1950). Oomen, Gerhardus. De Zosimo Ascalonita atque Marcellino (Diss. Münster 1926). Ostenfeld, Erik Nis (ed.). Greek Romans and Roman Greeks. Studies in Cultural Interaction (Aarhus Studies in Mediterranean Antiquity III, Aarhus 2002). Otto, Walter. Herodes, Beiträge zur Geschichte des letzten jüdischen Königshauses (Stuttgart 1913). Oulton, John E. L. ‘Rufinus’s Translation of the Church History of Eusebius’, JTS 30 (1929), 150– 174. Overduin, Floris. Nicander of Colophon. Theriaca, A Literary Commentary (Nijmegen 2010). Oxé, August. ‘Die Masstafel des Julianus von Askalon’, RhM 106 (1963), 264–286. Page, Denys L. (ed.). Further Greek Epigrams, Epigrams before A. D. 50 from the Greek Anthology and Other Sources, not included in Hellenistic Epigrams or The Garland of Philip (Cambridge 1981). Palistrant Shaich, R. ‘Who is Standing Above the Lions in Ascalon?’, INR 7 (2012), 127–146. Palm, Jonas. Rom, Römertum und Imperium in der griechischen Literatur der Kaiserzeit (Lund 1959). Palmieri, Vincenzo. Herennius Philo, De diversis verborum significationibus (Napoli 1988). Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Athanasios. Ἰεροσολυμιτικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη iv (Petersburg 1899). Parmentier, Édith / Francesca Prometea Barone (eds.). Nicolas de Damas. Histoires; Recueil de cou­ tumes; Vie d’Auguste; Autobiographie. Fragments (Paris 2011). Patillon, Michel. Apsines, Art rhétorique problèmes à faux­semblant (Paris 2001). Peek, Werner. ‘Delische Weihepigramme’. Hermes 76 (1941), 408–416. Pépin, Jean / Henry D. Saffrey (eds.). Proclus lecteur et interprète des anciens, actes du colloque intern. du CNRS Paris (2–4 oct. 1985) (Paris 1987). Perdrizet, Paul. ‘Syriaca’, Revue Archéologique ser. 3, 34 (1899), 34–53. Pernot, Laurent. ‘Callinicos de Pétra, sophiste et historien’, RÉG 123 (2010), 71–90. Petit, Paul. Les Etudiants de Libanius: Un professeur et son élèves au Bas­Empire (Paris 1957). Pfaff, Franz. ‘Rufus aus Samaria, Hippokrateskommentator und Quelle Galens’, Hermes 67 (1932), 356–359. Pinkerfeld, Jacob. ‘Two Fragments of a Marble Door from Jaffa’, Atiqot 1 (1955), 89–94. Poinsotte, Jean-Michel. ‘Commodien dit de Gaza’, RÉL 74 (1996), 270–281. — (ed.). Commodien Instructions (Coll. des univ. de France. Série latine 392. Paris 2009). Pormann, Peter E. (ed.). Epidemics in Context. Greek Commentaries on Hippocrates in the Arabic Tradition (Berlin / New York 2012). Porter, Harvey. ‘A Greek Inscription from near Nazareth’, PEF 1897, 188–189. Portmann, Werner. Geschichte in der spätantiken Panegyrik (Europ. Hochschulschr. III 363, Frankfurt 1988 = Diss. Berlin FU 1988). Preisendanz, Karl. ‘Zu Euenus von Askalon’, Philologus 75 (1919), 476–482. Preisigke, Friedrich. Namenbuch (Heidelberg 1922). Price, Jonathan J. ‘The Jews and the Latin Language in the Roman Empire’, in: Mor 2003, 165–180. Raban, Avner / Holum, Kenneth G. (eds.). Caesarea Maritima. A Retrospective after Two Millennia (Leiden / New York / Köln 1996). Rabe, Hugo. ‘Aus Rhetoren Handschriften 6.’, RhM 63 (1908), 512–530. — ‘Aus Rhetoren-Handschriften 10.’, RhM 64 (1909), 539–590. Rabinowitz, Alfred. ‘Choricius of Gaza on Palestine’, in: Schwabe, Moshe / Gutman, Yehoshua (eds.). Commentationes Iudaico-Hellenisticae Memoriae Iohannis Lewy (1901–1945) (Jerusalem 1949), 173–187 (Hebr.).

Bibliography

165

Rajak, Tessa. ‘Justus of Tiberias’, CQ 23 (1973), 358–365. Rashed, Roshdi. Les Catoptriciens Grecs, I, Les miroirs ardents (Paris 2000). — Apollonius de Perge, Coniques. Tome 1.1: Livre I, Commentaire historique et mathematique (Paris 2010). Reichmann, Victor. Römische Literatur in griechischer Übersetzung (Philol. Supplbd. 34.3, Leipzig 1943). Relihan, Joel C. Ancient Menippean Satire (Baltimore 1993). Revilla, Alejo. Catálogo de los codices griegos de la biblioteca de la Escorial I (Madrid 1936). Rey, André-Louis. Patricius, Eudocie, Optimus Côme de Jérusalem, Centons Homériques (Homero­ centra) (SC 437, Paris 1998). Ribalta i Haro, Jaume. Dret urbanístic medieval de la mediterrània (Barcelona 2005). Richard, Marcel. Iohannis Caesariensis presbyteri et grammatici opera quae supersunt (CCSG I, Brepols-Turnhout 1977). Richter, Hans Eberhard. Übersetzen und Übersetzungen in der römischen Literatur (Diss. Erlangen 1938). Roberto, Umberto. Le Chronographiae di Sesto Giulio Africano. Storiografia, politica e cristiane­ simo nell’età dei Severi (Soveria Manelli 2011). Robinson, Christopher. Lucian (London 1979). Rochette, Bruno. Le latin dans le monde grec. Recherches sur la diffusion de la langue et des letters latines dans les provinces hellénophones de l’Empire romain (Coll. Lat. 233, Bruxelles 1997). Roller, Duane W. The Building Program of Herod the Great (Berkeley / Los Angeles / London 1998). Rosén, Haiim B. ‘Die Sprachsituation im römischen Palästina’, Neumann, Günter / Untermann, Jürgen (eds.). Die Sprachen im römischen Reich der Kaiserzeit. Kolloquium April 1974 (Bonn. Jb. Beiheft 40, Köln/Bonn 1980), 217–239 (= Rosén, Haiim B. East and West. Selected Writings in Linguistics, München 1982, 489–513). Rosén, Hannah (ed.). Aspects of Latin. Papers from the Seventh International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Jerusalem, April 1993 (Innsbruck 1996). Rosenmeyer, Patricia A. The Poetics of Imitation. Anacreon and the anacreontic tradition (Cambridge 1992). Rougé, Jean. Expositio totius mundi et gentium (SC 124, Paris 1966). Roullet, Anne. The Egyptian and Egyptianizing Monuments of Imperial Rome (Études preliminaries aux religions orientales dans l’empire romain 20, Leiden 1972). Rousée, Jourdain-Marie. ‘L’église Sainte-Marie de la Probatique: chronologie des sanctuaries à Sainte Anne de Jérusalem d’après les fouilles rècentes’, Atti dell VI congr. intern. archeologia cristiana, Ravenna 1962 (Vatican 1965), 69–76. Rubin, Berthold. Prokopios von Kaisareia (Stuttgart 1954 = RE XXIII, 273–599). Rubin, Zeev. ‘The Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Beginning of the Conflict between the Sees of Caesarea and Jerusalem’, The Jerusalem Cathedra 2 (1982), 76–106. — ‘The Episcopate of Maximus, Bishop of Jerusalem, and the Conflict between Caesarea and Jerusalem in the Fourth Century’, Cathedra 31 (1984), 31–42 (Hebr.). — ‘Byzantium and Southern Arabia: The Policy of Anastasius’, in: French/Lightfoot 1989, II 383– 420. — ‘The See of Caesarea in Conflict with Jerusalem from Nicaea (325) to Chalcedon (451)’, in: Raban/Holum 1996, 559–574. — ‘Porphyrius of Gaza and the Conflict between Christianity and Paganism in Southern Palestine’, in: Kofsky/Stroumsa 1998, 31–66. Ruehl, Franz. Eutropius (Leipzig 1887, 1919). Russell, Donald A. / Wilson, Nigel G. Menander Rhetor (Oxford 1981). Saffrey, Henri Dominique / Segonds, Alain-Philippe. Marinus, Proclus, ou, sur le Bonheur (Paris 2001). Safrai, Ze’ev. ‘The Aramaic Speaking Gentile Population in Palestine in the Roman Era’, in: Oppen-

166

Bibliography

heimer, Aharon, et alii (eds.). Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land in the Days of the Second Temple, the Mishnah and the Talmud (Jerusalem 2003), 82–101 (Hebr.). Saliou, Catharine. Les lois des bâtiments. Voisinage et habitat urbain dans l’Empire romain. Re­ cherches sur les rapports entre le droit et la construction privée du siècle d’Auguste au siècle du Justinien (Beyrouth 1994). — ‘Julien d’Ascalon?’, JHS 115 (1995), 168–171. — Le traité d’urbanisme de Julien d’Ascalon (VIe siècle) (Paris 1996). — (ed.). Gaza dans l’Antiquité Tardive. Archéologie, rhétorique et histoire (Cardo 2, Salerno 2005a). — ‘L’orateur et la ville: réflexions sur l’apport de Chorikios à la connaissance de l’histoire de l’espace urbaine de Gaza’, in: Saliou 2005a (2005b), 171–195. Samama, Évelyne. Les médecins dans le monde grec: Sources épigraphiques sur la naissance d’un corps medical (Genève 2003). Sambursky, Samuel. Proklos, Präsident der platonischen Akademie, und sein Nachfolger, der Sa­ maritaner Marinos: SB. Heidelb. Ak. Wiss., Mathem.­naturwiss. Kl. 1985,2. Santini, Carlo. Eutropius (Leipzig 1979, 1992). Sartre, Maurice. The Middle East under Rome (Cambridge Mass. / London 2005). Sasson, Avi / Safrai, Ze’ev / Sagiv, Nahum (eds.). Ashkelon. A City on the Seashore (Tel-Aviv 2001) [Hebr.]. Sawicki, Lea / Shalev, Donna (eds.). Donum Grammaticum. Studies in Latin and Celtic Linguistics in Honour of Hannah Rosén (Orbis Suppl. 18, Leuven 2002). Scarborough, John. ‘Introduction’, DOP 38 (1984) (= Symposium on Byzantine Medicine, ed. J. Scarborough) ix–xvi. Schäfer, Peter / Hezser, Catherine (eds.). The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco­Roman Culture II (Tübingen 2000). Schalit, Abraham. König Herodes, der Mann und sein Werk (Berlin 1969). Schanz, Martin v. Geschichte der römischen Literatur bis zur Gesetzgebungswerk des Kaisers Jus­ tinian2 (München 1898-). Scheftel, Haim Jacob. Erech Milin … for Coins, Measures, Weights etc.2 (Berdichev 1907, repr. TelAviv 1969) (Hebr.). Scheltema, Herman Jan. ‘The Nomoi of Iulianus of Ascalon’, David, Martin / Meijers, E. M. (eds.) Symbolae … J. Chr. van Oven dedicatae (Leiden 1946), 349–360. Schembra, Rocco. La prima redazione dei centoni omerici. Traduzione e commento. (Hellenica 21, Alessandria 2006). — (ed.). Homerocentones (CCSG 62, Turnhout/Leuven 2007). Schemmel, Fritz. ‘Der Sophist Libanius als Schüler und Lehrer’, NJb 20 (1907), 52–69 (= Fatouros/ Krischer 1983, 3–25). — Die Hochschule von Konstantinopel vom V. bis zum IX. Jahrhundert (Berlin 1912). — ‘Die Schule von Berytus’, Philol. Wochenschr. 43 (1923), 236–240. — ‘Die Schule von Caesarea in Palästina’, Philol. Wochenschr. 45 (1925), 1277–1280. Schlüter, Margarete. “Deraqon” und Götzendienst: Studien zur antiken jüdischen Religionsge­ schichte (Judentum und Umwelt 4, Frankfurt/M. 1982). Schönberger, Axel. Priscians Darstellung des silbisch gebundenen Tonhöhenmorenakzents des Lateinischen (Frankfurt/M 2010). Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ 175 B. C.–A. D. 135, I, revised edition by Geza Vermes / Fergus Millar (Edinburgh 1973 – 1987). Schulze, Ernest. ‘De Paeanio Eutropii interprete’, Philologus 29 (1870), 285–299. Schwabe, Moshe. ‘A Jewish Sepulchral Inscription from Caesarea Palaestinae’, IEJ 1 (1950–51), 49–53. — ‘Documents of a Journey through Palestine in the Years 317–323 C. E.’, Eretz­Israel 3 (1954), 181–185 (Hebr.). Schwartz, Seth. ‘Language, Power and Identity in Ancient Palestine’, P&P 148 (1995), 3–47. Schwyzer, Eduard. Griechische Grammatik I2 (München 1953).

Bibliography

167

Scopello, Maddalena. ‘Julie, manichéenne d’Antioche’, Ant. Tard. 5 (1997), 187–209. Scott, Robert Balgarnie Young. ‘The Hebrew cubit’, JBL 77 (1958), 205–214. — ‘Postscript on the cubit’, JBL 79 (1960), 368. Seager, Robin. Pompey. A Political Biography (Oxford 1979). Sedley, David (ed.). The Philosophy of Antiochus (Cambridge / New York 2012). Seeck, Otto. Symmachus (MGH AA VI, Berlin 1893). — Die Briefe des Libanius (Leipzig 1906). Segal, Arthur. ‘Theatres in Ancient Palestine during the Roman-Byzantine Period (An HistoricalArchaeological Survey)’, SCI 8–9 (1985–1988), 145–165. — Theatres in Roman Palestine and Provincia Arabia (Leiden 1995). Shackleton Bailey, David Roy. Cicero’s Letters to Atticus III (Cambridge 1968). Shenkar, Michael. ‘Phanebalos and the Evidence for the Cult of the Goddess Tanit in Palestine’, in: Geiger, Joseph / Cotton, Hannah M. / Stiebel, Guy D. (eds.). Israel’s Land. Papers Presented to Israel Shatzman on his Jubilee (Raanana 2009), 229–248. Sideras, Alexander. 25 unedierte byzantinische Grabreden (Thessalonike 1990). Sivan, Hagith. Palestine in Late Antiquity (Oxford 2008). Smallwood, E. Mary. Legatio ad Gaium Philonis Alexandrini (Leiden 1961, 19702). Sordi, Marta / Ramelli, Ilaria. ‘Commodiano era di Roma?’, RIL 138 (2004), 3–23. Spanuth, Johannes. Zacharias Rhetor: Das Leben des Severus von Antiochien, in syrischer Überset­ zung (Göttingen 1893). Spatafora, Giuseppe. Theriaká e Alexipharmaká. Introduzione, traduzione e commento (Roma 2007). Sperber, Daniel. Greek in Talmudic Palestine (Ramat Gan 2012). Stager, Jennifer M. S. ‘“Let No One Wonder at This Image”. A Phoenician Funerary Stele in Athens’, Hesperia 74 (2005), 427–449. Stager, Lawrence E. ‘Eroticism and Infanticide at Ashkelon’, BAR 17 (1991), 34–53. — / Master, Daniel M. J. / Schloen, David (eds.). The Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon: Askelon 3. The Seventh Century B. C. (Winona Lake, Ind. 2011). Stein, Arthur. ‘Kallinikos von Petrai’, Hermes 58 (1923), 448–456. Stephanis, Ioannes (Στεφανής). ‘Zwei unbekannte Monodien von Chorikios?’, JÖB 33 (1983), 57–73. — Διονυσιακοί Τεχνίται. Συμβολές στην προσωπογραφία του θεάτρου και τής μουσικής των αρχαίων Ελλήνων (Heraklion 1988). — Χορικίου Γάζης Συνηγορία Μίμων (Κλασσικὰ Γράμματα 3, Thessalonike 1990). Stern, Ephraim (ed.). The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (= NEAEHL) I (Jerusalem 1993). Stern, Menahem. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem 1974–1984). Stöckle, Albert. Spätrömische und byzantinische Zünfte (Klio Beiheft 9, Leipzig 1911). Sturz, Friedrich Wilhelm. Orionis Thebani Etymologicon (Leipzig 1820). Susumov, M. J. ‘O traktate Juliana Askalonita’, Istorii Antichnaja Drevnost, Srednie Veka 38 (1960), 3–34. Svoronos, Nicolas G. La Synopsis Major des Basiliques et ses appendices I (Études Bibl. Byz. 4, Paris 1964). Swain, Simon / Harrison, Stephen / Elsner, Jaś (eds.). Severan Culture (Cambridge 2007). Syme, Ronald. ‘Missing Senators’, Historia 4 (1955), 52–71. — Tacitus, II (Oxford 1958). Szabat, Elzbieta. ‘Teachers in the Eastern Roman Empire (Fifth-Seventh Centuries): A Historical Study and Prosopography’, in: Derda/Markiewicz/Wipszycka 2007, 177–345. Taisbak, Christian Marinus. Dedomena. Euclid’s Data or The Importance of Being Given (Copenhagen 2003). Talgam, Rina. ‘The Ekphrasis Eikonos of Procopius of Gaza: The Depiction of Mythological The-

168

Bibliography

mes in Palestine and Arabia during the Fifth and Sixth Centuries’, in: Bitton-Ashkelony/Kofsky 2004, 208–234. Tannery, Paul. ‘Eutocius et ses contemporains’, Bull. des sciences math. 2e serie 8 (1884), 315–329. Tchalenko, Georges. Villages antiques de la Syrie du Nord I (Paris 1953). Theiler, Willy. Poseidonius: Die Fragmente (Berlin / New York 1982). Thompson, D’Arcy Wentworth. A Glossary of Greek Birds2 (Oxford 1936). Thümmel, Hans Georg. ‘Die Schilderung der Sergioskirche in Gaza und ihrer Dekoration bei Chorikios von Gaza’, in: Lange/Sörries 1997, 49–64. Tihon, Anne. ‘Notes sur l’astronomie grecque au Ve siècle de notre ère. Marinus de Naplouse – un commentaire au Petite commentaire de Theon’, Janus 63 (1976), 167–184. Tomos: Τόμος Κονσταντίνου Ἁρμενοπούλου ἐπὶ τῇ ἑξακοσιετηρίδι τῆς Ἑξαβίβλου αὐτοῦ (1345–1945) (Saloniki 1952). Toomer, Gerald J. Diocles On Burning Mirrors, The Arabic Translation… with English Translation and Commentary (Berlin / Heidelberg / New York 1976). Tsafrir, Yoram. ‘Procopius and the Nea Church in Jerusalem’, Ant. Tard. 8 (2000), 149–164. — / Di Segni, Leah / Green, Judith. Tabula Imperii Romani: Iudaea Palaestina, Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods (Jerusalem 1994). Usher, Mark David. Homerocentones Eudociae Augustae (Stuttgart/Leipzig 1999). van der Horst, Pieter W. ‘The Last Jewish Patriarch(s) and Greco-Roman Medicine’, in: Mor 2003, 87–96. van der Wal, Nicolas / Lokin, Johannes H. A. Historiae iuris Graeco­romani delineatio: les sources du droit byzantin de 300 à 1453 (Groningen 1985). van Groningen, Bernhardus Abrahamus. De Papyro Oxyrynchita 1380 (Diss. Groningen 1921). Vári, R. ‘Review of Diels 1906’, Egyetemes Philologiai Közlöny 31 (1907), 610–611 (Hungarian). — ‘Die sogenannte “Inedita Tactica Leonis”’, BZ 27 (1927), 241–270. Venini, Paola. ‘Peanio traduttore di Eutropio’, Memorie dell’Ist. Lombardo 37 (1981–1983), 421– 447. Ver Eecke, Paul. Les oeuvres complètes d’Archimède suivies des commentaries d’Eutocius d’Ascalon2 (Paris 1960). Vickers, Michael. ‘Wandering stones: Venice, Constantinople and Athens’, Selig, Karl-Ludwig / Sears, Elizabeth (eds.). The Verbal and the Visual. Essays in Honor of William Sebastian Heckscher (New York 1990), 225–242. Viedebantt, Oskar. ‘Eratosthenes, Hipparchos, Poseidonios. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Erdmessungsproblems im Altertum’, Klio 14 (1915), 207–256. — ‘Forschungen zur Metrologie des Altertums’, Abh. Sächs. Ges. Wiss., philol.­hist. Kl. xxxiv.3 (1917). Vieillefond, Jean-René. Les “Cestes” de Julius Africanus. Étude sur l’ensemble des fragments avec edition, traduction et commentaries (Firenze/Paris 1970). Villain, Maurice. ‘Rufin d’Aquilée et l’histoire ecclesiastique’, Recherches de sciences religieuse 33 (1946), 164–210. Vincent, Louis-Hugues. ‘L’Ére de Scythopolis d’après une inscription nouvelle’, RB 42 (1931), 555–561. Wacholder, Ben Zion. Nicolaus of Damascus (Univ. of Calif. Publications in Hist. 75, Berkeley / Los Angeles 1962). Wacht, Manfred. Aeneas von Gaza als Apologet. Seine Kosmologie im Verhältnis zum Platonismus (Theophaneia 21, Bonn 1969). Wallis, Richard T. Neoplatonism (London 1972). Wallraff, Martin / Mecella, Laura (eds.). Die Kestoi des Julius Africanus und ihre Überlieferung (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 165, Berlin / New York 2009).

Bibliography

169

Walzer, Richard. Galen on Jews and Christians (Oxford 1949). Wasserstein, Abraham. ‘Rabban Gamliel and Proclus the Philosopher (Mishna Aboda Zara 3,4)’, Zion 45 (1980), 257–267 (Hebr. with Engl. summ.). Watts, Edward. ‘Winning the Intracommunal Dialogues: Zacharias Scholasticus’ Life of Severus,’ JECS 13 (2005), 437–464. — ‘Creating the Ascetic and Sophistic Mélange: Zacharias Scholasticus and the Intellectual Influence of Aeneas of Gaza and John Rufus’, Aram 18–19 (2006–2007), 153–164. — ‘The Enduring Legacy of the Iatrosophist Gessius’, GRBS 49 (2009), 113–133. Webb, Ruth. ‘Female Performers in Late Antiquity’, Easterling, Pat / Hall, Edith (eds.). Greek and Roman Actors. Aspects of an Ancient Profession (Cambridge 2002), 282–303. — ‘Rhetorical and Theatrical Fictions in Chorikios of Gaza’, Johnson, Scott Fitzgerald (ed.). Greek Literature in Late Antiquity. Dynamism, Didacticism, Classicism (Aldershot 2006), 107–124. Weinbrot, Howard D. Menippean Satire Reconsidered. From Antiquity to the Eighteenth Century (Baltimore 2005). West, Martin L. Iambi et Elegi Graeci II (Oxford 1972). Westerink, Leendert Gerrit. ‘Elias on the Prior Analytics’, Mnemosyne 14 (1961), 126–139. — ‘Ein unbekannter Brief des Prokopios von Gaza’, BZ 60 (1967), 1–2. Westermann, Antonius. Vitarum Scriptores Graeci Minores (Braunschweig 1845; repr. Amsterdam 1964). Wickert, Lothar. ‘Vorbemerkungen zu einem Supplementum Ostiense des Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum’, SB Berlin 1928, 36–70. Wilkinson, Lancelot Patrick. Ovid Recalled (Cambridge 1955). Will, Edouard. ‘La Tour de Straton: mythes et réalités’, Syria 64 (1967), 245–251. — ‘La coupe de Césarée de Palestine au Musée du Louvre’, Monuments et mémoires 65 (1983), 1–24. Wilson, Nigel G. ‘A Chapter in the History of Scholia’, CQ 17 (1967), 244–256. — Scholars of Byzantium (London 1983). — ‘Review of Saliou 1996’, JRA 11 (1998), 678–679. Winkelmann, Friedhelm. Untersuchungen zur Kirchengeschichte des Gelasius von Kaisareia (SB Berlin 1965.3 [1966a]). — ‘Charakter und Bedeutung der Kirchengeschichte des Gelasius von Kaisareia’, Wirth Peter (ed.). Polychchronion, Festschrift Franz Dölger (Byz. Forsch. 1, Heidelberg 1966a), 346–385. Woerther, Frédérique. Apollodore de Pergame Théodore de Gadara, fragments et témoignes (Paris 2013). Wolf, Peter. Vom Schulwesen der Spätantike. Studien zu Libanius (Baden-Baden 1952). — ‘Libanios’ Kampf um die hellenische Bildung’, MH 11 (1954), 231–242 (= Fatouros/Krischer 1983, 68–83). Woods, David. ‘Strategius and the “Manichaeans”’, CQ 51 (2001), 255–264. Wynn, Philipp. ‘Rufinus of Aquileia’s Ecclesiastical History and Victor of Vita’s History of the Vandal Persecution’, ClM 41 (1990), 187–198. Young, Douglas (ed.). Theognis (Leipzig 1971). Zachariä v. Lingenthal, Carl Eduard. ‘Review of Nicole 1893’, BZ 2 (1893), 132–136. Zangemeister, Karl. ‘Inschrift der vespasianischen Colonie Caesarea in Palästina’, ZDPV 13 (1890), 25–30. Zilliacus, Henrik. Zum Kampf der Weltsprachen im oströmischen Reich (Helsingfors 1935). Zoras, Georgios Th. Le corporazioni bizantine. Studio sull’ Ἐπαρχικὸν βιβλίον dell’ imperatore Leone VI (Roma 1931).

INDEX This Index is intended as an aid to the reader, or to one who wishes to consult the book: ease of use and disambiguation have been preferred to pedantic uniformity. Regularly recurring words and main subjects of this book like Greek, Hellenism, Palestine etc. have not been included. Acacius of Caesarea – 11–12, 22, 31, 92 n. 166, 148 Achillius of Ancyra – 12 Aedesius – 12, 92 Aelianus – 12 Aelius Aristides – 45, 53, 99 Aeneas of Gaza (no. 1) – 12, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 32, 37, 40, 54, 94, 104, 105, 108, 120–122, 125 n. 305 Aeneas (no. 2) – 12, 34 Agapetus – 13, 34 Agathias – 130–131 Agrippa I, King of Iudaea – 136–137 Agrippa, M. Flavius of Caesarea – 13, 33, 138 Agrippa, M. Vipsanius – 44 Alexander of Ascalon (no. 1) – 13 Alexander of Caesarea (no. 2) – 13 Alexander of Damascus – 17 Alexander, son of Herod – 48 Alexander the Great – 44, 60, 61 Alexander Jannaeus – 80 Alexandria – 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17, 30, 31, 33, 36, 39, 54, 57, 69, 77, 84, 102–106, 106, 131, 140 Alexio – 67 Alfius Avitus – 132–133 Alypius of Gaza – 13, 24, 34, 36 Ammianus Marcellinus – 22, 139, 147 Ammonius (philosopher) – 54, 101, 102, 103, 104 Ammonius (grammarian) – 72–73 Ammonius Saccas – 102 Anastasius, bishop of Eleutheropolis – 13, 27, 42 Anastasius, Emperor – 33, 34, 38, 96, 100, 131, 149 Anaxertus of Caesarea – 13 Ancyra – 28 Andromachus of Neapolis (no. 1) – 13, 36 Andromachus (no. 2) – 48, 136 n. 11

Andromeda – 43 Andronicus of Hermupolis – 131–132 Anicia Iuliana – 118 Anonymus 1, judge; governor of Palaestina Prima? – 13, 27, 42, 136 n. 9 Anonymus 2, brother of Anonymus 1 – 13, 27, 42 Anonymus 3, student of rhetoric – 42 Anonymus 4, author of expositio totius orbis et gentium – 42, 148 Anonymus 5, lawyer and high official in Gaza – 42 Anonymus 6, lawyer – 42 Anonymus 7, student of rhetoric – 42 Anonymus 8, sophist in Caaesarea Philippi – 43 Anonymus 9, author of hexameter poems – 43 Anonymus 10, actor – 43 Anonymus 11, official of Flavius Boethus – 43 Anthemius of Tralles – 101, 104 Antibius of Ascalon – 13, 65, 74, 84 Antigonus (epigrammatist) – 82 n. 120 Antimenidas – 44 Antioch – 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20, 25, 33, 41, 57, 92, 93, 106, 121, 137, 139 Antiochus of Ascalon (no. 1) – 8, 14, 16, 19, 32, 36, 65, 74, 75, 76–78, 79, 84 Antiochus of Gaza (no. 2) – 14, 34 Antipas – 25, 49, 136 n. 11 Antipater of Damascus – 37 Antipater of Sidon – 62–63, 83, 84, 85, 86 Antipater, son of Herod – 136 n. 11 Antipatros of Ascalon – 61–62 Antiphanes – 82 Antiphon – 91 Antisthenes of Paphos – 62–63 Antonius of Alexandria (active in Gaza) – 14, 107 Antony (M. Antonius) – 48, 137 Apelles of Ascalon – 14–15, 79–80

172

Index

Aphrodite (Ashtarte) – 43, 61, 62, 64 Apollodorus of Pergamum – 37, 70 Apollonides – 15 Apollonius of Ptolemais (no. 1) – 15, 32, 75 Apollonius of Ascalon (no. 2) – 15, 16, 65, 74, 84 Apollonius of Perge – 21, 103, 104 Apollonius of Tyana – 58 Apollonius Dyscolus – 67 Apollonius, son of Theon – 68 Apsines of Gadara – 15–16, 23, 58, 59 Arabs – 23, 94–95, 106 Aradus – 137 Aramaic – 57, 58, 59, 135, 136, 137, 142, 143, 144, 146 n. 58 Archelaus, son of Herod – 136 n. 11 Archimedes – 21, 32, 50, 101–102, 103 Argentarius – 85 Argyrius of Elusa – 16, 41, 92 n. 167 Aristarchus – 65, 67–69 Aristo – 16, 78 Aristobulus (Hasmonaean) – 73 Aristotle – 77 Aristus of Ascalon – 14, 16, 32, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78–79, 84 Arrianus of Petra – 53 Arsenius – 52 Artemidorus of Ascalon – 16, 65, 73–74, 84, 95 Artemidorus (author of Oneirocritica) – 35, 91, 127 Artemidorus (geographer) – 119 Artemon - 91 Ascalon – 35, 44, 57–133, 137 Asclepius Leontuchos – 27, 46, 106, 126–128 Asinius Pollio – 136 Assyria, Assyrian – 60 Athanasius of Alexandria (sophist) – 99 Athens – 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 23, 26, 27, 36, 46, 53, 54, 57, 61, 62, 75, 76–77, 78–79, 84, 85, 87, 102 Augustus – 37, 44, 48, 70 Automedon – 82 Avienus – 132–133 Babylonia, Babylonian – 60, 113, 117 Barochius of Caesarea – 17 Basilicus – 15 Basilides of Scythopolis – 16, 45, 75 Bassus – 17 Beer Sheva – 56 Berytus – 23, 27, 31, 32, 41, 135 n. 2, 139, 140, 141

Besas of Panopolis – 17, 90 Bethlehem – 142, 143, 145 Bithynia – 16, 23, 73–74 Boethus, Flavius of Ptolemais – 17, 43, 45, 136 Brutus, M. Iunius – 14, 16, 78, 79 Bur(r)ichius of Ascalon – 17, 35, 90 Caecilius of Antioch – 44 Caesar, M. Iulius – 137 Caesarea – 15, 22–23, 25, 30, 31–32, 33, 34, 58, 92, 99, 112, 115, 126 n. 307, 137 nn. 12, 15, 138, 140–142, 147–148, 149 Caesarea Philippi – 43 Caligula – 14–15, 79 Callinicus of Petra – 53, 54 Capito (translator of Eutropius) – 31 Carneades – 19, 30, 75 Cassiodorus – 149 Castor – 17, 34 Cato, M. Porcius the Younger – 49 Chalkis (Syria) – 121 Choricius of Gaza – 18, 20, 25, 27, 34, 40, 42, 58, 80 n. 112, 108 Chosroe – 39, 40 Christians, Christianity – 7, 11, 18, 26, 44, 59, 60, 97, 102, 104, 105, 106, 121, 132, 141, 142–143, 144, 146, 147 Christodorus of Coptos – 93–94 Chromatius – 18 Cicero, L. Tullius – 14, 77, 78 Cicero, M. Tullius – 14, 16, 76, 77, 78, 79 Cicero, Q. Tullius – 14, 77, 78 Cilicia – 18, 19 Cimon (Arabius) – 33 Claudianus – 22, 147 Claudius – 137 ‘Clay-Plato’ – 15 Clematius – 18 Cleopatra – 48, 49 Commodianus – 143–144, 147 Constantinople – 12, 14, 20, 23, 31, 32, 40, 41, 42, 57, 94, 101, 102, 106, 110, 118, 140, 149 Constantinus (Emperor) – 144 Constantinus (poet) – 46, 94 Cos – 28 Cosmas of Jerusalem – 18, 21 Craterus of Ascalon – 18, 88, 89, 90 Crates of Mallus – 69 Cratippus of Pergamum – 16, 78 Crinagoras of Lesbos – 9 n. 5, 49 Cyrus of Antinupolis – 131- 132 Damascius – 26, 46, 47, 99 n. 198, 107

Index Damascus – 35, 48 Danaus – 19 Daphne (near Antioch) – 24, 36 Dardanus – 14, 15, 75 David of Alexandria – 102 Dead Sea – 45 Delos – 62–64 Demetrius of Ascalon – 17, 91 Demetrius, son of Andromachus 2 – 48 Demetrius of Gadara – 74 Demosthenes – 57, 95–96, 96–98 Didymus – 67–69 Dio of Alexandria – 16, 19, 75, 78 Dio of Gaza – 19, 32, 75 Diocletian – 43 Diocletianopolis – 128 Diodorus of Gaza – 12, 19, 34 Diogenes of Antioch -12, 24, 104 Diogenes of Phoenicia – 26 Diogenes of Ptolemais – 19, 75 Dionysius of Gaza (no. 1) – 19 Dionysius of Gaza (no. 2) – 19 Dionysus and Heracles, story of – 56 Diophantus – 48 Diphilus – 19 Domnus – 52, 54 Domsalos of Sidon – 61–62 Dora – 65 n. 27 Dorotheus of Ascalon (no. 1) – 19, 57, 65, 66–67, 70, 84 Dorotheus (no. 2) – 20, 34 Dositheus of Pelusium – 50 Dusareius of Petra – 53 Egeria – 142–143 Egypt, Egyptian – 20, 44, 45, 53, 60, 74, 106, 113, 117, 129, 147 Elasius of Diocaesarea – 20 Elegabalus – 26 Eleusis – 35 Eleutheropolis – 88, 150 Elias of Alexandria – 102, 104 Elias of Gaza – 20, 25, 42 Elusa – 92 Emesa – 93 Epiphanius (no. 1) – 20, 34 Epiphanius (no. 2) – 12, 20 Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis – 117 Epiphanius of Petra (no. 3) – 53–54, 96 n. 182 Eratosthenes – 119 Euangelus of Caesarea – 20 Eubius of Ascalon – 20, 65, 74 Eubulus of Antioch – 16

173

Euclides – 27 Eucrates of Gadara – 28 Eudaemon of Elusa (Pelusium) – 20–21, 22 Eudemus – 17 Eudocia – 18, 21, 30, 56 Eudoxia – 21 n. 5 Euenus of Ascalon – 8, 21, 82–87 Euenus of Paros – 86 n. 143 Eumathes of Caesarea – 21, 22, 89 n. 154 Eunomus of Elusa – 21, 92 n. 167 Eusebius of Caesarea – 11, 33, 141 Eusthatius of Caria – 46 Eustochius – 21 Eutocius of Ascalon (no. 1) – 8, 12, 21, 32, 89, 100–106 Eutocius of Caesarea (no. 2) – 21–22, 37, 89–90 Eutocius of Elusa (no. 3) – 22, 90 Eutocius, Thracian soldier – 88, 89, 90, 100 Eutropius of Caesarea – 12, 22–23, 31, 33, 42, 147–148 Eutychius of Caesarea – 23 Filocorus – 91 Fulgentius – 91 Gadara – 8, 16, 23, 37, 44, 46, 56, 58, 59, 70, 81 Gaius of Petra – 53, 54 Gaianus – 23 Galen – 17, 45, 51 Gallienus – 53 Gamaliel – 51 Gamaliel, son of – 52 Gaza; Gaza, School of – 8, 18, 25, 44, 45, 46, 47, 58, 59, 61, 80, 94, 96, 106, 107, 108, 121, 143–144 Gelasius – 23, 38 Gelasius of Caesarea – 33, 146 Gemellus – 48, 136 Genethlius of Petra – 53, 54, 59 Georgius – 23 Germanus – 23 Gessius of Petra – 12, 20, 34, 35, 40, 52, 54–55 Gregorius Thaumaturgus - 140 Gregory Nazianzen – 38 Hadrian – 44–45, 73 Hadrian of Tyre – 17, 45, 53 Halityrus – 35, 50 Harmenopulos – 109–115 Hasmonaeans – 60 Helicon (freedman) – 15, 79

174

Index

Heliodorus (author of Aethiopica) – 58 Heliopolis – 135 n. 2 Helladius – 131 Helpidius of Caesarea – 23, 92 n. 166 Heracles of Alexandria – 26 Heraclides of Smyrna – 15 Heraclides of Miletus – 68 Heraclitus of Tyre – 76, 78 Herennius Philo – 16, 73 Hermeias – 102 Hermias of Hermupolis – 131 Hermias of Phoenicia – 26 Hermogenes – 24, 31–32, 36, 99, 141 Herod – 25, 35, 44, 48–49, 50, 60, 70–73, 74, 80 Herod Antipas – see Antipas Herod of Chalkis – 137 Herodian (scholiast) – 67–70 Herodium – 48 n. 26 Herodotus – 44, 61, 64 Hezekiah – 60 Hierius of Gaza – 12, 13, 24, 34, 36, 140 Hierocles of Alexandria – 12, 105, 121 Hieronymus of Elusa (no. 1) – 24, 92 n. 167 Hieronymus of Elusa (no. 2) – 24, 34 Hilarion – 144 Hilarius – 24, 92 n. 166, 136 n. 9 Hippodromus of Thessaly – 15 Hippolytus and Phaedra, story of – 23, 56 Hippos – 58 Horace – 14 Horapollon (grammarian) – 131 Hypatia – 102 Hypatius of Phoenicia – 24, 92 n. 166, 136 n. 9 Hyrcanus II – 73, 137 Iamblichus – 46 Iamnia - 73 Idumaeans – 71, 72 Iohannes (no. 3) – 12, 24–25, 34 Iohannes of Caesarea (no. 1) – 24, 31, 99 n. 199, 141 n. 34 Iohannes of Caesarea (no. 5) – 25 Iohannes of Gaza (no. 6) – 20, 25, Iohannes of Gaza (no. 7) – 23, 25, 34, 94, 108 Iohannes of Gaza (no. 8) – 25, 58 Iohannes of Scythopolis (no. 2) – 24 Iohannes of Scythopolis (no. 4) – 25 Irenaeus – 25–26, 49 Isidorus (no. 1) – 26, 34 Isidorus of Athens (no. 3) – 46, 47, 103 n. 216, 107 Isidorus of Gaza (no. 2) – 26, 107 Isidorus of Miletus – 101, 104

Isidorus of Miletus the Younger – 101 Isis – 106, 128 Isocrates – 98 Iudaeophobia – see Jews, Jewish Iudas – 51 Iulia of Antioch – 46 Iulianus of Ascalon (no. 1) – 8, 12, 26, 104, 105, 109–125, 141 Iulianus of Caesarea (no. 2) – 26 Iulius Africanus – 26, 127 Iullus – 27 Iustus of Tiberias – 50–51 Jaffa (Ioppe) – 45, 58, 73 Jerome – 11, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146 Jerusalem; Jerusalem, Temple of – 15, 26, 34, 44, 45, 48, 58, 117, 118, 126 n. 307, 137, 142–143, 147–148 Jews, Jewish – 7, 8, 11, 15, 28, 29, 29–30, 34, 35, 44, 49, 50–52, 57, 59, 60, 70–73, 73–74, 79–80, 113, 115–116, 128–129, 135, 136–137, 138, 141–142, 143 Jordan – 45 Joseph – 91, 128 n. 314 Josephus Flavius – 13, 51 Judaism – see Jews, Jewish Judas Maccabaeus – 53 Julian of Ascalon – see Iulianus Julian (Emperor) – 117 Julius (of Caesarea?) – 36 Justin II – 131 Justinian – 8, 26, 120, 131 Latin – 132–133, 135–150 Leo VI, the Wise – 110 Leonidas of Tarentum – 83, 84, 85, 86 Leontius – 27, 136 n. 9 Libanius – 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 24, 27, 32, 33, 38, 39, 41, 46, 51, 52, 54, 59 n. 12, 92, 93, 139 Lucullus, L. Licinius – 14, 16, 77, 78, 79 Lysias – 97, 98 Macarius – 27, 42, 100 Maccius – 85 Marcellinus of Paneas – 56 Marcianus of Gaza – 13, 18, 27, 33, 42 Marcus Aurelius – 16, 17, 45, 75 Marianus of Eleutheropolis – 27, 104, 130–133, 150 Marinus of Neapolis – 8, 27–28, 39, 102–103, 107, 126 Marissa – 56

Index Marnas of Gaza – 27, 46, 106, 126 Martialis of Samaria – 28 Maximus of Raphiah – 28 Maximus, T. Flavius – 28 Melania the Elder – 142 Melania the Younger – 142 Meleager of Gadara – 8, 11, 28–29, 32, 37, 57, 58, 59, 64, 70, 81 Menippus of Gadara – 8, 28, 29, 37, 58, 59 Minucianus of Athens – 54 Mithridates – 77 Mnesarchus – 14, 15, 75 Mt. Carmel – 43, 44 Muslim (Arab) conquest – 59, 60, 120 Myron – 83 Mytilene – 40 Naples – 62–63 Narses of Ascalon – 29 Neapolis - 126 n. 307 Nebuchadnezzar – 44, 60 Nestorius (no. 2) – 29 Nestorius of Gaza (no. 1) – 29 Nicander – 127 Nicanor of Alexandria – 67 Nicolaus of Damascus – 48–49, 50, 72 Nicomedia – 13, 15 Nicopolis (Emmaus) – 26 Nilus – 29, 34 Noesius of Scythopolis – 29 Nonnus – 25, 56, 132 Obodianus of Antioch – 16 Oenomaus of Gadara – 8 n. 4, 29, 29–30, 37 Old Religion – 11, 14, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107, 147 Olympianus - 95 Olympicus of Gaza – 19, 30, 32, 75 Olympiodorus of Alexandria – 102, 103, 104 Olympiodorus of Athens – 30 Olympiodorus of Gaza – 19, 30, 32, 75 Olympiodorus of Thebes – 27 Olympus – 49 Optimus – 21, 30 Origenes – 141 Orion (no. 2) – 30, 34 Orion of Caesarea (no. 1) – 21, 30, 58 Orosius – 142 Ostracina – 49 Ovid – 83, 84 Paeanius of Caesarea – 12, 22, 31, 33, 42, 147, 148

175

Pagan, paganism – see Old Religion Palladius (no. 1) – 31 Palladius (no. 2) – 31 Pamphilus of Caesarea – 141 Panaetius – 36, 76, 84 Pancratius – 31 Panegyrius – 31, 92 n. 166 Parmenion – 82 Patriarch, Jewish – 24, 33 Paul the Deacon – 149 Paula – 142 Paulinus of Scythopolis – 31, 45 Paulus of Caesarea – 24, 31–32, 99 n. 199, 141 n. 34 Pausanias – 45 Pausanias of Damascus – 16 n. 1 Pelagius – 142 Pelusium – 44 Pergamum – 69 Persia, Persian – 60 Petra – 53–54 Petrus of Caesarea – 32 Petrus, friend of Eutocius – 101, 104 Phanebal – 129 Philip, son of Herod – 136 n. 11 Philippus of Gaza – 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 97 Philippus of Thessalonica – 82, 85 Philistines - 60 Philo of Gadara – 32 Philo Iudaeus – 14, 79–80 Philo of Larissa – 76–77 Philodemus of Gadara – 8, 11, 32, 64, 74–75, 76 n. 93, 77, 81 Philostratus, sophist and Academic philosopher – 49 Philostratus of Ascalon – 62–64, 84 Phoebammon – 131 Phoenicia, Phoenician – 11, 46, 58, 61–62, 71, 73 Pilgrim of Bordeaux – 142 Piso, M. Pupius – 14, 78 Plato – 50, 77, 90 Plotinus – 31 Plutarch – 136 Polemon - 53 Polybius (son of Priscianus 1) – 32, 33, 92 n. 166 Pompey, Cn. Pompeius Magnus – 73–74, 135 Pontius Pilatus – 137 n. 15 Ponton – 32 Porphyry, bishop of Gaza – 46 Poseidon – 62 Posidonius – 119

176

Index

Potamon of Mytilene – 9 n. 5, 37 Praxiteles – 83 Priscianus (no. 1) – 32–33, 92 n. 166, 136 n. 9 Priscianus of Caesarea (no. 2) – 22, 33, 34, 38, 42, 100 n. 205, 148–150 Priscio – 33, 92 n. 166 Proclus (no. 2) – 27, 30, 46, 102, 106–107 Proclus of Naucratis (no. 1) – 8 n. 4, 17, 45 Procopius of Caesarea (no. 2) – 8, 11, 34, 149 Procopius of Gaza (no. 1) – 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33–34, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 54, 58, 94, 97, 100 n. 205, 108, 130 n. 331, 140, 141, 149 Procopius of Gaza (no. 3) – 20, 25, 34 Prohaeresius – 54, 92 Ptolemies – 60 Ptolemaeus (no. 2) – 34, 35 Ptolemaeus of Ascalon (no. 1) – 34, 57, 65, 67–73, 74, 84, 94 Ptolemaeus of Damascus (no. 4) – 49, 71 n. 61 Ptolemaeus of Gaza (no. 3) – 35, 64 n.25 Ptolemais (Acre) – 44, 45, 59, 80, 135 n. 2 Pylades, M. Aurelius of Scythopolis – 35, 45, 51, 80 n. 112 Pythagoras – 44 Rabban Gamliel – 8 n. 4, 45 R. Abbahu – 21–22, 89 R. Judah the Patriarch – 7 n. 1 R. Meir – 8 n. 4 Romanus of Mampsis – 35 Rome – 17, 35, 45, 48, 67, 77, 78, 79, 80, 84, 129, 130–133, 137, 138, 139, 142 Romulus, Pyramid of – 129 Rufinus of Antioch, architect – 46 Rufinus of Antioch, grammarian – 139, 147 Rufinus of Aquileia – 143, 146 Rufus of Ephesus – 51 Rufus of Gophna – 56 Rufus of Samaria – 51 Sallustius (Samaritan) – 52 Samaritan, Samaritans – 11, 50–52, 142, 143 Sapricius of Ascalon – 17, 35, 90 Saraphia – 128 Scythopolis, Scythians – 15–16, 45, 58, 59 Sebaste – 58 Second Sophistic – 8 Seleucids – 60 Serapion of Ascalon – 35, 91–92, 108 Serapis – 91, 128–129 Serenus (Phoenicarch) – 35 Serenus (grammarian) – 132

Severus (no. 1) – 35 Severus (no. 2) – 35 Severus Alexander – 26 Severus of Antioch – 25, 35 Shuni-Miamas – 126 n. 307 Sidon, Sidonian – 64, 66, 137 Silvanus – 52 Simon b. Shatach – 59 n. 14 Siricius of Neapolis – 13, 36 Smyrna – 15 Sophronius – 145 Sophronius of Jerusalem – 29 Sosianus of Caesarea – 36 Sosus of Ascalon – 14, 16, 32, 36, 65, 75–76, 84 Sozomenus – 36 Sporus of Nicaea – 32 Stephanus (no. 2) – 24, 34, 36, Stephanus (no. 3) – 13, 24, 34, 36, Stephanus of Alexandria – 102 Stephanus of Eleutheropolis – 37 Stephanus of Gaza (no. 1) – 36 Strabo – 44, 119, 120 Straton’s Tower – 58 Sulla, L. Cornelius – 14, 79 Symmachus – 52 Syria, Syrians, Coele-Syria – 28, 44, 45, 46, 53, 58, 59, 70, 71, 74, 127 Tamar, adulterous woman – 89 Teanum (Campania) – 36, 84 Teles, Cynic - 37 Thalassus – 21, 22, 37, 89 n. 154 Theandrites – 46, 106 Thebes (Egypt) – 17, 90 Theoctistus – 33, 150 Theodorus (no. 2) – 37 Theodorus (no. 5) – 47 Theodorus of Caesarea (no. 4) – 38 Theodorus of Gadara (no. 1) – 29, 37, 58, 70, 71 Theodorus of Smyrna (no. 3) – 37 Theodorus, pupil of Priscianus 1 – 149 Theodotus – 54 Theodulus – 23, 38 Theognis – 86, 87 Theon – 34, 38, 97, 99 Theon of Alexandria – 102, 103 n. 216 Theophanes of Mitylene – 9 n. 5, 74 Theophilus – 38 Theotecnus Himerius of Ascalon – 17, 91 Thespesius – 38 Thomas (no. 2) – 34, 38, 136 n. 9

Index Thomas of Gaza (no. 1) – 38 Tiberias - 126 n. 307, 141 Tiberius – 37, 70 Tigranes – 77 Timotheus of Gaza (no. 1) – 34, 38–39, 94, 100 n. 205, 108, 149 Timotheus of Gaza (no. 2) – 39 Tribunus – 39 Tullius Geminus – 82 Tyre, Tyrians – 28, 44, 46, 60, 64 n. 25, 137 Ulpianus of Ascalon (no. 1) – 12, 39, 40, 54, 92–96, 99 Ulpianus of Gaza (no. 2) – 26, 27, 39 Ulpianus of Tyre - 58 Uranius – 39–40, 94, 136 n. 9 Varro, M. Terentius – 14, 78 Vespasian – 15, 80 Victor of Gaza – 32, 33, 36, 40

177

Xenophon – 119 Zacharias of Gaza (no. 1) – 12, 26, 36, 40, 41, 54, 105, 108, 140 Zacharias of Gaza (no. 2) – 40 Zacharias of Gaza (no. 3) – 32, 33, 34, 36, 40, 41 Zeno of Citium – 77 Zeno (Emperor) – 96, 120 Zenobia – 53 Zenobius of Elusa (no. 1) – 16, 32, 41, 92 Zenobius of Elusa (no. 2) – 16, 41, 92 n. 167 Zenodorus of Gaza – 41 Zonaeus – 12, 34, 41 Zonas – 82, 85 Zosimus (no. 3) – 27, 34, 42 Zosimus of Ascalon (no. 2) – 12, 38, 41, 96–99, 149 Zosimus of Gaza (no. 1) – 41, 96 Zosimus, author of New History (no. 4) – 41, 42, 97, 99–100, 149

historia

–

einzelschriften

Herausgegeben von Kai Brodersen, Mortimer Chambers, Martin Jehne, François Paschoud und Aloys Winterling.

Franz Steiner Verlag

ISSN 0341–0056

180. Thomas Heine Nielsen (Hg.) Once Again: Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (Papers from the Copenhagen Polis Centre 7) 2004. 202 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08438-3 181. Gideon Maier Amtsträger und Herrscher in der Romania Gothica Vergleichende Untersuchungen zu den Institutionen der ostgermanischen Völkerwanderungsreiche 2005. 363 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08505-2 182. David Whitehead / P. H. Blyth Athenaeus Mechanicus, On Machines (Peri; mhcanhmavtwn) Translated with Introduction and Commentary 2004. 236 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08532-8 183. Wolfgang Blösel Themistokles bei Herodot: Spiegel Athens im fünften Jahrhundert Studien zur Geschichte und historiographischen Konstruktion des griechischen Freiheitskampfes 480 v. Chr. 2004. 422 S. mit 2 Ktn., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-08533-5 184. Klaus Scherberich Koinè symmachía Untersuchungen zum Hellenenbund Antigonos’ III. Doson und Philipps V. (224–197 v. Chr.) 2009. 254 S., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-09406-1 185. Stephan Berrens Sonnenkult und Kaisertum von den Severern bis zu Constantin I. (193–227 n. Chr.) 2004. 283 S., 2 Taf., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08575-5 186. Norbert Geske Nikias und das Volk von Athen im Archidamischen Krieg

187.

188.

189.

190.

191.

192.

193.

2005. 224 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08566-3 Christopher L. H. Barnes Images and Insults Ancient Historiography and the Outbreak of the Tarentine War 2005. 170 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08689-9 Massimiliano Vitiello Momenti di Roma ostrogota aduentus, feste, politica 2005. 162 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08688-2 Klaus Freitag / Peter Funke / Matthias Haake (Hg.) Kult – Politik – Ethnos Überregionale Heiligtümer im Spannungsfeld von Kult und Politik 2006. 287 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08718-6 Jens Uwe Krause / Christian Witschel (Hg.) Die Stadt in der Spätantike – Niedergang oder Wandel? Akten des internationalen Kolloquiums in München am 30. und 31. Mai 2003 2006. 492 S. mit 42 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08810-7 Heinz Heinen Vom hellenistischen Osten zum römischen Westen Ausgewählte Schriften zur Alten Geschichte. Hg. von Andrea Binsfeld und Stefan Pfeiffer 2006. XXVIII, 553 S. mit Frontisp. und 34 Abb., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-08740-7 Itzhak F. Fikhman Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft im spätantiken Ägypten Kleine Schriften. Hg. von Andrea Jördens unter Mitarb. von Walter Sperling 2006. XVIII, 380 S. mit Frontisp. und 2 Farbktn., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-08876-3 Adalberto Giovannini Les relations entre états dans

la Grèce antique Du temps d’Homère à l’intervention romaine (ca. 700–200 av. J.-C.) 2007. 445 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08953-1 194. Michael B. Charles Vegetius in Context Establishing the Date of the Epitoma Rei Militaris 2007. 205 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08989-0 195. Clemens Koehn Krieg – Diplomatie – Ideologie Zur Außenpolitik hellenistischer Mittelmeerstaaten 2007. 248 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08990-6 196. Kay Ehling Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der späten Seleukiden (164–63 v. Chr.) Vom Tode des Antiochos IV. bis zur Einrichtung der Provinz Syria unter Pompeius 2007. 306 S. mit 1 Kte. und 1 Falttaf. in einer Tasche, kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09035-3 197. Stephanie L. Larson Tales of Epic Ancestry Boiotian Collective Identity in the Late Archaic and Early Classical Periods 2007. 238 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09028-5 198. Mogens Herman Hansen (Hg.) The Return of the Polis The Use and Meanings of the Word Polis in Archaic and Classical Sources (Papers from the Copenhagen Polis Centre 8) 2007. 276 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09054-4 199. Volker Grieb Hellenistische Demokratie Politische Organisation und Struktur in freien griechischen Poleis nach Alexander dem Großen 2008. 407 S., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-09063-6 200. Cristina Rosillo López La corruption à la fin de la République romaine (IIe–Ier s. av. J.-C.) Aspects politiques et financiers 2010. 276 S., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-09127-5 201. Manuel Tröster Themes, Character, and Politics

in Plutarch’s Life of Lucullus The Construction of a Roman Aristocrat 2008. 206 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09124-4 202. David D. Phillips Avengers of Blood Homicide in Athenian Law and Custom from Draco to Demosthenes 2008. 279 S., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-09123-7 203. Vassiliki Pothou La place et le rôle de la digression dans l’œuvre de Thucydide 2009. 189 S., 2 Taf., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-09193-0 204. Iris Samotta Das Vorbild der Vergangenheit Geschichtsbild und Reformvorschläge bei Cicero und Sallust 2009. 506 S., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-09167-1 205. Efrem Zambon Tradition and Innovation Sicily between Hellenism and Rome 2008. 326 S., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-09194-7 206. Susanne Carlsson Hellenistic Democracies Freedom, Independence and Political Procedure in Some East Greek City-States 2010. 372 S. mit 2 Abb., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-09265-4 207. Adam Schwartz Reinstating the Hoplite Arms, Armour and Phalanx Fighting in Archaic and Classical Greece 2013. 337 S. mit 19 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-10398-5 208. Elizabeth A. Meyer Metics and the Athenian Phialai-Inscriptions A Study in Athenian Epigraphy and Law 2010. 167 S. und 47 Taf., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-09331-6 209. Margret Dissen Römische Kollegien und deutsche Geschichtswissenschaft im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert 2009. 337 S., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-09387-3 210. Joachim Szidat Usurpator tanti nominis Kaiser und Usurpator in der Spätantike (337–476 n. Chr.)

211.

212.

213.

214.

215.

216.

217.

218.

2010. 458 S., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-09636-2 Armin Eich (Hg.) Die Verwaltung der kaiserzeitlichen römischen Armee Studien für Hartmut Wolff 2010. 210 S. mit 4 Abb., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-09420-7 Stefan Pfeiffer Der römische Kaiser und das Land am Nil Kaiserverehrung und Kaiserkult in Alexandria und Ägypten von Augustus bis Caracalla (30 v. Chr. – 217 n. Chr.) 2010. 378 S., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-09650-8 M. A. Robb Beyond Populares and Optimates Political Language in the Late Republic 2010. 225 S., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-09643-0 Kai Brodersen / Jaś Elsner (ed.) Images and Texts on the “Artemidorus Papyrus” Working Papers on P. Artemid. (St. John’s College Oxford, 2008) 2009. 169 S. mit 70 Abb., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-09426-9 Eberhard Ruschenbusch (†) Solon: Das Gesetzeswerk – Fragmente Übersetzung und Kommentar Hrsg. v. Klaus Bringmann 2010. 168 S. mit Frontispiz, geb. ISBN 978-3-515-09709-3 David Whitehead Apollodorus Mechanicus: Siege-matters (Poliorkhtikav) Translated with Introduction and Commentary 2010. 162 S. mit 6 Abb., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-09710-9 Bernhard Linke / Mischa Meier / Meret Strothmann (Hg.) Zwischen Monarchie und Republik Gesellschaftliche Stabilisierungsleistungen und politische Transformationspotentiale in den antiken Stadtstaaten 2010. 236 S., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-09782-6 Julia Hoffmann-Salz Die wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen der römischen Eroberung Vergleichende Untersuchungen der

219.

220.

221.

222.

223.

224.

225.

226.

227. 228.

Provinzen Hispania Tarraconensis, Africa Proconsularis und Syria 2011. 561 S. mit 26 Tab. und 3 Ktn., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-09847-2 Dirk Schnurbusch Convivium Form und Bedeutung aristokratischer Geselligkeit in der römischen Antike 2011. 314 S., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-09860-1 Gabriel Herman (ed.) Stability and Crisis in the Athenian Democracy 2011. 165 S. mit 3 Tab., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-09867-0 Christoph Lundgreen Regelkonflikte in der römischen Republik Geltung und Gewichtung von Normen in politischen Entscheidungsprozessen 2011. 375 S., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-09901-1 James H. Richardson The Fabii and the Gauls Studies in historical thought and historiography in Republican Rome 2012. 186 S., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-10040-3 Jan Bernhard Meister Der Körper des Princeps Zur Problematik eines monarchischen Körpers ohne Monarchie 2012. 327 S., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-10080-9 Federicomaria Muccioli Gli epiteti ufficiali dei re ellenistici 2013. 526 S., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-10126-4 Claudia Horst Marc Aurel Philosophie und politische Macht zur Zeit der Zweiten Sophistik 2013. 232 S., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-10280-3 Maria Osmers „Wir aber sind damals und jetzt immer die gleichen“ Vergangenheitsbezüge in der polisübergreifenden Kommunikation der klassischen Zeit 2013. 407 S., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-10299-5 in Vorbereitung in Vorbereitung

While Jewish Palestine has been at the focus of scholarly interest, Greek Palestine has not yet received similar attention. This book attempts to investigate the intellectual life in that country in the Hellenistic world and in the Roman Empire. The two perspectives taken are a full prosopographical survey of Greek intellectuals in ancient Palestine and an in-depth study of the Greek intellectuals in one particular city, Ascalon. A survey of the penetration of Latin among the educated Greek-speaking inhabitants of the country concludes the book.

Joseph Geiger (DPhil Oxon, Shalom Horowitz Professor of Classics Emeritus, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem) is the author of over one hundred learned articles, ranging from historiography and biography to intellectual history, with forays into Talmudic studies and classical topics in art and literature. His books include Cornelius Nepos and Ancient Political Biography, Masada II: The Latin and Greek Documents (with H. M. Cotton), and The First Hall of Fame: A Study of the Statues of the Forum Augustum. He was Visiting Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and Visiting Professor at Heidelberg and Yale.

www.steiner-verlag.de Franz Steiner Verlag

isbn 978-3-515-10617-7

9

7 83 5 1 5 1 06 1 7 7