The Idea of Universal History in Greece: From Herodotus to the Age of Augustus [Reprint ed.] 905063398X, 9789004156463, 9789004494213

Citation preview

AMSTERDAM CLASSICAL MONOGRAPHS VOLUME 4

JOSE MIGUEL ALONSO-NUNEZ

THE IDEA OF UNIVERSAL HISTORY IN GREECE FROM HERODOTUS TO THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS

J.C . GIEBEN, PUBLISHER AMSTERDAM 2002

No print of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the author. © by J.M. Alonso-Nufiez I Printed in The Netherlands I ISBN 90 5063 398 X

TO THE MEMORY OF GEORGE FORREST

FOREWORD This is an expanded version of the lecture given in the Departments of History and Classics at Harvard University on 26th May 1998. I am most thankful to Professor Ernst Badian, D. Phil., F.B .A., for his kind invitation and comments. I also wish to express my gratitude to Professor J. Stuart, Professor G. Nagy and Professor e. Jones for their remarks as well as to the rest of the audience, who attended it and stimulated the discussion. Kathleen Walsh (Madrid) and Doctor Peter Lynan (Oxford) have very kindly improved the English style of this book and Lucia Jones (Madrid) has also very kindly revised the additions . I am very grateful to Doctor Nicholas Hardwick (Sydney/Oxford) for his help in correcting the Greek texts and to Professor Ramon Martinez Fernandez of the Universities of Salamanca and Pamplona for the final revision of them. Mr. Emilio Garda Ruiz (Madrid) prepared the index locorum and Mr. Manuel Sanchez Mariana of the National Library Madrid has revised the whole book. Professor Alfonso Martinez Dfez of the University of Madrid helped in the elaboration of this work at an earlier stage . I am grateful to Doctor Jose Joaquin Caerols Perez of the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientfficas, Madrid , R. Martin Gomez, A. Martinez Moguerza and J.L. Moreno Perez, all of Madrid, as well as to Theodor Waibel (Konstanz) for help with the computer. Professor Juan Miguel Palacios Garda of the University of Madrid has very kindly gone throughout the whole work and Mr. William Clennell, M.A. (Oxon.), formerly Bodleian Library, Oxford, has helped me to clarify the conditions of copyright. Finally, I wish to express my deep gratitude to Mr. J.e. Gieben for admitting this work in the prestigious series Amsterdam Classical Monographs.

Jose Miguel Alonso-Niifiez

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD

7

INTRODUCTION

11

1.

The appearance of universal historiography in Greece: Herodotus

15

2.

Greek history and interest in Persia: Thucydides, Xenophon and Ctesias

27

Isocrates and the Panhellenic movement. The forerunner of universal historiography : Ephorus

35

The rise of Macedonia. Theopompus. Aristotle and his school: Aristoxenus and Demetrius of Pha1erum

43

The empire of Alexander and his historians. General historiography: Hieronymus of Cardia. The geographical expansion of historical knowledge: Timaeus and Megasthenes. Hellenism. Judaism: The Book of Daniel

53

The emergence of Rome. The shaping of universal historiography : Polybius

69

3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8.

Roman imperialism . Stoicism and universal historiography: Posidonius and Diodorus The Augustan empire and the historians of the Augustan epoch: Nicolaus of Damascus, Strabo, Pompeius Trogus and Dionysius of Halicarnassos

81

93

CONCLUSIONS

115

ApPENDIX A B C D

123 126 133 137

Chronology of authors and works Maps The structure of Pompeius Trogus' Historiae Philippicae The universal historians in the History of Historiography

BIBLIOGRAPHY

141

INDICES a. b. c. d.

143 145 148 150 153

Index of ancient authors Index of subjects Index of modem authors List of abbreviations

INTRODUCTION

From a methodological point of view we shall proceed by showing the evolution of the idea of world history through different authors before drawing general conclusions. Previous to the study of the authors and their writings on the subject, it must be pointed out that in order to consider a work as belonging to universal historiography it must have as its basis a universal conception of time and space in which the actor is mankind . In other words, universal historians, strictly speaking, are those who deal only with the history of mankind from the earliest times and in all parts of the world known to them. As we shall see, this is a process which took place gradually in historiography: universal historiography as such acquired its final shape in the time of Emperor Augustus. However, Polybius, though not concerned with the remote history of the past, created the pattern, but in terms of contemporary history. It must be noted that universal historiography did not emerge as a direct consequence of a philosophical school, but from the desire to narrate political facts. Therefore the increasing political connections, the wars and the diplomatic relations play an important role in the origins of universal historiography. It is clear that the perception of an expanding space is one of the roots of universal historiography. On this basis, historians have meditated about time, i.e., about the past of the different peoples living in that growing political space , and this reflection on the past is another root of universal historiography. In this space, man acted throughout the ages . As mankind did not operate in an isolated way but rather in a social context, the search for the political principles and constitutions which guided political life became an aim of the universal historian. Thus, appears the close association between political structure and historical narrative. From the study of universal historiography emerge two approaches: one which is more concerned with ethnic and cultural aspects, initiated by Herodotus in his historical work, and the other which is more interested in politics, Polybius being an example.

12

Neither Herodotus nor Thucydides, the greatest of the Greek historians, produced universal histories, but historical monographs: the war between the Persians and the Greeks was the subject of the former, the struggle between Athens and Sparta the theme of the latter. We must wait until the 4th century B.C. to trace the immediate origins of universal historiography, which we can associate with the teachings of Isocrates concerning the Panhellenic ideal, and the appearance of Macedonia as the first political power among the Greek states. Then under Alexander the expansion towards the East created a universal empire that disintegrated after a short lapse of time into the different Hellenistic monarchies, progressively conquered by Rome, which established in its tum a universal state that was completed with the conquests of Augustus.' , For the problem of universal history see S. MAZZARINO, II pensiero storico classico. Bari, 1966, II, 1, pp. 491-492 and now K. CLARKE , "Universal perspectives in Historiography", The limits of Historiography. Genre and narrative in ancient historical texts. Edited by C.S. KRAUS (Leiden, 1999), pp. 249-279. CLARKE has shown the questions of world history mainly applied to Diodorus, Pompeius Trogus and Strabo. For modem approaches to world history consult J.M. ALONSO-NUNEZ, El concepto de historia universal en el pensamiento contempordneo. Investigaciones sobre la historiografia universal en el siglo XX. Madrid, Ediciones del Orto, 1994. Since Greek historiography has not been preserved in its entirety two articles of two distinguished scholars must be consulted: H. STRASSBURGER, "Hinblick zum Trilmmerfeld d:r griechischen Geschichtsschreibung", Historiographia Antiqua. Commentationes Lavanienses in honorem W. Peremans (Leuwen, 1977), pp. 169-218 = Studien zur Alten Geschichte. Ed. by W. SCHMITTHENNER and R. ZOEPFFEL, vol. III (Hildesheim, 1990), pp. 169-218, and P.A. BRUNT, "On Historical Fragments and Epitomes", CQ N.S. 30 (1980), pp. 477-494 = J.M. ALONSO-NUNEZ, ed., Geschichtsbild und Geschichtsdenken im Altertum (Darmstadt, 1991), pp. 334-362, which is a classical article, and especially for our purpose because the texts of the universal historians of Antiquity have not been transmitted in their entirety . The remarkable book by J. MARINCOLA, Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography. Cambridge, 1997, should also be consulted. For the origins of Greek historiography see the innovative book by G.S. SHRIMPTON, History and Memory in Ancient Greece. MontreallKingston, Canada, 1997. For a valuable sketch of the succession of world empires see G.A. LEHMANN, "Weltherrschaft und Weltfriedensgedanke im Altertum", Mitteilungen der Technischen Universitiit Braunschweig 8 (1973), pp. 42-51. For an overview of Ancient Historiography see the excellent surveys of S. HORNBLOWER, "Historiography, Greek", OCD' (1996), pp. 714-715; K.S. SACKS, "Historiography, Hellenistic", OCD3 (1996), pp. 715-716 and C.B.R . PELLING, "Historiography, Roman", OCD3 (1996), pp. 716-717. As space and time are the basic categories for world history consult the important books by F. CORDANO, La geografia degli antichi. Bari, 19932 and the book by EJ. BICKERMAN, Chronology of the Ancient World, Ithaca, New York, 19802 • As the ancient historians saw different landscapes in today's geographical areas, historical geography has a certain relevance to the subject. Notwithstanding, it must be borne in mind that it is a different discipline from pure geography. For historical geography, consult the useful work by E. OLSHAUSEN, Einfiihrung in die historische Geographie der alten Welt. Darmstadt, 1991. For historical geography the work by M. CARY, The geographic background of Greek and Roman History. Oxford, 1949, offers a splendid panorama. Consult the excellent article by P. DESIDERI,

13

"Nascita e rinascita della storia universale antica", in Atti del Congresso Storiografia locale e Storiografia universale. Forme di acquisizione del sapere storico nella cultura antica (Bologna, 16-18, dicembre 1999). Como, 200 1, pp. 199-209, for the evolution of the concept of universal history.

1

THE APPEARANCE OF UNIVERSAL HISTORIOGRAPHY IN GREECE: HERODOTUS

17

PERSIA AND THE PERSIAN WARS

The Persian Empire is the last of a series of Oriental universal empires which started with Sargon of Akkad in the third millenium B.C. The monarchy of the Achaemenids was organized by Cyrus the Great in Iran about the middle of the 6th century B.C. into a powerful state, and Darius I (522486 B.C.) completed its organization. The Persian Empire had a unified political structure but with ethnic and cultural diversity; it was the most highly developed of all the Oriental empires. Expansionism was the dynamics of Persian imperialism. This was the power that the Greeks had to face. The Ionian revolt (498 B.C.), in which Herodotus was involved fighting against the tyrant of his native Halicamassos, was the start of the confrontation between the Persian Empire and the Greeks. This is also the time in which tyrants were brought down by democratic movements which together with the confrontation with the Persians gave rise among the Greeks to the idea of political freedom. The Persian Wars (490479 B.C.) were two attempts to subject the Greeks , but the Greeks triumphed over the Persians. These were the circumstances which stimulated Herodotus to write his Histories.

HERODOTUS

Herodotus, who obviously had predecessors who were the logographers, whose works were concemed with the description of coasts or with geneaologies, was the one who transformed history into a scientific entity. This corresponds to the transformation of the myth into the logos , which took place in Ionia at the beginning of the 5th century B.C. In the description of coasts and lands we have the base for the idea of space , whereas in the genealogies we find the notion of time. Herodotus of Halicamassos/ was a Greek from Caria, that is, from a region in the South-East of Asia Minor and, therefore, a point of contact

For further information on Herodotus see l.P.A. GOULD, "Herodotus", The Oxford Classical Dictionary' [henceforth OCD3] (1996), pp. 696-698. See also l.P.A. GOULD, Herodotus, London, 1989, and now R. BICHLER and R. ROLLINGER, Herodot. Darmstadt, 2000. For the ethnographic aspects of the work of Herodotus consult R. BICHLER, Herodots Welt. Der Aujbau der Historie am Bild der fremden Lander und Volker, ihrer Zivilization und ihrer Geschichte, Berlin, 2000 and R. THOMAS , Herodotus in Context. Ethnography, Science and the Art of Persuasion. Cambridge, 2000. One monograph on Herodotus' theology of history has been published recently. T. HARRISON, Divinity and History . The Religion of Herodotus. Oxford, 2000. See also the recently published collective work by N. LURAGHI (ed.), The Historian's Craft

2

18

between the Persian Empire and the Greeks. Herodotus was born at the beginning of the 5th century B.C., perhaps in 484 B.c., and he undertook to narrate the wars between the Greeks and the Persians, the so-called "Persian Wars". It seems that he died about 420 B.C. in Thurii, in Magna Graecia (South of Italy). His Histories were divided by the Alexandrian erudites of the Hellenistic epoch into nine books and considered by Diodorus Siculus, compiler of universal history at the end of the Roman Republic , as the forerunner of universal historiography: And among the historians, Herodotus, beginning before the Trojan War, wrote about almost every event in the inhabited world, in nine books, and continued the narrative up to the battle ofMicala, in which the Greeks fought against the Persian s, until the siege of Sestus (BH XI, 37, 6). According to Diodorus, Herodotus dealt with events before the Trojan War, of which the end is dated 1184 B.C. according to Erathostenes, and Herodotus' work continued until the battle of Micala, which took place in 478 B.C ., marking the end of the Persian Wars. Herodotus incorporated events in his work in the 420s B.C ., shortly before his death. Diodorus notes that the historical work of Herodotus was concerned with almost all the events (KOtVa /le'te/lEATjcrE 'tE crept 'tau'ta nouiooot Kat a1tEcr'tTjcraV a1tO ,1.apeiou· a1tocr'tav'te~ OE onioro Ka'tecr'tpaepTjcrav /laxu VtKTjSEv'te~. rete OE E1tt , Acr'tuayeo~ oi Ilepom te Kat 6 Kiipoq E1tavacr'tav'te~ roi crt Mnooun ~pxov 'to a1tO rourou 'tfl~ , Aoinc, ' Acr'tuayea OE Kopo; KaKOV OUOEV aAAO 1totTjcra~ eixe nop' EO)u't0, E~ 0 e-reA.eu'tTjcre. ou'tO) oil KupoC; yevo/levOC; re Kat 'tpaepdc; Kat E~acriA.eucre Kat Kpoioov iiorepov

Consult Erodoto. Le Storie. Volume I. Introduzione ASHERI. Vicenza, Fondazione Lorenzo Valla, 1988.

4

generale

di

David

23

'toll'tCJ)V &l?~av'ta aOt1d.ll~ lCa'tecr'tpe,!,a'to, O>~ e'ipll'tai. uoi nporepov. roirrov oE lCa'tacr'tpe,!,a/.levO~ OU'tO) 1tacr'Jl~ 'til~' Aoiru; ~p~e. I, 130 : Thus Astyages was deposed from his sovereignty after a reign ofthirty-five years: and the Medians were made to bow down before the Persians by reason ofAstyages' cruelty. They had ruled all Asia beyond the Halys for one hundred and twenty-eight years, from which must be taken the time when the Scythians held sway. At a later time they repented of what they now did, and rebelled against Darius; but they were defeated in battle and brought back into subjection. But now, in Astyagestime, Cyrus and the Persians rose in revolt against the Medes, and from this time ruled Asia. As for Astyages, Cyrus did him no further harm, and kept him in his own house till Astyages died. In an inscription to be dated after the conquest of Babylonia by Cyrus (539 B.C .)5, there appears the link of Cyrus with the old Mesopotamic royalty, considering himself "king of the four parts of the world". It reads: I am Cyrus, king of Babylonia , king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four parts of the world. Sargon of Akkad, who reigned from 2371 to 2316 B.C., was the first who, about the year 2350 B.C ., considered his kingdom as a world empire, though the title "king of the four parts of the world" does not appear until used by one of his successors, Naramsim (2291-2255 B.C.). The epigraphic evidence shows how Oriental peoples were aware of political domination over others. It is impossible to produce an overall chronology from the work of Herodotus, who drew for this purpose on his sources. In fact, he was interested in chronology only to a certain extent. But he had a point of reference, the Persian Wars, and he proceeded according to his sources and his own aims . What was important for him was the idea of succession, not the chronology. Actually the chronological framework is distinct from the context in which the idea of succession emerges. Therefore we concentrate on the idea of succession, leaving aside unnecessary chronological questions . It is this idea of succession of world powers which is crucial for the birth of universal historiography. In I 95 and I 130 Herodotus offered the oldest formula that we know of that succession.

F.H. WEISSBACH, Die Keilinschriften der Achiimeniden. Leipzig, 1911, pp. 2-8, esp. line 20 on pp. 4 and 5.

5

24

Herodotus understood the Persian empire as the power which was threatening the freedom of the Greeks, and therefore he became interested in the Persian empire as a world monarchy, and as a matter of course in the powers that preceded it. Herodotus saw the Persian empire as a continuously growing political organism . This growth explains the clash with the Greeks. As a clever and objective historian he saw the virtues of the Persians as well. It is obvious that he was interested in power, and in the concrete historical reality of the world power faced by the Greeks, i. e., the Persian empire. In his thought lies the fact that power always tends to expand and to dominate other powers. It should not be forgotten that he lived in the time of the conflict between Athens and Sparta, which made Greeks very conscious of disputes among powers. The Peloponnesian war marks a turning point in Greek history. The conflict between Athens and Sparta has an earlier parallel in the struggle between Athens and Persia . However, there is no evidence that Herodotus intended to warn Athens and Sparta. On the other hand, it is very difficult to know to what degree people were conscious of imperialism. It must be noted that when we speak about world empire or universal monarchy, we understand a universalist-minded policy from the standpoint of the political perspective of a civilization. When Herodotus looked for empires before the Persian one he traced the succession Assyria - Media - Persia. It must be noted that he did not include Egypt in the series, which brings out the Asiatic origin of the doctrine formulated by him. It must be emphasized that they are Asiatic empires, and that the central question in Herodotus is to show the contrast between Greece, i.e., freedom, and Persia, the last in the succession of world monarchies, and, at the same time, to show the opposition between free states and oriental despotism supported by slavery. The notion of the succession of world monarchies comes from the Orient, but Herodotus was the first to formulate it in Greek historiography. He drew on different sources and incorporated the elements into his own framework, with the aim of showing the rivalry between Persia and Greece. Persia is the last universal empire against which the Greeks must fight to defend their freedom. This was the main stimulus given to the search for the empires preceding the Persian . We find a parallel for Herodotus' periodization of history in the theory of the five world ages formulated by Hesiod in his Works and Days, vv. 106-201 (age of gold, age of silver, age of bronze, age of the heroes, age of iron), though the content is different.

25

However, the evidence given by Herodotus himself in II 53, asserting that he had read Hesiod, may point to a certain influence of the poet on the historian. Finally, it is interesting to realize how different was the reaction towards the Persian empire among Jews and Greeks: positive in the Jews, negative in the Greeks, because they were not accustomed to foreign domination, or dealing with foreign peoples in their mainland and surrounding isles. We can see that the rivalry between Persia and Greece, and also between Athens and Sparta in Herodotus' time, stimulated his research on power, which led to the formulation of his doctrine of the succession of world empires, since he wanted to inquire about the world powers preceding the Persian one, the adversary of the Greeks . Herodotus made an enormous effort to obtain his information, employing every type of source, and he must not be blamed at all for some inconsistencies in detail in geographical or ethnographical matters, or, even more, chronological matters. He had a clear concept in mind and developed it: this is the struggle between a world empire described as the last in the series of continental powers and the Greek city-state (1tOAu;), mainly represented by Athens. His theory of the succession of world empires is clearly formulated and properly inserted in the framework of his historical narrative . It has a political content. The basic fact is that the universal empires were built one after the other, and that there is always a personality around whom the world empire takes shape. Herodotus created with this theory an instrument for interpreting world history .6

See P. OSWALD, "Gedankliche und thematische Linien in Herodots Werk", GB 21 (1995) pp. 47-59, who interprets the Greek victory over the Persians as a return to the separation between East and West (p. 59); this means from this standpoint that history must be interpreted not in a universal sense. However, P. PAYEN, "Comment reporter a la conquete? Temps, espace et recit chez Herodote", REG 108 (1995), pp. 308-338 thinks that Herodotus inaugurates the tradition of Universal History (p. 309). For the influence of the work of Herodotus in Hellenistic Historiography see the stimulating article by O. MURRAY, "Herodotus and Hellenistic Culture", CQ N.S. 22 (1972), pp. 200-213.

6

2

GREEK HISTORY AND INTEREST IN PERSIA: THUCYDIDES, XENOPHON AND CTESIAS

29 ATHENS, SPARTA AND THEBES

After the Persian Wars , Athens becomes the hegemonic power in Greece (478-431 B.C.). This is the period of the Pentekontaetia, in which Athens took the leadership and exerted imperialism by means of the Delian League against which Sparta reacted as leader of the Peloponnesian League and provoked in this way the Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.). Athens is defeated and there is in Greece a succession of hegemonic powers : Sparta (404-371 B.C.) and Thebes (371-362 B.C.). In 378 B.C. Athens set up a Second Maritime Confederacy which was to last until it was dismantled formally after the creation of the League of Corinth . However, the Athenian sea-power continued until 322 B.C. when the Athenian fleet was annihilated by Macedonia in the battle of Amorgos. Paradoxically, and in spite of being defeated, Persia interferes in Greek political life because of the internal rivalries of the Greeks, who also took part in the internal conflict of the Persian empire. The attention of the historians turns from universal history to Greek history: Athenian imperialism, the Peloponnesian War, hegemonic cities. On the other hand, there is an interest in Persia due to the involvement of Persia in Greek politics as well as the presence of Greeks in the Persian Empire. In the view of Greek historians, hegemonic powers are an alternative to world empires and this is reflected in their works. The hegemonic powers exert their political control in a restricted area in opposition to world empires, which were trying to dominate over the known world. The historians after Herodotus confine themselves to Greek History. Such is the case of Thucydides and Xenophon. The idea of expanding space does not come up in the work of these authors, who focus on Greece as the central point. They are not concerned with universal history at all. Ctesias represents the interest in the history of the Persian Empire. Therefore we can detect that the interest in the history of the Orient from the time of Herodotus remains .

THuCYDIDES

Thucydides continued the historical narrative where Herodotus left off. In the History ofthe Peloponnesian War of Thucydides (ca. 460/55 - 400) we do not find elements of universal historiography, but a general history of Greece in the so-called "Archaeology" or "Ancient History of Greece" (I, 2-19), which finds an echo in the History of Ephorus since it is mainly

30

related to events in Greece. The purpose of Thucydides in the "Archaeology" was to offer an outline of Greek history in order to stress the importance of the Peloponnesian War, because it was, according to him, a world war among Greek peoples . There are two other "archeologies" in the work: one devoted to Attica (11,14-17) and the other to Sicily (VI,I -5).7 Needless to say, in Thucydides' historical work we see no traces of the doctrine of the succession of world empires , which is an instrument in the hands of the historians to interpret universal history in one way or the other, according to their purposes . In any case, we cannot expect a critical historian like Thucydides to pay attention to such atopic. 8

XENOPHON

The historical work of Thucydides was continued, among others , by Xenophon (ca. 430-355) in his Hellenica, where, as in Thucydides, we do not find the elements of universal historiography, but a history of the hegemonic powers in Greece: Athens - Sparta - Thebes, of which we can observe an echo at the beginning of the Histories of Polybius, when he speaks of world empires and hegemonies (1,2,3). The historical work Hellenica of Xenophon finishes in the year 362 B.C. just after Thebes lost the hegemony in the battle of Mantinea. In opposition to Thucydides, where Athens is at the centre of his work, in the Hellenica Sparta plays a more central role." 7 Consult J.M. ALONSO-NUNEZ, Die Archiiologien des Thukydides. Constance, 2000.

Edition by J. DE ROMILLY, Thucydide. La Guerre du Peloponnese. Texte etabli et traduit. Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1962- I972. 6 vols. For Thucydides consult S . HORNBLOWER , Thucydides . London, 1987, and the recent book by P. ROOD, Thucydides. Oxford, 1998. For a good comparison between Herodotus and Thucydides consult W. SCHULLER, "Die griechische Geschichtsbeschreibung der klassischen Zeit", in J.M. ALONSO-NUNEZ, Geschichtsbild und Geschichtsdenken im Altertum (Darmstadt, 1991), pp. 90-112 . Consult also S. HORNBLOWER, A Commentary on Thucydides. Oxford, 1st vol., 1991, 2nd vol., 1996; there is still a third volume to be published. Differing from Herodotus, Thucydides ' interpretation of history is a rationalistic one, but he was very well aware of the importance of religion. See the recent work by A. RUBEL, Stadt in Angst. Religion und Politik in Athen wdhrenddes Peloponnesischen Krieges. Darmstadt, 2000. 8

Edition by E.C. MARCHANT, Xenophontis Opera Omnia. I. Historia Graeca. Oxford, 1900. III. Expeditio Cyri. Oxford, 1904. On Xenophon see the recent books by J . DILLERY, Xenophon and the history of his time. London, 1995, and J.C .

9

31

The Anabasis, finished in 377 B.C., is a work pre-dating to the Hellenica. It is an account of the expedition of the Greek mercenaries to help Cyrus the Younger in his claim to the Persian throne against his older brother Artaxerxes II. Cyrus was defeated in the battle of Cunaxa (401 B.C.) and the Greeks had to retreat until they reached the Black Sea (399 B.C.). The work is obviously concerned with the military expedition of the Greeks in the Persian Empire, but there is plenty of ethnographic information which contributed to the Greek knowledge of the peoples of the Persian Empire.

CTESIAS

At the end of the 4th century B.C., Ctesias of Cnidus, who worked as a doctor at the court of Artaxerxes II, offered information on Persia in his

Ilepoucc and thus expanded the interest of Greek historiography in the East, though he had Herodotus as a predecessor. However, Ctesias is critical of Herodotus. The Ilepmxri started with Assyria and was followed by Media and Persia. In the historical work of Ctesias there appears the theory of the succession of world empires following the order Assyria, Media, Persia, as in Herodotus. 10 Diodorus, BH, II, I, 3 (= FGrHist 688 F 16)., informs us of the beginning of Ctesias' Persika: II, I, 3 : ' Ev 'tQ\J'tll 0' avaypa'l'0Jl£V

'to~ lCa'to TItV . Aoiov y£-

VOJlEVm; 1tpa~£tovtE~ xcr ' 6AW1ttaOa~ lCat OtatPOU VtE~ lCat' etO~ lCat crUylCpivovtE~ ElC 1tapapoAfi~ ta~ lCataUl)AOu~ e~ tii~ KapXT]Mvo~ aArocrEro~ lCat tii~ ' Axm rov xot ' Poxrc irov nepl tOV 'I crS~ov ~aXT]~, en oE tii~ E1ttYEvo~eVT]~ ElC routtov a1tOlCatacrtacrE~ 1tEpt tOU~ "EAAT]va~. XXXIX 8.5-6 : The time when Hannibal was entrusted with the Carthaginian forces, when Philip, son of Demetrius, succeeded to the throne of Macedonia (referring to Philip V who succeeded in 221 BiC), when Cleomenes of Sparta was exiled from Greece (refe rring to his flight to Egypt after the battle of Sellasia in 222 B.C.), and when Antiochus inherited the throne of Syria (referring to Antiochus III who succeeded in 223 B.c.), and Ptolemy Philopator that of Egypt (referring to Ptolemy IV who succeeded in 222 B.C.) I undertook to make afresh beginning from this date, i.e., the 139th Olympiad (224221 B.c.), and henceforth to deal with the general history of the whole world, classing it under Olympiads, dividing those into years and taking a comparative view ofthe succession of events until the capture of Carthage (146 B.c.), the battle ofthe Achaeans and Romans at the Isthmus (referring to this of Corinth), and the consequent settlement of Greece (146 B.C.). (Translation by W.R. Paton. The Loeb Classical Library)

Following Timaeus, Polybius sets out a chronological system based on Olympiads, and, in V 31.3-7, he offers an explanation of the arrangement of his materials according to Olympiads and synchronisms. Almost at the end of the work (XXXVIII 5-6) Polybius defends his synchronic way of narrating events. Attentionmust be paid to the fact that Polybius did not write world history from the origins of mankind, but thought of the universality of his work in terms of contemporary history. He became a universal historian because of the political circumstances in which he lived: the emergence of

74

the Roman Empire. The original plan of his work was, as mentioned above, to narrate the events of the fifty-three crucial years (220-168 B.C.), which go from the Hannibalic War to the overthrow of the Macedonian monarchy as a result of the battle of Pydna, after which Rome became the mistress of the world. Polybius was trying to explain to the Greeks why Rome became a world empire." The disappearance of the Macedonian monarchy was doubtless an enormous shock for the Greeks. It is absolutely essential to know what Polybius understood by the world subdued by the Romans. It consisted of the Hellenistic kingdoms, Carthage and some barbarians in the West involved in the affairs of Greeks, Romans and Carthaginians; in this sense must be understood the OtlCOU/lEVll that Polybius mentions in I 1.5 and III lA, i.e ., not as the whole world known to the Romans and which they controlled almost in its

entirety, as indicated by the political concepts apxi] (I 1.5) or Suvccreic (III 104). However, Polybius, and others before him, were aware of the existence of peoples beyond these confines, and of course since Herodotus the Greeks had been conscious that barbarian peoples had a historical past, reaching back beyond their contacts with the Greeks. In III 37.1-38.3, Polybius offers a picture of the world known to him in a geographic sense and therefore he employs the concept ri; . This section is important because it shows the geographic basis and outlook of his universal history. Further on, in III 59 .3, he says that thanks to the conquests and consequent political dominion of Alexander and the Romans, almost the whole world is known. Polybius expounds a geographic conception of the world as the space in which events take place, which is only to be found in two historians previous to him: Herodotus and Ephorus, which indicates that they are predecessors of the idea of world history. Another proof of Polybius' interest in geographic matters is that he devoted the whole of book XXXIV to this question. A feature of Polybius' historical work is the importance that he attaches to geopolitics. Polybius is the first universal historian offering a clear plan of his work, which has a real unity given by his subject: to narrate the emergence of the Roman world empire. It is possible to appreciate the progress accomplished in relation to Ephorus, who produced a history of the Greek world on the basis of individual histories of peoples. In I 5.1-2 and XXXIX 8, PoIybius states that he is continuing Timaeus' work from the 129th Olympiad See P. DEROW, "Historical Explanation: Polybius and his Predecessors", Greek Historiography, ed. by S. HORNBLOWER (Oxford, 1994), pp. 73-90.

56

75

(264-261 B.C.), taking as his point of departure the first landing of the Romans outside Italy, when they crossed into Sicily, which is very significant because it points to the first steps of Roman expansion. On the other hand, we have here the principle of the historia continua according to which, in the Classical World, a historian continued the narrative where the previous one left off. At 13.7-10 Polybius has made it clear that since the Greeks did not know Roman and Carthaginian history , he has written the two first introductory books , in order that his readers might understand better why the Romans became masters of the world. In III 1.8-3.9 Polybius expounds the scope of his work, which goes from the beginning of the Second Punic War (220 B.C.) until the end of the Macedonian monarchy (168 B.C.), and at III 4.5 he gives the reasons for extending the work until 146 B.C.: to relate and to judge the methods of universal rule employed by the Romans, which implies a moral attitude on the part of Polybius in relation to the growth of the Roman Empire. In III 32, 2-3, Polybius also emphasized the unity of his forty books. Moreover the action of the Romans promotes the unity of history (III 3,9). Polybius became a universal historian because he felt the unity of the historical process which had never came about prior to the 140th Olympiad (220-217 B.C.) (I 3.1). He thinks that earlier than this turning point events took place separately (I 3.3), but that from this Olympiad, history became a unified whole (13.4). Therefore this is the point of departure for Polybius (I 3.6). He places the convergence of events in the world (Italy - Greece Asia) in the 3rd year of the 140th Olympiad (218 B.C .) (IV 28.3-5). This convergence of events gives a 'teAOS to the history which is a very important step in relation to the lack of teleology of his predecessors. The ouu7tAOKl1 'trov 7tpa~€(J)v (V 31.4) produces a cr(J)~a'to€tol1S (I 3.4) of the historical process. The concept of somatoeides alluding to the unity of the historical process appears throughout. Further on, in V 105.3-10, he returns to the same thought that the interrelationship of events in Greece , Italy, Africa and Asia in the 3rd year of the 140th Olympiad (218 B.C.) produced universal politics and, consequently, a world historiography was needed, though it must be said that in order to emphasize the universal character of events, Polybius goes against the evidence. In V 33.4 he alludes to the fact that the interrelation of events produces universal history, and in IX 44.2 appears a new affirmation of the unity of world history. In Polybius there emerges a consciousness of the universality of the

76

historical process, which does not exist in previous historians. The convergence of facts produced an interrelation of events which created the conditions for writing a world history. Such was the task of Polybius. All this is what differentiates him from previous historians. According to Polybius (I 3.6), it was after the victory over the Carthaginiansin the Second Punic War, referring to the battle of Zama in the year 202 B.C., that the Romans decided to conquer the world, and further on he says (I 63.9) that they achieved world conquest after planning it and not by chance or by accident. In III 118.9 he states that thanks to their constitution and wise counsel the Romans defeated the Carthaginians and became masters of the world. Here the role that Polybius assigned to political constitutions must be stressed. Astonished by the Roman achievement, Polybius gives, at the beginning of the first book, a comparison (ouvxpiotc) of Rome with the empires of the past (I 2.1), introducing in this way his formulation of the succession of world empires with the purpose of stressing the importance of the Roman Empire in relation to previous powers (I 2.2-7). It must be underlined that Polybius did not go beyond the Persian empire. Moreover, Polybius mixes world empires and hegemonies of the Greek cities in the following paragraph: I 2.1-7 : . n~ 0' Ecrn 1tapaoo~ov Kat IlEya to 1tEP't 't'ilv TtIlEtEpav U1t08EO"tV 8EooPTllla, yevot't ' elV oih~ llaAtcrta, ellave~, Ei ta~ £A"-oytllO)tato~ trov 1tPOYEYEVTlllevrov Suvcoteuov, 1tEpt a~ oi cruyypaEt~ tOU~ 1tAEicrtou~ Otate8Etvtot AOYOU~, 1tapa~aAOtIlEV Kat cruyKpivatllEV 1tpO~ 't'ilv 'Proucirov UrtEpoxliv. elot 0' at 'rii~ nope~oAii~ a~tat Kat crUYKpicrEro~ autat. Ilepom Kata ttva~ KatpOU~ IlEYaATlv apXllv xcrexrnocvro Kat Suvccteiuv' aAA ' oorix«; £tOAIlTlcrav u1tEp~iivat tOU~ 'rii~ 'Aoio; opou~, ou IlOVOV UrtEp tii~ apxii~ aA"-a Kat 1tEP't creprov £KtVOUvEucrav. AaKEOatllOvtOt 1tOAAO~ alltcr~Tlti]craVtE~ Xpovou~ UrtEp 'rii~ trov 'EAAlivrov TtYEllovia~ , £1tEtoli no'r' exprirnccv, IlOAt~ EtT] OOOOEKa KatEtXOV au't'ilv aolipttOY. Mcxedovec 'rii~ IlEV Eupoo1tll~ ~p~av a1tO trov Kata tOV ' Aopiuv roncov £~ £1tt tOV "Icrpov 1tOtoIlOV, 0 ~paxu 1tavtEAro~ elV avEiTl Ilepo~ 'rii~ 1tPOEtPllIlEvll~ xoopa~' uerc OE toina 1tpocreAa~ov 't'ilv 'rii~ 'Aoir«; apxliv, KatoAucravtE~ 't'ilv trov Ilepomv Suvccteicv. ' AAA' Oll~ OUtOt, 1tAEicrtrov 06~avtE~ Kat tomov Kat 1tpayIlatrov YEvEcrSat KUptOt, to 1tOAU IlEPO~ aKllllv a1tEAt1tOV 'rii~ oixoulleVTJ~ aAAOtptOv. LtKEAia~ IlEV yap Kat Lapoou~ Kat At~Ull~

77

OUO . e7tE~aA.OVtO lCa9a7ta~ all to1~ e7ttyt oXllv lCa(tEA.t7tOU tfi~ autrov) ouvacrt 1tatpL VI , 4, 2 = C 288 : But it were a difficult thing to administer so great a dominion otherwise than by turning it over to one man, as to a father; at all events, never have the Romans and their allies thrived in such peace and plenty as that which was afforded them by Augustus Caesar, from the time he assumed the absolute authority, and is now being afforded them by his son and successor, Tiberius, who is making Augustus the model of his administration and decrees, as are his children, Germanicus and Drusus, who are assisting their father . As already said, Strabo belongs to the provincial elite satisfied with Augustus' achievement. At the end of the work (XVII, 3, 24-25 = C 839840) Rome is represented as the greatest empire that the world has ever seen; Strabo terminates his geographical work with a laus Romae and a description of the Roman Empire from an administrative point of view'?' , XVII, 3, 24

= C 839 : Tc IlE:V ouv IlEPTI tf\~ !CaS'

';Ila~ Ot!COUIlEVTl~

o'ihco Ota!Cet'tat· e1te\. o· oi ' PCOJlaiot tilv apia'tllv !Cat yVcoptllrota'tllv !CatEXouO'tV, a1tav'ta~ {)7tep~e~ATlIlEVOt tOU~ nporepov ,;yellova~, cOv IlVTtIlTlV iouev, a~tov oUl ~paXEcov !Cat 'to rounov eineiv. XVII, 3, 24

=C 839 : This, then, is the lay of the different parts of our

inhabited world; but since the Romans occupy the best and the best known portions of it, having surpassed all former rulers of whom we 101 F. LASSERRE, "Strabon devant I'Empire Romain", ANRW II, 30/1 (1982), pp. 867-896.

105

have record, it is worthwhile, even though briefly, to add the following account ofthem. It is clear that for the Greeks Rome is now the uncontested ruling power in the world.

POMPEIUS TROGUS

The universal historian of the Augustan epoch, Pompeius Trogus, expounded in his lost work, the Historiae Philippicael'" a theory of the world empires succession according to the scheme Assyria - Media - Persia - Macedonia and Rome opposed by the Parthians, which has been transmitted to us by means of an Epitome of Justin, an author who lived probably in the epoch of Septimius Severus , though the dating goes from the 2nd to the 4th century A.D. 103 The title of the work - Historiae Philippicae - can be explained because the subject of the work is the rise and decline of the Macedonian empire created by Alexander the Great. It has its roots in the expansionist policy of his father Philip II, and hence the title of the work. It finishes with the last successors of the Hellenistic monarchies. In contrast to Livy's tradition Trogus' perspective is universal. It is based on Greek and Hellenistic sources whereas Livius has a strong Roman standpoint. We have only Prologi of the original work; they are actually tables of contents .!" These Prologi allow us to discover the following structure in the lost Historiae Philippicae: the Orient and Greece (books 1-6), Macedonia (books 7-12), Hellenistic kingdoms (books 13-40), Parthia (books 41-42) , Early Rome, Liguria and Massilia (book 43), Spain and Carthage (book 44) . The Parthians are mentioned as an Oriental empire (lust . XLI, 1, 1):

102 Edition by O. SEEL of the Epitoma of Justin and of the Prologi of Pompeius Trogus. Stuttgart, Teubner, 1972. Edition of the fragments of Pompeius Trogus by O. SEEL. Leipzig, Teubner, 1956. 103 For the transmission of the text see L.D. REYNOLDS, "Iustinus", Texts ani Transmission. A survey of the Latin Classics (Oxford, 1983), pp. 197-199. 104 There is a very good translation into English by J.C. YARDLEY (American Philological Association. Classical Resources, Series No.3. Atlanta, Georgia, 1994).

106

XLI, 1, 1 : Parthi, penes quos velut divisione orbis cum Romanis facta nunc Orientis imperium est, Scytharum exules fuere. XLI, 1, 1 : Today the Parthians rule the East, the world being partitioned, as it were, between them and the Romans; but originally they were exiles from Scythia . (Translation of all the Latin texts by J.e. Yardley) The Parthians appear sharing the rule of the world with Rome and as descendants of the Scythians . It must be observed that here the Romans are not shown as absolute rulers, which is not very flattering for them, in opposition to the interpretation of the role of Rome offered by Nicolaus of Damascus , Strabo and Dionysius of Halicarnassos. The Roman empire was completed according to Trogus with the conquest of Spain by Augustus (lust. XLIV,S, 8), in which there is an echo of Augustan propaganda: XLIV ,S, 8 : Nee prius perdomitae provinciae iugum Hispani accipere potuerunt, quam Caesar Augustus perdomito orbe victricia ad eos anna transtulit populumque barbarum ac ferum legibus ad cultiorem vitae usum traductum in formam provinciae redegit. XLIV, 5, 8 : Complete subjection of the country, however, and the Spaniards' acceptance of the Roman yoke could not be achieved until Caesar Augustus, having conquered the rest of the world, turned his victorious arms on them and, bringing a wild and barbarous people to a more civilized way of life under the rule of law, gave them a regular provincial administration. The Historiae Philippicae, concluded between 2 B.C. and 9 A.D ., are the work of a Celt from Vasio (today Vaison-la-Romaine), who had access to Greek culture in Massilia.!" There are three elements reflected in Pompeius Trogus' work: he was a Celt by birth, he had a Greek education and he wrote in Latin. His sources were Greek historians, some Latin authors and 105 For the Gallic background and the romanization see C. GOUDINEAU, "Gaul", CAH 2 , X. The Augustan Empire, 43 B.C. - A.D. 69, edited by A.K. BOWMAN, E. CHAMPLIN, A. LINTOIT. Cambridge, 1996, pp. 464-502 and 1070-1081, and C. GOUDINEAU, "Gaul", CAH 2 • X. The High Empire, A.D. 70-192, edited by A.K. BOWMAN, P. GARNSEY, D. RATHBONE. Cambridge, 2000, pp. 462-495 and 10651075. Consult also the interesting book by G. WOOLF, Becoming Roman. The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul. Cambridge, 1998.

107

oral historiography. His work consisted of forty-four books with the subtitle totius mundi origines et terrae situs, i.e., a work with many ethnographical and geographical digressions. We know that Trogus also dealt with Botany and Zoology, which allows us to connect him with the teaching and writings of Aristotle and his school, who were very interested in these sciences. It must be said that for Trogus Rome did not represent by any means the centre of world history . This can be explained by his ideological mixture of Gallic patriotism and Hellenism. At the same time, there can be traced, in opposition to Livy, a certain anti-Romanism in Trogus, although he belonged to the elite of Gallia Narbonensis. Trogus explains history by means of fortuna and virtus. He also has a moralizing tendency in his work. According to Trogus, History runs from East to West. It is just the opposite notion to that of Strabo as already indicated . His geographic and ethnographic scheme is the following: Scythians in the North, Egyptians in the South, Indian in the East and Spaniards in the West. Mankind is for Trogus the actor of history , which is a Stoic idea. The periodization of history in Trogus is according to the succession of world empires and it was to have an enormous influence in the Middle Ages: Prologus libri I : Imperium Assyriorum a Nino rege usque ad Sardanapallum: post quem translatum est per Arbaeem ad Medos, usque ad ultimum regem Astyagem. Is a nepote suo Cyro pulsus regno, et Persae regno potiti. Prologue of the 1st book : The empire of the Assyrians lasted from king Ninus down to Sardanapallus, after whom sovereignty was transferred by Arbaees to the Medes, where it remained until their last king , Astyages. Astyages was drivenfram the throne by his grandson, Cyrus, and the Persians assumed power. The translatio imperii of the Oriental monarchies: Assyria, Media, Persia is mentioned in the Prologue. After Assyria, Media and Persia, Macedonia was the next universal empire as indicated here (lust. X, 3, 7): X, 3, 7 : Postremo vietus ab Alexandra et a eognatis oecisus vitam pariter cum Persarum regno finivit .

108

X, 3, 7 : But eventually he was defeated by Alexander and murdered by his own kinsmen, and with him died the empire ofthe Persians . The victory of Alexander over the last Persian king Darius III, nicknamed vulgarly Codomanus, was in the year 330 B.C. Consequently, the world monarchy was transferred to Macedonia. The limits of Alexander's empire were intended to coincide with those of the world (lust. X, 7, 4) : XII, 7, 4 : Post haec Indiam petit, ut Oceano ultimoque Oriente finiret imperium. XII , 7, 4 : Alexander now made for India, intending to establish the Ocean and the furthest limits of the Orient as the boundaries ofhis empire . At that time the sea, which was surrounding the earth , was considered as the end of the world. The aim of Alexander was to surpass the extension of previous universal empires. The following universal empire is Rome (lust. XXX , 4, 16): XXX, 4, 16: Sed Macedonas Romana Fortuna vieit. XXX, 4, 16: The Macedoniansfell before the fortunes ofRome. Trogus considers the battle of Cynoscephali (197 B.C.), in which Philip V of Macedonia was defeated by the Romans , as the turning point in the conquest of the Eastern Mediterranean space by Rome, which now practically controls the Mediterranean area. This is the following translatio imperii. The attribution of the triumph of Rome to Fortuna and not to virtus is not very positive for the Romans and indicates philohellenism and antiromanism on the part of Trogus. It must be put in the framework of the discussion between Greeks and Romans as to whether the Roman empire was the result oifonuna or virtus. The defeat and annihilation of the Macedonian monarchy as a result of the battle of Pydna (168 B.C.) made a tremendous impression on the Greeks, and the Hellenocentric orientated Universal History of Pompeius Trogus reflects this (lust. XXXIII, I, 7):

109

XXXIII, 1, 7 : Pridie quam proelium consereretur, luna nocte defecit, id portentum Perseo omnibus praesagantibus finemque Macedonici regni portendi vaticinantibus. XXXIII, 1, 7 : The night before the battle was to be fought, there was an eclipse of the moon, which all took to be a bad omen for Perseus, interpreting it as a portent ofthe end ofthe kingdom ofMacedon. The typical tendency to associate political events with portents of nature was very cornmon in Ancient Historiography. The next step in the destruction of the monarchies which came from Alexander's generals was the liquidation of the Syrian monarchy and its absorption by the Roman Empire in 63 BiC, (lust. XL, 2, 5): XL, 2, 5 : Atque ita Syriam in provinciae formam redegit, paulatimque Oriens Romanorum discordia consanguineorum regum factus est. XL, 2, 5 : Accordingly, Pompey reduced Syria to a province and, little by little, the East, through the quarrels ofits kings, who were all of the same blood, became the territory ofRome. Trogus is very conscious of the imperial expansion of Rome as well as of how this was facilitated by the rivalries of the Hellenistic kings. The last stage of the conquest of the Mediterranean world by Rome was the annihilation of the Egyptian monarchy of the Ptolemies (30 B.C.) as a consequence of its defeat in the battle of Actium (31 B.C.). Prologus libri XL : Ut successit eius regno soror Cleopatra, quae inligato in amorem suum M. Antonio belli Actiati fini extincxit regnum Ptolomaeorum. Prologue of the 40th book : Then there is an Cleopatra, succeeded him on the throne, Antonius in a love affair with her and how, battle ofActium, she brought the reign ofthe

account of how his sister, how she embroiled M. with the conclusion of the Ptolemies to an end.

This is really the end of the Historiae Philippicae, which were enlarged by Pompeius Trogus to include the history of the Parthians in books XLI and XLII since they were the real threat for Rome. Book XLIII devoted to

110

Early Rome and Massilia was written because Pompeius Trogus was a Roman citizen and was born in Vasio (Vaison-la-Romaine) not far from Marseille. Book XLIV is devoted to Spain because the conquest of the West was completed by Augustus there in the year 19 B.C. There is also a discussion in Trogus about the origins of civilization to investigate whether it was launched by Egyptians or by Scythians (lust. II, 1,5-21). This digression is in any case a topic in the literature of the Ancient World. 106

DIONYSIUS OFHALICARNASSOS The fact that Rome is considered as a partner of the Parthians in the dominion of the world shows a conflict of the Augustan epoch concerning the political superiority of Greeks, Romans and Parthians. The Parthians were the enemy in the East which threatened Classical civilization, and here the historian Dionysius of Halicarnassos must be placed (ca. 60 B.C. after 7 B.C.)107, as he intended to conciliate Greeks and Romans in his

Antiquitates Romanae ( . PCOllatKTJ apxatOAoyia) in 20 books. lOS This work covers the period from the foundation of Rome until the beginning of the First Punic War, i.e., the lapse of time which had not been treated by Polybius. '?" Dionysius of Halicarnassos came to Rome about the year 30 B.C., when the conquest of Egypt took place and the last dynasty coming from the generals of Alexander, the Lagids of Egypt, disappeared, which made an enormous impression on the Greeks. Dionys ius of Halicarnassos settled in Rome to teach rhetoric and remained there until approximately 7 B.C . when he completed his historial work . Dionysius showed the Greek origin of the Romans on the basis of the legends about the origins of Rome while searching for an agreement between Greeks and Romans. The work is a panegyric of Rome. Dionysius had a connection with the Roman aris-

106 For this autor see J.M. ALONSO-NUNEZ, La Historia Universal de Pompeyo Trogo. Coordenadas espaciales y temporales. Madrid, Ediciones Clasicas, 1992. 107 Suidae Lexicon. Edidit A. ADLER. ParsII. 1931 [Reprint: Stuttgart, 19671, p. 109, entrance 1171. lOS

Edition by C. JACOBY. Leipzig, Teubner, 1885-1925.5 vols.

109 E. GABBA, Dionysius and the Histo ry ofArchaic Rome . Berkeley, 1991.

111

tocracy and he symbolizes the fusion of the Greek culture with the Roman one.'!" In Dionysius' historical work, for which elaboration he used, apart from Greek historians oral information and Latin sources as well (AR, I , 7, 3), there appears the theme of the succession of universal empires, which is the key-point of the interpretation of universal history as already mentioned. The preface was written by Dionysius at the end of the composition of his work (AR, I, 3, 4 and I, 7, 2) although placed at the beginning. According to Dionysius (AR, 2, 2-4) the Roman empire is the largest and has retained the hegemony during a much longer time than the others, to which Dionysius of Halicarnassos applies Greek political terminology. The succession of the empires formulated by Dionysius of Halicarnassos is the following: Assyria, Media, Persia, Macedonia, Rome, AR I, 2, 2-4 : I, 2, 2-4 : i] ~EV yap ' Aooupi cov apxl,1taA.ata ru; oucra lCat ei~ 'tOU~

oAiyou nvo~ ElCPO't'l1cre 'tii~ 'Aoio; i] liE Ml1otlCl, lCaSeAoucra 'ti]v' Acoupirov lCat ~eH~ova ouvacr'tdav 1tept~aAO~eVl1 Xpovov ou 1tOAUV lCa'tEcrxev, aU' E1tt 'tii~ 'te'toP't'l1~ lCa'teAUSl1 yevea~. Ilepom OE oi MrlOo~ lCa'tay