Greek Ethnic Terminology [online ed.] 019726428X, 9780197264287

Citation preview

Title Pages

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

Title Pages A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names (p.i) Greek Ethnic Terminology (p.iii) Greek Ethnic Terminology Supplementary Volume (p.ii)

(p.iv) Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © The British Academy 2009 Database right The British Academy (maker) First published 2009 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

Page 1 of 2

Title Pages stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of the British Academy, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Publications Department, The British Academy, 10 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y5AH You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library ofCongress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available Typeset by J&L Composition, Scarborough, North Yorkshire Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Cromwell Press Group Trowbridge, Wiltshire ISBN 978-0-19-726428-7

Page 2 of 2

Dedication

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

Dedication (p.v) For E. M. (p.vi)

Page 1 of 1

Author’s Preface

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

(p.ix) Author’s Preface THIS ESSAY IS AN ATTEMPT at an analysis both of documentary evidence for Greek ethnic terminology, based on a combination of documentary and general literary evidence, and the evidence of Stephanus of Byzantium’s epitomised Ethnika. The topic may not appear likely to be rewarding in itself, and, in any case, it may seem presumptuous or premature to undertake a partial analysis of the surviving Epitome of Stephanus, as a more general part of the study of ethnic and associated grammatical forms, when it has been known for at least three generations that a new edition of the text, to replace that published in 1849 as the first of two volumes by August Meineke, was in preparation. The need for a new edition had already been emphasised more than a century ago: in the introduction to his inaugural dissertation on Stephanus (1886), Johannes Geffcken wrote: ‘Neque equidem dubitaverim, si novus post Meinekii editionem prodibit quando Stephanus—id quod mox fortasse fiet—quin his ipsis quas dixi opibus auctus futurus sit’ (i.e. by the use of the Etymologica). Meineke’s edition of 1849, based on the Aldina of 1502, contains a remarkably full apparatus, replete with acute observations, but his collation of manuscripts was not complete (see ibid.), and he had only a limited knowledge of the associated Etymologica; and the commentary he had hoped to publish never appeared (though he announced it as forthcoming in the Preface to volume i, and did not die until 1870). Death has also claimed several of those successively designated as editors of the new edition, which was itself publicly announced as in preparation in 1938: Grumach, and then Keydell, to name but two, were named as the future editors.1 The work is now (2006) (p.x) continuing under a new editor, Professor Margarete Billerbeck (Fribourg in Schweiz and the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton).2 It is admittedly a pernicious and perilous practice to make use of, let alone analyse, an antiquated edition of an author, when a new edition is known to be in preparation. My excuse must be that long familiarity with Meineke’s text (I observe that I bought my own copy in May 1950) has taught me to respect his editorial skill in this, as indeed in every field in which he worked, and our understanding of Stephanus is (i believe) based to a large degree on Meineke’s acumen. At the same time, publication, or republication, of many of the associated texts, particularly parts of various Etymologica, and of other texts that are relevant to the study of the Epitome, has helped our evaluation of Stephanus in ways which were not available to Meineke. To give but three examples out of many: Reitzenstein’s outstanding Geschichte der griechischen Etymologika, published in 1897, marks an epoch in the understanding of lexicographical texts in general, and of the role of oros (below, p. 298) in particular. On the epigraphical side i have been able to use the third edition of IG I, for the texts of Athenian Tribute, and other relevant texts for which Meineke could use only what might be found in CIG Page 1 of 4

Author’s Preface or had been communicated to him personally by Augustus Boeckh. For the large number of historians and pseudo-historians Felix Jacoby’s Fragmente have been available, while Meineke could only use C. Müller’s Fragmenta, and finally, for the Suda A. Adler’s edition has greatly simplified the use of that text. Thus much (and much more) of the ancillary material necessary for the new commentary on Stephanus lies ready to hand in published form. For research in all this material much credit must go to my friend, the late Aubrey Diller. Continued interest in the Ethnika has recently become apparent in a new area of studies, that of the development of the Greek polis, until the time of Alexander the Great, now published by an international group of ancient historians based in Copenhagen under the vigilant eye and lively enthusiasm of Mogens Herman Hansen. The immediately relevant result of this research programme is a paper by D. Whitehead on ‘Sub-classification and reliability in Stephanus of Byzantium’ (see n. 1 above, and below, p. 16, n. 2, for the Inventory, esp. pp. 58–69 of that work on ethnics as evidence for polis identity). Meineke’s textual notes show that he placed considerable value on the work of the old editors, and in particular on the previous edition which contained a significant commentary, that of Abraham Berkel, published (p.xi) in 1688 and 1694, a variorum edition of which (reprinted in 1725) contains the notes and collations of earlier editors, notably of Gronovius, as well as Berkel’s own numerous corrections and suggestions. It is an elaborate edition, worthy of careful study, and i have long enjoyed the secret pleasure of possessing Mark Pattison’s copy. The subsequent edition, of Westermann (1839), did little to advance the text, since (for reasons beyond his control) it provides no apparatus criticus, but it contains a number of acceptable corrections, and an introduction which includes, among other things, a discussion of the biographical data for Stephanus, and a convenient list (not provided by Meineke as an ensemble) of all the passages in Eustathius in which that wordy exegete quoted either the full Stephanus or an (or the) epitomator. It is not only Meineke to whom i owe a great debt. My debt to Wilhelm Dittenberger must also be stressed here. In Hermes of 1906 and 1907 Dittenberger wrote a series of articles, totalling almost two hundred pages, which he did not live to complete.3 These cover principally one aspect of the subject, the relationship between the forms of the ethnic and the ktetic adjectives, and especially the use of the ethnic form for the ktetic when the latter has the suffix -ικoς and the former that in -ιoς (i.e. the so-called o-stems). The articles are, as might be expected, an outstandingly thorough and well-documented study, though the fact that the author, whether writing in German or Latin, had little use for either paragraphs or footnotes (the former embodied in the text, the latter limited mostly to short but decisive asides) demands considerable stamina in the reader. But those who persevere are immeasurably enriched by these subtle, dense pages. Reading and rereading them over the years has convinced me that, in spite of the fact that most of the references to inscriptions and to some literary corpora are now superseded, it would fulfil no scholarly purpose to re-serve this splendid menu under another name. I have therefore only given a sketch of the relationship between ethnics and ktetics, and in doing so have attempted to stress points where the material evidence has increased and Dittenberger’s views stand in need of modification. In any case, the entries of Stephanus (p.xii) form one focal point of my enquiry, whereas Dittenberger attempted no specific analysis of the ’Eθνικά, though he made very pertinent remarks about the entries in it when he thought it necessary.

Page 2 of 4

Author’s Preface The only overall study of Stephanus in the past century, that of Honigmann in Pauly-Wissowa (RE, Stephanos (12) (1927)), is already eighty years old (his remarkably full bibliography does not extend beyond 1921); it is particularly valuable in the analysis of the manuscript tradition. Since that date, the publication of new documentary material has inevitably affected our picture of the text of Stephanus. Much of this has been due to the late Louis Robert, at every point of his research,4 and one can only praise the thoroughness and acuteness of his investigations, especially in the analysis and application of numismatic evidence, and the force of his criticisms of misconceived and misapplied notions. Unfortunately (if perhaps wisely) he did not set out to present an overall study of Stephanus, about whom, however, he wrote much that served to enlighten and to correct existing views. The above paragraphs do not, i hope, give the reader the impression that this work is intended to supply a generalised and up-to-date treatment of the ’Eθνικά́. That must await the completion of the new edition by Professor Billerbeck. It is intended to be a contribution to the historical understanding of the term that we traditionally call an ‘ethnic’, and of the variations and changes in its public and private use. However, by linking Stephanus and the complex literary and grammatical traditions which he records or reflects, on the one hand, and the documentary evidence on the other, into a single picture of the variations of usage in the long period between the Homeric age, and the later Roman Empire (but excluding, for the most part, the Byzantine evidence) we may hope to shed light not only, as Dittenberger in part did, on the linguistic aspects of ethnic definition, but also on the varying Greek attitudes to the concepts of ethnicity and citizenship. The topic can hardly claim to be termed ‘historical’ in the conventional sense, but i hope, nevertheless, that it may provide documentation of use to ‘classical scholars’ and ‘historians’ alike. Since the first part is concerned largely with historical aspects of the use of ethnics, the repetitive quotation of a large amount of scattered epigraphical material has been inevitable. (p.xiii) In Appendix 1 I have tried to give a full and coordinated list of homonymous eponymous cities (and their ethnics) as recorded in the Epitome, and (in so far as I could hope to do so) in documentary evidence. The present situation makes it particularly difficult to follow the intricacies of the ancient evidence: new material is continually coming to light, especially in Turkey, and I hope that the list of such cities will help especially those who come unprepared into that minefield, even though it covers only material emerging from, or dependent on, Stephanus: the book of Getzel M. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor (Berkeley and oxford, 1995) provides the student with all that he is likely to need in the regions covered, with detailed discussions of all aspects of the evidence. The other appendices concern particular aspects of the various themes, and reference is made to them in the body of the work as necessary. I should add at this point that, after long consideration, I finally decided not to include in the book a chapter on ‘false ethnics’, since they are a particular (though not quite exclusive) feature of Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, and do not affect the basic significance of the use of the true Greek ethnic. Most of what the reader requires in this respect he will now find conveniently assembled in C. A. La’da, Foreign Ethnics in Hellenistic Egypt, Studia Hellenistica, 38; Prosopographia Ptolemaica, 10 (Leuven, 2002). It is a great pleasure to me that this book can be published as a companion-volume to the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, even though in terms of the publication it deals only with the material available in volumes I-VA of that work. I have, however, also used, where possible, the material at present available to the Lexicon and elsewhere in publications relating to Asia Minor

Page 3 of 4

Author’s Preface that we have already scrutinised, but on which we are still at work. That this volume can be so published is due in large part to the warm support that I have received in its final preparation for publication (as well as for a number of characteristic comments) from a friend of many years’ standing, Simon Hornblower, to whom I wish here to express my most affectionate thanks. Nor must I fail to acknowledge my indebtedness to Dr Charles Crowther, Lecturer in Greek Epigraphy at oxford, for generous expenditure of his expert knowledge of computer technology, and to Maggy Sasanow for her unfailing patience in rendering into readable form a great deal of untidily presented material. I cannot close this brief introduction without expressing my profound indebtedness to Elaine Matthews of St Hilda’s College, my colleague in the editorship of the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, for her staunch support and fruitful initiatives in so much of our work, (p.xiv) for some thirty years. Without her boundless energy and skill there would have been no ‘LGPN’, and the worldwide study of ancient Greek society would have been much the poorer. To her, with her agreement, this book is dedicated. P. M. F. Oxford, July 2006 Notes: (1) Meineke gave a straightforward account of the limitations of his work of collation in his preface; see also Honigmann, RE, s.v. Stephanos (12), cols. 2395 ff. Aubrey Diller provided a detailed specimen revision of the main manuscripts in ‘The tradition of Stephanus Byzantius’, TAPA 69 (1938), 333–48, reprinted in his collected papers, Studies in Greek Manuscript Tradition (Amsterdam, 1983), pp. 183–98. For aspects of recent work on Stephanus see most recently D. Whitehead (ed.), From Political Architecture to Stephanus Byzantius: Sources for the Ancient Greek Polis, Historia Einzelschriften, 87 (1994), p. 101, nn. Whitehead’s article (ibid., pp. 99–124) covers several points raised by me, but my conclusions have been reached independently of his more restricted enquiry; for the most part he has treated Stephanus as a self-sufficient text. For a criticism of this approach, see below, p. 16, n. 2. (2) This work (abbreviated as Bill. or Billerbeck) has now covered the first three letters of the alphabet; see below, Additional Preface, p. xv. (3) See the editorial note in Hermes, 42 (1908), 161*: ‘Aus dem Nachlass des ausgezeichneten Gelehrten, dem unsere Zeitschrift so viele vorzügliche Beiträge verdankt, bringen wir hier noch einen vierten Abschnitt der Ethnika, in dem nichts oder nur wenig zu fehlen scheint. Von einem fünften, in dem die Resultate zusammengefasst werden sollten, hat sich nichts gefunden.’ For an earlier paper of Dittenberger on the Greek forms of Roman names, in Hermes, 6 (1872), see below, p. 221, n. 19. Dittenberger’s 1906 and 1907 articles are cited below as Dittenberger (1906) and (1907). (4) In my very frequent references to his Opera Minora Selecta I have usually inserted the date of the original article, since for a number of reasons it is important to view all aspects of his tremendous achievement within its correct chronological framework.

Page 4 of 4

Additional Preface

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

(p.xv) Additional Preface PETER FRASER DIED on 15 September 2007, aged eighty-nine. He had been diagnosed with cancer in early 2006, and did no further work on the present book after the summer of that year. At his wish, I have seen it through the press. There were references (ancient and modern) in need of filling in, and unexplained abbreviations in need of expansion. There was also some repetition between chapters, which I have sought to eliminate, without sacrificing anything which I felt the author would have wanted to keep. Fraser gave and left no instructions about indexing, so I have done what seemed best to me. I should mention two decisions in particular which I have made. (1) Fraser was aware, as the Author’s Preface above shows, that M. Billerbeck’s edition of Stephanus of Byzantium was forthcoming. Her first volume, containing α to γ, duly appeared in 2006, but Fraser was not able to include references to it, though I assume he would have done, if his health had permitted. I have therefore added such references. (Stephanus’ order of entries is not always strictly alphabetical: below, p. 291, n. 17.) (2) In a more serious intervention, I have in 2008 gone through the long Appendix 1 (‘Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others’), adding references to Getzel M. Cohen’s two books on the Hellenistic city-settlements, here abbreviated as Cohen 1 and Cohen 2. Sometimes I felt it necessary, in the light of Cohen’s discussions, to change what Fraser had written. Cohen 1, dealing with Europe and Asia Minor, was published in 1995, and is mentioned approvingly by Fraser in his Author’s Preface (above). But he referred to it only once (p. 171, n. 9) in the body of the book, and not at all in the Appendices. Cohen 2, on Syria etc., was published in 2006, too late for Fraser to notice even in his Preface. After taking advice, I concluded that Appendix 1 should not go forward as its author had left it, but that its value would be enhanced by the insertion of Cohen references. But it should be clear by now that all such references are my doing and my responsibility, not Fraser’s. I regret, especially in view of Fraser’s own work in Afghanistan (p.xvi) in the 1970s, that Cohen’s projected third volume, on the city-foundations in Mesopotamia and further east, is not available at the time of writing. I must thank those who have helped me by answering queries, of very different sorts: Alan Bowman, Angelos Chaniotis, Stephen Colvin, Michael Crawford, Anna Morpurgo Davies, Maria Fragoulaki, Christian Habicht, Elaine Matthews, Michael Whitby, Nigel Wilson. Riet van Bremen

Page 1 of 2

Additional Preface stepped in to help with the revises, and corrected much unnoticed error, especially over epigraphy. I am very grateful for her care and acumen. But the main thanks must be left to the end: Susan Milligan, as copy-editor, did a conspicuously difficult job with care, patience, accuracy, and learning. This is not the right place for a memorial tribute, or an assessment of Fraser’s long and varied career. I have attempted to provide these briefly in an introduction to the Annual of the British School at Athens for 2008, a volume which will be dedicated to Fraser (see now vol. 103, pp. 1– 7). It is also planned that there will be, in due course, a full-length memoir in the Proceedings of the British Academy, of which Fraser was a Fellow for nearly half a century. It was a source of pride and pleasure to him, in the last phase of his life, to know both that the present work would be published by the Academy, and that it would be a supplementary volume to the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, of which he was the founding editor. Simon Hornblower

Page 2 of 2

Abbreviations

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

(p.xvii) Abbreviations Note: Papyrological works are abbreviated as in LSJ. AE L’Année Épigraphique ASAA Annuario della Scuola archeologica di Atene e delle missioni italiane in Oriente ATL B. D. Meritt, H. T Wade-Gery, and M. McGregor, The Athenian Tribute Lists, 4 vols. (Harvard and Princeton, 1939–53) BE J. and L. Robert, Bulletin Épigraphique (in Revue des Études Grecques, 1938–84); P. Gauthier et al. (1987– ) Bencivenni A. Bencivenni, Progetti di riforme costituzionalinelle epigrafi greche dei secoli IV–II a.c. (Bologna, 2003) Bill., Billerbeck M. Billerbeck, Stephani Byzantii Ethnica, I: A–Γ (Berlin, 2006) BMC British Museum Catalogue BMI The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, ed. C. T. Newton et al. (Oxford, 1874–1916) Breccia, Iscr. E. Breccia, Iscrizioni greche e latine (Cairo, 1911) Cabanes, L’Épire P. Cabanes, L’Épire de la mort de Pyrrhos à la conquête romaine (Paris, 1976) CAF T. Kock, Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta (1880–8) Canali de Rossi see de Rossi CEG P. A. Hansen, Carmina Epigraphica Graeca, I: Saeculorum VIII-V a. Chr. n.: II: Saeculi IV a. Chr. n. (Berlin, 1938, 1989) Page 1 of 6

Abbreviations CGF G. Kaibel, Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (Berlin, 1899) CIA Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum (1825– ) CID Corpus des inscriptions de Delphes, École Française d’Athènes (Paris, 1977– ) CIRB Corpus Inscriptionum Regni Bosporani, ed. V. V. Struve, Akad. Nauk SSSR (Leningrad, 1965) Cohen 1 G. M. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1995) Cohen 2 G. M. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 2006) CPG Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum, ed. E. L. von Leutsch and F. W. Schneidewin, 2 vols. (Göttingen, 1839–51; repr. Hildesheim, 1958) (p.xviii) CPR C. Wessely, Corpus Papyrorum Raineri Archiducis Austriae (Vienna, 1895) Daux G. Daux, Chronologie delphique, Fouilles de Delphes, III, hors série (Paris, 1943) (Entries such as G17 refer to the rele- vant Delphian archon.) de Rossi F C. de Rossi, Iscrizioni dello estremo oriente greco (Bonn, 2004) (IGSK 65) DGE E. Schwyzer, Dialectorum Graecarum Exempla epigraphica potiora (3rd edn., Leipzig, 1923) Dittenberger (1906), (1907) W. Dittenberger, Hermes, 41 (1906), 78–102, 161–219; Hermes, 42 (1907), 1–34, 161–234 D-K H. Diels and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (6th edn., Berlin, 1952) Ét. dél. Études déliennes, BCH Supplement 1 (Paris, 1973) FD Fouilles de Delphes I- (Paris, 1909– ) FHG C. Müller, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum (Paris, 1841–70) FRA M. J. Osborne and S. G Byrne, Foreign Residents of Athens. An Annex to the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names: Attica. Studia Hellenistica, 33 (Louvain, 1996) Fraser, Cities P. M. Fraser, The Cities of Alexander the Great (Oxford, 1996) Fraser, Ptol. Alex. P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1972) FGrH F. Jacoby, Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin, 1923– ) Frey Page 2 of 6

Abbreviations J.-B. Frey, Corpus of Jewish Inscriptions: Jewish Inscriptions from the Third Century BC to the Seventh Century AD, I: Europe (1975) GG Grammatici Graeci (Leipzig, 1878–1910) GGM C. Müller, Geographici Graeci Minores (Paris, 1855–61) GVI W. Peek, Griechische Vers-Inschriften I: Grab-Epigramme (Berlin, 1955) HE A. S. F Gow and D. L. Page, The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1965) Head, HN2 B. V. Head, Historia Numorum: a Manual of Greek Numismatics (2nd edn., Oxford, 1911) Holleaux, Études M. Holleaux, Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire grecques, ed. L. Robert (Paris, 1938– 68) IC M. Guarducci, Inscriptiones Creticae, 4 vols. (Rome, 1935–50) IG Inscriptiones Graecae IGLS Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie, ed. L. Jalabert, R. Mouterde, SJ, et al., I(Paris, 1929– ) IGR Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes (Paris, 1906– ) IGSK Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien (1972– ) (p.xix) IGUR Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae, ed. L. Moretti, 4 vols. (Rome, 1968–90) IMagnesia O. Kern, Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander (Berlin, 1900) Inscr. Cos M. Segre, Iscrizioni di Cos, 2 vols. (Rome, 1993); for ED and EV see SEG 43, 549 IOSPE Inscriptiones Antiquae Orae Septentrionalis Pontis Euxini Graecae et Latinae, vols. I2, II, IV, Imp. Russ. Arkh. Obshchestvo (St Petersburg, 1916, 1890, 1901) ISE Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche, I II ed. L. Moretti (Florence, 1967–76); III eds. F. Canali de Rossi (Rome, 2001) ISM Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris (Budapest, 1983) IvO W. Dittenberger and K. Purgold (eds.), Olympia, vol. 5: Die Inschriften (1896) Jac. F. Jacoby Jac. Komm. Kommentar in F. Jacoby, Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin, 1923– ) Jones, CERP2 Page 3 of 6

Abbreviations A. H. M. Jones, Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (2nd edn., Oxford, 1971) K-A R. Kassel and C. Austin (eds.), Poetae Comici Graeci (Berlin, 1983– ) Knoepfler, Eretria D. Knoepfler, Eretria: fouilles et recherches, xi: Décrets érétriens de proxénie et de citoyenneté (Lausanne, 2001) Lasserre, Eudoxos F. Lasserre, Die Fragmente des Eudoxos von Knidos (Berlin, 1966) Lasserre-Livadaras F. Lasserre and N. Livadaras (eds.), Etymologicum magnum genuinum, Symeonis Etymologicum una cum Magna gram-matica, Etymologicum auctum synoptice, 2 vols. (Rome, 1976, 1992) Launey, Recherches M. Launey, Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques, 2 vols. (Paris, 1949–50) LGPN P. M. Fraser and E. Matthews (eds.), A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. I: The Aegean Islands, Cyprus and Cyrenaica (Oxford, 1987); II: Attica (ed. M. G. Osborne and S. G. Byrne, 1994); IIIA: The Peloponnese, Western Greece, Sicily and Magna Graecia (1997); IIIB: Central Greece (2000); IV: Macedonia, Thrace, Northern Regions of the Black Sea (2005); VA: Coastal Asia Minor: Pontos, Bithynia, Mysia, Troas, Aiolis, Lydia, Ionia (forthcoming). LSAG L. H. Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, 2nd edn., rev. A. Johnston (Oxford, 1990) Magie, Roman Rule D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ, 2 vols. (Princeton, 1950; repr. New York, 1975) MAMA Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiquae (1928– ) (p.xx) Mein. A. Meineke, in his edition of Stephanus Byzantius (Berlin, 1849) Michel C. Michel, Recueil d’inscriptions grecques (Brussels, 1900–27) Milet T. Wiegand (ed.), Milet: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899 (Berlin, 1906– ) M-L R. Meiggs and D. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century BC (Oxford, 1969; revised edn., 1988) Moretti, IAG L. Moretti, Iscrizioni agonistichi greche (Rome, 1953) OGIS Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, ed. W Dittenberger, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1903–5; repr. Hildesheim, 1960) Page, FGE Denys Page, Further Greek Epigrams (Cambridge, 1981) Page, PMG D. L. Page, Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford, 1962) Phot. Zav[ordeansis] Page 4 of 6

Abbreviations C. Theodoridis, Photii Patriarchae Lexicon, 2 vols.: I (A-Δ) (Berlin, 1982); II (E–M) (Berlin, 1998) Powell, Coll. Alex. J. U. Powell, Collectanea Alexandrina: reliquiae minores poetarum graecorum aetatis Ptolemaicae, 323–146 A.C (Oxford, 1925) PPetr. The Flinders Petrie Papyri (Dublin, 1891, 1893, 1905); The Petrie Papyri (2nd edn., Brussels, 1991) Pros. Ptol. W. Peremans and E. van ’t Dack, Prosopographia Ptolemaica. Studia Hellenistica, 6– (Leuven, 1950– ); http://prosptol.arts.kuleuven.ac.be PSI Papyri greci e latini: Pubblicazioni della Società italiana per la ricerca dei papyri greci e latini in Egitto (Florence, 1912– ) Reitzenstein, Etym. R. Reitzenstein, Geschichte der griechischen Etymologika: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Philologie in Alexandria und Byzanz (Leipzig, 1897) Rhodes-Osborne P. J. Rhodes and R. G. Osborne, Greek Historical Inscriptions 404–323 BC (Oxford, 2003) Robert, Coll. Froehner Collection Froehner (Bibliothèque nationale. Département des médailles et des antiques), I: Inscriptions grecques, ed. L. Robert (Paris, 1936) Robert, Hellenica L. Robert, Hellenica: recueil d’épigraphie, de numismatique et d’antiquités grecs, 13 vols. (Limoges, 1940–65) Robert, OMS L. Robert, Opera Minora Selecta: Épigraphie et antiquités grecques, 7 vols. (Amsterdam, 1969–90) Roesch, EB P. Roesch, Études béotiennes (Paris, 1982) SB Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten, ed. F. Preisigke et al. (Strasburg, 1915– ) Schürer E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BCAD135), rev. and ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman (Edinburgh, 1973–87) SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum I–, ed. J. E. E. Hondius, A. G Woodhead et al. (Leiden, 1923– ) SGDI Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften, ed. H. Collitz, F. Bechtel et al., 4 vols. (Göttingen, 1884–1915) (p.xxi) Susemihl, GGLA F. Susemihl, Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur in Alexandrinerzeit, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1891–2; repr. 1965) Syll.3 Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, ed. W. Dittenberger, 4 vols., 3rd edn., eds. F. Hiller von Gaertringen (Leipzig, 1915–24) Page 5 of 6

Abbreviations TA M Tituli Asiae Minoris, I: Tituli Lyciae lingua lycia conscripti, ed. E. Kalinka (Vienna, 1901); II (1–3): Tituli Lyciae, ed. E. Kalinka (1920–44); III (1): Tituli Pisidiae, ed. R. Heberday (1941); IV (1): Tituli Bithyniae, ed. F. K. Dörner (1978); V (1–2): Tituli Lydiae septentrionalis, ed. P. Herrmann and J. Keil (1981, 1989) Tataki A. Tataki, Macedonians Abroad, Mελετήματα, 26 (Athens, 1998) Tcherikover V. Tcherikover, Die hellenistische Städtegründungen von Alexander dem Grossen bis auf die Römerzeit (Leipzig, 1927) Threatte L. Threatte, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, I- (Berlin, 1980– ) Tod, GHI M. N. Tod, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions, I2 (Oxford, 1946); II (Oxford, 1948) TrGF B. Snell, R. Kannicht, and S. Radt, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 5 vols. (Göttingen, 1971–2004) Welles, RC C. B. Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period (London, 1934; repr. Chicago, 1974) West, IEG M. L. West, Iambi et Elegi Graeci: ante Alexandrum cantati, 2 vols. (2nd edn., Oxford, 1989–92) (p.xxii)

Page 6 of 6

Introduction Eθνoς and Γένoς

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

Introduction Eθνoς and Γένoς P. M. Fraser

DOI:10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.003.0001

Abstract and Keywords This introductory chapter surveys the various meanings given to the two terms ἔθνος and γένος in documentary and literary usage. It aims to enable the reader to follow the detailed analysis of selected parts of the text of Stephanus and the associated aspects of ancient Greek concepts of ethnicity, in practice and in theory. Keywords:   ancient Greek vocabulary, ethnic terminology, ethnicity, Stephanus

THE USE OF ETHNIC TERMINOLOGY to identify communities and individuals can be traced from the earliest period of Greek history. It was an inevitable element in growing social relationships, whether between

on the largest scale, or between individual groups of

different racial, social, or political types, and finally In Greece the development of established societies was preceded by the settlements of the Mycenaean world, and the decipherment of the Linear-B script has provided valuable indications of Mycenaean geographical nomenclature, although the place-names which seem to lie behind the probable ethnic terminations are, as might be expected from the origin of the documents, largely confined to Crete and the western Peloponnese.1 It is only with the Homeric poems that we can observe a regular linguistic formulation. In them the word meaning a ‘group’, a ‘crowd’, even a ‘herd’ of any description, thus

is a collective noun (Od.

14.73), and so still in Pindar, (Nem. 3.74), and so on. then, in Archaic and early Classical poetry, expresses simply the notion of collectivity, the herd of the human and the animal, the living and the dead. Unlike the group of it did not originally represent an association through direct words derived from was a community of identifiable elements, which descent or consanguinity. The base of the but which were hierarchically distinct from them. The Homeric might include poems already provide a wide perspective of Greek lands to which regional and local denominations were freely applied, whether they be the large units of the homeland, especially the

the

and the

terms which cover the whole Greek world from east to Page 1 of 10

Introduction Eθνoς and Γένoς west, or the intermediate regional terms such (p.2) as

or

(more rarely) the smaller urban units such as the Whatever view may be held about the chronological stratification of the poems, there can be no doubt that regional names, linked to a substantial repertoire of formulae, and the ethnic terms that derive from them, were wholly familiar to the Homeric age, though they were not necessarily described by a collective noun,

or another.2 Moreover, ethnic forms were equally used to denote those

who lay at all points of the compass outside the Greek world, from the to the and those who, in the opinion of Eratosthenes and of most modern scholars, existed the and others, only in the inherited imagination of the oral epic tradition, the mostly situated in the cloudy west. Naturally, the requirements and traditional conventions of epic poetry provide many variations in phraseology which we do not encounter in later documentary usage, which became stricter with the passage of time and the gradual development of a common language. However, the Catalogue of the Ships, traditionally regarded as among the latest components of the Iliad, and itself interpolated, but considered nevertheless to preserve a partial record of the inhabited regions of Mycenaean Greece many centuries earlier,3 is structured in terms of the ships sent by cities and islands, and of their leaders ( or, in a finite verbal formula,

). Although we encounter collectively the

or and units such as (Eastern) Lokrians, Phokians, Aitolians, Kephallenians, and others, representing groups of the middle range, and also twice in Thessaly (Il. 2.730 (Oichalia), 739 (Oloosson)), the city of Cos itself (ibid. 677: ) and, outstanding in this respect, the Athenians, described as and also as (Il. 2.828),4 the word the word

and, among the Trojan allies, the (p.3) does not occur, and it may be noticed that in the same Book

is used only of a breed of Paphlagonian mules.5 The normal description of an

individual is by the patronymic form of the name or the periphrastic The fact that we already encounter in the poems both a number of ethnics, qua ethnics, as when Telemachos addresses the Ithacans as

(an ethnic which occurs

as the title of the very fragmentary Aristotelian and passed from that 6 work to several sections of Plutarch’s Greek Questions), and (p.4) also the ethnic adjectives of both the wider and narrower categories used as personal names, as, for example, (Od. 2.15) and (Il. 13.171), shows that the ethnic usage was already well established within that early world.7 comes especially to In the Classical period, with the development of prose literature, define racially unitary human groups; and this, with some later variations and expansions to be considered in due course, survived as its main significance until a late period.8 The contrast on the one hand, drawn by writers of the Classical period and later between and between

on the other, corresponds to a fundamental distinction in post-

Homeric Greek society, between descent, as found in γένη and the subdivisions of and so on within and regional and racial association, the hallmark of the with no immediate or direct notion of individual relationship or descent. Nevertheless, the two originally distinct concepts became modified and redefined from time to time in various ways, comparable to that in which the different contexts.9

used of an individual body, acquired a varying status in a number of

(p.5) Accounts of both collectively and individually, were a recognised branch of Greek historical studies from an early date. In the Archaic and early Classical periods such investigation, carried out by the

were mainly focused on the Page 2 of 10

Introduction Eθνoς and Γένoς location of the tribes rather than on the tribes themselves. The distinction in substance was probably slight as between a work and one but it may be validated on the basis of the titles of the surviving fragments of the logographers, and of the various of Herodotus. Hecataeus survives largely in the numerous references to him in Stephanus, who quotes him by name more than any other author, but the references (rather than quotations) are mostly simply in the form

or ‘y (plural),

followed by a general indication of location, which only rarely includes a direct quotation, and can hardly be called as evidence for the use of Hecataeus’ terminology.10 The word is used of a family unit, essentially within the framework of a city or tribe reaching back at times to the founder of the family, either a mythological hero or the supposedly historical founder of a city, not least a colony.11 Nevertheless, in spite of the occasional conflation of the two terms, one basic distinction persists: whereas is regularly by descent (or even by adoption between predicated at all periods of membership of a ), in the standard linguistic formula of civic identification, families within the the word is never used: if it occurred, would be a solecism. It does indeed occur as the definitive term for a group of Greek cities of a specified region in a decree of olbia, in honour of an olbiopolitan, in which the honorand is described as but here clearly refers to the Greek cities of the region collectively, as also in a fragment of an inscription from (p.6) Herakleia in Pontus which reads 12

In the same way Polybius normally uses

to denote the

regional element in contemporary political koina.13 The identification between the

and the

is expressed in the simplest form by, for example, Demosthenes: 14

In the most general terms we may define the

difference by saying that while the three prime divisions

of the Greek people, the

formed the basis of cultural identity throughout the Greek world, the concept of the was the foundation of their awareness of their personal identity within their community by inherited descent and consequential civic membership; it need hardly be added that, compared with these basic institutions, the koinon, with a few exceptions, is an artificial creation. The significance of the distinction between in relation to the is discussed in the next chapter. It remains here to discuss only the particular preKleisthenic organisation of Athens before the introduction of the deme-structure, which which survived to a later date largely for cult purposes, long embodied a system of four after the new democratic system had been established, and of a number of γένη. This system of γένη was essentially part of the aristocratic way of life in early Athens, and in particular of a pattern of religious observance which traced its origin back to heroic eponyms or founders, and it continued, after the Kleisthenic reforms, to play a significant role in such observances. For this purpose the members of the γένη were formed into associations resembling the later

the

members of which were known as who were able to enjoy membership of the to which even foreigners might be admitted. The γένη and the are barely attested (the latter not at all) in documentary sources, but their history and organisation are familiar from passages of Demosthenes, Philochoros, and Aristotle transmitted in two grammatical entries of much later date, one of Harpocration, and one of the late Hellenistic or early Imperial lexicographer Moiris, both of whom regard the from an earlier age.15

Page 3 of 10

as surviving in a particular context

Introduction Eθνoς and Γένoς (p.7) The although in many contexts synonymous with is not used of membership per se. Less used in Attic and in the koine than in Homer and the dialects of the NW of a refers regularly to linear descent either as an absolute chronological Greek dialect-region, indication or within a tribe or family.16 The former usage occurs, for example, in Thucydides to indicate a lapse of time, while Homer provides very clear instances of the latter; for instance, Il. 21.157–60, where Asteropaios says and again in Od. 4.26–7, where Eteoneus, the chamberlain of Menelaos, says: Again, the earliest known proxeny-award, that recorded in metrical form on the circular tombstone of Menekrates of Oianthea, the son of Tlasias, in Kerkyra, refers 17 to him as The remarkable bronze plaque from Dodona containing the award of proxeny to a Zakynthian and his descendants, probably of the second half of the fourth or the

early third century, which I have recently re-studied, is worthy of consideration in this context.18 It reads

(p.8)

In the first clause has the meaning ‘Agathon and his lineage, or ancestors’; in the second it must either refer to the passage of past time in general, or to the same calculation in terms of family descent; while in the third it bears the meaning of as an indication of ethnic origin. The difference in meaning between the three usages, one looking backward, the second to past descent, whether in general or with particular reference to the family of Agathon, and the third in the sense of is clear in the context, but, as with the rest of the text, one may suspect a deliberate ambiguity, almost a

An epigram in the Corpus of ‘Simonides’ referring to Pausanias

shows a clear contrast between the two terms.19 The use of with the same meaning of family descent, but with reference to descent from the present, not to the past, and thus equivalent to occurs in proxeny-decrees and lists from other regions, notably Epirus familiar from the Classical period, and later used by and Arcadia.20 The term grammarians as synonymous with or

in colloquial speech formed the natural contrast to

indicating the urban dweller with citizenship, and it is only rarely found in

combination with as in a lex sacra of the Hellenistic age from Halicarnassus.21 used at a later date with reference to the tenure of sacral offices, mainly priesthoods and

is

priestesshoods, within one family, in the stereotyped phrase, could also stand. On the other (p.9) hand, the formula of honorific decrees, that the benefits be conferred on the honorand should more properly be (as is frequently the case) appropriate, phraseology

The substitution of

or, where in the set

except in the localised instances noted above, is a metrical 22

contrivance, as for example,

The status of a substantial but racially only gradually assimilated group of the population of northern and north-western Greece was expressed in two different forms: first, simply by a who occur frequently in Thucydides’ account of the plural noun, as, for example, the north-western campaigns of the Peloponnesian War, and secondly, as paired tribal units and subPage 4 of 10

Introduction Eθνoς and Γένoς units known to us mainly from the Greek inscriptions of the fourth century and the Hellenistic age in Illyria and Epirus, where they form close political associations at two levels;23 the sub24 hellenised in units, expressing geographical location, appear regularly to be called speech and social structure. Stephanus occasionally uses the term to express a subordinate geographical unit of an Illyrian but he also uses this term of other widely separated groups.25 as a collective term for political leagues, such as the Arcadians, Boiotians, The use of Aitolians, Achaeans, and other politically unified combinations of cities and other communities, whose subject or allied (p.10) membership in time extended beyond their ethnic frontiers, by contrast with the racially coherent koina of Epirus and Illyria, is an expansion of the basic meaning, used particularly by Polybius.26 indicates that variations and This analysis of the two terms ambiguities of usage between the two terms occur already at an early date. Further examples of this will occur at a later stage, but our attention will be focused throughout on the forms of the ethnic denomination itself, what we call the ‘ethnic’, as a style of (mainly) personal identification. In due course, certainly long before the time of Stephanus, the grammatical use of the term had extended far beyond its use for tribes and cities, and was used for almost any geographical feature, including rivers and mountains. At the same time, the use of the ‘ethnic’ form was not constant. In the lists of tributary communities of the Athenian Empire in the fifth century there are a few entries in which the city-name is used instead of the plural ethnic, but, though separately assessed, places so described seem to be mostly small and unimportant communities.27 On the other hand, in the Delphic lists of cities and their representatives that contributed to the rebuilding of the temple of Apollo in the middle of the fourth century BC all entries are by ethnics.28 The mixture of the two categories in a single inscription, as for example in two versions of a list of cities of the Imperial period in an inscription from Apameia in Bithynia, is obviously formally incorrect.29 Such variant practices, which, as the evidence of the Athenian Tribute Lists shows, are not due purely to chronological factors, exemplify another aspect of that flexibility of formulation which is a familiar (p.11) feature of Greek public documents.30 Stephanus in due course describes non-Greek peoples and only rarely uses the term almost without exception as 31 appears to be no difference in meaning from the usual

and, when he does, there

This brief survey of the various meanings given to the two terms in documentary and literary usage, will, I hope, provide a sufficient background to enable the reader to follow the detailed analysis of selected parts of the text of Stephanus and the associated aspects of ancient Greek concepts of ethnicity, in practice, and, in so far as it is recoverable, in theory, as I envisage them. Notes: (1) See M. Ventris and J. Chadwick, Documents in Mycenaean Greek (2nd edn., Cambridge, 1973), pp. 139 ff.; cf. below, Chapter 1, n. 3. (2) λαόॢ is often used, especially in formulaic wording in oratio recta, as and in the metrically useful For the use of and in later times see below, p. 4. Note the occurrence on Lesbos of a in a decree of the of the late Hellenistic, or early Imperial period:

Page 5 of 10

Introduction Eθνoς and Γένoς the koinon has formal civic-style magistrates cf. further below, n. 6. (3) For the traditional view see T. W. Allen, The Catalogue of the Ships (Oxford, 1924), pp. 36 ff. I make no attempt to investigate the substance of the Catalogue, since I am concerned only with its linguistic terminology. The relationship of the communities described in the Catalogue to contemporary and subsequent local and constitutional developments is studied in detail for Thessaly by B. Helly, in L’État thessalien (Lyons, 1995), pp. 69–96. For a wider perspective see G. S. Kirk, The Songs of Homer (Cambridge, 1962), pp. 153 ff. and N. Giovannini, Étude historique sur les origines du Catalogue des Vaisseaux (Bern, 1969).

( 4)

(5)

(6) (7) For ethnics used as personal names see Chapter 11.

Page 6 of 10

Introduction Eθνoς and Γένoς

(8) (9) Its use of military units in a role other than the strictly military is not infrequent, as, for example, in the dedication of the Ptolemaic garrison on Cyprus, in OGIS 143 (cf. also 159):

where the last word is perhaps ambiguous between the role of mercenaries other than the Thracians, as Dittenberger took it, and civilian followers of the military The usage reappears in the long lists of Ptolemaic mercenaries at Hermoupolis, called published initially by Friedrich Zucker and now republished by E. Bernand: see my discussion of these lists in Elaine Matthews (ed.), Old and New Worlds in Greek Onomastics, PBA 148 (Oxford, 2007), pp. 69–85. The usage is probably Ptolemaic: cf. G. F. Hill, A History of Cyprus (Cambridge, 1940–52), i, pp. 177–8. = FGrH 1 F298; cf. below, (10) One or two quotations in Steph. record Hecataeus (s.v. n. 31) as using where we would expect but the word may be due either to Steph. or to his Epitomator: cf. also Hdt. 1.125.3, quoted by Steph., s.v. (α 460 Bill.; cf. below, p. 34, n. 47). Sometimes Stephanus’ quotations from Hecataeus appear to be more extended, but, as on a much larger scale with authorities cited by Strabo, it is hardly possible to say where quotation ends and paraphrase begins, as e.g. s.v. (F138) and (F139). For a numerical analysis of Stephanus’ source-references, in which Hecataeus leads the field, see below, Appendix 3. (11) The phrase maintained, descent.

is sometimes used to express this remote, but vigorously

(12) IOSPE, I2 40 (= Cauer2 111; not in 3rd edn. (Schwyzer)), ll. 3 ff., of early Imperial date, quoted below, n. 29; IHeraclea (IGSK 47 (1994)), 82. J. G. Vinogradov, Pontische Studien (Mainz, 1997), pp. 1 ff., discusses the earlier indications of the possibility of joint activity by the Pontic cities. (13) See below, n. 26. (14) Dem. 23.24.

Page 7 of 10

Introduction Eθνoς and Γένoς

(15)

(16) (17) For Menekrates see IG IX (1), 867 (DGE 133 (1); M-L no. 4; CEG I, 143), probably of the end of the seventh century BC. (18) JHS 123 (2003), 26 ff., to which I may refer for a full account of the history of the plaque, and my interpretation of the text.

(19)

(20)

(21)

Page 8 of 10

Introduction Eθνoς and Γένoς (22) GVI 325 (CIRB 114; CEG I, 175): from Pantikapaion, of the fifth century BC. Some late examples are referred to by K. Buresch, Aus Lydien (Hildesheim, 1977), p. 164 (2nd cent. AD), apropos of the remarkable monument from the neighbourhood of Uschak/Temenothyrai, dedicated to Lucius Pufidius by his sons: (a):

(23) See Thuc. 2.68.9 etc.; Cabanes, L’Épire, pp. 379 ff. (24) Cabanes, ibid.

(25)

(26) (27) See ATL passim; there does not seem to be a larger number of these in any particular region, or at any particular period, of the assessments. The opposite arrangement in purely formal terms may be seen, many centuries later, in the entries in Ptolemy, in whom occasionally plural place-names occur (which may be their authentic forms) in the lists of cities headed δήμoι, i.e. loose tribal units: see e.g. 5.2. §§14–15:

(28) See CID, ii, passim, especially nos. 30 ff.

(29) (30) on such variations of style and language in the domain of documentation between archival and incised texts see Klaffenbach, SB Berl. Akad. (1960), 6, ‘Griechischen Urkundenwesen’, esp. pp. 34–5; see also L. Robert, Griechische Epigraphik, pp. 14 ff. (German transl. by H. Engelmann (1970) of text in L’Encyclopédie de la Pléiade, with addenda by Robert).

Page 9 of 10

Introduction Eθνoς and Γένoς

(31)

Page 10 of 10

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology P. M. Fraser

DOI:10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.003.0002

Abstract and Keywords An analysis of the civic and regional terminology of Greek communal life, and especially the use of the term τὸ ἐθνικόν, is an essential preliminary to understanding how the Greeks considered national and civic identity once the regular framework of polis-life was established. With the development of grammatical and linguistic analysis, words denoting membership of a community were called ἐθνικά, the nominal adjectival form which we find regularly in Stephanus of Byzantium and in lexica: τὸ ἐθνικόν (ὁ) δεῖνα. The history of the term formed a distinct branch of the traditional studies of the grammarians and lexicographers. This chapter is concerned with the ethnic significance of the adjective as a term used to denote nationality or origin (in the Greek sense), but inevitably it takes account of other meanings of the term when necessary. Keywords:   polis-life, Stephanus of Byzantium, communal life, national identity, civic identity, adjective, nationality, origin

Ethnics AN ANALYSIS OF THE CIVIC AND REGIONAL TERMINOLOGY of Greek communal life, and especially the use of the term is an essential preliminary to understanding how the Greeks considered national and civic identity once the regular framework of polis-life was established. With the development of grammatical and linguistic analysis, words denoting membership of a community were called

the nominal adjectival form which we find

regularly in Stephanus of Byzantium and in lexica: The history of the term formed a distinct branch of the traditional studies of the grammarians and lexicographers. Our own concern is essentially with the ethnic significance of the adjective as a term used to denote nationality or origin (in the Greek sense), but inevitably it takes account of other meanings of the term when necessary.1 The raw material of our investigation consists of the forms of identification recorded in texts and documents of all sorts, and, at the end of a long process of formalisation, in the surviving of Stephanus.2 In the active world, the general formula for ‘belonging to’ this epitomised (p.16) or that city or other community was only very rarely used in the home-context, except in Page 1 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology public documents, as when a decree was published in the name of the city, or in the context of an address to a public body, as in Within the boundaries of their own city, citizens were not described for purposes of public identification by their ‘ethnic’ in daily speech, except in rhetorical flourishes; the use was reserved for the identification of foreigners The need for such a term must have existed from the outset of tribal and urban life and from the commencement of contact between cities, for all the manifold purposes of daily life in which the citizens of participated, individually and as members of their corporate body. The ‘city ethnic’ (or something equivalent to it), the term that we shall use for the conventional descriptive epithet of the citizen(s), must be as old as the polis itself, as old as the Homeric poems—if not older, that is, Mycenaean—where many cities are named but individuals are only occasionally called by their ethnic denomination.3 However, the science of grammar developed late in the Greek world, and there is no sign of the application of this, or any of the numerous cognate terms used as descriptive nouns, before the early Hellenistic age, and even then the evidence is, as we shall see, uncoordinated, since none of our surviving grammatical definitions, let alone continuous texts, reaches so far back.4 The development of the (p.17) terminology used to describe two different forms of social structure, civic and tribal, cannot be fully explained in the absence of later pre-Hellenistic grammatical and lexicographical studies, but the fact that in due course the grammarians preferred to use the to denote membership of civic communities rather than, for example, ambiguous term or the ambiguous the seemingly unambiguous the fact that Stephanus at least uses the adjectival term

is not open to doubt, nor is as a neuter noun, of a large

number of topographical items which could not etymologically be described as in any sense at all: mountains, rivers, promontories, and many other features. The explanation of the first point seems to be that the word was early pre-empted for institutions that lay wholly within the developed -structure, those that reflected the privileges and duties of the defined not as a resident within specific boundaries, but, as Aristotle defined the word, as one possessed of political rights and subject to the sanction of the .5 Wilhelm maintained that was synonymous with but the evidence of Athenian lists of Panathenaic victors, mostly of the early second century BC, recently increased by a new text of c.170 BC, indicates that this cannot have been so in every instance.6 This text contains, (p.18) alongside other items, two groups of victors in contests in the hippodrome, hitherto unrecorded in the (admittedly fragmentary) associated lists. The two groups are, first, those ‘from all’ (col. II, 21–33; III, 11–22)), that is (presumably) both foreigners resident in Athens and also Athenian citizens, and secondly ‘from the residents(?) of the polis’.7 The second expression is applied only to Athenian citizens in the list, who are also identified by their tribal affiliation as (col. II, 34–5), and (col. III, 23–4). The class of first appears in an associated list, the relevant section of which is dated to 178 BC, whereas in the earliest list, of c.194-190 BC, the Athenians are listed individually by their demes. If, however, a phrase was required to include all true-born Athenians, the formula would be the natural expression, and, in spite of the fact that only citizens are recorded in the relevant sections of this indicates that metics, list, it seems likely that the adjectival or ktetic form and persons of comparable status were, or might be, included in this category. If is here not synonymous with we have to ask what substantive, if any, should be understood with the adjectival noun,

no doubt correctly Page 2 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology adopted by Wilhelm in a passage of Polybius (see above, n. 6), is clearly not suitable here. The possibilities are numerous, and we cannot hope to reach a final decision, but we may consider some possibilities, bearing in mind that the adjective in the genitive plural might be used with a substantive of any gender, or by itself. At the same time, the suppressed substantive, if there was one, (p.19) must have been familiar enough in this formula to render its inclusion otiose. That constitutes a major difficulty, since the adjective itself is not elsewhere found with a personal substantive, but only with common nouns such as

(‘citizen troops’), or in contrast to .8 Further, corporate nouns provide no natural sense in the context. The word in the Attic inscriptions is therefore probably to be regarded as purely substantival, and not as adjectival. If that is correct, we must opt for the term to represent the total category of ‘residents, both those with full and those with partial civic rights’, but excluding and the servile population. In any case, however we may choose to understand the phrase, it clearly refers to an element in the internal structure of the polis. A close analogy in meaning, in a verbal form, occurs in the phrase where the distinction between the two categories is clear.9 (p.20) The Panathenaic lists place us at the heart of one aspect of our complex of problems. At a later date this restricted meaning of internal to the polis and its machinery, found expression in a grammatical context which contrasts with the use of in Stephanus. Although, as we shall see, Stephanus himself makes frequent use of the noun apparently as identical in sense with he never uses the expression

as 10

synonymous with as equivalent to . Stephanus’ own use of the term as the appropriate derivative noun for features of physical geography which carried a purely geographical connotation will be considered in due the adjective is used essentially of course (below, pp. 243–57). Like institutions and conditions which affect the as subject to the regime of the polis—in the the

the

the

the

and the like—while at the same time, within the the individual usually retains his own specific mark of civic or ‘ethnic’ origin. The word is not used as a heading for lists of foreigners, who simply retain their ethnics (or other differential criterion) as a mark of their status. We may conclude, then, that and like some other ktetic adjectives of this termination, are essentially used in relation to specific elements of the city-structure, and have (p.21) no general connotation such as

and

11

have. Menander’s enquiry (Aspis 374), apparently refers to a foreign doctor (perhaps with the nuance that foreign doctors were superior practitioners) rather than to a state physician

for foreign residents.

before Zenodotus and Callimachus, and There is no evidence for the use of the adjective the significance they gave it was not that with which we are concerned: Callimachus’ for example, apparently enumerated the different words used for common nouns in individual cities.12 However, half a century or so later, the complex palingenesis of Aristophanes of Byzantium’s compartmentalised as it emerges from a long tradition attested both by a very fragmentary manuscript tradition of Byzantine date and by an entry in the epitomised Pollux, which represents an intermediate stage between Aristophanes and the Byzantine tradition, probably shows that he divided his Page 3 of 43

into different classes of

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology including as well as (for example) and other categories.13 The opening section in the Athos text of what has been identified as his (p.22) classification of usages

starts with and continues:

The list in the Byzantine manuscripts, as in the earlier list in Pollux, continues, s.v. .,14 which represents a process of reduction (in its earliest phases largely by Suetonius) of the manifold contents of the The fullest version of the epitomised Pollux, as reconstructed from the different sources by Bethe, is essentially lexicographical, in that it embodies numerous quotations from Classical writers, prose and verse, and may be regarded as the nearest approach to the original contents of Aristophanes’ that (p.23) can be achieved by this method. It is therefore to be observed that neither in the glossological and lexicographical traditions nor in the fragments already collected by Nauck from Eustathius and elsewhere, is there any use of the words or ,15 and, as stated above, the earliest Alexandrian grammarians do not seem to have On the other hand, in used the latter as a collective noun to indicate membership of a of approximately the first century BC (if Dionysius of Thrace’s formalised grammatical that date may be accepted for the core of the work), the word occurs as the correct term for non-Greek populations,16 and there is no doubt that, much later, Oros included the term in the title of his work, or which was probably one of 17 the direct sources of Stephanus. The answer to the question of how the earliest grammarians dealt with the problem of individual ethnic nomenclature, public and private, can perhaps be provided by the Epitome of Stephanus, which contains a large number of entries where, in giving the ethnic of a city, instead of the neuter substantival form, or occasionally or

the active noun,

(rarely), or the participles ó are (p.24) used, just as the names of Attic demes and some

small foreign communities are glossed in the familiar manner by the active noun, and inhabitants of Regular entries in which ó (as under the letter νυ, to take a single letter), are s.v.

is used, not

(FGrH 1 F266) s.v. s.v. (FGrH 70 F147)

(427).

s.v. (373).

and many more. Inevitably, the lack of parallel evidence, and the wide range of variants provided by Stephanus, which includes cases in which the two formulae occur in one entry, make any conclusion concerning such occasional entries hazardous.18 Dittenberger regarded the distinction between the two terms as of no significance and due to the carelessness of the Epitomator, and maintained that this was Page 4 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology demonstrated by the very fact that the two terms sometimes appear together.19 This does not seem to offer an adequate answer to the problem. If was the term used by or taken over from his predecessors, or used by Oros or an earlier technical writer, it is not obvious why Stephanus or his Epitomator should have introduced the substantive to describe the same feature. A more satisfying explanation than that of pure thoughtlessness is to be found in the accumulated layerage of sources: these largely (but not wholly) repetitive and seemingly otiose (p.25) classifications arise from the fact that the term referring only to a polis, belongs to a grammatical tradition that held the field before the adoption of the term which itself extends beyond the concept of the polis to include the various other geographical and tribal features it covered. On this explanation, the nominal and verbal usage of and the use of are alike a survival from an earlier form of a form of the root grammatical nomenclature, corresponding to the practice of everyday speech, which preceded the formalised use of the term by the grammarians to cover much more than I am therefore inclined to regard the use of, in particular, but not only, more than as inherited from an earlier phase of grammatical use than

and

The sequence

was, of course, the natural eventual formulation, since was not available. That the two terms were duplicated in this manner before the work of Stephanus, and probably before that of Oros, is clear from the detailed analysis which I offer did not necessarily carry with it the notion of regular citizenship as

below. The noun

did the ethnic term followed by

as, for example, in a private oration of Demosthenes,

in which the plaintiff describes himself as which clearly does not necessarily imply that the speaker was a in spite of the contrast contained in 20 . There are other indications that Aristophanes did not use the conventional terminology of the later grammarians; it has been pointed out that his

were confined to (a)

and (b) not in the later sense of nouns + terminations, that is, compound substantives and adjectives.21 The that is, nominal derivatives, but as fact that (p.26) the earlier Imperial lexicographical tradition of Alexandria, now imperfectly represented by the fragments of Didymus and the (epitomised) text of Harpocration, always uses the active noun

of the Attic demotic, not

indicates the same usage.22

The frequent use of by Eustathius, when quoting or paraphrasing Stephanus, and in the literary and linguistic entries in the Suda, probably based largely on an epitomised version of Diogenianus’

or (a separate work) his

and/or his

(to which Hesychius refers in his Letter Dedicatory to Eulogius), which normally have ó as s.v. (α 26 Adler), show clearly that the substantival form had not wholly disappeared from, or had returned to, current lexical usage, at that date.23 These anomalies are considered in more detail at a later stage.24 Attention may be drawn to similar irregularities arising from Stephanus’ use of the word and its derivatives. It occurs s.v.

,25 again in (p.27) There is no reason to suppose that such caseshis long and

complex entry s.v.

,26 and also with an entry of its own, s.v.

.27

is found

during the course of its long history both as an equivalent of and also with a significance deriving from the topographical meaning of as ‘an area of urban residence’. It had a number of nuances both in official language and in common speech. It might be used as a synonym of used for

in regular antithesis to ,28 while the feminine was frequently or in place of a feminine demotic, but although glossed by Aristophanes of Page 5 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology Byzantium (see above, p. 22) as a lexical equivalent of ,29 it is used by Stephanus only 30 with reference to Athens and Alexandria, except (p.28) perhaps in the very unusual use of the found in a single city (so far as we are able to judge), Xanthos, the Lycian city term which, in recent years, has aroused interest in more than one context.31 Already in the Hellenistic age the form was apparently used to denote a male citizen of Xanthos, while This is clearly stated in funerary monuments his wife was, more conventionally, known as 32 of the second century BC and later, and the usage is paralleled by other rare formulae to be found in the documents of the same city.33 This, however, is an exception which cannot affect the general connotation of the root-forms, elsewhere. (p.29) We may conclude that the basic notion of direct descent, ‘of the stock of’, ‘belonging to’, was extended from (possibly heroic) eponyms of inherent in the concept of the noun family-groups to the city as a whole, and indeed, in some cases to specific subdivisions of it, just as the element of direct descent was diluted in some Ionian cities, as a result perhaps of political changes, by the admission of foreigners honoured by a city with citizenship to membership of a of their choice.34 In general, however, from the earliest period onwards, the noun was the normal accompaniment of the ethnic of an individual in an external context.35 Innumerable examples of the most various dates in all types of contexts demonstrate this external use of the term, while the term remained inapplicable in the environment of the I do not (p.30) recall an instance, even at a much later date, in which anyone is (for example) (cf. Introduction, p. 5 above). Long into the Imperial called period, both normal literary and grammatical practice alike—at least until the time of Hesychius, the writer of Biographies of Illustrious Men—transmitted by the biographical entries in the described individual membership of a city either by itself as, for example,

or else with the addition of

found also, quite naturally, in the collective plural, as, for example, .36 The application of the term to describe membership of a citizen-body is therefore a katachresis introduced to, and sanctioned only by, grammatical practice. On the other hand, the usage regarding and in Classical and Hellenistic writers, notably the historians, from Herodotus to Polybius, and also to Strabo, shows over this considerable period that (a) the two terms are used synonymously of related groups, though

is more frequent than

and that (b) they do not correspond only to

distinctions of race, Greek and non-Greek. Thus Herodotus (p.31) refers to the the

and

and continues ,37 and, again, .,38

while in poetic vocabulary a fragment of Aeschylus’ .39 These random examples could be supported by many others showing that in a wide context a clear distinction in significance between the two terms did not exist for Herodotus, Thucydides, and other Classical historians and similar writers, and that usage was very flexible.40 This may be seen in documentary texts from lists of mercenaries and other foreign personnel, who are indifferently noted in civic lists by tribal or civic ‘ethnics’.41 (p.32) An unusual variant of this practice occurs in a small group of Attic lists of victors in the Theseia, of the second century BC, in which one group is called and .42 This perhaps refers to ethnic groups of mercenaries in Athenian service, Page 6 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology rather than all mercenaries.43 Strabo uses either the simple plural such as or the term when referring to the tribes of the Italian peninsula and Germanic and other tribes, and in his discussion of the racial and linguistic peculiarities of ‘barbarians’ on the one hand and of Greeks on the other, while he commonly calls still larger tribal units

or, less frequently,

.44 Although unlike does not occur to express membership of a city, we find instances at a later date, and in a different environment, in which the two words are used in the same context, with the same meaning.45 (p.33) At all events, whether or not we may assign linguistic priority to the nomina agentium, essentially and

and and, less frequently, and the participles and others with the same lexical sense, over the collective nouns, essentially the question arises why the later grammarians, lexicographers, and

biographical encyclopaedists did not use natural form to indicate the adjectival name-form of a use of the former adjective for

(sc.

rather than as the instead of reserving the technical

), as, for example, in Stephanus’ entries, s.vv. (FGrH 750). s.v.

(α 222 Bill.),

(FGrH 4 F16a and b (ibid. s.v. (β 17 Bill.),

Cyr.

Lex., p. 65) The fact that the grammarians employed the word in the feminine gender, to express the possessive case and the patronymic,46 was, as already indicated, probably the main cause of this restriction. Dionysius’ Techne gives both

and

among the established

of nouns, but the

meaning of is given as ‘compound, generic’.47 (p.34) Analogous to the use of to refer to the city of origin, is that of adverbs indicating descent, extended to cover the city or race, notably and in the same way that and are used to represent the corresponding geographical element. Examples of this group of terms again belong to all periods, and may in themselves refer to a very long stretch of time, the emphasis being usually, but not always, on linear descent from a remote, not always historical, individual or famous city. Thus the philosopher Megisteus is described by Diogenes Laertius as

and Synesius of Cyrene proudly says

that is to say, a Cyrenaean, whose lineage ran back to Sparta by way of Thera. Similarly, at a considerably earlier date, Theopompos describes Olympias, the mother of Alexander, as while the Syracusan ladies out for the show at the festival of the Adonia in Alexandria rebuked their impatient neighbour in the crowd, as described by Theocritus, with the words, .48 The description of a noble Ephesian lady of Imperial date as associates the formula with civic distinction.49 At the same time, the adverb might be used of a specific person in a manner that expressed ‘for a long time’.50

Page 7 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology (p.35) Finally on the question of terminology, we may note that Stephanus sometimes (but only rarely) gives the form of the

the proper noun, largely used of personal names, alongside

that of the ethnic. For example, s.v.

(γ 67 Bill.),

.51 And again, s.v.

(α 562 Bill.), .52

Ktetics It is now time to consider the evolution of the simple possessive adjective, the so-called the ‘ktetic’, which by rule terminates for the most part in Thrax’s classification of the

or

Dionysius

of paragogic nouns has 〈Λ 597 〉, 53

416〉,

(see below, p. 53).

〈B

Here, the use of the personal agent,

is

analogous to the use of although in actual usage the about which Apollonius 54 Dyscolus wrote a lost treatise, is found in an almost endless variety of possessive or quasipossessive contexts and topical definitions, of which it may be convenient to give here a few characteristic uses before embarking on the examination of its use as a form of ethnic. It is used, for example, for paraenetic writings, histories (mythological or historical), the and

including, at all periods, speeches addressed

to different communities,

etc., or to or

about individuals,

with

understood or stated; in topographical indications, as

wars (p.36) of constitutions, though in this latter context the ‘temenic’ form in is more frequent.55 Thucydides frequently uses the neuter plural of the ktetic with an unexpressed substantive to refer to historical conditions or events, both in themselves and as recorded in his history, e.g. and, of the Lelantine War, and this usage continues long into the Imperial period to describe the wars of the Romans.56 The ktetic might also be used substantivally, like the absolute to describe either a particular racial element of an army, or a custom identified with a particular people, as in the frequent references to or referring either to a type of military armament or equipment,57 even to a way of life, or as an indication of some (p.37) personal or national characteristic, as in the sharp observation of Hermokles, the poet of the Ithyphallic, in honour of Demetrios the Besieger.59 Dittenberger maintained that the preservation of the final iota of the stem of the ethnic adjectival formation from second declension place-names shows that the ktetic of that class 58

derives not, for example, from the place-name,

but from the ethnic, as

〉

There are, however, numerous variations from this derivation, and his explanation

Page 8 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology is not wholly satisfactory.60 He also emphasised that already in the time of Herodotus, some may represent the Italic termination in -icus and that these are naturally ktetic forms in particularly frequent in the later historians and geographers.61 In the preserved text of Dionysius’ Techne the term

is principally classified under the

category of paragogic nouns. The section entitled derivative adjectival and nominal forms patronymic adjective), the

describes the seven of the substantive: the

(the

(the possessive adjective), the

comparative adjective), the

(the

(the superlative adjective), the

(the

noun diminutive in meaning, but not necessarily, or indeed normally, in form, as for

the

and

(representing such derivative personal names as

from

and the verbal derivative,

from

which he defines as while the

is placed under

62

the secondary sub-classification of nouns. The is the earliest surviving witness to this type of grammatical analysis, though it may have been foreshadowed by Aristophanes and Aristarchus. The tradition thereafter developed with remarkable complexity, and the numerous Byzantine (p.38) scholia to Dionysius and Apollonius Dyscolus, in which the are subdivided into subordinate

represent its final development.

and 63

A good example of the basic contrast between the ethnic and the ktetic is provided by the Preface to the paroemiographical epitome of pseudo-Diogenianus, based on Loukillos of Tarrha.64 In his description (p.39) of

the writer gives two illustrations of the term; first,

of which he says and then of the (l. 1159),

The range of the ktetic naturally extends far beyond the personal (‘ktetoric’), geographical, or demographic use with which we are concerned, to all manner of customs and objects of daily life, animals, vegetables, wine, household chattels, coins, vases, wreaths for public occasions,65 books, songs, metres, decrees, laws, lexical terms, public gatherings, legal concepts, even divine epikleseis.66 The basic distinction, however, between the concept of general association of things, adhering to the ktetic, and that of membership of a recognised group, be it civic, military, or tribal, which provides the ethnic with its specific meaning in the context of public life, remains valid (though there are some exceptions) and provides the essential linguistic framework within which we must work, even though the terms themselves belong to systematised grammar and are of no great antiquity. In this respect the (p. 40) documentary usage of the Classical period is informative. During the First Athenian Empire the districts from which the Athenian the

the

was levied were defined as the and the

.67 Here the ethnikon

is used alongside the other ktetics, though the ktetic form was certainly used in Attic. The contrast between the two forms is sharply drawn by Krateros and Douris, in a passage preserved by the paroemiographer pseudo-Zenobius, and by a literary source of the Hellenistic period, which states of the inhabitants of Attica, 68

.69 This is again clearly implied in a passage in Menander’s Dyskolos, where one speaker, referring to a farmer in the Attic .70 A wider, but more abstract,

countryside, says, Page 9 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology connotation is provided by two entries in Harpocration, which refer to specifically local linguistic usage as .71 Exceptions to this principle, (p.41) where the ktetic and the ethnic fulfil the same function and are used without distinction, are rare, and where they occur they may sometimes reflect the usage of common speech (in Comedy) or of metrical requirement, as when Alexis says ,72 and wine is commonly described in either form.73 Lexical exceptions to the distinction occur, for example, in Hesychius, s.v. where the former adjective would according to rule be and in a proverb in the paroemiographical collection of pseudo-Diogenianus, in which the two terms appear to be used synonymously: ,74 and again, more ambiguously, in a passage of Pausanias referring to some early Athenian sculptors:

(p.42)

.75 We also occasionally encounter the ktetic as a personal name from the Classical period onwards, though it and a few others of similar form only become commonplace in the Imperial period.76 The feminine ethnic of

is normally the ktetic

as in Plutarch’s description of

77

Thais as . This is said to have been because the form was not acceptable to Athenians themselves, by reason of its original use as the name of the goddess, though outside Athens the feminine ethnic in documentary usage is invariably The validity of the two forms was a lively issue between the Atticists and the Antiatticists, and was already discussed by Aristophanes of Byzantium on the basis of the occurrence of the form in Old Comedy.78 It is spelled out by Stephanus, s.v. where he quotes Didymus and other authorities for the relation between the two terms, and the significance in this context of the word .79 At a later date, (p.43) Photios in his Lexicon, repeated virtually verbatim by the Suda, quotes more instances, which reveal how flexible the line of demarcation between the two terms might be.80 However, the debate naturally concentrated purely on the literary tradition and, at least in its surviving fragmentary form, no appeal is made to the considerable use of the ktetic form outside Athens. It is thus part of the literary debate of the professional grammarians that does not affect the wider use outside Attica. The ktetic is used at times in place of the ethnic of citizens of some communities, mainly, but not only, in the Peloponnese and Boiotia, and there is no convincing indication of any social (or chronological) distinction in the use of the two forms. Thus, both 81

found doing duty for for

,

and

82

for

.

feminine ethnic is normally is also found.

are could stand

may replace

since the form 83

though the form

and in Boiotia (p.44)

and while the

is not linguistically possible,

Tanagra shows the (p.45) same variations,

and as forms of the feminine ethnic, while and occur as 84 variant forms of the true ktetic, and the ethnic of a lady from Methana on an Athenian tombstone is given as and

.85 Again, Mantinea shows the same variant forms,

and after its change of name to Antigoneia

stands alongside

as the female form of the regular documentary (but not literary) ethnic of the renamed city after 221 BC, until the old name was restored by Hadrian,86 while at Argos the ethnic of a lady from Hermione is given as Page 10 of 43

.87 For another Arcadian city, Pheneos,

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology the masculine ethnic is either the feminine ,88 while (p.46) for the Achaean city of Aigion a man and woman are respectively given the ethnic ;89 the feminine of

and ; is Thessaly

90

(or occasionally

is regularly

the epichoric feminine ethnic of the Boiotian Skaphla or East Lokrian Ska(r)pheia ;91 in Akarnania we have

alongside the masculine 92

,

in Epirus

93

.

in

For Crete, Theocritus gives us the purely ktetic

form which Stephanus quotes, without a source, at the end of a long list of adjectival derivatives from .94 On the other hand an early Imperial manumission at Delphi (p.47) shows a clear contrast in meaning, along the lines asserted by Dittenberger (see below).95 The natural way in which the two forms might be used of the same object is shown by Thucydides’ two expressions,

.96

and

These ktetic forms used in an ethnic, or semi-ethnic, sense from the Classical period onwards, especially in Athenian literature and in documentary sources, have been explained in two different ways. Dittenberger observed that the natural force of the possessive adjective, which was used of an individual, or of an object of local production, such as wine or marble or honey, was extended to a slave, who might be denoted simply as

but never

or,

combined with the unexpressed substantive as etc., as frequently in manumission documents at Delphi and elsewhere, or, we may add, be extended to citizens of alien communities within the structure of a polis, who did not possess the full rights of a this was particularly true of the wife of a foreigner, who would naturally enjoy even fewer of the privileges of residence than her husband or a male counterpart of the same origin; moreover, in common linguistic usage, where a feminine ethnic could not be formed, or was only rarely formed, with the same termination as the masculine on grounds of euphony, the ktetic was also employed. Dittenberger also noted the geographical limitation of these forms, as it then appeared. However, although the first point regarding the conceptual extension of the term still holds good, reinforced by numerous examples, the geographical limitation of the ktetic/ethnic, both masculine and feminine, to the Peloponnese and areas adjacent to Attica must be regarded as untenable today in view of the increasing number of such forms further afield.97 He also compared the use of the ktetic to express a relationship between ruler and ruled, where the question of citizenship did not arise, as of a line of kings, used by 98 Strabo more than once, and similar expressions, with a wider and more abstract (p.48) range, in Polybius.99 A more recent explanation, that the ktetic represents a phase of residence in a foreign city in which the individual has not yet obtained full citizen-rights of that city, and at the same time has retained citizenship of his original city, does not cover all known cases, especially those in which an ethnic in is the only known form, and at the same time does not correspond to the normal practice of the Greeks in such situations.100 Stephanus, on the first page of the Epitome (by chance), recording that the ethnic and ktetic of same,

(α 1 Bill.) were the

adds the warning:

that is, ‘since their forms may be irregular’. It is to be noticed that the usage is not specifically Attic, and in particular that the ktetic form very other rarely takes the place of the Attic demotic form.101 Purely Greek personal names in and those which are metaplasms of an termination, or forms such as than are not frequent.102 On the other hand, as already noted, ethnics with second declension terminations are frequently used with a ktetic sense (particularly of varieties of wine and food), and the same usage extended in literary (p.49) sources, particularly in verse, to third declension forms in Page 11 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology .103 A good example is provided by the use of the ethnic by Theophrastus to describe different varieties of radishes: Allied to this usage we may note the use of diminutive feminine nouns for articles of clothing, shoes etc., such as and 104 ktetic and the ethnic would be, and often are, equally in place.

where the

A further use of the ktetic in in which it approximates very closely to the use of the ethnic, is in the description of local or regal currency. Thus we find the regular use of and and many other instances. is used alongside the regular

In this particular context an alternative ethnic termination,

while the form of the ethnic is, as we have seen, ktetic form, .105 This practice is the same as that, already referred to, in which the adjectival form is used of wine and other local products; just as the wine of Mende is called the .106

drachmai of Mende bear the legend

We may at this point consider the alternative form of the ktetic terminating in also much used of coinage. Although this termination also has a perfectly valid usage as an ethnic, particularly when need arose for discrimination between two homonymous cities, as e.g. and it is essentially a ktetic form, used especially in the (p.50) Thessalian and Boiotian dialects to denote the patronymic, in place of the customary possessive genitive of the father’s name. It was extended, especially in the Hellenistic age, to express ‘membership of’, with a wider significance than the of the Classical world, for example as indicating loyalty to or association with this or that political or military leader or sovereign, the Romans or the Macedonians, even the Persians, philosophical teachers and so on, with the same meaning as the present participle of the verbal form 108

by the grammarians a

,

.107 Its substantival form was called

because it was used to denote sanctuaries and individual

buildings within them, such as However, it had, overall, a wide range of usages; its numismatic form, referring especially to royal coinage, takes over from the older ktetic forms in ,109 and it is also regularly used at all periods, along with terminations in -ια and -αια denote cult-buildings and festivals,110 and with a direct personal application, (p.51) simply referring to the author of a quoted saying, as or indicating notoriety, as in, for .111 However, its most common use, to example, a ‘Lucullan’ banquet, designate association between individuals, along with the corresponding verbal form in mainly occurs in post-Classical usage,112 and in the familiar use of by the Classical 113 historians. This ‘associative’ use of the adjective in and the corresponding verb in is found frequently in Polybius and, still more, in Polyainos (see further below, Chapter 9, pp. 201–5). Thus the supporters of the Rhodian Memnon, the Achaemenian army commander in 334 BC at Ephesus, are corresponding verb the

the followers of Seleukos are

with the

the troops of Eumenes of Kardia are are matched in Dionysius Thrax by the (p.52) model verb

;114 Plutarch in his Life of Demosthenes says that the orator described the Delphic Pythia as

.115 Terms such as

than the more familiar ktetics such as

have a more ‘esoteric’ atmosphere of which

Page 12 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology examples could be multiplied.116 On the other hand the forms in are also found used of royal troops, although on one occasion Polybius, referring to the pro-Seleukid party at Phokaia, calls them use of the termination in

a term not otherwise attested.117 Finally we may notice the (p.53) in a literary context, where the distinction from ktetics in is (a dialogue(?) containing

carefully preserved, as, for instance of Philemon’s book of emendations, or historical corrections?) on Herodotus,

and the

distinction between and the former a book by Plato, the latter a book about Plato (see below, p. 204, n. 8 and above, p. 38, n. 63).118

Topics It was a natural development that a further alternative to the use of the true ethnic in the basic sense of ‘proceeding from’ would emerge in common speech alongside the use of and Several Attic demes, both in public and private documents and in the less formal atmosphere and this formula extends in of literary texts, are very often described by topical adverbs, Attic usage beyond the boundaries of Attica to other nearby cities, in such forms as in which the terminations and are added directly to the stem. That there was an inherent element of ambiguity in the use of these adverbial formulae, between the concept of motion, (p.54) that is, reference to a single transfer from the place in question, and that of origin, as in the English ‘I come from’, was inevitable. This adverbial form might be employed with propriety in place of the demotic, ethnic, or ktetic, in both prose and verse. The usage is found already in Homer’s Catalogue of the Ships, and in two Archaic dedications from Olympia there is a sign of this conflation: 119

and followed by the ethnic.120 Among Attic demes, in addition

instead of the more regular, later, to the very frequent

in Middle

Comedy Anaxandrides, 121

but

.

calls Kephisodotos not

Archippos has

for

and Nausikrates refers to the territory of the deme of by the ktetic form, 122 . An excellent example of the equation in meaning is provided by Athenaeus, in a passage full of quotations from and allusions to Comic writers, in which he discusses the meaning of the word ;

123

‘groats’. A speaker asks,

and Athenaeus quotes a passage of Antiphanes:124

The frequently quoted and debated line attributed to Sousarion, if it may be quoted as a further example, runs: .125

(p.55) The original contrast is deliberately stressed in a fragment of Strattis:

.126 We may also note, in high poetry, the way in which Pindar links the two different forms, when motion is conveyed:

Page 13 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology .127 In the Lexica we may note the entry in one MS of the Etymologicum Magnum s.v. ,128 where the analogy is drawn are regularly given in a standardised

between a deme and a city. Examples of demotic form by Stephanus.129

Concluding Remarks Up to this point we have mainly been considering various points that create the background of the changes and varieties in the use of the ethnic in the course of its long history, and its relation to associated forms, (p.56) notably the ktetic and the adverbial ‘topicals’. We shall henceforth be concerned expressly with the history of the ethnic both in its wider, regional application and its narrower civic usage, as it appears in documents and texts of the Classical and later periods. There is, however, one aspect of the use of the Attic demotic in which it stands almost alone. The normal international practice by which Greeks were known abroad simply by their ethnic (and perhaps patronymic) is breached in some texts referring to Athenians. Disregarding those cases, notably Attic cleruchies, in which the demotic system is extended to cases in which non-Attic soil is occupied by Athenian citizens, and thus becomes de facto Athenian soil, and a few other especial cases, such as that of the Athenian citizens at Delos, and of Athenian colonists at Potidaia,130 and the use of the demotic for Athenian citizens whose names were inscribed on the Treasury of the Athenians at Delphi,131 some examples—not indeed a large number—show quite clearly the use of an Attic demotic abroad, with or without the accompanying ethnic at least in honorific inscriptions. Thus an Olbian inscription of approximately the middle of the fourth century BC reads as follows:132

But, at about the same date in the same distant place, a tombstone reads simply ,133 and, also at Olbia, an Athenian sculptor, probably of the earlier part of the succeeding century, true to the frequent convention of his calling, signs himself simply as

his ethnic sufficing for identification.134 At

Adramyttion, on the Mysian coast, we find the ‘Phalerean’

,135 and two

are honoured on separate occasions (p.57) by but the reason for this may lie in the supposed colonisation of that city by Athens. Other instances of Athenian demotics used abroad are, except for a text from Epidaurus,136 extremely dubious, though the same phenomenon occurs in the very different milieu of epinikian poetry. Pindar’s second Nemean Ode is addressed not .137 It is not possible to explain this rare anomaly, which seems originally to have been exclusively Attic—the use of Rhodian demotics within Rhodian Incorporated Territory, in the islands and on the mainland, is due to their incorporation within the Rhodian deme-system, and is not comparable.138 It may express a simple recognition of the pre-eminence of Athens among Greek cities, to which is added, no doubt, some element of individual choice. It has been suggested that it reflects the especial link between Athens and a colony, but the instances seem too scattered Page 14 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology for that to be likely.139 However that may be, an occasional man of public note might be known, (p.58) on the basis of an Attic tradition, by his demotic alone, for as long as his memory survived; of such, notably, was never known as 140 . Otherwise the use of the local ethnic to designate a native of a city within his city is very rare, though we shall see that a few exceptions are found: we may note particularly several associated instances, after AD 212, in which full name of local citizens.141

is added, as if out of civic pride, to the

We may summarise the foregoing discussion by saying that is a grammatical form which covers the concept of ‘belonging to a locality’ in the widest sense, and does not while the correspond to, indeed may contrast with, the accepted usage of the term recognition of membership of a city was based on the notion, real or fictitious, of ancestral that the application of the term to embrace the was probably a descent, the product of later Hellenistic grammatical theory; and that the boundary between the ethnic, as used of a city, and the ktetic similarly so used, was not always heeded in practice. There remains to be noted one small category of city-names, those with a plural termination. The ethnics of those with an o-stem,

are frequently simply

formed by substituting a singular for the plural ending,

(the last of

which is indicated by Stephanus as an alternative to the form the plural being in 142 essence confined to the place-name. Those with an (p.59) α-stem include of which the ethnic forms are not uniform or stable: the various cities called or

the ethnic of

is

that of

make ethnics in either or

that of of of and of .143 Many of these plural city-names appear to have generated no ktetic forms for appellatives, so that the ethnic assumes that role, as, for example, in though we have already seen that the feminine ethnic in particular is replaced by the ktetic in a number of cases.144 (p.60) Notes: is to be found in the tightly packed (1) The most important general study of the adjectival in pages of Pierre Chantraine, Études sur la vocabulaire grec, Études et Commentaires, 24 (Paris, 1956), pp. 97–171 (esp. pp. 97–114). Chantraine’s exposition is based on the assumption that the original usage of the adjective in is as an ethnic. That is probably correct, but in any case, except in specific cases I am only concerned with its ethnic use (see below, pp. 35–53). (2) The most detailed study of ethnic terminology remains the four long articles by Wilhelm Dittenberger in Hermes, 41 (1906), 78–102, 161–219; 42 (1907), 1–34, 161–234, for both of which see above, p. xi. The dissertation of G. Redard, Les Noms grecs en -THΣ, -TIΣ, Études et Commentaires, 5 (typescript) (Paris, 1949) (cf. Chantraine, p. 97), pp. 118–90, gives a very useful list of all the ethnics in Stephanus and elsewhere, with their terminations, and their variations, which he calls ‘multivariant’. The numerous studies of L. Robert are less concerned in the first place with the linguistic than with the historical analysis of ethnics, particularly their identification on the ground, and my debt to his writings is naturally very great in the historical part of this study for the establishment of innumerable diverse points from one end of the Greek world to the other. In a different context we have now the encyclopaedic volume, An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (Oxford, 2004), edited by M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen, which, in

Page 15 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology respect of ethnics, summarises and supersedes Hansen’s previous papers, in particular ‘Cityethnics as evidence for polis identity’, in M. H. Hansen and K. Raaflaub (eds.), More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, in Historia Einzelschriften, 108 (1996), pp. 169–96. The statistical analysis by D. Whitehead, ‘Sub-classification and reliability in Stephanus of Byzantium’, in id. (ed.), From Political Architecture to Stephanus Byzantius: Sources for the Ancient Greek Polis, Historia Einzelschriften, 87 (1994), pp. 99–124, is restricted, like the papers by Hansen and, now, the Inventory, to the Archaic and Classical material (cf. Inventory, p. 26, n. 19), and does not consider the layers of literary and lexicographical tradition that lie between the Epitome of the Ethnika and the original sources. See above, p. ix, n. 1. (3) See the evidence in Ventris and Chadwick, Documents in Mycenaean Greek, pp. 139–42, with additional notes (pp. 415 ff.). The existence of ethnic forms in -ios/iā (-jo/ja) seems established, even though at times uncertainties remain as to the distinction between a place-name and an ethnic at Knossos and Pylos. The paper of E. Risch, Mus. Helv. 14 (1957), 63 ff., sets out to establish the direct links between the Mycenaean forms and the development of the Greek ethnic. There is no reason to doubt that Hippias of Elis’s work, FGrH 6 F1 (quoted by Schol. Ap. Rhod. 3.1179, the only fragment), was concerned specifically with nonGreek tribes. See further Jacoby’s addendum to the 2nd edition of his Commentary on that fragment. Hippias, whose imaginary justification for the work is to be found ibid., T2, is not quoted by Stephanus (Plat. Hipp. Min. 368b–d). (4) See below, p. 25. (5) The most specific definition is that in Pol. 1275a7: Pol. 1278a36: Cf. Wilamowitz, Kl. Schr. V (i), p. 308, n. 2. The meaning of the formula in a decree of 88 BC (SEG 41, 625, ll. 2–3, giving privileges to mercenaries at Phanagoreia, is very uncertain: see China 22 (1992), 159–60, and BE 1993, no. 377. In Hdt. 7.103.2 (Xerxes to Demaratos):

and Thuc.

8.93.3, refers to the whole ‘body politic’. Cicero, Ad Att. 1.13.4, expresses the use very clearly: nihil come, nihil simplex, nihil honestum, nihil illustre, nihil forte, nihil liberum. In communities which were not constitutionally i.e. which lacked many of the organs of self-government, such as most Ptolemaic settlements in the Nile valley, which normally consisted, at least originally, primarily evidently refers to the members of the of military personnel of varying status, the term civil population, as in the rock-cut graffito of perhaps the second century BC from near by two groups led by a Panopolis, opposite Ptolemais Hermiou, a dedication to military (a) and (b) (SB 286); the text has been miscarved or miscopied at one point (l. 3), but, in spite of its remote environment, it clearly illustrates a contrast between the two groups. (6) Tracy and Habicht, Hesperia, 60 (1991), 187–236 (SEG 42, 115), reprinted in Habicht’s collected essays, Athen in hellenistischer Zeit (Munich, 1994), pp. 73 ff. This text is frequently quoted below. Other related texts display essentially the same pattern as the inscription published by Habicht. See Polyb. 4.52.7 with Walbank’s note, accepting the emendation of

Page 16 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology to (for which emendation see A. Wilhelm, Wiener Eranos (1909), 132–3, citing e.g. IG II, 968 (= II2, 2316), l. 54. (7) For this phrase, in the (datival) form IX (1)2 (1), 176 = BCH 82 (1958), 69 ff. of c.250 BC, and SEG 28, 60, l. 81 f.:

see IG cf.

C. Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony (Cambrige, Mass. and London, 1997), p. 139. Compare the frequent use at Rhodes of the phrase in the context of military when the strategos was chosen, in time of commands war, from the whole people, regardless of any tribal roster: see e.g. Hiller von Gaertringen, RE, Supplbd. 5, col. 768; R. M. Berthold, Rhodes in the Hellenistic Age (Ithaca and London, 1984), p. [46], n. 29. An isolated entry in Steph., deriving from Hecataeus (FGrH 1 F90 (in part)) associates in an unexpected manner, s.v.

(α 65 Bill.), the two contrasting terms

and but the analogy with the ktetic is not valid. see the dissertation of F. Schotten, ‘Zur (8) For an analysis of the term Bedeutungsentwicklung des Adjektivs (diss. Köln, 1966), access to which I owe to the kindness of Professor W. Blümel. Schotten stresses (p. 36) that the class of adjectives in greatly increased in the fourth century, as it was extended to include new aspects of social and intellectual activity; cf. above, n. 1 for Chantraine’s detailed study of this development. The phrase in an inscription from Istros, of 3rd cent. BC (ISM I, 18) referring to ‘civic difficulties’, is, I think, unattested elsewhere. A group of Milesian documents: (1) the treaties between Miletus and the Cretan cities, Milet I (3), 140, of the mid-3rd century adjectives in a civic context: ll. 33 ff.: BC, contains very clear examples of the use of cf. ibid. 49–50; 60–62: (2) ibid. no. 148 the treaty between Miletus and Magnesia-on-Maeander, of c.196 BC (cf. M. Wörrle, Chiron, 34 (2004), 45–57) l. 64: (3) ibid. no. 150, the treaty between Miletus and Herakleia-by-Latmos (180 BC?), l. 52: ibid. l. 93: 3

cf. IEph. 4 (Syll. 364C): For contrasting no. 23 (OGIS 267), the letter of Eumenes I to Pergamon, l. 29:

see e.g. Welles, RC,

OGIS 332, l. 41, a decree of Elaia in honour of Attalus III: Dem. 20.18 refers to a phrase which recurs in a recently published letter from Antigonos Doson or Philip V relating to Beroia, IBeroea, 4, ll. 6–7, granted to i.e. ‘citizen-levies’, with a list of those who had served in the levy and were now rewarded appropriately. refers to the ‘body politic’ of (9) See above, n. 7. In Hdt. 7.103 and Thuc. 8.93 Sparta and Athens respectively, and in the early 3rd cent. BC at Amorgos (Aigialai) we find (IG XII (7), 386, l. 25 = Syll.3 521). Xen. HG 4.4.19 has

Page 17 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology In Plato’s Politicus the term is naturally in continuous use of the ruler, and the is repeatedly defined in various and elusive terms, into which this is not the place to go. In Aristotle’s Politics (1252a7, 1274b36 and 1276a34) occurs both in the sense of ‘statesman’ and of ‘student of politics’; cf. the passage of Polybius quoted by Wilhelm (above, n. 6). With the use of in Diod. 19.106.2, compare that in the rupestral inscription quoted above, n. 5; the meaning ‘civil may also be found with population’ seems to be the same in the two passages. Later, the very general meaning of ‘ordinary’, as opposed to technical, language, as used, for example, by Galen of the language of Hippocrates: 17.678). Eventually (Joh. Lydus, De In modern Greek they are the

Mens. 3.10), comes to mean simply professional politicians.

(10) See below, Chapter 13, for the analysis of Stephanus’ vocabulary. The recently published commentary on CPR xviii (1991), p. 73, wrongly calls a city ethnic (in the case in point, in contrast to a demotic, a ‘Politikon’. There is no independent warrant for the term as used in this sense by modern scholars. The work of Diophantos or Diophanes quoted by Steph. s.v.

as

(FGrH 805): was rightly emended by Voss, as in Schol. Ap. Rhod. 3.240 (Diophantos

followed by Müller, FHG IV, pp. 396–7, to F1)

cf. ibid. 1.826b

emended by Schwartz, RE, s.v.

Diophantos (14) to (FGrH 856 Dionysophanes F2); Agath., GGM, i, p. 156, line 64, Steph. also quotes Diophantos s.v. 8 Bill.), but says only (11) See above, n. 7. In this context I may call attention to the unexpected ktetic as a name-form on an Attic tombstone, IG II2, 10290 (5th/4th cent. BC). (12) See Call. fr. 406, referring to local names for fish; cf. Pfeiffer ad loc. (13) The lexicographical tradition is analysed in the greatest detail by Cohn, RE, s.v. Lexikographie, cols. 2432–79 and Tolkhien, ibid. cols. 2479–82, to which I may refer the reader for details not relevant to the role of Aristophanes (for which see also Cohn, ibid. s.v. Aristophanes (14)). The unravelling of the tradition as it concerns Aristophanes began with Nauck’s Aristoph. Byz. Fragmenta (Halle, 1848), pp. 69–234, but he was not able to assign the fragments at his disposal to their true context within the general work: the ‘fragmenta sedis incertae’ are on pp. 191 ff., frs. xxxvi ff. The process of specific identification began with the publication by E. Miller, in Mélanges de littérature grecque (Paris, 1855), pp. 432 ff., of a fragment of a list on Mt. Athos headed and clearly deriving from a fuller list of the same substance as that represented by Pollux, 3.59 (Bethe). Nauck, Mélanges gréco-romaines (St Petersburg, 1868), iii, pp. 105–38, took the identification further, and made many corrections to Miller’s work. The discovery of further lists in MSS enabled A. Fresenius, De Aristophanearum et Suetonianarum excerptis Byzantinis (Wiesbaden, 1875), to link the lexical material with the scholiastic fragments and lists in Eustathius’ Commentary on the Iliad, given by Nauck. To this homogeneous tradition, including the material in Pollux, he assigned the name

on the analogy of the other subdivisions, the

the [the spurious] and others. (In Fresenius’ tables, pp. 126–7, the right-hand column refers to the number of the fragment in

Page 18 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology Nauck, Arist. Byz.) Schwabe’s edition of the fragments of Aelius Aristides and Pausanias in Aelii Dionysii et Pausaniae Atticistarum fragmenta (Leipzig, 1890) prints the quotations from these authors as in Eustathius, and establishes their link with Aristophanes of Byzantium (pp. 42 ff.). The parallel passages to Pollux are in fr. 282 (p. 201 Schw.) = Eust. p. 405 (Stallb.), 35 ff. (= van der Valk, i, p. 638). The Suda adds

to Pollux’s list, E 311:

cf. schol. ad loc. but this cannot be generally true. On the analogy of (found in Phokis, in the 5th cent. BC, IG IX (1), 333, l. 12: and in 2 Olbia in the first century AD, IOSPE I , 355, l. 25, in which a benefactor in time of need procured ‘through personal friends’), in AE (1924), no. wheat for the needy community 400B (= G. Lucas, Les Cités antiques de la haute vallée du Titarèse (Lyons, c. 1997), Pythion, 2B) the term Agam. 880:

is used to describe a witness to a manumission. For cf. Plut. Mor. 295c:

cf. Aesch.

(14) Poll. 3.51. The entry continues to §59. In this very brief example from the opening section I have omitted the material inserted by Bethe from parallel grammatical traditions. In his edition of Aristophanes, Aristophanis Byzantii Fragmenta, Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker, 6 (Berlin, 1976), W. J. Slater (p. xvii) sounds a note of caution regarding the use of Pollux in this context. The other line of approach to these lists is through the Canones (re)published by O. Kroehnert, in his Canonesne poetarum scriptorum artificum per antiquitatem by R. Rabe, Rh. Mus. 65 fuerunt (Regensburg, 1897; corrections to Kroehnert’s lists of (1910), 339 ff.), in which the categories of writers in two Byzantine MSS, Coisl. 387 and Cramer, Anecd. Par., iv, pp. 195–7, include and refer to both Orion and Oros, but the lists are corrupt, and the two names probably confused in themselves, as often (cf. Alpers, Das attizistische Lexicon des Oros, Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker, 4 (Berlin, 1981), pp. 87 ff.), thereby creating a dislocation in the text. An early example of such laterculi is the so-called Laterculi Alexandrini, a Hellenistic papyrus published by Diels, Berl. Abh. (1905), with lists of pre-eminent artists etc.: see my brief description of it in Ptol. Alex., i, p. 45. (15) See the whole of Nauck’s ch. 4 of Arist. Byz., as cited above, n. 13. Eustathius, of course, , but that is not relevant here: see below, e.g. pp. 314 ff. refers repeatedly to Stephanus’ (two items that (16) See p. 38 〈11〉 Uhlig: became the traditional examples). The Latin grammatici distinguish, in the corresponding texts, between gentilia and patria: Dosith. GL 8.394 (quoted by Uhlig, Dion. Thr. ad loc.): qui latina quidem gentilis, Afer Dacus Hispanus…sed Graeca alia patriam (scil. significant), ut Thebanus Romanus; cf. Prisc.: patrium est quod a patria sumitur, ut Atheniensis Romanus; cf. Isid. Etym. 1.7.23–4: Gentis a gente veniunt, ut ‘Graecus’, ‘Romanus’. Patriae a patria descendunt, ut ‘Atheniensis’, ‘Thebanus’. The controversy regarding the date of composition of Dionysius’ in its present form continues unabated among modern grammatici: see, among numerous summaries, those of A. Kemp, Historiographia Linguistica, 13(2/3) (1986), pp. 343–63 (with English translation of the and notes); A. Wouters, The Grammatical Papyri from Greco-Roman Egypt: Contributions to the Study of the ‘Ars Grammatica’ in Antiquity, Verhandl. Koninkl. Acad. Voor Wetensch. etc. 41 (Brussels, 1979), no. 92, pp. 33–7; cf. ibid. in Miscell. in hon. J. Vergote, Orientalia Lovanensia Periodica, 6–7 (1975–6), Page 19 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology pp. 601–13; R. H. Robins, The Byzantine Grammarians: their Place in History, Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs, 70 (Berlin and New York, 1993), pp. 41 ff. The papyri with grammatical subjects, published by Wouters, op. cit., most of which are anonymous, are almost all of Imperial, and some of Byzantine, date. They show in varying degrees the influence of the terminology and categories of the and make the problem of determining how much, if any, of the transmitted text represents the ipsissima verba of Dionysius insoluble. Nevertheless, the principles on which the text of the is based allow us to regard it as the earliest surviving formulation of the ‘Ars grammatica’ and of subsequent In his new edition of the fragments of Dionysius (part of vol. 3 of the series Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker) K. Linke has no doubt about the authenticity of the does not include the text of the

(pp. 10–11; the volume

(17) For Oros see below, especially Chapter 14, pp. 298–302. (18) See below, pp. 268–70, for further instances and discussion of these terms. (19) (1906), p. 162, n. 3: ‘Die Distinction [between the use of and the nominal et sim.] beruht demnach unzweifelhaft auf Flüchtigkeit und Gedankenlosigkeit, und zwar allem Anschein nach nicht des Verfassers, sondern des Epitomators’; in this he is followed by Whitehead, Historia Einzelschriften, 87 (1994), pp. 123–4. Though it is not possible to create a wholly satisfactory distinction between the two usages when they occur side by side (e.g. s.v. cf. further, below, p. 269), it is striking that the items in which is used are rarely supported by quoted authority. Aristophanes, who, as we have seen, might have inaugurated the use of in his is not quoted in Steph., but that is true of the whole early Hellenistic grammatical tradition from Callimachus, qua grammaticus, onwards: it has been submerged in later epitomai, which were painlessly digested. Contrast the survival in Steph. of seemingly direct quotations from the Hellenistic and later geographers, notably Strabo, Artemidorus of Ephesus, Dionysius the Periegete, and, to a limited extent, from the poets (Callimachus, qua poeta, Euphorion, and particularly, for obvious reasons, Lycophron, the author of the Alexandra): see, in detail, below, p. 322 and Appendix 3.

(20) (21) See Eust. Opuscula (Frankfurt, 1832) 315, 60 (= Letter 7, ed. F. Kolovou, Munich and Leipzig, 2006, p. 29.81): [But Mr N. G. Wilson, who kindly helped me to locate the preceding reference, observes that this is ‘hardly the best context’ for Fraser’s case, and that Eustathius’ commentary on Homer’s Iliad has many examples in grammatical Page 20 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology contexts; see H. M. Keizer, Indices in Eustathii…commentarios in Homeri Iliadem pertinentes (Leiden, 1995), p. 437, entry s.v. S. H.] See also D.T. 634.21: Hilgard, GG IV, 108.1 ff.; Sophocles, Lexicon, s.v. , 2.

cf.

(22) (23) See Adler’s Suidas, i, pp. xvii–xviii. Diogenianus of Heraclea, of the time of Hadrian, is more familiar as a contributor to the paroemiographic tradition: see CPG I, pp. xxvii ff. Some of his wide-ranging studies, including many lexical works passing under his name, are listed by Hesychius in his introductory letter to Eulogius. There is an article on him by Leopold Cohn in RE, s.v. (4), which is now dated, but, like all of Cohn’s articles, contains much careful analysis. A more recent assessment of him, and of Pamphilos’ relation to him as an intermediary, is that on Pamphilos by C. Wendel, ibid. (25). It is noteworthy, not least as an indication of the separate routes taken by lexical and ethnic compilations, that Stephanus, in his present state, refers neither to Pamphilos nor to Diogenianus. (24) See below, Chapter 13. (25) p. 34, ll. 3–6 (α 80 Bill.): The topographical sense of is expressed once and for all in the familiar words of Dikaiopolis as he sat in the Agora (Ar. Ach. 33): (26) p. 70, ll. 20–71, l. 2 (α 200 Bill.): add. quispiam]; cf. with further reference to Alexandria as an

below, n. 27.

(27) (α 505 Bill.) followed by a notice as to the historical origin of the Athenians, from Philochoros (FGrH 328 F2a), which appears in the lexicographical tradition in slightly different forms: see now the synoptic version of Et. Gen. and Symeon, Lasserre-Livadaras, ii, s.v. which after quoting Philoch., continues: Steph. continues: followed by quotations from Sophocles and from Eratosthenes’ similar quotation from the same entry (s.v.

(Powell, Coll. Alex., fr. 23); then a

(s.v. Steph. quotes Strabo (801), who calls Canopus It seems likely that the complex entry on Alexandria in its present form derives mainly a from Oros: see Fraser, Cities, pp. 1 ff.

Page 21 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology (28) As, for instance, in Plat. Apol. 30.1: Other passages in Plato are quoted by H. Cadell, Ktèma, 9 (1984), 235 ff., as well as the evidence of Ptolemaic papyri (esp. Dikaiomata; cf. Fraser, Ptol. Alex., ii, p. 116, n. 24); see also A. Fouchard, ‘Astos, politès et épichôrios chez Platon’, Ktèma, 9 (1984), 185–204. see Busolt-Swoboda, Gr. Staatskunde, ii, pp. 777 ff. Its For the formal usage of most familar manifestation is in Aristotle’s definition of the law of citizenship introduced by Pericles, Ath. Pol. 26.4:

Polit.

1278a34: The contrast is frequent; for epigraphical examples see Sokolowski, LSAM 46, l. 6 (Miletus, c.300 BC); ibid. 73, ll. 5 f. (Halicarnassus; Hellenistic). Cf. Hdt. 2.160.4. (29) The compound

occurs already in Aesch. Suppl. 356–8,

an entry from an excerpted Diogenianus Phot. Zav. α 3013 has a shorter entry in the same sense: Aristophanes (= Pollux), quoted above, p. 22, has a long, but not exhaustive, list of compound substantives in he does not include, e.g., familiar from Rhodian inscriptions. (30) See above, nn. 25–6. There are numerous passages which do not permit a precise distinction (masc.) does not occur before the between the meaning of the two words. In Alexandria is found not only there but in other cities of Egypt, followed sometimes Roman period, but by the name of the city, e.g. (Alexandria); GVI 1873; cf. Fraser, Ptol. Alex., ii, p. 116, n. 24, In the Imperial period the word is used in Egypt with little or no emphasis, for instance on some tombstones from the Delta; e.g. Cairo Cat. Gk. Inscr., ed. J. G. Milne (Cairo, 1906), p. 56, no. 27537 (1st cent. AD) (from Tel Abu Ballu? = anc. ibid. 27562: --α etc. There is no reason to suppose that such cases (and many more) refer to Alexandrian citizenship. (31) See the discussions that have arisen regarding the role of Xanthos in the plea of the Phokian city, Kytenion, for assistance in rebuilding their city by using its influence (based on common descent as Argeads) with the Ptolemaic court in the later third century, see Fraser, Cities, pp. 45–6, and subsequently, SEG 38, 1476. See also below, p. 119, n. 1.

(32)

Page 22 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology (33) See OGIS 91 (TAM II, 263): where we have the double abnormality of the use of the metronymic, and that of the civic ethnic within the city, for a Ptolemaic commander (see Dittenberger’s note ad loc., and Launey, Recherches, ii, pp. 193–4; and the recent evidence regarding Aetos of Aspendos, below, p. 171, n. 8). The ethnic recurs in TAM II, 261, a and b, of Imperial date, in which (in 261 b, but not in a) is described as a is honorific, b is his will:

(34) For the cities in which the formed a part of the body politic to which foreigners might be admitted, when awarded citizenship, with the right to select which they chose, see N. F. Jones, Public Organization in Ancient Greece: A Documentary Study, American Philosophical Society Memoir, 176 (1987), pp. 191 ff., with notes, based on Forrest, BSA 55 (1960), 172–89, whose article, though concerned with the complex evidence from Chios, raises general problems; for Samos see Jones, ibid., pp. 200 ff., with reference to IG XII (6) (1), 24, ll. 35–8 (SEG 1, 355) and ibid. no. 56, ll. 35–6 (SEG 1, 362), where it is said of the honorand Many instances of the formula will be found in Index viiiA to IG XII (6) (2), pp. 732 ff. (the names of the themselves are in Index iv, p. 671). Further instances of these ‘internal’ occur at Kolophon (AJP 56 (1935), 359–72, no. 1 (= Robert, OMS II, pp. 1242–3), and ibid., pp. 380–1, no. 6; BCH 39 (1915), 36–7; cf. Jones, Public Organization, pp. 310–11); Erythrai (SEG 31, 969 (with Jones, ibid., p. 306) and Pygela (JÖAI 23 (1926), Beibl. 73–90 (SEG 4, 513) of the end of the fourth century; cf. Jones, ibid., p. 315). Robert, loc. cit., notes most of these instances, and in particular identifies the groups in the e.g.

and

in the Kolophonian list, no. 6, as

The formula of admission to

‘by choice’ is virtually the same in all cases, forming a part of the award, as, (Kolophon) and, in the secondary provision, (Samos,

above). so used see e.g. Paus.6.27.8 (cf. IvO. 271 = (35) From the very large number of examples of CEG I, 388 = Arena, III, 65 = Dubois, IGDGG, I, 36): of c.425 BC. At the same time, when the Suda refers to an inhabitant of a city under a place-name (that is to say under the entry for the city, not for any particular individual), the term, used generically, is e.g. T 211:

T1088:

(sic),

T176: individuals he uses the traditional

and many more examples, but for Note also Dem. 36.30 and 33.6, (cf. 33.20,

later becomes frequent, especially in honorific decrees and inscriptions on statue-bases, e.g. (of a woman) IG V (2), 268 = Syll.3 783, from Mantineia, of the age of Augustus, where Epigone, the daughter of Artemon, is described as On the other hand, the use of after a foreign ethnic in public documents, such as proxeny-decrees, seems to have been largely confined to Ionian communities (see also above, p. 6, with n. 15, for the cult-practices involving in preKleisthenic Athens). The demotic, like the patronymic, is naturally used at Athens and Rhodes in civic legal documents, wills and all legal transactions, while in the same circumstances the bare ethnic, without

is used in Ptolemaic documents: see PPetr.2 1, pp. 46–7 regarding wills,

Page 23 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology where the omission in such contexts both of demotics and of patronymics is in contrast to the regular record of military and cleruchic status.

(36)

(37) (38) (39) Nauck2 and TrGF fr. 187; Weir-Smyth and Lloyd-Jones, fr. 102; cf. Hom. Od. 14.199, A similar expression occurs in a fragment of Theolytus (Powell, Coll. Alex., fr. 9): is either the name of the eponym of Kopais or an alternative of the ethnic perhaps metr. grat. AP 7.304 (Page, FGE, pp. 81 f., for the true explanation of which an see Robert, OMS I, p. 652, n. 53), allusion to the supposed origin of the Magnesians-on-Maeander, who came to Asia from Thessaly, after a sojourn in Crete, is a developed form of the same type of play upon words and forms. (40) The EM s.v. to

gives a wide range of possible applications: (i.e. of descent); for as equivalent from Polybius onwards to the Christian periods see Sophocles, Lexicon, s.v., and for the

NT usage see Schmoller, Handbuch, s.v. The regular NT usage of Hebraism: see n. 41.

‘Gentile’ is a

(41) See, for example, the long but incomplete list of mercenaries of the end of the fourth century BC, IG II2, 1956, discussed in Ancient Macedonia: Papers read at the Fifth International Symposium held at Thessaloniki…1989, Institute for Balkan Studies, 240 (Thessaloniki, 1993), i, p. 443 ff., in which bearers of city ethnics and of regional ethnics are listed according to no Page 24 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology obvious system; seven of the mercenaries, out of a total of about 130, have no patronymic. See also the lists of ‘Mysian’ and other troops awarded citizenship at Lilaia in the last years of the third century, FD III (4), 132–5, where civic and other ethnics are intermingled: see P. M. Fraser, ‘Citizens, demesmen and metics in Athens and elsewhere’, in M. H. Hansen (ed.), Sources for the Ancient Greek City-State, Symposium August 24–27 1994, Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre, 2 (Copenhagen, 1995), pp. 64–90 at 79–80, and the detailed remarks of O. Masson, REG 106 (1993), 163 ff.; cf. also OGIS 338 (IPerg. 249). Xenophon in the Anabasis does not use either or when referring to individuals, even for the first time; they are simply while he introduces himself as (1.8.15): e.g. 2.6.21:

5.2.28-9.

2.6.29–30:

but 3.1.39: 3.1.34: and a number of similar variations, cf. also below, p. 218, for his in the dative case, is regularly used of origin throughout the NT,

or a comparable sectarian frequently combined with identification as a Jew, the ethnic term being used in apposition to the Greek ethnic form: e.g. Acts 4:36: ibid. 18:2: ibid. 18:24: Cf. Synes. Ep. 4, of the captain of the ship that took him from Alexandria to Cyrenaica:

(42) See IG II2, 956–61; e.g. 956 (161/0 BC), ll. 12–13, an honorand is praised for providing for l.53, in the list of victors,

957(158/7), ll. 8 f., cf. 958, ll. 11 and 50; [960, 15–17]; 961, 15–17.

(43) See Wilhelm, JÖAI 5 (1902), 130 (= Kl. Schr. II (i), p. Λ); cf. Launey, Recherches, p. 883, n. 4: ‘il s’agit à mon avis de mercenaires’. It would be surprising if mercenaries who were citizens of of whom many served in the Athenian forces, were included as that the term is confined to Thracian and other tribal mercenaries.

(44)

Page 25 of 43

it seems probable

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology (45) For the distinction in the NT between (of membership of a Greek community) along with (of religion) see above, n. 41. In later Christian times Eusebius provides substantial evidence for the fact that the two terms were used indifferently for foreign, nonGreek races, as HE 1.6.12: (cf. ibid. §§7–8), whereas §9 we have and 2.6.1, quoting Josephus, we find metrical epitaph: e.g.

and 2.6.2, quoting Philo (Ad Gai. 43),

At the same time the stricter usage continued, as in a Christian (GVI 696 = Wessel, Inscr.

would have created difficulties, so the Christ. 378, l. 4); the normal ethnic form author has preferred to make a syncopated spondee or a dactyl out of

(46) (47) Ibid. 32–3: There follows a long list of (l. 2) and (l. 4); cf. Uhlig ad loc. The papyrus fragment of the (PHal. 55a = Wouters, Grammatical Papyri from Greco-Roman Egypt, no. (as also in the MS 4) has, ll. 47–9: text); Wouters, no. 17 (Antinoupolis, 4th cent. AD) gives ethnic forms from the prosodic canon. Steph. uses 137 Bill.):

at times in contrast both with

and with

and

s.v.

(α

(α 460 Bill.) Steph. has an entry which, as Mein. ad loc. very briefly shows, is very confused: Hdt. 1.125 says of the Persian tribes, which Cyrus persuaded to revolt from the Medians, names; but

followed by their is the verb meaning ‘depend on’.

(48) See D.L. 6.99; Synes. Ep. 113, with my remarks in JHS 103 (2003), 29 n. 10; Theocr. 15.91, which I discuss at 78 (2003), 103 ff.; for Theopompos see FGrH 115 F355.

(49)

Page 26 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology

(50) (51) For Kriton’s (52) The entry s.v.

see FGrH 200, with Komm.: for Arrian FGrH 156 F113. in EM 180, which is mainly distinct from Steph., ends MSS); cf. Mein.’s note on Steph. s.v.

l.

15. (53) pp. 63 ff. §17; 26–7, §12.2. (54) See De pronom., 30.15; 105.5.20; 158.21; 160.15; (cf. D.T. 27, n. on l. 1). (55) See below, p. 50. For see Hesych. s.v., and for Ael. VH 4.20; cf. J. T. Dunbabin, The Western Greeks: the History of Sicily and South Italy from the Foundation of the Greek Colonies to 480 BC (Oxford, 1948), p. 76 n. 2. Compare also Str. 466: For SEG 9, 1, 28 (c.

see Epist. Socr. 30.5 (FGrH 69 F1); for 320 BC): for SEG 44, 1108, l. 6 (159 BC). The which is referred to in an anonymous fragment of a political pamphlet preserved by Phot. Bibl. cod. 37 (= R. Henry, Photios Bibliothèque, i (Paris, 1991), p. 22, if correctly identified, is the only surviving fragment from

a work referred to by name by Cic. Ad Att. 13.32 = Dik. fr. 70; cf. Dikaiarchos’ Martini, RE, s.v. Dikaiarchos (3), cols. 550–1(c); cf. above, p. 35. Note also the reference to the establishment of the constitution by Zaleukos and Timares, Iambl. VP 130: (cf. below, pp. 201 ff.) For

see

Polyain. 6.6.2. Plut. Vit. Lyc. 7 ff. seems to prefer but in ch. 1 has and his Lyc. et Num. Comp. 2 has and and ibid. ch. 11 quotes ‘Dioscorides’ (FGrH 594 F1, of uncertain date) (4th cent. BC; CGF VII, fr. 4), and various meanings could be multiplied.

Similarly we find in Xenarch. fr. 4 in Plut. Vit. Ant. 36. Examples with the

(56)

(57)

(58)

Page 27 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology (59) Powell, Coll. Alex., pp. 173–5, ll. 29–30:

(60) Hermes, 41 (1906), 198 ff. In the poem of Macedonius (6th cent. AD), AP 6.40, metr. caus. Other examples of this form are very numerous, e.g.

is

etc.; cf. below, n. 73. For the derivation of Attic ktetics see also Threatte, I, pp. 287 ff.

(61) (62) pp. 25–32, esp. 32–3: followed by a list of some twenty-five

cf. above, p. 33.

(63) The Scholia to Dionysius were first printed from a Vatican MS in I. Bekker, Anecdota Graeca (Berlin, 1814–21), ii, pp. 647–972. They are published individually from the numerous manuscripts and derivatives by Hilgard, GG I, 3 (concordance with Bekker at back, pp. 647 ff.). The clear distinction to be drawn between the and the the possessive adjective in does not occur in the text of Dionysius, but is given in his scholia, for example Schol. Marc. on Dion. pp. 26.7–28.5 from Habron, the Augustan author of a work in a single(?) book on ktetics (RE (4), p. 371, Hilgard): Cf. Schol. Vat. (p. 224 H):

(sc.

The scholia also give a larger range of abstract ktetika than Dionysius (see ibid., p. 223.8): the the the etc. For a similar range of concepts associated with ethnika see ibid., p. 238.22. Reitzenstein, Etym., pp. 312–13, with p. 313 n. 1, conjectured from the frequency of references to of Alexandria in the excerpts of Timotheos of Gaza (RE (18)) and in the scholia to Cyril (RE (2); cf. A. B. Drachmann, Die Überlieferung des Cyrillglossars (Copenhagen, 1936); K. Latte, Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon (Copenhagen, 1953, 1966), i, pp. xliv ff.) that the entries derived from the work on

by Horapollon, the teacher of Timotheos, as recorded by the Suda, Ω 159

Adler: The item stands first in the Suda-list of his writings, but all that survives of it is in entries of Cyril’s Lexicon: see below, n. 110.

Page 28 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology

(64) (65) Note the hitherto unattested SEG 41, 1611; BE 1997, no. 127 (lamps, of Imperial date). Such forms may also refer to dedications by an individual, e.g. IDélos 442B, 64–5, ibid. 99, ibid. 145, ibid. 38 must refer to a tripod ‘of the Delphian style’ as ibid. l. 32, a For festal wreaths note the festival to celebrate the victory of Thyreai, Sosib. FGrH 595 F5.

(66) (67) See the appropriate rubrics in IG I3 271 ff.

Page 29 of 43

worn at the Laconian

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology

(68)

(69) (70) l. 406.

(71) (72) K-A II, frs. 292 and 232. Whether in 292 (Eust. on Il. p. 932, 32) or (Epit. Athen. i, p. 30b) is correct, is not significant here.

Page 30 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology

(73) (74) Cent. 3.12 (CPG I, p. 216); Schneidewin ad loc. quotes Ar. Ran. 170 ff., the argument between the dead man and Bacchos and Herakles over the fare to Hades, as inspired by this proverb. (75) Paus. 6.4.5. The reference may, however, be to the ‘Attic School’. (76) See LGPN II, s.v., 136 certain entries for Athens, none pre-Imperial; ibid. IIIA (Segesta), one (no. 29) of 4th/3rd cent. BC. Cf. below, Chapter 11.

(77) (78) See fr. lx Nauck, p. 213, and cf. p. 83. For the discussions of the issue by later grammarians see the texts cited in n. 80 and the passages of Chantraine and Theodorides referred to there.

Page 31 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology

(79) (80) The historical-linguistic arguments of the grammarians regarding the uses of and are given by Phot. Zav. α 466 (Theodorides; cf. A3135) = Suda, A 729 Adler. Chantraine, Ètudes sur la vocabulaire grec, pp. 110–11, and Theodorides, Phot. ad loc., give the references to other lexicographical sources. (81) See IG II2 1672, l. 103 (329 BC); ibid. l. 95, but 1673, l. 45, ibid. l. 59, Paus. 1.44.6 (Stephanis, 2408) refers to the tomb of the flautist Telephanes, who was buried on the road between Megara and Corinth as while in Dem. 21, Hyp. 2.4, he is if this is not an error, the two passages combine to suggest that the ktetic is not in this case equivalent to the ethnic. For the feminine see IG XII Suppl., p. 190, no. 635 (from Eretria),

ibid. XII 3

Syll. 426: (9), 831 (3rd cent. BC, from Eretria): Rev. Arch. (1917), II, p. 45, no. 26 (from the Megarid!): (? 2nd half of 4th cent. BC); (1947), p. 10, no. 228: ibid. Δ́ (1949), p. x (cf. BE 1950, 83): (3rd cent. BC); but Breccia, Iscr. 256 (date?): the ktetic is used with possessive force in Schol. Ar. Ach. 524: Page 32 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology

the historian, (cf. Apostol. Ships collectively and

FGrH 485; and in Kallias, CAF I, p. 698, fr. 23 (K-A IV, fr. 28): 11.15 = CPG II, p. 519,

1.48.4, individually take the true feminine ethnic (thus Thuc. 1.48.4; cf. 8.33.1: 6.104.1, and 8.106.3: Comedy uses the true ethnic form, in collective expressions: CAF III, p. 536 (K-A VIII, *85): ibid. 673 (Plut. Mor. 730d): ibid. 777 (CPG, Diogen. 6.57: while the ktetic occurs in e.g. Theopompos, CAF I, p. 733, fr. 2 (K-A VIII, fr. 3): Ecphantides, CAF I, fr. 2 (K-A V, fr. 3): Eupolis CAF I, fr. 244 (K-A V, fr. 261): A, is frequent, like other ktetics so used, in the Classical writers. In Attic documents both ethnic and ktetic occur, without a patronymic: IG2 1672, 95:

ibid. l. 105:

1675, 20 and 89 (327/6 BC): The combination of all these passages shows that it would be very dangerous to attempt a consistent pattern of usage. (82) For

see Aeschin. 3.162, a lodger of Demosthenes to whom Aeschines took exception (cf. Diyllos, FGrH 73 F2). For and used together of kin on one tombstone see IOrop. 673 (IG VII, 481): For see also D. W. Bradeen, Inscriptions: the Funerary Monuments, The Athenian Agora, 17 (Princeton, 1974, nos. 1–25), 647–8 (4th cent. BC) 647:

648: In view of the other items noted above, the combination of the ethnic and ktetic is not sufficient to suggest that the use of the latter in this case is connected with the supposedly ambiguous status of the inhabitants of Plataiai in the Athenian citizen-body, for which see Hornblower on Thuc. 3.55.3. It may be noted that the same usage occurs, with another Boiotian ethnic (perhaps metr. grat.) in Hermesianax, The The Powell, Coll. Alex., p. 98, l. 24: of Plut. Aem. Paull. 8.10 is a further example of the ktetic usage for hetairai.

is frequent: see the list in Roesch, EB, pp. 473 ff.: III (1), 416 (83) The regular (4th/3rd cent. BC): whom Bousquet ad loc. takes as ‘un étranger vivant à Thespies’. For see Athen. 591 (Overbeck 1270: an inscription at Delphi): P. Wolters and G. Bruns, Das Kabirenheiligtum bei Theben, i (Berlin, 1940), no. 2: in FD III (3), 355, accusative plur. of the place-name is

The form occurs as a proper name 3 but in IG I 23 (c.460-440) the masc. W. Peek, Inschriften aus dem Asklepieion von

Epidauros (Berlin, 1969), 43, l. 22 (= IG IV (1)2, 47) has M. L. West, CQ n.s. 40 (1990), 556–7, suggests that the original as in the best MS of Hdt. 8.50, pointing out that the form of the place-name should be iota is not guaranteed short before the mid-fourth century (CEG 788); he adds, ‘In Thucydides, Xenophon and Isocrates we read etc., but systematic modernization in the tradition can by no means be excluded’; cf. Corinna, Page, PMG fr. 21, In Steph. s.v. (= Page, FGE ll. 289–90 = West, IEG, ii, p. 193) an otherwise unknown poet,

Page 33 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology Philiadas of Megara (according to Page, pseudonymous) is given as the author of an elegiac couplet commemorating the Thespians killed in the Persian Wars, in which the nom. sing of the city is given as For the early epichoric form of the ethnic see SEG 22, 390, l. a choriamb. The Boiotian pronunciation and 1, a cenotaph at Thespiai headed no doubt contributed to, if they did not consequently vacillating orthography of the diphthong cause, these variant forms. The spelling obviously caused uncertainty, indeed surprise, among the experts in ethnics. Steph. s.v. says He then quotes the epigram of Philiadas of Megara (see above), and adds: Roesch, EB, p. 473 says of ‘La forme de l’ethnique et non qui est réservé aux citoyens, indique qu’il s’agit probablement soit d’un affranchi, soit plus vraisemblablement d’un étranger domicilié à Thespies, sans qu’on puisse préciser avec quel statut.’ (84) For Tanagra see Arist. Ath. Pol. 25.4, For the true ktetic use see FGrH 376 F1, (85) For

(86)

Plut. Pericl. 10.8: (cf. above, n. 81, at end).

see IG2 II, 9328 (FRA 3663); ibid. 9329 (FRA 3666) appears to have

occurs in the fifth century BC in IG IV (1)2, 149:

. For

see IG V (2), 277 (Imp.): (the child was presumably borne by her to her master before see ibid. 266 (c.44 BC):

her own manumission); for Dikaiarch. fr. 44 (W; D.L. 3.46):

(sc.

necessarily masculine, occurs in a list of Arcadians and other Peloponnesians at Argos, in 1st cent BC in SEG 33, 291. The Comic poet Theophilos (CAF II, p. 474, fr. 3 = K-A VII, fr. 3), has The proxeny-list from Kleitor, IG V (2), 368, ll. 72 and 169, belongs to about the time when the metonomasy occurred: 72: l. 169: which, in the Peloponnesian context, can only be Mantineia-Antigoneia). For the retention by literary sources (in this case Polybius) of the true names of cities regardless of imposed metonomasies see below, p. 154, and cf. n. 20. (87) For

see IG IV (1)2, 259 (2nd cent. BC).

(88) (89) For the pair from Aigion—on separate monuments, but probably related in some way—see FD III (1), 154, of c. mid-2nd cent. BC (Daux L51), and IG IV (1)2, 628, Cf. below, p. 189, n. 38. (90) For see IG VII, 1572 (4th-3rd cent. BC): (cf. also ibid. 1573; 3055); Bradeen, Inscriptions, The Athenian Agora 17, 677 = SEG 18, 124; FRA 7282): (4th cent. BC); SEG 23, 615, from Cyprian Salamis: Page 34 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology cf. IG II2, 10501. The masculine variant,

is very rare: ibid.

6868: (FRA 7286), married to an Attic demeswoman; SEG 21, 984 = IRhamnous 338 (FRA 7299–7300), (2nd cent. BC). (91) The frequent (FRA 6891–6900) has commonly been taken to be the ethnic of the city of Epiknemidian Lokris, with change of rho to lambda and metathesis of rho and phi, but S. N. Koumanoudes, Rev. Phil. 35 (1961), 99–105 (= 5 (1961), 99–105) mentioned by argued that it refers to the small township of Boiotia, earlier called Aeschines (2.116), Str. 408 codd.), and Steph. s.v. but the matter is not easily settled. Skaphlai was absorbed in Thebes (see Aeschin. loc. cit., and Koumanoudes, loc. cit.), and it is difficult to accept as an otherwise unknown demotic of Thebes, as Koumanoudes maintains (in part because of the ktetic form on the analogy of the use of Athenian demotics abroad (cf. below, p. 56), while the ethnic form given in the hypothesis to Menander’s Dyskolos, may refer to the Lokrian city (see Gomme and Sandbach ad loc.; also taken in FRA 6890 as referring to Skarpheia). Threatte, I, p. 478, says ‘The of IG II2, 11202 (FRA 6893) has nothing to do with (‘digger’), but is the ethnic of the Boiotian town the feminine may be seen in a text published in Polemon’, which misses the point. (cf. R. Flacelière, Les (92) For Stratos see IG IX2 (1), 3A, l. 25 (c.270), Aitoliens à Delphes: contribution à l’histoire de la Grèce centrale au IIIe siècle av. J.-C. (Paris, see IG II2, 9155 (FRA 3198).

1937), p. 192, n. 4). For

(93) Dittenberger (1906), 101 regards as a genuinely ‘barbaric’ ethnic, distinguished from the true Greek ethnic form, but this is no longer acceptable in view of the large number of alternative ethnics in ktetic form listed here. To the instances of 2

IX (1) (1), 34, 16d, where an (3) 634, 10. (94) For Theocritus’

he gives there, add IG

is strategos of the Aitolian League; cf. also ibid. IX (1)2

see Id. 7.12:… and Steph. s.v.

(add. Epitom.?), where should be the ethnic of a city named which may lie concealed beneath one of the other two cities listed as homonymous, viz. one of Sicily and one of Libya. A funerary inscription of Imperial date from Amathus has ethnic is (see IKourion, Index), with a feminine in Athens, half of 4th cent. BC).

(95)

(96) (97) Hermes 42 (1907), 1 ff., esp. 10 ff., §3.

Page 35 of 43

the masc. (IG II , 9084 (2nd 2

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology

(98) (99) See e.g. 3.37.7–8:

cf. 24.11.3; 39.3 for For other references to wars expressed by the ktetic formula see above, p. 35. Compare also the of SB 7204 (cf. F. Uebel, Die Kleruchen Ägyptens unter den sechs ersten Ptolemäern (Berlin, 1968), p. 120, n. 5), a specifically military term, like the

of Uebel, p. 375, and the individual in PTeb. 1003

(Uebel, no. 1069, with p. 255, n. 5), termed (100) See Charneux, BCH 109 (1985), 376–83, who considers that the distinction between ethnic and ktetic did not hold in literary texts, but the evidence quoted by Dittenberger, loc. cit., shows that it is frequent in poetry, and that the earlier prose writers (such as Thucydides, locc. citt. in text) followed the same practice at times, while later literary practice was largely confined to the use of the ktetic for geographical features. Charneux, 381–2, interpreted the status thus: ‘L’on pourrait davantage penser à des ressortissants d’État, rayés de la carte politique, qui n’auraient donc plus d’ethnique propre et qui, n’ayant pas, ou pas encore, été naturalisés dans leur cité de résidence, ni dans aucune autre, n’auraient pas non plus droit à un ethnique de remplacement.’ That is not acceptable. Cf. also Roesch, EB, quoted above, n. 83, regarding (101) The only instance known to me is Timokles, CAF II, p. 454, fr. 7 = K-A VII, fr. 7:

(102) See e.g. ITrall. 130, of c. AD 160:

IG XII (8), 536

(Thasos 2nd-3rd cent. AD): Instances of this termination, which are not of adjectival origin, are all, or mostly, Imperial, or in Latin. (103) See the analysis of the literary evidence by Dittenberger (1907), 169–171. A. E. Housman, ‘AIOC and EIOC in Latin poetry’, in The Classical Papers of A. E. Housman (Cambridge, 1972), ii, pp. 887 ff. (= Journ. Phil. 33 (1914), 54–75), laid down the rule: ‘Adjectives in are formed from feminine substantives of the 1st declension. Adjectives in are formed from substantives of the 2nd and 3rd declensions, and from masculines of the 1st. but but though he relied much on Stephanus for this evidence, as far as ethnics are concerned, the exceptions to these rules, as he saw, are numerous. For the patronymic adjectives in Boiotian and Thessalian they are valid. (104) Theophr. HP 7.4.2 The lacuna, as indicated, is supplied from Athen. 56f, who, however, quotes Theophrastus as saying that the Boiotian is the sweetest form cf. the textual note of Hort ad loc. (Loeb edn.). For forms such as see Herodas 7.57–60 (Cunningham): There are many more such names in Poll. 7.93, mostly from Comedy, many derived from the names of individuals.

Page 36 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology (105) For the variety of terminations applicable to coinage see below, Chapter 10. On the ethnic(s) of Aigina, above, n. 79. (106) For the wine and the legend of the coinage of Mende, see above, n. 73. See also the below, p. 68. discussion of Stephanus’ confused entry s.v. (107) See below, pp. 201 ff., 205 ff.

(108) (109) Examples of the later usage begin in the fourth century with e.g.

and

It later becomes regular, with referring to the coinage of Alexander the Great, and continues until the late Hellenistic period, and then with the coinage of the Hellenistic dynasties, e.g. IDèlos, 442B, 14, see below, Chapter 10.

Page 37 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology

(110)

(111) (112) For itself see the list of 50, n. 108 and p. 182, n. 10.

including foreigners, from Miletus, above, p.

(113) See LSJ s.v.

Page 38 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology

(114)

(115)

(116)

(117) (118) Philemon’s book on Herodotus, addressed to Alexander of Kotyaia, is referred to in Porph. Quaest. Hom., pp. 286, 288 (Schrader): (cf. Susemihl, GGLA, i, p. 374, n. 119). Str. 625 refers to the following of Apollodorus of Pergamon sardonically among the distinguished citizens of Pergamon: (that is, Mithridates, son of Menodotos)

Page 39 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology

(119) See D.T. pp. 72 ff., §19.6: For see IG IV (1)2, 344, of 1st half of 4th cent. BC: I naturally do not include in my discussion the locative dative, which cannot be used as an ethnic expression (for its varying frequency, as opposed to the adverbial use in the Attic orators, see the old dissertation of J. H. T. Main, ‘Locative Expressions in Attic Orators’ (diss. Johns Hopkins, 1892), who also illustrates the use of the adverbial forms (pp. 39–42)). Threatte, II, pp. 367–407 gives exhaustive lists of all the known Attic evidence for these adverbial forms as used for the normal demotic forms, and inclines to the view that the adverbial demotic was used mainly for female citizens, but the Comic evidence quoted below does not support him. Jones, Public Organization, pp. 67 ff. gives the names of the deme-forms, in English, but cf. his analysis of the Eretrian demes, pp. 75 ff., based on IG XII (9), 241, which also contains forms; cf. Knoepfler, Eretria, pp. 103 f. (120) See Il. 2.671: In dedications by military bodies, the regular formula is

Robert, Coll. Froehner, 30; IvO 250.

(121) CAF II, p. 152, fr. 41 = K-A II, fr. 42. For the description of Anaxandrides (4th cent. BC) see Athen. 373f (K-A loc. cit. T2). Aristophanes uses largely metr. grat. for see e.g. Ach. 179, 322–4, 329. Cf. also Timokles, CAF II, p. 454, fr. 7 (K-A VII, fr. 7, quoted above, n. 101):

but id., CAF ibid. fr. 18 (K-A fr. 18:

(122) Archippos (5th-4th cent. BC), CAF I, fr. 27 = K-A II, fr. 27 (where Kock emended the of the epit. Athen. to Nausikrates (mid-4th cent. BC), CAF I, p. 295, fr. 1 see in general the old list compiled by von = K-A VII, fr. 1. For Attic demes with demotika in cols. 35 ff., second col. (demotika). The list could be amplified now, but Schoeffer, RE, s.v. the point is already clear that was only one possibility for the denomination of the demotic in the grammatical tradition, and in formal documents (see, for example, no. 1 (gramm.): and many others, e.g. the various forms of Thria: etc.). (123) Athen. 126f (prose). (124) Athen. 127b = CAF II, p. 24, fr. 34 = K-A II, fr. 38. (125) CAF I, fr. 1 = K-A VII, p. 664, fr. 1 = West, IEG, ii, p. 147. The reading and meaning are both uncertain: see M. L. West, Studies in Greek Elegy and Iambus (Berlin, 1974), pp. 183 ff. (126) CAF I, p. 718, fr. 26 = K-A VII, fr. 27; cf. Plut. Mor. 965c, where Herakleon, the Megarian citizen (not the philosopher), is (127) Nem. 3.84. (128) Cf. as a late example Tzetz. Alleg. Σ 690:

Page 40 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology

(129) (130) See e.g. IG XII (8), 95–115 (Imbros, 3rd cent. BC and later); Potidaia: see AAA 7 (1974), 198 (cf. BE 1976, no. 458). (131) See FD III (2), 71 ff. (132) Nadpisi Olbiya 5, with plate = L. Dubois, Inscriptions grecques dialectales d’Olbia du Pont (Geneva, 1996), 21. (133) Ibid. 98. (134) Ibid. 65. For the conventions used by sculptors for identifying themselves see below, p. 83 and n. 10. (135) I von Adramyttion, II, 19 (= Epigr. Anat. 19 (1992), 126–8): (cf. ibid. no. 21). It is perhaps possible that these ‘Phalereans’ belong to a native deme-system of Adramyttion, for that city is said by Strabo 606 to have been an Athenian colony: There are parallels for such a transference of demotics from mother city to colony, notably in the Megarian colonies. For the Athenian colony at Sinope see Plut. Pericl. 20.2, and for another example in the same area see ISinop. 57 (SEG 41, 1141). The same text, a list of (136) See e.g. IG IV2, 42, ll. 11–12 = BCH 107 (1983), 266: debtors, also contains the ethnic This question has recently been examined by Knoepfler, Eretria, pp. 199 ff., apropos of Eretrian decrees in honour of (IG XII (9), 195, of 2nd half of 4th cent. BC), where he thinks that either (as in the Olbian text) has been omitted in error, or more probably (indeed decisively) that the demotic is to be assigned to a homonymous Arcadian locality south of the Alpheios; cf. his n. 624, where he adds the Argive example, SEG 30, 355 (of mid-4th cent. BC): The Orchomenian text, ISE I, 53, of 265/4, a proxeny-decree for is remarkable for its combination of ethnic and demotics. Note also Nadpisi Olbiya 5 = Dubois, Inscriptions grecques dialectales d’Olbia du Pont, 21, quoted above, p. 56.

Page 41 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology (137) The title is later than the poem, but Pindar says the same in the body of the poem: The phrase, as used by the poet, may not be of much significance. (138) See P. M. Fraser and G. E. Bean, The Rhodian Peraea and Islands (Oxford, 1954), pp. 79 ff., for a general sketch of the Rhodian deme-system; P. M. Fraser, Rhodian Funerary Monuments (Oxford, 1977), pp. 46–9; I. Papachristodoulou, ‘Eτ. 110 (1989), 53 ff. For the topography and antiquities of the Peraea see now W. Blümel, Die Inschriften der Rhodischen Peraia (IGSK 38, 1991); P. Debord et al., Les hautes terres de Carie, Mémoires 4 (Bordeaux, Ausonius-Publications, 2001); id.; Recueil des inscriptions de la Pérée Rhodienne (Paris, 1991). (139) See n. 135. (140) See the testimonia in Wehrli’s edition of the fragments of Demetrios (Schule des Arist. 3), passim. Cicero preserves the same formula, De Resp. 1.2: doctus vir Phalereus sustentasset Demetrius. For the possible usage at Adramyttion see above, n. 135. (141) See M. H. Sayar, Perinthos-Herakleia (Marmara Ereğlisi) und Umgebung: Geschichte, Testimonien, griechische und lateinische Inschriften (Vienna, 1998), 127: ibid. 131: 154: These instances do not belong to the category of multiple citizenship bestowed on public figures, for which see below, pp. 226–31. (142) The forms abound in Delphian and Lokrian documents, and need not be itemised. Notice, is often omitted, e.g. in Delphian awards of citizenship however, that the preliminary article, (γ 91 Bill.), in the Imperial period. Steph. s.v. suggests that the former was the normally accepted form, but the documented ethnic form is more usually as also of Gon(n)oi, which commonly makes for which see B. Helly, Gonnoi (Amsterdam, 1973), i, p. 61. For further examples see e.g. and of which the ethnics are respectively (as opposed to the ethnic of Messenian Thourion, and For as the plural ethnic see Hdt. 7.154.2: where the plural form is clearly ethnic in sense, and the many references in Thucydides. In 5.4.4 and 6.65 stands loosely for the ktetic; cf. Dittenberger (1906), 95. (143) Steph. s.v.

quotes Hellan. FGrH 4 F9 (from his

but adds only

For the variant names of Kolossai see L. Zgusta, Kleinasiatische Ortsnamen (Heidelberg, 1984), §557. Str. 578, of the fine sheep’s wool of the region of Laodikeia-on-Lykos, says The same form occurs in the late inscription CIG 4380k:

(144) See above, pp. 44–7.

Page 42 of 43

Ethnics, Ktetics, and Topics: the Grammatical Terminology

Page 43 of 43

Ethnic Formations in Theory and Practice

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

Ethnic Formations in Theory and Practice P. M. Fraser

DOI:10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.003.0003

Abstract and Keywords Our knowledge of the use of the local ethnic in early documents is limited not only by the scarcity of evidence, but also because by definition the ethnic form, was from the outset used almost exclusively as a means of external identification outside the individual polis or other unit to which the ethnic and its bearer belonged — whether in another city, or in a sanctuary, local or panhellenic, or any other external context. It is in sanctuaries, large and small, that are found most of the examples of texts from the Archaic period in which the ethnic is used. The basic function of the ethnic, regional or civic, was to indicate and identify ‘hereditary membership’, as a member either of a race or tribe, Greek or barbarian, or of a civic body. Where the ‘ethnic’ was recorded, attached to an individual or to a group, it represented the external criterion of identification, individual or collective, in the international world of regional groups and citystates. Keywords:   local ethnic, ethnic form, sanctuaries, hereditary membership, identification, race, tribe

OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE USE OF THE LOCAL ETHNIC in early documents, as opposed to that found in the Homeric poems and other Archaic literature, is limited not only by the scarcity of evidence, but also because by definition (in living documentation as opposed to grammatical records) the ethnic, the ethnic form, was from the outset used of human beings almost exclusively as a means of external identification outside the individual polis or other unit to which the ethnic and its bearer belonged, whether in another city, or in a sanctuary, local or panhellenic, or any other external context. It is in sanctuaries, large and small, that are found most of the examples of texts from the Archaic period in which the ethnic is used. Thus, out of a total of about a thousand Archaic dedications from throughout the Greek world the not inconsiderable number of ethnics, used both individually and collectively, come particularly from the two sanctuaries of Delphi and Olympia.1 On the other hand, the numerous private dedications of the Archaic period from the Athenian Acropolis are rarely accompanied by foreign ethnics, although, with the introduction of the Attic deme-system and deme-nomenclature by Kleisthenes, the use of the demotic becomes frequent.2 Among the earliest of all ethnics Page 1 of 10

Ethnic Formations in Theory and Practice surviving in a non-literary source are the names carved by three mercenaries on the leg of the colossal statue of Ramses II at Abu Simbel.3 (p.62) The basic function of the ethnic, regional or civic, was to indicate and identify ‘hereditary membership’, as a member either of a race or tribe

Greek or barbarian, or

of a civic body Where the ‘ethnic’ was recorded, attached to an individual or to a group, it represented the external criterion of identification, individual or collective, in the international world of regional groups and city-states. Within the city, different groupings and different forms of identification existed, according to the organisation of the city, local and gentilicial tradition, and other factors: the demotic, the most prominently at Athens, Rhodes, and Eretria, and, later, in a more artificial form at Alexandria; elsewhere, notably in South Italy and Sicily, other subdivisions are often known, frequently in an abbreviated form, and consequently difficult to interpret, while in Asia Minor in the Imperial period we find, once more, the use of the demotic, frequently in an expanded form. This complex world of concepts and practice had ceased to exist by the time that Stephanus wrote his Lexicon. In Athens from the time of Kleisthenes the deme-system, linked through the trittyes to a new tribal system, formed the main demographic element of the state, while at Rhodes not long after the synoecism of 408/7 BC the previously autonomous structure of the three ‘old’ cities, Lindos, Kameiros, and Ialysos, was transferred to and absorbed into the new state, perhaps in a new democratic constitution introduced on the Athenian model, at the beginning of the fourth century, while leaving a local autonomy to the three cities. Certainly by the late fourth century at Rhodes as at Athens the full register of identification consisted of the name, patronymic, and demotic, though there are some contexts in which either the patronymic or the demotic is omitted.4 We shall examine such anomalies, which cannot be explained by any rule of thumb, in due course.5 (p.63) In most cases group-ethnics with homogeneous terminations are so grouped because of the fusion of the analogical, grammatical method with the largely epichoric criterion of regional diversity. Contraventions of this analogical-epichoric principle are noted, and mostly not accepted, by Stephanus. When he quotes a particular form of ethnic for a specific region or city he usually states or implies that it is restricted to that region, and at the same time, if the form does not correspond to analogy, he states this in one of two ways, either by saying ‘it ought to be so-and-so’, or ‘the locals call it so-and-so’. This procedure, which we shall examine more closely when we investigate Stephanus’ method of analysis, implies a current and accepted, if unscientific, analysis of ethnic forms, which is presented to the reader from the viewpoint of the early Byzantine period, when the use of ethnics in the conventional manner was becoming increasingly infrequent. The same basic consideration is tacitly implied when, referring to a group of homonymous cities, Stephanus reports, for example, or some similar phrase. The need for distinction in practical terms was felt in some measure, but the geographical differentiation is provided in Stephanus either by an ordinal system of enumeration alone, or in combination with the full geographical titles of the cities. Moreover, the general ethnic forms cannot be wholly classified on a system based on the rules which govern the formation of adjectives from common nouns, that nouns of the first declension with ά-stems form adjectives in

those of the second, thematic, declension, o-stems, form adjectives in

and

those of the first and third consonantal declension form ethnics in or in Although the usage holds good very often, such canons are subject to frequent modification when applied to ethnics, as, for example, the place-name

is recorded by Stephanus as

and he adds Page 2 of 10

Ethnic Formations in Theory and Practice .6 However, as a general rule, place-names in -α/η result in forms such as etc., while the thematic form in -ος probably provides the most regular formation, as, for instance,

and the feminine (p.64) We have seen above7 that in some items of this large class the true ethnic form may be replaced by the adjectival, ktetic, form in -ικός, but these remain an exceptional minority. Also to be noted is a small number of semi-ethnic, ‘Aeolic’ forms which have a patronymic termination, and survive only as personal names: such are the names and others. The class of ethnic in -εύς, deriving from place-names in embraces not only old cities, especially those of Boiotia, but also a preponderant number of the new cities of the Hellenistic world, especially the eponymous foundations, which are formed .8

from consonantal roots: However, this termination is widely spread, regardless of the declension: cf.

Stephanus at one point describes the τύπoς as ‘Arcadian’: s.v.

(ά 290 Bill.), πόλις elsewhere he calls it ‘especially popular in Lycia’ (under

see

below, p. 224; cf. also Steph. s.v. etc.: Caria). Terminations of place-names in -ις, which might be expected to fall into the same category as those in -εύς, and which Stephanus s.v. abundantly illustrates,9 show marked discrepancies in (p.65) their ethnic formations, as, for example,

(cf. α 262 Bill.), and other variations, due in part to

epichoric usage. Similarly, ethnics in terminations, as, for instance,

frequently derive from different nominal

An apparent variant of the regular ethnic terminations occurs in the ending in as in the ethnic of Pythion in northern Thessaly, documented in two Hellenistic proxeny-decrees as This termination, as also that in is characteristic throughout the Greek world as a termination denoting membership of a religious or other society, such as and many others, especially common on Rhodes. Since Pythion had originated as a community dwelling round the sanctuary of Apollo Pythios,11 the natural explanation of the form of the ethnic is that the community retained its cult-connection. This is confirmed by the fact that in the main body of 10

the texts a decree is sanctioned with the formula thereby establishing both its origin and its survival as in essence a community attached to the worship of Apollo, though in the course of time it had acquired the status of a πόλις. Stephanus, it may be noticed, does not record civic ethnics in either termination ( or ), which are virtually interchangeable in their associative meaning. The same termination is found for several other North Thessalian cities, the

for which, however, there is

Page 3 of 10

Ethnic Formations in Theory and Practice no evidence for an original cult-association.12 The (p.66) Macedonian and Illyrian forms in are of tribal origin.13 The other main category of formations is based on geographical location. This is primarily used of foreign regions and cities not of Greek origin. The general principles in their creation are not listed in the text of Stephanus, which simply indicates them as and when they occur. In this way most (but not all) of the possible ethnic terminations are classified either geographically or analogically. However, such entries are a minority in most regions as compared with those to which no local specialised form is expressly given. I give some examples of these geographical criteria, entered under regions of which the form is regarded as most characteristic, if not exclusively so. It will be observed that the same termination is used specifically of more than one region, and that it may be combined with an analogically formed ethnic.14 See also below, pp. 276 ff.

(p.67) Caria

Sicily

Egypt (and see below, p. 276, for

)

Thrace

.15

(p.68) Arabia

Page 4 of 10

Ethnic Formations in Theory and Practice Asia

.16

Phoenicia

.17 (p.69) The phrase used to describe the ethnic form s.v. suggests that the first ethnic form derives from an analogical source, which formed the termination in -ιoς naturally from an o-stem, which has been corrected on Stephanus’ own judgement to bring it into line with other Arabian ethnics, normally authenticated out of Uranius. In the entry

(α 5 Bill.), Apollonius Dyscolus is quoted for the statement that

the form in not only to the Arabs, and it may be that the same source—Apollonius or another—lies behind, for example, s.v.

However, such alternative forms of a single ethnic were a recognised category, the subject of a special monograph or a section of a larger work by Oros, which the unepitomised text of Stephanus quotes in disagreement, s.v. Δώτιον, which, according to Oros, was one form with Δώριον.18 The use of the -ηνός/ιανός termination is discussed below, Chapter 13, pp. 277 ff. To provide us with a primary means of evaluation of the worth of Stephanus, even perhaps his own, primary worth, we may compare the substance of his ethnic terminology with the available documentary evidence in a field in which the documentary tradition is, in one respect, straightforward: that provided by coin-legends. He, or perhaps the Epitomator, has left us only one reference to the use of numismatically attested ethnic forms, and any coincidence between the ethnic forms he records and those found on coins helps us to estimate the evidential value of the present text. It was a uniform practice of all Greek city-states to (p.70) issue coinage in the Page 5 of 10

Ethnic Formations in Theory and Practice name of the city, as a guarantee of authenticity and civic authority, expressed most frequently by the genitive plural of the city ethnic, to which the name of a responsible official (or, in due course) the monarch or emperor, might be added. With exceptions, when the ethnic appears in the masculine nominative singular, as

(fifth century

and later), or in the neuter singular, as

(as well as

), or in the nominative or genitive singular of the name of the city these ethnic legends in the genitive plural are universal in the early silver and bronze coinage of the Greek cities of South Italy and Sicily, whence the practice was adopted by the tribal and non-Greek Sicel communities when they came into contact with the Greek πόλεις. In due course, all the mints of the Eastern Roman Empire, although they might add high-sounding Imperial titles such as and Πρώτη to their civic nomenclature, characteristically retained the ethnic in the genitive plural (see below, p. 231 for such titles). The importance of the ethnic forms of these early coins lies in the certainty that any ethnics thus recorded are the official ethnics of the issuing city. As we shall see, at a later stage ethnics might vary in ‘foreign’ documents—documents recording citizens active (or having died) in a foreign land—and it is not always possible to decide what the ‘official’ form was (see below, Chapter 3, esp. p. 101), but those recorded on coins, even if in an abbreviated form, must have been those accepted in international trade, and recognised as valid.19 The only reference in the Epitome to a coin-issue appears to be that concerning Tenedos, taken from Aristotle’s otherwise unattested which records the legend of the king of that island who inadvertently caused the execution of his own son.20 Appendix 2, (p.71) however, contains a list of the forms recorded on the Classical and Hellenistic coins of Sicily and in Stephanus, for which Stephanus gives as the local termination (see above, p. 67: as against Philistos’ use of ). A comparison of the coinlegends with the relevant entries in Stephanus shows that, in spite of the long journey which the information given by Stephanus may have traversed, often by way of uncritical sources, before it reached the pages of the writer(s) from whom he derived it, and in spite of the errors of transmission and the misunderstandings that have occurred between the original text and that presented by the Epitome, the correspondence in this respect is overall very close. The comparison, although limited to a restricted sphere, shows that Stephanus or his sources (Philon and Oros, particularly) were aware of the historical tradition. Some historical sources whom he uses considerably elsewhere, notably Krateros, he does not use in the section on Sicily. There are various considerations to be borne in mind when judging discrepancies between the Ethnika and the mints. The facts that he or his Epitomator refers to one or two Sicilian sites—Omphake, Herakleia Minoa, Phoinikous(?), Kamikos(?)—which are not attested by coinage; that a handful of minor mints—Alaisa, Aluntion, Kentoripai, Kephaloidion, Paropos, Petra, Silurai, Tyndaris—are not preserved in Stephanus’ text; and that on one or two occasions the ethnics do not agree— Kaleakte, Eryx—hardly represents a significant witness against the text of Stephanus and his Epitomator. Several of the smaller mints in the west of the island issued coinage in the late fifth or fourth century, sometimes with Punic legends, and then ceased until some point during the Republican period, after the conquest of the island. Some of the cities that he does not record probably did not survive for long, and may not have been included in his original sources. In addition, we cannot tell how many, if any, of these mints-centres may have been deleted by the Epitomator, as elsewhere, or have been lost, like Leontini, in an internal or general manuscript lacuna. It is clear that, if we were to judge by the comparison of the coins and Stephanus on the Page 6 of 10

Ethnic Formations in Theory and Practice evidence of Sicily alone, we should have to grant him a high degree of accuracy. There are also signs of a difference of substance in Stephanus’ entries for these items. On the one hand there are virtually no instances of analogical (p.72) formation in this list of Sicilian cities; by contrast we find under the first of our entries, (α 2 Bill.), itself the second entry in the whole surviving Epitome, that Stephanus there gives a list of cities (half of them from South Italy, which he regarded as falling in the same category as the Sicilian), which, he says, all have the termination in

and in a different manner, but with the same factual

approach, he says s.v. And again, the information under the entry headed (α 167 Bill.), of which the other four are named as being in Thrace, Euboia, Cyprus, and Aitolia, provides specialised information taken from the Sicilian historian Douris:21

This points to a more realistic, less analogical, approach to the ethnics of Sicily than is predominant in the treatment of some other regions, notably in the interior of Anatolia. We know little about ancient writers on coins, and references to them, except for entries in temple-inventories and inter-city commercial contracts, are scanty. It is true that we hear at a relatively late date of works Περì which were metrological treatises on weights and measures, but we may regard it as very unlikely that the ancients showed any interest in what we understand by numismatics. The curious affinity which seems to exist between the true forms of ethnics as recorded on coin-issues and the ‘unphilological’ entries of Stephanus, while it may add an intriguing element to the study of his text, cannot be assigned to a numismatically orientated text or texts, forming an aspect of the study of his sources. Its validity would, in any case, require to be tested over a wider area than is here possible. Notes: (1) See M. A. Lazzarini, Le formule delle dediche votive nella Grecia arcaica, Mem. Accad. Linc. 8(19) (Rome, 1976), passim. A considerable proportion of early dedications by Greek communities originates in S. Italy and Sicily. (2) For the Athenian evidence see IG I3 (2), containing the Acropolis dedications (nos. 526–947). Ethnics occur in 622(?) ( ethnic as pr. n., LGPN I, s.v.); 666(?); 683 (a sculptor, ); 695(?); 698; 723 (public?); 728 (with note ad loc.); 779. In the period up to 490–470 (no. 850 onwards), they are more frequent, but many of the pieces are fragmentary. (3) See M-L no. 7, of 591 BC (DGE 301): Other names on the leg either lack their ethnics or are incomplete. Hardly, if at all, later, is BMI 972, …from Amathus, where (2) to the ethnic may be a personal name (this inscription is wrongly dated in LGPN I, s.v. ‘f.iii b.’) and the two Naxian dedications at Delos, IDélos 1 (= CEG 403) and 2 (DGE 757, 758). (4) The bare name of the citizen occurs quite frequently in lists and catalogues at all times, for instance in casualty-lists, in lists of soldiers, cleruchs, ephebes, etc.: in some of these the two additional features are either wholly absent, or occur (usually in abbreviated form) very irregularly; for some examples see IG II2, 1951, 2345. No patronymics are used in the fifthcentury public casualty-lists (IG I3, 1142–93 bis = Bradeen, Inscriptions, The Athenian Agora, Page 7 of 10

Ethnic Formations in Theory and Practice 17). Occasionally foreigners are mixed with the Athenians, their ethnics also given in an abbreviated form. Exceptions also occur in the Attic usage, especially at a later date, e.g. at Delos, in the period of the Second Athenian Domination, e.g. in IDélos 2593, of 144 BC, a list of in which the Athenians have their demotics but no patronymics. (For Delian varieties of identification at this date see below, p. 112, n. 16.) I have not noticed a similar irregularity in Rhodian practice. (5) My discussion in P. M. Fraser and T. Rönne, Boeotian and West Greek Tombstones (Lund, 1957), pp. 92–101, is concerned with the employment of patronymic and ethnic in a limited geographical and chronological context, but is useful for some problems concerning the use of the ethnic in the areas which it covers; my paper in Hansen (ed.), Sources for the Ancient Greek City-State, pp. 64–90 contains some material reused here. See also below for further bibliography. (6) Ismenias is Stephanis,

1295. For

see above, p. 44, n. 83.

(7) Cf. above, pp. 43–6.

( 8)

(9) (10) ASAA n.s. 1–2 (1939–40), pp. 176 ff.; see C. D. Buck and W. Petersen, A Reverse Index of Greek Nouns and Adjectives (Chicago, [1945]), pp. 544 ff., esp. pp. 563–5, for examples of nouns with terminations in (11) See SEG 36, 552 = G. Lucas, Les Cités antiques de la haute vallée du Titarèse, no. 44 (a proxeny-decree); ibid. no. 51 (new text of IG IX (2), 344) (manumission); cf. Lucas, op. cit., pp. 76–7.

Page 8 of 10

Ethnic Formations in Theory and Practice (12) For Φαλώρη Steph. gives see, however, IG IX (1)2(1), 13, l. 3 Steph. has an entry for but gives the ethnic as Φακιεύς, while the coinage has BMC Thessaly, p. 3 402 (cf. Dittenberger (1906), 191); cf. Thuc. 4.78.5. For see Syll. 628 = Lucas, Les Cités antiques de la haute vallée du Titarèse, p. 75. n. 74, and n. 13 below. Steph. s.vv. does not recognise Pythion or Azoros as ‘Thessalian’, but assigns them to Macedonia (Elymais and Pelagonia respectively). Of Pythion he says A cult-origin of s.v.

is thus possible. Steph.

(13) (14) See e.g. s.v. The documentary evidence is slight, and divided, but favours (see SEG 41, 625 of 88 BC), CIRB 971 (= SGDI 5647), of 3rd cent. BC, has while the coins of 3rd-1st cent. bc have see Head, HN2, pp. 494–5; Stancomb, Sylloge Numorum Graecorum, 11 (2000), pl. xxviii, 621 ff. An interesting diversity is found for the ethnic of the Akarnanian city, Astakos or Astakoi, which occurs as cent. BC): Άλύζειoς, and followed by a

the simple place-name, in IG IX (1)2, 208, ll. 3–4 (mid-2nd preceded by an The next item, 209, of the same approximate date, has, l. 2, The second is in honour of a long-

term resident (15) Mein. pointed out that the Athenian Tribute Lists show that was in Caria (IG I3, 260, vii, l. 9; 263, vi, l. 26 [266, iii, l. 28] etc.), as does the termination -εύς, and printed a lacuna after (16) The reading replaced by Kontogonis,

(et sim.) of which Mein. said ‘requiro Arabicae gentis nomen’, was 2 (1904), 404, by from Steph. s.v. (a 87 Bill.), (FGrH 675 F6).

is heavily overloaded, (17) For the ethnics of Aigina see above, p. 42, n. 79. This entry s.v. and the MSS R and V omit from and the excision should probably be

Page 9 of 10

Ethnic Formations in Theory and Practice extended to cover the next which is simply a repetition of the previous clause. [But Bill. prints the text with no indication of doubt. S. H.] Jac., Polyhistor, ad loc. quotes Str. 216 for further MSS variations of the plural form of but Str. is not talking about the Phoenicians of Gaza in that passage. For the problem of the identity of the halfdozen Pausaniases of the literary scene see the illuminating paper of A. Diller, TAPA 86 (1955), 268 ff. (= Studies in Greek Manuscript Tradition (Amsterdam, 1983), pp. 137–48). The Atticist, if it is he, remains, like most of his homonyms, unidentifiable.

(18) (19) For the numismatic evidence I have mainly used Head’s treatment in Head, HN2, pp. 115–93, and in addition Sylloge Numorum Graecorum, Copenh. (Sicily, 1942) and Rizzo’s Monete greche della Sicilia, 2 vols. (Rome, 1946), one vol. of text, one of plates (repr. Bologna, 1968). The finest Sicilian coins are reproduced in C. M. Kraay and M. Hirmer’s Greek Coins (London, 1966), with nn. on pp. 279 ff. A detailed bibliography (to c.1980) of Sicilian mints will be found in Annali della Scuola Normale de Pisa, 12(3) (1982), pp. 1101–2; cf. below, on 8*. My list in Appendix 2 is meant only to provide legends of ethnics on the coins, and I have not given those of local heroes, magistrates, ‘liberators’, or artists, none of whom are relevant here. I have also omitted abbreviated city-names and ethnics, unless the letters suffice to indicate the nature of the full legend. (20) The long entry consists of a quotation from this work (fr. 593R). Steph. adds

The text continues (The proverb, with slight variations, some of which are fuller, occurs in CPG, also quoting Aristotle without specific reference to the see especially Apostol. 16.26, Tenedos.

with the list of other sources in the note ad loc.) Cf. Fiehn, RE, s.v.

(21) FGrH 76 F59.

Page 10 of 10

Ethnics in Public and Private Use

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

Ethnics in Public and Private Use P. M. Fraser

DOI:10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.003.0004

Abstract and Keywords This chapter considers the various usages of the ethnic, the expression essentially of the foreigner in both public and private life, from the fifth century bc onwards. It shows that after the fifth century bc the use of the ethnic in entries in public records, which were recognised to have international validity, might vary, even within a single document, without good cause, or at least without an evident cause. This substantiates the view expressed concerning other types of evidence, that Greek protocol — the use of the criteria treated in this and the preceding chapters — was consistent only with regard to matters within the traditional framework of the individual poleis themselves, and to publicly proclaimed honours such as proxeny-decrees, while still conforming in the broadest terms to certain inherited practices. At the same time allowance must be made for a considerable amount of variation, due to causes which frequently remain unknown. Keywords:   ethnic terminology, Greek protocol, public life, private life, public records

WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE GRAMMATICAL DEFINITION of the concept of the ethnic belongs to a considerably later period than the actual use of the ‘ethnic’ itself. We must now consider the various usages of the ethnic, the expression essentially of the foreigner in both public and private life, from the fifth century BC onwards. Before that date the ethnic is found as appropriate in public and private documents, but mostly without the addition of the patronymic. Subsequently, the generally accepted custom, the mos maiorum, the product of the uniformity of Greek life, identified the individual in his daily life at home or abroad by membership of some unit, small or large, and this practice was equally valid whether in the context of a city with a complex system of subdivisions or in a smaller unit in which membership of the family sufficed for internal identification. The practice, however, varied from place to place and from context to context, whether or not the person referred to bore an ethnic denoting foreign origin. We are ourselves especially concerned with the practice relating to Greek cities, and the documentation provided, especially in large communities, for all variations of usage is abundant.

Page 1 of 23

Ethnics in Public and Private Use Three large cities, Athens, Eretria, and Rhodes, have in common the survival of a large number of tombstones and public and private (cult) membership-lists, of the pre-Imperial period, which form a valuable clue to general practice, but not to a recognisably expressed legal requirement. Taking, then, these cities as a type, we can state that, although they differ in size—Athens comprising 139 demes, Eretria 50 to 60, Rhodes 36—they have fundamental features in common, in relation to which other cities with comparable, if fewer, institutions can be seen. The material from Athens and Eretria is of particular significance in that much of it belongs to the fourth century and the early Hellenistic age, when, on the one hand, the simplicity of the Archaic and Classical periods, by no means a valid criterion for later usage, had largely disappeared from formal documentation, and the miscellaneous practices of the later Hellenistic period regarding both citizens and foreigners had not yet begun.

(p.76) Ethnics Applied to Foreigners In general it appears to be true (although it is perhaps a circular assumption) that wherever we look in the Greek world from the Classical period until the Roman conquest, the is one who carries an indication of external citizenship or of some other formula indicating foreign nationality in a definable context. The full citizen was identified in public documents, and usually in private documents, especially funerary monuments (but not always, as for instance at Eretria, where demotics are not used on tombstones) by his name followed by his patronymic and deme (or whatever term might be used for a comparable subdivision elsewhere), while foreigners, a substantial element of the population, were identified by their ethnics.1 The Athenian deme-system dates from the reform of Kleisthenes in 508 BC, and that of Miletus seems as old, while that of Eretria dates from at least the earlier part of the fourth century. It further seems likely that when a new democratic constitution was set up at Rhodes after the revolution of 393 BC, the new civic structure followed in general the post-Kleisthenic Attic deme-model, but there are deviations. In general, it appears to be true that wherever we look in the Greek world, the foreigner carries an indication of nationality; indeed in the Imperial period he may carry (p.77) several different indications of origin, of which only one can be true. The following points provide an outline of the conventional pattern. 1 The civic ethnic is extremely rarely used by or of citizens within their home-city. Inherited denominations of kinship or location together with the description of the citizen. An Athenian is not called within Rhodian territory, an Eretrian

constitute the normal within Attic territory, a Rhodian and so on.2 Exceptions to this rule are

found at Epidaurus, where citizens are (p.78) regularly attested as in public and private documents, and in at least one early example at Olbia, and a group from the cities of Ptolemaic Lycia, where the explanation may lie in their status as Ptolemaic subjects (see below, §3).3 2 Conversely a demotic, or other term expressive of a subdivision of a city, is not used outside that city, except in the case of cleruchs or other assigned settlers and in a handful of abnormal cases where the Athenian demotic is used abroad, mostly, but not wholly, of persons in private circumstances.4 3 Generally speaking, the foreigner is denoted by his civic or regional ethnic, which may require and include further secondary definition to distinguish homonymous cities in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. An exception to this general rule lies in the normal absence of the ethnic for

Page 2 of 23

Ethnics in Public and Private Use diplomatic representatives of the Hellenistic royal houses, the and those in charge of garrisons etc., in their dealings with foreign cities, dependencies and so on. Their prime role was as ‘King’s men’, and their city of origin was probably not of much concern either to the sovereigns or their subjects. This is a conspicuous feature of all the Hellenistic chanceries, which often leaves us at a loss as to the origin of the men of the higher echelons of royal admin-istration.5 At the other extreme, civic lists of proxenoi nearly always state (p.79) (like the original proxeny-decree) the patronymic and ethnic of each proxenos, either singly or collectively, by their place of origin. In lists of victors in athletic and other festivals the full ethnic is most frequently recorded individually, but we shall see that there are numerous exceptions to this. 4 On the other hand, lists of mercenaries employed by a state, compiled and engraved for whatever reason, may carry an overall regional title, or, if appropriate, titles (e.g. ), but the individual patronymic and/or civic ethnic is irregularly recorded. This may simply reflect a system of enlistment and registration, but obviously it might lead to confusion. 5 If the individual is of an inferior status, a slave, an enfranchised slave, or a metic, his status may be described in a variety of ways, any and all of which (even perhaps simply his regional ethnic used as a proper name) distinguish him from the free citizen. 6 Exceptions to these basic but irregular conventions occur, some of which are readily explicable, while of others any explanation is necessarily speculative. No ancient sources provide a code of regulations for the use of civic nomenclature, and in any case such a code would not be the same at all times or for all cities. Lexicographical definitions, such as that of Aristophanes of Byzantium, inevitably reflect Athenian practice and (p.80) theory in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary.6 The exceptions are not numerous, and may be readily stated, even if they cannot be so readily explained. It is an overall governing factor that, except for large cities, the evidence is too small for us to draw positive generalised conclusions from it. Compensation is not provided by the survival of many lists of an international or public character, and also, in the private sphere, of tombstones commemorating persons of different strata of the non-citizen population, whose civic status is not individually differentiated. These we must now consider.

Evidence for Non-Citizen Ethnics from Public and Private Documents We may first look at Athens, where there existed a substantial class of persons, known largely from their tombstones, which bear neither demotic nor ethnic nor any other sign of status, and only about a quarter of whom have a patronymic. Kirchner described these in his publication of the Attic tombstones of the fourth and later centuries as ‘homines originis incertae’, and they indeed defy overall identification as a definable category. Just as the citizen from the middle of the fourth century onwards normally bore his patronymic and demotic, and the foreigner his patronymic and ethnic, so in Athens the metic in public documents was normally identified by his place of residence in a deme, with the formula ‘dwelling in…’, in the same way that a female member of a deme was usually described in residential terms, by use of the or -θεν. This ‘topical’ formula does not occur on Athenian tombstones applied to male metics, and it could therefore be argued that these persons ‘originis incertae’ are a mixture of metics and (in cases where no patronymic is present) possibly even slaves or freedmen, and in some cases, children who have not yet been admitted to deme-membership. The difficulty in the determination of the status of individuals of this class is increased by the fact that after 317 BC

Page 3 of 23

Ethnics in Public and Private Use no figured reliefs were produced in Athens until the abrogation of the sumptuary legislation of Demetrios of (p.81) Phaleron some time at the end of the Hellenistic age, and that the conventional plain columella that became the universal form of monument provides no figured clue as to whether the person commemorated was a child or not. All we can say is that, on the face of it, undesignated persons were of a different status from the demesman and the foreigner and probably also from the metic class. It is difficult to accept that such persons were all simply temporary residents with no further recognised legal status, because such people would normally have carried their native ethnics to the grave—would be, that is, part of the foreign population commemorated with name and ethnic on their tombstones. The same system of tribes and demotics existed at Rhodes, the city most comparable in general terms to Athens because of its importance as a mercantile centre and, as far as the present study is concerned, also on statistical grounds, on account of the very large number of surviving tombstones, which provide the most informative category of evidence. Though there are some differences of detail between the two cities in the method of recording the names of members of demes, here too in the Hellenistic age we find, alongside the demesmen and their families, the same shadowy class of persons who are recorded on their tombstones not as demesmen or as foreigners, with or without patronymic, but with no mark of differentiation, whose status within the state is uncertain. The explanation of this anonymous group both at Rhodes and at Athens may simply be that the recording of the demotic or the ethnic on a tombstone was not obligatory, though it was certainly customary among the bourgeoisie, and that all free Greeks were as much at liberty to choose the wording of their tombstone as citizens of the modern world, though certain restrictions would have applied in practice to slaves. That at first sight seems a reasonable proposition, and the statistical argument, that there are many hundreds of tombstones on which the regular pattern—name, patronymic, demotic, or name and ethnic (sometimes accompanied by the patronymic, sometimes not)—is found, is perhaps not sufficient to refute this interpretation. There are also a number of Athenian public documents in which, for no obvious reason, the patronymic is omitted, particularly in prytanic lists, in lists of ephebes, and on bronze dikastic allotment-plates.7 Nevertheless, I do not myself (p.82) believe this solution by appeal to personal preference to be correct, though it is certainly a logical possibility. I believe that at Athens and Rhodes (and wherever else the social infrastructure was on a sufficiently large scale), mutatis mutandis, the practice of recording the status of demesmen and foreigners with their patronymic was the accepted norm. It is, of course, inevitable that undifferentiated funerary inscriptions exist from all over the Greek world especially at a very early date, and again when the composition of the civic population changed in the Imperial period. That was natural also in small cities and villages, where a complex social structure did not exist, and the citizen-name, normally with patronymic, sufficed for identification. It is, moreover, clear that while awards of honorary citizenship from the most diverse cities often state that the recipient should himself choose the tribe and sub-unit (tribe and deme, etc.), in which he wished to be enrolled, and that this implies the existence of the same or a similar structure of civic identification throughout Greek poleis, the tombstones of some of these cities—for example, Eretria, as already noted, Chios, and Samos—record only the name and patronymic.8 Clearly the situation in Athens and Rhodes in regard to documentation is different from this, and it is possible that the practice of recording the patronymic and deme on tombstones was originally and essentially (but not exclusively) Athenian, and was adopted from Athens by the Rhodians when they formed their new constitution. In any case, in these two cities the full civic formula seems to be mainly, but by no means exclusively, a feature of tombstones. A factor to be kept in Page 4 of 23

Ethnics in Public and Private Use mind is that, at least on the present evidence, among the names of those who lack patronymic and demotic on their tombstones at Rhodes, few are characteristically Rhodian. In Athens the same factor (p.83) has little weight because of the enormous range and variety of the Athenian onomastikon. An explanation of this unspecified group that may be rejected is that based on the hypothesis of a ‘waiting-list’ for citizenship, such as is well attested at Alexandria,9 where we find persons designated, not on their tombstones but in official legal documents from the Egyptian

as

belonging to the class (of Alexandria). Our knowledge of the Athenian and Rhodian constitutions is sufficiently detailed for us to be able to say that no category of such persons existed. A further, relevant problem exists at Rhodes, where a significant number of persons within the civic circumscription occurs bearing the ethnic and not a Rhodian demotic. The status of these persons has been much debated, but the uncertainty remains. They have been identified as foreign residents on whom a limited citizenship has been conferred, which gave them, and more especially their descendants, some rights as members of the citizen body, but they are certainly not to be identified with holders of the particularly Rhodian status and title Both these categories occur, not so much on tombstones, but in two categories of evidence: (a) as part of the signature of sculptors, operating in Rhodes, who are known to be originally of foreign origin, and whose sons (and fellow-artists) occur as one (b) in subscription-lists etc. Along with foreigners. Whatever the status of these persons, they fall into categories of their own, seemingly unparalleled elsewhere.10 It is a striking feature of the public use of the Attic demotic that it might be used abroad in both public and private contexts. While it is constitutionally proper that Athenian cleruchs should retain their demotics in Attic cleruchies and dependencies, as for example at Potidaia, Lemnos, and Imbros, and at Delos in the two periods of Athenian domination,11 it is unexpected to find the demotic used instead of, or as well as, (p.84) the ethnic, in cities with no constitutional link with Athens. Instances are rare and striking. In a Milesian inscription recording the treaty negotiated between Miletus and Magnesia-on-Maeander in the early second century BC,12 the list of official witnesses to the treaty from thirteen cities is headed by three Rhodians, prefaced by the rubric

followed by their names and patronymics, without demotics, as one would

expect in the context. Then comes the rubric followed by the names of three persons with patronymic and demotic in each case, without the ethnic.13 The representatives of the cities listed after Athens, namely Knidos, Myndos, Samos, Halicarnassus, Kaunos(?), Mylasa, Teos, Kyzikos, the Achaean League, Megalopolis, and Patrai have no further elaboration.14 Again, a financial document from Epidaurus has among a number of persons with a foreign ethnic, an Athenian, (his ethnic), (his demotic).15 Sometimes (p.85) both the ethnic and the demotic might be used of the same man in a different passage in the same document: for example, 16

Instances are numerous at Delphi: for example, the series of Delphian proxeny-decrees for Athenians, inscribed on the wall of the Athenian Treasury, from the third century and later, at times shows the same feature.17 These instances might be explained by the close association between Athens and Delphi and by the fact that the Delphian decrees were inscribed on the walls of the Athenian Treasury in the manner conventional at Delphi. The same feature, however, is used of Athenians far from Athens, in the Black Sea area, at Olbia-Borysthenes. We may compare two Olbian proxeny-decrees of the fourth century BC. The first is for an Arcadian:18 Page 5 of 23

Ethnics in Public and Private Use

a perfectly normal formula. The second is for two Athenians: 19

Perhaps the two honorands asked for the addition of their distinguishing demotics. By way of contrast, an Olbian tombstone of 20 about the same date is of the familiar style: . His is a private monument, set up, we may suppose, by the widow or other relative, where the demotic might have seemed very appropriate. Finally we may notice two more stray Athenians from the

Peiraeus, with their demotics only, one in Rhodes,21 and the other in a well-known proxeny-decree from Pantikapaion,

(p.86)

.22 These remind us that the demarchs and other officials of the Peiraeus were elected by lot from the entire citizen-body of the Athenians,23 which gave that deme a quasi-independent status, in the same way as it has its own demarch today, and a native-born Peiraian may call himself in daily speech rather than No doubt the fact that Pairisades and his sons were especially connected with the commerce of the Peiraeus helps to explain the second example. In any case, taken as a group, these inscriptions show flexibility of practice in a matter of convention. The same looseness is already shown in the lists of members of the First Athenian Empire, who are mostly referred to collectively, in the form of the ethnic, and not as in other words, the concrete political concept of the demos as a body did not override the general collective term.24 And the documents containing the list of the original members of the Second Athenian Confederacy do not differ in this respect save, apparently, where a specific body of citizens has broken away from the main community; it is then described as

25

Apart from Athens, foreigners occur in the pre-Roman period on the Greek mainland in considerable quantity at Demetrias in Thessaly, a city especially open to foreign commerce from the Near East, and here again we have to consider the presence or absence of the ethnic as a stable criterion. As we have seen, statistical evidence cannot be regarded as wholly satisfactory: on tombstones those responsible for the interment of foreigners may—or at least might—omit the ethnic for some unexplained reason, like those Athenians who were commemorated by their demotic alone or by their demotic and ethnic. However, sufficiently large numbers of foreigners are recorded on the ‘Painted Stelai’ and other monuments of Demetrias to show that the use of the foreign ethnic with (p.87) the patronymic was probably recognised as normal practice there. The Hellenistic city seems to have had no internal subdivisions until it became the capital of the Magnesian koinon in 195 BC, so the plain distinction between full citizen and foreigner holds. The foreigner, male and female, like the citizen, normally bears the patronymic. Some examples illustrate the usage: (a) citizens:

(109); (b) foreign residents: (31; bilingual, with neo-Punic);

(34;

unilingual); 26

Page 6 of 23

Exceptions to this practice, on

Ethnics in Public and Private Use tombstones on which the foreign ethnic occurs without the patronymic, are much less frequent:

As already stated, there is one category of persons entitled by origin to use the foreign ethnic who, at least in one particular context, never do so: the high-ranking officials of the Hellenistic kingdoms do not carry the ethnic in their correspondence with their superior, the sovereign, or in their transmission of the royal instructions to the populations under their authority.27

(p.88) Ethnics of Proxenoi, Victors, Mercenaries, and Theorodokoi We may turn now to illustrate the role of the foreign ethnic in other contexts, of which four categories of public texts, plentifully available, may be taken as representative: (1) lists of proxenoi; (2) lists of victors in the games (in general, individually, and by cities); (3) lists of mercenary troops, again individually and by ethnic groupings; (4) lists of theorodokoi. Specimens of all of these documents belong to the end of the fourth or to the third century. It is to be borne in mind that four different formulae are possible; the regional ethnic by itself, the city ethnic by itself, the regional ethnic followed by the city ethnic, and the regional ethnic followed by the city ethnic followed by the subregional ethnic. (1) is exemplified by (a) documents relating to the bestowal of proxeny by the Aitolian League, from Thermos, mostly dated to the middle of the third century BC; (b) the familiar list of Delphic proxenoi, inscribed on the Polygonal Wall in 185 BC, some of the gaps in which are supplied by the surviving decrees authorising the bestowal of proxenia; (c) a Thessalian list from Larisa. (2) is exemplified by (a) the numerous Boiotian victor-lists, which all follow the same pattern; (b) a list of individual victors of the Lykaia at Kleitor in Arcadia; (c) lists from Larisa in Thessaly; (d) the lists of victors of the Panathenaic and other festivals at Athens during the second century. (3) is exemplified by lists of mercenaries from (a) Athens, (b) Delphi (Lilaia), (c) Thera and Laodikeia by the Sea, (d) and (e) Ptolemaic Egypt, and (f) acephalous lists from Thermos and Tralles. (4) is exemplified by the lists of theorodokoi from (a) Olympia, (b) Epidaurus, (c) Argos, (d) Nemea, (e) Hermione, and (f) Delphi. (p.89) These documents cover a wide range of public activity, both individually and in groups, and they show a lack of uniformity, not only in terms of the Greek world as a whole, but in individual cities, and even within individual documents. As before, my purpose is not to try to explain the reasons for these variations, which is not possible without arbitrary assumptions, but to let them speak for themselves. 1. Ethnics of Proxenoi First (a) we will consider the texts of proxeny-decrees issued by mostly of the earlier third century BC, c.275–270,28 which follow the same invariable pattern: the honorand has both patronymic and ethnic, and the terms of the grant are The ethnics themselves are regular in form, and cover particularly the Greek mainland. No. 13 is a series of the type of abbreviated decree in which the prescript is largely omitted, but the name of the honorand and the date of bestowal given; there are twelve such shortened decrees on no. 13, and the name, patronymic and ethnic, and the coverage of descendants are given in each, as in the full decrees. No. 17, of c.263 BC, is a list of the names of almost a hundred proxenoi, covering a period of about half a century. The name, patronymic, and ethnic of each honorand is

Page 7 of 23

Ethnics in Public and Private Use given, but the reference to his descendants is omitted, though we may assume that it stood in the original decrees. There are, however, some cases of two, or even three, brothers honoured together. There is one entry in which the patronymic was no doubt deliberately omitted, that of the epigrammatist Poseidippos of Pella, who is entered (A 29) as a tribute to his contemporary fame, ‘the wellknown Poseidippos of Pella’. Two or three (among the earliest known in the Greek world) have the praenomen, the nomen, and the father’s nomen and the ethnic, for example, (A 51) Greek style.

thus still conforming to the

By contrast, another text from Thermos contains a list of around 125 names with no patronymics or ethnics.29 The names are mostly commonplace, and do not in themselves suggest either a servile or a mercenary (p.90) origin. As Klaffenbach pointed out, they need not be Aitolian, though there is no positive reason why they should not be. They may be a list, or part of a list, of members of a koinon or similar body. That they are proxenoi seems, in view of the evidence quoted above, improbable. (b) The great list of proxenoi at Delphi, covering the years from 197 to 65 BC,30 consists of two elements: (i) what survives of the list itself (containing addenda), and (ii) names taken from approximately dated surviving proxeny-decrees, inserted by Pomtow in their probable positions in the series. Here, too, the pattern is standard throughout, name followed by patronymic and ethnic. The individual ramifications of the list do not concern us here. From Lousoi in Arcadia a long list of proxenoi of the fourth century BC (?) shows the alternative method by which proxenoi are listed under their civic headings, and they themselves thereafter with name and patronymic, without ethnic, and, in one column, an excerpt from the validating decree following the entry.31 From an earlier date, the fifth century, Lousoi has yielded a bronze discus on which are three summary entries of proxenia: I,

32

In proxeny-decrees of the time of the Arcadian koinon, in which it was required to indicate the participation of all civic members in the corporate decision, the decree was passed in the name of while the delegates of the individual cities were listed by cities, 33

(c) From Larisa in Thessaly there survive lists of various honorands—proxenoi, dikastai, persons awarded with citizenship—of different periods after the battle of Kynoskephalai. Until the time of the Sullan conquest, and the consequent change of political organisation, the lists have name, patronymic, and ethnic (whether of another city of Thessaly, or a foreign ethnic);34 from the time of Sulla the name and patronymic, (p.91) and, intermittently, the collective ethnic;35 and under the early Empire, the same variation.36 Finally we may note a list of proxenoi from Euboia, of the second century BC, the honorands of which are largely from mainland Greece; each has his patronymic and his ethnic.37 From these lists of proxenoi and so on, as well as from the very large range of extant decrees from other Thessalian cities, it is evident that, as in other forms of documentation, the name stood alone in the early period, but that the three essential elements in the title of the citizen were subsequently respected, the name, the patronymic and the demotic, the latter changed to Page 8 of 23

Ethnics in Public and Private Use an ethnic in the titles of proxenoi in the fourth century and later. It is regrettable that, in spite of the abundance of proxenydecrees from Athens, we have no lists of proxenoi from there of the type under discussion.38 2. Ethnics of Victors in Games Lists of victors in games, local and panhellenic, show a variation from this general pattern: the regular use of the name, patronymic, and ethnic expands to include local citizens, a mark, perhaps, of both ‘ethnic’ and civic pride, perhaps required by the stewards of the contests. At the same time the use of the wider or narrower ethnic may, in some cases (notably that of Arcadia), represent the existence of a koinon for which the generic ethnic stood alongside the civic title (

etc.); see (b) below.

(a) The largest series of such lists is Boiotian, and the almost uniform practice, already evident in the Archaic period and perpetuated in the Classical age and later, during the Hellenistic period, in documents of the koinon, namely that of omitting the patronymic and ethnic, obtains in most circumstances, save that the ethnic by itself is used of non-Boiotians, as already in the Amphiareia at Oropos in the fourth century (366–338 BC, in the period of its independence) we 39 encounter But there are some twenty (p.92) Athenians and as many small groups of foreigners, similarly with the ethnic only, and no patronymic, in the group of lists of the period shortly before and after the First Mithridatic War, and Sulla’s settlement of Greece; all victors, from across the whole range of the Greek world, 40 have the patronymic and ethnic, including the In the rest of Boiotia, 41 42 notably at Tanagra and Thespiai, we find civic ethnics, Boiotian as well as foreign,43 and also the federal ethnic, .44 In due course the Greek ethnics (including those of the Boiotian

cities) are mingled with Roman citizens, cognomina.45

some with tria nomina, with Greek or Latin

(b) A further series of victor-lists, from towards the end of the fourth century BC, belongs to the festival of the

in the mountains of Arcadia.46 In these the

are listed with

name, patronymic, and ethnic (regional or local), the Arcadians called simply In the final list of this group of texts, however, of c.304 BC, patronymics are not recorded, though ethnics are given (mostly plain

).47

(c) The lists from Larisa in Thessaly, like those of Boiotia, reveal a varied pattern from the battle of Kynoskephalai to the First Mithridatic War. In the two earliest, of the period of the aftermath of the Second Macedonian War, one has the civic ethnic preceded by ( etc.), but plain while the other has Thessalian city (p.93) ethnics but without 48 In the first century BC there is again irregularity of expression: in a list of the League we have a while extra-territorial foreigners are attested by one and one with patronymics.49 Another text, also of the end of the first century BC, repeats the variation of formula of the earlier part of the century as applying to local Thessalians, including Larisaians:50 The third and simplest form, the plain ethnic without patronymic, is not used in this inscription for foreigners, though in other texts it occurs.

Page 9 of 23

Ethnics in Public and Private Use (d) The types of lists surviving from Athens are varied, and we can only look at one or two of them. First, the Athenian lists of victors in the Panathenaia and other major festivals show a mixture of citizens and others. Arranged by tribes, they record the demotic of the individual Athenians, but not the patronymic, and foreigners have the ethnic only without the patronymic.51 The list of contributors for the repair of the theatre is of the same style,52 while in the list of citizens contributing to the despatch of the representatives to the Pythais at Delos in 102/1, all have patronymic and demotic, though in the same inscription the list of those who contributed to the on the same occasion (ll. 218 ff.) have only names and demotics (except for the officials and priests).53 The lists of prytaneis between 307 and 225, and again after the time of Sulla, retain the patronymic, but in the interval the patronymic was usually omitted.54 (p.94) 3. Ethnics of Mercenaries Lists of mercenaries are usually but not always found with single names without patronymics and ethnics, and the indication of their ethnic origin may be noted by groups or individually, or not at all. Since patronymics are in any case normally not recorded in such lists, there may at times, as in other acephalous lists, be doubt as to whether the individuals listed are indeed mercenaries, or belong to some subordinate group either within a city or associated with it in some way. (a) Athens, though it prided itself on not using mercenary troops on a large scale, provides an excellent example of a full mercenary-list from the end of the fourth century BC.55 In this text the two hundred mercenaries (there can be no doubt that that is what they are) are listed by regional headings, all of which are given in the plural, although mostly there is only one representative of the community in question followed by their names, without patronymic (save in two instances where there has been a confusion by the stonemason, and an apparent patronymic has been falsely added). In a slightly later list the ethnics are given individually.56 (b) A different type of list is represented by the five decrees in honour of Attalid mercenaries and other troops, described as the issued by the Phokian city of Lilaia in c.210–205 BC.57 Each of the decrees, the texts of which precede the lists, honours a commander and the troops under his command, who are all listed individually in the dative case corresponding to the individual bestowal of the gift of citizenship, with name and patronymic. Their ethnic descriptions differ slightly from each other: in one (132), the commander and the honorands are described en bloc as (though they may not all have been Mysian, rather than Thracian, since many of the names have (p.95) parallels in Northern Greece), and each individual has his name and patronymic; in another (133), which does not contain ethnic Mysians, under a different each individual has his name and patronymic, followed in almost every case by the ethnic commander, a few

(in one instance by and one

the ethnic of the

); in the third (134), where the commander

is a Cretan called each individual has his patronymic, followed again, usually, by his civic or regional ethnic (embracing a wide range of individual ethnics); this list is followed directly by a second decree in the same terms

for

followed by a list of twenty-five mercenaries with patronymics but no ethnics, though some of the names betray a North Greek or Thracian origin: the name occurs five times as that of a father, and may perhaps be one and the same person (there is also an who appears as a son); and finally, in (135), a list in four columns of a contingent about eighty strong, commanded by Page 10 of 23

has

Ethnics in Public and Private Use patronymics and individual ethnics—a number of two and two and some other unexpected ethnics. The fourth column, perhaps an addendum to the other lists, is headed names with patronymics but no ethnics.

followed by twenty-four more

(c) A long Ptolemaic list of the middle of the second century BC from Thera,58 containing some three hundred names, written by different lapicides, similarly has no patronymics or ethnics (a few unexplained and irregular abbreviations after some names cannot be taken either for patronymics or ethnics; they were added, probably, to avoid confusion between homonyms). No ranks and so on are recorded (the abbreviations do not make sense, if so interpreted), and the unit was probably a garrison rather than a field-force on active service. A shorter list of some twenty-five Ptolemaic troops, probably to be dated to the later third (p.96) century BC, found in Laodikeia by the Sea (Latakiya), some at least of whom are likely to be mercenaries, records no ranks or other distinguishing marks, but each individual carries an ethnic or similar identification; they represent in miniature the mixture of types of which a Ptolemaic field-force or, more probably a garrison beyond the Egyptian frontier, might be composed: we find five Cyrenaeans, and four Salaminians (of Cyprus), subjects of the Ptolemies, one possible demesman of Ptolemais Hermiou (a Empire, two

), some isolated natives of the Ptolemaic

from Pisidia, along with one

one

one

one

and a mixed bag of some characteristic servicemen, whatever their exact status may have been (two

two

two

) and a handful of stray troops (one

one one and one ).59 Two elements are conspicuous in this haphazard list: first, and obviously, the universal absence of patronymics, and secondly, and doubtfully, the presence of a which is known as a demotic of Ptolemais Hermiou, but, although the form suits the demotic, if it is such, it is both one of very few instances of the absence of the patronymic with a demotic, and also of the use of a civic demotic outside Egypt.60 (d) The Ptolemaic lists from Thera and Laodikeia are quite distinct from the lists of military personnel designated as of various cults from garrisons in Middle and Upper Egypt, particularly from Hermoupolis Magna. These form a special category of the Ptolemaic army, hardly comparable with those from the old Greek world. None of the lists contains ethnics, and this is itself of interest as revealing the contrast between the cleruchic documents of the third century and these lists, which reach from the second century to the last years of the monarchy. The explanation of this may be that the documents of the third century, the correspondence of Zenon and other archives, consist primarily of private documents, letters, and wills, conveyances, formal (p.97) complaints against neighbours, and marriage-documents, whereas these lists of serving troops (whether or not they are listed as members of associated religious ), are not legal documents, and the individuals, even when apparently Greek by birth, were classified differently on that account. This contrast, which is probably part of the levelling-out of the population of Greco-Roman Egypt, increased from the end of the third century onwards. I have discussed these lists, especially the earliest one from Hermoupolis, elsewhere, and need not follow them further here.61 (e) A small fragment of marble of the earlier part of the third century BC from Egypt, probably from Alexandria,62 contains the names of nine foreigners—one Athenian, one Akarnanian, one Mytilenaean, four Rhodians, and two Bosporitans—none of whom has a patronymic. The lettering is perhaps the finest example of epigraphical script from Egypt, and it is regrettable that we cannot determine the nature (or, indeed, the origin) of the list. The quality of the Page 11 of 23

Ethnics in Public and Private Use lettering and the overall style suggests that it is most likely to be a list of proxenoi, or similar honorands, rather than one of mercenaries. In any case, doubt must remain regarding the provenance of the stone, since marble was very rarely used in Egypt in the Ptolemaic period. (f) Finally we may notice two acephalous lists, which also cannot be proved to have been parts of lists of mercenaries, but probably were: (i) the Aitolian list from Thermos, already referred to above, p. 89, of the early third century, and (ii) a short list from Tralles, in which the names of some of the individuals suggest a non-Greek origin.63 4. Ethnics of Theorodokoi We must now turn to our final and perhaps most complex group of related documents, the various lists of —persons appointed (p.98) by cities to entertain representatives of cities who travelled the Greek world to announce to other cities forthcoming 64 The names of the civic and panhellenic festivals—the so-called recorded in a geographical order which at times does not seem wholly logical or straightforward, but corresponds for the most part to that of the journey undertaken by the

were inscribed on stelai and erected in the relevant sanctuaries of the cities concerned, primarily Argos, Nemea, Delphi, Epidaurus, and Olympia. The theorodokoi themselves were normally, no doubt, notables of the cities visited, connected with the sanctuary in some way, and might belong to a single family (for example, two brothers might serve), and in at least one or two cases in north-western Greece even belonged to a ruling house. The decrees honouring the theorodokoi, which accompany or are associated with the lists, expressly state that the honours bestowed on them (rights of etc.) are hereditary, for both civil and cult purposes. Two preliminary points need to be noted about the lists: (i) since they were intended to contain information valid for a long period, it was inevitable that they should require frequent correction and updating, and addenda are a conspicuous and often perplexing feature of the inscriptions (particularly that from Delphi); (ii) of the surviving lists one, from Olympia, belongs to the first half of the fourth century, three (those from Epidaurus, Argos, and Nemea) belong to the fourth century, while the latest, the notable list from Delphi, belongs to the later third and the beginning of the second century BC. The institutionalisation of the theorodokia was thus a well-established feature of inter-civic relations in the fourth century. (a) The earliest list, of 364 BC,65 from Olympia, inscribed, as usually in the Classical period at Olympia, on a thin bronze plaque, consists of the names of only two theorodokoi, and the names of the Hellanodikai: (p.99)

This document, authorised in the brief period in which Epaminondas deprived the Eleans of their control of the sanctuary and handed it over to the Pisatans, embodies grants of proxeny to be bestowed on two Sikyonians for their role as theorodokoi. In this early example the proxenoi-theorodokoi are not given patronymics; later, when they were frequently individually honoured with proxeny and other privileges, the patronymic was added in the traditional way. This is so in the verbose Olympian decree in honour of a Tenedian, who had inherited the role of from Elis to the Didymeia at Miletus.

at Tenedos for

66

(b) The earliest list from Epidaurus, of 360–359 BC, is inscribed in two columns, the second irregularly set out.67 The theorodokoi are mainly from Thessaly, Macedonia, and Thrace. In the first column all the names are listed without patronymics, while in the second column (dated Page 12 of 23

Ethnics in Public and Private Use after 316 BC) all have patronymics. The second list, dated 356–355 BC,68 covers Akarnania, Epirus, and Sicily. In it, too, both columns are inscribed rather haphazardly, and once more the patronymics are absent in column I, but there are a few in column II. These casual patronymics are probably due to the need to distinguish homonyms in the home-city. (c) A list from Argos, of c.330 BC,69 contains, once more, only a few patronymics, mostly at the bottom of column I, from the Peloponnese and Kephallenia, including the very unexpected entry

(d) In the list from Nemea of c.323 BC and later,70 which, after starting with a number of Cypriote theorodokoi, once more concentrates mainly on Western Greece—Akarnania and the Ionian Islands—all the (p.100) theorodokoi save one (column II, ll. 34–5, who does not belong to the original list) have the patronymic (if the hypothesis be accepted that in the few cases in which two or more names are followed by a single patronymic it covers the preceding names).71 (e) With the lists from Argos and Nemea go hand-in-hand three relevant documents from Hermione, two lists of the middle Hellenistic period, and one decree, probably of the second century BC, regulating the participation of the inhabitants of the people of Asine (in Messenia, an offshoot of the Argolic city of that name) in the festival of Demeter Chthonia at Hermione. The decree, which includes the election of a theorodokos to look after the interests of the inhabitants of Asine who wish tobepresent at the festival, does not concern us directly.72 Thetwolists of theorodokoi have a distinctly local colour: those listed are all representatives of Peloponnesian cities.73 The first, of which thirteen lines survive, headed consists mainly of inhabitants of the northern Peloponnese, and one Aiginetan; all have their patronymics and their ethnics. The second, more archaic in style of writing, but of about the same date, contains, beneath thesameheading, the names The proxeny-formula the Messenian but not to the Tegeate, may indicate his role as by a corresponding decree.

added to confirmed no doubt

(f) The great Delphian list of theorodokoi for the festival of the contains the names of so many individuals known from surviving proxeny-decrees for, among other services, theorodokia, as well as numerous other possible identifications with homonyms, both inside and outside Delphi, that it is difficult to decide what belongs to the original stratum of the list, and what to a later date.74 The period covered by the whole list appears to lie between c.225 and the first decade of the third (p.101) century, though the matter is a continuous field of debate as fresh evidence, mostly onomastic, appears, which it is thought might provide a final answer to this elusive question. On any view, problems of identification with homonyms or members of other families create a network of possibilities, but it appears true to say that the patronymics of the majority of the original list were inscribed, while those of the theorodokoi in the addenda are less regular. As already noted, there is no problem relating to the use of the ethnics in these documents since each entry begins with the place-name, preceded by ॉ̓ν. This small selection of lists shows quite clearly that after the fifth century BC the use of the ethnic in entries in public records, which were recognised to have international validity, might vary, even within a single document, without good cause, or at least without a cause evident to us. This substantiates the view expressed concerning other types of evidence, that Greek Page 13 of 23

Ethnics in Public and Private Use protocol—the use of the criteria treated in this and the preceding chapters—was consistent only with regard to matters within the traditional framework of the individual poleis themselves, and to publicly proclaimed honours such as proxeny-decrees, while still conforming in the broadest terms to certain inherited practices. At the same time allowance must be made for a considerable amount of variation, due to causes which frequently remain unknown. Notes: (1) For an analysis of the Attic demotic system see, in recent years, especially Jones, Public Organization, pp. 58 ff., and D. Whitehead, The Demes of Attica, 508/7-ca.250 BC: a Political and Social Study (Princeton, 1986). The absence of the demotic from the tombstones of Eretria is emphasised by D. Knoepfler in M. H. Hansen (ed.), The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community, Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre, 4 (Copenhagen, 1997), pp. 368 ff.; id., Eretria, Index, pp. 469 f., s.v. démotique, and for the use of the single name without either patronymic or demotic in Boiotia and Western Greece see the analysis in Fraser and Rönne, Boeotian and West Greek Tombstones, pp. 92 ff. Knoepfler in Hansen (ed.), The Polis as an Urban Centre, p. 369, explains the absence as due to the fact that Eretrians buried within the city did not use their rural demotics, that is, that the demotic was applicable only to residents in the countryside (in other to use the Eretrian word), and that, if the individual was resident in the city of Eretria it was by convention not used. It remains a singular anomaly in view of the long lists that survive with individuals (notably ephebes) in which the demotic is entered: see IG XII (9), 240–54, and ibid. Suppl. nos. 555–7. It is, however, the case that a considerable number of the Eretrian demotics, like Attic ones, but unlike Rhodian ones, indicate a local origin, indicated by the forms in -θεν: see IG XII (9) Index, p. 209, and Knoepfler, in Hansen, as above, pp. 358 ff., and passim. I refer to specific points relating to Eretria in my text, but direct the reader to these two works of Knoepfler for fundamental analysis. The stabilisation of the system in Eretria, and also in Chalkis and Histiaia, seems to have occurred at the latest by c.370 BC, after the collapse of the Second Athenian Confederacy (in the foundation document of which the three cities appear on their own as separate units, with no other Euboian localities). (2) For the Rhodian deme-system see Hiller, RE, Supplbd. v, cols. 746 ff., and the analysis by J. Papachristodoulou, 110 (1989), a very full account of the whole system, with especial attention to the Ialysian demes: a full list of all Rhodian demes is given in the Index on p. 272, and a detailed archaeological map of the northern island is included (in pocket at end). Members of the Rhodian ‘Old Cities’, Lindos, Kameiros and Ialysos, which, after the foundation of the new city, Rhodos, in 408, became ipso facto the constituent phylai of it, appear very occasionally after that date, outside Rhodes, with their original city ethnics, dating from the time when did not exist as a civic ethnic. So in the proxeny-honours awarded by Athens in c.394 BC to two the sons of an who had been so honoured at an earlier date, probably before the synoecism of 408: Hesperia 17 (1948), 54 ff. (SEG 28, 48 and ibid. 33, 68 = A. G. Woodhead, Inscriptions: the Decrees, The Athenian Agora, 16 (Princeton, 1997), 37), l. 3.This is the convention, although in Ol. 7 Pindar seems to avoid calling Diagoras an Ialysian; the ode is essentially a hymn in honour of the whole island and its mythological history. In a Delphian inscription of 215/14 (Syll.3 542, II, 18) a occurs, and in the Imperial period a is attested at Pergamon (IGR IV, 386). Also to be noted is the passage in a letter of Diogenes of Oinoanda (fr. 63, II, 10; cf. iv, 4), of the first quarter of the second century AD, where there is a reference to the whole context is local (Diogenes is represented as writing from Rhodes), and the use of the ethnic is unexceptionable. On the other hand the claim of Peek (Inschriften aus dem Asklepieion von Epidauros, 44) that he read in IG IV Page 14 of 23

Ethnics in Public and Private Use (1)2, 99, III, l. 245 (3rd-2nd cent. BC), two totally erased lines which previous editors disregarded as ‘duo vvs. Erasi’, is at least improbable. I gave most of the other instances of this anachronistic usage in PdelP 24 (1952), 203–5, n. 1 (cf. below, p. 114, n. 20), but I note here one or two addenda. Of the inscriptions there referred to, IG XII (1), 977 = Syll.3 129, 38, 9 = IG I3, 1454, has now been shown to belong to c.440, so (l. 38) is normal. A fictitious example of the usage occurs in Book i, 19.2 of the Greek Alexander Romance, where there is a reference to the competitors in the Capitolian Games at Rome (in which Alexander took part!), who were elected by lot. In the A-version the text has in the closely related Armenian (ed. and transl. by Wolohojian, pp. 40–1) ‘Kimon the Lakonian’; in B and in the very unfaithful Greek Γ-tradition, for which the latest editor of that version (U. von Lauenstein, Der griechische Alexanderroman, Rezension Γ (Meisenheim am Glan, 1962), prints without an ethnic, while Kroll preferred the Armenian version, and printed It is difficult to believe that this (if such was indeed the original reading in the A-version of the Romance) has any historical reality. Finally, across the Adriatic, Sextus Turpilius (RE (7); OCD3 s.v. Turpilius, of 2nd cent. BC) is recorded as having written a palliata called Lindia (see Ribbeck, Com. Fragm. Lat., pp. 118 ff.), for which no Middle or New Comedy prototype has been discovered. The title remains unexplained, since nothing is known of the theme of the comedy. (3) For Epidaurus see IG IV (1)2, under Dedicationes, passim. There are of course numerous documents which carry no mark of ethnic identity at all, and it may well be that these are not Epidaurian citizens. For Olbia see IOSPE I2 326 (= Dubois, Olbie, 58): It is a notable feature of the inscriptions of the Taman peninsula that at least from the Hellenistic age onwards the patronymic of citizens is preceded by (see CIRB 900 ff.). This is elsewhere normally a feature of the Imperial period, and of Roman names where the nomen or praenomen of the father appears in the genitive or where, at a later date, a Greek adjectival form of filiation in is given in the manner frequently found, whether or not the individual be a Roman citizen. See G. Daux, ‘L’anthroponomie latine’, in L’Onomastique latine, Colloq. internationaux du CNRS, 564 (Paris, 1977), pp. 405–17. (4) See below, p. 83 for cleruchs. (5) Examples to the contrary from S. Asia Minor in the Ptolemaic period are infrequent and complex. The following items require consideration. (1) OGIS 57–8 (TAM II, 158–9), two decrees of found at neighbouring Lydai, dated by regnal years of Philadelphus, the former of 276 BC, the latter probably of 246 BC, passed in a the first in honour of the second in honour of a Rhodian Neither is stated to be a Ptolemaic official, and the full titu-lature is therefore natural in that respect, though the first is noteworthy (so also (2) below), because the honorand is a citizen of the honouring state and is yet given his ethnic formally, and not in the natural formula, In both cases there might be a (lost?) reference to status as a Ptolemaic official, but that does not appear from the texts as they stand. (2) In OGIS 727 (TAM II ibid.), another decree of Lissa, of 246/5, the honorand is, as in (1), a perhaps the son of the Menekrates of (1) (OGIS 57); he may also be a Ptolemaic official, but there is nothing to suggest that that was the case; the Rhodian has his patronymic in the usual way. (3) In a decree of the and of Limyra, published by Wörrle, Chiron, 7 (1977), 43 ff. (SEG 27, 929), probably of 288/7 BC, ll. 21– 2, two Kaunian

described as Page 15 of 23

are honoured

Ethnics in Public and Private Use by neither has a patronymic. (4) Wörrle, Chiron, 8 (1978), 201 ff., publishes SEG 28, 1224, a letter of Philadelphus with an accompanying decree of Telmessos and its

concerning restriction on any seizure by another ruler or state, of land held in belonging to Telmessos and its the Telmessian to Philadelphus, Philokles (probably the familiar especially from Delian documents of the period of Ptolemaic suzerainty (Pros. Ptol. 15085) and Aristoteles, are not given patronymics. Also to be noted is (5), the trilingual decree of Xanthos of 337 BC (?), Fouilles de Xanthos, vi, ‘La Stèle trilingue du Létoon’ (cf. Wörrle, Chiron, 8 (1978), 236 ff.; the Greek text of this inscription, SEG 27, 942, is given by S. Hornblower, Mausolus (Oxford, 1982), p. 366, no. M9) passed by the by the terms of which a is to be erected to (For the title [or S. H. and R. v. B.] cf. W. R. Paton and E. L. Hicks, The Inscriptions of Cos (Oxford, 1891), no. 53 (with SEG 51, 1515 and C. Marek, Die Inschriften von Kaunos (2006), p. 239): ) For the of these documents see Wörrle, Chiron, 8 (1978), 236 ff. See also below, n. 27, for comparable data in the Seleukid administration.

(6) (7) For the prytanic lists see the full publication in B. J. Meritt and John S. Traill, Inscriptions: the Athenian Councillors, The Athenian Agora, 15 (Princeton, 1974), with p. 3, and the note on no. 12. Briefly, in these lists, in which each deme has its own heading above the relevant names, the patronymic is regular between 307 and c.225, and again after Sulla’s conquest; in the interval it was mainly not recorded. The earliest lists, between c.407 and c.350, are irregular in this respect. In Meritt and Traill, Inscriptions, no. 42, of 336/5, there are no patronymics in some 320 lines, whereas in no. 43, of 335/4 (incomplete; some 130 lines), all names have patronymics; the same contrast in no. 46 of c.330 (no patronymics) and no. 47, also c.330, all with patronymics. Further contrasts may be found at a later date, mainly perhaps to indicate a distinction between homonyms. In the later ephebic lists in the second century and later, the patronymic and deme are both recorded irregularly: see the lists in IG2 1960 ff. (Cf. Jones, Public Organization, p. 54.) The of these lists do not have patronymics. For the Athenian where the earlier pieces (early 4th cent. BC) only occasionally have dikastic patronymics, but on which through the whole series the deme is recorded as forming part of the machinery of the system, see J. H. Kroll, Athenian Bronze Allotment Plates (Harvard, 1972); cf. C. Pélékidis, Histoire de l’éphébie attique des origines à 31 avant Jésus-Christ (Paris, 1962), and for a brief survey Robert, Coll. Froehner, p. 2, n. 1. The absence of the patronymic on the may at times be due to considerations of space. (8) Contrast the formulae of the honorific decrees of such cities: see p. 91. (9) See Fraser, Ptol. Alex., ii, p. 133, n. 104. (10) The issue is summarised by Papachristodoulou, 215. A recent example from Rhodes of a sculptor’s signature, (SEG 46, 1043), is unfortunately incomplete. It reads Page 16 of 23

110 (1989), 236, n. (1991), 46B, p. 450 enough to provide one

Ethnics in Public and Private Use more example of the usage. R. M. Berthold, Rhodes in the Hellenistic Age (Ithaca and London, 1984), p. 55, n. 63, says ‘the terminology applied to foreigners is bewildering’. One day, perhaps, the sands of Egypt will yield a fragment of an Aristotelian (11) Jones, Public Organization, Index, p. 387, under ‘A3, Athens (cleruchies)’ gives an analysis of the evidence for the existence of Athenian institutions on Delos. The two fascicules containing IDélos 1400–1496 (Acts of Athenian functionaries after 166), and 1497–2219 (dedications) contain the relevant texts. P. Roussel, Délos athénienne (Paris, 1916), remains the standard study of the period. Regrettably J. Tréheux did not live to publish volume ii of his valuable Index to the inscriptions of Delos, of which part i excluded Athenian cleruchs and Romans. There is a clear general survey of the Second Athenian Domination of Delos by C. Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony (Harvard, 1997), pp. 246–63. The tombstones of some half-dozen Athenian demesmen at Potidaia, of approximately the end of the fifth century, published, with excellent photographs, by Dr Romiopoulou in AAA 7 (1974), 190 ff. (IG I3, 1510–14) are mostly recorded with their demotics and tribes. Of the Imbrian tombstones, IG XII (8), 1–c.120, no. 116, of 3rd cent. BC, is of interest both as providing one of the many instances of ‘posthumous’ Olynthians (see below, pp. 161 f.), and also as not recording Attic demotics: The individuals are evidently related, and we should perhaps emend (12) Milet I (3), 148. For the possibility of assigning a more precise date within two decades to this text see most recently Wörrle, Chiron, 34 (2004), 45–57. (13) For the Rhodians see ll. 4 ff., for the Athenians, ll. 6 ff. (14) For the possible political significance of the various cities represented see Rehm ad loc., pp. 345–6, and the contrary arguments of R. M. Errington, Chiron, 19 (1989), 279 ff. Whether the correct date be in the first or second decade of the second century, Rhodes was at both periods the main single state in the region, though of course overwhelmingly so after the Peace of Apameia, and a link with Rhodes was probably one factor in the choice of the negotiating cities. Similarly in the treaty between Miletus and Herakleia-by-Latmos (ibid. no. 150) the maintenance of treaty obligations with Rhodes is the governing consideration for both parties (ll. 35–6): see Rehm and Errington, locc. citt. (15) IG IV (1)2, 42, l. 22. It is interesting to note here that the same ‘internal’ form of description is applied to the one Megarian in the list (l. 18), the only unit of this type known from Megara. The 150 Megarian arbitrators at Epidaurus, IG IV (1)2, 71, of c.240 BC, are listed by their Dorian tribal membership, and in the Epidaurians’ own list of war casualties, ibid. no. 28, of 146 BC, the same divisions are used, with the addition of the fourth tribe, the It looks then as if here we have a particular Epidaurian (or Megarian?) usage, in which the internal gentilicial groups of a city are used for members of the city abroad. This is a striking contrast with the fact noticed above (pp. 77–8) that in Epidaurian dedications the ethnic and not a demotic or phyletic is used. For the listing of the Dorian tribes in the colonial inscription from Issa, Brunsmid, 1 (Syll.3 141, without the list of names) cf. My remarks in P. Cabanes (ed.), L’Illyrie méridionale et l’Epire dans l’Antiquité, ii, Colloque international, Clermont-Ferrand, Oct. 1990, 2 (Paris, 1993), pp. 167 ff. (16) IDélos, 75, of the end of the fourth century BC. Page 17 of 23

Ethnics in Public and Private Use (17) FD III (2), 74, in honour of (the identity of this Kallias with the honorand of n. 16 above is not possible in view of the -ππ- of the Delian text; that they were cousins seems very probable); ibid. 78, ibid. 93, Cf. also 77; 79; 80.

ibid. 93,

(18) IOlb. 4. (19) Ibid. 5. (20) Ibid. 98. (21) ASAA 2 (1916), p. 165. no. 113 (2nd-1st cent. BC). (22) CIRB I (Syll.3 217) of c.340.

(23) (24) See the collected editions of the documents of Athenian tribute, most recently IG I3, 259–90, with all earlier bibliography. Since an ethnic presupposes the proper name there can hardly be any significance in these variations, which may be due to lapicidal carelessness. In the list of participants in the campaign of 479 on the Serpent Column, Syll.3 31 (improved text in M-L no. 27) all those listed are naturally in ethnic form, since they are the subjects of an active verb:

(25) See IG II2, 43 (Tod, GHI, II, 123); Rhodes-Osborne, 22 (improved text). (26) The first publication of the stelai by K. Arvanitopoulos, (Athens, 1909), contains the largest number of tombstones, to which the numbers in brackets in the text above refer individually, but the material has been worked over in different ways repeatedly since then, both by Arvanitopoulos himself, then by Otto Kern in IG IX (2), and, in the present generation, by the CNRS in Lyons. B. Helly, the Director of the Centre, has made numerous contributions to their stylistic features and chronology; see especially his article in ) (Athens, 1992), pp. 349–65, for a detailed assessment of the whole nexus of material relating to the chronology of the site and the stelai. A full list of tombstones with foreign ethnics known up to 1950 will be found in 5 (1952–3), 53 ff.; cf. also Fraser and Rönne, Boeotian and West Greek Tombstones, p. 98. (27) See above, p. 78, and n. 5 above for analysis of the Ptolemaic evidence. For the Seleukid practice see, for example, the specimens given in Welles, RC, nos. 12–13 (OGIS 221), addressed to Meleagros by Antiochus I; nos. 18–20, addressed by Antiochus II to Metrophanes; nos. 31–3, the dossier of correspondence from Antiochus III to the boule and demos of Magnesia-onMaeander. The material from the Seleukid chancery may now be considerably expanded; see J. Ma, Antiochus III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor (Oxford, 1999), whose exhaustive epigraphical dossier of forty-nine inscriptions relevant to relations between Antiochus and the

Page 18 of 23

Ethnics in Public and Private Use cities of Asia Minor shows this feature in detail. Good examples are provided by his no. 26 (a letter of Laodike III to Iasos) where a is mentioned without patronymic or ethnic; ibid. 37 (Welles, RC, nos. 36–7), referring to ibid. 38, and and above all, the notable Zeuxis, (ibid. 29– 32; 40); contrast the of ibid. 39 (TAM 5 (1) 689), described in a dedication as… A possible exception is ibid. 42, from Klaros, in which a statue is dedicated to Antiochos the Son by whose status is not recorded. The same limitation does not, of course, apply to the documents issued by cities in honour of such persons, as in ibid. 44, a decree of Apollonia Salbake, dated between 218 and 190, honouring a Seleukid hipparch, Philo–, in which two Seleukid officials en poste in Sardis, Ktesikles (for whom see also Ma, 1 (SEG 39, 1283)) and Menandros (called ) are named without patronymics. It is also not infrequent in such documents for civic ambassadors to the Seleukid administrative centres to appear with their names only, without patronymics (e.g. 29; 45; but contrast 17). This is also true of the other major chanceries, as in the Pergamene Kingdom (see the letter of Attalus I, Welles, RC, no. 35). (28) IG IX (1)2, 12 ff. (29) Ibid. no. 60, of 3rd/2nd cent. BC. The names recorded are mostly, but not all, commonplace, and do not point onomastically to any particular region. Names with -η- predominate over names with -α-, but this may to some extent reflect the Hellenistic date. (30) Syll.3 585, cf. below, p. 100, and n. 74; a partial bibliography to c.1975 will be found in G. Nachtergael’s Les Galates en Grèce (Brussels, 1977), pp. 345 ff. with 349, n. 217. (31) IG V (2), 368. (32) Ibid. 387 = DGE 669 = M. Guarducci, Epigrafía greca (Rome, 1976–8), i, p. 122, no. 3. I have discussed the occurrence and interpretation of in these proxeny-decrees in JHS 123 (2003), 32–3. Cf. above, p. 7 and n. 18. (33) Ibid. no. 1 = DGE 655. (34) e.g. IG IX (2), 508, for Milesian dikasts. (35) Ibid. 512 (from Krannon: see H. Kramolisch, Demetrias, ii: Die Strategen des thessalischen Bundes vom Jahr 196 v. Chr. bis zum Ausgang der romischen Republik (Bonn, 1978), pp. 96–7). (36) Ibid. 534 (late 1st cent. BC) shows this usage as applied to Thessalians; cf. below, p. 94, and n. 56. (37) BMI 1154a (IG XII (9), 1187; Syll.3 492). The stone was ‘brought from Greece in 1725’, and its origin has been much discussed. Arguments for a Euboian origin are to be found in IG XII, Suppl., p. 198; cf. Robert, BE 1972, no. 37; cf.no. 85; id. Etudes de numismatique grecque (Paris, 1951), pp. 179–216; Knoepfler has many relevant comments on the text: see the Index to Eretria, p. 452. (38) See Chr. Marek, Die Proxenie (Bonn and New York, 1984), pp. 134 ff.

Page 19 of 23

Ethnics in Public and Private Use (39) IG VII, 414 = IOrop. 520. The whole series of the Oropian victor-lists, including those which were published in AE, are available in the admirable photographs provided by Dr Petrakos in his publication. (40) IG VII, 416–20 = IOrop. 523–28; ibid. 529–530. In 420 = 528, ll. 46, 56 and 62, the victor is and in l. 40, The range of the ethnics is worthy of note. (41) IG VII, 540–43 (540 = SEG 25, 501). (42) Ibid. 1760 (cf. Roesch, EB, p. 192, no. 39, 1). (43) e.g. 1760, two

with patronymics; 1765, one

(44) Ibid. 1762; 1764. The former has four alongside two in 1764 the patronymics are preserved, the ethnics lost.

and one

(45) Ibid. 1772–3; 1776–7. (46) IG V (2), 549–50 = Syll.3 314. (47) IG V (2), 550, vi. In three lines of this list the ethnic precedes the patronymic, a very uncommon feature: ll. 17 ff.: Kolbe ad loc. comments, ‘nota ethnica… variationis rhetoricae causa anteposita’, but that would be more natural if the same formulation was applied to all fourteen victors, and not selectively. (48) (a) IG IX (2), 525, of 187 BC dated by the League agonothetes, (b) ibid. 526 (with five and one ), after 196 BC). (49) In another, ibid. 528, the relevant part of the stone is lost. (50) IG IX (2), 534, ll. 12 ff. (51) IG II2, 2332, of 183 BC. (52) Ibid. 2406, of 2nd half of 4th cent. BC; ibid. 2471, an acephalous list of some ten lines, of referring to Jerusalem, is listed; cf. Stephanus’ long entry s.v. 2nd cent. AD (the ethnic ) has abbreviated ethnics: e.g. but there is no reason to suppose that these belong (particularly at so late a date) to a list of proxenoi (cf. above, n. 38). (53) Ibid. 2336. (54) See above, pp. 90–1. (55) IG II2, 1956; cf. Ancient Macedonia: Fifth International Symposium, Thessaloniki, 1989, i, pp. 445 ff. In this list the first forty-six names have no heading, but the names show that they are Thracians; three Thracians appear, apparently as addenda, at the end of the list, ll. 184 ff. This long text of over 200 lines, with fifty-five different ethnics, illustrates throughout the curious

Page 20 of 23

Ethnics in Public and Private Use practice of entering single individuals under a plural rubric, in contrast with the natural system illustrated by ibid. 1957: see n. 56 below. (56) Ibid. 1957, of 3rd cent. BC, a fragment in which the ethnics, given after each name, consist of Ibid. 1958 (2nd half of 3rd cent. BC) consists largely of Athenian citizens (with abbreviated demotics), and one or two mercenaries: (ethnics abbreviated after the individual names). There are no patronymics in these lists. Ibid. 1959 is a small fragment which provides no information. (57) FD III (4), 132–5. (58) IG XII (3), 327 (= ll. 1–16 only, OGIS 59) dated (163/2 and 160/159); cf. Launey, Recherches, pp. 847–8. The document is complicated both by reason of the operation concerned, and by the weakness of the syntax. It appears that the garrison had demanded that funds be made available from the sale of lands held on the island by the Crown for them to use The covering letter of Ptolemy VI is addressed simply apparently the military commander, but the same man appears at the head of the subsequent list of contributors with his patronymic an Aspendian name (as Robert noted, Noms indigènes dans l’Asie Mineure (Paris, 1963), p. 416), along with the other officials concerned (59) SEG 27, 973 bis, of the 2nd half of the 3rd cent. BC. (60) Some examples of the omission of the patronymic with foreigners and with one or two demesmen are given in Ptol. Alex., ii, pp. 115 ff., nn. 21 ff., and p. 130, with n. 100. was taken as the demotic by the original editor, but Wörrle, Chiron, 9 (1979), 105, n. 127 (cf. SEG 29, 1596) regarded it as referring to one of the cities named Philotera (probably that on the Lake of Tiberias), for which the ethnic termination -ιoς is recorded by Stephanus (where see Mein. ad loc., and also below, p. 366): see already the detailed note of Dittenberger, on OGIS 35, n. 2, and, for the demotic of Ptolemais, Fraser, Ptol. Alex., ii, p. 125, n. 76(a). Admittedly, the reference to the external location fits the context better, and, the ethnic form apart, is more probable. (Alexandrian demotics reflect the cult-titles see Fraser, Ptol. Alex., ii, p. 125, nn. 73 and 75.) [But at p. 366 below Fraser prefers the ‘demotic’ explanation. S. H.] (61) See Elaine Matthews (ed.), Old and New Worlds in Greek Onomastics, Proceedings of the British Academy, 148 (Oxford, 2007), pp. 69–85. The inscriptions from Hermoupolis Magna are republished by E. Bernand, Inscriptions grecques d’Hermoupolis Magna et de sa Nécropole (Cairo, 1999). (62) SB 6831 = IFayoum, 193. For what is known of the origins of the stone see the publication in AJP 38 (1917), 304, no. 1. I have called attention to this fragment in the article noted above. A photograph of it is reproduced on the dust-jacket of S. Hornblower and E. Matthews (eds.), Greek Personal Names: their Value as Evidence, Proceedings of the British Academy, 104 (Oxford, 2000), and also in Old and New Worlds in Greek Onomastics, p. 72.

Page 21 of 23

Ethnics in Public and Private Use (63) Robert, Coll. Froehner, pp. 94 ff. = ITralles und Nysa (IGSK 36, 1), 33. The first column is lost except for the ethnics, which consist, among others, of six and other varied ethnics which suggest (see Robert ad loc.) that they may well form part of a list of mercenaries. (64) The excellent book of P. Perlman, City and Sanctuary in Ancient Greece, Hypomnemata, 121 (Göttingen, 2000), originally The Theorodokia in the Peloponnese (Ann Arbor, 1989), covers in great detail all the evidence relating to the class of theorodokoi described above, as attested in the Peloponnese. They form her Type I. She does not cover, except in passing (as Type II; cf. pp. 17–18), the other, much smaller, class of in which the represent their city in acceptance of an invitation to a festival by another city. These consist of individuals, and no lists survive. Although the honorific decrees for the theorodokoi of either category, printed, along with other epigraphical evidence, by Perlman in her ‘Prosopographic Catalogue’, pp. 175 ff. (indicated by the capitals, A, E, O, etc., representing the origins of the documents) are not within the scope of my discussion, I may note that I agree with her that the attempted distinction between the use of the ethnic form in the award of citizenship, and that of the ktetic for the geographical entries for the lists of theorodokoi, is not valid. (65) IvO. 36 = Perlman, City and Sanctuary, O 1*.

(66) (67) IG IV (1)2, 94 = E 1*. (68) Ibid. no. 95 = E 2*. (69) SEG 23, 189 = A 1*. (70) SEG 36, 331 = N 1*; cf. Perlman, City and Sanctuary, pp. 105–52 ff. for a full discussion of the many problems connected with this text. The exact date depends on a series of associated, and frequently conflicting, data, not the least of which (independently of historical arguments) is the problem of the erasure and re-inscription of portions of the catalogue: see Perlman, pp. 107 ff., whose enumeration of the lines I follow.

(71) (72) The decree is published as IG IV (1), 679 = Syll.3 1051. (73) (a) IG IV (1), 727A = H1; (b) ibid. 679 = H2; cf. ibid., pp. 330 ff. (74) The original publication of the list was that by A. Plassart in BCH 45 (1921), 1–85. Since then its chronology has been the subject of endless debate, in the light of both internal and external problems, both geographical and historical, which it is hoped that the new edition being prepared by J. Oulhen for publication as a volume of CID may bring to an end, at least for the present. See further Marek, Die Proxenie, pp. 184 ff. There is a chronological table of the awards at the end of the publication in Pomtow’s edition and in Marek, pp. 233 ff. A succinct account of Page 22 of 23

Ethnics in Public and Private Use the ‘state of the game’will be found in Hatzopoulos’ article, BCH 115 (1991), 345–7, but there are a great many items which remain outstanding for each region, which the editor will have the difficult task of organising, along with the numerous associated and varied chronological problems.

Page 23 of 23

Servile Ethnics and Metic Ethnics

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

Servile Ethnics and Metic Ethnics P. M. Fraser

DOI:10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.003.0005

Abstract and Keywords This chapter discusses servile and metic ethnics. Slavery was a normal part of Greek life from the earliest known date. In the Homeric poems, slaves, if more often a serf or a praedial worker than a member of a household, figure prominently, a native δο?λος at times shown in a trusted role as servant or worker. Greek cities recognised the status of the metic, the permanent or long-term, tax-liable, foreign resident, in different ways, at least as far as concerned the forms of legal identification required. Although the duties and privileges attaching to the status might vary, one restriction was general and absolute: no metic might employ the unadulterated ethnic of the host-city for identification. Keywords:   slaves, servile ethnics, metic ethnics, legal identification, foreign residents

A CONSIDERATION OF THE CIVIL STATUS OF SLAVES lies outside the scope of this book.1 Nevertheless, even within the very limited field covered in this chapter, some introductory remarks are necessary for us to appreciate fully the nature and limits of the task.

Servile Ethnics Slavery was a normal part of Greek life from the earliest known date. In the Homeric poems, slaves, if more often a serf or a praedial worker than a member of a household, figure prominently, a native at times shown in a trusted role as servant or worker. They sometimes carry names that bear witness to the same racial origin as their masters, and their loss of individual freedom, however it came about, did not wholly destroy their individual status. They were, as Aristotle was later to stress, a natural and necessary part of any fam ily unit. They are thus differentiated from the variously named serfs of the Archaic and classical periods, who represent the residue of a surviving pastoral society submerged by more powerful neighbours or the the the the and invaders: the others who were in time largely absorbed into the developing Greek communities. In the poems they appear either as victims of warfare or of organised piracy, or as children of impoverished

Page 1 of 14

Servile Ethnics and Metic Ethnics parents anxious to be rid of the burden of feeding them. Eumaios the swineherd and Eurykleia the nurse, of Penelope’s household, are not racially distinct from Odysseus and Penelope. There is a basic distinction between such local slaves and those who, already in the Homeric period, were of foreign origin and had been picked up around the shores of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, in Africa, and in due course from the Balkans. In contrast to the (p.104) considerable amount of information at our disposal regarding emancipatory processes, we know very little about the practice of slave-trading and its market practices, how slaves who were not were normally bought (and sold, if not emancipated), but with the arrival of foreign slaves, there inevitably arose the problem of intercommunication between master and slave, which is germane to our enquiry. The ancient Greeks, at least before the Roman period, seem to have found foreign languages difficult to master. Interpreters, whether or not bilingual, are frequently singled out for comment, and seem to have been in short supply. It is true that at all times sale and purchase can be carried out with a minimum of common language, but while a sack of charcoal can be put to immediate use without more ado, a slave has to be spoken to, perhaps even to speak, however briefly, and, not least, has to be given a name recognisable by both parties. The Greeks soon learned that foreign slaves from certain areas either bore names that could not be understood or pronounced by them, or bore no names at all. In the Classical period at least it seems probable that these foreign slaves were called simply by their ethnics. The fact is established already in the early Classical period in Athens, since in Athenian lists of that time, in which slaves occur, they are often identified by their ethnic alone, without an individual name and without the name of their master, and, though evidence is lacking, the same was no doubt true also in the great cities of the Archaic age, such as Corinth. Thus, a Thracian slave may be called simply a Scythian a Carian and so on. This practice is reflected by the introduction in old Comedy of slaves, public and private, who talk gibberish. Nevertheless, whether in domestic service, or in mines or other places where slaves were employed in large numbers, identification by name became a necessity, to avoid confusion between homo-ethnics. Consequently, the law of ‘Hobson’s Choice’ soon operated: the master either learned to pronounce the slave’s native name comprehensibly, or else gave him a Greek name, ad libitum. it is, however, extremely rare to find a civic ethnic of a slave in use, except in Delphian manumission documents, where it was evidently part of the legal designation of the slave, not infrequently in a prepositional form A tombstone of the second century BC from Rheneia is remarkable in this respect and also because it commemorates a mass-burial, which suggests that the individuals must have still been in a servile condition. It records the names of twentyone persons, mainly from Syrian cities, but without patronymics, described in the last line as 2 . We may accept that only slaves could be (p.105) followed by so described (it is possible, but not very likely, that they were members of a gladiatorial school with their next-of-kin), and we have to suppose, if they all originally died at the same time, that some disaster had overtaken the establishment of Protarchos—perhaps in his absence. An epigram of Theaitetos which records the destruction (by fire?) of a large mansion in Alexandria in which sixty persons perished, provides a possible similar scenario for the Rheneian

tombstone.3 Leaving out of account for the present those cases in which the ethnic by itself is used as a name, we may consider to what extent evidence exists for the identification of a slave by a personal name. Already in the lists of the Hermokopids at the end of the fifth century we find a rich mélange of (p.106) Greek names and foreign ethnics, which shows clearly that the name Page 2 of 14

Servile Ethnics and Metic Ethnics was given after purchase: and many others.4 For a later period we have abundant evidence in the manumission documents of Delphi in particular, and of other sanctuaries in Central Greece, where the name and status, and/or nationality, of the emancipated slave is regularly given. This indeed is not a universal procedure, for in some regions, which are sufficiently rich in emancipation documents for us to be able to speak with some confidence of a recognised and uniform practice, notably in the cities of Thessaly and at Bouthrotos on the Illyrian coast,5 the name of the manumitted slave is recorded without further definition, or by the bare names of the slave and of the owner. The legal identification of the freed person in such cases was presumably provided by the owner and by the attestation of the sureties ( or a similar term), in contrast to the Delphian practice where all essential personal details of the slave are recorded in the inscribed text, along with the necessary legal provisions. It is a familiar fact that a class of names of both sexes is commonly identified as consisting of essentially ‘servile names’, that is, names that were most frequently given to slaves. The view that many of such names were exclusively servile is now recognised to be incorrect, but in spite of the reduction in their number, there remains a considerable residue of names, known mainly from manumission documents, but also from other inscribed texts, as well as literary sources, which may reasonably be so classified, just as some, the same or others, may be classified (with appropriate caution) as hetaira-names. Our concern is not with the names themselves, but with their bestowal and its relation to the statement of ethnic identification. It is clear from a familiar passage of Strabo, referring to the Getai and the Daoi, that some names were recognised as originally both regional and, almost ipso facto, servile.6 (p.107) Further enquiry as to the names given to slaves might appear to be valueless from the outset, because it must naturally largely have hinged on an indeterminable factor: the inclination of the owner, or possibly, at an earlier stage, the slave-dealer, who bestowed the name. But we may be sure that though some names occur frequently as names of slaves, these, contrary to the instances cited by Strabo, need not bear any relation to the ethnic origin of the slave, which may be either inexplicit or ambiguous. A fictitious (and suppositious) female slave in Achilles Tatius provides an example which, although late in date, must attest to the survival of an age-old practice: the ‘slave’, at the request of her ‘mistress’, furnishes her name, and complains that she has been maltreated by an overseer on the estate where she was working, who had paid two thousand drachmae to pirates for her; the overseer, Sosthenes, summoned, explains that he bought her from a slave-dealer who had bought her from pirates, and that the slave-dealer said that she was a free woman named .7 In any study of slavery, ancient or modern, the main difficulty in determining the origin of a slave lies in the nature of the servile environment. It is necessary to say a few words about this, for it affects the interpretation of the evidence. The problem of determining the origin of slaves in the Greek world is partly due to the fact that we know very little about the slave-trade itself, that is to say about the commercial operations that preceded the sale of the slave. We may suppose that slaves captured in war were not necessarily sold at auction by the (or perhaps ),8 and remained the property of their captor, (p.108) but even so there were countless slaves who were bought at auction in the great slave-markets. Others became enslaved from other causes, notably by being born within the to a slave-woman. In many of such cases we are not usually able to say who the father was, whether the owner or a fellow-slave; in either case the slave-children were customarily designated as

or some similar term, without any ethnic Page 3 of 14

Servile Ethnics and Metic Ethnics appellation. This miscegenation, which probably increased sharply with the growth of Roman demand, must have had an immeasurable effect on the value to be attached to ethnic denominators, at the same time altering profoundly the racial composition of those classes of the population of Greece and the Roman Empire who in due course became a substantial element among the free men, in time acquiring their own slaves, thus adding to the process of racial mixture. The very frequent occurrence of free persons named in the later Hellenistic and Imperial periods is a clear indication of the development of a society containing a very large libertine element. Another aspect of the effect of on names, which no doubt contributed substantially to the fusion of libertine and free men, lies in the change of name that a child born to a slave in a state of might undergo, as, for example, Nikostratos, the son of a freed slave born in the paramone of his mother, who records the latter the name of her manumittor, and also, no doubt, father of her son.9 Strabo, in another familiar passage,10 tells us that after the sack of Corinth and Carthage the Roman need for slaves was such that Delos, the great slave-emporium for the Anatolian and Syrian hinterlands, was able to cope with the daily arrival and sale of ‘tens of thousands’ of slaves, whence the proverb among slave-traders, ‘Merchant, put in, expose your wares, and all are sold’: (p.109)

Slave-sales or auctions may have been less frequent and less lucrative a century earlier, when Delos was independent—indeed, we hear very little of slaves before the arrival of the Roman negotiatores on Delos (though we recall the slaves of Protarchos, mentioned above)—but the little we learn of slave-sales elsewhere confirms the picture already provided by the early ethnic slave-names of a vast racially heterogeneous slave-population already in the earliest Hellenistic period. As our starting-point we may consider an entertaining passage of Varro’s De Lingua Latina. Discussing the two genera of declension which he calls ‘voluntarium’ and ‘naturale’, he says:11 Sic tres cum emerunt Ephesi singulos servos, nonnumquam alius declinat nomen ab eo qui vendit, Artemidorus, atque Artemam appellat, alius a regione quod ibi emit, ab Ion(i)a Iona[m], alius quod Ephesi, Ephesium, sic alius ab alia aliqua re, ut visum est. (22) contra naturalem declinationem dico, quae non a singulorum oritur voluntate, sed a com(m)uni consensu. Itaque omnes impositis nominibus eorum item declinant casus atque eodem modo dicunt huius Artemidori et huius Ionis et huius Ephesi[s], sic in casibus aliis. This passage shows clearly that the name of a slave was determined at the moment of sale, and might depend on the vendor or the purchaser’s whim. The same has been true throughout the centuries, as the names Hannibal and Horatio given to Negro slaves in America and Brazil indicate. The same motive of profit and allure induced modern slave-traders in Africa frequently to falsify the origin of a particular batch of slaves according to the merits of one tribe over another as workers. That the place of origin might not be beyond doubt in Greece, even among Greek slaves, is shown by a manumission from Delphi in which a slave is described as 12

. The confusion that might arise over the issue of origin can easily (p.110) be imagined. Even at Delphi Greek can hardly

Page 4 of 14

Servile Ethnics and Metic Ethnics have been more than an insufficient koine for most bought slaves, at least to begin with, while the number of owners who spoke Paphlagonian or primitive Armenian must indeed have been small. Time certainly changed this, but a residue of non-Greek-speaking slaves must have survived at least until the Roman period. When we add this to the fact that the status of slaves or freed slaves was mostly unrecorded on tombstones throughout the Greek (unlike the Roman) world (except in the case of a few faithful domestic slaves of long standing), even if allowance is made (perhaps unnecessarily) for the possibility that the single names of individuals on tombstones, particularly those of Asiatic origin, may in some cases be those of slaves, we cannot but be impressed by the exclusiveness of this aspect of Greek, and particularly of Athenian, society. The intimate associations between slaves and the families to which they belonged seem only rarely to have been commemorated posthumously—as when, for example, a slave may have been a loved (the latter not necessarily servile)—even if they might in the Imperial period be buried in the family sarcophagus-mausoleum, a fact which may perhaps in some measure be accounted for by the growth of the libertine population. It is mainly on Christian tombstones that the status of is irregularly recorded, and then it is frequently a celestial master whom the slave served: Rhodes and Delphi provide in their different ways exceptions to this silence regarding slaves born and reared in the house or estate, whether the father was the head of the household (no doubt the most frequent state of affairs), or another slave. Such as they were called at Rhodes (at Delphi, where they are very numerous in the manumission documents, they are called ), are not uncommon in Rhodian documents of various types, though the total absence of actual manumission documents from Rhodes makes it hard to compare them numerically with the market-purchased slaves, as can be done in the Delphic manumissions, where details of origin are either spelled out, or can be inferred from the ethnics of the witnesses. Rhodian like the metics, played a significant role in the social life of the foreign community, through membership of koina and similar groups, and we have already seen the case of a slave who rose to be a leading member of the (p.111) foreign community, and of occurring alongside demesmen, metics, and undifferentiated foreigners in Rhodian subscription-lists. Finally their status as like that of the metic, might be recorded on their tombstones, though we cannot say whether this was normal practice.13 Their lot was clearly different from, and superior to, that of the run of slaves of equivalent status at Athens, and, in effect, nearer to that of the metic.

Metic Ethnics Greek cities recognised the status of the metic, the permanent or long-term, tax-liable, foreign resident, in different ways, at least as far as concerned the forms of legal identification required. The evidence is overwhelmingly Athenian, and it is only from Athens that we have a substantial literary tradition to reinforce the documentary evidence, but even so we can see that practice might differ from city to city.14 But although the duties and privileges attaching to the status might vary, one restriction was, to the best of our knowledge, general and absolute: no metic might employ the unadulterated ethnic of the host-city for identification. At Athens a metic, like a plain

might by one means or another acquire the status of citizen, and, by so doing, he

ceased to be a We have, then, to enquire what formal expression of resident status the metic was permitted or required to record, once the necessary (p.112) legal requirements were fulfilled by the guarantee of a or (guarantor). At Athens the answer is very simple: the metic was admitted as resident of a deme in a topographical sense, which was recorded in the formula

without the patronymic or ethnic,

Page 5 of 14

Servile Ethnics and Metic Ethnics the actual status, not usually being stated either in public or private monuments, though as a class they are identified in various contexts, and they probably at times formed almost half of the total population. The payment of the situation changed, annulled, their particular status.15

established, or, if their

The Athenian model, if so it may be described, seems to have been followed at Delos, where early in the second period of independence metics are recorded among choregic performers without patronymics, and there is only one likely occurrence of the ethnic after the name.16 By contrast in the long list of subscribers to the rebuilding of the walls of Kolophon in c.310 BC, which contains many hundreds of names, essentially of citizens, but also of a few metics, the latter appear with their patronymics, like the citizen-population, simply with the word added.17 At Rhodes, on the other hand, although there is no literary (p.113) evidence, we can see from tombstones and honorific and other public inscriptions that the metic retained his own ethnic alongside the status-term

One tombstone commemorating a husband and wife

reads: 18

showing the complete expression of the metic formula, while another shows us how the status might be, perhaps could only be, achieved: 19

Epigonos of Rhodiopolis in Lycia had been a (public?) slave (in Rhodes), and manumitted by the city and honoured as a public guest by the Council and the Damos, and he had performed the twice. From this, our only piece of Rhodian procedural evidence, it appears that the manumission had been effected by the city (whether because he was one of the public slaves, of whom we hear elsewhere, or because the formula covers the normal method of civil manumission, whatever that was), and that at some time he had been given a civic reception, perhaps in connection with his elevation to the status of metic, and that he had, like metics elsewhere, played his part as choregos in two dramatic performances. We would much like to know whether this was the normal method of manumission at Rhodes; if so, it was certainly very different from the manumittal procedures familiar from the Greek mainland, where manumission was a carefully articulated contract between owner and slave in the presence of witnesses and retained in the civic archives, whether the manumission itself was ‘sacral’ or ‘civil’. It seems rather to have followed the Athenian model, in which manumission was a civil act, proclaimed in the ekklesia. This must remain uncertain, though, if correct, it would confirm the general impresson that the Rhodian democracy, as it developed in the fourth century, was influenced to some extent by the city’s experience as (p.114) a member of the Second Athenian Confederacy, whence it learnt Athenian procedures.20 Among other evidence for metic status at Rhodes (at a much later date) the two most important items are subscription-lists of the second-first century BC. The purpose of one of these was apparently to record the names of benefactors who had contributed towards the expense of enrolling new citizens into the citizen-body.21 The procedure involved is not explained in what remains of the heading of the first stone, but it is clear that demesmen, privileged foreigners and metics, male and female, were all competent to contribute, and the metics are distinguished by the title

followed by their ethnic of

origin, but without patronymics; they are guaranteed by who may be citizens or 22 metics. The second list, of which the heading is entirely missing along with the left half of the stone, also records against each name a sum of money representing a subscription of some sort. Page 6 of 14

Servile Ethnics and Metic Ethnics It carries the names of a mixed group of largely female residents, including a number of 23 and metics, of whom the females are always represented by a . One of the surviving guarantors of (p.115) the first stone, Pharnakes, is described surprisingly as an

which suggests that he passed through the phase of emancipation (Pharnakes is a typically servile name) and eventually emerged as a metic, but the retention of the word makes this interpretation uncertain. A dedication by thank-offering to Isis,24 the honour of a crown bestowed by a religious koinon on

of a

one who had improved his position in life,25 26

honours bestowed on an

and the signature of a metic sculptor,

27

all show that the metics at Rhodes, unlike those at Athens, were denoted by their ethnic of origin, and that there was no ‘residential’ form of ‘metic ethnic’ (for example, ); the remains an exception to any known practice. Whether, as at Athens, metics were associated by residence with a particular deme we cannot say, but they do not appear in the detailed lists of the demesmen of Lindos.28 At Athens the measures of Demetrios of Phaleron may have brought the

to a gradual end; all

29

became

The interpretation of tombstones remains uncertain at Rhodes, as elsewhere. Out of the several hundred tombstones of foreigners from Rhodes only two have the word

Were only two

of all these (p.116) foreigners That seems unlikely, for why establish and retain a status so very rarely sought by foreigners or bestowed by the state? It is much more probable that the use of this term, like other aspects of funerary formulae, lay at the discretion of the deceased or the next-of-kin. As we shall see, the same discrepancy in proportion, but on a larger scale, exists at Athens, where also the term metic does not occur on tombstones. Before we turn to the Athenian evidence, however, we may note that, as at Rhodes, the metic retained his native ethnic at Iasos. From that small Carian city, in general strongly under Rhodian influence, there survives a considerable number of choregic texts, some fifty in all, in which metics are included.30 These probably belong to the period after 166 BC, the end of direct submission to Rhodes. The lists, which fall into one or two separate groups, record the choregic payments of citizens and metics. The foreigners, who are not individually called metics in every list, always appear at the end of the text, and in most cases below the general heading or (very occasionally)

Their names are followed by their ethnics, which in cases of

ambiguity such as are not expanded. Instructive as the ethnics are in more than one way, only the fact of inclusion of the home-ethnic together with the indication of metic status at Iasos concerns us here. Unfortunately only very few tombstones survive from Iasos, and no conclusion can be drawn from the use of the term

in a single instance:

where, as in one of the two instances from Rhodes, it is the wife, not the husband, who is designated metic.31 It is of particular interest to observe that a recently published fragment of a lex sacra from neighbouring Bargylia, of the later Hellenistic period, shows conclusively that the metic community there was closely integrated into the citizen-body, at least in respect of civic cults.32 (p.117) The city of Cos, where metics are well attested, shows a variant pattern from Rhodes. A list of female contributors to an for the sanctuary of Aphrodite is divided into three groups, the first, citizens by birth, the second, who seem to have Coan fathers, and, third, 33

. All have the same form of identification, their name followed by the patronymic only, with no phyletics or demotics for the citizens, no further definition for the no ethnics Page 7 of 14

Servile Ethnics and Metic Ethnics for the metics, and no legal representatives for any of the contributors. Thus we see that while two cities so close to each other as Cos and Iasos, and both of Dorian stock, show a divergent usage in regard to the use of the ethnic by metics, they nevertheless both grant them public participation in civic cults. We may revert to Athens to consider the use of the term on tombstones there. Here we know much about the social status of metics from forensic literature and from choregic inscriptions, but although in legal speeches the city of origin of the metic is often mentioned, official and private documents are alike silent on this point; the formal description is always demotic. On the other hand the doubt considerably fewer in number than the metics, and enjoying a closer approximation to citizenship, especially at Eretria and Oropus, describe themselves by the single word alone.34 We may assume that the with foreign ethnics, and sometimes with, sometimes without, a patronymic, may include metics; or we may assume that they lie unspecified among the large group of persons who bear neither demotic nor ethnic, and, again, may or may not have a patronymic, but the most satisfactory explanation of how the names and status of this numerous and frequently very prosperous section of the population at Athens were recorded after death is to assume that, as they resumed their 35 original ethnic title. Further, and again different, evidence is provided as to the status of metics by a long list of names at Tegea. In this list of winners in the local Olympic festival of probably of the second century BC,36 we find that the names of the metic victors are listed at the end of the list of each tribe, after the citizentribesmen (and sometimes erased). As at Cos, they are given no ethnics, (p.118) but are simply called Once again there is no explicit evidence from Tegea as to the formulae used on funerary inscriptions, for although a significant number of tombstones survive, the inscriptions on them contain only the basic formula regarding the status of the individual.37

and no conclusions can be drawn from them

We have seen that in certain contexts the Athenians and some other communities made considerable use of the ktetic to stand for the ethnic. Is it possible that such persons are the elusive metics? Such, in broad terms, seems to have been in the mind of Dittenberger, but the hypothesis will no longer stand examination.38 There are too many epigraphical instances, as noted above, in which it is clear that the ktetic form cannot be shown to have been used with a different meaning from that of the ethnic, and the passage of Theophrastus which uses 39 for shows that it might, in a literary, but not a colloquial, text be used for the ethnic, just as, in a variety of different contexts, the ethnic in takes the place of the ktetic in At the same time the varying ways in which metics might be recorded in documents of different cities illustrates clearly one main characteristic of Greek civic organisation: that, within a framework defined by tradition, each polis would, or could, develop its own particular variation of a common feature. It was only in the cities of the Hellenistic world, which were open to immigrants from any area of the Mediterranean and the Near East, that the role of the metic became meaningless, and so, while the old distinction continued down at least to the Hellenistic age in the old Greek cities (Athens, and perhaps some other communities, excepted), in Alexandria and the other cities of the new world there seems to have been no ‘metic’ status. As Rostovtzeff said of the population of Alexandria, they were all of the

metic class.40 Notes: (1) Readers will find a brief but judicious account of the whole topic, together with an excellent bibliography, in the article by P. Cartledge in OCD3 s.v. Slavery, Greek. Page 8 of 14

Servile Ethnics and Metic Ethnics (2) M. T. Couilloud, Exploration Archéologique de Délos, 30 (1974), no. 418 (Klaffenbach, Berl. Abh. 1964 (2), p. 16, no. 28): I owe a photograph of the squeeze which Klaffenbach made in 1935 of this now lost stone to Dr Klaus Hallof of Inscriptiones Graecae. Although Klaffenbach covers all the points arising immediately out of the text, I quote it again here as very relevant to the point under discussion, and also because it provides interesting combinations of personal names and ethnics:

It is immediately noticeable how the often commonplace Greek names are associated with Asiatic ethnics. Compare with the above items for example SGDI 1727, (Daux L32, 167 BC), and ibid. 1894 (L43, 156 BC), It is of interest to compare in this connection the epitaph of ten lines from Amphipolis containing the names of nine persons with patronymics, SEG 50, 562, which seems to show a family or families close to the citizen-body, but of various civic origins:

with Chaniotis’ comments ad loc. (3) See AP 7.444 (Gow-Page, ll. 3360 ff.) and Ptol. Alex., ii, p. 157, n. 255. An epigram of Dioscurides is a moving epitaph on a young Persian slave, recently dead, Euphrates, addressed in warm terms by his master: see AP 7.162 = Gow-Page, ll. 1641 ff.; cf. ibid., i, p. 604, with n. 379, and also n. 407, with reference to GVI 1729, of 2nd cent. BC, in which a poet, Philiskos of Cos, otherwise unknown, laments the death of his slave, Inachos. The most remarkable poem in this context is, however, probably, Erycius’ piece, AP 7.368 (Gow-Page, 2200 ff.), of the first century AD. It is not clear, though, that the is actually a slave rather than living in Kyzikos, through the chance of war (Erycius is denominated a ibid. 7.230 (= Gow-Page, 2268) he (or another poet) is called

in the lemma to this piece, but see Gow’s very full

discussion, s.v. Erycius):

Cf. above, n. 2, on SEG 50, 562, which seems to show a show a family group close to the citizen-body, with variant civic ethnics. (4) See IG I3, 422 and 423, and the discussion by D. M. Lewis in E. Badian (ed.), Ancient Society and Institutions: Studies presented to Victor Ehrenberg on his 75th birthday (Oxford, 1966), pp. 177–91 = Selected Papers, ed. P. J. Rhodes (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 158–72. For an onomastikon of slave-names found in Attica see Chr. Fragliadakis, ‘Die Attischen Sklavennamen’ (diss. Mannheim, 1986). (5) The Thessalian manumissions are sufficiently illustrated in IG IX (2) passim. For the Bouthrotos texts see P. Cabanes and F. Drini, Inscriptions de Bouthrote (Paris, 1998), passim, a splendid collection of manumission documents of a small and tightly knit community of the Hellenistic period and perhaps later. See also L. Darmezin, Les Affranchissements par Consécration (Nancy, 1999), pp. 127 ff.

Page 9 of 14

Servile Ethnics and Metic Ethnics

(6)

(7) (8) For the

see Harpocr. s.v. (Isaios 13, fr. 11):

A very clear example of an explicit statement of the origin of a slave captured during war is provided by SGDI 1944 (L13, of 186/5 BC), where the slave is described as For the legal status of kidnappers of slaves see Sandbach on Menand. Sikyon. 272 ff. (pp. 659–60). (9) FD III (3), 333 (archon N 24). The frequent instances in which manumitted slaves, or slaves about to be manumitted, are required, as a condition of manumission, to bear and give a at stated intervals, to the heir of the manumittor, do not seem otherwise to include adoption It is also to be noted that even among (nominally) Greek slaves names might be changed before or during servitude: e.g. SGDI 2061, for whatever reason. The number of slaves in the manumissions of Bouthrotos who became accepted members of the families by whom they had been manumitted cannot, unfortunately, be calculated, since their names alone are recorded, and they do not suffice for identification. (10) p. 668. The does not, I think, figure in any of the paroemiographical corpora and perhaps is not strictly adapted to a proverbial usage. (11) LL 8.21–2. See further below, p. 218. (12) SGDI, 1959. Whether the doubt expressed here arises over an ambiguity of the ethnic discussed below, pp. 185–8 (of which by implication it is an excellent example) or whether it questioned the likelihood of veracity on the part of the slave, is not evident. Examples of coincidence between ethnic and name are shown e.g. by ibid. 2175, 9, where a manumitted slave is named as for this feature in Classical Athens see above, p. 104. In FD III (6), 31 (1st cent. BC-1st cent. AD), the slave is Was Zoilos a trader? The wording does not indicate anything of the origin of the slave herself. The omission of the article ibid. 2175,

(above) occurs also

but in Athens the article is always present. For the omission in later literature see below,

p. 233, n. 19. (13) See e.g. IG XII (1), 83–9, 545, 711, 748, 751, 755, 873, 677, 881, 917; ASAA 2 (1916), p. 158, no. 16; p. 160, no. 78; p. 163, no. 97; p. 174, no. 157; A. Maiuri, Nuova Silloge epigrafica di Rodi e Cos (Florence, 1925), nos. 242–6, 285, 428; Clara Rhodos: Studi e materiali pubblicati a cura dell’Istituto storico-archeologico di Rodi, 2 (1932), 232, no. 125; cf. Fraser, Rhodian Funerary Monuments, n. 371. ASAA ibid., no. 97 is the joint tombstone of a

Page 10 of 14

and an

Servile Ethnics and Metic Ethnics Naturally, a patronymic was not, perhaps could not be, given for an

In ibid. 66, a

is married to an (sic) cf. ibid. 157.

(14) Wilamowitz’s classic study of 1887 (Hermes 22 (1887), 107–28 and 211–59 = Kl. Schr. V (i), pp. 272–342; cf. below, n. 15), is the natural starting-point for the study of the formal expression and regulations of the status of the metic in Attica. See also the excellent analysis by Hommel (RE, s.v. Metoikoi, cols. 1413–58), and the clear exposition by Busolt-Swoboda, Gr. Staatskunde, i, pp. 292 ff., and, for particular aspects of the subject, D. Whitehead, The Ideology of the Athenian Metic, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, Suppl. 4 (Cambridge, 1977), and id., ‘Immigrant communities in the Classical polis: some principles for a synoptic treatment’, Ant. Class. 53 (1984), 47–59; for a statistical analysis of the size of the metic population of Athens in the Periclean period, with especial reference to the metics of the hoplite class, and those who were required to serve in see R. Duncan-Jones, Chiron, 10 (1980), 101–9; cf. Hornblower’s commentary on Thuc. 4.90.1. given by Aristophanes of Byzantium (15) The general definition of the legal status of the (p. 193, fr. xxxviii Nauck; frr. 303–5 Slater, cf. above, p. 80, n. 6), and by Harpocration

covers the situation in Athens; cf. Nauck ad loc. and Wilamowitz, Kl. Schr. V (i), pp. 316–17. In Vect. 2.3, ‘Xenophon’ proposes practical measures to the disadvantage of the metics as a class, and indicates his appreciation of the distrust of their status as fellow citizens and fellow soldiers, and recommends the discontinuation of their employment in either capacity. (For this see Hommel, cols. 1439–40, with especial reference to two speeches (12 and 22) of Lysias—himself a classic example of the successful career of a metic —which express the feeling in the fifth/fourth century very openly.) By the time of Demetrios’ conquest of Athens in 294, they have already lost their significance; cf. below, n. 29. (16) In the Delian choregic list, IG XI (2), 110, 1. 12 (268 BC), the text has followed by while the only other metic in the list, in l. 16, is simply I take to be the ethnic and not a patronymic (see LGPN I, s.v. (2), and cf. above, n. 12). The lady recorded in an inventory of the early part of the Second Athenian Domination (155 BC), IDélos, 1417 AII, 113, as may be a surviving member of the old Delian population, as is suggested ad loc.; the affinity in phraseology to ibid. 1416 BI, ll. 114–15 (cf. col. II, ll. 7–8), suggests that she may have belonged to a specifically designated section of the population after 165 BC, the for I (1), at end. which see Appendix 1 below, p. 356, n. 2, under (17) See AJP 56 (1935), 358 ff. = F. G. Maier, Griechische Mauerbauinschriften (Heidelberg, 1959, 1961), 69 (cols. I-II only). There are about a dozen metics in the list, all expressed in the same formula: see e.g. 11. 372–3,

381–2, 625-6 (two), etc.

(18) IG XII (1), 382 (cf. below, Appendix 1, p. 329) with lettering of 2nd cent. BC. As Hiller says, the name of the husband is clearly a later addition (sq. IG). In this context we may note that in the supposedly unusual Attic instance, to which Wilamowitz, Kl. Schr. V (i), p. 327, called attention, in IG II2, 1628, 366, of 326 BC:

the Page 11 of 14

Servile Ethnics and Metic Ethnics ‘ethnic’ is in fact a patronymic: see below, p. 221 n. 18, and the same explanation holds good, as he pointed out, ibid. n. 2, of the fragment of Isaios (‘Fgm.4 Sauppe’), which refers to a I have been unable to locate this passage either in the fragments of Isaios (ed. Thalheim) or in Harpocration, where references to Isaios’ speeches occur frequently). (19) Ibid., 383 = Syll. 3 1254; the correct reading was in the original publication, Mouseion de Smyrne (Mouseion kai Bibliotheke tes Evangelikes Scholes), 11.1 (1876), p. 55, no. 113 (cf. BE 1959, no. 41). (20) See Hiller, RE, s.v. Rhodos, col. 774; P. M. Fraser, PdelP 24 (1952), 192–206; Berthold, Rhodes in the Hellenistic Age, pp. 28 ff. (21) Clara Rhodos 2 (1932), p. 177, no. 6.

(22)

(23) (24) Maiuri, Nuova Silloge, no. 16. (25) Ibid., 42. (26) G. Pugliese-Carratelli (ed.), Supplemento epigrafico rodio, ASAA n.s. 17 (1955–6) (1957), no. 52, a very fragmentary text of late Hellenistic or early Roman date. (27) M. Segre and G. Pugliese Carratelli (eds.), Tituli Camirenses, ASAA n.s. 14–16 (1952–4) (1955), pp. 211–46, no. 87. A Rhodian tombstone of Imperial date. Page 12 of 14

Servile Ethnics and Metic Ethnics (28) ILind. 278, a crudely inscribed list of 2nd-1st cent. BC, of twenty-two persons with single followed by fifteen undistinguished, and very un-Rhodian names, names, headed, l. 1, with ll. 21–2 occupied by and 23 (the last) by followed (l. 17) by (? metic; cf. above, n. 23) is of a very uncertain interpretation. ILind. 635 (2nd-3rd cent. AD?), shows the late survival of the status. A puzzling tombstone of late date, Fraser, Rhodian Funerary Monuments, n. 157 (SGDI 3535), seems to indicate a form of dual status, even if not dual citizenship, for which I cannot quote a parallel:

(29) See Whitehead, opp. citt. above, n. 14. Unfortunately, the brief statement by Stesikleides (or Ktesikles), beyond recording their number as 10,000, as compared with the record of the citizencensus effected by Demetrios as totalling 21,000 citizens (Athen. 272c = FGrH 245 F1), throws no light on his treatment of metics. (30) See IIasos, I, nos. 160–218. (31) Ibid. no. 385. The husband was a Roman citizen, inscription is of late Republican or early Imperial date.

The

(32) See the text on two blocks published by W. Blümel in Epigr. Anat. 25 (1995), 35–9 and 29 (1997), 154–6 (all as SEG 45, 1508). The main subject of block B of this document is the selection of metic representatives to participate in the cult of Artemis Kindyas. The whole metic population is to be allotted its share of the sacrifice, ll. 16–19:

perhaps indicates a departure from current practice. (33) Inscr. Cos ED 178, and pll. 49–51, with further bibliography in SEG 49, 1112. (34) IG II2, 7862–81 (7870 = Bradeen, Inscriptions, The Athenian Agora 17, 384; ibid. 385 = SEG 18, 113, a tombstone of 4th/3rd cent. BC; 7862: also of 4th cent. BC); cf. in general Thalheim, RE, s.v. and, for two specific locations where this category of persons is frequent, Knoepfler, Eretria, pp. 57–60, Petrakos, p. 605, s.v. the entry is

where in the

(35) See the note to IG II2, 2496. (36) IG V (2), 36. (37) See ibid., nos. 173–259. The names are single, with (38) (1906), 100–1. (39) fr. 97, 5 (an entry in Stobaeus regarding the law of sale at Thurii): for failure to carry out a contract regarding betrothal: is to be supplied with the form is, of course, natural, but the text of the law in §2 has human agent. Cf. Ptol. Alex., p. 202, n. 148.

Page 13 of 14

as a

Servile Ethnics and Metic Ethnics (40) M. Rostovtzeff, A Large Estate in Egypt in the Third Century BC: a Study in Economic History (Madison, 1922), pp. 130–1; cf. id., The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World (Oxford, 1953), ii, 1073–7.

Page 14 of 14

Expanded Ethnics

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

Expanded Ethnics P. M. Fraser

DOI:10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.003.0006

Abstract and Keywords For the most part the ethnic of a citizen of an independent city carries no reference to the region in which the city is located, only to the city itself. However, the combination of a regional ethnic preceded or followed by a city ethnic is also a familiar feature of ethnic nomenclature. If, for one reason or another, the plain ethnic was regarded as insufficient for identification, the essential documentary formula from Classical times onwards was either by the addition of a prepositional clause, which might govern either the city or the region, or (less frequently) by the juxtaposition of the two elements, or by the simple use of the genitive case. This system of expanded ethnics was most commonly used either (a) when a city was a subordinate element in the federal organisation of an ἔθνος, which developed in due course into a political koinon; or (b) as a simple way of distinguishing between citizens of homonymous, and especially ‘eponymous homonymous’, cities. This chapter examines a few examples of the various categories involved. Keywords:   regional ethnic, city ethnic, prepositional clause, genitive case, federal organisation, political koinon, homonymous cities, eponymous homonymous cities

Combined Regional and City Ethnics FOR THE MOST PART the ethnic of a citizen of an independent city carries no reference to the region in which the city is located, only to the city itself, as However, the combination of a regional ethnic preceded or followed by a city ethnic, be it by choice or by necessity, is also a familiar feature of ethnic nomenclature. If, for one reason or another, the plain ethnic was regarded as insufficient for identification, the essential documentary formula from Classical times onwards was either by the addition of a prepositional clause govern either the city or the region (e.g.

which might

or

), or (less frequently) by the juxtaposition of the two elements

or by the

simple use of the genitive case This system of expanded ethnics was most commonly used either (a) when a city was a subordinate element in the federal organisation of an which developed in due course into a political koinon, or (b) as a simple way of distinguishing between citizens of homonymous, and especially ‘eponymous Page 1 of 24

Expanded Ethnics homonymous’, cities. We shall examine a few examples of the various categories involved.1 The additional geographical identification is not normally (p.120) found attached to a city without a tribal background, as, for example, Argos, Athens, or Corinth, unless, by chance, in a purely rhetorical sense, as by reference to a major tribal division that in the Athenian Tribute Lists we find

It is true next to

and one or two others, but these distinctions are clearly made to facilitate identification, and not to stress a particular contrasting relationship between the two halves of the ethnic title. At the same time it frequently happens that the ethnic of a city in a colonised region will carry no reference to the region. This category is only referred to here either by way of contrast with the regional usage, or for some other particular reason. The ‘simple’ category, which forms by far the largest of all identifiable groups, will normally only occur in this discussion when it stands by way of contrast with expanded ethnic forms, that is, those with identification by the as well as by the city. At the same time, it is to be borne in mind that the combination of the two elements might continue in the ethnic title long after the larger unit had ceased to exist as a political conglomerate, and therefore seems a wholly superfluous addition, as for example in public lists of victors in athletic competitions in Boiotia, at about the time of the Roman victory over Mithridates. In one such text, from Thespiai, four victors listed successively are natives of Kyme in Aeolis. The first three are called simply the fourth the same period a

and in the list of victors at the Tanagraian Sarapieia at named

occurs, while

2 from nearby oropos in a similar list there are three simple These victor-lists of the Boiotian cities (p.121) provide examples of the varying and inconsequential method of referring to citizens of these cities in the aftermath of the Mithridatic War (c.85–75 BC). It is, we may say, in the highest degree improbable that the variation reflects a distinction in the civic status of those so differentiated: that the combined city ethnic + regional ethnic represents a different level of citizenship in their home city from that represented by the regional ethnic or the by itself. In two contemporary Delphian

and the other

proxeny-decrees, one has 3

The explanation does not lie wholly in the need to avoid confusion from homonymity, for, as we shall see, the practice is already well established in the fourth century, when there were very few dangers of such confusion in the ‘real world’ (as opposed to the manifold creations in Stephanus). Evidently, a distinction might be drawn between the of the Troad, and the (no less Aeolic) homonymous city of Lemnos, and the same desire for clarity separates Alexandria of the Troad from other Alexandrias, but the same is not true of Kyme. It must also be borne in mind that the Boiotian victor-lists are surprisingly lavish in the use of the expanded ethnic, and that consequently the impetus was not all from one direction.4 To take an example from a different date and a very different region, the citizens of Tauromenion in Sicily, who are commonly known simply as

occur in the Amphictyonic lists of

5 fourth-century Delos as Yet even Stephanus does not record a second Tauromenion. Here it seems likely in general terms that the expanded ethnic was used to draw attention to the remoteness of the site, but in the world of far-flung Greek colonies that is not wholly persuasive. If it is the correct answer, the further question remains, whether the initiative came from the Delians or the Tauromenitans.

Page 2 of 24

Expanded Ethnics (p.122) Such items suffice to show the uncertainty that must prevail in the interpretation of individual instances of such expanded ethnics. We must now consider the circumstances in which their use has an unmistakably political significance, particularly as an expression of the relation of the

whether called a

or simply by a generic term such as

of which it politically formed part, while retaining in some measure its own independence. In such cases, it would seem only natural that the ethnic term should precede the city ethnic, and where the reverse is the case the reference to the may be geographical the ethnic formula of instead of collective, as (ex hypothesi) during the time of the Lycian a member of a polis was

6

while at other times it was

Such variations in usage may be illustrated by the history of the Arcadian cities. The Arcadian League had a chequered history in the fifth century, individual members pursuing their own, often contrary, policies, focused largely on the mutual hostility of the Mantineians and Tegeates. In 373 a more stable league was formed, under the influence of Epaminondas, but it only lasted until 362, after which it continued in a diminished form, perhaps divided into two leagues, a northern and a southern. Its official title during its brief life was its executive body was an assembly of ten thousand members,

and 7

We must now consider to what extent this organisation was reflected in the use of the single (both the regional and the civic, individually), and the double ethnic forms in external documentation. We are not here concerned with the structure and organisation of the League, except in so far as this is reflected in the nomenclature. If we look first at the evidence from Delphi, where Arcadians occur in the building accounts of the (p.123) middle of the fourth century BC, just at the time when Megalopolis was founded, and the League was in existence, we find one man known to have been among the founding fathers of the new city, a (Thisoa was one of the originally synoecised cities), while others are called 8 and others again These instances come from the payments for the Delphic temple, and the irregularity over the use of the ethnic could be explained by the recent demise of the full koinon. However, honorific decrees of the early Hellenistic period, when the League itself had ceased to exist, show similar variations. The decrees for Arcadians inscribed on the Base of the Arcadians, all of which belong approximately

to the period between 323 and 275 BC, show the following variations: (frequent), 9

of the early The Delphic lists of Aitolian period are equally varied. An example which reveals most clearly the lack of pattern in the ethnics has: 10

If the city ethnic of the last-named is absent because he lacked the

credentials of full citizenship, he is not likely to have been chosen as a it has simply been omitted, either by error or to shorten the formulation. Another variant occurs in a decree from Ephesus, of the late fourth or early third century, in honour of 11

That the same ethnic formulation already existed at a time when there is no clear sign of the existence of a league is shown by Herodotus’ reference, in his story of the ‘Wooing of Agariste’, to 12

Page 3 of 24

Expanded Ethnics (p.124) Similar variations exist with regard to the Boiotian koinon. In approximately contemporaneous documents the regional and city ethnics occur in reverse positions, as, for ,13

example,

At the same time we have the substantival form, equally appears with a city ethnic, and also in the forms

14

and

which

(in the same document of two brothers). The Classical historians use almost exclusively the substantival form, both as the ethnic of the individual and of the forms was that only

and Dittenberger maintained that the difference between the two was used of the whole Boiotian people, while either form might be

used as part of an individual’s full civic ethnic.15 However, after a detailed analysis of a much larger body of evidence than was available to Dittenberger, Roesch concluded that there were no plain before 338 BC or after 172 and that between those dates the evidence provides instances both of the regional ethnic by itself, be it the substantival form or the ethnic and of the city ethnic by itself, e.g. the regional ethnic representing the federal structure of the Boiotian koinon between those dates, in which the decisive status of the individual consists in his being a Boiotian, that is, that his city is a member of the koinon, so that, when appropriate, the city ethnic followed the federal. On the other hand, in such cases as the prior position of the city ethnic indicates that the federation either did not exist or that, as in the case of Thebes, the city in question was not a member of it. Much of the material on which this conclusion is based comes from Delphic inscriptions of various types, but valuable though Roesch’s analysis is, there are so many cases of fluctuation of usage between the use of simple local ethnics and of the compound form which contravene even this complex pattern, that it is difficult to be convinced that a stable ethnic formula for individual and collective citizenship either of the koinon, or of cities outside the koinon, (p.125) existed.16 In Boiotia, too, as in other regions, the full compound form is used in local agonistic documents, after the koinon had ceased to exist: see above, pp. 91–3. Neither the Arcadian nor the Boiotian koinon became a force outside their own ethnic or regional frontiers. By contrast the Achaean and Aitolian Leagues expanded beyond their own frontiers, so that non-Achaean and non-Aitolian cities became members of these leagues by conquest or negotiation. In such cases the citizen of the member-city carries the ‘political’ regional ethnic along with his own city ethnic, so that his designation may be while his city ethnic will reveal that he is a native of an external city which has been absorbed in the koinon. The case is most obviously made for the Achaean League by its historian, Polybius, a native of Kleitor in Arcadia, and its political and military leaders, Aratus of Sikyon and Philopoemen of Megalopolis. It is not my purpose to pursue the often complicated, and frequently largely speculative, history of the growth of the political confederations—I am concerned only with the effect of their extraterritorial expansion on the use of the ethnics of individuals. Nevertheless it is necessary to consider at times the historical background against which these outward signs of incorporation must be seen. This is particularly true of the intricate political relationship between the Aitolian League and the Delphic Amphictyony on the one hand, and between it and the Akarnanian League on the other. For the two western leagues by far the largest part of the evidence consists of inscriptions of the third, and to a lesser extent the second century BC, and, though there is a wavering background of historical narrative, this cannot be used with any confidence, at least until the period of Roman intervention, to explain the changes in ethnic usage. On the contrary, the few pieces of narrative (p.126) relating particularly to the Aitolian League can only be

Page 4 of 24

Expanded Ethnics interpreted in the light of the epigraphical evidence, which leads to inevitable uncertainty both over large issues and over individual details which leave the wider issues unexplained. Of the Achaean League the reverse is true. In the absence of virtually any documentary evidence we are largely dependent on the Histories of Polybius (and Livy) and on Plutarch’s Lives of the Achaean leaders, Aratus and Philopoemen, and of Kleomenes III of Sparta. As might be expected, these narratives are uninformative as to the ethnic formulae used for individual membership of the League by a community or an individual.17 It existed as a political force from 281 to 146 BC, after a looser form of confederation in the fourth century, and in the main period, when it controlled most of the Peloponnese at one time or another, we encounter one or two variant forms of ethnic identification, used both of native Achaeans and of non-Achaean communities which were absorbed into the League, as in a list of proxenoi from Histiaia, of the middle of the third century.18 The simplest form of definition, (p.127) belonging to the period before the formation of the political leagues, is ethnic or geographical: an Athenian proxenydecree of c.425 is in honour of the identification is purely geographical.19

who is further described as

here

For the history of the Aitolian League, particularly from c.265 BC, the documentary evidence from Delphi is very considerable. But direct literary testimonia scarcely exist, since external events such as the Chremonidean War, which touch on, and may even determine, Delphian chronology, are very inadequately attested by the fragments of the historians of the third century, and are epigraphically controversial. The Aitolian koinon used Delphi and membership of the Delphic Amphictyony as a political organ, and most of the activity of the League is mirrored in Delphic documents, which are, in effect, Aitolian documents in Delphian dress. It is through the record of ethnics in almost all relevant Delphic documents that we are able to assess the territorial expansion of the League before the Roman intervention. The ethnics employed assume thereby primary importance not only in individual cases, in which an individual who is not an Aitolian by birth is described as one, but also more generally in the changing ethnic titulature both of the Delphic hieromnemones and other officials of the Amphictyony under Aitolian control, and also of the competitors in the Soteria during the same period. It is familiar that once a community of Central Greece, for instance Western Lokris or Phokis, was absorbed into the League by alliance or some other voluntary means, or by conquest, the region or community was represented in the hieromnemonic council as long as it remained of the Aitolian party; but in the case of a previously independent member of the Amphictyony subsequently conquered by the Aitolians, the League officials redistributed its vote in the council, or else added it to its own membership as representative of Aitolia. As a result the lists, though often incomplete, reveal both fluctuations in the number of Aitolian hieromnemonic votes and also changes in the ethnics of individuals; for instance, Lokrians called (p.128)

alongside such genuine regional 20

compounds as

For Akarnania our information does not make a coherent picture, for there was much change of allegiance between the League itself, the Aitolian League, the Kingdom of Epirus, and the Romans, for all of which we have only casual references. Although the cities, especially those of the coastal area and Stratos, played a significant and active role in the naval operations of the Archidamian War, much of the time they were divided among themselves, and by early in the third century most of eastern and coastal Akarnania, notably Stratos, had been absorbed into the Aitolian League. At the same time the Akarnanians had expanded to include Leukas, previously independent, in their League, and were in a position to make an alliance inter aequos Page 5 of 24

Expanded Ethnics with the Aitolian League.21 Although virtually no honorific decrees, and little documentary evidence, survive to show official Akarnanian practice, as it does for Boiotia and Aitolia, and we have only scanty evidence for the external application of (p.129) the ethnic to nonAkarnanians, it is clear that Stratos remained Aitolian until the end of the Third Macedonian War. Thus in the list of Delphian theorodokoi of the later third and the early second century BC, the Akarnanian communities are listed as while Stratos appears 22 under Aitolia. However, some of the few proxeny-decrees from Delphi and elsewhere relating to Akarnanians are earlier than the establishment of Aitolian control over Stratos and other cities, and show the typical form of expanded ethnic.23 After a period of Illyrian control, the eastern and coastal cities were restored to Akarnania by Philip V in c.219, and Leukas became the capital and remained so until it was replaced by Thyrreion in 167 BC, although both cities were still subject to interludes of Aitolian occupation until the dissolution of that koinon in 146. The leading role of Thyrreion at this period is confirmed by the discovery there of the text of the treaty of Rome with the Aitolians, of 210 BC.24 From this period, 219–167, there survives an expanded ethnic in a proxeny-decree of Lamia of 198 for 25

A decade later (in 189 BC) a Delphian

26 proxeny-award is in honour of The honoured with proxenia by the Ainianes in the second half of the second century BC27 are called only by their city ethnic, although Stratos was at that time apparently under the control of (p.130) the

Aitolians.28 Another decree of Delphi, of the beginning of the first century BC, describes the 29 honorand as The end of the various vicissitudes of the Akarnanian cities was achieved by the resettlement of much of their population in the new city of

Nikopolis.30 So much, then, for the expression of membership of koina within a varying framework of political power. That changes in the ethnic formulae reflect, and are expressed so as to reflect, the political allegiance of cities and individuals, is clearly shown by the system used in the Aitolian League, and on a smaller scale, and in a less marked manner, by the other koina, as exemplified above.31 It was unmistakably, for all to see, a part of the political armoury of the most powerful members of the koina. Although the Greek historians, notably Polybius, almost always refer to the koina not as but as both the Achaean and Aitolian Leagues had by expansion passed well beyond the limits of true ethnic composition, and it is as political

that we must regard them. On the other hand, the Boiotian koinon, after the

destruction of Thebes, was essentially an internal, non-expansive

of cities.32

(p.131) It is now time to examine two other regions, Thessaly and Macedonia, in both of which the use of the compound ethnic to express regional-civic allegiance is very frequent, although in the outer world of mercenary-soldiers, drawn so plentifully from these two regions, the use of the simple regional ethnic normally sufficed. In Thessaly the regional organisation was expressed by the sixth century in terms of a division into four regions Apart from these four which occupied the northern and southern plains of Thessaly and formed the first centralised koinon in c.365 BC, a large ethnic population lived in the so-called perioecic regions—

—outside the boundaries of the

these were incorporated in the Thessalian koinon after the Second Macedonian War, and remained part of it until Imperial times. While forming part of the national League, each region possessed its own federal organisation, which had full power to bestow honorary citizenship and other awards.33 The various compound ethnic formulae affect both the regional Page 6 of 24

Expanded Ethnics and the civic terminology of the Hellenistic koinon. Leaving the plain ethnic out of account at this juncture,34 we find that the different regions, Thessalian and perioecic, share the same styles within the League: most commonly of all, that formed by the regional ethnic in first place, followed by the city ethnic, where applicable, as, for example, by (p.132) 35

The omission of the preposition, as

is another pattern;36 the plain use of the city ethnic, where the reference is not to the city as a member of the League, but as an individual community, another;37 and finally the use of the subsidiary ethnic, either by itself, as linked with a subordinate tribal or civic unit, as

or

and

38

The ethnic formulae of Macedonia were, as in Thessaly, based on regional in which cities and royal centres had developed by the fifth century and thereafter with increasing momentum.39 This development (p.133) is naturally reflected in the ethnic usages.40 Unlike in Thessaly, a Macedonian federal organisation, a did not exist until after the defeat of Perseus, and the of the early Roman period, though registered on civic coinage, were not attached to the names of individuals.41 Thus the compound ethnics of Macedonians may be understood as purely geographical in the first place, and subsequently as expressing a combination of the geographical and the political status of cities which lay within the extended kingdom created by Philip II. However, the expanded compound ethnic, indicating territorial expansion, such as we find in the Aitolian and Achaean Leagues, does not appear to have been used of cities absorbed, either permanently or temporarily, within the Macedonian state. Thus the ethnics of the Greek cities, old or Hellenistic, on the Aegean coast and in Chalkidike, rarely appear with the prefix in the style of the old Macedonian cities, and others, occasionally with the adjectival ethnic instead of the prepositional clause, as in 42

The ethnic of the ‘external’ cities is mostly of the plain civic form,

43 simply Another group consists of the (p.134) combined regional and tribal ethnics, to which is sometimes added a civic ethnic,

for example, 44

and, in reverse sequence, 45

on an Eretrian tombstone as

described

Finally there are the plain tribal ethnics,

such as 46

The many variations in the use of Macedonian ethnics, regional and civic, separate and combined, spread over a long period of time, do not fit into any particular pattern. Here as elsewhere in those parts of the Greek world in which tribal conditions continued to exist side by side with urban society, convention of usage probably played as large a part as the decisions of individuals. It is not evident that a difference in meaning exists between ethnic + city ethnic and ethnic + preposition + city ethnic. Stephanus, it may be noted, in spite of the frequency with which he records alternative ethnics in general, does not help us in such complex cases.47

Page 7 of 24

Expanded Ethnics Thrace, stretching from the Aegean as far as the Danube, or, in a more restricted sense, as far as the Haemus range, the largest single region known in more than purely geographical terms to the Greeks, presents a less differentiated body of evidence. Through all their history, from the (p.135) Archaic to the Roman period, many native Thracians either became the slaves of their more civilised and more prosperous neighbours further south; or, if lucky enough to escape the slave-market, usually found their occupation as mercenary soldiers, and, in due course, as Roman legionaries, and, finally, settlers. In both of these roles through the centuries the Thracian is usually simply and if not identified by the ubiquitous racial ethnic, most often recognisable by his non-Greek name. However, although the ethnic subdivisions of the Thracian tribes were known to the Greeks from an early date (a clear and detailed description of the great Thracian Odrysian kingdom is given by Thucydides in his account of Sitalkes’ expedition of 429 against Macedon),48 and the coastal regions of the Aegean and the Euxine were occupied by Greek colonies, new urban foundations hardly occurred in the vast region between the Aegean and the Haemus Mountains before the Imperial period. The large number of cities included in 49 the Thraceward region of the Athenian Tribute Lists, mostly played a negligible role in Greek history either then or later, and the numerous new foundations covering the period of half a millennium, between the early Empire and the reign of Justinian, are conspicuous rather by their resonant eponymous names—Traianopolis, Hadrianopolis, Philippopolis, Marcianopolis, Maximianopolis, Arcadiopolis, Nova Justiniana (the refounded Cypsela), Eudoxiopolis (the refounded Selymbria), and even Theodoropolis, in honour of Justinian’s Empress—than by their role in history, save only the most easternly of the region, Constantinoupolis, the old Byzantium, the new Rome. Moreover, these communities, frequently

formed by the synoecism of local the Latin vici, pagi, and coloniae, and other units50 consisting largely of veterans and other Roman citizens, were living in a different world, in which the traditional method of documentation of foreigners in external documents, public or private, had, but for rare exceptions, ceased to exist. The political geography is known to us almost exclusively from geographers and the Itineraries: Pliny, who says that Thrace was divided into fifty strategiai, but does not list them; Ptolemy, who gives us a list of (p.136) fourteen, dating from the time of Trajan; an inscription of the reign of Nero, which names thirty-three;51 and Stephanus, to whom we are indebted for the names of a large number of Thracian and many of which were within ‘Macedonia Epictetus’ from the time of Philip II, but whose names are a survival, as Meineke showed, from a source or sources of the earlier period, no doubt primarily Hecataeus.52 This being the nature of the historical raw material, and consequently of the sources, it is not surprising that we have very little information of the ethnic nomenclature of the region in the Greek period. However, two items from the mid-fourth century reveal that political changes were registered in politically modified ethnic forms. They relate to Arethusa, the city on the northern edge of the Chalkidike, in the region of the Bisaltai. When Philip II conquered the Chalkidike, which had previously been geographically Thracian, it became politically Macedonian. The subsequent enforced variation of status is documented by two Delphian proxeny-decrees for Arethusians, in one of which the honorand is described as

in the

other as There can be little doubt that this variation reflects the conquest of Thrace by Philip II in 347, even though the first of the inscriptions is written in a conventional hand of the middle of the fourth century, while the second, which, ex hypothesi, should be after 347 BC, is in stoichedon writing.53 On the other hand, the change of title of the (p.137) small community of the

who appear in the Tribute Lists of the Athenian Empire

Page 8 of 24

Expanded Ethnics as but as members of the Second Confederacy as hardly be significant.54

can

The formed by the Cretan cities seems to have been formed by the smaller communities of the island to protect themselves against the preponderant power of Knossos, Gortyn, and Polyrrhenia. The general ethnic usage is from an early date either (a) simply Kρής, or(b) Kρής followed by a city ethnic, or (c) the city ethnic by itself; the three usages are widely spread chronologically and geographically, and in the first place there was probably little distinction in the different forms. Thus on the tombstones of Cretans in Athens the plain Kρής is by far the most frequent form, followed by those known only by their city ethnic, as and, finally, by those in which the ethnic is 55 followed by a city ethnic, as A similar variation is to be found in the titles of the very large number of Cretan families which migrated to Miletus

towards the end of the third century.56 For the most part specific ethnic identification was not necessary, and was omitted from the register. On the other hand, in the world of mercenaries the title Kρής was normally sufficient for whatever identification was required for personal or public purposes, as usually with mercenaries from regions like the and so on, although there are a number of exceptions to this, in which the general ethnic is followed by the civic ethnic, as

or the civic ethnic stands alone.57 (p.138) The Hellenistic does not seem to have had an effect on individual titulature.58

We may now consider the ethnic formulae of the one well-documented league in Asia, the Lycian 59 League, of Lycia formed a regular federation from an The native early period, but after the time of Alexander and the Diadochi, the Greek cities and the native population, as a result of their proximity to Cyprus, a Ptolemaic possession, came under Ptolemaic control, which effectively dominated political aspirations in city and countryside alike.

It was not until the end of Ptolemaic, and subsequently of Rhodian, rule in c.168 BC,60 that the cities, which had vigorously resisted Rhodian authority, and some of the native formed a koinon, which consisted primarily of the coastal cities of Xanthos, Tlos, Telmessos, Patara, Pinara, and Myra, although the total number of members was far larger.61 The precise effect the formation of the League had on the forms of the ethnics of the individual cities and regions is not altogether clear. Of all the leagues, that of the Lycians had the longest existence, for, although from time to time it merged, under the Empire, with the larger provincial organisation of ‘Lycia et Pamphylia’,62 it retained some elements of its own federal organisation until the late Imperial period. It follows from the numerous changes of administration which occurred that it is difficult to determine whether the various forms of the ethnic represent a different political (p.139) status. For example, in an Athenian list of victors of a date after 180 BC, in the period when Lycia was a Rhodian dependency, an individual from the native Lycian city of Gagai is named 63

but it is difficult to attach any political significance to the form, which probably, as other instances confirm, reflects the strong sense of national and regional coherence among the Lycians.64 On the other hand, the type of compound ethnic in which there is no federal structure and consequently no need for differentiation is, as we have seen, particularly common in Aeolis, but is rare elsewhere. Although there was a the

65

presided over by a religious official,

there is no evidence that this association had a political function expressed in an

66 ethnic formula. The formula found in may 67 have been especially used of Smyrna, originally an Aeolic settlement. We may note that there

Page 9 of 24

Expanded Ethnics is no similar use of a Greek civic ethnic with a form referring to Caria, of which the regional ethnic was Kάρ, feminine Kάρ referred to the indigenous population, and even outside the region of the Dorian Hexapolis and the Rhodian state, is never used in combination with an ethnic, though it occurs with a patronymic in Egypt.68 The difference is illustrated by the fact that at Athens from an early date Kάρ is a frequent appellation of slaves, the corresponding Ἴων not. The latter was a Greek, whereas a Kάρ, like a was not, even though numerous small Carian koina probably developed in due course, consisting of hellenised native groups, like the localised

the most significant of the category,

the and the all mostly in or close to the Rhodian 69 Peraea and once part of the Rhodian state. Further inland, on (p.140) the border with Pisidia, the communities of the Cibyratis formed themselves into a tetrapolis, but, once again, there is no surviving example of the double ethnic applied to an individual.70 Finally we may call attention to two unique examples of the double ethnic which might be described almost as ‘sports’. In a Euboian victory-list, apparently of the fourth century BC,71 we meet a

a combined ethnic which would be more naturally expressed in

the reverse order, as for there was no Cypriot koinon to which the city belonged, nor was there a second homonymous Paphos elsewhere from which the city needed to be distinguished. Since the island was still largely under Persian rule in the fourth century, it was in that sense foreign territory, and this may have caused the addition. The second item is from Stephanus’ entry s.v.

This is of interest as indicating the existence of a linguistic convention regarding the ethnics of the island-group, though Stephanus’ promise is not fulfilled in the surviving text. The passage indicates that the combined ethnics were used only within the Aeolian Islands, and the generic only externally, which is certainly borne out both by literature and by inscriptions, to judge by the few inhabitants known outside their native islands; in such cases the simple ethnic is always used.72 Unfortunately, a separate entry for (p.141) does not occur in the Epitome, perhaps omitted in favour of, or by confusion with, the Libyan islands. We may conclude that the combination region + city as an expanded ethnic form is very frequent both in literature and in epigraphical documents, and that it frequently, but by no means always, implies membership of a political koinon, the core of which was, and remained, a clearly defined The koinon imposed by a suzerain, notably the

though it had the

organs of a regular ethnic koinon, such as and a centralised federal assembly, and at least under Rhodian suzerainty (if not under the previous rule of the Ptolemies) a navy, never appears as an ethnic denomination, although its ktetic form appears in documents which 73

mention

There is at least one region in which the ‘political’ expanded ethnic seldom occurs, namely Ptolemaic Egypt. Here, among the variety of terms used to describe foreign settlers, cleruchs, and others, in documents of all types, the regional ethnic normally stands alone as a designation of place of origin, though it is frequently associated with military or cleruchic status,

etc. The only exception to Page 10 of 24

Expanded Ethnics this general silence in Ptolemaic documents lies in private texts such as dedications and in which the fully expanded ethnic may appear (though infrequently) without a specifically political meaning. The use of the simple regional ethnic by itself is found on tombstones. Thus

all occur, as also do the wider

territorial ethnics,

and

and their corresponding female forms. It may finally be

noted that the use of and as pseudoethnics in Ptolemaic and early Imperial Egypt embraces or consists of persons who cannot have been racially of their stated ethnic origin, though the precise significance of the usage remains a matter of dispute, both in general, and in individual instances which need individual consideration.74 (p.142) A largely localised use of the expanded ethnic, which reflects an overall political structure, occurs in the double tribal ethnics which are a feature of Epirote texts. In the absence of any clear literary or lexicographical evidence, and the frequent uncertainty as to the geographical location of one or both of the constituent elements, their interpretation is often questionable in detail, if not in principle. The Epirote formulae differ from the expanded ethnics already considered in that they are a regular denomination of the two levels or strata of the noncolonial tribal areas of the whole region within Epirus itself. They are amply attested epigraphically, and have been examined in detail by Pierre Cabanes.75 Such combinations are, for example, and many others. In each case the first of the two terms refers to the tribal centre, where its rudimentary administrative system was situated, and the second to the tribe within the relevant area. These double tribal ethnics, though found regularly in Epirote territory, do not appear to be used of, or by, Epirotes abroad, or at least outside the area of Western Greece; the latter always appear either simply as

or designated by one of the major tribal divisions,

76

as

Composite Ethnics The composite ethnic form is mainly (though not exclusively) found in the Imperial period, and particularly, but not only, in Syria and neighbouring countries. It is formed by the enjambement of two distinct ethnic denominations, at least one descriptive of a non-Greek people, and either of (p.143) which could stand—often does stand—by itself. It is also differentiated from the expanded ethnics considered above by the historical fact that it is predominantly used to designate persons and regions of non-Greek origin. Early examples of a similar type of composite noun are found already in Hecataeus, who referred to two 77 named located in the eastern region of the Black Sea; the first part of this compound is a simple adjective, in itself non-ethnic. Herodotus has the compound ethnic for

the Thracian tribes called the 78

separately.

though he also knows of both elements

An example of this type is provided by the composite ethnic

which is

found in the feminine in the New Testament: 79

acceptable).

(with a manuscript variant, which is not The same formulation is found in a variety of forms in texts of the Ptolemaic 80

period in Egypt, as in

and, with a slightly different nuance,

since it combines race and residence, 81

Another is

82

describe the Carthaginians.

Page 11 of 24

used by Polybius to

Expanded Ethnics (p.144) The exact significance of such terms, which usually refer to a person or community of partly non-Greek origin, but normally hellenophone (hence, in Mark, combined with ‘Greek speaking’), needs consideration. They are not confined to Syrian, Phoenician, and other Semitic immigrants to Egypt. In the west Strabo provides

(130), with its

which retain a racial duality.83 The of Asia Minor, particularly Lydia, may spring from military catoecic units, but eventually they became full civic communities.84 That their racial origin was mixed is apparent not only from their name, collective and individual, but also from the fact that the Mysian mercenaries of Lilaia, to whom we have already referred, were themselves of varied origin.85 Again, the is referred to by Strabo as an element of the Thracian tribes Thracian tribe, the that had left Europe and settled in Asia.86 At a later date the Bosporan king Rheskyporos III (reigned AD 210–26) is The ‘Tauroscythians’, who are known also from Ptolemy, Synesius and Procopius, must have occupied an area to the north-east of the Bosporan Chersonese, west of the Σαρμάται, though, not surprisingly, opinions differed as to their general location.87 As already noted, yet further to the west, Hecataeus placed the (p.145)

88

Procopius also describes the

who formed a buffer between the Byzantine and Sassanid empires in the area between the Black Sea and the Caspian, a mixed race to which Narses belonged.89 It is noticeable that the tribes to whom these compound ethnics apply belong largely to the outer fringes of the Greek world, and although from the Hellenistic age onwards, not least with the spread of mercenary troops, and, later, veterani, it might be expected that they would occur in contemporary documents, references to them are few and far between.90 Nevertheless it was such racially mixed elements that in the course of time constituted the majority of the Greekspeaking population which formed the core of both urban and rural society, particularly in Anatolia, in later antiquity, speakers in some manner and in varying degrees of the evolving koine version of the Classical language. Notes: (1) The earliest and simplest example of such ethnic distinction is that between the two divisions of the Dorian people, the made in the hieromnemonic lists of the Delphic Amphictyony: see e.g. F. Lefèvre, CID IV, 14–15. (FD III (4), 276–85), and id., L’Amphictionie Pyléo-Delphique: Histoire et Institutions (Paris, 1998), pp. 52–8, although they appear intermittently simply in general terms as Further definition is found more than once in the long Xanthian response to the ambassadors from Kytenion (SEG 39, 1476, A 8), but the same text also contains developed of the Hellenic race (see mythographical passages of narrative concerning the original especially 11. 18 ff., where the ambassadors are stated as having recorded the link between the Xanthians and their city as the whole text is worthy of study in this context. The distinction made by Hadrian in his letter to the Cyrenaeans regarding the Panhellenion (J. H. Oliver, Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri (Philadelphia, 1989), p. 120), l. 9, is evidently meant to compliment the Cyrenaeans: who were very conscious of their Dorian descent, hence (see above, p. 4). The study by S. Hornblower, Commentary on Thucydides, ii, pp. 61–80, ‘Thucydides and (kinship)’, Page 12 of 24

Expanded Ethnics contains much of historical interest, to form a background to my study. For the compound formula see the examples below, pp. 131 f.

(2)

(3) (4) See the further items listed by Roesch, EB, pp. 531 ff., and below, n. 16. (5) The item recurs repeatedly in the lists of the middle of the century (c. 375 onwards), but the entries are, of course, tralaticial, and refer to only one dedication. The title occurs in its entirety in the fullest list, IDélos, 104, 117, and restored ibid. 101, l. 41; 104–11B [10]; 104–12, 88. (6) See J. A. O. Larsen, CP 51 (1956), 151–70; id., Greek Federal States: their Institutions and History (Oxford, 1968), pp. 240 ff.; G. E. Bean in Jones, CERP2, pp. 95 ff.; L. Moretti, Ricerche sulle leghe greche (Rome, 1962), p. 214, n. 29. IG XIV, 1878 (= IGUR 815) of 2nd cent. AD has the papponymic with nn. 41 ff.

See below, pp. 133 ff.,

(7) Busolt-Swoboda, Gr. Staatskunde, ii, pp. 1395–409, remains a valuable account of the League; and, of recent studies, so do those of A. Giovannini, Untersuchungen über die Natur und die Anfänge der bundesstaatlichen Sympolitie in Griechenland, Hypomnemata, 33 (Göttingen, 1971), pp. 43–6, and T. Corsten, Vom Stamm zum Bund, Studien zur Geschichte NordwestGriechenlands, 4 (Munich, 1999), pp. 61–6. One of the largest cities of Arcadia, Mantineia, did not join the original League, and continued to issue its own coinage. The coinage of the League was struck with the legend ’Aρκαδικόν (Head, HN2, p. 448; see also R. T. Williams, The Confederate Coinage of the Arcadians in the Fifth Century BC (New York, 1965)); cf. above, p. 49 for this type of coin-legend in -ικός.

( 8) (9) The relevant decrees will be found in FD III (1), 12–48, passim, to which add Syll.3 291, for (cf. FD IV (6), p. 65, no. 17).

Page 13 of 24

Expanded Ethnics (10) FD III (1), 477 = Nachtergael 3 (Daux G17 (4th/3rd cent. BC)). It is to be noted that in the summary of Epidaurian decrees for theorodokoi and proxenoi (IG IV (1)2, 96 = Perlman, City and Sanctuary, E3*) all those from Arcadia (ll. 3, 22, 34, 42, 46, 48) have only city ethnics, without the regional ethnic. Hiller said, ad loc., ‘decretorum habemus compendia, hinc formulae secundum scribarum libidinem variant’, which is no doubt the correct explanation. We have already noted the irregular use and absence of the patronymic in the theorodokoi-lists themselves, in which, however, the addenda have some patronymics: see above, pp. 97–101. (11) Michel 489 = IEph. 1459.

(12) (13) Forschungen in Ephesos, II (3) (Vienna, 1912) (IEphesos 2003):

(14) IG IX (1)2, 21, of c.245 BC. (15) (1907), 202–4. See in general the valuable list compiled by Roesch, EB, pp. 531–43, for further examples of the various types; cf. also below, n. 16. (16) Hdt. and Thuc. always use as the collective plural of the Xen. refers to Proxenos in An. 1.1.11, as and ibid. 2.31 as simply Roesch, EB, pp. 441–503, has a full account of the different usages with very clear conclusions regarding the structure of the Boiotian koinon (pp. 501–3), cf. BE 1983, no. 212. FD, III (3), 102 (Daux F7; Roesch, EB, p. 470), ibid. 103 (ibid. F30; Roesch, ibid.); (Roesch, EB, p. 456) show that both forms might be employed without differentiation, as with other variants. The formulae used of Boiotians in private documents outside Boiotia can hardly be used as evidence; e.g. in Athens only occurs on ), and similarly city ethnics by themselves— tombstones by itself (not (see above, p. 92). The are probably comparable status. It is noteworthy that male (5) and female (4) do not appear on a single tombstone together.

or of

(17) The history of the Achaean League is summarised by Larsen, Greek Federal States, pp. 80–9, 215–40, and more recently by R. Urban, Wachstum und Krise des achäischen Bundes, Historia Einzelschriften, 35 (Wiesbaden, 1979); see also Giovannini, Natur und Anfänge der bundesstaatlichen Sympolitie, pp. 53–5 and J. K. Anderson, ‘A topographical and historical study of Achaea’, BSA 49 (1954), 72–92, though the latter are concerned only with the history of the pre-Hellenistic league. However, the work of Corsten already referred to (see above, n. 7), contains much valuable analysis relating to all the mainland leagues, and largely supersedes earlier work. An

whose name is lost, IG II2, 2316, ll. 12–13 of c.166 BC, and

Page 14 of 24

Expanded Ethnics an of c.185 BC, ibid. 2314, are examples of the expanded, political use of the ethnic with city-name. (18) IG XII (9), 1187 (Syll.3 492; cf. Knoepfler, Eretria, p. 22). This incomplete list contains the names of some thirty proxenoi, of a wide geographical range, all with patronymics. The text is too long to quote here, but I give the forms of the ethnics: 4

of which three head the

list (the fourth in l. 28), 1

is an Achaean of Larisa Cremaste of Phthiotic Achaea (Str. 440 = FGrH 115 F386; cf. Syll. loc. cit.). The proxenydecree of the Achaean League for a group of Boiotian and Phokian hostages, SGDI 1636 (Syll.3 519) simply gives the names and patronymics of those honoured, since they are described in the 3

opening lines as

On the other hand, the formula of

in an Epidaurian list of fines imposed on competitors 2 in the Games, 3rd-2nd cent. BC (IG IV (1) , 99, ll. 19–20) seems to be a vague reference to the residential status of the individual; cf. Aratus’ house in Corinth, Plut. Arat. 41, (A similar feature, but of the Roman period, is provided by OGIS 191 (IPhilae of 59–50 BC), ) (19) IG I3, 174. Anderson, ‘A topographical and historical study of Achaea’, 85, n. 123, says (following Wilhelm, Hermes, 24 (1889), 110 ff. = Kl. Schr. ii, p. 331) that the description of Lykon as indicates ‘that he was officially an Achaean, not a man of Patrai or Aigion or Dyme, or wherever he lived, at least in respect of international affairs’. Perhaps it would be safer to say ‘at least as far as Athens was concerned’. Wilhelm, loc. cit., leaves the question of the identity of Lykon with the homonymous mercenary leader of Xen. An. 5.6.27 etc. open. Cf. Corsten, Vom Stamm zum Bund, p. 164, n. 19, for consideration of the organisation of the region at the time. (20) For the usage at Delphi see the Amphictyonic lists, and proxeny-awards listed by Flacelière, Les Aitoliens à Delphes, pp. 179 ff., and for the soteria-lists Nachtergael, Les Galates en Grèce, passim. The whole complex of problems is now treated by F. Lefèvre in opp. citt. above, n. 1. These ‘political’ variations were accepted, naturally, by the Aitolians themselves, as and when requisite, as for example in IG IX (1)2 (2), 3A, l. 21, one of the Aitolian officials (a ταμίαϛ) is indicating that in the middle of the third century Phokis had been incorporated in the League. The Delian honorific decree for IG XI (4), 692, of 1st half of 3rd cent. BC, describes him as in the prescript and simply as in the body of the decree. A different formulation is for whom see provided by ibid. 643, in honour of Flacelière, App. 1, 27, as an Aitolian hieromnemon (CID IV, 85, without quotation of the Delian text). For another instance of a transferred ethnic in the League see Syll.3 411 (cf. Knoepfler, Eretria, pp. 399–408), the very fragmentary opening lines of an Eretrian decree in honour of who was in fact a Naupaktian, but whose non-Aitolian city ethnic is not given.

Page 15 of 24

Expanded Ethnics (21) See the detailed account by O. Dany, Akarnanien im Hellenismus, Münchener Beiträge, 89 (Munich, 1999), passim, esp. pp. 69 ff., and Corsten, Vom Stamm zum Bund, pp. 127 ff. The alliance between the two leagues, of 263/2 BC, is IG IX (1)2, 3A. In the important document concerning the envoys sent by the Akarnanian League in 216 to Anaktorion, to negotiate terms for the celebration of the Aktian Games in honour of Apollo Aktios by the Anaktorians, all are native Akarnanians except for the Leucadians (IG IX (1)2, 583; cf. Corsten, pp. 200 ff.), ll. 1 ff., 4 while, ll. 17 ff., the additional envoys are 5 There are no Στράτιoι. Similarly, in the response of the League to the of the Magnesians-on-Maeander in 207 BC regarding recognition of the cult of Artemis Leukophryene, IMagn. 31, the individual cities named at the end of the decree of the koinon (Habicht, Hermes, 85 (1957), 110, n. 2)

and

do not include Στράτιoι. (22) See the main list (REG 45 (1921), 1 ff.) col. IV, ll. 48 (Stratos), 62 (Oiniadai), 63 (Phoitiai) 138(Thyrreion). (23) In FD III (1), 106 (cf. Plut. Mor. 911f, 913d, perhaps two different people, pace LGPN IIIA, s.v.) of c.275 BC, the honorand is and in 272 BC FD III (3), 203 (cf. BCH 90 (1966), 174 ff.) provides honours for

while in

IG VII, 12, l. 7, from Megara of c.235 BC, the honorand is It may be noted that of the ten surviving tombstones of Akarnanians from Athens all save one appear simply as

and the one

exception has an Akarnanian civic ethnic, for the place-name 2 see the Epidaurian list of Akarnanian theorodokoi, IG IV (1) , 95 = Perlman, City and Sanctuary, E2, l. 35 (356/5 BC;cf. LGPN IIIA, s.v. (3) for the date), For the singular/ and the corresponding ethnic, see above, p. 66, n. 14. plural forms (24) IG IX (1)2 (2), 241. In 94 BC Thyrreion, for a reason which is not clear, became a civitas foederata of Rome, while still within the Akarnanian League: see IG IX (1)2, 242, and Dany, Akarnanien im Hellenismus, pp. 236 ff. (25) IG IX (2), 61, of 198 BC: It does not seem likely that the ethnic was added to avoid the possibility of confusion with the homonymous Thessalian city, which had the same ethnic form. (26) Syll.3 585, l. 90. (27) IG IX (2), 6–7. (28) See IG IX (1)2 (2), 3B, of 3rd cent. BC, the judgement of the Thyrreian γαoδίκαι regarding the

dated by the Aitolian general,

though the precise meaning of is uncertain. Dittenberger on IG IX (1), 369, the Lokrian example, took it as referring to a territorial division of the Aitolian League, and for this he is favourably quoted by Klaffenbach ad loc. On any interpretation (e.g., for instance, a fiscal one) the phrase indicates that Stratos (and Lokris) were still members of the Aitolian koinon. Corsten, Vom Stamm zum Page 16 of 24

Expanded Ethnics Bund, pp. 134–59, deals with all aspects of this intricate problem, including the possible significance of the formulation koinon-ethnic + city ethnic. I confine myself to noting the occurrences of the terms and draw no further conclusion from the use of etc. + civic ethnic with the main ethnic. (29) FD III (3), 338,

for his possible father see IG IX (1)2 (2), 242, l. 8, with note.

(30) (31) For the Ptolemaic and Rhodian suzerainty of the in which the role of the controlling powers was paramount, and the individual members never carried the ethnic was more in the nature of a protectorate than a federation: see below, p. 141. (32) The brief expansion of the Boiotian League to include both Lokris and Achaea occurred in the second half of the third century: see M. Feyel, Polybe et l’histoire de Béotie au IIIe siècle avant notre ère (Paris, 1942), pp. 120 ff. and Roesch, EB, p. 234. These inclusions were, of course, quite different from the external alliances of the koinon (see Roesch, EB, pp. 355 ff.). (33) The traditional picture of Thessalian history, both before and after the formation of the koinon in c.365 BC (for which see IG II2, 116 (of 360 BC) e.g., l. 17, ) is presented by Busolt-Swoboda, Gr. Staatskunde, ii, pp. 1478–501; Larsen, Greek Federal States, pp. 281–94; Giovannini, Natur und Anfänge der bundesstaatlichen Sympolitie, and, in summary, Kramolisch, Demetrias, ii, pp. 22 ff.; Corsten, Vom Stamm zum Bund, pp. 178 ff. The publications of the Centre de recherches thessaliens of the CNRS at Lyons, led by B. Helly (cf. above, p. 87 n. 26), have brought many revisions of accepted views: see, in particular, Helly’s own book, L’Etat thessalien, Aleuas le Roux, les tétrades et les tagoi (Lyons, 1995) a fundamentally new approach to many problems of the early organisation of the whole region, before the Macedonian period. However, the question of expanded ethnic nomenclature is not affected by his far-reaching reappraisals of the early organisation. (34) An Athenian proxeny-decree of the later part of the fifth century, IG I3, 92 (M. B. Walbank, Athenian Proxenies of the Fifth Century BC (Toronto, 1978), p. 65) shows the simplest form of suffices for the title of the decree: definition, in which the largest regional unit, but he is called in the body of the decree by his full regional and civic ethnics, plain

a citizen of Gyrton in Thessaliotis, near Larisa. The is used in a decree of Mesambria (Michel 330, of 3rd cent. BC): Once more, the victor-lists

(above, pp. 92 f.) provide abundant information. (35) See the Index of IG IX (2), p. 311, s.v. where the formula + city is listed in detail, e.g. etc. The use of the full title in Thessalian documents, as IG IX (2), 534, of 1st cent. BC / 1st cent. AD,

Page 17 of 24

Expanded Ethnics where the ethnic of the tetras is added to the city-name, is not common.

(36) (37) e.g. FRA 3313–20, all curse-tablet against a

ibid. 3197–8, a tombstone of a ibid. 7210–12,

and a

all of 5th cent. BC.

(38) e.g. FRA 6046, a ibid. 224–30 (where the regional name is wrongly given as ), all from the mercenary-list, IG II2, 1956 (for the date of which (after 316) see Fifth International Symposium, Thessaloniki, 1989, i, pp. 445 ff.), under the single heading The decree of Phalanna (IG IX (2), 1228) of 1st half of 2nd cent. BC itemises the regions of the Thessalian koinon to which citizenship of Phalanna is given, thus: followed by a fragmentary list of names with patronymics; the similar list of 176 new citizens of Pharsalos (IG IX (2), 234 = SEG 40, 486 = Decourt, Inscr. de Thessalie, 1: Les cités de la vallée de l’Enipeus (Paris, 1995), 50)) of 3rd cent. BC, refers to them collectively as they had evidently formed part of the citizen fighting-force in some way; cf. Giovannini, Natur und Anfänge der bundesstaatlichen Sympolitie, pp. 20 ff. The alternative formula, in which two tribal regions are linked, is illustrated by the examples both from Bouthrotos (see below, p. 142) and from Delphi: the community); see also the Index, ibid., p. 304, s.v.

in CID II, 9 (as a which gives instances of variant

formulae comprising the + city ethnic + name, and Π. Δ. + name; cf. also ibid. no. 3, ll. 7–8, a fragment with certain restorations, in which the occur. In the period of an independent Magnesian koinon, the subordinate unit may be either a polis or (apparently) a κώμη. See e.g. FD III (5), 4 (c.360 BC), In the long list of Aitolian proxenoi from Thermos of c. mid-3rd cent. BC we find (IG IX (1) (1), 17B, l. 116): 2

(39) A bibliography of the development of the Macedonian state, and its documentation is beyond human, and perhaps even IT, computation. It must suffice here to refer to the admirable series of publications by the KERA in Athens, and the individual corpora of inscriptions edited by its members. Their work is indispensable (as also are the critical reviews of work on Macedonia by the Director of the Institute, Miltiade Hatzopoulos, in BE over the last decade). They, in their turn, owe much to the series of monographs by the Nestor of Macedonian studies, the late Nicholas Hammond, and his collaborators (not least Professor Hatzopoulos). Here I can only touch cautiously on the aspects of the subject that are immediately relevant to the question of ethnic appellations. (40) See especially A. Tataki, Macedonians Abroad, 26 (Athens, 1998) a storehouse of information to which I am much indebted. This contains a virtually complete prosopography of Macedonians abroad, compiled according to the different formulations employed in referring to tribes and cities, while the introduction (pp. 27 ff.) contains a clear analysis of the various usages. LGPN IV contains the onomastic evidence.

Page 18 of 24

Expanded Ethnics (41) For the four of 167–148 see the historical study by F. Papazoglou, Les Villes de Macédoine, BCH Suppl. 16 (Paris, 1988), pp. 62–71, and the brief account by Walbank, in N. G. L. Hammond, A History of Macedonia, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1972–88), iii, pp. 564 ff., with the analysis of the coinage by Head, HN2, pp. 238 ff.; see now also the article by Sophia Kremydi-Sikelianou, ‘Coinage and identity in Roman Macedonia’, in C. Howgego, V. Heuchert, and A. Burnett (eds.), Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces (Oxford, 2005), pp. 95–106, a valuable study of the civic issues that continued after the formation of the province.

(42) (43)

by itself is more frequent than all occur: cf. Tataki, p. 159, no. *77. Phlegon’s (FGrH 257 F37) is the only evidence for some of these forms, e.g. for the regular has (no. 47 = Tataki, p. 164, no. 10, and id., no. 49 = Tataki, p. 167, no. 36)

he

He also has (no. 50) alongside (54) For Pydna a Coan decree apparently has (ICos, unpublished). An unusual combination of formal terminology and onomastics is found in a manumission from Krounoi IG IX (1)2 (3), 639, ll. 6, 8–11 (mid-2nd cent. BC): it is unusual that a citizen of Amphipolis should be given the personal name shows that the second (cf. above, p. 113, n. 18, probably a slave of war, not an

is again his name, parallel to

). The former, an

not a

was

(44) For Philarchos of Pytheion see FD III (4), 417, III, ll. 14–15 (Daux G21); for (probably not a πόλιϛ but a κώμη in the territory of the ) see Tataki, p. 199, no. 6, with p. 505, and n. 33. For ibid., p. 199, no. *9; the combined ethnic derives from the combination of Arr. An. 6.28.4 and id., Ind. 18.6; it is not otherwise recorded in the numerous references to Peithon (Berve 621). (45) ’Aρχ. Δελτ. 23 (1968), Mελ. 111, no. 77; Tataki, p. 209, no. 16; cf. BE 1969, no. 456, where it is suggested that

may be a form of

(46) See Tataki, p. 199, no. 6, p. 168, no. 1; ibid. no. *3; for see the Attic 2 honorific decree, IG II , 110 + Add. (Tod, GHI, 143 = Rhodes-Osborne, 38 with comm.), of 362 BC. (47) See below, Chapter 14, for numerous examples of alternative ethnics in Steph. (48) 2.95–101, with Hornblower ad loc.; Hammond, History of Macedonia, ii, pp. 128 ff.; Z. H. Archibald, The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked (Oxford, 1998), pp. 93–125. (49) IG I3, 259 ff. The geographical terminology is employed from 443/2 (IG I3, 269).

Page 19 of 24

Expanded Ethnics (50) As in the foundation of the of Pizos, in AD 202 (Syll.3 880; IBulg. III (2), 980), where the new citizens are listed as those who In ibid. 888 (ibid. 1711), the Skaptoparene inscription of AD 232, a complaint to Gordian regarding illegal encroachments by government officials and other persons, the units involved are not πόλειϛ or their Latin equivalents. (51) See Ptol. 3.7–13. Plin. NH 4.60 says that there were fifty strategiai: in strategias L divisa, but does not give their names. The substantial variation, if it has any validity, might reflect administrative changes, but it seems more likely that Pliny has erred: see Mihailov, in Jones, CERP2, pp. 10 ff., with nn.; Sayar, Perinthos-Herakleia, p. 413, n. 630, a good summary of the problem. For the inscription from Topiros of the reign of Nero mentioning thirty-three strategiai see SEG 16, 415, and Mihailov loc. cit. The list in Hierokles, 635-U, contains a number of The system of administration by unknown cities in the strategiai already existed in the pre-Roman period: see the references in Mihailov, p. 377, n. 13. (52) Stephanus gives a Thracian location to over 120 cities. For Mein.’s elaborate analysis of this feature see his note, p. 554, n. on l. 17 (Σάνη). Jac. does not include among the fragments of Hecataeus (FGrH 1) any entry in which he is not named—even among the ‘Unsicheres und Zweifelhaft’ or ‘Unechtes’, but in his article in RE, cols. 2713–14, §4 (= Griech. Historiker, p. 209), he shows some sympathy with Mein.’s arguments, and indeed follows him in attributing some of the entries to Krateros, or, more precisely, ‘Psephismenpublikationen’, and, above all, to Herodotus’ account of the march of Xerxes. Mein. admits the use of other sources: ‘fieri quidem potest ut horum nonnulla aliis scriptoribus, velut Cratero, debeantur; at longe plurima quin ad Hecataeum auctorem referenda sint, non dubitamus’. It is also noticeable, but entirely natural, that a good many of the locations (πόλιϛ, κώμη, χωρίoν) should be quoted from Theopompos’ Φιλιππικά, recording Philip’s campaigns (see e.g. FrGH 115 F32–4, 44, 83, 125 etc. all from Stephanus). (53) For the (cf. ibid., p. 105, n. 1).

see FD III (1), 396; for the second,

ibid., no. 186

(54) See IG I3, 259; for the Second Confederacy see IG II2, 43 = Tod, GHI 123 = Rhodes-Osborne, 22, ll. 28–9. (55) See the corresponding entries in FRA, s.v. Kρήτη and the individual cities as noted here. For the Cretan koinon, see the extremely full and concentrated work of A. Chaniotis, Die Verträge zwischen Kretischen Poleis (Stuttgart, 1996). (56) For the most part, since the whole complex of lists refers exclusively to Cretans, the individual families, or members of them, normally have no ethnic indication, or else that of the city ethnic, as etc. Rehm’s Index to Milet I (3), pp. 425 ff., breaks down the individual entries under cities, and those (more numerous) to which no ethnic is given. (57) See Launey, Recherches, ii, pp. 1151 ff., who gives the material evidence in the two main categories, regional ethnic and civic ethnic, but he does not distinguish between the city ethnic simple and the regional + city ethnic. Literary sources usually give the regional ethnic alone. For unusual items relating to Cretans (not mercenaries) see e.g. (a) SB 4057 (= Bernard, Inscr. Métr. 161, from Resedîya), where the city ethnic precedes the regional, and (b) the well-known case of Dryton, the son of Pamphilos, who became a citizen of Ptolemais Hermiou Page 20 of 24

Expanded Ethnics

and held office there: he is (Pros. Ptol. 2206, 2884, 11343); cf. Launey, p. 1160. From the fourth century two notable contemporaries of Alexander show variations in titulature: (a) from Delphi, FD III (1), 412, in honour of Nearchos, described as honour of

and (b) from Olympia, IvO. 276 (Syll.3 303 = Tod, GHI, II, 188) in

(58) (59) For the territorial history of the Lycian League see Magie, Roman Rule, pp. 524 ff., with notes on pp. 1381–3, and Index, p. 1635; Larsen, Greek Federal States, p. 248; Bean in Jones, CERP2, pp. 95 ff. (60) For the Ptolemaic period see R. S. Bagnall, The Administration of Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt (Leiden, 1976), pp. 105 ff., and also the remarkable document from Xanthos published by Bousquet, BCH 101 (1977) (SEG 39, 1476; cf. Fraser, Cities, p. 25), and for the Rhodian domination, Fraser and Bean, Rhodian Peraea and Islands, pp. 107 ff. The emergence of the Carian in the post-Rhodian period, in SE Caria, as envisaged by R. van Bremen, Chiron, 34 (2004), 367 ff., on the basis of SEG 45, 1556 and 1557, discussed below, pp. 357, 371 would be an analogous development. (61) See Str. 664–5, and Bean in Jones, CERP2 (with notes). (62) See Magie, Roman Rule, pp. 529 ff., with notes. (63) (64) See Polyb. 22.5, and the modern literature quoted above, n. 60. (65) See Magie, Roman Rule, pp. 871–2, n. 54; A. Momigliano, Quinto contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico (Rome, 1975), pp. 205 ff. Compare also the discussed above, p. 79, n. 5. (66) IG IX (2), 62; FD III (3), 145; Stephanis 326, of 2nd half of 3rd cent. BC.

(67)

(68) (69) See in general Fraser and Bean, Rhodian Peraea and Islands, pp. 70 ff.; Magie, Roman Rule, pp. 1031–2, n. 77, and the discussion of the post-Rhodian development of these koina in the article of R. van Bremen, as cited in n. 60 above. For the the central point of which was the shrine of Zeus Chrysaoreus near Stratonikeia, see further L. Robert, Fouilles d’Amyzon en Carie (Paris, 1983), pp. 222 ff. (the ); for that of the Θαρμιανoί see also the note to Blümel, Inschriften der Rhodischen Peraia, no. 752 (cf. ibid. 782–4), and for that of the

ibid. no. 732 (Fraser and Bean, op. cit., nos. 46 ff. (SEG 14, 724 ff.). For the Page 21 of 24

Expanded Ethnics see below, pp. 371–2, and for the without further definition, the same article of van Bremen. The general uncertainty of the dating of the second-century texts found in Rhodes and Caria prevents elaborate reconstructions. (70) The prime document of the Cibyratis is the text from the Lycian city, Araxa, SEG 13, 570, probably of the period after the Peace of Apameia, which shows the independent city of Araxa, caught in the crossfire between the For discussions of this text see R. M. Errington, Chiron, 17 (1987), 114–18 (SEG 37, 1218) and Zimmermann, Klio, 75 (1993), 110–30 (SEG 43, 965). For the history of the Cibyratis see in detail vol. 2 of Corsten’s Kibyra (Kibyra, I, IGSK 60 (2002)).

(71) (72) See FRA 3345–8, and for the literary references see Thuc. 3.88.2:

For the three Liparaean ex-votos at Delphi see FD III (4), pp. 181 ff.; L. Bernabé Brea, M. Cavalier, and L. Campagna, Meligunis-Lipara: le iscrizioni lapidarie greche e latine delle isole eolie, xii (Palermo, 2003), pp. 495 ff. (I have not been able to see the study by C. Vatin, referred to on p. 495, n. 1, and p. 502, last item). (73) See Fraser and Bean, Rhodian Peraea and Islands, pp. 154–72. For the naval contingents see IG XI (4), 75, ll. 1–3, and Syll.3 582, with Fraser and Bean, pp. 166–7; Berthold, Rhodes in the Hellenistic Age, pp. 132 f. (74) I have not included these false ethnics within the scope of the enquiry, since they do not conform to the true usage of ethnics, and are not recognised in Stephanus or in grammatical sources. The evidence will be found in C. A. La’da’s Foreign Ethnics in Hellenistic Egypt (Leuven, 2002) (cf. his pp. xxxiv–xxxv, ‘The source material’). (75) See Cabanes, L’Épire. His publication of the epigraphical material (in addition to that given in L’Epire, pp. 534–92) is to be found in P. Cabanes and F. Drini (eds.), Corpus des inscriptions grecques d’Illyrie méridionale et d’Epire, I: Inscriptions d’Epidamne-Dyrrachion et d’Apollonie (1: Inscr. d’Epidamne-Dyrrachion), Études Épigraphiques, 2 (Paris, 1995), and ibid. 1, 2 (A), Inscriptions d’Apollonia d’Illyrie, and 1, 2 (B), Liste des noms de Monétaires d’Apollonia et Epidamne-Dyrrachion (Paris, 1997).

(76)

Page 22 of 24

Expanded Ethnics

(77)

(78)

(79) (80) PHib. 70 (Pros. Ptol. 11282) (228 BC). (81) For these ‘ethnic minorities’ at Memphis, which originate in the pre-Ptolemaic period, see D. J. Thompson, Memphis under the Ptolemies (Princeton, 1988), pp. 82 ff. They are not associated with the ‘false ethnics’ (cf. n. 74 above); note Steph. s.v. This unexpected Antiochene ethnic or for whom see now S. Mitchell, demotic may be compared with the numerous Anatolian Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor (Oxford, 1993), i, pp. 176 ff. Stephanus’ entry is brief, and he gives no source. One may wonder whether it was connected in any way with the introduction of the ‘theme’ of the p. 190, n. 39.

introduced by Justinian; cf. below, p. 177, n. 20 and

(82) (83) By way of contrast the (548–9), both composite ethnic forms, are administrative entities which do not imply racial differences. So also with the who are listed by Odysseus in his reply to Penelope as to his place or origin, Hom. Od 19.172 ff., esp. 176: The prefix is not in itself an indication of race, and is formally on a par with place-names and ethnics in (cf. below, p. 152). (84) For these see L. Robert, BCH 109 (1985), 481–4 (Documents d’Asie Mineure (Athens, 1987), pp. 535 ff.; cf. Gauthier, in BE 1993, no. 486), with reference to the coins bearing the ethnic studied by Leschhorn, Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 34 (1984), 55–62. (85) See above, pp. 94 f. (86) Str. 295: Cf.

Page 23 of 24

Expanded Ethnics Paul Kretschmer’s classic treatment of this topic, Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache (Göttingen, 1896), pp. 191–243 and passim; and, for a corpus of the Phrygian inscriptions which Kretschmer could not know, C. Brixhe and M. Lejeune, Corpus des inscriptions paléo-phrygiennes, 2 vols. (Paris, 1984). (87) CIRB 1008: cf. also Ptol. 3.5, §25, who places them loosely Synes. Ep. 57 (p. 666c, Herch.; 41.164 Garzya, ii, p. 46); Procop. De Aed. 3.7.10 (beyond the Maeotic Lake); cf. id. Hist. 1.10.1, describing the Taurus range, troops pass through

(Cf. also id. ibid., 18,

(Anastasius) built Dara

Cf. also n. 89 below.

(88) (89) Narses is described by Procop. 1.19.37 as (90) The who occur occasionally in papyrus documents (see La’da, Foreign Ethnics in Hellenistic Egypt, s.v., esp. p. 31. n. 14 for a detailed bibliography) are perhaps more likely to be of pure Semitic or Iranian stock, than from remoter regions.

Page 24 of 24

Name-Changes and ‘Posthumous’ Ethnics

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

Name-Changes and ‘Posthumous’ Ethnics P. M. Fraser

DOI:10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.003.0007

Abstract and Keywords This chapter begins with a discussion of metonomasies (name-changes) of cities and islands. The materials concerning the metonomasies of cities are based on Stephanus, many of whose entries record double, or even triple, metonomasies of cities and islands. He rarely quotes a source for his statements, and the earlier nomenclature (be it of one earlier name, or of several) is frequently mythological, and/or derived from some local tradition, and lacks historical authenticity or support. It then turns to places for which ‘posthumous’ ethnics are attested. These include Kardia, Mende, Torone, Haliartos, Thisoa, Corinth, and Olenos. Keywords:   metonomasies, cities, islands, Kardia, Mende, Torone, Haliartos, Thisoa, Corinth, Olenos, namechanges

Metonomasies (Name-Changes) of Cities and Islands FOR MATERIAL CONCERNING THE METONOMASIES OF CITIES we depend to a considerable extent on Stephanus, many of whose entries record double, or even triple, metonomasies of cities and islands. He rarely quotes a source for his statements, and the earlier nomenclature (be it of one earlier name, or of several) is frequently mythological, and/or derived from some local tradition, and lacks historical authenticity or support. The interest attaching to these notices lies frequently in the legend itself, and in Stephanus’ ultimate source, if this can be discovered in any particular case. A generalised statement of the occurrence of metonomasy is well expressed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus,1 who writes that when Herakles enquired of the inhabitants of Sicily what had become of the

that had swum there from Italy, the

natives,

Some cities were already said to have had a succession of names in the Epic poems, by Hesiod, and in Page 1 of 18

Name-Changes and ‘Posthumous’ Ethnics due course by Hecataeus, Hellanicus, and others, an aspect of local mythical tradition of the type attested by Callimachus’ quotation from Xenomedes of Keos regarding the early history of the island.2 Similarly Stephanus s.v.

3

γoρεύετo, with which compare s.v. (p.148)

4

In the entry s.v. Stephanus quotes Aristotle5 and Strabo6 for a confused series of names that preceded that of Epidaurus in the heroic age, while a large number of mythological examples of the same procedure may be found, for instance, in Hellanicus’ statement of the successive names of Kerkyra, s.v.

7

Sometimes such metonomasies, representing different versions of epic narrative and other legendary material, are recorded by Stephanus without reference to any earlier authority, either literary or grammatical. For example, s.v.

In this instance the apparently historical element

is unver-ifiable, and again, on a smaller

scale, s.v.

or,

of a historically attested Hellenistic metonomasy, s.v. (p.149) one of the few instances in which Stephanus records the equation of an ethnic with a personal name.8 The ultimate lexical authority for such metonomasies seems to have been the grammarian Nikanor of Cyrene, author of a work called but this work is only quoted twice in the Epitome, s.vv. so it 9 would be unwise to suppose him to have been a direct source for much material. Stephanus’ entry s.v.

shows a rare collection of early mythological names:

is attested in Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos, where the poet recounts the trials of Leto before the birth of Apollo and Artemis, and attested by Strabo and others as a descriptive epithet of the island; but Stephanus does not name any source here as in a number of similar, brief entries.10 We may contrast the wellinformed scholia to Apollonius of Rhodes, which provide the aetiology of the renaming of 11 Phlious, and of Amastris which (p.150) had previously been called That the horizon of such metono-masies extended to latinisation is shown not only by the passage of

Page 2 of 18

is

Name-Changes and ‘Posthumous’ Ethnics Dionysius of Halicarnassus quoted above, but, for example, by Stephanus’ own entry s.v.

A similar situation occurs s.v. where Stephanus provides an example from the western world of a ‘translation’ of ethnic forms, attested by Artemidorus (fr. 4 Schiele):

A good example of local mythographical and historiographical tradition embodied in a continuous narrative is provided by Strabo’s account of the various names of Rhodes:

.12 The occurrence of changes of name in the historical period is attested from the fifth century. For example, Zangkle became Messana, after an influx of new population, and the ethnic changed correspondingly to though in this case Stephanus gives no indication either of the bestowal of the new name or of its ethnic, which he gives only as κτητικόν. Another example is that of Amphipolis, the new, Athenian name for the rebuilt Ennea Hodoi, for which he provides earlier, otherwise unattested, nomenclature:

(p.151) Here the ethnic might refer to either part, or both parts, of the entry (there is no entry s.v. Toύρμεδα). Stephanus’ procedure with such early (and sometimes with later) metonomasies in respect of the ethnic form varies between recording that of the earlier form and that of the later, or of both, as for example when he gives separate entries for what we may regard as the prototype of all eponymous metonomasies, Philip Il’s change of Krenides to Philippoi in c.360 bc (see below, Chapter 7, p. 176), s.v. which begins and continues with a historical statement from the epitomised Artemidorus (fr. 9):

The entry continues in a well-informed manner:

Page 3 of 18

Name-Changes and ‘Posthumous’ Ethnics

(fr. 85). It is not possible to trace the items in this entry back to any particular source, and we have no means of knowing whether Artemidorus had already assembled this information in his of Cyrene or another, later source.

or whether it is derived from Nikanor

Most of the new foundations of the fourth century were cities newly built and largely populated or repopulated by synoecism, such as Megalopolis and Messene, or by rebuilding a new city with the same name as the old, on an enlarged, or slightly removed, site. In the latter class, some cities which had constituted the original foundation retained their original name, sometimes with the addition of the prefix παλαι-; these occur in the Athenian Tribute Lists alongside the subsequent foundations. Similarly, in the fourth century, in Ionia, the former Priene retained its name, the original city on the coast becoming part of the new city as Naulochon, when rebuilt in the later fourth century. At Kolophon the city rebuilt after its destruction by Lysimachus on the harbour-site was called Notion, or the end of the third century as inhabited by the Koλoϕώνιoι

while the old city reappears at

.13 Examples involving the prefix (p.152) which appears, in two different forms, alongside the Περκόσιoι in the Athenian Tribute Lists (IG I3, 266 and 279; see below, n. 15); (OGIS 229 = IMagn. ad Sipyl.1 = ISmyrna 573, l. 94), used as a garrison-post by Seleukid troops in Magnesia in the reign of Seleukos II the gift of the Persian king to Themistokles; and others.14 Except for cities renamed with an eponymous name, authentic historical instances of simple metonomasy are rare both in the Hellenistic and Imperial periods, but there are cases in which Stephanus provides the original name of a city which, he erroneously states, changed its name either in heroic or historic times. Thus, he says, s.v. औρύλλιoν (β 181 Bill.), on the authority of Ephorus, Book 5 (FGrH 70 F45), that Kios in Bithynia was also called Bryllion. The evidence of the Athenian Tribute Lists, in which the two places in any case only occur sporadically, and are first assessed side by side, after which they seem to alternate irregularly, suggests that there was a very close connection between them, and that in due course the latter gave way to Kios as the normal appellation.15 In (p.153) other cases the alternative name may have been purely adjectival, and not necessarily of earlier date. For instance, s.v.

Stephanus records

The epithet though essentially a poetical word, was naturally applied to cities, as in Pindar’s (Ol. 13.4), and Euripides’ (IT 510), and it is noticeable that Stephanus records eight or nine cities which had at one time borne the name which clearly derives from poetic legends.16 Probably, then, is only a surviving trace of a Eulogy or Ktisis of Nikomedeia, the capital city of the kingdom, rather than an earlier proper name.17 The evidence for officially recognised metonomasy extends through the Imperial period.18 This is clearly shown by the list of the cities and (p.154) tribes of the conventus of Asia, mainly Lydian, of the second half of the first century AD,19 in which the formula or a phrase of similar sort occurs after the previous (evidently native) name, as in the previous Page 4 of 18

Name-Changes and ‘Posthumous’ Ethnics conventus,

(ibid. 1. 34). In such cases, unless the new name is dynastic, or dated by an Imperial year, there is no certain way of determining when or why the change, sometimes described as the came into effect.20 It is in any case evident that they refer to a change imposed by the Imperial administration, just as in the case of many larger Imperial cities. The history of the metonomasy of Mantineia-Antigoneia, shows nevertheless that an Emperor, specifically Hadrian, might also annul a Hellenistic eponymous name. Pausanias tells us that the city

.21 Byzantine lists of metonomasies, found associated in MSS with Constantine Porphyrogennetus’ De Thematibus, and analysed by Diller, use some similar formulae and contain different strata of information, sometimes correct, sometimes extravagantly wrong, some items of which record changes of an early date, others of a much later date. For example, in List A of these manuscripts of the thirteenth century, headed the first item is

while further on in the same list we find

22 (p.155) These metonomasies reflect especially changes resulting from the Slav conquests of Greece in the seventh and eighth centuries, and may have had some practical value, akin to that provided

earlier by Hierokles’

23

It is worthy of note that while Stephanus always places the current name (as accepted by him) first, as the basis of the entry, and then normally uses the article

followed by the adverb

πρότερoν, occasionally in turn followed by the descriptive participle to describe the previous name, in the Byzantine lists of cities, peoples, and regions the old name is almost always given first, followed by or expressed as a simple equation, as in the examples given above. The Byzantine lists contain no names of authorities, except a single reference to Homer’s location of Pylos, and to Procopius,24 and include both Slavonic and Arabic place-names and clearly have no link, direct or indirect, with Stephanus. One list, possibly of a different tradition, quotes Stephanus several times (from the Epitome), Strabo and even (verbatim from Stephanus, s.v.

365 Bill.) Theopompos.25

These later lists indicate how long-standing the practice of metono-masy was, from supposedly heroic to Byzantine times, and enables us to see the eponymous foundations and metonomasies of the Hellenistic and Roman world against a wide mythological and historical context. As already mentioned, the study of metonomasy as a separate discipline is associated with the name of Nikanor, a Cyrenaean, whose s.v.

is quoted three times by Stephanus:26 (1)

(p.156)

Page 5 of 18

Name-Changes and ‘Posthumous’ Ethnics

(FGrH 492 F11, under ‘Leandrios’). The third passage (3) does not refer specifically to the

and offers a wider

perspective. Under the entry

after quoting Strabo

and Alexander Polyhistor, Stephanus adds Nikanor’s observation is borne out by the instances of this practice which occurred in the Seleukid and Parthian empires and formed one aspect of the overall hellenisation of native communities;27 such valid generalisations are rare in our ancient sources. An entry of Harpocration s.v. for the metonomasy of Ake to Ptolemais, and this is the earliest reference to his work. He may then be approximately dated to the early Imperial period. It does not seem likely that he belonged to the group of Cyrenaeans who formed a circle in the third century round their fellow-citizen Callimachus in Alexandria.28 (p.157) Moreover, although Nikanor is the only author of a book on Metonomasies known to us by name, those quoted as transmitted by him are a very small proportion of the whole, and it is likely that Hecataeus and other logographers were already familiar with such traditions.29 Four centuries or more after Hecataeus, Apollodorus of Athens, among the most versatile and learned critics of antiquity, in his numerous works touched on changes of anthroponyms and geographical names, and it cannot be doubted that his work was highly valued by Stephanus, 30

who described him as

Stephanus made frequent use of

his commentary on the Catalogue of the Ships, and his the latter written in iambic 31 trimeters, and published in 138 BC. However, although he is frequently quoted in Stephanus, it does not appear that he investigated metonomasies in a systematic way, and, further, it cannot be determined whether entries represented as deriving from Artemidorus of Ephesus and Strabo, the two main transmitters of Apollodorus, do not also embody his material.32 It is, however, clear from the quotations of Artemidorus in Stephanus, which represent almost all that survives of his work, that we cannot suppose him, or indeed any other author of to have had a particular (p.158) interest in metonomasies. The question whether some of these metono-masies were contained in Oros’ work on ethnics cannot be answered. It is true that none is attributed to him among the few quotations from Oros found in Stephanus or, indeed, elsewhere, and it is also true that his work was not expressly concerned with changes of name, but with ethnic forms. This, however, does not rule him out of court, for just as Stephanus records so many metonomasies without a source, so, a fortiori, may his main source have done: the cases are identical, for Stephanus’ work was on ethnics, just as that of Oros was. The question is thus taken one stage back, but it is not answered. All in all, when, as in the majority of cases, Stephanus gives no information for his source(s) we have no alternative regarding metonomasies but explicare Stephanum e Stephano. This is by no means an unrewarding task, for throughout the Epitome we observe that he uses unsystematic sources, as they are relevant to a single entry. Thus s.v.

(α 95 Bill.), speaking of the metonomasy

from the Homeric he gives as his authority the aetiology preserved by Pausanias, who describes the incident thus: an army from Sikyon was about to attack it, and the inhabitants collected all their goats and tied to their horns torches which they lit at night, and the Sikyonians fled, thinking that the fires were those of a force come to render aid, 33

Page 6 of 18

Such a legend may have been found by

Name-Changes and ‘Posthumous’ Ethnics Pausanias in one of several Sikyonian local histories, but Stephanus quoted Pausanias almost verbatim. As we have seen (pp. 154 ff.), Byzantine lists of metonomasies, found asssociated in MSS with Constantine Porphyrogennetus’ De Thematibus, use similar formulae, and contain different strata of information, sometimes correct, sometimes extravagantly wrong; some of these record changes of an early date, while others refer to a much later date.34

(p.159) Places for which ‘Posthumous’ Ethnics are Attested We may now turn to the historical period to follow the history of the ethnic usage of cities that had ceased to exist, but for which we have documentary evidence for the subsequent use of the ethnic. These ‘posthumous’ ethnics, as I call them, naturally result from varying historical causes, within a wide spectrum ranging from the survival of a person who held the ethnic on authentic historical grounds (for example, an of the later fourth or early third century BC, who had been born an Olynthian) to someone whose use of it may point to a resettlement of the site, or, yet again, to the survival of the term within a different environment (for example in Ptolemaic Egypt). Such posthumous ethnics also occur occasionally as personal names, in the same way as other ethnics. Cities naturally disappeared for numerous reasons, not least, indeed more frequently than we can ever hope to know in full, as a result of physical disasters, in the way graphically described by Strabo of the submersion of the coastal cities of Achaea,35 and the earthquakes occasionally referred to in inscriptions, or listed by Byzantine chroniclers. Such disasters, whether effected by nature or by man or by a hostile environment, may have led to consequent refoundations, in the case of new cities contrasted with old, as mentioned above, such as Περκότη, which appears alongside the Παλαιπερκόσιoι in the Athenian Tribute Lists, and the new might occur as independent or identifiable entities, with revived, if not new, ethnic forms. However, natural disasters or changes of habitation without the intervention of an external power lie outside the scope of this investigation, which is primarily concerned to identify the influence of political changes upon the use of ethnics, whether conquest or synoecism lie at the root of the survival. There is no doubt that most of the eponymous foundations of the Hellenistic age included, in addition to immigrants such as those from Argos and Thessaly in Ptolemais Hermiou (for which see below, pp. 364 ff.), both a small number of local inhabitants already settled on the determined site (as the inhabitants of Rhakotis in Alexandria of Egypt), and also of the may have been regarded by population of adjacent native villages, who, as inhabitants of Greek authorities as nevertheless were not, before the Roman conquests, part of the Greek ethnic system. However, once absorbed into the new urban environment (p.160) they normally became, vis-à-vis the outer world, indistinguishable from the rest of the population, except perhaps onomastically. These groups, therefore, for the most part in regions previously hardly hellenised, do not normally express the form of posthumous survival of ethnics for which we are seeking. For that we must retrace our steps a little, to the fifth and fourth centuries, to find our starting-point. The main representatives of ethnic forms which survived after the disappearance of the prime political unit to which they belonged are of the fourth century. The historical events which led up to such survivals are precisely the forms of foundation with accompanying synoecism, namely the Macedonian foundations of Lysimachus and Cassander, the son of Antipater, his eventual successor on the throne of Macedon, and, also, less specifically, the latter’s contemporary and rival, Demetrios Poliorketes, whose varied career, however, seems to have given him less opportunity for the city-building which could breed this particular phenomenon.

Page 7 of 18

Name-Changes and ‘Posthumous’ Ethnics 1. Kardia Kardia, on the Thracian Chersonese, noteworthy mainly as the home of Eumenes, the notable figure in the early wars of the Diadochi, and Hieronymus, the historian of the same wars, lost its standing as a city in 309 BC, when Lysimachus destroyed it, and settled its inhabitants in his new capital Lysimacheia. Nevertheless occur in papyri, and in an inscription from 36 Cyprus, from the third and second centuries BC. 2. Mende The ethnic form is familiar from the Athenian Tribute Lists,37 from its notable coinage which in Comedy ended with its capture by Philip II, and from (p.161) references to 39 both Old and New,38 and Stephanus, who quotes Apollodorus for the form The 40 Epitome of Strabo refers to it among the actual cities of the Pallene peninsula, and the ethnic used of an individual occurs in a papyrus of 127 BC.41 It is, however, certain that the city was absorbed in Cassandreia, sometime after, or at the time of, its foundation in 316 bc, and in any case no doubt considerably earlier than the year 200 BC, in which it is recorded as a vicus of

Cassandreia.42 3. Olynthos Many examples survive of the ethnic long after its destruction, as the centre of the Chalkidic League, in 346,43 when in due course it became, like Mende and other communities of Pallene, a κώμη of Cassandreia. The historian Kallisthenes was an Olynthian of the last generation.44 Instances occur in Athens in the years following the capture of the city and the flight of part of the population,45 while instances of later usage elsewhere are: SEG 21, 982, (2nd half of 4th cent. BC); IDélos 531, bc); ibid. 2818,

(1st half of 3rd cent. (p.162) (3rd-2nd cent. BC?); FD III (1), 105, (mid-3rd cent. bc); ibid. 400 (Tod, GHI, II, 187 = Rhodes-

Osborne, 80); Maiuri, Nuova Silloge, no. 520 (Cos), cent. bc); ibid. 536 + Wilhelm, MDAI, Athenische Abteilung, 51 (1926), 6,

(3rd-2nd

IG II2, 10017; IEph. V, 1454 (BMI 454), l. 4; Milet, I (3), 41 (216 BC), col. III,

ibid. 431 (before

212), an unnamed (216 BC). It is not open to doubt that the ethnic remained valid after the destruction of the city, and its relegation to the status of a κώμη of Cassandreia, as in SEG 37, 559 and 38, 625, the former a decree of that city of the time of Lysimachus, a gift of land by whom is described as the latter an epitaph of Imperial date with the ethnic: cf. also, 9 (1969), 186, no. 123, The name ‘Olithus’ which appears (as also does Oly(i)nthus) as a personal name in Latin texts is evidently a form of ‘Olynthus’.46 4. Torone Finally to be noticed in the northern region is Torone on the Sithonian peninsula. It too was destroyed by Philip, in 349, after which it was in due course incorporated in Cassandreia. There seem to be no instances of the ethnic later than the fourth century.47

Page 8 of 18

Name-Changes and ‘Posthumous’ Ethnics 5. Haliartos The Boiotian city was destroyed in 171 BC by C. Lucretius Gallus. An honorific decree of 122/1 BC, in honour of the commander of an Athenian was found at Haliartos.48 This demonstrates the continued existence of activity in the area, but I have not found an instance of a posthumous ethnic. (p.163) 6. Thisoa Thisoa was synoecised into Megalopolis in 368(?) but subsequently returned to independence. A Delphian document of 358 BC has immediately by a list of up residence in the new city.49

followed that is, presumably, people who had voluntarily taken

7. Corinth Corinthians occur in Egypt after 146, but many may have been there before the destruction of the city.50 A number of occur on Attic tombstones of late Hellenistic and Imperial date, with purely Greek names and normal patronymic nomenclature.51 It is an open question whether such persons were contemporary citizens of Colonia Iulia Corinthia, or whether, like the Olynthians and others, they had preserved their original inherited ethnic out of a sense of local patriotism, or because an ethnic connotation was required by the Ptolemaic bureaucracy.52 It is to this ‘posthumous’ category of whatever their exact origin, that the Corinthians belong to whom Paul preached and whose licentious behaviour he attempted to bridle in his two Epistles. To judge from the evidence both of the Acts of the Apostles and of archaeology, a significant element in the city at that time was Jewish, although those to whom Paul preached 53 seem to have been predominantly (p. In the same way the 164) Philipp(i)enses, represent the population of Colonia Augusta Iulia Philippensium, and not

Philip’s foundation, documentary references to which before 167 BC are scanty.54 We may also compare the transfer of the inhabitants of Delos to Achaea, after the establishment of the Second Athenian administration.55 8. The Cities called Olenos The entry s.v. is a singularly complex item, and the reader may be helped if the relevant passage of Stephanus is quoted in a form which indicates the sources:

Page 9 of 18

Name-Changes and ‘Posthumous’ Ethnics (To this we must add a passage from Theophrastus who in his (fr. cix W = L127 Fortenbaugh), named the boy with whom a goose fell in love as Amphilochos of Olenos (cf. Ael. NA, 5.29).) Apollodorus, or his epitomator, had more to say about Olenos, which Stephanus also preserves, s.v. Δύμη (F163), an entry which contains a clutch of references to diverse sources— Callimachus, Apollodorus (thrice), Ephorus, Pausanias, Philistos, Theopompos, Euphorion, (p. 165) Antimachos—of which only Apollodorus appears in both entries, though with quotations from different works. The relevant expression, from the Commentary on the Catalogue of the Ships, lacks a dependent object, which was evidently (FGrH 244 F190–1; cf. F3). The terminus post quem for the absorption of Olenos in neighbouring Dyme is the reference to it in Polybius as an active Achaean community in the late third century; for Apollodorus in the mid-second century it has already disappeared, and the use of the verb disappeared. Strabo (386; cf. 342) later says of the Achaean town,

throws no light on how it and in the same

context uses the same phraseology: μόνoν.

A third Olenos, in Triphylia, not mentioned in the text of Stephanus, is referred to in Iliad 11.757, Index M-W]) which is quoted by Strabo (342):

κoλώνη, and by Hesiod (fr. 13 [not 15, as

The three ancient cities (p.166) evidently caused some perplexity, and their historical relationship remains obscure.56

Page 10 of 18

Name-Changes and ‘Posthumous’ Ethnics Pylene, the other city quoted in the Catalogue, and by Apollodorus and eventually in Stephanus, alongside Olenos, must also be located in Aitolia. Notes: (1) 1.35.3.

( 2) (3) FGrH 1 F129. (4) fr. 296 West. (5) fr. 491B, the (6) 374, also referring to Aristotle. (7) FGrH 4 F77; Philetas, fr. 4, Pow. Mein. compares Schol. Ap. Rhod. 1.115:

In Stephanus it is only the latter part of the entry that contains the correct ethnic, referring to Timon: Cf. D.L. 9.109 (H. Diels, Poetarum Philosophorum Graecorum Fragmenta (Berlin, 1901), p. 173): For the confusion caused over the ethnic of Phlious by the application of the law of analogy see Cicero’s remark to Atticus, 6.2.3: Phliasios autem dici sciebam, et ita fac, ut habeas; nos quidem sic habemus. Sed primo me Sed hoc continuo correximus. The documentary evidence wholly supports the masculine form in -ια-: see e.g. LGPN IIIA, passim, s.v.; FRA 7229 ff. ( 8)

should perhaps be transposed after

For other

examples of a city-name as a personal name see s.v. The same item in Schol. Ven. B, 648, and Eust. 313.18; cf. Chandler, Greek Accentuation, p. 97, s.v. Others are s.v. (cf. Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, s.v. nbt, for cognate meanings)

The brief ‘Lexicon of Philoponus’, edited by Egenolff (Breslau, 1880; reprinted in Latte-Erbse, Lexica Graeca Minora (Olms, Hildesheim, 1965; repr. 1972), pp. 359–72) concerned with variations of accentuation between homonymous words, mainly common nouns and personal names, has many examples of

Page 11 of 18

Name-Changes and ‘Posthumous’ Ethnics city and personal names of this type (cf. Erbse, ibid., pp. xvi–xvii). See also below, pp. 215–24, esp. 222. (9) For Nikanor of Cyrene cf. below, p. 155, n. 26. (10) Plin. NH 5.135 provides the most information: (Samon) Partheniam primum appellatam Aristoteles tradit (= fr. 570 R, the ), postea Dryusam, deinde Anthemusam; Aristocritus (FGrH 493 F4) adicit Melamphyllum, dein Cyparissiam, alii Parthenarrhusam, Stephanen. Jac. Komm. assigned Aristocritus to the third century BC, since the other fragments suggest from their association a fairly early date. Callimachus refers to the same tradition— those in which he records

—in Hy. 4.48–50, in the lines immediately preceding as the name of Delos before it was the scene of the birth of

Apollo, ibid. 36 ff.:

(11) For Phlious see the exhaustive article by Ernst Meyer, RE, s.v. Phlius, cols. 269–90, with Schol. Ap. Rhod. (12) 653–4, with out reference to a source. For the my thology of Rhodes see H. van Gelder, Geschichte der alten Rhodier (The Hague, 1900), pp. 14 ff. The authors listed in the prehistoric sections of the Lindian Chronicle, for which see the new edition by C. Higbie, The Lindian Chronicle (Oxford, 2003), no doubt provided, directly, or indirectly, much of the material summarised by Strabo. (13) The list of acceptances to the of Magnesia-on-Maeander, IMagn. 53 (Syll.3 557, App. L), ll. 75–9, the roster of concurring communities, shows the distinction between the two communities:

Page 12 of 18

Name-Changes and ‘Posthumous’ Ethnics

(14) (15) In Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, 29 (Bonn, 1985), p. 7, n. 11, T. Corsten regards Bryllion as an early name of Myrleia-Apameia, because of the appearance of both it and Kios in the Tribute Lists: see, e.g. IG I3, 279 (433/2), col. II, l. 18, between and ibid. 281 (430/29), col. III, l. 7, .

(16) (17) Cf., for the analogies of the temporarily renamed cities of Alabanda and Mantinea, M. Holleaux, Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire grecques, ed. L. Robert (Paris, 1938–68), iii, pp. 148

Page 13 of 18

Name-Changes and ‘Posthumous’ Ethnics ff.; G. Daux, REG 69 (1949), 26, n. 2; L. Robert, Ét. dél., p. 455. Arsinoe in Aitolia was the site of a village called Kωνώπα; cf. Klaffenbach, IG IX (1)2, 106, s.v., and below, Appendix 1, s.v. I (8). (18) The entry s.v. deserves a separate note. Stephanus, s.v., links Seleukos Nikator with the metonomasy of that city in a ludicrous manner:

The name was certainly native (cf. RE, s.v.; Zgusta, Kleinasiatische Ortsnamen, §349, and cf. ibid. 348, ), but it became a Macedonian garrison after Koroupedion (see OGIS 211, and J. Keil and A. von Premerstein, Bericht über eine zweite Reise in Lydien (Vienna, 1911), p. 28; Keil, RE, s.v. Thyateira. (19) C. Habicht, JRS 65 (1975), 64 ff. = SEG 37, 884; cf. BE 1976, no. 595, largely a précis of Habicht. perhaps indicates that the name had (20) See Habicht’s commentary. The use of the adverb been changed recently, and that in earlier conventus-lists they occurred with the earlier name. Compare, for example, the long list of members of a Hadrian, headed

at Histria, ISM I, 193, of the reign of

(21) Paus. 8.8.12; Ptol. 3.16.19, still has the Macedonian name in first place, without comment; Cf. below, pp. 171, 327, for the disregard of such metonomasies by Polybius and other historians. (22) See A. Diller, ‘Byzantine lists of old and new geographical names’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 63 (1970), 27–42; cf. below, n. 34, and Appendix 4. (23) See M. Vasmer, Die Slaven in Griechenland, Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Klasse, 12 (Berlin, 1941), who provides a detailed philological discussion of modern Greek place-names for which possible Slav etymologies have been claimed. The introduction contains a valuable survey of the history of the whole subject since Fallmereyer. Cf. O. Markl, Ortsnamen Griechenlands in ‘fränkischer’ Zeit (Graz and Cologne, 1966).

(24)

(25) (26) For Nikanor of Cyrene (the ethnic in Athen. 296d) see RE (26) (to be distinguished from the Alexandrian grammarian of the time of Hadrian, ibid. (27); both articles are by C. Wendel). In the entry s.v. before quoting Nikanor. s.v.

Steph. quotes Archilochos (fr. 204W) and Callimachus (fr. 710), See below, p. 324. Nikanor’s source is given as Page 14 of 18

Name-Changes and ‘Posthumous’ Ethnics or still other variants: see Jacoby’s textual note and his introduction to the Komm. Wendel, loc. cit., supports the view of B. Niese, De Stephani Byzantii auctoribus (Kiel, 1873), pp. 38–40, that the author of metonomasies (1) and (2) in the text should be distinguished from the Nikanor quoted by Stephanus s.v. Dittenberger, Apophoreton Wien (1903), 10 (cf. id. (1906), 162, n. 3) accepted the identity of the two, and I have no hesitation in following him. Whether the full title of the also included the as Harpocration gives it, cannot be decided. The known lexica of word metonomasies are published with notes and critical apparatus in a valuable article by Aubrey Diller, ‘Byzantine lists of old and new geographical names’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 63 (1970), 27–42 (= Studies in Greek Manuscript Tradition (Amsterdam, 1983), pp. 279–96), based on lists compiled by Burckhardt: see below, Chapter 15. (27) Among recent works I may refer to the volume of essays edited by A. Kuhrt and S. SherwinWhite (eds.), Hellenism in the East (London, 1987), and their own joint work, S. Sherwin-White and A. Kuhrt, From Samarkhand to Sardis (London, 1993), which both exploit recently discovered new material. See now also the texts published by P. Bernard and others, in Journal des Savants (2004), 227–357, containing the remarkable acrostichic poem of Sophytes, and other related matter, apparently from the region of Kandahar (= SEG 54, 1568–9). (28) For this Cyrenean ‘circle’ in Alexandria see Fraser, Ptol. Alex., i, pp. 777 ff. It is noteworthy that a Nikanor wrote a work see R. Pfeiffer (ed.), Callimachus, ii, p. xxxi, with T43 (Suda s.v. थ 375 Adler); he is there described as an and may possibly be a homonym of the author of the see n. 26 above. LGPN I lists six Cyrenaeans of that name. Wendel, loc. cit., points out that the few references to Nikanor are for the most part linked with early Hellenistic writers, as in Athen. 296d, where, uniquely, he is quoted for an anthroponymic change—from Glaukos to Melikertes: We can, however, only be certain that he wrote before Harpocration, perhaps in the first or second century AD. (29) See, for example, s.v. FGrH 1 F129, above, p. 147. It has to be borne in mind that the process of elaboration of such legends may in time have eliminated the simpler instances in Hecataeus, substantial though the residuum is.

(30) (31) The quotations from the Commentary on the Catalogue are F186–97. (32) For Apollodorus’ interest in metonomasies see Schwartz, RE, s.v. Apollodoros (61), col. 2866 = Griech. Gesch., p. 267. B. Niese, Rh. Mus. 32 (1877), 267–307 maintained that Apollodorus was the source of all the metonomasies in Steph., but this was rightly rejected by Schwartz with reference to Str. 391 and 397, compared with Steph. s.v.

Page 15 of 18

(α 176 Bill.).

Name-Changes and ‘Posthumous’ Ethnics

(33) (34) See Diller, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 63 (1970), 27 ff., where three such lists are published with brief but very precise comments; they were previously published by Bekker behind his edition of Const. Porph. De Them. etc., and by Burchardt in the epilegomena to his edition of Hierokles. Diller notes, in addition, some metonomasies interpolated into the text of Ptolemy, and gives the text found on the last page of one MS of Ptolemy with a similar, but shorter list, which seems to derive in part from his A-list. (35) The passage is familiar (see Str. 384), and is fully commented on by A. D. Rizakis, in Achaie, i, 20 (Athens, 1995), Index, p. 437, s.v. Héliké. (36) Clarysse, on PPetr? 1, no. 3, p. 119, collects the evidence for these. The earliest appears to be Archiv für Papyrusforschung, 13 (1939), 13–14, (Pros. Ptol. 15414) from Cyprus, who was probably a Ptolemaic official or mercenary (I. Michaelidou-Nicolaou, Prosopography of Ptolemaic Cyprus, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, 9 (Göteborg, 1976), Δ 664). The earliest instance from Egypt, PPetr. 3, 21 f., ll. 3 and 10 (La’da E 984) is of the third century, PRyl. 261 (Pros. Ptol. 3812; La’da E 980) of 129–121 bc. At Athens a father and son, IG II2, 8960, said to be of the third century, are recorded as Ibid. 8961, is said to be of the fourth century. Though Hieronymus’ precise dates are uncertain, his history (FGrH 154) covered events to about 270 bc: J. Hornblower, Hieronymus ofCardia (Oxford, 1981), p. 103. La’da E 982–4 are century.

all of the third

(37) IG I3, 71, etc. (38) For Old Comedy see e.g. Cratinus, fr. 195 K-A; for New, Menand. fr. 264, from the

the

ingredients of a lavish sacrifice include, l. 5,

(39) (40)

(41) (42) See Liv. 31.45.14: Inde Cassandream petentes (the Roman fleet in 209) primo ad Mendaeum, maritimum civitatis eius vicus, tenuere (in id. 28.6.12, it is described as an ‘emporium’). Acanthus no doubt lost its sovereignty at the same time (cf. Lenk, RE, s.v. Mende (1)).

Page 16 of 18

Name-Changes and ‘Posthumous’ Ethnics

(43) (44) See FGrH 124 T1 (Suda. An independent Olynthian appears in IG II2, 1553, l. 25, of c.330 BC as a manumittor in a list of cf. Wilamowitz, Kl. Schr. V (i), p. 275, n. 1. (45) See the list in FRA nos. 5880–916, almost all of which are of the middle and later 4th century. (46) See H. Solin, Die greichischen Personennamen in Rom, 2 vols. (2nd edn., Rome, 2003), p. 643 (Pedania Olynthia); p. 1440 (ICUR 2312, Olynthia). (47) FRA 7138–47, all of the 5th or early 4th century. IG XII (6) (1), 45 is perhaps the latest witness. (48) See Roesch, EB, pp. 168 ff., and 210–17. (49) CID II, 5, I, 23–4. (50) Cf. Robert, Hellenica, ii, p. 88; cf. E. Bickermann, Archiv für Papyrusforschung, 8 (1927), 223: La’da E 1037–50. They are largely of the third or second century, with perhaps three or four (51) e.g. FRA 2946; 2950; 2974; 2977 etc. (52) See Robert, Hellenica. That the last of these possibilities was the case at least for military personnel could be argued from PHal. 1. ll. 156–65. In that case might be regarded as a style of pseudo-ethnic.

(53) (54) For the ethnic nomenclature of the colonial population of Philippi as see especially P. Pilhofer, Philippi, ii (Tübingen, 1998), no. 160a A9 and ibid. 754 (= R. L. F. Herzog and G. Klaffenbach, Asylieurkunden aus Kos (Berlin, 1952), no. 6, ll. 35 ff., headed ) and for their absorption in the city in M. B. Hatzopoulos, Macedonian Institutions under the Kings (Athens and Paris, 1996), i, pp. 77, 184 ff. and Index, p. 542. (55) The event is obscurely described in an excerpt of Polybius (32.7). The Delians, who are appealing to Rome, are described as in Achaea; cf. Walbank ad loc.

Page 17 of 18

Name-Changes and ‘Posthumous’ Ethnics (56) See the three full articles in RE (4)–(6): (4), the Achaean, by Bölte; (5), the Elean, also by Bölte; (6) the Aitolian, by Kirsten. The latter has much to say of the locations proposed for the Aitolian one, and discusses the possible historical-mythological circumstances of the Aitolian destruction in §11 of RE (6).

Page 18 of 18

Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics P. M. Fraser

DOI:10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.003.0008

Abstract and Keywords Chapter 6 showed the long history of metonomasy, which is preserved in a number of entries in documentary evidence and particularly in Stephanus, relating to cities and communities of the Classical world. It also investigated the reverse process, by which ethnics of cities that had for one reason or another ceased to exist as independent bodies continued to be used, particularly (but not exclusively) in peripheral regions such as Egypt. This chapter looks forward to the new world, particularly the early Hellenistic age, which brought into being new urban settlements, with politically eponymous titles. Keywords:   Hellenistic age, urban settlements, eponymous titles, metonomasy

WE SAW IN THE LAST CHAPTER the long history of metonomasy which is preserved in a number of entries in documentary evidence and particularly in stephanus, relating to cities and communities of the Classical world. Most of that history is not supported by surviving historical texts and other documents, either contemporary or of a later date, and has to be regarded in many cases as purely mythographical, though not usually of great antiquity, and, real or imaginary, these changes are continued into the historical period, and are attested by Strabo and others. We also investigated the reverse process, by which ethnics of cities that had for one reason or another ceased to exist as independent bodies continued to be used, particularly (but not exclusively) in peripheral regions such as Egypt. In this chapter we shall look forward to the new world, particularly the early Hellenistic age, which brought into being new urban settlements, with politically eponymous titles. I have left out of account the transitory eponymous names which occurred during the wars of the Romans with the later Hellenistic rulers, notably Mithridates VI, which were for the most part neither truly eponymous nor more than a phase in the wars of pompey and previous commanders in Asia Minor. The process was begun by philip II, and continued and expanded on a large scale by Alexander and by the successors, notably the seleukid rulers, who at the height of their power ruled intermittently from the Aegean to the persian Gulf, and within that enormous area founded cities

Page 1 of 10

Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics and settlements wherever military or other considerations dictated. In due course all the other Hellenistic rulers followed their example, in so far as their means would allow, and the practice extended eventually even to native, or quasi-hellenised rulers, as in such cities as Ariarathia of Cappadocia or Arsameia of Commagene. We are not primarily concerned here with the actual foundations, but with the consequential development of a new category of civic designation, the eponymous ethnic. This new category reflects the building (or renaming) of cities over nearly a millennium, from the time of philip and Alexander up to the Arab conquest of the Middle East. Such cities were founded in almost all provinces of the Roman Empire, but the details of their internal (p.168) organisation, a mixture of conventional Greek and conventional Roman aspects of city life, are imperfectly known. Externally, their role is hardly in doubt: peopled mainly, like the Roman coloniae, by former members of the Roman forces and the Roman administration, with ancillary civilian elements of the surrounding areas, they acted as watchtowers on the imperial frontiers, especially the long frontiers of the Danube and of Mesopotamia. But they seem to play little part in the cultural life of the surrounding regions or of the Empire as a whole. Moreover, it is clear that many of them were either abandoned as their positions became less tenable, or were renamed in honour of, or by, a subsequent Emperor. In this respect the foundations of Hadrian in the heyday of the Empire stand apart, for they commemorate the genuine enthusiasm of that ruler for Greek city life, and represent, along with the Panhellenion, his attempt to combine imperial rule and an appearance of local independence. For subsequent emperors eponymous cities were little more than strategic jewels in the imperial crown, primarily perhaps founded to add lustre to the name of their distant ruler, but also intended both to defend a frontier, and to create centres of communication. In this, we may conclude, the Roman emperors differed significantly from their Hellenistic predecessors in the east, for whom new foundations were either new capitals of kingdoms, or part of the ongoing struggle for power between rival dynasties, often accompanied by a dynastic metonomasy, but only occasionally conceived and founded as part of a coherent policy of frontier control. In the earlier period especially they sprang also from the desire of powerful rulers, living in the reflection of the achievement of Alexander the Great, to advertise that image. The stage had changed, and the new actors had a different role to play. The eponymous cities of the Hellenistic age fall into two main divisions as far as their origin is concerned. They were either wholly new foundations or old cities renamed (temporarily, for the most part) by a dynastic ruler. In the case of the early Seleukids, especially Nikator, one motive for the renaming seems to have been to encourage a stable hellenised life in their Eastern Empire. But renamed cities also functioned, in general, as an expression of political control, in which case after the suzerainty of the ruler or dynasty in question had vanished, the cities either reverted to their original names or received a new eponymous name from another successful dynast. There existed a long tradition of heroic founders of cities, giving rise to foundation tales of great antiquity, which, as we have seen in the preceding chapter, developed in verse from the time of Epic poetry and in prose from Hecataeus of Miletus onwards. (p.169) However, this tradition, which linked the heroic age with the foundation of many cities, was probably of greater interest to mythographers and antiquarians than to rulers. It is significant in this respect that Stephanus, who normally introduces the ‘prehistoric cities’ with the words never gives them ethnics, and it is most unlikely that they were ever known by the names he records, outside the imagination of mythog-raphers and locally transmitted traditions. See, for example, the entry s.v. quoted above, p. 149. The epithets applied to Samos would suit well enough as descriptive adjectives in a poetic context, from which either a myth might be constructed, or to which a myth might give rise.

Page 2 of 10

Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics Stephanus, or his Epitomator, enters the historical eponymous cities in various ways which reflect the methods of their sources for the individual items. For example, under the longest eponymous entry, the material is listed in a strictly numerical, ordinal system (α 200 Bill.). The text lists eighteen homonymous cities with their geographical location, followed by grammatical observations about the forms of the ethnic and so on, which seem, like the list itself, to have been compiled in a different context from all other entries. I have dealt with the historical and historiographical context of this list in detail elsewhere, as I understand it, and may refer the reader to that discussion, but I may call attention here to the explicit debate regarding the ethnic of Alexandria in Egypt, regarding which the most significant feature is the variety of sources quoted, geographical, antiquarian, and grammatical.1 By way of contrast, another major eponymous entry, (α 334 Bill.), lists fourteen cities of that name, again in ordinal sequence with their geographical location— —the grammatical exegesis simply says 2

ordinal entries s.v.

The eleven

(α 454 Bill.) are concluded by a note on the ethnic forms: 3 4

Other eponymous cities show a (p.170) non-numerical system, the geographical location sufficing for 5 identification: e.g. s.v. (α 351 Bill.), and e.g. The 6 epigraphical usage is in most cases considerably more varied. In two cases, most surprisingly, the Epitome gives only one representative of what was in fact a frequent name for an eponymous

new foundation or metonomasy: s.v. where only Phoenician Ptolemais-Ake (below, p. where only Seleukeia in Cilicia Tracheia is mentioned.7 362) is mentioned, and s.v. This is not to be explained by the supposition that Stephanus records only permanent, and not ephemeral, metonomasies, since there were several Seleukeias, and two or three Ptolemaises, which were not permanently so named. The hypothesis of excision by the, or an, Epitomator is perhaps convincing, and, if it is correct, we are left to wonder, here as elsewhere, at what stage, or in what environment, this suppression may have occurred—by Hermolaos, or did he find the text already reduced from the true total of eponymous cities? We may in general conclude that the eponymous cities of the Hellenistic kingdoms recorded in the Epitome are mostly distinguished, numeration and founder apart, only by the addition of a geographical location, notably either by reference to a large region, such as Cilicia or Pisidia, or, at the other end of the scale, by reference to a particular feature, such as a river or a mountain. It is only occasionally that we find generalised entries such as s.v. further specification, and (α 94 Bill.), of cities whose founder (mythical or real) is not recorded.

(α 167 Bill.),

with no

which is also found, as noted above,

Historically there are two main groups of eponymous cities: those which were founded ab initio with a dynastic name by rulers of the dynastic houses, great and small, and those cities which were, in various circumstances and for varying lengths of time, given an ephemeral eponymous title by those same rulers, especially the Seleukids and the Ptolemies, a reflection perhaps of their mutual antagonism. Normally when this occurred the citizens bore the eponymous ethnic for as long as (p.171) they were dominated by the dynasty (or even an individual ruler, as in in Caria), and after the end of that phase of their civic existence, they the case of reverted, presumably on their own initiative, to their old name, or, if they passed into a new sphere of influence they would, if called upon or if they thought it politically necessary, adopt a new dynastic name. These ephemeral metonomasies, which the ancient historians recognised, were particularly common in the war-zones of Asia Minor at the height of the Hellenistic period, Page 3 of 10

Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics when one city might become first a Lysimacheia, then an Antiocheia then a Ptolemais and even a Philippoi (Euromos in Caria, during the campaigns of Philip V) and vice versa. It is of considerable interest that in an inscription of shortly after 238 BC of Arsinoe in Cicilia, consisting of a letter of the Ptolemaic governor, Thraseas, addressed considerable emphasis is laid on the wish of the governor ‘to make the city worthy of its eponymous status’.8 We might see this as a ‘modernised’ concept of the which played a significant role in various aspects of Greek political thought and life. It is at the same time significant that Polybius never refers to previously existing cities by their temporary, eponymous names,9 and that he gives the full ‘documentary’ title to newly established permanent foundations, as when during the wars of Antiochus III against his usurpers he has occasion to refer to 10

(p.172) The ethnics of eponymous cities were normally distinguished, if at all, not by their names, which remained the same, but, if by any specification, by the geographical description of the city. In the case of the individual abroad he might (to our misfortune) either be described simply by the plain ethnic, or the ethnic followed by a phrase such as As already indicated, where that is not given we have normally no means of determining which eponymous city is to be understood. An exception to this conventional formulation of eponymous names lies in the treatment of feminine eponymous place-names of members of the Ptolemaic royal family. Cities named after Ptolemaic queens are simply given the name of the queen, or princess, followed usually by the geographical location. Thus

is far more frequent in prose writers and documents than

p. 347, for an inscription which uses the form Ephesus), and the ethnic is cities or settlements called

(see below,

about Lysimachus’ refounded

Again, no alternative form is known for the numerous or

and their ethnics,

are correspondingly distinguished in all contexts both from their immediate analogues and from certain similarly named Alexandrian demes only by their general location. The use of the simple personal name of a queen as a city-name without a distinctive geographical title is not found in the Seleukid kingdom; we find not

not

but not but An explanation of the limitation of the Ptolemaic feminine city-names may, as Robert seems to suggest, have been due to the use of for inhabitants of the Arsinoite nome.11 In general, the formal practice, essentially that of the Seleukids, and, with some limitations, also of the Ptolemies, was to discriminate between cities within a kingdom, whether a new or a renamed eponymous city, not by the simple name but by the addition of the geographical location. This provision was rendered necessary by the fact that the names of the individual Hellenistic capitals and main cities themselves never varied. They remained Seleukeia, Antiocheia, Ptolemais, Berenike, Apameia, and so on, and the differentiation did not normally lie in the name but in the (p.173) location attached to it. At the same time, we have seen that the application of that principle to the use of the ethnic outside the literary tradition suggests that in daily life the matter was left to private initiative. If we look at the Attalid kingdom, which contained only a small number of eponymous cities, there are the same discrepancies of usage. The capital retained its traditional name, Pergamos, with the ethnic while the titles and ethnics of the various cities named appear in varied forms: the new foundation, Attaleia of Pamphylia, built in the region assigned to the Attalid kingdom after the Peace of Apameia, appears as

while that of Page 4 of 10

Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics Lydia, founded as a military settlement early in the life of the dynasty along with a neighbouring encampment called other hand, Stephanus s.v.

after the first dynast, Philetairos, was

12

On the

shows no variant ethnics. The different ethnics of the three Bithynian cities named Prusa and Prusias underline the distinctness of the two cities indicated by Stephanus, and are borne out by documentary 13

evidence. Stephanus says

To these two wellattested eponymous cities must be added a third, not mentioned by Stephanus, but known from epigraphical sources.14 The (p.174) three cities with their geographical titles and their ethnic forms are recorded together and without ambiguity in a bilingual dedication of a monument to a consularis named Rufus, in which six Bithynian cities joined: the (Prusienses ab Hypio) = Kieros; Bursa; and being destroyed in 202 BC.15

(Prusias ab Olympo) = the Turkish (Prusienses ad mare) = Kios, which was renamed after

The fact that cities and their ethnics, and so on, without further geographical definition, occur in many different contexts, from victory-lists to tombstones, constitutes a considerable difficulty in our full appreciation of the activities of citizens of many cities: we simply do not know to which of many eponymous cities we should assign an individual in a particular document, the more especially if it is a private document such as a tombstone. Of external factors, the identification by name of a particular person with one eponymous city bears only a small harvest, because many of the inhabitants of the new cities bore personal names common throughout the Hellenistic world. In the case of permanent eponymous names the difficulty is increased by the fact that we have normally no external criteria by which we can assign the individual to this or that city, as we have for a city which only bore an eponymous title for a limited period of time, within which the corresponding ethnic might be used. A means of identification may lie in the sphere of cult: if a dedication by an individual with an ambiguous ethnic makes a dedication to a deity with particular connections with one specific region we may assign the (p.175) ambiguous ethnic with some confidence to a city so-named in that region, though this criterion loses some of its value because of the habit at all times of individuals taking their deities with them when they changed homes. It is a further difficulty that there is no regular practice in the use of the geographical datum: for example the tombstones of Athens and Rhodes contain many examples of ethnics in both categories. At Athens, of the resident foreigners who have recently been comprehensively listed by Osborne and Byrne, over 550 are listed, not one of whom has a distinguishing geographical element. Are we to suppose that they were all citizens of Antioch-on-Orontes? Certainly that is not impossible, but, if that is so, was that because of overall funerary regulations of some sort (the Athenian cemeteries have yielded comparatively few differentiated Hellenistic ethnics compared proportionately with Rhodes), the individual need for economy in the inscription, or because their origin was (or was held by the next-of-kin to be) self-evident? The first possibility hardly seems likely, but at all events, the argument from geographical contiguity cannot be applied to the eponymous ethnics on Athenian tombstones, for there were no Antiochs or Page 5 of 10

Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics Seleukeias on the mainland to make the point obvious. In the same way eponymous ethnics which occur in places seemingly remote from any particular eponymous city without a geographical title are unidentifiable, as, for instance, when the honorand of a decree found in Odessos16 is named simply as who might be from any Antioch, since none seems to have any particular link with Thrace, though he himself is a courtier of a Thracian king, Kanitas, and, as very frequently with known figures in new Hellenistic foundations, his native name is not revealing. On the other hand a dedication of c. 200-150 BC from the same area (Bisanthe) to Zeus Soter and Athena Nikephoros, by 17

points, both by reason of the deities to whom the dedications are made and of the origin of the fellow-dedicant, Glaukias, from Bisanthe, to a city linked, like King Mostis himself, to the Pergamene kingdom, and therefore very probably to Apameia in Bithynia, founded by Prusias I on the site of Myrleia, destroyed by Philip V in 202 BC and re-created while Mostis was king, from 202 to 188 BC. In spite of these occasional clues, instances of unidentifiable eponymous cities vastly outnumber those which can be assigned to this or that specific city or region. The most (p.176) likely explanation is certainly that, in normal circumstances, it was not considered necessary to insert the full title. We may therefore probably assume that the use of the full ethnic title was an entirely voluntary decision. By an unkind coincidence Stephanus does not normally specify the founders of the eponymous cities, but contents himself with an ordinal number and the geographical location, thus closing another possible line of approach to the identification of the documentary evidence relating to individuals. It is a lacuna in the information provided by the Epitome that it records the names of only a few Roman eponymous foundations, and does not constitute our main source of literary information; more is to be found in the lists of Conciliar signatories, in the geographers of the later Imperial period, and in documentary evidence. However, the geographical distinction provided by Stephanus for Hellenistic eponymous foundations contrasts with the cavalier manner in which most of the Roman foundations are entered under the original name of the city, save for such a collective entry as, for example, which stands suo nomine and provides a (confessedly) incomplete geographical identification: (537), cf. below, p. 374. The principle involved here, however, is already present in the prime eponymous city, Krenides-Philippoi. It is true that a few stand individually 18

under their own name, as 19

after cities named

and others named come while the latest cities to be founded or renamed (p.177) before the main Byzantine group, which falls outside our consideration, are those called after Justinian, 20

Of these late foundations and eponymous cities attested in the Byzantine lists, ecclesiastical and civil, it may be remarked that, like the Hellenistic rulers, the Roman and Byzantine Emperors did not forget their consorts, as, for example, Plotinopolis in Thrace, named by Trajan in honour of his wife, Plotina, Marcianopolis in Thrace, also founded by Trajan, in honour of his sister Marcia, Faustinopolis, also in Thrace, named by Marcus Aurelius in honour of his wife, and other cities named in the later lists.21 Nevertheless, for the most part we know little of them beyond passing Page 6 of 10

Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics references to them in historical, ecclesiastical, and geographical texts, and one may wonder what the reason is for this scarcity of information regarding Imperial metonomasies. It is possible that Stephanus himself did not record them; that is, he did not find them in the texts of his predecessors. It is also possible, but seems unlikely, that though present in the original text of Stephanus, they were largely omitted by the Epitomator. Three points have to be borne in mind. First, Stephanus had no particular reason to note ethnics in formed from city names ending in the common termination of Imperial foundations (other than those called ) Such ethnics were created by the attachment of the noun to the name of the Emperor or other Roman eponym, with the final sigma of the name-ending omitted, and were not authentic Second, cities of the ancient tradition in such as Megalopolis and Neapolis, were included in his work, as also were some at least of the Egyptian nome-capitals, but on the whole this category, which created the precedent, if one were needed, for the later Imperial names, is, like them, poorly represented.22 By a reverse sequence of ideas, (p.178) the names of units which were not themselves cities, but which carried derived ethnic forms of one type or another, were included: above all, the Attic demes with their

and

the Attic tribes with their The third point is that the Imperial eponymous cities were often essentially military centres, however much they grew in importance, and thus had no prehistory to offer Stephanus. We may divide the names given to Hellenistic eponymous cities into two groups: (a) those which were, in the timespan of Greco-Roman antiquity, permanent, indeed in some cases surviving in use until the present day in a (Syriac〉) Arabic 〉 Turkish form, and (b) those which involved a metonomasy from a non-eponymous to an eponymous name, and were of a temporary nature, reverting, after a period of subjection to an external suzerain, to an independent status or to the domination of another ruler. This division does not affect the ethnic, which remains the same in both categories. A list of them is given in Appendix 1, together with a brief account of their changes of name and other matters.

This is very confusing, and caused considerable trouble already in antiquity. I may quote the over-simplified instruction that an inhabitant of Oxyrhynchos wrote on the outside of a letter of the mid-fourth century AD, addressed to the Bishop of Laodikeia by the Sea: with other details.

23

Page 7 of 10

Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics Notes: (1) Fraser, Cities, pp. 1 ff. The text of Steph. is reproduced there, p. 202, in the context of the other recorded lists of Alexandrias, which are not relevant here. I deal with the question of the sources used by Steph., in Chapter 14, below. (2) The inclusion of the associative quasi-ktetic list of temenika, for which see above, p. 50 and n. 109.

may be erroneous and derive from a

(3) 9.15.2. (4) FGrH 273 F33. (5) The two longest of all entries in the Epitome, neither of which is eponymous in the natural sense of the term, (α 361 Bill.) and have respectively twenty-five and twenty-three different items, numbered—by figures, not words—in the MSS. (6) See the alphabetical list below, Appendix 1, for the history of individual eponymous ethnics. Apart from the ‘open debate’ regarding the ethnics of Alexandria (cf. below, n. 18), before the Imperial period, the uniformity of ethnic forms is almost total: see Appendix 1, ibid.).

(7) (8) This long and intricate text, ZPE 77 (1989), republished by C. P. Jones and C. Habicht in Phoenix, 43 (1989), 317–34 (SEG 39, 1426 = Bencivenni 299–331 no. 10) opens with a letter of Thraseas (ll. 1–18), the and concerns the settlement of a territorial dispute and its neighbouring between Arsinoe, described (ll. 21–2) as ‘mother city’, Nagidos, in which the latter has agreed to cede disputed land to Arsinoe, and it is in this context that Thraseas stresses his commitment to good government such ‘as befitted an eponymous city’: This introduces a lengthy decree of Arsinoe describing how the previous strategos, Aetos, had himself carried out the quasi-synoecism of Nagidos by building the new city, and associating the two communities on a common basis in all significant respects —citizenship, community in performance of the royal cult held in the temenos of Arsinoe etc. Aetos, the son of Apollonius, of Aspendos (also a Ptolemaic city) is a well-known figure (Pros. Ptol. 4488): see the discussion by Habicht in Phoenix, loc. cit., 335 ff. (9) See Holleaux, Études, iii, pp. 148 ff. and iv, pp. 258–9. For Euromos-Philippoi (designated by ) see G. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia the ethnic Minor (Berkeley and Oxford, 1995), p. 261 [see above, p. xv].

(10) (11) See Robert, Ét. dél., p. 437, n. 11, with earlier bibliography, ibid. The termination in along with that in was adopted for a number of Alexandrian demes, including, perhaps, see Fraser, Ptol. Alex., ii, p. 125, n. 76. The terminations of the demotics drawn from the names of other queens and princesses belong to both categories ( Page 8 of 10

Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics see ibid.). confused with a civic ethnic (for

seems to be the only demotic which could be see above, p. 96, n. 60).

(12) BCH 11 (1886), 173, a dedication by cf. Magie, Roman Rule, p. 980, n. 15; cf. Robert, Ét. dél., p. 437. It is this Attaleia that is referred to in the letter of Eumenes I, OGIS 266: ll. 1–2 etc.: Stephanus’ entry (a 527 Bill.) is confused:

for the ktetikon see above, p. 47 and n. 98. The ‘original’ name has no existence independently of Steph., but, even though it might be recognised as a Greek form, it may perhaps be an authentic native name. For Demetrios of Magnesia’s

see below, p. 192, n. 44.

(13) It is to be noted that the final clause of this entry relating to the ethnic contains the ethnic under the lemma

while

is given in a prepositional form

like

above, p. 121. For the forms of the ethnics see Appendix 1, s.v. (14) The problem of the identifications of the names and ethnics of the cities called Prusa and Prusias has been sorted out by Robert more than once, especially in Ét. dél., p. 437, n. 13, and the references there given (OMS IV, pp. 339–49; id., À Travers l’Asie Mineure (Athens and Paris, 1980), pp. 127 ff., and index, p. 451). There have been one or two additions to the documentation of the cities: see next note. (15) The bilingual inscription for Rufus (IG XIV, 1077) is now IGUR I, 71, with an additional fragment found by Moretti, and published by him in Miscellanea Manni (Rome, 1979), pp. 1587– 92 (cf. IGSK 39, II, T1). The inscriptions of the first-named city have been published as IPrusa ad Hypium (IGSK 27 (1985)); of Prusias ad Olympum as IPrusias ad Olympum (IGSK 39–40 (1993) not all from Bursa); those of Prusa ad Mare (Kios) as IGSK 29. The external documentation is considerable. The two alternative city-names are (1), e.g. ISM II, 462 (2nd-3rd cent. AD): and (2) for Prousias ad Olympum (cf. also above, re IGUR I, 71) see IGSK 40, T6 (CIG 4155):

Gal. 14, p. 683K, seems to confuse the ethnics when he says of the well-known doctor, (cf. IGSK 40, p. 82, n. 9, p. 81, T8 (ILS 7789)). also occurs as a phyletic of Prusias ad Hypium: SEG 14, 774, 20 (cf. IGSK 27, Index, p. 263), and as the name of a drinking-cup in Athen. 475f and 496d; see below, p. 189, n. 37. (16) IBulg. I2 41 (+ Add. attached to rear cover). (17) ISE 116. For King Mostis see LGPN IV, s.v. (1), and cf. below, p. 183. (18) s.v.

(α 200 Bill.) there occurs

(sic)

(the latter corrupted in some way), but I know no instance of these Imperial nomina used either by themselves or (as may be intended) as prenominal affixes to

For the temporary addition of Page 9 of 10

Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics etc. see Robert, Hellenica, ii, pp. 77–8; also K. Buresch, Aus Lydien: epigraphisch-geographische Reisefrüchte (Hildesheim, 1977), p. 8. (19) For cities named, or renamed see (1) the ‘Thessalian’, Procop. Aed. 4.3.1-1, a brief account of the history of the city on Lake Kastoria, which had originally been a prosperous centre, but had been destroyed by the barbarians of the region, and abandoned long before the time of Justinian, who rebuilt it, and gave it his own name cf. A. D. Keramopoullos, Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbuch, 9 (1930–2), 55–63; (2) that in Palestine, for which see Hierokles 7192; Georg. Cypr. 1012; and (3) that in Egypt given by Hierokles 732; cf. E. Amélineau, La Géographie de l’Égypte à l’époque Copte (Paris, 1893), p. 400 (Notitiae). For Notitiae (provincial, episcopal, and other types of catalogues or lists) see the entry under that word by N[oel] L[enski] in G. W. Bowersock, P. Brown, and O. Grabar (eds.), Late Antiquity: a Guide to the Post-Classical World (Cambridge, Mass., 1999), p. 612. (20) For Justinian’s large-scale building activity see especially the listed by Procop. Aed. 4.11.20; they total approximately a hundred, and their main role was to secure the vulnerable northern frontier, but at the other end of the empire Koptos was also briefly a see Kees, RE, s.v. Koptos (1). (21) For Plotinopolis in Thrace see Ptol. 3.11.7; cf. Procop. Aed. 4.11.19, where Plotinopolis is included among the cities said to have been ‘most liable to attack’. For Marcianopolis, at an unknown location in Caria, see IBulg. 5333 ff.; Hierokles 689, and cf. Ruge, RE, s.v. For Faustinopolis (?= Halala: see RE, s.v. Halala), in Cappadocia, where Annia Faustina, Marcus’ wife, died (see Const. Porph. De Them. 2, p. 7). A helpful tabular analysis which includes the later Imperial foundations and the ecclesiastical material, based on Hierokles’ Synecdemos, George of Cyprus, the Notitiae and Conciliar lists, in all their complex variety, is available in Jones, CERP2, pp. 514–52. (22) The entry

is very brief:

perhaps shortened by the Epitomator. For Egyptian nomes see e.g. the quotation from Alexander Polyhistor (FGrH 273 F5, s.v. he continues

); under

(23) PSI IV, 311: cf. Fraser, Cities, p. 23, n. 50.

Page 10 of 10

Ambiguous and Variable Ethnics

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

Ambiguous and Variable Ethnics P. M. Fraser

DOI:10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.003.0009

Abstract and Keywords This chapter discusses ambiguous and individual variable ethnics. Although differentiated and ambiguous, place-names and their ethnics are especially a feature of the Hellenistic age, the phenomenon is also associated with some of the earliest of Greek cities. The phraseology used to differentiate the homonymous cities themselves varied slightly in both literary and epigraphical texts in one of three ways: (a) by the use of the regional ktetic or ethnic; (b) by the use of the genitive of the city or region; (c) by the use of prepositions. Keywords:   ambiguous ethnics, individual variable ethnics, place-names, Hellenistic age, regional ethnic, regional ktetic, genitive, propositions

ALTHOUGH DIFFERENTIATED AND AMBIGUOUS place-names and their ethnics are especially a feature of the Hellenistic age, the phenomenon is also associated with some of the earliest of Greek cities. The phraseology used to differentiate the homonymous cities themselves varied slightly in both literary and epigraphical texts in one of three ways: (a) by the use of the regional ktetic or ethnic, as

(Thuc. 5.61.2, 4, etc.),

(Thuc. 1.113.1, 2); (b) by the use of the genitive of the city or region, (Thuc. 5.83.2),

(Thuc. 3.24.2); (c) by the use of the preposition

(Thuc. 3.96.1), . At least once Thucydides uses both (a) and (b) of a pair of homonyms, χερσόνησος ή Θραϊκική (1.11.1; 8.62.3, etc.), and between the cities named

(4.42.2). Epigraphical usage is equally flexible. The distinction is marked by the addition of for the Italian city

originally called Hyele, of which the original ethnic was

1

Thus a fourth-century

inscription from Epidaurus records an

while

the homonymous Aeolic city, of which the basic ethnic was differential

or, in the reverse order,

Page 1 of 19

normally carried the 2

Ambiguous and Variable Ethnics Ambiguous (Except Eponymous) Ethnics In spite of the examples of differentiation of homonymous cities, it is perhaps the most difficult part of our whole subject that in the epigraph-ical field different practices and even different individual wishes evidently played a considerable role, and that the use of differential criteria for homonymous cities and hence for ethnics is irregular, and present more (p.180) frequently in some classes of documents than in others. We have already seen the problem of ambiguity that arises regarding the origin of the inhabitants of the majority of the eponymous Hellenistic foundations (above, pp. 172, 176), in almost all forms of documentation, in particular in the very large numbers of tombstones from the largest cities. The lists of differentiated homonymous cities provided by Stephanus find only a slight echo in substantive evidence. The difficulties created by the absence of a geographical definition to accompany a particular city, which must have been formidable, are evident from the time of the first use of the ethnic ’Αλεξανδρεύς, which obviously could have been used without differentiation, and the same etc. That they were in fact so used is applies to the later undifferentiated abundantly clear. We may look first at the ’Αλεξανδρείς. Apart from the Alexandria in Egypt, only two Alexandrias are specified in documentary sources: that of the Troad, often combined with the regional Αἰολεύς, the inhabitants of which call themselves or 3

and, uniquely, ’Αλεξάνδρεια κατ’ ’Iσσόν, called once by

4

Malalas in contrast to the great city of Egypt. But we shall never know how many inhabitants of Alexandria Troas, or any other Alexandria, go undifferentiated in our records outside Egypt. Imperial adornment of titulature apart, Egyptian Alexandria is regularly known in documents of the Roman period as indicating, like its Latin counterpart, Alexandria ad Aegyptum, that it possessed its own jurisdiction, distinct from that which governed the other cities of Egypt, and thus, legally speaking, ‘adjacent to’ but not part of, Egypt. There is no indication that the city was so called in the Hellenistic period, and the only instances of a defining ethnic are of the conventional style, used of an Alexandrian proxenos at Delos in the middle of the third century BC, and (p.181) an Alexandrian metic woman at Smyrna described as 5

Otherwise, in literature for the most part, and in extraEgyptian documents entirely, an Alexandrian citizen is normally simply called ’Αλεξανδρεύς. There is no solution to the problem of the more precise identification of unspecified ethnic forms. Clearly, it is no answer to say that if a city or, rather its ethnic, occurs with its full title in some instances, all instances of the basic ethnic form without the full title must belong to another city. For example, we obviously cannot argue that because the full ethnic is of fairly frequent occurrence, when occurs by itself, as it frequently does, we should assign all such instances to the Egyptian Alexandria. It may be so, absence of dialect permitting, but it cannot be demonstrated. There are indeed supplementary criteria which may sometimes be plausibly applied. One, which may at times be decisive, is the onomastic argument.6 If the carrier of an ambiguous ethnic (or, indeed, no ethnic at all) bears a name characteristic of a particular region, whether Greek or foreign, that seems at first sight a good reason for assigning the individual to a city so named in that region. However, if there are two eponymous cities so named, two Antiochs, two Seleukeias, two Attaleias in one region, then that argument must lose much of its cogency. The second factor is the argument from proximity between two cities, with the likely consequence of frequent Page 2 of 19

Ambiguous and Variable Ethnics domestic, commercial, and athletic contacts between them, leading to the settlement of citizens of one particular city in another, and, more specifically, of the inhabitants of a smaller city residing, or anxious to reside, in some capacity, in a larger city. The uncertainties of the problem are illustrated on a substantial scale by the large number of persons called although that is not an eponymous name in the regular (p.182) meaning of that term. It is natural to assume that they are citizens of Herakleia in Pontus, the great city on the Bithynian coast, which had wide commercial interests both in the Black Sea and in the Aegean; of this the full ethnic forms were or . unfortunately, the many hundreds of who formed with their families a large settled community in late Hellenistic and early Roman Attica7 never carry a full ethnic, although, as Robert pointed out, even among these undistinguished persons there are occasional instances of diagnostic names.8 Another group of settled at Miletus in the Hellenistic age.9 Were they too natives of the Pontic city? Rehm argued very cogently that they were natives of the nearby Herakleia-by-Latmos, the earlier Latmos, for whom Miletus would be the most natural centre of trade, marketing, and so on.10 It is also possible that attested in Miletus were (p.183) natives of the city of Laodikeia-on-Lykos, on the the Carian-Phrygian border, which would be a further application of the argument from proximity.11 It has to be remembered too in all such cases that the unspecific ethnics may conceal a plurality of homonymous cities of origin. We are left with the impression that the Greek of the busy Hellenistic world was not much concerned with these details of precise identification in daily life in the agora, or posthumously on his tombstone. In the same way eponymous ethnics without a geographical title which occur in places seemingly remote from any particular eponymous city are unidentifiable; for instance the honorand of a decree of Odessos who is might be from any Antioch, since none named simply as seems to have any particular link with Thrace.12 On the other hand, we have seen (p. 175 above) that in a dedication of c.200-150 BC from the same area, to Zeus Soter and Athena Nikephoros, by

and

the second ethnic points, by reason of the deities to whom the dedication is made, to an Apameia linked to the Pergamene kingdom, and therefore very probably to Apameia in Bithynia, founded by Prusias I on the site of Myrleia, which had been destroyed by Philip in 202 BC, and which Prusias named after his wife.13 In spite of these occasional clues, instances of unidentifiable eponymous cities vastly outnumber those which can be assigned to a specific city or region. From this it follows that, in normal circumstances, it was not considered necessary, either by states or by individuals, to use the full title. The agonistic records of several cities emphasise this indifference. Large numbers of such documents survive, and they tell the same story, especially with regard to the eponymous Hellenistic cities. In the Imperial (p.184) period the world of athletes becomes all-pervasive, and we shall look at it later on. Meanwhile, in the Hellenistic period, the lists from Boiotia, especially Thespiai, at times show remarkable inconsistencies in the same document. As already noted above, one list of the early first century BC has in consecutive lines one one

14

and

and another of much the same date has seven plain

15

in a short sequence. Their names are not revealing, and we are left to guess whether these Alexandrians in Boiotia were from the Troad or from Egypt, or from both.

Page 3 of 19

Ambiguous and Variable Ethnics Ethnics recorded on tombstones at Athens and Rhodes and Demetrias show the same irregularity, the same indifference to formality, in this respect. At Athens, which has the largest number of relevant texts, notably but not only tombstones, uncertainties abound. Of the slightly more than a hundred

not one is further defined. Out of about 550

and

only two have further definition, in each case out and not one is further defined; out of a of approximately a hundred surprisingly small total number of (twenty), again not one. As already noted, the evidence from Rhodes, though on a smaller scale, points in the same direction. Two inscriptions from Iasos point the contrast, and at the same time show that individual Greeks were aware of the problem of ambiguity: in one of these we have the very full nomenclature, 16

but in the other a

man is named only as where the ambiguity is hardly avoided by the fact that his name is that of the mountain near Pelusion, by no means an infallible proof.17 But even if most people were careless, or indifferent to such details, there is no doubt that difficulties of polyonomy were felt for centuries.18 (p.185) Stephanus’ recognition of the varied ethnics of old Greek cities is slight; that of the later foundations of the Hellenistic age is more consid-erable.19 Although, as we have seen, he usually differentiates between cities, both eponymous and common, by their geographical location, he very rarely expresses this in terms of the ethnic designation, which is usually given in a single form at the end of the list of entries, even when different forms existed. There seems no reason why an Epitomator might have excised this material. Stephanus’ treatment of the ethnic forms of old Greek cities may be considered in respect of two substantial entries, s.v. (α 361 Bill.) and . He records the geographical location of twenty-five cities named Apollonia, but he records only one ethnic form, which he records under the first Apollonia, that of Illyria: . Then, having listed all the other Apollonias, he adds:

20

In the entry s.v. the range of ethnic forms is less restricted. He records twenty-three cities and adds at the end, where Meineke rightly proposed to add

before

South Italian Herakleia as his sixth, but instead of

. Here he records the the true ethnic of that city, he

records the unacceptable In his defence it has to be added that ethnics of ktetic or adjectival forms in -ειος are very uncommon, although we have already noticed the in the Delphian list of proxenoi, and form in Egypt.

occurs as an ethnic

21

I add here, as a supplement to the list in Stephanus, an analysis of the different forms of extended ethnics of cities named Herakleia. As far as our limited information goes, there are only two basic ethnic terms, with a geographical definition.22

and

Page 4 of 19

standing either by themselves or

Ambiguous and Variable Ethnics (p.186) 1 Herakleia in Pontus usually has (a) the ethnic by itself. This is so in innumerable cases, and above all in the more than 600 persons so called in Attica between the fourth century BC and the second century AD (approximately). None of the ethnics is further defined, and it remains uncertain whether these Herakleotes were all from one place—viz. Herakleia in Pontus—or from several. On the other hand, in the Black Sea area, notably in South Russia, the large number of plain are to be assigned to the Pontic city, not only on grounds of proximity but also on account of the close commercial connection between the Herakleotes and the Chersonesites and their cities of the north shore.23 Overall, in documentary evidence, occurrences of the simple ethnic without further elaboration greatly outnumber cases of the fully expressed ethnic form (b), to which we may now turn. The fullest title for citizens of Herakleia in Pontus seems to be that recorded, for example, of a metic at Iasos: 24

but

shorter titles are more common, e.g. 25

the most frequent of all.26

and

2A appears in a list of Samothracian initiates of the third(?) century AD. The city issued coinage in the early Imperial period. The ethnic does not occur elsewhere, but the city is listed in Hierokles as

. It is perhaps the same

27

city as

3 The place-name occurs in Strabo (323), and in Ptolemy 3.13.33 under

as

3, or 2, is probably also Stephanus’ twenty-third, 28

the ethnic of which is not attested.

4 (Stephanus no. 15) or from a lead weight of 108–107 BC. The ethnic is not recorded.29

(p.187) θαλάσσηι is known

5 In Asia Minor the most notable Herakleia (that of Pontus excepted) was probably Herakleia-byLatmos, the well-preserved city to the east of Lake Bafa, on the south slope of Mt Latmos, the ethnic of which already occurs in the Athenian Tribute Lists as

Strabo (635, fin.), after

describing Miletus, says

(FGrH 1 F239). There is no epigraphical attestation of the full name of the city, which is preserved in literary sources, notably Hecataeus, as quoted by Strabo.30 6 evidently Stephanus’ nineteenth city, (vel sim.) emended by Boeckh (CIG II, p. 510, cf. Mein. ad loc.), has been thoroughly investigated, and its remains published by J. and L. Robert.31 Its regular ethnic form is

7 Quite distinct from these

are, or should be, the citizens of Herakleia in Lucania,

32 of which the Greek ethnic is but this distinction of form is lost in the late Republican/early Imperial period on the bilingual tombstone found on the Via Egnatia,

near Thessalonike.33 The ktetic termination in -ειος was unusual for ethnic forms, though in the third century BC, recognised by Stephanus, and documen-tarily attested for a in Egypt,34 and, (p.188) as Étienne and Knoepfler observed,35 the same form,

Page 5 of 19

is

Ambiguous and Variable Ethnics also derived from Herakles himself, as in the phrase described by Athenaeus on the basis of a passage of Hieronymus of Rhodes as forming the handles of a type of Boiotian skyphos first used by Herakles as a drinking vessel on his expeditions:

36

It is to be noted that not only is the form in -ειος specified as traditional for this usage, but also that some preferred to use the normal ktetic form,

for the same object, itself also used of cities

named Herakleia, pre-eminently, of course, the Pontic Herakleia (cf. Stephanus s.v. sub fin., [ add. Mein.] ).37 The remaining cities named Herakleia do not seem to have yielded documentary evidence of their ethnics at present. (p.189) We may now consider the cities named and which reveal the confusion which may occur from variations in common pronunciation, leading to different forms, as well as to misinformation. The entry in the Epitome (α 94 Bill.) reads

The correct form of this entry, and its relation to recognised documentary usage, has been much debated, but there is no doubt that the ethnic of Aigai near Myrina is either

or

while of the others Stephanus’ ethnics

are not easily absorbed.38 The text as it stands provides an example of a violent reduction of the size of the entry by the Epitomator, who, rather (p.190) than giving the total of the cities that Stephanus had probably entered, as s.v. and simply says . He lists seven or eight, but it is not clear that they represent a single group of homonymous cities. 1 The first on the list,

in Cilicia, is historically attested only in the form

form survives on its coinage in the form 2

(Head, HN , p. 716).

is the revered capital of the Macedonian Royal House, reborn in our own day at the ethnic of which is

Vergina, by the Epitomator as 3 4

its ethnic

2

or

but it is wrongly described

39

is correctly given; it was close to but not part of Myrina. is unknown, and may be wrongly identified with the Aeolic city. Meineke

suggested that it might be a majuscule corruption of AXAIAΣ, since Achaean original

one of the

of the Peloponnese, is not otherwise listed.

5 Lokrian, Aitolian, and Euboian Aigai may be simple confusions of one place, the of Euboia, mentioned by Strabo.40 Of these places called Aigai, Stephanus records that the ethnic is It is evident either that an entry corresponding to a trisyllabic form has been excised or omitted, or that the ethnic forms

and Page 6 of 19

were created by Stephanus or

Ambiguous and Variable Ethnics his Epitomator on the basis of the number of syllables in the ethnic itself.41 This analysis of the forms of provides a clear example of errors in transmission in the text of (p.191) Stephanus, and of the way in which ethnic forms might be varied in the text without documentary support—in this case

and

Individual Variable Ethnics In spite of the foregoing limitations in regard to the ethnics of homony-mous cities, Stephanus nevertheless frequently records alternative ethnics for a single city, for a variety of reasons, most commonly because of the difference between epichoric and grammatical usage. (He also refers to cases in which the place-name was reported by Oros to have been falsely transmitted in an ancient text.42) We must now consider what documentary support for this practice can be established. It is, broadly speaking, true that most of the ethnics of old Greek cities, whether mother-cities or colonial, remained fixed in the form established in the oldest evidence, literary or epigraphical, and that the variations recorded by Stephanus, based for the most part on grammatical analogy (whether thereby agreeing with attested usage or not), have no unsupported validity. Nevertheless, it is clear that once an ethnic had been established, it might in some circumstances be changed, whether through an official channel or simply casually. In this context we shall not take into account the temporary changes of the names of cities which became eponymous, that is, by taking the appropriate name-form of their suzerain, for example when Sikyon bore the name of Demetrias from 303 to 295 BC, or Mantineia became Antigoneia from 235 BC until as late as the reign of Hadrian, although its internationally recognised form remained These have already been considered in Chapter 6. Equally we need not consider those which sometimes occur when a determining geographical definition is omitted. This very large class of ambiguous ethnics has been considered in Chapter 5. (p.192) We are thus left with a relatively small number of cities recorded by Stephanus of which the ethnic termination undergoes a change, for which he does not normally supply an explanatory gloss. Most of those to be considered here occur in eastern, hellenised areas, but variations are also found on the Greek mainland from an early date.43 In the Attalid kingdom, which contained only a small number of eponymous cities, such discrepancies of usage emerge clearly. The capital retained its traditional name, with the ethnic while the ethnics of the two cities named differ. Stephanus, s.v. (α 527 Bill.), gives the ethnic of the new foundation, Attaleia of Pamphylia, founded in the region assigned to the Attalid kingdom by the Peace of Apameia, as while that of Lydia, founded as a military settlement early in the dynasty, along with a neighbouring encampment called after the first dynast, Philetairos, documentarily attested as

44

is

His entry s.v. (p.193)

shows only one ethnic, but the form is also attested once for the Phrygian city.45 On the other hand, the different ethnics borne by the three Bithynian cities named Prusa and Prusias underline the distinctness of the two cities indicated by Stephanus, and are borne out by documentary evidence. Stephanus says

Page 7 of 19

Ambiguous and Variable Ethnics

To these two well-attested eponymous cities must be added a third, not mentioned by Stephanus, but well attested epigraphically.46 The three cities with their geographical titles and their ethnic forms are recorded together and without ambiguity in a bilingual dedication to a consularis named Rufus, in which six Bithynian cities joined: the Hypio) = Kieros;

(Prusienses ab

(Prusias ab Olympo) = the Turkish Bursa; and

(Prusienses ad mare) = Kios, which was renamed after being destroyed by Philip V in 202 BC.47 The two ethnics of the Macedonian city of Kyrrha are well established by epigraphical usage as and of which Stephanus records, as the ethnic of the Syrian city of that name (the text does not mention the Macedonian city), only the second form.48 It seems likely that the form

is the earlier of the two forms, since

the original

49

name of the city, occurs in Thucydides. The (p.194) irregular change of is also of early date. Stephanus has

to

(sic, plur.). In the Athenian Tribute Lists and (with ktetic ),50

Thucydides the form throughout is while Herodotus has the same form in Ionic, no. 27), the oldest testimony of all, has

and the Delphic serpent-column (M-L Athenian decrees of the mid-fifth century,

the ethnic and Xenophon and Demosthenes,51 have the noun only Athenian tombstone with this ethnic, of the mid-fourth century BC, has the form

and the

52

It seems likely then that this change in the ethnic form occurred in the middle of the fifth century, and that Thucydides preserved the older form. Again, in a recently published curse-tablet from Athens of the fifth/fourth century BC, one of the of which the usual ethnic form is grammatically more regular. Stephanus records unattested.53

is called

though and

would be the latter otherwise

Among the earliest examples of variation in Asia Minor are the ethnic forms of the Lycian city Telmessos. Stephanus s.v.

says ό

Tribute Lists with an ο-stem,

54

The tetrasyllabic form also occurs in the Athenian

55

It seems likely, then, that the later trisyllabic

forms, and are a syncopation of the original form, more adapted to Greek ears. In the Doric dialect of Rhodes in the later Hellenistic age56 we find alongside the normal ethnic form

both

and

The homonymous Carian city of

57 Telmessos is normally (p.195) but occurs also as Bargylia, in coastal Caria adjacent to Iasos, provides another example of this type of early variation. Its

ethnic appears in the Tribute Lists as

58

Stephanus (β 40 Bill.) gives

a form which lacks documentary support. occurs most frequently in both Attic and Rhodian documents and tombstones, though Rhodes has also and -της, and

occurs once in Ptolemaic Alexandria.59

Page 8 of 19

Ambiguous and Variable Ethnics Stephanus’ entry s.v. provides an over-full and confused mélange of the mythological, the historical, and the grammatical. It reads as follows:

There follows the elegiac poem of Douris of Elea upon this event,60 and this in turn is followed by a list of islands also called

on the authority of Hecataeus (FGrH 1 F310):

The entry continues: (TGrF F97). The entry defies detailed analysis of its composition, but we can see, at all events, that its information derives from a wide range of sources: Herodotus, Sophocles, and Hecataeus of Classical writers, Douris of a later literary tradition, and finally the grammarian Habron, the author of the who provides the information from Sophocles, (p.196) and who is known from a few other entries in Stephanus.61 Whoever created the final form of this entry, it embodies the complex traditions and romantic prehistory of a great city. Also noteworthy is the historical passage regarding the death of Arsinoe, which reveals an understanding not usually found in the Epitome. To return to our main enquiry, we must note that in the course of time ethnics in -εύς, especially those of settlements in Anatolia and Trans-Mesopotamia, gave place to forms in -ηνός, as 62

In one entry, s.v.

the ethnic is given as (though s.v.

he says ). This ‘Persian’ type’ is

found in other entries, for example, s.v. we are told that

(α 28 Bill.; a long and complex entry), where

We have, in any case, to ask precisely how this definition is to be explained. (p.197) Helladios himself, quoted s.v. is a shadowy figure, poet and antiquarian, a native of Antinoupolis, apparently of the fourth century AD, a small section of whose lexicographical work was excerpted by Photios. He is quoted only in one other entry of Stephanus (s.v. β 88 Bill., as an authority for 63 Hestiaios), and certainly did not formulate the category, the numerous examples of which

Page 9 of 19

Ambiguous and Variable Ethnics reach back to an early date, when the Greeks first came into contact with the Persians, as when Herodotus speaks of the

neighbours of the Paphlagonians, the

above, p. 196), the

and the

(cf.

was also well established in Archaic times for

tribes on the Greek mainland, for instance, the Hdt. 7.176.2; and, at a very much later date, it occurs among the ethnics used for Syrian cities, for instance in the New Testament, as 64

The similar termination in

as

belongs naturally to the class of Greek

ethnics affected by parallel Roman forms, though when the Greek form in already existed the relationship was probably one of modification rather than of direct adoption from the Latin form. In this particular case the Latin form is usually Antiochenus. Similarly, as noted above, the Greek termination is a hellenisation of the Latin -ensis. Such parallel forms are particularly frequent, as was only natural, in the Italian peninsula and Sicily, before they became commonplace in the wider Greek world.65 Nevertheless, long before variation as a general phenomenon was recognised by grammarians and lexicographers, it occurs in use for individual cities or tribes in documents from the fourth century BC onwards. This confirms the fact that the use of ethnics did not follow codified laws— rather, the laws were written (if ever, outside the pamphlets of the grammarians) long after the evidence existed, and had to conform to usage, though errors naturally entered the traditions through the use of analogy and from other causes. We may compare a few documentary variations with the information provided by Stephanus. (p.198) 1

Stephanus has 66

IG XI (2), 163B, g, 18:

IGXI (4), 582,

repeated twice in ten lines. 2

This Ionian city has a wide documentary range of ethnics. Stephanus s.v. has (1.142).

( 3

The Athenian Tribute Lists (IG I , 260 etc.) have

omitted in R, the prime MS). while OGIS 37 = JDAI 65/66 (1950/1),

235, no. 16 (a Hadra vase of 254 BC) has Alex., ii, p. 380, n. 324. 3

Stephanus s.v.

cf. Fraser, Ptol.

has five cities of the name, but does not clearly 67

distinguish the ethnics:

Meineke and his predecessors and successors did their best with this difficult entry: was Saumaise’s inevitable correction for the Salaminian city recorded in both fourth and fifth place in the MSS Page 10 of 19

Ambiguous and Variable Ethnics as

and

and by the Aldina as

for the

Berkel, followed by Meineke, proposed

of the MSS, while Meineke for the final ethnic, omitted by the

Aldina and the Vossianus (along with the following καί), proposed

for Berkel’s

Strabo (411), in his description of Boiotia, based on Apollodorus’ Catalogue, gives as the ethnic of the Boiotian city, and that of the Peloponnesian Korone (or possibly 68

the Thessalian Korone: see Kramer ad loc.) as

The documentary (p.199)

evidence for the Boiotian city always has that of the Peloponnesian, while for the Phthiotic no documentary evidence exists. The need to discriminate between homonymous cities was early felt, and long preceded the use of eponymous titles. Before considering the known instances of this in the pre-Hellenistic world, when the problem became most pressing, the implication of this discrimination for the sense of unity that embraced the world of the Greek poleis from an early date is worth stressing. The use of a geographical definition with a city-name might be interpreted as simply an indication of origin rather than of citizenship (though I do not myself believe that to be the case), but the contemporary use of wholly different terminations for the ethnics of homonymous cities implies far more than this: it implies an awareness of the unity of the Greek world, in which such differentiation was recognised as inevitable. This may already be observed in entries in the quota-lists of the Athenian Empire, in which we find distinctive geographical titles such as, for example,

and

and

69

and

Variations in the ethnic suffix of a single city are by no means rare. This phenomenon was examined with great care by Dittenberger.70 They range from the suppression of a medial vowel or diphthong to totally different terminations from the same stems, for example and

and

and

71

A small group of cities of the first and second declensions are represented only by plural forms; such are, for example,

of the first-declension α-stems,

and and of the second-declension ο-stems. Normally, the ethnic of the first-declension group is formed by the addition of the suffix -ος to the full form of the place-name, as but in (p.200) some cases they take the third declension form in -εύς, as and (and other forms). Meanwhile the ethnic of those of the second declension does not change, save that the singular is used when appropriate, as

or else, as in Thessaly, it is also formed 72

by the termination in -εύς, as Notes: (1) See above, Chapter 5, for such expanded ethnics.

(2) Cf. above, p. 120, n. 2. The ethnic of the small Aitolian city, Elaos, is 135, col. II, ll. 16 and 19.

( 3)

Page 11 of 19

see FD III (4),

Ambiguous and Variable Ethnics

(4)

(5) (6) In general see the analysis by L. Robert, Ét. dél. The recurrence of Megarian names and cults in the Megarian Thracian and Black Sea colonies has been frequently observed. See K. Hanell’s Megarische Studien (Lund, 1934), which contains an excellent account of the links between the Megarian cults at home and in the Megarian colonies. In her Thrace Propontique, 9 (Athens, 1989), pp. 228 ff.) L. Loukopoulou has divided up the onomastikon of the Propontic region into two lists, according to the Megarian or Ionic origins of the colonies. Study of these lists makes the onomastic point very clearly. See also for the northern region LGPN IV (2005). A. J. Graham’s Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece (Manchester, 1964; repr. San Anselmo, CA, 1999), says little concerning onomastic or cult links. (7) See FRA nos. 1679–2296. (8) Ét. dél., pp. 438 ff. (9) See Milet I (3), Index, p. 425, s.v. It is noteworthy that even in the text (or, more precisely, the surviving Milesian copy of it, no. 150), the are not further defined: in l. 10, where they are formally named in the conventional opening formula, the text has simply In addition to his identification of the in Milesian inscriptions as citizens of Herakleia-by-Latmos, Rehm identified the as citizens of Tralles (see Milet I (3), p. 321), which was called briefly and with which Miletus was closely allied in the later third century (ibid. 143, with his discussion; cf. Robert, Ét. dél., p. 461, n. 161). He identified the of ibid. 74, a grant of citizenship to an (cf. J. and L. Robert, La Carie: histoire et géographie historique (Paris, 1954-), ii, pp. 237 ff.; Ét. dél., p. 451, n. 96) as an not listed by Stephanus among his twenty-five Apollonias, but known from Diod. 30.15.5 (Loeb text), and Milet 155 (mid-2nd cent. BC; cf. ibid. VI (1), p. 193, sub num. 155). That inscription gives the text of the decree of Apollonia-on-the-Rhyndakos for the people of Miletus: and contains the statement (ll. 8 ff.) that the Milesians,

(10) In Chiron, 25 (1995), 43 ff., p. 47, no. 2 (= Milet VI (2), no. 796, cf. above, p. 50, n. 108; and SEG 45, 1607) W. Günther published a dedication of a to a fellow-member, by a group of fourteen of Milesian eponym, and identified by their chief official, The dedicants include six

Page 12 of 19

and

headed by a three

Ambiguous and Variable Ethnics one one (an otherwise unattested ethnic), one one and one Günther, p. 50, takes the ethnics and to refer not, as one might expect, to Antiocheia-on-Maeander and Laodikeia-on-Lykos, but to the Syrian cities of the Tetrapolis (cf. Günther, 51, n. 42). This seems unlikely. In a wider context, I suggested, Ptol. Alex., i, pp. 167–8, that the appearance of large numbers of plain and, still more, of at Rhodes, may be due to the close commercial ties which linked Alexandria with the Syrian cities, as attested by Str. 752:

Rhodes, as is commonly stated, was a natural commercial port-of-call between the cities of the Near East. The popularity of Laodikeian wine in Egypt in the 1st-2nd century AD is well demonstrated by the ostraka from the customs-station at Berenike of the Trogodytes on the Arabian Gulf published by R. S. Bagnall in Papyrologica Bruxellensia, 31 (2000), Documents from Berenike, i; see below, Appendix 1, s.v. Berenike I (2), (3) and II (a), (b). (11) For the Ionian element at Laodikeia see L. Robert, in Laodicée du Lykos: Le nymphée. Campagnes 1961–1963, Recherches archéologiques de l’Université Laval, Serie 1, Fouilles (Quebec, 1969), pp. 330–3. (12) IBulg. I2 41, of the third century BC; Hermeios is described as Cf. above, p. 175, n. 16. (13) For the detailed history of Myrleia-Apameia see T. Corsten, Die Inschriften von Apameia (Bithynien) und Pylai, IGSK 32 (Bonn, 1987), pp. 1–19. previously Magarsos or Mallos, was probably (14) IG VII, 1762, l. 5: renamed by Antiochus Epiphanes (see below, Appendix 1, p. 331, the 3 plural ethnic occurs in the Delphian list of proxenoi as (Syll. 585, ll. 284–6: ); a female victor in the Panathenaia of 170–162 BC has the feminine form , SEG 41, 115. An example from another region—and therefore involving different considerations—is the Smyrniote list, ISmyrn. 689, III. l. 35,

simple, l. 44,

(15) IG VII, 1766, ll. 3, 8, 10 etc. (16) IIasos, 172, ll. 20–4. (17) Ibid. 176, ll. 17–18. Both inscriptions are of the choregic group. (18) See PSI IV, 311, of 4th cent. AD, quoted above, p. 178. (19) Cf. below, Appendix 1. (20) Fr. 85 Velsen. is of course the Attic demotic of the tribe, of which the mother of Attalus, Apollonia, was the eponym, and it may well be that Tryphon was referring to this Attic form. (21) See below, n. 34. (22) I do not consider the ethnic form of the Egyptian nome-capital, in this connection. For city-names with a termination in see above, p. 177. Page 13 of 19

Ambiguous and Variable Ethnics (23) The export of stamped amphorae is the most familiar aspect of this mercantile link, for which see now the summaries by W. Ameling, IHeracleia Pontica (IGSK 47; cf. below, n. 26), pp. 121 ff., and N. Pavliyanko in Y. Garlan (ed.), Production et commerce des amphores anciennes en Mer Noire (Aix-en-Provence, 1999), pp. 13 ff. (24) M 912 = IIasos 186, l. 9. (25) ISestos 18 = Stephanis 853. (26) See IHeraclea Pontica (IGSK 47), pp. 116 ff. with a valuable prosopography of Herakleotes, pp. 121 ff., by Ameling (cf. n. 23). (27) ISamothr. 58, 3; cf. L. Robert, Gnomon, 35 (1963), 177 (= OMS VI, pp. 615–16). For the coins, probably of 1st cent. AD, see Head, HN2; p. 244, Gaebler, Die antiken Münzen, iii.2, p. 63, legend For the entry in Hierokles, 639.9, cf. Robert. loc. cit. (28) See F. Papazoglou, Heraclée, i (Bitolj, 1961), passim; ead., Les Villes de Macédoine, pp. 259 ff. with p. 260, n. 23; cf. Hatzopoulos, Macedonian Institutions, i, p. 88. (29) Published by Seyrig, Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth, 8 (1949), 69–70. (30) In the treaty between Latmos and Pidasa, published by Blümel, Epigr. Anat. 29 (1997), 135 ff. (SEG 47, 1563), with reference to the privileges to be accorded to citizens of Pidasa on becoming citizens of Latmos, which include, inter alia, (cf. Blümel, Epigr. Anat. 30 (1998), 185), Latmos has not been renamed so the text is to be dated between 323 and 313, at a time when Asandros, who is named as a new tribal eponym in ll. 4–6 ( ) was still satrap of Caria. (31) La Carie, ii, ch. 3 (pp. 153–230). (32) As in FD III (4), 390, ll. 1–3: two from Lucania are known by their ethnics at Delos, IDélos 1763, a sculptor of a dedication by and ibid. 1854,

Competialastai:

(33) SEG 24, 552: Athenodorus Leontous / Heracleotes ex Italia, salve /

/

(34) In the list of Delphian proxenoi of 172 BC cited above, n. 14 (Daux L 27), Syll.3 585, l. 285, the honorands are called see also below, Appendix 1, p. 331. Steph., s.v. after the list of fourteen Antiochs, says The ethnic occurs in BGU 1228 of 258/7 BC, from Oxyrhynchos, which refers to and much later in a graffito in J. Baillet, Inscriptions grecques et latines des tombeaux des rois ou syringes à Thèbes, Mémoires de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale à Caire, 43 (Cairo, 1926), no. 31: The cult-title which occurs in Imperial Egypt, in the context of an athletic association referred to in a Delphian fragment, on which only these words survive, appears to have an unexplained (and unexpected) link with the Seleukid royal cult, Page 14 of 19

Ambiguous and Variable Ethnics directly, or by way of a Seleukid foundation, as I maintained (post A. D. Nock, JHS 48 (1928), 42) in CR 63 (1949), 92–1. I was chastised for this by Robert, BE 1951, no. 46, but although his article exposed some misunderstandings on my part, I am still not convinced that he was right in accepting O. Hoffmann’s view in Die Makedonen: ihr Sprache und ihr Volkstum (Göttingen, 1906), pp. 174–5 ff., that the reference was to a Macedonian Sky-God, more correctly called In both cases, the connection is not easily established either with a particular sovereign or a particular city. There is no doubt that the cult-title is itself essentially a feature of cult in Hellenistic Asia Minor, where it appears to be associated particularly with the cult of Dionysos: cf. Pfister, RE, s.v. Robert, loc. cit.; M. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion (3rd edn., Munich, 1967), ii, p. 167. The same cult-title occurs in Keil and von Premerstein, Zweite Reise, p. 101, no. 200 (of AD 228/9); cf. Robert, who accepts their explanation (essentially that of Hoffmann). The personal name Σέλενκος is frequent in Egypt in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods: see D. Foraboschi, Onomasticon alterum papyrologicum. Supplemento al Namenbuch di F. Preisigke (Milan, 1971), p. 285, s.v. For a citizen of Oxyrhynchos so named see e.g. SB 9317 (AD 148; cf. Wilcken, Archiv für Papyrusforschung, 11 (1935), 304 f.). (35) Hyettos de Béotie et la chronologie des archontes fédéraux entre 250 et 171 avant J.-C. (Athens and Paris, 1976), p. 180, n. 582. (36) Athen. 500a; cf. ibid. 153c.

(37) (38) Robert elucidated the confusing and at times variable ethnics of Aeolic Aigai and other homonymous cities more than once. See Études Anatoliennes: Recherches sur les inscriptions grecques de l’Asie Mineure (Paris, 1937), pp. 74 ff., esp. p. 74, n. 6; id., Journal des Savants (1973), 171, n. 40 = OMS VII (1990), p. 235, n 40. In Études Anatoliennes he emphasises that the ethnic of the Aeolic city ‘était soit Αἰγαιεîς [IG XII (8), 162, Αἰγαιεîς] soit, le plus souvent, Αιγαεύς. Plus encore, de tout temps, les monnaies d’Aigai enseignent que l’ethnique était écrit ordinairement Αἰγαέων, quelquefois Αἰγαιέων. Pour connâitre la forme normale d’un ethnique, il faut recourir, non à Étienne,…mais au premier lieu aux légendes monétaires.’ Cf. ILeukopetra 73:

103 (AD 253: cf. Hatzopoulos’ note in (Thessalonika, 1990), pp. 61–2 (SEG 40, 528). The list of naval commanders given by Arr. Ind. 18.6, including (Berve, 466, the notable figure of that name) are all distinguished Macedonian generals (except for Nearchos, more fully described: ethnic). For the ethnic of the old capital, Macedonian Aigeai Macedonians Abroad, pp. 39 ff.: the two forms are and regional

(see also the note of Touratzoglou on Page 15 of 19

i.e. it is not used as an see Tataki, with or without the vol. 1:

Ambiguous and Variable Ethnics 60, a very late sarcophagus with a relief and inscription (GVI 253, composed in the lifetime of the deceased by the deceased, signed by a sculptor )). There is also a Thessalian city, of Dolopia, mentioned in the Amphictyonic decrees, of which Delphian and Athenian copies survive: Syll.3 692 A 10 (= IG2 1132, 58 = CID 1, 14, l. 10; and ibid. 704 E9 (CID 116)), with the ethnic

(39)

(40) (41) For the numismatic evidence see Robert, Études Anatoliennes. is, of course, also the adjective of the ‘Aegean Sea’, which forms the heading of the previous entry in Stephanus, and is also included in the one before that,

(42) Thus s.v. followed by a quotation from Soph. Λαρισαîοι (frr. 348–52), and citing instances of the neuter singular and plural forms from a variety of sources,

Cf. F. W. Ritschl, Kleine Schriften, i (Leipzig, 1866; repr. 1968), pp. 647–9. Such instances are not directly relevant to the present study. The location and identity of the form are discussed at length by B. Helly, ‘Le “Dotion pedion”, Lakereia, et les origines de Larisa’, Journal des Savants (1987), 128–58, who accepts Strabo’s statement that it was and makes it the most important plain of East Thessaly before the foundation of Larisa. (43) For the following pages consult also the eponymous forms in Appendix 1. Steph. quotes Φιλιππηνός s.v. Φíλιπποι, supposedly from Polyb. (= Polyb. fr. 85, B-W); cf. Habicht, JRS 65 (1975), 64 ff.; Robert, Ét. dél., pp. 457–8. D. Knoepfler, Mus. Helv. 46 (1989), 200, n. 30 rightly doubts this form. Αλεξανδρινός, which he quotes in this context to justify the reading in D.L. 7.18, is a late term, confined to coinage: The form is purely etacistic. (IG XI (4), 1213; 1206). For an example from an earlier period see s.v.

The second city is the Liparaean community, for which see IC II, p. 116, no. 1 (IG IX (1), 693; Syll.3 490), the text of a

Page 16 of 19

Ambiguous and Variable Ethnics sale of land at Kydonia, l. 15: cf. also A. Bernand, Le Paneion d’El-Kanaïs: les inscriptions grecques (Leiden, 1972), 5 (E. Bernand, Inscriptions métriques de l’Égypte gréco-romaine (Paris, 1969), 161) with RE, s.v. Lipara (1): should strictly refer to Pape, s.v.

see Mein. ad loc., and Housman, Classical Papers (Cambridge, 1972), ii, p. 895. provides a variety of ethnics, ktetics etc., which outdoes Stephanus.

(44) (45) For see Robert, Hellenica, xi, pp. 81–4; Ét. dél., p. 438, n. 14. It is to be noted that the final clause of this entry gives the ethnic under the lemma is given in a prepositional form, Mein. ad loc. rightly pointed to the analogous (Athen. 420d); cf. above, pp. 180–1 for the distinction. (46) Cf. above, p. 174, n. 15, where the series of the relevant volumes of IGSK are listed with Testimonia. (47) See above, p. 174, M. B. Hatzopoulos, Zeitschrift für Archäologie, 47 (1997), 56, for Kios.

(48) (49) Thuc. 2.100.4; cf. Papazoglou, Les Villes de Macédoine, p. 126; In ILeukopetra 45, where ढυρραîος occurs, Hatzopoulos regards ढυρρήστης as the original form, and ढυρραîος as a later variant; it also occurs in SEG 43, 435, of AD 206. The Thucydidean precedent perhaps points the other way. for the Tribute Lists, and for the ethnic in Thucydides (50) See IG I3, 267–8; 270, see the Index to the OCT, p. 312. The ktetic occurs in 1.118.1; cf. of the military operations, see above, p. 36. (51) Xen. Hell. 6.17; 20; Dem. 7.9; 10.12; etc. (52) FRA 6159–60; cf. C. D. Buck, The Greek Dialects (Chicago, 1955), §61; Threatte, I, pp. 15–16, maintains that the Attic vowel-changes αι 〉 α and ει 〉 α are purely casual, and due to illiteracy or carelessness. (53) Cf. Hesperia, 67 (1998), 215 ff., where, in publishing the tablet, Curbera and Jordan call attention to this ethnic variant (217).

Page 17 of 19

Ambiguous and Variable Ethnics (54) CAF I, frr. 528-U. The fragment quoted is 534 (= K-A fr. 548). (55) See IG I3, 266, col. III, l. 33; cf. also ibid. 71, col. I, l. 130 (cf. Threatte, I, p. 554). (56) Maiuri, Nuova Silloge, no. 343; G. Pugliese-Carratelli (ed.), Supplemento epigrafico rodio, ASAA 30–2, n.s. 14–16 (1952–4) (1955), pp. 247–316, no. 81. (57) See Syll.3 1044; Zgusta, Kleinasiatische Ortsnamen, p. 608, §1314, for the spelling of both places. (58) IG I3, 262, III, l. 25. (59) For Rhodes see D. Morelli, ‘Gli stranieri in Rodi’, Studi classici e orientali, 5 (1955), 126–90, s.v., and Fraser, Rhodian Funerary Monuments, Index, p. 198. For Alexandria see Breccia, Iscr., 14 = La’da E 304,

(mid-3rd cent. BC).

(60) AP 9.424 = HE 1773–80, the only surviving poem, or fragment, of this poet. (61) The entry on Ephesus contains much information, largely mythological, which has not otherwise survived: the equation with Smyrna, the names and the last provided with two ethnic forms, both in the formula and followed by the statement which probably indicate a local history; the account of the tidal wave which led to the rebuilding of the city on the mountain by Lysimachus, and its metonomasy to Arsinoe; the evidently contemporary, or near contemporary, elegiac verses of the Aeolian poet Douris; and finally the quotation from Hecataeus (FGrH 1 F310), grammatically mangled probably by the Epitomator, as a result of which it remains uncertain whether we are to take as an anacolouthon, of which the meaning is that, in addition to an islet in the Nile, otherwise unat-tested, there were islets called off Chios, Lesbos, Cyprus and Samos and other islands, or whether the suggestion is that each of these great islands off the Asiatic coast, other than Cyprus, had undergone a metonomasy from to their historical names, which can be excluded as a historical impossibility; and finally Habron, as a grammarian, completes the mosaic by adding his unattested version of the ethnic:

analogous, for example, to

(62) (63) Helladios, FGrH 635 (= Phot. Bibl. 279, 535, b39 = R. Henry, Photios Bibliothèque, viii (Paris, 1977), p. 187). Helladios was the author of many antiquarian works in iambic trimeters, of which Photios says (64) See Marc. 5.1 [L·uc. 8.26, 37, ]; 2Cor. 11.32, The same ethnics are, of course, also recorded frequently elsewhere, not least by Steph., and these examples are intended only as examples of New Testamentary usage. Page 18 of 19

Ambiguous and Variable Ethnics (65) See above, p. 196, n. 62. (66) Cf. Chr. A. Lobeck, Paralipomena Grammatica Graeca (Leipzig, 1837), p. 24 (for MSS

).

(67) FGrH 1 F118. (68) Ps.-Heracl. Descr. Graec. 1.25 (F. Pfister, Die Reisebilder des Herakleides, SB Österr. Akad. 227 (2) (Vienna, 1951) = GGM, i, p. 104) quotes an amusing passage in which each of the main Boiotian cities is associated with i.e. moral faults, for instance greed, at Oropos. There is a convenient summary of the problems, including that of the ethnics, at the beginning of Pfister’s article s.v. Koroneia in RE; cf. Kock, CAF III, p. 469, fr. 337. Nauck, Philologus, 6 (1851), 425 ff., regarded the whole passage as coming from Comedy, and accordingly versified it (cf. also Kock, loc. cit.). The catalogue ends with the line of Pherekrates:

(69) See IG I3, 263, III, ll. 13–14, Such entries, of which there are a considerable number, are not necessarily indications of distinction between homonymous communities: e.g. represents a single specific location. Such distinctive titles are frequent in the Carian region, and etc. (70) (1907), 1 ff. (71) See above, p. 197. (72) For the question of the ethnic of linked to one of the leaders of the Thessalian contingent in Hom. Il. 2.748, see Helly, Gonnoi, i, pp. 54–72, who also discusses the various alternatives of other place-names, including the singular in Hdt. 7.128 and 173; Str. 440 (cf. Helly, i, p. 63); for Str. 437 and Helly, ibid., ii, no. 90, a decree for Thessalian ibid. 508 (2nd cent. BC), honours, including proxenia, awarded to Milesian judges who are to arbitrate in Larisa: the (cf. Marek, Die Proxenie, p. 291).

Page 19 of 19

Associative Adjectives and Verbs

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

Associative Adjectives and Verbs P. M. Fraser

DOI:10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.003.0010

Abstract and Keywords This chapter focuses on the second aspect of associative nomenclature, that of adjectives terminating in -ειος. This termination, though rarely used as a simple ethnic form when no ambiguity existed between homonymous cities, has a perfectly valid role as an ethnic when need arose for a differentiation in such cases. The chapter examines its usage in general before turning to consideration of it as a termination of the names used for coins issued by independent rulers and states. Keywords:   adjectives, termination, ambiguity, coins, ethnic

Adjectives in -ειoϛ WE MAY NOW TURN OUR ATTENTION to the second aspect of associative nomenclature, that of adjectives terminating in -ειoϛ. We have seen that this termination, though rarely used as a simple ethnic form when no ambiguity existed between homonymous cities,1 has a perfectly valid role as an ethnic when need arose for a differentiation in such cases and we may examine its usage in general before turning to consideration of it as a termination of the names used for coins issued by independent rulers and states. It is a ktetic form, used in a number of contexts, especially in post-Classical Greek, to express the passive state of ‘association with’, or ‘membership of’, with a wider significance than the -ι(α)κόϛ of the Classical world, for example as indicating loyalty to or association with a leader or sovereign, to the Romans, or to the Macedonians, or, in a different sphere, membership of a philosophical or similar school, as oí and so on, or, more widely as ‘relating to’ (for example, ‘the writings of’, ‘the books of’). The present participle of the verbal form, -ίζων, is frequently found with the same meaning, as ‘the party 2 supporting the Macedonians’. This form of ktetic adjective, terminating in -ειoϛ, called by the grammarians a

3

because it is used to denote sanctuaries and individual buildings Page 1 of 6

Associative Adjectives and Verbs within them (e.g. ), has a wide range of usages. It is regularly used at all periods, along with terminations in -εîα and -αîα, to denote (p.202) festivals,4 estates, and other personal associative items.5 Although its use to designate association, along with the corresponding verbal form in mainly occurs in post-Classical usage, examples survive from the Classical period, most notably in the familiar use of by the historians.6 In his account of the recovery of the library of Aristotle, Strabo (609) says that students were subsequently better able to follow Aristotle’s teaching: . This ‘associative’ use of the adjective in -ειoϛ and the ‘parasynthetic’ verbs in -ίζειν is, as we saw in Chapter 1, to be found frequently in Polybius and (still more) in Polyainos, for whom the followers of Epaminondas are (oἱ) of Iphikrates

of Memnon

of Eumenes

and terms such as

occur alongside

ktetics such as which imply a wider fellow-ship.7 It is extremely frequent in dedications made at the end of military (p.203) campaigns by koina (groups) of military men in the Rhodian army, who were collectively doubly identified, first with the associative name of their commander, and then with the name of the deity under whose protection they fought; the name of the commander was always expressed by the collective -ειoι e.g. those who served under Astymedes, and e.g. under the protection of the god Helios. These two elements were invariably present and invariably differentiated by the two distinct terminations; the commanders by the form in -ειoι, and the cult-collectivity 8 usually by the termination in These particularly, but not exclusively, Rhodian koina illustrate very well the usage in a civic context. Other examples of such koina may be found, for example, at Delos, where they are attached to the koina worshipping or expressing loyalty to not

only gods, but also kings and generals: In the secular sphere they replace to a considerable degree (though not entirely) the familiar Classical periphrasis, There was, however, a distinction over which the grammarians debated between the true ktetic termination in and the forms in -ειoϛ. This difference is illustrated by the three forms used to describe the followers of Pythagoras, the two noted above, and the third, less frequently used, attached to an individual, These three forms all occur in Iamblichus’ Life of Pythagoras, in parts derived from Aristoxenos’ Life of Pythagoras, and thus have a claim to early recognition as possessing variant significances, and allegedly established by the philosopher himself. Similarly, a dual terminology noted

was used of the followers of (p.204) Heraclitus: in addition to the term

above, we also find The verbal analogy with the two forms of Rhodian, and to some extent Thessalian, terminology, is evident.9 The associative termination in -ειoι might also be used with a purely possessive sense referring 10 to an individual, attached to a common substantive, as in and, as the examples given above relating to Pythagoras show, particularly with reference to philosophical

tenets, writings, sayings, or principles, as in (307, ibid.), τò

(588, Ritter-Preller), (117, ibid.),

(168a, ibid.),

(587b, ibid.), at Sparta the

(system) (Plut. Lys. 1), and of the Stoics, (477, Ritter-Preller), and, of Chrysippus’ dialectic, (479, ibid.). This

Page 2 of 6

Associative Adjectives and Verbs usage was also extended (if only at the time of the later Neo-Platonists) to philosophical symposia. and are referred to in Marinus’ Life of Proclus as festivals conducted by Proclus in their honour, and in the same work Marinus refers to the ‘Monument of Socrates’, where Proclus first paused on his journey up to the Peiraeus, to drink water.11 on the other hand, for the individuals who constituted the later schools, a philosopher’s followers, the strict use of the ktetic remained the most common usage. Thus we have 12 It is a (p.205) natural extension of (ibid. 307), this use of the true ktetic that it should be applied to more abstract concepts, as in 13

Verbs in -ίζειν Verbs of this termination largely embody the same range of meaning as the associative adjectives and nouns. A major distinction lies in the application of the verbs either (a) to speech or thought, ‘to speak (like a…)’, ‘to think (like Aristotle)’, and (b) to association with, ‘to be of the party or side of’. Both usages are common, and though there is clearly common ground between the two meanings, they exist independently of each other, the former having no necessary link with political association and the latter no necessary link with language. At the same time, some verbs are found with both connotations. Examples of the first, linguistic and ‘psychological’ usages, are: •

Str. 333

• •

Str. 609 (of Neleus) Str. 333

• • • •

• • •

(cf. BE 1992, no. 457) Plut. Vit. Marc.20 14

Luc. Merc. Cond. 10; Sext. Emp. Adv. Math. 1.314; Porph. De Abst. 3.5

(p.206) Examples of the second, ‘associative’, usage are:

• • •

Polyain. 4.7.6 Polyain. 2.10.3; 3.9.58 (bis)

Polyain. 4.6.13 • • from Hdt. onwards • App. Pun. 68; Maced. 7; Hann. 41 (For see the evidence collected in BE 1983, no. 475 (p. 354); cf.

Page 3 of 6

an actor in with Robert,

Associative Adjectives and Verbs OMS I, 673, n. 4; id., BE, loc. cit., who sees them, on the evidence of papyri, as burlesques of Homeric combats.) • Polyain. 8.57

• • • Examples of the verbs used in both senses: •

Steph. s.v.

(α 146 Bill.), sub fin.:

• both forms have the same meaning: for see Plut. Mor. which in Xen. An. 575d (Loeb edn. vol. 7), emended by Bernadakis to 3.1.26 and Com. Adesp.(CAF III, fr. 677 = K-A VIII, fr. 875) has the meaning ‘to speak Boiotian’, and Xen. Hell. 5.4.34, that of ‘to side with the Boiotians’; cf. LSJ, s.v. • Polyb. 20.5.5; Plut. Vit. Ant. 27 (of the Ptolemies, other than Kleopatra, being unable to speak Macedonian); Athen. 122a: • Polyainos’

see above. like his associative adjectival nouns and others, including some, like

relating to the fourth century, seem to have been borrowed by him from an early (p.207) Hellenistic source, and, since terms reflecting the role of the Diadochi are frequent, it is natural to suppose that his source is Hieronymus of Kardia, although the same characteristic usage does not occur in the surviving books and fragments of Diodorus. In any case, it would be an unnecessary tribute to Polyainos’ linguistic fertility to suppose that verbal forms of this type were not a recognised formulation in both senses. Notes: (1) See above, pp. 185 ff., for distinctive ethnics in (2) See p. 205 for a list of such verb-forms in -ίζω.

(3)

Page 4 of 6

Associative Adjectives and Verbs (4) The use of to refer to the festival of the philosopher’s birthday (Porphyr. ap. Euseb. Praep. Evang. 10.3: ) conforms to the names of many Attic festivals; see below, n. 11. (5) Note that the usage was not binding in the Classical period: Thuc. 2.91.1 has: (of Leukas), probably the referred to in IG IX (1)2 (3) 609, l. 23. Suda, ॅ 3418 Adler, after referring to, but not quoting, this passage, adds και

For estates etc. known by the locality or the owner’s(?) name followed by the termination -εια, see, for Delos, C. Vial, Délos indépendante, BCH Suppl. 10 (Paris, 1984), pp. 322 ff., who provides all the references, but does not give the Greek terminology, for which she refers to B. Cavagnola, ‘I locatori delle proprietà fondiare del Dio Apollo a Delo’, Istituto lombardo, rendiconti, Classe di lettere e scienze morali e storiche, 106 (1972), pp. 51–115, at 61 ff. I give a sequence of rentals of Delian farmland as they are present in IG XI (2), 158 A, ll. 11–14, which show a variety of usage (I omit the figures):

Elsewhere: Herakleia in Lucania, DGE 62 (= A. Uguzzon and F. Ghinatti, Le Tavole greche di Eraclea, università di Padova, Pubblicazioni dell’ Istituto di Storia Antica, 6 (Rome, 1968), i, 87: (gen.)). (6) See LSJ s.v.

We must not overlook the almost comic use of the substantive

in the story of the punishment inflicted on the statue of Apollo by the Tyrians, when besieged by Alexander, as recounted by Plut. Alex. 24; nor the tale told by Phylarchus (FGrH 81 F46), of the occasion when Antigonos Doson (whom he calls ) captured Sparta, that a named Apollophanes said

(7) For

and

see p. 52, n. 114. For

see Polyain. 7.25;

ibid. 3.9.52, 63; ibid. 5.21 (and elsewhere). For some corresponding verbs see below, pp. 205 ff.; cf. Redard, Les Noms grecs en -TΉΣ, -TIΣ, p. 257, n. 58 (note to p. 189 s.v. ). For other compound adjectives in see Buck and Petersen, Reverse Index, p. 67, s.v. It is otherwise almost exclusively a sodalicial termination. In Polyain. 2.2.9,

should properly be both occur, the latter being most frequently used of members of the neo-Platonic school of the Imperial period: see the Delphian honorific dedications on the ‘Monument of a Roman Emperor’: FD III (4), 91

See also above, p. 116.

Page 5 of 6

Associative Adjectives and Verbs (8) An approximately full list of the Rhodian koina may be found in Pugliese Carratelli’s article in ASAA n.s. 1 (1939–40), pp. 176 ff. The termination in -ασταί is rarely found as an ethnic termination, but there are one or two examples in Thessaly: see above, p. 65. It is otherwise almost exclusively a sodalicial termination; cf. Redard, Les Noms grecs en -TΉΣ, -TIΣ, p. 257, n. 58.

(9) (10) [Luc.] Amor. 43; Menand. fr. 718, Gomme-Sandbach (535K); cf. ibid. fr. 740 [Plut. 103c]: τό

(11) (12) The use of the ktetic form for the Megarian School is surprising in view of the use of the same form in the place of the civic ethnic of both sexes: see above, p. 43, n. 81. The distinction noted by the Scholiast on D.T. p. 224: seems to be correct, if the contrast is between a book written by Plato and one about him and his philosophy; cf. above, n. 7 and p. 53. An exception to this rule seems to be provided by Socrates himself, whose alleged writings are not called (Philod. Vit. p. 41 J), and (Arist. Poet. 1447b2) perhaps because Socrates was known not to have written anything himself. (13) Iamb. Vit. Pyth. 130; 267. (14) In Christian and Jewish literature, which I have not included in this survey, the same verbal and adjectival forms occur. Thus in the well-known quotation concerning Philo of Alexandria (Suda, Φ 448 Adler):

Page 6 of 6

Eponymous Coin-Names

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

Eponymous Coin-Names P. M. Fraser

DOI:10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.003.0011

Abstract and Keywords The ktetics of certain Greek cities were in wide circulation from an early date, with reference either to the coins of the cities or to the standard weights and values of their coinage, as used by other cities. The most familiar of these are the Aeginetan and Athenian, and later the Rhodian, all of which appear in a wide variety of sources, and in particular in the weights and measures assigned to votive offerings of precious metals, including coinage, in temple-inventories, notably those of Athens and Delos, and in the long temple-accounts for the work carried out at Delphi in the middle of the fourth century. The ktetic in -ικός/η/όν was regularly used in this context, both in documentary and literary usage. Keywords:   ktetics, Greek cities, coins, Aeginetan coinage, Athenian coinage, Rhodian coinage, Delphi, precious metals

FROM AN EARLY DATE the ktetics of certain Greek cities were in wide circulation, with reference either to the coins of the cities or to the standard weights and values of their coinage, as used by other cities. The most familiar of these are the Aeginetan and Athenian, and later the Rhodian, all of which appear in a wide variety of sources, and in particular in the weights and measures assigned to votive offerings of precious metals, including coinage, in templeinventories, notably those of Athens and Delos, and in the long temple-accounts for the work carried out at Delphi in the middle of the fourth century. The ktetic in

was regularly

1

used in this context, both in documentary and literary usage. Thus the (p.210) the main denomination of Achaemenian currency, though possibly not deriving from the name of the first king of that name (the term is recognisable in Babylonian documents of pre-Achaemenian date), precedes the international Greek standards in the Delphic accounts of the (weight only?), the (

but also the

the

and the

gold or silver).2 It is to be noted that the Athenian account for the

work on the chryselephantine statue of Athena in 429/8 also refers to the first attestation of a ‘temenic’ adjective (above, p. 50) used for the coinage of an individual ruler, except for the unexpected appearance of

in a Delphic account of the Page 1 of 5

Eponymous Coin-Names fourth century.3 At Delos in the period of the Attic Amphictyony we encounter the

the

and the either with a noun understood, or with reference to a particular amount of specie or in weight, alongside simple ethnic forms used in the same way. Thus the complete Delian inventory of 364/3 BC contains in series the following entries:

all representing either a single polis or an associated group of poleis issuing a common coinage.4 The use of the true ethnic form for coin-names is conspicuously found from an early date in a small group of cities on the Mysian coast of the Dardanelles, of which the most familiar example is that of

(p.211)

as in the personal ethnic usage, (D.L. 5.58 [= IGSK 6, T. 197]). Its immediate neighbour

to the west, Abydos, also struck staters, known as Stephanus (

and Kyzikos to the east struck

α 16 Bill.), calling attention to an anomaly in the

ethnic formations

adds But although

occur frequently, he also records for Kyzikos the ktetic form

adding immediately

the meaning of which is clear even if there is a grammatical confusion (Mein. ad loc.). Further, the use of the ethnic for the ktetic in these particular cities does not seem to have been restricted to weights and measures. Athenaeus quotes a proverb, 5

which he explains, wrongly, as it appears, as Instances from the period of the Athenian Empire have been noted

above. In the Classical period the coin-form in be it ethnic or ktetic, may be said to be normal. It is only with the rise of kings and dynasts in the fourth century that the termination in -ειoϛ appears to have become standard practice for this purpose; at that time the coinage of Alexander of Pherai (369–357 BC), in staters, drachmai, and hemidrachmai, are well attested, in the form and Philip II’s gold coinage and smaller pieces occur frequently in temple inventories as 7

6

of the Carian dynast.8 Whether in due course the

as also do the

on the earliest coins of Ptolemy Soter refers to the newly founded city in Egypt, or to Alexander himself as its founder, has been much debated, but the evidence seems to favour (p.212) the first interpretation.9 The -ειoϛ termination becomes regular, with one exception, throughout the Hellenistic age, being used of all dynastic coinage—except the Ptolemaic, all issues of which have the form the ktetic being applied to the coinage in precisely the same way as it is to other Ptolemaic dynastic dedications in the Delian inventories: 10

It is not clear why the Ptolemies should have adopted the ktetic form, since the temenic is regularly used for festivals and sanctuaries Otherwise the use of the -ειoϛ seems to be universal for dynastic coinage, and is used of a Roman issue in the first century BC, the

coinage struck by Lucullus during the Mithridatic War.11

Page 2 of 5

Eponymous Coin-Names The survival of the term for coinage and calculation well into the Roman period is a sign of the widely and traditionally accepted stability of the standard. In a Coan document of the second century BC, where the cost of sacrificial animals is listed, this is expressed in for each item.12 Otherwise, among the large number of eponymous coin-names, or standards, linguistically almost on their own.13 At about the same time there appears the

stand

but it is not certain whether this is an eponymous issue, or refers to one of the Bithynian cities named Prousias.14 The ‘eponymous’ form nearest to it, the in a Delian inventory of c.150 BC, occurring on the same line as a may be a reference to coinage of a Macedonian region after 167 BC.15 Slightly earlier than the Delian inventories of the first part of the third century, but more restricted in chronological scope, are the Building Accounts of Delphi of the second half of the fourth century, which (p.213) contain the names of currency in circulation at the time, to some of which we have already referred (pp. 49, 210). We may end this chapter by summarising the evidence. The accounts16 are calculated in Aeginetan drachmae and multiples and divisions thereof, but they record the names of the original specie handed over to the naopoioi or paid out to contractors. Often the name of the Aeginetan Delphic currency occurs in these documents as a neuter singular adjective, with which the substantive is to be supplied. The formula is straightforward: either the name of the individual representative of the state entrusted with the monies, followed by the name of the city on whose behalf he pays, or the city pays collectively, as no. 1, l. 26 (left col.): (the second contribution), or ibid. 11. 33 ff.:

or (l. 13, right col.),

For adjectival instances, ibid. 11.

17 ff.: cf no.4 (360 BC), col. I, ll. 16 ff.: cf. 11. 57 ff. These complex documents contain numerous minor variations, such as the use of small, fractional coinage: e.g. no. 4, I, ll. 53–4: no. 6B (mid-4th cent. BC), ll. 2–9, may stand as representative of the wide varieties of currency that passed through the Amphictyonic treasury:

This use of the ethnic

as a term of Delphian metrology is recorded by Stephanus along

with other related Aeginetan products n. 79):

to which reference has been made above (p. 42,

(sic; supra scripsit Stephanus 17

The passage shows very (p.214) clearly the and a human being, if only an which is probably not distinction made between a to be given here its usual sense of a colonist or a stranger, but (as LSJ quotes as its basic

Page 3 of 5

Eponymous Coin-Names meaning), settler, sojourner (from Pind. Ol. 9.69: ). Notes:

( 1) (2) For the Greek currency terms mentioned in the Delphian accounts of the see the exhaustive analysis by J. Bousquet, Études sur les Comptes de Delphes, Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 267 (Athens, 1988), with entry in Index, p. 205 (by D. Mulliez). Their range cannot be summarised here. Note, however, as variant usages, e.g. for ibid., ii, 5, col. II; for ibid. passim; ibid., ii, 4, III, 20 ibid. passim (Index), ibid., ii, 4, II, 3 ibid., ii, 4, II, 5 There are also a number of currencies of which the determining adjective is of an O-stem: see ibid., Index, s.vv. (3) For

see IG I3, and Plut. 823a, the proverb(?) cf. Pollux, 9.84–5, the list of representations and titles on coins from Pheidon of Argos (cf. also id. 3.87). For the reference to the ‘Pheidonian measures’ see Arist. Ath. Pol. 10,

referring to Solon’s measures to restore Athenian economic stability: The relevant Delphic document is FD III.5.3, col. II, 1 ff.:

(4) IDélos, 104, ll. 59–71, 100, 105. This is the completest inventory of the Amphictyonic series, but the other inventories naturally have the same material in fragments.

Page 4 of 5

Eponymous Coin-Names (5) Athen. 641a: The passage belongs to the paroemiographical tradition in which the unidentified Aristeides forms a link (see Rupprecht, RE, s.v. Paroimiographoi, col. 1745 (where correct the reference to Athenaeus)), and occurs in the surviving paroemiographical corpora with a different gloss: Zen. 1.1:

quoted. The use of

Diog. 1.1, who adds cf. Schneidewin’s note on Zen., where several parallel passages are in the sense claimed for it here appears unique.

(6) Head, HN2, p. 308; see also G. Macdonald, Coin Types: their Origin and Development (Glasgow, 1905), p. 127.

(7) (8) See IG XI (2), 161B, l. 21 (280 BC); 199B l. 44 (274 BC): cf. Hornblower, Mausolus, p. 340. (9) See Fraser, Ptol. Alex., ii, p. 10, n. 26 and ‘ultima addenda’, p. 1115; and, in detail, D. Knoepfler, Mus. Helv. 46 (1989), 193–230 (cf. above, p. 192, n. 43). (10) A full listing of references to Ptolemaic dedications at Delos is available in J. Tréheux’s Inscriptions de Délos: Index, i (Paris, 1992), and in view of that, and their easy accessibility, I need not repeat them here. For the coins themselves see Head, HN2, pp. 848 ff.; J. N. Svoronos, (Athens, 1904–8). (11) See FD III (3), 282, l. 5: Numismatic Chronicle (1938), 155–8. The date is Daux’s N4, c.40 BC–AD 20.

cf.

(12) See Inscr. Cos, ED 82 (= Paton and Hicks, The Inscriptions of Cos, no. 34), passim. (13) See above, n. 10 for a few references to some coinage attested in the Delian accounts. (14) The a dynastic legend.

of IDélos 1443 AI, 140 (first occurrence) may be either a civic or

(15) (16) CID II, passim. (17) Three lines above the part of the entry quoted here the MSS of Str., loc. cit, have in a list of Attic demes, which Meursius in 1616 emended to no doubt correctly (see the reference in Radt’s edn. of Strabo, ad loc.; also Meineke’s note at p. 42 lines 7–8), while Stephanus naturally reports the form

Page 5 of 5

Ethnics as Personal Names

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

Ethnics as Personal Names P. M. Fraser

DOI:10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.003.0012

Abstract and Keywords This chapter does not provide a list of ethnics used as personal names. Rather, in the same manner as in earlier chapters, it presents indications of the probable range of factors, material and abstract, that may have contributed to the practice, and how and why it was first put into effect in individual locations and families. There is no single explanation for the use of ethnics as personal names, and in any individual case it can only be speculative unless explicitly stated. It may be presumed that any bestowal of a local name in ancient Greek society implied some association with the place or the ethnic in question, since, unlike in modern European languages, the name is used in an etymologically pure form, direct or derivative, and not in a condition modified by centuries of linguistic and historical development and change, deriving from obsolete forms of common nouns, often of foreign origin. Keywords:   material factors, abstract factors, ethnics, personal names, locations, families, common nouns

THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER is not to provide a list of ethnics used as personal names, but, in the same manner as in earlier chapters, to present the reader with indications of the probable range of factors, material and abstract, that may have contributed to the practice, and how and why it was first put into effect in individual locations and families. As in the rest of the book, the reader has to accept my regret that my ignorance of the pre-Greek languages, Minoan and Mycenaean, have prevented me from embodying such material in my analysis. No single explanation can be found for the use of ethnics as personal names, and in any individual case it can only be speculative unless explicitly stated. It may be presumed that any bestowal of a local name in ancient Greek society implied some association with the place or the ethnic in question, since, unlike in modern European languages, the name is used in an etymologically pure form, direct or derivative, and not in a condition modified by centuries of linguistic and historical development and change, deriving from obsolete forms of common nouns, often of foreign origin. If a Greek bore the personal name it was because there existed, or was claimed to exist, some link between the name-giver and the

Page 1 of 9

Ethnics as Personal Names ethnic- or topos-name of the child, either immediately or through an ancestor, recent or remote. Such links might be of many different kinds, mostly, no doubt, personal, ancestral, or based on a tradition of residence, and it is therefore dangerous to assign a seemingly localised name exclusively to a single, specific cause; in other words, it is evident that in many cases several factors may have contributed to the bestowal of a single name. The cases of Themistokles and his daughters, said to have borne the names

, and of Kimon, whose sons were

, and the very name of Alkibiades himself may named be exceptions, but they still express a parental preference.1 Moreover, as is indicated by the presence of an (p.216) Ithacan elder named , whose son had been at Troy with Odysseus and was unlucky enough to be eaten by the Cyclops, such links appear at an early date.2 Centuries later the juxtaposition in Hellenistic Kyzikos of a trio of persons named (brothers, no doubt), and among a small group of arbitrators at Miletus indicates from a different perspective the difficulty of finding any single overall explanation for such implied conceptions. A direct political link between two states, Athens and the region of Akarnania, may be detected in a list of athletic victors from Oropos, of the mid-fourth century BC, in which a young Athenian victor in the stadion, probably born c.385–380 BC, is recorded simply with the commemorative name and his ethnic,

3

In the Hellenistic and Imperial periods, the new city ethnics and city-names in , formed mostly from names of Macedonian origin, are not used as personal names. We rarely, if , (p.

ever, meet a man or woman whose name is 217)

, though of course the derived substantival

names themselves, , are very numerous, first among royalty and the nobility, and then across a very wide range.4 Ethnic personal names always retain their substantival root, just as simple name-types do, which vary only in the termination, as . We may wonder whether the total reproduction of the ethnic form as a name implies a total identification with the name; that is, whether a diminution in the force of the ethnic was felt to exist in such cases. That is usually true in modern European name-giving, but the extent of diminution, if any, is very difficult to assess, since it depends upon the reaction of each responsible individual concerned in every case. We know very little about the psychological impact of names in the Greek world, but one or two passages enable us to see that in some cases, as in that of the Athenian , the choice of the ethnic name was deliberate. However the particular cases of Themistokles’ and Kimon’s children have not universal force, any more than the unexpected names given to their children nowadays by parents anxious to follow a new fashion. It seems likely, nevertheless, that the ethnic or topical link made more impact on the mind of the ancient Greek than it does upon us, but clearly we cannot generalise from a few salient cases, especially from the names bestowed on slaves. From the Archaic period onwards there are many names in which it is not possible to decide whether, when slaves are called by their ethnics alone , the name is to be understood as a tribal ethnic or as a personal designation. Strabo (7.3.24 = 304C) points out the Attic practice (in fact, found much more generally) of calling slaves in this way.5 It can be seen most abundantly in the Delphic manumission documents which extend from the later fourth century BC down to the Imperial period. Here we find formulae such as (SGDI 1749) , another (2029) Page 2 of 9

Ethnics as Personal Names . Clearly the dividing line between tribal ethnic/personal name and tribal ethnic/ethnic adjective was very flexible in the slave-market, partly, no doubt, because difficulties of communication between the Greek (p.218) dealer or purchaser and the barbarian slave or his owner encouraged the use of general ethnic names as personal names. The situation, as we have already seen on an earlier page, is well described by Varro, to illustrate the difference between the two genera declinationum, voluntarium et naturale6 (there follows the passage quoted above, p. 109). The use of the ethnic personal name rarely occurred in the city represented by the ethnic; that is to say, that—leaving out of account , the most common ethnic form of personal name and frequent in Athens as elsewhere, but in fact not an ethnic but a theophoric name, like the cognate form

—a Corinthian, for example, is unlikely to have been given the name

(before the period of the Roman colony, when it appears in Latin texts). This strengthens the case for regarding an ethnic name as representing an individual relationship at some time between a member or members of a family, past or present, and a foreign city, or, mutatis mutandis, a foreign deity.7 There are indeed indications in literature that the use of the topical ethnic within a homonymous city or a region as a personal name was regarded as unusual. For example, Xenophon,8 describing the dangerous descent to Trapezous from the mountainous hinterland, speaks of a bogus ambush he laid, so that the enemy would not see the descent of the main force to the sea: in charge of this

, as he calls it, he put

had apparently become a military pseudoethnic at least by the time of the service in the Attalid garrison at Lilaia in Phokis at the end of the third century BC by the Attalid mercenaries,9 many of whom have Thracian names, but are given individually (p.219) the ethnic however, the phrase shows that Xenophon in his day thought the identity of regional ethnic and personal name noteworthy. Later, a comment of Diodorus or Posidonius regarding the leader of the slave-rebels of Sicily at the end of the second century BC, makes the same point.10 These expressions suggest that such ethnic personal names were unusual in the city or region to which the ethnic belonged. At a later date, the first or second century AD, a long epitaph from Tomi, in memory of a deceased wife, in which, as conventionally, the dead person describes his or her personal history, we find an unmistakable play upon this: 11

We should also notice

instances in which an apparently ethnic adjective such as may also, like it, be in form an ethnic, but, again like it, theophoric in usage. An example of dubious interpretation is provided by the name which occurs as a proper name at Karthaia on Keos.12 Strabo tells us that this was the title of Apollo as an oracular god on Euboia, at an otherwise unknown site near Aidepsos called Orobia(?). Speaking of the conquests of the mythical Ellops he says 13

It is perhaps a feature of the minor role played by such ethnic names in later Greek linguistic theory that the surviving grammarians in their analyses of the subdivisions of the parts of speech do not mention based on ethnics. Most of this grammatical material is either lost or exists only in deviously and variably transmitted texts—extracts, epitomes, or lexica—and there are, of course, many gulfs in their (p.220) transmission that we cannot cross.

Page 3 of 9

Ethnics as Personal Names However, there is one source where we might expect to find some reference to the usage, the Ethnika of Stephanus. We have seen that we cannot tell how much Hermolaos, the Epitomator, excised, and though it is possible occasionally to conjecture from internal evidence of the text (the alphabetical sequence of entries, grammatical anacoloutha and so on) or external evidence (a fuller text, or perhaps traces of a different epitome preserved in one place or another) what may have been omitted or even altered in an individual entry, we cannot say whether there were particular elements in the Ethnika which Hermolaos excised in toto. If so, it must be said that we cannot see any principle on which he did so. In any case, it remains true that while our Epitome of Stephanus has over two thousand entries, only two of these (as we have seen, p. 149, n. 8) specifically refer to the use of an ethnic as a personal name: (a) s.v.

which is

certainly derived from a near-contemporary authority, Uranius, author of an

much

used by Stephanus.14 Here we read 15

for which no source is given, and

(b) s.v.

the location of which is uncertain: a name which seems exclusively Doric is more general. From the rarity of (hence Theraian) and North-West Greek, though such information in Stephanus we may perhaps conclude, notwithstanding the limitations imposed by the Epitome, that the lexical tradition regarding ethnics did not give much heed to ethnic personal names as a class. On the other hand, while we may accept that the use of the ethnic provides a substantive link between an ethnic personal name and that of the city of which it is the ethnic, the range of possible explanations is large. It has been maintained that ethnic personal names reflect a or the status of between the family of a relationship involving the bestowal of 16 person so named and the community after which he is named. That may well be so in some cases, but the nomenclature (p.221) may equally or also reflect a less official, less public, link; for instance a parent or grandparent of an individual so named, a native of Corinth, who had possessed metic status or isopoliteia at Argos, once he returned to Corinth might wish to retain a nominal link with his adoptive city by bestowing its ethnic,

on his son or grandson. The

full name of a lady of Demetrias of the first century BC called Eumela, reminds us that such ethnic names might also be deliberately bestowed as bynames; they were quite frequently given to run-of-the mill hetairai, though that may not have been so in this case.17 The ethnic personal name is only one category of a wide field of nomenclature which also embraces at times the less common use of city-names themselves as personal names. These may also be found in an unmodified or a modified form with a fresh nominal termination, including that of the ethnic form, as and 18 other variants. This practice also continues into the Roman period, when we also find Roman names spelled with a standardised Greek orthography.19 Also worthy of note, though it falls outside the focus of this investigation, is the frequent use of Greek cognomina of Greek city ethnics during the Imperial period, without any specific local link (although one may have existed through descent and relationship not recorded in our frequently fragmentary (p.222) documentation), as, for example,

of Smyrna, and the family of

at Antioch of Pisidia,

Page 4 of 9

of Prusias ad Mare, and a

Ethnics as Personal Names large number of similar names, often borne by Roman ex-legionaries, and representing a patronymic form.20 Another large group of ethnically related personal names, also frequently of later date, is formed by the ktetic adjective in in an unmodified form, the most familiar example of the form being, of course, which is very rare before the early Imperial period, but common thereafter, above all in Athens.21 The ktetic adjective may be in some regions very close in meaning to the ethnic; from the fourth century onwards we find it used sometimes for the ethnic in the feminine gender, mostly in the Peloponnese and Central Greece — and so on, when it may indicate that the woman so designated lacks some of the deliberative functions (for instance) of the full citizen.22 The use of the masculine ktetic is, on the other hand, rare, and may imply some restriction of the rights of citizenship. The name is of note, since the individual in question is apparently a Delian.231 have called attention to further more general aspects of the use of the ethnic as a personal name elsewhere, and I may also refer the reader to that.24 The study of this aspect of the use of ethnics would be incomplete if we were not also to consider the reaction to it of the grammarians and (p.223) lexicographers and of Stephanus. The personal name in general was recognised by authors in the tradition of the

as a genuine

25

This is the definition, for example, of Dionysius Thrax: same tradition provided the standard definition of the ethnic.

26

and the Though Stephanus, as already

noted, records such a vast number of he rarely gives corresponding or, if he did so, the Epitomator has left as little trace of them as he has of pure ethnic personal names. Two instances may be given here, which do not appear to have been severely truncated by the Epitomator and which link the place-name as a personal form of identity with the ethnic in the same capacity. These are valuable as a guide to Stephanus’ general conception of the relation of these two and other classes of names, and their variant accentuation.

Page 5 of 9

Ethnics as Personal Names (p.224) 2 The passage from Glaukos, the historian of Arabia (for whom see below, pp. 295 f.), quoted by Stephanus, s.v. (γ 41 Bill.), is apparently the only reference in the text to the derivation of a personal name (Gesios) from an ethnic (which in the event he regards as incorrectly formed): (the full entry is given below, p. 261). First and foremost, we observe from 1 that he was well aware of the banality of such names in more than one linguistic category Secondly, the validity, or otherwise, of his grammatical remarks is independent of the particular geographical entry itself. What was, or might be, valid for was valid also for other names with the same form. Thirdly, his sources are unevenly distributed: first we have the two geographers, Eudoxus (probably derived from Herennius Philon) and Timosthenes, and then the grammarian Habron, ‘who’, we are told, ‘included this [its accentuation as a ] in his For the rest, Stephanus bases his analysis on pre-established guidelines: he criticises Timosthenes for claiming that the true identity of nominal and not adjectival was a proper name

was really

because the accentuation was

then states that the ethnic was

and that if it

it would not be unreasonable if it retained the same accent and that if

was not used as the ethnic, we

would have to call the in common speech, or on the analogy of etc. And he finally adds another parenthetical sentence concerning an island Agathe off the Lycian coast, of which the ethnic should be

It may not be a matter of chance that this elaborate entry stands near the beginning of the Ethnika: the Epitomator had not yet got fully into his stride. Notes:

( 1) (2) Hom. Od. 2.17–20.

Page 6 of 9

Ethnics as Personal Names (3) Milet I (3), 137 (before 323 BC):

Note the based on a family relationship at some date. The victor in the athletic contest at Oropos, IOrop. 520, ll. 14–15 (IG VII, 414) is simply (the text has no patronymics: see p. 91) the loss of the personal history that lies behind that remarkable combination is very regrettable. A link with the events which led to the entrance of Akarnania into the Second Athenian Confederacy in 375/4 (see Rhodes-Osborne, 24 (IG II2, 96; Tod, GHI, II, 126)) or with a military or political association of some sort may be considered, but that is only a possibility, to be set against a more direct family link. (4) In Latin the feminine form of Sicily: see LGPN IIIA s.v.; there is one

as Alexandr(e)ia is not uncommon in S. Italy and whereas is quite common.

(5) (6) LL 8.21. (7) Exceptions to this occur at Argos in 2nd/1st cent. BC and later, and in Epidaurus more generally, where the two ethnics occur as the personal names of local At Argos the full (for which see M. Piérart, BCH 107 range of citizenship and membership of (1983) and ibid. 109 (1985), 345 ff. (BE 1987, no. 387, with SEG 35, 273) is attested: see further the dedications, IG IV (1), 585, ll. 611–12, and particularly SEG 33, 290 (90–80 BC), a list of technitai including a number of seven in all, alongside a number of specified all of whom, including the have patronymic and ethnic; note in passing the small fragmentary list of the early fourth century BC from the Argive Heraion, IG ibid. 516: (cf. SEG 35, 273 for Piérart’s arguments for the chronological development of the divisions and nomenclature of the various groups of the Argive citizen-body). For Epidaurus, within the sanctuary, see IG IV (1)2, 223:

and many more altars and bases, ibid. (8) An. 5.2.28. (9) See above, p. 94, and LGPN IV, p. viii, n. 5. (10) Diod. 34/35.16. Cf. also the manumitted slaves at Delphi, referred to above, p. 109. Two centuries later Ach. Tat. 5.17.5 also reflects the fact that slaves were conventionally known by their ethnic: a supposed slave is speaking: was Cf. above, p. 107 and n. 7.

Her true name

is masc. nom. It is, of course, possible that (11) ISM II, 365 (GVI 1161): in the last line the husband was a native of Tomi, but, even so, the calembour remains. (12) IG XII (5), 544B, l. 41 (noted by Zwicker, RE, s.v.).

Page 7 of 9

Ethnics as Personal Names (13) 445. From the passage is clearly corrupt. See Kramer ad loc., who raises as a possibility that the reference is to Steph. s.v. who quotes Nicander, Theriaca 613, with reference to a mantic shrine of Apollo in the Thessalian town of Korope. This is a long way from the text of Strabo, but it is worth noticing by reason of the clear reference to the culttitle of Apollo in the uncorrupted clause which follows. It is, of course, possible that either the Sicilian cult or the Cilician city Selinous lies behind the name, and, if the second, the name would be a pure ethnic with no ambiguity, but the geographical proximity of Karthaia to Euboia argues against this alternative. [Radt retains this text unemended. S. H.] (14) For whom see below, pp. 294 ff. (15) It is not clear whether

has at some point wrongly misplaced

for the ethnic termination seems to be at present unattested for Greek, as opposed to Greco-Latin (or Latin, -enus), personal names. For see also above, p. 149, n. 8. (16) See G. Herman, ‘Name diffusion in Greece’, CQ n.s. 40 (1990), 349–63, who maintains that the basis of normal marriage in Classical Greece was the relationship of which he maintains created a bond closely resembling that of the Christian godfather. This is based on a limited number of literary examples, and ignores the numberless epigraphical instances in which a child has the name of a grandparent. (17) SEG 43, 498. It is doubtful to what extent there is an effective distinction between the use of with its own variants. F. Bechtel, Die historischen the participial form, Personennamen des Griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit (Halle, 1917), pp. 553 ff., has a substantial list of such ethnic hetaira-names. For ethnics as slave-names see above, p. 104. (18) For see LGPN I, nearly twenty examples in the islands (six on Crete, but none from Samos), and IG XII (6) (2), 716, in IG II2, 1628 (above, p. 113, n. 18), FRA 6561, of 326/5 BC, is evidently the son of and not a metic with an ethnic, as Wilamowitz thought; in SEG 43, 488 (from Torone), a letter on a lead tablet is addressed to for the regular see D. Knoepfler, in E. Matthews (ed.), Old and New Worlds in Greek Onomastics, p. 111. For LGPN IIIA records one only from Argos (IG IV (1), 516) of 5th cent. BC, one from Kleitor, of 3rd cent. AD, and one, a father (and therefore not likely to be a native of Sikyon), in a Latin inscription from Sikyon. A combination of Greek and Latin usage involving the name occurs in IPrusias, I, i, 40 (after AD 212) referring to M. The Latin Corinthus and its derivatives are frequent in S. Italy: at Pompeii itself there are eleven examples of Corinthus (LGPN ibid.). (19) For this see the evidence from literature and inscriptions assembled with many examples in Dittenberger’s old analysis, Hermes, 6 (1872), 129–55, 281–313. (20) The handful of examples quoted are, respectively, IGR III, 276 in Isauria; and family (Prosopographia Imperii Romani Saeculi, C 307) at Antioch of Pisidia; at Prusias ad Mare (IKios 16A 4). For another see IGR IV, 784, M. and his mother at Apameia of Phrygia. For the patronymic form of the hellenised Latin termination see e.g. IGR IV, 920 = ICibyra I (IGSK 60), 106, a bilingual text: Aelia Asteria Aelio

Page 8 of 9

Ethnics as Personal Names Antiochiano tesserarius leg. [x] Cl(audiae) (2nd cent. AD). Examples of this usage are very frequent. (21) L. Robert, pp. 1–2 = OMS VII, pp. 869–70, gives a typical list of such names, including some from the 4th century BC, and, of course, extending into the Imperial period (see LGPN II: a minimum of 135 entries in Athens alone). (22) See especially Dittenberger’s remarks (1907), 18 ff., and above, pp. 43–5. (23) IG XI (2), 162A, l. 27, and Vial, Délos indépendante, p. 325, who suggests that may have been a metic with cf. index, s.v.; O. Masson, Onomastica Graeca Selecta, ed. C. Dobias and L. Dubois, iii (Paris, 2000), pp. 79 f. (24) See my remarks in Hornblower and Matthews (eds.), Greek Personal Names, pp. 149 ff., with a limited tabulation (pp. 155–6) of such names. See also F. Pordomingo, ‘Antroponimos griegos en -icos derivados de Étnicos’, in Symbolae Ludovico Mitxelena Septuagenario oblatae, ed. J. L. Melena (Vittoria, 1985), pp. 101 ff., apropos of IG II2, 4473 with SEG 23, 126 ( Tataki, p. 55, no. 78). (25) §12 (14) 〈1〉 records the variants. Uhlig’s critical note to D.T. (p. 33 on l. 6) points out that Apollonius has (GG II, 103, l. 13) and that two of the Erotemata (E1 and 2 E ) have the ‘Peripatetic’ (26) See above, ibid.

Page 9 of 9

The Decline in the Use of the Ethnic

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

The Decline in the Use of the Ethnic P. M. Fraser

DOI:10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.003.0013

Abstract and Keywords The most significant change that occurred with the growth and expansion of Roman power in the Greek world was the piecemeal introduction of Roman names towards the end of the Hellenistic age, and, in due course, with the bestowal of Roman citizenship, the very different onomastic formulae of which led to varieties in terminology, as the Greek-speaking population was increasingly affected by the system of nomenclature employed by the Romans, and bestowed in due course on them. This chapter focuses on the changes that occurred in the traditional Greek system of ethnic forms and usage. The discussion covers multiple civic ethnics and the establishment of Christian communities in and after the fourth century. Keywords:   Hellenistic age, Roman names, Greek ethnic forms, Christian communities, nomenclature

THE GROWTH AND EXPANSION OF ROMAN POWER to a position of effective authority over the ancient world from Spain to Mesopotamia, and the constitutional uniformity that we associate with it, did not in principle alter the use of Greek ethnic terminology. Among the many changes that Roman administration introduced into the Greek world, before its eventual transformation into the Byzantine Empire, the ethnic retained its traditional role as the main element in the identification of a member of a Greek polis, even if the polis had lost, temporarily or in the long term, its political independence, or of a tribe or race, individually and collectively. But although many of the conventions of free Greece survived by tradition, and also for reasons of individual prestige, there are many ways in which the constituent elements of an individual’s public identity changed or might change, and the use of the personal ethnic is among them, and forms one index to changes in social life. The most significant change occurred with the piecemeal introduction of Roman names towards the end of the Hellenistic age, and, in due course, with the bestowal of Roman citizenship, the very different onomastic formulae of which led to varieties in terminology, as the Greek-speaking population was increasingly affected by the system of nomenclature employed by the Romans, and bestowed in due course on them. However, i shall only be concerned with the changes that occur in the traditional Greek system of ethnic forms and usage, and not with the penetration of the Roman system itself into the

Page 1 of 11

The Decline in the Use of the Ethnic Greek world by the bestowal of Roman citizenship, and in many more casual ways, though we may note in passing the introduction of Roman names already in the Hellenistic age in the inscriptions of Delos of the period of the Second Athenian Domination (166–88 BC), where a considerable variety of usage reflects, among other things, the Roman influence on the italian members of the very mixed population in the Republican period.1

(p.226) Multiple Civic Ethnics In so far as the polis is concerned, the decline in the traditional usage of the ethnic as a mark of single citizenship, and the simultaneous, but restricted growth of multiple citizenship in the Roman period, must be considered against the background of the extent to which, in the Classical and Hellenistic periods, the concept of proxenia included within the terms of such awards, that is to say, hereditary membership in the awarding city of one or more of the nuclear elements of the citizen-body, membership of demes, tribes, and other units.2 Naturally, if the citizenship was taken up, the honorand ceased to be a foreigner awarded citizenship by (and in) the issuing city, but became himself a member of that city. Consequently, since an individual benefactor who was thus honoured was perhaps more grateful for other aspects of the award— freedom from taxation, possession of land and so on—than anxious to obtain a new civic membership, which had no substantial benefits over those available in his own polis, the privilege was probably rarely taken up, though instances survive in which application for citizenship is made and granted.3 (p.227) In the Imperial age, from Augustus onwards, the situation changes, at least superficially. Awards of proxenia virtually disappear after the first century AD,4 and the appearance throughout the Greek world of what we may call ‘public figures’, a celebrated athlete or itinerant rhetorician, a fashionable philosopher or an actor, as the simultaneous citizen of several (p.228) different cities, or, more precisely, denoted by use of civic ethnics as the member of a number of different cities, is a familiar feature in the Imperial period. It would be wrong to regard these multiple ethnics as resulting in general from traditional proxenydecrees, though some may do so (notably those bestowing honours on philosophers). It is in general difficult to assess the political reality of multiple citizenship, which seems to be one of the most obvious features in the inflation, or decline, of the ethnic designation in the Imperial period, but there is no doubt that, for a number of largely convergent reasons, the public acceptance of multiple citizenship became more frequent at least in the first two centuries of the Empire than it had been hitherto, and that the total number of grants of citizenship bestowed on a single individual reaches extravagant proportions, as for example, in the case of the popular and successful kitharode 5

.

It is important to distinguish such extravagantly expressed awards of honours (of which this is by no means an extreme example) from the traditional, and potentially active, grants of earlier centuries considered above. Multiple citizenship in the Imperial period was, above all, a reward in an athletic or dramatic contest for some agonistic or rhetorical performance in a number of named cities, including usually the hono-rand’s own city (often termed ). The earliest examples of this type of multiple citizenship are of the end of the first century AD, and from that date for more than three centuries the practice spread widely. On the mainland such multiplicity of citizenship is particularly frequent at Delphi, because of the large number of competitions, recitations, lectures, and theatrical performances that were held there late into the Imperial period, although Delphic citizenship may have been rarely taken up, like the earlier forms of Page 2 of 11

The Decline in the Use of the Ethnic award. In the eastern provinces of the Empire such multiple citizenship is regularly and bombastically attested in analogous circumstances. Such honorific expression of bestowal of citizenship was part and parcel of the general process of aggrandisement of the athletic and other contests which dominated the social life of much of Imperial Italy, Greece, and Anatolia, including displays of collective enthusiasm, not (p.229) least those which enabled the victor to achieve the coveted ‘eiselastic’ entry into his native city, 6 his . In the context of multiple citizenship, that naturally raises the question: which city are we to regard as the native city, the in any recorded accumulation of citizenship, if it is not specifically identified? Normally, we may presume that it is the first city named, thus, in the example given above, of AD 170–6, Tiberius Claudius Epigonus was probably a native of Aphrodisias, and an Athenian, an Ephesian, a Smyrnaean, and a Pergamene honoris causa. In another contemporary list of honorary citizenships for a young athlete (c. AD 170),

,7 a statue of him was erected for him at Ephesus on which the inscription was carved. He occurs also in a papyrus of AD 194, in which, as he is again called so we must accept that he was a native of Laodikeia (on Lykos), although the statue for him was erected in Ephesus.8 Similarly in the Ephesian dedication of the dedicant was certainly a native of the small town of Bithynion, the later Claudiopolis, who had first become and then subsequently won a major victory at Athens (though the name and category of (p.230) the victory are not given).9 At Tralles, a notable pankratiast, who is not stated to have won a victory carrying eiselastic honours, is described as ,10 that is to say, either his home-city is listed last, or the inscription, of which this may be a copy, was set up elsewhere than in his home-city, as in the case of Photion. The difficulty that contemporaries may have felt faced with such a bouquet of ethnics is perhaps indicated by the phraseology used of a distinguished athlete from Ancyra, M. Aur [rest of name damaged], by his fellow-citizens, at Delphi.11 Frequently a man so honoured is said to have been made in the city or cities by which he is honoured; increasingly so, it appears, as time went on, and the status of the athlete or other performer became increasingly larger than life, almost of heroic status, but it seems likely that this was usually a purely honorary title, since, save in his own city, the honorand, if called a

is normally not also described as a

However, there are exceptions

to this, as in the list of oecumenical victories, of AD 253–7, commemorated by the

followed by a list of some forty in which he had been victor.12 (The phrase might be thought to reflect the tedium of the stone-cutter, or even the victor, at the record of so many athletic victories, and so many admissions as citizen and bouleute, or else as due to lack of adequate funds to pay the lapicide.) Similarly (p.231) a successful rhetor is honoured by

that is, Seleukeia-on-the-

Page 3 of 11

The Decline in the Use of the Ethnic Kalykadnos: T. 13

Even more prolific are the victories achieved by Demostratos Damas, recorded on the surviving base of the monument erected in the early third century AD by his four sons at Sardis.14 This phenomenon runs parallel with an equally common feature of civic life in the Greek East: the bestowal of multiple honours and corresponding titles on the cities themselves. This is a separate feature of contemporary civic life, and cannot be considered in detail here, but the two developments, though independent of one another, are equally expressive of current modes of thought. The civic honours were an Imperial, or (less frequently) gubernatorial, gift, and were the response to civic initiatives aimed at increasing the status of a city, particularly by the dedication of larger temples and other sacred buildings, leading to the Imperial bestowal on the city of such familiar titles as etc.,15 and we (p.232) hear not infrequently of inter-city disputes regarding recognition of superior status.16 These titles are particularly a feature of the municipal life of the cities of the Eastern provinces, and are one indication of the extent to which the East flourished, as the cities of the Greek motherland became, for the most part, increasingly impoverished. As time went on, the use of the Imperial civic title,

(Augusta), with its many associated derivatives—

and others of similar mintage—increased, both in Greek inscriptions and in Latin texts emanating from coloniae. They may be illustrated from any collection of such material.17 When we turn to the new Christian world, with different religious and social criteria, it must be emphasised that the reduction in the use of the civic ethnic is partly to be explained by the fact that until AD 330 most converts to Christianity belonged either to one or other of the non-citizen elements of the population of large cities, or else to the rural population of Anatolia.18 In the comfortable pagan world of letters, the world of the urban, traditional population, the old use of the ethnic persisted, both in biographical dictionaries, and prose and embodying tralaticial data, from which so much of our evidence, in the broadest (p.233) terms, rests. Evidence comes, for example, from Hesychius of Miletus, which forms a substantial element in the Suda, and is found in philosophical and historical writing, both pagan (Herodian, Libanius, Procopius, if indeed he was not a Christian) and Christian (Eusebius, Socrates, Sosibius, Athanasius, and, in due course, Eustathius), and also in novels and belles-lettres, in epistolography and the practice of rhetoric (from Achilles Tatius—who perhaps lived too early to be witness to this continued usage—to Longus and Heliodoros, in whom the heroes and heroines, however unreal, are usually identified at least once, and probably more frequently, by their civic ethnics). But though the ethnic persisted in this conventional world, its role had changed with the world around it. There are numerous instances of the formulae and followed or preceded by the ethnic, in the historical writings of Procopius, written at court in the reign of Justinian, but he uses the term less of citizens of poleis than of members of the many tribes that invaded and overcame the early Byzantine world.19 He also makes frequent use (to cover all forms of origin) of the participial

20

.

The Coming of Christianity The establishment of widely dispersed Christian communities in and after the fourth century had the inevitable effect of loosening ties, both between individuals and their native city of origin, and also between city and city. In some respects the dual and, in part at least, complementary Page 4 of 11

The Decline in the Use of the Ethnic phenomena, the gradual erosion of independent inter-city relations between poleis, and the increase in the use of awards of citizenship for purely honorific purposes, had developed to such a degree over the (p.234) preceding centuries as in themselves to create a very different environment from that in which the of an earlier world had lived. If we continue down the same road we find that, save in some isolated pockets of paganism, Christianity changed the nature of the Mediterranean world, not indeed as fundamentally or as swiftly as it was altered by the conquests of Islam, but more individually than it had been by the original establishment of Roman Imperial rule. Though the latter led, sooner or later, to the imposition of Roman administration and law from the provincial down to the civic level, and the development of Roman communities, the coloniae, and associated bodies (including Jewish and other ) and their subsidiary elements, the Roman government made full use of the polis-system to serve its own purposes, and left its skeletal structure largely unchanged for purposes of local administration, such as the collection of taxes. In the course of the five hundred years between the First Macedonian War and the reign of Diocletian there were many changes in the nature of city life, as the communities adjusted themselves to participation in a new provincial administrative system which differed fundamentally from the largely personal rule of the Hellenistic Kings and the individually delegated powers of their officials. The basic civic structure, however, while modified in many ways, remained formally at least true to its origins. Inevitably, both the large-scale development of veteran communities and the establishment of Aurelian citizenship by Caracalla at the beginning of the third century widened the traditional parameters of the city and increased enormously the libertine base of the Eastern Empire at the expense at the outset of hereditary citizenship. At the same time, the Imperial government made use of its influence with the wealthier elements of the cities to use them as agents in internal domestic administration such as tax-collection.21 The foundation of new settlements with eponymous names continued, nevertheless, until the time of Justinian and even later, but our knowledge of them, as already noted, is mainly derived from the Notitiae, Conciliar lists of bishops and late geographical handbooks, which are largely tralaticial, and provide only lists of place-names, distances and so on, not from documents of civic life, or indeed of private life within the context of the city, such as might provide us with ethnic forms. However, the new (p.235) element in the Greco-Roman world finds expression in the language of tombstones, in which the Christian faith of the deceased is frequently expressed in one of a number of stereotyped formulae, indicative of schismatic or exclusively Christian communities without reference to civic origin, or, in more local terms, to membership of a civic subdivision. It is, no doubt, true that many such burials are those of persons such as slaves, who could lay no claim to civic membership; but the silence is too widespread for that to serve as an overall explanation. The typical Christian epitaph stands apart from its pagan counterparts, not so much by the crudity of its execution—there is little to choose between the workmanship of a funerary relief with a representation of the Thracian Rider God and the Christian motives of a cross or a pair of doves—but by the fact that while the pagan inscription, in prose or verse, may contain a reference, direct or indirect, to the native city or village of the deceased, the Christian very rarely does so, and is likely to refer to a heavenly home, and, in personal terms, to the in all its many illiterate spellings, or a grave, especially as a place of rest or sleep ( word of similar meaning), and sometimes, particularly among the Montanists in Phrygia, by the addition of the proud descriptive noun, (the term is frequently used of whole families), with at times the addition of the humble secular calling of the dead father; though, needless to say, such indications of professions were not exclusively Christian.22 The (p. 236) artistic quality of most of the tombstones, lettering and decoration alike, is as pitiful as that of contemporary pagan specimens. The Jewish formula discussed above (p. 32, n. 41), Page 5 of 11

The Decline in the Use of the Ethnic followed or preceded by the civic place of residence, in other words the ethnic, and perhaps a Jewish symbol, was more effectively absorbed into the repertoire of at least some stonecutters, to whom work on inscriptions for Jews, in Greek, was probably familiar, since the Jews used contemporary Greek ethnic forms for many of their communities, and there is little difference in the substance of Jewish tombstones or honorific texts, whether they be bilingual or unilingual, and whatever their provenance.23 This situation has to be borne in mind when using Stephanus. The many faults of which he and/ or his epitomator(s) are guilty in the formation of civic or regional ethnics unauthorised by valid quotations, notably by the false use of analogical argument, arise from the absence by the time of Justinian of substantial contemporary evidence, to set beside grammatical theories.24 This is, however, not true of tribal ethnics: the Greeks of the Byzantine world were continually coming into contact with new tribes, as these descended from across the Dniester and the Danube or crossed Mesopotamia and Arabia to seize or ravage desirable land, and the historians of the fifth and sixth centuries, especially Procopius and Theophylactus, are full of references to them and their tribal ethnics, mostly in a more or less hellenised form.25 Most of them are also recorded by Stephanus, the approximate contemporary of Procopius (to whom he does not refer), in brief and unsupported terms, as might be expected concerning tribes of the contemporary world— but, as we would do well to stress yet again, such entries may have been heavily epitomised. It may (p.237) be added that there is no reference in the present epitomised text to Christianity or Christians. The reference to Jerusalem reads 26

. The same detachment from current thought and traditions is characteristic of most surviving Greek and early Byzantine lexicography and associated fields of study, and is one reason why the date and the chronological sequence of many of the fragmentary grammatical sources are difficult to estimate. Notes: (1) The collection of material by J. Hatzfeld, ‘Les Italiens résidants à Délos’, BCH 36 (1912), 5– 218, retains its value, in spite of its age, and the same is true of the list provided in Syll.3 pp. 140–8, with Hiller’s rubric: ‘huc recepimus et cives Romani et libertos Graecosque quorum nomina tota aut ex parte Romana sunt’. For a recent study see M.-F. Baslez, Recherches sur les conditions de pénétration de Délos à l’époque héllénistique (Paris, 1977). BCH 77 (1953), 510, refers to (88 BC). The ‘addenda’ of to Hatzfeld’s list of Roman nomina in the late J. Tréheux’s Inscriptions de Délos: Index are destined for a second volume (see p. 93), but it nevertheless contains those who have nomina, who are included under their Greek praenomen as above). The most illuminating collection of individual texts is that of F. Dürrbach, (3 Choix d’inscriptions de Délos (Paris, 1921–2; repr. Chicago, 1977), see his pp. 287–8, ‘Noms propres romains et mots latins’; cf. also Le Dinahet, REA 103(1/2) (2001), 103–23, summarised in SEG 51, 996. (2) In so large a field I can give only one or two items to illustrate my argument. For the preImperial periods see especially Chr. Marek’s book, Die Proxenie (Bonn and New York, 1984) in which the history of the institution of proxeny is fully examined, and, especially for the chronology, the excellent article by Geschnitzer, RE, Suppl. 13 (1979). See also Knoepfler, Eretria, Index, s.vv. Proxenie, Proxenos (p. 484), where the reader will find a guide to the many ramifications of the institution on Euboia and elsewhere.

Page 6 of 11

The Decline in the Use of the Ethnic

(3) (4) Some instances of later date from Delphi are listed by Marek, Die Proxenie. FD IV, 94 F (= Syll.3 838A-C; cf. Daux P26–7), a decree for a indicates that the full range of public honours survived: A

Page 7 of 11

The Decline in the Use of the Ethnic considerable group, mostly, but not all of the later first century AD, some with the formula are published by Flacelière in FD III (4), nos. 87 ff. (5) IEph. 1106; Stephanis 856. (6) ‘Eiselastic honours’, awarded for victory in attested in a large number of agonistic inscriptions, have been much discussed, most authoritatively and correcting a number of conventionally transmitted errors, by Robert, BE 1961, no. 221, where he maligned the definition in LSJ, which correctly defines the ritual as ‘an allowance paid to a victorious athlete’, and gives a wholly different set of references from those alleged by Robert; the latter stresses the exchange of letters between Pliny and Trajan (Ep. 10.118–19) on eiselastic honours, an exchange which involves a clear and contemporary definition of the procedure. Many examples of the term, and its significance, were already given by Robert in Etudes Anatoliennnes, p. 119, n. 3; cf. further the next note. The use of in this type of context is extremely common in the Imperial period; in IGR IV, 1251 (Thyateira; Robert, Etudes Anatoliennnes, p. 119; id., Hellenica, v, p. 32, n. 4) an ambassador to Helagabalus is honoured by Thyateira for an embassy undertaken At the same time, it is illogically used of more than one city in which a competitor has been successful: see D. Erkelenz, ZPE 137 (2001), 271–9, where it is suggested that the may also indicate the native city of the individual who authorised or paid for the erection of the monument. Whether this, rather than mere deflation of the status of the city, is more likely to be correct, the distinction is underlined by the use of the phrase in the case quoted in n. 11 below. The instances in both the Greek and Roman provinces, in which it can be shown beyond doubt by the distinction between

and simply

are analysed by Erkelenz.

(7) Moretti, IAG, 73 (IEph. 1605); cf. Robert, OMS II, p. 1139. (8) PLond. 1178 (L. Mitteis and U. Wilcken, Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde (Berlin, 1912), 156; cf. Robert, locc. citt.) referring to a victor at Sardis Keil and von Premerstein, Zweite Reise, 64 (IGR IV, 1251; cf. Robert, Etudes Anatoliennes, loc. cit.). (9) IKlaudiop. (IGSK 31), 58. For complex honorific text in honour of

see also MAMA VIII, 418, of AD 127, a long and a native of Apameia, which embodies

of the Dionysiac complete decrees enacted by Aphrodisias, Halicarnassus, and the introduced by a Laodikeian cf. IG IV (1), 206 (Cenchreai):

(10) ITralles (IGSK 36, 1) 113 (3rd cent. AD).

(11) (12) Moretti, IAG, 90.

Page 8 of 11

The Decline in the Use of the Ethnic (13) SEG 41, 1407 (with summary of Sahin’s article, EA 17 (1991), 144 ff.; cf. id., ibid. 34 (2002), 170, no. 2). The inscription consists of two parts, A, the text of the honorific statue-base: ἡ (cf. above in text) followed by the list of his twenty-three victories, including finally and B, a separate inscription on the side of the stone consisting of an elegiac epigram, at the end of which Maron describes himself as

(14) The Sardian inscription, ISardis 79 (IGR IV, 1519; Moretti, IAG, 84), erected by his sons, in honour of Demostratos Damas, shows the final extravagances. The complex document, inscribed on three faces, must be studied in Buckler’s edition and commentary, which I summarise. Damas was an honorary citizen (the ethnics in the nominative follow straight after his native ethnic) for a whole series of victories throughout the Greco-Roman world, including sixty-eight in eiselastic contests. In all, more than half the texts bestowing similar honours on him are preserved. He applied successfully for the high-priesthood and for the presidencies of the athletic bodies to be inherited by his sons. The honours, finally catalogued in the Sardian inscription of AD 212–17, as recorded by his sons (who, in addition to filling some of the offices, received honours from Delphi and elsewhere), go back to his boyhood, e.g. text C (the left side) (15) A simple, early example is the title given to Paphos in Report ofthe Department of Antiquities of Cyprus (1970), no. 407 = SEG 41, 1480, a dedication of a statue of Tiberius by ibid. (1940–8), no. 2 = BE 1955, no. 256: of approximately the end of the reign of Nero. For examples of the term Robert, Laodicée du Lykos, pp. 288–9.

see

(16) Such disputes for recognition of status are called see MAMA VI, 6 (Laodikeia-on-Lykos), with further references; cf. LSJ s.v. A good example from prose writers is in Diod. 17.54 (from Alexander to the messengers of Dareios): Cf. also Aristeides 42.781 (Dind.), quoted by Buckler and Calder on MAMA VI, which is itself a fragment of an Imperial ruling referring to

(17) (18) Among modern publications of the transformation of religious and social life in the first Christian centuries I may refer the reader to the admirable work of Stephen Mitchell, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, ii (Oxford University Press, 1993), to which I am much indebted, especially for the epigraphical evidence. The article of W. M. Calder, ‘Early Christian epitaphs from Phrygia’, Anatolian Studies, 5 (1955), contains examples of local Christian formulae, including those of particular sects; he stresses the use of the familiar fiscal formula Page 9 of 11

The Decline in the Use of the Ethnic regarding the violation of the tomb, on Christian tombstones: where the Christian formula is taken over unchanged from the pagan usage, referring to the anger of a local god, to which might be added the imposition of a fine, if the tomb was violated. The reader will find much of interest in the works referred to in n. 22 below, especially in Margherita Guarducci’s Epigrafia Greca, iv.

(19)

(20) (21) The whole historical development of the bureaucracy of the Empire, and the role of the Emperor in the pre-Constantinian period is portrayed in Fergus Millar’s outstanding work, The Emperor in the Roman World (31 BC–AD337) (London, 1977; 2nd edn., 1992). (22) For a general study of Christian epitaphs and epigrams of the Imperial, pre-Byzantine world, see especially vol. iv of Margherita Guarducci’s Epigrafía Greca (Rome, 1978), pp. 299–556, which supersedes most previous work other than the local and regional corpora of Asia Minor, TAM, MAMA, and IGSK. See particularly, for one category of these, the Phrygian texts with the formula collected by E. Gibson, ‘The “Christians for Christians” inscriptions of Phrygia’, Harvard Theological Studies, 32 (1978). For Greece itself much relevant material will be found in the CIA (see below) and the volumes of IG and also, for Macedonia, the works of D. Feissel, especially Receuil des inscriptions chrétiennes de Macedoine du IIIe au VIe siècle, BCH Suppl. 8 (Athens, 1983). As examples of the usage I may refer to Guarducci’s nos. 1– 2: no. 1 (GVI 1581), an epitaph in iambic trimeters for preceded by a cross, and decorated in the pediment by the outline of two doves on either side of a rosette (Guarducci takes the stylised doves as leaves, but I think that an error); no. 2, a short prose epitaph: (the three crosses representing the Trinity). The two pieces (both illustrated) are lapicidally poles apart. Her no. 4 illustrates the familiar practice by which Church dignitaries also record their religious and secular calling: Isidore is a reader in the church as well as professionally a cutler. V. Besevliev, Spätgriechische und spätlateinische Inschriften aus Bulgarien (Berlin, 1964), no. 36, provides a very simple formula: probably of the fourth century. A rare example of an ethnic on a humble Christian tombstone is that of a lapicide of an elegant monument of mid-4th cent. AD (ibid., p. 392, no. 5): (cf. L. Robert, Journal des Savants (1962), 41–2 = id., OMS VII, pp. 107–8. Robert points out the prestige that attached to the calling of a mason of Dokimeian marble). The small collection of Christian tombstones from the old Attic collections, in CIA III (2), 3435–547, contains very few ethnics: in 3483, is naturally a personal name.

Page 10 of 11

The Decline in the Use of the Ethnic (23) I note a few examples of purely Greek style from Iasos: Frey 738 (from Kyme or Phokaia: IKyme 45) in IIasos 193 (= Frey 749, ll. 8–9 only) a choregic list, with the metics at the end, includes For the name at Iasos see IIasos 284 and 377 (cf. Robert, Hellenica, p. 101 and n. 1). Frey 772 (MAMA IV, 292), from Apollonia Phrygiae, of 2nd-3rd cent. AD, begins

but contrast

Frey 775 (from Hierapolis): whoever contravenes regulations for a tom b, In Frey 776, also from Hierapolis, the deceased is described as a member of (24) Cf. below, Chapter 13. (25) See for example Procopius, as quoted above, nn. 19 and 20; Theophylact. 1.3.1 (Avars), 1.8.5, 7.7.7 (Turks).

(26)

Page 11 of 11

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary P. M. Fraser

DOI:10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.003.0014

Abstract and Keywords The text of the Epitome of Stephanus contains no preliminary statement of principle regarding grammatical rules for individual ethnics, and although reference may be made under individual ethnics to regional or local usage, the information is repetitive and simply ad hoc. We are not in a position to say whether that is how the text was left by Stephanus, or whether an opening section or sections were excised by the epitomator(s). There are two recognisable features of the Epitome as a whole: (a) the inclusion in it, with corresponding ‘ethnics’ or a similar term, of a number of items which cannot by their very nature have had a civic role, and thus could not strictly have generated an ἐθνικόν, since they do not belong to that category of names. Alongside these irregular entries, there is another group of linguistic terms (b), which Stephanus uses to express departure from either an analogistic or local form, in such phrases as ‘it should be … ’. This chapter presents a list of some typical examples of the first class of entry; a second list illustrates different principles of linguistic usage recorded by Stephanus for features which have no independent political (including tribal) existence, but are included by him in his text; that is to say, forms which are justified or rejected by him in terms of the rules of ‘ethnic’ usage. Keywords:   Stephanus, ethnics, Epitome, grammatical rules, linguistic terms, linguistic usage

THE TEXT OF THE EPITOME OF STEPHANUS contains no preliminary statement of principle regarding grammatical rules for individual ethnics, and although reference may be made under individual ethnics to regional or local usage, the information is repetitive and simply ad hoc. We are not in a position to say whether that is how the text was left by Stephanus, or whether an opening section or sections were excised by the epitomator(s). We have already seen that Stephanus stands largely apart from the later Alexandrian grammatical tradition, which treated essentially of the parts of speech and of morphology, and that his work seems to have combined the earlier notions applied to definitions of ethnicity with the later analogical method. But we lack any generalised statement from his pen, and have to rely wholly on the analysis of the text as it stands. Many surviving lexica, not only those in an epitomised form, lack any preface, and

Page 1 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary such may have been the case with Stephanus, but, at all events, in the absence of an introductory passage we have to work solely on the information provided by individual entries. We saw at an earlier stage (above, pp. 20, 25) that Stephanus seems to use the two definitions, and almost indiscriminately. The distinction, where it exists, lies only in the fact that the latter term has a more extended field of application—though sometimes a bizarre one—than the former. It was suggested in that context that the use of belonged to an earlier phase of grammatical studies and linguistic usage than and that Stephanus less frequently defines an ethnic by assigning to it either a geographically localised category or an analogical definition, for both of which he uses the term or although in many cases either he did not use the terms (as, for example, in cases of analogy, he simply used the adverb ὡs) or they were irregularly excised by the Epitomator, in what appear to be very truncated entries. It is only by exception that he names a source in the context of grammatical usage, but was in any case the term regularly used for 1 Other conventional Alexandrian (p.242) grammatical forms subordinate to the grammatical language, found in the text of, or scholia to, Dionysius and Apollonius Dyscolus

include which may be translated ‘according to linguistic rules’. This is frequently contrasted with either ‘in common parlance’, or (or a similar phrase), ‘the local usage is’, or is simply used to formulate the type of an ethnic derived only from grammatical analogy, as s.v.

(α 15

Bill.)… There are also the impersonal verbs used to express disagreement on grounds either of linguistic propriety, expressed by

(α 412 Bill.)

(α 21 Bill.) (l. 17), where in each case we must understand (cf. above, p. 224). It is of course natural that Stephanus agrees with the ‘attested’ form far more often than he disagrees with it. There are two recognisable features of the Epitome as a whole: (a) the inclusion in it, with corresponding ‘ethnics’ or a similar term, of a number of items which cannot by their very nature have had a civic role, and thus could not strictly have generated an (as that term or its older partner, were commonly understood), since they do not belong to that category of names. Alongside these irregular entries, there is another group of linguistic terms (b), which Stephanus uses to express departure from either an analogistic or local form, in such phrases as ‘it should be…’. The list that follows is of some typical examples of the first class of entry; a second list, pp. 265 f. below, illustrates different principles of linguistic usage recorded by Stephanus for features which have no independent political (including tribal) existence, but are included by him in his text; that is to say, forms which are justified or rejected by him in terms of the rules of ‘ethnic’ usage. These comments are never assigned to a specific grammatical source, but are accepted or condemned either by the rule of analogy or by local usage. In both lists I (p.243) give only a few examples of the many terms used. The lists are in Greek alphabetical order, together with the corresponding roster of nouns or participles used in association with them, e.g. It goes without saying that many of the terms cannot be accepted as representing a recognised usage in other than linguistic terms.2

Page 2 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary Topographical Terms other than Cities Topographical Geographical entry (adj., noun, verb) term

 

 

 

 

  .3

 

 

Page 3 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary

Topographical Geographical entry (adj., noun, verb) term  

  4

 

 

 

 

.5

6

Page 4 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary

Topographical Geographical entry (adj., noun, verb) term Steph. always gives the τoπικóν after the entry of an Attic deme, and does not indicate the locality of the deme, e.g.

The entries vary widely both in form and in the amount of information they give, but the word invariably bears a tribal connotation. They uniformly

begin with the

7

 

 

 

Page 5 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary

Topographical Geographical entry (adj., noun, verb) term

 

 

.8  

Page 6 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary

Topographical Geographical entry (adj., noun, verb) term  

 

 

 

 

   

Page 7 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary

Topographical Geographical entry (adj., noun, verb) term

 

 

 

 

   

 

Page 8 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary

Topographical Geographical entry (adj., noun, verb) term  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 9 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary

Topographical Geographical entry (adj., noun, verb) term

 

  .9  

 

.10  

It is noteworthy that in the entries under 4 and 5 the distinction between the forms of the ethnic and the πoλιτικóν is recorded.

 

.11

Page 10 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary

Topographical Geographical entry (adj., noun, verb) term

 

 

 

Page 11 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary

Topographical Geographical entry (adj., noun, verb) term

.12]

 

13

Page 12 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary

Topographical Geographical entry (adj., noun, verb) term

 

Page 13 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary

Topographical Geographical entry (adj., noun, verb) term

 

 

 

 

Given as the name of a river: with no ethnic form, has possibly been wrongly linked to the preceding item, Xαρáδρα, the Phokian city near Lilaia, described by Paus. 10.39.3, and cf. SGDI 1529 col. II, 12; Mein. ad loc.] Examples of this occur only as a proper name: s.v.

 

(p.244) (p.245) (p.246) (p.247) (p.248) (p.249) (p.250) (p.251) (p.252) (p.253) (p.254) (p.255) (p.256) (p.257) This list represents most of the common nouns, as opposed to city-names, to which ethnics and other forms are attached by Stephanus, who rarely, if ever, comments on the suitability of the attribution. Questions may be raised concerning the presence of these essentially lexical features in the Ethnika. Are they, in fact, a part of the Page 14 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary original work? Do they differ in any significant way from the rest of the Epitome, as we have it? They are, of course, sui generis, but that does not prove anything as to authorship; the same mixture of common and proper nouns may be found, for instance, in the Suda, and elsewhere. Thus, if we wished to find a separate source for these items, we would have to do more than identify the particularity of the subject-matter of the entries; we would also have to establish their coherent individuality through the use of formulae which do not occur elsewhere, and consider whether the scanty surviving text of the original Stephanus from

in

Coislianus 228, along with (p.258) its Index for the entries contains features absent from the Epitome. To this twofold question, the answer, as might be expected, is negative: on the one hand the sample of the Coislianus is too small to help us, and on the other the language of the entries is not essentially different from that of the rest of the Epitome. It is true that the derivatives of the word —are more frequent than in entries under place-names, but that fact could not carry weight in the particular circumstance of the entries. The most that we can say is that such entries are a minority in the Epitome, but that there is no reason to suppose either that the Epitomator added them, or that they come from another source than the bulk of Stephanus’ entries. It is, however, noteworthy that the argument from analogy is largely lacking from these entries, and this in itself might point to an independent source, though once more it could be argued that the material was not the natural context for analogical method, being concerned with abstract terms rather than geographical locations. That is one of numerous ways that indicate that the study of ethnica, at least as represented by Stephanus, was based on the principle of analogy, and consequently that any grammatically or colloquially transmitted might be assigned to virtually any geographically or topographically identifiable unit. It is to be observed that, in common with all ancient writers other than Herodotus, there is no trace in any of the entries of Stephanus of the true dialect forms of cities: all are given in the accepted form in the common language. There are numerous examples of this feature, which, it is of interest to note, Eustathius found it necessary to ‘correct’ at one point. In the entry s.v. the Epitome has no reference to the Cretan city but Eustathius has added both 14 in his commentary on the Iliad and in that on Dionysius the Periegete, both an epigram relating to Timotheos and the statement which Meineke has added in brackets to the entry in Stephanus, (p.259) correctly or not. In either case there is nothing to suggest that Stephanus used the Cretan form. Another example which forms a good testing-ground is s.v. Xερρóνησoϛ, still a substantial item, which refers to more than one Doric Chersonesos, without recording the Doric form, even for the Megarian colony (it is to be noted that some places in this entry are quoted from Hecataeus and Herodotus in either the common or the Ionic form). Corresponding to this, Stephanus sometimes records a contrast between an epichoric form or a form of common speech and that demanded by grammatical analogy, although he does not usually record the source of his information regarding the local

Page 15 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary

;15

form. Thus s.v.

The use of the argument from analogy leads us to enquire about the extent to which this grammatical theory, associated in its developed form with the Stoic school of linguistics, survives in Stephanus. In a field so darkened by controversy and the dust of past debates, there is little that can be seen clearly, and the reader who wishes to know the details of the dispute concerning the rival theories of ‘analogy’ and ‘anomaly’ has many specialised accounts of the debate available. Here it will suffice to quote, (p.260) in translation, the well-known passage of Varro, in which he describes and summarises the debate:16 That for each ‘declinatio’ [that is, the ‘voluntary’ and the ‘natural’ derivation, corresponding to the Greek ] some things make similar forms, others different, has been the subject of many books by Greek and Latin writers, partly because while some thought that, in speech, those words should be employed which are declined similarly from similar declensions, what they called [by analogy], while others considered that the phenomenon should be ignored, and the principle of dissimilarity should be accepted, which is found in general usage and has been called [by anomaly], although in my own opinion, we should accept both courses, since ‘anomalia’ [Latine] occurs in voluntary declension, and ‘analogía’ [Latine] rather in natural declension. Although the argument ‘by analogy’ was probably first fully developed in the purely grammatical sphere by Aristarchus, it appears that it was appreciated by Aristophanes of Byzantium, on the basis of Aristotelian analysis, that the needs of language required the co-existence of both approaches.17 Varro himself in speaking of voluntary and natural declension is no doubt recording the views of contemporary Stoic theorists, but, as we have seen, Stephanus’ direct use

Page 16 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary of these sources must, if it occurred at all, have been on a very small scale, and the principles have been transmitted to him by later writers on ethnics, principally by, or through, Oros.18 Viewed from this theoretical angle, and with due allowance made for the effect of transmission and epitomisation, Stephanus reflects very clearly the application of the principles of linguistic analogy, assigning, for the most part, less validity to recognised practice, documentary or spoken whether this be understood of ‘general normal usage’ or (what amounts mostly to much the same thing) post-Classical usage, ἡ κoινἡ.19 This runs through all his work, as is reflected in the continual use, already discussed, of such phrases as , and so on.

,20

(p.261)

.21

.22 A different analysis is provided s.v.

.23

In this context we have also to consider the principle, or principles, on which Stephanus sometimes assigns a preference to one ethnic form or etymology over another, in a formula such as

without further explanation ( Bill.),

Is he speaking in terms

of linguistic analogy or common usage,ἡ In the entry s.v. Mύρα the phraseology is the same, but the application different, this time concerning the etymology of the name: In this case the preference is not based on linguistic considerations, and points to a mythograph-ical or other literary source. On the other hand, when wishing to indicate a linguistic conflict between a grammatically acceptable form

Page 17 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary and a rule for (p.262)

.24 A further aspect of linguistic analogy that is well illustrated by an entry of Stephanus consists of that element in the construction of analogical forms that arises from the need for euphony, that is, the avoidance of the repetition of the same vowels or consonants. One entry, lengthy at least by the Epitomator’s normal standards, is s.v. (α 428 Bill.).25 After providing an analogous declension to

drawn from Lycophron’s

catalogue of prehistoric inhabitants of Boiotia who migrated to the Balearic Isles: and a mythographical digression on sacrifices offered at sowing-time to Demeter in Arcadia, drawn ultimately from Apollodorus,26 the text continues (p.263)

Confused though this text is,27 it shows us that when Stephanus says of a form, as he so frequently does, he may be referring, among other features, to the cacophony of the true etymological form, and the consequent general acceptance of the

born of an innate

28

feeling for If this argument is correct, the comments of Stephanus become easier to follow. It is true that the infrequency of the contrast between in the surviving Epitome does not argue in favour of this, but the Epitomator tended to exclude some items of purely linguistic interest. The length of the entry s.v. Aρκάς may indicate that it has been less emasculated than most entries, and that, in spite of its present obscurity, it represents more closely than usual Stephanus’ original text. That this is so is supported by the amount of purely grammatical information provided by some of the unepitomised entries recorded in S (Coislianus 228): for example, s.v. problem of the nominative form of the noun, as between the poetical is discussed at length in analogical terms;29 and s.v.

Page 18 of 38

where the and the regular

where two ethnic forms are

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary contrasted, one using Greek analogical forms, provided by Oros, and the (p.264) other, representing Stephanus.30

the oriental category in

The contrast, or conflict, between the usage of the in such phrases as

regularly provided by

which Stephanus calls by the noun and local usage, is normally marked by

such phrases as

Since Oros was quoted as the authority only for the

analogical form in a full entry

, and the ‘local’ form was simply so called

31

it might seem paradoxical to assign the latter category to him also; but since most of the entries with contrasted local forms occur in entries relating to eastern, often trans-Euphratic, cities, villages, and localities, it would be wrong to exclude him, for many of the places mentioned are not likely to have found a place in ethnic discussions before the later Empire or the early Byzantine period, either in literature or in common speech. A less frequent alternative to the use of

occurs in the entry s.v.

(α 548 Bill.):

32

References to ‘epichoric usage’ or the ‘type of the region’ also occur frequently of the civic and tribal ethnics of Sicily and Italy, though not indeed whenever the rule by analogy breaks down. Frequently two or three ethnic alternatives are recorded, and though many of these have been regarded as erroneous entries they cannot all be so treated, and the number of formulae used to express not supposed error but disagreement or uncertainty in these regions remains large. Their investigation would add another dimension to this enquiry, for which this is not the place.

Linguistic Comments and Criticisms (p.265) The following lists illustrate the various ways in which Stephanus records a contrast between a locally current form, or a form of common speech, and that demanded by grammatical analogy, normally without recording the source of his information. They include a variety of entries in which he exercises personal criticism either on individuals or on what he regards as false usage. Through lack of documentary evidence it is only occasionally possible to confirm his observations. We have looked at some illustrative entries on an earlier page.33 As we have seen (above, pp. 259 and 264) these epichoric forms are largely quoted for non-Greek communities, and thus indicate not so much ‘local’ as ‘native’. The following lists cover most usages. They also include the hellenised Latin terminations, sometimes called by Stephanus the (see below, under

Page 19 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary

Page 20 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary

(p.266) With the Formulae

Page 21 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary

.34

(p.267)

With the Formulae

Note also further examples of

in the following entries.

Page 22 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary (p.268) Native Forms Contrasted with ‘Our’(καθ’

With

Page 23 of 38

) or ‘European’ Usage

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary

.35

(p.269)

(p.270) With With the formula we encounter a different tradition, which, as I have indicated, points to a source or sources, at whatever remove, deriving from the pinacographical tradition, whether in literature or on inscribed texts, based on ‘records’, whether they are lists of distinguished men of individual cities in a literary form (as seems most appropriate in this context) or of notable men in different walks of life, philosophers and historians and so on. In Page 24 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary each instance the governing term is given of an individual so named, from an

and in each case an example is in the verbal form

may have been in any particular instance we cannot be certain, unless it is assigned in the field of literature, to a particular individual. It is, however, clear that the notion, verbal or nominal, preserves the notion of ‘record(s)’.

(p.271) With the Formula Entries which employ the familiar formula may come from a similar tradition in either literary or epigraphical form, though the verb is more familiar in its other usage, found plentifully in documentary papyri, which corresponds approximately to ‘known as (officially or unofficially)’ or ‘passing under the name of’.

.36

Page 25 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary

.37

(p.272)

in its aorist active participial form, is frequently used in the biographical and lexical sources represented by the Suda to provide information as to the gentilicial name of Greek writers of the Imperial period. For example: • • • • • Many more examples of might be quoted, but its formulation for the adoption of the Roman nomen does not vary significantly within its restricted range; similarly, in documentary papyri and epigraphical texts, the usage is confined to the employment of a Roman name.38 (p.273) With the Formulae Alongside the two formulae

we may note the prepositional-

pronominal formulae in the Suda, frequently in one form or another. For example:

Page 26 of 38

etc., which occur

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary

This list of over fifty substantives represents most of the common nouns to which ethnics and other forms are attached by Stephanus, who only rarely comments on the appropriateness of the attribution of the ethnic. That is one of numerous ways which betray that the study of ethnica, at least as represented by Stephanus, was based on the principle of analogy, and consequently that any grammatically or colloquially transmitted might be assigned to virtually any geographically or topographically identifiable unit. Stephanus does not include in his purview the very numerous eponymous cities and garrisonin his own vocabulary),39 scattered throughout the early Byzantine empire. The posts reason for this, I believe, is not the intervention of the Epitomator, but the fact that, although they could very well be given—indeed in other sources, ecclesiastical and civil, were given— natural ethnic terminations in -πoλíτης from the time of Tiberius to that of Justinian, they were essentially contemporary with his main direct source, which was operating in the lexicographical tradition of the past, and not with an eye on contemporary Christian documentation such as the Conciliar lists, where they were available. A few exceptions to this occur when a newly renamed city has a historic past (p.274) and is entered under its native or earlier name, and only the old ethnic is recorded.40 The same ban or procedure did not, however, apply to the civic ethnics and the nomes of Egypt, to which Stephanus frequently refers. In this particular situation it is natural, once again, to regard the Alexandrian Oros as the main channel through whom this bulky material, in many instances directly, or (as is stated in the text of the entry Aκανθoς, α 151 Bill.) indirectly, reached Stephanus in the time of Justinian.41 To return to our main analysis, the contrast, or conflict, between analogy and anomaly reveals itself also with reference to the contrast between the analogically derived form and that of common usage. This, as we saw above (p. 260), shows itself in two ways: by a reference either to the usage of the

or to local usage. This local usage overrides the force of the analogical

argument by such phrases as Save for some unexpected discovery, it may be doubted whether our understanding of Stephanus, as the text is at present, can ever proceed beyond the tentative analysis offered here. There is no equipment for dealing with a situation, frequent though it is in ancient texts, in which the direct object of our study is known only from an epitome, when there survive no comparable texts, and his sources are known either only as names, or, if surviving, have no particular light to shed on the problems which emerge from the study of the Epitome. Our inability to reach a position where we can pronounce positively on the Ethnika is due mainly to two closely associated facts: that our text is, with a very few exceptions, known only from an Page 27 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary epitome, and that Stephanus’ relationship to his (p.275) sources, both immediate and remote, remains conjectural. Eustathius and Constantine Porphyrogennetus are the only writers who can fill out our picture, and when they do quote Stephanus their quotations, though authenticated by them, and valuable for the supplementation of his text, if not verbatim, at least in a general sense, are often paraphrases rather than precise quotations. Between the two tenth-to-eleventhcentury writers mentioned, who show that his text, and not only our Epitome, was in use at that time, there is no further direct reference to him until the time of the Aldine edition. There exist, however, two contexts in which his text, even in its present form, makes a link between Classical or even earlier writers and the later Byzantine lexicographers and compilers of metonomasies of place-names. We have already noted some of these documents, and in the next chapter we shall examine them a little more closely, though they too suffer from numerous defects as witnesses.

Regional Preferences The other main category of Stephanus’ formations is based on geographical location or local usage, the general principles of which he does not explain in the surviving text, which now lacks, if it ever had, an introduction containing the principles of his subject—but he notes a particular usage as applicable, in a large number of entries, in similar, or identical terms. In this way most, but not all, of the possible ethnic terminations are either geographically or analogically classified, or both. For the geographical ‘canon’ he employs a number of similar phrases, of which a selection is here given, entered under the regions of which the ethnic form is regarded as most typical, accompanied, in some entries, by a reference to other instances of the same formula (a) in the same area, and (b) in different areas. It is to be emphasised that he only very rarely employs the geographical criterion to ethnics of the Greek homeland itself; to his ultimate geographical sources the forms of this region possibly went without saying.42 The following list is only a small selection of frequently repeated (p.276) formulae based on supposed regional preferences. In each case I indicate the region to which the entry refers. (See already above, pp. 67 f., but the list is essentially repeated here, for the convenience of the reader.) Caria

.43 Sicily

Egypt

Thrace

.44

Page 28 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary Arabia

(p.277) Asia

.45 Phoenicia

.46 The entry s.v.

(restored by Xylander) is of some interest. It presents the

termination of the ethnic form of the Arabian tribes in to them, and adds, as by an afterthought, that it was also the termination used by ‘all the Asians’. Stephanus or the Epitomator identifies the Arabs as (and the reverse) from their use of the same quotes no authority, Uranius, the termination, but whereas the preserved text, s.v. author of the history of Arabia most used by Stephanus, is quoted as the authority in the entry on (p.278)

Stephanus quotes Uranius, Book 3, for the material part of the

entry concerning the Arabian

and adds after the quotation of other tribes—the and the

He then goes on (as we have seen, p. 69) to quote the of Apollonius Dyscolus for the extension of the form to Asia: ‘But in addition the form is common to all the

Apollonius is rarely quoted by Stephanus, and this is the only specific reference to ethnic forms, though in one or two instances he is quoted for the formation of proper nouns.47 Apollonius, certainly, was not one of the technical writers on ethnics, but in this passage he is quoted for the important contrast between ‘Asiatic’ ethnics, based on

and ‘European’ ethnics deriving from Page 29 of 38

Such a division lay beyond

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary the scope of Uranius’ book, and illustrates an unexpectedly developed sense of the relevance of the continents to the system of accentuation. The use of the termination is familiar in much of Asia, principally in cities and communities, but it is also known in regions right across Asia Minor to Mesopotamia and beyond.48 It is used in the (p.279) Athenian Tribute Lists, and regularly thereafter, of some cities around the shores of the Hellespont and the coast of Mysia, Pontus, and Paphlagonia— further north, Kallatis Lampsakos

then Abydos Amisos

Adramyttion

Pergamos

and perhaps spread from the coastal to the inland regions of Mysia and Lydia. An excellent example of this termination among the communities of Asia at a later date is provided by the list of conventus iuridici and the communities within them, 49 discovered at Ephesus in 1969. This contains, for example, the communities of the the

Note, however, that the communities of the and of the

within the main colonial focus of the old

Greek world, do not have these forms; and also that those in are not always confirmed by documentary evidence, as, for example, the Lydian Philadelphia, to which Stephanus gives the termination in

50

but inscriptions and coins have the ethnic

Finally, we may note one class of city-name and ethnic for which the existing text of Stephanus makes no particular regional or other specification, and does not refer to their ktetic or other namely those cities which are formed from He makes his position clear s.v. where he quotes four places of that name (omitting at least one, that of Aitolia), and has (as in the case of noted above) hand of the Epitomator may perhaps be traced in the loose entry s.v.

The The

formation in comes into abundant use in the Imperial period, when it forms a regular element in the eponymous and related forms of new foundations, from right through to the foundations of Justinian.51 Clearly such cities and their ethnics called for no comment from an author of an encyclopaedia of (p.280) These examples, which stand for many more with similar formulae, enable us to form some judgement as to the value of the ethnic forms transmitted by Stephanus. The first item prompts Stephanus to a general statement regarding the ethnic forms of

listed above, Caria: 52

This generalisation is confirmed by the entries of the Athenian Tribute Lists for western Caria and the Islands, where the majority of the coastal and inland localities have the termination

while those of the Carian Chersonese mostly have α-and o-

forms. The continued in use from Hecataeus onwards, collected systematically perhaps in the first place by Alexander Polyhistor, but their practical application was as old as the communities which they represented. There are many examples of the Carian

;53 (p.281) Page 30 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary

Stephanus is not claiming either that the termination

(FGrH 740 F15). Of course, was confined to Caria—we have

already seen that he calls the same ‘Arcadian’ and ‘Thracian’,54 or that it was the only 55 ethnic formation of Carian cities, while in some cases he includes the termination in along 56 with other terminations for one city, as if in duty bound to recognise the principle. Notwithstanding his insistence on geographically distinct ethnic forms, Stephanus documents the numerous departures from this system when either the geographically distinct or the analogically approved form have been ‘supplanted’ by a popular, epichoric form. He then uses such a formula as s.v.

The introduction of an epichoric form, for which a source is not normally quoted, reflects in some measure and at some time investigations of local idiom, for which there is no independent surviving evidence elsewhere. It would be a valuable addition to our knowledge of the tradition regarding ethnics to trace the possible source(s) of such information, but, as we (p.282) shall see when we come to consider these, that is not possible. It is, however, evident that Oros had attempted something along these lines in his analysis of alternative city-names, described as for which in one case, the only one known to us—his claim that were different name-forms of the same place—he was attacked by Stephanus in a passage which survives unepitomised.57 Notes:

(1) (2) An alphabetical list of the words (some fifty in all) used for different physical features in Stephanus is given by D. Whitehead, ‘Sub-classification and reliability in Stephanus of Byzantium’, in id. (ed.), From Political Architecture to Stephanus Byzantius: Sources for the Ancient Greek Polis, Historia Einzelschriften, 87 (1994), pp. 99–124, at p. 105, n. 19; but he does not analyse them. Some of the topographical ethnics would hardly cause surprise in colloquial speech, and Dittenberger (1906), 164, is perhaps over-sceptical regarding the likelihood of ethnics given to It is certainly possible to accept it today, and may be of greater antiquity than can now be established.

Page 31 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary (3) As Mein. explains,

refers to the accent of the ethnic, which should

indicate a substantival

cf. Arcad. p. 120, l. 28.

than either of its homonyms,

occurs much less frequently

Apart from

I find it only s.v.

(Thuc. 6.97). (4) GGM, i, p. 524; cf. Ptol. 4.7: (5) Mein. places

after

‘ita incerti poetae fragmentum fuerit’.

( 6)

MSS. See further above, pp. 27–8.

(7) The entry preceding It is well attested that on the estuary of a river serving a polis further upstream, for instance, frequently have an ethnic form in literature: e.g., at the mouth of the Strymon, at Eion (see B. Isaac, The Greek Settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian Conquest (Leiden, 1986), pp. 60 ff.). In the ‘Ephesian Customs Law’ of AD 70–90 (SEG 39, 1180 (IEph. 13; cf. IGSK 53, T111)), emporia at the mouths of rivers are separately named, e.g. l. 23,

which refers to the chora of Priene reaching as far as the coast: cf. Robert, A Travers l’Asie Mineure, p. 97. Steph. describes

(8) The parallel lexical passages (ibid. fr. 132b) do not quote Philoxenos by name, and are less explicit than Steph. The true reading in the passage of Hesiod is manuscripts.

given by all

is the reading of one papyrus (Π 19), Proclus’ scholia, and Steph.: see

West ad loc. Arist. Poet. 1448a36:

(9) That the correct spelling of the name is is shown by the inscription from Xanthos commemorating a plea for aid from the Kytenians to the Xanthians, SEG 38, 1476. Literary sources vary between see J. Bousquet, REG 101 (1988), 29, n. 22. (10) For the variation in the ethnic forms of see Dittenberger (1906), 169–70. For (cf. Jac.’s note, Ephorus ad loc.). (11) Tymnos was a Rhodian deme from at least the fourth century onwards (cf. Fraser and Bean, Rhodian Peraea and Islands, pp. 61–2, and for the inscriptions of Tymnos, see now A. Bresson, Recueil des inscriptions de la pérée rhodienne (pérée integrée) (Paris, 1991), nos. 66–109). It is tempting to think that the personal ruler-name Tymnes in the entry in ATL (e.g. IG I3, 272 II, l. 79 (440/39 BC), cf. ATL i, p. 495), is somehow connected to this location at an earlier stage in its history. It is possible that this entry came from Krateros. (12) ‘Respicitur Soph. Trach. 638:

Mein. Page 32 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary (13)

(14) (15) Proteas seems otherwise virtually unknown. The two surviving fragments are given in RE (5). EM 513.58, s.v.

(16) Varr. LL 8.23, quoted in the Latin in Fraser, Ptol. Alex, ii, pp. 668–9, nn. 144–6, where earlier bibliography will be found, with a discussion of the outlines of the problem. (17) See particularly Varr. LL 9.12: pictores Apelles, Protogenes, sic alii(?) artifices egregii non reprehendundi quod consuetudinem Miconos, Dioris, Arimnae (??) etiam superiorum non sunt secuti: Aristophanes improbandus, qui potius in quibusdam veritatem quam consuetudinem secutus. Among Latin grammarians Charisius (4th cent. AD), pp. 116–47 Keil, defined the rationes. Though a compromise was recognised as necessary by Aristophanes, the distinctions remained in force in theoretical writings. (18) See below, pp. 298–301. (19) Stephanus himself uses the term

rarely, as compared with

(20) The entry itself opens with a reference to then mentions the island, from Paus. 3.5.5, adds the information, from Favorinus (fr. 64 Mensching = Baragazzi, fr. 84) that it was also called

then refers to

and this is followed by the statement regarding analogy, in its turn followed by

Thus, while no ethnic is

provided for the (or for the Scythian promontory), the island has two different ethnics, both formed by analogy. (21) FGrH 674 F12. Cf. above, Chapter 11, p. 224.

(22) (23) See below, n. 37.

Page 33 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary (24) FGrH 1 F190. The text has to be emended from the reading of R,

but the force of

the criticism, is directed in any case against the form of the name in gamma, found in some manuscripts of Herodian and Mein.’s emendation fulfils that requirement. (25) The opening of the entry is corrupt, reading (in V) is followed by

followed by a lacuna which

(as above), where Meineke supplied the initial word as

preceding the lacuna, and followed in Stephanus by an analogy supposedly provided by the declension of (Billerbeck follows Meineke in assuming a lacuna.)

see α 428 Bill.

(26) (27) Within the entry itself, is probably out of place, and Mein.’s addition (given above) does not improve the passage much (for the location see Diod. Sic. 15.45, of a party of Zakynthians: The final sentence

is

also suspicious, and Eust. D.P. l. 251 correctly has though his comment may not be from Stephanus. The uncertainty is perhaps increased (i) by the fact that the next entry lacks a heading, but is a description of Amorgos, and consequently Xylander added which comes in its true alphabetical sequence, after previous entry,

and (ii) by the (FGrH 460

F3), In such a group, error would easily infect neighbouring entries. (28) There is much to be found on the variations arising out of the need for euphony in Lobeck’s Paralipomena, I, pp. 3 ff., who gives this example from Stephanus (p. 4), but does not accept his argument: ‘nec firmiorem duco Stephani rationem, qui ab scribit, non, ut analogia poscebat, frequency of the

formari because of the

termination in patronymic forms.

(29) For an analysis of the historical and mythological content of this entry see H. W. Parke, The Oracles of Zeus (Oxford, 1967), pp. 80–93, ‘Dodona in later Greek literature’.

(30) (31) See previous note. SEG 42, 1417, from Dora (Palestine) (142 BC; cf. ibid. 35, 1535), an incised inscription on a sling-bullet which reads epiklesis

given by Oros. Page 34 of 38

provides the

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary (32)

(FGrH 273 F34). [FGrH 244 F292, among the ‘Fragmente ungewisser

Stellung und Unsicheres’]. The correct spelling of the locality is given in SEG 9, 1 + 18, 726, l. 3 (the boundaries of the Cyrenaean chora, as laid down in the diagramma of Ptolemy I): see the revised text given in SEG 18, 726 (sic), with n. 1. (33) See above, p. 259. for quotation of the entries and (34) The place-name is known only from Steph., but see also, with reference to Plut. Mor. 247e, Mein. ad loc. (35) The alphabetical order of the text is disturbed. The place-name is given by the MSS as and placed between

Xylander emended to

which he took to be the same as Hierokles’ Lydia and called

which Ptol. 5.2.16 placed in

Meineke in his apparatus observed that Stephanus perhaps wrote

and that is probably the true explanation. Jac. retains (36) Tarrh. p. 87, fr. vii).

Xyland., Mein.;

MSS (cf. Luc.

(37) Ibid. with Dionys. Per. 376–7:… Hdt. never uses the article with the place-name; Thuc. 6.104.1, 2, has it in the masculine. On the gender see Phillipp, RE, s.v. Taras, col. 2287; masc. is common, but fem. is found (together with masc.!); see also Hanslik in Der Kleine Pauly, s.v.: all genders are included if we include the Latin Tarentum. (38) See F. Preisigke, Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden (Berlin, 1925–), ii, p. 753, s.v. (39) Cf. above, p. 256.

(40) (41)

(Polyhist. FGrH 273 F*10). Cf. Meineke’s Index, pp. 739–40, where a total of Page 35 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary

well over a hundred Egyptian cities are listed, together with a few nome-capitals and The analysis of the development and decline of the Roman administrative system, especially that associated with the structure and administration of the nomes, is well elucidated by J. D. Thomas in Jones, CERP2, pp. 295–348.

(42) (43) itself may belong to the group of place-names incorporating the root which Tarn believed to refer to primitive shanty-towns (cf. W. W. Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria and India (2nd edn., Cambridge, 1951), p. 482, n. 3). (44) For

see above, p. 67, n. 15.

(45) Steph. clearly accepted the statement of Apoll. Dysc. (2.3, p. 47, fr. X, ll. 9 ff.) that the old mainland

and

did not, like the Asiatic communities, provide ethnic forms in

the only exception to this rule seems to be s.v.

but he does

not comment on the anomaly (for which cf. above, p. 264 and n. 30). For the reading see above, p. 68, n. 16. (46) For the text of this entry, see above, p. 68, n. 17. (47) See GG II.3, p. 47. The Stephanus references (here given by page and line numbers in Meineke’s edition) are: 5, 10 (= α 5 Bill., cf. GG ibid., p. 52); 237, 10 (cf. GG ibid., p. 63); 325, 1; 359, 1 and 7; 471, 20; 507, 13. which is found not only (48) Tarn, more than once, claimed that the regional form in in the Iranian regions, but also in India, in the lists in Ptolemy, represented the survival of the Seleukid administrative term, for the (see W. W. Tarn, Seleucid-Parthian Studies, Proceedings of the British Academy, 16 (London, 1931), pp. 24 ff.; id., The Greeks in Bactria and India, pp. 442 ff.), but there are numerous instances of it in regions which were never, or only briefly, Seleukid, notably Armenia and Arabia. In view of the evidence cited in the text, above, for its use for the old colonial cities of North-West Asia Minor, we cannot rule out the possibility that the form, and the ethnic derived from it, spread by a natural process of human movement across the regions; a useful list of geographical locations with this termination may be found in the index ‘Nomi geografici’ in F. Canali de Rossi (ed.), Iscrizioni dello Estremo Oriente Greco. Un repertorio (Bonn, 2004), pp. 375 ff. (IGSK 65); the reader will observe how many of such names occur in the Res Gestae divi Saporis (ibid., no. 261). D. Knoepfler’s article in Mus. Helv. 46 (1989), 193 ff. (cf. above, p. 212, n. 9, esp. his pp. 198 f.) has a detailed discussion of the use of the termination in

to designate the coinage of Alexander, arising from the passage in D.L.

7.18, on Zenon’s saying, with Knoepfler, who restores the correct reading): Page 36 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary

. Knoepfler analyses in very great detail the ethnic forms of the Egyptian Alexandria (and also of Philippi), and I have availed myself of the material collected by him, and have referred to the pages of his study without reduplication of all the evidence, where I have been able to do so (cf. below, Appendix 1, p. 325). (49) JRS 65 (1975), 64 ff. = SEG 37, 884; cf. above, p. 154. (50) See e.g. Buresch, Aus Lydien, p. 16, no. 50 (= TAM V, 222) of AD 215; the coins have with many additional honorific titles in the course of time: see RE (1), s.v. (summary by Josef Keil); BMC Lydia, pp. lxxiv–xci); below, Appendix 1, pp. 374 f. (51) For the history of the nomenclature of Augustus’ Nikopolis, see J. Isager (ed.), Foundation and Destruction, Nikopolis and Northwestern Greece: the Archaeological Evidence for the City Destruction, the Foundation of Nikopolis and the Synoecism (Àrhus, 2001). The termination is most frequently associated with Egypt (see in text above), but it is recorded in Stephanus of one or two unlikely ‘cities’ or villages, as e.g. s.v. ‘hoc ineptissime de insula minutissima. fortasse

is, of course, Luna, of which, its vast gulf, between it and the sea, and its quarries, Str. 222 has an excellent description); s.v. (Apollon. Aphrod., FGrH 740 F1): otherwise unknown. (Attalus’ foundation, s.v. EM 331.39 (Apollod. FGrH 244 F77), sounds fanciful). To cities named in Greece such as (for which he quotes Thuc. 4.102, from whom he extracts the previous name, but by its Athenian omits the historical part of the episode, including its nomination as oikist, Hagnon), Stephanus adds from Nikanor of Cyrene, or another, the metonomasies, massive number of ethnics in

otherwise unrecorded), etc. A geographically arranged, is to be found in Redard, Les

Noms grecs en -TΉΣ, -TIΣ, pp. 118–90, among the overall group in (52) For the formula the dative of the preferred form, and others like it (at times in a different context), see above, pp. 266 f. (53) For the possible location of Kryassos see Fraser and Bean, Rhodian Peraea and Islands, pp. 55–7, and for this and other Peraean demes, ibid., 79 ff. and Blümel, IRhod.Per. 302 = Bresson, Receuil des inscriptions de la Pérée Rhodienne, 57; Debord et al., Les hautes terres de Carie, p. 198. Steph. refers to demes of the Incorporated Peraea as simply they were unknown as demes, whether because the demesystem in the Peraea had broken down (as it certainly had), or because his sources were simply unaware that they were, or had been, Rhodian demes (see the passages quoted in Fraser and Bean, op. cit., pp. 51 ff., which recognise that the region was, or had been, Rhodian). Steph.

Page 37 of 38

Stephanus of Byzantium’s Vocabulary

where only Polemon (fr. xxxiv Preller) has the documentarily attested form (IG XII (1), 151, l. 14 = Segre and Pugliese Carratelli (eds.), Tituli Camirenses, p. 280, no. 19, l. 13 (nos. 19–20; cf. SEG 49, 1070)). Preller quoted Xylander for the coins reading

but (as Mr R. A. Ashton informs me) certainly in error.

(54)

(55) (56) e.g. s.v. There is as yet no documentary attestation of the ethnic, since the few inscriptions referring to its inhabitants are all from the site itself. s.v.

(the Lindian deme?)

(57) See Steph. (S) s.v. (pp. 257–8), with the comments of Reitzenstein, Etym., pp. 316– 17 (where the passage is reprinted). The passage affords an excellent view of one small section of the work of Oros and Stephanus, and I reproduce it in full:

cf. Reitzenstein, Etym., p. 316: ‘Oros hatte in einem zusammenhängenden Abschnitt über diejenigen Ethnika, welche von einem doppelten Wurzelwort, abgeleitet sind, d.h. also mit anderen Worten über Städte deren Namensform zu schwanken schien, gehandelt.’ For the historical location see the article of Helly, as quoted above, p. 191, n. 42.

Page 38 of 38

oder

Stephanus’ Sources: the Tradition of ἐθνικά

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

Stephanus’ Sources: the Tradition of ἐθνικά P. M. Fraser

DOI:10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.003.0015

Abstract and Keywords This chapter focuses on some problems associated with Stephanus' ultimate sources, and considers how much his text contributes to the subject of ethnic terminology. Stephanus is not the earliest writer on or compiler of a catalogue of places and ethnics, but his work alone survives, though only in an epitomised form, and is thus the essential part of the evidence. The goal is to interrogate the text in the hope that it will throw more light on the various aspects of ethnic formations in general use. The chapter examines the text of the Epitome with especial reference to the main sources of earlier date, with particular consideration to (a) Alexander Polyhistor, of Miletus, a contemporary of Sulla, to whom he owed his Roman citizenship, with the nomen Cornelius, whose enormous output — some thirty separate titles in all — included numerous works concerned with ethnic forms; (b) Herennius Philon of Byblos, the Phoenician‐ Greek ‘translator’ or author of the Phoenician history which passed under the name of Sanchuniathon, and author of a work on ‘Famous Cities and their Famous Sons’, which included much information on ethnic forms; and (c) Alexandrian Oros, of the fourth/fifth century ad, who formed perhaps the final link between Stephanus and his predecessors, and also between Stephanus and contemporary or later writers. Keywords:   Stephanus, ethnics, ethnic formations, ethnic terminology, Alexander Polyhistor, Herennius Philon, Alexandrian Oros

General Remarks THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER is not to add further speculation to the problems associated with Stephanus’ ultimate sources, but to exhibit a few categories of such problems, with reference to the text, and to consider how much his text contributes to the subject of ethnic terminology. Stephanus is not the earliest writer on or compiler of a catalogue of places and ethnics, but his work alone survives, though only in an epitomised form, and is thus the essential part of the evidence. My aim is to interrogate the text in the hope that it will throw more light on the various aspects of ethnic formations in general use, though it is not my intention to undertake the overwhelmingly complex task of analysing the whole substance of the Ethnika.

Page 1 of 25

Stephanus’ Sources: the Tradition of ἐθνικά I take it as axiomatic for this task that, apart from the Classical and other historians whom the Epitome quotes in large numbers—Hecataeus, Herodotus, Thucydides, and through the fourth century to the Attic orators, the Alexander-historians, polybius, and others—Stephanus had ultimate access, whether at first hand or less closely, to the limited number of philologists and grammarians, and to the pinacographers, who had written pinakes, documented lists, of writers on ethnics and kindred topics. For this purpose we shall scrutinise the text of the Epitome with especial reference to the main sources of earlier date, at whatever remove we find acceptable, who wrote on ethnic formations. For this we shall give particular consideration to (a) Alexander Polyhistor, of Miletus, a contemporary of Sulla, to whom he owed his Roman citizenship, with the nomen Cornelius, whose enormous output—some thirty separate titles in all—included numerous works concerned with ethnic forms; (b) Herennius Philon of Byblos, the Phoenician-Greek ‘translator’ or author of the Phoenician history which passed under the name of Sanchuniathon, and author of a work on ‘Famous Cities and their Famous Sons’, which included much (p.284) information on ethnic forms; he may be dated to the period from the second half of the first century AD to the first half of the second; and (c), first in importance but latest in date, the Alexandrian Oros, of the fourth/fifth century AD, who formed perhaps the final link between Stephanus and his predecessors, and also between Stephanus and contemporary or later writers. Compared with these authorities, of whose work we can assess the significance, the names of Metrodoros (not quoted by Stephanus) and Philoxenos carry no weight: both are mentioned in a hardly trustworthy list as having written on ethnics, along with a nebulous ‘Longinos’ and the earlier Amerias of Macedon, whom the Epitome again does not quote at all. Philoxenos, however, is quoted by Stephanus twice, once from his commentary on the Odyssey and once from an unspecified work, for a fanciful etymology of the word We may therefore consider the problems of Stephanus’ sources without further reference to them.1 In dealing with an epitome of an author of whom the original text does not survive, the epitome has to do duty for the author, but there are one or two passages in the MSS of the Ethnika which appear to survive from the original text, and these demand prime scrutiny. It also appears likely, though not certain, that more than one epitome of Stephanus was composed in the long centuries between the publication of the original work early in the reign of Justinian and the tenth century, the date of the compilation of the Suda, which refers to the otherwise unknown Hermolaos as the author of ‘the’ Epitome, (p.285) probably, but not necessarily, that which survives.2 Fragments of the unepitomised text are quoted at times at some length by Constantine Porphyrogennetus in his De Thematibus and by Eustathius in his commentaries on Dionysius the Periegete and (to a lesser extent) on the Iliad, and in such cases Meineke either placed the quotation in the appropriate entry in place of, or alongside, the Epitome, or quoted it in his detailed textual notes. These later writers who drew on Stephanus in this manner may obviously be of the first importance for the form of his original text, even if they do not always provide much additional information regarding his sources, since they are satisfied to quote him

like Strabo

without recourse to earlier references to the work. Further pieces of the original, or a version of it—that is to say, quotations which differ in some respects from the surviving Epitome—occur also notably in the scholia to Apollonius Rhodius and to Lycophron, the Etymologicum Genuinum, and (to a lesser extent) the Magnum, the relationship of which to the Epitome have been elucidated in individual studies, notably by Reitzenstein for the Etymologica, by Scheer for the scholia to Lycophron, and by Wendel for those to Apollonius Rhodius.3 It has also to be borne (p.286) in mind that Stephanus, though he quotes abundantly from many sources, directly and at second hand, may also have taken material from authors to whom he does not refer by name when he is using them for a particular entry, even though he

Page 2 of 25

Stephanus’ Sources: the Tradition of ἐθνικά may refer to them in other entries. Certain passages of Marcianus of Heraclea, in entries of Stephanus in which he is not quoted by name, but which, in view of their close similarity, are clearly derived from him, have even been taken as evidence that Marcianus collaborated with Stephanus in the original work.4 In this section on Stephanus’ sources we shall primarily be concerned with his predecessors as writers of works on ethnic forms, but we must first consider Stephanus’ own direct contribution to his work, in so far as that can be recovered. Only one statement of Stephanus referring to his life or work can be identified in the Epitome with absolute certainty, but it nevertheless seems probable that three remarks refer to his own studies and stand in their own right, independently of the Epitomator, whether Hermolaos or another. The frequently quoted entry s.v.

(α 305 Bill.)… (=

unpunctuated) brings to our notice a man known, apart from this strikingly personal note in Stephanus, only from a single, biographical notice in the Suda, which must record almost all that was still known of him at the time of the original composition of Hesychius of Miletus’ biographical work in the fifth century. The Suda entry says:5

When all allowance is made for the mediocrity of much Byzantine lexicography, it is difficult not to be impressed by Eugenios’ productivity, and the link with Stephanus indicated by the latter’s entry under provides it with a particular interest in the present context. Although the issue with (p.287) him in that entry is on a simple matter of iotacism, Stephanus’ judgement shows an authentic that it too may have had a critical sense. It appears from the subtitle of Eugenios’ similar bias in favour of the forms in iota. There can be little doubt, at all events, that Stephanus owed a debt to his predecessor in his Chair, a debt which may have been more substantial than appears from the surviving Epitome, and perhaps no less than he owed to his main pinacographical sources. The local historians, Xenion of Crete and, probably in the later Imperial period, the Syrian Greek Uranius for the ethnic forms of Arabia and adjacent regions, also deserve attention, since it seems likely that they provided ethnic information based on historical narrative, if this was not available from the traditions found in the standard Classical writers. One specialised historian or antiquarian who requires especial consideration, Krateros of Macedon, is reserved for discussion at a later stage (below, pp. 302–5).

Page 3 of 25

Stephanus’ Sources: the Tradition of ἐθνικά The entries s.v.

(γ 104 Bill.):

work by Stephanus. It is unfortunate that no fragment either of his

sole clue to other or his

survives, but it does not appear that either work formed part of the original and established facts concerning the relationship of the Epitome to the full text are few and do not form a basis on which to build up a picture of his full achievement. The relation 6

of the main Epitome to the original text can be briefly recorded.7 The original work was evidently written early in the reign of Justinian, c.535, and it has been assumed that Hermolaos’ Epitome, which the Suda states was also dedicated to Justinian, followed swiftly on the heels of the original. However, Honigmann maintained that it was unlikely that an epitomator would dedicate a work to the Emperor, and suggested that the name was erroneously(?) transferred by the compiler of the Suda from the now lost opening dedication to (p.288) Justinian.8 If that is correct, the Suda in the tenth century must provide the terminus ante quem for the Epitome itself, for which R, a manuscript of the fifteenth century in Bratislava, is the outstanding authority. The hand of a second epitomator (?) can, in addition, be seen in R for the 9 The interventions of the Epitomator in the double entries from to surviving text can only be identified, save in one certain instance, on the treacherous ground of errors regarded as unlikely to have been committed by Stephanus. In the same way, some substantial alphabetical blocks of omissions found in all manuscripts must have existed in the

text of the archetype and be due to the Epitomator.10 The original work was composed in a large number of books, themselves organised into subdivisions, to which occasional reference is made in various lemmata of R; a total of fifty or more books in all seems likely.11 Apart from the biographical passages already quoted, there are two other ways, which may reflect his use of his own library in which the original hand of Stephanus may possibly be identified within the existing text of the Epitome. The first is from personal statements, criticisms, and similar remarks which are scattered, very thinly, throughout the text, and may perhaps stand as surviving from Stephanus’ own manuscript. Such remarks are largely orthographical, and either criticisms of earlier authorities, whether or not we choose to call them his ‘sources’, in respect, mainly, both of the condition of the (p.289) texts that they used and of their own inaccuracies. Such statements include the following entries.

12

Page 4 of 25

Stephanus’ Sources: the Tradition of ἐθνικά

s.v.

(α 305 Bill.): this item is quoted above, with reference to Eugenios.13 The

phrase s.v.

is paralleled in other lexical texts. (α 129 Bill.),

This entry is corrupt at some points; the text of Meineke and of Billerbeck is printed here. In any case, the references to the two sources with whom (p.290) Stephanus takes issue, Eudaimon and Habron, are not in doubt, and it seems clear both that Stephanus is quoting them at first hand, and that the text has not been tampered with, at least in this respect, by the Epitomator. It is possible that Stephanus is quoting Habron at second hand from Eudaimon, who must be of the age of Hadrian or even considerably later, but he speaks against the latter in favour of the former, so I incline to think that they are independent quotations. Neither author is quoted by Stephanus for any other 14

named work, nor does he quote them together elsewhere.15

s.v. The last words a personal touch, seem to indicate that this is purely an analogical statement.

Page 5 of 25

again with

Stephanus’ Sources: the Tradition of ἐθνικά

16

(p.291) In both the two last examples, where

is emphatically placed at the end of a

the rebuttal very probably points to Stephanus’ own investigation of sentence, after more than one manuscript. Less obviously, the comment of Stephanus himself is that s.v. (γ 44 Bill.), which embodies a critical judgement of some complexity. Referring to the location of Gedrosia, he quotes Dionysius the Periegete (l. 1086), He continues, (FGrH 273 F118) That is, ‘I do not know whence the form [i.e. came. But the text had not been corrected.’ This might be an editorial, i.e. Epitomator’s, comment, but the positive suggests the contrary (cf. below, n. 36). It is of course arguable that all or some of such statements of direct consideration may be assigned to the Epitomator, or even perhaps (particularly in a very short comment, such as that s.v. ) to an early copyist, but it implies a conscientious initiative which does not seem to accord well with the epitomators’ methods of work. The argument in favour of their being Stephanus’ own comments is strengthened by, for example, such an entry as s.v. (quoted above)—more easily associated with an author than an epito-mator. This may be contrasted with the numerous examples of dislocated alphabetical sequence, which are to be attributed to epitomatorial or scribal error.17 In the absence of a full text the question is inevitably insoluble, but it seems more natural, in view of the precise nature of at least some of the criticisms to assign them to Stephanus himself. On the other hand there are numerous cross-references in the text, usually in the phrase in which the term of reference has been suppressed by the Epitomator, as e.g. s.v.

(α 30 Bill.),

18

(p.292) Turning to Stephanus’ use of his sources, we must make a fundamental distinction between (a) the normal process of quotation by which he illustrates current (or mostly current) ethnic forms from authors of all types and periods, from Homer and the earliest historians and logogra-phers, notably Hecataeus of Miletus, through to the Imperial period; and (b) his use of writers who were specifically concerned with ethnics. Writers in category (a) do not call for special attention in this context, since, with a few exceptions, we do not expect Stephanus to have consulted individually at first hand many, if any, of the numerous authorities whom he quotes. It is a feature of the Epitome, perhaps due to the Epitomator, that Stephanus only occasionally quotes an author through a named intermediary or quotes two authors in a sequence that suggests that the second named has been filtered through the first.19 The quotations in toto do not, for the most part, call for comment, and I do not propose to analyse them here: the reader will find a quantitative list of the authors, according to genre, in Appendix 3. We can also probably accept that in the restricted grammatical and linguistic fields Stephanus Page 6 of 25

Stephanus’ Sources: the Tradition of ἐθνικά used one main source for his information, namely Herodian’s which he quotes explicitly some fifty times, along with numerous references to other, less widely quoted, works by him. It does not, however, follow on that account that his use of Herodian extended to other, more general fields.20 The second category of texts (b) provided material focused on The identity of these ‘ethnic’ writers as quoted by Stephanus, or by what the Epitomator has left of him, is reasonably certain, even if the phases of transmission are at times in doubt. They are Alexander Polyhistor, Herennius Philon, and, at a much later date, Oros of (p.293) Alexandria, who was an important source for the Etymologica Genuinum and Gudianum, and to a lesser degree, the Etymologicum Magnum. That, naturally, does not mean that Oros is to be reckoned as the unique source for ethnic forms in Stephanus, but it shows the widespread use of his as a textbook for the early Byzantine period, and he remains a likely major direct source of ethnic information at first hand.21

Xenion and Uranius Before turning to consider traditional writers on ethnica, we may notice two historians whom Stephanus perhaps used at first hand: the otherwise virtually unknown historian or logographer Xenion, probably of the later Hellenistic age, and, probably some centuries later, Uranius. That Xenion was a Cretan writer of Hellenistic date seems probable, but there is some doubt as to his identity.22 Stephanus quotes him just about as often as he does Didymus or Oros (thirteen times), and when doing so he only once (s.v. ) mentions any other source, either in disagreement with, or to supplement, what he has to offer. Moreover, apart from Tzetzes on Lycophron, who refers to him as having listed the ‘hundred cities’ of Crete,23 and one entry in the Etymologicum Magnum s.v.

24

Stephanus is the only source to quote him, mostly for smaller cities:

(p.294) He does not quote him for the more familiar cities, Phaistos and Gortyn (the entry on Knossos falls within a lacuna in the Epitome), and he gives no source for the entries s.v. Lyktos, Milatos (added by Meineke to Stephanus from Eustathius), Lukastos, Phaistos, and Rhytion.25 Examples of typical entries by Xenion are s.v. add. Gronovius]

[

lac. in MSS,

There is no doubt that there is a striking resemblance on a small scale between the method of Xenion and that of the text of Stephanus as it now stands. We have already suggested that lexical terminology may have changed in this respect, from in the later Hellenistic period, and Xenion’s use of this earlier form suggests that, in spite of possible evidence to the contrary, he was probably writing in the Hellenistic age.26 When considering the possible links, direct or indirect, between a writer such as Xenion and the Epitome it is important to bear in mind that although the surviving quotations from Xenion, as preserved in the Epitome, indicate that he gave the grammatical and linguistic data concerning Cretan city-names, his range is geographically strictly limited, and his contribution cannot have been central to the overall concept of the Much later, probably in the fourth century, Uranius, like Xenion, appears to be an unmistakable and probably direct source, though limited in range. His

in five books is quoted for

much of the information about the ethnics of Arabia. Uranius’ references s.vv.

Page 7 of 25

and

Stephanus’ Sources: the Tradition of ἐθνικά to the province of originally Palestina Salutaris (AD 358-c.400), of which the capital was Petra, seem to indicate a late date for him, and attempts to place him in the time of Augustus or in the Flavian period should probably not be accepted, though the arguments involve local knowledge of Arabian topography (p.295) and early dialect, which lie beyond the scope of the present discussion.27 It must suffice here that Stephanus speaks of him in terms of the highest praise. s.v. In this case it seems evident that the clause was not inserted by the Epitomator, but is a surviving observation by Stephanus.28 Uranius’ information seems often to have been both geographical and linguistic, and he was no less concerned with ethnic forms than with the orthography of names. He is thus a much more probable direct source than the otherwise unknown Glaukos, whose is quoted (p.296) without any elaboration at all by Stephanus about a dozen times, as opposed to the thirty-odd quotations from Uranius.29

Other Influences We must now consider the two authors from whom, in the last resort, it seems probable that Stephanus’ concept of an encyclopaedia of ethnic forms is largely derived: Alexander Cornelius Polyhistor of Miletus, and Herennius Philon of Byblos, author of numerous works, not least the famous ‘translation’, composed by Philon, of ‘Sanchuniathon’s’ History of Phoenicia, the largely transmitted to us by Eusebius in the first book of the Praeparatio Evangelica. Among the nine or ten works attributed to Philon his in thirty books, in effect a work on ethnics, stands as a likely major source of Stephanus, both intermediate and direct. There are some forty references to him in the Epitome, given in a rather uniform manner, mostly without a very substantial quotation, and without a reference to the title of his work, with the brief formula

frequently followed at some point by the name(s) of the litterati native to the

city in question,

followed by a variety of extraneous references, which

indicate that Stephanus regarded them as constituting a reliable But there is one cause for hesitation: Philon, like Stephanus himself, underwent epitomisation, at the hands of a certain Aelius Serenus, and it is possible that the brief, and, as it were, familiar references to Philon are from a prior epitomisation of his text, before it reached the original text of the Ethnika of Stephanus, let alone before the Epitomator got to work.30 (p.297) With regard to Iranian nomenclature the complex entry s.v. indicates our ignorance of the development of this field, for which one might expect the main authorities to be the Classical writers of the Achaemenid, and immediately post-Achaemenid, period; it shows a degree of detail regarding sources, as well as a type of almost sophisticated linguistic explanation that points clearly to Stephanus and not to the Epitomator. The entry reads: [ add. Mein.],

The ‘authorities’ do not inspire confidence in themselves: Diotimos, not quoted again by Stephanus, is otherwise unknown, and the title of his work suggests an affinity with the world of trivial paradoxog-raphy, and Anaximenes, also quoted only here by Stephanus, and his ‘sad stories of Page 8 of 25

Stephanus’ Sources: the Tradition of ἐθνικά the deaths of kings’ is also unidentified; he was perhaps the older Lampsacene of that name, attested by numerous writers of the Hellenistic and Imperial period for various rhetorical works, but otherwise known only from one reference in Athenaeus to have written a book of this name.31 As already mentioned, the relationship of Marcianus of Heraclea to the text of Stephanus presents us with an example, probably the clearest of all, of the presence in Stephanus of ‘invisible’ sources; the two texts (p.298) resemble one another closely in a number of entries, and it has been suggested that Marcianus actively collaborated with Stephanus.32 The correct explanation, in view of Marcianus’ close reliance on Ptolemy, to whom Stephanus very rarely refers, can only be that Stephanus used Marcianus at first hand a great deal more than he quotes him for by name, frequently though he does that.

Oros Turning to Stephanus’ use of sources with a wider geographical base, but a particular ‘technical’ theme, we may regard it as probable that, as already indicated, the work on which Stephanus and the Etymologica alike relied was the of Oros of Alexandria. The form of the entries both in Stephanus and in the various Etymologica usually consist simply of the name The addition of a grammatical statement, as by EM s.v.

may be a result of Oros’ interest in Alexandria. There is also the question of Herennius Philon of Byblos.33 It may be regarded as (p.299) certain that for most references to the of individual cities Stephanus was greatly indebted, directly or through Oros, to Philon, author of, among other works, a pinacographical, biographical work, entitled of the first or second century AD: in contrast to the modest number of references to Oros, the Epitome quotes Philon over a hundred times. The listing of may have fallen outside Oros’ own subject-matter, and Serenus’ Epitome of the work of Philon of Byblos may help to bridge the long gap between Philon and Stephanus,34 but there are no grounds for supposing that Philon wrote any more general work on The polymath Cornelius Alexander Polyhistor the Milesian, author of numerous books on regional geography, is among the most heavily quoted authorities in the text —more than ninety instances (see Appendix 3). He is cited in many entries in which an etymological statement is given, and in others in which he appears to be the source of entries covering remote regions and cities. In a number of the latter category of entries he is not quoted by name, but is probably responsible for the ‘translation’ given, with the formula to hellenised cities.35 Since Alexander (p.300) wrote in the time of Sulla, Stephanus may have owed access to his work at second hand to Philon, though Oros remains, as always, a probable immediate source.36 The list of authors, particularly of the later Hellenistic and early Imperial period, such as Epaphroditus, who may have been known to Stephanus through Alexander, Philon, and, eventually, Oros, could be greatly extended, to include the main Etymologica, but for the most part certainty cannot be achieved, and rather than investigate any further the very complex relationship between Stephanus and the lexicographers, we may consider one or two other general aspects of the Epitome.

Page 9 of 25

Stephanus’ Sources: the Tradition of ἐθνικά First, it is immediately obvious that the surviving entries contain virtually no historical or political information concerning events which affected individual cities or regions during the Classical or Hellenistic ages: under Athens no reference to the Peloponnesian War; under Thebes no reference to its destruction by Alexander; under Corinth no reference to its destruction in 146 BC; under Olynthos no reference to its destruction by Philip; the list could be continued indefinitely. A catalogue of ethnics need not have contained such information, and it could be maintained that in view of the manner in which the Ethnika was constructed from grammatical, geographical, paradoxographical, and other sources, we should not expect such information to have been included, and, if it was, it may very well have fallen a victim to the knife of the Epitomator. However, although the Epitome contains virtually no ‘history’, it is replete with references to Hecataeus, Hellanicus, Herodotus, Thucydides, Philistos, Theopompos, Ephorus, and (rather less frequently) Polybius, for these were to him apparently the final, or only, authorities for many (p.301) places, regions, or tribes, and it is noteworthy that the present text shows no sign of criticism of such authors.37 How, then, did these early and pre-Hellenistic historians reach Stephanus? Some, such as Hecataeus himself for geographical data and Hellanicus for mythology, are repeatedly quoted, usually in the form

or

or and so on, followed by a very brief quotation, or none at all. These entries do not correspond in form to those of the late, first- or second-degree intermediaries, Philon, Alexander Polyhistor, or Oros, and are too brief to represent the total ipsissima verba of the original source, as is usually the case with the quotations from Herodotus and Thucydides and the other historians. Herodian, the Alexandrian, the son of Apollonius Dyscolus, and the leading grammarian of the second century AD, is very frequently quoted in the Epitome in a curt, uniform style, both from his

frequently abbreviated to

on

matters of general syntax, and from his on orthography and accentuation, about which, though he was certainly the prime authority, Stephanus sometimes contradicts him, as, for example, in one of the first entries in the Ethnika, s.v.

(α 4 Bill.),

It does not seem open to doubt that he was known to Stephanus at first hand, and such entries appear to derive directly from him:38 the number of quotations from him in the Epitome (p.302) (although frequently unspecified in terms of the individual work, but usually with the name of the author recorded) is among the largest, not only for grammatical material, but overall. The failure of the Epitome to quote intermediate sources makes certainty impossible across the whole range of primary and subsequent material, and it is very possible that Stephanus may himself have read some of the ‘classical’ authors; quotations from Herodian, particularly those regarding syntactical issues, whether from a specific work, with the author named, or in a number of cases, anonymously, appear in this formulaic style.

Krateros Among these ‘classical’ and early Hellenistic sources one stands apart from the others, Krateros, the Macedonian of the later fourth century, a contemporary of Aristotle or Theophrastus, author of a in at least nine books, arranged in chronological order, the precise limits of which are uncertain. He played an important role as a transmitter of historical Page 10 of 25

Stephanus’ Sources: the Tradition of ἐθνικά geography, based on the collation of epigraph-ical texts.39 The work is quoted very frequently by Stephanus, and also by others. Stephanus gives the appearance of quoting him at first hand, but that can hardly be so; in any case his quotations from him are of the first importance, as providing the only approximate link between Stephanus and documentary evidence. It is indeed maintained that Krateros had drawn directly upon the inscribed records of quotas of tribute imposed by decree by Athens on the subjects of the Athenian Empire. The quota-lists themselves could hardly be described as but they are sufficiently close to the decree-producing mechanism of the Athenian Assembly for this to be a serious possibility. It is argued at length by the editors of the Tribute Lists that the geographical scope of the was derived from the first Imperial assessment of 454 BC, but though there is no doubt that some quotations of him by Stephanus correspond closely to the entries of the quota-lists, the difficulties in the way of establishing a precise chronolog-ical (p.303) link with one or other of the lists are formidable on account of the lacunae in the inscribed texts. In the present context it must remain uncertain whether Stephanus is quoting him at first hand, or, if not, through what route Krateros’ information reached him, but the evidence may be set out here. Stephanus quotes Krateros by name seven times (frr. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 19, 20), of which four quotations come from his ninth book:

These quotations form the major part of what remains of Krateros’ work, and to them Meineke in his Epimetrum added various unattributed fragments. Five further fragments in direct quotation are given in the text of Harpocration. There is no trace of further quotations in Eustathius, and

Page 11 of 25

Stephanus’ Sources: the Tradition of ἐθνικά we cannot tell where Krateros has fallen victim to the Epitomator, though, if he has, it is more likely to have been by way of direct omission rather than of abbreviation. Alongside such recognised authorities who covered a wide field in historical, geographical, or linguistic terms, there were also the local historians, quoted for a single region or city. Of these Stephanus makes considerable use of writers on Macedonian antiquities: Theagenes, a Hellenistic writer to whom he refers for local topography and legend on some fourteen occasions; for the same region at an earlier date, Balakros, whom he he quotes twice.40 quotes only a handful (p.304) of times; finally, Marsyas, whose Several authors also contributed antiquarian information regarding Herakleia in Pontus, especially during the Roman period, when natives of the city wrote numerous and similar works. Of these perhaps the most significant, as also the most quoted by Stephanus, was Domitius Callistratus, whose consisted of at least seven books,41 while Nymphis, the Hellenistic writer about Herakleia, whose epitome of the fourth-century writer Memnon was read by Photios, receives much less attention.42 A conspicuous position was occupied by the diverse works of the Cretan poet Rhianos, of the earlier Hellenistic period, who composed apparently separate epic poems upon the heroic events of different regions: an the first quoted by Stephanus from four books, the second from three, the much more substantial of which Stephanus quotes from sixteen books, and, the in at least fifteen books, which formed the main best-known of all his works, a source of Pausanias’ largely legendary account of the First Messenian War.43 Such local histories, among which Xenion’s Cretan series played an important role, formed a major part of Greek historiography and mythography at all periods, and the accumulation of the material in Stephanus makes the an important link in their transmission, particularly in regard to Egypt, of which Oros had especial knowledge, and, on a far larger scale, to the regions further south, for which Stephanus used Uranius as his main source.

(p.305) The Special Problem of Attic Demes Another group of citations consists of a quite distinguishable set of entries, which record the demes of Athens. Such entries might seem out of place in an encyclopaedia of ‘ethnics’, but the fact that in many cases they have ethnic terminations, and the associated derivatives such as probably explain and justify their inclusion at some point in the transmission of What is remarkable is the way in which they appear in the Epitome, in a manner that for the most part is different in form but not in principle from the true ethnic entries. In a few entries in which a documentary use of the demotic is illustrated by the attestation of the name of a proposer of a decree, as s.v. and again, for example, s.v. without any further indication of a source, it is natural to assign these also to Krateros. Other ultimate sources, possibly quoted at first hand for deme-formations, include Comic writers, Cratinus, Aristophanes, Eupolis, and others, and their words, when quoted, add varied information, and do 44

not follow the same rigid pattern.45 This suggests that the list of demes in toto, though originally based on a documentary list in which individuals were listed by (tribes and?) demes, was grammatical or antiquarian in origin and of a later date than Krateros and the Atthidographers. When we look for a candidate for this material we find quotations both from Callimachus and Aristophanes of Byzantium of the mid-second century BC, and from later writers.46

Page 12 of 25

Stephanus’ Sources: the Tradition of ἐθνικά (p.306) Most (but not all) entries for Attic demotics consist of short statements of the grammatical form, followed by the name of the tribe, with little legend attached, and the irregular addition of the associated τοπικά in the established adverbial forms. See the following entries, for example.

Other entries refer to later named sources, for example:

Many more examples of what is the normal practice in Stephanus’ citation of some 110 demes might be given, but these few suffice to reveal a pattern. The questions arise: (a) is there a single and uniform source of these entries, and (b) in any case how did it, or they, reach Stephanus? The second question is to some extent answered in a study by Leopold Cohn, who showed that the same source forms the geographical element in the scholia to Plato, and that this source cannot be one of the recognised geographers (e.g. Strabo or Ptolemy), or indeed Stephanus himself (who alone preserves the almost tabular form of the entries), but that he very probably belongs to the period before the creation of the twelve tribes (i.e. the end of the fourth century BC), or at the latest a date in the early third (p.307) century.47 Harpocration, whom Stephanus never quotes, seems to determine his identity. He gives the source of the evidence for twenty-six demes, of which nineteen occur in the same form in Stephanus, and the source of

Page 13 of 25

Stephanus’ Sources: the Tradition of ἐθνικά these is invariably author of a work whom Stephanus quotes four times together with Didymus, and once alone (see above, 7 and 8). He quotes other writers on Attic antiquities when he is dealing with those demes of the time of the ten tribes which later changed tribes when they entered the twelve-deme structure.48 Diodorus cannot thus be much later than the formation of and in 305, but 49 he is unknown to us outside these sources. He is quoted by Stephanus, preponderantly (three times out of four) together with Didymus, in such a way as to suggest that Didymus was the transmitter, but the latter is not known to have written on the Attic demes.50 No known source in fact can be shown convincingly to have been the intermediary, but it seems unlikely that the entries in Harpocration, normally (as is natural) linked to an oratorical fragment, in which Diodorus is at times identified both by his own name and title and by that of his work (though often the entries are quoted, directly or not, from the Orators themselves), represent the same stage of extraction as those in Stephanus. There, on his rare appearances, Diodorus simply has his bare name, while the deme-entries as a whole appear as anonymous entries in a regular, tabular form, which could have been, or formed part of, a pinacographical work.51 The entry s.v. (β 56 Bill.) seems to establish a grammatical rule concerned with demotic forms: (p.308) 52

This anonymous grammatical observation could be assigned to Diodorus, but he does not elsewhere survive with the formula and the entry may be from Herodian. It is therefore probably as much as can be said that the detailed route of transmission of Attic demotic forms to Stephanus remains to be discovered, but the process en bloc may have begun with Diodorus.53 There remains one linguistic point to be considered. It is suggested that the original expression to denote the ‘ethnic’, in so far as it related to citizenship, was the noun

in the

formulation: polis-name, followed by followed by the ‘ethnic’. We found no trace of used in this context before Apollonius Dyscolus. It is in keeping with this that the formula used to express the demesman in Stephanus is the natural parallel form to the regular in surviving literature, while there are instances of above, s.v. expressed as

and that the adjectival noun, does not exist with this sense standing for

(see

). Thus although a great many of the entries in Stephanus for ethnics originally may have vanished from his text, the form for the demesman,

survives in almost every case. This corresponds to the date assigned to Diodorus the Periegete (or perhaps a, even his, pinacographical source) in the present context. It is also exactly the formula used by Harpocration to describe the demes and demotics referred to by the orators of the fourth century. A specimen list of such entries shows the same formulation with a few exceptions, some of which seem to be a contamination of two types of entry. Our second question arises concerning them all: could the unusual and formulaic brevity of these entries derive not from the pinacographically minded Diodorus himself, but from some source much closer to Stephanus, even his Epitomator? Of course, we cannot be certain on this (p.309) treacherous ground, but I think it unlikely. The hand of the Epitomator, where it can be recognised beyond doubt, seems to have added naive information, rather than precise and tidy formulae to supersede the original text (the argument is, inevitably, circular). At the same time, the absence of any reference to Page 14 of 25

Stephanus’ Sources: the Tradition of ἐθνικά another source for the deme-formula, except for the one combination with Didymus, who did not apparently write on demes, suggests that Stephanus used the list directly, and therefore most probably that Diodorus himself provided it. Stephanus shows himself aware of the peculiarity of Attic deme-forms in his entry s.v. by the, or an, Epitomator.54

the fullness of which does not suggest intervention

We observed earlier (above, pp. 25, 241) that when Stephanus refers to a citizen not by the adjectival noun,

he is probably following an earlier grammatical tradition in which

the ethnic of a city was described by a substantival form, or the singular or plural participle, or a similar nomen agentis. It did not prove possible to determine a particular grammarian responsible for this systematisation of a usage which must have been long in practice, but the suggestion was made that the usage might be associated with the grammatical activity of Aristophanes of Byzantium or one of his later Alexandrian successors. The correct grammatical term for expressing membership of a deme, thus corresponds to the earlier word used to express citizenship,

It is to be noted

that though Stephanus frequently uses the expression that does not exclude the occurrence of in the same entry in the same form, for example: s.v.

an entry in which the identity of the two terms is clear, and may reflect the Epitomator. Such entries are frequent, and cover a wide geographical (p.310) spectrum.55 The fact that the sources of this tautological formulation are never specified may indicate that at some point, perhaps between Harpocration and Oros,56 the distinction between the two grammatically diverse terms was in general lost, though there were certain situations in which the two terms might not be synonymous, owing to the wider extension of the term to include larger national units than a city, and cult-titles and similar epikleseis.57 This brief account of Stephanus’ sources, or some of them, has inevitably only a limited value, since a detailed comparison of what survives in the Epitome and what stood in the original text cannot be established, except for a minimal section. Nevertheless it suffices to show that, however much he took from his predecessors, traces remain that suggest that Stephanus undertook at least some individual research for his work in its complete form. Stephanus’ text always requires careful study of his historical and linguistic sources, named and unnamed, in spite of the fact that his epitomised text is an insuperable obstacle to a satisfactory solution of a great many of the innumerable possibilities. Alongside the ‘literary’ sources, that is, the historical sources and their lesser progeny, the pinacographers and their kith and kin, we have to set the truly ‘ethnic’ material, no less plentifully quoted. When we consider these two separate but interwoven strands together, we cannot but be struck by the rarity of surviving references in Stephanus to works specifically devoted to ethnic forms, with the sole exceptions, within the necessary chronological limits, of Herennius Philon and Oros. Is Oros, then, to be regarded, after all the dramatis personae we have named, as the fundamental source of the full text of Stephanus? We know of that work only, or almost only, what Stephanus and (more especially) his Epitomator have chosen to tell us, but it seems at least likely that no other specific author can lay so substantial a claim to the technically ‘ethnic’ material. Herennius Philo is the secondary (or primary) major claimant for much of the pre-Imperial technical evidence, and while we have throughout (p.311) necessarily Page 15 of 25

Stephanus’ Sources: the Tradition of ἐθνικά made due allowance for direct access by Stephanus to the great Classical writers, and to the development of the encyclopaedic tradition (except in the particular sphere of Egypt, of which Oros had especial knowledge, and the regions further east, for which Stephanus uses Uranius as his main source), for the anonymous entries, for which no source is named, we can go no further than assign the Attic deme-entries, as presented in the text, to Diodorus the Periegete. A further possibility may be put forward. In another context I tried to show that the list of foundations of cities by Alexander the Great up to and beyond the borders of Hellenic enterprise, as catalogued by Stephanus, had probably reached him from Oros. If Oros was indeed the source not only for the modest number of Egyptian ethnics, but also for a number of non-Egyptian entries—as is certainly the case for the entries under

and

which

58

Stephanus quotes from his and respectively —a case for a close association of Alexandrian and Byzantine learning may be made in this particular case. At all events, Oros forms a close link with Stephanus, and is of considerable importance in interpreting the epitomised text of the latter. Notes: (1) The only reference to these individuals as writers on ethnics is a single passage in cod. Coislian. 387 (10th-11th cent.), originally read by Montfaucon, which contains a canon of leading specialists in the various branches of pagan literature, mostly beginning simply with the common name of the category, for example,

This passage begins:

This list, and others associated with it, were well published by O. Kroehnert in his Canonesne Poetarum, etc. (Regensburg, 1897), pp. 5 ff. For Coisl. 387, the passage on writers on ethnics comes on p. 7, §XIII; the

is Kroehnert’s very likely correction for

(who also

occurs in §§X, XIII, The authority of the list is suspect, for while the names are those of distinguished grammarians, none of them except Oros is known to have written on ethnics, and he is here by emendation only (cf. also Kroehnert’s Tab. C (p. 10) See also the thorough analysis by Honigmann, RE, s.v. Stephanos (12), cols. 2379–93, and the note in the edition of the fragments of Philoxenos edited by Chr. Theodorides, Die Fragmente des Grammatikers Philoxenos, Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker, 2 (Berlin, 1976), p. 13, no. 19 (cf. also R. Rabe, Rh. Mus. 65 (1910), 339, n. 2). Of the three quotations from Philoxenos in Stephanus two are from his on the Odyssey. Metrodoros, no doubt the Scepsian, was the confidant of Mithridates Eupator (Susemihl, GGLA, ii, pp. 352 ff.; RE (23)). For Amerias see further below, p. 304, n. 40. ( 2)

The name is far commoner in the Imperial and Byzantine periods than in the preChristian period, and the author cannot be identified with any homonym: see LGPN, passim. Eust. D.P. 288.23 (GGM, ii, p. 288, line 23), quotes Stephanus’ work as if he were quoting the original

Page 16 of 25

Stephanus’ Sources: the Tradition of ἐθνικά

where he quotes Uranius from but it seems unlikely that he used the full text. Nevertheless, the variants from our text of Stephanus (as well perhaps as the absence of any reference to Hermolaos), suggest that Eustathius did not use the Epitome of Hermolaos: cf. Honigmann, RE, s.v. Stephanos (12), cols. 2393—t. The same is true of Constantine Porphyrogennetus, who used the full text of the MSS (s.vv. but adapted it (post alios?) to suit his taste: e.g. De Imp. 23, s.v. where he quotes Steph. directly for a quotation from Hellanicus (FGrH 1 F72b) of which Meineke ad loc. said ‘Hellanici verba Constantinus suae dictionis sordibus inquinavit foedissime.’ (3) Reitzenstein’s contributions are fundamental to many different problems of ancient lexicography, some of which touch to a greater or less degree on Stephanus, and his Geschichte der griechischen Etymologika (Leipzig, 1897), is a remarkable and stimulating book: see especially below, p. 293, and n. 21. For the relationship between the multifold scholia of by one Sextion, see E. Scheer (ed.), Lycophron, seemingly based ultimately on a Lycophronis Alexandra (Berlin, 1881–1908), ii, pp. xxix-xxxii; for that between the scholia of Apollonius Rhodius and Stephanus see C. Wendel, Abhandlungen Göttingen, 3te Folge 1 (1932), 88 ff. For passages in the EM which reproduce, in some degree or other, entries in Stephanus (either the full text or the Epitome) see J. Geffcken, ‘De Stephano Byzantio capita duo’ (diss. Göttingen, 1886), pp. 1 ff. (4) See below, p. 298, with n. 32. (5) E 3394. (6) For these passages, referring to his professional status, the

(not in FGrH) and the

see Honigmann, RE, s.v. Stephanos (12), col. 2369, a-c, who gives five other examples of varying weight, which may have escaped the knife of the Epitomator. It does not seem at all probable that, as Meineke thought, such entries betray the hand of an interpolator, and though no other trace of a by Stephanus exists, it was evidently a separate work, and not a lost preface to the Ethnika; it should probably be regarded as meaning ‘preliminary studies’. The noun itself is certainly very rare, though the verb occurs several times: see LSJ, s.v.; an instance from Greg. Nyss. in Sophocles, Lexicon, s.v. (7) This information is carefully provided by Honigmann, loc. cit.

(8) (9) See Mein. ad loc. (p. 676), where the extra version is printed in the footnote; Honigmann, RE, s.v. Stephanos (12), col. 2376, III-IV. The first summary precedes the standard text of the Excerpta in that MS, and the two parallel pieces are called Ra and Rb. Meineke adds ‘Utrorumque excerptorum consensum indicat simplex R’. This is the sole example of the existence of a second epitome, and it is reasonable to regard the main work of epitomisation as the work of one man, Hermolaos, and I use the singular form ‘Epitome’ or ‘Epitomator’ to

Page 17 of 25

Stephanus’ Sources: the Tradition of ἐθνικά describe his version, except where it is necessary to indicate either both, or only the second, if its independent existence is to be accepted. (10) Comprising especially the entries between (11) Honigmann, RE, s.v. Stephanos (12), cols. 2377–9 has a very full account of the problems regarding the division into books and sections. The section of unepitomised text, in the Paris manuscript, S (Coislianus gr. 228), at the beginning of ग, gives a full title of the book followed by followed by seventy-six entries which corresponds to the number of entries for the same span of text in the MS of the Epitome, so the figure 14 must belong to the original text. Other book- or section-numbers up to 35 are mentioned in the Epitome, and arranged by Honigmann on the basis of the folio sequence in R. The manuscript tradition was reexamined by A. Diller, ‘The tradition of Stephanus Byzantius’, TAPA 69 (1938), 333–48 (= Studies in Greek Manuscript Tradition (Amsterdam, 1983), pp. 183–98) (with specimen itemised collation from different MSS). (12) Mein. ad loc. points out that the passage quoted above does not correspond to the accentual (cf. the passages quoted by Chandler, Greek rule concerning place-names terminating in is Accentuation, §§317–19). But the whole entry, along with the corresponding entry obscure. Weissbach’s entry in RE, s.v. Kabasos (2) reproduces Ruge’s article ibid. Kabasos (1)! (Cf. also Ruge, ibid., s.v. Kabessos.) (13) See above, p. 286. (14) The most significant problem is concerned, not with Stephanus’ use of sources, but with the relation of the Epitome to the original text. Steph. clearly states that the question of the ethnic termination of the surviving text s.v.

‘will be dealt with in its proper place’, but it is not dealt with in detail in which may in any case have

for the form

as suggested by Mein. ad loc. s.v. (15) For Habron see in brief Susemihl, GGLA, ii, pp. 213 f. He is described by the Suda, A 97 Adler, as like Dionysius Thrax, who certainly had links of some sort with Rhodes (see Fraser, Ptol. Alex., i, pp. 469–70, with notes); he is not likely to be pre-Augustan, since he was among the grammarians who migrated to Rome (see ibid.). The work is not otherwise recorded, but Steph. attacks him again s.v. Eudaimon is even more obscure. His Suda-life, E 3407, says he was a Pelusiote, but gives no shows him to be of the time of Hadrian or later. He chronology; his discussion of the form is coupled with Arcadius by Steph. s.v. where his prior mention suggests he was, if not a contemporary, himself quoted by Arcadius, and coupled with Oros (fr. 45 Reitzenstein), s.v.

His

is quoted in EM 457.12:

s.v.

(16) This is one of the few occasions where Stephanus quotes Strabo in isolation. (17) The numerous examples of incorrect sequence, which are regularly pointed out by Meineke, will have struck readers of the continuous text. One example of many:

Page 18 of 25

Stephanus’ Sources: the Tradition of ἐθνικά

Meineke says ‘Stephanus fortasse perhaps less likely to have slept, than the Epitomator.

but the author is

(18) FGrH 115 F218. It can hardly be maintained that Steph. was simply indicating with this phrase no more than ‘cf.’, since in that case the text of the Epitome would have many more examples than it has: if any were to be left, presumably all would have been. presumably refers to a preferred local ethnic termination, like but expressed adjectivally, cf. above, p. 266. It is worth quoting in this connection the statement of Schol. Pind. Ol. 3.181, that the study of grammar did not include dialect forms;

quoted by Lobeck, Paralipomena, p. 71. (19) This ‘filtering’ can only be established beyond reasonable doubt when Stephanus himself records conflicting views, by

or a similar phrase, of which the entry s.v.

is one example of many: (where see the text of Strabo 494 for the confusion).

(fr. 69 Stiehle). (20) The almost exclusive role assigned to Herodian as the main source of Stephanus by Lentz (GG III (1), pp. cxxxvi ff.), has long been shown to be misconceived: see Honigmann, RE, s.v. Stephanos (12), col. 2380. (21) See further the bibliography and references given for Oros in Fraser, Cities, p. 4, n. 4. Reitzenstein, Etym., pp. 287–350, gives a detailed analysis of all material relevant to Oros, especially in the different Etymologica, but his role in Stephanus is less than is there presented. The references to him stand mostly independently, without support or contradiction of other authorities in the same entry, but he is contrasted with Philon s.v. (in fact he lists eight); s.v. (α 120 Bill.), a richly documented entry, he is cited in a way that shows that Stephanus derived a reference to Herodian from Oros: (FGrH 556 F21)

(22) See Ziegler, RE XVIII, cols. 1479–80; FGrH 460. Ziegler suggests very plausibly that should be read for in Polyb. 6.45.1, re the Cretan constitution. It should be noted that the name is not at all common: of the four examples in LGPN I, there are three Cretans of the second or third century AD, but no others in the volume at all, save for one on a fifth-century BC lead strip from Styra; none from Athens; one from Aitolia.

(23)

Page 19 of 25

Stephanus’ Sources: the Tradition of ἐθνικά (24) F1, a legend about Zeus and the Kouretes on Mount Ida, authenticated by the note

(25) Except the Catalogue itself for Lukastos and Milatos same line, Hom., Il. 2.647.

which occur in the

(26) (27) FGrH 675, with a few textual notes. Uranius, who is said by Damaskios to have been a citizen of the Syrian Apameia (FGrH 675 T3, from Photios), was an unknown quantity in later antiquity; he is quoted only by Eustathius D.P. 38, who says of the origin of the epithet applied to

(F5). For his date the essential text is Cod. Theod. 6.4.30: Limitanei militis et possessorum utilitate conspecta per primam, secundam ac tertiam Palaestinam huiuscemodi norma processit, ut pretiorum certa taxatione depensa speciorum intermittatur exactio of AD 409; cf. Procop. Pers. Georg. Cypr. l.1044, with note ad loc.; cf. Jones, CERP2, p. 293, and p. 469, n. 91; Avi-Yonah, RE, Suppl. 13, cols. 415–16; B. Isaac, The Limits of Empire: the Roman Army in the East (Oxford, 1990), p. 288. (28) FGrH 675 F19. The preceding sentence is possibly corrupt in part (see Mein. ad loc.), but the clause quoted is not affected by this uncertainty, or by the emendations that have been suggested for it. On Uranius see further Honigmann, RE, s.v. Stephanos (12), col. 2387, who points out some geographical errors that he made. Stephanus is perhaps criticising him s.v. but the entry is ambiguous. The entertaining account of an ‘Uranius’ given by Agathias (T2 = Hist. 2.29), which assigns him to the time of ‘Chosroes’, can hardly refer to the same man. Honigmann, col. 2387, leaves the question of the identification open, but it must be said that the two aspects of one man are not easily reconciled. A lengthy analysis of the arguments for a much earlier date (Augustan or Trajanic) for Uranius by the authority on the topography of Arabia, von Wissmann, will be found in RE, Suppl. 11, cols. 1278–92 (with associated articles relating to the topography of S. Arabia, ibid., cols. 1304–12). The arguments for an early date (but not as early as those set out by von Wissmann) were first given by von Domaszewski in Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, 11 (1908), 239–42, but neither his nor von Wissmann’s dating seems to have been widely accepted, e.g. by the historians quoted in the preceding note, to whom add G. W. Bowersock, Roman Arabia (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1983), p. 62, n. 14, based on the summary of the unpublished dissertation of J. M. I. West in HSCP 78 (1974), 282–4, who rightly (as it appears) dates Uranius to the second third of the fourth century; and see now G. W. Bowersock, Selected Papers on Late Antiquity (Bari, 2000), pp. 123–34 at 129 f. A. Lippold in Der Kleine Pauly (1975), s.v. Uranios (1): ‘Vf. von rein geograph. in mind. 5 B; vermütlich 1 Jh.v.Chr.’, seems to be an exception in favour of the early date. It should be borne in mind, as a Page 20 of 25

Stephanus’ Sources: the Tradition of ἐθνικά

strong argument in favour of a late date, that the name does not seem to be attested before the advanced Imperial period, and to be largely used by Christians. For the history of the Nabataean kingdom, which plays an important element in the argument for and against an Imperial date, see Schürer, i, pp. 574–86, where Uranius is not discussed. (29) (the entry is out of correct sequence: see Mein.); s.v.

If, as Jac. believed, Glaukos is to be dated ‘zwischen ca.140– 200 p.’, the reference to must come from another source, probably Uranius. In his early article on Glaukos in RE (37) Jac. makes no attempt to date him: ‘Die Zeit des Verfassers lässt sich nicht feststellen.’ On Glaukos see Bowersock (2000) (above, n. 28), pp. 124– 8. (30) There is an outstanding article by Gudeman in RE, s.v. Herennios (2), whose view of the important role of Philon as a, or the, main intermediate source of Stephanus, I find very convincing. The fragments of Philon are edited as FGrH 790 ( epitome (790 T4) see the Suda,

(31) Mein. ad loc. pointed out that the brief entry s.v.

For the

indicated that Steph. had written

at greater length on Pasargadai: (with one sigma). He was concerned with the spelling of

with one sigma, as also attested by Dionys. Perieg. 1069,

but a comparison of the two entries is we have two or three witnesses, s.v. we of further interest, for while s.v. have a direct reference to two other entries, made, it may be surmised, by Steph. himself, the has no source, but simply

first of which, s.v.

125, where MSS have

The brevity of these may be due to the Epitomator (note the use of

in

the one case, and in the other), but it is tempting to suggest that a single full-scale entry regarding some of the Persian tribes once existed in the text. For the elder Anaximenes of Lampsakos, the rhetorician of the middle of the fourth century, see RE (3); FGrH 72; for his homonymous nephew, D.L. 2.3 (= T3; RE (4)). Which of the two is the author of this work (which in Athen. 531 is called Komm.

is quite uncertain: see, briefly, Jac. loc. cit.

(32) For this view see Fabricius, Rh. Mus 2 (1843), 374, and F. Atenstädt, ibid., n.F. 72 (1917/18 [1919]), 479–80; cf. Diller, Studies in Greek Manuscript Tradition, p. 149, n. 5 (= TAPA 69 (1938)). Marcian’s text is printed in GGM, i, pp. 515 ff., with excellent Prolegomena, pp. cxxixcxxxvii; there is a translation and commentary by Wilfred H. Schoff, Periplus of the Outer Sea (Philadelphia, 1927). Fabricius apparently expressed the same view in his Lectiones Marcianeae Page 21 of 25

Stephanus’ Sources: the Tradition of ἐθνικά (Dresden, 1848), which I know only from a reference to it in Müller, loc. cit. I have also been unable to see E. Miller’s Périple de Marcien dHéraclée (Paris, 1839). Atenstädt, loc. cit., below n. 35, provides a list of more than thirty passages in which Marcianus, whose text is very incomplete, closely coincides with, on the one hand, Ptolemy, and on the other with Stephanus: ‘herrenloser Stellen aus den E[pitome], die teils sicher teils höchst wahrscheinlich aus dem I Buch des per.mar.ext. des M. entnommen sind’. Müller, op. cit., p. cxxx, n.**, dealt with Fabricius savagely, and other reasons apart, including that of intrinsic improbability, there is no reason to suppose that they were contemporaries, as Fabricius maintains; Marcianus cannot be dated except within the widest limits, i.e. as later than Ptolemy and later than the geographer Protagoras, who cannot himself be dated independently. It is, at all events, clear that Stephanus borrowed a number of items directly from Marcianus, without record of the fact surviving, whether this be due to the Epitomator or (as seems more likely, in view of the massive number of named quotations surviving in the text) to Stephanus himself. (33) See Fraser, Cities, p. 5, nn. 5 and 7. It is likely that when Stephanus quotes, or refers to, he is quoting only Philon, or Serenus, his epitomator (see above, n. 30; Fraser, Cities, p. 5, n. 5), though pinacography was a frequent topic of study from the early Hellenistic age onwards, suitable for Stubengelehrten: see Fraser, Ptol. Alex., i, pp. 453 ff., with notes. are more usually inscribed records than literary texts, but might refer to either category. For example, FGrH 550, the Sikyonian

(34) It is noteworthy that Stephanus states that Philon and Oros disagreed over the total number of cities named A;θήναι; cf. above, n. 21 for further details. (35) For Alexander see E. Schwartz, RE (88) = id., Griechische Geschichtsschreiber (Leipzig, 1959), pp. 240–4; FGrH 273, and the work by P. F. Atenstädt, Quellenstudien zu Stephanos von Byzanz, I Teil, Programm Schneeberg (Schwarzenberg, 1910), which contains a very thorough study of the various formulae used by Stephanus when referring to Alexander; cf. also. id., Rh. Mus. n.F. 72 (1917/18 [1919]), 479–80; id., ‘Ein Beitrag zu Stephanos von Byzanz’, Philologus, 80 (1925), 312–30. (There are two columns of bibliography, from 1684 to 1921, in Honigmann, RE, s.v. Stephanos (12), col. 2397, §9.) Stephanus’ quotations from Alexander include works on almost every region of the ancient world, except Europe and Greece; for his ‘translations’ of native place-names see Atenstädt, Quellenstudien, pp. 3 ff. His work on Alkman was, perhaps, more probably concerned with the forms of the τοπικά that the poet used, than, as Schwartz supposed, a geographical commentary on his poems: the title was (cf. above, pp. 255 f., for the analysis of the is infrequent). His work on various forms used by Stephanus deriving from cf. D. L. Page, Corinna, JHS Corinna apparently had a more general title, Suppl. Paper 6 (London, 1953), a detailed study of the authoress; id., PMG, frs. 654–89.

Page 22 of 25

Stephanus’ Sources: the Tradition of ἐθνικά (36) s.v.

Stephanus has where the sequence

Alexander-Philon points to the latter as the direct source. However, s.v. (cf. FGrH 273 F118), apropos of the correct form of the ethnic given by Dionysius the Periegete, in the text

(cf. above, p. 291), the last clause can be understood in several ways. There are three questions: does Stephanus (or the Epitomator) mean (a) that Alexander was using a corrupt text of Dionysius; (b) that the text of Alexander was independently corrupt; or (c) that Stephanus had direct access to Alexander, and even to Dionysius as well? And if it implies, at the least, direct access to the former, is the remark due to Stephanus or to the Epitomator? The most common interpretation is that the comment is Stephanus’ own, because an epitomator would not take the trouble to consider the textual problem. There is no parallel to the expression in the surviving text, and thus the matter remains in itself quite open, but, if it is his own comment, it furnishes almost the only surviving record of Stephanus’ access to considerably earlier material. Cf. above, pp. 283–93, for the general question. (37) See the list of quoted sources given below, Appendix 3. Jacoby’s fragments of the early logog-raphers, FGrH 1–14 (his section A) give only the individual bare references to the author in Stephanus, where there is not an actual quotation. Thus the fragments of Hecataeus consist largely of two words, e.g. sometimes followed by the next sentence, if that is followed by a quotation from another author, e.g. F256, on Patara. A criticism of Hellanicus

(38) See Meineke’s Index, pp. 730–1, where his individual works are cited by name as quoted, as well as the passages where he is quoted without reference to any particular work. After listing the latter, Meineke says ‘multisque aliis locis ubi nomen Herodiani reticetur’; see also Schultz, RE (2), s.v. Herodianus (4), cols. 959–73, who gives a numbered list of his works, as well as a list of the ‘unechte’. All are lost, except in quotation, save for a small work, (‘On unique words’; GG II, pp. 908 ff.; Schultz, RE, no. 33, with col. 961). (39) Jacoby’s work on Krateros, RE, s.v. Krateros (1), cols. 1617 ff. (Griech. Gesch., p. 165); id., FGrH 342, is fundamental. See also Meineke’s impressive Epimetrum to his Stephanus, pp. 714 ff.; B. Keil, Hermes, 30 (1895), 213 ff., 229 ff.; ATL, i, pp. 450 ff.; iii, pp. 9 ff.; Rhodes-Osborne, Index, p. 567, identify the writer on Attic epigraphy with the general of Alexander the Great (ob. 321 BC), but this is speculative. (40) Theagenes, FGrH 774; Balak(g)ros, 773; Marsyas, 135 or 136. It will be remembered that Stephanus in the present text does not quote Amerias of Macedon (see above, p. 284), but it is evident from the names quoted here that there was no lack of other Macedonian historians. (41) FGrH 433. Another Heracleote writer, Herodoros, of the 4th cent. BC (RE (4) = F. Jacoby, Griechische Historiker (Stuttgart, 1956), pp. 241 ff.), author of a work on the Labours of Herakles and on the Voyage of the Argonauts, well known from the scholia to Apollonius’ epic, is not known to have written local history. However, Steph. has occasion to quote the work on Herakles, once or twice, not wholly with approval: s.v.

Page 23 of 25

Stephanus’ Sources: the Tradition of ἐθνικά

Steph. s.v.

This comes, of course, from his work on Herakles (FGrH 31 F35; cf. F29 = for another variant ethnic given by Herodoros).

(42) Memnon, FGrH 434; cf. Lacqueur’s two articles in RE (s.v. Lokalchronik, and s.v. Nymphis, discussed by Jacoby). (43) For Rhianos, much discussed for his account of the First Messenian War in his see FGrH 265 and Komm. The substance of the text consists largely of Pausanias’ account of the war in 4.4. For Rhianos’ poems, which are very fragmentary, see Powell, Coll. Alex., pp. 9 ff., and H. Lloyd-Jones and P. Parsons (eds.), Supplementum Hellenisticum (Berlin, 1983), no. 715. (44) For other references to Damon see LGPN II, s.v. 16; for Alexis I and II ibid., s.v. 18–19.

(45) (46) s.v.

(α 209 Bill.),

(fr. 704)

Callimachus is quoted for the error of calling Halimus a see Pfeiffer ad loc., and note the similar error of Hecataeus (FGrH 1 F126) quoted in the text (2), and Pfeiffer ad Call. fr. 266. Items nos. 7 and 8 above only quote later writers. (47) See Cohn’s analysis in Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Pädagogik, Suppl. 13 (1887), 852 ff.; Schwartz, RE, s.v. Diodoros (37); Susemihl, GGLA, i, pp. 654–5. (48) See Jones, Public Organization, pp. 67 ff., who gives a list of all the demes, with evidence, if any, for their public activity. (49) See, FGrH 372. Almost all the forty fragments come from Harpocration and Stephanus. See i.e. ‘On public graveJacoby’s commentary, with notes. Diodorus also wrote a monuments’, not ‘On public monuments (buildings)’. (50) See Jac. ad loc. Harpocr. s.v. shows that Didymus discussed the two demes, Upper and Lower Paiania, and also Paionidai (Jones, Public Organization, p. 70, nos. 98– 100), but the context indicates that he was only the transmitter of Diodorus’ comments on Aeschines, In Ktes. 51 (FGrH 372 F9 with notes), and does not point to a general work of his own. (51) The references in Stephanus are listed under the individual demes in von Schoeffer’s Demetables in RE s.v. Demos, but not in Jones, Public Organization. For a recent bibliography see the

Page 24 of 25

Stephanus’ Sources: the Tradition of ἐθνικά articles by D. Whitehead, OCD3, and Hansen, in M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen, An Inventory ofArchaic and Classical Poleis (Oxford, 2004), pp. 95 ff. (bibliography, p. 97). (52) FGrH 359, sole fragment; LGPN II, s.v. round

(11). I have put interrogative parentheses

which seems tautologous.

(53)

(54)

(55) (56) It is, of course, true that Harpocration is not writing about ethnics in the literal sense, but the issue is one of grammatical usage for a general classification of descriptive nouns, not of identity of context. (57)

(58)

Page 25 of 25

After Stephanus

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

After Stephanus P. M. Fraser

DOI:10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.003.0016

Abstract and Keywords The epitomised Stephanus is the only text of an Ethnika surviving from antiquity. Consequently we cannot speak of his successors in the same way that he himself may be regarded as successor of Oros, or at a further remove, of Alexander Polyhistor or Herennius Philon. There survive a number of unnamed quotations regarding ethnic forms in various Etymologica and elsewhere, which sometimes provide more information than the corresponding entries in Stephanus, but it is a manifest oversimplification to suppose that all these entries derive from the full text of Stephanus. Stephanus and the Epitome were subsequently used by a few Byzantine writers, notably by Constantine Porphyrogennetus and the Continuators of Theophanes, in the tenth and eleventh centuries, and above all, though last in time, by Eustathius in the twelfth. Keywords:   Epitome, Ethnika, ethnic forms, Etymologica, Constantine Porphyrogennetus, Eustathius

THE EPITOMISED STEPHANUS is the only text of an Ethnika surviving from antiquity. Consequently we cannot speak of his successors in the same way that he himself may be regarded as successor of oros, or at a further remove, of Alexander Polyhistor or Herennius Philon. There survive a number of unnamed quotations regarding ethnic forms in various Etymologica and elsewhere, which sometimes provide more information than the corresponding entries in Stephanus, but it is a manifest oversimplification to suppose, as Geffcken did, that all these entries derive from the full text of Stephanus (see below, p. 315). It is clear that Stephanus and the Epitome were subsequently used by a few Byzantine writers, notably by Constantine Porphyrogennetus and the Continuators of Theophanes, in the tenth and eleventh centuries, and above all, though last in time, by Eustathius in the twelfth (ob. c.1192).1 Constantine has three passages in his De Imperio Administrando,2 one of which reproduces (p.314) the long and complex entry of Stephanus s.vv. “Iβηρ and Iσπανία, without naming him, while in his De Thematibus there are some ten entries, one of which, that on Sicily, quotes him by name; all these passages derive from the full text of the Ethnika,3 while there is also a large number of entries in the De Thematibus which coincide with the Epitome. The ‘Continuators of

Page 1 of 7

After Stephanus Theophanes’, with their own successors, are a collection of minor Chronicles, of which the last, sixth, book forms an independent narrative.4 Eustathius’ paraphrases of the Iliad and the Odyssey and of Dionysius the Periegete, the geographical versifier of the later first century AD, show more clearly the frequent use of a text of Stephanus close to, but not identical with, that which survives. There seems to be no good reason to suppose that the variations between them point to the use by Eustathius at any specific point of a complete text of the Ethnika. The items frequently differ from Stephanus, mostly by an introductory phrase, or another addition by Eustathius himself, but this does not suffice to indicate use of the full text. He takes material from the Epitome as he chooses, and often expands (most often by adding further grammatical information) or contracts it. He also adds other sources, notably and naturally Homer and Strabo, to those which he found in the Epitome, usually (except for Strabo) without naming them, but it does not follow on that account that he had access to (or, at all events, used) the full text of the Ethnika. The author of the Epitome is expressly quoted independently of the complete text.5 Eustathius quotes Stephanus only once by (p.315) name (on Z 397 = Steph. s.v.

(α 60 Bill.), with additions by

the Archbishop), and normally calls him —as opposed to Strabo, quoted most frequently as or even, pinacographically as ‘the list of ethnics’, periphrastic descriptions suggests in addition that Stephanus’

6

This unique row of was the only work in this

category known to Eustathius.7 The relationship between the various Etymologica, which may probably be assigned in their surviving form to the twelfth century, and Stephanus is more complex.8 Geffcken regarded the geographical entries in the so-called Etymologicum Magnum as essentially quotations from a more complete Stephanus, and he argued for the insertion of these in the (p.316) text of the Epitome, where he felt that to be appropriate.9 There are undoubtedly a great many entries in the Etymologicum Magnum which contain information which can hardly be expanded quotations from the Epitome, since they contain different, or differently arranged, information, and within the range of the tri-literal lemmata of the letter Alpha in the Etymologicum Genuinum they are attributed largely to a lexicographer named Methodios,10 who is not quoted in Stephanus, to to Orion’s and, particularly concerning tonic Oros’ accentuation, to Herodian. The geographical entries suggest that the information in the texts of Stephanus and Methodios developed along independent lines, before both were compressed into the epitomised form in which they both survive today: compare, for example, EM s.v.

Page 2 of 7

After Stephanus

(p.317) However, until more of the many lexica have been published synoptically and their contents and ancestry compared, we cannot expect a final solution regarding the survival of Stephanus in another form than that of our Epitome, even if it be only in the form of discrepancies in quotations.11 The difference between the entries in Stephanus’ Epitome and the transmitted versions of the Genuinum, the so-called Gudianum, and the Magnum, all of which survive in different versions in different degrees of epitomisation and interpolation with humanistic marginalia, is in one important respect very marked. The lexica all quote lavishly from Methodios, the grammarian or lexicographer of whom we know little, save what we can infer from them.12 He is regularly quoted in entry after entry in the usual alphabetical manner, normally at the end of the item, throughout the lexicographical tradition, in the barest form, as or simply It seems probable that he compiled his lost lexicon, the name of which is unknown, in the fifth century, since quotations which are based on information provided by him do not refer to Orion, otherwise a prolific source for the lexica. While we cannot say that his lexicon did not, like all the surviving manuscripts of the lexica, contain geographical items, there is no quotation from either Orion or Methodios in the Epitome of Stephanus, and the possibility of his use in the original text of Stephanus is, on that account, wholly hypothetical. Problems such as this do not assist us very far in finding a later use of Stephanus, and we may have to accept the fact that—at least at present, for Stephanus may perhaps, in spite of the use made of him from the sixteenth century onwards, still be regarded as a Wartetext—there are very few references to Stephanus other than in Eustathius. Two manuscripts, however, deserve notice as a sign of a continued use of the Epitome at a later date. The first is a short manuscript text in Munich quoted, alongside Plutarch and one or two other writers, as evidence for a particular word-form.13 The second is a MS of the Etymologicum of (p.318) Symeon, dated to the end of the thirteenth century.14 Symeon has a number of references to Stephanus, but to a version of his Epitome different in several ways from that used by the Etymologicum Genuinum and the Etymologicum Magnum, but resembling that preserved in the Aldina of the existing Epitome of Stephanus himself.15 Once more, however, until a full text of Symeon is available it is Page 3 of 7

After Stephanus not possible to estimate the relationship between him and our Epitome or any possible alternative epitome.16 In view of the dessicated condition of Symeon it seems unlikely that any significant new information will be won from that source. Reference must finally be made to the remarkable list of ethnics preserved in several manuscripts of Longibardos, ‘the Wise’.17 These contain, among other grammatical or moralising tracts, a twofold list described as a (digression) of cities that had suffered destruction in the past, preceded by a warning to the reader that he must be careful to avoid such a fate for his own city. The lists of ethnics whose names follow, all in the genitive plural, governed by the noun ‘the destruction of the cities’, fall into two sections, first those in -αί̑oι, then those in and no purpose is stated for the arrangement. However, we may agree with Reitzenstein that its purpose is to act as an orthographic guide to the correct declension of such ethnics, in other words, that it is an example of the current method of The list, which consists of some three hundred entries under teaching by rote, this apocalyptic rubric, may suggest that other ethnic lists than (p.319) Stephanus’ Epitome were known in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, which may have provided scholiasts and others with information that the Epitome, unlike the original lacked. The list of Longibardos, however, unlike the lexica, is not compiled in alphabetical order, and shows no At the same time, the prescriptive use of that term by itself obvious links with the to describe Stephanus shows that he alone could be, and was, identified by it. To about the same approximate date as Longibardos’ list of destroyed cities we may assign a group of three or four closely related manuscripts, which contain lists of metonomasies. These, found in manuscripts dating from the fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries, are related conceptually to Stephanus, though the actual substance of them is very different, since many of the metonomasies are Slavonic. They were published most recently by Diller.18 With Longibardos our analysis of the tradition concerning Greek ethnic forms may suitably end. But the reader should keep in mind the surviving force of local ethnics in Greece today. This may be at any level from the nation through the region to the city and finally to the village, and today a man may say

or, to return to our starting-point:

as a burly

accompanying his to see the same doctor as I was waiting to see in Argostoli, said to me a few years ago, thus repeating the words attributed to Odysseus. (p.320) Notes: (1) The two articles by Aubrey Diller, ‘The tradition of Stephanus Byzantius’, TAPA 69 (1938), 333–48, and ‘Excerpts from Strabo and Stephanus in Byzantine Chronicles’, TAPA 81 (1950), 241–53, cover much of the substance of this chapter, with characteristic acuteness and clarity, and give one or two other Byzantine references to Stephanus, but he does not quote many examples of the parallel texts. His ‘The manuscripts of Eustathius commenting on Dionysius Periegetes’, in id., The Textual Tradition of Strabo’s Geography (Amsterdam, 1975), is a very full analysis of Dionysius, of which the text is still as in Müller, GGM, ii, pp. 103 ff. For the text of Porphyrogennetus, De Imperio Administrando see Moravcsik (text) and Jenkins (translation) (Budapest, 1949–67); for the De Thematibus see below, n. 3, and for Theophanes Continuatus see

Page 4 of 7

After Stephanus n. 4 below. The known passages from Constantine and Eustathius are quoted by Westermann in the Praefatio of his edition of Stephanus: see below, nn. 5 and 7. (2) See especially §§23–4 (Bonn = Jenkins-Moravcsik, pp. 98 ff. with variants in the order of the text). Constantine quotes the long entry in Stephanus, which is devoted to involved quotations on the declension of the proper names and geographical and historical references: see the commentary on this passage by Jenkins (ii, pp. 80–1). The passage had originally been intended for Constantine’s unwritten (cf. ibid., pp. 1 ff., where the purpose of Constantine’s excursus is analysed). The passage from Artemidorus of Ephesus regarding the Roman organisation and nomenclature of Spain (p. 324, ll. 4–9) exists in a papyrus fragment, Archiv für Papyrusforschung, 44 (1998), 189 ff.:

(3) For De Thematibus see the edition of A. Pertusi, Costantino Porfirogenito de Thematibus, Studi e Testi, 160 (Vatican City, 1952). Constantine takes his text from Stephanus without naming him in nine passages, including part of his entry on Dyrrachion pp. 56–7, which agrees closely with that of Stephanus’ full text as preserved in MS S, but does not mention him, and on Sicily pp. 58–9, quotes the full Stephanus as Of these two passages the former is inserted by Mein. into his text in brackets alongside the jejune entry of the Epitomator, while the long section in Constantine on Sicily is quoted in brackets in his text (Westermann, op. cit. (n. 1, above), p. xi, preferred to omit it). (4) See the brief analysis by K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur von Justinian bis zum Ende des oströmischen Reiches, 527–1453 (2nd edn., Munich, 1897), pp. 347– 9. (5) The fullest investigation of the use made of Stephanus by Eustathius is that of W. Knauss, ‘De Stephani Byzantii Ethnicorum exemplo Eustathiano’ (diss. Bonn, 1910), which carefully analyses the range of possibilities. The passages of Constantine and Eustathius ad Iliadem referring to Stephanus are given in full by Westermann (n. 1, above) in the excellent Praefatio to his edition, pp. x ff. (those on Eustathius on pp. xiii ff.). Having recorded (p. xvi) the numerous discrepancies between the MSS of the Epitome and of Stephanus, as quoted by Eustathius, Westermann concluded: ‘nihil iam reliquum esse videtur quam ut ponamus, Eustathium promiscue prout scribendi ad manus essent libri nunc integrum nunc decurtatum adhibuisse.’ In his to Dionysius (GGM, ii, pp. 201–407) Eustathius makes similar use of Stephanus, but does not refer to him either by name, or by one of the descriptive titles. Of the other scholiastic (ibid., pp. 409–25) contains no commentaries to Dionysius, the acephalous references to sources, but the scholia (ibid., pp. 427–57), allegedly the work of one Demetrios of Lampsakos (ibid., p. 427, n.), contain a large number: apart from those to Homer, there are references to Hesiod, Herodotus and Charax (FGrH 103 F35 and F36), frequently to Callimachus, Apollonius Rhodius and Lycophron, occasionally to Theocritus, Euphorion and Rhianos, to Euripides and Aeschylus, to Euclid (!), Eratosthenes and Ptolemy, and one to but no reference to Stephanus nor to any anonymous passage which corresponds with Page 5 of 7

After Stephanus the Epitome or a fuller text. The author of the scholia has collected an extraordinary range of material, not all of which is likely to be at first hand; he had a liking for pinacography, for he gives us several —a list of the (on l. 132), a list of the provincial units of Asia Minor (on l. 138), a list (probably unique) of the names of the Athenian oikists of the Cyclades (on l. 525, apropos of the inclusion of the islands in the province of Asia by Vespasian, see Müller’s note on GGM, ii, pp. 136–7), a short list of Aeolian communities (l. 820), a list of Carian (in fact, Ionian) cities (l. 822), and at the end of the scholia (p. 457) some random jottings, taken in part from the pseudo-Plutarchan De Fluviis, a list of twelve winds (cf. above p. 31, n. 65, for the distances between places around the Bosporus and the Euxine, the names of the seas and gulfs, and, finally, after having described the twelve winds at the beginning of the list, he concludes very satisfactorily

There is a resemblance with Ps.-Plut., op. cit. (see the text, reprinted by Müller, GGM, ii, pp. 637–65; cf. ibid. pp. lii ff. = Plut. ed. Bernadakis, vii, pp. 282–328), but the whole range of learning, individual or transmitted, is very remarkable. (6) See Eust. D.P. l. 382 = GGM, ii, p. 288, ll. 23–4; cf. also Eust. on Il. 1.35.3. (7) For these and other descriptions of Stephanus by Eustathius see the references in Westermann’s edition. Neither Stephanus nor Eustathius seems to have used Horapollon’s when referring to such forms; this was apparently the ultimate source of the list of in Cyril’s Lexicon: see Reitzenstein, Etym., pp. 312 ff., where the entries are listed. (8) See the summary by Diller, TAPA 69 (1938), 333–48, at 335–6 (= Studies in Greek Manuscript Tradition, pp. 183–98, at 185–6). (9) See his dissertation ‘De Stephano Byzantio capita duo’ (Göttingen, 1886), passim. His conclusions were dismissed by Honigmann, RE, s.v. Stephanos (12), col. 2394, in a few words: ‘Eine gleiche Untersuchung [as that of Knauss, on the relation of the text of Eustathius to that of Stephanus: above, n. 5] verdienen der geographischen Artikel des Etymologicum Magnum zu S. mit denen Geffcken in analoger Weise verfuhr…: voraussichtlich wird sie zu dem gleichen Ergebnis führen.’ Diller, op. cit. (1938), p. 335, accepts Knauss’s conclusions without question: ‘It was long supposed that he [Eustathius] had a fuller form of the work, but Knauss in 1910 showed that this was not the case.’ Westermann, op. cit., p. xi, was assured in the other direction regarding the EM: ‘Integrum item Stephanum ante oculos habuisse videtur auctor Etymologi magni.’ (10) See below, p. 317, and n. 12. (11) For partial editions of some of the lexica see the survey by K. Alpers, Bericht über Stand und Methode der Ausgabe des Etymologicum Genuinum, Det kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. 44, 3 (Copenhagen, 1969), and Lasserre-Livadaras, pp. v–xxx. (12) For Methodios see the edition of the fragments by G. N. Bonwetsch, Methodius, Griechische christliche Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, 27 (Leipzig, 1917) and the article by Wendel, RE, s.v. The analysis of the sources, especially the Homer-epimerisms in Cramer, Anecd.

Page 6 of 7

After Stephanus Ox., i, 71–85, quoted for AMA---AMΦ--- in the Genuinum, is given by Reitzenstein, Etym., pp. 45– 7. (13) This MS was first published by I. Hardt, Cat. codd. mss. graec. Bibl. Reg. Bavar., iv (1812), pp. 176 f., and I am grateful to the authorities of the Manuscripts Department of the Staatsbibliothek in Munich for sending me a photocopy of part of the text. The text is reproduced below, Appendix 4 (pp. 389 f.), where some of the points it raises are discussed. Note Diller’s comment, cited at Appendix 4, p. 390 below. (14) See the original discussion by Reitzenstein, Etym., pp. 254 ff., who provides a substantial specimen of the letter α. Berger (op. cit. next note) provides the entries of the letter β. (15) See Reitzenstein, Etym., loc. cit., with the modifications by G. Berger, Etymologicum Genuinum et Etymologicum Symeonis, Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie, 43 (Meisenheim am Glan, 1972), pp. xix ff. Berger shows clearly that the relationship between Symeon and the Etymologica is more complex than Reitzenstein had supposed; his conclusion is that while Symeon used Stephanus only directly, the EM used him both directly and through Symeon. The α-β sequence will now be found in its synoptic context in Lasserre-Livadaras. (16) See above, pp. 283–91. (17) See Reitzenstein, Etym., pp. 332 ff.; the work, entitled is attributed in the MS used by Reitzenstein, Vat. 883, of the 14th-15th centuries The full text of the Vatican MS was to published, as Mr Wilson pointed out to me, by N. Festa in Byzantion, 6 (1931), 112–63 (cf. also his previous study, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 16 (1907), 431–53). (The grammatical term occurs as the title of part of a treatise on see Reitzenstein, Etym., pp. 360 ff.). (18) Diller, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 63 (1970), as quoted at p. 155, n. 22, above. The lists were previously published by Burckhardt, in his edition of Hierokles, pp. 61–9, which was used by M. Vasmer, in his Die Slaven in Griechenland (Berlin, 1941), an outstanding work of topographical lexicography, in which all known metonomasies from Greek to Slavonic (and at times Ottoman Turkish) are listed and discussed.

Page 7 of 7

Conclusion

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

Conclusion P. M. Fraser

DOI:10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.003.0017

Abstract and Keywords This chapter presents some concluding thoughts from the author. The analysis of the use of ethnics across a wide range of literary and documentary sources, alongside the investigation of the text of the Epitome of Stephanus shows that, as full an understanding as is possible of the use of ethnics over more than a millennium must be based on the use of material from both sources. Stephanus illuminates constantly the varying history of the ethnic through the ages, even though his evidence is linguistic and literary. It is also evident that although Stephanus quotes the varying views of grammarians, notably Herodian, for the true accentuation of ethnics, on the whole he does not commit himself on this topic, and in a great many cases makes no comment of his own. Keywords:   Stephanus, Epitome, ethnics, Herodian

THE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF ETHNICS across a wide range of literary and documentary sources, alongside the investigation of the text of the Epitome of Stephanus, shows that, in the last resort as full an understanding as is possible of the use of ethnics over more than a millennium must be based on the use of material from both sources. stephanus illuminates constantly the varying history of the ethnic through the ages, even though his evidence is linguistic and literary. He may be demon-strably wrong in a large number of cases, in specific rather than general terms, that is, as relating to a single ethnic rather than to a whole category of forms, but he also frequently confirms such forms. Moreover, comparison both with the extracts made by Eustathius, and with that section of the full text preserved in one Paris manuscript (seguerianus; Coislianus 228),1 and with the quotations from Classical and postClassical writers, suggests that while the Epitomator(s) frequently operated in an irregular and capricious manner they(?) probably removed legend and myth (while preserving a limited amount of historical data, drawn from a variety of different categories of sources) rather than linguistic formulae and quotations of ethnic forms. We have also seen cases in which an entry in

Page 1 of 3

Conclusion stephanus which shows confusion between particularly ethnic and ktetic and other possessive forms coincides with the use of alternative forms in documentary sources. At a deeper level it is evident that although stephanus quotes the varying views of grammarians, notably Herodian, for the true accentuation of ethnics, on the whole he does not commit himself on this topic, and in a great many cases makes no comment of his own. This may reflect his use, in the original of grammatical sources of the pre-Aristarchean period, in the same way that he uses geographical, historical, and poetical texts from Homer onwards, but rarely, with one or two exceptions, historians or poets of the later imperial period, and then only for specific purposes, for example uranius on Arabia. A notable exception in poetry is provided by Dionysius and—of more importance for us—by the

the Periegete, the author of the (p.322)

commentary of Eustathius on his Stephanus’ sources for metonomasies of the mythological period are frequently unrecorded, but when they are, they may be either Hellenistic poets (notably Euphorion, Callimachus, Lycophron, and Apollonius Rhodius), and the large-scale prose geographers and mythographers, especially, in their respective fields, Apollodorus of Athens and Strabo, the ‘Old Man of Amaseia’. However, he does not name his sources for the Hellenistic and imperial metonomasies, and we are permitted to suppose that some at least of these late entries come from the Notitiae, the Acta of the Councils, and similar sources which would have been available in Constantinople if Stephanus chose to use them, though the text of the Epitome does not refer to them. It is noteworthy that the nearer we come to Stephanus’ own day the more difficult it becomes to determine his sources, which, for the most part, he leaves (or perhaps it would be more correct to say ‘finds’) anonymous for this later period. It does not seem likely that the Epitomator expressly excised the names of these late sources as part of his exercise in epitomisation. The only direct link between forms attested documentarily and those used in the Epitome lies in the of Krateros. Once more the situation repeats itself: we are largely dependent on Stephanus himself for our knowledge of this work, and what he quotes consists simply of individual names and not of continuous text. If, however, it is true that Krateros’ work contained the names of the members of the First Athenian Empire at the time of the first assessment of tribute, it is likely that Stephanus owes to him the early material relating to the communities listed in that assessment, though it is to be observed that although he quotes Krateros from time to time he never refers to Athenian (or indeed any other) documents of any period, at least directly. Moreover Krateros was probably not his only direct contact with documentary evidence. He has numerous quotations from Pausanias, and although in their existing form these appear to be largely concerned with myth, it is possible that he derived from him the names of Olympic victors based on his autopsy of statues and other monuments. Again, the various lists of names with ethnics which occurred in, or formed, various may go back to, for example, the Marmor Parium and the Lindian Chronicle. These, whether with a local or a wider focus, though surviving themselves only in epigraphical form, made substantial use of written historical sources, in the same way as the inscribed story of the foundation of Magnesiaon-Maeander, and this was no doubt also true (p.323) of material to be found in Polemon, whom, however, the surviving version quotes only three or four times. It was certainly natural for Stephanus and his predecessors, such as Herennius Philon, to use a literary rather than an epigraphical source. Similarly ktisis-literature was no doubt the prime source of much early legend, especially that relating to colonial foundations, though there can be no doubt that genealogical material of this type remained available (no doubt frequently fabricated) well into the Byzantine age—witness Synesius’ reference to the inscribed list of thirty generations of his own direct line back to the founders of Sparta, which recalls the inscribed Chian gravestone of Page 2 of 3

Conclusion the fifth century BC containing the list of the fourteen direct ancestors of Heropythos of Chios.2 The numerous local histories which Stephanus quotes were probably also sources for such early material; the roll-call of these works and their authors is long—the of Demosthenes, the of Theagenes, the of Philistos and others, the works of Rhianos, whose

and

are all quoted by Stephanus, the

of Xenion, and the verse

and

of Apollonius of

Rhodes (for both of which Stephanus is our only source), the of Apollonius of Aphrodisias, and the and other works, part of a much larger oeuvre of Alexander Polyhistor. This local material plays a small role in comparison with the main geographical sources, Strabo, in first place, and next to him Artemidorus of Ephesus and his Epitome, called (the number of books in the original work of Artemidorus), and Marcianus of Heraclea (perhaps his near contemporary), and, of historians and logographers, facile princeps, Hecataeus, and, next, Hellanicus and Herodotus, and to a less extent, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Polybius. Many of these quotations can be compared with the manuscript tradition of the authors in question, and we can appreciate, even through the medium of the Epitome, how accurately for the most part Stephanus transmitted their texts. To this literary material is to be added the grammatical work of Herodian (whose epitomator, Arcadius, is also quoted)—certainly the most influential grammarian in later antiquity, and much quoted by Stephanus for his orthographic and prosodiacal opinions. From this arsenal of relevant but heterogeneous literature Stephanus, at first, second, third, and even fourth hand, compiled the Ethnika, of which the Epitomator has left us the dry bones. Finally, then, we are left (p.324) with the question we can never answer in toto, and only very occasionally in individual instances: are we to suppose that all this material was simply taken from Herennius Philon and Oros, to name the two most significant intermediaries? It is hard to accept this. Let the reader consider a few of the more detailed entries of the Epitome, for instance s.vv.

(probably a special case, and in any case unique in form),

(where the Epitome can be supplemented by Eustathius’ commentary on Dionysius the Periegete), and (in the cod. Seguerianus). Consider, as the last of all our hypotheses, the entry regarding Paros, where the Epitome seems free from corruption, and the text is not supplemented by any external information. In it he quotes (1) Archilochus perhaps from the Monumentum Archilochi; (2) Callimachus (fr. 710 Pfeiffer); (3) Nikanor (fr. 6); (4) Apollonius; (5) Ephorus, Book 10; (6) ‘Ps.-Scymnus’ (ll. 733, 952 Diller). It is difficult to believe that a single earlier author could have collected these sources on a comparable scale. That Herennius Philon and Oros should be the ultimate, exclusive sources of such an entry, in whatever combination of transmission we choose to imagine their use, seems unbelievable, however important they may be for certain entries; and if that judgement is true of them, it is a fortiori true of all other possible candidates for a similar role. Notes: (1) Cf. Honigmann, RE, s.v. Stephanos (12), col. 2396, [S]. (2) See JHS 123 (2003), 33 and n. 33, discussing SGDI 5656.

Page 3 of 3

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

(p.325) Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 This appendix provides a list of the eponymous Hellenistic and other cities recorded in the Epitome of Stephanus, with indications, where possible, of ethnics and related information both from Stephanus and from documentary sources. I hope that—allowances being made for differences of opinion over questions of homonymity—I have given enough evidence for the collection to be of use to the reader of this book, and especially to the student of Stephanus. But of one prime item, cities named I have included only three out of Stephanus’ total of about twenty, because those three are the only occurrences of the basic name which are linguistically differentiated, and I have discussed the identity of the cities named Alexandria, and the problems they raise, in The Cities of Alexander the Great (Oxford, 1996). In the absence of any specific geographical location in an ethnic title, I have very rarely attempted to indicate the grounds, if any, for assigning the ethnic to one city rather than another, but I have noted where this occurs. The ambiguity is, of course, most notable in the very numerous ‘anonymous’ tombstones found in Attica.

Page 1 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1

Page 2 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1

(p.326) (p.327) 3. (Alinda?): Steph. L. Robert, Les Villes d’Asie Mineure: études de géographie ancienne (2nd edn., Paris, 1962), p. 683, n. 8; id., Le Sanctuaire de Sinuri près de Mylasa, I: Les Inscriptions grecs (Paris, 1945), p. 59, n 3.; id., Fouilles d’Amyzon en Carie (Paris, 1983), p. 6; Fraser, Cities, pp. 33–4; Cohen 1, pp. 245–6. (α 329 Bill.) Stephanus records five or six cities so named, but not the later Alexandreia Troas found with this title s.v. Alexandreia (see above, no. 2), and the Epitome quotes no sources, or specific titles, though it records where they were located. I follow Stephanus’ order and nomenclature where we have no documentary evidence for the ethnic. Robert, OMS II, pp. 1296–9, shows that Page 3 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 is the original name of the future See Knoepfler, Eretria, xi, pp. 232–41; Ricl, IAlexandreia in Troas (IGSK 53), T 87 (Syll. 348; SEG 36, 798). The new fragment of the inscription (Syll.3 337) listing subscriptions for the rebuilding of Thebes has (The MSS of Steph. all have 3

1.

Plin. NH 4.1; Ptol. 3.14.7: The site has been considerably discussed on account of the strategic role it played in the Second Macedonian War: see Walbank on Polyb on Polyb. 27.15.2; id. Philip V of Macedon (Cambridge, 1940), p. 149, n. 1. N. G. L. Hammond, Epirus: the Geography, the Ancient Remains, the History and the Topography of Epirus and Adjacent Areas (Oxford, 1967), pp. 278– 9 (and map, p. 200) says that since it was at Lekel it defended the entry through the Drin valley into Epirus from Macedonia, and not vice versa; consequently it was a foundation of Pyrrhus, not of Antigonos Gonatas. Cf. Cohen 1, pp. 75–6. However, this does not explain the name; Cabanes, L’Epire, p. 532, no. 29 (1st half of 2nd cent. BC): 2. Mantineia returned to its original name under Hadrian (see above, p. 154), and the absence of any reference to this may indicate that Stephanus’ entry stands unchanged from an earlier source, e.g. Herennius Philon, if not from an See above, loc. cit., for the ethnic. IG IV (1)2, 629, l. 9… may refer to this Antigoneia. For the general disregard by historians and others, notably Polybius, of temporary (or imposed) metonomasies see above, pp. 154, n. 20, and 171. For ‘Antigoneia Mantineia’ see generally Cohen 1, pp. 123–4.

author of

OGIS 441, l. 182 (85 BC). Unidentified (cf. Cohen 1, p. 91). Several possibilities exist (but not nos. 1–2, above). Ptol. 3.13.36: Plin. NH 4.34, oppidum Stobi, civium (p.328) 3.

on Chalkidike, Liv. 44.10, in the region where

Romanorum, mox Antigonea; another Ptol. 3.13.38 has an

cf. Robert, OMS II, pp. 1296–9; cf. M. B. Hatzopoulos

and L. Loukopoulou, Moryllos: Cité de la Crestonie,

7 (Athens, 1989), pp. 86–7.

5. The founded by Antigonos Monophthalmos before 306 BC (Diod. 20.47.5), close to the future site of Antioch-on-Orontes, of which it seems to have become a suburb: (a) Malal. 8.201: (b) Dio Cass. 40.28, speaking of the events of 56 BC, says

(c) E. T. Newell, The Coinage of the Western Seleucid Mints: from Seleucus I to Antiochus III (New York, 1941), pp. 93–155; (d) R. J. Braidwood, Mounds in the Plain of Antioch: an Archaeological Survey, Oriental Institute

Page 4 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 Publications, 48 (Chicago, 1937), p. 38. The city was still known as the predecessor of Antioch in Islamic tradition: see Yākūt, Mujam-al-Buldan, ed. F. Wüstenfeld (Leipzig, 1866–73), i, p. 382: ‘The first who built Anṭākīya was Anṭī-khus, who was the third king after Iskander, and Yehya b. Jarīr al-Muṭṭebaba al-Tekrītī said that the first person to build AnṭāKīya was Antīghūnīya in the sixth year after the death of Iskander, and it was not completed, and Seleuqus finished it after him, he who built Adhqīya and Halab and ar-R’uhā and Afāmīya (cf. Cohen 2, p. 85). 6. There is no other evidence for this item, but since it is described as a that is hardly an argument against its existence. The final sentence I take to embrace the previous five or six entries. (I) (α 334 Bill.) cf. above, pp. 270 f., for the interpretation of

is probably an insertion of the Epitomator.

1. The Seleukid capital, thus, laconically, heading the list in Stephanus. Previously founded as Antigoneia (see Antigoneia I (5), above). See Cohen 2, pp. 80–93. (p.329) For ancient literary sources see especially G. Downey’s A History ofAntioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest (Princeton, 1961), pp. 54 ff. (and throughout); for the inscriptions, IGLS 699 ff. The bronze statuette of Imperial date, IGLS 1072, has The title of the city varies throughout antiquity. For its historian Malalas it is (so Pausanias, ‘the Chronographer’, on whom Malalas’ account is largely based (RE (15); FGrH 854, the only fragment; cf. Diller, TAPA 86 (1955), 275), just as Alexandria of Egypt is frequently cities of the Syrian tetrapolis (749–51) it is

for Strabo in his list of the

for Ptolemy, 5.16, it is and in NT Act. Apost. it is always simply Eventually Georg. Cypr. (859) has

The external epigraphical evidence (less the ambiguous which forms the great majority of the total number of see above, pp. 175, 184), shows the following variations: (1) for some Hellenistic decrees etc., with the usual ethnic form see the examples listed by Habicht, ZPE 93 (1992), 50–1 (apropos of SEG 41, 115, col. II, the recently published Panathenaic list of 166/5), and IGLS 992, ll. 23–4 = Welles, RC, no. 44 of 189 BC, a royal letter of Antiochus III to an official (name lost), ll. 23–4, regarding temples of deities For prose usages cf. Str. 719; 749 (as above); Plin. NH 5.79: epi Daphnes cognominata. Sometimes the feminine form may produce an ugly duplication, (IG XII (1), 382), which the later feminine form, avoided. The ethnic variants, based essentially on continued in regular use for the city and the ethnic until late Imperial times. (2) never occurs, to the best of my knowledge, in documentary evidence, though Ptolemy uses the title,

Page 5 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 5.15.16 modern usage.

and the name is perhaps the most common in

Otherwise unrecorded, cf.

2. Cohen 1, p. 198. 3.

The MSS of the Epitome are at sea over Nisibis. In the first and Berkel restored in the second all have place they have and in the third which Mein. corrected to Other variants of the native form are given by Steph. s.v. (The ethnic occurs as in the same Athenian Panathenaic list of 166/5 BC, col. II, l. 26 (SEG 41, 115), whose names are commonplace and who cannot be identified.) The attribution of the eponymous name to Antiochus Epiphanes can hardly be correct, since Polyb. 5.51.1 calls it in the time of Antiochus III. (p.330) However, the city-coinage appears to have begun with Seleukos I (see Newell, Western Seleucid Mints, pp. 56 ff., nos. 803 ff.). The tradition that the city was built by Nikator occurs in the choliambic inscription (CIG 6856 = IGUR 1151 = Canali de Rossi 3), the tombstone of who is said to lie the reference is evidently to his fighting as an ally of Trajan against the Parthians in AD 115–17. The ethnic seems to appear in a damaged form in a Delian fragment, IDélos 1546, l. 23: and Robert, Hellenica, ii, pp. 79–80 has drawn attention to the fact that the appears in IG II2, 11621, of the first century AD, and in an epichoric ethnic, inscription of Salona (Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut, Forschungen in Salona, ii (Vienna, 1926), no. 73). The city is also clearly to be identified with the ethnic form (1), 199, in honour of native of the city fromEunap. VS, p. 497. For a coin with the legend

asin FD III who is known as a

see BMC Galatia, p. xlix. Amm. Marc. 25.8 says of it constabat orbem Eoum in ditionem potuisse transire Persidis nisi haec civitas situ et magnitudine moenium restitisset (sc. Julianus). There is a very full account of the city at all periods, especially the Assyrian, in J. Sturm’s article in RE, s.v. Nisibis. For the prosperity of the city in the early Arab period see G. Le Strange, The Lands ofthe Eastern Caliphate: Mesopotamia, Persia, and Central Asia from the Moslem Conquest to the Time ofTimur (Cambridge, 1930), pp. 94–5. 4. This city had, so far as we know, a unique settlers imported for the purposorigin. Its foundation was established not on the basis of a local synoecism or by militarye, but by the despatch of a colony of settlers from Magnesia-on-Maeander. This is attested by Str. 577 (cf. Ma, Antiochus III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor, p. 160):

Page 6 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 It became a Roman colonia in 25 BC, on the death of King Amyntas, who bequeathed it to the Roman government, and thence it became a Romanised city: see S. Mitchell and M. Waelkens, Pisidian Antioch (London, 1998), pp. 8 ff.; R. Syme, Anatolica: Studies in Strabo, ed. A. Birley (Oxford, 1995), 177 ff. It is apparently referred to already in two decrees passed by the assembly of the city relating to the celebration of the Leukophryena at Magnesia in 207 BC: IMagnesia, 80 and 81. We do not know whether the despatch of colonists was due to royal encouragement, as the establishment of Ptolemais Hermiou had been long before (see below, pp. 364 ff., no. 7), but it could have been an initiative of Antiochus III, as Ma, op. cit., suggests. No documentary evidence other than the fragmentary references to the Roman period: see Cohen 1, pp. 278–81.

in IMagnesia, locc. citt. exists before the

5. The entry, as it stands, does not find confirmation elsewhere, and Mein. suggested expanding it to (p.331) read:… identifying it with Gadara, as given ibid. s.v.

(γ 12 Bill.),

Gadara was a city of the Decapolis, so its location would serve the vague definition of Stephanus for his For another suggestion, see K. Rigsby, ap. Cohen 2, p. 284 (Stephanus’ Antioch (5) might have been another Gadara further south). For the well-known Gadara see generally Cohen 2, pp. 282–6 (discussing the inscription which is now SEG 50, 1479, and which shows that Gadara did indeed become a Seleukeia; see below under ‘Seleukeia’, introductory note on Stephanus’ evidence). 6.

The city at the southernmost point of Cilicia Pedias, at the

mouth of the Pyramos, previously Magarsos: Steph. s.v.: The ethnic is well attested in the Hellenistic period, in proxeny-lists and lists of victors, in Greece itself, as well as in local documents: see IG VII, 1762, (1st cent. BC); SEG 41, 115, the list of victors of the Panathenaia of 165 BC (cf. above, no. 3): col. I, l. 32: Syll.3 585, ll. 284 ff. (172–171 BC): SEG 3, 368 (2nd cent. AD): P. Le Bas and W. H. Waddington, Voyage archéologique en Grèce et en Asie mineure, iii: Inscriptions grecques et latines recueillies en Grèce et en Asie mineure (Paris, 1870), 1486–7 (1486: cf. L. Moretti, Olympionikai: i vincitori negli antichi agoni olimpici (Rome, 1957), no. 989, and suppl. ad loc.; 1487: SEG 12, 511 (c.140 BC), a decree of ll. 1 ff.: see also R. Heberdey and A. Wilhelm, Reisen in Kilikien, Österreichische Akad. der Wiss., Phil.-hist. Klasse, 44 (Vienna, 1896), pp. 6 ff., nos. 14–17 (dedications by Magie, Roman Rule, p. 1150, n. 32; Robert, Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres (1951), 256–9; Cohen 1, pp. 360–2. 7. where Mein. pronounced ‘suspectum’, and Kontogonis, 2 (1904), 407, proposed There is no other evidence that Arados was ever called an Antioch (a dedication of AD 118–19 is made by

Page 7 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 Tcherikover, p. 59, favoured an identification with called Arosos. Stephanus gives the ethnic of

also

and the latter form is well established by SEG 23, 381 (?1st cent. BC), twenty of Protarchos, with a wide range of ethnics, almost all from Asia Minor, all buried at the same time, including (l. 4) (all the are listed in the vocative case: cf. the Delian inscription, IDélos XI (4), 518, quoted above, p. 105, n. 2). In the edicts of Augustus, stating the privileges to be bestowed on his

Seleukos of Rhosos, Seleukos and the city are

(IGLS 718;

cf. SEG 51, 1427). Cf. also the Rhodian tombstone, ASAA 2 (1916), p. 158 (2nd cent. BC): For (sceptical) discussion of modern suggestions other than Rhosos for this Antioch, see Cohen 2, p. 80.

(p.332)

10. Otherwise unknown, unless it be supposed (as by Tcherikover, p. 106) that Demodamas of Miletus (FGrH 428; Schwartz, RE), the military commander of Seleukos and Antiochus I, who is said to have crossed the Jaxartes, founded an Antioch there, to mark the limits of Empire: Plin. NH 6.18.49: transcendit eum amnem Demodamas, Seleuci et Antiochi regum dux, quem maxime sequimur in his, arasque Apollini Didymaeo statuit. followed by the quotation of the story of 11. the dream of Antiochus I of the appearance of the three figures, whom he identified as his mother, his wife, and his sister, in whose honour he duly founded Laodikeia for his sister, Nysa for his wife, and Antiocheia for his mother Antiochis. This quotation was attributed to Arrian by Meineke, on the basis of the parallel passage in Eust. on D.P. 918 (FGrH 156 F87). However, Eustathius frequently has the specific attribution vaguer under Arrian.

but on 918 he has only the

so that Jac. was right not to include that fragment

is not explained, and the counter-entry s.v.

has only

which does not agree with the present entry under which assigns Pythopolis to Queen Antiochis. The possible identification of Nysa with Antioch is not significantly increased by the fact that Stephanus adds, after the end of the quotation, which may be a reference to the tribe so called at Nysa (cf. Cohen 2, p. 258), or to the Page 8 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 at Athens; see Fraser, Cities, p. 34, with n. 76. See also another Laodikeia, apparently in Caria.

II (d), below, for

(p.333) 13. The long counter-entry s.v. after aetiologies from a variety of sources, from Eratosthenes to Dionysius Thrax, Hermogenes, and Josephus, adds from an unnamed source, no doubt eventually Philon, (this item should be added to Cohen 1, p. 360, section on Tarsian claim to Argive ancestry). Eust. on D.P. 681 (pp. 370–1) has a fuller version of the same aetiologies as the Epitome, and also of the Argive colony, but he does not include the reference to the metonomasy by, or in honour of, Antiochus Epiphanes (for suggested solutions to the chronological problem—the city is attested as an Antioch well before the time of Epiphanes—see Cohen 1, p. 359). The metonomasy, that is, the change from is well attested epigraphically: see IG XI (4), 822; FD III (2), 208 (1st half of 2nd cent. BC) ibid. (4) 154 (c.256 BC): T. Klee, Zur Geschichte der gymnischen Agonen an griechische Feste (Leipzig, 1918), 14, lines 18–19 (c.182-178 BC); SEG 12, 511, a decree (c. 140 BC) of (see above, no. 6) for (1925/6), p. 140 (c.80-60 BC), a list of victors at the Amphiareia, with, ll. 1–3, two

AE

(or one?); SEG 41, 115 (cf. above, no. 6), col. II, ll. 27 ff., four victors in the Panathenaia of 166 BC. Cf. Magie, Roman Rule, p. 1147; Robert, Ét. dél., p. 446. The city, which in the time of Strabo was to rival Alexandria as a ‘university city’, was evidently pre-eminent in the sporting world as more than a century earlier.

Such is the list of Antiochs to which Stephanus refers. There are in addition a number of other so named, or renamed, cities, which I include here, to clarify their identity in the context of those given by Stephanus (see (b), below). (a) an important city (Cohen 1, pp. 250– 3), the absence of which from Stephanus’ list is surprising. It is given with its full title more often than any Antioch except Syrian Antioch, notably in agonistic documents. It was presumably founded in the earlier part of the third century, but there is no good reason (for its absence from Stephanus cannot be regarded as such) for identifying it with (no. 11 in Stephanus’ list, above); contra, Cohen 1, pp. 250 and 252. Its location near the junction of the Maeander and the Morsynos rivers, on the south side of the Page 9 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 Maeander, is described by Robert, Ét. dél., pp. 446 ff.; J. and L. Robert, La Carie: histoire et géographie historique, ii, pp. 344–5, and Index, p. 414, s.v. It occurs frequently on Rhodian tombstones and other documents at Rhodes, and elsewhere: e.g. IPrusias ad Olympum, II (IGSK 40) T 6 (BCH 13 (1889), 307–8, no. 15): (p.334) In MAMA VI, 224, the title is

(cf. Robert, Ant. Class. 4 (1936), 462). The coins carry

the legend

or

(b)

with

in the exergue.

Str. 669, after describing the Cilician coast east of Hamaxia, has

Ptol. 5.7.2 (RE (11)):

Placed by Ptol. after Selinous, it is called on its Imperial coins (see Magie, Roman Rule, p. 1408, n. 30; Robert, OMS III, p. 1571). This is the same as Stephanus no. 14 ( see Heberdey and Wilhelm, Reisen in Kilikien, pp. 152–5, nos. 258–62). It occurs in the signatories of the Councils and in George of Cyprus (l. 834 in H. Gelzer’s edn. (Leipzig, 1890)) as plain

(cf. Nova Tactica, ibid., p. 76, l. 1603, under See Cohen 1, pp. 357–8.

(c) a metonomasy of Adana by Antiochus Epiphanes, is attested only by the coins, which, in the reign of Antiochus, bear the legend but subsequently see BMC Lycaonia, pp. xcviii ff. and pp. 15 f.; Magie, Roman Rule, p. 1148, n. 30; Cohen 1, pp. 362–3.

It is well established (see Ét. Dél. 448 ff.) that is Alabanda, and that it was so called from the native koinon of the Its Seleukid metonomasy lasted from about 260 to after the end of Seleukid supremacy in the region, i.e. c. 190-188 BC (IG XI (4), 200 [and see now SEG 53 (2003), 1229: S. H.]); it was thus probably due to Antiochus II. The identity is proved by decrees in honour of Artemidoros, who was still an when honoured by the Delphian Amphictyony in c.260 BC (SGDI 2587 with Lefèvre, CID IV, pp. 26–7), whereas in c.260-250 BC he is honoured by the Delians as an (IG XI (4), 600). However, the Athenian Panathenaic catalogues of the second quarter of the second century BC show that at least in some public contexts the change of name had not been completed, or perhaps heeded, at that time: IG II2, 2313, ll. 53–4 lists a victor while in a similar catalogue (ibid. 2315), of after 180 BC, ll. 35–6, a victor is identified as In the most recently published catalogue, SEG 41, 115 of 166 BC, they, unlike citizens of other Antiochs, are not represented— but nor are

Page 10 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 The documentation and bibliography concerning the is considerable. See above, p. 139, n. 69, and P. Debord, Studi Ellenistici, 15 (2003), 115–80 at 125–42. Texts: (i) Holleaux, REG 12 (1899), 345–61 (= id., Études iii, pp. 141–57 = OGIS 234; cf. FD III (4), 163 and Add. (CID IV, 99), an Amphictyonic decree of 205–202 BC in honour of III,

(sc. their envoy, Pausimachus)

for their (p.335) loyalty to Antiochus (Antiochus)

(ii) the parallel text from Athens, Hesperia, 47 (1978), 49–57 (BE 1979, no. 158) = SEG 28, 75; (iii) Labraunda: Swedish Excavations and Researches III (2), 43 + SEG 40, 980; (iv) Forschungen in Ephesos, II (1912), no. 4 = IEphesos (2004), a proxeny-decree for an

of c.300 BC.

and its relations with the Seleukid For discussions of the nature of the dynasty see, in addition to Holleaux, loc. cit., L. Robert, BCH 79 (1925), 228–9 (= OMS I, pp. 22– 3); and now P. Debord, as above. Magie, Roman Rule, p. 994, n. 32 discusses the position of Alabanda after Apameia, with reference to the decree of the city in honour of Pyrrha[kos], who went on a mission to Rome, probably at the time of the Mithridatic War. For this text see Holleaux, Études, iii, pp. 141 ff. (cf. Robert, in id., Études, vi (1968), p. 21 sub num. 52) and now ISE iii.169; Cohen 1, pp. 248–50 (who was, however, writing before the re-dating of SGDI 2587). (e) Known only from its coins, it was formed by the detachment of Kebren and Biristis from Alexandria Troas: see Robert, Études de numismatique grecque, pp. 16–36; id., BCH 106 (1982), p. 322; J. M. Cook, The Troad: an Archaeological and Topographical Study (Oxford, 1973), pp. 327 ff.; Cohen 1, pp. 148–51; Ricl, IAlexandreia in Troas (IGSK 53), under

2, Index, p. 273 (see especially p. 8).

(f) Known only from IMagnesia, 18 = OGIS 231 = Welles, RC, no. 31, in which colonists from Magnesia-on-Maeander are described as issued

(ll. 9–10); and ibid. 61 = OGIS 233, the civic decree for which I suggested (Fraser, Cities, p. 31, n. 68)

For a discussion of its location, near Bushire, and the substituting possible historical circumstances of its foundation see Dittenberger n. 1 on OGIS 233, and Cities, loc. cit. (g) named on weights of Gerasa of 143/2 BC and later: see Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth, 8 (1949), 46–7, nos. 7–9; H. Seyrig, Notes on Syrian Coins (New York, 1950), p. 33, n. 45, coin of the reign of Commodus, with legend Gerasa: the Inscriptions, ed. C. B. Welles (inKraeling, Gerasa, pp. 355–616), Index, p. 600, s.v.; Schūrer, ii, pp. 149 ff. (see below, at end of this entry); Cohen 2, pp. 248–53. Steph. s.v.

(γ 57 Bill.) only gives entries from Philon’s and the ethnic form, Welles, RC, no. 251, a lead weight of AD 10/11 (Gerasene era, 73) reads, on either side of a caduceus, Cf. ibid. 56/7, 58, and numerous other texts of the second century AD, including IPergamon 437 = IGR IV, 374 (Prosopographi Imperii Romani Saeculi (2nd edn., 1933-), s.v. Iulius 507) also make use of the name. We have no information why Gerasa was so called. It was so named by 143/2 BC (see above), and was probably a metonomasy due to Antiochus Epiphanes, but the era used is the Pompeian, and the city became a colonia in the early third century AD. (See Welles, RC, nos. 179 and 191, where Page 11 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 there is a summary of the (p.336) existing evidence.) The full title is in Latin-Greek (Welles, RC, no. 30, of AD 130), Antiochia ad Chrysorhoan quae et Gerasa hiera et asylos et autonomos. Plin. NH 5.86 wrongly assigns the Seleukid title to Edessa: Edessa, quae quondam Antiocheia dice-batur, Callirhoen a fonte nominata. The view that Alexander the Great founded the city, as maintained by Schürer on the combined evidence of the coin of the reign of Commodus (above), and of the existence of a statue of Perdikkas of the first century BC (Gerasa, p. 429), is not established by the evidence quoted: see Fraser, Cities, p. 118, n. 26. (h)

mentioned on a tombstone of the 3rd cent. AD, MAMA VI, 224:

which Robert, Noms indigènes dans l’Asie Mineure, p. 358, 2, identified as Antioch-on-Maeander, as being in the province of Asia. This, if the argument is cogent, excludes Antioch in Pisidia. (j) The city was founded in 540 by Chosroes as a neighbourhood of Ktesiphon. The campaign of AD 540, in the course of which Chosroes captured many of the inhabitants of Antioch ad Daphnen and eventually built his own Antioch to house them, where they were treated as honoured guests, is the subject of a long and graphic section of Procop. Pers. 2.8–14. Theophylaktos Simocatta (Hist. 5.6) says:

It is mentioned as a bishopric in the Nestorian Council of 554, and survived into the Arab period, when it was known as ar-Rumi-ya. The episode of the foundation is described by numerous Arab writers from Tabar-onwards (see Nöldeke (ed.), Tabari, p. 165 = Tab. I, pp. 909–10, the same version as that of Procopius). It is described by Ma’sudi as largely in ruins, i, p. 206 (Pellat) = FT §621. It is wrongly regarded by Ya’kūbī, p. 163 (trans. Wiet) as built by the Romans when they ruled Persia. See further A. E. Christensen, L’Iran sous les Sassanides (Copenhagen, 1936), pp. 386–7, who provides a sketch-plan showing the location of the new city within the larger Ktesiphon. It is worth noting that in 540 Chosroes also took possession of Zenobia, in Syria; Procop. ibid. 5.4-5,

(k) notable for its astrologers and for the numerous Greek, cuneiform, and bilingual seals that the American excavations yielded, occurs in Str. 729 with the ethnic form,

but in the bilingual bullae both it and the topical form occur (Uruk = Orchoi). For the Greek, cuneiform, and bilingual seals published by Rostovtzeff and others, see R. J. van der Spek, in A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-White (eds.), Hellenism in the East (London, 1987), pp. 72–4, and the well-illustrated corpus of Canali de Rossi, nos. 130 ff., which also includes (no. 140) the remarkable honorific decree of in honour of (p.337) of AD 110 (SEG 18, 596). Ibid. no. 144A is a list of Greek names written in cuneiform. (1)

is known only from an Imperial coin with the legend see BMC Galatia, p. lxxxiii; Head, HN2, p. 786.

Page 12 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1

Page 13 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1

(p.338) 2. The quotation from ‘Arrian’ (cf. above, s.v.

I (11)) is repeated by Eust. on

D.P. 976, who adds

For this reason Meineke suggested Arrian as the author, since Eustathius has nearly forty quotations from Arrian in the commentary on D.P., and almost as many in the commentary on the Iliad. If it ever existed, ‘Arrian’s’ Apameia might be identified with that mentioned by Pliny (5.86) as at the crossing of the Euphrates, near Samosata: Cingilla Commagenen finit, Imeneorum civitas incipit. oppida adluuntur Epiphania et Antiochia quae ad Euphraten vocatur, item Zeugma, lxxii, p. a Samosatis, transitu Euphratis

Page 14 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 nobile: ex adverso Apamiam Seleucus, idem utriusque conditor ponte iunxerat. Schwartz, however, identified Pliny’s Apameia with the Apameia on the Seleia, recorded in a Magnesian decree: see below, II (a). 3.

and A central point in the communications network of Asia Minor in antiquity and in the early Islamic period. Its ethnic is regularly though Stephanus does not record it: see e.g. IGXII (6), 173, ll. 13–14: victors at the Samian Heraia in mid-2nd cent. BC: FRA 1134–49: Kerameikos, unpublished,

(the only specified out of a total of fifty-eight in Athens); correspondingly, for the city, OGIS 441 (IStrat. 508, SC de Strat., of 85 BC):

but in the conventus list, JRS 65 (1975), 81 (SEG 37, 884), it

is cf. JRS, ibid., 64 ff. See Cohen 2, p. 280. Euseb. HE 5.16.22 says of the original phase of the Montanist heresy: For the whole mesh of legends surrounding see Magie, Roman Rule, p. 983, n. 20. (p.339) See also MAMA VI, 173–238, containing the epigraphy and topography of the region, especially no. 173, and BE 1939, no. 400. 4. Bithynian Apameia, so named by Nicomedes II Epiphanes of Bithynia (ob. between 128 and 115), formerly Myrleia. The counter-entry, s.v.

Stephanus’ information here may go back to Philon’s anagraphe (cf. p. 296). Str. 563 attributes the foundation to Prusias I (ob. c.183), who married Philip V’s sister, Apama:… Cf. Wilhelm, JÖAI 11 (1908), 75 ff. = Kl. Schr. ii, 1, pp. 309–16; Magie, Roman Rule, p. 1189, n. 20; Cohen 1, pp. 392–3. The coinage sometimes retains the dual name, 5.

see Head, HN2, p. 510. (?) admits of no easy solution. Saumaise suggested

(‘qui

debebat

Mein.), Xylander Meineke himself ‘fort. (no. 2, above), which is a small change from the MSS’ which he retained in the text.

The following Apameias are not recorded by Stephanus. (a)

recorded among the signatories appended to the decree of the

IMagnesia, 61 = OGIS 233, ll. 103–4, of 207 BC. Schwartz, ap. IMagnesia, pp. 171–3, maintained that this was to be identified Page 15 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 with Stephanus’ no. 2, located with reference to the river and this was accepted by Dittenberger ad loc. (OGIS, 233, n. 45. The location of Mesene he took to be the which he placed at or near Spasinou Charax, between subsequent region of Maisan = the Tigris and the Euphrates). The identity of Stephanus’ with the of the Magnesian inscription seems certain, but Spasinou Charax is now located further west, at KarkMaisan, so the identification of the river is not certain: see Fraser, Cities, pp. 168–70, with n. 121 on p. 169, with reference to the topographical studies by J. Hansman; cf. the sketch-map, ibid., after p. 234. See also G. le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes, Mémoires de la Mission Archéologique en Iran, 38 (Paris, 1965), p. 260, n. 2; S. Sherwin-White, ZPE 47 (1982), 67 f.; ead., in Kuhrt and Sherwin-White (eds.), Hellenism in the East, p. 21 (Apamea-Silhu in the Parthian period). The others cities attested as Apameias have a shadowy existence, known to the geographers, and from the coin, below, under (c), and at present unconfirmed by epigraphical documentation. They are all east of Mesopotamia, therefore in Parthian territory.

(p.340)

Page 16 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1

(p.341) (e) Known from Ptol. and Isid. locc. citt. above (b); Plin. 6.44: his (sc. Caspiis Portis) ab latere altero occurrunt deserta Parthiae et Citheni iuga; mox eiusdem Parthiae amoenissimus situs qui vocatur Choara. duae urbes ibi Parthorum oppositae quondam Medis, Calliope et alta (? sic Rackham in edit. Loeb, alia, MSS) in rupe Issatis. (α 418 Bill.) Steph. s.v. For the probable location see Magie, Roman Rule, p. 1352; Robert, Hellenica, ii, pp. 84–5; id., Noms indigènes dans l’Asie Mineure, p. 497, n. 2; Cohen 1, p. 376. The signature of on a sundial found at Samos (IGXII (6) (2), 972):

appears

An inscription seen at Asisya at the end of the last century (cf. Robert, Noms Indigènes, loc. cit.) is a dedication by to Septimius Severus. (3rd-2nd cent. BC; An Athenian tombstone, IG II2, 8378, is of 2 FRA 1236–37), and a decree of the 2nd cent. BC, IG 980, bestows honours on -(not in FRA). (α 453 Bill.) The next eponymous city in Stephanus is The foundation is not known from documentary sources, but is described by Strabo (524), seemingly on the authority of Apollodorus of Artemita, as a Parthian metonomasy of the Seleukid

779 F5b). Stephanus gives the same information in his counter-entry,

Page 17 of 51

(FGrH quoted above,

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 (b). Raga was Ray, close to the modern Tehran, and once one of the most important cities of the region (cf. Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, pp. 214 ff.). The Parthian metonomasy presumably occurred in the early period of Parthian rule, in the second half of the third century BC. (not recorded by Stephanus) are foundations of the kings of Commagene, of the first century AD: Cohen 2, p. 152 for the two cities. The latter, excellently excavated by the late F. K. Dörner and Teresa Döll between 1955 and 1965, was the capital of the kingdom, close to Samosata, while the sanctuary of the dynasty, erected by Antiochus I for his father, Mithradates Kallinikos (c. 100–70 BC), lay to the north, on the summit of the Nemrud (p.342) Daǧ; mountain. The capital was probably built by Arsames, Antiochus I’s grandfather, the first ruler of the dynasty of client-kings. To the best of my knowledge, no identifiable ethnics of the cities survive, and their names are known only from the inscriptions on the two sites. The once remote site of Nemrud Daǧ; has now become a part of the tourist trail from Malatīya, along with the capital excavated by Dörner and much important archaeological material. In the inscriptions Antiochus claims that the cities were founded and named after his ancestor, Arsames. The lengthy inscription published by Dörner contains provisions for the maintenance of the cult of the dynasty laid down by its founder, Mithradates Kallinikos, in his capital, Arsameia-on-the-Nymphaios, and of the gods of their religion, on the mountain top, erected by his son Antiochus I. See now C. Crowther and M. Facella, ‘New evidence for the ruler-cult of Antiochus of Commagene’, Asia Minor Studies, 49 (2003), 41–80, a comprehensive study of all the texts relating to the cult-activity of Antiochus I, other than the texts of Nemrud Daǧ;, on the basis of new texts from Zeugma, with numerous illustrations of the dexiosis type of royal monument. (I) (α 454 Bill.) We turn now to the large group of cities called or, occasionally, of which Stephanus lists eleven. These were all named after Arsinoe Philadelphus, the sister-wife of Ptolemy II, some of them perhaps so named after her death. They have this feature in common, that (with the exception of a small number of Arsinoes in Ethiopia and the Sudan) they were almost all metonomasies of known historical cities, and, in some cases, kept the new name alongside, or in place of, their original name, after the end of the dynasty. As we shall see, the same is in general true of the cities named after the Ptolemies themselves. There were four Arsinoes within Egypt itself (cf. F. Preisigke, Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden, iii, s.vv. pp. 296–8): the Arsinoite nome, with its capital, Crocodilopolis; Arsinoe

an

obscure village perhaps somewhere in the Delta (PCair.Zen. 59.079 (257 BC), PMich.Zen. 18, introduction; cf. PLond. 1951, n. 10), attested in the third century; the more familiar in the Heroonpolite Gulf, the name of which was at some later date, probably in the second century, changed to that of and the location of BGU 1121 = Sel.Pap. 41, which may have been near called Alexandria (see Fraser, Ptol. Alex., ii, p. 251, n. 82). Leaving aside these, we may begin by consideration of the Arsinoes within the Ptolemaic Empire.

Page 18 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1

(p.343) 2. Paraitonion (for which see Cohen 2, pp. 348–9, and p. 388 for the ‘Arsinoe’ problem) was on the site of the modern Mersa Matrūh, and there is no independent evidence that it was ever called Arsinoe. Str. 799 says the latter name obviously deriving from its being the starting-point of Alexander’s journey to Siwa, with its oracle of Ammon. Stephanus has confused two items being irrelevant); (above, no. 1), the renamed was on the coast of Cyrenaica. SEG 26, 1817 (J. Reynolds, Arch. Class. 25–6 (1973–4); cf. BE 1977, no. 594; L. Moretti, ‘Un decreto di Arsinoe in Cirenaica’, Rivista di Filologia, 104 (1976), 385–98), of 2nd-1st cent. BC, is a decree, with the ethnic in l. 71: the honorand is

who is praised for his are to be responsible for erecting a statue and the

decree. Cf. below,

I (6).

3. to the region of Koile Syria near Damaskos: see Str. 756,

was the name given

The inclusion of the size of the city is unique in the surviving text of Stephanus. There is no confirmation that there was an Arsinoe in the region. See also no. 4, which may be a duplication of this item (cf. Cohen 2, pp. 102–4 and 237, also 242, discussing Damaskos itself, for which see below, 4.

II (f)).

Otherwise unknown. Cf. no. 3, above.

5. For Arsinoe in Cilicia (distinct from Arsinoe in next-door Pamphylia, below, II (e)), see Cohen 1, pp. 363–4. A decree of some date after 238 BC, SEG 39, 1426 + 42, 1285 +43, 995 (cf. ibid. 960) and ZPE 77 (1989), 55 ff. (Phoenix, 43 (1989), 318; S. L. Ager, Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World, 337–90 BC (Berkeley and London, 1996), no. 42 = Bencivenni no. 10) is issued in the name of adjacent to Nagidos. The Cilician city, as reported in the decree of the reign of Euergetes I, was founded by a leading Ptolemaic administrator of the reign of Philadelphus, (ll. 19–20) (Pros. Ptol. 4988), whose son (l. 24) is the Ptolemaic In the text the city is referred to (l. 21) as

6.

otherwise unknown. Cf. above, p. 342. Page 19 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 7.

The name is recorded in SEG 13, 589 (OGIS

155), dated before 131 BC; Cohen 1, pp. 134–6. It reverted to its ancient name of Marion, and so remained for many centuries: see G. F. Hill , A History of Cyprus (Cambridge, 1940–52), p. 184. Perhaps the same as II(b), below. A well-attested city (Cohen 1, pp. 109–10), the origin of which in the reign of 8. Philadelphus seems almost certain. Str. 460 describes it in the context (p.344) of the nearby city of Lysimacheia, later called Konope, and ‘founded’ by Arsinoe: It is frequently attested in Aitolian and Delphic documents. From the language of Strabo it seems clear that the phrase is not merely a means of identification: the foundation occurred during her marriage to Philadelphus, and not when she was married either to Lysimachus or to Ptolemy Keraunos s.v. The circumstances of its foundation remain obscure, but it is attested already in c.274 BC (thus almost at the time of Arsinoe’s marriage to Philadelphus) by FD III (4), 170, 4 (arch. Herakleidas, Daux G6, c.275 BC), subsequently in a manumission record from Thermon of c.213 BC (IG IX (1)2 (1), 96; cf. SEG 23, 348; ibid. 25, 625a (a tile, In IMagnesia, 28, 11 (= IG IX (1)2 (1), 186), the Aitolian decree of acceptance of the Magnesian Leukophryena, the subscription consists of eighteen cities including The quotation from Polybius by Stephanus is given in the editions as 9.45.2, referring to the Social War. In 30.11.5 Polybius calls the whole area of the city For the site (the modern Angelokastro, west of Lake Lysimacheia) see C. Antonetti, Les Étoliens: image et religion (Paris, 1990), pp. 273 ff., and Bölte, RE, s.v. Lysimacheia. 9. R). Probably a corrupt or variant form of Attested epigraphically in IMagnesia, 21, the subscription of a decree of eight Cretan cities (the decree are the last itself perhaps ibid., no. 20) headed in the list. Cf. IC I, p. 180, top. G. le Rider, Monnaies crétoises (Paris, 1966), pp. 242–5 (cf. id. in C. M. Kraay and G. K. Jenkins (eds.), Essays in Greek Coinage presented to Stanley Robinson (Oxford, 1968), pp. 224–40), thought that Arsinoe might in fact be Rhithymna, since the Arsinoe coins are found only there; cf. BE 1968, no. 424. (See Cohen 1. p. 140.) Str. 773, enumerating the 10. stations for elephant-hunting in East Africa, near Bab al Mandab, has It was evidently on the coast, but its position is not known. Cf. Fraser, Ptol. Alex., ii, p. 303, n. 356.

Page 20 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1

(p.345)

(II)

There are also about ten metonomasies to, or foundations of, mention.

which Stephanus does not

(a) Str. 682 refers, after Salamis of Cyprus, to See Cohen 1, pp. 136–7. The site of Salamis has been fully excavated: see especially T. B. Mitford and I. K. Nikolaou, The Greek and Latin Inscriptions from Salamis, Salamis, 6 (Nikosia, 1974). Cf. above, no. 7. (b) Str. 683 refers to lying between Cape Zephyrion and Paphos, towards the south-western corner of Cyprus. There is no other evidence for its existence; cf. Hill, Cyprus, i, p. 184, n. 5 (but see Cohen 1, p. 136). Cf. above, no. 7. (c) the harbour on the northern coast of the island of Keos, was called in about the middle of the third century BC. This is attested epigraphically, and has been the subject of comment because of the evident link between the Ptolemaic metonomasy and the naval operations off the coast of Attica during the Chremonidean War. It is named in IMagnesia, 50, 78, of 207 BC, a decree in which the subscription consists of sixteen island communities including Ioulis and Karthaia, but not Koressia, while are listed, and thus represent the demos of Koressia; cf. SEG 19, 390; Robert, Hellenica, xi–xii, pp. 153 ff.; Fraser, JEA 48 (1962), 155, no. 54; id., Ptol. Alex., i, pp. 587, 727; ii, p. 835, n. 265; Cohen 1, pp. 137–9. (d) Methana, the city at the eastern tip of the northern Peloponnese, and thus strategically important to Philadelphus in the middle of the third century BC for the same reason as Koressia, was renamed (see OGIS 102 (IG XII (3), 466) and 115), and cf. Launey in Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire offerts à Charles Picard (Paris, 1949), ii, pp. 572–80; Robert, Hellenica, xi–xii, pp. 157–60, esp. p. 157, no. 5, with reference to IGIV (1)2, 72 and 76: See Cohen 1, pp. 124–6.

Page 21 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 (e) Str. 669: For Arsinoe in Pamphylia, see Cohen 1, pp. 335–6. As we have seen, new evidence shows that Stephanus was right to place an Arsinoe in Cilicia: above, no. 5. There were thus two Arsinoes close to each other, on or near the dividing line between Pamphylia and Cilicia. The evidence for considerable. See PMich.Zen. 10, of year 28 = 257BC, ll. 11 ff.:

is

where Edgar rightly comments adversely on Wilcken’s view, Archiv für Papyrusforschung, 8 (1927), 277, that is the same as Patara; Brooklyn Museum Quarterly, 10 (1968–9), 136, no. 10 (Breccia, Iscr., 191; SB 1684): (239 BC); JEA 74 (1998), 240–2, and pl. 34 (Hadra vase):

(p.346) (before 233 BC); SEG

20, 293 (c.240-220): (f) Tcherikover, pp. 66–7, speculated, on the basis of Stephanus’ Arsinoe nos. 3 and 4 (above), that Damaskos was refounded as an Arsinoe; see Cohen 2, p. 242. The narrative of the thirdcentury wars in Koile Syria indicates that Damaskos was Ptolemaic for an uncertain period, during which it may have produced some coinage, but there is no evidence either for a metonomasy, or whether the coinage was Ptolemaic or Seleukid: see Newell, Western Seleucid Mints, pp. 211–13. A passage of Polyainos records one episode in the operations of the period (Strat. 4.15:

Cf. Schürer, ii, pp. 127 ff.). The same Dion is perhaps the eponym of (g) below. (g) PMich.Zen. 18 and PLond. 1951, n. 10 refer to an (cf. (f) above). This follows the pattern of the ‘African’ Ptolemaic foundations, which were frequently named after the commander of the unit originally settled there; cf. below, p. 365. See Cohen 2, pp. 103–4.

(j) Plin. NH 6.167, speaking of the routes south of Pelusium: eae omnes viae Arsinoen ducunt conditam sororis nomine in sinu Carandra a Ptolemaeo Philadelpho, qui primus Trogodyticen excussit, amnem qui Arsinoen praefluit Ptolemaeum appellavit. This is perhaps one of the foundations further south, towards the Trogodyte country, noted above, under I (10), and below, s.vv. Berenike I (3) and II (a).

Page 22 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 (k) Last to be noticed is the name given by Lysimachus to Ephesus, in honour of Arsinoe, while she was his wife. See Cohen 1, pp. 177–80. The city is well documented under this name in the few years between Lysimachus’ acquisition of Cis-Tauric Asia Minor at Ipsos in 301 and his death in 281. Str. 640:

During his occupation of the city he greatly enlarged it, to include within the city walls the defences on Mount Koressos (Bülbül Daǧ;), and he moved thither the population of Kolophon and Lebedos. For a decree of the (p.347) city issued under the name of Arsinoe see JÖAI 35 (1943), 101, no. 1 = IEph. 1381: See also Syll.3 368A, of 289/8 BC, honours for Hippostratos of Miletus,

whose statue is to be erected by the cities of the

Pan-Ionian koinon: Newell in Western Seleucid Mints, pp. 290–2, is doubtful whether the coins with the legend APΣI- should be attributed to Ephesus. Stephanus’ statement about the ethnic forms of the Arsinoes, at the end of his list, is not clear: (FGrH 273 F33) (see no. 8, above). This is obscure, and it is better to proceed from the known to the inexplicable. Wherever we have documentary evidence for cities named outside Egypt the ethnic is, with one exception, followed by the geographical location. The evidence is sometimes scanty, but where it exists it tells the same tale. Among the most frequent of the ethnics so formed is that of Aitolia (see above, no. 8), and if we are to understand Stephanus to be quoting Polybius for the form

the statement is not correct. The only

external city which carries the ethnic is that of Lycia (Patara): see above, no. 11. It appears that the Lycian there referred to had been enlisted in a unit from Pamphylia, perhaps even the Pamphylian Arsinoe, of which, however, the ethnic is firmly attested as That the form was not, or only very rarely, used for citizens of the foreign foundations may be explained by the fact that this ethnic termination was used of locations within Egypt, from the Arsinoite nome to individual villages such as

above, p. 172.

(I) (α 527 Bill.) From this complex enumeration of Arsinoes we may turn to the Pergamene cities named Of these Stephanus mentions three (one incorrectly). 1.

Attaleia of Lydia was founded by Eumenes I, in honour of his uncle Attalos, alongside Philetaireia, also founded by Eumenes in honour of his other uncle, Philetairos, the founder of the Pergamene dynasty. The well-known grant of Eumenes I to the mercenaries whom he had settled in these cities, bestowing on them certain privileges, begins (OGIS 266)

Page 23 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 It was situated close to Thyateira (see Robert, Hellenica, ii, p. 84, n. 2; id., Ét. dél., p. 437; Cohen 1, pp. 205–6). given by Steph. as an 2. As Saumaise pointed out, the Korykos of Cilicia, is an error arising from a false identification with the Pamphylian Attaleia, on the authority of ‘Demetrios’ (Steph., quoted above, no. 1: this Demetrios may be the D. son of Antigonos, FGrH 852)—Cilicia was never Pergamene territory. See Cohen 1, p. 337. (p.348) 3. The Pamphylian Attaleia, the large city on the Pamphylian coast, now Antalya, was acquired by Attalus II at the Peace of Apameia: Str. 667, (i.e. after Phaselis) cf. Magie, Roman Rule, p. 1133, n. 4; Cohen 1, pp. 337–8. For the ethnic see SEG 15, 617 (mid-1st cent. AD): ibid. 17, 558:

The ethnic of Attaleia (1), the Lydian, is (Robert, Ét. dél., p. 437); that of (2), the of (3), the Pamphylian, of the Attic tribe, naturally, Aitolian, apparently Aτταλίς (see below under

p. 350). The Roman tax-register, SEG 37, 884, II, 7, has

(I) (β 71 Bill.) The next group of eponymous ethnics is that of the Berenikes, of which Stephanus records six. 1. This Berenike has been regarded as the dynastic name of Charadros/a, near the modern Michalitzi, on the Preveza peninsula: see Plut. Pyrr. 6; App. Mithr. 4; for Charadra, in addition to Polyb. 4.63.4 and 21.26.7, see the discussion of the boundary delimitation published by Cabanes and Andréou in BCH 109 (1985), 499–544 (SEG 35, 665), and the identification of the site by Dakares, A;ρχ. Δελτ. 17 (1961–2), Chr. pp. 190–1; cf. BE 1964, no. 234; Cohen 1, pp. 76–7. 2. (lac. pos. Mein.)… A foundation or metonomasy of a location on the route to Berenike Trogodytike (see no. 3, below). Otherwise unidentified. 3. The best known of the Berenikes in Egypt: Cohen 2, pp. 320–5, cf. p. 319. It was situated in the approximately on the latitude of Syene, the modern Sikket Bender al Kebir, with a temple of the Roman period. The site has been partially excavated in recent years, and excavation reports have been published, and also a valuable Page 24 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 publication of the ostraka found there by R. S. Bagnall. It was a major customs station for trade with the East, and in the second century AD the base of an ala Palmyrenorum (see RE, s.v. Berenike (5) and the excavation reports quoted below). Bagnall’s study contains over 100 ostraka, consisting of customs passes and related letters, etc., from the first century AD, the (p. 349) majority of which are concerned with the trade in Greek wines, and adds a considerable amount of new information on that subject. For the excavations by the University of Delaware and the University of Leiden see Berenike 1995, Preliminary Report (Leiden, 1995); Berenike 1996 (Leiden, 1999); for the publication of the ostraka, R. S. Bagnall, C. Helms, and A. F. W. Verhoogt (eds.), Documents from Berenike, i: Greek Ostraka from the 1996–1998 Seasons, Papyrologica Bruxellensia, 31 (Brussels, 2000). 4. There is no independent evidence that Chios was ever given a dynastic name by a Ptolemy during the brief association of the dynasty with the island in the third century, for which see SEG 19, 569; cf. JEA 48 (1962), 156, no. 55. It appears that after Chios had been destroyed by Mithradates (App. Mithr. 46; Memnon, FGrH 434 F1, 33), he rebuilt it, and gave it the name of one of his wives, Berenike (Plut. Lucull. 18), but the metonomasy does not seem to have gained general currency (Cohen 1, p. 141). Cf. Koepp, Rh. is due (MSS ) and Mus. 39 (1884), 215–16, to whom the reading Geyer, RE, s.v. Mithradates (12), col. 2175; cf. Syll.3 785 (with C. Crowther, in G. Malouchou and A. Matthaiou (eds.), W. G. Forrest (Athens, 2005), pp. 62–3, with fig. 2). 5. Unidentified, and not independently attested, but evidently associated with the other Ptolemaic foundations in the area. For suggestions as to location and founder, see Cohen 2, pp. 364–5. 6. Earlier the city seems to have been a refoundation or metonomasy either by Philadelphus after his first wife, or more probably by Euergetes after his wife, the daughter of Magas of Cyrene (Cohen 2, pp. 388–93). Its full title appears in Breccia, Iscr., 284 (SB 598) of mid-3rdcent. BC, The most notable inscription from the site is the decree of the of the Jews, SEG 16, 931; G. Lüderitz, Corpus jüdischer Zeugnisse aus der Cyrenaika (Wiesbaden, 1983), no. 70, of 2nd half of 1st cent. BC (?). For the earlier history of the site as

see the fourth-century inscription in Bull. Soc. Arch. Alex. 39

and the excavations of the site on the outskirts of (1951), 132 ff. (SEG 18, 772: Benghazi, J. A. Lloyd, J. M. Reynolds et al. (eds.), Excavations at Sidi Krebisch (Benghazi), 2 vols., Libya Antica, Suppl. 5, 1 (1977). Ptol. 4.4.4 has 7. This appears to be an addition to the original list of six, perhaps by the Epitomator. It refers to the notable city of the Decapolis during the third century, though there is no evidence that it was ever renamed by Philadelphus or Euergetes I during their control of Palestine. Stephanus’ counter-entry s.v. though mangled, also refers to it: …(lac. MSS) The use of the ethnic Page 25 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 form confirms the reference to and there is a further reference to it in though that entry also (p.350) contains an error: the counter-entry Further uncertainty about the tradition in of Pella with seemingly because the Pella

Steph. is shown by his identification s.v.

The site itself is well known and of Macedon is stated to have been previously called has been thoroughly excavated: see Schürer, ii, pp. 145–8 and Cohen 2, pp. 265–8. A further Berenike is mentioned by Steph. s.v. (FGrH 115 F360), which has nothing to do with the dynasty, if Theopompos is entered as a contemporary source. Stephanus’ addition here, after which refers to grammatical analogies in the general alphabetical sequence. The entry has been much affected by grammatical intervention.

(II) There remain two or three Berenikes on the Red Sea coast, not given by Stephanus. (a) above,

or ‘Berenike Epi Dires’ (Cohen 2, pp. 313–14). It may be identical with no. 3 (see the excavation reports cited there). Str. 772–3 does not refer to

as such, but calls it Plin. 6.170-1 (in part criticising Juba, FGrH 275 F34) has an interesting passage which may reflect a reading of Eratosthenes by Juba, since it includes an account of his experiments with the gnomon and the shadow (171 = Erat. fr. II B, 37 Berg.). Plin. 6.170 locates Berenike-Deire north of Bab al Mandab: D p. ab Arabia distant: Iuba, qui videtur diligentissime persecutus haec, omisit in hoc tractu (nisi exemplarium vitium est) Berenicen alteram quae Panchrysos cognominata est et tertiam quae Epi Dires, insignem loco: est enim sita in cervice longo procurrente, ubi fauces Rubri Maris vii D. ab Arabia distant. insula ibi Cytis, topazum ferens et ipsa. (171) ultra silvae sunt, ubi Ptolomais a Philadelpho condita ad venatus elephantorum, ob id Epi Theras cognominata, iuxta lacum Monoleum (followed by the account of Eratosthenes’ calculations, including a reference by Pliny regarding the shadows to be observed in Berenice quam primam posuimus). (b) The words with which Pliny concludes the previous item, in Berenice quam primam posuimus, may refer to either of the Berenikes mentioned in §§170-1, B. Panchrysos (Cohen 2, pp. 316–20) and Epi Dires, or to that mentioned previously (in §168), after Arsinoe on the Red Sea coast: mox oppidum parvum est Aenum—alii pro hoc Philoterias scribunt (i.e. assuming a metonomasy, though Aenus is otherwise (p.351) unknown) —deinde sunt Asarri, ex Trogodytarum conubiis Arabes feri, insulae Sapirine, Scytala, mox deserta ad Myoshormon, ubi fons est Ainos, mons Eos, insula Iambe, portus multi, Berenice oppidum matris Philadelphi nomine, ad quod iter a Copto diximus, Arabes Autaei Gebadaei. Although the actual location of Page 26 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 none of these eponymous sites is known except for the excavated site (above, no. 3), it seems quite clear that was the furthest south of them, and lay on Bab al Mandab, in curvice longo procurrente, ubi fauces Rubri Maris, etc., and that this is the Berenike attested in a Ptolemaic papyrus, BM.Pap. 632 (PPetr. 3, 53(g), ll. 22–3, 40), which states that

The only ethnic of a recorded is that of the Libyan city (no. 6, above), though is familiar as an Alexandrian demotic: see Fraser, Ptol. Alex., ii, p. 125, n. 75; p. 206, n. 169.

2.

Location unknown.

3. Known also from Str. 737 (RE (4)): a foundation of Demetrios who succeeded his father, Euthydemos, as king of Bactria in the early part of the second century BC

For the probable location see W. W. Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria and India (2nd edn., Cambridge, 1951), pp. 92 ff.; the date of the foundation cannot be placed more closely than in the reign of Demetrios II, son of Euthydemos, therefore within the first quarter of the second century BC. For the earlier Seleukid coinage see Hill, BMC Arabia etc., nos. 140–6, (cf. Hill, p. cxix). For the Parthian issues, le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides, nos. 322–38; cf. de Rossi, p. 282, nos. 491–3. (p.352)

(II)

The following localities renamed

are not listed by Stephanus.

Page 27 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 (a) Demetrios Poliorketes renamed Sikyon in 303, after capturing it from Ptolemy (above, p. 191). The original city in the plain was destroyed, and a new city built on the hill above (the modern village of Vasilikó): Str. 382, Diod. 20.102, Plut. Dem. 25; Cohen 1, pp. 126–8. It reverted to its old name, but not its old site, some time before the middle of the third century. The ethnic does not occur, Antioch-on-Pyramus (see above, no. 14:

being used throughout, e.g. in the decree of I (6)); Heberdey and Wilhelm, Reisen in Kilikien, p. 7,

(b) (RE (3)), named after Demetrios II Soter (cf. no. 3, above), known only from a lead weight and from its coinage: E. Babelon, Les Rois de Syrie, d’Arménie et de Commagène (Paris, 1890), pl. cxvi–cxxii; H. Seyrig, Syria, 27 (1950), 50–6; cf. Canali de Rossi, p. 286; Cohen 2, pp. 201–2. by, or after, the Seleukid Demetrios III, in the (c) Damaskos was named brief period in which he ruled the region and the city as an independent state, at the beginning of the first century bc. The evidence on which the identification rests is numismatic, and Newell, Western Seleucid Mints, pp. 211–13, does not accept it; cf. the narrative in Schürer, ii, pp. 127 ff. and Cohen 2, pp. 242–5. At all events the ethnic s.v. does not mention the metonomasy.

remained unchanged, and Steph.

(d) A Demetrias in Arachosia is mentioned by Isid. Mans. 19, in a complex passage:

This was evidently a foundation of Demetrios I Kallinikos of Bactria (for whose recon-quest of Arachosia at the end of the third century bc or later see P. Bernard, Journal des Savants (2004), 274 ff.; Fraser, Cities, pp. 89–90, with nn. 25–7). Its location is uncertain; the coinage may belong to no. 3, above. (For the poem published by Bernard see (e) below.) (e) The second poem in P. Bernard’s paper (cited above, under (d), at his pp. 333 ff.) carries a dedication (in six lines of trochaic metre) by one goddess to protect Euthydemos:

of an altar to Hestia, beseeching the

The provenance and historical context of the stone are unknown: see Bernard, ibid., pp. 341 ff. (f) Mention must be made here of another Bactrian foundation, Eukratid(e)ia, of which Steph. says only

The magnificent and abundant coinage of its mint notwithstanding, the location of this, the capital city of the Bactrian Empire, is unknown; see the suggestions of Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria and India, pp. 207 ff.; Bernard, op. cit., p 316. (p.353) Tarn, p. 208, bottom, says ‘the most natural supposition would be that Eucratideia was only Demetrias on the Oxus [ref. to p. 118], with the name changed’, but he withdraws the suggestion in the next sentence, and concludes, ‘the true name Eucratideia, which is all that we have, gives no safe ground for dogmatising…’. Ptol. 6.11.7–8 has (7),

Page 28 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 followed by eight city-names, of which

is the last, followed by §9, which begins

The next eponymous group is that of the Attalid Eumeneias, of which Steph. records three. 1. The immediate juxtaposition of the historical and the mythological explanation is crude, and the myth is not easily determinable, because of the number of different Hylloi connected with Herakles: see Paus. 1.35.8. The historical foundation, for which see Cohen 1, pp. 301–5, was made by Attalos II in honour of his brother Eumenes II, the son of Philetairos. Dittenberger on OGIS 302, suggested, n. 1, that since Eumenes is not known elsewhere to have borne this title the correct The site has been identified as Isikli (see Magie, Roman Rule,

epiklesis might be

p. 984, n. 21). For the ethnic found normally on its coins, cf. OGIS 735, quoted by Robert, Hellenica, ii, p. 84, as being the only inscription in IGR from Eumeneia which gives the city-title: alternative masc. ethnic Robert, ibid., quoted

As an 2

IG II , 1835A (p. 884),

(cf. ibid. 8503 = FRA 1575, alternative feminine form,

but MAMA IV, 360 provides an at Eumeneia). For the link with Achaean settlers given by

the legend on some of its Imperial coins, see Launey, Recherches, p. 140 2 (Head, HN , p. 673). occur in the Ephesian conventus list, IEph. 13, col. II, l. 30 (SEG 37, 884). (See above, p. 173.) 2. Otherwise unrecorded, but perhaps a garrison established north of the Maeander after the Peace of Apameia. Cohen 1, p. 255, doubts the existence of this Eumeneia. 3.

By Hyrcania is to be understood the Hyrcanian Plain in Lydia, for which

see Str. 629: (i.e. from the great northern plain east of the Caspian; cf. Bürchner, RE, s.v. Hyrkanion Pedion (where, for Str. 624, read 629)). For discussion see Cohen 1, p. 208. Stephanus ends his entry a rare type of definition in the Epitome, which, as I have suggested above, pp. 20, 25, may be a combination of a pre-Aristarchean formula

and that of a later date.

(p.354) A metonomasy for Smyrna by Lysimachus, in honour of his daughter, known only from the legends of some early Hellenistic coins of the city. See SNG, von Aulock, 2159; RE, s.v. Smyrna, cols. 745–6; Magie, Roman Rule, p. 889, n. 92. See Cohen 1, pp. 180–3. The Lexikon der Aufschriften auf griechischen Münzen, Österr. Akad. der Wiss., Phil-hist. Klasse, 304 (Vienna, 2002), i, p. 120, wrongly says that the metonomasy was in honour of Lysimachus’ wife.

Page 29 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 Salonica, Thessaloniki (for which see Cohen 1, pp. 101–5) was founded by Cassander in about 316/15 BC, probably by synoecism, and named by him for his wife Thessalonike, who was the daughter of Philip II of Macedon by a famous Thessalian beauty called Nikesipolis (Satyros ap. Athen. 557c). The latter was herself the daughter of an unknown man of Pherai, and she died twenty days after giving birth to Thessalonike. This last poignant detail we owe to none other than Stephanus, s.v. [Fraser omitted Thessalonike, the city, from the present Appendix, for no reason that I can think of, especially given that he included Kassandreia, below. So I have added this entry. S. H.]

a city in Cilicia Tracheia named by Antiochus IV of Commagene in honour of his sisterwife (RE, s.v. (4)). It is attested only by Hierokles (709.7, and by Ptolemy (5.8.2), as the westernmost city of Tracheia. It is not known whether it was a metonomasy or a new foundation. (see Head, HN2, p. 721; cf. Iotape appears on his coinage as Jones, CERP2, p. 211). His daughter was also called Iotape (RE (5)): see Joseph. AJ 18.470; BJ 7.23; cf. Gough in Jones, loc. cit. and p. 440, n. 36.

The epigraphical evidence is substantial from the earlier third century onwards; see the fundamental publication by M. B. Hatzopoulos, Macedonian Institutions under the Kings (Athens and Paris, 1996), ii, nos. 44–8, of which no. (p.355) 44, a decree of 285/4 (dated by the priesthood of Lysimachos), indicates that the city had a deme-system: for a possibly even earlier text see IC, p. 118, no. 27, FD III (3), 207, a Delphian list of proxenoi of the earlier part of the third century, including is worthy of note for the official(?), quasi-metic status presumably conferred on Sophokles by the city of Kassandreia. For an epitaph of the Imperial period in honour of set up by his wife, (1979), 308, no. 51 = SEG 29, 597.

Page 30 of 51

BCH 103

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1

1. Laodikeia of the Syrian Tetrapolis, the port of Antioch, was commonly known as and the ethnic, when expressed in full, is (in dialect, OGIS 241 = Nachtergael 36). An alternative name is provided by IDélos 1551 (110–109 BC), As has been pointed out above (pp. 178, 184), occur most frequently throughout the Greek world without further definition, and no doubt most of them are natives of this city, for which see Cohen 2, pp. 111–16. The site has been partially excavated, and numerous inscriptions have been found there (IGLS IV, 1254–94). It became a Julian colony in c.48 BC (see IKnid. 33, with comm.), and its ethnic is then (IKnid. 58; cf. ibid. 94, of the group of dedications for Julius Theopompus and his family). The legend of the foundation of the city is in Malal. 202–3, beginning

Stephanus’ Rhamitha and Malalas’ Mazabdan seem equally without historical warrant, though Stephanus quotes Philon (loc. cit. above) as his source. This has to be distinguished from both

Laodikeia-by-the-Sea,

(see (a) below) and (b). For the specific documentation, notably from Delos, see the Phoenician texts and the subscription-lists of the Poseidoniastai of Berytus, IDélos 2611–29, from the mid-2nd cent. BC to the Roman acquisition, and at (p.356) Cos, see Klee, Geschichte der gymnischen Agonen, IIC 96/7 and 98/9 (169 BC), For the date, cf. C. Habicht, in K. Höghammar, The Hellenistic Polis of Kos (Uppsala, 2004), pp. 61 ff. 2. Stephanus’ second

(leg.

Stephanus or the Epitomator wrote

is identified by Ptolemy with Laodikeia-on-Lykos, which lay on the upper reaches of the Maeander, where it is joined by its southern tributary, the Lykos, situated on the approximate border of Caria and Phrygia. The site, founded by Antiochus II in honour of his wife Laodike, has been surveyed and partially excavated, and L. Robert made an outstanding contribution by publishing more suo the inscriptions, and much information on the site. For his account in the volume recording the Canadian excavations, see Laodicée du Lykos: Le nymphée. Campagnes 1961–1963, Recherches archéologiques de l’Université Laval, Série 1, Fouilles (Quebec, 1969), pp. 247–389. See also T. Corsten, Die Inschriften von Laodikeia am Lykos, i, IGSK 49 (Bonn, 1997); Cohen 1, pp. 308–11.

Page 31 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 Ptol. 5.2.18 places Laodikeia under Steph. quotes a legend according to which an oracle called upon Antiochus to found the city, on the authority of Zeus, under the guidance of Hermes (Phlegon, FGrH 257 F41). Str. 578 describes it as after describing the benefactions poured upon it by its natives, Hieron, Zenon, and Polemon, and describing the excellence of its wool, he underlines its seismic vulnerability: The and as Laodikeia-on-Lykos it survived, as ethnic, when differentiated, is capital of the conventus of Lycia, to become one of the ‘Seven Churches of Asia’ (W. M. Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven Churches ofAsia and their Place in the Plan ofthe Apocalypse (London, 1904), chapters 29–30); cf. MAMA VI, 1–37. For a discussion regarding its apparently variable status as and again see Debord’s article in Studi Ellenistici, 15 (2003), 115– 80 (cf. SEG 45, 1557 and ibid. 51, 1530). known also as 3. The third Laodikeia (Cohen 1, pp. 346–8) is (Combusta) because of the furnaces established there for smelting copper. The site is first mentioned by Artemidorus (fr. 125 Stiehle), ap. Str. 663, where he records the radiates from Ephesus eastwards, including the stretch to Lykaonia,

that

A metrical Christian tombstone from the neighbourhood of the site, SEG 6, 343 = IAG, 70, is among the main discoveries in the area. The ethnic of a herald at Olympia, of AD 137, (Moretti, Olympionikai, no. 854) may refer to (p.357) the Lykaonian site (IOlymp. 237 = Moretti, IAG 70, ‘di Frigia forse’), but there is no positive reason for the identification. 4. Steph. finally has This Median Laodikeia is mentioned by Str. 524, at the end of his account of the position of Media in relation to the neighbouring regions:

(for see Kramer ad loc.); Plin. 6.115 places the city to the north of Media: regio ibi maritima Cyropolis, qua vero ipsa subit ad Medos Climax Megale appellatur, locus arduo montis ascensu per gradus, introitu angusto, ad Persepolim caput regni dirutam ab Alexandro. praeterea habet in extremis finibus Laodiceam ab Antiocho conditam, apparently further north than the modern Nehavend, where a chancellery document of Antiochus III to his governor there, and to the city of Laodikeia, was found in 1948. Dated to 193 BC the first part (ll. 1–10) consists of a letter of a senior official, Menedemos, while ll. 11–33 contain the letter of Antiochus to Menedemos. The protocol and the contents closely resemble Antiochus’ letter about Laodike found at Eriza in Phrygia (Welles, RC, nos. 36 and 37). The Nehavend inscription was published by Robert, Hellenica, vii (1949), pp. 5–22 (SEG 13, 592), together with, pp. 22–4, an honorific decree from the same city. For the site of Nehavend, some forty miles due south of Hamada-n, see Le Strange, The Lands ofthe Eastern Caliphate, pp. 196– 7, and the Princeton Encyclopedia, s.v. Laodicea (1); Barrington’s Atlas, map 92, D2.

Other Laodikeias not given by Stephanus are listed below. They are the Laodikeias of Syria (other than

which has been treated already above, no. 1). Page 32 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 (a)

known from a papyrus of the fourth century AD, PSI IV, 311 for which see Fraser, Cities, p. 23, with n. 50 (cf. above, p. 178, n.

23). It is distinguished in that document from For attempts to explain the epithet and/or

found associated with both an

and a (Ptol. 5.15.20) see Cities, pp. 21 ff. The word and its application remain mysterious. Cohen 2, p. 116, n. 3 apparently identifies this Laodikeia with (b) below. (b) Cohen 2, pp. 116–17.

for which see Honigmann, RE (2), and Fraser, Cities, p. 23;

(c) in Caria occupies a place apart from its homonyms. It is referred to as a an undated decree found at Panamara, which was issued in its name in honour of Leon of

in

Stratonikeia, along with a second decree in his honour issued by Kallipolis, a city, apparently autonomous, on the confines of the Rhodian Peraea, on the south side of the Ceramic Gulf (SEG 45, 1556–7 and 50, 1123; see also R. van Bremen, ‘Laodikeia in Karia’, Chiron 34 (2004), 367–98, giving text and detailed analysis of the inscription, with bibliography, at p. 367, n. 1). The debate centres on the question of (p. 358) the relation of Stratonikeia to the Rhodian state. The decree is dated by a Rhodian eponymous priest (?) and by a college of three

and passed in the name

of on the proposal of the while the body politic present is referred to as and the month is the Rhodian month Leon is praised for his piety etc. to the shrine of Zeus Panamaros during his period as priest, and presumably for his success in resolving disagreements between citizens, relating to oaths relating to cult matters). The inscription is dated, along with the decree, passed by the to the period after the Peace of Apameia, but the historical context of the naming of the community after a Laodike is difficult to explain if it occurred during or after the period of Rhodian suzerainty over its Subject Peraea. It might be assumed that it was a Seleukid foundation which (uniquely) lost its status as a polis while under Rhodian control, but it is not possible to decide which Laodike provided the original eponymity, or why. That it is a doublet of Laodikeia-on-Lykos, as has been suggested by P. Debord, does not seem very probable (so, rightly, van Bremen, YCS 31 (2004), 210, n. 12), but there is no simple answer to the questions of Laodikeians. raised by this

1. The Thracian Lysimacheia, for which see Cohen 1, pp. 82–7, was founded by Lysimachus in 309 (Diod. 20.29.1), from Kardia. According to Appian (Syr. 1) it was destroyed by the Thracians after Lysimachus’ death in 281, and rebuilt by Antiochus III in 196 during his crossing to Europe (Polyb. 18.51.7–8), but it appears unlikely that that destruction ever occurred, or, if it did, that it had any lasting effect (see Brodersen). Coinage continues from 280 to 220, so, if it was destroyed, the destruction is likely to have occurred in 198. It was probably Ptolemaic for a period in the mid-third century (see R. S. Bagnall, The Administration of Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt (Leiden, 1976), pp. 160–1), and it later joined the Aitolian League on terms of or some similar agreement: see Walbank on Polyb. 22.27.9. A treaty between Lysimacheia and Philip V survives, published by Oikonomos, (1915), no. 1 = SVA III, 549. The ethnic occurs on Delos in the mid-third century in IG XI (2), Page 33 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 120, l. 47 (236 BC): (IIasos, 184, 9:

and in lists of mercenaries at Iasos and Tralles (ITralleis I, 33, B 13: Cf. also Robert, Hellenica, x, pp. 266–71, a relief from Lysimacheia in the Ashmolean Museum. The ethnic is also preserved in a text from Cyprus of late Hellenistic date, ibid. no. 58, For the text of an alliance between Lysimacheia and an unidentified King Antiochus (I.Ilion, 45) see the discussion by Ma, Antiochus III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor, pp. 266–7, whose view—that the status of Lysimacheia within the terms of the treaty excludes an identification of the king with Antiochus III—is clearly correct.

(p.359) Lysimacheia is referred to by Plin. 5.122 among the numerous vanished cities of Aeolis: intercidere Canae, Lysimachea, Atarnea, etc.; perhaps a mistake for the Thracian city (not, presumably, for the Aitolian one).

I leave out of account the numerous other cities called Nikaia, most of which have no known eponymous connection.

Steph. s.v. refers to Doura Europos (but note that Cohen 2, p. 185, ‘Nikatoris’, does not identify the two cities; for Doura Europos see his pp. 159–69). The counter-entry, has only (see Walbank on Polyb. 5.48.16). The large-scale excavations, first by the French under F. Cumont, and then by the Americans under M. Rostovtzeff, have revealed much of the life—military, civic, and religious—of this important military base on the Euphrates (for a bibliography, see Princeton Encyclopedia s.v.), but the ethnic in either form (of which the ‘Greek’ form, Page 34 of 51

seems

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 unlikely as a grammatical formation) is uncommon. The inscriptions from the site (edited by C. B. Welles, as vol. 5 of Excavations at Dura-Europos), more Latin than Greek, rarely provide the ethnic.

(p.360) The fame of Nikomedeia (Cohen 1, pp. 400–2) reached its peak in the later Roman period, from Diocletian onwards, when citizens from there, especially artisans, carpenters, merchants, and so on, are named and commemorated in many different places. The documents are largely tombstones, and serve to remind us of the dangers that faced the travelling craftsmen and businessmen at that date. There are thirty-seven Nicomedians in FRA, almost all commemorated on tombstones, and largely of Imperial date. It is to be noted that, in spite of the list of men of letters, sophists of the Second Sophistic, public performers, and agonistic competitors from Nikomedeia, are much less frequent than persons representing routine and practical callings.

Known only from two references, in Liv. 39.25 and 45.6.10. It was a metonomasy by Philip V, probably in 183 BC, of the site otherwise known as (Liv. 39.25: Perrhaebi Gonnocondylum, quod Philippus Olympiadem appellaverat), the modern toumba, Tsourba Mandra, a few miles west of Gonnoi, of which it appears to have formed a subordinate community: see Helly, Gonnoi, i, pp. 39 ff.; Cohen 1, pp. 115–16.

Known only from Liv. 39.53.15–16, it was apparently founded by Philip V in c. 183 BC in the neighbourhood of Stobi: haud procul Stobis; see Cohen 1, p. 99.

Steph. The extent and occasion of Pleistarchos’ realm in Asia Minor are discussed by Robert, Le Sanctuaire de Sinuri, i, pp. 56–62, apropos of ibid. no. 44, a decree of a dated Plut. Demetr. 31 records the few known events associated with Pleistarchos, the brother of Cassander. It is commonly agreed that the Herakleia referred to by Stephanus is Herakleia-by-Latmos. For Pleistarchos’ control of Caria, see Cohen 1, pp. 261–3, esp. p. 263, n. 3. Plutarch also refers to Pleistarchos’ control of Cilicia,

Page 35 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 which must have occurred after his expulsion from Caria by Demetrios. Schaefer, RE (2) accepts Robert’s reconstruction of events, which greatly reduces the role of Pleistarchos.

(p.361) Stephanus here makes the connection between Prusias and Prusa, but does not note the existence of yet another Prusa (ad Hypium: (a) below). All three Bithynian cities are distinguished (between Prusias and Prusa) both by their form and by a geographical description; see T. Corsten (ed.), Die Inschriften von Prusa ad Olympum, 2 vols., IGSK 39–40 (Bonn, 1991–3), ii. 1. The modern Bursa, once the Seljuk capital, founded in c.184 BC by Prusias I (with the alleged help of Hannibal): Cohen 1, pp. 403–4. The ethnic, either is frequently attested in the Imperial period. (See Corsten, IPrusa ad Olympum; not all the inscriptions here are from Bursa itself; vol. ii, pp. 21–82, contain the Testimonia; pp. 13 ff. a selection of the coinage, without legends, but with a description of the historical background of the issues.) The ethnic sometimes occurs with the iotacistic form of the cities called Prusa: see L. Robert, Études Anatoliennes: Recherches sur les inscriptions grecques de l’Asie Mineure (Paris, 1937), pp. 228 ff., esp. p. 230, n. 1. The three ethnics are associated in the bilingual IGUR 71 (IGSK 27, T1), of 2nd half of 2nd cent. BC: a dedication in honour of patroni in Rome by the three cities, A good example of the ethnic is provided by IPrusa, ii, T6 (p. 80, CIG 4155) from Pompeioupolis Paphlagoniae: G. Sacco, Iscrizioni greche d’Italia: Porto (Rome, 1984), no. 26: Cf. also IG VII, 1766, l. 12 (Thespiae, Imperial), It is to be noted that is also the name of a tribe at : SEG 14, 774, l. 20: Without the geographical determinant: AEMΘ 11 (1887), 56, no. 99: The MSS of Strabo are corrupt at this point in his description, since he says that the city was a which has been rejected by edd., who mostly prefer Stephanus’ alii: Wesseling on Hierokles, p. 693 (quoted by Mein., ad loc.)). Syme, Anatolica, p. 349, suggests

2. This was named after the destruction of Kios by Philip V in 202 BC, but reverted to the name of Kios by the time of the Emperor Claudius at the latest. See Cohen 1, pp. 405–6. The full form of the ethnic was The counterwhich was probably in the original text of Stephanus, is now in a lacuna. The entry s.v. already occurs in IG VII, 389, l. 1 (IOropos 163, before 203 BC), while metonomasy Galen, xiv, p. 683K refers to Asclepiades as

Page 36 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 apparently not in Stephanus. The Hypios runs westwards along the valley behind the lands of the Maryandini, and flows out into the Euxine (p.362) east of Herakleia. The site itself had previously been called see IPrusa ad Hypium, IGSK 27 (1985), and Dörner’s excellent article, RE, s.v. Prusias (5). The counter-entry in Stephanus (if there was one) lies, like that regarding Kios, in a lacuna. The ethnics of I (2) and II are frequently confused with that of I (1), and the ethnic of this one occurs with full title, as in CIRB 55 (IGR I, 888 (AD 223)), See Cohen 1, p. 496, calling it ‘Prousias on the Hypios’. For the vessels called

see above, p. 189, with n. 37.

The entry is confined in Stephanus to one item concerning wrongly: see below, no. 1; Chandler, Greek Accentuation, p. 119, n. 2).

(oxytone,

1. the metonomasy of the biblical Akko (Judges 1.31) to Ptolemais, but the counter-entry, 160 Bill.),

that is, (α

gives an 18line account from Julius Claudius Iollus (FGrH 788 F1; J. C. Jac.) of how the Delphic oracle had prescribed to Herakles to anoint the wounds caused by the poisonous bites of the Hydra, the root of the homoeopathic Egyptian bean, of which the root was and the stem The history of the city is well known: it had numerous called contacts with the Greek world throughout the fourth century, and was captured by Alexander; the coinage bears the legend It became Ptolemaic in the late fourth century, and received the name of Ptolemais at some time before 259 BC (PCair.Zen. 59.004: a list of places visited, and quantities of flour received, by a party travelling in Palestine, col. I, ll. 10–12: —the local people— (= Kedesh of Galilee) and remained Ptolemais until it became Seleukid in 219 BC after its conquest by Antiochus III, when it was renamed Finally, in the time of Claudius, it received a Roman colony and became colonia Ptolemais. Though no source is mentioned in Stephanus’ Epitome, an entry in Harpocration, s.v.

refers to Demosthenes’ notice of it in the Ad Callippum (52.20):

(fr. 5, FHG III, p. 633) (fr. 463) In Herodas’ second Mime it is from Ake that the brothel-keeper brought the girls who were involved in a suit of battery. See the full account of the Hellenistic city in Schürer, ii, pp. 121–7, and further V. Kontorini, RN 21 (1979), 30–42 and Cohen 2, pp. 213–21; IEJ 11 (1961), 118–26 (cf. BE 1961, 281), a dedication in honour of Antiochus VII and Cleopatra I; A. Kindler, BASOR (1978), 52–4, a discussion of the term

used of Ptolemais, and its renaming as

during Seleukid rule, and into the Imperial period. The two dynastic names seem to have survived alongside each other, although Schürer, i, p. 123, regards the term as representing a party in Ptolemais, in the same way that the hellenising population of Jerusalem, in the time of Antiochus (p.363) Epiphanes, wished to call themselves The argument (ibid., n. 207) that eponymous cities were so called after a suzerain, and not (as in this case) after a city (Antiocheia), is obviously true.

Page 37 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 (II) Although no other Ptolemais is given by Stephanus, a certain number of references occur under the counter-entries, if they are not new foundations. (a) s.v.

(β 45 Bill.),

MSS, Xyl., vulg.). (Bill. prints

Mein.,

in double quotation marks, and adds a reference to TrGF adesp.

468.) This puzzling entry, the opening rubric of which reproduces the formula used for I (6), above, has a parallel in the glossary of Cyril: see A. B. Drachmann, Die Überlieferung des Cyrillglossars (Copenhagen, 1936), p. 73, no. 37: Berkel saw that the final phrase, probably came from Mnaseas of Patara (Patrai?), whose work on Libya is quoted by Hesychius s.v. (Soph. Elect. 729):

(fr. 43 Cappalletto; B 237 (Cohen 2, pp. 394–5) is familiar from texts of Latte). The ethnic form different kinds from at least 267 BC throughout the third century (Klee, Geschichte der gymnischen Agonen, p. 6, Stele 1C, line 21, cf. La’da E 2339–41; and L. Moretti, Rivista di Filologia, 104 (1976), 186 ff., who maintained that the form of the ethnic (with indicated that Barke was ‘un distretto’, ‘una partizione amministriva’ of Ptolemais, which took the place of Barke in the Pentapolis; he pointed out the similar usage (for which he offered the same explanation) in regard to where gave place to the larger circumscription, (whence the confusion between the two entries; cf. above, I (6)). The use of in such formulations is, however, too frequent for this especial interpretation to be more than a possibility. It is to be noted that in Egypt the two ethnics exist separately, but approximately contemporaneously, since in 244 BC we find

(Pros. Ptol. 4023) and in 210 perhaps his son, (sic; Pros. Ptol. 3920). (Pros. Ptol. 2148, Polyb. 5.65.8) is in a separate case, since he is named by Polybius, who does not normally heed eponymous metonomasies (see above, p. 171). More examples of the full ethnic will be found in Moretti’s article. Among the many centres called not mentioned by Stephanus are four important cities in Asia Minor, which may be metonomasies or new foundations. (b) Ptolemais in Cilicia Tracheia, east of Side, Str. 667: (p.364) See Cohen 1, p. 339, treating it as Ptolemais in Pamphylia. Cf. L. Robert, Études épigraphiques et philologiques (Paris, 1938), p. 255, n. 2; id. in Laodicée du Lykos, pp. 30–1; cf. IGSK 49, pp. 30–1.

Page 38 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 (c) Ptolemais in Caria. The in the multiple subscription of IMagnesia, 59 (= Corsten, IGSK 49, no. 4), may be irrelevant, since we know that the in two inscriptions from Kaunos, SEG 12, 463, 6 and 16, 473, 17, refer to a deme of that city, which is not likely itself to have been called Ptolemais. The natural result, therefore, is that in the interval between the date of the inscription from Kaunos and of IGSK 49, loc. cit., the deme had been elevated to a polis. Cf. Robert, Hellenica, vii, pp. 189–90, who maintains that the supplements and are both too short for the lacuna. See Cohen 1, pp. 264 ff. and the remarks of Corsten, op. cit., n. to b 30, and p. 31. IMagnesia, 53, l. 79. The inhabitants of (d) Lebedos were not left in peace by the Diadochi: Antigonos synoecised them on Teos (Welles, RC, nos. 3, 4; G. E. Bean, Aegean Turkey: an Archaeological Guide (London, 1966), pp. 149 ff.), and the remaining(?) population was incorporated by Lysimachus in his new Ephesus-Arsinoe. It was presumably rebuilt by Ptolemy Philadelphus or Euergetes, and retained the name Ptolemais at least until the end of the century, since it occurs in a fragment of the Delphic theorodokoi-list: see Robert, Ét. dél., p. 437, n. 10; Cohen 1, pp. 189 ff. There is a coin-issue with Head, HN2, p. 580. (e) Ptolemais-Larisa, in the Troad, named in the list of Delphic theorodokoi; cf. L. Robert, BCH 106 (1982), 319 ff.; BE 1984, no. 317; Cook, The Troad, p. 219; Cohen 1, pp. 157–9. It appears to have been detached from Alexandria Troas, and was probably renamed in the course of, or after, the Ptolemaic conquests in Thrace and the area in the 240s. The counter-entry has ten cities named Larisa, but this is not included. (There is a lacuna in the Epitome before the next entry, but the entry s.v. seems to be complete as it stands.) Unlike Ptolemais-Lebedos (above, no. 5) it appears in the Delphic list of theorodokoi with its true name, Larisa (col. I, D19). There remain the ‘domestic’ cities called Ptolemais, those within Egypt itself, or in the southern African territories. Of these the principal is the city founded by Ptolemy Soter in Upper Egypt, the most important, or perhaps it would be truer to say, the most prestigious, city in Egypt after Alexandria, Ptolemais Hermiou. (f) The city (for which see Cohen 2, pp. 350–1) was founded by Soter, of whom there was a cult as which is attested at a considerably later date, on the left bank of the Nile in the twenty-sixth parallel of latitude, on the site of the modern village of ElMinshah, between Athribis and Abydos. Its distinguishing title, occurs neither in literary sources nor inscriptions and is used only by Claudius Ptolemy, as an alternative title to (1.15.11) in 4.5.66 and 8.15.13; the identity of Hermias remains unknown. Founded as a southern counterpart to Alexandria, according to Strabo it possessed the full mechanism of a Greek polis (more so, probably, than Alexandria itself) on the conventional Greek (p.365) system, which Strabo (813) describes as a

The discovery of the opening section of a decree of Ptolemais, published in Berytus, 13 (1960), 123 ff. (SEG 20, 665), has transformed our understanding of the history of the city, and not only of Ptolemais, but of the possible range of relations between a sovereign and new foundations (Ptolemaic and other) in its early days. It is not possible to do more here than to state that this unique decree (which is seemingly, to judge by its lettering, a copy from the Roman period of the original civic decree) praises Soter because he has introduced into the population of the new city

Page 39 of 51

from

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 Argos and Thessaly and at least one other region. Though most of the decree of the boule and demos is lost, it is clear from the fulsome opening lines in which Ptolemy is called that he was regarded (exaggeratedly, perhaps) as the benefactor and active patron of the new city. There is no need to pursue here this remarkable document and its significance for our understanding of the relationship of sovereigns and of new eponymous cities. See especially G. Plaumann, Ptolemais in Oberägypten (Munich, 1910), an excellent work, and the important article of J. Scherer, BIFAO 41 (1942), 43–73. Since the ethnic was not distinguished in documentation by the addition of we have no means of determining the identity of any of its inhabitants outside those known from the civic documents originating in the city itself, or at least in Egypt. The places named Ptolemais known to have existed either on the Red Sea coast, like Berenike I (3)), or in the interior regions of Africa beyond the Cataracts Trogodytica (above, cannot be regarded as more than ‘stations’ used as bases for elephant hunts, as coastal shipment points for the captured animals, or, like Berenike Trogodytica, as customs points, though Strabo calls some of them His account of the coastal and southern regions of Egypt, based on the work of Artemidoros, refers to the ‘eponymous’ foundations down the Red Sea: the first of these (769) is then, by the Gulf of Myous Hormos, on the coast of the Thebaid, (cf. above, ibid.); then, where the coasts of Egypt and Arabia are closest to each other, beyond the land of the Ichthyophagoi; then (770) after an olive-bearing island liable to submersion,

The site of Ptolemais is thought to be the promontory of Ras Makdam. Neither of these commanders of expeditions is otherwise known (or, more precisely, identified), their names, like that of Hermias, the eponym of Ptolemais in Upper Egypt, being common, and none of the cities and stations appears in documentary texts, though some of them are listed in due course by Ptolemy. For example (i.e. the harbour of the Fayyūm, where it was (4.7.7; 8.16.10) or linked by canal with the Bahr-Yussef) (4.5.57); (4.7.27). OGIS 70 and 71 (E. Bernard, Le Paneion (p.366) d’ El-Kanais, no. 13), from the temple of Pan Euodos in the Eastern Desert, at Residiya, refer respectively to a Pergaean and a Cretan, described as these posts. Unidentified

who may have belonged to one of

occur, e.g., in Fraser, Rhodian Funerary Monuments, n. 362 (Rhodes):

IC IV, 211 (Gortyn): (monogr. of late date) probably from Ptolemais-Ake; a in SEG 20, 489 from Jerusalem: and on Delos, Exploration Archéologique de Délos, 30 (1974), 32: cf. 435; 482. given in one of the Byzantine We may also note the improbably named lists of metonomasies published by Burkhardt as Appendix III to his edition of Hierokles, p. 68, l. 96 (= Diller, BZ 63 (1970), 33, C, l. 7; cf. above, p. 154). Cities did not bear a double eponymity (cf. below, s.v.

etc.), and Diller, op. cit., p. 70 suggests that the original list probably

Page 40 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 had a confused entry which combined the eponymous names of Ake-Ptolemais and RabathPhiladelphia. I add here, as genealogically linked with the Ptolemies, though not representing a ruling member of the dynasty, the various cities named

and

I have pointed out

(above, p. 96, n. 60) that I do not interpret the of SEG 27, 973, bis, as the ethnic of an eponymous city, but (like the editor of the text, Ray-Coquais) as a demotic of Ptolemais Hermiou. The cities so named are not documentarily attested, lying largely south of Egypt, towards the Horn of Africa.

2. The Antiochus III in 218 BC,

of Koile Syria (Cohen 2, pp. 273–5) is mentioned by Polyb. 5.70.3-4: (4)

Walbank, ad loc., follows previous opinion in presuming this to be a Ptolemaic foundation, like no. 1, and this must surely be correct (cf. Honigmann, RE, s.v.). The fact that it is included by Syncellus (1.559 Dind.) among the does not affect the argument based on the Ptolemaic name. Beloch’s view (4.2.325) that it (later Skythopolis) was, as Str. 752 indeed says, namely one of the Diadochi (Antigonos Monophthalmos a foundation during his administration of Syria), is unlikely; if correct, I would regard it as a Ptolemaic metonomasy reflecting Philadelphus’ later rule over Syria (Theocr. 17.86). (p.367)

(I)

We turn now to the cities named, or renamed, Seleukeia. Stephanus’ entry s.v. is bewil-deringly he names only Seleukeia on Kalykadnos, and, as a separate brief, like his entry s.v. (and corrupt) entry, the of the Seleukis. Otherwise the fifteen or so cities of that name are absent from the text as it stands (but see below for Gadara). The treatment is thus in which fourteen cities are totally at variance with that represented by the entry listed, located, and, where appropriate, given their pre-eponymous name. Numerous refoundations called are listed in their counter-entries, but this does not explain the difference of treatment between the two groups of cities named and those named (and also between Seleukeia of Pieria and the other two cities of the Seleukis, Laodikeia and Apameia, which are both recorded). It may be supposed that the Epitomator was responsible for this imbalance. Despite the above, note that an inscription has now confirmed Stephanus’ statement (see above, under I (5)) that the famous Gadara was a Seleukeia. See Cohen 2, p. 282 and p. 284, n. 2, discussing the inscription, which is now SEG 50, 1479. Page 41 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 1. The entry s.v. is largely concerned with the pre-Seleukid names of the city on the Kalykadnos (RE Seleukeia (5); Cohen 1, pp. 69–71) and its ethnic forms: (FGrH 273 F132).

(for this vessel see above, p. 189, n. 37). The city, founded by Antiochus Epiphanes on the lower reaches of the Kalykadnos, is familiar both as a site and as a significant Seleukid power-base in the second century BC. It lay athwart the river, downstream from the old native city Olba (to which it may owe the earlier name given it by Steph., though we have seen that there are so many ‘prehistoric’ cities of that name in Steph. (see above, p. 153, n. 16) that it might be thought dangerous to select this item for specific treatment). It is surprising that Steph., or his Epitomator, should have preserved this rather obscure city to represent the eponymous Seleukeias. See Heberdey and Wilhelm, Reisen in Kilikien, pp. 108 ff. = Syll.3 644 + SEG 16, 777 = IByz. I (IGSK 58), 1. 2. This entry is followed by: (R, V, A). This garbled entry does not represent a trustworthy grammatical or historical tradition; no such (masculine!) city (except that connected with the Mons Seleucus, a witness to Celtic penetration in Transalpine Gaul, see RE (5)) or ethnic is known. It seems likely that in its original form the entry referred to

at all events the ethnic in itself is unacceptable.

(II) (a) Of the Seleukeias passed over by Steph. the most notable is naturally the Pierian (RE, Seleukeia (2); Cohen 2, pp. 126–35), the harbour of Antioch. It is, however, listed in the counter(p.368)

entry, s.v.

(see below).

(FrGH 156 F39).

In his analysis of Seleukid foundations (Syr. 57; Brodersen, Appians Abriss der Seleukidengeschichte, pp. 163–5) Appian describes the Pierian Seleukeia and Seleukeia on the Tigris (below, p. 370): One of Seleukos’ original four cities of the Syrian coast, it survived, like Antioch, until the end of the Graeco-Roman world, and thence, with name unchanged, into the Islamic period, and until today. In the period 246–219 BC, in the course of the Third Syrian War, it was occupied by the Ptolemies, but then reverted to Seleukid suzerainty: OGIS 245 (= IGLS 1184). The ethnic occurs in several different forms. (i) In the letter of 186 BC of Seleukos IV to the city (Welles, RC, no. 45) it is addressed simply as (ii) As Σ. in App. Syr. 57 and 63. Strabo in his excellent account of the Seleukis, speaking of the course of the Orontes, says (750):

Page 42 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 We may next consider the Seleukeias of Pamphylia and Cilicia. (b) Seleukeia in Pamphylia: RE (7), Cohen 1, pp. 340–2. See the Stadiasmus, GGM, i, p. 488, §§216–17: This is perhaps a metonomasy for Sillyon, though it cannot be a corruption for it, as Müller, ad loc. suggested: see Magie, Roman Rule, p. 1135, n. 9. A Hellenistic decree of this city honouring a doctor from Perge, was republished by A. Wilhelm, Neue Beiträge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde, iv (Vienna, 1915), 56 ff.; the issuing city is simply (c) Seleukeia a metonomasy of Mopsouestia, known only from its coinage (BMC Lycaonia, pp. cix ff.), with the legend approximately contemporary with other issues bearing the legend The coins are of the time of Antiochus IV, and the metonomasy was only of brief duration; cf. Magie, Roman Rule, p. 1148, n. 29; Cohen 1, pp. 371–2. (d) known from the list of cities in the SC de Stratonicensibus (OGIS 441 = Sahin, IStratonikeia ii, 1 (IGSK 22, 1), 505, l. 217, has been the subject of much discussion, and both its identity and its ethnic form remain uncertain. Dittenberger took it as referring to Seleukeia of Pieria, on the basis of Str. 750–1, ‘ubi bis commem-oratur quem sinum Issicum esse constat’. Apart from the text from Stratonikeia, the name is preserved only on a bronze emission of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. R. Ziegler, Kaiser, Heer und städtisches Geld: Untersuchungen zur Münzprägung von Anazarbos und änderer ostkilikischer Städte (Vienna, 1993) maintained that the site should be identified with Rhosos, while M. H. (p. 369) Sayar, ‘Kilikien und die Seleukiden’, Studien zum antiken Kleinasien: Asia Minor Studien, 34 (1999) left the question open. J. Nollé, Chiron, 33 (2003), 79–83, maintained that the name was given, on the usual provisional basis, to an unidentifiable site near Rhosos. Cohen 2, pp. 136–9 rejects on balance the identification with Seleukeia in Pieria. If the identification is correct, the city had a previous pre-dynastic history. L. Moretti, Ricerche sulle leghe greche (Rome, 1962), pp. 202–3, showed that the Lycian cities in the list, which precede Seleukeia, must be later than the destruction of Olympos in 78 BC (so Artemidoros ap. Str. 665). The and other foundations of Antiochus Epiphanes, had returned to their old names at the beginning of the first century BC, along with the gradual disappearance of Seleukid sovereignty in the area: see Nollé, op. cit., 88–9. Seleukeia therefore had no other name to fall back on, and must be sought somewhere in the neighbourhood of Rhosos, but not actually there. Str. 532 says that the small cities on the Issiac Gulf were not affected by Tigranes of Armenia’s activities, when he transferred the population of twelve Greek cities to Tigranocerta. (They were later returned to their original home-towns.) If this argument is wholly correct, it should follow that the of l. 216 of the SC is the Demetrias of the Pagasaian Gulf, which is not impossible, given the general nature of the list, although it is surrounded by cities of Asia Minor (215, The following are inland Seleukeias.

Page 43 of 51

217,

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1

(f)

Cohen 2, pp. 135–6.

(g) north of Baris. Known from coins, BMC Lycia, Pamphylia 2 etc., p. 252 (Imperial) (Head, HN , p. 710), 1st cent. BC, legend from AD 43, Ptol. 5.5.4: Cf. Robert, Les Villes d’Asie 2 Mineure , p. 285; id., Hellenica, x, pp. 243–4; Ruge, RE (6); W. M. Ramsay, The Historical Geography ofAsia Minor (London, 1890), p. 406; Cohen 1, pp. 349–50. (h)

The metonomasy of Tralles to Seleukeia had

occurred by c.260 BC: RE (8), see especially IG IX (1)2 (1), 17, l. 100 (reading for later in the century, Delphin. 85 (2nd-1st cent. BC?)

and,

It probably reverted to its old name after the Peace of Apameia: see e.g. A. Maiuri, Nuova Silloge epigrafica di Rodi e Cos (Florence, 1925), nos. 201–4 (Rhodes), 589, 668 (Cos). For the discussions by Robert, see OMS I, pp. 325–44; ibid., II, p. 1189; id., Ét. dél., (p.370) pp. 461 ff., n. 161. See also Magie, Roman 29, 448 (IG XIV, 1079, of Rule, pp. 991–2; Cohen 1, pp. 265–8. Later called AD 211–17). The metonomasy is not mentioned in Stephanus’ counter-entry,

We may now turn to the Seleukid eponymous Asiatic cities, mainly in Mesopotamia. (j) (RE (1)), the later Ktesiphon, Seleukos’ first foundation, before 311 BC. Described by Str. 743. The great Eastern Seleukid capital, of which the regular ethnic is found frequently in agonistic records and (less frequently) on Rhodian tombstones and other texts, and collectively known as (IMM 61 = OGIS 233, ll. 100–2; cf. E. T. Newell, The Coinage of the Eastern Seleucid Mints from Seleucus I to Antiochus III (New York, 1938), pp. 9–99, for the coinage), and other variations of the same basic topographical formula. In Babylonian the city was called ‘Seleuceia al-Sarruti’, ‘the city of kingship’. Procopius refers to it, Pers. 2.28.3:

At that date it was called (Gondeshapur) by the Sassanians: see Theoph. p. 323 de Boor. For excavations see especially C. Hopkins, Topography and Architecture of Seleucia on Tigris (Ann Arbor, 1972), comprising, as Part II, R. H. McDowell’s History ofSeleucia from Classical Sources (ending with its recapture by Septimius Severus from the Parthians in AD 198/9). References to subsequent Italian excavations are to be found in Sumer, 32 (1976), 166–75; S. Sherwin-White, ZPE 47 (1982), 51 ff.; Kuhrt and Sherwin-White (eds.), Hellenism in the East,

Page 44 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 Index, p. 191; eaed., From Samarkhand to Sardis: New Approach to the Seleucid Empire (London, 1993), Index, p. 259, s.v. One of the most remarkable finds of recent years from the site is the inscribed statue of Herakles, of the 2nd cent. AD, published by P. Bernard, Rev. Arch. (1989), 65–113; id., Journal des Savants (1990), 3–68 (SEG 41, 1520); cf. Fraser, Cities, p. 32, n. 69 and p. 169, n. 121; now republished by Canali de Rossi, Iscrizioni dello estremo oriente greco (IGSK 65), 86. (k) Susa. For inscriptions (a number published by Cumont) see SEG 7, 1–34, none earlier than Antiochus III, mostly of Parthian date (no. 17 is of 183 BC (Seleukos IV)). For the coinage see Newell, Eastern Seleucid Mints, pp. 107–53, and the comprehensive account by le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides. Susa appears among the Eastern Seleukid cities listed in IMM 61 = OGIS 233, l. 108 + SEG 4, 504: cf. Robert, Gnomon, 35 (1963), 75–6 (restoration of name in local manumissions); Fraser, Cities, p. 33, n. 71.

(m) (RE (4)). Originally a late Seleukid foundation, in due course incorporated in the kingdom of Commagene. See (p.371) J. Wagner, Seleukeia am Euphrat/Zeugma (Wiesbaden, 1976), and the subsequent bibliography of studies by Wagner and others listed in C. Crowther and M. Facella, ‘New evidence for the ruler-cult of Antiochus of Commagene’, Asia Minor Studies, 49 (2003), 79. The material is Imperial: IG XII (1), 653: 34, 14 (mosaics). (n)

In the list of Eastern Seleukid cities in OGIS 233, l.

106: unattested.

i.e. on the Persian Gulf. Otherwise

(o) The last of the eponymous Seleukid cities to be noted is the medieval Merv-Shahighan in the Merv Oasis. For the complex problem of the foundation and name (Seleukeia or Antiocheia) of this site, see Fraser, Cities, p. 31, n. 67, and pp. 116–18. It is unattested (except as a supposed ‘Alexandria in Margiane’) before Strabo and Isidore, who both state that it was founded by Antiochus I (above, p. 333, s.v.

Two or three cities named

represent different dynastic eponyms.

(so MSS, wrongly corrected to by Xylander, 1. accepted by Mein., and by Sahin, IStrat., p. 192, n.: die Handschriften unsinnig’) (The entry continues, as given below, next item.) This as it is given by Steph., and in the list of cities in the SC de Stratonicensibus recognising the asylum of the temple of Hekate in Stratonikeia (OGIS 441, ll. 154–5 (IStrat. 508),

is given by Ptolemy, 2.13.9, under

(l. 10): It was probably named either by Demetrios Poliorketes after his daughter, who was later the wife of Seleukos I and then of Antiochus I, or by Gonatas after his mother: see Robert, Les Villes d’Asie Mineure2, p. 43, n. 5. The nearer location is unknown, but see Cohen 1, p. 101, for a summary of suggestions.

Page 45 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1

(p.372) 3. later and, later still, (Steph. confuses it with no. 2 above, the Carian city: Cohen 1, p. 232.) It has been considerably debated whether this was an Attalid or a Seleukid foundation. If Attalid, then it took its name from Stratonike, daughter of the King of Cappadocia, whom Attalus II married in 188: see E. S. G. Robinson, Numismatic Chronicle (1955), 1–7, who claimed that the cistophoroi with the date ‘year 4’ were coins of Aristonikos minted in the name of Eumenes II. Robert, Les Villes d’Asie Mineure2, pp. 252 ff., accepted the attribution of the coins to Aristonikos, but maintained that the original foundation nevertheless might be either Seleukid or Attalid, and if the former (as he maintained in Les Villes d’Asie Mineure1, pp. 48 ff.), then the name derived from Stratonike, the wife of Antiochus I, the eponym of no. 2, above: see Magie, Roman Rule, p. 978, n. 12; Cohen 1, pp. 232–8, esp. 232 and 236 (opting for a Seleukid foundation by Antiochus I). The ethnic name-form occurs in MDAI, Athenische Abteilung, 35 (1910), 422, no. 11, from Pergamon (Imp.). The plain lay near the source of the Kaikos river in Mysia, and the coins of the city simply have INΔIΠEΔIATΩN (see Magie, ibid.). A similar compound name-form occurs in the Carian community, known from its coins as INΔIΣTPATONE and INΔEIΣTPATO See references to Robert in Zgusta, Kleinasiatische Ortsnamen, §375. In addition, a couple of unidentified

occur in Rhodian inscriptions:

G. Pugliese-Carratelli (ed.), Supplemento epigrafico rodio, ASAA n.s. 17 (1955–6) (1957), 63, 9–10 (2nd cent. BC); IG XII (1), 876. The instance in Athens, FRA 6981, is also without further identification.

Page 46 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1

(p.373) Stephanus: The foundation of Phila by Demetrios II has been the subject of considerable discussion (see Oberhummer, RE (6)). Its position near the mouth of the Peneios is established by Liv. 44.7.7, 12 (169 BC): peropportunum litterae a Sp. Lucretio adlatae sunt castella quae supra Tempe essent et circa Philam. See Cohen 1, p. 100. For

and derivatives see above, p. 366.

We may finally note those cities which are eponymous by association only, that is, the names of which derive not from the name of a member of a royal family but from an epiklesis of a sovereign. These are not all to be found in the surviving text of Stephanus. His text has no cities named below, p. 374).

either as a main entry or a counter-entry, though Strabo has two Eusebeiai (see

1. Of these four Epiphaneias, the first (RE (3); Cohen 2, pp. 106–8) is the later Hamah, of which Josephus (Ant. 1.6.2, §138) says Droysen) for Arab descriptions of it see G. Le Strange, Palestine under the Moslems: a Description of Syria and the Holy Land from AD 650 to 1500, trans. from…mediaeval Arab geographers by G. Le Strange (London, 1890), pp. 357–60. The eponymous name is no doubt due to Antiochus Epiphanes; cf. Head, HN2, p. 781; RE, loc. cit. 2. The second, of Cilicia (RE (4); Cohen 1, pp. 365–6), is upstream from the Gulf of Issos. Cicero (Ad Fam. 15.4.7 ff.) says it was one day’s journey from the Amanus: cumque me discedere ab eo monte simulassem, et alias partes Ciliciae petere, abessemque ab Amano iter unius diei et castra apud Epiphaniam fecissem; and Plin. 5.93 says its previous name was Oeniandos: Castabala, Epiphania, quae antea Oeniandos; Ptol. 5.7.7 places it between Nikopolis and the Amanian Gates. App. Mithr. 96 tells us that Pompey settled some brigands there:

Page 47 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1

3. The third, of Bithynia, is otherwise unknown (RE (1); Cohen 1, p. 397). 4. The fourth, on the Tigris, is also otherwise unknown (RE (6). (p.374) The ethnic occurs rarely, and always in the plain form

e.g. IGR I, 556 (Black

Corcyra): The coinage, of 2nd cent. BC, Head, HN2, p. 781, has Steph. s.v. has four cities so named, and at the end of the entry Malalas, p. 203 Bonn, speaks of an Epiphaneia built by Antiochus Epiphanes (RE (5)), primarily as a residential suburb for magistrates: after describing his construction of another suburb outside Antioch-on-Orontes, where all branches of government were to operate, Malalas adds,

Ekbatana = Stephanus in the entry forms of the name ’Eγ- and

has a lengthy discussion, much of it irrelevant here, of the two (FGrH 688 F42: ‘hodie in excerptis

Ctesiae ubique

Mein.)

(FGrH 125 F41) There is no independent evidence for two cities called Ekbatana east of the Euphrates (cf. Plin. NH 5.86: oppida adluuntur Epiphania et Antiochia quae ad Euphraten vocantur), and the correct designation has probably at an early stage been replaced by, and then confused with, the wider term ‘of Persia’. ‘Demetrios’, the author of the work quoted s.v. have been responsible for the confusion.

852 F2; cf. Ktesias, loc. cit.) as

may

Next to be noted in this category is not a headword in the surviving text of Steph. (though see above, p. 176), but well known as the metonomasy of two cities in Cappadocia (Cohen 1, pp. 378–9 and 377–8): (a) Tyana, in the form

in Str. 537:

(b) Str. 537–8: Both these cities were apparently renamed by Ariarathes V of Cappadocia, and they had lost the additional epikleseis by the first century ad, Mazaka being renamed

continues on the coinage: see Robert, Hellenica, ii, pp. 81 ff.). For

the unspecified ethnic see FRA 1579–80,

also in the feminine

Page 48 of 51

ibid. 1580

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 (IG II2, 8504:

ILind. 660 (3rd cent. AD),

(p.375) 1. Of these the first lay in the plain of Kastolos, on the north-eastern side of Mt. Tmolos. It was founded by Attalos II, and both the ethnics given by Steph. were in use in the Imperial period: OGIS 488,

(2nd cent. AD?); ibid. 526,

where the second (RE(2)) is a topical regional form, not a civil ethnic. The city founded by Attalos survived until the end of antiquity as one of the Seven Churches of Asia: NT Rev. 3.7: a letter of Valerian and Gallienus, ending Rule, p. 982, n. 17; Robert, Ét. dél., p. 438; Cohen 2, pp. 227–30.

See also SEG 17, 528 (AD 255), Cf. Magie, Roman

Between the second and third Philadelphias of Stephanus’ enumeration is the short sentence, which does not interrupt the numeration: a brief reference to the familiar Philadelphia of the Arsinoite nome, the of Apollonius, the home of the Zenonpapyri, perhaps inserted by the Epitomator, since the sequence in Steph. is destroyed by it. It does not need further discussion here. 3. The third Philadelphia is Philadelphia-Rabbath/Amman (Euseb. Onom. p. 16, p. 24: ), in the east

Page 49 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1 of the Peraea, named by Philadelphus in honour of Arsinoe while this part of Jordan was under Ptolemaic rule: see the full discussion in Schürer, (p.376) ii, pp. 155–60; Cohen 2, pp. 268–72. In PSI 616 of 259 bc and Polyb. 5.71.4, the native name is used. The statement that it was previously called cannot be regarded as historical, unless it may be an extrapolation of the name either in terms of similarity of cult, or by an imaginary linguistic link between the two names.

Philadelphia of Cilicia is known only from Ptolemy and coins bearing the legend ΦIΛAΔEΛΦगΩN THΣ KHITIΔOΣ or KHTIΔOΣ, supposedly referring to a foundation by Antiochus IV of ): see BMC Lycaonia, Commagene in honour of his wife Iotape Philadelphos (above, s.v. p. 127 (Trajan to Maximian); Robert, Ét. dél., p. 438; Magie, Roman Rule, p. 1408, n. 31; Cohen 1, pp. 368–9.

is listed as a region of Cilicia by Ptolemy (5.7.3), and

(5.7.5) as a

Notes: (1) The cities named Apollonia and Herakleia, the two longest entries in Stephanus, which are not ‘eponymous’ in the accepted sense of that term, are not included in this Appendix. Cities which have a purely political link (through the political relations etc. of the ruling states) with an (eponymous) ruler, but for whom Stephanus does not provide evidence of an eponymous title, are also excluded. (1) I draw no conclusions from this analysis, though others may feel able to. I have not felt it wise to include Strabo, in view of the amount of foreign material that he embodies anonymously. I should add that I have checked the total of entries in each instance against the list given by Meineke in his Index Scriptorum, and have corrected his very few errors. (2) For the substantial discussions of Delian texts relating to the Roman population which have appeared since the first collection of material by Hatzfeld (for which see above, p. 225, n. 1) see Bazlez, REG 89 (1976), 343 ff.; SEG 51, 993–6, with many comments on BCH, Suppl. 39 (2001), 325–48 (no. 996 summarises an article by M.-T. le Dinahet, REA 103 (2001), 103 ff. on the onomastic practices and formulae of the Italici on Delos). An alphabetic list of Italians in the Greek world in general in the later Hellenistic period and the first century AD is to be found in ‘Les Italiens dans le monde grec, iie siècle av. J.-C.—ie siècle ap. J.-C.’, BCH, Suppl. 41 (1998), 183–239, containing a ‘Liste des Italiens de Délos’.

Page 50 of 51

Appendix 1 Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics, as recorded by Stephanus and others1

Page 51 of 51

Appendix 2 Table of Comparison of Sicilian Coin-Ethnics and Corresponding Ethnics in Stephanus

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

(p.377) Appendix 2 Table of Comparison of Sicilian Coin-Ethnics and Corresponding Ethnics in Stephanus The table given below shows the forms recorded on the classical and Hellenistic coins and by Stephanus for Sicily, for which Stephanus gives as the local termination (see above, pp. 67, 71, 276:

as against Philistos’ use of

).

All items which are recorded by Stephanus have a corresponding footnote, giving Stephanus’ Greek text and any necessary comments. Items without a footnote have no corresponding entry in Stephanus. He gives us a general statement of his views on the most common form of Sicilian ethnics at the beginning of the work, s.v. I have selected these for the purpose of showing the close similarity between Stephanus’ ethnics and one particular area, for which his sources are unusually varied. The description of the coin-entries is essentially that of C. M. Kraay and M. Hirmer, Greek Coins (New York, 1966) (cf. above, p. 70, n. 19), and since these may be easily found in sequence in that volume, I have not given references to the individual issues here, which follow the same order.

Place (Stephanus)

Coin-legend

Date (BC)

Metal

Abakainon1 (α 2 Bill.)

ABAKAININO(Ω)N ABAKAINΩN

5th-3rd/2nd cent.

ar./ae.

Adranon2 (α 63 Bill.)

AΔPANITAN

mid-4th cent.

ae.

Agyrion3 (α 52 Bill.)

AΓΥPINAION/ΩN

420-353 to after 241

ae.

Aitna4 (α 145 Bill.)

AITNAIΩN

339 to after 210

ae.

Akragas5 (α 167 Bill.)

AKPAΓANTOΣ AKPAΓAΣ AKPAΓANTINŌN

 

ar./ae.

Alaisa6

AΛAIΣINΩN AΛAIΣAΣ APX

4th cent. to after 241

ae.

Page 1 of 8

Appendix 2 Table of Comparison of Sicilian Coin-Ethnics and Corresponding Ethnics in Stephanus Place (Stephanus) Aluntion (See Steph. entry Mein.p. 106.5, α 361 Bill.)

Coin-legend at AΛNTINŌN

Date (BC)

Metal

4th cent. to after 210

ae.

Amestratos7 (α 268 Bill.)

AMHΣTPATINΩN

241-210

ae.

Assorion8 (α 495 Bill.)

ASSORV

after 210. Lat. only.

ae.

(H)enna9

(H)ENNAIŌN ENNA

c. 450 c. 340

ar. ae.

Entella10

ENTEΛ ENTEΛΛAΣ / KAMΠANΩN ENTEΛΛINΩN

c. 450 c. 340 Roman

ar. ae. ae.

Eryx11

EPYKINŌN

before 460–413 &after 241

ar.

Galarina12 (γ 21 Bill.)

ΓAΛARINŌN

c.460

ar.

Gela13 (ɣ 45 Bill.)

ΓEΛAΣ ΓELOIŌN ΓEΛΩIŌN ΓEΛΩIΩN

 

ar.

(H)erbessos14

EPBHΣΣINΩN

 

ae.

Himera15

HIMEPAIŌN (H)IMEPAIŌN IMEPAIΩN

482-472 472-413 413-408

ar. ar. ar.

Thermai Himeraiai16

ΘEPMITAN

405-350?

ae./ar.

Hipana17

IΠANATAN

c.450

ar.

Hybla Magna18

ΥBΛAΣ MEΓAΛAΣ

after 241

ae.

Iaiton19

IAITINΩN

after 241

ae.

Kaleakte20

KAΛAKTINΩN

241-210

ae.

Kamarina21

KAMAPINAION KAMAPINAIA KAMAPINOΣ KAMAPINAIOΣ KAMAPINAIΩN

495-484; 461–405 ar. c.339 ae.

Katana22

KATANAION

before c.476

ar.

(Katana-Aitna)

KATANAIOΣ

476-471

 

 

KATANH (AITNAION)

 

 

 

KATANAIΩN

461-404

ar./ae.

Kentoripai

KENTOPIΠINΩN

c.339

ae.

Kephaloidion

Punic leg.

5th/4th cent.

ar.

 

EK KEΦAΛOIΔIOΥ

5th/4th cent.

ar.

KEΦAΛOIΔIOΥ

254 -c.200

 

ΛEONTINŌN

500-466

ar.

 

ΛEONTINŌN

466-422

ar.

 

ΛEONTINŌΣ

466-422

ar.

  [Leontinoi]

23

Page 2 of 8

Appendix 2 Table of Comparison of Sicilian Coin-Ethnics and Corresponding Ethnics in Stephanus Place (Stephanus)

Coin-legend

Date (BC)

Metal

Lilybaion24

ΛIΛΥBAIITAN ΛIΛΥBAIITAIC

after 241

ae.

Lipara25

ΛIΠAPAIΩN

c.350-309

ae.

Longane26

ΛOΓΓANAIŌN

466-413

ar.

(Mamertinoi)27

MAMEPTINΩN / MAMEPTIOΥM

after 288

ae.

Megara Hyblaia28

MEΓA

4th cent.

ar.

MENAINΩN

after 241

ar.

Messana/Zankle30

ΔANKΛE

before 490

ar.

 

MESSENIŌN

490-461

ar.

 

MESSENIŌN

before 490–461

ar.

 

MEΣΣANIΩN

461-396

ar.

 

ΔANKΛAIŌN

c.460

ar.

 

MEΣΣANIΩN

357-288

ae.

Morgantina31

MORΓANTINA

c.400

ar.

 

MOPΓANTINΩN

c.340

ae.

Motya32

MOTΥAIΩN

arch. and 5th/4th cent.

ar.

Nakona33

NAKŌNAIŌN NAKΩNAIΩN

before 400 357– 317

ae.

Naxos34

NAXIŌN (NOIXAN, retr.)

before c.480

ar.

 

NAXIŌN

461-413

ar.

 

NAΞIΩN

413-404

ar.

Panormos35

ΠANOPMITIKŌN NŌKITIMPONAΠ (retr.)

480-408

ar.

 

ΠANOPMITAN

after 254

ae.

Paropos

ΠAPΩΠINΩN

after 241

ae.

Petra

ΠETPEINΩN

after 241

ae.

[Π]IAKIN(ΩN)

after 241

ae.

Segesta37

ΣAΓEΣTA IB

c.480-461

ar.

 

ΣEΓEΣTA IŌN (usu. retr.)

c.480-461

 

c. 461–415

ar.

EΓEΣ(Σ) TAIŌN(ΩN)

415-409

ar.

ΣEΓEΣTAIΩN

after 241

ae.

Selinous

ΣEΛI------

 

 

 

ΣEΛINŌNTIŌN

480-466

ar.

 

ΣEΛINOEΣ

466-415

ar.

Menainon

Piakos

29

36

 

B

    38

Page 3 of 8

Appendix 2 Table of Comparison of Sicilian Coin-Ethnics and Corresponding Ethnics in Stephanus Place (Stephanus)

Coin-legend

Date (BC)

Metal

Silerai

ΣIΛEPIΩN (retr.)

c.340

ae.

Solous39

ΣOΛONTINŌN (mostly Punic)

c.400

ar.

 

COΛONTINωN

after 241

ae.

 

COΛONTINΩN

after 241

ae.

Sti(y)ella40

ΣTIEΛANAIŌ

c.450-415

ar.

Syracuse41

ΣΥPAϞOEIŌN

before 485

ar.

 

ΣΥPAKOΣIŌN

485-478

ar.

 

ΣΥRAKOΣIΩN

478-413

ar.

 

ΣΥPAKOΣIΩN

413-357

au.

 

ΣΥPAKOΣIΩN

357-317

ar./ elect.

 

ΣΥPAKOΣIΩN

274-216

au.

 

ΣΥPAKOΣIΩN

212 onwards

ae.

Tauromenion42

TAΥPOMENITAN

358-275

ar.

 

TAΥPOMENITAN

275-210

ae.

Thera43

ΘHPAIΩN(?)

c.300

ae.

Tyndaris

TΥNΔAPIΣ

396-345

ar.

 

TΥNΔAPIΥOΣ

c.344

ae.

 

TΥNΔAPITAN

254-210

ae.

(p.378) (p.379) (p.380) (p.381) (p.382) (p.383) In considering this list it must be borne in mind how incomplete is modern knowledge of the history and archaeology of some of these sites. The excavation of Morgantina is very largely the work of the last half century, while the unexpected appearance of the inscriptions of Entella in recent years illuminated our previous ignorance of some events. The meagre coinage of Entella, one or two late Republican issues excepted, belongs, as far as we can judge, to the period before the development of the political institutions and external relations reflected in the inscriptions, which have revealed to us the life of the city in at least one phase, but with significant repercussions. The lesson to be learnt from the comparison of the two lists is of significance, however, as demonstrating how closely Stephanus’ use of Sicilian ethnica corresponds to the documentary evidence of the coinage itself. For the most part he does not offer, as so frequently throughout much of the Epitome, alternative ethnic forms based on varying literary sources. He quotes very few literary sources, and it may reasonably be maintained that, by means of access particularly to the evidence from Philistos of Syracuse’s historical writings (even if he does not agree with him in every case) he was closer to documentary evidence there than elsewhere. A glance at the comparative figures given in Appendix 3 shows the considerable extent to which Stephanus was indebted to the historian of classical Sicily for his information regarding ethnic forms. (p.384)

Page 4 of 8

Appendix 2 Table of Comparison of Sicilian Coin-Ethnics and Corresponding Ethnics in Stephanus Notes:

(1)

(2) (3) RE s.v. Agyrion; Steph. s.v.

(Xylander, for

of MSS). The MSS of

Diodorus (whose birthplace it was), 1.4.4, have earliest MS in fact has but Diod. always spells it as on the coins).

(the

(4) Post lacunam

(5) (6) For the meaning of this legend (on bronze coins after 241 bc) see Diod. 14.16.

( 7)

(8)

(9) (10) See the full discussion of the emissions of Entella in Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, 3.12 (3) (1982), 1097 ff. (with bibliography to 1978).

(11)

(12) (13) See Head, HN2, pp. 139 ff.; further K. Jenkins, The Coinage of Gela (Berlin, 1970); R. Arena, Iscrizioni greche archaiche di Sicilia e Magna Grecia, ii (Milan, 1992), pp. 21–34. (14)

(FGrH 556 F9) For the distinction between the two cities so named (and the question raised of correct aspiration of the place-name) see Ziegler in RE, s.v. Herbessos (1) and (2). The smaller Sicilian community was abandoned in 258 BC.

(15) Page 5 of 8

Appendix 2 Table of Comparison of Sicilian Coin-Ethnics and Corresponding Ethnics in Stephanus (16) reference seems likely to be to Thermai Himeraiai.

The

(17)

(18) (19)

(20) The text is evidently corrupt at several points, and has been emended in different ways by editors and others. The sole reading of the coins shows that was the correct form); the source of the error, no doubt the numerous forms of may be as old as Eudoxos (see Lasserre). The text of Stephanus cannot be corrected satisfactorily.

(21)

(22) (23) The entry falls in the lacuna in Steph. between

(24)

(25)

(26) (27) (28) See above, n. 18, s.v. Hybla Magna.

(29)

Page 6 of 8

and

Appendix 2 Table of Comparison of Sicilian Coin-Ethnics and Corresponding Ethnics in Stephanus

(30)

(31)

(32) (33) (FGrH 556 F26). For the textual problem with the first three words, see Mein.’s app. crit. (34) The entry s.v.

is largely concerned with the Cycladic island:…

(35) (36) (37) It has not been possible to represent all the Punic terminations of the ethnic, but they were naturally not recorded by Steph.

(38)

(39)

(40) (41) (FGrH 1 F74). There follows the story of Myskellos and Archias at Delphi (cf. RE, s.v. Myskellos; J. T. Dunbabin, The Western Greeks: the History of Sicily and South Italy from the Foundation of the Greek Colonies to 480 BC (Oxford, 1948), p. 444).

(42)

Page 7 of 8

Appendix 2 Table of Comparison of Sicilian Coin-Ethnics and Corresponding Ethnics in Stephanus (43) Steph. has four cities s.v. to be certain.

but not the Sicilian. The reading of the coin does not appear

Page 8 of 8

Appendix 3 Roster of Stephanus’ Principal Quoted Sources

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

(p.385) Appendix 3 Roster of Stephanus’ Principal Quoted Sources The lists in this appendix are intended only to give an overall view of the sources quoted by Stephanus, and the number of instances of use in each case.[26] Naturally, they cannot indicate which, if any, were used by Stephanus himself and survived the intervention of his Epitomator, but, as I have explained above, I believe that in many cases a direct quotation, in oratio recta, may be due to Stephanus himself, unless explicitly stated to derive from another source, and not to his Epitomator. The organisation of the lists is self-explanatory. In the majority of cases, the dates are given within the widest probable limits, and I have sometmes omitted them. Table 1(a). Historians, Archaic and Classical. Name

No. of quotations

Approx. date (BC)

Hecataeus (FGrH 1)

300

6th cent.

Herodotus

93

5th cent.

Philistos (FGrH 556)

40 (approx.)

5th/4th cent.

Theopompos (FGrH 115)

110

4th cent.

Thucydides

64

2nd half of 5th cent.

Xanthos (FGrH 765)

13

mid-5th cent.

Xenophon (various)

17

1st half of 4th cent.

(p.386) Table 1(b). Historians, Hellenistic and Imperial. Name

No. of quotations

Approx. date

Alexander Polyh. (FGrH 273)

97

1st cent. BC

Apollonius Aphrod. (FGrH 740)

18

Imp.?

Arrian (fragm.) (FGrH 156)

38

2nd cent. AD

Capito Lycius (FGrH 750)

17

4th–5th cent. AD

Charax (FGrH 103 +Add.)

47

1st cent. AD

Dionysius Halic. (FGrH 674; cf. 251–2)

40 (with

Page 1 of 4

1st cent. BC/1st cent. AD .)

Appendix 3 Roster of Stephanus’ Principal Quoted Sources

Name

No. of quotations

Approx. date

Glaukos Arab. (FGrH 674)

14

2nd half of 2nd cent. AD

Josephus

28

1st cent. AD

Nikolaos Damask. (FGrH 90)

19

1st cent. BC/1st cent. AD

Polybius (FGrH 173)

94

2nd cent. BC

Quadratus, Asinius (FGrH 97)

28

3rd cent. AD

Theagenes (FGrH 774 + 741 F5)

18*

3rd/4th cent. AD?

Uranius (Arab.) (FGrH 675)

32

6th cent. AD

Xenion (FGrH 460)

14

Hell.?

(*) Theagenes’ source-material is divided, with 14 quotations from his from his (?) (741 F5), and three without a title.

(774), one

Table 1(c). Chronographers. Name

No. of quotations

Approx. date

Apollodoros (op. omn.) (FGrH 244)

84

2nd cent. BC

Phlegon (op. omn.) (FGrH 257)

23

2nd cent. AD

(p.387)

Page 2 of 4

Appendix 3 Roster of Stephanus’ Principal Quoted Sources

Table 2. Geographers, prose and verse (the latter specified). Name

No. of quotations

Approx. date

1

3rd cent. BC

14

Hell.

 

1st cent. BC

 

?

Artemidorus of Ephesus (cf. RE (27))(FGrH 438)

60

2nd/1st cent. BC

Artemidorus (epit.; auct. Marcian. Heracl.)

17

5th cent. AD

Aristagoras,

6

?

1

?

15

?

Dionysius Periegeta (verse)

24 (Perieg.)

2nd cent. AD

Eudoxus

25

4th cent. BC

Marcianus (cf. above, s.v. Artemid. Eph.)

42

5th cent. AD

Pausanias*

70

2nd cent. AD

(Cl.) Ptolemy

4

mid-2nd cent. AD

(FGrH 472)

Agathokles, Alexander of Ephesus ( 16)

) (verse: Suppl. Hell. 9–

Alexander Polyh.: see above, Table 1(b) ?Archemachos, (FGrH 424) (? prefered by some edd.)

,

(FGrH 608)

Aristainetos, Demosthenes,

(FGrH 771) (FGrH 699)

(*) For the identity etc. of Pausanias see Diller, TAPA 86 (1955), 268 ff.

Table 3. Grammarians. Name

No. of quotations

Approx. date

Apollonius Dyscolus

7

2nd cent. AD

Arcadius

8

5th/6th cent. AD

Didymus

17

1st cent. BC/1st cent. AD

Epaphroditus

18

1st cent. BC

Favorinus

15

1st/2nd cent. AD

Herodian

52

2nd half of 2nd cent. AD

Herodian (anon.; not quoted by name)

31

2nd cent. AD

Oros

13

4th cent. AD

(p.388) Table 4(a). Epic poets. Name

No. of quotations

Hesiod

16 (?13)

Homer, Iliad

165

Page 3 of 4

Appendix 3 Roster of Stephanus’ Principal Quoted Sources

Name

No. of quotations

Homer, Odyssey

36

Homer, Hymns

1

Table 4(b). Elegiac and lyric poets, Archaic and Classical. Name

No. of quotations

Alkman

9

Antimachos of Kolophon

9

Archilochos

3

Table 4(c). Dramatic poets.  

Name

No. of quotations

Tragedy

Aeschylus

15

 

Euripides

12

 

Sophocles

36

Old Comedy

Aristophanes

31

 

Cratinus

8 or 9

 

Eupolis

10

Middle and New Comedy

Menander

10

Table 4(d). Hellenistic and later poets. Name

No. of quotations

Apollonius Rhodius

19

Callimachus

51

Dionysius (Bass.)

21 (+ 3) (cf. Table 2, Dionys. Per.)

Euphorion

30

Lycophron

56

Rhianos

49

Page 4 of 4

Appendix 4 An Anonymous Byzantine List1

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

(p.389) Appendix 4 An Anonymous Byzantine List1 Reference has been made to the text of this short list of places and some of their ethnics above, pp. 154 f. Compiled on a geographical basis, it is probably the earliest surviving manuscript of any such list of ethnics and toponyms. I reprint it here, having first encountered a reference to it in the final footnote in Diller’s article in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 63 (1970), 42, n. 21 (= Studies in Greek Manuscript Tradition (Amsterdam, 1983), p. 294, n. 21), where he refers to it after his re-publication of the main Byzantine lists of names found in various manuscripts, published for the most part by Burckhardt in his edition of Hierokles’ Synekdemos, with none of which it appears to have a textual relationship.2 There is no internal evidence as to the date or authorship of the original source, beyond the fact that the author of the list quotes Stephanus, and the possibility that he is earlier than Eustathius, since he does not quote him. He refers to Stephanus by his name, and not by the descriptive phrases, etc., used by Eustathius and Constantine Porphyrogennetus. Since, like the texts published by Diller (above, pp. 154 f., 158 n. 34), it contains numerous Arab homonyms (unlike the text of Longibardos, described above, p. 318), it can hardly be earlier than the seventh century, and is probably considerably later.3 It raises again the basic questions regarding the existence of a second epitome of Stephanus, in the same terms as we have seen in the numerous entries in Eustathius. However, there are only two references to Stephanus, so nothing very much can be inferred from it.

Page 1 of 2

Appendix 4 An Anonymous Byzantine List1

(p.390) Diller, loc. cit., writes, ‘Although not without errors, the author is very well informed; I cannot imagine how he knew so much historical geography.’ He points out that the list has some of the same metonomasies as appear in his lists A13, 20, 21, 27 and B60, 61, 69 (cf. Minor Greek Geographers, pp. 3–14). Notes: (1) The text of I. Hardt, Cat. codd. mss. graec. Bibl. Reg. Bavar., pp. 176–7. (2) Diller’s re-publication of these lists, loc. cit., 27–42 (= Studies, pp. 279–94) contains the extremely clear and valuable topographical and exegetical notes, which are a characteristic feature of all Diller’s work on later geographical material. (3) 1 have to thank Mr Nigel Wilson for discussing this text with me. He tells me that he sees no reason for thinking the script of the fourteenth century, as Diller dates it, and prefers a date in the twelfth century.

Page 2 of 2

Index A Ethnics

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

(p.391) Index A Ethnics The following ethnics include forms in neither invariably nor exclusively.

and

The masculine singular form is given, but

The new cities which feature in the long Appendix 1 (Hellenistic Eponymous Cities and Ethnics), are not entered in any of the three indexes, because that Appendix is already alphabetically arranged by name of new city. But the indexes do pick up material of other kinds contained in that Appendix, including both ethnics and Stephanus entries which do not relate to eponymous foundations. 65 64 and n. 9, 67 153 n. 15 211 223 196 230 n. 11 142 64 and variants, 66 n. 13 42, 56ff., 62 and n. 4, 77, 84 f., 92, 96 f., 126 n. 18, 216 and n. 3, 228–231 and variants, 46 and n. 89, 189 ff. and n. 38 126 n. 18 42 n. 79, 68 n. 17, 213 126 n. 18 4 93 n. 52 158 n. 33 95, 132 and n. 38 94 n. 56, 157 n. 30 120 and n. 2, 179 f. 3 n. 4, 125, 126 n. 18, 127 f. and n. 20 97, 129 and n. 23, 130, 141 223 Page 1 of 11

Index A Ethnics 63 64 142 n. 76 64 and n. 8, 114 n. 23, 121 and n. 3, 173 n. 13, 178, 181, 193 n. 45, 326 and variants, 180, ?230 180 f. and n. 5, 231 and n. 13 192 n. 43 114 n. 23, 126 n. 18 200 92 n. 40 134 197 128 n. 21 64 and n. 8 65, 182 n. 10 64 133 and nn. 42 and 43, 150 f. 128 n. 21 115 124 45 and n. 86 197 64 and n. 8, 92 n. 44, 113 and n. 18, 114 n. 23, 115, 140 n. 69, 169 and n. 2, 175, 178, 182 f. n. 10, 184, 187 n. 37, 196, 233 n. 20 184 184 184 and n. 14, 185 and n. 34, 331 196 154 124 n. 12 (p.392)

64, 105 n. 2, 175, 183 46 and n. 93 182 n. 9, 185

155 n. 25 137 87 92 n. 47, 218 n. 7 230 n. 11 136 and n. 53 179 91, 92 n. 47, 105 n. 2, 123 and n. 8, 124 n. 12 233 n. 19 169, 172 226 n. 1 145 n. 90 96 66 n. 14, 129 n. 23 93 Page 2 of 11

Index A Ethnics 173 and n. 12, 192 and n. 44 42 228 94 n. 56, 123 f. n. 12, 125, 126 nn. 17 and 18, 127, 132 n. 38 195 and n. 59 63 144 n. 86 175, 183 172 and n. 11, 223 237 n. 26 114 nn. 22 and 23 144 n. 86 95 49, 92, 94 n. 56, 96, 124 and n. 13, 125 n. 16, 126 n. 18, 141, 179 97 127 142 and n. 76 230 n. 11 144 n. 86 153 n. 15 233 n. 20 29 n. 35, 94 n. 56 139 and n. 63 197 and n. 64 182 n. 10 144 196 f. and n. 64 233 n. 20 106 58 and n. 142, 200 and n. 72 58 n. 142, 200 and n. 72 137 93, 131 n. 34, 132 182 n. 10, 197 and n. 64 106 142 65 87 58, 110 n. 12, 200, 230 and variants, 66 nn. 12 and 13 137 132 n. 38 235 n. 22 132 and n. 38 176 185 124 n. 12, 137 n. 56 142 n. 76 119 n. 1, 120, 144 n. 83 Page 3 of 11

Index A Ethnics 264 nn. 30 and 31 191 n. 42 133 179 65 144 n. 83 134 143 and n. 81 134 and n. 44 233 n. 20 63, 78 and n. 3, 218 n. 7 144 n. 83 94 n. 56 76 n. 1 132 and n. 38 140 128 n. 20 133 45 and n. 87 178 n. 22 59, 126 n. 18 96 144 n. 83 (p.393)

134 and n. 45 173 and n. 13, 192 f. and n. 45 64 (cf. 374, ) 63, 109, 115 and n. 28, 195, 196 n. 61, 228 f., 230 n. 11 126 n. 18 150 120 n. 2, 139

196 92, 230 142 and n. 76 188, 201 187 and nn. 32 and 33 185 n. 22 87, 94 n. 56, 96, 106 and n. 12, 126 n. 18, 181 f. and n. 9, 184–8, 192 n. 43, 201 182 187 186 and n. 27 and variants, 182, 186 63 120 and variants, 44 and n. 83, 63 n. 6, 200, 220, 230 n. 11 142 n. 76 93 n. 52, 126 n. 18, 133, 223 92 f., 94 n. 56, 96, 105 n. 2, 106, 119, 124 n. 12, 131 and nn. 33 and 34, 132 and n. 35, 141, 219 n. 10 Page 4 of 11

Index A Ethnics 92 n. 43, 124, 125 n. 16 63, 139 and n. 69 63, 125 n. 16 123 and n. 8, 163 (ethnic of Messenian Thourion), 58 n. 142 (ethnics of Thourioi in Italy), 58 n. 142, 118 and n. 39 179 143 and n. 81 143 and n. 81 62, 96, 104, 106, 110 n. 12, 137, 141, 182 n. 10 154 n. 18 144 n. 86 128 n. 21, 129 f. 61, 77 n. 2 237 and n. 26 3 and n. 6, 319 4 105 n. 2 141, 236 and n. 23 154 150 64, 226 n. 3 105 n. 2 109, 139 150 176 379 n. 20 65 126 n. 18 196 139 104, 106, 139 and n. 68, 199 n. 69 160 and n. 36 143 and n. 81 114 n. 22 92 n. 40 123 94 n. 56 144 144 144 92 n. 40 142 [sic], 3 n. 4, 233 n. 19 153 n. 15, 174 n. 15 140 n. 70 93, 131 59 123 n. 9 Page 5 of 11

Index A Ethnics 49, 59, 199 115 and n. 28 137 and n. 56 59 (including spelling with initial koppa), 61 n. 3, 95 37, 49, 55, 63, 94 n. 56, 126 n. 17, 163 and n. 52, 230 n. 11

(p.394)

196 128 n. 21 125 n. 16 and variants, 198 f. 134 and n. 44 151 124 n. 12, 137 f. and nn. 57 and 58 132 n. 38 114 n. 22 120, 224 and variants, 46 and n. 94, 144 n. 83, 192 n. 43 142 n. 76 93, 105 n. 2, 126 n. 18 120and n. 2 109 n. 12, 112 n. 16, 140 and n. 71, 217 105 n. 2, 126 n. 18 193 and nn. 48 and 49 126 n. 18 87, 115 105 n. 2, 230 and n. 11 120 46 and n. 92, 132 n. 37, 194 211 115 n. 28, 116, 182 f. and n. 10, 184 n. 14, 229, 230 n. 11 184 n. 14 137 and n. 56 63, 93 and n. 48, 119, 126 n. 18, 131 f. and n. 35, 132 and n. 37, 142 n. 76 49 58 n. 142, 199 f. 128 n. 21, 129 95 143, 145 133 n. 42 143 and n. 82 109 n. 12, 217 77 n. 2 137 n. 57, 140 and n. 72 78 n. 5 49, 94 n. 56, 126 n. 18 154 90 122 and n. 3, 138 f. and n. 63, 140 n. 70, 141 Page 6 of 11

Index A Ethnics 87, 94 n. 56, 95 f. 105 n. 2, 132 n. 38 105 n. 2 154 144 and n. 86 123 n. 12 105 n. 2 92 n. 47, 126 n. 18, 133 and nn. 42 and 43, 134, 136, 141 227 n. 4 45 and n. 86, 64, 123, 124 n. 12, 222 148 105 n. 2 144 n. 86 197 129 and n. 25 90, 123 and n. 8, 124 n. 12, 163 43 and n. 81, 64, 222 128 n. 21 132 n. 38 65 128 n. 20 161 and nn. 38, 39 and 41, 390 n. 29 (from Egyptian Mendes), 161 n. 41 (Sicily), 150 63, 100, 126 n. 17 82 n. 7, 96 142 n. 76 144 59, 199 105 n. 2 199 120 n. 2 144 and n. 84 94 f., 137, 144 n. 86, 218 97 105 n. 2, 220 61 n. 3 127 f. and n. 20 64 (p.395)

and variants, 70, 93, 177 n. 22, 199 n. 69 (?), 230 n. 11 130 n. 31, 141 64, 148 n. 7, 230 and n. 11

93 n. 52, 153 148 173 28 n. 32, 122 and n. 6 137 Page 7 of 11

Index A Ethnics 105 n. 2 120 and other variants, 77 n. 3, 153 and n. 16 84 n. 11, 161 f. 142 n. 76 142 n. 76 92 n. 44, 94 n. 56, 148 n. 7 114 n. 22 (Arcadia), 85 143 123 134 152 and n. 15, 159 128 n. 21 152 n. 14 196 f. 149 and n. 10 114 n. 23, 224 126 n. 18 140 and n. 71, 227 n. 4 217 n. 5 120 134 and n. 46 144 n. 83 89, 133 and n. 43 94 n. 56, 123 n. 12 63 114 n. 23, 230 95, 173, 192, 228, 230 n. 11 58 and n. 141, 63, cf. 219 152 and n. 15 132 and n. 38 143 145 and nn. 87 and 89 141 134 94 n. 56, 96, 139 and variants; 16, 200, 222 126 n. 18 120 137 and variants, 133, 194 142 173 f. and nn. 14 and 15, 193 173 f. and nn. 14 and 15, 193 173 f. and nn. 14 and 15, 193 195 137 n. 57, 170 n. 7 Page 8 of 11

44 and n. 82, 59, 124 and n. 13, 125 n.

Index A Ethnics 134 n. 43 134 and n. 44 65 178 n. 22 29 n. 35, 70 226 n. 1 137 and n. 56 113 63, 77 and n. 2, 83 and n. 10, 97 and variants, 198 82 n. 7, 89, 112 n. 16 105 n. 2 64, 113 n. 18, 126 n. 18, 149 (?), 223 230 and n. 9, 231 n. 14 144 154 185, 187 n. 34 and variants, 64 and n. 8, 114 n. 23, 178, 182 n. 9, 184, 187 n. 34 105 n. 2 105 n. 2, 126 n. 18 92 n. 40 95, 99 223 230 148 n. 7 143 and n. 78 46 and n. 91 199 (p.396) and 131 f. and n. 36 133 and n. 42 104, 106 25 228, 230 and n. 11 (and see ) 113 46 and n. 92, 128, 129 n. 23 n. 21, 129 140 n. 69 133 n. 43 63, 123 65 70, 92 n. 47, 126 n. 18 143 and n. 81 143 and n. 79 196 and variants, 44 f. and n. 84, 92 n. 43, 94 n. 56, 124, 125 n. 16 111 n. 13, 126 n. 18 139 and n. 69 64, 230 n. 11 121 Page 9 of 11

Index A Ethnics 144 and n. 87 2 29 n. 35, 90, 100, 123, 124 n. 12, 224 and variants, 194 f., 224 99 n. 66, 126 n. 18, 211 61 n. 3 94 n. 56, 157 n. 30 (female ethnic), 105 n. 2, 143 n. 77, 197 224 182 n. 10 133, cf. 162 230 123 131 154 128 29 n. 35 and variants, 326 129 n. 23 87 198 179 132 n. 38 129 n. 23 153 n. 16 59 2 137 n. 56 and variants, 65 and n. 12 65 and n. 12 and variants, 64, 66 n. 14 132 n. 37 114 n. 22, 126 n. 18 and variants, 45 and n. 88, 123 133 n. 43, 151, 163 f., 192 n. 43, 196 and n. 62 196 n. 62 96 and n. 60 (also a demotic), 172 and n. 11 140 154 154 92, 148 and n. 7 142 n. 76 128 n. 21 144 n. 86, 217 n. 5 3 n. 6 47 n. 95 and variants, 198 94 n. 56, 96, 126 n. 18 145 n. 88 Page 10 of 11

Index A Ethnics and variants, 29 n. 35 46 and n. 90, 106 n. 8 143 n. 77 142 199 (Crete), 137 and n. 57 61 n. 2 92 n. 40, 139 and n. 69 164 ff. 92

Page 11 of 11

Index B Entries in Stephanus

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

(p.397) Index B Entries in Stephanus (α 1 Bill.), 48, 64, 275 n. 42 (α 2 Bill.), 71 f., 249, 377 and n. 1 (α 3 Bill.), 147 f. (α 4 Bill.), 64 n. 9, 266, 275 n. 42, 301 (α 5 Bill.), 68 f., 268, 277 f. (α 6 Bill.), 270 f., 298 n. 33 (α 8 Bill.), 20 n. 10 (α 11 Bill.), 64 n. 9, 67, 276 (α 15 Bill.), 242, 309 n. 54 (α 16 Bill.), 211 (α 21 Bill.), 64, 223 f., 242 (α 23 Bill.), 265 (α 24 Bill.), 289 (α 28 Bill.), 196, 374 (α 30 Bill.), 291 (α 34 Bill.), 267 (α 37 Bill.), 265 (α 45 Bill.), 265 (α 49 Bill.), 55 n. 129 (α 52 Bill.), 377 and n. 2 (α 59 Bill.), 289 (α 60 Bill.), 315 (α 62 Bill.), 350 (α 65 Bill.), 18 n. 7 (α 71 Bill.), 249 (α 75 Bill.), 255 (α 76 Bill.), 65 n. 12, 66 n. 13 (α 80 Bill.), 26 and n. 25, 42 and n. 79, 293 n. 21 (α 84 Bill.), 246 (α 87 Bill.), 68 n. 16 (α 94 Bill.), 170, 189–91 (α 95 Bill.), 158 (α 102 Bill.), 55 n. 129, 306 Page 1 of 11

Index B Entries in Stephanus (α 105 Bill.), 42 n. 79, 213 (α 120 Bill.), 293 n. 21 (α 124 Bill.), 287 (α 129 Bill.), 64 n. 8, 93 n. 52, 289 f. and n. 15 (α 130 Bill.), 158 n. 33 (α 135 Bill.), 157 n. 30 (α 136 Bill.), 305 n. 45 (α 137 Bill.), 33 n. 47 (α 145 Bill.), 377 and n. 4 (α 146 Bill.), 52 n. 114, 206 (α 151 Bill.), 274 and n. 41 (α 167 Bill.), 72, 170, 378 and n. 5 (α 173 Bill.), 244 (α 176 Bill.), 157 n. 32 (α 184 Bill.), 39 n. 66, 334 (α 200 Bill.), 27 and n. 26, 176 n. 18, 324 (α 209 Bill.), 305 n. 46 (α 222 Bill.), 33, 301 n. 37 (α 227 Bill.), 246 (α 240 Bill.), 305 n. 45 (α 244 Bill.), 305 n. 45 (α 255 Bill.), 305 n. 45 (α 261 Bill.), 64 n. 8 (α 262 Bill.), 265 f. (α 264 Bill.), 41 n. 73 (α 268 Bill.), 378 and n. 7 (α 273 Bill.), 51 n. 110, 249 (α 290 Bill.), 265 (α 291 Bill.), 266 (α 296 Bill.), 150 f., 280 n. 51 (α 298 Bill.), 305 n. 45 (α 305 Bill.), 286, 289 (α 322 Bill.), 266 (α 334 Bill.), 169 (α 350 Bill.), 3 n. 4 (α 351 Bill.), 170 (α 361 Bill.), 170 n. 5, 185, 325 n. 1, 378 (α 365 Bill.), 155 and n. 25 (α 397 Bill.), 25 n. 20 (α 400 Bill.), 52 n. 114 (α 411 Bill.), 247 (α 412 Bill.), 242, 244 (α 420 Bill.), 296 n. 29 (p.398) (α 427 Bill.), 263 n. 27, 294 (α 428 Bill.), 262 f. and nn. 25 and 27 (α 454 Bill.), 169 (α 456 Bill.), 252, 303 (α 460 Bill.), 5 n. 10, 11 n. 31, 33 n. 47 (α 495 Bill.), 378 and n. 8 Page 2 of 11

Index B Entries in Stephanus (α 505 Bill.), 27 and n. 27, 245, 254 (α 525 Bill.), 266 (α 527 Bill.), 173 n. 12, 192 and n. 44 (α 530 Bill.), 254 (α 538 Bill.), 262 (α 543 Bill.), 246 (α 548 Bill.), 264 (α 562 Bill.), 35 (β 7 Bill.), 9 n. 25 (β 12 Bill.), 261 (β 17 Bill.), 33 (β 40 Bill.), 195 (β 52 Bill.), 254 (β 53 Bill.), 255 (β 54 Bill.), 307 f. (β 72 Bill.), 350 (β 84 Bill.), 237 n. 26 (β 88 Bill.), 197 (β 100 Bill.), 290 (β 122 Bill.), 262 (β 121 Bill.), 262 (β 131 Bill.), 69 (β 134 Bill.), 310 n. 55 (β 135 Bill.), 267 (β 181 Bill.), 152 (β 189 Bill.), 265 f. (γ 2 Bill.), 266 (γ 12 Bill.), 331 (γ 12 Bill.), 69 (γ 13 Bill.), 42 n. 79, 49 n. 106, 68 and n. 17, 277 (γ 21 Bill.), 378 and n. 12 (γ 35 Bill.), 266 (γ 41 Bill.), 224, 261, 267 (γ 44 Bill.), 291, 300 n. 36 (γ 45 Bill.), 72, 290 n. 15, 379 and n. 13 (γ 57 Bill.), 335 (γ 61 Bill.), 332 (γ 67 Bill.), 35 (γ 91 Bill.), 58 and n. 142 (γ 104 Bill.), 287 316, 352 274 n. 40 267 243 290 f. 25 n. 20 266 255 176 Page 3 of 11

Index B Entries in Stephanus 42 n. 79, 66 nn. 12 and 13 310 n. 57 176 360 261, 294 148 157, 257 263 and n. 29 263 f. and n. 30 303 69 and n. 18, 191 n. 42, 257, 282 and n. 57, 311 n. 58, 324 258, 288 n. 11 382 and n. 37 332 256 294 245 249 306 294 258, 288 n. 11 378 and n. 9 378 and n. 10, 290 [but note that Steph. is mistaken about this word, which, in the correct form is an ordinary noun meaning ‘picked men’, not an Arcadian or any other sort of ethnic] 148 379 and n. 14 140 378 and n. 11 250 281 n. 53 352 173 and n. 13, 192 f. 281 195 f. 150, 381 n. 30 245 259, 265 n. 33 (p.399) 259, 265 n. 33 259, 265 n. 33 259, 265 n. 33 243 247 243 185, 325 n. 1 250 379 and n. 16 44 f. n. 83 178 Page 4 of 11

Index B Entries in Stephanus 55 n. 129 383 n. 43 63 55 n. 129 55 n. 129, 306 250 143 n. 81 243 153 n. 18 290 n. 15 379 246 253 249 281 314 252 247 237 205 250 379 and n. 17 150 252 50 n. 108, 201 n. 3 247 314 289 150, 259 243 176 5 n. 10, 11 n. 31 250 379 and n. 20 279 247 280 294 380 and n. 21 9 n. 25 243 294 and n. 26 303 244 143 n. 81 280 261 247 304 n. 41 Page 5 of 11

Index B Entries in Stephanus 253 375 380 and n. 22 247 251 251 196 306 198 f. 219 n. 13 33 248 280 n. 51 151 280 f. 46 and n. 94 211 246 249 243 281 n. 54 256 250 249 268 193 f. 268 252 243 248 251 261 243 293 f. 288 n. 10, 380 n. 23 missing entry in lacuna in Steph., 380 and n. 23] 5 n. 10, 288 n. 10, 380 n. 23 303 20 n. 10 (p.400) 269 243, 380 and n. 24 249 380 n. 25 281 n. 56 380 and n. 26 268 f. 251, 331 256 269

[

Page 6 of 11

Index B Entries in Stephanus 243 380 and n. 27 248 252, 269 148 f., 281 n. 54 300 n. 36 297 n. 31 252, 269 380 and n. 29 161 and n. 39 161 n. 39 269 24 n. 19, 269, 381 n. 30 256 270 270 248 271 258 f., 271 59 n. 143 381 and n. 31 244 381 and n. 32 261 262 f. and n. 24 270, 339 292 n. 19 149 n. 8, 220 and n. 15 24 291 n. 17 291 n. 17 ( Meineke), 24, 269 and n. 35, 291 n. 17 381 and n. 33 381 and n. 34 246 n. 7 24 24 290 f. and n. 16 177 n. 22, 279, 280 n. 51 253 149 n. 8, 220 248 153, 246 n. 7 246 and n. 7 148 305 294 271 305 Page 7 of 11

Index B Entries in Stephanus 153 n. 16, 367 294 67, 71, 276, 377 67, 276 290 n. 15 67, 267, 276 306 255 381 and n. 35 196 251 149, 155 f., 324 67, 276 297 and n. 31 69, 276, 277 281 n. 56 349 306 294 381 and n. 36 67 267 253 194 244 249 173, 193 170 and n. 7 65 n. 12 332 254 340 306 243, 247 198, 243 331 250 149, 169 136 n. 52 153 n. 16, 170 and n. 7 (p.401) 338 367 280 n. 51 382 and n. 38 245 308 n. 53 11 n. 31 67, 281 n. 55 289 n. 14 Page 8 of 11

Index B Entries in Stephanus 267 11 n. 31 377 n. 1 249 340 253 243 245 382 n. 39 382 and n. 39 382 and n. 40 267 247 382 and n. 41 261 and n. 20 67 311 n. 58 255 156 261, 272 269 f. 324, 333 251 382 and n. 42 285 n. 2 256 256 194 f. 248 245 5 n. 10, 70 and n. 20 274 270 251 273 273 370 255 f. 251 267 253 251 303 379 and n. 18 11 n. 31 149, 156 294 271 67 Page 9 of 11

Index B Entries in Stephanus 273 251 253 252, 369 250 268 149 n. 8 65 n. 12, 253 243 251 273 294 268, 281, 367 f. 246 65 n. 12 66 n. 13, 266, 281 245 271 45 n. 88 309 266 250 267 151, 192 n. 43 96 n. 60, 268 148 and n. 7, 272 55 n. 129 251 256 198, 309 288 303 303 147, 157 n. 29 288 257 294 f. 243 257, 259, 294 253 306 (p.402) 9 n. 25 256 248 253 f. 157 n. 30, 164 ff. 157 n. 30 9 n. 25

Page 10 of 11

Index B Entries in Stephanus

Page 11 of 11

Index C General Index

Greek Ethnic Terminology P. M. Fraser

Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780197264287 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264287.001.0001

(p.403) Index C General Index Abu Simbel, 61 Abydos, Abydene staters, 210 f. and n. 5, 279 Abydos (Egyptian), 364 Acanthus, 161 n. 42 accentuation, of ethnics, 321 Achaea, Achaean League, 84, 125 ff. and nn. 17–19, 130 and n. 32, 133, 159, 164 and n. 55, 165, 166 and n. 56, 304, 353 Achaemenian Persia, 210, 297 Achaios (as personal name), 215, 219 Acheloos, 344 Achilles Tatius, 107, 219 n. 10, 233 acropolis, 244 actors, 227 Acts of the Apostles, 163 Adana, 334, 389 Adramyttion, 56 and n. 135, 279 Adrastos (Peripatetic philosopher), 151 Aegina, Aeginetan coins, 42 n. 79, 49, 209 f., 213 Aelius Aristides, 21 n. 13 Aelius Serenus, see Serenus Aeolian Islands, 140 Aeolians, 165, 196 n. 60 Aeolis, 120 f., 139, 152 n. 14, 179 ff. Aeschines, 44 n. 82 Aeschylus, 8 n. 19, 27 n. 29, 31 and n. 39, 164, 286, 313 n. 5, 388 Aetos son of Apollonius (Ptolemaic administrator), 28 n. 33, 171 n. 8, 343 Africa, 365 Africanus, 227 n. 3 Agariste, 123 Agathe (island), 224 Agathias, 295 n. 28 Agathokleioi, 206 Agathokles of Kyzikos (historian), 387 Page 1 of 40

Index C General Index agonistic inscriptions, see athletes and choregic lists agonothetes, 93 n. 48 Agroeira, 173 n. 12, 347 Aidepos, 219 Aigai (Aeolic), 189 f. and n. 38 Aigai (doubtful Aitolian, Euboian and Lokrian cities), 189 Aigai (Cilician), 189 f. Aigai (Euboian), 189 f. and n. 40 Aigai (Lydian?), 189 f. Aigai (Macedonian), 189 f. and n. 38 Aigilia (deme), 213 n. 17 Aigion, 46, 127 n. 19 Aigyptios (as personal name), 216 Ainianes, 129 Ainis, 131 Aitolia, Aitolians, Aitolian League, 88 ff., 97, 123, 125–30, 133, 152 n. 14, 153 n. 17, 164 f., 166 and n. 56, 279, 293 n. 22, 343 f., 348, 358 f. Akarnan (as personal name), 216 and n. 3, 217 Akarnania, Akarnanian League, 99, 125, 128 ff. and n. 21, 165, 216 n. 3 Ake, 156, 362, 366 Akesines (river), 156 Akko, 362 akra, 243 Akrasos, 269 n. 35 akron, 243 f. akroterion, 244 f. Aktian Games, 128 n. 21 Alabanda, 153 n. 17, 334 f., 369 Alexander the Great, 34, 77 n. 2, 138, 167 f., 211, 232 n. 16, 278 n. 48, 300, 311, 313, 328 (‘Iskander’), 340, 351, 362 historians of, 283, 354 Alexander of Ephesus, 387 Alexander of Pherai, 211 Alexander (Cornelius) Polyhistor of Miletus, 68 n. 17, 156, 169 and n. 4, 264 n. 32, 283, 291 f., 296, 299 ff. and nn. 35 and 36, 323, 347, 367, 372, 386 f. Alexander Romance, 77 n. 2 Alexandreia (as personal name), 217 Alexandreia, Alexandreioi (coins), 43 n. 79, 211 f., 279 n. 48 Alexandreus (as personal name), 216 Alexandria (as city name), 172, 180 f., 184 Alexandria (ad Issum), 180 and n. 4 (p.404) Alexandria (by Egypt), 34, 83, 105, 118, 156 and n. 28, 159, 169, 180 f., 182 n. 10, 184, 195 and n. 59, 274, 278 n. 48, 284, 298, 309, 311, 323, 340, 342, 364 Alexandria (Troas or Aeolian), 121 and n. 3, 180 f. and n. 3, 184, 364 Alexandristes, 202 n. 6 Alexis (comic poet), 41 Alexis, son of Alexis (not the comic poet), 305 and n. 44 Alkibiades, 216 n. 1 Alkiphron, 206 Page 2 of 40

Index C General Index Alkman, 299 n. 35, 388 Alloeira, 347 Alpenoi, 197 alsos, 245 Aluntion, 378 Amanos, 373 Amaseia, 322 Amastris, 149 f. Amazons, 195 ambassadors, 229 n. 6 ambiguous ethnics, 179–200 Amerias of Macedon, 284 and n. 1, 304 n. 40 Amida, 154 Amisos, 279 Amman, 374 f. Ammianus Marcellinus, 330 Ammon, 343 Amorgos, 19 n. 9, 263 n. 27 Amos, 281 n. 53 Amphiareia, 91 Amphictyony, Delphic, 119 n. 1, 127 f. and n. 20, 189 n. 38, 334 f., and see Delphi Amphiktyonikon (coinage), 210 and n. 2 Amphilochos of Olenos, 164 Amphipolis, 105 n. 2, 150 f., 189 n. 38, 280 n. 51 amphorae, amphora stamps, 186 n. 23 Amyntas, King of Galatia, 330 anagraphai (records), 270 f., 299 n. 33, 322, and see Lindos anagraphetai/ -ontai formula, 270 f., 328 Anaktorion, Anaktorians, 128 n. 21 analogy (grammatical term), 66–72, 191, 258–65, 273, 274 f. Anastasios (emperor), 286 Anastasioupolis, 176 Anatolia, 108, 196, 232 and n. 18 Anaxandrides, 54 and n. 121 Anaximenes of Lampsakos (uncle and nephew), 297 and n. 31 Anazarbos, 180 n. 4, 389 Ancyra, 230 Androtion, 290 anekathen, 34 and n. 49 anomaly (grammatical), 259 f., 274, and see analogy anothen, 34 and n. 50 Antigoneia (Mantineia), 191, and see Mantineia Antigoneioi, 51, 206 Antigonides (vases), 189 n. 37 Antigonis (Attic tribe), 307 Antigonos Doson, 19 n. 8, 202 n. 6 Antigonos Gonatas, 327, 371 f. Antigonos Monophthalmos, 328, 364, 366 Antimachos, 165, 388 Page 3 of 40

Index C General Index Antinoupolis, 197 Antioch(eia) (name), 171 f., 175, 180 f., 183 f., 187 n. 34, 289 Antioch(eia) in Mygdonia, 171 and n. 10 Antioch(eia)-on-Maeander, 182 n. 10, 184 Antioch(eia)-on-Orontes (A. by Daphne), 175, 184 Antioch(eia)-on-Pyramos, 184 and n. 14, 185, 187 n. 34, 352 Antiocheioi (coins), 212 Antiocheis (?faction at Ptolemais/Ake), 362 Antiocheus (as personal name), 216 Antiochianos (as personal name), 222 n. 20 Antiochis (as personal name), 217 n. 4 Antiochistai, 52 Antiochos (as personal name), 217 Antiochus I, 87 n. 27, 332 ff., 341, 372 Antiochus II, 87 n. 27, 334, 355 f. Antiochus III, 87 n. 27, 329 f., 335, 355, 357 f., 362 f., 366, 370 Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), 184 n. 14, 329, 332 ff., 335, 367 ff., 373 f. Antiochus VII, 362 Antiochus the Son, 88 n. 27 Antiochus I of Commagene, 332, 342, 371 Antiochus IV of Commagene, 354, 376 Antiochus of Syracuse (historian), 32 n. 44 Antipater, 160, 354, 389 Antiphanes, 3 n. 5, 41 n. 73, 54 Antiphos (personal name), 216 Apame (wife of Prusias I of Bithynia), 183, 339, cf. 175 Apame (wife of Seleukos I), 337 Apame (not found as city-name), 172 Apameia, Peace of, 140 n. 70, 192, 348, 353, 369, 371 Apameia (city-name), 172 Apameia in Bithynia 175, 183 and n. 13, and see Myrleia Apameia in Phrygia, 222 n. 20, 230 n. 9, 233 n. 20 Apameia in Syria, 295 n. 27 Aphrodisias, 148, 229, 230 n. 9 Aphrodite, 117 Apollo, 65, 149, 182 n. 10, 219 n. 13, 269, 355 Aktios, 128 n. 21 Didymaian, 332 (p.405) Maleates, 269 Selinountios, 219 Apollodorus of Artemita, 340 f., 357 Apollodorus of Athens, 157 and nn. 30, 31 and 32, 161, 164 ff., 198, 246, 253, 262 and n. 26, 268, 271, 280 n. 51, 303, 322, 366, 377 n. 2, 378 nn. 7 and 8, 386 Apollodorus of Pergamon, 53 n. 118 Apollonia (mother of Attalus I), 185 n. 20 Apollonia (city name), 174 cities of that name not included in App. 1, 325 n. 1 Apollonia (Illyrian), 185 Apollonia-on-the-Maeander (A. in Caria), 182 n. 9 Page 4 of 40

Index C General Index Apollonia-on-the-Rhyndakos, 182 n. 9, 246 n. 7 Apollonia Phrygiae, 236 n. 23 Apollonia Salbake [= Salbake?], 88 n. 27 Apollonides of Nikaia, 359 Apollonius (FGrH 739), 156 Apollonius of Aphrodisias, 269, 280 n. 51, 323, 386 Apollonius the dioiketes, 375 Apollonius Dyscolus, 35, 38, 69, 223 n. 25, 242, 268, 277 and n. 45, 278 and n. 47, 301, 308, 324, 387 scholia to, 38 and n. 63 Apollonius Rhodius, 149, 315 n. 5, 322 f., 388 scholia to, 149, 285 and n. 3, 304 n. 41, 381 n. 35 Apollophanes (flatterer), 202 n. 6 Appian, 52 n. 114, 205 f., 338, 349, 358, 373 Apros, 389 Arab conquest, 167, cf. 234 Arabia, Arabs, 68, 220, 224, 236, 276 ff. and n. 48, 287, 294 ff., 321, 330 f., 346, 373 Arabic place-names, 155, 178, 220, 336 Arachosia, 352 Arados, 373 Aratus of Sikyon, 125 f. Araxa, 140 n. 70 Arbela, Battle of (i.e. Gaugamela), 351 arbitration decrees, 334 arbitrators, lists of, 216 and n. 3 Arcadia, 88, 90 ff., 122 f., 262 and n. 26, 281 and n. 54 peculiarities of, 64 Arcadian League, 122 f. and n. 7 Arcadiopolis, 135 Arcadius, 244 n. 3, 290 n. 15, 323, 387 Archemachos, 387 Archias, 382 n. 41 Archidamian War, 128 Archilochos, 41 n. 73, 156 n. 26, 324, 388 Areios (personal name), 325 Areios pagos, 244 Arethusa, 136 and n. 53 Argeios, 221 Argonauts, 304 n. 41 Argos, Argives, 88, 98 ff., 120, 152 n. 14, 159, 218 n. 7, 221 and n. 18, 333 Ariarathes V, King of Cappadocia, 341, 374 Ariarathia, 167 Arion, 270 Aristagoras (FGrH 608), 248, 387 Aristainetos, 387 Aristarchus of Samothrace, 37, 260, 321, 353 Aristeides, Aelius, 232 n. 16 Aristoboulos (Alexander-historian), 354 Aristocritus, 149 n. 10 Page 5 of 40

Index C General Index Aristoneioi, 202 Aristonikos, 372 Aristophanes (comic poet), 39, 41 n. 74, 194 and n. 54, 253, 255, 305 scholia to, 43 n. 81 Aristophanes of Byzantium, 3 n. 6, 21 ff., 37, 42, 79, 260 and n. 17, 305 f., 309, 388 Aristoteleioi, 201 f. Aristotelikos, 203 n. 7 Aristotle, 3 n. 6, 6 n. 15, 17 and n. 5, 20 n. 9, 27 n. 28, 45 n. 84, 52 n. 115, 72 n. 20, 83 n. 10, 103, 148 and nn. 5 and 6, 149 n. 10, 151, 201, 205, 210 n. 3, 248 n. 8, 260, 270, 272 f., 302 Aristoxenos, 203, 272 Arkades (on Crete), 294 Armenia, Armenians, 110, 278 n. 48, 340, 369 Arrian, 34 and n. 51, 153 and n. 16, 189 n. 38, 246, 248, 257, 259, 268, 290, 332, 338, 359, 368, 372, 386 Arsameia, 167 Arsames of Commagene, 341 Arsinoe (as personal name), 217 Arsinoe II Philadelphos, 195 f. and n. 60, 342, 344, 346, 374 f. Arsinoe (as city name), 172, 375 Arsinoe (Ephesos), 172, 195 Arsinoe in Aitolia, 153 n. 17 Arsinoe in Cilicia, 171 and n. 8 Arsinoeia (as name), 172 Arsinoeia (= Ephesus), 172, 347 Arsinoeus (as personal name), 217 Arsinoeus (demotic), 172 n. 11 Arsinoite nome, 172 and n. 11, 342, 365, 375 Arsinoites (demotic), 172 and n. 11 Artemidoros (as slave name), 217 Artemidoros of Alabanda/Antiocheia, 334 Artemidorus of Ephesus (geographer), 24 n. 19, 150 f., 157, 270, 292 n. 19, 313 n. 2, 323, 356, 365, 369, 387, and see Marcianus (p.406) Artemis, 149 Kindyas, 116 n. 32 Leukophryene (including festival of), 128 n. 21, 151 n. 13, 330, 344 Asandros (satrap of Caria), 187 n. 30 Asia, 68, 277 Asia (as personal name), 215 and n. 1 Asia Minor, 171, 279, 315 n. 5, 338, 360, 363 Asiageneis, 145 n. 90 ‘Asiatic’ ethnics, 278 Asine (in Messenia), 100 Asinius see Quadratus Asionikes, 229, 230 n. 9 Asklepiades (historian), 270 Asklepiades (poet), 273 Asklepiades of Bithynia (doctor), 174 n. 15, 270 Asklepiades of Nikaia, 359 Asklepiades of Perge (doctor), 368 Page 6 of 40

Index C General Index Asopis, 148 Aspendos, Aspendians, 95 n. 58, 171 associative adjectives, 202–7 -astai terminations, 203 and n. 8, and see -istai Astarte (?), 374 f. astos, aste, 26 f. astrologers, 336 asty, 245 Astyages, 297 Astymedeioi, 203 Athanasius, 233 Athena, 363 chryselephantine statue of, 210 Nikephoros, 175, 183 Athenaeus (writer), 30 n. 36, 41 n. 73, 54, 174 n. 15, 188, 206, 211 and n. 5, 297 and n. 31 Athenaios (as personal name), 216 and n. 3, 218, cf. 236 n. 22 (Atheneos) Athens, Athenians, 27, 40, 42, 57, 61 f., 76 ff., 80 ff., 88, 93, 105 f., 111–18, 120, 164, 175, 180 n. 3, 185, 189 n. 38, 194, 206, 210, 293 n. 22, 300, and frequently; see also demes, ‘tribute lists’ athletes, athletic victors, including lists of, 17 f., 79, 88, 91–3, 117, 120 f., 125, 130 n. 34, 139 f., 174, 181, 184 and n. 14, 188 n. 34, 216 and n. 3, 227 and n. 3, 229 ff., 272, 322, 333, and see Olympia, Heraia, Panathenaia, Thesei Athribis, 364 Attaleia (name), 173, 181 Attaleia of Lydia, 173 and n. 12, 192 and n. 44, 347 Attaleia of Pamphylia, 173 n. 12, 192 Attaleioi (coins), 212 Attalid kingdom of Pergamon, Attalids, 173, cf. 175 and 183, 192, 218 f., 372, 376 Attalikos (ktetic), 47 and n. 98, 173 n. 12 Attalis (name of Athenian tribe), 185 n. 20 Attalus (uncle of Eumenes I), 347 Attalus (unidentified king), 280 n. 15 Attalus I, 88 n. 27, 185 n. 20 Attalus II, 193, 348, 353, 372, 374 f. Attalus III, 19 n. 8 Atthidographers, 305, and see Androtion, Philochoros, etc. Attica, 178, 182, 185 n. 20, and see Athens Atticus (personal name), 222 Attikon (coinage), 210, cf. 279 n. 48 Attikos (as personal name), 222 and n. 21 Augustus, 227 n. 3, 280 n. 51, 294 Axios (= Orontes?), 340 Bacchylides, 3 n. 6 Bactria, 351 ff. Balakros (source for Stephanus), 303 f. and n. 40 Balearic isles, 262 Bargylia, 116 and n. 32, 195 Baris, 369 Barke, 363 Page 7 of 40

Index C General Index Barna, 154 basileion, 245 bastards, 117 Belos, 369 Berenike (as personal name), 217 Berenike (wife of Mithridates Eupator), 349 Berenike I, 349 Berenike (as city or deme name), 171 and n. 11, 172 Berenike of the Trogodytes, 183 n. 9 Berenikeus (as personal name), 217 Berenikeus (demotic), 172 n. 11 Beroia (Macedonia), 19 n. 8 Berroia (Haleb), 154 Berroia (Potidaia), 154 Berytus, 355 betrothal, 118 n. 39 bilingualism, 340 f., and see seals Biristis, 335 Bisaltai, 136 Bisanthe, 175 Bithynia, 152 f., 173, 290, 339, 359 ff., 373 Bithynion, 229 Black Sea region, 143, 181 n. 6, 186 Boiotia, Boiotians, Boiotian League, 46, 62 n. 5, 88, 91 f., 120 f., 124 f., 126 n. 18, 128, 130 and n. 32, 162, 184, 188 and n. 37, 198 f. and n. 68, 227 n. 3, 262, 340 Boiotian dialect and dialect forms, 45 n. 83, 49 n. 104, 206 Bosporus, 315 n. 5 (p.407) bouleutai, 230 Bouthrotos, 106 and n. 5, 108 n. 9, 142 Boutis, 349 f. brigands, 373 Brylleion, 152 and n. 15 Bushire, 335 Byblos, 296 Byzantine empire and emperors, 145, 177, 273 lists, chroniclers and learning, 159, 275, 311, and see metonomasies, Constantine Porphyrogennetus Byzantium, 135 Caballio, 259 Caesarea, see Kaisareia Cairo, 188 n. 34 Callimachus, 21, 24 n. 19, 147, 149 and n. 10, 156, 164, 178, 305 and n. 46, 315 n. 5, 322, 324, 362, 381 n. 30, 388 Callistratus, Domitius, 304 Capito Lycius, 33, 64 n. 8, 386, 389 Cappadocia, Cappadocians, 139, 167, 372, 374 Caracalla, 234 Caria, Carian koinon, 64, 67, 116, 138 n. 60, 139 and n. 69, 171, 177 n. 21, 183, 187 n. 30, 190 n. 39, 194 f., 199 n. 69, 276, 280 f., 332 f., 353, 356 ff., 360, 364, 371 f. Page 8 of 40

Index C General Index Carthage, 108 Caspian Sea, 145, 353 Cassander, 160, 354, 360 Cassandra, 8 Cassandreia, 161 and n. 42, 162, 194 Cassius Dio, 328 casualty lists, 62 n. 4, 84 n. 15 Catalogue of Ships (in Homer, Iliad Book 2), 2 and n. 3, 164 ff., 294 n. 25 Cataracts (of Nile), 365 Celts, 367 Ceramic Gulf, 357 Chalkidike, Chalkidic League, 136, 161, 354 Chalkis, 76 n. 1, 157 n. 29, 241 Charadra/-os, 348 charadros, 257 charakter, 241, 265 f. Charax (historian), 268, 290, 315 n. 5, 311 n. 58, 366, 374, 386 Charisius, 260 n. 17 Chazene, 153 n. 16 Chenoboskia, 178 n. 22 cherronesos (chersonesos), 257, 259 Chersonese (Carian), 280 Chersonese (Corinthian), 179 Chersonese (Cretan), 294 Chersonese (Thracian), 179, 190 and n. 39, 358 Chersonese, Chersonesites (Pontic), 186 Chios, 29 n. 34, 82, 195, 196 n. 61, 323, 349 Choerobios, 333 n. 46 chora, 257 choregic lists and inscriptions, 112 and n. 16, 113 and n. 19, 116 f., 184 n. 17 chorion, 257 Chosroes, 233 n. 20, 295 n. 28, 336 Chremonidean War, 127 Christians, Christianity, 33 n. 45, 110, 232–7, 295 n. 28 Chrysaoreis, Chrysaoric koinon, 139 and n. 69, 334, 371 f. Chrysippeia, 204 Cibyratis, 140 and n. 70 Cicero, 17 n. 5, 36 n. 55, 58 n. 140, 148 n. 7 Cilicia, 153 n. 16, 170 f. and n. 8, 331, 334, 343, 345, 347, 349, 354, 360, 363 f., 373, 376 cistophoroi, 371 citizenship, 44 n. 82, 75–101, 123, 182 n. 9, 225–9 Claudiopolis, 229 Claudius, 361 f. Cleopatra (I), 362 Cleopatra (VII), 206 cleruchs, 56, 62, 78, 83 and n. 11, 141 Codex Theodosianus, 295 n. 27 cognomina, 221

Page 9 of 40

Index C General Index coins, coinage and ethnics, 49, 69 ff., 122 n. 7, 133 and n. 41, 144 n. 84, 161 n. 39, 186 and n. 27, 190 and n. 41, 209–14, 278 f. n. 48, 279 n. 50, 326, 328, 330, 334 f., 337 ff., 340, 344, 346 f., 351 f., 354, 358, 361 f., 368, 370, 372 f., 376, App. 2 ktetics used for, 49 f. and n. 109 colonia Augusta Iulia Philippensium/ensis, 164, 196 n. 62 colonia Iulia Corinthia, 163 coloniae, 135, 168, 234 colonies, colonisation, 120 f., 181 n. 6, 259, 335, 340, 363, 372, and see Ktisis- literature, oikists Comedy, New, 161 and n. 38 Comedy, Old, 104, 161 and n. 38, 305 and n. 45 Commagene, 167, 332, 338, 341 f., 370 f., 376, and see Antiochus I of, Antiochus IV of commanders, words formed from names of, 51, 202 f. common speech, 259, and see koine, synetheia Competialastai, 187 n. 32 composite ethnics, 142–5 Conciliar lists and signatories, 176, 177 n. 21, 234, 273 f., 322, 334 (p.408) consorts of emperors, cities named after, 177 Constantine Porphyrogennetus’ De Thematibus, 40 n. 68, 154, 158, 275, 285 and n. 2, 313 f. and nn. 1–3, 389 Constantinoupolis (Constantinople), see Konstantinoupolis contracts, 118 n. 39 conventus inscription, 154 and nn. 19 and 20, 279, 353 copper, 356 Corinna, 44 n. 83, 299 n. 35 Corinth, Corinthians, 34, 37, 104, 108, 120, 153 f., 163 f. and nn. 52 and 53, 188 n. 37, 209 n. 1, 221, 300 Corinthus (as Latin personal name), 221 n. 18 Cornelius (Roman nomen), 283 Cos, 117 and n. 33, 134 n. 43, 212, 356, 369 Cratinus, 255, 305, 388 Crete, Cretans, Cretan koinon, 19 n. 8, 31 n. 39, 46, 95, 137 f., 221 n. 18, 258 and n. 14, 259, 293 f., 304, 344, 366 Crocodilopolis, 342 crosses, 235 and n. 22 cult(s), 174, 181 n. 6, 188 n. 34, 342 associations, 65 ff., 75, 97, 115 buildings, see temenika royal, 188 n. 34, 342, 364 curse-tablets, 132 n. 37, 194 customs-stations, 348, 365 Cyclades, 315 n. 5 Cyclops, 216 Cyprus, Cypriots, 99, 138, 140, 160 and n. 36, 195, 196 n. 60, 343, 358, and see Paphos, Salamis etc. Cypsela, 135 Cyrene, Cyrenaica, Cyrenaeans, 96, 119 f. n. 1, 156 and n. 28, 264 n. 32, 343, and see Barke, Euesperides, Pentapolis, Taucheira Cyril’s lexicon, 38 n. 63, 363 Cyrus the Great, 34 n. 47, 297 Page 10 of 40

Index C General Index Cyrus the Younger, 173, 361 Dacia, Dacians, 249 Damaskios, 295 n. 27 Damaskos, 343, 346, 352, 390 Damon, 305 and n. 44 Danube, 134, 168, 236 Daoi, 106 Dardanelles, 210 f. Dareios I, 143 n. 78 Dareios III, 232 n. 16 darics (dareikoi), 209 n. 1, 210 decrees (psephismata), 302, 322 dedications, 141, 174, 183, 187 n. 32, 341, 352, 376 Deire, 350 Delikos (as personal name), 222 Delos, 56, 62 n. 4, 83 and n. 11, 93, 108 f., 112 and n. 16, 121, 128 n. 20, 164 and n. 55, 187 n. 32, 202 n. 5, 203, 209 and n. 1, 210 and nn. 2 and 4, 212 and nn. 10 and 13, 222 and n. 23, 225 and n. 1, 227 n. 1, 325, 330, 334, 355, 356 and n. 2, 358, 366 Delphi and Delphian Amphictyony, 47, 56, 58 n. 142, 52, 58 n. 142, 61, 85, 88, 90, 98, 100 f., 104, 106, 109 f., 119 f. n. 1, 121 ff., 127, 136, 140, 163, 184 n. 14, 185, 187 f. n. 34, 189 n. 38, 194, 203 n. 7, 209 f. and nn. 2 and 3, 212 f., 217, 219 n. 10, 228, 230 and n. 11, 231 n. 14, 325, 334 f., 344, 355, 362, 364, 382 n. 41 Delta (Egyptian), 342 f. demarchs (Peiraeus), 86 demes, demesmen, demotics, demos, 18, 24, 26 n. 23, 53 ff., 62, 75 f. and n. 1, 78, 80–6, 96 and n. 60, 112, 114, 172 n. 11, 185 n. 20, 213 n. 17, 226, 227 n. 3, 245, 253 n. 11, 278, 281 nn. 53 and 56, 305–9, 350 f., 355, 364 Demeter, 262 Chthonia, 100 Demetrias (Attic tribe), 307 Demetrias (Sikyon), 191 Demetrias (Thessaly), 86 f., 221, 369 Demetrios (I) the Besieger (Poliorketes), 37, 112 n. 15, 160, 351, 360, 371 Demetrios II of Macedon, 372 f. Demetrios I Kallinikos, King of Bactria, 352 Demetrios II Soter, King of Bactria, 351 f. Demetrios III Eukairos of Syria (Seleukid ruler), 352 Demetrios of Lampsakos, 315 n. 5 Demetrios of Magnesia (author), 173 n. 12, 192 n. 44 Demetrios of Odessa, 271 Demetrios of Phaleron, 80 f., 115 and n. 29 Demetrios son of Antigonos (historian), 347, 374 Democritus, 270 f. Demodamas of Miletus, 332 Demosthenes (Athenian orator), 4 n. 8, 6 and n. 14, 7 n. 15, 25, 40 n. 71, 43 n. 81, 44 n. 82, 194, 206, 362 Demosthenes of Bithynia, 323, 387 Demostratos Damas, 231 and n. 14 demotics, see demes Page 11 of 40

Index C General Index Diadochi, 207, 364, 366 Didymeia (at Miletus), 99 Didymus, 26, 42, 289, 306 f. and n. 50, 326, 387 Dikaiarchikon, 205 (p.409) Dikaiarchos, 36 n. 55, 45 n. 86 dikasts, dikastic allotment plates, 81 and n. 7, 90 and n. 34 Diocletian, 360 Diodorus Periegetes, 306–9 and nn. 47 and 49, 311 Diodorus of Sicily, 9 n. 25, 20 n. 9, 182 n. 9, 207, 219, 232 n. 16, 263 n. 27, 340, 352, 377 n. 3, 378 n. 6, 380 n. 29 Diogenes Laertius, 34, 279 n. 48 Diogenes of Oinoanda, 77 n. 1 Diogenianus, 26 and n. 22, 27 n. 29 Diogenianus, pseudo-, 38, 41 dioikeseis (of Miletus and Halicarnassus), 279 Diokletianoupolis (in Thessaly; in Palestine; in Egypt), 176 and n. 19 Diomedes (mythical Thracian figure), 270 Dionysius (epic poet, author of Bassarika), 261 and n. 22, 388 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 32 n. 44, 36 n. 58, 38 n. 64, 147, 386 Dionysius ho leptos, 189 n. 37 Dionysius the Periegete, 24 n. 19, 34 n. 49, 38 n. 64, 258, 272 n. 37, 285 and n. 2, 291, 295 n. 27, 297 n. 31, 300, 313 and n. 1, 315 n. 5, 321, 324, 332, 338, 387, and see Eustathius scholiastic commentaries on, other than Eustathius, 315 n. 5 Dionysius son of Tryphon (source of Stephanus), 306 Dionysius Thrax, 23, 33 and nn. 46 and 47, 35, 37 f. and n. 63, 51, 223, 241 n. 1, 242, 290 n. 15, 333 scholia to, 38 and n. 63 Dionysophanes (historian), 20 n. 10 Dionysus, 188 n. 34, 316 Diophantos (historian), 20 n. 10 ‘Dioscorides’, 36 n. 55 Dioscurides, 105 n. 3 Diotimos (Athenian general), 216 n. 1 Diotimos (source of Stephanus), 297 diplomats, diplomatic representatives, 78, and see proxeny Dniester, River, 236 doctors, 21, cf. 88 n. 27, 368 Dodona, 263 and n. 29 Dokimeian marble, 236 n. 22 Dolopia, 189 n. 38 Dometioupolis, 176 Domitius Callistratus, 304 Dora (Palestine), 263 f. and nn. 30 and 31 Dorians, Dorian institutions, 84 n. 15, 117, 119 f. n. 1 Doric dialect, 194, 220, 259 Doros, 157 n. 29 Dotion, 191 n. 42 Doura Europos, 359 Douris of Elea, 195 and n. 60, 196 n. 61 Page 12 of 40

Index C General Index Douris of Samos/Sicily, 40, 72, 378 n. 5 Dragmos, 294 Drin, River, 327 Dryton son of Pamphilos, 137 n. 57 Dyme, 165 Dyrrachion, 154, 314 n. 3, and see Epidamnos earthquakes, 356, 375 causes of disappearance of cities, 159 Ecbatana, see Ekbatana Echekratides, 270 Edessa (Syrian), 332 Egypt, 17 n. 5, 67, 83, 88, 96 f., 139, 141, 159, 160 n. 36, 163, 167, 172, 177 and n. 22, 180 f., 183 n. 10, 185 n. 22, 187 f., 276, 280 n. 51, 304, 311, 329, 362, 366, 375, and see Alexandria, Ptolemais Hermiou, Ptolemies eide (grammatical term), 25, 38, 241 and n. 1 Einatos, 294 eion (beach, shore), 246 f. -eios adjectives, 49–53, 201–5, 212 patronymic forms in, 49 n. 103 ‘eiselastic’ entry and honours, 229 and nn. 6 and 8, 231 n. 14 Ekbatana, 340, 374 Elaia, 19 n. 8 Elaos (in Aitolia), 179 n. 2, 348 Elea (Aeolic), 179 Elea (Italian), 179 Eleios (as personal name), 215 and n. 1 elephant-hunting, 344 Elis, Eleans, 99, 166 n. 56 Ellops, 219 Elyros, 294 emancipation, see manumission Emesa, 154 Emet, 154 Empedokles, 204 emporion, 246 and n. 7 Endios, 216 n. 1 endoxoi (famous people from particular cities/areas), 283, 299, 359 f. -ene,-iane forms of place-name, 278 f. and n. 48, and see -enos names engeneis, 110 f. and n. 13, 114 f. and n. 23 Ennea Hodoi, 150, 280 n. 51 -enos names, 69, 196 f., 220 n. 15, 264 and n. 30, 277 and n. 45, 278 and n. 48, 279 -ensis, Latin forms in, 196 n. 62, 197, 259 Entella, 378 n. 10, 383 (p.410) Epaminondas, 99, 122, 202 Epaminondeioi, 202 and n. 7 Epaphroditus, 300, 387 ephebes, 62 n. 4, 76 n. 1, 81, 227 n. 3 Ephesios (as personal name), 109, 216 and n. 3 Ephesus, Ephesians, 34 and n. 49, 123, 172, 195, 229, 246 n. 7, 346 f., 353, 356, 364, 375 Page 13 of 40

Index C General Index Ephorus, 9 n. 25, 24, 42 n. 79, 143 n. 77, 152 n. 14, 164, 252, 255, 271, 290, 300, 309 n. 54, 324, 378 n. 10 Ephyra, 154 epic poets, 147, 168, and see Homer etc. epichoric (i.e. local) usage and forms, 264–8, 274, 281 f. Epidamnos, 154 Epidaurus, Epidaurians, 77 f. and n. 3, 84 and n. 15, 88, 98 f., 123 n. 10, 126 n. 18, 148, 179, 218 n. 7 Epigonus, Ti. Claudius, 229 epineion, 246 Epirus, 99, 128, 142, 327 epitaphs, 219, 235 n. 22, and see tombstones Epitherses of Nikaia, 359 Epitomator, Epitome (of Stephanus), 16 n. 2, 24 and n. 19, 48, 71, 223, 257 f., 263, 274 f., 278 f., 284 ff., 291, 294 ff., 298, 300 f., 303, 305, 308 ff., 313 f., 317 ff., 321, 327, 364, 367, 375, and see Hermolaos epoikoi, 213 eponymia, 171 and n. 8 eponymous city-foundations and ethnics, 64, 119, 135, 167–78, 180–8, App. 1 Eratosthenes, 27 n. 27, 254, 315 n. 5, 326, 333, 350 Eretria, 57 n. 136, 62, 75 ff., 117, 123 n. 12, 128 n. 20, 134, 226 n. 2 Eriza (Phrygia), 357 Erycius, 105 n. 3 -esios, Greek forms in, 196 n. 62, 197, 259 estates, names for in -eion, 202 n. 5 Eteo- prefix, 144 n. 83 Ethiopia, 342 ethnics: no separate entry is attempted. See Indexes B and C, and this index under ambiguous, composite, expanded, multiple and regional ethnics ‘[the] Ethnikographer’ and similar expressions for Stephanus, 315 ethnos, ethne, 1–11, 119, 122, 130 f., 246 Etymologica, 300, 313, 315 Etymologicum Genuinum, 285, 293, 316 f. Etymologicum Gudianum, 293 f. Etymologicum Magnum, 55, 259 n. 15, 285, 293, 315 ff. Euages, 271 Euboia, 91 and n. 37, 140, 157 (former name of Chalkis), 219 and n. 13, 226 n. 2, and see Eretria, etc. Euclid, 315 n. 5 Eudaimon, 290 and n. 15 Eudoxiopolis, 135 Eudoxos, 223 f., 271, 379 n. 20, 387 euergetes (honorific title), 227 n. 3 Euesperides, 349, 363 Eugenios, 50 n. 108, 201 n. 3, 286 f., 289 Eukratides, King of Bactria, 352 f. Eulaios, 370 Eumaios, 103 Eumeneia, 173 and n. 13, 192 f., 353 Page 14 of 40

Index C General Index Eumeneioi, 51, 202 and n. 7 Eumenes I (Attalid king), 19 n. 8, 173 and n. 12, 192 and n. 44, 347, 376 Eumenes II (Attalid king), 193, 353 Eumenes of Kardia, 51, 202 Eupatoristai, 203 Euphorion, 24 n. 19, 164, 246, 277, 315 n. 5, 322, 388 Euphrates (name of slave), 105 n. 2 Euphrates (Stoic philosopher), 373 Euphrates (river) and trans-Euphrates, 153 n. 16, 264, 338, 359, 370 f., 374 Eupolis, 305, 388 Euripides, 3 n. 6, 153, 286, 315 n. 5, 388 Euromos (Philippoi), 171 and n. 8 ‘European’ ethnics, 278 Europos, 341 Eurykleia, 103 -eus, ethnics ending in, 64 Eusebeia, 176, 374 Eusebius, 32 n. 43, 233, 237 n. 26, 296, 338 Eustathius, 21 n. 13, 23, 25 n. 21, 26, 34 n. 49, 149 n. 8, 233, 258 and n. 14, 263 n. 27, 272 n. 37, 275, 285 and n. 2, 295 n. 27, 303, 313 and n. 1, 314 and n. 5, 315 and nn. 6–7, 316 n. 9, 317, 321 f., 324, 332, 338, 389 Euthenai, 281 n. 53 Euthydemos, King of Bactria, 351 Euxine Sea, 315 n. 5, 361 f. expanded ethnics, 119–45, 179 n. 1 false ethnics, xiii, 141 and n. 74, 143 n. 81, 163 n. 52 ‘famous sons’, see endoxoi Faustina, Annia Faustinopolis, 177 and n. 21 Favorinus, 261 n. 20, 387 Fayyum, 365, and see Arsinoite nome federal organisations, 119–45, and see koinon feminine forms of ethnics, 42–6, 59, 63 f., 184 and n. 14, and see women (p.411) festivals, 79, 91 ff., 98 and n. 64 ktetics used for, 50 and n. 110, 202 and n. 4 Flavian emperors, 294 food, ethnics used for, 48 f. foreigners, 18, 20, 48, 62 n. 4, 75–101, 115, 123 and n. 12, 135, 141 foundations of cities, see eponymous city-foundations freedmen (enfranchised slaves), 79 f., 108, 234 frontier control, new cities and, 168 Gadara, 331, 367 Gagai, 139 Galen, 20 n. 9, 174 n. 15, 361 Galilee, 362 Gallienus, 375 Gallus, Aelius, 346 Gargara, 152 n. 16 Gaugamela, see Arbela Gaul, Transalpine, 367 Page 15 of 40

Index C General Index Gaza, 277 n. 46 genos, gene, genea, 4–11, 29–32, 90 n. 32 George of Cyprus, 177 n. 21, 295 n. 27, 329, 334 Gerasa, 335 f., 390 Gesios, 224, 261 Getai, 106 gladiators, 105 Glaukias, 175 Glaukos (historian of Arabia), 224, 253, 267, 295 f. and n. 29, 386 Glaukos (mythical figure), 157 n. 28 Gomphoi, 151 Gonnoi, 360 goose falls in love with boy, 164 Gordian, 135 n. 50 Gortyn, 137, 293 n. 23, 294 graffiti, 188 n. 34 grammarians, 17, 21 ff., 33, 43 n. 80, 197, 219 f., 223 f., 241 f., 283, 290 n. 15, and see Apollonius Dyscolus, Dionysius Thrax, Herodian, Oros etc. grandparents, names of, 221 and n. 16, and see papponymics Gregory of Nyssa, 287 n. 6 Gyrton, 131 n. 34 Habron (of Phrygia or Rhodes), 38 n. 63, 64 n. 8, 195 f. and n. 61, 223, 290 and n. 15, 307 f. and n. 52 Hadra vases, 198 Hadrian, 45, 154, 168, 290 and n. 15, 327, 371 Hadrianopolis (Thrace), 135 Hadranoupolis (= Stratonikeia on the Kaikos), 371 f. Haemus, 134 f. Hagnon, 280 n. 51 Halala, 177 n. 21 Haleb, 155, 390 Haliartos, 162 Halicarnassus, 84, 279 Halimus, 305 n. 46 Harpocration, 6 f. n. 15, 26 and n. 22, 40, 107 n. 8, 156 and n. 26, 157 n. 28, 161 n. 43, 307 f. and nn. 49 and 50, 310 and n. 56, 362 Hecataeus of Miletus, 18 n. 7, 24, 64 n. 9 (twice), 136 and nn. 51–2, 143 ff., 147 and n. 3, 152 n. 14, 157 and n. 29, 165, 168, 195, 196 n. 60, 198, 246, 249 f., 257, 259, 262 and n. 24, 268, 271, 276, 280, 283, 290, 292, 300 f. and n. 37, 305 f., 310 n. 55, 323, 340, 379 n. 15, 380 n. 22, 381 nn. 30 and 32, 382 nn. 39 and 41, 385 Hedyphon, 370 Hegemon (epic poet), 327 Hegesippos, 270 Hekate, temple of at Stratonikeia, 371 Helagabalus, 229 n. 6 Heliastai, 203 Heliodorus, 233 Heliodotos, 352 Helios (god), 203 Page 16 of 40

Index C General Index Helioupolis, 390 Helladios, 196 f. and n. 63 Hellanicus, 33, 59 n. 143, 147 f., 165, 252, 270, 285 n. 2, 300 f. and n. 37, 323 hellenisation, 156 helots, 103 Hems (i.e. mod. Homs, ancient Emesa), 154, 390 Heraclitus (Homeric grammarian), 157 n. 30 Heraclitus (philosopher), 204 Heraia, Samian, 338 Heraion, Argive, 218 n. 7 Herakleia (city name), 174, 181 f., 185–8 cities of that name not included in App. 1, 325 n. 1 Herakleia (Lynkestian), 186 Herakleia (Perinthos), 154 Herakleia (Pierian), 186 f. Herakleia (South Italian; Lucanian H.), 185, 187 and nn. 32–3, 202 n. 5, 213 Herakleia-by-Latmos, 19 n. 8, 84 n. 14, 182 and n. 9, 187, 360 Herakleia-on-Strymon (H. Sintike), 186 and n. 27 (p.412) Herakleia Pontike (Bithynian H.), 109 and n. 12, 182, 186 and nn. 23–6, 188, 304 and nn. 41 and 42, 362 Herakleia Salbake, 187 and n. 31 Herakleidai, Return of, 165 Herakleides (historian), 271 Herakleides Kretikos (Ps.-Dikaiarchos), 40 and n. 60 Herakleiteioi, 201, 204 Herakleitistai, 204 Herakleopolis, 185 n. 22 Herakles, 147, 188 and n. 37, 353, 362, 370 ‘cup’ and ‘handles’ of, 188 and n. 37 labours of, 304 n. 41 heralds, 56 Herennius Philon, see Philon Hermeias of Antioch, 175, 183 Hermeios son of Asklepiodoros, 175 Hermes, 182 n. 10, 356 Hermesianax, 44 n. 82 Hermias (eponym of Ptolemais Hermiou, identity unknown), 364 f. Hermione, 45 and n. 87, 88, 100 Hermippos (comic poet), 311 n. 58 Hermogenes, 333 Hermokles, 37 Hermokopids, 105 Hermolaos (epitomator of Stephanus), 220, 284 ff. and n. 2, 287 f. and n. 8, and see Epitomator Hermopolis, 178 n. 22 Hermoupolis, 97 hero-cult, heroa, 182 n. 10 heroic founders, 168, and see oikists Herodas, 49 n. 104, 362

Page 17 of 40

Index C General Index Herodian, 196 n. 62, 233, 262 and n. 24, 275 n. 42, 289, 292 and nn. 19 and 20, 293 n. 21, 301 and n. 38, 302, 308, 321, 323, 378 n. 5, 387 Herodikos, 206 Herodoros of Herakleia, 304 n. 41 Herodotus, 4 n. 8, 5 n. 10, 9 n. 25, 11 n. 31, 17 n. 5, 19 n. 9, 25 n. 20, 30 f., 37, 53, 123, 125 n. 16, 136, 143, 194, 197 f., 206, 216 n. 1, 246, 252, 258 f., 271, 280, 283, 300 f., 310 n. 55, 315 n. 5, 323, 385 Heroonpolite Gulf, 342 Heropythos of Chios, 323 Hesiod, 147 f., 164 f., 191 n. 42, 248 and n. 8, 315 n. 5, 388 Hestaiotis, 131 Hestia, 352 Hestiaios, 197 Hesychius (of Alexandria), 26, 206, 363 Hesychius (of Miletus), 233, 286 hetairai, hetaira-names, 221 and n. 17 Hierokles, 136, 155, 177 n. 21, 186 and n. 27, 269 n. 35, 354, 389 Hierokles of Hyllarima (philosopher), 273 hieromnamones, hieromnemones, 123, 127, 128 n. 20 Hieronymus of Kardia, 160 and n. 36, 207 Hieronymus of Rhodes, 188 Himera, 379 Hippias of Elis, 16 n. 3 Hippocrates (medical writer), 20 n. 9 Hippostratos of Miletus (friend of Lysimachus), 347 Histaiotis, 131 Histiaia, 76 n. 1, 126 n. 18, 131 historians, 270 Histria, 154 n. 20 Holzmann, see Xylander Homer (including refs. to Iliad and Odyssey), 1–4, 7 n. 16, 16, 54, 61, 103, 155, 164 f., 206, 216, 242 n. 1, 251, 254, 284 n. 1, 285 n. 2, 292, 314, 315 n. 5, 359, 388 Homeros, known as Sellos (grammarian), 272 homonoia (civic harmony), 171 homonymous cities, 63, 119, 121 hoplites, 111 n. 14 Horapollon, 38 n. 63, 50 n. 109, 271 Hydra, 362 Hydramia, 294 Hydrous, 389 Hyllos, 353 Hypereides, 43 n. 81 Hypios, 361 f. Hyrcania (east of Caspian Sea), 353 Hyrcania (= Hyrcanian Plain in Lydia), 353 Hysiai (Argive), 179 Hysiai (Boiotian), 179 Ialysos, 77 n. 2 Iamblichos, 52 n. 116, 203 Page 18 of 40

Index C General Index Iasos, 87 n. 27, 116 f., 184, 186, 195, 236 n. 23 Ichthyophagoi, 365 Ida, Mt, 293 n. 24 idioma (local characteristic), 280 f. Ikkos, 272 -ikos terminations, 37, 52 and n. 117, 203 ff. Illyria, Illyrians, 129 Imbros, 83 Inachos, 105 n. 3 Indeipedion, 372 India, 278 n. 48 interpreters, 104 Iollus, Julius Claudius, 362 Ion (name), 109, 139 (p.413) Ionia, Ionians, 151, 181 n. 6, 183 n. 11, 190 n. 39 Ionian koinon, 139 Iotape, daughter of Antiochus IV of Commagene, 354 Iotape, sister-wife of the same Antiochus, 354, 376 Ioudaios (as slave name), 217 Ioudas (as personal name), 236 n. 23 Ioulis, 345 Ioustinianoupolis, 177 Iphikrateioi, 202 and n. 7, 206 Iphikrates, 202 Ipsos, battle of, 346 Iranian nomenclature, see Persian name-forms Isaeus, 7 n. 15, 113 n. 18 Isagoras, 216 n. 1 Isauria, 176, 334, 369 Isidoros of Charax, 340 f., 352, 371 Isigonos of Nikaia, 359 Isis, 115 Islam and Islamic period, 234, 338, and see Arab conquest Islanders, koinon of, 130 n. 31, 141 isopoliteia, 358 isoteleia, isoteleis, 117 and n. 34, 161 n. 43 Issa, 85 n. 15 Issos, Gulf of, 368, 373 -istai terminations, 52, 65, 203 f., and see religious societies isthmus, 247 Istros (historian), 164 Italia (as personal name), 215 and n. 1 Italy, Italians, 197, 221 n. 18, 264, 356 n. 2, and see Rome, Romans Itineraries, 135 -izo terminations, 51, 201 f., 205 ff. Jaxartes, River, 156, 332 Jerusalem, 93 n. 52, 237 and n. 26, 289, 362, 366 Jews, 32 n. 41, 33 n. 45, 163, 217, 234, 236 and n. 23, 349 Jordan, River, 366 Page 19 of 40

Index C General Index Josephus, 266 f., 333, 373 ff., 386 Juba of Mauretania, 350 Justinian, 135, 143 n. 81, 176 n. 18, 177 and n. 20, 190 n. 39, 233–6, 273 f., 279, 284, 285 n. 2, 287 f. and n. 8 Justinianoupolis, 177 Kabasos, 289 n. 12 Kaikos, 371 Kaisareia (name), 176 and n. 18, 177 Kaisareia in Cappadocia, 176, 374 Kaisareia in Palestine, 176 Kaisareia by Paneas 176 Kallatis, 279 Kallikyrioi, 103 Kallipolis/-itai, 357 f. Kallisthenes (historian), 161 and n. 44 Kallistratos (historian), 253 kalube, 247 Kalykadnos, 367, 369 Kalyndos, 364 Kamara, 294 Kameiros, 77 n. 2 Kandahar, 156 n. 27 Kanitas (Thracian king), 175 and n. 16, 183 n. 12 Kanitos, 175 Kantanos (?), 294 and n. 26 Kar, Karina (slave names), 104, 139, 217 Kardia, 160 and n. 36, 358 Karthaia, 219 and n. 13, 345 Kasios, Mt, 184 Kassandra, see Cassandra Kassiodoros (name), 337 Kastol(l)os, 375 Kastoria, 176 n. 19 Katakekaumene, 374 f. katoikia, 247 Kaunos, 79 n. 5, 84, 364 Kaunios (or Kaunos or Kaunou), basileus, 79 n. 5, 139 n. 65 Kebren, 335 Kedesh of Galilee, 362 Kelainai, 338 Keos, 147, 219, 345 Kephallenia, 99 Kerasos, 372 Kerkyra, 148 Kianos (as personal name), 222 and n. 20 kidnappers of slaves, 107 n. 8 Kieros, 173, 193, 362 Kimon, 215 and n. 1, 217 kinship, 77, and see patronymics Page 20 of 40

Index C General Index Kios, 152 and n. 15, 173, 193, 361 kitharode, honours to, 227 Klaros, 88 n. 27 Klearcheioi, 203 n. 7, 206 Klearchos (comic poet), 41 n. 73 Klearchos of Soloi, 38 n. 64 Kleisthenes of Athens, Kleisthenic deme-system, 6 and n. 15, 62, 76, 216 n. 1 Kleisthenes of Sikyon, 216 n. 1 Kleitor, 88, cf. 92, 125, 221 n. 18 Kleomenes III of Sparta, 126 Kleopatra, see Cleopatra Kleopatreios (demotic), 172 (p.414) Kleopatris, 342 kleruchs, see cleruchs Knidos, 84, 115 n. 28 Knossos, 137 Koile Syria, 343, 346, 349 f., 366 koine (language), 260, 264, 274 koinon, koina, 6, 91, 97, 110, 115, 119–41, 203 and n. 8, 234, 356 and see cult associations, Islanders Kolophon, 29 n. 34, 112 and n. 17, 151 and n. 13, 346 kolpos, 247 kome, komai, 24, 135 and n. 50, 159, 161 f., 248 and n. 8 Konipodes, 103 Konope, 344 Konstantinoupolis, 135, 176, 322 Koptos, 177 n. 20 Koressia, 345 Koressos, Mt, 346 Korinthios (as personal name), 218, 221 Korinthos (as personal name), 221 and n. 18 Koroneia (Boiotian), 198 f. Koroneia (Peloponnesian), 198 f. Korope (in Thessaly), 219 n. 13 Koroupedion, 154 n. 18 Korykos, 347 Kos, see Cos Kotratis, 389 Kouretes, 293 n. 24 Kragos, 334 Krateros of Macedon (author), 40 and n. 69, 136 n. 52, 287, 302–5 and n. 39, 322 krene, 247 Krenides, 176, and see Philippoi Kriton (historian), 35, 36 n. 56 Kroisos, ‘Kroiseian staters’, 210 and n. 3 Krounoi, 134 n. 43 Kryassos, 280 f. and n. 53 Ktesias, 268, 374 Ktesikles, 115 n. 29 Page 21 of 40

Index C General Index Ktesiphon, 336, 370 ktetics (possessive adjectives), 18, 35–53, 56, 118, 185, 187 f. and n. 37, 194 n. 50, 201–4, 209–14, 222, 279, 290 n. 14 ktisis-literature, 147 ff., 323 ktisma, 248 Kydnos, River, 333 Kydonia, 192 n. 43 Kyme, 120 f. Kynoskephalai, battle of, 90, 92 Kyprios (as personal name), 109 n. 12, 217 Kyrrha (Macedonian), 193 and n. 49 Kyrrha (Syrian), 193 Kytenion, 28 n. 31, 119 n. 1, 252 n. 9 Kyzikos, Kyzikene staters, 84, 105 n. 3, 210 f. and n. 2, 216, 279, 328 Lakaina (as female slave name), 107, 219 n. 10 Lakedaimonios (as personal name), 215 n. 1 Lamia, 129 Lampe, 294 Lampsakos, Lampsakene staters, 65 n. 9, 210 f., 279, 315 n. 5 land, right to possess, 226 languages, Greek attitudes to foreign, 104 Laodike (mother or daughter of Seleukos I), 355 Laodike (wife of Antiochus II), 355 Laodike III (wife of Antiochus III), 87 n. 27, 355, 357 Laodike (not found as city-name), 172 Laodikeia (as city-name), 172, 182 n. 10, 184 Laodikeia by the Sea, 88, 96, 178 Laodikeia-on-Lykos, 182 n. 10, 183 and n. 11, 229, 232 n. 16, 358 Laodikeus (as personal name), 217 laos, 2 lapicides, 235 n. 22 Larisa (Thessaly), 88, 90, 92, 119, 191 n. 42 Larisa (in Troad), 364 Latin forms of names, 197, 221 and n. 18, and see Romans Latmos, 187 n. 30 Lato, 294 laws, sacred, see sacred laws Lebedos, 346, 364 leges sacrae, see sacred laws legionaries, ex-, 222 Lemnos, 83 Leon of Stratonikeia, 357 f., 371 Leonnatos, 189 n. 38 Leontinoi, 58 n. 142, 71, 380 and n. 23 Lesbos, 195, 196 n. 60 Leto, 149 Leukas, Leukadians, 128 and n. 20, 129, 202 n. 5 Leukolleia (banquets, coins), 51, 212 Leukophryena/-e, see Artemis Page 22 of 40

Index C General Index lexicographers, 26, 33, 197, 223 f., 237, and see particular individuals Libanius, 233 liberti, 234, and see freedmen Libya, 342 f., 363 Libys (as slave name), 109 n. 12, 217 Lilaia, 31 n. 41, 88, 94 f., 144, 218, 257 limen, 249 Limyra, 79 n. 5 Lindian Chronicle (anagraphe), 150 n. 12, 322 Lindos, Lindians, 77 n. 2, 114 n. 23, 115 and n. 28, 281 n. 56, 322 Linear B, 1 Liparaeans, 140 n. 72 Livy, 126, 152 n. 16, 161 n. 42, 359, 373 local histories, 304 (p.415) ‘Lokrian wind’, 31 n. 65, 315 n. 5 Lokris (as personal name), 221 Lokroi (in Greece), 46, 127, 130 nn. 28 and 32 Lokroi (in Italy), 38 f. n. 64 Longibardos ‘the Wise’, 318 f., 389 Longinus, 284 n. 1 Longus, 233 lophos, 249 Lot, 259 Loukillos of Tarrha, 38 Loukoulleia (festivals), 51 n. 111 Lousoi, 90 Lucania, 187 Lucian, 143 n. 79, 205 Lucretius Gallus, C., 162 Lucullus, 51 and n. 111, 212 Lycia, Lycian League, 78 and n. 5, 113, 122, 138 f., 194, 224, 344 f., 356, 369 Lycophron (poet, author of Alexandra), 24 n. 19, 251, 252 (twice), 262 and n. 26, 293 and n. 23, 315 n. 5, 322, 388 scholia/commentaries on, 285 and n. 3, 293 and n. 23, 294 n. 26, and see Theon, Tzetzes Lydia, 144, 154, 269 n. 35, 279, 347 f., 353 (355 is a false reading, see p. 356), 374 f. Lydos (as slave name), 217 Lydus (De Mens.), 20 n. 9 Lykaia, 88, 92 Lykaonia, 355 ff. Lykon the Achaean, 127 n. 19 Lykon of Rhegion (historian), 309 n. 54 Lykophron, see Lycophron Lykos, River, 355 f. Lykourgos (mythical figure), 316 Lykourgos (Spartan), 204 Lyktos, 258 n. 14, 294, 344 Lysias, 40 n. 71, 112 n. 15 Lysimacheia, 160, 171, 344 Lysimacheioi (soldiers, coins), 202 n. 7, 206, 212 Page 23 of 40

Index C General Index Lysimachus, 151, 153 n. 18, 160, 162, 172, 195, 196 n. 60, 328, 346 f., 354, 358, 364 Lyttos, see Lyktos Macedonia, Macedonians, 99, 131–4, 188 n. 34, 189 n. 38, 193 and n. 49, 201, 206 n. 1, 327 f., 351, 372 f. Macedonian language, 206 Macedonian War, First, 234 Second, 131, 327 Third, 129 Maeander, River, 333, 338, 353, 369 f. Magarsos, 184 n. 14 Magas, 349 Magnesia, Magnesian koinon (Thessaly), 87, 131, 132 n. 38 Magnesia-on-Maeander, 31 n. 39, 84, 87 n. 27, 128 n. 21, 151 n. 13, 215 n. 1, 322, 330, 344 Maiandrios (FGrH 492, ‘Leandrios’), 156 and n. 26 Maidobithynoi, 144 and n. 86 Makedon (as personal name), 215 Makedonikon (coin), 212 Makedonikos (as personal name), 222 n. 24 Makedonizontes, 201 Malalas, 180 and n. 4, 329, 338, 355, 373 f. Malis, 131 Mallos, 184 n. 14 Manes (as slave name), 217 n. 5 mantic shrines, see oracles Mantineia, Mantineians, 29 n. 35, 45 and n. 86, 122 and n. 7, 152 n. 14, 153 n. 17, 154, 191, 327 f. manumission, 46 f., 103 f., 106, 113, 217, 219 n. 10, 344, 348 Marcia, 177 Marcianopolis, 135, 177 and n. 21 Marcianus of Heraclea (and epitome of Artemidorus), 244, 286, 297 f. and n. 32, 323, 387 Marcus Aurelius, 177 and n. 21 Margiane, 332, 371 Marieus (as personal name), 149 Marinus, 204 and n. 11 Marion (Cyprus), 343 Marmor Parium, 322 Maron, T. Aurelius, 231 Maronitika (coins of Maroneia), 210 Marsyas (source for Stephanus), 304 and n. 40 Maryandynoi, 103 Massalia, 259 Matienoi, 197 matroxenoi, 27 n. 29 Maussolleion (tomb i.e. Mausoleum), 50 Maussollos, Maussolleia (coins), 43 n. 79, 211 and n. 8 Maximian, 368 Maximianopolis, 135 Mazabdan (?), 355 Mazaka, 176, 374 Media, 355, 357 Page 24 of 40

Index C General Index Megalopolis, 84, 123, 125, 151, 163, 177 Megara, Megarians, 43 and n. 81, 57 n. 135, 84 n. 15, 181 n. 6, 227 n. 3, 259, 360 Megarikoi, 52, 202 and n. 12 Melicertes, 157 n. 28 Memnon (general in Persian service), 202 (p.416) Memnon of Herakleia (historian), 304 and n. 42, 349 Memnoneioi, 51, 202, 206 Memphis, 143 n. 81 Menander (playwright), 21, 30 n. 36, 36 nn. 56 and 58, 40, 46 and n. 91, 388 Mende, 160 f. and nn. 37–42 Menedemos (Seleukid official), 357 mercenaries, 17 n. 5, 31 and n. 41, 32 and n. 43, 79, 88 f., 94–7, 127 n. 19, 131, 132 n. 38, 137, 145, 219, 347 meris, 249 meros, 249 Merv, and oasis of, 332, 371 Mesambria, 131 n. 34 mesogeios, 249 Mesopotamia, 168, 236, 278, 340, 368, 370 Messana (Sicily), 150 Messene, 151 Messenian War, First, 304 and n. 43 Methana (Peloponnesian), 345 Methodius, 316 f. and n. 12 Methone, 155 n. 24 metics, 18, 79, 80–6, 110–18, 161 n. 43, 181 n. 6, 221 and n. 18, 236 n. 23 metonomasies (name-changes) of cities and islands, 147–68, 170 ff., 275, 322, 324, 327, 334, 354, 360, 390, and App. 1 generally Byzantine lists of, 154 f., 366, 389, 390 disregarded by historians like Polybius, 45 n. 86, 154 n. 20, 171, 327 Metrodoros, of Skepsis, 284 and n. 1 metropolis, 249 Midas (as slave name), 217 n. 5 Milatos (on Crete), 258 and n. 14, 294 Miletus, Milesians, 19 n. 8, 30 n. 36, 50 n. 108, 76, 84 and nn. 12 and 14, 90 n. 34, 99, 137, 182, 216 and n. 3, 227 n. 3, 279, 283 military foundations, 177 n. 20, 178 mines, slaves in, 104 Minoan language, 215 Mithradates Kallinikos of Commagene, 341 Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontus, 120, 167, 284 n. 1, 349, 356 Mithridates son of Menodotos, 53 n. 118 Mithridatic War, 121, 335 Mnaseas of Patara, 363 moira, 249 Moiris, 6 and n. 15 molpoi (at Miletus), 227 n. 3 Mons Seleucus, 367 Montanists, Montanist heresy, 235, 338 Page 25 of 40

Index C General Index Mopsuestia, 368, 389 Morgantina, 383 Morsynos, River, 333 Mostis (king), 175 and n. 17, 183 multiple civic ethnics, 226–33 Mycenaean world and its nomenclature, 1, 215 Mylasa, 84 Myndos, 84 Myous Hormos, 365 Myra, 138 Myrina (two different cities), 121, 199 Myrleia (Apameia), 152 n. 15, 175, 183 and n. 13, 339 Myrsilos (historian), 270 Mysia, Mysians, 94 f., 144, 210, 218 f., 279 f., 372, 374 f. Myskellos, 382 n. 41 Mysomakedones, 144 Mysos (as personal name), 218 myths, mythology, mythography, 147–51 and n. 12, 155, 304, 321 ff. Nabataia, Nabataians, 220 and n. 15, 295 n. 28 Nabatenos (as personal name), 149 n. 8, 220 (but see n. 15) Nagidos, 171 n. 8, 343 Nakrason, 376 name-changes of cities and islands, see metonomasies names, Greek, no general entry is attempted of slaves, 104–8 names, Roman, 78 n. 3, 89, 92 naopoioi (Delphi), 210 n. 2, 213 Naples (Neapolis), 152 n. 14, 177 and n. 22 Narses, 145 Naulochon, 151 Nausikrates, 54 Naxos, Naxian coins, 61 n. 3, 210, 211 n. 8, 220, 381 n. 34 Naxos (Sicily), 381 and n. 34 Neapolis (homonymous cities in Hellespont and Thrace), 199 Neapolis (name), 177, 199, and see Naples Nearchos, 138 n. 57, 189 n. 38 negotiatores, 109 Nehavend, 357 Nemea (Aitolian), 179 Nemea (Peloponnesian), 88, 98 ff., 179 Nemrud Dag, 341 f. neokoroi, 231 Nero, 231 n. 15 nesidion (islet), 250 Nesiotic League, 130 n. 31, 141 nesos (island), 250 Nestorian Council, 334 New Testament, 32 nn. 41 and 45, 143 f. (p.417) Nicander, 219 n. 13, 381 n. 30 Nikainetos, 271 Page 26 of 40

Index C General Index Nikandros, see Nicander Nikanor of Alexandria, 155 n. 26, 271 n. 36 (?), 326 Nikanor of Cyrene, 149 and n. 9, 151, 155 ff. and nn. 26 and 28, 280 n. 51, 324, 342, 362 Nikasia, 220 Nikesipolis (wife of Philip II and mother of Thessalonike), 354 Nikolaos of Damascus, 251, 262 n. 26, 386 Nikomedeia, 153 and n. 16 Nikomedes I of Bithynia, 360 Nikomedes II Epiphanes of Bithynia, 339 Nikopolis (Cilicia), 373 Nikopolis (Greece), 130 and n. 30, 279 f. and n. 51 Nikostratos, 108 Nile, 196 n. 60, 364 Nisibis, 329 f. nome-capitals, 177 nomes, 172, 274 and n. 41 nomina, 226 n. 1 non-citizens, 80–7, and see bastards, metics, slaves, women nothoi, see bastards Notion, 151 Notitiae, 176 n. 18, 177 n. 21, 234, 322 Nova Justiniana, 135 Nymphis of Herakleia, 304 and n. 42 Nysa (Carian), 173, 193, 332 Oaxos, 294 ochthos, 251 Odessos, 175, 183 Odrysian kingdom, 135 Odysseus, 103, 144 n. 83, 319 Odyssoupolis, 154 oikists, 168, 315 n. 5 Oiniadai, 129 and n. 22, 152 n. 14 Oiniades of (Palai) Skiathos, 152 n. 14 Oiniandos, 373 Olba, 153 n. 16, 367 Olbia, 56, 78, 85, 153 and n. 16, 209 n. 1 Olenos, 164 ff. Oleros, 294 Olous, 294 Olympia, Olympic victors (including at local festivals of Zeus Olympios), 54, 61, 88, 98 f., 117, 137 n. 57, 227 n. 3, 229, 322, 326, 356 Olympias, 34 Olympos, 369 Olynthos, Olynthians, 84 n. 11, 159, 161 ff., 300, 354 oracles, 219 and n. 13, 343 (Ammon), 355, 362, and see Sibylline oracles orators, Attic, 283 ‘Orchomenian’ coinage, 210 Orchomenos (Arcadian), 179 Orchomenos (Boiotian), 120 n. 2, 179 Page 27 of 40

Index C General Index Orion of Thebes (?), 22 n. 14, 284 n. 1, 316 f. Orobia, 219 and n. 13 Orontes, River, 340, 368, 374 Oropos, 91 f. and n. 39, 117, 120 and n. 2, 198 n. 68, 216 and n. 3 oros, ore (mountain/s), 243 n. 2, 250 f. Oros of Alexandria (grammarian), 22 n. 14, 23 f., 69 and n. 18, 71, 158, 191 and n. 42, 253, 260, 263, 264 and n. 30, 274, 282 and n. 57, 284 and n. 1, 290 n. 15, 292 f. and n. 21, 298–301, 304, 310 f. and n. 58, 316, 324, 387 orugma, 251 ostraka, 183 n. 10, 348 f. Ouranios, see Uranius Oxus, 353 Oxyrhynchos, 178, 188 n. 34, 271 Pagasai, 351 pagi, 135 Pairisades, 86 Palai- names (of cities), 144 n. 83, 151 f. and n. 14 Palaiamyndos, 152 n. 14 Palaigargara, 152 n. 14 Palaimagnesia, 152 Palaipaphos, 152 Palaiperkote, 152 and n. 15, 159 Palaipharsalos, 152 Palaipolis, 152 n. 14 Palaiskepsis, 152 Palaiskiathos, 152 and n. 14 Palestine, 259, 264 n. 31, 294, 362 Pallene, 161 Palmyra, 390 Pamphilus, 26 n. 23 Pamphylia, 138, 343–8, 364, 368 Pan, 17 n. 5 Panamara, 357 Panathenaia, Panathenaic lists, 17, 88, 93, 329, 333 f. Panhellenion, 119 n. 1, 168 pankration, pankratiasts, 227 n. 3, 230 Panopolis, 17 n. 5 Panthoides of Chios, 215 n. 1 Pantikapaion, 85 Paphlagonia, Paphlagonians, 110, 197, 217 n. 5 Paphos, 140, 231 n. 15, 345 (p.418) papponymics, 122 n. 6, 216 n. 1, 221 n. 16 paradoxography (writings about marvels), 297 Paraitake, 196 Paraitonion, 343 paramone, 108 Paramonos (personal name), 108 Paraphrasis of Dionysius Periegetes, 315 n. 5 parasynthetic verbs, 202 Page 28 of 40

Index C General Index parepidemountes (temporary residents), 81 Paretakenoi, 197 Parian Marble, 322 Parmenides, 204 paroemiography, see proverbs Paros, 324, and see Marmor Parium Parthenius of Nikaia, 259 Parthenius of Phokaia, 287 Parthenope, 177 n. 22 Parthia, Parthians, 156, 330, 339 ff., 370 Pasargadai, 297 and n. 31 Passanda, 67 and n. 15; 276 and n. 43 Patara, 114 n. 23, 138, 344 f., 347 Patrai, 84, 127 n. 19, 165 patronymics, 33, 50, 56, 62 and nn. 4 and 5, 64, 76 and n. 1, 77, 78 n. 3, 79, 80–6, 94 ff., 99, 101, 112 and n. 16, 114, 117, 123 n. 10, 126 n. 18, 132 n. 38, 216 n. 3, 218 n. 7, 222 n. 20 patronymic forms in eios, 49 n. 103 Paul, St, 163 and n. 53, 196 n. 62 Pausanias the Antatticist, 277 Pausanias the ‘Chronographer’, 338 Pausanias the Periegete, 29 n. 35, 41 f. and n. 75 (and see 68 n. 17 for the problem of the many different writers of this name), 148, 154, 157 and n. 33, 164, 257, 261 n. 20, 266, 271, 304 and n. 43, 322, 326, 353, 387 pedion, 251 Peiraeus, 85 f. and n. 23, 221 n. 18 Peiria, 368 f. Pelasgiotis, 131 Pella (Macedonian), 88, 354 Pella (of the Syrian Dodecapolis), 349 Pella (wrongly identified with Apameia of the Seleukis), 338 Peloponnesian War, 300 Pelusion, 184, 290 n. 15, 390 Peneios, River, 373 Penelope, 103, 144 n. 83 Penestai, 103 Pentapolis (Cyrenaica), 363 Peraea, Rhodian, 253 n. 11, 281 n. 53 Peraea (Jordan), 375 Pergamon, city and kingdom of; Pergamenes, 19 n. 8, 53 n. 118, 88 n. 27, 173, 175, 183, 192, 229, 279, 347 Perge, Pergaians, 366, 368 Perinthos, 154, 219 as personal name, 219 perioecic regions (of Thessaly), 131 Perkote, 159, and see Palaiperkote Perraibia, 131 Persarmenioi, 145 Perseus (Macedonian king), 132 Persia, Persians, 140, 197 Page 29 of 40

Index C General Index Persian Gulf, 371 Persian name-forms, 196, 297 and n. 31 Persis, 335, 351 personal names, ethnics as, 215–24 petra, 251 Petra, 294 Phaiakia, 148 Phaiax (mythical figure), 148 Phaistos, 294 Phalanna, 132 n. 38 Phalasarna, 294 Phanagoreia, 17 n. 5 Phanes (character in Herodotus), 31 and n. 38 Phaniades (philosopher), 273 Pharnakes (slave name), 115 Phaselis, 348 Pheidon of Argos, ‘Pheidonian’ silver and measures’, 210 and nn. 2 and 3 Pherai, 354 Pherekrates, 199 n. 68 Pherekydes, 36 n. 58 Phila (wife of Antigonos Gonatas, mother of Demetrius II), 372 f. Philadelphia (Lydia), 279 and n. 50 Philemon, 53 Philetaireia, 173 and n. 12, 192, 347 Philetairos, 173, 347, 353, 376 Philetas, 148 Philiadas of Megara (poet), 44 n. 83 Philip II, 133, 136, 151, 161 and n. 43, 167, 211, 300, 354, cf. 52, 354 Philip V, 19 n. 8, 129, 171, 175, 183, 327, 358, 360 f. Philippeia (coins), 211 and n. 7, 212 Philippoi, 151, 163 f. and n. 54, 196 n. 62, 279 n. 48, 389 Philippoi (= Euromos; in Caria), 171 Philippopolis, 135 Philiskos of Kos (poet), 105 n. 3 Philistos, 67, 71, 164, 256, 276, 293 n. 21, 300, 323, 377, 378 n. 11, 379 nn. 14, 18 and 19, 380 n. 26, 381 nn. 32 and 33, 383, 385 Philo(n) of Alexandria, 205 n. 14 Philochorus, 7 n. 15, 27 n. 27, 42 n. 79, 254, 305 n. 45, 308 n. 53 Philon, Herennius (Philon of Byblos), 71, 153 n. 16, 223 f., 252, 269, 283 f., 292, 293 (p.419) n. 21, 296 and n. 30, 299 and n. 34, 300 and n. 36, 301, 310, 313, 323 f., 333, 355, 382 n. 37 Philonides, 270 Philopoemen, 125 f. Philoponus, Lexicon of, 149 philosophers, 227 f., 270, 325 philosophical schools, words for, 201–4 Philostratos (historian, FGrH 789), 180 n. 4 Philostratos of Lemnos, 325 Philotera (name), 172 Philotera, 96 n. 60 Page 30 of 40

Index C General Index Philoterios (demotic), 172 n. 11 Philoxenos (grammarian), 284 and n. 1 Philoxenos (poet), 248 and n. 8 Phlegon of Tralles, 356, 386 Phlius, 148 and n. 7, 149, 150 n. 11 Phoenicia, Phoenicians, 68, 170, 277 and n. 46, 283, 296, 355 Phoinikoussai (islands), 141 Phoitiai, 129 and n. 22 Phokaia, and coins of, 209 n. 1, 210 n. 2, 211 n. 8 Phokika (coins), 210 Phokis, Phokians, 28 n. 31, 94, 126 n. 18, 127, 128 n. 20, 219, 257 Phokylides, 271 Photius, 43 and nn. 79 and 80, 197 and n. 63, 295 n. 27, 304 phratries, 218 n. 7, 227 n. 3 phrourion, phrouria, 256, 273 Phrygia, Phrygian language, 144 n. 86, 183, 217 n. 5, 235, 356 Phrynichus (‘Arabius’, lexicographer), 255 Phrynichus (comic poet), 43 n. 79 Phthiotis, Achaea, 131 phylai, phyletics, 77 n. 2, 256, and see tribes Phylarchus, 202 n. 6 Physkos, 281 n. 53 Pidasa, 187 n. 30 pinacographers (compilers of lists), 270 f., 283, 298 n. 33, 299, 308, 310, 315 and n. 5 Pinara, 138 Pindar, 1, 55, 57 and n. 137, 77 n. 1, 153, 214 scholia to, 41 n. 73, 292 Piraeus, see Peiraeus pirates, 107 Pisa, Pisatans, 99 Pisidia, Pisidians, 139 f., 170, 330, 336, 369 Pizos, 135 n. 50 Plataia, Plataians, 44 n. 82 Plato, 16 n. 3, 19 n. 9, 27 n. 28, 52 n. 115, 53 and n. 118, 204 n. 8 scholia to, 306 Platoneioi, Platoneion, 53, 201, 204 n. 11 Platonikoi, Platonikon, 53, 202 and n. 7 Pleistarcheia (Herakleia-on-Latmos), 171, 187 Pleistarchos, 360 Pleuron, 152 n. 14, 165, 359 Pliny the Elder, 135 with 136 n. 51, 329, 333, 338, 350, 357 Pliny the Younger, 229 n. 6 Plotina, 177 Plotinopolis, 177 and n. 21 Plutarch, 36 n. 55, 42 and n. 77, 44 n. 82, 51 n. 111, 52 and n. 114, 55 n. 126, 126, 140 n. 72, 205 f., 215 n. 1, 267 n. 34, 315 n. 5, 317, 348, 352, 360, 389 Polemon, 281 n. 53, 323 polichnion, 253 polidion, 252 Page 31 of 40

Index C General Index polis, polites and related terms, 17–20, 25, 29, 241, 252 f., 278, 308, 353, 356, 364 -polis, city-names formed from (and ethnics in -polites), 279 f. and n. 51 polisma, 253 polismation, 253 polizo, 252 Pollio, known as Asinius (of Tralles), 272 Pollio, known as Valerius, 272 Pollux, 22, 210 n. 3 Polyainos, 36 n. 55, 51 f. and n. 114, 202, 205 ff., 209 n. 1 Polybius, 10 and n. 26, 17 n. 6, 18, 20 n. 9, 30, 31 n. 40, 45 n. 86, 48 n. 99, 51 f., 125, 130, 140 n. 72, 143, 151, 154 n. 21, 164 n. 55, 165, 169, 171 and n. 10, 192 n. 43, 193 n. 48, 196 n. 62, 202, 206, 283, 293 n. 22, 300, 323, 327, 329, 344, 348, 358 ff., 363, 366, 375, 379 n. 17, 381 n. 32, 386 Polyhistor, see Alexander Polyrrenia, 137 Pompeii, 221 n. 18 Pompeioupolis, 389 Pompey, 167, 336, 373 Ponpeiastai [sic], 203 Pontus, 182, 279, 372, and see Herakleia Pontike population figures, 111 n. 13 porneion, 253 Porphyry, 205 Poseidippos (comic poet), 354 Poseidippos of Pella (epigrammatist), 88 Poseidon, 363 Poseidoniastai, 355 f. Posidonius (historian), 219, 223 ‘posthumous’ethnics, 84 n. 11, 159–66 potamos, 253 f. Potidaia, 56, 83 and n. 11, 154, 194 and n. 50, 354 potters, 188 n. 37 praenomina, 226 n. 1 Priene, 150, 246 n. 7 priests, priesthoods, 8, 93, 231 n. 14 (p.420) private documents, 75–101, 141, 174 proasteion, 254 Proclus, Life of, 204 and n. 11 Proclus, known as Proculeios, 272 Procopius, 144 f., 155 and n. 24, 177 n. 20, 233 and nn. 19 and 20, 236 and n. 25, 295 and n. 27, 336 proedria, 227 n. 3 Prometheus, 178 Propontis, 181 n. 6 Protagoras (geographer), 298 n. 32 Protagoras of Abdera, 271 Protarchos, 105 and n. 2, 109 Proteas of Zeugma (grammarian), 259 and n. 15 Prousiades (vases), 189 n. 37 Prousiakon (coin), 212 Page 32 of 40

Index C General Index proverbs, 108, 211 Proxenos (as personal name), 216 n. 3 proxeny, proxeny decrees, 65, 78 f., 85, 88–91, 93 n. 52, 97 ff., 101, 121, 123 n. 10, 126 and n. 18, 127, 128 n. 20, 129, 131 n. 34, 132 n. 38, 136, 152 n. 14, 184 n. 14, 185, 187 n. 34, 220, 226 and n. 2, 227 f. and n. 4, 355 Prusa (ad mare, formerly Kios), 173 and n. 14, 174 and n. 15, 193, 222 and n. 20 Prusias I (king of Bithynia), 173, 175, 183, 339, 360 Prusias (ab Hypio or ad Hypium, formerly Kieros), 173 and n. 14, 174 and n. 15, 193 Prusias (ad Olympum or ab Olympo), 173 and n. 14, 174 and n. 15, 193, 334 prytaneis, prytanic lists, 81 and n. 7, 93 Ps.-Plutarch, 315 n. 5 psephismata, 302 pseudo-ethnics, xiii, 141 and n. 74, 143 n. 81, 163 n. 52 Ptolemaieia (festivals and sanctuaries), 212 Ptolemaiika (coins), 212 Ptolemais (name), 171 ff. Ptolemais/Ake, 156, 170 and n. 7, 362 f. Ptolemais Hermiou, 17 n. 5, 96, 137 n. 57, 159 Ptolemies, Ptolemaic empire and institutions, 17 n. 5, 28 nn. 31 and 33, 78 and n. 5, 88, 95 f. and n. 58, 130 n. 31, 138 and n. 60, 141, 143 n. 81, 159, 160 n. 36, 170 ff., 195, 206, 212, 227 n. 3, 342, 349–51, 358, 362, 368, 375 Ptolemy, Claudius (geographer), 32 n. 44, 144, 154 n. 21, 158, 177 n. 21, 186, 249, 269 n. 35, 278 n. 48, 298 n. 32, 306, 313 n. 5, 328 f., 340 ff., 356, 364, 371, 373, 376, 380 n. 29, 387 Ptolemy I Soter, 211, 264 n. 32, 352, 364 f. Ptolemy II Philadelphos, 342 ff., 349, 364, 366, 374 f. Ptolemy III Euergetes (I), 349, 364 Ptolemy Keraunos, 342 public documents, 75–101 pulai, 254 Punic legends on coinage, 71, 382 and n. 37 Pygela, 29 n. 34 Pylene, 165 f. Pylos, 155 and n. 24 Pyramos, River, 331, 368 f. Pyrhha[kos], 335 Pyrrhos, King, 34, 327 Pythagoras, Pythagoreans, 202 ff., 272 Pythagoreioi, 52, 201 f. and n. 7, 204 n. 9 Pythagorikoi, 52, 202 Pythagoristai, 52, 203 f. and n. 9 Pythais, 93 Pythia, 52 Pythopolis, 332 Quadratus, Asinius, 269, 332, 386 queens, Ptolemaic, cities and demes named after, 172 and n. 11 Rabbath/Amman, 375 Ragai (mod. Ray), 340 f. records, 270 f., and see anagraphai Red Sea coast, 350, 365 Page 33 of 40

Index C General Index regional ethnics, 119–45 religious societies, expressions for, 65, and see cult associations Res Gestae Divi Saporis, 278 n. 48 Rhakotis, 159 Rhamitha, 355 Rhegeinos (as personal name), 222 and n. 20 Rheginianos (as personal name), 222 n. 20 Rheneia, 104 f. Rheskyporos III, 144 rhetoricians, 227, 231 Rhianos of Bene, 304 and n. 43, 315 n. 5, 323, 388 Rhinthon, 272 Rhithymna, 344 Rhodes (and Rhodos city), Rhodian institutions, 18 n. 7, 27 n. 29, 57, 62, 65, 75 ff. and n. 2, 81–3, 110–17, 130 n. 31, 138 f., 141, 150, 175, 182 f. n. 10, 184, 194 f., 203 and n. 8, 209, 253 n. 11, 281 n. 53, 290 n. 15, 323, 331, 333 f., 357 f., 369, 371 f. Rhodian Peraea, 57 n. 138, 139, 357 Rhodiapolis, 113 Rider God, Thracian, 235 Rome, Romans, 84 n. 11, 89, 92, 116 n. 31, 128 f., 135, 159, 167 f., 176 ff., cf. 163 f., (p.421) 197, 201, 218, 221 and n. 18, 222 and n. 20, 224 ff., 272, 274 n. 41, 290 n. 15, 335, 356 and n. 2, and see names, Roman Rhosos, 180 n. 4, 331, 368 f., 389 Rufus (consularis), 174 and n. 15, 193 sacred laws, 116 and n. 32 sacrifice, 116 n. 32, 212 Salamis (Cyprus), 96, 345 Sallust, 51 n. 111 Salona, 330 Samias, Samion (as personal names), 221 and n. 18 Samos (as personal name), 221 and n. 18 Samos, 29 n. 34, 82, 84, 149 and n. 10, 169, 195, 196 n. 60, 221 and n. 18, 227 n. 3, 338, and see Heraia Samosata, 338, 341 Samothrace, Samothracians, 186 Sanchuniathon, 283 f., 296 sanctuaries, 65, 202 n. 5, and see Delphi, Olympia, temenika Sapor, 180 n. 4 Sarapeia, 120 Sardanapallos, 333 Sardis, 229 n. 8, 231 and n. 14 Sassanids, 145, 336 Satyros (elephant-hunter), 366 Satyros (historian), 354 sculptors, 56 n. 134, 83 and n. 10, 187 n. 32, 189 n. 38 seals (Greek, cuneiform, bilingual), 336 Sebaste, 232 n. 17 Second Athenian Confederacy, 137, 216 n. 3 Seleukeia (name), 172, 175, 180, 184 Page 34 of 40

Index C General Index Seleukeia (Isuatian), 389 Seleukeia (in Karia), see Tralles Seleukeia on the Kalykadnos (Seleukeia in Cilicia Tracheia), 153 n. 16, 170 and n. 7, 231 and n. 13, 367 Seleukeia on the Zeugma, 171 and n. 10 Seleukeioi, 51, 202 and n. 7 Seleukides (vases), 189 n. 37, 367 Seleukids, Seleukos, 51, 87 n. 27, 152, 153 nn. 16 and 18, 156, 167 f., 170, 188 n. 34, 278 n. 48, 334, 337, 340 f., 351, 357 f., 368, and see Antiochus, Seleukos Seleukis, the, 337 f., 368 Seleukos (as personal name), 188 n. 34 Seleukos I Nikator, 168, 328, 330, 332 f., 337 Seleukos IV, 370 Seleukos of Rhosos, 331 Selinountios (as personal name), 219 Selinous (Cilician), 219 n. 13, 334 Selinous (Sicilian), 219 n. 13 Sella, River, 339 Selymbria, 135 Semiramis, 330 f. Septimius Severus, 341 Serapeion (at Alexandria), 340 Serenus, Aelius, 296 and n. 30, 299 serfs, 103 ‘Serpent Column’, 86 n. 24, 194 servile names, see slaves Sesamon, 150 Sextion, 285 n. 3 Sextus Empiricus, 205 ships, feminine ethnic used for, 43 n. 81 Sibylline oracles, 380 n. 21 Sicily and Sicilian cities, 67, 71, 99, 121, 197, 219 n. 13, 264, 276, 314 and n. 3, App. 2 Side, 363 Sikelia (as personal name), 215 and n. 1 Sikyon, Sikyonians, 99, 158, 191, 221 n. 18, 352 Sikyonika (coins), 210 Sillyon, 368 Simonides, 51 n. 111 Sinope, 57 n. 135, 372 Sirens, 177 n. 22 Sitalkes, 135 Sittakene, 340 Siwah, oasis of, 343 Skaptoparene, 135 n. 50 sky-god, Macedonian, 188 n. 34 Skylax, 280 Skymnos (and Ps.-), 223, 246, 324 Skythia, 332 Skythopolis, 366 Page 35 of 40

Index C General Index Slav conquests of Greece, 155 slaves and slave-names, 47, 79, 81, 88, 103–11, 113, 115, 134 n. 43, 135, 139, 217 f., 221 n. 17 Slavonic place-names, 155 and n. 23, 319 sling-bullets, 264 n. 31 Smyrna, Smyrnaians, 181, 184 n. 14, 195, 196 n. 61, 222, 229, 354 Social War (of 3rd cent. BC), 344 Socrates (Athenian philosopher), 205 n. 12 Socrates (Christian writer), 233 sodalicial terminations, 203 nn. 7 and 8, and see koina Sokrateia, 204 and n. 11 Sokratikoi, 204 soldiers, ktetics used to describe groups of, 51 f. Soli, 209 n. 1 Solon, 210 n. 3 sophists (of Second Sophistic), 360 Sophocles, 27 n. 27, 164, 191 n. 42, 195, 254 (twice) and n. 12, 286, 363, 388 Sophytos, 156 n. 27 (p.422) Sosibius, 233 Soteria (festival), 100, 127 f. and n. 20 sources of Stephanus, 283–311, App. 3 Sousarion, 54 f. Sozomen, 340 Spain, 313 n. 2 Sparta, 19 n. 9, 34 n. 49, 204, 323 Spasinou Charax, 339 Sporades, 315 n. 5 staters, Abydene, Kyzikene, Phokaian etc., 210 n. 2 stathmos, 254 Stesikleides, 115 n. 29 Stobaeus, 118 n. 39 Stobi, 360 Stoics, 204, 259 f. Stoikoi, 204 Strabo, 24 and n. 19, 27 n. 27, 30, 32 and n. 44, 34 n. 49, 36 n. 56, 42 n. 79, 53 n. 118, 59 n. 143, 64 n. 8, 106 f. and n. 6, 108 f. and n. 10, 130 n. 30, 143 n. 82, 144 and n. 83, 148 ff. and nn. 10 and 12, 152 n. 14, 155, 157, 159, 161 and n. 40, 165, 167, 176, 182 n. 10, 186 f., 190, 191 n. 42, 193 n. 48, 198, 202, 205, 213, 217 and n. 5, 219 and n. 13, 223, 244, 246 n. 7, 247, 256, 258 n. 14, 264, 266, 268 f., 280 n. 51, 285, 290 and n. 16, 292 n. 19, 306, 309 n. 54, 313 n. 1, 314 f., 322 f., 329 f., 332 f., 338 ff., 341, 342–6, 350 ff., 356 f., 359, 361, 364 f., 368, 370 f., 374 f., 385 n. 1, 389 strategiai, 135 f. Stratonike (mother of Antigonos Gonatas), 371 Stratonike (mother of Antiochus II and wife of both Seleukos I and Antiochus I), 355 f., 371 f. Stratonike (not found as city-name), 172 Stratonikeia (as city-name), 172 Stratonikeia (Caria), 139 n. 69, 357 f., 371–2 Stratos, 128 ff., 152 n. 14 Strattis, 55 Strymon, see Amphipolis; Herakleia Styra, 293 n. 22 Page 36 of 40

Index C General Index subscription lists, 83, 93, 112 and n. 17, 114, 327 Suda, 26 and n. 23, 29 n. 35, 30, 38 n. 63, 43 n. 79, 201 n. 3, 257, 272 f., 286 f., 290 and n. 15 Sulla, L. Cornelius, 90, 92, 283 sunodoi, 234 sureties, 106 Susa, 370 Syene, 348, 350 Symeon, 305 n. 45, 318 and n. 15 Symmachikon (coinage), 210 Syncellus, 366 Synesius, 32 n. 51, 34, 144, 237 n. 26, 323 synetheia (ordinary speech), 259 f., 263 f. synoecism, 62, 76, 130 n. 30, 135, 151, 160, 163, 171 n. 8, 326, 330, 354, 364, cf. 159 synoikia, 254 f. Syracuse, Syracusans, 34, 180 n. 3, 209 n. 1 Syria, 104, 108, 142, 182 n. 10, 197, 337, 355, 357, 366, 373 Syrian drachmai, 210 Syrian War, Third, 368 Syros (as slave name), 217 n. 5 Tabari, 336 Taman peninsula, 78 n. 3 tamieion, 255 Tamyneia, 140 n. 71 Tanagra, 45 and n. 84, 120 and n. 2 Tanais, 156 Taras, 272 and n. 37 Tarentum, 272 n. 37 Tarmianoi, koinon of the, 139 and n. 69 Tarsos, 333, 389 Taucheira, 342 f. Tauromenion, 121 Tauroscythians, 144 and n. 87 taxation, taxes, 234 freedom from, 226 Tegea, Tegeates, 117 f., 122 Tegeas (as personal name), 221 n. 18 Telmessos (Caria), 194 f. Telmessos (Lycia), 138, 194 temenika (words meaning temples or sanctuaries), 38 n. 63, 50 and n. 108, 201 and n. 3, 210, 212, 286 f. temples, 202 n. 5, 231, 329, and see sanctuaries, temenika Tenedos, Tenedians, 70, 72, 99, Teos, 84, 364 tetrads (Thessaly), 131 f. and n. 35 Tetrapolis (Syrian), 182 n. 10, 355 Thais, 42 thalassa, 247 Thales, 271 Thamyris, 191 n. 42 Page 37 of 40

Index C General Index Theagenes (Hellenistic writer, source for Stephanus), 303, 304 n. 40, 323, 386 Theaitetos, 105 and n. 3 theatrical performances, 227 Thebaid (Egypt), 365 Thebe, 178 Thebes, Boiotian, 123, 130, 300, 327 Phthiotic, 151 Themistokles, 152, 215 and n. 1, 217 (p.423) Theocritus, 34 and n. 48, 46 and n. 94, 52 n. 116, 315 n. 5, 366 scholia to, 30 n. 36 Theodora, 135 Theodoropolis, 135 Theogeiton, 273 Theon (commentator on Lycophron), 252 Theophanes, Continuator of, 313 f. and nn. 1 and 4 theophoric names, 219 Theophrastus, 41 n. 73, 49 n. 104, 161 n. 43, 118, 302 Theophylactus (Simocatta), 236 and n. 25, 336 Theopompos, 30 n. 36, 34 and n. 48, 37 n. 61, 136 n. 52, 155 and n. 25, 291 (twice) and n. 18, 300, 310 n. 55, 350, 385, 389 Theopompos, Julius, 355 theorodokoi, 88, 97–101, 123 n. 10, 129 and n. 23, 364 Thera (in Cyclades), 88, 96, 220 Thera (in Rhodian Peraea), 115 n. 23, 139 and n. 69 Therikles, 188 n. 37 Thermos, 88 f., 97, 132 n. 38 Theseia, 32 and n. 42 Thespiai, Thespians, 44 n. 83, 120, 121 n. 2, 184 Thessaliotis, 131 Thessalonike (wife of Cassander, daughter of Philip II), 354 Thessalonike (city), 187, 354 Thessaly, Thessalians, 31 n. 39, 46, 49 n. 103, 50, 65 and n. 12, 86, 88, 90–3, 99, 106 and n. 5, 107, 119, 131 f., 159, 189 n. 38, 191 n. 42, 200, 203 n. 8, 215 and n. 1, 219 n. 13, 304, 354 Thessalian dialect forms, 49 n. 103 thiasoi, 234 Thisoa, 163 Thrace, Thracians, 67, 94 n. 55, 99, 134–7, 143 f., 175, 177 nn. 20 and 21, 183, 190 and n. 39, 235, 276, 281 and n. 54, 358 f. Thraseas (Ptolemaic general), 171 and n. 8, 343 Thrax, Thraissa (as personal names), 104, 217 Thucydides, 4 n. 8, 7, 9 nn. 23 and 25, 19 n. 9, 25 n. 20, 31, 36 and n. 56, 43 n. 81, 47 and n. 96, 48 n. 100, 51 n. 110, 120 n. 1, 125 n. 16, 135, 140 n. 72, 150, 179, 193 f. and n. 49, 202 n. 5, 206, 215 f. n. 1, 244 n. 3, 247, 253, 257, 272 n. 37, 280 n. 51, 283, 300 f., 323, 385 Thurii, 118 n. 39 Thyateira, 153 n. 18, 229 n. 6, 347 Thyrreion, 129 and nn. 22 and 24, 130 and n. 29 Tibarenoi, 197 Tiberius (emperor), 231 n. 15, 273 Tibios (as slave name), 217 n. 5 Page 38 of 40

Index C General Index Tigranes of Armenia, 369 Tigranocerta, 369 Tigris, River, 339 f., 370, 373 Timokles, 48 n. 101 Timoleon, 209 n. 1 Timon (sillographer), 148 n. 7, 272 Timosthenes, 224 Timotheos of Gaza, 38 n. 63, 50 n. 109 Timotheos of Miletus, 271 Tlos, 138 Tocra, see Taucheira tombstones, 75 f., 80–6, 104 f., 110, 113, 115 f. and nn. 27 and 28, 118, 129 n. 23, 132 nn. 36 and 37, 137, 141, 174 f., 180, 183 f., 189 n. 38, 194 f., 219, 232 n. 18, 323, 325, 334, 341, 356, 360 Tomi, 219 and n. 11 ‘topics’ (topika), 53–5, 80 Topiros, 136 n. 51 topos and derivatives, 255 f., 258, 299 n. 35 Torone, 162, 221 n. 18 trade and traders, 348 f. slave, 107, 109 n. 12 Traianopolis, 135 Trajan, 177, 229, 330, 376 Tralles (Seleukeia), 88, 97, 182 n. 9, 230, 369 f. Trans-Mesopotamia, 196 Trapezous, 218 tribes (phylai), tribe names (phyletics), 6, 77 n. 2, 82, 117, 174 n. 15, 178, 185 n. 20, 226, 227 n. 3, 305 ff., 350 ‘tribute lists’, Athenian, 40, 86 n. 24, 120, 135, 137, 151 f., 159 f., 194 and n. 50, 195, 198 f. and n. 69, 253 n. 11, 279 f., 302 f., 322 Triphylia, 165 Troad, 121, 326, 335, 364 Trogodytes, 346, 348 f., 350, 365 f. Troizen, 227 n. 3 Tryphon, 185 and n. 20 tupos, 241 and n. 1, 262, 264–8, 281 Turkish place-names, 178 Turpilius, Sextus, 77 n. 2 Tursenoi, 197 Tyana, 374 Tyche Agathe, 182 n. 10 Tymnes, 253 n. 11 Tymnos, 253 n. 11, 281 n. 53 Tzetzes, 55 n. 128, 293 and n. 23 Uranius, 11 n. 31, 69, 220, 254, 277 f., 285 n. 2, 287, 290, 294 ff. and nn. 27–9, 304, 311, 321, 386 (p.424) Valerian, 375 variable ethnics, 179–200 Varro, 109, 217, 260 and nn. 16 and 17 Vespasian, 315 n. 5 Vestinus, Iulius, 272 Page 39 of 40

Index C General Index veterans, Roman, 135, 145 via Egnatia, 187 vici, 135 victors, 79, and see athletes, choregic lists vocabulary, of Stephanus, 241–82 waiting lists, for citizenship, 83 wall-building, lists of subscribers to, 112 and n. 17 wine, 183 n. 10, 349 ethnics used for, 48 f. and n. 104 women, 47, 80, 114 and n. 23, 116 f., 177, 184 n. 14, 219, and see feminine forms wool, 356 Xanthos (author), 385 Xanthos (city), 28 and n. 33, 79 n. 5, 119 n. 1, 138 and n. 60, 252 n. 9 Xenarchos, 36 n. 55 xenia, 220, 221 n. 16 Xenion (name), 293 n. 22 Xenion of Crete, 261, 263 n. 27, 287, 293 ff. and nn. 22–6, 304, 323, 386 Xenomedes, 147 and n. 2 xenoi, see foreigners Xenophon (and Ps.-Xenophon), 19 n. 9, 31 n. 41, 36 n. 57, 40 n. 68, 112 n. 15, 125 n. 16, 127 n. 19, 194, 206, 218 f., 290, 293 n. 22 (doubtful reading), 323, 385 Xerxes, 136 n. 52, 340 f. Xylander (= Holzmann), 263 n. 27, 269 n. 38, 271 n. 36, 275 n. 42, 277, 281 n. 53 xylo- names (for places), 276 n. 43 Zakynthos, Zakynthians, 263 n. 27 Zangkle, 150 Zeilas, 173, 193 Zenobia, 336 Zenodotos, 21 Zenon (archive of), 96 Zenon (philosopher), 204, 279 Zenon-papyri, 375 Zenoneioi, 204 Zephyria, Cape, 345 Zeugma, 342, 370 f. Zeus, 293 n. 24, 356 Chrysaoreus, 139 n. 69 Panamaros, 358, 371 f. Seleukeios, 188 n. 34 Soter, 175, 183 Zaleukeios, 188 n. 34 Zeuxis, 87 n. 27

Page 40 of 40