The Original Verses of Apollodorus' Chronica: Edition, Translation and Commentary on the First Iambic Didactic Poem in the Light of New Evidence 3110703386, 9783110703382

Citation preview

Kilian Fleischer The Original Verses of Apollodorus’ Chronica

Sozomena

Studies in the Recovery of Ancient Texts Edited on behalf of the Herculaneum Society by Alessandro Barchiesi, Robert Fowler, Dirk Obbink and Nigel Wilson

Volume 19

Kilian Fleischer

The Original Verses of Apollodorus’ Chronica Edition, Translation and Commentary on the First Iambic Didactic Poem in the Light of New Evidence

ISBN 978-3-11-070338-2 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-070372-6 ISSN 1869-6368 Library of Congress Control Number: 2020939688 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

| Carla Maria Fleischer

Contents Praefatio | X

Part 1: Introduction  1

Overview of this monograph: motivation, scope and structure | 3

2 2.1 2.2

The biography of Apollodorus of Athens | 7 State of the art – Sources and evidence from the Chronica | 7 Echoes of Apollodorus’ biography in the original verses of the Chronica? | 13 A new reading: Apollodorus as Philo of Larissa’s teacher in Athens (120–118 BC) | 16 Did Pseudo-Scymnus know Apollodorus personally or might they even be the same person? | 22 Overview of Apollodorus’ biography and works | 23

2.3 2.4 2.5 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2

Apollodorus’ Chronica – Content, reception, book division, publication date(s), dedication | 25 Content of the Chronica | 25 Apollodorus’ method and sources | 26 The Chronica – model(s) and afterlife | 27 Book division of the Chronica and the 4th book | 32 In what year did the 3rd book end and the 4th book begin? | 33 The end date of the 4th book of the Chronica – a tricky question with certain consequences | 40 Attalus II as addressee of the Chronica (books 1–3) and the Attalids-Academy connection | 52 Addressee and character of the 4th book | 56 Overview of the Chronica | 58 The Chronica as the first iambic didactic poem – innovation, metrical analysis, vocabulary and style, reception | 60 Apollodorus as the inventor of the iambic didactic poem – the birth of a new “subgenre” | 60 The comic trimeter – metrical analysis of the preserved verses | 65

VIII | Contents

4.3 4.4 4.5 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5

Lexical and stylistic features of the verses | 86 Iambic didactic poems after the Chronica and their influence on literature | 90 Overview of the “Chronica as didactic poem” | 93 The 109 original verses with new readings: History of the Academy and various other topics | 95 Sources of the verses and general content | 95 The 87 verses on the Academy in the Index Academicorum – structure and content | 96 The 87 verses on the Academy in the Index Academicorum – much unique information | 101 The 87 verses on the Academy in the Index Academicorum reedited (21–107) – What’s new? | 102 The personal names, ethnica and places mentioned in the preserved verses | 104

Part 2: Edition with translation and commentary  6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7

Preface to the edition | 111 Arrangement of the 109 verses, apparatus and translation | 111 Criteria for including verses in the collection | 112 The new edition of the 87 verses from the Index Academicorum | 113 Editions used for the other 22 verses (Stephanus, Diogenes Laertius and Aulus Gellius) | 116 Prior editions of the original verses from the Chronica and research | 117 Concordance | 119 Scholars mentioned in the apparatus (in alphabetical order) and conspectus signorum | 123

7

Edition with translation | 125

8

Commentary | 148

Contents | IX

Part 3: Diplomatic transcript and images  9

Diplomatic transcript with trace description, HSI, MSI and disegni (Index Academicorum) | 227

Part 4: Index nominum et verborum 10

Index of the verses of the Chronica | 275

Bibliography | 287 Index | 295 General Index | 295 Index locorum | 299

X | Praefatio

Praefatio Arma virumque cecinit versibus heroicis ille notus vates et celeberrimus princeps poetarum Latinorum, quos omnes studiosi mirantes non ignorant. Plures autem omnino eruditi ignorare videntur primum modis iambicis factum carmen docens legentes, in quo Apollodorus Atheniensis quasi etiam arma virosque cecinit. Illud latum carmen docens celebratissimum historiam mundi totius a deletione Troiae opulentae usque ad dies Apollodori ipsius in lingua Graeca eleganter copiose diserte exponens Chronica inscriptum est. Apollodorus, cui cognomen propter opera grammaticus est, carmen docens iambicis versibus modulari coepit, cum rite priores poetae docentes Hesiodum imitantes heroicos versus praeposuissent; innumerabiles auctores Latini et Graeci id opus magnum Apollodori in quattuor voluminibus singulis consistens scrutati solum illas partes tradiderunt, quae suis excerptis usui fuerunt. Nihilominus plerique eorum versus iambicos Chronicorum requisitos, quamvis elegantes et dictioni prosaicae similes et haudquaquam suavem narrationem factorum perturbantes, in rebus historicis explicandis non utiles esse censuerunt aliis causis accedentibus, ut solum pauci versus veri et statu incorrupti ad tempora nostra transmitterentur. Permulti illorum versuum Chronicorum in papyro Herculanensi auctore Philodemo vitas et nomina virorum horum olim praestantium Academiae nobis praebente servati sunt, quae nunc retegentibus invisibilia machinis planius legi et melius transcribi potest. Versus operis etiam in aliis scriptoribus reperiuntur. Numquam editor nostrae aetatis non rudes versus reliquos collegit, edidit, in linguam hodiernam traduxit atque illustrans annotavit, etiamsi non dubium est, quin versus quidem Chronicorum, carminis docentis iambici primi, occupatione laboribusque digni sint. Qua de re omnibus versibus relictis studens eum librum in publicum producere ausus sum; reprehenderer, si ulterius loquerer. Hic enim non locus disserendi de Chronicis, utilitate versuum, Apollodoro et auctoribus aliis est, de quibus lingua Britannica melius tractetur, sed collegis me in scribendo libro adiuvantibus gratiam agendi. Primum mentionem professoris egregii Robert Fowler, emeriti universitatis Bristoliensis et editoris seriei Sozomena auctoritate societatis Herculanensis (Herculaneum society) auspicatae facere decet, qui utilia sagaci mente suadens librum in statum meliorem redegerit. Deinceps Nigel Wilson, philologi Oxoniensis nobilissimi et amici per multos annos honesti, oblivisci nefas esset, praesertim cum eum librum aliis editoribus proponeret et semper mihi subsidio esset. Etiam Dirk Obbink, editor et papyrologus, non silentio praetereundus est, qui magna benevolentia me saepe in universitate Oxoniensi morantem memor amicitiae papyrologorum suppeditavit et sponsor collegio medio Aedis Christi (GCRChCh) pro tempore adiunxit. Denique professoribus Tobias Reinhardt et Jeffrey https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110703726-203

Praefatio | XI

Fish semper mihi faventibus et non minus consilia bona dantibus quam Benjamin Henry vel Michael McOsker gratus sum. Gratia studiosis Britannice divulgantibus relata philologi Italia nati addantur, qui diversis modis conficiendum librum auxerint. Maxima laude et gratia efferendus est familiaris et papyrologus Herculanensis Graziano Ranocchia nuper professor Pisae advocatus, qui mihi biduum (2016–2018 – Marie Curie-Fellowship) papyrum Philodemeam Apollodori versus continentem Neapoli exploranti paene cottidie conveniens papyrologicas quaestiones etiam ad Chronica pertinentes disputavit. Valde laetor priorem editorem Philodemi Indicis Academicorum, praestantissimum professorem Tiziano Dorandi, mea studia sine ira et studio adhortatum esse et perpetuo profuisse. Item Enzo Puglia, de papyrologia Herculanensi bene meritus et peritus, varias novas lectiones acuta mente coniecit et mihi communicavit. Postremo Christian Vassallo, professor et necessarius, auxilii causa et studiosi institutionis CISPE, pro quibus professor Francesa Longo Auricchio nominata sit, memorentur. Conlaudatis eis hominibus externis etiam Almae Matri Iuliae Herbipolensi officium iucundum meum nunc gratias agere aestimo, quae me ut altera mater lactans per multos semestres cibo sapientiae nutrivit. Ad quam mihi nuper redire licuit, ut papyrum Indicis Academicorum et collectionem versuum Chronicorum ederem (DFG-Projekt). Vero non erat mihi una alma mater, sed potius complures gnari almi patres, qui alii aliis modis semina eius libri sparserunt vel fructibus insitis crescendis affuerunt. Professor emeritus Michael Erler, pater dissertationis et vir praeclarus, in primo loco memoriae tradatur, deinde excellentes veterani duo Herbipolenses Holger Essler, qui versus restitutos recensuit, et Jan Hessler; instituti professores ordinarii Thomas Baier et Christian Tornau frequenter multa disceptantes non praetermittendi sunt. Denique professor Jürgen Hammerstaedt ingeniosus papyrologus Coloniensis praedicari opportet. In libro expoliendo et accomodando Marcel Moser diligentia eximia mihi subvenit, item Tobias Dänzer non defuerunt sicut Sebastian Schmidt. Maxime delector versatum professorem novum Graecarum litterarum universitatis Herbipolensis Jan Stenger mentorem ordinarium factum mihi mea studia Indicis Academicorum, qui maiorem partem traditorum versuum habet, in habilitationem perducere petenti consulere. Quid aliud restat? Scilicet matri patri fratri propter caritatem opemque gratiam habere volo. Paulo ante librum versuum Apollodori genui, uxor fratris mei parvulam filiam genuit, cui liber dedicatus est, ut quasi scientia nova vitae novae iungatur. Kilian J. Fleischer Dabam Herbipoli Mense Iunio MMXX

1 Overview of this monograph: motivation, scope and structure The Chronica of Apollodorus of Athens preserves valuable and often unique information about several ancient figures and events. It covers the years from the fall of Troy (1184/83 BC) to Apollodorus’ own day (late 2nd century BC), and it became a highly influential and exemplary chronographic reference work right from its publication. Ancient authors drew upon it for a variety of reasons. Somewhat unexpectedly for a work with a chronographic content, the Chronica was composed in iambic trimeters and represents the first iambic didactic poem ever written. It was soon excerpted and re-modelled into (shortened) prose versions by later authors, so that many fragments no longer reflect the original rendering and peculiarities of the Chronica; for instance, Apollodorus’ original archon dating was transferred into Olympiad-style dating. Most scholars may know Apollodorus’ Chronica from the frequent mentions in Diogenes Laertius. Although the Chronica represented a universal history, because of its mode of transmission a disproportionately high number of the fragments deal with philosophers. Jacoby (1902) collected the fragments of the Chronica in his groundbreaking monograph Apollodors Chronik and subsequently embedded an updated and revised version of these fragments in his monumental Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 1929 – part II b. (§ 244 Apollodorus, Χρονικά = F 1–82 and 331–351). Recently, Williams presented a respectable updated version of this material in Brill’s New Jacoby (2018 – online), though with some shortcomings as regards the verse fragments. Whereas Jacoby adopted a strictly chronological approach in his monograph (1902), in accordance with the FGrH system he applied a different rationale in 1929 and distinguished between fragments with explicit references to books, ones with explicit references to the work, and only assigned fragments. As brilliantly and skillfully written as these two editions or collections may be, two major problems or disadvantages cannot be ignored. First, Jacoby (and consequently Williams) does not systematically distinguish between original (verse) fragments and (paraphrased) prose excerpts from the Chronica. One must browse the monographs in their entirety in order to assemble the original verse fragments, which makes it very difficult both to get a complete picture of the original Chronica as a didactic poem and to understand Apollodorus’ presentation of chronographic information and his peculiar style and working method. A collection of the original verses would enable a comparison with other Hellenistic didactic poems and would fulfill scholarly desiderata https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110703726-001

4 | Overview of this monograph: motivation, scope and structure

of various kinds, whether historical and philosophical or philological and literary-critical ones. Secondly, of the 109 original verses taken into account for my collection, around 87 stem from a faithfully copied excerpt of the Chronica which the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus of Gadara integrated into a draft version of his “History of the Academy” (Index Academicorum – PHerc. 1021, excerpt in col. 26–32). Not surprisingly, these verses deal with Academic philosophers. Their textual basis has dramatically changed since Jacoby’s time. My new comprehensive edition of the Index Academicorum will increase the amount of text by about 20% (several hundred new words) compared to the previous edition by Dorandi (1991). Dorandi’s text had already provided many improvements over Mekler (1902), which was the edition used by Jacoby. The enormous textual progress made since the publication of Dorandi's edition is due to new imaging techniques (Multispectral Images (MSI) and additionally Hyperspectral Images (HSI), taken in 2018 for this papyrus only), a careful autopsy of the papyrus with a high-powered microscope in Naples (2016–2018), and the application of cutting-edge editing methods. The textual progress also concerns the verses from the Chronica. About 15 out of the 87 verses are either fully legible for the first time or have been substantially improved; roughly another 20 verses have undergone significant changes. These new readings often reveal new facts about Academic philosophers. The improvement of the verses and other new readings in the corresponding prose versions, transmitted by Philodemus, now afford a better understanding of the structure and the rationale of the Apollodorus excerpt in Philodemus’ Index Academicorum. They are also relevant for the dating of the Chronica and the life of Apollodorus. After Jacoby’s admirable and scrupulous studies, whose basis was laid by Diels (1876), not much work was done on the Chronica. However, it is worth mentioning a little-known booklet by Dorandi (1982a), who collected only the verses copied into the Index Academicorum, adding a short introduction and commentary. While less comprehensive in scope than the present book, Dorandi’s almost forgotten publication has inspired, as it were, this new collection of all the original verse fragments. Dorandi's 1982 book was later superseded by his comprehensive edition of Philodemus’ Index Academicorum (1991). Benedetto Bravo (2009) made some minor suggestions regarding a couple of verses in his monograph La Chronique d’ Apollodore et le Pseudo-Skymnos, though without resorting to MSI or an autopsy of the papyrus in Naples. Apart from these studies, Apollodorus’ biography and the Chronica were only touched upon en passant, predominantly in several studies on the so-called Pseudo-Scymnus. I myself have published some newly reconstructed verses of the Chronica or related passages

Overview of this monograph: motivation, scope and structure | 5

in several articles over the last few years. Williams (2018) dealt with the verse fragments in the context of her updated version of Jacoby FGrH 244 (1929). She used Dorandi’s edition and did not really add much of substance to Jacoby’s comments on the verses. Ultimately, there are two good reasons that support the publication of a collection of the original verse fragments of Apollodorus’ Chronica. On the one hand, we have no collection bringing together only the original verses, so as to provide easy access to the genuine Chronica, as originally drafted by Apollodorus, and thereby facilitate a contextualization or comparison with other (iambic) didactic poems. On the other hand, the original verses are now very different, in textual terms, from those Jacoby/Williams could rely on for their editions. The collection of the verse fragments of the Chronica will be framed by a thorough commentary and an exhaustive yet accessible introduction, which will provide readers with avenues for further research. The book shall serve as an independent supplement and update to Jacoby’s (Williams’) collections of the fragments of the Chronica and as a resource complementing my forthcoming editio maior of Philodemus’ Index Academicorum. Part I of the volume is a comprehensive introduction to Apollodorus, the Chronica, iambic didactic poetry and the newly discovered evidence. After a short general section on the scope and structure of the collection (1), Apollodorus’ biography is reconsidered in the light of new discoveries (2). Next follows a discussion of the general content, the publication dates for the individual books, the division of the Chronica into books, the dedication(s) and other aspects (3). Space is given to the importance of the Chronica as the first Iambic didactic poem, and an extensive metrical analysis of the surviving verses is provided, along with a discussion of lexical and stylistic issues (4). Finally, the content of the 109 verses preserved is assessed, with particular emphasis on the excerpt in the Index Academicorum (87 verses). The new edition provides many new “hard facts” on Academic philosophers, which are summarized, before offering some additional information on the verses (5). Part II (edition with translation and commentary) features the actual edition of the verses, which includes a translation. After a short methodological preface including a table of concordances with several collections (6), the original verse fragments from the Chronica are given in chronological order (numbered from 1 to 109). Throughout the book the references to the verses are printed in bold. Supplementary information will indicate where to find the original verses, from which book of the Chronica they derive, and whether they directly followed one

6 | Overview of this monograph: motivation, scope and structure

another in the Chronica. An apparatus criticus will be found below the verses and a reference to parallel passages and modern collections below the translation (7). The comprehensive commentary on the verses (a major feature of the book) immediately follows the edition (8). In part III (diplomatic transcript and images) the papyrological-palaeographical basis for the many new readings is given in a kind of appendix (9). This presents a diplomatic transcript of col. 26–32 of the Index Academicorum with description of traces, HSI, MSI and disegni (Oxford disegni and Neapolitan disegni). Part IV (index nominum et verborum) includes an index for the original verse fragments of the Chronica (10).

2 The biography of Apollodorus of Athens 2.1 State of the art – Sources and evidence from the Chronica The biographical information on Apollodorus of Athens, who is occasionally referred to as “Apollodorus the grammarian”, mainly derives from two sources: an entry in the Suda (FGrH 244 T 1 – see below) and the proem of the so-called Pseudo-Scymnus (FGrH 244 T 2 – see below). To some extent, however, the reconstruction of Apollodorus' biography depends on the publication dates for the Chronica (books 1–3) and its addendum (book 4). To determine these dates, the original verse fragments quoted in Philodemus’ Index Academicorum are essential. However, the verses can only be adequately understood if they are linked to the corresponding (parallel) prose version in the Index Academicorum. To infer the publication dates of the versions (books) of the Chronica and thereby infer a chronological frame of reference for Apollodorus’ biography, it is necessary to analyze which prose version depends on the Chronica and to what extent. The restoration or improvement of several verses of the Chronica and of the related prose versions in the Index Academicorum now afford a much deeper understanding of the structure of Philodemus’ excerpt from Apollodorus and thereby a better hypothesis for the probable book division. Let us start with the biographical information on Apollodorus, which scholars commonly regard as certain or practically certain.1 It is based on the following two testimonies. Suda = FGrH 244 T 1 Ἀσκληπιάδου, γραμματικὸς, εἷς τῶν Παναιτίου τοῦ Ῥοδίου φιλοσόφου καὶ Ἀριστάρχου τοῦ γραμματικοῦ μαθητῶν, Ἀθηναῖος τὸ γένος· ἦρξε δὲ πρῶτος τῶν καλουμένων τραγιάμβων. Apollodoros. Son of Asklepiades, a grammarian, one of the students of the philosopher Panaitios of Rhodes and of Aristarchos the grammarian. He was an Athenian by birth. He first began what are called tragiamboi. Translation: Williams (2018)

|| 1 For Apollodorus’ biography and his works see Jacoby (1902), pp. 1–9; Pfeiffer (1968), pp. 252– 266; Dorandi (1989a), pp. 271–274; Montanari (1996); Matthaios (2014), pp. 542–544. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110703726-002

8 | The biography of Apollodorus of Athens

Ps.-Scymnus 16–49 = FGrH 244 T 22 16

ἔστι δ’ ἃ γράφω τοιαῦτα. τοῖς ἐν Περγάμῳ βασιλεῦσιν, ὧν ἡ δόξα καὶ τεθνηκότων παρὰ πᾶσιν ἡμῖν ζῶσα διὰ παντὸς μένει, τῶν Ἀττικῶν τις γνησίων τὲ φιλολόγων,

20

γεγονὼς ἀκουστὴς Διογένους τοῦ Στωϊκοῦ, συνεσχολακὼς δὲ πολὺν Ἀριστάρχῳ χρόνον, συνετάξατ’ ἀπὸ τῆς Τρωϊκῆς ἁλώσεως χρονογραφίαν στοιχοῦσαν ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν βίου. ἔτη δὲ τετταράκοντα πρὸς τοῖς χιλίοις

25

ὡρισμένως ἐξέθετο, καταριθμούμενος πόλεων ἁλώσεις, ἐκτοπισμοὺς στρατοπέδων, μεταναστάσεις ἐθνῶν, στρατείας βαρβάρων, ἐφόδους περαιώσεις τε ναυτικῶν στόλων, θέσεις ἀγώνων, συμμαχίας, σπονδὰς, μάχας,

30

πράξεις βασιλέων, ἐπιφανῶν ἀνδρῶν βίους, φυγὰς, στρατείας, καταλύσεις τυραννίδων, πάντων ἐπιτομὴν τῶν χύδην εἰρημένων· μέτρῳ δὲ ταύτην ἐκτιθέναι προείλετο, τῷ κωμικῷ δὲ, τῆς σαφηνίας χάριν,

35

εὐμνημόνευτον ἐσομένην οὕτως ὁρῶν. τὸ δ’ ὅμοιον ἔλαβεν εἰκάσας ἐκ τοῦ βίου· ὥσπερ γὰρ εἴ τις ἀναλαβὼν θέλοι φέρειν ξύλων λελυμένων πλῆθος, οὐκ ἂν εὐχερῶς τούτων κρατήσαι, δεδεμένων δὲ ῥᾳδίως·

40

οὕτω λελυμένην λέξιν ἀναλαβεῖν ταχύ οὐκ ἔστι, τῷ μέτρῳ δὲ περιειλημμένην ἔστιν κατασχεῖν εὐσκόπως καὶ πιστικῶς· ἔχει γὰρ ἐπιτρέχουσαν ἐν ἑαυτῇ χάριν,

|| 2 The text follows the edition of Marcotte (2000). Other monographs on Pseudo-Scymnus with German translations: Korenjak (2003); Boshnakov (2004). A comparison between Apollodorus’ Chronica and the work of Pseudo-Scymnus is provided by Bravo (2009).

State of the art – Sources and evidence from the Chronica | 9

ὅταν ἱστορία καὶ λέξις ἔμμετρος πλεκῇ. 45

κεῖνος μὲν οὖν κεφάλαια συναθροίσας χρόνων εἰς βασιλέως ἀπέθετο φιλαδέλφου χάριν, ἃ καὶ διὰ πάσης γέγονε τῆς οἰκουμένης ἀθάνατον ἀπονέμοντα δόξαν Ἀττάλῳ

49

τῆς πραγματείας ἐπιγραφὴν εἰληφότι. This is what I write about. For the kings in Pergamon, whose reputation remains completely alive among all of us even though they are dead, someone who was one of the genuine Attic scholars (20) and was a student of Diogenes the Stoic, and studied for a long time with Aristarchus, composed a chronography beginning from the Fall of Troy and continuing until the present day. One thousand and forty years (25) are set out, marked by discrete periods, recounting the captures of cities, movements of armies, migrations of peoples, campaigns of barbarians, attacks and crossings of naval fleets, arranging of games, alliances, treaties, battles, (30) deeds of kings, lives of illustrious men, exiles, expeditions, downfalls of tyrants, an abridgment of all that had been reported without order. He preferred to set this forth in meter, in comic meter, for the sake of saphēneia (speaking clearly), (35) seeing that it thus would be an aid to memory. He took the material of his simile from life. As when someone wants to pick up and carry a large number of loose bits of wood, he will have problems, but will do it easily if the wood is tied together, (40) so it is not possible quickly to grab hold of words which are untied, but words which are held together by meter can be grasped firmly and truly. Charm runs over a work when it combines historical research and rhythmical language. (45) Accordingly, he gathered together the chief points of periods of time and set them down for the pleasure of King Philadelphos; and those events conveyed immortal renown to Attalos throughout the whole world since he received the honor of the treatise. Translation: Williams (2018-adapted)3

Other biographical testimonies collected by Jacoby (1929–FGrH 244 T 3–9) and the introduction to some fragments confirm Apollodorus’ prominence in antiquity, but do not add much of substance to the picture.4 Jacoby (1902) has settled the case of the identity of the person(s) mentioned in T 1 and T 2 once and for all. He has convincingly demonstrated that the individuals referred to by the Suda and Pseudo-Scymnus must be identical (Apollodorus).5 In his proem Pseudo-

|| 3 For the translation of vv. 37–44 she follows Hunter (2006), p. 134. 4 Jacoby (1929). An updated version in Williams (2018). In particular, nowadays Crönert’s socalled “Stoiker-Inschrift“ (T 3) is deemed not to refer to the Stoics: see Haake (2007) – not discussed by Williams (2018). 5 Jacoby (1902), pp. 2–9.

10 | The biography of Apollodorus of Athens

Scymnus (T 2) undoubtedly alludes to the Chronica and characterizes Apollodorus as a truly accomplished philologist from Attica, who was at some point a pupil of the Stoic scholarch Diogenes of Babylon and of the famous Alexandrian grammarian Aristarchus of Samothrake. This information conflicts with the Suda (T 1) article, inasmuch as a discipleship under both Panaetius and Diogenes is hardly possible. Diogenes of Seleucia (early/mid-2nd century – shortly before 150 BC)6 and Panaetius of Rhodes (129–110 BC) were both scholarchs of the Stoa, but did not succeed each other. Antipater of Tarsus was in charge of the Stoa between the two philosophers mentioned (shortly before 150 – 129 BC). Considering that Apollodorus was a pupil or rather a kind of assistant (συνεσχολακὼς)7 to Aristarchus (ca. 216–144/43 BC)8 and that he seems to have left Alexandria for Pergamon at the time of the persecution of intellectuals – including Aristarchus – which took place in Alexandria during the rise to power of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II in the year 145/44 BC, it is rather unlikely that he ever attended Panaetius’ lectures. Yet, it seems that the Suda information is based on actual ties between Apollodorus and Panaetius. A passage in Philodemus’ Index Stoicorum reads as follows:9 Phld. Ind. Stoic. (PHerc. 1018), col. 69, 3–5 = FGrH 244 T 5a (Dorandi) ὁ δ̣ὲ Παν̣α̣[ί]τιος | καὶ τὸν γραμμα̣τ̣[ικ]ὸν |5 Ἀ]πολλόδωρον ἀπ[ 5 ἀπ[εδέχετο Comparetti

ἀπ[εδέξατο Gomperz

The supplement of the verb ἀπ[εδέξατο, meaning in this context “receive hospitably/favorably”, is indeed likely, and to the parallels brought up by Jacoby10 one may add a new reading in Philodemus’ Index Academicorum from which it

|| 6 With reference to Cic. De senect. 23 it is commonly assumed that Diogenes died before 150 BC. However, Dorandi’s (1999) alternative dating (140s) is arguable. He rightly points out that otherwise Mnesarchus, listed as pupil of Diogenes (Phld. Ind. Stoic. col. 52), would have been very old when teaching Antiochus (Dorandi (1999), p. 41). For final confirmation that Mnesarchus was Antiochus’ teacher, see Fleischer (2015a). 7 On the implications of this compound see Jacoby (1902), p. 6, especially note 11. 8 See Pfeiffer (1968), pp. 210–212. 9 See Jacoby (1902), pp. 5–6. Text: Dorandi (1994). 10 Jacoby (1902), p. 5, particularly note 8.

State of the art – Sources and evidence from the Chronica | 11

emerges that Philodemus was an acquaintance or friend of Antiochus of Ascalon.11 Accordingly, Apollodorus was a friend or acquaintance of the Stoic Panaetius’ (ca. 180–110 BC) and not his pupil, at least not in a strict sense.12 The Suda may have confused the precise relationship between Apollodorus and Panaetius, while Diogenes dropped out of the tradition as Apollodorus’ teacher at some point. The passage in the Index Stoicorum is also evidence that Apollodorus returned to Athens at some stage. It seems probable to me that Pseudo-Scymnus had no knowledge of the whereabouts or activities of Apollodorus after the publication of the first version (first three books) of the Chronica (144/3 BC or slightly later – see 3.5) and, consequently, that he could not refer to Apollodorus’ relationship with Panaetius. I would assume that Pseudo-Scymnus owes the biographical references in his proem, especially those to Apollodorus’ teachers Diogenes and Aristarchus, directly and exclusively to the Chronica, probably to the proem of the work or to that of individual books. Since Apollodorus dates the fall of Troy to 1184/83 BC, the 1040 years mentioned in Pseudo-Scymnus, l.24 bring us down to 144/43 BC. Jacoby seems to consider this year as the date of completion of the 3rd book of the Chronica in FGrH, whereas he assumes 145/44 BC in Jacoby (1902) (“inclusive counting”).13 To be sure, inclusive counting is used to determine the age of a person at his/her death (by counting all the archons from the individual’s birth),14 but the original verse fragments and other related passages suggest that Apollodorus applied exclusive counting for some other purposes. For instance, he counts the time from 131/30 BC to 129/28 BC as “two years” (not three) in accordance with our modern way of thinking or counting.15 It is possible that the 1040 years might only be a fairly precise approximation which still allows us to posit 143/42 BC (1041 years), for instance, as the last year of completion of the 3rd book of the Chronica.

|| 11 Blank (2007). Phld. Ind. Acad. (PHerc. 1021), col. 34,44–35,2 (Fleischer): [ἐ]τελεύτησεν ἠ̣γα|π̣η̣μέ[ν]ο̣ς̣ ὑπὸ π̣ολλῶν κἀ||μοῦ κα̣ὶ αὐτὸς ἡ̣μᾶς ἀπ̣ο|δεδεγμένος (the sentence was supplemented by Blank). 12 Of course, it is still possible that Apollodorus attended some lectures by Panaetius, but the relationship between the two was more one of friendship between well-educated men of the same age than one of genuine discipleship: see Jacoby (1902), p. 5. 13 Jacoby (1902), pp. 10–15; Jacoby (1929), pp. 716,717,719. 14 Jacoby (1902), pp. 58, 59. 15 This is not explicitly stated by Jacoby, although he seems to have assumed exclusive counting in several cases (e.g. Jacoby (1902), pp. 388–389). See for example 74 and the dates in Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 25.

12 | The biography of Apollodorus of Athens

In any case, the Chronica were dedicated to Attalus II Philadelphus (159– 138 BC), wherefore it seems likely that Apollodorus dwelt in Pergamon for some time after leaving Aristarchus (Alexandria), unless he went directly to Athens and Attalus II supported him “from a distance” (see 3.7). We would expect to find Apollodorus back in Athens by 133 BC at the latest, the end of the kingdom of Pergamon. When did Apollodorus die? The latest certain date in the surviving fragments of the 4th book of the Chronica is 120/19 BC, the year of the death of the otherwise unknown Academic philosopher Boethus of Marathon under the archonship of Eumachus in the month Thargelion (54–66). Yet, the odds are rather good that the death of Clitomachus (110/09 BC) was still included in the Chronica (see 3.6). Obviously, the publication date of the 4th book provides a terminus post quem for Apollodorus’ death. It might be slightly problematic to infer a kind of terminus post quem or to draw too far-reaching conclusions from a rather obscure work of Apollodorus’ entitled Πρὸς τὴν Ἀριστοκλέους ἐπιστολὴν ἀντιγραφή, of which only one fragment survives.16 The Aristocles in question is a second-century musician, not identical with the later grammarian Aristocles of Rhodes.17 In his treatise Περὶ χορῶν this Aristocles remarks: “Καί φασι τοῦτο εὑρῆσθαι ὑπὸ Κτησιβίου κουρέως, ἐνταῦθα οἰκοῦντος ἐν τῇ Ἀσπενδίᾳ, ἐπὶ τοῦ δευτέρου Εὐεργέτου.“18 One might conclude from the passage that Aristocles wrote the work in question after the death of Ptolemy VIII (145–116 BC). This notwithstanding, Apollodorus might have already addressed Aristocles before then, since his work is obviously no direct reply to the Περὶ χορῶν. Basically, one should be aware that the whole reconstruction or relationship is somewhat wobbly. Apollodorus is not explicitly called “the grammarian” in the introduction to the only surviving fragment of Πρὸς τὴν Ἀριστοκλέους ἐπιστολὴν ἀντιγραφή. Some scholars have considered δευτέρου in the Aristocles fragment to be corrupt and corrected it to πρώτου and the more famous namesake Aristocles of Rhodes rises further suspicion. Anyway, even if we were dealing here with a genuine Apollodorian fragment and if the Aristocles passage was not corrupt, the chronological implications would be quite limited.

|| 16 FGrH 244 F 219 (= Athen. 14,40): Ἀπολλόδωρος δ' ἐν τῇ πρὸς τὴν Ἀριστοκλέους Ἐπιστολὴν Ἀντιγραφῇ ὃ νῦν, φησίν, ἡμεῖς λέγομεν ψαλτήριον, τοῦτ' εἶναι μάγαδιν, ὁ δὲ κλεψίαμβος κληθείς, ἔτι δ' ὁ τρίγωνος καὶ ὁ ἔλυμος καὶ τὸ ἐννεάχορδον ἀμαυρότερα τῇ χρείᾳ καθέστηκεν. On this citation and Jacoby’s presentation see Montana (2006), p. 210. 17 On Aristocles of Rhodes (grammarian) and the musician Aristocles see Wentzel (1895) and Fowler (2008). 18 Athen. Deipnosoph. 4,75.

Echoes of Apollodorus’ biography in the original verses of the Chronica? | 13

One could carefully conclude that Apollodorus addressed this Aristocles probably when he was already at advanced age, given that the latter was probably (still) active after Ptolemy VIII.19 Similarly questionable is the evidence from the well-known P. Oxy. 1241 (FGrH 244 T 4), which contains a list of Alexandrian scholars. The chronology of this list is notoriously unreliable or wrong. In col. II,17–21 of the papyrus we read: ἐπὶ δὲ τῶι ἐνάτωι | [βα]σιλεῖ ἤκμαϲαν Ἀμμώ|[νι]ος καὶ Ζηνό[δοτος] καὶ Διο|[κλῆ]ς καὶ Ἀπολλό[δ]ωρος γραμ|[μα]τικοί [ .20 Although it seems likely to me that the grammarian Apollodorus mentioned here is indeed our Apollodorus,21 the papyrus does not allow us to draw further conclusions, except that Apollodorus was at some point in Alexandria and a pupil of Aristarchus. Ptolemy IX. reigned from 116 BC, a dating that is hardly compatible with Apollodorus’ akme.

2.2 Echoes of Apollodorus’ biography in the original verses of the Chronica? First, the thirteen verses (54–66), partly copied twice by Philodemus and dealing with the Academic Boethus of Marathon, are slightly surprising,22 because they provide almost too many details on an otherwise unknown philosopher.23 I am inclined to accept Gomperz’s (1875) inference that Apollodorus was a friend of Boethus and that it was mainly (or only) for this reason that he included him in

|| 19 For this testimony compare Jacoby (1902), p. 8 note 16, who rejects a correction of the Aristocles passage and sees no reason to think of a different Apollodorus. Given the uncertainties of both fragments, one cannot be to sure about this. Jacoby (1929), p. 796 rightly notes that the fragment implies that Apollodorus lived about ten years longer than the terminus post quem 120/19 provided by verse 65. 20 After the editio princeps provided by Grenfell und Hunt in the tenth volume of the Oxyrhynchus papyri (1914) several suggestions and re-editions have been put forward. I quote the text from Solaro (2016). For further discussion, especially on the chronological problems related to Apollodorus, see De Luca (1998). Solaro (2016), p. 35 note 39 is skeptical about his corrections and explanations. 21 Jacoby includes this fragment in his collection and most later scholars have approved his identification of the two figures. 22 On Boethus of Marathon see Gomperz (1875); Arnim (1897); Jacoby (1902), pp. 383–385; Dorandi (1991), pp. 71–72; Dorandi (1994), p. 123; Görler (1994), p. 910; Fleischer (2015b). 23 See Görler (1994), p. 910: “… fast befremdlich viele biographische Details.”

14 | The biography of Apollodorus of Athens

the Chronica.24 At any rate, some kind of relationship must have existed between the two men. Boethus was around 20 years older than Apollodorus.25 The fact that the later Academic scholarch Philo of Larissa attended lectures by Apollodorus (2.3) suggests that Apollodorus was in touch with Athenian Academics in general, not only with the Stoic community. Yet, one should emphasize that a personal relationship with Boethus is far from certain and the later tradition might have simply forgotten to include Boethus among the distinguished Academics of his generation. It is remarkable that Apollodorus mentions the exact month in which Boethus died (Thargelion). We will come back to this curious detail when discussing the publication date of the 4th book of the Chronica (3.6). The verses devoted to Melanthius (79–87) are intriguing, too. Again, Apollodorus seems to be extraordinarily well informed and lets us know that Melanthius of Rhodes was a pupil (or a kind of assistant) to Aristarchus of Samothrace in Alexandria before he moved to Athens. Melanthius must have spent some time in Alexandria with Aristarchus more or less in the years when Apollodorus too was there as a pupil or assistant of Aristarchus (in the period 160–145 BC). Accordingly, it is quite possible that Apollodorus knew Melanthius (at least superficially) from Alexandria and remembered him studying under Aristarchus (along with other facts) from his personal contacts with Melanthius in Alexandria (and maybe Athens too in later years). Jacoby’s assertion that the similarity between 81 and the proem of Pseudo-Scymnus (21) “συνεσχολακὼς δὲ πολὺν Ἀριστάρχῳ χρόνον“ (see 2.1), (strongly) suggests that Pseudo-Scymnus had read the 4th book of the Chronica and remodeled the verse for his proem on the basis of this verse, is not compelling, or even likely.26 Several scholars have mentioned and approved of Jacoby’s theory,27 whereas Boshnakov (2004) has rejected it.28 He argues that Pseudo-Scymnus uses this word independently from the Melanthiuspassage (81). Since the passages in question refer to two different persons (Melanthius and Apollodorus), the name “Aristarchus” is not really a common or similar element. One may add that the verb is not that rare. Philodemus, for instance, uses it several times29 and even includes the noun συσχολαστής in the || 24 Gomperz (1875), p. 604 notes: “Man wird schwerlich verfehlen, die Ausführlichkeit, mit der hier eines unberühmten Mannes gedacht wird, gegen Apollodor’s Autorschaft zu verwerthen…und liegt nicht die Absicht zu Tage, einem persönlichen Freunde ein Denkmal zu setzen… .” 25 See the commentary on verse 59. 26 Jacoby (1902), p. 4 (paragraph 11), 15–17. 27 For instance Marcotte (2000), pp. 42–43. 28 Boshnakov (2004), p. 26. 29 Cf. Vooys/van Krevelen (1941), ad verbum.

Echoes of Apollodorus’ biography in the original verses of the Chronica? | 15

Index Academicorum.30 Bravo (2009) offers a plausible explanation for the similarity. He assumes that Apollodorus also used the word in his proem to the original Chronica. Pseudo-Scymnus obviously paraphrased or imitated Apollodorus’ proem in his own proem.31 Anyway, contrary to what Jacoby suggested, the alleged or real similarity between the verses cannot be taken as proof, or even as a hint, that Pseudo-Scymnus (already) knew the 4th book of the Chronica and was echoing verse 81. From two new readings in the Index Academicorum it emerges that Charmadas came from Alexandria.32 His move to Athens in 146/45 BC (88–90) may have been motivated by the (looming) persecution of intellectuals following the accession of Ptolemy VIII. The superlative “ἐλλογιμωτατ-” in 88 suggests that either Charmadas or his teacher(s) were renowned. Aristarchus would be a candidate for Charmadas’ teacher in Alexandria – assuming that Charmadas already had a teacher in Alexandria. Basically, a discipleship with Aristarchus would fit nicely with another new reading (96) from which we learn that Charmadas was also experienced in grammar/literature. One could hypothesize that Apollodorus knew Charmadas already from his time in Alexandria with Aristarchus. Both left the city more or less around the same time (145 BC).33 In the last verses devoted to Charmadas, Apollodorus portrays him lecturing in the Athenian gymnasium Ptolemaion (99,100). Charmadas was still alive, when the 4th book of the Chronica was published. Considering that Apollodorus was also giving lectures and that Charmadas’ fellow Academic Philo of Larissa was his pupil (2.3), he may have known Charmadas (superficially) from Athens or possibly already from Alexandria. Maybe all three – Apollodorus, Melanthius and Charmadas – were (indirect) victims of the persecution by Ptolemy VIII in 145 BC and shared the same fate as “refugees” from Alexandria to Athens (Pergamon). It is certainly a possibility that Apollodorus knew Melanthius and Charmadas from their time they both spent in Alexandria, while the case is certainly stronger when it comes to Melanthius, who

|| 30 Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 26,1–2. 31 Bravo (2009), pp. 27–29. Cf. Jacoby (1902), p. 4: “Unzweifelhaft haben auch größere Ähnlichkeiten zwischen den Proömien der Chronik und des Skymnos bestanden, aus welch letzterem man geradezu ein Bild des Apollodorischen Proömiums rekonstruieren kann.” One may add that while the συσχολαστής in col. 26,1–2 is not a direct prose version of the Chronica, it may have been somehow inspired by Apollodorus’ use of this or etymologically related words. 32 Verse 88 and Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 23,8–10. On Charmadas in Alexandria see Fleischer (2014a), pp. 66,67 and Fleischer (2019b), pp. 153–164. 33 Cf. Fleischer (2014a), p. 67.

16 | The biography of Apollodorus of Athens

even studied or worked under the same teacher (Aristarchus) in Alexandria around the same time as Apollodorus did.

2.3 A new reading: Apollodorus as Philo of Larissa’s teacher in Athens (120–118 BC) Column 33 and (part of) column 34 of the Index Academicorum are devoted to Philo of Larissa and follow the long excerpt from Apollodorus’ Chronica.34 The beginning of the Philo passage might well represent a prose version of verses from the Chronica (see 3.6). In Dorandi’s edition (1991), modified according to a suggestion by Puglia (2000), the beginning of the biography reads as follows:35 col. 33

5

10

15

(. . .) Φλ̣ων δὲ διαδεξάμ[ε]νο{ι}ς Κλει[τόμαχ[ον] ἐγενν[ή]θη ἐπ᾿ Ἀρισταίχμο[υ, π]αρε[γ]ένε[το δ᾿ εἰς Ἀ[θήν]ας π[ε]ρὶ τ̣έ[τ]τα[ρα κ̣αὶ εἴ[κοσ]ιν ὑ[π]ά̣ρχων ἐ[τῶν κατὰ Νικόμαχο̣[ν], ἐσχολακὼς ἐ[ν] τῆι πατρίδι Καλλ[ικλεῖ τῶι Καρ[ν]εάδου γ[νωρίμωι περὶ ὀκτ[ὼ σχ]ε[δὸν] ἔτη, Κλε̣ιτομά[χω]ι δὲ δέκα καὶ τέ[τ]ταρ[α ̣ ̣ ]̣ α[ ̣]να ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]δ᾿, Ἀπ[ολλοδώ]ρωι δε ̣ ̣] δύο, Μ̣ν[ησάρχωι] δ᾿ ἑπτὰ τῶι Στωικῶ[ι ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ἤ[ρ]ξατο δ̣᾿ ἡγεῖσθαι τῆ[ς σχο]λῆς [ἐ]π[ὶ Π]ολυκλείτ̣ου̣. κτλ.

… Philo succeeded Clitomachus. He was born under the archonship of Aristaichmus (159/58 BC). He arrived in Athens at the age of about 24 years around the time of the archonship of Nicomachus (134/33 BC). He had studied for approximately 8 years in his home town with Callicles, a student of Carneades, with Clitomachus for 14 years, with … Apollodorus for two years, and with the Stoic Mnesarchus for 7 years … He started as head of the Academy under the archonship of Polyclitus (110/09 BC).

The dates and years strongly suggest that Philo attended lectures by Clitomachus, Apollodorus and Mnesarchus not in parallel, but in succession. Brittain (2001) states: “It would thus appear that Philo spent 120/19–118/17 with an unidentifiable Apollodorus, and 118/17–110/09 with an unnamed Stoic.” He elaborates on

|| 34 Phld. Ind. Acad. col.33,1–34,20. 35 Prior editions were provided by Bücheler (1869); Mekler (1902). The edition by Gaiser (1988) includes only the first part of the papyrus. Some improvements in Puglia (2000).

A new reading: Apollodorus as Philo of Larissa’s teacher in Athens (120–118 BC) | 17

the issue in a note: “But it now seems clear that Apollodorus – if that is the name to be read here – was not a Stoic: the second teacher is designated `the Stoic´ by contrast with the first.”36 Moreover, Brittain expressed the idea that Mnesarchus might be the unnamed Stoic. At the same time or shortly before, Puglia (2000), whom Brittain could not take into account yet, had a fresh look at the papyrus and brought up the supplement “Mnesarchus”, too.37 My autopsy has proven that this suggestion is most probably correct.38 Now, what remains to be clarified is the identity of the Apollodorus (l. 12–13) who taught Philo between approximately39 120/19 and 118/17. Basically, there are four candidates compatible with this dating:40 1.

An otherwise unknown Apollodorus from Seleucia, a pupil of the Stoic Diogenes of Seleucia.41 2. Apollodorus the Athenian (apparently not identical with the grammarian), a pupil of the Stoic Antipater and possibly identical with an Apollodorus mentioned in De natura deorum.42 3. Apollodorus the Epicurean scholarch (kepotyrannos), possibly still alive at the time. 4. Our Apollodorus, the grammarian (the author of the Chronica). An autopsy of the papyrus as well as the MSI and as HSI (see chapter 9) have revealed that μ, not ν, must be read before the last α in line 12. The preceding traces are compatible with another μ (the HSI are somewhat misleading here). The traces at the beginning of line 13 do partly belong to another layer. Then there is a clear κ. Also the upper right part of ω and the lower part of ι are preserved.

|| 36 Brittain (2001), p. 49 note 34. 37 Puglia (2000), pp. 18,19. Brittain (2001), p. 49 note 35. 38 I have fewer doubts about the first two letters. The lacunae might be somewhat small, but the size of the letters varies considerably in this papyrus and the supplement is justified. 39 One year is “missing” between 134/33 and 110/09 (=24 years vs. 14+2+7=23 years), which might be due to a “break” taken by Philo, or, more likely, to the approximation of the year numbers. Consequently, the two years with Apollodorus can only be placed “more or less” between 120 and 118. 40 Cf. Brittain (2001), p. 49 note 34, who does not list the Epicurean Apollodorus. Before Dorandi’s re-edition of the column, scholars believed that only one Stoic teacher was mentioned: see Bücheler (1869), pp. 19–20; Gomperz (1875), p. 605; Mekler (1902), p. 107. 41 Phld. Ind. Stoic. (PHerc. 1018), col. 51,6–7: Ἀπολλόδω̣[ρος Σελευ]|κεὺς ἀπὸ Τ̣[ίγριος. 42 Phld. Ind. Stoic. (PHerc. 1018), col. 53,7–8: Ἀπολλ[όδω|ρος] Ἀ̣θ̣ η̣ναῖος. Cic. Nat. deor. I 93: Zeno quidem non eos solum qui tum erant, Apollodorum Sillim ceteros, figebat maledictis, … .

18 | The biography of Apollodorus of Athens

Fig. 1: HSI, col. 33, 12–13

The supplement γ̣ρ̣αμ̣μα|τ̣ι̣κῶ̣ι̣ seems unavoidable and fits the traces and syntax nicely. My new edition of these lines thus reads:43 col. 33

5

10

15

λόγωι κα⌈ὶ͙⌉ τὸ̣ν βί⌈ον⌉.[⸆] Φι⌈λίω⌉ν δὲ δι⌈α⌉δεξάμ̣ε̣νo⌈ς͙⌉ Κλ⌈ει⌉[τ]ό̣μαχο̣[ν] ἐγε⸌ν⸍νή̣θη ⌈μὲ⌉ν ἐπ᾿ Ἀρισταίχμο⌈υ⌉, παρε⌈γ⌉ένετ̣ο̣ δ᾿ εἰς Ἀ[θ]ή̣ν̣ας π[ε]ρὶ ⌈τ͙έ⌉τ̣⌈τα⌉[ρα καὶ εἴκ̣⌈ο⌉σιν ὑ[π]ά̣⌈ρχων ἔ⌉[τη κατὰ ⌈N⌉ικόμαχον̣ ἐσχολακὼς ἐ̣ν̣ τῆι πατρί⌈δ⌉ι Καλλι̣κλεῖ τῶι Καρ[ν]εάδου γ[ν]ω̣ρίμωι περὶ ὀκτ̣[ὼ σ]χ̣⌈έ⌉δ̣ọν̣ ἔτη, Κλε̣ιτομά[χω]ι δὲ δέκα καὶ τέ̣τ̣ταρ[α, τῶι] γ̣ρα ̣ μ̣ματ̣ι̣κῶ̣ι̣ δ᾿ Ἀπ[ολλο]δ̣ώ̣ρωι {δ᾿} ἔτ]η̣ δύο, Μ̣νη̣[σάρχω]ι̣ δ᾿ ἑπτὰ τῶι Στωϊκῶι̣. κ̣[ατήρ]ξατο ⌈δ᾿͙⌉ ἡγεῖσθαι τῆ[ς] σχ[ο]λῆς ἐ̣π⌈ὶ͙⌉ Π̣ο̣λυκλεί[τ]ο̣υ̣. κτλ.

… in theory and life. Philio succeeded Clitomachus. He was born under the archonship of Aristaichmus (159/58 BC). He arrived in Athens at the age of about 24 years around the time of the archonship of Nicomachus (134/33 BC); he had studied for approximately 8 years in his home town with Callicles, a student of Carneades, with Clitomachus for 14 years, with the grammarian Apollodorus for two years, and with the Stoic Mnesarchus for 7 years. He started heading the Academy under the archonship of Polyclitus (110/09 BC).

Basically, from the somewhat clumsy phrasing of the passage it seems possible that original Iambic trimeters were rather carelessly transformed into a prose version. One might compare this with the prose version of col. 25, where the lost verses of col. 30 may have been remodeled (see 3.6). We should keep in mind that the Index Academicorum (PHerc. 1021) is a draft version, so the Greek might not be perfectly polished yet and minor inconsistencies can be expected. The participle ἐσχολακὼς is connected to the preceding line (no particle or the like), which

|| 43 I have proposed the reading for the first time in Fleischer (2017c), p. 363 note 74.

A new reading: Apollodorus as Philo of Larissa’s teacher in Athens (120–118 BC) | 19

is to say to Philo’s arrival in Athens. Strictly speaking, no teachers other than Callicles should depend on the participle, because Philo only attended lectures by Callicles before his arrival in Athens and was taught by the other teachers later on, in Athens. Yet, an associative or imprecise phrasing is arguable and it seems that all the teachers depend on ἐσχολακὼς. Therefore, we should not translate “after”, which would be misleading, but take the participle in the sense of “while”, as providing general information on the teachers. The certainly anacoluthic or inconsistent character of the construction might be due to the original wording in verse form. I have decided to supplement the compound κ̣[ατήρ]ξατο, which Philodemus uses various times.44 Unlike the simplex it is usually not connected with infinitives, but with genitives. The genitive τῆ[ς σχο]λῆς might justify the compound here. Philodemus may have wished to avoid hiatus, although we are dealing with the end of a clause; either that, or the compound was “adopted” from the verse version. There can be no doubt that the grammarian Apollodorus of col. 33,12–13 is to be identified with the famous grammarian, the author of the Chronica. Now, the two δ᾿ and the third position of the first δ᾿ in the phrase deserve some discussion. I would not question the presence of the article τῶι] in the papyrus. Apollodorus was not just “a” or “one” grammarian, but the distinctive grammarian with this name. However, the third position of δ᾿ is remarkable. In the Index Academicorum there are just two examples of a Philodemean (prose) third-position δὲ, whereas the verses from the Chronica offer fourteen examples for this third position,45 obviously due to metrical requirements. I have deleted the second δ᾿ in my edition, but the rules of Greek syntax or particles might even justify an awkward double use.46 It is noteworthy that the double δ᾿ has the effect of avoiding hiatus in both cases. As is widely known, Philodemus strictly avoids hiatus.47 What does all this add up to? Lines 12–13, as well as the entire passage, hint at a Philodemean rephrasing of underlying verses in iambic trimeter. He may have become somewhat

|| 44 See Vooys (1934), p. 164. 45 I have not taken uncertain readings into account. The third-position prose δὲ occurs in col. 11,38–39 (⌈το⌉[ῖς] δού|[λοι]ς̣ δ̣ὲ [τὰ] κ̣τήματ̣α – an excerpt from Hermippus’ Περὶ τῶν ἀπὸ φιλοσοφίας εἰς στρατηγίας καὶ δυναστείας μεθεστηκότων (On Those who Converted from Philosophy to the Exercise of Military Command and of Power), which in turn excerpts a speech by Hyperides. On the correct title of Hermippus’ work and the recently newly discovered Hyperides, see Fleischer (2018e) and Fleischer (2018b), in col. 19,5 (οἱ πολλοὶ δ᾿). The third-position δὲ can be found in thirteen verses (see 4.3.2). 46 There might be one contrast to Clitomachus and another contrast to the 14 years. However, such a double use would be strange and unusual. 47 On the hiatus in Philodemus and in other Epicureans see McOsker (2017).

20 | The biography of Apollodorus of Athens

confused when rephrasing the verses and created a not very prose-like prose version. In particular, in the underlying verses from the Chronica, Apollodorus is unlikely to have spoken of himself as “Apollodorus, the grammarian”: he probably used expressions like “we” or “us”.48 Of course, for a prose version it would have been necessary to resolve a possible self-reference into “Apollodorus the grammarian”. During this rewriting process, Philodemus (or the source which had already rephrased the trimeters before him) may have made a mental leap and, aware of the need to avoid hiatus, may have created a rather unpleasant or even grammatically wrong sentence. To be sure, alternative hypotheses might be put forward and the existence of some underlying verses is not beyond doubt (see 3.6), but the grammatical and stylistic peculiarities in col. 33,1–17 seem to be best explained by the transformation of preexisting verse material. The whole passage, despite being in prose, gives an “Apollodorian” impression. Be that as it may, we learn from the new reading for the first time that Apollodorus, the grammarian, taught in Athens for a while: between ca. 120 and 118 BC he was the teacher of the later Academic scholarch Philo of Larissa. Philo may have wished to broaden his horizons after studying exclusively under Academic philosophers for 22 years (8 years under Callicles, 14 under Clitomachus). For that reason, he may have decided to go to (one of) the most famous grammarians of his time, Apollodorus of Athens. Up until now, no teaching activities were known on Apollodorus’ part. This new aspect of Apollodorus’ biography is certainly interesting, but by no means is it a entirely unexpected discovery. It is possible that Apollodorus only wanted to impart his knowledge to a younger generation and profit from being in contact with it, or that, more prosaically, his teaching was driven by financial needs. Maybe both reasons played a role, unless his motivation was an entirely different one. Given Apollodorus’ Stoic background, he may have even inspired Philo to subsequently attend lectures by the Stoic Mnesarchus (ca. 117–110 BC). However, I find it hard to believe that Apollodorus taught Stoic philosophy in a strict sense, while it is more than probable that his lectures or methods had some Stoic overtones. If Apollodorus really inspired Philo to pursue further Stoic studies under Mnesarchus (who later also acquired Antiochus of Ascalon as his pupil), possibly by recommendation of Philo, Apollodorus may be indirectly responsible for Antiochus’ dogmatic turn, inasmuch as it was obviously brought about by his association with Mnesarchus.49 The new reading gives

|| 48 Cf. ἡμῖν in verse 65. 49 On the discipleship of Antiochus and Philo under Mnesarchus see Fleischer (2015a), esp. p. 422.

A new reading: Apollodorus as Philo of Larissa’s teacher in Athens (120–118 BC) | 21

ca. 118 BC as the terminus post quem for Apollodorus’ death. There is a very remote possibility that Philo attended Apollodorus’ lectures only for two years, because the latter passed away in 118 BC. However, there are good reasons to believe that the Chronica ended no earlier than 110/09 BC (see 3.6) and, consequently, that Apollodorus did not die before then. We know that Apollodorus was in good terms with, or even a friend of, Panaetius (died ca. 110 BC or a bit later – see 2.1). Apollodorus’ verses on the Academy (21–107) give the impression of a detailed and deep knowledge, which makes one wonder how much of the detailed information about contemporary Academics goes back to the author’s personal relationship with Academics. If the Chronica extended beyond 110/09 BC (see 3.6), which is probable, there would be the likely implication that Philo was still mentioned in the Chronica as the “youngest” Academic. It is not too far-fetched to suppose that Apollodorus could report many exact dates only for Philo’s biography since he had been personally briefed about this by Philo himself. Furthermore, Apollodorus might have learned about some developments in the Academy or about the activities of contemporary Academics through his pupil Philo. At any rate, Apollodorus had ties not just with Stoic philosophers, but also with some Academics – most notably, Philo. Let us summarize the consequences of the new reading: 1.

Apollodorus lectured in Athens, at least from 120–118 BC – where, what exactly and in what context he taught must remain uncertain, along with the question of whether he had any other pupils apart from Philo. 2. In 120–118 BC Apollodorus was (again/still) in Athens. 3. Apollodorus was still alive in 118 BC. 4. Some information in the Chronica about the Academy and in particular about Philo could go back to his personal contact with Philo. 5. Apollodorus might have made a self-reference in the 4th book of the Chronica (mentioning himself as Philo's teacher).

22 | The biography of Apollodorus of Athens

2.4 Did Pseudo-Scymnus know Apollodorus personally or might they even be the same person? Whoever the author of the periegesis normally recorded under the name PseudoScymnus might be,50 its homage to Apollodorus – if not merely due to the use of the same meter and genre (didactic poem) – may reflect a personal relationship between the two men. Pseudo-Scymnus really seems to have admired and emulated Apollodorus (3.3). His extensive description of the Chronica, his outline of the advantages of the trimeter and references to Apollodorus’ life are remarkable. Did the two authors meet at some point? Was Pseudo-Scymnus a pupil of Apollodorus in Athens or elsewhere? At least, the new reading discussed in 2.3 shows that Apollodorus lectured and had pupils. Bravo (2009) has suggested a very daring reconstruction of Pseudo-Scymnus,120–121: καὶ τὸν πολίτην δ᾿ ἐμὸ̣[ν ὁδηγὸν εἱλόμην?]| [Ἀ]π̣ο̣[λ]λ̣ό̣[δωρ]ο̣ν̣ ἅπασιν [ἐ]γνωρισμ(ένων),|. The transcription is based on autopsy, but other editors are much more conservative and no one has suggested the supplement “Apollodorus”.51 The verses occur in a passage where Pseudo-Scymnus lists the sources he relies on for his geographical descriptions. According to Bravo in the two above-cited verses he mentions “my fellow citizen Apollodorus”. On the whole, Bravo’s reconstruction and interpretation are no less speculative than they are sophisticated. Serious doubts about the occurrence of Apollodorus’ name in these lines are inevitable. If the reconstruction were correct, Pseudo-Scymnus would have been an Athenian, too, which might be supported by the praise of his poem in verse 19: τῶν Ἀττικῶν τις γνησίων τε φιλολόγων.52 However, verse 19 could also be interpreted to the effect that Pseudo-Scymnus was not from Athens (Attica). Even if Pseudo-Scymnus were Athenian, it would hardly prove that he ever met Apollodorus or attended his lectures. Would Pseudo-Scymnus really have missed the opportunity in the proem to mention his personal acquaintance with Apollodorus, if he had known him, or the fact that Apollodorus had been his teacher at some point in the past, if he really had been his teacher? To be sure, one may find reasons for a missing mention – maybe the praise of Apollodorus would have been regarded as implicit, embarrassing self-praise – but the bottom line is that the evidence from the proem does not favor the assumption that both Pseudo-Scymnus and Apollodorus ever met, even if both were Athenians.

|| 50 On the problematic or even absurd designation “Pseudo-Scymnus”, see Ryan (2007). 51 Bravo (2009), pp. 7–21, esp. p. 15. 52 Cf. Bravo (2009), p. 17.

Overview of Apollodorus’ biography and works | 23

Marcotte’s (2000) shrewd hypothesis that Pseudo-Scymnus is in fact identical with Apollodorus, the grammarian, has been rejected by Boshnakov (2004) and Bravo (2009) with good arguments.53 Indeed, it is almost absurd to assume that Apollodorus played such an unparalleled game of concealment in the proem by referring to himself anonymously. If Pseudo-Scymnus were Apollodorus, this would have some serious consequences for Apollodorus’ biography (which would probably have to include a stay at the Nicomedian court, a journey to Carthage before its destruction, and so on), but Marcotte’s theory is intrinsically implausible and his arguments are not convincing at all. Talking about the identity of Apollodorus, one may recall something that has long been accepted by most scholars, but which it might be useful to mention for the benefit of readers not all that familiar with Apollodorus of Athens. The latter is not identical with the author of the mythographic Bibliotheke, which was first composed long after his death. Its author is called Pseudo-Apollodorus nowadays. Photius may have confused the name or designation of the two Apollodori.54

2.5 Overview of Apollodorus’ biography and works Apollodorus’ biography: ca. 180 (or possibly a little earlier): Born in Athens as the son of Asclepiades ca. 160–155: Pupil of the Stoic scholarch Diogenes of Babylon in Athens ca. 155–145: Studies and works in Alexandria under the grammarian Aristarchus of Samothrace (may have known the Academics Melanthius and Charmadas from Alexandria)

ca. 145: For a certain time in Pergamon, dedication of the Chronica to Attalus II (maybe there until the death of Attalus II in 138 or until that of Attalus III in 133) ca. 144 –120: He returns to Athens (possibly in 138 or 133) ca. 130–110: An acquaintance/friend of the Stoic Panaetius (possibly also a friend of the Academic Boethus of Marathon) ca. 120–118: For two years the teacher of Philo of Larissa in Athens after 110: Publication of the 4th book of the Chronica (certainly after 120/19)

|| 53 Marcotte (2000), pp. 35–46; Boshnakov (2004), pp. 43–53; Bravo (2009), pp. 7–21. 54 Photius Bib. 186, 142a,b. Cf. Brodersen (2012), pp. IX–X; Diller (1983), pp. 199–216. On the misleading designation “Pseudo-Apollodorus” see for instance Fowler (2013), p. 383.

24 | The biography of Apollodorus of Athens

after 110: death (if Apollodorus reached his eighties, he may well have lived until the turn of the century or even beyond) Also referred to as “Apollodorus the grammarian”

Apollodorus’ works (FGrH 244):55 Μajor works Catalogue of Ships (Νεῶν Κατάλογος – 12 books – F 154–207) Chronica (Χρονικά – 4 books – F 1–87, 331–351) On gods (Περὶ θεῶν – 24 books – F 88–153, 352–356)56 Minor works On the Athenian courtesans (Περὶ τῶν Ἀθήνησιν ἑταιρῶν – F 208–212) On Epicharmus (Περὶ Ἐπιχάρμου – 10 books – F 213) On Sophron (Περὶ Σώφρονος – at least 4 books – F 214–218) Response to Aristocles (Πρὸς τὴν Ἀριστοκλέους ἐπιστολὴν ἀντιγραφή – F 219) Short treatise on the mixing vessel (Περὶ τοῦ κρατῆρος ῥησείδιον – F 220) Dialects (Γλῶσσαι – F 221) Etymologies (Ἐτυμολογίαι – at least two books – F 222–225) Other philological-grammatical treatises57 (F 226–284)

(Our Apollodorus of Athens is not the author of the Bibliotheke)

|| 55 “Major” does not necessarily refer to the number of books, but rather to that of the fragments preserved and to some extent, implicitly, to the prominence and circulation of the work in antiquity. 56 The three major books may have been written (published) in this order in Alexandria, Pergamon and Athens (except the 4th book of the Chronica, which was supplemented later in Athens), cf. Jacoby (1929), p. 716. 57 To the titles listed in Jacoby (1929) one has to add the title Ζητήματα γραμματικὰ εἰς τὴν Ξ τῆς Ἰλιάδος (P. Med. 19), cf. Matthaios (2014), p. 543.

3 Apollodorus’ Chronica – Content, reception, book division, publication date(s), dedication 3.1 Content of the Chronica Pseudo-Scymnus provides more or less a summary of the issues dealt with in the Chronica in his proem (25–31): … καταριθμούμενος πόλεων ἁλώσεις, ἐκτοπισμοὺς στρατοπέδων, μεταναστάσεις ἐθνῶν, στρατείας βαρβάρων, ἐφόδους περαιώσεις τε ναυτικῶν στόλων, θέσεις ἀγώνων, συμμαχίας, σπονδὰς, μάχας, πράξεις βασιλέων, ἐπιφανῶν ἀνδρῶν βίους, φυγὰς, στρατείας, καταλύσεις τυραννίδων. Since the bulk of the (more extended) fragments on the Chronica stem from Diogenes Laertius or Philodemus, the surviving passages convey an impression biased towards the part “ἐπιφανῶν ἀνδρῶν βίους“, in particular towards the life of philosophers. However, many other fragments, in particular those from Stephanus of Byzantium, are not concerned with the life of famous persons or philosophers and can be subsumed under several of the above-mentioned categories. Nevertheless, it seems that short biographies of prominent philosophers and scholars were an important aspect of the Chronica. These cultural-historical excursuses were apparently more elaborate and more extended than one would expect a priori. Jacoby (1902) laconically states: “Apollodor war eben Athener und Alexandriner.”1 The bias is even more significant when it comes to the original verse fragments to be edited in this monograph. To be precise, about 100 of the 109 verses are devoted to illustrious men, mainly philosophers. Yet, this bias does not justify far-reaching conclusions concerning the overall content or rendering, since about 80% of the verses (87 verses) were preserved “by chance” in Philodemus’ Index Academicorum, which is the reason why they deal with Academic philosophers. Judging from the detailed biographies and occurrence of comparatively unknown philosophers in the preserved fragments or in the original verses, the Chronica must have had a tremendous amount of verses. Since it consisted “only” of three or four books respectively, each book was probably so voluminous that it hardly fit in a single papyrus scroll. If every individual book was not divided into two or more rolls, the rolls must have been exceptionally long (large diameter). Several surviving fragments from Stephanus can be attributed to the “Roman history” which Apollodorus must have covered with due diligence and detail in his work. It might be worth mentioning that Apollodorus probably did

|| 1 Jacoby (1902), p. 29. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110703726-003

26 | Apollodorus’ Chronica – Content, reception, book division, publication date(s)

not give a founding date for Rome.2 Other fragments, for instance, deal with early Greek history – Spartan, Corinthian, Sicilian, and Athenian – as well as with different rulers or kings.3

3.2 Apollodorus’ method and sources Given Jacoby’s thorough analysis of the main principles and peculiarities of Apollodorus’ methodology and of his sources, we may restrict ourselves here to some very basic remarks.4 For the time before the first Olympiad (776/75 BC) Apollodorus mainly relied on lists of Spartan kings, but the exact number of years he assigned to a “generation” (γενέα) is not obvious from the evidence we have. More relevant for his Chronica was the concept of the ἀκμή of a man, which he associated – in the tradition of earlier authors, in particular Pythagoreans and Aristoxenus – with the age of 40. Eratosthenes does not seem to have applied the same concept of ἀκμή. On the basis of the ἀκμή Apollodorus calculated or guessed various biographical dates, especially the birth of a person or teacher-pupil relations.5 Yet, Apollodorus seems to have only implicitly used the ἀκμή-method, which means that he may have never written “flourished” or the like in his work.6 In determining people’s ἀκμή, Apollodorus would scrutinize their works for selfreferences or chronological indications, thereby also establishing synchronisms, termini ante quem or termini post quem and references to (rather certainly dated) key historical events or figures. For politicians he could often make use of written archon lists or the like for different poleis and establish more precise dates.7 Conveniently for the reader, he sometimes added to the archon dates a reference to a well-known event or person so that the reader can know approximately what period or year he is referring to.8 Basically, Apollodorus seems to have consulted an immense number of books with a chronological, biographical or historical content. How diligently he composed his work, is shown by his quotations of several divergent sources of information and alternative dates (6,12,13). The trimeter form did not undermine his scholarly-chronological ambitions. Apart from Eratosthenes, other sources used by Apollodorus are identifiable: Glaucus of || 2 Jacoby (1902), pp. 25–29. 3 Cf. Jacoby (1902), pp. 25–26. 4 See esp. Jacoby (1902), pp. 39–59. 5 See Jacoby (1902), pp. 46–49. 6 Jacoby (1902), pp. 49–51. 7 Jacoby (1902), p. 57. 8 Jacoby (1902), pp. 51–54. See, for instance, verses 41 (Perseus) and 54,64 (Carneades).

The Chronica – model(s) and afterlife | 27

Rhegium, Aristotle, Heraclides Ponticus, Demetrius of Phaleron, Simonides, Timaeus of Tauromenion, Aristoxenus, Antigonus of Carystus, Dinon, and Ephorus.9 In contrast to Eratosthenes, Apollodorus preferred dating by archons in his Chronica (3.3). As a consequence, he usually calculates a person's age by counting down all the archons from their birth to their death (inclusive counting), which makes the person older (in years) than they actually were.10

3.3 The Chronica – model(s) and afterlife The model for Apollodorus’ Chronica, as it were, was Eratosthenes’ groundbreaking historiographical work Χρονογραφίαι (Περὶ χρονογραφιῶν), the first systematic chronology based on the definition of certain historical eras related to crucial events. The work covered the time from the fall of Troy (1184/83) until the death of Alexander (324/23) and also contained a methodological part – mainly, perhaps, a discussion of chronological methods or writings.11 Eratosthenes can be deemed the father of critical and systematic chronography.12 However, nowadays it is debated whether he used a universally applicable Olympiad dating, and even to what extent the Chronica really depend on him or are rather independent from the historical content of this work.13 In any case, Apollodorus’ Chronica was not an uninspired imitation. For instance, some differences between both authors’ chronologies can be spotted here and there, even if Apollodorus accepted Eratosthenes’ date for the fall of Troy and seems to have followed him in many other cases. Those differences are instructive, inasmuch as they show that Apollodorus did not merely extend Eratosthenes’ work from 324/23 BC until his own

|| 9 Cf. Jacoby (1902), p. 55. 10 Apollodorus’ system would make a person who was born on the last day of an archon year and died on the first day of another almost two years older than he or she actually was (according to our modern counting system). 11 On Eratosthenes and his work see FGrH 241. On the correct title of the Χρονογραφίαι see in particular Pownall (2016), commentary on F 1a and Geus (2002), pp. 313–321. On a possible methodological part see Jacoby (1929), FGrH 241, p. 707. Timaeus of Tauromenium had already tried to harmonize the different chronological dating systems by using Olympiads, but in a less systematic and elaborate way. For the time preceding the first Olympiad Eratosthenes used Spartan king lists, cf. Jacoby (1929), FGrH 241 2c, pp. 708,709 and Möller (2005) on the synchronization of king lists and Olympiads. 12 Cf. Pfeiffer (1968), p. 163. 13 Geus (2002), p. 317.

28 | Apollodorus’ Chronica – Content, reception, book division, publication date(s)

days, but confirmed, rejected or supplemented Eratosthenes’ dates and developed his method further or modified it (3.2).14 A characteristic feature of both works is their exclusive focus on the spatium historicum and the precise dating. Apart from the trimeter form, the main divergence between the two chronographers is, at first glance, the dating system – assuming that Eratosthenes really used Olympiad dating. However, this might be less significant than it seems and is in fact more of a formal matter. Apollodorus’ Chronica must have included (as an appendix) a kind of Olympiad-archon converter (ἀρχόντων ἀναγραφή), since no reader could have born in mind the sequence of the hundreds of archons. The dating by archons had the advantage of being more resistant against corruption of the text than Olympiad numbers and the archon names were easier to integrate in iambic trimeters than extended Olympiad numbers.15 The scanty surviving evidence from Eratosthenes’ Χρονογραφίαι, combined with the undeniable similarity with the Chronica in terms of approach and content, testifies to the fact that the Chronica – of which far more fragments are preserved than of the Χρονογραφίαι – soon superseded Eratosthenes’ work, which might have been less comprehensive in the overlapping part and more focused on methodological aspects.16 No other direct model for the Chronica can be identified. Other chronographical works, for instance the Marmor Parium or Timaeus of Tauromenium, are very different in scope, content and structure. So much for the predecessor or, better, the source of inspiration of the Chronica. Let us now focus our attention on the reception history of the Chronica, starting with its afterlife in Greek literature. We will proceed approximately in chronological order. The first author referring to the Chronica is Pseudo-Scymnus, who used it as a model and inspiration for his geographical iambic didactic poem (see 4.4). From the proem of Pseudo-Scymnus it emerges that the Chronica must already have been very popular and celebrated in those days, since it promises the Attalid kings immortal fame.17 It seems that Pseudo-Scymnus was not aware of the supplement of the Chronica yet (4th book), which suggests that he

|| 14 Divergences can be identified concerning the ἀκμή of Homerus (FGrH 244 F 63c), the ἀκμή of Pythagoras (FGrH 244 F 339 vs. FGrH 241 F 11a) and the lifetime of Lycurgus (FGrH 244 F 65 vs. FGrH 241 F 1a), cf. Jacoby (1902), pp. 35–38. 15 Additionally to an often high Olympiad number, it would have been necessary to indicate the exact year of the Olympiad, cf. Jacoby (1902), pp. 58, 60. 16 Cf. Jacoby (1902), pp. 36–37. Geus (2002), pp. 321,322 is skeptical about the idea that Eratosthenes was a direct and close model for Apollodorus. 17 Ps.–Scymnus 45–49: Κεῖνος μὲν οὖν κεφάλαια συναθροίσας χρόνων | εἰς βασιλέως ἀπέθετο φιλαδέλφου χάριν, | ἃ καὶ διὰ πάσης γέγονε τῆς οἰκουμένης | ἀθάνατον ἀπονέμοντα δόξαν Ἀττάλῳ | τῆς πραγματείας ἐπιγραφὴν εἰληφότι (cf. 2.1).

The Chronica – model(s) and afterlife | 29

composed his periegesis before the publication of the 4th book, i.e. probably before 110/09 (see 3.6). Accordingly, modern scholars date Pseudo-Scymnus’ poem between 133 BC (end of the Attalid dynasty) and the publication date of the 4th book.18 Wilamowitz (1881) supposed that Philodemus exploited an unknown Academic source for the Index Academicorum, which in turn had already made use of Apollodorus.19 Indeed, there must have been a second source for the Clitomachus passage (col. 25) and the Philo passage (col. 33), which dates probably after 84/83 BC, since the mention of Philo’s death and the alternative archons for Clitomachus seem to go back to this source. This source could already have used Apollodorus, while the passages in the Index Academicorum might be partly Philodemus’ own rephrasing of the original Apollodorus and not that of the Academic intermediary source. Jacoby (1902) regarded the Chronica as a source for Sosicrates’ Διαδοχαὶ τῶν φιλοσόφων, but modern research considers this historian an older contemporary of Apollodorus, who followed Eratosthenes in his work on the successions of philosophers.20 Even if it is doubtful today whether Castor of Rhodes was the intermediary source for Diodorus’ material from the Chronica, it remains possible that he used the Chronica.21 Philodemus of Gadara (110–ca. 40 BC)22 preserved faithfully copied excerpts of the 3rd and 4th book of the Chronica in his Index Academicorum (probably composed 68–57 BC),23 altogether about 155 different original verses (see 5.2). Remarkably, Philodemus is the last Greek author known to us who certainly used the “original” Chronica. Although it is rather likely that the original work continued to circulate for a while longer, it seems that Apollodorus’ archon dating and the trimeter form were not really appreciated as such and were soon converted into Olympian dating and prose. For some passages Diodorus may have consulted the original Chronica, but he depends mainly on an unknown intermediary source.24 Dionysius of Halicarnassus may still have used the original Chronica, while he also drew upon Eratosthenes.25 It

|| 18 Korenjak (2003), p. 12 and Boshnakov (2004), p. 214 (around 120 BC). 19 Wilamowitz (1881), pp. 60–61. 20 Jacoby (1902), pp. 31–32. He follows Diels (1876), pp. 20–21. Giannattasio Andria (1989), pp. 75–78 argues that Eratosthenes, not Apollodorus, was Sosicrates’ source. For his chronology and a discussion see Goulet (2016). 21 Cf. Jacoby (1902), p. 33. On the problems with the assumption that Castor was Diodorus’ source, see Perl (1957), pp. 156–158; Werner (1963), pp. 191–192. 22 For Philodemus’ (early) biography, refined on the basis of new readings in the Index Academicorum, see Fleischer (2018a). 23 On this period of the composition of the Index Academicorum, see Fleischer (2016), p. 468. 24 See Jacoby (1902), p. 33. 25 FGrH 244 F 38b; see Jacoby (1902), p. 318.

30 | Apollodorus’ Chronica – Content, reception, book division, publication date(s)

is rather likely that Thrasyllus also consulted the original Chronica.26 The excerpts or reminiscences in Clemens of Alexandria and Tatian the Syrian can be traced back to Dionysius of Halicarnassus.27 Jacoby identifies Demetrius of Magnesia as a reader of the Chronica through whom some content of the work ended up in Plutarch and Diogenes Laertius. There must have been several not exactly identifiable intermediary sources, which were exploited in later times by Diogenes Laertius, Pseudo–Lucian (De longaevis), Porphyrius, Eusebius, Stephanus of Byzantium and the Suda. In several cases an origin from the Chronica may be hypothesized with varying degrees of probability, but Jacoby included in his collections only fragments whose assignment to the Chronica is fairly certain. The 8 original verses preserved in Stephanus (1–3,15,19,20,108,109) and their sometimes exact indication by book number are based on intermediary sources and cannot be regarded as a certain hint that the original was still available to him. Likewise, the 11 verses on Empedocles preserved in Diogenes Laertius (4–14) are unlikely to have been copied directly from the original treatise, as they were probably adopted from an intermediary source.28 As far as the “Latin” Nachleben is concerned, it is possible that already Quintus Lutatius Catulus, consul in 102 BC and probably the author of a historical work, used the Chronica.29 Anyway, there is no doubt that Cornelius Nepos made extensive use of the Chronica when writing his own Chronica in three books, which had already been published by the time Cicero wrote his major rhetorical and philosophical treatises. An exact terminus ante quem of 54 BC is provided by the famous first poem of Catullus, which alludes to Nepos’ Chronica.30 Apollodorus was the main source for the “Greek part” of Nepos’ work, who combined, so to speak, the Chronica with Roman dates and events. In three passages Cicero indirectly depends on Apollodorus (through Nepos).31 Also (indirectly) depend-

|| 26 Jacoby (1902), pp. 34, 78–79. 27 On Clemens see FGrH 244 F 63b,68c; for Tatian FGrH 244 F 63a. 28 See Jacoby (1902), p. 272. 29 On Catulus and his possible dependence on Apollodorus see Walter (2009), esp. pp. 9–10 (= frg. 8 Walter). As Jacoby (1902), p. 43 rightly pointed out, the passage is ambiguous (Solin 1,27: Cincio Romam duodecima Olympiade placet conditam, Pictori octava, Nepoti et Lutatio opiniones Eratosthenis et Apollodori comprobantibus Olympiadis septimae anno secundo). 30 Cat. 1,1–7: Cui dono lepidum novum libellum | arido modo pumice expolitum? | Corneli, tibi: namque tu solebas | meas esse aliquid putare nugas | iam tum, cum ausus es unus Italorum | omne aevum tribus explicare chartis, | doctis, Iuppiter, et laboriosis. See also Perlwitz (1992), p. 27 with note 118. 31 FGrH 244 F 337,338d,342.

The Chronica – model(s) and afterlife | 31

ent on Nepos are the Chronica reminiscences in Pliny the Elder, Solinus, and possibly Velleius Paterculus.32 A nice example of the popularity of Apollodorus’ Chronica in the Late Roman Republic is represented by the request Cicero made to Atticus to browse the Chronica in order to identify the exact circumstances of the famous embassy of Athenian philosophers to Rome in 155 BC – with the Chronica obviously serving as an encyclopedia on all kinds of matters.33 The letter could also imply that Atticus drew upon Apollodorus for his liber annalis.34 Quintilian makes one reference to Apollodorus, but the context shows that he did not have first–hand access to Apollodorus’ work.35 Aulus Gellius states explicitly that he used Nepos (and thereby, indirectly, Apollodorus) and in another passage even cites three trimeters from the Chronica (16–18). In the light of this fact, and of the context of the verses, it seems at least possible that he had still access to the original Chronica. Moreover, he attests to the high reputation Apollodorus enjoyed (scriptor celebratissimus).36 In conclusion, over time Apollodorus’ more up-to-date Χρονικά replaced Eratosthenes chronological pioneering Χρονογραφίαι and became the major chronological reference work from as early as the late Hellenistic period. However, it seems that the original trimeter-Chronica survived only in a few places and became difficult to come by within one or two centuries, while variously modified (excerpted) prose versions with Olympiad-dating were more widespread. Some trimeters were transmitted by chance through faithfully copied passages in these prose-versions and the original verse version would appear to have vanished at the latest by the time of Diogenes Laertius (third century). Aulus Gellius (16–18) in the second century is the last author who may have consulted the original Chronica, but this is far from certain. Hence, already in the early Roman Imperial age the afterlife of the famous Chronica was, to some extent, the afterlife of revised prose-versions of the Chronica. Given the circulation of handier prose ver-

|| 32 On Pliny see FGrH 244 T 19,20; on Solinus FGrH 244 T 7 + F 333,348. Cf. Jacoby (1902), pp. 34–35. 33 FGrH 244 T 8 (Cic. Att. XII,23,2 – March 45 BC): De Terentia ita cura ut scribis, meque hac ad maximas aegritudines accessione non minima libera. et ut scias me ita dolere ut non iaceam: quibus consulibus Carneades et ea legatio Romam venerit scriptum est in tuo annali. haec nunc quaero, quae causa fuerit – de Oropo, opinor, sed certum nescio; et, si ita est, quae controversiae. praeterea, qui eo tempore nobilis Epicureus fuerit Athenisque praefuerit hortis, qui etiam Athenis πολιτικοὶ fuerint illustres. quae te etiam ex Apollodori puto posse invenire. 34 Jacoby (1902), p. 35. 35 FGrH 244 F 67. 36 FGrH 244 T 19b, F 7b,43,336a,347d.

32 | Apollodorus’ Chronica – Content, reception, book division, publication date(s)

sions, the original verse Chronica itself must soon have become rather unattractive for many readers, who were only interested in facts and preferred Olympiad dating as well as a prose style.

3.4 Book division of the Chronica and the 4th book As mentioned earlier (2.1), we can deduce from Pseudo-Scymnus that the version of the Chronica which he used covered a period ranging from 1184/83 BC to 144/43 BC, if one assumes the adoption of “exclusive counting”, which is more probable. “Inclusive counting” would result in an end date of 145/44 BC. Since 1040 years might be only an approximation (maybe on the part of Pseudo-Scymnus), even 143/42 BC for instance might be arguable (1041 years). Apart from two passages in Diogenes Laertius, all the fragments with explicit references to book numbers are to be found in Stephanus of Byzantium. Altogether there are 26 explicit references: 4 references to the first book, 5 references to the second book, 8 to the 3rd book and 9 references to the 4th book.37 Book 1: 1184/83 – 480/79 (704 years) – Fall of Troy to Persian Wars Book 2: 480/79 – 324/23 (156 years) – Persian Wars to the death of Alexander Book 3: 324/23 – (Last certain date 219 BC) Book 4: (quite safely) datable explicit references: – FGrH 244 F 18: 143–139 BC – FGrH 244 F 19: 138 BC – FGrH 244 F 20–21: 135–132 BC – FGrH 244 F 22–25: 125–121 BC Now the question arises of how many books were included in the Chronica which Pseudo-Scymnus refers to, which is to say the Chronica published around 144/43 BC. If it already consisted of four books, then the 4th book must have been subsequently expanded, maybe going along with a restructuring of the arrangement of books three and four. If the original Chronica comprised only three books, then the 4th book was simply a later supplement covering the period from the publication date of the original three-book Chronica (around 144/43 BC) to the publication date of book four (on which see 3.6). Which hypothesis is preferable? We should look at the datable fragments from book four. If there was already a 4th book by 144/43 BC, which was only enhanced later on, then from a statistical

|| 37 FGrH 244 F 1–26. See Jacoby (1902), p. 10.

In what year did the 3rd book end the 4th book begin? | 33

point of view we would expect at least one reference out of the eight to refer to a date earlier than 144/43 BC, since an original 4th book must have encompassed at least a few decades. But this is not the case. To be sure, the references (in particular F 22–25) are hardly statistically independent and the sample might be too small to be of econometrical-statistical significance,38 but it allows for the conservative verdict that it is rather unlikely, albeit not entirely to be excluded, that book 4 covered a period before 144/43 BC. Accordingly, the most natural conclusion is that the 4th book was a later supplement covering the time after the first publication of the Chronica (ca. 144/43 BC). There are no hints that the complete Chronica was ever revised during the compiling of this later supplement or that its book division was modified. While Jacoby (1902) still considered the possibility of a revised version of the (whole) Chronica worth discussing, he practically rejected the idea or regarded it as very unlikely in FGrH (1929).39 Indeed, unless other evidence emerges, we should assume that the 4th book was a genuine supplement, not affecting the content or division of the other three books as published in ca. 144/43 BC.

3.5 In what year did the 3rd book end and the 4th book begin? To tackle the question of the end date of the 3rd book, we have to clarify which verses from the Index Academicorum (21–107 = col. 27,1–32,34)40 can be assigned to the 3rd book and which to the 4th book. For internal chronological reasons there cannot be any doubt that verses 54–107 (Ind. Acad. col. 28,40–32,34) derive from the 4th book. Boethus of Marathon is referred to as a contemporary of Carneades and his biography ends with the explicit mention of his death in 120/19 BC.41 Next, several pupils of Carneades and his death are mentioned (Carneades’ lifetime successors Polemarchus of Nicomedia, Crates of Tarsus, Clitomachus of Carthage, Melanthius of Rhodes, Charmadas of Alexandria, and others).42 The situa-

|| 38 Of course, this depends on the significance level and the assumptions or hypothesis-testing one makes. 39 Jacoby (1902), pp. 11–19; Jacoby (1929), p. 719. 40 I ignore here the Boethus doublet in the last part of col. 26. 41 There is a lacuna immediately after the verse(s) about Boethus’ death (in col. 26 as well as in the middle of col. 28), but the structure of his biography suggests that the report about his death was the last verse devoted to him. 42 On Polemarchus of Nicomedia and not Carneades, son of Polemarchus, being Carneades’ successor or deputy from 137/36 BC until 131/30 BC, see Fleischer (2019a).

34 | Apollodorus’ Chronica – Content, reception, book division, publication date(s)

tion for col. 27,1–28,40 (21–53) is more complicated. For the first verses in question, we might come to a probable assignment. Apollodorus gives two alternative dates for the death of Lacydes (207/06 and 206/05 BC).43 It would be slightly surprising if Apollodorus, who included Crates and Arcesilaus (died ca. 241/40 BC) in the 3rd book of the Chronica,44 missed the scholarch Lacydes in the original version of the Chronica and embedded him only in a kind of cultural-Academic “flashback” in the 4th book. Hence, at least the beginning of col. 27 (Lacydes) must have occurred in the 3rd book. New readings show that the verses about his most distinguished pupils Euander and Telecles (27–32) were connected to the previous verses. The other members of the “leading committee”45 down to Agamestor and the two Eubuluses (33,34) were probably listed in this context, too (in the lost verses ca. col. 27,18–35). Hence, Philodemus must have compiled his excerpt from two different books of the Chronica (3+4), with col. 27,1–39 certainly belonging to the 3rd book, and col. 28,40 ff. to the fourth. What is the situation with the few lines or verses in between (col. 27,39– 28,40 – verses 35–53)? For the otherwise almost unknown members of the leading committee of the Academy after Lacydes, there are corresponding prose versions on the back of the papyrus to be inserted later on at the right place in the treatise. The information of columns (M–(N)–O, possibly P)46 partly overlaps with col. 27,1–28, mid(?) of the Apollodorus excerpt and some passages depend directly or indirectly on the Chronica (or, but this is less likely, the Chronica depends on them). Recently, I have reconstructed almost 15 complete lines of the biography of Carneades in the first half of col. 22 and from other new readings it emerges that Carneades’ biography (excluding the pupil list and account of his death) extended down to col. 22,35.47 The newly restored lines show that Carneades’ biography cannot have begun in col. 22. A substantial part of it must have been written prior to col. 22.48 However, col. 21 ends in the middle of a sentence referring to the life of Lacydes. Where was the end of the life of Lacydes described, where were the passages devoted to the Academics between Lacydes and Carneades, and where did Carneades’ biography begin?

|| 43 On these dates see Fleischer (2021). 44 FGrH 244 F 14–16. 45 The idea of a “leading committee” was suggested by v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1910), p. 409. See also Görler (1994), p. 834. 46 The columns on the back were labelled with letters in reverse order. This means column M is the “last” (seen from the recto) column on the verso. 47 The famous embassy to Rome in 155 BC is referred to before the list of pupils begins. 48 Fleischer (2020).

In what year did the 3rd book end the 4th book begin? | 35

Like all Herculanean papyri, PHerc. 1021 was glued on paperboard (cornici) soon after its unrolling, so that nowadays the back (verso) is no longer accessible anymore. I was able to identify the position of the verso columns, which were depicted in drawings (disegni) made before the papyrus was glued on paperboard,49 on the basis of a comparison of the holes, breaks and edges of the drawings with the original papyrus (“horizontally mirrored”). For the last four verso columns, copied and designated by the draughtsman (disegnatore) with the letters M–N–O–P, a possible placement could be made plausible and it was argued in particular that these columns represented a continuous passage – at least columns M–N–O.50 The beginning of col. M should still refer to the life of Lacydes (col. M,1–11). Then the pupils of his who held joint leadership are mentioned (col. O,11–end(?)). Other pupils (of Telecles) are obviously the main subject of col. N, which dates the death of several members of the leading committee, among other figures (col. O,18–25 and 29–31). This passage parallels verses 35–46 (col. 27,39– 28,13). However, the columns on the verso seem to contain some information not found in Apollodorus and probably do not represent a prose version exclusively based on Apollodorus, judging from the surviving original verses. The remains of col. P would perfectly fit with Carneades, whose mention one would expect to find there from a chronological point of view.51 To keep things short, it seems that the four columns M–N–O–P from the verso were intended to be inserted (with a somewhat revised phrasing) between columns 21 and 22. This implies that they were forgotten when the recto of PHerc. 1021 was drafted and that they were not a later rephrasing, but had already been written when the draft of PHerc. 1021 was composed.52 The first mention of Lacydes’ successors in verses 27–34 finds a parallel in the beginning of col. M. This seems to go only partly back to Apollodorus, since additional names occur which are not to be found in Apollodorus. Yet, some of the names are listed by the Suda.53 Now, a new reconstruction of verses 34,35

|| 49 The Oxford disegni were executed between 1795 and 1798, cf. Dorandi (1991), p. 108. 50 Fleischer (2017a). One should say that the HSI tests carried out in 2018 neither confirmed nor disproved this suggested placement, cf. Tournie et al. (2019). 51 That is, always assuming that M–N–O–P was a continuous passage on the back, which is not unlikely but not entirely certain, see Fleischer (2017a), p. 38. Otherwise, column P could refer to Arcesilaus. 52 For the copy-paste character of the draft PHerc. 1021 see Essler (2019). 53 Suda, π 1707,24–27 (Plato’s successors): Σπεύσιππος, Ξενοκράτης, Πολέμων, Κράντωρ, Κράτης. οἱ δὲ Σωκρατίδες, Ἀρκεσίλαος, Λακύδης, Εὔανδρος Φωκαεύς, Δάμων, Λεοντεύς, Μοσχίων, Εὔανδρος Ἀθηναῖος, Ἡγησίνους, Καρνεάδης, Ἁρμάδας.

36 | Apollodorus’ Chronica – Content, reception, book division, publication date(s)

hints at a possible omission in the excerpt between these two verses.54 It seems that a passage of unknown length – maybe one not (strictly) related to the Academy – was skipped before the death dates for Lacydes’ pupils were copied. It should not surprise us too much that Philodemus’ excerpt was not continuous. Since the first preserved verses on Lacydes (21,22) suggest that his entire biography was presented without any omission or digression in the Chronica, Apollodorus would have been forced to cover a time span of more than 100 years, if he had treated Lacydes and the deaths of his pupils continuously. Although it seems likely that Apollodorus had to loosen his chronological scheme to some extent in order to present some thematically coherent subjects like the history of the Academy en bloc, he may have separated the “Lacydes and his pupils” section from the “death list of Lacydes’ pupils” one. Notwithstanding a likely desire not to partition thematically coherent topics too much, Apollodorus necessarily had to cut off his account (of the Academy) at some point. Otherwise, he would have been compelled to write down its history from Plato until Carneades’ pupils in a continuous section. This is neither likely nor supported by the evidence from the Chronica we possess. Also in columns M–N–O, on the verso, the first list of Lacydes’ pupils occurs almost two columns earlier than their dates of death. Assuming a rather strict chronological approach, the “death list” for Lacydes' pupils (verses 35–46 = col. 27,39–28,13) must still have occurred in the 3rd book. The omission before verse 35 does not challenge this assignment, but suggests that it is at least possible that the death list for the pupils was first supplemented in book 4 of the Chronica. The crucial questions are whether the verses referring to Theaetetus and obviously to Eubulus, Apollonius’ brother (47–49), were still part of the 3rd book and where in col. 28 the excerpt from the 3rd book ended. Did it extend until 53? Who was the philosopher mentioned immediately before Boethus (50–53), considering that the latter was undoubtedly dealt with in the 4th book (54–66)? The verses could somehow fit Carneades, but the space is hardly sufficient for Carneades’ whole biography. Yet, his early life might have been touched upon earlier on and the sentence might only mean that he was very popular at the time when Eubulus passed away (he had already been teaching for quite some time by then). The lacuna or some combination of letters in the fragmentary lines (ca. col. 28,19–33) could allow for the restoration of Carneades’ name, but his mention is far from certain. What militates against the assignment of verses 50–53 and thereby of the entire passage col. 28,17–40 to Eubulus is the fact that his death was probably expressed through a genitive absolute (47–49),

|| 54 Cf. Fleischer (2018d), esp. pp. 72–73.

In what year did the 3rd book end the 4th book begin? | 37

so the focus of the subsequent verses was probably on a different person.55 The present tense ἔχει in 53 could imply that the person dealt with was still alive at the time of the compilation of the verses. Moreover, there is no paragraphus in col. 28,13 (46), before the Theaetetus–passage, of the sort we might expect to be used to mark a transition to another book.56 Anyway, there are good reasons to believe that the death of Eubulus (brother of Apollonius) was still reported in the 3rd book, which therefore would not have been published before his death under the archon Aristophon in 143/42 BC.57 The expression μετὰ (τὸν) Θεαίτητον can hardly refer to a time “after Theaetetus” (archon in 144/43 BC) in a general sense; rather, it only has the function of distinguishing the archon Aristophon (143/42 BC) from another earlier archon Aristophon (330/29 BC). This is confirmed by the corresponding prose version on the verso (col. O,18–24): ἐτελεύ[τησαν δ᾿] Ἀπ̣[ολ]|λ̣ών̣ι̣ος μὲν κατ’ ἄ[ρχοντ’ Ἐπαίνε]|20τ̣ον, ὁ̣ δ̣᾿ ἀδελφὸς Εὔβουλ[ος] ἐ|π᾿ Ἀρισ[τ]οφῶντος τοῦ [μετὰ] | Θ̣εα̣ίτητον, ὁ δ̣᾿ [Ἐ]φέσιος Εὔβου|λος καὶ ὁ Ἐρυθραῖος ἐ[π᾿] Ἀ[λ]ε|ξάνδ[ρ]ου. It is unlikely that the author of the clumsy prose version misunderstood something in the verses, since the formula “ἐπὶ (name of archon) τοῦ μετὰ (name of preceding archon)” is attested in several Attic inscriptions.58 Such a formula/addition is usually applied in order to clarify which archon (date) is meant, when there are one or more other Athenian archons with the same name. The same formula also occurs at the end of an Herculanean papyrus (297/96 BC) containing Epicurus’ De natura (28th book), where it is used to date the composition of the book: ἐγ[ρ]άφη ἐπὶ Νικίου τοῦ μ[ετ]ὰ Ἀν[τι]φάτην̣.59 Interestingly, in one passage of Philodemus’ De Stoicis (PHerc. 155+339) we read:60 Ἀπολλό[δω]ρος δὲ τὸ κα[ταδε]|δ̣ῆσθαι [τίθησι τ]ὴν πόλιν [ἐπ’ Ἀν|τιπ]ά̣τρου τ̣[οῦ] πρὸ Ἁρρενείδ[ου] | κ̣α̣ὶ̣ φρουρὰ[ν εἰς] τὸ Μουσεῖον [τότ᾿] |10 εἰσῆχθ̣[αι ὑπ᾿] Ἀντιγόνου [καὶ τὰς] ἀρχὰς | [ἀνηιρῆσθ]αι ⸌τὰ̣⸍ καὶ || 55 Eubulus, Apollonius’ brother, is otherwise completely unknown, which does not support the hypothesis that several verses were devoted to him (of course, Boethus of Marathon is a good counter-argument for not trusting this kind of argumentum e silentio). 56 Between verses 34 and 35 obviously only a passage from the same book was skipped. 57 Jacoby (1929), pp. 719, 739 and FGrH 244 F 47 seems to favor an assignment to the 4th book. 58 E.g. IG II² 1012 (ἐπὶ Διονυσίου ἄρχοντος τοῦ μετὰ Παράνομον – the Dionysius mentioned was archon in 112/11 BC, but there were two other archons named Dionysius in the preceding decades) or IG II² 1014 (ἐπὶ Ἰάσονος ἄρχοντος τοῦ μετὰ Πολύκλει[τον – the Iason mentioned was archon in 109/08 BC, but there was another archon Iason sixteen years before). Other examples could be brought forward. For further discussion see Dorandi (1991a), pp. 245–246. 59 Epic. de nat. 28 (PHerc. 1479/1417), fr. 13 XIII inf. (Sedley). For archons in the Herculanean papyri see the list in Dorandi (1990a). There was another archon Nikias 14 years later. 60 Phld. De Stoicis (PHerc. 155+339), col. 4,6–12 (= FGrH 244 F 44 = number 39 in Dorandi (1990) – cited according to Dorandi (1982b)).

38 | Apollodorus’ Chronica – Content, reception, book division, publication date(s)

πᾶν ἑ̣ν̣[ὸς] βουλεύ̣[ματι τελ]εῖσθαι. The dating by the preceding archon is rather unusual61 and may suggest that Philodemus paraphrased Apollodorus very closely, who in turn may have used the preceding archon for metrical reasons or for variation.62 In any case, verses 47–49 are obviously part of a genitive absolute and strongly suggest that at least the following verses were still part of the 3rd book. If verses 50–53 really refer to Carneades, the comparatively short space devoted to him – assuming he was not dealt with earlier – may be explained with the fact that his most prominent pupils (Charmadas, Melanthius) first attended his lectures at a later date or were still relatively unknown, at least to Apollodorus. Eubulus, the brother of Apollonius, may have only been mentioned as the last “Academic to have passed away” in order to emphasize the up-to-date status of the Chronica in 143/42 BC. An almost radical alternative to my book assignment of the Philodemus excerpt is offered by Bravo (2009), who believes that the entire Philodemus excerpt derives from the 4th book only and originally included repetitions or flashbacks going back to the time of Lacydes for the purpose of providing a rather coherent treatment of the philosophical schools.63 Bravo’s hypothesis is by no means absurd and a chronological flashback embracing Lacydes and his pupils in the 4th book might be reasonably argued. However, we have identified some likely omissions in the Philodemus excerpt and at any rate this was no continuous excerpt. At least Arcesilaus, who died 241/40 BC, was still dealt with in the 3rd book of the Chronica.64 Did Apollodorus really forget or ignore Lacydes in the first three books of his Chronica? There is no obvious reason to infer as much and, indeed, no reason to assume a separate and continuous treatment – implying repetitions – of philosophical schools or the Academy in the 4th book. Nevertheless, the structure of the excerpt and its place in the Index Academicorum might raise some suspicion, making it seem at least possible that the excerpt was drawn from only one book (the 4th) and that, for whatever reason, Lacydes and his pupils were not listed chronologically– maybe because Apollodorus really had overlooked them in the 3rd book. If this were true, 144/43 BC would be the more likely end date for the 3rd book (exactly 1040 years). However, given the chronology of Lacydes and

|| 61 However, there is a parallel in schol. Aristoph. ran. ad 694 - ἐπὶ Ἀντιγένους τοῦ πρὸ Καλλίου), cf. Dorandi (1991), pp. 245–246. 62 There had been another archon Antipater more than 100 years earlier. 63 Bravo (2009), pp. 146, 156–158. 64 FGrH 244 F 15.

In what year did the 3rd book end the 4th book begin? | 39

his pupils, we might want to stick to my above-suggested assignment of the Philodemus verses to two different books of the Chronica (3+4) – until hard evidence suggests otherwise. To conclude, I am inclined to assume that the death of Eubulus, the brother of Apollonius (47–49) was still mentioned in the 3rd book of the Chronica as the last “Academic death”. This hypothesis is mainly based on the parallel in col. O, where Eubulus’ death is closely connected with the death of some of Lacydes' pupils, which were most probably dealt with in the 3rd book of the Chronica. The year 143/42 BC only partly conflicts with the 1040 years of Pseudo-Scymnus, inasmuch as it would result in 1041 years. However, given that the Chronica was published in 143/42 BC, Apollodorus may not have counted the year in which he was writing (since it had not ended yet) or may have only given a kind of approximation in this proem (alternatively, Pseudo-Scymnus may be offering an approximation of an originally more precise date). Furthermore, the unknown philosopher of verses 50–53 (possibly or probably dealt with from col. 28,18 on) seems to have been still alive when Apollodorus wrote these verses. Carneades might be an attractive candidate for the identity of this philosopher, while certainly not the only one. Indeed, we would expect more information about Carneades in the 3rd book of the Chronica, but he may have already been mentioned in another context in the 3rd book (e.g. the philosophers’ embassy). The immediate link with Boethus – although this passage is taken from the 4th book – might suggest that Carneades was mentioned in the verses excerpted immediately before. The possible restoration/reading -φικης in col. 28,24 might be associated with Carneades’ refusal to write books,65 but this is very speculative. Regardless of the identity of this philosopher, the archon Aristophon (Eubulus’ death) might still have been mentioned in the 3rd book of the Chronica. To be sure, it cannot be entirely excluded that the 3rd book of the Chronica ended already before or with the archon Theaetetus (144/43 BC), but in my view the surviving evidence makes 143/42 BC preferable. Accordingly, I would also assign verses 50–53 to the 3rd book. Bravo’s (2009) suggestion that all the verses in Philodemus come from the 4th book seems less likely to me, but his hypothesis is worth keeping in mind.

|| 65 See Fleischer (2020).

40 | Apollodorus’ Chronica – Content, reception, book division, publication date(s)

3.6 The end date of the 4th book of the Chronica – a tricky question with certain consequences A slightly more problematic issue is the determination of a terminus post quem for the end date of the 4th book of the Chronica, which has basically more implications than the question whether book 4 began in 144/43 or 143/42 BC. Again, we should start with some statistical considerations. The last certain date is the death of Boethus, 120/19 BC (verses 64–66). If the Chronica extended far beyond 120 BC, let us say until 100 BC, then the odds that at least one of the Stephanus fragments (see 3.4) dates from this period (120–100 BC) would not be too bad. But this is not the case. Again, the sample is not broad enough to be of statistical significance, but it might display a tendency. However, on the grounds of Apollodorus’ biography (his age) we would not expect a date around 100 BC or even later. Statistical considerations are completely pointless, if the real (and unknown) end date was close to 120/19 BC. Anyhow, the statistical variance (margin of error) in the distribution of Stephanus fragments should not prevent us from postulating a date around 110 BC or slightly later, if there are strong arguments supporting such a dating. The problem boils down to this: was the death of the Academic scholarch Clitomachus still reported in the 4th book of the Chronica – with the likely consequence, that at least a short biography of his successor Philo of Larissa was also given? This question is related to the complex structure of the draft character of the Index Academicorum and to the evaluation of the interdependence between its parallel prose versions and the original verses. The details, and in particular several new readings in the relevant columns, are decisive for identifying and isolating Philodemus’ sources and tackling this question. To start with, Jacoby (1902) offers somewhat diverging statements concerning the end date of the Chronica. Discussing the biography of Apollodorus, he remarks: “ …wenn es auch nicht sicher steht, ob er (sc. Apollodorus) den 110 erfolgten Tod des Kleitomachos in der Chronik noch erwähnt hat.“66 Later on in his monograph, he states in his commentary on frg. 100: “Ich zweifle nicht, dass auch dies letzte Faktum (i.e. Clitomachus’ death) noch in der Chronik stand. Vielleicht bildete 110/09 das Schlußjahr.”67 In the commentary on FGrH 244 F 56 (1929) Jacoby is again cautious: “Daß auch Dauer des Scholarchats und Todesjahr

|| 66 Jacoby (1902), p. 9. 67 Jacoby (1902), p. 389.

The end date of the 4th book of the Chronica | 41

noch aus A(pollodor) stammen, ist nicht sicher, aber wahrscheinlich.“68 Jacoby does not put forward any arguments in support of his statements. Hence, a profound analysis of the question is long overdue. The crucial point is whether the Clitomachus prose passage in col. 25 of the Index Academicorum was exclusively based on Apollodorus or whether there was at least one other source, which would then imply that the later part of Clitomachus’ biography (especially his death) was not mentioned in the Chronica. My new edition of Clitomachus’ biography reads as follows: Phld. Ind. Acad. (PHerc. 1021), col. 24,30–26,4 (Fleischer–new) col. 24

35

40

43 col. 25

5

10

[̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]⌈δ⌉ ̣ ̣ ̣ Πολέμα]ρ̣χο̣ς̣ [Ν]⌈ικο⌉μ]η̣δε̣ [ὺς εἰσῆλ]θ̣ε. β̣[ιώ]⌈σας⌉ δ]ὲ̣ λ̣[οῖφ᾿] ἓ̣ξ̣ [ἔτη] ⌈κ̣α⌉τ⌈έ͙στρ⌉εψε̣[ν ἐπ᾿ ᾿Επικλέους], ⌈μ⌉εθ᾿ ὃν ⌈Κρ̣⌉ά̣[τ]η̣[ς ὁ Τ]α̣[ρσε]ὺ̣⌈ς͙ δύο͙ μόνον⌉ ἡγ̣[η]σ̣άμεν̣[ο]ς [ἐ]τ̣ελεύτησεν̣· ἐ̣φ̣᾿ ὧι Κλ⌈ε⌉[ιτόμα]χος εἰς Ἀκαδήμει[αν] ἐπέβαλεν μετὰ πολλ⌈ῶν⌉ γ̣νωρίμων - πρότερον γὰ[ρ] ἐσχόλαζ⌈εν⌉ ⌈ἐπὶ⌉ Πα⌈λλ⌉αδ[ίωι] - μετὰ ⌈τ⌉ὴν Καρν[εά]⌈δο⌉υ ⌈τελευτ⌉ήν. ο̣ὗ̣[τ]ος ἐπεκαλεῖτο μ⌈ὲν⌉ Ἀσ⌈δρο⌉ύβας, ἦλθε δ᾿ εἰς ⌈Ἀ⌉θήνας ⌈ἔτ⌉ων τετ⌈τ⌉άρων πρὸς ⌈εἴκ͙ο⌉σι γεγ̣⌈ο⌉νώς, μετὰ δὲ ⌈τέτ⌉ταρα σχολάζειν ἤρξατ⌈ο⌉ Καρνεάδε[ι] καὶ συνγενόμ⌈ε⌉νος ἐνν⌈έ⸌α⸍ κ⌉αὶ δέκ᾿ αὐτῶι σχ[ολ]ὴν ἰδίαν ἐπὶ Παλλαδί⌈ω⌉[ι] ⌈σ⌉υνε⌈σ͙τ͙⌉ήσατο ἄρχοντ[ο]ς̣ Ἁ⌈γ⌉νο⌈θ⌉έου καὶ συνέσχεν δι᾿] ⌈ἕ⌉νδεκ̣α. τὴν ⌈δὲ⌉ Καρνεά-

|| 68 Jacoby (1929), p. 742.

… Polemarchus from Nicomedia entered. He lived further six years and died under the archon Epicles (131/0). After him Crates of Tarsus led (the school) only for two (years) and died whereupon Clitomachus invaded the Academy with many pupils – for he lectured formerly in the Palladium – after the death of Carneades. He was nicknamed Hasdrubas and he came to Athens at the age of 24 years. After four years he started to study with Carneades. After being his pupil for 19 years he set up an own school at the Palladium under the archonship of Hagnotheus (140/39 BC) and maintained it for eleven years.

42 | Apollodorus’ Chronica – Content, reception, book division, publication date(s)

15

20

25

30

35

40

43 col. 26

4

⌈δου⌉ δ[ι]ε̣δέ̣ξα⌈τ⌉[o] ἐπὶ Λυκίσ⌈κου π⌉α̣ρὰ̣ Κ̣ράτητ⌈ο⌉ς τοῦ̣ τ̣έ̣[τ⌈ταρ̣⌉α [μ]έ⌈ν⌉· ἡγησάμεν[ο]⸌ς̣⸍ [δ᾿] ἐ̣ν⌈νέ⌉α κα[ὶ] δέ{χ} ἔτη κατέσ̣τ̣ρε⌈ψεν͙⌉ ἐ⌈π⌉[ὶ] Π̣ο̣λ̣[υ]κ⌈λείτ⌉ου, τ̣ιν⌈ὲ⌉ς ⌈δ᾿ ἐπ̣᾿ Ἀ⌉ρ̣ι⌈̣ στ⌉άρ̣χ̣ο̣[υ] ⌈φ͙α⌉[σί]⌈ν, ἔτη⌉ βιώ]σας̣ ἐ̣ν̣ν̣[έ]α̣ π̣[ρ]ὸ̣[ς] τοῖς ἑβδ̣ο̣μήκο]ν̣τ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ [ ̣ ]η[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ ⌈σδ⌉[ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ γε ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ π̣ο̣λ̣υ̣γ̣[ρ]ά̣φος̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ π ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]Χ̣⌈αρμάδας⌉ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ μ̣ ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ ̣⌈ν⌉ω⌈νι τ⌉ησ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]⌈οσ⌉σχ̣⌈αδυ⌉ ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ ⌈νηγροι⌉[ ̣ ] ̣ α ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]οσ[ ̣ ]⌈φαι⌉ν ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]μ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]̣ ̣α̣[̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ ̣ ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ ⌈ρυ͙⌉[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]̣[̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]̣[̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]̣ ̣[̣ ̣ ⌈ευ⌉ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ Ἀ]ν̣τ̣ιοχ[ ̣ ]̣ ̣ ε̣ ⌈κα⌉[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ Ἀ̣σ̣καλ̣ω̣⌈ν͙⌉ί̣τ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]⟦ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ⌈ν δ᾿⟧ Ἡρ⌉άκλε̣[ιτος, ὃς καὶ] Φίλιω⸌νος⸍ {⌈θ⌉᾿} ὕστερον ⌈δ̣⌉ι̣[ή]κ̣ο̣[υ]σ̣[ε]. ⸆ Πολε̣μάρ⌈χο̣⌉[ς] δ̣ὲ̣ Ν̣ι̣κ̣⌈ομ͙η͙δε͙⌉ὺ⌈ς⌉ κ̣α[ὶ] πα⌈ράγ̣⌉[ε]ι̣⌈ν͙⌉ κ̣α[ὶ σ]ώ̣ι̣ζ̣ει̣ν θ⌈έ⌉[σ]⌈ιν⌉ ⌈με⌉[μ]⌈ελε⌉τηκώ̣ς, ζῶντα δ᾿ ⌈ἔ͙⌉τ̣ι̣ ⌈Κα⌉ρνεάδ⌈η⌉ν διαδεξάμ⌈εν⌉ο̣ς ἡγή⌈σαθ᾿⌉ ἕ̣⌈ξ⌉ ἔτη, κατ⌈έστρ⌉εψε ⌈δ᾿ ἐ⸌π͙⸍᾿ Ἐπ͙ι͙κλ⌉έους ἄρχο⌈ντ⌉[ο]ς· κ⌈ατέλ⌉ιπεν δὲ διάδο⌈χ⌉ον τὸν συσ⌈χο⌉λαστὴ⌈ν⌉ Κράτητα Ταρσ⌈έ̣⌉α ⟦⌈τ⌉⟧⸌τ⸍ὸ ⟦⌈σ⌉⟧ γέν⌈ος͙, ἡ⌉γήσατο δ᾿ ⌈ο͙ὗ⌉τ̣[ο]ς̣ ἔτ⌈η⌉ τέττα⌈ρ⌉α. ⸆ Μητρόδ⌈ω⌉ρος κτλ.

col. 24: 32 Πολεμά]ρ̣χο̣ς̣ KF

32–33 [Ν]⌈ικο⌉|[μ]η̣δ̣ε[ὺς KF

μετ- (fort. spat. long.) conieceris)

β̣[ιώ]⌈σας⌉Mekler

He took over the one (school) of Carneades under the archonship of Lyciscus (129/8 BC) from Crates, who (was in charge) for four years. Being in charge for 19 years he died under the archonship of Polyclitus (110/09 BC), some say under the archonship of Aristarchus (107/06 BC), at the age of 79 years. …writing much…Charmadas…

Antiochus….Ascolon…Heraclitus who heard later also Philio. Polemarchus, from Nicomedia, well practised in both diverting and defending a thesis, succeeded Carneades, when he was still alive, and led (the school) for six year; he died under the archonship of Epicles (131/30). He left his schoolfellow Crates, of Tarsus by origin, as successor. He led for four years. Metrodorus … 33 εἰσῆλ]θ̣ε. KF (ἐπ- vel προ- vel 34 δ]̣ὲ̣ λ̣[οῖφ᾿] ἓ̣ξ̣ [ἔτη] KF

The end date of the 4th book of the Chronica | 43

34–35 Κ̣[αρνεάδης κ]ατ⌈έ͙στρ⌉ε|ψε̣[ν ὁ τοῦ Πολεμάρχου] Gomperz 36–37 Gomperz (Ν)

38 ἐ̣φ̣᾿ Gomperz: ἐ̣ν̣ Dorandi

42 Spengel

8 Mekler

9 Spengel

35 ἐπ᾿ ᾿Επικλέους KF

41–42 distinx. Mette 41 ἐσχόλαζ⌈ον⌉ Mekler

43 Bücheler* col. 25: 1 Bücheler*

3 Dorandi

4 Bücheler*

11 δι᾿] KF: ἔθ᾿] vel ὡς] (fort. spat. long.) conieceris ⌈ἕ⌉νδεκα dub. Jacoby

1902: μ]⌈ὲ⌉ν δέκα Gomperz

13 π⌉α̣ρὰ̣] Κρ̣άτ̣ητ̣ ο⌈ς⌉ τοῦ̣ Gomperz

Τ̣α̣[ρ]⌈σ͙ό͙θ̣⌉ε⌈ν⌉ perperam Gomperz ἡγησάμεν[ο] ⸌ς̣⸍ conieceris)

13–14 τ̣έ̣[τ]|⌈ταρ̣⌉α. [μ]έ⌈ν⌉ KF:

14 ἡγησάμεν[ο]⸌ς̣⸍[δ᾿] ἐ̣ν - Gomperz (.

15–16 Gomperz

17 ⌈δ᾿ ἐπ᾿ Ἀ⌉ρ̣ι̣⌈στ⌉άρ̣χ̣ο[̣ υ] KF, cetera Mekler

18 βιώ]σας̣ ἐ̣ν̣ν̣[έ]α̣ KF (ἑ̣π̣τ̣ὰ̣ conieceris), cetera Mekler

21 KF col. 26: 2 Dorandi 3 ⌈ο͙ὗ⌉τ[ο]ς

Bücheler: ⌈αὐ⌉τ̣[ὸ]ς̣ conieceris

Two of the many new readings are particularly relevant for our problem: on the one hand the new alternative of the archon Aristarchus (col. 25,16–17), on the other hand the number “four” (col. 25,13–14) which replaces the awkward locative-ethnicon Τ̣α̣[ρ]|⌈σ͙ό͙θ̣⌉ε⌈ν⌉. Implications of the archon Aristarchus: If Apollodorus was the only source for the Clitomachus biography of col. 25, then the Chronica must have been written after 107/06 BC (archon Aristarchus). Yet, there would be a major problem with the assumption that the Chronica mentioned both archons, Polyclitus and Aristarchus, since they are three years apart. It is extremely unlikely that Apollodorus, who lived in Athens and was obviously acquainted with some Academics (see 2.3), had to operate with a three-year spread for the death of a comparatively prominent philosopher which, assuming he reported it in the Chronica, had in any case occurred only shortly before its composition. In particular, the unexpectedly wide spread of three years69 suggests that Philodemus drew upon two different sources. The plural τ̣ιν⌈ὲ⌉ς ... ⌈φ͙α⌉[σί]⌈ν does not necessarily imply more than one source for this alternative, since it might have a phraseological sense indicating only a single alternative date. Provided that one archon date is virtually the “true” date, the source for the other date might be reasonably supposed to have been written long after the death of Clitomachus, meaning that it was hardly an “eye-witness”. Since the Index Academicorum was probably composed around 60 BC,70 we have a terminus ante quem for this second source. The internal chronology shows that the Polyclitus information (110/09 BC) derives from the || 69 It is true that in the case of Lacydes’ death Apollodorus gives two alternative archons (verses), but these are successive ones (Callistratos and Pantiades – 207/06 and 206/05 BC). Moreover, Lacydes died about 100 years before Apollodorus composed his work. Hence, this alternative date does not justify the assumption of a three-year spread for a philosopher who had died “recently” and was probably somewhat known to Apollodorus. 70 For a possible precise dating between 68 and 57 BC, based on new readings in col. 35,19, see Fleischer (2016), p. 468.

44 | Apollodorus’ Chronica – Content, reception, book division, publication date(s)

same source, which stated “being in charge for nineteen years” (col. 25,14–15) and probably provided all or most of the previous numbers and dates, whereas the Aristarchus information (107/06 BC) seems to have been inserted between the first (original) death date (Polyclitus) and the (original) age of the philosopher at the time of his death. As already said, it is intrinsically implausible that Apollodorus mentioned both dates in the Chronica. The archon Polyclitus is mentioned again in col. 33,17 (life of Philo) as the archon under whom Philo took over the leadership of the Academy from Clitomachus (for the text see 2.3). There is no mention of the archon Aristarchus as an alternative in col. 33. Moreover, the internal chronology of Philo is compatible with a death under Polyclitus (110/09), though hardly under Aristarchus (107/06). Let us take a closer look at Philo’s biography. The date of Philo’s death by archon Nicetes (84/83 BC) shows that Philodemus must have exploited at least one other author, who also used archons for dating purposes and wrote his treatise later than 84/83 BC.71 It goes without saying that, for chronological reasons, the death date for Philo cannot originate from the Chronica. The “63 years” are most probably a blunder and are not compatible with the date of the archon Aristaichmus (159/58 BC) and the internal chronology (the correct number of years from Aristaichmus to Nicetes is about 75 years).72 It seems that the source for “died at 63 years under the archon Nicetes” is not the original author of the early life of Philo. Otherwise, this source would have been the first to write down all these details and must have relied on oral information for the dates. This is possible, but not likely. The mistake of the “63 years” might be due to the fact that the source obtained the (wrong) “63 years” information independently (through hearsay, not calculation) and did not check it against the early biography (maybe he did not even have it). More likely still, this source committed a mistake in counting the archon years down from Aristaichmus.73 It might be a further argument for two different sources of Philo’s biography that the papyrus reads κ̣[ατήρ]ξατο |⌈δ᾿͙⌉ ἡγεῖσθαι τῆ[ς] σχ[ο]λῆς ἐ̣π⌈ὶ͙⌉ |Π̣ο̣λυκλεί[τ]ο̣υ̣. Unlike in Clitomachus’ case (col. 25), no duration of the scholarchate is given. This could suggest that Philo was still alive when someone phrased the sentence about his succeeding Clitomachus. As in the Clitomachus vita, the Polyclitus information fits nicely

|| 71 There is a remote possibility that Philodemus himself somehow remembered the exact year of Philo’s death, but got his age wrong. 72 For a thorough analysis of the doublet and the years problem, see Fleischer (2017c). 73 On the question of whether Apollodorus is the source of col. 33,1–17, see also Fleischer (2017c), pp. 361–364 (“chapter 8 – Apollodors Chronik als Quelle für PHerc. 1021 col. 33,1–17?”), with further thoughts.

The end date of the 4th book of the Chronica | 45

with the internal chronology. At least for Clitomachus, it is practically certain that substantial parts of his early life go back to the Chronica. Basically, the additional “archon Aristarchus information” and the “archon Nicetes information” in col. 25 and 33 could be traced back to the same source, which had possibly already excerpted Apollodorus to some extent. It is difficult to say whether col. 25 and 33 are Philodemus’ prose version of the original Apollodorus or of an Apollodorus already modified by an intermediary source (or a mix of both). Anyway, if one assumes that the Chronica did not mention the death of Clitomachus (the archon Polyclitus), then it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there existed two other sources, each with a different archon (Polyclitus and Aristarchus). In any case, the Polyclitus source must have included the “nineteen-year leadership” and probably the “79 years” information which, without any doubt, is based on other archon dates certainly going back to Apollodorus. Basically, the new reading of the second archon name makes it more likely that Polyclitus and the death of Clitomachus were still mentioned by Apollodorus, since otherwise we would have to assume two other sources using archon dating for Clitomachus (his death). However, if the death of Clitomachus was still part of the Chronica, then in all likelihood Philo was mentioned as the current Academic scholarch as well – with the addition of some information on his early life. The detailed account of Philo’s education under various teachers and the fact that Apollodorus himself is mentioned as a short-term (two-year) teacher for Philo (see 2.3), the mention of Polyclites only, the “underlying verses”-like phrasing and, to some extent, the wrong “63 years” all favor the assumption that the early life of Philo (col. 33,1–17) goes back to the Chronica.74 Philo would hardly have been dealt with in the Chronica, if he had not yet been appointed scholarch, which is to say: if Clitomachus had not yet passed away. Implications of the number “four”: The second new reading of some relevance for our problem concerns the duration of Crates’ scholarchate. In verse 74 it is explicitly said: “after he held the school only for two years, …”. In the first prose version of this verse (col. 24,35–38) we read: “After him Crates of Tarsus led (the school) only for two (years) and died”. It is not unlikely that we are dealing with a simplification or misunderstanding here, and Crates did not really die in 129/28 BC; rather, Clitomachus and his pupils took control of the Academy in this year, taking advantage of the situation (the death of Carneades). The new reading in col. 25,13–14 shows that the “four years” for Crates’ leadership are not exclusively mentioned in col. 26,4. This number does not necessarily conflict with verse 74, while it certainly contradicts the prose version in col. 24,36–37, which || 74 Similarly Fleischer (2017c), pp. 361–364.

46 | Apollodorus’ Chronica – Content, reception, book division, publication date(s)

might be a misunderstanding of verse 74.75 The question arises whether the “four years” were mentioned by Apollodorus in the lost verses in the course of Clitomachus’ biography as they occur in the prose version, or whether they originate from a different source which was integrated in Apollodorus’ biography of Clitomachus. First, one should say that, even if the second Polemarchus/Crates prose version (col. 25,40–26,4) did not go back directly to Apollodorus, its source has certainly made use of Apollodorus, as the close parallel with verses 67–70 shows. Maybe this source only added the “four years” for Crates. Yet, it is also possible that the four years occurred in the lost verses of col. 30 and are correct, and that Philodemus misunderstood verse 74 as a death date for Crates. To whom do verses 77,78 refer? It is possible that the phrasing μετὰ ⌈τ⌉ὴν | Καρν[εά]⌈δο⌉υ ⌈τελευτ⌉ήν (col. 24,42–43) had a close parallel in the verses lost after verse 76. This, like the language of the passage,76 would support the hypothesis that the reason for Clitomachus’ takeover was in fact not the death of Crates, but the death of Carneades in 129/28 BC. If so, one cannot exclude that Apollodorus came back to Carneades on the occasion of Clitomachus’ invasion of the Academy and that the completely lost part of col. 30 (ca. col. 30,12–44) was devoted to Carneades. Verses 77,78 could refer to Carneades’ participation in the almost legendary philosophers’ embassy to Rome (155 BC) where he, like the embassy in general, was successful by reducing the fine imposed on Athens.77 In this case, the lost part of col. 30 would not have been the model for the prose version of the biography of Clitomachus in col. 25, and the philosopher was discussed elsewhere in the Chronica, namely in a part which has not been copied in PHerc. 1021.78 There are some overlaps between the Apollodorus excerpt and Philodemus’ prose versions, but the main purpose of copying the original verses of Apol-

|| 75 See Dorandi (1991), pp. 73–74 and Görler (1994), pp. 900–901. 76 See Görler (1994), p. 900: “Selbst die teilweise verschleiernde Sprache lässt keinen Zweifel daran, dass es sich um eine gewaltsame Besetzung handelte. Ein Zusammenhang mit dem Tod des ‘älteren’ Karneades ist so gut wie sicher….Offenbar sah sich Kleitomachos nun durch keine Rücksichtnahme mehr gehindert, das Amt für sich einzufordern, das er längst als das seine betrachtete. Ob es bei dem `Einfall´ zu Gewalttätigkeiten gekommen ist, wissen wir nicht.” 77 In this case, the brevity of the reference may either imply that the embassy was already dealt with earlier on in another context or that it was possibly not as important as later (Roman) sources make it out to be. Interestingly, new readings in col. 22, mid have shown that the embassy was the last part of Carneades’ prose biography before the list of his pupils (see Fleischer 2020). 78 Indeed, we cannot exclude the omission of several verses in the lost part of col. 30, as can for instance be inferred after 34 (see above). Even the Melanthius-Vita (79–87) did not necessarily follow verse 78.

The end date of the 4th book of the Chronica | 47

lodorus onto the papyrus seems to have been to gather information about philosophers not discussed in detail elsewhere in it (Boethus, Melanthius, Charmadas), which might speak against Clitomachus. It is difficult to say whether the remarkable fact that the Clitomachus vita begins exactly at the beginning of line 1 in col. 25 can be regarded as hint that the biography of Clitomachus was (not) written in col. 30.79 However, we would basically expect to find the philosophers’ embassy of 155 BC in book 3 of the Chronica – Cicero seems to suggest that it was a subject of the Chronica80 – and not in book 4. Furthermore, verses 77,78 are not very specific and it is questionable that Carneades’ participation in the embassy of 155 BC was mentioned in such a way. Moreover, the reference to his death in verse 64 of the Boethus vita suggests that Carneades’ death was already mentioned before 77,78. Like Carneades, Clitomachus was awarded Athenian citizenship and he had some Roman friends.81 A reference to Clitomachus in 77,78 (and consequently an assignment of the lost part of col. 30 to him) would imply that he has gone on an embassy to Rome (distinguished philosophers were often sent on embassies). With regard to Clitomachus’ biography, we would hardly expect him to have participated in such an embassy prior to 140/39 BC, the year in which he founded his own school. So it is quite possible that the original Clitomachus vita was copied in the lost part of col. 30, but some doubts have to be voiced. Was Clitomachus still alive when the Chronica was written, and did his biography in the Chronica end with his takeover of the school? Was his possible embassy mentioned after all the other dates and information in 77,78? Basically, the order of the prose versions in col. 24–25 may hint at the treatment of Clitomachus’ biography in the lost verses of col. 30. Even assuming that Clitomachus was dealt with in col. 30, there is no guarantee that his death too was reported or that the Chronica extended beyond 110/09 BC. However, it would make sense that in the Chronica Carneades’ contemporary Boethus was mentioned first, followed by his successor (and likely contemporary) Polemarchus and by Crates, then by Clitomachus as his most famous pupil, and finally by other pupils (Melanthius and Charmadas). Regardless of what was written in the lost part of col. 30, a biography of Clitomachus, or at least of the first part of his life, inclusive of dates, must have been featured somewhere in the Chronica. The mention of the “four years” in the prose version (col. 25,13–14) could mean that this number already occurred in the Clitomachus vita of the Chronica. The archon alternative “Aristarchus” could even somehow be

|| 79 For the context see Essler (2019), pp. 21–22. 80 See 3.3. 81 Cf. Mette Kleitomachus T 1b and Görler (1994), pp. 902, 904.

48 | Apollodorus’ Chronica – Content, reception, book division, publication date(s)

connected to the “four-year leadership” of Crates or even evoked by this information. So, one could imagine that a later author, reading through Apollodorus, calculated about 19 years from 127/26 (the end of Crates’ leadership), not from 129/28 BC, and ended up (imprecisely) with the archon Aristarchus. Further new readings in col. 25: Antiochus of Ascalon, Philo and Heraclitus of Tyre are mentioned in col. 25,32–35 at the end of a section which is marked by a diple obelismene. In the main, the Index Academicorum (the draft version) is composed in chronological order, so we are dealing with a list of pupils of Clitomachus here, possibly a mini-list including the only two known (full-time) pupils of Clitomachus, Philo and Heraclitus. It seems likely to me that Antiochus was mentioned only to provide some additional information about Philo (for instance, “whose pupil/successor was Antiochus of Ascalon”), just as Heraclitus is described as a later pupil of Philo.82 It seems that, after the chronological part of the biography (col. 25,1–19), other information on Clitomachus was given. The new supplement π̣ο̣λ̣υ̣γ̣[ρ]ά̣φος̣ might be instructive and has parallels in Diogenes Laertius and Cicero.83 The occurrence of Charmadas’ name causes some perplexity. He was not Clitomachus’ pupil and therefore the relationship between these two philosophers might have been discussed. A short biography of Charmadas at this point does not seem very likely to me. Maybe the papyrus might offer a counterpart to the following passage from Cicero (Cic. Luc. 16): e quibus industriae plurimum in Clitomacho fuit (declarat multitudo librorum), ingenii non minus in Hagnone, in Charmada eloquentiae, in Melanthio Rhodio suavitatis. Since it is highly unlikely that Apollodorus had already focused his attention on the young Antiochus, who obviously had not attended any of Clitomachus’ lectures, col. 25, ca. lines 19–36 must at least partly go back to a source not identical with Apollodorus. It might be well possible that Philodemus did not draw the (whole) Clitomachus vita directly from Apollodorus, but that already his other source had used Apollodorus for its account, which was then – mutatis mutandis – excerpted by Philodemus. There are some linguistic features which show that the excerpt must have been copied rather closely from Apollodorus or a source depending on him.84 Unlike Philodemus (col. 24, end), this source might have mentioned Polemarchus and Crates first after Clitomachus (col. 25,36–26,4). || 82 On Heraclitus as a pupil of Clitomachus and this last relative clause, see Cic. Luc. 11: … et erat iam antea Alexandriae familiaris Antiochi Heraclitus Tyrius, qui et Clitomachum multos annos et Philonem audierat, … . 83 D. L. 4,67: ὁ δὲ ἐς τοσοῦτον ἤλασεν ἐπιμελείας, ὥστε ὑπὲρ τὰ τετρακόσια βιβλία συνέγραψε. καὶ διεδέξατο τὸν Καρνεάδην καὶ τὰ αὐτοῦ μάλιστα διὰ τῶν συγγραμμάτων ἐφώτισεν. Cic. Luc. 16 (see main text). 84 For instance, the use of scriptio plena.

The end date of the 4th book of the Chronica | 49

The case for 110/09 BC as a terminus post quem for the 4th book: Is there any chance of settling the question of the end date of the Chronica for good? One tantalizing little detail that has been overlooked so far might not provide any final proof, but might offer a strong argument in support of the idea that Clitomachus’ death was indeed mentioned in the Chronica. In col. 25,14–16 we read ἡγησάμεν[ο]⸌ς̣⸍ [δ᾿] ἐ̣ν|15⌈νέ⌉α κα[ὶ] δέ{χ} ἔτη κατέσ̣τ̣ρε|⌈ψεν͙⌉ ἐ⌈π⌉[ὶ] Π̣ο̣λ̣[υ]κ⌈λείτ⌉ου. If this information was still to be found in Apollodorus, it follows that the Chronica extended at least until 110/09 BC. Both disegni of the papyrus have a clear χ in line 15 and in the original papyrus too we can still read a χ – or, at any rate, a letter that, while slightly damaged, is hardly compatible with κ. This aspiration mistake immediately before such a common word as ἔτη is suspicious, not least since just a few lines earlier the aspiration δέκ᾿ αὐτῶι (col. 25,7) is correct. There are no other mistakes of this kind in the papyrus. One may speculate whether the scribe had some form of the verb δέχομαι in mind, but there are several other numbers in this passage, like the number “nine” immediately before. There are two cases of scriptio plena (col. 25,9 and 12) in the passage. Furthermore, a v-movable is unnecessarily added once (col. 25,10), whereas it is normally avoided in the papyrus.85 This could mean that someone was closely following an original source with these orthographical or linguistic peculiarities. The mistake δέχ᾿ is rather strange, but the word would be the correct form for “ten”, if a word with spiritus asper followed. If someone copied closely from an original source, only slightly restructuring the sentences, he may have excerpted ἐννέα καὶ δέχ᾿ rather mechanically from an original source in which the number was not followed by the rather natural ἔτη, but by a word with spiritus asper, for instance ἡγησάμενος, ἡγούμενος, or ἡγήσατο. Following closely the original text for the number, the scribe or author of PHerc. 1021 may have mistakenly adopted/copied the wrong aspiration.86 In any case, the wrong χ suggest that in an original source “δέκα” was followed by a word with spiritus asper. If this source was Apollodorus, who for metrical reasons sometimes divides terms or expressions rather unnaturally, Philodemus might have felt the need to change the

|| 85 According to my reconstruction, after συνέσχεν (col. 25,10) there is a consonant and the νmovable is superfluous. Such unnecessary ν-movables are normally avoided (also col. 25,43 is unnecessary). Maybe the underlying verses, which for metrical reasons had a ν-movable, were rather mechanically transferred. However, col. 25,40 cannot be explained with original verses, since verse 73 has a different verb/phrasing. 86 At least, he might have made this mistake initially. Since the upper part of the line is destroyed today, we would not see a possible correction into κ. Yet, normally wrong letters are crossed out, which does not seem to be the case here.

50 | Apollodorus’ Chronica – Content, reception, book division, publication date(s)

word order for his prose version. In doing so, he or his scribe may have been misled by the δέχ᾿ in the original and made an aspiration mistake in the prose version (or at least in the draft version PHerc. 1021 – maybe it was corrected in the final version). This error is psychologically understandable, if the author followed rather closely an original source and copied certain elements mechanically. If col. 25 is Philodemus’ (rather) faithful excerpt from an author other than Apollodorus, this author may have made the aspiration mistake when transforming Apollodorus’ verses into prose. It is less likely that this prose author had a “δέχ᾿ + spiritus asper word order” in his treatise, which Philodemus then remodeled. There would have been no need to rephrase a prose version and, unless it somehow depended on Apollodorus, this prose version would probably have had the correct δέκ᾿ ἔτη. The scriptio plena in line 9, hinting at an original verse division συνεστήσατο | ἄρχοντος,87 along with the wrong aspiration δέχ᾿, could link the prose version of the papyrus to Apollodorus’ verses. Philodemus put the words in a more prose-like manner before the number and added ἔτη after the number without changing the original aspiration of “ten”. Consequently, the wrong aspiration δέχ᾿ suggests that the duration of Clitomachus’ scholarchate and accordingly his death in 110/09 BC were already mentioned in the Chronica. Are there any counter-arguments for 110/09 BC as the terminus post quem, inasmuch as an alternative date could “positively” be argued for? Apart from the far from compelling statistics related to Stephanus, there might be an argument for 120/119 BC, which – as far as I can see – has not been considered yet. The death of Boethus of Marathon is reported as follows: “He died in the tenth year after the death of Carneades, when Eumachus (120/19 BC) was our archon, in the month of Thargelion” (64–66). We have discussed this passage as possible evidence for a friendship between Boethus and Apollodorus (2.2). What is most noteworthy is the mention of the exact month. Such a precise date could imply that these verses were written not long after 120/19 BC, when the death of Boethus was still fresh in Apollodorus’ memory, so that he could remember its precise date. “Not long after 120/119 BC” should be taken to mean “no more than ten years later” (i.e. after the death of Clitomachus). However, Apollodorus may have remembered the precise date of Boethus’ death even many years later, if it was connected to an event (e.g. a festival) taking place in this month; he may also have known the date from an inscription or a written source. Nonetheless, it is strange that the exact month is given for this otherwise unknown person and it could be

|| 87 Scriptio plena is normally avoided in the papyrus. Maybe in an original verse version the verb marked the end of a trimeter and the new verse started with ἄρχοντος, which was written in the next verse in the original (cf. verse 39).

The end date of the 4th book of the Chronica | 51

a hint that Boethus passed away not too long before the publication of the Chronica. Furthermore, the expression παρ᾿ ἡμῖν is interesting in this context. Apollodorus uses several different expressions when dating by archon (see 4.3), but παρ᾿ ἡμῖν only occurs here. Apollodorus was in Athens again and maybe even the addressee of the 4th book of the Chronica lived there (see 3.8). Why do we find the unusual expression παρ᾿ ἡμῖν in relation to the last certain date of the Chronica? Could it even mean or imply “Eumachus, who is archon among us in this moment (in our time)”? For lexical reasons one would expect other terms or expressions, if Apollodorus really wished to indicate the present/contemporary archon, for instance the metrical equivalent καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς, for which one could compare 93. Nevertheless, the combination of the unusual παρ᾿ ἡμῖν with the unexpectedly precise indication of a month for the death of a “no-name” philosopher and the lack of certain later dates in the Chronica might raise some minor doubts as to whether the Chronica really ended first after 110/09 BC. Summary: The accumulated evidence suggests that the death of Clitomachus (and the early biography of Philo) was already mentioned by Apollodorus and that the Chronica did not end before 110/09 BC. Particularly the scriptio plena and the aspiration mistake in the first part of col. 25 seem to reveal underlying verses from the Chronica. An end date earlier than 110/09 BC (when Clitomachus still alive) is rather unlikely, but cannot be entirely excluded. In the light of Apollodorus’ biography and of the “statistical Stephanus evidence” mentioned above, the Chronica cannot have ended (much) later than, say, 105 BC. Accordingly, the hypothesis that the 4th book of the Chronica spanned the years between 143/42 BC and 110/105 BC is the most likely one. As regards the questions of whether Apollodorus died while writing the 4th book and whether this was posthumously published by one of his pupils or friends, one should state that there is no evidence of a revision by somebody else after his death, although such a possibility is certainly not absurd. The first attested author to make use of the 4th book was, in any case, Philodemus – about 50 years after its probable publication.

52 | Apollodorus’ Chronica – Content, reception, book division, publication date(s)

3.7 Attalus II as addressee of the Chronica (books 1–3) and the Attalids-Academy connection We know from Pseudo-Scymnus (3.3) that Attalus II was the addressee of the original Chronica (book 1–3). A closer look at the verso column O of the Index Academicorum might be interesting (Dorandi 1991): Phld. Ind. Acad. (PHerc. 1021), col. O (Dorandi 1991)

Col. O

5

10

15

20

25

30

[ - - -] [ - - -] [ - - -] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ρεδιο̣[ ̣ ̣]τ[ ̣ ̣ ̣]ε[ - - ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]τησκ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]λλω[ - - ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]κουλων[ - - ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]δηκεις[ - - ̣ ̣ ̣]ακου[ - - ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]δεχ[ - - ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]υδ[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣η[ - - ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]υκ[ ̣ ̣]δαι[ - - ̣ ̣ ̣]τουμετοπ[ - - ̣ ̣] ̣ γ᾿ Ἄτταλος [ - - ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ αἰδοίας [ - - γα̣[ ̣ ̣]σανεμ[ - - δ[ὲ τῶν γν]ωρίμων̣ [Εὐμένης τε καὶ Ἄτταλος [τῆς] Ἀσ[ίας β]ασιλεῖς. ἐτελεύ[τησαν δ᾿] Ἀπ̣[ολλ̣ών̣ι̣ος μὲν κατ’ ἄ[ρχοντ’ Ἐπαίνετ̣ον, ὁ̣ δ̣᾿ ἀδελφὸς Εὔβουλ[ος] ἐπ᾿ Ἀρισ[τ]οφῶντος τοῦ [μετὰ Θ̣εα̣ίτητον, ὁ δ̣᾿ [Ἐ]φέσιος Εὔβουλος καὶ ὁ Ἐρυθραῖος ἐ[π᾿] Ἀ[λ]εξάνδ[ρ]ου. συ[ν]ῆ̣σ̣α̣ν̣ [δὲ καὶ κα{ι}τὰ τὸ μ[εμν]ηιμένον τέτταρες Ἀρίστωνε̣ς, [ὧν ὁ μὲν Ἐφέσιος, ὁ δὲ Μαλλώ̣[της ὁ δὲ Καρχηδόνιος, ⸌ὁ⸍ δὲ [ - - ος. συνέβ̣[η δὲ] καὶ τοὺς [δύο Εὐβούλου[ς] τελευτῆσ[αι

… Attalus … showing reverence … among his familiars (were) the kings [Eumenes] and Attalus of Asia. They died, Apollonius during the [archonship of Epainetus], his brother Eubulus during the archonship of Aristophon, who came [after] Theaetetus, and Eubulus of Ephesus and (Eubulus) of Erythrae during the archonship of Alexander. [Moreover], four (disciples named) Aristo are listed in the records, of which one was from Ephesus, another from Mallos, another from Carthage, and another from… It so happened that [both] (the disciples named) Eubulus died during the archonship of Alexander. Apollonius, the pupil of Telecles and the one who [had written out] notes from his lectures…

Attalus II as addressee of the Chronica and the Attalids-Academy connection | 53

35 37

κατ’ ἄρχοντ’ Ἀλέξανδρ̣[ον· Ἀπολλώνιος δ᾿ ὁ Τηλε̣[κλέους μαθητὴς [ὁ κ]αὶ [ἀ]ν[αγεγραφὼς ὑπο[μν]ήμ[ατ’ ἐκ τῶν σχολ̣[ῶν αὐ]τοῦ [ - - πλασ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ν[ - - ̣]εχε ̣[ - - -

Translation: Kalligas/Tsouna (2020)

Unlike in Apollodorus (37–49), the death dates for Apollonius (166/65), his brother Eubulus (143/42) and the other Eubuloi (174/73) are not reported in chronological order in col. O. Moschion, Agamestor and Telecles are missing, at least in the preserved part of col. O. The repetition of the death date of the two Eubuloi within the column (col. O,22–24 and 29–31) and the inclusion in the list of homonyms are somewhat strange and suggest that the column, as it reads, was hardly in a state ready for final publication. It is possible that Euander’s death was dealt with at the end of col. N and the beginning of col. O. But how does the mention of some Attalid rulers fit into the picture? We know that Eumenes I (263–241 BC) was the benefactor of the Academic scholarch Arcesilaus, as Attalus I (241–197 BC) was of Lacydes, but there is no evidence of any contact between the Attalids and the Academy after the death of Lacydes (ca. 206 BC). Yet, the ties between the Attalid kingdom and Athens were generally very close in the second century BC, and the Attalid rulers supported the city in many respects. Before he ascended the throne, Attalus II visited Athens several times.88 An inscription of 193/92 BC mentions the Academy, Euander and later on king Attalus. It seems that an unknown person from Pergamon was honored.89 Nowadays the famous dedicatory inscription belonging to a statue of Carneades is no longer referred to the two princes from Pergamon or Cappadocia, || 88 See, for instance, Habicht (1990), esp. pp. 561–562, 573. 89 IG II/III², 886 = IG II³, 1 1261: [ἐπὶ Φαναρχίδου ἄρχ]οντος, ἐπὶ τῆς Ἱπποθωντίδος ἑβ[δόμης πρυτα]|[νείας, ἧι Μενέμαχο]ς Μενεστράτου Λαμπτρεὺς ἐγρα[μμάτευεν]· | [Γαμηλιῶνος — c.6 — ]ει· ἑνδεκάτει τῆς πρυτανείας· ἐ[κκλησία κυ]|[ρία ἐν τῶι θεάτρωι· τῶ]ν̣ προέδρων ἐπεψήφιζεν Ἀμυν̣[— — c.8 — —] |5 [— — — — c.15 — — — —θ]εν καὶ συνπρόεδροι· vv ἔδοξεν [τεῖ βουλεῖ] | [καὶ τῶι δήμωι· — c.6 —]ης Μενεκράτου Κικυννεὺς εἶπ[εν· ἐπειδὴ] | [— — — — c.16 — — — —]ς οἰκείαν ἔχων διὰ προγόνων τὴν [— — c.9 — —]|[— — — — c.16 — — — —]ε παραγενόμενος θεωρὸς εἰς Τ[— — c.10 — —]|[— — — — c.15 — — — πλ]είω τῆς κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν παιδείας [— — c.8 — —]|10[— — — — c.17 — — — —]στου ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ ψη[— — c.10 — —]|[— — — — c.17 — — — — τ]ό τε ἄστυ καὶ τὸμ Πειραιᾶ καὶ [— — c.9 — —]|[— — — — c.18 — — — —μ]ενος τὴν σωτηρίαν τῶν [— — c.10 — —]|[— — — — — c.19 — — — —]ον τῶν Εὐάνδρου σχολασ[τ— — c.8 — —]|[— — — — — c.20 — — — —] τε εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν καὶ παραγ[ενόμενος — —]|15[— — — — — c.19 — — — — β]α̣σιλεὺς Ἄτταλος ἣν

54 | Apollodorus’ Chronica – Content, reception, book division, publication date(s)

since the deme mentioned does not belong to the Attalis phyle, in which Attalus II was registered, and it seems that the dedicatees are simply otherwise unknown Athenians.90 Nevertheless, given the cultural interest and the strong relationship between Pergamon and Athens,91 it is likely that contacts between the Attalids and the Academy, too, continued after the death of Lacydes. Several distinguished Academics hailed from the kingdom of Pergamon. For instance, Euander and Telecles were citizens of Phocaea (belonging to Pergamon) and Carneades’ immediate predecessor as head of the Academy was Hegesinus of Pergamon. Given the overall scarcity of sources on the Academy between Lacydes and Carneades, the silence about possibly ongoing relations between the Attalids and prominent Academics should not be overestimated; at any rate, no strong argument against it can be constructed e silentio. Although a chronological flashback in col. O might be possible, it seems rather attractive to identify the kings referred to in l. 16–17 with Eumenes II (197– 159 BC) and Attalus II (159–138 BC). They were brothers and born around 220 BC (or shortly before). It is conceivable that both attended lectures by Academic philosophers for a certain time in their early twenties (shortly before 200 BC), maybe even in Athens.92 Perhaps the death of Attalus I prevented them from continuing their studies for some time. Lacydes refused to go to the Attalid court in Pergamon, justifying his choice with a possibly ambiguous statement.93 However, it is not implausible that one of his successors taught the princes philosophy in Pergamon for a certain time or even in Athens, if the princes pursued studies there. One wonders whether the Attalus of line 13 is Attalus I, who might have sent his sons to an Academic teacher (or hired one in Pergamon) not too long before his own death. In any case, Lacydes probably withdrew from active teaching around 216 BC and died by 206 BC (22–25). Therefore, the princes can only have studied under one of his pupils, not under Lacydes himself. Euander of Phocaea, who

|| ἐκ Ν̣[— — c.9 — —]|[— — — — — c.21 — — — — —]ΑΜΒΟ[․․․]ε̣ιναι χρήσιμ[ος — — c.8 — —]| κτλ. For the inscription see Haake (2007), pp. 99–103, who prints a text version with more supplements. 90 The inscription reads (IG II², 3781): Καρνεάδην Ἀζηνιέα | Ἄτταλος καὶ Ἀριαράθης Συπαλήττι[οι] | ἀνέθηκαν. On the identity of these persons, see Haake (2007), pp. 110–117. On Attalis as Attalus II and Eumenes II’s phyle, see Tracy/Habicht (1991), pp. 189, 217. 91 Habicht (1990). 92 The first certainly attested visit of Attalus II to Athens took place in 193/92 BC, cf. Habicht (1990), p. 573, but earlier visits are not to be excluded. However, one has to take into account the political situation (Second Macedonian War), which hardly allowed for visits at any given time. 93 D.L. 4,60: Ἀττάλου γὰρ αὐτὸν μεταπεμπομένου φασὶν εἰπεῖν τὰς εἰκόνας πόρρωθεν δεῖν θεωρεῖσθαι.

Attalus II as addressee of the Chronica and the Attalids-Academy connection | 55

because of his origin was practically a “son of Pergamon”, might be a good candidate for the princes’ teacher. He might have been in his forties when teaching the Attalid brothers around 200 BC. However, we should stop here and refrain from too daring conclusions. It is equally possible that the lines in the papyrus only need to be restored to the effect that both Eumenes II and Attalus II (financially) supported the Academy or certain Academics in this period and had some relationship with Academics without ever having been pupils of an Academic in the strict sense. Since the Chronica was dedicated to Attalus II and the Academy was dealt with in great detail, Apollodorus would certainly not have missed the opportunity to either touch upon the Academic education of the Attalid princes – in particular that of his addressee – or emphasize the Attalids’ generosity towards the Academy. In this context, verse 35 is both mysterious and instructive. The verse refers to something that occurred twelve years before the death of Moschion in 185/84 BC. This brings us to ca. 197/96 BC. We do not know of any “Academic” event in this year. The probable omission in Philodemus’ excerpt before verse 35 and the supposed content of the lost verse between 32 and 33 make it likely that “twelve years” refers to a date in the omitted verses between 34 and 35. Apart from the battle of Cynoscephalae, a noteworthy event in 197/96 BC was the death of Attalus I. and the ascension of Eumenes II. Since there are certain similarities between the columns on the back (M–N–O) and the Apollodorus excerpt in terms of structure and content, it may be supposed that “twelve years” (35) refers to the death of Attalus I or the ascension of Eumenes II. My suggestion is that the verses omitted in the Apollodorus excerpt between verses 34 and 35 (at least the verses omitted immediately before 35) mentioned either the early years which the Attalid brothers spent under an Academic teacher or the Attalids’ relationship with the Academy in general. For instance, the last omitted sentence before 35 could have read in the Chronica: “(Attalus and) Eumenes attended the lectures of Academic “x” (or Academics) until Eumenes had to take over the kingdom in 197/6 BC after his father’s death. Twelve years later, Moschio died of an illness under the archonship of Eupolemus (185/84 BC).” Maybe, after dealing with other historical matters, Apollodorus used the death of Attalus and the education of his sons, respectively, in order to elegantly resume the “Academic thread” of his treatise and to give the death dates for Lacydes’ successors/pupils. Was Moschion the philosopher who taught the Attalids? This cannot be excluded, but it is rather unlikely, I think. We should conclude that the exact context and meaning of the mention of the Attalids in col. O is difficult to make out. What were Apollodorus’ motives for dedicating the Chronica to Attalus II? Probably he had to flee Alexandria during the persecutions initiated by Ptolemy

56 | Apollodorus’ Chronica – Content, reception, book division, publication date(s)

VIII against the intellectual elite of Alexandria (145 BC). As a consequence, Ptolemy VIII dropped out as a (possible) benefactor and Apollodorus had to look for a new sponsor (assuming he needed one) and for another milieu suitable for his studies, and which could compete with Alexandria. Pergamon, which had close ties to Apollodorus’ hometown Athens and was governed by kings with cultural interests, was the obvious place to move to. There, Apollodorus must have finished his Chronica (book 1–3) and dedicated it to Attalus II, probably in return for support already received or in the hope of future favors. It might have been in particular the library of Pergamon which attracted him. For the moment, he preferred Pergamon to Athens, where he was to return later on in his life. A sojourn in Pergamon is the most natural assumption, but I might refer again to the (maybe somewhat remote) possibility that Apollodorus never went to Pergamon, but was supported by Attalus II “from abroad” while living in Athens (cf. 2.1).

3.8 Addressee and character of the 4th book Attalus II passed away in 138 BC and Attalus III in 133 BC. With the death of Attalus III the dynasty of the Attalids came to an end and it is a well-known fact that he bequeathed his reign to the Romans. Consequently, the 4th book of the Chronica (or a revised version of it) must have been dedicated to someone else. That there was a dedication, we can deduce from verse 79–80: καὶ μὴν Μ⌈ε⌉λάνθιόν γε ⌈γι⌉νώσκ⌈εις⌉, ὅ⌈τ͙⌉ι | τραγωιδίαι μὲν ˹⟦μὲν⟧⸌{ζ}ἦν˺ π̣⸍⌈οτ͙⌉᾿ ἐστεφανωμένο[ς] – “And you certainly know that Melanthius once won a crown in tragic competition etc.” Several verses on the life of Melanthius follow (81–87). The preceding verses (77,78) are probably still devoted to Clitomachus (see 3.6). Verse 79 might have an implication which has not been considered so far. Melanthius was certainly not the most distinguished Academic of his time, but Apollodorus seems to assume that the addressee of the 4th book knows something about him. An address here to a “fictional reader” seems very unlikely to me.94 Since a successful embassy to Rome is referred to in the preceding verses (77,78), Apollodorus could have mentioned the addressee because of his association with Rome, which might have brought other memories to his mind. Perhaps the addressee was a Roman nobleman, as it was not uncommon for Roman aristocrats to study or live in Athens for some time in the second half of the 2nd century BC. However, one might ask with good reason how likely this is, given that we are not

|| 94 See Jacoby (1902), p. 16 note 16a.

Addressee and character of the 4th book | 57

informed about any ties linking Apollodorus to Romans. If Apollodorus could assume that the devotee knew something about Melanthius, he may have lived in Athens like Melanthius and Apollodorus. For some unknown reason, Apollodorus omits Melanthius’ ethnicon, whereas several other sources mention Rhodes as his place of origin.95 Interestingly, the Stoic Panaetius was born in Rhodes as well and we know that Apollodorus was a friend of him or at least acquainted with him. Panaetius spent much of his life in Rome. Panaetius and Apollodorus were both pupils of Diogenes of Seleucia. Did Apollodorus assume that his addressee would “certainly” know Melanthius or some part of his biography, since they had been fellow-citizens in Rhodes and philosophers in Athens? Is it possible that the information in the Index Stoicorum (see 2.1) and, to some extent, the Suda statement about the relationship between Panaetius and Apollodorus go back to a possible proem of the 4th book of the Chronica, in which Panaetius was addressed? Another hint that the addressee lived in Athens might be verse 65 (παρ᾿ ἡμῖν). To be sure, Apollodorus might have used the plural to refer only to himself, but it might also have an “inclusive” meaning, like “in our (common) city Athens”. I would venture to say that verse 79, introducing the Melanthius vita, suggests that the addressee was a person who was rather familiar with the Athenian philosophical milieu, maybe even an (Academic) philosopher.96 Apollodorus’ pupil Philo of Larissa (2.3) might be a candidate, but this is rather speculative. What speaks against Panaetius is that there is no explicit mention of the fact that the addressee and Melanthius were (former) fellow-citizens. Furthermore, we have to bear in mind that, if the 4th book of the Chronica was published after 110/09 BC (3.6), Panaetius might (probably) have already been dead.97 Bravo (2009) has put forward the hypothesis that the 4th book of the Chronica was somewhat different from the others and more a kind of history of culture or philosophy, also including or repeating material from earlier periods or decades. In particular, he supposes that all the verses from the Index Academicorum stem from the 4th book and that Lacydes and his pupils were mentioned here in a kind of chronological flashback.98 As discussed above (3.5), this cannot be entirely excluded, but on the other hand Apollodorus still included Arcesilaus in the 3rd || 95 On Melanthius see Görler (1994), p. 909 and Dorandi (2005b), pp. 383–384. His ethnicon is now confirmed by a reading in the Index Academicorum itself (col. 23,15), cf. Fleischer (2019c). 96 Similar Bravo (2009), pp. 155–157. 97 On Panaetius see Steinmetz (1994); Gourinat/Alesse (2012). For his date of death see in particular Dorandi (1999), p. 42. Basically, we have only 110/09 BC (the earliest possible year for the quaestura of Crassus – Cic. De or. I 45) as the (likely) terminus post quem for his death. 98 Bravo (2009), pp. 146, 155–158; already Jacoby (1929), p. 383 might have implicitly considered this possibilty (see Bravo (2009), p. 146 note 65).

58 | Apollodorus’ Chronica – Content, reception, book division, publication date(s)

book and there is no obvious reason why he should have omitted or forgotten Lacydes and his successors. The fragments from Stephanus show that the 4th book was not limited to cultural-philosophical themes and, on the whole, there are no striking arguments for assigning a special character to this book.

3.9 Overview of the Chronica Content: Universal history in the broadest sense on a systematic, chronological basis, but no “annalistic” scheme. In accordance with Apollodorus’ background, the cultural history, literature and philosophy may have been dealt with in greater detail than one would expect, notwithstanding the transmission bias. At least, many of the surviving fragments are dedicated to philosophers. Methodology and sources: Apart from the trimeter form, the dating by archon is characteristic of the Chronica. Apollodorus preferred to use the ἀκμή to establish dates when better information was lacking. He gathered much information and presented alternatives. His overall approach seems very scholarly and accurate. In addition to Eratosthenes, he also used numerous other authors as sources. Model and afterlife: The Chronica superseded Eratosthenes’ Χρονογραφίαι soon after its publication, establishing itself as the standard chronological reference work for centuries to come. It enjoyed great popularity and was exploited by many authors, directly or indirectly. However, it seems that for the sake of convenience several prose excerpts with Olympiad dating were soon composed and integrated into other works, so that the original verse version of the Chronica gradually fell out of use. Book division, periods covered, and publication circumstances: Book 1: 1184/83 – 480/79 BC Book 2: 480/79 – 324/23 BC Book 3: 324/23 – prob. 143/42 BC – – – –

Original three books (main) Chronica published around 143/42 BC Dedicated to Attalus II Apollodorus probably in Pergamon Mainly composed in Alexandria

Overview of the Chronica | 59

Book 4: prob. 143/42 – (prob. after) 110/09 BC – – – –

published as an “independent” supplement, probably after 110/09 BC (in any case after 120/19 BC) dedicatee unknown Apollodorus in Athens exclusively or mainly composed in Athens

4 The Chronica as the first iambic didactic poem – innovation, metrical analysis, vocabulary and style, reception 4.1 Apollodorus as the inventor of the iambic didactic poem – the birth of a new “subgenre” Traditionally, Hesiod has been credited with being the father of Greek didactic poetry, particularly because of his Works and Days.1 For many centuries the characteristic meter of this poetic genre was the hexameter. The early Greek philosophical didactic poems of Xenophanes, Parmenides and Empedocles were composed in this meter,2 and even the Hellenistic poets – who extended the scope of didactic poetry to such subjects as astronomy (Aratus) and medicine/animals (Nicander) – did not abandon the hexameter. However, very occasionally, the elegiac meter too was applied for didactic poems.3 The poetae docti in the Alexandrian tradition were ambitious enough to put even the most technical issues in hexameter verses, thereby proving their poetic virtuosity and sound scholarship.4 Notwithstanding the admirable outcome of this merging of highly esthetic poetry and technical content, it was sometimes necessary to make certain concessions to meter. Nonetheless, the hexameter form of didactic poems was never questioned and prevailed, be it out of a deep-rooted attachment to tradition or because a switch from the hexameter to a more flexible and handier meter would have amounted to a shameful surrender of the poeta doctus in the pursuit of his selfimposed goals.

|| 1 For a definition of the genre “Didactic Poetry” see, for instance, the overview in Volk (2002), pp. 34–43. For a general overview of didactic poetry, see Kroll (1925); Toohey (1996); Harder/MacDonald/Reinink (2007); Sistakou (2014). 2 For a technical assessment of these philosophers’ poems see, for instance, Wöhrle (1993); Wright (1997). 3 See Sider (2014), esp. pp. 28–29 and Jacoby (1902), p. 61 note 1. 4 On Hellenistic didactic poetry, see Sider (2014). At the end of his contribution (pp. 28–29) he offers a list of all known Hellenistic didactic poems. Only three long poems are preserved (Arat, and two of Nicander), along with a few minor poems (e.g. Archimedes, Eratosthenes). For most of the about 50 authors mentioned only scanty fragments or titles are preserved. Strangely, Sider forgot to include Apollodorus in his list, although he was the inventor of the iambic didactic poem and a model for some of the poets included in the list (e.g. Pseudo-Scymnus). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110703726-004

Apollodorus as the inventor of the iambic didactic poem | 61

In any case, it is rather remarkable that for more than 500 years after Hesiod the hexameter remained unchallenged as the meter of didactic poetry. Apollodorus of Athens was the first to introduce the iambic trimeter into didactic poetry with his Chronica. Hence, he is truly the godfather of the iambic didactic poem, a subgenre which soon became popular and found many imitators. The reference in Pseudo-Scymnus’ proem and the acknowledgment in the Suda (see 2.1)5 show that Apollodorus’ innovation was soon adopted and appreciated as such. Pseudo-Scymnus seems to have felt the need to justify the new and unusual form given to his didactic poem, namely the iambic trimeter as opposed to the traditional hexameter. Pseudo-Scymnus lists some of the advantages and peculiarities of the new metric form, which can be reasonably supposed to have also occurred, mutatis mutandis, in the proem of the Chronica, since it is difficult to believe that Apollodorus introduced such an innovation without presenting his reasons for doing so. Pseudo-Scymnus states (33–35 and 40–44): μέτρῳ δὲ ταύτην ἐκτιθέναι προείλετο, τῷ κωμικῷ δὲ, τῆς σαφηνίας χάριν, εὐμνημόνευτον ἐσομένην οὕτως ὁρῶν … οὕτω λελυμένην λέξιν ἀναλαβεῖν ταχύ οὐκ ἔστι, τῷ μέτρῳ δὲ περιειλημμένην ἔστιν κατασχεῖν εὐσκόπως καὶ πιστικῶς· ἔχει γὰρ ἐπιτρέχουσαν ἐν ἑαυτῇ χάριν, ὅταν ἱστορία καὶ λέξις ἔμμετρος πλεκῇ. Consequently, according to Pseudo-Scymnus there were mnemo-technical and esthetic reasons for choosing the trimeter. Jacoby (1902) emphasizes the advantages of the trimeter for memorization purposes,6 but the question arises as to what exactly one should understand by “memorizing verses of the Chronica”. To be sure, the ancients’ ability to memorize texts and in particular verses should not be underestimated, but it is difficult to imagine that Apollodorus intended the Chronica or passages of the Chronica to be memorized by average readers or students for teaching or study purposes. Even with the support of the trimeter, it must have been difficult to memorize passages with different and otherwise practically unknown archon names and various numbers. The mere information given by the verses was probably often easier to memorize than the trimeters. So, for instance, one might have still remembered after a certain time how Carneades had died or the names of his pupils, but probably not the exact phrasing of the particular Apollodorean verse.

|| 5 However, the Suda is slightly imprecise concerning the correct meter (ἦρξε δὲ πρῶτος τῶν καλουμένων τραγιάμβων) insofar as it mentions not comic iambs, but tragic ones. This might be most reasonably explained by the popularity of didactic poems in this form in Byzantine times (cf. Jacoby (1902), p. 70, who follows here an oral suggestion by Wilamowitz). 6 Jacoby (1902), pp. 60–61.

62 | The Chronica as the first iambic didactic poem – metrics, style, reception

Besides, without a list or other dates, it would have been completely useless to memorize the archon names. However, practical use of the meter may have been made for short-term memorization in scholarly contexts. If one had to browse the Chronica and extract data for one’s own writings or other reasons, the trimeter would certainly have made it easier to keep information in mind for a short period of time.7 Jacoby discusses another, and in my opinion more likely, motivation for the iambic trimeter: this meter may have been consciously applied because it prevented the text from being corrupted, in particular when it comes to numbers. There is an undeniable charm and certain plausibility in this hypothesis. I would like to refer to a Galen passage, which suggests that this point was indeed taken into consideration by Apollodorus or at least by scholars and didactic poets. Concerning the iambic didactic poem by Damocrates (4.4), one of Apollodorus’ iambic didactic successors (De ant. I 14), Galen notes: ἔστι δὲ δι’ ἐμμέτρου λέξεως, ὡς εἴωθεν, ἥτις οὐ μόνον τὸ μνημονεύεσθαι ῥᾳδίως, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ μὴ παραποιεῖσθαι τὰς συμμετρίας ἀγαθὸν ἔχει. The last part obviously alludes to the corruption of the text, which is discussed by Galen in other passages as well.8 Interestingly, Vogt (2005a) has identified similarities between Galen’s and Pseudo-Scymnus’ favorable assessment of the trimeter for didactic poetry.9 Pseudo-Scymnus’ proem in turn seems to depend largely on Apollodorus’ proem. A missing reference to the corruption problem in Pseudo-Scymnus is no strong reason against its mention in Apollodorus, since Pseudo-Scymnus may have omitted this aspect, which was perhaps more important for Apollodorus (given his more extensive use of numbers). I would even venture the hypothesis that Galen’s remark about the meter as an assurance against textual corruption can be traced back to Apollodorus’ proem. However, the question remains whether Apollodorus was concerned about this textual-philological point to such an extent that it alone accounts for his choice of writing such a voluminous chronological work in trimeters. Therefore, I might bring forward two other possible motivations for his adoption of trimeters. Apollodorus was a pupil of the Alexandrian grammarian Aristarchus of Samothrace and apparently a typical Alexandrian scholar. Many more or less contemporary authors from his intellectual milieu composed hexametric didactic poems or poems in general. As Toohey (1996) concisely and aptly states at the beginning of his monograph: “Didactic poetry was enormously popular in the ancient

|| 7 For the relation between memory and rhythm see for instance Ar. Rhet. 3.9.3. 8 Cf. Vogt (2005a), pp. 68–72. 9 Vogt (2005a), pp. 73–77.

Apollodorus as the inventor of the iambic didactic poem | 63

world”10, and Apollodorus may have simply wished to ensure a more positive reception for his Chronica or to demonstrate his accomplished scholarship by writing a didactic poem in iambic trimeters. The “Zeitgeist” and in particular the Alexandrian community may have welcomed his combination of an esthetic verse form with a chronological-technical content, even if this hybrid form may cause some displeasure to modern (and ancient) readers. No one had dared to put chronographic matters into verse before and this may have been a good enough motivation for Apollodorus. Once the decision for a didactic poem had been made, Apollodorus was practically compelled to become a pioneer and introduce the trimeter into the genre. He was well aware that the hexameter, which was much more rigid than the trimeter, would hardly allow him to embed all the names and numbers required without making the verses very unnaturally wordy and awkward to read. Some names would even not work at all. The scholarly substance would have probably suffered from the use of the hexameter, which was certainly unacceptable for such an accurate scholar and chronographer as Apollodorus. As a consequence, the only possibility was to introduce the more colloquial and flexible trimeter as a novum into didactic poetry.11 Its flexibility harmonizes, as it were, prose and poetry. Even more significantly, he chose the trimeter of comedy, which allowed for more resolutions than that of tragedy, so that concessions to the meter were restricted to a minimum. The only concession Apollodorus seems to have made – if this can be labeled a genuine concession at all and is not due to other reasons – is the abandonment of Olympiad dating in favor of archon dates. The complex numbers of Olympiad dating were rather difficult to implement in a smooth way even when using trimeters. As far as I can see, one point of interest concerning the genre of the Chronica has not been touched upon so far, and that is: the fact that the chronology in verses, while being primarily a didactic poem, also bears some similarities with epic, inasmuch as a clearly defined story – in this case the history of the world – is expounded, rather than a strictly “technical” subject. The chronological-narrative content links the Chronica to epic, whereas the trimeter distances it from the epic genre. The didactic element is represented by the teaching it provides about universal history. Ex ante, the meter would appear to distance the poem from didactic poetry, too, but instead the didactic intention of the Chronica enriched didactic poetry with a new meter. The choice of the hexameter, coupled with the chronological-historical matter, would have made the Chronica seem like a sui || 10 Toohey (1996), p. 1. 11 Cf. Jacoby (1902), pp. 61–62.

64 | The Chronica as the first iambic didactic poem – metrics, style, reception

generis epos rather than a didactic poem. Apollodorus may have sought to avoid under all circumstances too close a resemblance with epic, which risked undermining his sober scholarly aspirations. Even without the above-mentioned mnemo-technical considerations or concern about the corruption of the text, Apollodorus would have chosen the trimeter anyway, since a chronology in hexameters (one not technical in certain respects) would have given the impression of an epos, not a scholarly didactic poem. To sum up, the Chronica represents the first iambic didactic poem ever. Even aside from philological-textual reasons (the prevention of textual corruption), there may have been mnemo-technical, esthetic-poetical, scholarly or even personal reasons why Apollodorus chose to introduce this new form or subgenre in didactic poetry. The trimeter was practically unavoidable for his chronological material, while the comic trimeter was preferable. The hexameter would have negatively affected the scholarly scope and readability of the work. The Chronica clearly belongs to the genre of didactic poetry, but the chronological content coupled with the metrical form presents some (superficial) similarities with the epic genre.

The comic trimeter – metrical analysis of the preserved verses | 65

4.2 The comic trimeter – metrical analysis of the preserved verses Now, Apollodorus chose not just the iambic trimeter, but the comic iambic trimeter. This particular form of trimeter allows for more metrical resolutions and consequently flexibility in phrasing the verses. Apart from the relative occurrence of certain resolutions, the main difference between tragic and comic trimeters consists in the possibility to resolve the breve of the first and second meter (second and fourth foot of the verse) into two brevia, if no word ends with one of these brevia. Furthermore, Porson’s law does not apply.12 The well-known scheme of the comic trimeter, as used by Apollodorus, is: 1. meter 1. foot X

̶

2. meter 2. foot ͜

3. foot ̶

X

3. meter 4. foot

̶

͜

5. foot ̶

X

̶

6. foot ͜

x

X = breve, longum or two brevia ̶ = every longum can be dissolved in two brevia, but four brevia in a foot are impossible ͜ = the single brevia of the 2. and 4. foot can be dissolved into two brevia (only in comedy) x = breve or longum

4.2.1 Schematic analysis of the Chronica verses I have created a comprehensive metrical analysis of all the Apollodorus verses in the following table: ia = iambus spo = spondee tri = tribrach dac = dactyl ana= anapaest lost or mutilated parts of verses are marked black

|| 12 Cf. Snell (1982), p. 21.

66 | The Chronica as the first iambic didactic poem – metrics, style, reception

1. meter

2. meter

1. foot ia

2. foot

spo

1

tri

dac

ana

x

ia

3. foot tri

ana

ia

x

spo

tri

x

2 3

x

x

4

x

x

5

x

x

6

x

x x x

x

x

7

x

x

8

x

x

x

9

x

x

x

x

10

x

x

x

11

x

x

x

12

x

x

13 14

x x

15

x

16

x

17

x

18 19 20

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

dac

ana

The comic trimeter – metrical analysis of the preserved verses | 67

3. meter 4. foot ia

5. foot tri

ana

ia

6. foot spo

tri

dac

ana

ia

x

x

brevia

x

x

1 2

x

3 x

x

x

x

x

4

x

5 6

x

x x

x x

x

x

7

x

8

x

9

x

x

x

10

x

x

x

11

x

x

x

12

x

x

13

x x

x

x

x x

x x

x

14 15

x

x

x

16

x

x

17

x

x

18

x

x

x

19

x

x

x

20

68 | The Chronica as the first iambic didactic poem – metrics, style, reception

1. meter

2. meter

1. foot ia

2. foot

spo

tri

dac

ana

ia

3. foot tri

ana

ia

spo

tri

dac

ana

21 22

x

23

x

x x

24 25

x

x

x

x x x

28

x

x

x

x

x

x

29

x

x

26 27

x

x

x

x

x

x

30

x

31

x

x

32

x

x

33

x

x x

34

x

x

35

x

x

36

x

x x x

37

x

x

x

x

39

x

x

x

x x

38

40

x

x x x

x

The comic trimeter – metrical analysis of the preserved verses | 69

3. meter 4. foot ia

5. foot tri

ana

ia

6. foot spo

tri

dac

ana

ia

brevia

x

x

x

x

22

x

x

23

x x

x

21

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

24

x

25

x

26

x

27 28

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

29

x

30

x

31 32

x

x

x

x

34

x x

x

33

x

35

x

36

x

x

x

x

x

37

x

x

x

38

x

x

39

x x

x

x

40

70 | The Chronica as the first iambic didactic poem – metrics, style, reception

1. meter

2. meter

1. foot ia

2. foot

spo

41

tri

dac

ana

x

42

x

43

x

tri

ana

ia

x

spo

45

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

48

x

49

x

x

50

x x

x

x

x

51

x

52

x

x

x

53

x

x

x

54

x

55

x

x

x

56 57 58

x

x x

x

x

x x

x

59 60

ana

x

x

x

47

dac

x x

x

tri

x

x

44

46

ia

3. foot

x x

x

x x

x

x x

x

The comic trimeter – metrical analysis of the preserved verses | 71

3. meter 4. foot ia

5. foot tri

ana

ia

x

6. foot spo

tri

dac

ana

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

ia

brevia

x

41

x

42

x

43

x

44 x

45

x

x

46

x

x

47

x

48 49

x

x

50

x

51

x

x

52

x

x

53

x

x

x x

x x

x x

x

x

x

x x

x x

x

54

x

55

x

56

x

57 58

x

x

x

x

59

x

x

x

60

72 | The Chronica as the first iambic didactic poem – metrics, style, reception

1. meter

2. meter

1. foot ia

61

2. foot

spo

tri

dac

ana

ia

3. foot tri

x

62

ia

x x

63

ana

x

64

x

65

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

67

x

x

68

x

69

x

x x

x

x x

x x

x

74 75

x

x

x x

x

76

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

77 x

79 80

x x

x

ana

x

x

72

78

dac

x

70

73

tri

x

x

66

71

spo

x

x

x

x

x

The comic trimeter – metrical analysis of the preserved verses | 73

3. meter 4. foot ia

5. foot tri

ana

ia

6. foot spo

tri

dac

ana

ia

brevia

x

x

x

x

62

x

x

63

x

64

x

65

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x

x

x

x

67

69

x

70

x

x

71

x

72

x

73

x

74

x

x

75

x

x

76

x

x x

x

x

x

x

66

68

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

61

x

x x

x x

77 78

x x

79

x

80

74 | The Chronica as the first iambic didactic poem – metrics, style, reception

1. meter

2. meter

1. foot ia

2. foot

spo

tri

81 82

dac

ana

ia

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

83

x

84

x

3. foot tri

ana

ia

spo

x

85

x

x

86 87

x

88

x

x

x

89

x

x

x

90

x

x

x

x

91

x

x

92

x

x

93

x

x

94

x

x

95

x

x

x x x x

x

x

96

x

x

x

97

x

x

x

x

x

98 99 100

x x

x x

x

tri

x x

dac

ana

The comic trimeter – metrical analysis of the preserved verses | 75

3. meter 4. foot ia

5. foot tri

ana

ia

6. foot spo

tri

dac

ana

ia

x

x x

x x

x

brevia

x

81

x

82

x

83 84

x x

x x

x

85

x

86 87

x

x

88

x

x

x

x

x x

x

89

x x

90

x

x

91

x

x

92

x

x

x

93

x

x

x

94

x

x

x

95

x

x

96

x

97

x

98

x

99

x

100

x x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

76 | The Chronica as the first iambic didactic poem – metrics, style, reception

1. meter

2. meter

1. foot ia

101 102

2. foot

spo

tri

dac

ana

ia

3. foot tri

x

ia

spo

tri

dac

x

x x

x x

104 x

ana

x

x

103

105

ana

x

x

x

x

x

106 107

x

108 109

x x

Σ≈% 26 39 Σ

x

8

6

18 97

63 18

x x

x

19

28 63

100

6

1

5 103

The comic trimeter – metrical analysis of the preserved verses | 77

3. meter 4. foot ia

5. foot tri

ana

ia

6. foot spo

tri

dac

ana

ia

brevia

101

x x

x

x

102

x

x

x

103 104

x

x

105

x

106 x

x

x

x

x

74

x

14

11 99

28

54

x

107

x

108 109

x

1

1

16 100

60

38

Σ≈%

98

Σ

78 | The Chronica as the first iambic didactic poem – metrics, style, reception

Let us first take a look at Apollodorus’ trimeters, before we put the numbers into perspective and compare him with comedians and other iambic didactic poets. Conveniently, as far as the feet of the verses are concerned, ca. 100 verses can be taken into account, so for the sake of simplification we can read and use the numbers as fairly good approximations of the percentage figures. As far as the 1st foot, 3rd foot and 5th foot are concerned, the Chronica has no resolutions, meaning either iambs or spondees, in 65% of the verses in the 1st foot, in 91% of the verses in the 3rd foot and in 82% of the verses in the 5th foot. Like the other composers of comic trimeters (see below), Apollodorus seems to have avoided resolutions in these feet, in particular in the 3rd foot. As far as the resolutions in these feet are concerned, the percentages for tribrachs and dactyls are significantly lower than those for anapaests in the 1st and 5th foot, whereas in the 3rd foot the tribrachs alone occurs even more often than the anapaest. Tribrachs and dactyls are practically never used in the 5th foot. As far as the relative distribution of iambs and spondees in these feet is concerned, it is remarkable that spondees can be found more than twice as often as iambs in the 3rd foot and also occur much more frequently than iambs in the 5th foot, while their preponderance in the 1st foot is less marked. Let us now take a closer look at the 2nd foot and the 4th, where the possible resolution into anapaests is typical for comic trimeters. “Standard” iambs account for 63% of the verse in the 2nd foot and for 74% in the 4th foot, suggesting that Apollodorus avoids resolutions more often in the 4th foot than in the 2nd foot. The two possible resolutions into tribrach and anapaest occur with approximately equal frequency in each of the two feet. For more or less “statistical“ reasons one may mention that in the 6th foot 60% of the verses end with iambs, while in 38% the last syllable is naturally short. In all of the 109 verses preserved from the Chronica not a single iambus purus is to be found.

4.2.2 Resolutions and casesurae in the Chronica Altogether there are 123 resolutions, meaning 1.27 resolutions per verse. Remarkably, the anapaest (69) is used more frequently than tribrachs and dactyls together (54). About half of the fully preserved verses have one resolution, 13 verses have no resolution, 28 verses have two and four verses have three.13 || 13 Note that only the fully preserved verses could be taken into account (or those with a certain number of resolutions).

The comic trimeter – metrical analysis of the preserved verses | 79

Tab. 1: Resolutions in the Chronica

Resolutions (total) 14

trib./ dact.

anapaest

Σ

… per verse

verses 0 resol.

verses 1resol.

verses 2 resol.

verses 3 resol.

54

69

123

1.27

13

44

28

4

What remains to be analyzed are the caesurae. Tab. 2: Caesurae in the Chronica

Caesurae (total figures ≈ %)

Porson’s law (total figures)

after second anceps

40

after third longum

25

after second breve

30

other/none

7

violated

7 (= 13%)

not violated

45 (=87%)

The most frequent caesura in the Chronica is the penthemimeres caesura, which is used in 40% of the verses, while the hepthemimeres occurs in 30%. The medial caesura after the third longum occurs only in 25% of the verse. In 7% of the cases there is either no caesura or a different one. The latter two figures add up to 32%. Basically, Porson’s law is not strictly obeyed in comic trimeters.15 Apollodorus violates it in 13% of the cases, which is to say that in 13% of the verses after a long anceps in the 5th foot (spondee or dactyl) there is the end of a word.

|| 14 Note that the first three figures are based on all 109 verses, although these are mutilated, whereas the following figures as well as the figures in 4.2.4 have the 89 fully preserved verses as their basis. 15 See Snell (1982), p. 21.

80 | The Chronica as the first iambic didactic poem – metrics, style, reception

4.2.3 Schematic analysis: A comparison between Apollodorus and other authors Now, probably even more instructive and interesting than the isolated metrical analysis might be a comparison between the figures and percentages from the Chronica and those from other authors who composed comic trimeters. The first group is represented by comedians, namely Aristophanes (Old Comedy) and Menander (New Comedy). For these two authors I could exploit already existing metrical statistics and only had to translate the numbers into percentages.16 The second group consists of the four iambic didactic poets in the tradition of Apollodorus (Pseudo-Scymnus, Damocrates, Sphaera Empedoclis, Dionysius the son of Kalliphon – see 4.4). For these authors, who can be assigned to the same sub-genre as Apollodorus, I could not rely on any existing metrical analysis (raw data). Jacoby (1902) brings up some figures for these authors, which he obviously calculated himself on basis of a metrical analysis of a sample of verses. Hence, it was necessary to conduct a thorough representative metrical analysis of all the four authors in the form of the Apollodorus table above. The final results are presented here.17

|| 16 For Aristophanes and Menander I have calculated all percentages myself on the basis of the absolute numbers in the tables in White (1912), pp. 38, 58. For the numbers see also White (1909). His analysis proved most convenient for my purposes (basis: 728 verses), but subsequent scholars could use a much broader range of texts (fragments) so the actual figures might differ somewhat from the percentage given here. 17 For Dionysius and Sphaera Empedoclis I have analyzed the entire poems, only ignoring some corrupt/doubtful verses (the basis is 149 or 167 verses respectively). In the case of Pseudo-Scymnus I have taken into account about 200 verses from the first part of the poem, again excluding corrupt or doubtful verses. For Damocrates I have also analyzed about 200 verses from various poems which Galen transmits, of course excluding corrupt/doubtful verses. Even considering some possible minor mistakes in the analysis or a slight bias of the verses selected, by and large the figures should be representative and they are also mostly in accordance with Jacoby’s figures, where overlaps exist.

The comic trimeter – metrical analysis of the preserved verses | 81

Tab. 3: Apollodorus vs. other authors (metrical analysis) 1. meter 1. foot

Comedians

Iambic didactic poets

2. foot

ia

spo

tri

dac

ana

ia

tri

ana

Apollodorus

26%

39%

8%

6%

18%

63%

18%

19%

Aristophanes

25%

54%

2%

5%

13%

75%

11%

14%

Menander

24%

49%

5%

9%

13%

80%

11%

9%

Ps.-Scymnus

22%

37%

5%

11%

24%

69%

20%

11%

Sphaera Emp.

36%

49%

4%

1%

11%

96%

4%

1%

Damocrates

26%

49%

5%

8%

13%

72%

13%

15%

Dionysius

24%

34%

9%

12%

21%

70%

13%

17%

2. meter 3. foot

Comedians

Iambic didactic poets

4. foot

ia

spo

tri

dac

ana

ia

tri

ana

Apollodorus

28%

63%

6%

1%

5%

74%

14%

11%

Aristophanes

25%

59%

3%

10%

3%

78%

13%

10%

Menander

30%

55%

4%

9%

3%

83%

10%

7%

Ps.-Scymnus

20%

53%

7%

14%

6%

81%

15%

3%

Sphaera Emp.

33%

64%

1%

2%

0%

96%

2%

2%

Damocrates

28%

55%

4%

12%

1%

76%

11%

14%

Dionysius

26%

51%

6%

11%

6%

71%

19%

9%

82 | The Chronica as the first iambic didactic poem – metrics, style, reception

3. meter 5. foot

Comedians

Iambic didactic poets

6. foot

ia

spo

tri

dac

ana

ia

brev

Apollodorus

28%

54%

1%

1%

16%

60%

38%

Aristophanes

35%

58%

1%

2%

4%

-

-

Menander

38%

52%

2%

5%

4%

-

-

Ps.-Scymnus

41%

48%

3%

7%

1%

67%

33%

Sphaera Emp.

55%

44%

1%

0%

1%

57%

43%

Damocrates

42%

46%

1%

3%

8%

49%

51%

Dionysius

31%

41%

8%

15%

5%

66%

34%

Now, we are able to put Apollodorus’ metrical statistics into perspective. As with the isolated analysis of Apollodorus’ verses, let us start with a comparative analysis of the percentages of the 1st, 3rd and 5th foot. Apollodorus’ use of spondees in the 1st foot (39%) seems to be (significantly) lower than that of the comedians (54% and 49%), but also than that of Damocrates and Sphaera Empedoclis (49%). However, Apollodorus’ percentage for a spondee in the 3rd foot and 5th foot (63% and 54%) more or less equals the percentage of most other authors. Concerning iambs, the figures for all authors are very similar in the 1st and 3rd foot. Yet, in the 5th foot Apollodorus basically seems to have made less use of iambs than other authors (only 28%). When it comes to resolutions in the 1st, 3rd and 5th foot, all percentages are – within a reasonable margin of error – mostly similar again, but two significant differences can be identified. On the one hand, the comparatively modest use of dactlys by Apollodorus in the 3rd foot (1% in comparison to around 10% or more in other authors) is noteworthy, and is only paralleled by the Sphaera Empedoclis. On the other hand, there is a massive preponderance of anapaests among the resolutions in the 5th foot. Apollodorus uses it in 16% of the verses in this foot (1% tribrachs and dactyls), which is a (much) higher percentage than all the other authors have (comedians 4%, iambic didactic poets between 1% and 8%). In comparison to the comedians, Apollodorus may have used the tribrach in the 1st and 3rd foot more often, but the small sample of the Chronica hardly allows a definite verdict to be reached. Concerning the 2nd and 4th foot, in the 2nd foot Apollodrous uses resolutions (37%) more often than Aristophanes (25%) or Menander (20%). Except the

The comic trimeter – metrical analysis of the preserved verses | 83

Sphaera Empedoclis, which largely avoids resolutions in the 2nd and 4th feet, the figures for the Chronica are close to those for other authors, with a tendency to more resolutions. In the 4th foot the figures for all authors are again similar, while Apollodorus uses anapaests more often than Pseudo-Scymnus or the Sphaera Empedoclis. The percentage of iambs or two brevia in the 6th foot is similar across all authors, but Damocrates may have used iambs in the 6th foot less frequently than the other authors – assuming this is not simply due to the sample I have selected.

4.2.4 Resolutions and casesurae: A comparison between Apollodorus and other authors For a comparison of the overall use of resolutions, the following table might be useful: Tab. 4: Apollodorus vs. other authors (resolutions) resolutions per verse

Comedians

Iambic didactic poets

% of all resolut.

no resolutions

tri/dac

ana

total

tri/dac

ana

Apollodorus

0.56

0.71

1.27

44%

56%

15%

Aristophanes

0.47

0.4

0.9

52%

48%

34%

Menander

0.53

0.3

0.88

60%

40%

37%

Ps.-Scymnus

0.82

0.4

1.28

64%

36%

18%

Sphaera Emp.

0.14

0.1

0.28

49%

51%

75%

Damocrates

0.57

0.51

1.09

53%

47%

24%

Dionysius

0.94

0.5

1.52

62%

38%

12%

On the whole, there are 123 resolutions in ca. 109 Apollodorus verses and an average of about 1.27 resolutions in the 89 fully preserved verses, which is significantly more than in the case of comedians. However, the figure is close to PseudoScymnus and Damocrates (1.28 and 1.09), whereas Dionysios seems to have used resolutions even more frequently (1.52) and the Sphaera Empedoclis dramatically less (0.28). Tribrachs or dactyls occur 54 times in Apollodorus, anapaests 69

84 | The Chronica as the first iambic didactic poem – metrics, style, reception

times. This means that in relation to the verses tribrachs/dactyls account for 44% of all resolutions18 and anapaests for 56%. Unlike Apollodorus, practically all other authors use the tribrachs or dactyls for more than 50% of all resolutions. Interestingly, Pseudo-Scymnus and Dionysios use the anapaest only for a little more than a third (36% and 38%) of all resolutions. 15% of the completely preserved verses in Apollodorus have no resolution, which is considerably less than the comedians and the Sphaera Empedoclis, but similar to the figures for Damocrates, Pseudo-Scymnus and Dionysios.19 Basically, these figures are negatively correlated to the “resolutions per verse” figures. Concerning the caesura, which I have not analyzed for the iambic didactic poets, I will only note that in Apollodorus the figures for the medial caesura after the third longum (24%) and that for no caesura or an exotic one (7%) add up to 31%. Interestingly, the corresponding percentage for Aristophanes is only 7.5% (11.9% for Pseudo-Scymnus).20 This divergence is rather significant and might be explained not only by the many personal names used, but also by Apollodorus’ general non-avoidance of such caesurae. Concerning Porson’s law, the percentage of verses violating it (13%) in Apollodorus is somewhat lower than in comedy (20%),21 but the deviation might be random.

4.2.5 Conclusions from the metrical analysis of the Chronica Let us summarize the most important results of the comparative metrical analysis. Basically, Apollodorus’ figures are rather similar to those for the peer group, but some (more or less) significant divergences can be found. In the 1st foot Apollodorus seems to have used spondees less than the other authors and in the 3rd foot he seems to have used dactyls less. In the 5th foot Apollodorus used iambs less than the other authors, which is “counterbalanced” by a very significantly

|| 18 However, one should not infer that tribrachs/dactyls occur in 44% of the verses, since sometimes they occur more than once. This means that 44% is only the upper percentage for their occurrence in verses. 19 For Aristophanes and Menander I have calculated the figures from the table in Descroix (1931), pp. 48–49, for the other authors I have used my own raw data. 20 For the percentage in Aristophanes see West (1982), p. 88. For the percentage in PseudoScymnus see Jacoby (1902), p. 66. 21 For the percentage in comedy see Snell (1982), p. 21: “… lex Porsonia (sie wird durchschnittlich alle 5 Verse einmal verletzt)”. Snell’s statement is obviously to be understood as an approximation.

The comic trimeter – metrical analysis of the preserved verses | 85

higher use of the anapaest resolution in this foot. Basically, Apollodorus used the anapaest throughout all feet more often than the authors compared. In the 2nd and 4th foot Apollodorus uses resolutions more often than the comedians and also his overall use of resolutions (per verse) is higher than for the comedians. Concerning the relative use of resolutions, the anapaest prevails, also in comparison to the other authors. These findings should not surprise us too much and might mainly be explained by the need to embed various names (and numbers) into the verses of the Chronica. Of course, I could not conduct an exhaustive comparison touching on every metrical aspect (e.g. caesurae). For further metrical research on Apollodorus and for a comparison with other authors as regards other metrical aspects, scholars may use the raw data given here for the Chronica and extract what serves their purposes. However, in analyzing “combined features”22 one always has to consider the comparatively small size of the sample, which may make many kinds of “combined” analysis statistically meaningless.

4.2.6 Quantity of syllables With reference to the metrics dealt with, one may state, first of all, that the combination muta cum liquida normally prevents the preceding vowel from becoming long by position. Examples of this can be found in 13 of the 109 verses. Contrary to what Jacoby claims, there are two cases (and not only one) of a vowel that is long by position before a muta cum liquida: verses 72 and 97. However, in both cases the kind of combination normally makes the preceding vowel long, so that we are not dealing with genuine exceptions.23 With regard to 92 (ἀπῆρ᾿· ἐκεῖ), I have assumed an elision in 90 for κατέπλευσ᾿{ε} ἐ̣τῶν (with scriptio plena in the papyrus for the sake of clarity or as a case of dittography). For the aorist or perfect of the word ποιέω a contraction of the long vowels within the word, which is to say a synizesis (verses 23,44,102), might be less likely than the hypothesis that the Attic ποέω (often used in comedy and tragedy)24 was originally written for ποίεω or was at least intended to be read here.

|| 22 For instance the combination “resolution in foot x and at the same time a caesura at position x”. 23 Consequently, for the metrical analysis in 4.2 I have always assumed that this combination makes the anceps short. The thirteen examples for muta cum liquida without a long position are to be found in verses 9,16,17,37,40,43,44,46,48,69,90,94,100. Cf. also Jacoby (1902), p. 67. 24 See LSJ.

86 | The Chronica as the first iambic didactic poem – metrics, style, reception

There are seven cases of crasis. Five times the article is merged with the following word, twice καὶ and the following word are merged: τἀ⌈π⌉ὶ (25), οὑ⌈ρυ͙⌉θρα⌈ῖ⌉ος (37), ⌈τ⌉α[ὐτοῦ] (39), Ἁπολλώ[νιο]ς (spiritus asper!) (45), [τ]ἀ⌈ν⌉δρὸς (63), κἀν (94), κἀνδόξου (98).

4.3 Lexical and stylistic features of the verses 4.3.1 Syntax, vocabulary, grammar Regarding the syntax and vocabulary itself, one has almost the impression of reading a prose text. This is particularly the case with the verses preserved by Philodemus, since they are not written with a verse layout in the papyrus, but as a continuous text, without considering the meter. It might not be entirely out of place to report the following anecdote: some years ago I discussed the Apollodorus verses in connection with the prose versions of Philodemus, perhaps without clearly indicating the verses in the handout; when at one point I remarked that we were dealing with trimeters, a surprised scholar blurted out: “What, these are actually verses?” No doubt, having taken only a superficial look at the passages and at the dry chronological information they provided about Academic philosophers, this scholar did not realize that he was reading some verses. Nor was he the first scholar to miss the verses. Even the editor princeps Bücheler (1869) was misled by the similarity to prose and by the non-verse-layout of the excerpt, to the point that he failed to recognize the underlying trimeters.25 It was first Röper (1870) who pointed out in his review of Bücheler’s edition that the lines actually contained iambic trimeters, namely those from Apollodorus’ Chronica.26 There are no poetic words in a strict sense and the word order and rendering of the sentences are rather prose-like. Besides, we find few unnecessary particles or wordy circumlocutions. Moreover, trimeters, in particular comic ones, display a kind of natural similarity to prose or everyday language. Aristotle aptly remarked: τῶν δὲ ῥυθμῶν ὁ μὲν ἡρῷος σεμνῆς ἀλλ’ οὐ λεκτικῆς ἁρμονίας δεόμενος, ὁ δ’ ἴαμβος αὐτή ἐστιν ἡ λέξις ἡ τῶν πολλῶν (διὸ μάλιστα πάντων τῶν μέτρων ἰαμβεῖα φθέγγονται λέγοντες), δεῖ δὲ σεμνότητα γενέσθαι καὶ ἐκστῆσαι.27 The iambs of the Chronica are composed like those of comedy, meaning that even more resolutions

|| 25 Bücheler (1869). 26 Röper (1870), pp. 24–27. 27 Arist. Rh. 1408b. Cf. Jacoby (1902), pp. 61–62.

Lexical and stylistic features of the verses | 87

are permitted than in tragedy. In addition, as we have seen in the metrical analysis of the verses (4.2), Apollodorus uses resolutions even more frequently than comedians and most later iambic didactic poets. This makes the verses even more difficult to tell apart from prose. For all that, the verse character of the Chronica becomes obvious if one reads the text more thoroughly. The word order, position of particles and phrasing (and of course the rhythm) are bound to reveal the meter to the reader – sooner or later – but the “poetic” elements are not predominant. Let us now scrutinize the vocabulary of the Chronica. There are two cases of typical κοινή-Greek or Hellenistic Greek. We have γινώσκω instead of γιγνώσκω (79) and δυεῖν instead of δυοῖν (18), which according to the LSJ is first mainly used in the Hellenistic age. Also the words συνεσχολακὼς (81),28 in a rhetorical context πολυχούστατος (93),29 διακατασχόντος (74)30 and – here the reconstruction is not entirely certain, see discussion in the commentary – the hapax legomenon σχολαρχίαν (100) first occur in Hellenistic Greek. The compound ὑπεργεγηρακώς (11) is very rarely attested in Classical or Hellenistic literature. The form τοῖσ (17) might be the only case of a strictly poetic word, one which a prose author would not have used, but the supplement is questionable. The juncture ἐπὶ πᾶσι (45) or τἀπὶ πᾶσι (25) is rare and must mean “finally” or “final”.31 In brief, judging only from the vocabulary (maybe except τοῖσιν), the text could easily be mistaken for a prose work. As far as grammar is concerned, nothing of interest can be noted, if not the three (or four) cases of coniugatio periphrastica.32 Two times the past perfect active is replaced by coniugatio periphrastica, something which prose authors do more often than poets.33 There may be metrical reasons for Apollodorus’ occasional use of coniugatio periphrastica, as well as for the use of some short words like ἦν or ὢν.34 Concerning syntax, in three verses ποιέομαι + Acc. noun is written

|| 28 Philodemus uses the verb several times. The noun occurs in Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 26,1–2, cf. Vooys/van Krevelen (1941), p. 106. 29 The adjective is also used by Philodemus in a rhetorical context (Phld. Rhet. I,14,7–8). 30 This hyper-compositum is first attested in Polybius (cf. Jacoby (1902), p. 69). 31 Cf. LSJ (“but also, ‘finally’, Philostr. VS 2.11.1, al.”) and v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1910), pp. 410–411: “ἐπὶ πᾶσι “schließlich” steht auch weiter unten; der Ausdruck ist mir nicht geläufig, aber es kann doch nur τὰ ὕστατα oder ὕστατα bedeuten.” Dorandi (1991), p. 197: “… negli ultimi dieci anni.” 32 Verses 50,51 (uncertain),58,80,81 (the participle might go together with ἦν in 80). 33 Cf. Jacoby (1902), p. 67. 34 Including the cases of coniugatio periphrastica, ἦν is to be found ten times (4,10,14,33,51,54,56,58,80,108), ὤν four times (16,40,42,90).

88 | The Chronica as the first iambic didactic poem – metrics, style, reception

instead of a verb (23,44,102). This phenomenon can often be observed in the Hellenistic age, but sometimes also occurs in the Classical period.35 The position of the particle δὲ displays a characteristic difference compared to prose, which is clearly a concession to the meter. The particle occurs 13 times in the rather unusual third position and once even in the fourth position.36 A historical present in 19 and 54 is arguable, but not certain (see the discussion in the commentary)

4.3.2 Some lexical features of note Although the dry, scholarly flavor of Apollodorus’ verses is undeniably predominant, some more or less genuine “poetic” elements pop up. “How to die in the Chronica” – 7 synonyms For instance, this is the case with the many different ways in which he expresses “to die”. While ἀποθνῄσκω or καταστρέφω do not occur in the preserved text, some elegant and euphemistic synonyms are used.37 An overview might be in order: ἐκλείπω τελευτάω τὴν τοῦ βίου μεταλλαγὴν ποιέομαι τὸν βίον μεταλλάττω τὸ ζῆν μεταλλάττω τὴν ἀπόλυσιν τοῦ βίου ποιέομαι τὸν βίον ἐκλείπω

18,49,(66),105 13 22–23 30–31 36 43–44 71–72

Given the small sample of 109 verses, the many variants for the verb “to die” are remarkable. Apollodorus’ intention was apparently to make the verses more pleasurable to read, by giving them a “poetic” quality.38

|| 35 See Jacoby (1902), p. 68. 36 Third position: 24,30,32,37,39,44,54,56,57,71,84,91,101. Fourth position: 47. 37 Jacoby (1902), pp. 67–68 notes a certain “vulgarization” of formerly distinct and only restrictedly used expressions. 38 Gregor Staab suggests that the unique expression τὴν ἀπόλυσιν τοῦ βίου ποιέοµαι might even be a hint at suicide, though so far scholars have taken it to mean a natural death.

Lexical and stylistic features of the verses | 89

6 different ways to date by archons Apollodorus also varies his dating by archons, often certainly because of meter. See the following overview: ἐπὶ + archon name archon name τότε ἄρχοντος καθ᾿ ὃν χρόνον archon name ἦρχεν ἐπ᾿ archon name ἄρχοντος ἐπ᾿ ἄρχοντος παρ᾿ ἡμῖν archon name μετὰ τὸν archon name 1 (+archon name 2)

23,24,36,(39),43,44,89 38–39 45–46 72 65 47

Opinions or relativizing statements by Apollodorus Occasionally Apollodorus expresses his opinion or makes relativizing statements, thereby underlining and proving, as it were, his scholarly scope and carefulness. ἐμοὶ δοκοῦσιν ὅπερ γ᾿ οὐ φαίνεται. ὥς φασι δοκεῖ (μετηλλαχέναι)

9–10 (exact restoration uncertain) 11 (exact restoration uncertain) 15 30–(31) (restored)

Numbers – 13 cardinal numbers, 2 ordinal numbers39 The nature of such a chronological work as the Chronica requires the employment of many numbers. In most cases, even with higher numbers, the meter should not have caused major problems. There are more than a dozen numbers in the 109 preserved verses of the Chronica, most of them lower numbers. The following table provides an overview: 1 one/single 2 3 (third) 6

μιᾶι δύο (τρίτος) ἓξ

|| 39 Not included πρῶτος and πρῶτον.

51 27,34,74 27 70

90 | The Chronica as the first iambic didactic poem – metrics, style, reception

7 10 10 (tenth) 12 18 22 52 60 105

ἑπτὰ δέκα (δεκάτωι) δώδεκα ὀκτὼ καὶ δέκα εἴκοσίν τε καὶ δύο πεντήκοντα καὶ δυεῖν ἑξήκοντα ἑκατὸν πέντε

91 24 64 35 21 90 18 12 17

4.4 Iambic didactic poems after the Chronica and their influence on literature As already adumbrated, the new meter for the didactic poem or the invention of the new subgenre of “iambic didactic poetry” was very soon welcomed by authors, whose scientific matter was very difficult to integrate into readable hexameters without the content suffering because of the meter. Geography, astronomy, philology/grammar and medicine are all subjects dealt with in the iambic didactic poems by Apollodorus’ successors that either survive in fragments or whose form and content are partly known to us. His close emulators, namely comic iambic didactic poets, were Pseudo-Scymnus, Dionysius, son of Calliphon, Damocrates and the Sphaera Empedoclis. It seems that Pseudo-Scymnus was indeed the first to follow in Apollodorus’ footsteps and to adopt the trimeter for his geographical didactic poem. His reference and homage to Apollodorus in his proem has already been mentioned and discussed (2.1). Pseudo-Scymnus still felt a certain need to justify the adoption of the new meter for his didactic poem. For the minor divergences in his use of resolutions see 4.2. The geographical didactic poem composed in trimeters by Dionysius, son of Calliphon, and entitled Ἀναγραφὴ τῆς Ἑλλάδος may have been composed in the first century BC, not long after Pseudo-Scymnus, but alternative (later) dates had been suggested.40 Nothing is known about the author and only the first ca. 150 verses of his poem survive. This “iambic didactic geographer” Dionysius should

|| 40 On this work and especially its dating see Marcotte (1990), pp. 34–38.

Iambic didactic poems after the Chronica and their influence on literature | 91

not be confused with the more or less contemporary geographer Dionysius Periegetes (of Alexandria), who wrote a didactic poem in hexameters.41 Dionysius seems to have used Pseudo-Scymnus as a model and to have concealed his name and patronym in an acrostic in the proem of the poem. The dedicatee is a certain Theophrastus, which is obviously the reason why the manuscript tradition mistakenly assigned the poem to Dicaearchus.42 It is uncertain whether some trimeters stem from a didactic poet Simylos or from the homonymous comedian.43 Furthermore, we possess rather extensive fragments of a iambic didactic poem by Servilius Damocrates. This first-century physician is referred to by Pliny the Elder and Galen.44 The latter preserves in several treatises of his oeuvre about 1650 trimeters by Damocrates, who is the first known author to have applied Apollodorus’ innovation to medical content in several iambic didactic poems.45 Next, we might mention the so-called Sphaera Empedoclis, nowadays usually included in Aratus editions.46 It cannot be dated with certainty, but must be later than Apollodorus, maybe even centuries later. It is a didactic poem of about 170 trimeters about the position of the stars, and seems to have had a hexametric didactic poem as its model.47 If so, this kind of “re-metering” into trimeters would prove how popular the trimeter had become in didactic poetry. Basically, it can be still subsumed within the genre of comic iambic didactic poetry, but resolutions are rather modestly used (4.2). Jacoby, who dates the work late, regards this as a redevelopment towards the rules of tragic trimeter. Also the style and vocabulary are close to those of tragedy.48 The iambic didactic trimeter (not necessarily the comic trimeter) also found its way into the philological and grammatical field. Thus Photius informs us that || 41 See, for instance, Brodersen (1994). 42 For an overview of this work see Schindler (2000), pp. 171–173. 43 Stob. I,51,1 and IV,18,4; Theoph. Ad Autol. III 122 A. For the doubtful assignment see Körte (1927), pp. 216–217. 44 Plin. Nat. hist. 24,43; 25,87. On Damocrates see Vogt (2005b), pp. 207–208. 45 The (now outdated) edition is Bussemaker (1851), pp. 99–132. Studemund (1888/1889) announced a new edition, but passed away before finishing it, cf. Kassel (2010), pp. 49–50. On Damocrates and Galen’s positive reaction to Apollodorus’ use of the iambic trimeter, see Vogt (2005a), pp. 73–77. A new edition of Damocrates is currently being prepared by S. Vogt, Servilius Damokrates. Iambische Pharmaka im Corpus Galenicum. Einleitung, Edition und kommentierte Übersetzung (forthcoming). 46 See the edition by Maass (1898), pp. 154–169. 47 Edition by Wieck (1897) (for its dating and Apollodorus see in particular pp. 21–22); cf. also Jacoby (1902), p. 72. 48 See Jacoby (1902), pp. 64–65, 70.

92 | The Chronica as the first iambic didactic poem – metrics, style, reception

in the fourth century a certain Helladius compiled a chrestomathy with a primarily grammatical and philological character in trimeters. The meter can still be identified in his excerpts. Helladius also composed other works in trimeters.49 The Atticist Philemon of Athens, who lived around AD 200, seems to have used the trimeter as well. One prose version of a passage still reveals the underlying original trimeters.50 However, the nature of trimeters (whether they were comic or tragic) is no longer identifiable. Α poem in iambic senars entitled Ora maritima by the fourth-century author Avienius has survived.51 He seems to have relied on a now lost Greek geographical work, which had been written after Pseudo-Scymnus.52 However, Avienius’ trimeter adaptations of the whole of Livy and of Vergil’s Aeneid and Georgica are now lost.53 Yet, it should be pointed out that we are no longer dealing with comic trimeters as used by Apollodorus. Also Gregory of Nazianzus uses the trimeter, though not the comic one, for many of his moral poems (for instance, De sua vita).54 Around AD 500 an otherwise unknown Marianus wrote trimeter versions of Theocritus, Apollonius of Rhodes, Callimachus, Aratus, Nicander and others, which are not preserved.55 The trimeter developed, as it were, into the dodecasyllable, which was the most popular verse in the Byzantine period. George Pisides used it for the first time extensively in the 7th century, but its origin goes back to earlier centuries.56 In conclusion, we have fragments from four authors (Pseudo-Scymnus, the Sphaera Empedoclis, Dionysius the son of Kalliphon, and Damocrates), who were imitators of Apollodorus’ Chronica in a strict sense, inasmuch as they used the comic trimeter for their didactic poems. The Sphaera Empedoclis shows a strong tendency towards tragic trimeter rules, while several other authors chose the trimeter, but not according to comedy, for their didactic poems or for poems

|| 49 Phot. 279,535,42ff. (excerpts 279,529–536); Jacoby (1902), p. 73; Gudeman (1912). 50 Tosi (2015), p. 632; Jacoby (1902), p. 73. G. Choeroboscus, Scholia in Heph. 183 attests to the use of the iambic trimeter through Philemon: οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἔμμετρον αὐτὸ τὸ ποίημα, ἵνα εἴπωμεν αὐτὸ ὑπὸ τὸ μετρικόν, ὡς τὸ φερόμενον δι’ ἰάμβων Φιλήμονος τοῦ Ἀττικιστοῦ περὶ Ἀττικῆς ἀντιλογίας τῆς ἐν ταῖς λέξεσιν (cf. Hoerschelmann (1886), p. 36). 51 For the name Avienius see Cameron (1995). 52 Reference editions and translations: Schulten (1922) and Berthelot (1934); Murphy (1977); Villalba (1994); on this work see for instance Castillo Maldonado (2008). 53 Serv. Verg. Aen. X 727 and 388; Georg. I 488. 54 Jungck (1974), on the meter see pp. 34–39. Reference edition: Tuilier/Bady/Bernardi (2004), pp. 57–136. 55 See Suda μ 194 (Μαριανός). 56 Cf. Rhoby (2011).

Overview of the „Chronica as didactic poem“ | 93

somehow related to this genre. Apollodorus’ introduction of the comic trimeter into didactic poetry seems to have laid the basis for the later use of the (tragic) trimeter in didactic poetry and poetry in general, so his innovation had a Nachleben far beyond the borders of comic-iambic didactic poetry. Also some elements in the proem of the Chronica may have been exemplary and may have been echoed in later iambic didactic literature.57

4.5 Overview of the “Chronica as didactic poem” The Chronica marks the beginning of a new subgenre of didactic poetry: the iambic didactic poem. By introducing this meter into the genre Apollodorus may have wished to facilitate the memorizing of passages and to limit the possibility of textual corruption. The meter was suitable, if not unavoidable, for an adequate implementation of chronological content in poetry. Moreover, certain Alexandrian esthetic-literary ambitions may have inspired Apollodorus to choose the poetic form and the trimeter (4.1). Apollodorus’ trimeters follow the loose metrical rules of comic trimeters, this means essentially that more resolutions are permitted. Our thorough metrical analysis has shown that in comparison with Aristophanes, Menander and even with his later successors, Apollodorus used resolutions much more extensively, not least owing to the high number of personal names (4.2). The language and vocabulary of the Chronica are not very poetic and resemble or imitate prose. The word order and phrasing, too, partly give the impression of a prose text, and this was certainly Apollodorus’ intention. An informative, scholarly tone was intended to prevail. Accordingly, the overall esthetic-poetic quality of the work may be not outstanding – if such a generalizing and subjective statement is fair and reasonable in our case – but the variations of certain expressions and words as well as the rather smooth readability of the text attest to the author’s writing skills (4.3). Apollodorus’ Chronica paved the way for a new form of poetry, the iambic didactic poem (in comic trimeters). Pseudo-Scymnus, Damocrates, the Sphaera Empedoclis and Dionysios the son of Kalliphon adopted Apollodorus’ innovation in

|| 57 See Jacoby (1902), pp. 71–72 and the remarks in 4.1.

94 | The Chronica as the first iambic didactic poem – metrics, style, reception

the field of geography, medicine and astronomy and also stuck to the comic trimeter. Other later poets used the iambic trimeter (or similar meters) – as far as we can tell – according to stricter resolution rules (those of tragedy), again for various didactic purposes, which laid the basis for the popularity of this meter in Byzantine times (4.4).

5 The 109 original verses with new readings: History of the Academy and various other topics 5.1 Sources of the verses and general content My collection of the original verses of Apollodorus’ Chronica includes 109 verses, which can be found in four different authors. A short synopsis might be instructive: Sources and distribution of the 109 preserved verses: author Stephanus of

work

Ethnica

preserved verse

books of the

verses

numbers

Chronica

1–3,15,19

1,2,3,4

8

Byzantium

20,108,109

Diogenes Laertius

Vitae philosophorum

11

4–14

2

Aulus Gellius

Noctes Atticae

3

16–18

3

Philodemus

Index Academicorum

87

21–107

3,4

Stephanus entitled his encyclopedia Ethnica and so it is not surprising at all that almost all his fragments contain personal names, mostly ethnica. The verses are scattered throughout his work (only the mutilated verses 2 and 3 are successive) and are not thematically related to one another. Diogenes Laertius has preserved eleven verses on Empedocles, some of which, however, had to be restored by changing the word order or adding a few words. However, there can be no doubt that Diogenes is paraphrasing Apollodorus (via an intermediate source) very closely. His excerpt apparently omits some passages and actually consists of three separate excerpts (4–6; 7–13; 14). Aulus Gellius quotes three continuous verses on the origin, number of works and age at death of Menander and explicitly mentions the Chronica as his source. Philodemus’ Index Academicorum preserves the vast majority of verses. 87 trimeters survive about various Academic philosophers, from the later life of Lacydes until the time of Charmadas (5.2). As already outlined in chapter 1, the number of verses from the Chronica has been significantly increased over the course of my work on the new forthcoming edition of Philodemus’ Index Academicorum. Philodemus even copies a few verses from the Chronica twice in https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110703726-005

96 | The 109 original verses with new readings: Academy and other topics

his work (doublet verses). The excerpt from the Chronica extends from col. 26,mid to col. 32,34. Various reasons have led me to the assumption that this text was not a continuous excerpt, but consisted of at least three separate excerpts, the first ending after verse 34, the second after 53 (see 3.5). Maybe there were even more omissions, but they are not identifiable with any certainty. Most notably, the excerpt is not copied in verse form in the papyrus, but in prose style, meaning that one verse covers more than one line and no verse division is indicated. It is not entirely to be excluded that Philodemus did not copy the verses from the original, but from an intermediate source, which in turn had copied them verbatim from the Chronica.1

5.2 The 87 verses on the Academy in the Index Academicorum – structure and content The 87 verses preserved on the New or Middle Academy provide valuable insights into the original structure of the Chronica and Apollodorus’ rendering of it, since they deal with a coherent subject matter, namely the history of the Academy in a certain period. Although there are some likely or possible omissions, the Philodemus excerpt at least enables a limited assessment of Apollodorus’ arrangement of the chronological information. Philodemus’ excerpt of the Chronica extends from col. 26,mid to col. 32,34,2 which implies that the excerpt consisted of approximately 270 lines. As already stated, the trimeters are not written in verse form (one trimeter per line) but continuously, in prose-like manner. Usually a trimeter covers between 1.5 and 2 lines (the assumed average being around 1.6 lines). Consequently, the overall number of verses copied by Philodemus must have been around 165.3 Note that at least 8 verses, but maybe even 10, were copied twice in the papyrus, whence only around 155 different verses were copied in the papyrus.4 My collection of the original verses includes only 87 (different) verses, since

|| 1 Cf. Dorandi (1991), pp. 96–97. 2 Additionally, part of a single verse (107) may have been copied in col. 33,1. 3 The exact beginning of the excerpt cannot be determined with certainty, since it started in a very tattered area of col. 26. From col. 26,30 to col. 32,34 there are almost 270 lines. This number divided by 1.6 gives 169 verses; with a somewhat higher number we get 165 verses. Since we are are only dealing with an approximation, the actual number of different verses in the Philodemus excerpt may have been somewhere between 140 and 160. Dorandi (1982) has 132 (different) verses, which seems somewhat too low (he does not consider roughly the last 10 fragmentary verses in col. 32). 4 The doublet: col. 26,ca. 30 – 26,45 = col. 29,5–29,18.

The 87 verses on the Academy – structure and content | 97

many passages in the papyrus have been completely destroyed or are heavily damaged. So, about 70 verses are either completely lost or so poorly preserved that they cannot be reasonably integrated in the verse collection (for details see chapter 6).

Structure of Philodemus’ excerpt (Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 26,mid – 32,34) Verses

Subject

Lost

verses/omis-

Ind. Acad. col…

sions

See below

Boethus of Mara-

=ca. verses 59–66

thon, a contempo-

partial doublet: (26,mid –26,45)

rary of Carneades

21–25

26–34

Scholarchate and

Probably book 3 of

death of Lacydes

the Chronica

Lacydes’ pupils with

Between verses 32

a focus on Telecles

and

and Euander

lost/fragmentary

33

ca.

27,1–7

27,7–39

10

verses

35–44

List of death dates

Probable

for Lacydes’

in Philodemus’ ex-

omission

27,39–28,10

cerpt before verse 35

45–49

Death dates for Tele-

28,10–mid?

cles’ pupils

50–53

Unknown

philoso-

pher – Carneades?

Between verses 49

28,mid–40

and 50 ca. 9 verses lost/fragmentary

54–66

67–72

Boethus of Mara-

Probable

omission

28,40–29,18

thon, a contempo-

and switch to book 4

(partial doublet:

rary of Carneades

of the Chronica

26,mid–26,45)

The scholarch Pole-

Between verses 66

marchus of Nicome-

and

dia

lost/fragmentary

67

ca.

29,18–30,4

12

verses

73–74

The

scholarch

Crates of Tarsus

30,5–8

98 | The 109 original verses with new readings: Academy and other topics

75–78

The scholarch Clito-

Between verses 76

machus of Carthage

and

– pupil of Carneades

lost/fragmentary

77

ca.

30,8–31,3 (?)

20

verses

79–87

88–100

Melanthius

of

Ca. 6 lost/fragmen-

Rhodes – pupil of

tary verses within

Carneades

these verses

Charmadas of Alex-

Between verses 87

andria –

and

pupil of

Carneades

88

ca.

31,3–31,mid

31,mid (28?)–32,11

6

lost/fragmentary verses

101–105

106–107

Antipater of Alexan-

Between verses 102

dria and Zenodorus

and

of Tyre – pupils of

lost/fragmentary

Carneades

verses

The Academic Soc-

Between verses 104

32,25–34

rates?

and

(possible

103

105

ca.

ca.

32,11–24

2

4

lost/fragmentary

doublet:

33,1)

verses

87

Total: ca. 165 verses

ca. 70 lost/fragmen-

ca.

different verses

in the original Philo-

tary verses

verses

10

doublet

demus excerpt

From the Philodemus excerpt (21–107) and also, to some extent, from the verses devoted to Empedocles in Diogenes Laertius (4–14) it emerges that Apollodorus summarized certain thematic sections (history of the Academy/life of Empedocles) to create a kind of continuous narrative. To do so, he had to loosen or, better, broaden the chronological scheme. Unlike most chronologists, he could not proceed year by year or decade by decade, but for the sake of clarity he had to treat each topic continuously across several decades (or even more). So, for instance, the death list for the pupils of Lacydes (and Telecles) extends over more than forty years. Maybe even the death (and possibly the lost life) of Lacydes was more or less directly connected with the death list, in which case about 100 years of the history of the Academy were treated continuously. This abandoning of a strictly chronological approach was hardly unusual for the Chronica, since biographies of prominent figures were (in many cases) certainly presented continuously by Apollodorus, thereby covering up to 100 years.

The 87 verses on the Academy – structure and content | 99

Philodemus probably skipped some parts of the excerpt after 34. It is impossible to say whether he omitted information about the Academy which he found uninteresting within a thematically continuous account or whether other topics (history in general or the history of other philosophical schools) were reported in the omitted lines. Since the death list in 35 starts without further explanation, I would assume that not too many verses were omitted and that they were still somehow related to the Academy (cf. 3.7). Somewhere in col. 28 a jump to the next (4th) book must have occurred, probably after verse 53. The main focus in verses 21–49 (53) is Lacydes, whose pupils or successors (and partly their pupils too) are listed. These verses probably derive from the 3rd book of the Chronica. It is first with verse 54, excerpted from the 4th book, that the main reference point changes to Carneades, whose contemporaries, successors and pupils are listed in the following verses (54–107). First, the otherwise unknown philosopher Boethus of Marathon, a contemporary of Carneades (54), is mentioned (54–66), before Carneades’ two lifetime successors Polemarchus of Nicomedia and Crates of Tarsus are dealt with (67– 74). The fact that Carneades outlived Polemarchus and that Crates may have died not long after him, could imply that both men were not real pupils of Carneades, but more or less contemporary fellow-philosophers. Both his lifetime successors are not mentioned by any other source (except the prose paraphrases of the Chronica in the Index Academicorum itself) and in particular their names do not occur in the preserved part of the extended list of Carneades’ pupils in the Index Academicorum.5 So we may identify the subsections “Carneades’ contemporaries” (54–74) and “Carneades’ pupils” (75–107). Clitomachus is the most probable candidate for the subject of verses 77,78 and preferable to Carneades (see 3.6). He was the most prominent pupil of Carneades and his successor and so he may have been mentioned as the first pupil of Carneades with a detailed biography in the lost verses following 76 (and col. 25,1–20 would mainly depend on that). Anyway, the following philosophers are all pupils of Carneades, who is again the reference philosopher in all these verses (79–107). We read about Melanthius of Rhodes (79–87), Charmadas of Alexandria (88–100) and two pupils, Antipater of Alexandria and Zenodorus of Tyre, who taught outside Athens (101–105). For sure, Zenodorus taught in Alexandria, as we learn from col. 23,2–3, and verse 104 suggests that Antipater did so as well. Zenodorus could have additionally lectured in Carthage.6 Verses 106 and 107 may deal with a certain Socrates, who, to judge from col. N,15ff., was a grand-grand || 5 Col. 22,37–24,mid. 6 The fragmentary lines before verse 105 suggest this possibility (see commentary).

100 | The 109 original verses with new readings: Academy and other topics

pupil of Euander and may have composed exegetical works on him (see the comment on 106,107). It is possible that this Socrates belonged to an “Alexandrian branch” of the Academic school or to an alternative “Academic genealogy” (i.e. that he was not a pupil of Carneades). Maybe Apollodorus mentioned him here because of his previous reference to Alexandria. Concerning the biography of Charmadas, we know for sure that he was still alive when the 4th book of the Chronica was published (he died some time between 103 and 92 BC). The new readings or supplements in the present tense (95,100) are in accordance with a later date for his death. One last question must be briefly addressed: where was Carneades mentioned? Was his biography included in Philodemus’ excerpt? Where, in relation to the preserved verses, is he mentioned by Apollodorus? The synchronism with Boethus (54,65) strongly suggests that Carneades was at least mentioned earlier in the Chronica. By the time Apollodorus left Athens for Alexandria around 160– 155 BC (see 2.5), Carneades would appear to have already taken over the leadership of the Academy. It seems unlikely to me that Apollodorus ignored Carneades in his original three-book Chronica, which was published around 143 BC (see 3.5). At this time Carneades had not passed away yet and was, as it were, at the peak of his philosophical career. As in Charmadas’ case (95,100), Carneades might have been referred to in the present tense in the third book of the Chronica, since he was still alive and active. Interestingly, with ἔχει in 53 we might have a present tense (if not a historic/durative present). The whole passage, although its exact meaning remains somewhat obscure, could refer to Carneades, but other Academic Sceptics are arguable. If verses 50–53 (and the preceding fragmentary verses) really refer to Carneades, he had probably already been mentioned earlier in the Chronica (maybe in connection with the embassy to Rome in 155 BC)7, since one would expect more information on him than only these few verses. The position of the Carneades biography in Philodemus’ Index Academicorum (col. 22)8 as well as the fact that a reference to the philosophers’ embassy is likely to have occurred in book 3, suggest that the biography of Carneades or at least major parts of it were not included in Philodemus’ excerpt of the Chronica. A remote possibility is that his late life was the subject of the lost verses of col. 30 (after 76). However, the mention of his death in 65 seems to imply that his death was mentioned earlier (and not for the first time after 76, cf. 3.6).

|| 7 Its mention is implied by Cic. Att. XII,23,2, cf. 3.3. 8 And possibly column P, cf. Fleischer (2020c).

The 87 verses in the Index Academicorum – much unique information | 101

5.3 The 87 verses on the Academy in the Index Academicorum – much unique information The 87 verses preserved from the Philodemus excerpt are highly valuable, since they either preserve names and biographies of otherwise completely unknown Academic philosophers or provide welcome additional information on known Academics. Some developments of the Sceptic (New) Academy are illuminated by the verses or only transmitted here. There are eleven precise dates (archons) mentioned in the 87 verses. Normally they indicate the exact dates of death of certain Academics, which are not reported by any other sources. Moreover, the relative chronology of certain philosophers becomes clearer through the information in the verses. At the same time, the archons mentioned in the Chronica and in Philodemus more generally are of great help to reconstruct the Athenian archon list and could confirm or disprove earlier reconstructions.9 The development of the Academy between Lacydes and Carneades was practically a “black hole” in the history of philosophy before the work on Philodemus’ Index Academicorum and the Chronica verses in particular shed new light on this period.10 Some new readings, published here for the first time, contribute to our understanding of certain aspects of the Sceptic Academy. Furthermore, we learn a lot about the era of Carneades and his pupils. He withdrew from active teaching in 137/36 BC and had two “lifetime” successors before Clitomachus took over the Academy in 129/28 BC, apparently following some internal strife. We would know nothing about these lifetime successors, let alone their names, were it not for the Chronica (and the related prose version in the Index Academicorum). Furthermore, the biographies of Carneades’ distinguished pupils Melanthius of Rhodes and Charmadas of Alexandria are of outstanding interest (new readings in 88 and in col. 23,9– 10 have revealed the latter’s hometown for the first time). Almost every verse of the Chronica excerpted by Philodemus provides some unique information – sometimes intriguing, sometimes not particularly interesting. Occasionally, a single newly read word has far-reaching consequence.

|| 9 For the Athenian archon list and how the Herculanean papyri have added to the epigraphic evidence and its reconstruction, see for instance Kolbe (1908); Dinsmoor (1931); Dinsmoor (1939); Meritt (1977). Most relevant for our verses is Habicht (1988). 10 See Wilamowitz (1910), p. 406.

102 | The 109 original verses with new readings: Academy and other topics

5.4 The 87 verses on the Academy in the Index Academicorum reedited (21–107) – What’s new? The many new readings in the verses preserved by Philodemus and the restoration of complete verses have brought much substantial information to light. It might be instructive to give an overview of the most important new readings, i.e. ones which provide so far unknown hard facts (the reference point is Dorandi’s edition). Note, that this “What’s new?” list only includes the highlights, as it were, and minor improvements are not listed. Most new readings have some influence on related historical, chronological or even philosophical questions. The improvements in the life of Charmadas might be no less significant than the discovery that there was never a second Carneades (the Younger) as scholarch of the Academy. The alleged namesake Carneades gave reason to speculate about “nepotism”.11 To illustrate some philosophical implications in the strict sense, I will take the example of verse 103. The old reading “Metrodorus” instead of the correct “Zenodorus” was partly taken as evidence, or a hint, that Metrodorus of Stratonicea taught outside Athens because of his unorthodox views and quarrels with Athenian Academics. As far as the Chronica as a poem is concerned, the many new readings or restorations now provide a much more solid basis to evaluate the quality, metrical rendering and peculiarities of Apollodorus’ verses as well as his structuring and connecting of the material. Verses 29–31: These verses are more or less completely restored for the first time. We learn that Lacydes tried to hand over the leadership to Telecles and Euander, while still alive. This parallels D. L. 4,60.12 Next we learn, that Telecles died earlier than Euander by illness, which seems to be supported by D.L. 4,60.13 Verse 32: The ethnicon of Euander (Φωκαεὺς) might be supplemented.14 Verse 34: After verse 34 an omission in the excerpt can be identified.15 Verse 35: What it gives is not Moschion’s age at the time of his death, as hitherto assumed, but a relative reference (12 years later) to an event around 197 BC. || 11 Cf.Fleischer (2019a), pp. 117, 123. 12 D.L. 4,60: καὶ μόνος τῶν ἀπ' αἰῶνος ζῶν παρέδωκε τὴν σχολὴν Τηλεκλεῖ καὶ Εὐάνδρῳ τοῖς Φωκαεῦσι (Mette Lakydes T 1). 13 Hegesinus of Pergamon is mentioned as the successor of Euander, not of Telecles (or both). D. L. 4,60: παρὰ δ' Εὐάνδρου διεδέξατο Ἡγησίνους Περγαμηνός, ἀφ' οὗ Καρνεάδης (Mette Hegesinus von Pergamon T 1). 14 Cf. D. L. 4,60. 15 See the commentary on “omission between 34 and 35” and the commentary on 35.

The 87 verses in the Index Academicorum reedited (21–107) – What’s new? | 103

Verses 47–49: The verses dedicated to an Eubulus, brother of Apollonius, have been improved and the grammatical structure clarified. Verses 50–53: These verses have practically been completely restored for the first time and seem to refer to the argumentation (dialectical) skills of a philosopher, who enjoyed a good reputation and exercised freedom of speech. The present tense might hint at Carneades, but other philosophers are arguable. There is no quotation referring to the underworld, as hitherto believed. Verse 56: The philosophical life of Boethus. Verse 62: Activities of Boethus. Verses 67–69: There is a genitive absolute indicating Carneades’ withdrawal. The restoration of ἐκεῖ πρῶτος was crucial for the reconstruction of the verses. Polemarchus of Nicomedia must have been dealt with and mentioned by name in the preceding (fragmentary) verses. Verse 71: The reading πρὸ instead of παρὰ, along with new readings in the corresponding prose versions of the Index Academicorum, has led to an unexpected modification in the prosopography of the 2nd century BC Academy. There never was a second Carneades, son of Polemarchus, (“Carneades the Younger”), who succeeded Carneades of Cyrene as scholarch. The correct name of the successor was in fact Polemarchus of Nicomedia. Verse 83: Melanthius enjoyed either great wealth or the copious offer of intellectual activities in Athens (and was not in a difficult situation, as suggested by the previous restoration). Verse 88: The reading Ἀλεξάνδρεια suggests that Charmadas was born there. Until this new reconstruction, his origins were unknown. His hometown is confirmed by another new reading in col. 23,8–10.16 Charmadas’ departure to Athens in 146/45 BC may have been motivated by the actions of Ptolemy VIII against the Alexandrian intellectual elite. Verse 95: Charmadas was capable of persuading the masses. Verse 96: Charmadas was experienced in grammar (literature), not politics as hitherto believed. Verse 98: Charmadas did not open a school in the Ptolemaion, but “received” the (a) famous school there. Verse 100: Identified as last verse referring to Charmadas. Verse 101: Other pupils of Carneades. Verse 103: Zenodorus (of Tyre), not Metrodorus of Stratonicea, was the second of Carneades’ pupils to teach outside Athens (in Alexandria). Verse 104: “Alexandria” is read. || 16 Cf. Fleischer (2019b).

104 | The 109 original verses with new readings: Academy and other topics

Verse 105: Someone (probably Zenodorus) (later) died of an illness in Alexandria. Before that, he may have taught in Carthage. Verses 106–107: Probably still trimeters. Verse 107 may occur again at the beginning of col. 33,1. Reference to an Academic Socrates (teaching/studying in Alexandria?) possible.

5.5 The personal names, ethnica and places mentioned in the preserved verses As can be seen from the Index nominum (chapter 10) and the following tables, 91 names altogether (71 different names) occur in the 109 verses, which means an average of almost one name per verse. Due to the nature of the sample (Stephanus, the many names of philosophers/pupils), the figure could be a bit skewed and may have been somewhat lower for the entire Chronica. The distribution of the names is as follows: kind of name

occurrence

archon names

11

(11 different)

personal names (not archons)

48

(34 different)

Ethnica

12

(11 different)

cities/islands/regions

13

(10 different)

other places/names

7

(5 different)

= total names

91

(71 different) in 109 verses

5.5.1 11 archon names The 109 preserved verses of the Chronica contain 45 different personal names in the strict sense (names of persons), eleven of which refer to archons. As already noted, the many archon names, obviously characteristic for the Chronica in general, are helpful to fill in some gaps in the Athenian archon list. The (epigraphic) research and new discoveries made within the last decades, combined with the now certain reading of the archon names in the papyrus, enable us to date the 11

The personal names, ethnica and places mentioned in the preserved verses | 105

archons mentioned in the verses of the Chronica precisely or with good approximation (italics).17 archon

year

verse

Καλλίστρατος

207/06

23

Παντιάδης

206/05

24

Εὐπόλεμος

185/84

36

Ἀλέξανδρος

174/73

38

Ξενοκλῆς

168/67

43

Νικοσθένης

167/66

44

Ἐπαίνετος

165/65

46

Ἀριστόφαντος

146/45

89

Θεαίτητος

144/43

47

Ἐπικλῆς

131/30

72

Εὔμαχος

120/19

65

5.5.2 Other personal names (not archons) Concerning the other 34 personal names, one should point out that Apollodorus occasionally mentions his sources explicitly (6,12,13) or gives the fathers’ names (4,16,38,40,42,55) or other personal names. The majority of personal names refer to Academic philosophers. As the following table shows, many names (persons) are only known to us through these verses. There are 48 names altogether and 34 different ones. 19 of the persons mentioned are otherwise unknown, while 15 are known. 18

|| 17 See Habicht (1988) and Dorandi (1991b). 18 These persons are also classified as “otherwise unknown”, if they occur only in a prose version in Philodemus’ Index Academicorum, since many of them depend (directly) on the Chronica. Agamestor and Polyclitus (33,41,42) are now also known through an inscription, cf. Fleischer (2020a) and commentary on these verses. One may add that in col. 29,21 (about 3–4 verses after 66) the name of Carneades can be read/supplemented and that in col. 32,26, in the verse after verse 106, the name of Socrates can be read/supplemented. They are not included in the list, since no verse number is assigned to them, but the two names also occurred in the verses of the Chronica.

106 | The 109 original verses with new readings: Academy and other topics name

information

Μέτων Γλαῦκος Ἀριστοτέλης Ἡρακλείδης Διοπείθης Πασέας Θράσυς Ἀρίστιππος Τηλεκλῆς Εὔανδρος Ἀγαμήστωρ Εὔβουλος Εὔβουλος Μοσχίων Ἀντήνωρ Καλλικράτης Περσεύς Πολύξενος Ἀπολλώνιος Εὔβουλος Καρνεάδης

father of Empedocles Glaucus of Rhegium Aristoteles of Stageira Heraclides Ponticus father of Menander pupil of Lacydes pupil of Lacydes pupil of Lacydes of Phocaea, pupil of Lacydes of Phocaea, pupil of Lacydes of Arcadia, pupil of Lacydes of Erethria, pupil of Lacydes of Ephesus, pupil of Lacydes of Mallos, pupil of Lacydes father of Eubulus of Erethria father of Eubulus of Ephesus Macedonian king father of Agamestor pupil of Telecles younger brother of Apollonius of Cyrene, scholarch

otherwise known No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes

Βόηθος Ἑρμαγόρας Ἀρίστων Ἀμύντης Διονύσιος Πολέμαρχος Κράτης Κλειτόμαχος Μελάνθιος Ἀρίσταρχος Ἀντίπατρος Ζηνόδωρος Χαρίδημος

of Marathon, Academic father of Boethus teacher of Boethus Academic Academic Carneades’ successor/deputy Carneades’ successor/deputy of Carthage, scholarch of Rhodes, pupil of Carneades of Samothrace, grammarian of Alexandria, pupil of Carnead. of Tyre, pupil of Carneades of Chalcetor

No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No

verse 4 6 12 13 16 26 26 27 28,31,44,46 29,32 33,41 34,37 34,40,59 35 38 40 41 42 45 49 54,64,68,71, 84,91,101 55 55 58 60 62 71 73 75 79 81 103 103 109

The personal names, ethnica and places mentioned in the preserved verses | 107

5.5.3 Ethnica Not only in the verses transmitted by Stephanus of Byzantium but also in the other excerpts, several ethnic adjectives occur, partly used as nouns. Basically, no preferences or oddities can be identified. The following table gives an overview of the 12 ethnica (11 different ones).19 ethnica

verse

Δυμαῖος Ἀθηναῖος Χαιρωνικός Κηφισιεύς (deme) Ὠρεϊτής Ἐρυθραῖος Ἐφέσιος Ἀρκάς Μαραθώνιος Ταρσεύς Χαλκητορεύς

1 9 15 16 19 37 41,59 42 55 73 109

5.5.4 Cities and geographical names In addition to the ethnica, Apollodorus mentions various cities, islands or regions gathered in the following table.20 city or geographical name

verse

Θούριοι

4

Συράκουσαι

8

Θήρα (island)

20

Θηρασία (island)

20

Ῥώμη

78

|| 19 The restoration of the ethnicon Φωκαεύς, not included in the list, in 32 is quite possible. 20 One may add that the reading/supplement of the name “Carthage” in col. 32,21 (Κα]⌈ρχηδ⌉ο[ν) about two verses after 104 is not unlikely (the ethnicon seems less likely).

108 | The 109 original verses with new readings: Academy and other topics Ἀθῆναι

82,94

Ἀλεξάνδρεια

88,104,105

Ἀττική (region)

88

Ἀσία (region)

92

Δῶρος

108

5.5.5 Other places or other names Finally, some other personal names or designations are mentioned in the verses. One remarkable expression is the group definition “Autolycians” (Αὐτολυκεῖοι), probably followers of Autolycus. We do not know anything about these Autolycians.21 I suppose they were either an Academic sect/current or a school of mathematicians, but this is far from certain.22 Apart from the month Θαργηλιών, three gymnasia or institutions are mentioned: the Academy (three times), the Palladion (where Clitomachus taught), and the Ptolemaion (where Charmadas taught). other places Αὐτολυκεῖοι Θαργηλιών Ἀκαδήμεια Παλλάδιον Πτολεμαῖον

information

month gymnasium outside the city walls court/stoa in Athens gymnasium in Athens

verse 60 66 67,76,85 75 99

|| 21 See Jacoby (1902), p. 385. 22 One wonders whether there is a connection between Autolycus of Pitane, the famous mathematician and first teacher of Arcesilaus, and this sect. Mekler (1902), pp. 98–99 refers in his apparatus to D.L. 4,29 (ἤκουσε δὴ κατ' ἀρχὰς μὲν Αὐτολύκου τοῦ μαθηματικοῦ πολίτου τυγχάνοντος, πρὶν ἀπαίρειν εἰς Ἀθήνας, μεθ' οὗ καὶ εἰς Σάρδεις ἀπεδήμησεν·). Maybe Autolycus lectured on mathematics (from an Academic-philosophical perspective) in Athens, but there is no evidence for it. It remains unclear whether the Autolycians of verse 60 (first half of the second century BC) were somehow related to the mathematician Autolycus and represented a kind of mathematical branch of the Academy. Autolycus is the author of the most ancient Greek mathematical treatises to survive in full (in Arabic translation). Edition: Hultsch (1885), see also Heath (1921), pp. 348–353.

6 Preface to the edition Some introductory remarks on the edition of the original verses, its presentation and former research are in order. A concordance table as well as an overview of the scholars mentioned in the apparatus shall also be provided.

6.1 Arrangement of the 109 verses, apparatus and translation This first collection of the original verses of Apollodorus’ Chronica aims to present the material in a way which guarantees an intuitive and convenient access to the verses without burdensome apparatus. In order to achieve this objective, I have followed a series of principles. First, the Greek verses are given on the left-hand pages of this monograph, while the prose translation is on the right. Concerning the verses on the left-hand pages, the following features or principles have been applied: –

–

–

– –

The verses are presented in (ca.) chronological order. A number between 1 and 109 is assigned to every verse, which was taken into account for the edition. There are ten verses on each page, except the last, which contains only nine verses. On the outer right margin of the left-hand pages the source for the verses is mentioned and a description (heading) and an (approximate) date is given for the event(s) covered by the verses. I have marked any (probable) omission between verses within the same excerpt or any lost/fragmentary verses between two verses (the latter point applies only to the Philodemus excerpt). Accordingly, two consecutive verse numbers in this collection do not necessarily imply two consecutive verses. For convenience, the book numbers are also added above the (chronologically) first verse of a particular book of the Chronica. The apparatus criticus (in Latin) is arranged by verses, whereas occasionally some groups of verses are introduced together. A list of abbreviations (scholars) occurring in the apparatus precedes the edition (6.7).

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110703726-006

112 | Preface to the edition

Concerning the translation and references on the right-hand pages, the following points might be worth mentioning: –

– – –

The translations of the 87 verses from Philodemus’ Index Academicorum, the three verses from Aulus Gellius and the eight verses from Stephanus of Byzantium are my own.1 For the eleven verses on Empedocles to be found in Diogenes Laertius, I mostly follow the translation by Pamela Mensch (2018), though with some adjustments.2 For convenience, the dates for the archons have been inserted in the translation. At the bottom of the pages, I have indicated if the verses are also part of other collections. At the bottom of the pages, parallels for the verses in other (or the same) authors are given.

6.2 Criteria for including verses in the collection Each number represents one complete verse or at least parts of an identifiable verse with relevant information/vocabulary. This means that no numbers have been assigned to the dozens of extremely fragmentary or entirely lost verses from the Philodemus excerpt, as instead Dorandi (1982a) has done in his collection. Otherwise, about 70 verses would have represented “blank” verses or verses with a few letters only and without any context. More strikingly, it is not even possible to distinguish between the ending and the beginning of a trimeter in the fragmentary parts of the Philodemus excerpt, since the verses are not copied line by line, but as a continuous text. Accordingly, it was almost always impossible to define the beginning and ending of a trimeter in fragmentary passages. Moreover, there are certain or likely omissions in the Philodemus excerpt and the original verse fragments in this collection include 22 verses transmitted by authors other than Philodemus, so that an assignment of numbers to lost/fragmentary verses would not serve any purpose. Whenever it was possible to identify (separate) verses in the Index Academicorum as such, they were basically included in the collection, even if substantial parts of the trimeter are destroyed/lost. There are only a very few cases where a

|| 1 The translation of Aulus Gellius (Rolfe (1927)) is metric. So, given that all other verses are translated into prose, I have decided to provide my own translation. 2 Miller (2018).

The new edition of the 87 verses from the Index Academicorum | 113

separation of verses in fragmentary parts would have been possible or likely, but given the extremely incomplete state of these verses (only short, trivial words being readable), it would have been pointless to list them in the collection. In maybe two or three cases the inclusion or non-inclusion of lines as verses according to the above-mentioned criteria might be debatable. Anyway, any relevant vocabulary in verses left out is discussed in the commentary. I have taken into account all eleven “Empedocles-verses” from Diogenes Laertius (4–14). The minor changes in verses 4,7,9,11 seem to be completely justified and correct trimeters can be restored without bold corrections or assumptions. The changes in verses 6,12,13 are somewhat more significant and one may ask, with good reason, whether it would not have been more prudent to leave these lines in the state of prose-fragments or prose paraphrases. I had to make a decision and finally included the restored verses, since the passages seem to be closer to verses than to prose and acceptable reconstructions had been brought forward by scholars. Concerning the eight Stephanus verses, I will express some minor doubts about verses 2 and 3, which represent the ending and the beginning of a trimeter, respectively. A “trimeter by chance” cannot entirely be ruled out, but the odds that the words are part of two genuine trimeter verses from the Chronica were in my opinion high enough to consider these verses in the present collection. There are some cases of prose versions of Chronica fragments (see FGrH 244) which give the impression of being paraphrases of underlying verses. However, there is no chance to come up with a reconstruction of the original verses that is not entirely arbitrary or speculative. In particular, I have not included a Stephanus-fragment which seems to suggest an underlying trimeter, but whose exact reconstruction is impossible.3

6.3 The new edition of the 87 verses from the Index Academicorum For the Philodemus excerpt I have provided my own new edition of the verses. These should more or less appear in the same textual form in my forthcoming comprehensive edition of the Index Academicorum, which of course takes into

|| 3 FGrH 244 F 13 = Jacoby (1902), F 89: Steph. Byz. ζ 7 (=294,1): πόλις Ἰβηρίας, ἣν καθεῖλεν Ἀννίβας, ὡς Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν χρονικῶν τρίτῳ. τὸ ἐθνικὸν Ζακανθαῖος. Meineke (1849) reconstructs the trimeter as follows: πόλιν Ζάκανθαν ἣν καθεῖλεν Ἀννίβας.

114 | Preface to the edition

account scholarly discussions on this book devoted to Apollodorus’ verses. As outlined above (5.4), the new readings are so numerous that a substantial part of the original verses of the Chronica reads very differently now. In my forthcoming editio maior of the Index Academicorum the verses will not be presented in verse form, but as a continuous text as they are found in the papyrus (line by line, with a column-layout). My conjectures or supplements are rather conservative and I have refrained from including “too ingenious” reconstructions in the text. Nevertheless, it is still possible that certain restorations do not in fact represent the original text or will be questioned by other scholars. On the one hand, progress was made in the restitutio textus through the application of a new editorial system, whereby information from the disegni was systematically taken into account (see chapter 9) and sovrapposti or sottoposti (i.e. layers misplaced during the unrolling process of the papyrus, a peculiarity of Herculanean papyri) were systematically placed, with mathematical precision.4 On the other hand, the Multispectral Images (MSI – produced in 2000) and the Hyperspectral images (HSI – 2018) exclusively produced for this papyrus5 proved literally illuminating, insofar as in many passages they revealed letters invisible to the naked eye (and consequently to previous editors). Moreover, a careful autopsy of the papyrus conducted in Naples (2016–2018) was essential. Autopsies of this kind (conducted by means of modern microscopes) are still unavoidable owing to the complex three-dimensional structure of Herculanean papyri. After their unrolling they were glued on a paper backing (cornice) and they do not have a flat surface like Egyptian papyri, which are normally mounted between glass sheets and can (in most cases) be treated as “two-dimensional” objects. The digital images (MSI as well as HSI) are sometimes misleading, inasmuch as they display some holes as ink and do not represent curled or wrinkled areas of the papyrus properly, nor display the uneven surfaces of the paper and of the papyrus itself (the layers). The digital images have steadily been checked against the original and the information from the disegni has been integrated into the text. However, all these new techniques could not replace proper philological-papyrological-conjectural work, which can be very painstaking and time-consuming. So, 20% more text in the new edition does not mean that we are able to

|| 4 For these mathematical aspects I may refer to Essler (2008); an earlier study on the subject has been provided by Nardelli (1973). 5 On the results of the experiments and the HSI see A. Tournié et al. (2019). The members of the team were: A. Tournié, K.Fleischer, I. Bukreeva, F. Palermo, M. Perino, A. Cedola, C. Andraud, G. Ranocchia.

The new edition of the 87 verses from the Index Academicorum | 115

read 20% more text in the digital images: maybe we can only read just over 1% more, which here and there includes new parts of individual letters. However, sometimes a single letter or part of a letter is enough to rule out former readings or reduce/increase the probability of certain supplements for lexical reasons. As in a jigsaw or crossword puzzle, a single piece of information (a letter) may enable us to recognize or understand the whole picture and hence reconstruct several new words. Also, it is often tricky to distinguish between the dark background of the (carbonized) papyrus and the dark (carbon-based) ink on the papyrus and it takes a long time to become familiar with the characteristics of the papyrus. The crucial question arose of the extent to which the verses from the Philodemus excerpt should be papyrologically annotated in this verse collection. On the one hand, the focus of this collection is on the verses themselves and it seeks to ensure smooth readability for the sake of further research. On the other hand, certain philological or papyrological requirements had to be met since, given the many lacunae and uncertain letters in the papyrus, it would have been unacceptable to present the verses without any critical signs and to give the wrong impression of a certain text. In order to convey to the reader a fairly good impression of the state of conservation and reliability/likelihood of the text restored, I have followed the standard papyrological editorial system for my text (Leiden Conventions). In addition, there is a “Herculanean” peculiarity in the annotations. Around the year 1800, two sets of disegni (drawings) of our papyrus were produced by draughtsmen, who did not know Greek.6 The carbonized papyrus was (and is) very difficult to read and so many mistakes occurred (wrong letters in the drawings). The value of these disegni lies in the fact that since they were executed many passages of the papyrus have crumbled away completely or faded away, so we often have to rely on these drawings for the reconstruction of the text. If a letter is only preserved in one of the disegni or better preserved than in the original (and if the still surviving traces do not allow a safe reconstruction and at the same time do not contradict the letter in the disegno), the letter is marked with two upper brackets in the edition, for instance ˹α˺. If the letter of the disegno has to be changed for lexical reasons, an asterisk is put below the letter, for instance ˹α͙˺.

|| 6 The so-called Oxford disegni (O) were made between 1795 and 1798 (by Gennaro Casanova), while the so-called Neapolitan disegni (N) date from 1807–1811 (Giuseppe Casanova), cf. Dorandi (1991), p. 108. The decision to choose people who did not know Greek for the drawings was consciously made in order to avoid “psychological” or ”philological” misinterpretations of the letters or traces in the papyrus.

116 | Preface to the edition

I have not used vertical bars (with upper numbers every fifth verse) within the verses to indicate the lines in the papyrus or even the different columns beyond which the verses extend. There are already enough critical signs in the verses and this further annotation would easily have caused confusion and annoyance. One can consult the concordance list at the beginning of the edition in order to see which verses correspond to which columns/lines in the Index Academicorum (6.6). So, for instance, one will immediately see that verse 42 corresponds to Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 28,6–7. Alternatively, one can consult the diplomatic transcript to get this information (chapter 9). As in my forthcoming editio maior of the Index Academicorum, impossible readings/supplements – meaning readings/supplements ruled out by the traces in the papyrus – are no longer reported in the apparatus criticus. Only in rare cases, namely when these superseded (wrong) readings are very influential, are they listed in the apparatus with the remark perperam. Trivial conjectures are not reported in the apparatus (for instance the supplemented α in 41: Ἀγαμήστωρ δὲ μετ[ὰ] τὴν Περσέως), while entirely new readings are of course mentioned (even if no dots have been added below the letters). Some words with many dots below them or words with dots below decisive letters are practically conjectures and consequently listed in the apparatus. A “historical” apparatus criticus is neither reasonable nor necessary in the case of this papyrus.7

6.4 Editions used for the other 22 verses (Stephanus, Diogenes Laertius and Aulus Gellius) For the Ethnica by Stephanus of Byzantium I have relied on the new edition by Billerbeck (2006–2017), with minor adjustments indicated in the apparatus. For Diogenes Laertius I have used the edition by Dorandi (2013), but only for the apparatus criticus. It was not possible to use his text for all the verses, since Dorandi edited Diogenes Laertius, meaning that he had no intention of editing the original verses of Apollodorus in the passage in question. Dorandi is certainly right to assume that Diogenes has not adopted Apollodorus’ original verses.8 Therefore, the verses in my collection follow, where necessary, the emendations

|| 7 This is especially the case since previous editors either worked only on basis of the disegni of the papyrus, without checking the original at all (or only cursorily, as in the case of Mekler (1902)), or could not rely on MSI/HSI yet (like Dorandi (1991)). 8 Cf. the methodological remark ad locum, Dorandi (2013), p. 630: “sed in D.L. edendo versus Apollodori non sunt restituendi V. d. Muehll ”.

Prior editions of the original verses from the Chronica and research | 117

or conjectures of various scholars, who have tried to reconstruct the original verses of Apollodorus (as opposed to Diogenes Laertius’ text). For Aulus Gellius I have used the edition by Holford-Strevens (2019), though with some adjustments.

6.5 Prior editions of the original verses from the Chronica and research As stated in chapter 1, this book represents the first comprehensive collection of the original verses of Apollodorus’ Chronica. Dorandi (1982a) collected only the verses from the Philodemus excerpt in an outdated textual version, while Jacoby 1929 (and hence Williams (2018) in BNJ) embedded the verses in his fragment collections without systematically separating them from the prose fragments. The verses from the Philodemus excerpt were always part of editions of the Index Academicorum or of separate contributions. The editor princeps Bücheler (1869) reconstructed parts of the verses correctly, but did not realize that he was dealing with verses. It was first Röper (1870), in a review of Bücheler’s edition, who identified the trimeters and assigned them to Apollodorus’ Chronica. Gomperz (1891) restored a few verses and Mekler (1902) embedded Gomperz’s and other scholars’ suggestions in his edition of the Index Academicorum. Scholars such as Wilamowitz contributed to the restoration of the verses (in Mekler’s apparatus) and Jacoby could already make use of Mekler’s edition for his monograph on Apollodorus (1902). Crönert suggested new restorations for some verses (1906), provoking an article by Wilamowitz (1910) which discussed and restored some verses in the Lacydes Vita/list of Lacydes’ pupils (21–49). Jacoby (1929) added some minor textual suggestion in his FGrH.9 Mette (1985) brought up some new textual conjectures, which were only partly adopted by Dorandi (1991), who did not contribute with any suggestions of his own to the verses. He edited a text similar to that of Mekler, only purified of the boldest conjectures of his predecessor. Bravo (2009) did not check the original papyrus, but tried to improve some verses. I myself have re-edited five passages of the Chronica (2014a, 2015c, 2018a,2018b, 2021) and provided a new edition for all verses in my (unpublished) draft of the new edition of the Index Academicorum. Williams (2018) relies in the

|| 9 I am grateful to Dirk Obbink, who gave me access to Jacoby’s private copy of the edition by Mekler (1902), with notes on the text in Jacoby’s own hand. However, they do not really go beyond the suggestions which Jacoby then published in his FGrH in 1929. Jacoby’s private copy of Mekler is now stored in Oxford (Christ Church College).

118 | Preface to the edition

BNJ for the original verses entirely on Dorandi’s edition (1991), while mentioning my or Bravo’s (2009) alternative suggestions for a few verses. She does not really focus on the original verses of the Chronica, let alone provide new textual proposals. The 22 original verses preserved outside Philodemus (Aulus Gellius, Diogenes Laertius, and Stephanus of Byzantium) have not attracted any scholarly attention as “original verses of the Chronica”, but have only been cited or commented on in other contexts.

Concordance | 119

6.6

Concordance

Original

Author/passage

verses

FGrH 244 F

Dorandi

(1902)

(1982a)

3

31

–

2

Steph. Byz. δ 140,32–33 (=241,14–15) Steph. Byz. ε 76,2 (=270,4–5)

4

33

–

3

Steph. Byz. ε 76,2 ( = 270,4–5)

4

33

–

4

D.L. 8,52

32a

43

–

1

BNJ 244 F

Jacoby

5

D.L. 8,52

32a

43

–

6

D.L. 8,52

32a

43

–

7

D.L. 8,52

32a

43

–

8

D.L. 8,52

32a

43

–

9

D.L. 8,52

32a

43

–

10

D.L. 8,52

32a

43

–

11

D.L. 8,52

32a

43

–

12

D.L. 8,52

32a

43

–

13

D.L. 8,52

32a

43

–

14

D.L. 8,52

32a

43

–

15

9

64

–

16

Steph. Byz. χ 6,29–30 (= 678,14–15) Aul. Gel. 17,4,4

43

77

–

17

Aul. Gel., 17,4,5

43

77

–

18

Aul. Gel., 17,4,6

43

77

–

19

Steph. Byz. ω 14,9 (=709,7–8)

78

90

–

20

Steph. Byz. θ 44,2 (=313,18–19)

351

103

–

21

Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,1

47

70

1

22

Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,1–3

47

70

2

23

Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,3–4

47

70

3

24

Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,4–6

47

70

4

25

Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,6–7

47

70

5

26

Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,7–9

47

70

6

27

Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,9–10

47

70

7

28

Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,10–11

47

70

8

120 | Preface to the edition

Original

Author/passage

verses

FGrH 244 F BNJ 244 F

Jacoby

Dorandi

(1902)

(1982a)

29

Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,11–13

47

70

9

30

Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,13–14

47

–

10

31

Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,14–16

47

–

11

32

Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,16–17

47

–

12

33

Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,35–37

47

–

19

34

Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,37–39

47

–

20

35

Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,39–40

47

71

21

36

Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,40–42

47

71

22

37

Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,42–44

47

71

23

38

Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,44–45

47

71

24

39

Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,1–2

47

71

25

40

Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,2–4

47

71

26

41

Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,4–6

47

71

27

42

Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,6–7

47

71

28

43

Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,7–9

47

71

29

44

Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,9–10

47

71

30

45

Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,10–12

47

–

31

46

Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,12–13

47

–

32

47

Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,14–15

47

–

33

48

Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,15–17

47

–

34

49

Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,17–18

–

–

35

50

Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,33–35

–

–

41

51

Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,35–36

–

–

42

52

Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,37–38

52

96

43

53

Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,38–40

53

97

44

54

Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,40–41

53

97

45

55

Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,42–43

53

97

46

56

Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,43–29,1

53

97

47

57

Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,2–3

53

97

48

58

Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,3–5

53

97

49

59

Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,5–6; 26,33–34 (doublet)

53

97

50

Concordance | 121

Original

Author/passage

verses

FGrH 244 F BNJ 244 F

Jacoby

Dorandi

(1902)

(1982a)

53

97

51

53

97

52

53

97

53

53

97

54

53

97

55

53

97

56

53

97

57

67

Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,6–8; 26,34–36 (doublet) Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,8–10; 26,36–38 (doublet) Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,10–11; 26,38–39 (doublet) Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,11–13; 26,39–41 (doublet) Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,13–15; 26,41–43 (doublet) Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,15–16; 26,43–44 (doublet) Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,17–18; 26,44–45 (doublet) Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,38–39

–

–

71

68

Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,39–41

54

98

72

69

Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,41–43

54

98

73

70

Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,43–30,1

54

98

74

71

Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,1–3

55

99

75

72

Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,3–4

55

99

76

60 61 62 63 64 65 66

73

Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,5–6

55

99

77

74

Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,6–8

55

99

78

75

Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,8–10

55

99

79

76

Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,10–12

55

99

80

77

Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,44–31,1

57

101

99

78

Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,1–3

57

101

100

79

Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,3–5

58

101

101

80

Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,5–6

58

101

102

81

Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,6–8

58

101

103

82

Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,8–10

58

101

104

83

Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,10–11

58

101

105

84

Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,11–13

58

101

106

85

Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,15–16

–

–

107

122 | Preface to the edition

Original

Author/passage

verses

FGrH 244 F BNJ 244 F

Jacoby

Dorandi

(1902)

(1982a)

86

Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,23–25

–

–

113

87

Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,25–26

–

–

114

88

Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,35–36

59

102

118

89

Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,37–38

59

102

119

90

Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,38–40

59

102

120

91

Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,40–41

59

102

121

92

Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,42–43

59

102

122

93

Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,43–45

59

102

123

94

Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,45–32,1

59

102

124

95

Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,1–3

59

102

125

96

Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,3–5

59

102

126

97

Phld. Ind. Acad. 32–5–6

59

102

127

98

Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,6–8

59

102

128

99

Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,8–10

59

102

129

100

Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,10–11

59

102

130

101

Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,11–13

–

–

131

102

Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,13–15

60

–

132

103

Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,15–16

60

–

–

104

Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,17–18

–

–

–

105

Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,23–24

–

–

–

106

Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,25–26

–

–

–

107

Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,33–34

–

–

–

108

Steph. Byz. δ 150,43–44 (=255,20–21) Steph. Byz. χ 16,2–3 (=683,6–7)

19

105

–

26

114

–

109

Scholars mentioned in the apparatus and conspectus signorum | 123

6.7 Scholars mentioned in the apparatus (in alphabetical order) and conspectus signorum KF = Kilian Fleischer (editor), conjecture/reading in the text conieceris = Kilian Fleischer (editor), conjecture not printed in the text

For the fragments from Stephanus (1,2,3,15,19,20,108,109) Billerbeck = Billerbeck (2006–2017), editor of the last edition Heyne = Heyne (1803) Holste = Holste (1692) Jacoby = Jacoby (1929) Kambylis = in Billerbeck (2006–2017) Meineke = Meineke (1849) For the fragments from Diogenes Laertius (4–14) Bahnsch = Bahnsch (1868) Clinton = Clinton (1824) Cobet = Cobet (1858) Diels = Diels (1876) Dorandi = Dorandi (2013), editor of the last edition Hermann = Hermann (1834) Jacoby = Jacoby (1902) Sturz = Sturz (1805) For the fragments from Aulus Gellius (16–18) Casaubon = Casaubon (1587) Heyne = Heyne (1803) Holford-Strevens = Holford-Strevens (2019), editor of the last edition Meineke = Meineke (1823) Pfeiffer = Pfeiffer (1968) Valckenaer = Valckenaer (1767)

124 | Preface to the edition

For the fragments from Philodemus’ Index Academicorum (21–107) Bücheler = Bücheler (1869) Crönert = apud Mekler (1902) Crönert 1906 = Crönert (1906) Dorandi = Dorandi (1991), editor of the last edition Essler = per litteras Fowler = per litteras Gomperz = Gompez apud Mekler (1902) Henry = per litteras Jacoby =Jacoby (1929) Mekler = Mekler (1902) Mette = Mette (1985) Puglia = per litteras Ranocchia = per litteras Spengel = Spengel (1863) Wilamowitz = Wilamowitz apud Mekler (1902)

Conspectus signorum

α̣β̣γ̣

litterae incompletae, quae certae sunt (in transcriptione diplomatica) litterae dubiae, quae aliter legi possunt (in transcriptione litteraria)

⌈αβγ⌉ litterae alterutrius vel utriusque apographi ⟦αβγ⟧ litterae a librario deletae ⸌αβγ⸍ litterae a librario additae {αβγ} litterae ab editore deletae litterae ab editore additae [αβγ] litterae ab editore suppletae ⌈αβγ⌉ litterae apographi ab editore mutatae [] litterae deperditae [₍₎] una et dimidia littera deperditae

7 Edition with translation

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110703726-007

126 | Edition with translation

Book 1 1

πόλεμος ἐνέστη τοῖς τε Δυμαίοις ὅθεν

War involving Dyme

668–665 BC (520 BC?) Steph. Byz. δ 140,32–33

– – –] τιθασοὺς ἰχθῦς ἔχειν

2 3

Tame fish

492 BC

ἀπὸ χειρὸς ἐσθίοντας [– – –

Steph. Byz. ε 76,2

Book 2 4

ἦν μὲν Μέτωνος υἱός, εἰς δὲ Θουρίους

Life of Empedocles

5

αὐτὸν νεωστὶ παντελῶς ἐκτισμένους

483–424/23 BC

6

Γλαῦκος ἐλθεῖν φησιν [– – –

D.L. 8,52

Omission between 6 and 7

7

οἱ δ’ ἱστοροῦντες, ὡς πεφευγὼς οἴκοθεν

8

εἰς τὰς Συρακούσας μετ’ ἐκείνων ἐπολέμει

9

πρὸς τοὺς Ἀθηναίους, τελέως ἀγνοεῖν μοὶ

10

δοκοῦσιν· ἢ γὰρ οὐκέτ’ ἦν ἢ παντελῶς

1

… καὶ Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν χρονικῶν α̅ “versus 1”

πόλεμος ἐνέστη τοῖς τε Δυμαίοις , ὅθεν Billerbeck (sq. Kambylis) τοῖς τε Δυμαίοις οθὲν Meineke 2–3 πόλις Σικελίας, ἀπὸ Ἐλώρου ποταμοῦ τοῦ κατὰ Πάχυνον, ὃς λέγεται “versus 2+3” ὡς Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν χρονικῶν α̅ τιθασοὺς Q: τιθασσοὺς RPN 4–14 Ἀπολλόδωρος δ’ ὁ γραμματικὸς ἐν τοῖς Χρονικοῖς φησιν ὡς “versus 4–6” εἶθ’ ὑποβάς “versus 7–13” ὁ δὲ μίαν καὶ ἑβδομηκοστὴν Ὀλυμπιάδα νενικηκὼς “versus 14” ὥσθ’ ἅμα καὶ τὸν χρόνον ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀπολλοδώρου σημαίνεσθαι. 4 ἦν μὲν Μέτωνος Clinton (1824): ἦν Μέτωνος μὲν Mss./Dorandi 6 Cobet 7 πεφευγὼς οἴκοθεν Meineke: οἴκοθεν πεφευγὼς Mss. /Dorandi Mss./Dorandi

9 μοὶ Meineke: μοὶ

πρὸς τὰς Ἀθήνας ἀγνοεῖν τελέως μοὶ Bahnsch (1868): πρὸς Ἀθηναίους

ἐμοί ἀγνοεῖν τελέως Diels

Edition with translation | 127

Book 1 1 war arose between the Dymaeans (and the Elians), wherefore __________________________________________________________________ 2–3 (the river Elorus, which is said) to have tame fish eating from the hand __________________________________________________________________

Book 2 __________________________________________________________________ 4 He (Empedocles) was the son of Meton. And Glaucus says that he (Empedocles) went to Thurii, which had just been founded. Omission between 6 and 7 7 Those who report that, being exiled from his home, he went to Syracuse and fought in their war against the Athenians, seem to me utterly ignorant. For by then he was no longer living or was

Collections 1 Jacoby (1902) 31 FGrH 244 F 3 2–3 Jacoby (1902) 33 FGrH 244 F 4 4–14 Jacoby (1902) 43 FGrH 244 F 32a DK 31 A 1 6 (Glaukos) frg. 6 Lanata FHG II 24 Parallels 1 Euseb. Chronicon 1.28; Philostr. Gym. 7 2–3 Athen. Deipn. 8,3 (331 E); Plin. NH 32,16,7; Schol. ad Pind. Nem. 9,95 4 D.L. 8,51

128 | Edition with translation

11

ὑπεργεγηρακώς, ὅπερ οὐ φαίνεται.

12

Ἀριστοτέλης γὰρ αὐτόν ἑξήκοντ᾿ ἐτῶν,

13

ἔτι δ᾿ Ἡρακλείδης, φησὶ τετελευτηκέναι.

14

κέλητι τούτου πάππος ἦν ὁμώνυμος

15

κατὰ τὴν μάχην, ὥς φασι, τὴν Χαιρωνικήν

Omission between 13 and 14

Reference to Chaeronea

338 BC Steph. Byz. χ 6,29–30

Book 3 16

Κηφισιεύς τ᾿ ὢν ἔκ Διοπείθους πατρὸς

Menander

17

πρὸς τοῖσ < > ἑκατὸν πέντε γράψας δράματα

291 BC

18

ἐξέλιπε πεντήκοντα καὶ δυεῖν ἐτῶν.

19

τὴν {τῶν} Ὠρεϊτῶν νυκτὸς αἱροῦσιν πόλιν

Aul. Gel. 17,4,4–6 Conquest of Oreos

200 BC Steph. Byz. ω 14,9

20

μεταξὺ τῆς Θήρας τε καὶ Θηρασίας.

Emergence of an island

197/96 BC Steph. Byz. θ 44,2 11 KF: οὐ Meineke: οὐ Mss./Dorandi 12–13 restituit Meineke

Ἀριστοτέλης γὰρ

αὐτόν (ἔτι τε Ἡράκλειτον) ἑξήκοντ᾿ ἐτῶν φησι τετελευτηκέναι Mss./Dorandi

ἡράκλειτον

1 1

Β P (Q)F: -ος B²: Ἡρακλείδης Sturz (1805) ἔτι τε Ἡράκλειτον fortasse addendum ex D.L. 9,3 (ἐτελεύτα βιοὺς ἑξήκοντα), cf. Jacoby (1902) 14 κέλλητι F

πάππος K. Fr. Hermann (1834):

πάντως BPF 15 Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν χρονικῶν β̅ “versus 15” χερωνικὴν R 16–18 Menandrum autem alii centum octo, partim centum nouem reliquisse comoedias ferunt. Sed Apollodori, scriptoris celebratissimi, hos de Menandro uersus legimus in libro, qui Chronica inscriptus est “versus 16–18”. Ex istis tamen centum et quinque omnibus solis eum octo uicisse idem Apollodorus eodem in libro scripsit. ὤν recc.*

16 τ᾿ ὢν Holford-Strevens: ἰὼν Ψ:

post ἔκ – τε Casaubon: γε Valckenaer: δὲ Pfeiffer

Διοπείθους – Meineke

17

Διοπείθεος Heyne

τοῖσ Casaubon: KF

post

δράματα Casaubon:

δράματα recc.: δραματ᾿ Fς: αραματ᾿ fere γδ 18 ἐξέλιπε recc. : ἐξέλειπε fere Ψ 19 Ἀπολλόδωρος δὲ τετρασυλλάβως φησίν, οὐ διὰ τῆς ει διφθόγγου, ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦ ε καὶ διὰ τοῦ ι Ὠρεΐτας οὕτω “versus 19” {τῶν} delevit Meineke “οὕτω τὴν | των κτλ.” Heyne “τὴν | τῶν Ὠρεϊτῶν κτλ.” Jacoby (1929)/Billerbeck

αἱροῦσιν Heyne: αἴρουσι RQPN

20 νῆσος ἐν τῷ μεταξὺ πόρῳ Κρήτης καὶ Κυρηναίας. τὸ μακρόν “versus 20”

Edition with translation | 129

11 a very old man, which does not seem to be the case at all. For Aristotle, like Heracleides, says he died at the age of sixty. Omission between 13 and 14 14 at the horse race, was this man’s grandfather and namesake __________________________________________________________________ 15 at the time of the battle of Chaeronea, as they say, __________________________________________________________________

Book 3 __________________________________________________________________ 16 He was from (the deme of) Cephisia and his father was Diopeithes. He wrote 105 plays and died at the age of 52 years. __________________________________________________________________ 19 they seized the city of the Oreites at night __________________________________________________________________ 20 between Thera and Therasia __________________________________________________________________

Collections 4–14 Jacoby (1902) 43 FGrH 244 F 32a DK 31 A 1 12 (Aristoteles) Rose 71 F72a Janko 13 (Heraclides) Schütrumpf 83 Wehrli VII 86 15 Jacoby (1902) 64 FGrH 244 F 9 16–18 Jacoby (1902) 77 FGrH 244 F 43 PCG VI2 (K.–A.) T 46 19 Jacoby (1902) 90 FGrH 244 F 78 20 Jacoby (1902) 103 FGrH 244 F 351 Parallels 11–13 D.L. 8,74 14 D.L. 8,51; 8,53 15 Diod. 16,88,3 (?); Plut. Camill. 19 (?) 16 Sudα μ 589; IG XIV 1184; Anon. De com. (Proleg. de com. III); IG II² 1926; Liban. Or. 25,66 17 Aul. Gel. 17,4; Sudα μ 589; Anon. De com. (Proleg. de com. ΙΙΙ) 60; Donat. Vit. Ter. 5 18 Euseb. Chronic. ad Ol. 122,1; Aul. Gel. 17,21,42 19 Liv. 31,46,15–16 20 Eus. Chron. Ol. 145,2; Plin. NH 2,202; Strab. 1,3,16; Plut. De Phyt. orac. 399c; Sen. Quaest. nat. 2,26,4; 6,31,1; Steph. Byz. ι 32; Pausan. 8,33,4; Philostr. Apollon. 4,34; Just. 30,4,1–2.

130 | Edition with translation

Philodemus’ excerpt from the Chronica (New Academy) (Ind. Acad. col. 27,1 – 32,34) The verses from the Philodemus excerpt (21–107) deal with the New Academy and cover a time spam from ca. 224 BC to at least after 120/119 BC (probably after 110/09 BC).

– – –] χε̣ν̣ ὀκτὼ ⌈καὶ δέ⌉κα.

21

Scholarchate and death of

22

τοσαῦ⌈τα⌉ δ᾿ ⌈ἕ⌉τερα προσλαβὼν τὴν τοῦ βίου

23

μεταλλαγὴν ἐποιήσα⌈τ᾿ ἐ⌉πὶ ⌈Κ⌉αλλιστράτου,

24

ἐπὶ Πα[ν]τι⌈ά⌉δου δ᾿ ἕτεροι λέγουσιν, ὧν δέκα

25

ἔτη δ̣⌈ι⌉αλιπεῖν τἀ⌈π⌉ὶ πᾶ⌈σ⌉ι ⌈δ⌉ιὰ νόσον.

26

ἐγένοντο δ᾿ αὐτοῦ Πασέας τε καὶ Θράσ⌈υ͙⌉ς,

Lacydes’ pu-

27

τρίτος δ᾿ Ἀρίστ⌈ιπ⌉πος συνήθει⌈ς͙⌉, καὶ δύο

pils with a fo-

28

⌈ἐ͙π⌉ισ̣⌈ημ⌉ότ⌈α⌉τοι μάλ̣[ι]⌈στα⌉ Τηλε⌈κλῆ⌉[ς] ⌈τ⌉ε̣ κ̣αὶ̣

29

Εὔανδ̣[ρο]ς. ἐπεχ⌈ε̣⌉[ίρ]η̣σε δ̣᾿ α̣[ὐ]τ̣⌈οῖς⌉ ζ̣⌈ῶ̣⌉ν ἔτι

30

ἀ[ρχ ̣ ]̣ ̣ [̣ ̣ ̣] ̣⌈ζ⌉ειν. ⌈τ⌉[ὸ]⌈ν⌉ βίον δ᾿ ⌈α̣⌉[ὐτῶν δο]κ̣εῖ

Lacydes

cus on Telecles and Euander

21 Λακύδης ἔτη τὴν διατριβὴν κατέσ]χε̣ν̣ Mekler 24 Crönert ὡ{ν}‹ς› Wilamowitz 1910 28 Mekler 29 ἐπεχ⌈ε̣⌉[ίρ]ησε Mekler δ̣᾿ α̣[ὐτ]⌈οῖς⌉ ζ̣⌈ῶ̣⌉ν ἔτι KF 30 ἀ[ρχὴν] Henry

π̣α[̣ ρα]σ̣⌈χ͙⌉εῖν Puglia: ἅ[μα σ]χ̣ο̣[λα]ρ̣⌈χ͙⌉εῖν conieceris

δ᾿ ⌈α̣⌉[ὐτῶν KF: ˹ὀ͙˺[λίγωι conieceris

δο]κ̣εῖ KF

⌈τ⌉[ὸ]⌈ν⌉ Mekler

Edition with translation | 131

Philodemus’ excerpt from the Chronica (New Academy) (Ind. Acad. col. 27,1 – 32,34)

21 …18 (years). Adding another (18 years) he passed away under the archonship of Callistratus (207/06 BC), other say under that of Pantiades (206/05 BC). For the last ten of those (18 years) he ceased (to teach) owing to an illness. His pupils were Paseas and Thrasys, Aristippus as the third, and the two most brilliant Telecles and Euander. He tried to (hand over the leadership) to them when he was still alive.

Collections

21–29 Jacoby (1902) 70

21–48 FGrH 244 F 47 Mette Lacydes

T 2a 28 Mette Telekles T 2 29 Mette Euandros T 2 Parallels D.L. 4,60

132 | Edition with translation

31 32

πρότ⌈ερ͙⌉ος ὁ Τηλ̣[εκλῆ]ς̣ [με]τ̣ηλλαχέ̣ν̣αι νό̣[σωι. ̣ ]̣ ̣ [ ̣ ̣] ̣⌈υς⌉ δ᾿ Εὔα̣νδρος ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ ⌈ουσ⌉ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣α ̣ Ca. 10 lost/fragmentary verses between 32 and 33

33

ὢ̣ν ⌈τ͙ρ͙α⌉[χ]ύς· Ἀγαμήσ⌈τ͙⌉[ωρ δ᾿ ἐ]⌈π⌉[ί]⌈δη͙λ̣⌉ος ⌈ἦ⌉ν ἔ⌈τ⌉ι

34

ὁμ̣ῶ̣ς̣ [δ]ύ᾿̣ Ε̣[ὔ]⌈β͙⌉ουλοί τε πρὸς τού̣τ̣o⌈ι͙ς͙. [– – – Probable omission in Philodemus’ excerpt between 34 and 35

35

⌈ὁ̣ Μοσ⌉χίων μὲν δώ̣[δ]⌈εκ͙᾿ ἐπ̣ι⌉λ⌈αβ̣⌉ὼν ἔτη

List

36

ἐπ᾿ Ε⌈ὐπ͙⌉ο⌈λέμ̣ου⌉ τ̣ὸ̣ ⌈ζ⌉ῆν με⌈τήλ⌉λαξεν νόσω⌈ι⌉.

of

37

[μ]ετὰ ταῦτα δ᾿ οὑ⌈ρυ͙⌉θρα⌈ῖ⌉ος Εὔβουλος πατρὸς

38

Ἀντ⌈ή⌉νορος γεγονὼς Ἀλεξά⌈ν⌉δ⌈ρ⌉ου τότε

39

ἄρχο⌈ν⌉τος· ἐπὶ ⌈τ⌉α̣[ὐτο]ῦ̣ δ̣ὲ̣ μετ⌈ὰ μ⌉ῆνάς τ⌈ιν̣⌉ας

40

⌈ὁ⌉ Κ̣αλλικράτους Εὔβο⌈υ⌉λ̣ος, ὢν δὲ τῶι γέ⌈ν⌉ει

death

dates for Lacydes’ pupils

31 πρότ⌈ερ͙⌉ος dub. Wilamowitz Τηλ̣[εκλῆ]ς̣ Wilamowitz [με]τ̣ηλλαχέ̣ν̣αι KF 32 ὁ Φ]ω̣[κα]ε̣⌈ὺς conieceris Lacuna inter 32 et 33: ̣]το̣ρι̣ κ⌈οὺς medio lacunae

versus ante 33 ⌈ο͙⌉ (fort. ⌈ε͙⌉) [κ]αὶ Δά̣μ̣ω̣ν̣

[φ]ύ̣σ̣ε̣[ι] vel δ᾿ ἅ̣μ̣α̣ conieceris 33 ὢ̣ν ⌈τ͙ρα ͙ ⌉[χ]ύς· KF

Ἀγαμήσ⌈τ͙⌉[ωρ Crönert, postea δ᾿ Crönert 1906: τ᾿ Wilamowitz

ἐ⌈π[ί]δη͙λ⌉̣ ος Crönert 1906 34 ὁμ̣ῶ̣ς̣ [δ]ύ̣᾿ Crönert 1906 Ε̣[ὔ]˹β͙˺ουλοί Gomperz τού̣τ̣o⌈ι͙ς͙. Dorandi 35 α⌉ὐ⌈τ⌉ῶν in papyro inter τού̣τo ̣ ⌈ι͙ς͙ et ⌈ὁ̣ Μοσ⌉χίων 39 Mekler

δώ̣[δ]⌈εκ͙᾿ ἐπ̣ι⌉λ⌈αβ̣⌉ὼν KF

Edition with translation | 133

31 Telecles seems to have been the first of them to die of an illness. Euander … Ca. 10 lost/fragmentary verses between 32 and 33 33 being harsh. Agamestor was also equally excellent and (so were) in addition to those the two Eubuluses. Probable omission in Philodemus’ excerpt between 34 and 35 35 Twelve years later, Moschio died of an illness under the archonship of Eupolemus (185/84 BC). Later on Eubulus of Erythrae, whose father was Antenorus, (died) under Alexander (174/73 BC) who was then archon. Under the same (archonship), after some months, Eubulus, son of Callicrates

Collections 21–48 FGrH 244 F 47 Mette Lacydes T 2a 31 Mette Telekles T 2 32 Mette Euandros T 2 35–44 Jacoby (1902) 71 Parallels 31 Cic. Luc. 16; D.L. 4,60 37–49 Phld. Ind. Acad. col. O,18–35

33–34 Phld. Ind. Acad. col. M,10–20

134 | Edition with translation

41

Ἐφ[έσ]⌈ιọ⌉ς· Ἀγαμήστωρ δὲ μετ[ὰ] τὴν Περσέως

42

ἅ⌈λωσ⌉ιν, Ἀ⌈ρ͙κ⌉άς, υἱὸς ὢν Πολυξέ⌈νου,

43

ἐ͙⌉πὶ Ξενοκλέους τὴν ἀπ⌈όλ⌉υσιν τοῦ βίου

44

ἐπ⌈ο͙⌉ιήσατ᾿, ἐπ[ὶ] Nικο[σ]θ̣ένους δ᾿ ὁ Τη⌈λ͙⌉ε̣κ̣[λῆς]·

45

⌈ἐ⌉πὶ πᾶ[σι] δ᾿ Ἁπολλώ[ν]ι̣ο̣ς̣ κ̣α̣θ᾿ ὃ⌈ν⌉ [χρ]ό̣νον

Death dates

46

⌈Ἐ⌉π[αίν]ε̣τ̣⌈ο⌉ς̣ ἦρχε[ν], Τη⌈λ͙⌉[εκλέ]ο̣υ̣⌈ς͙⌉ ἀκ⌈η⌉κοώς·

for Telecles’

47

μετ⌈ὰ⌉ [τὸ]ν Θε̣α̣ίτη⌈τ̣ο⌉ν δὲ̣ ⌈τοῦ⌉ νεω̣τέρ[ο]⌈υ⌉

48

ἐ ̣[] ̣α ̣[] γ̣εν[ο]μ̣⌈έ⌉ν⌈oυ̣⌉ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]⌈ο⌉υ νόσ̣ωι

49

ἐ̣κ̣⌈λιπ⌉ό̣ν̣[τος Εὐβο]ύ̣λ̣ο̣υ̣ σ̣υ̣ν ̣ ̣ ε̣ ̣⌈α⌉[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ ̣ [̣ ]

pupils

Ca. 9 lost/fragmentary verses between 49 and 50

50

[ ̣ ]̣ ̣ν ̣ [̣ ] ὑπ⌈ὲρ ἧς͙⌉ τ̣α̣[λ]λ̣α̣ π̣[ολ]⌈ὺ⌉ μᾶ̣λ⌈λ͙⌉ο̣ν π⌈ονῶ⌉ν̣

Unknown

Academic – Carneades?

44 Τη⌈λ͙⌉ε̣κ̣[λῆς] Mekler 45 ⌈ἐ⌉πὶ πᾶ[σι] Ἁπολλώ[ν]ι̣ο̣ς Wilamowitz, cetera Crönert 1906 46 ⌈Ἐ⌉π[αίν]ε̣τ̣⌈ο⌉ς̣ ἦρχε[ν] Crönert 1906

Τη⌈λ͙⌉[εκλέ]ο̣υ̣⌈ς͙⌉ Jacoby

47 δὲ̣ Mekler: δ᾿ ὁ̣ Crönert 1906 48

ἐπ̣[ὶ] β̣ρ̣αχ̣[ὺ vel ἔτ̣[ι] conieceris

γ̣εν[ο]μ̣⌈έ⌉ν⌈ου̣⌉ KF: γ̣εν[ο]μ̣⌈έ⌉νο⌈ς͙⌉ Mekler

[Κυρηναί]⌈ο⌉υ fort. spat. long. vel - βί]⌈ο⌉υ conieceris 49 ἐ̣κ̣⌈λιπ⌉ό̣ν̣[τος Εὐβο]ύ̣λ̣ο̣υ̣ KF 50 ὑπ̣⌈ὲρ ἧς͙⌉ KF

τ̣ἆ[̣ λ]λ̣α̣ conieceris: τ᾿ ἄ̣[λ]λ̣α̣ Fowler

Ranocchia: π⌈όνω⌉ν̣ vel π⌈όνω⌉ι̣ conieceris

π̣[ολ]⌈ὺ⌉ μᾶ̣λ⌈λ͙⌉ο̣ν KF

π⌈ονῶ̣⌉ν̣

Edition with translation | 135

41 and of Ephesian origin, (died). Agamestor, an Arcadian and the son of Polyxenus, passed away after the capture of Perseus under the archonship of Xenocles (168/67 BC), Telecles under that of Nikosthenes (167/66 BC). 45 Finally, Apollonius, who heard Telecles, (died) at the time when Epainetus (166/65 BC) was archon. After Theaetetus (144/43 BC) Eubulus, who was … the younger … died of an illness … ca.9 lost/fragmentary verses between 49 and 50 50 for which he was much more industrious …,

Collections 21–48 FGrH 244 F 47 Mette Lacydes T 2a 35–44 Jacoby (1902) 71 44 Mette Telekles T 2 46 Mette Telekles T 2 Parallels 37–49 Phld. Ind. Acad. col. O, 18–35 45–46 Phld. Ind. Acad. col. N,13

136 | Edition with translation

51

ἦ̣ν̣, ⌈ὥ͙στε δ⌉ιὰ̣ τούτω⌈ν⌉ τ᾿ ἔ⌈π͙ε⌉[ισ]⌈ε⌉ καὶ ⌈μιᾶ⌉ι

52

ἕξει τὰ τῶν ⌈ἄλ͙⌉λων π̣α̣ραλαβὼν ε⌈ἰκ⌉ό̣⌈τ⌉ως̣

53

δ̣ό̣ξ̣α̣ν̣ τε καὶ ⌈παρ͙⌉ρησ⌈ία͙ν͙⌉ π̣λ̣είστ⌈η⌉ν̣ ἔχει. ⸆ Probable omission between 53 and 54 and switch to book 4.

Book 4 Book 4 might have already begun after 49 and before 50 (even a beginning at 47 cannot be excluded). There is a remote possibility that the entire Philodemus excerpt (21–107) stems from the 4th book only.

τ̣⌈ῶ̣⌉ι Καρνεά̣δ̣η‹ι› δὲ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸ̣ν ἦν̣ ⌈χρό͙ν⌉[ο]ν̣

Boethus

55

Β⌈ό⌉ηθος ⌈ὑ⌉ιὸς Ἑρμαγό̣ρο⌈υ Μ͙α⌉ρα⌈θ⌉ώνιος·

Marathon,

56

τò πάλα⌈ι͙ δ᾿ ἔτ᾿ ἦ̣⌉ν̣ [ἱ]κ̣⌈α⌉νὸς β[ί]ου τ̣ά̣ξ̣ι̣ν τ[ι]⌈ν⌉ὰ

57

ἔχων φ[ι]λ̣όσοφ⌈ον, τ⌉[ῶ]⌈ι λόγω⌉ι δ᾿ ἁπ⌈α̣⌉λώτε⌈ρος.

58

οὗ⌉τος ⌈δ᾿⌉ Ἀρίστω⌈ν⌉ο⌈ς μ⌉ὲν ἦν ἀκη⌈κο⌉ὼς

59

το[ῦ] τ̣᾿ Ἐφεσίου βρ̣αχύν τιν᾿ Εὐβο⌈ύλο⌉υ χρόνον

Doublet

τοῖς ⌈τ᾿⌉ Α⌈ὐ⌉τολυκείο⌈ι⌉ς τῶι τ᾿ Ἀμύντηι πολλάκις

verses 59–66 in

54

60

contemporary of Carneades

for

the Philodemus excerpt

51 ἦ̣ν̣, ⌈ὥ͙στε δ⌉ιὰ̣ KF τ᾿ ἔ⌈π͙ε⌉[ισ]⌈ε⌉ KF: τ᾿ ἔ⌈π͙ε⌉[ιθ]⌈ε⌉ conieceris 52 ἕξει KF

of

ε⌈ἰκ⌉ό⌈τ⌉ως̣ KF

53 δ̣ό̣ξ̣α̣ν̣ KF ⌈παρ͙⌉ρησ⌈ία͙ν͙⌉ π̣λ̣είστ⌈η⌉ν̣ KF 56 versum primus legit/restituit KF 59–66 versus bis scripti in Philodemo – Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 26,33–26,45 = col. 29,5–29,18 59 versus in col. 26: τοῦ τ᾿] Ἐφεσί[ο]υ̣ [βρ]αχ̣[ύν] τι̣ν᾿ [Ε]⌈ὐ̣⌉β⌈ούλ⌉[ο]υ [χ]ρ̣όν⌈ον⌉ versus in col. 29: το[ῦ] τ̣᾿ Ἐφεσίου βρ̣⌈α⌉χύν ⌈τ⌉ιν᾿ Εὐβο[ύ]⌈λο⌉υ χρόνον 60 versus in col. 26: ⌈τ͙ο͙ῖ⌉͙ [ς] τ᾿̣ Α̣ὐ̣τ̣ολ̣ υκεί⌈ο͙ι͙⌉ς τῶι τ᾿ Ἀ⌈μ̣⌉ύ̣̣ν̣τ⌈η͙ι⌉͙ [πολ]λάκι⌈ς⌉ versus in col. 29: τοῖς ⌈τ᾿⌉ Α⌈ὐ⌉τολ⌈υ⌉κ⌈ε⌉ίο⌈ι⌉ς τῶι ⌈τ᾿⌉ Ἀμύν⌈τ⌉ηι πολλάκις

Edition with translation | 137

51 so that he convinced by these means (others) and having combined the contributions of others into a single (philosophical) position he enjoys rightly the greatest fame and licence to speak. Probable omission between 53 and 54 and switch to book 4

Book 4 54 Boethus of Marathon, son of Hermagoras, lived at the same time as Carneades. From early on he was a capable man pursuing a philosophical way of life, but he was rather soft in rhetoric (speaking). This man was a student of Aristo, and, for a short time, of Eubulus, and with the help of the Autolycians and Amyntes

Collections 52 Jacoby (1902) 96 FGrH 244 F 52 3a 54–66 Jacoby (1902) 97 FGrH 244 F 53 Parallels – – –

52–76 Mette Karneades T

138 | Edition with translation

61

ἤδη προβεβη̣κὼς καὶ σχολῆς ἡγ⌈ο⌉ύμε̣νο⌈ς⌉

62

Διονυ̣⌈σ⌉ίωι τ᾿ οὐ⌈σ⌉χ[ ̣ ̣]⌈ε̣⌉των π̣ό̣[λ]λ᾿ [ἐ]κ̣⌈τ͙⌉ιθ⌈ε⌉ί̣ς̣

63

τ̣ῆι ⸌τ̣⸍᾿ ἀγχινοίαι̣ ⌈τ⌉ἀ⌈ν⌉δρὸς ἅ̣[μα] κα⌈ὶ⌉ τῶι λόγωι

64

δεκάτωι δὲ [τ]ῆ̣ς τοῦ Καρνεάδο⌈υ⌉ μεταλλαγῆς

65

ὕστερον ἐ⌈π͙᾿ ἄ͙⌉ρχοντος ⌈π⌉αρ᾿ ἡμῖν Εὐμά⌈χ⌉ου

66

Θαρ⌈γ͙η͙⌉λιῶνος μηνὸς ⌈ἐξέ⌉λιπεν[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ]̣ Ca. 12 lost/ fragmentary verses between 66 and 67

67

τ]ὴ̣[ν δ᾿ οὐ]κ ἔχ̣[οντ]⌈ος⌉ [ἔτ᾿] Ἀ̣[κα]δ̣ήμ̣ε̣[ια]ν τό̣τε

The scholarch

68

τ]⌈οῦ⌉ Καρ̣ν̣ε̣⌈ά⌉δου̣ [διὰ] γῆρας ⌈ἤδη⌉ τ⌈ὴν ἐκ̣εῖ⌉

Polemarchus

69

⌈πρ͙⌉ῶ̣τος παρ⌈έλα⌉βε⌈ν ἐ⌉ξ⌈έ͙δ͙ραν⌉ τε ⌈καὶ σχολ⌉ὴ⌈ν⌉

70

⌈η⌉ ̣ ̣ [̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ τ̣ε[ ̣ ̣ ἡγήσατο] ⌈δ̣᾿ ὁμως ἕ⌉ξ̣ ⌈ἔ͙τη⌉.

of Nicomedia

61 Spengel versus in col. 26: ⌈ἤ⌉δη προβε[βη]κ⌈ὼ⌉ς̣ καὶ σχολῆς ἡγ̣ούμ̣ε̣νο⌈ς⌉ versus in col. 29: ἤδη προβεβη̣⌈κ⌉ὼς κ[αὶ] ⌈σ⌉χολῆς ἡγ⌈ο⌉[ύ]μ⌈ε͙ν͙⌉ο⌈ς̣⌉ 62 τ᾿ οὐ⟦⌈σ⌉⟧χ Wilamowitz αἱρ]⌈ε̣⌉τῶν vel ὡς] ⌈ἐ̣⌉τῶν vel ὡς (εἷς)]⌈ἐ̣⌉τ᾿ ὢν vel οὐ ⌈σ⌉χ[ὼν ἐτῶν conieceris

π̣ό̣[λ]λ᾿ [ἐ]κ̣⌈τ͙⌉ιθ⌈ε⌉ὶ̣ς̣ KF: π̣ό̣[λ]λ᾿ [ἐπ]ι̣⌈τ͙⌉ιθ⌈ε⌉ὶ̣ς̣ conieceris

versus in col. 26: Διονυ̣⌈σ͙ί͙⌉ωι ⌈τ͙᾿ ο͙ὐ͙ . ⌉[. .] ⌈ἐ̣⌉τῶν ⟦ν ̣ ̣⟧ [πόλ]λ̣᾿ [ἐ]κ̣⌈τ͙⌉ιθ⌈ε⌉[ὶς versus in col. 29: Δ⌈ι⌉ο[νυ]⌈σ⌉ίωι τ᾿ οὐ ⌈σ⌉χ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] π̣ό̣[λ]λ᾿ [ἐκ]τ̣[ι]θ̣ε̣ὶ̣ς̣ 63 Mekler

versus in col. 26: ⌈τ̣⌉ῆι ἀγχινοία[ι] ⌈τ⌉ἀ⌈ν⌉δρ⌈ὸ⌉ς [ἅμα] κα⌈ὶ⌉ τῶι λόγωι

64 Mekler

versus in col. 26: ⌈δ⌉εκάτωι δὲ [τ]ῆ̣ς τοῦ Καρνεάδο⌈υ⌉ μεταλλαγῆς

versus in col. 29: τ̣ῆι ⸌τ̣⸍᾿ ἀ⌈γ̣⌉[χι]ν̣ο̣ί̣α̣ι̣ [τ]ἀ̣⌈ν⌉δ̣ρὸς ἅ̣[μα καὶ τῶι λόγ]ω̣ι. versus in col. 29: δεκάτ[ω]ι̣ [δὲ τῆς τοῦ Κ]αρνεάδο[υ μεταλλαγῆ]ς̣ 65 Mekler

versus in col. 26: ὕστερον ἐ⌈π͙᾿ ἄ͙⌉ρχοντος ⌈π⌉αρ᾿ ἡμῖν Εὐμά⌈χ⌉ου versus in col. 29: ⌈ὕ⌉στε⌈ρ⌉ον ἐ[π᾿ ἄρχον]τος [π]α̣ρ̣᾿ [ἡ]μ̣[ῖν Εὐμάχου

66 Mekler

fin. ν]ό̣[σωι conieceris: β]ί̣[ον Mekler versus in col. 26: Θαρ⌈γ͙η⌉͙ λιῶνος μηνὸς ⌈ἐξέ⌉λιπεν[– – – versus in col. 29: Θ̣α̣ρ[̣ γηλι]ῶ̣[νος μηνὸς ἐξέ]λ̣ι⌈π͙⌉ε̣[ν ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣]

lacuna inter 66 and 67: circiter versu tertio post 66 Κ̣αρ̣νε[άδ 67 versum primus legit/restituit KF 68 [διὰ] Gomperz 1891

τ⌈ὴν ἐκ̣ε⌉ῖ KF

69 ⌈πρ͙⌉ῶ̣τος KF 70 ἦ⌉ν̣ κ̣α̣[ὶ τό]τ̣᾿ (πό]τ̣᾿) ἔ[ρις vel ἦ˺ν γ̣ὰ[̣ ρ κρά]τ̣ε[ρος conieceris ὁμῶς anony. rev.· ⌈δ̣᾿ ὅμως Mette

[ ̣ ̣ ἡγήσατο KF

: ⌈δ̣᾿

Edition with translation | 139

61 he had already often been superior (within the Academy) and led the school, and … Dionysius… he expounded many things by means of both, his mental acumen and ability to speak. He died in the tenth year after the passing of Carneades, when Eumachus (120/19 BC) was our archon, in the month of Thargelion… ca. 12 lost/fragmentary verses between 66 and 67 67 And when Carneades was no longer in charge of the Academy because of old age, he (Polemarchus) was the first to take over the exedra and the school there … he led for six years.

Collections 52–76 Mette Karneades T 3a 54–66 Jacoby (1902) 97 FGrH 244 F 53 68–70 Jacoby (1902) 98 FGrH 244 F 54 68–73 Mette Karneades (Sohn des Polemarchus) T 1 (in fact “Polemarchus of Nicomedia”) Parallels 67 –76 Phld. Ind. Acad. col.24,32–34; col. 25,7–10; col. 25,36–26,4

140 | Edition with translation

71

πρὸ ⌈Κ⌉αρνεάδου δὲ τοῦ Πολεμάρ⌈χ͙⌉ου τὸν βίο⌈ν⌉

72

ἐπ᾿ Ἐπικλέους ⌈ἄρ⌉χ⌈ο⌉ντο⌈ς⌉ ἐγλελοι⌈π⌉ότος

73

Κ]⌈ρ⌉άτης ὁ Τ⌈α⌉ρσεὺς τ⌈ὴ⌉ν ⌈σ⌉χο⟦δ⟧⸌λ⸍ὴν δ⌈ι⌉εδέξατο.

The

74

⌈τ⌉ούτου δὲ δύ᾿ ἔτ⌈η⌉ διακατασχόντος μόνον

arch Crates

75

Κλειτόμαχ̣ος ἐν τ̣ῶ̣[ι] ⌈Π⌉αλλ⌈αδί⌉ωι [σ]χο⌈λ⌉ὴν ἔ[χ]ω̣ν̣

The

⌈ε⌉ἰς τὴν Ἀκ⌈αδήμ⌉ε̣[ιαν] ⌈μ̣⌉ε⌈τ⌉ῆλθ̣ε γνωρίμ ̣ ̣

arch Clito-

76

schol-

of Tarsus schol-

machus of Carthage – pupil of Carneades

Ca. 20 lost/fragmentary verses between 76 and 77

– – –] δὲ πρεσβεύσας ποτὲ

77 78

⌈ἔ͙⌉πλευσ⌈ε̣⌉ν εἰς Ῥώμην παρῆν τ᾿ ἐπ[ι]τυγχάνων. ⸆

79

καὶ μὴν Μ⌈ε⌉λάνθιόν γε ⌈γι⌉νώσκ⌈εις⌉, ὅ⌈τ͙⌉ι

Melanthius

80

τραγωιδίαι μὲν ⌈⟦μὲν⟧⸌{ζ}ἦν⌉ π̣⸍⌈οτ͙⌉᾿ ἐστεφανωμένο[ς]

of Rhodes – pupil of Carneades

71 πρὸ KF: παρὰ perperam Gomperz 1891 73 Mekler 75 Bücheler 76 γνω[ρίμων | πολλῶν μέτα Gomperz 1891 lacuna inter 76 et 77: circiter tertio versu post 76 λ]αμπρ⌈ο͙⌉[τ– 79 Gomperz 1891 80 Gomperz 1891: τ̣⸍⌈ότ͙⌉᾿ conieceris

Edition with translation | 141

71 When Polemarchus died before Carneades under the archonship of Epicles (131/30 BC), 73 Crates of Tarsus took over the school. After he had been in charge for two years only, 75 Clitomachus, who had a school in the Palladium, moved to the Academy (with his pupils) ca. 20 lost/fragmentary verses between 76 and 77 77 …being an ambassador, he sailed to Rome and was successful there. 79 And you certainly know that Melanthius once won a crown in tragic competition

Collections 52–76 Mette Karneades T 3a 68–73 Mette Karneades (Sohn des Polemarchus) T 1 (in fact „Polemarchus of Nicomedia“) 71–74 Mette Krates von Tarsos T 1 71–76 Jacoby (1902) 99 FGrH 244 F 55 75–76 Mette Kleitomachos T 4a 77–84 Jacoby (1902) 101 77–78 FGrH 244 F 57 79–84 FGrH 244 F 58 TrGF 131 T 5 Parallels 71 –76 Phld. Ind. Acad. col.24,32–34; col. 25,7–10; col. 25,36–26,4

142 | Edition with translation

81

ἱκανὸ⌈ν⌉ τ᾿ Ἀριστάρχωι συνεσχ⌈ολα͙⌉κὼς χρόνον

82

πολύ τ᾿ ⌈⟦ ̣ ̣ ⟧̣ ⸌{οσ} ἐν⸍⌉ Ἀθήναις μᾶλλον ὡ⌈ς⌉ ̣ ̣ σ ̣ χ ̣⌈ ̣⌉ης,

83

ἄλλως ὑ⟦ ̣⌈ν⟧⸌π⸍ά⌉[ρχων] ἐν μεγάλη‹ι› περιου̣σ̣ί̣α̣‹ι›.

84

τ̣οῦ̣ Καρ̣νεάδου δ᾿ ἐ⌈γ͙έ͙ν͙ε͙τ⌉ ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ]̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ⌈̣ υτ⌉ One lost/fragmentary verse between 84 and 85

85

̣ α ̣ ι πρὸς α⌈ὐ͙̣⌉τὸν τ[ ̣ ̣] Ἀκ[α]δημ̣είαι σχολὴ̣ν Ca. 5 lost/ fragmentary verses between 85 and 86

86

] ̣⌈εν⌉[ ̣ ̣] ⌈τι⌉ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ]̣ ⌈νέσ⌉χε ⌈τ⌉[οὺς ἀ]κ̣ρ̣ο̣ωμ̣έν̣ο̣υς·

87

⌈καλ⌉ο̣κ[αγα]θ̣[ί]α̣ν δ[ὲ] μ̣ᾶλ̣λο ̣ ̣⌈ν͙ ἐπιεικ͙η⌉[ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ Ca. 6 lost/ fragmentary verses between 87 and 88

88

κ̣α̣⌈τὰ⌉ τὴ̣ν ⌈Ἀλ͙⌉ε̣ξ̣ά̣ν̣δρει̣α̣ν̣ [ἐ]λλογιμώτα̣τ̣ ̣ ̣·

Charmadas of

89

ἐπ᾿ Ἀριστοφάντου πρῶτον ε⌈ἰ⌉ς ⌈τ͙ὴ͙⌉ν Ἀ[τ]τικ⌈ὴ͙⌉ν

Alexandria–

90

κατέπλευσ᾿ ⌈ἐ̣⌉τῶν ὢν εἴκοσίν τ⌈ε͙⌉ καὶ [δ]ύο.

pupil of Carneades

81 Gomperz 1891 82

fort. sine correctione (πολύ τ᾿ ἐν)

ὢ⌈ν͙⌉ Jacoby 1929

ἐ̣π̣ὶ̣ conieceris: ἄ̣ν̣ε̣[υ Jacoby

σχο̣⌈λ͙⌉ῆς Mekler: ὁ̣λ̣ο̣σχε̣⌈ρ̣⌉ὴς conieceris 83 ἄλλως Bücheler: ἀλλ᾿ ὡς Essler

ὑ⟦ ̣⌈ν⟧⸌π⸍ά⌉[ρχων] Bücheler περιου̣σ̣ί̣α̣‹ι› KF

84 ἐ⌈γ͙έ͙ν͙ε͙τ⌉ KF lacuna (versus) inter 84 et 85: init. ἀ̣π͙⌉ὸ ⌈μ⌉η̣⌈χα͙ν͙⌉[ῆς conieceris

fin. κ̣˹έ̣ντρω˺[ι τε] κ̣̣αὶ

conieceris 85 β̣ί̣αι vel ἰδ̣ί̣αι conieceris πρὸς α̣⌈ὐ͙⌉τὸν KF τ[ὴν vel τ᾿ [ἐν conieceris Ἀκ̣[α]δ̣η̣μ̣είαι̣ dubit. Mekler σχολὴ̣ν KF lacuna inter 85 et 86: circiter secundo versu post 85 ⌈σ̣υγγ⌉ρα[ ἀ̣[λ]λοτρι⌈ο⌉[ ̣ ̣

circiter tertio versu post 85

versus ante 86 ζην[ ̣] postea ]ωι βίωι

86 ⌈τ⌉[οὺς ἀ]κ̣ρ̣ο̣|ωμ̣έν̣ο̣υς· KF 87 ⌈καλ⌉ο̣κ[αγα]θ̣[ί]α̣ν δ[ὲ] μ̣ᾶλ̣λ̣ο̣⌈ν͙ KF : ἐπιεικ͙ῆ [ vel ἐπιεικ͙ὴ[ς Ranocchia: fort. ἐπιεικ͙⟦η⟧⸌ε⸍ lacuna inter 87 et 88: finis primi versus post 87 ]ωι βίωι. 88 κ̣α̣⌈τὰ⌉ τὴ̣ν ⌈Ἀλ͙⌉ε̣ξ̣ά̣ν̣δρει̣α̣ν̣ KF

[ἐ]λλογιμώτα̣τ̣ο̣ς̣ conieceris: [ἐ]λλογιμώτα̣το ̣ ̣ι̣ Mekler

90 scriptio plena (κατέπλευσ᾿{ε} ⌈ἐ̣⌉τῶν) in papyro

Edition with translation | 143

81 and studied for a considerable time with Aristarchus and much more in Athens as … in great abundance. He was ... of Carneades ... One lost/fragmentary verse between 84 and 85 85 … Academy… school… ca. 5 lost /fragmentary verses between 85 and 86 86 … had pupils. Concerning the goodness … more able… ca. 6 lost /fragmentary verses between 87 and 88 88 was held in very high repute in Alexandria. For the first time he sailed to Athens under the archonship of Aristophantus (146/45 BC), aged 22 years.

Collections 77–84 Jacoby (1902) 101 79–84 FGrH 244 F 58 84 Mette Karneades T 3a 88–99 Jacoby (1902) 101 88–100 FGrH 244 F 59 Parallels – – –

144 | Edition with translation

91

τ[ο]⌈ῦ͙⌉ Καρνεάδου δ᾿ ὡς ἑ⌈π̣τ⌉ὰ διακο⌈ύσ⌉ας ἔτη

92

εἰς τὴν ⌈Ἀ⌉σίαν ἀπῆρ᾿· ἐκεῖ δ᾿ εὐ⌈η⌉μερῶν

93

καὶ τῶν καθ᾿ αὑ⌈τ⌉ὸν φα⌈ι⌉νόμενος ⌈πολ⌉υχούστ̣[α]τ̣ος

94

ε[ἰ]ς τὰς̣ Ἀθήνα⌈ς ἦ͙⌉λ⌈θ⌉ε̣ κἀν ταύταις ἔτ̣η

95

ἄγ̣ε̣ι̣ δυ⌈ν͙ά⌉μ̣ενος ποικ[ί]λως πε̣ί̣θειν ὄχλους

96

καὶ γραμμάτων ἔμπειρος ἱκανῶ{ν} ⌈κα⌉[ὶ] φύσει

97

μνήμων. ἀ⌈ν͙εγ⌉ν̣⌈ω⌉κὼς δὲ π⌈ο⌉λλ⌈ὰ⌉ ῥα⌈ιδίως⌉

98

ἔ⟦ ̣⟧⸌τ̣⸍⌈υ͙⌉χε πολιτείας τε κἀνδόξου σχολ⟦α⟧⸌ῆ⸍[ς]

99

ἐν τῶι Π⌈τ͙⌉ο̣λε̣μαίωι τῶ[ν] ἀλειφομένων. ἐκεῖ

100

ἀπ̣[έ]λ̣α̣β⌈̣ ε͙ν⌉ ἐξέδραν ἅ⌈μ͙⌉α̣ [καὶ σχολα]⌈ρ͙χ͙⌉ίαν.

94 ε[ἰ]ς τὰς̣ KF κἀν Bravo (κἂν lapsus accenti vid.) ἔτ̣η KF 95 ἄγ̣ε̣ι̣ δυ˹ν͙ά˺μ̣ενος KF πε̣ί̣θειν KF 96 γραμμάτων KF ἱκανῶ{ν} Wilamowitz 98

κἀνδόξου σχολ⟦α⟧⸌ῆ⸍[ς] KF: κἀν[ῶ]ιξε perperam Wilamowitz: σχολὰ[ς perperam

Bücheler 100 ἀπ̣[έ]λ̣α̣β̣⌈ε͙ν⌉ KF: ἄρ̣᾿ [ἔχει] τ̣⌈ι̣ν᾿⌉ conieceris μονα]⌈ρ͙χ⌉͙ ίαν Ranocchia

ἅ⌈μ͙⌉α̣ [καὶ KF

σχολα]⌈ρ͙χ͙⌉ίαν KF:

Edition with translation | 145

91 He heard Carneades for seven years and then sailed off to Asia. There he was very successful and was seen as the most prolific among his contemporaries. He returned to Athens and there he spends (spent) his years, capable of persuading the crowds in various ways and adequately experienced in all kinds of literature and naturally endowed with good memory. He was widely read and easily obtained the citizenship and the renowned school in the Ptolemaion, a gymnasium. There he received an exedra and the scholarchate.

Collections 88–99 Jacoby (1902) 101 88–100 FGrH 244 F 59 91–92 Mette Karneades T 3a Parallels 92–93 Phld. Ind. Acad. col.35,37–36,5 95 Cic. Luc. 16; Cic. Orat.51 97 Plin. NH 7,89; Cic. Tusc. I 59; Cic. De orat. II 360; Quint. Inst. 11,2,26

146 | Edition with translation

101

τοῦ ⌈Κ⌉α⌈ρ͙⌉[ν]ε̣ά̣[δo]⌈υ δ͙⌉᾿ [ἐγέν]οντ᾿ ἀκο̣υ̣σ̣⌈τ⌉αί [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣

Antipater of

102

⌈ ̣ ̣⌉[ ̣₍ ₎̣ ] οὐκ ἐν ἄστ[ει] τὰ[ς] ⌈σ͙χ͙⌉ολὰς πεποι⌈η⌉μέ[νοι],

Alexandria

103

⌈Ἀ̣⌉ντ[ί]πατρος, ἔτι δὲ Ζ[ηνό]δ̣ωρ[ο]ς̣, ὧν ὁ ⌈μ͙έν⌉

104

and

Ze-

nodorus of

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ Ἀ ̣ ]λεξ̣ά̣νδρ⌈ε͙⌉[ια]⌈ν͙⌉ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ ̣ [ ̣ ̣]ν

Tyre – pupils of

Ca. 3 lost/fragmentary verses between 104 and 105

Carneades

105

ε̣ἰ̣[ς τ]ὴν̣ ⌈Ἀ⌉[λε]⌈ξ͙ά⌉[ν]⌈δ⌉ρ⌈ε⌉ιαν ἐξ̣έ̣λ̣[ι]⌈π͙ε⌉[ν] ν̣ό̣[σ]ωι.

106

⌈σ͙υν͙⌉ ̣ [̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ ̣[ ̣]⌈ ̣α⌉[̣λ]λ̣ο [δύ]ν̣α⌈μις ω⌉ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

The

Aca-

demic Soc-

Ca. 4 lost/fragmentary verses between 106 and 107

rates?

107

ἔ̣χ ̣ [̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ ̣ [ ₍̣ ₎̣ ]ν̣ [τ]ῶι λόγω[ι καὶ τὸν] β̣ί̣ο̣ν̣.

Philodemus’ excerpt from the Chronica ends with verse 107 108

εἰς Δῶρον οὖσαν ἐπιθαλάττιον πόλιν

Siege of Doros

139/38 BC Steph. Byz. δ 150,43–44

109

μεθ’ οὗ Χαρίδημος ἦν φυγὰς Χαλκητορεύς

Unknown

Charidemos ca. 143–110 BC Steph. Byz. χ 16,2–3 101 versum primus legit/resituit KF fin. [δύ᾿ ἕτεροι] conieceris 102 ⌈τ̣ό⌉̣ [τ᾿] vel ⌈π̣ό̣⌉[τ᾿] conieceris: ο̣[ἱ δ᾿ ο̣ὐκ Mekler 103 Ζ[ηνό]δ̣ωρ[ο]ς̣ KF 104 init. εἰς (vel κατὰ) τὴν conieceris Ἀ]λεξ̣ά̣νδρ⌈ε͙⌉[ια]⌈ν͙⌉ KF lacuna inter 104 et 105: circiter secundo versu post 104 Κα]⌈ρχηδ⌉ο̣[ν ̣ ̣] versus ante 105: ⌈υσε ̣⌉[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣]α[ς] ⌈δ⌉᾿ ὕ̣σ⌈τ⌉[ε]ρ̣[ον] 105 versum primus legit/restituit KF (τ̣ῆ⌈ι̣ Ἀ⌉[λε]⌈ξ͙α⌉[ν]⌈δ⌉ρ⌈ε⌉ία[ι iam Gomperz) 106 versum primus legit/restituit KF lacuna inter 106 et 107: initio primi versus post 106 Σωκρά[τε]ι̣

medio lacunae α̣νδρ̣ο[̣ ̣

fine versus ante 107 τωι [λ]ό̣γωι 107 versum primus legit/restituit KF 108 Ἀπολλόδωρος δὲ Δῶρον καλεῖ ἐν χρονικῶν δ̅ “versus 108”. 109 Ἀπολλόδωρος δ̅ χρονικῶν “versus 109”

Ἀπολλόδωρος Holste: ἀπολλώνιος RQPN

Edition with translation | 147

101 Pupils of Carneades … at that time not lecturing in the city (Athens) were Antipater, and furthermore Zenodorus, of whom the former … Alexandria… Ca. 3 lost/fragmentary verses between 104 and 105 105 to Alexandria he died by illness. 106 … ability (power) … Ca. 4 lost /fragmentary verses between 106 and 107 107 … theory also the life.

Philodemus’ excerpt from the Chronica ends with verse 107 __________________________________________________________________ 108 to Dorus, which is a city lying on the coast __________________________________________________________________ 109 with whom was Charidemus, an exile from Chalketor __________________________________________________________________

Collections 102–103 FGrH 244 F 60 108 Jacoby (1902) 105 109 Jacoby (1902) 114 FGrH 244 F 26

FGrH 244 F 19

Parallels 103 Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 23,3–4; col. 23,9–10 104 Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 23,9–10 105 Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 23,3–4 106–107 Phld. Ind. Acad.col. N, 20–27

Commentary | 148

8 Commentary War involving Dyme (1) Dyme was one of the (original) twelve cities of the Achaean league. It was located in the far west of Achaea.1 Jacoby believed that the verse refers to a war between the Eleians and the Dymeans in the 28th Olympiad (668–665 BC), which seems to be referred to by Euseb. Chronicon 1.28:2 “These games were held by the inhabitants of Pisa, because Elis was preoccupied by a war in the west.” Karst translates: “Deren Beginn machten die Pisäer, da die Helier wegen des Krieges mit den Westländern verhindert waren” and remarks in a note:3 “Gr. πρὸς Δυμαίους Gegen die Dymäer, wofür der Armenier, wie Z(ohrab) schon eingesehen, πρὸς δυσμικοὺς gelesen hat.” Indeed, given the geographical position of Elis the conjecture is plausible. Since Stephanus explicitly attributes the verse to the first book of the Chronica, it must refer to an event earlier than ca. 480 BC (see 3.4). Williams (2018) speculates about a reference to an internal conflict (before 460 BC, she says) among the demoi out of which Dyme was established.4 Yet, there is no evidence of such a conflict and the content of the verse, obviously naming the Dymaeans as one party of the conflict, does not really support such an assumption. Anyway, the war must certainly date before 480 BC. Remarkably, both Jacoby and Williams ignore a testimony which I have tracked down and which confirms the occurrence of a war between the Eleians and the Dymaeans. Concerning the first hoplitodromos at the Olympic Games in 520 BC, Philostratus Gym. 7 writes: ὁ δέ γε Ὀλυμπιακὸς ὁπλίτης, ὡς μὲν Ἠλεῖοί φασιν, ἐτέθη διὰ ταῦτα· πόλεμον Ἠλεῖοι Δυμαίοις ξυνῆψαν οὕτω τι ἀκήρυκτον, ὡς μηδὲ τὰ Ὀλύμπια

|| 1 On Dyme see Hansen/Nielsen (2004), pp. 481–482 and Lakakis/Rizakis (1992), pp. 77–100 (= chapter “Dymé cité achéenne: son histoire à la lumière des fouilles récentes”). 2 Cf. Jacoby (1902), pp. 237–238; Jacoby (1929), p. 721. English translation (directly from the Armenian) from R. Bedrosian (2008 – online available). German translation by Karst (1911), p. 92 (after the quotation in the main text above):“ (Olympiad 30) “Die Pisäer fielen von den Heliern ab, und führten diese (Olympiade) auf und auch der Reihenfolge nach die weiteren 22.” Bedrosian (2008): “The inhabitants of Pisa rebelled from Elis, and [so the Pisans] supervised these and the following 22 games.” 3 Karst (1911), p. 256 n. 153. 4 Strabo 8,3,2: σχεδὸν δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους τόπους τοὺς κατὰ Πελοπόννησον πλὴν ὀλίγων, οὓς κατέλεξεν ὁ ποιητής, οὐ πόλεις ἀλλὰ χώρας νομίζειν [δεῖ], συστήματα δήμων ἔχουσαν ἑκάστην πλείω, ἐξ ὧν ὕστερον αἱ γνωριζόμεναι πόλεις συνῳκίσθησαν, … Δύμη δὲ ἐξ ὀκτώ. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110703726-008

Commentary | 149

ἀνοχὰς εἶναι, …. In the following Philostratus mentions three alternative constellations of the conflicting parties.5 The Philostratus passage practically proves that there was indeed a war between the Dymaeans and Eleians before 480 BC, so that Williams’ hypothesis of an internal conflict among demoi becomes even more unlikely. Our verse could theoretically refer to this war of 520 BC, but the (only) earlier war of 668–665 BC, which also has a connection with Olympia, may have been wrongly associated by Philostratus or his source with the introduction of the hoplitodromos in 520 BC, as the mention of the many alternative conflicting parties suggests. Furthermore, Eusebius (Africanus) and Apollodorus might go back to a common source for the information, so it seems preferable to date the Eleian-Dymaean war – and have verse 1 refer – to 668–665 BC.6 Some minor doubts remain, since there is no early attestation of the name Dyme. Yet, this is hardly a strong argument against the assignment of the verse to that time period.7 It is possible that Apollodorus mentions Dyme in his Catalogue of Ships.8 Unlike other scholars, I do not see a major problem with the position of τε in the verse and do not think that it has to be followed by a corresponding καὶ (which in any case would not fit for metrical reasons). Also in 60 the two τε seem to link the two datives, unless the first τε introduces a new participle, in which case the second τε too would be isolated. A hyperbaton, namely the mention of the Eleians in the lost verse preceding 1 with a first τε (or even without it), seems arguable, especially considering Apollodorus’ general rendering of sentences in his trimeters. I agree with Jacoby, who defends the conjunction ὅθεν, for whose position one may compare ὅτι in 79. If the fragment actually refers to the above-mentioned war, the overall sentence may have read (with regard to Eusebius): “At that time a war arose between the Dymaeans and the Eleians, wherefore the Pisans held

|| 5 Philost. Gym. 7 (after the quotation in the main text): … νικώντων δὲ αὐτῶν [Ἠλείων] κατ' (αὐτὴν) τὴν τῶν ἄθλων ἡμέραν ὁπλίτης λέγεται τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς μάχης ἐσδραμεῖν ἐς τὸ στάδιον εὐαγγέλια ἀπάγων τῆς νίκης. ταυτὶ δὲ πιθανὰ μέν, ἀκούω δ' αὐτὰ καὶ Δελφῶν, ἐπειδὴ πρὸς ἐνίας τῶν Φωκίδων (πόλεων) ἐπολέμησαν, καὶ Ἀργείων, ἐπειδὴ πολέμῳ συνεχεῖ πρὸς Λακεδαιμονίους ἐτρίβοντο, καὶ Κορινθίων, ἐπειδὴ καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ (τῇ) Πελοποννήσῳ καὶ ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅρια τοῦ Ἰσθμοῦ ἐπολέμουν.· 6 It cannot be excluded that there was another war between Dyme and Elis in 520 BC. However, even in this case the reference of the verse to the first war seems more likely because of the various similarities between Eusebius’ text and Apollodorus. For a discussion on the wars see Rizakis (1995), numb. 371. 7 Lakakis/Rizakis (1992), p. 77 and Rizakis (2008), p. 25. 8 FGrH 244 F 190,191. Williams (2018) ad locum discusses the possibility that the name in this work refers, in the relevant fragments, to a homonymous city in Paphlagonia.

150 | Commentary

the games.” The context of the fragment may have been the struggle for προστασία at the Olympian Games between the Eleians and the Pisans.9

Tame fish (2–3) Stephanus reports that the tame fish could be seen in the river Helorus which is south of Syracuse. The river gave its name to the city Helorus or Elorus (modern Eloro), located at its mouth.10 This little-known city is mainly associated with the victory of Hippocrates of Gela over the Syracusans in 492 BC.11 On this occasion the interesting fishes must have been mentioned, not least since Stephanus gives the first book of the Chronica as his source (which implies 480 BC as terminus ante quem). The fishes are also appreciated by Nymphodorus of Syracuse (quoted by Athenaeus), Pliny and a Pindaric scholion.12 Nymphodorus specifies the fishes, whereas Apollodorus does not seem to have done so. Jacoby supposes that already Timaeus of Tauromenium had mentioned the fishes. Nowadays, there exist many kinds of tame fishes, which eat from people’s hands or can be trained to do so. The story is certainly not so fanciful that it could not be (more or less) true. It is somewhat surprising that Apollodorus included even such (irrelevant) oddities in his Chronica. As already stated in the introduction to the edition of the verses, there is a small possibility that the trimeter parts are only metrical “by chance” and actually represent Stephanus’ or his source’s prose rephrasing of Apollodorus.

|| 9 FGrH 244 F 4 commentary ad locum. 10 On the city see, for instance, de Angelis (2016), pp. 95, 97, 163, 213, 229, 251 and BNJ with further bibliography. 11 Pind. Nem. 9,40; Hdt. 7,154; Schol. ad Pind. Nem. 9,95. 12 Athen. Deipnosoph. 8,3 (331 E = FGrH 572 F 8): Νυμφόδωρος δ᾿ ὁ Συρακόσιος ἐν τοῖς Περίπλοις ἐν τῷ Ἑλώρῳ ποταμῷ λάβρακας εἶναί φησι καὶ ἐγχέλεις μεγάλας οὕτω τιθασοὺς ὡς ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν δέχεσθαι τῶν προσφερόντων ἄρτους. Plin. NH 32,16,7: E manu vescuntur pisces in pluribus quidem Caesaris villis, sed – quae veteres prodidere in stagnis, non piscinis, admirati – in Heloro Siciliae castello non procul Syracusis, …. Schol. ad Pind. Nem. 9,95: ἔχει δὲ ὁ ποταμὸς ἱεροὺς ἰχθύας, οἳ παρὰ τῶν διαβαινόντων δέχονται τροφήν.

Commentary | 151

Life of Empedocles (4–14) Diogenes Laertius devotes altogether 27 chapters (D.L. 8,51–77) to Empedocles. The verses from the Chronica are quoted pretty much at the beginning of his account (8,52). Diogenes had little access to the original Chronica (3.3).13 It is quite possible that already Diogenes’ source had slightly rephrased the verses. The verses are particularly instructive with regard to Apollodorus’ method (see 3.2). He seems to synchronize the akme of Empedocles with the foundation of Thurii and rejects Empedocles’ alleged participation in the Peloponnesian War (Sicilian Expedition 415–413 BC) for chronological reasons. He assesses differing or incompatible pieces of information and presents not just his final conclusion on a chronological problem to the reader, but explains the way he reached it, and discusses alternatives.14 Verse 4: The transposition of μὲν before Μέτωνος does not represent a violent alteration of the text and easily gives a correct trimeter. Immediately before the verse (D.L. 8,51), Diogenes lists several other sources, who have Meton as the name of Empedocles’ father.15 This name is without any doubt preferable to the alternatives Exainetos and Archinomos, which seem to be based on confusion and misunderstanding, respectively.16 Exainetos was probably the son of Empedocles, while Archinomos might be the name of an office which Meton held.17 It is || 13 Mejer (1978), p. 34 does not entirely exclude this possibility: “the actual quotation from Apollodorus in D. L. 8,52 (…) suggests that Diogenes had access to a very good source (if not to Apollodorus himself), …”. Janko (2011), p. 536 even states with an (imprecise) reference to Mejer: “Diogenes Laertius excerpted Apollodorus himself.” I can hardly imagine that Diogenes excerpted the original Chronica here. On all other occasions Diogenes Laertius quotes Apollodorus only via an intermediary source (Mejer (1978), p. 34) and if he had had access to the original Chronica, he would have used it probably in other passages, too, but we have no evidence of this whatsoever. Also Jacoby (1902), p. 272 (“Diogenes’ Autor”) assumes an intermediary source without further discussion. 14 With regard to these verses, Hunter (2006), p. 132 speaks of a “historiographical, one might almost say `Herodotean´ (or `Timaean´ or `Polybian´) manner in which predecessors’ views are rejected”; cf. Williams (2018) ad locum. Hunter’s statement would have been even more justified, if he had also considered verses 12 and 13, which name two further sources. 15 Diogenes more or less explicitly mentions: Hippobotus, Timaeus, Hermippus, Heraclides (in Περὶ νόσων), and Eratosthenes (relying on Aristotle). For a biography of Empedocles in general see Wright (1981), pp. 3–6 and Goulet (2000), pp. 73–81. 16 Satyrus of Callatis is mentioned as a source for Exainetos, Telauges as a source for Archinomos (in D.L. 8,53 = F 12 Schorn). The Suda (DK 38 A 2) has: Μέτωνος, οἱ δὲ Ἀρχινόμου, οἱ δὲ Ξενέτου. 17 Cf. Jacoby (1902), p. 275 and Wright (1981), p. 6.

152 | Commentary

natural to assume that the name of Empedocles and most probably his hometown (Agrigentum) or ethnicon were mentioned in the verse(s) preceding verse 4. One wonders whether Empedocles was listed as the (most famous) pupil of someone (cf. 26–29), for instance of Parmenides. Verse 5: Thurii was (re)founded in 444/43 BC and Empedocles arrived there when it had just been founded (νεωστὶ παντελῶς).18 Similarly, D.L. 8,74 (FGrH 244 F 32 b) reports Empedocles’ floruit in the 84th Olympiad (444/43–440/39 BC). Also in the light of the information from verses 12 and 13, one can deduce that Apollodorus implicitly assumed a lifetime between 483/82 and 424/23 BC for Empedocles. Modern scholars date Empedocles on rather good evidence between ca. 494 and 434 BC, which is close to Apollodorus’ dating.19 Verse 6: Apollodorus refers to Glaucus of Rhegium, who lived as early as the late 5th century BC and is said to have been a contemporary of Democritus.20 He wrote a work entitled Περὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων ποιητῶν τε καὶ μουσικῶν, which is likely to be the source here.21 The fact that Glaucus too was Sicilian and lived not much after Empedocles gives his information a certain value or historical credibility.22 However, the decisive question is certainly how close Empedocles actually was to forty years old, Apollodorus’ set age for a man’s akme, when visiting Thurii.23 A spread of at least ten years in both directions is quite possible. Moreover, Apollodorus’ connection of the foundation of Thurii with Empedocles is slightly mechanical and somewhat suspicious.24 Omission between 6 and 7: The transition phrase εἶθ’ ὑποβάς (“a little below”) indicates an omission of unknown (but comparatively small) length. The expression occurs only here in Diogenes Laertius, which hints at an adoption from some source which has already restructured and rephrased the verses from the Chronica (see above). With regard to the following verses, it might be arguable that Empedocles’ exile (to a place other than Syracuse) was mentioned at the end of the omission (see commentary on 7–9).

|| 18 Cf. Diod. 12,10 and, on Thurii, Hansen/Nielsen (2004), pp. 304–307, esp. pp. 304–305. 19 Cf. for instance Wright (1981), pp. 3–6. 20 Cf. D.L. 9,38; Jacoby (1912); Fornaro (1998). 21 For the work see FHG II 24 and Huxley (1968). 22 Cf. Jacoby (1902), p. 272. 23 See also Goulet (2000), p. 75. 24 Cf. Wright (1981), p. 3.

Commentary | 153

Verse 7: As in verse 5, a simple transposition of two words (πεφευγὼς οἴκοθεν) gives us a sound trimeter. οἱ δ’ ἱστοροῦντες means anonymous sources or, if phraseologically used, at least one source (cf. 15,24), which Apollodorus disagrees with. Indeed, it emerges from two other remarks in Diogenes Laertius that Empedocles was exiled from his hometown. The circumstances and time/length of his exile are unknown, though he might have been exiled already rather early on in his life. According to Diogenes Laertius, the descendants of Empedocles’ enemies forbade him from returning, while many citizens apparently would have welcomed his rehabilitation (D.L. 8,67). Timaeus says that Empedocles went to the Peloponnesus and died there (D.L. 8,71).25 Verse 8: Empedocles’ taking refuge in Syracuse is not attested elsewhere. However, given the scarcity of information on Empedocles’ expulsion (practically none, see commentary on verse 7), one could easily imagine that Empedocles first settled in Syracuse for a while, before finally going to the Peloponnesus. From various testimonies it emerges that Empedocles was politically engaged in many ways and D.L. 8,67 strongly suggests that his exile was somehow a consequence of this political engagement. Furthermore, one wonders whether his stay in Thurii (4) around 443 BC is linked to his exile and was only a stop on his way to the Peloponnesus. The combination μετ’ ἐκείνων is a so-called “Wortbild”,26 the imperfect ἐπολέμει refers to a longer period of time (the siege of Syracuse). Verse 9: The more extensive corrections of the text, as suggested by earlier scholars, are not really necessary. Meineke’s μοὶ for μοι of the manuscript tradition, which, however, was probably Diogenes’ original wording, is all that is needed for establishing a trimeter. On the use of relativizing or phraseological (self-referential) expressions such as ἐμοὶ δοκοῦσιν in the verses, see the overview in 4.3. As Jacoby rightly pointed out, the enemy (πρὸς τοὺς Ἀθηναίους) shows that the Sicilian expedition (415–413 BC) must be meant, which fits perfectly with the chronological considerations laid out in these verses. Apollodorus’ attack on the anonymous authors is rather sharp. Persons claiming that Empedocles fought on || 25 D.L. 8,67: Ὕστερον μέντοι τοῦ Ἀκράγαντος †οἰκιζομένου†, ἀντέστησαν αὐτοῦ τῇ καθόδῳ οἱ τῶν ἐχθρῶν ἀπόγονοι· διόπερ εἰς Πελοπόννησον ἀποχωρήσας ἐτελεύτησεν. The word ἀπόγονοι suggests a rather long time between his being exiled and a possible rehabilitation. D.L. 8,71: τούτοις δ᾿ ἐναντιοῦται Τίμαιος (FGrH 566 F 6), ῥητῶς λέγων ὡς ἐξεχώρησεν εἰς Πελοπόννησον καὶ τὸ σύνολον οὐκ ἐπανῆλθεν. 26 Normally the brevia cannot be resolved into two brevia, if a new word ends after one of these brevia. This is not the case here, since μετ’ ἐκείνων should count as one word (“Wortbild”), cf. Snell (1982), p. 69.

154 | Commentary

the side of the Syracusans do not know what they are saying (they are “utterly ignorant” – τελέως ἀγνοεῖν). Verse 10: Apollodorus explains (γὰρ) his judgment in 9 by considering two alternatives, which show the impossibility or improbability of the idea that Empedocles fought against the Athenians. Either Empedocles was already dead by that time or extremely (παντελῶς) old, which in particular implies that he could no longer bear arms. Verse 11: The verb (participle) ὑπεργεγηρακώς rarely occurs in literature and, together with παντελῶς, underlines that even in the unlikely case (ὅπερ οὐ φαίνεται) that Empedocles was still alive at the time of the war, he cannot have actively fought against the Athenians. It may have been used for metrical reasons. Meineke’s supplement οὐ, however, is somewhat problematic. It goes along with an anapaest in the fourth foot, while there would be word end after one of the resolved brevia (ὅπερ οὐ is hardly a “Wortbild”). This is normally not permitted and no parallel can be found in the preserved verses. Therefore, it seemed preferable to make the “easy” supplement in order to get an iamb in the fourth foot. The whole clause ὅπερ οὐ φαίνεται is hardly without purpose, but leads already to the indications about Empedocles’ age in the next verses. Apollodorus does not wish to assume a very advanced age for Empedocles at the time of his death. The particle may emphasize the improbability of such an assumption. Maybe Apollodorus dwells so extensively on this point because there were two other (later?) traditions which attributed to Empedocles the age of 77 (Favorinus) and 109 years (anonymous). The latter figure is certainly a conflation with the age of Empedocles’ pupil Gorgias of Leontinoi.27 Verse 12: Apollodorus uses the particle γὰρ to outline why he rejects a very old age for Empedocles (or his participation in the war). Interestingly, Aristotle’s sixty years for Empedocles are confirmed by Diogenes himself, who towards the end of his biography writes (8,74): Περὶ δὲ τῶν ἐτῶν Ἀριστοτέλης (Janko 72 b = Rose 71 = FGrH 244 F 32 b) διαφέρεται· φησὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος ἑξήκοντ’ ἐτῶν αὐτὸν τελευτῆσαι· οἱ δὲ ἐννέα καὶ ἑκατόν. The information seems to stem from an independent source and is probably not directly extrapolated (and repeated) from Apollodorus. Janko (2011) includes the passage (verses) in his collection of testimonies on Aristotle’s On Poets (Περὶ ποιητικῆς καὶ ποιητῶν). Indeed, the information is very likely to come from this work. However, note that for his biography || 27 D.L. 8,73–74.

Commentary | 155

of Empedocles Apollodorus might depend mainly on Eratosthenes,28 so that he may not have found the information “first hand” in Aristotle. The genitive is often used by Diogenes Laertius in such contexts (ἐτῶν), so FGrH 244 F 32 b (φησὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος ἑξήκοντ’ ἐτῶν αὐτὸν τελευτῆσαι) does not imply any dependence on (repetition of) the information in the Chronica. For the transposition of the Heraclitus (Heraclides) paradosis, see 13. Verse 13: The restoration of this verse is problematic. Indeed, it is not entirely certain that we have restored an original verse here. Apart from the exact word order or vocabulary, the pivotal question with regard to the manuscript tradition of Diogenes Laertius is whether Heraclitus or Heraclides should be read/emended. It is not entirely to be excluded that the information on Heraclitus from D.L. 9,3 (ἐτελεύτα βιοὺς ἔτη ἑξήκοντα) somehow intruded into the text.29 This should not be understood literally. So, for instance, already Diogenes’ source may have coupled Heraclitus of Ephesus and Empedocles, since they had died at the same age. However, the name Heraclitus could also be an “intelligent” miswriting of the original (correct) Heraclides with subsequent interpolations (maybe already a gloss in Diogenes’ source made it into the text), when someone realized at some point that Heraclitus and Empedocles died at the same age. Apollodorus may have cited Heraclides Ponticus in addition to Aristotle, since he was regarded by Apollodorus (Eratosthenes) as an independent and early witness. The existence of a second source would also explain why Apollodorus was so sure about the age of 60 years (τελέως ἀγνοεῖν in 9 and ὅπερ οὐ φαίνεται in 11). Hence, I basically agree with Sturz’s emendation (followed by Jacoby and most other scholars), but some doubts remain. Heraclides is cited several times by Diogenes on the life of Empedocles, but he is missing from the discussion of the “age of death alternatives” in D.L. 8,73–74 (see 11). He may have been ignored there because he confirmed Aristotle’s figure, or he may be missing for other reasons. Anyway, we cannot infer from this silentium that Heraclides did not report the age of Empedocles in any of his works. The verse suggests that Apollodorus might even have searched for corroborative evidence, if there was a chronological problem he had to tackle, before he made a decision on whom to trust. Yet, in this

|| 28 Cf. Jacoby (1929), comm. ad locum (p. 729: “Das Material fand A(pollodor) diesmal fast ganz schon bei Eratosthenes”). 29 In defense of the Heraclitus-paradosis see Laurenti (1987), p. 230 n. 16. Janko (2011), pp. 536– 537 is in any case right to assume that Apollodorus certainly did not mention Heraclitus in relation to the age of Empedocles. If we are really dealing with an “intrusion” or additional information here, it must go back to Diogenes or his source.

156 | Commentary

particular case we do not know what information Apollodorus had already found in Eratosthenes, but he might have extended the version of his predecessor. Since alternative ages for the death of Empedocles had started circulating at the latest by Apollodorus’ time, the mention of the second source (Heraclides) was certainly more than scholarly ostentation. Apollodorus’ (Aristotle’s/Heraclides’) 60 years are still a/the reference point for many modern reconstructions of Empedocles’ biography. Janko (2011) does not believe that Heraclides used Aristotle’s De poetis.30 If this were true, Heraclides’ figure of 60 years would not depend – at least, not directly – on Aristotle and would be of some value. For the phrasing ἔτι δ᾿ Ἡρακλείδης, one could compare 103. Omission between 13 and 14: At least one verse has been omitted, whose prose version Diogenes gives as ὁ δὲ μίαν καὶ ἑβδομηκοστὴν Ὀλυμπιάδα νενικηκὼς. Janko ventures a reconstruction into trimeter: ὁ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς νίκην φέρων ἐπ᾿ Ἀρχίου, with Archias being the archon corresponding to Diogenes’ Olympiad dating.31 Verse 14: Empedocles’ grandfather, who bore the same name, won the horse race at the Olympic games.32 The verse is followed by ὥσθ’ ἅμα καὶ τὸν χρόνον ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀπολλοδώρου σημαίνεσθαι. Diogenes’ statement confirms, as it were, that 14 is part of an original trimeter from the Chronica. It is not unlikely that Apollodorus provided some further detail on Empedocles’ grandfather or on the reason for his mention. No doubt, he wanted to avoid confusion between the two Empedocles-es and thereby affirm his established chronology. More precisely, it may have already been Eratosthenes who integrated the information in his Χρονογραφίαι, since he mentions Empedocles’ grandfather’s victory for sure in his Ὀλυμπιονίκαι,33 where he refers to Aristotle. We know for sure that there was an inaccurate or wrong tradition which claimed that the philosopher Empedocles had once won at the Olympian games (missing the homonymy, e.g. Satyrus of Callatis). Diogenes quotes Timaeus, Hermippus, Heraclides and Hippobotus on the namesake grandfather and his victory in the horse race.34 The victory of || 30 Janko (2011), p. 536 contra Zanatta (2008), p. 526. 31 Janko (2011), p. 537. 32 The horse race was introduced at the Olympic games for the first time in the 33th Olympiad (648 BC), cf. Paus. 5,8,8. 33 See D.L. 8,51 and Jacoby (1902), p. 274. For Eratosthenes’ Ὀλυμπιονίκαι and their relation to his chronological work and the Chronica see Christesen (2007), pp. 12–13. 34 D.L. 8,51:… τὸ δ᾿ αὐτὸ καὶ Τίμαιος ἐν τῇ πεντεκαιδεκάτῃ τῶν Ἱστοριῶ < φησι λέγων> ἐπίσημον ἄνδρα γεγονέναι τὸν Ἐμπεδοκλέα τὸν πάππον τοῦ ποιητοῦ. ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἕρμιππος τὰ αὐτὰ τούτῳ

Commentary | 157

Empedocles, the grandfather of the philosopher, in the horse race fits well with the wealth of Empedocles’ family (attested elsewhere). The information provided by Satyrus of Callatis (Heraclides) that Empedocles’ son Exainetos had won the Olympic games seems to be based on a double confusion, but the Olympic victor Exainetos of Akragas might have been a (remote) member of Empedocles’ family.35 Maybe our verse with its indication of a family member with the same name as the philosopher occurred at the very end of Apollodorus’ biography of Empedocles as a kind of “prosopographical-chronographical” clarification added to the biography.

Reference to Chaeronea (15) No doubt the famous battle of Chaeronea of 338 BC is used for a synchronism. Jacoby (1902) discusses two possible assignments of the verse: either the death of Isocrates or that of the Spartan king Archidamus III is referred to. The latter is said to have died exactly on the day (and hour) of the battle while fighting in Italy on the side of the Tarentines against the Lucanians.36 While in 1902 Jacoby apparently still regarded the death of Isocrates as the more probable reference point, in FGrH he regards this as rather unlikely and makes the case for Archidamus. In particular, he argues that κατὰ speaks for Archidamus, while Isocrates clearly seems to have died some time after the battle (μετὰ).37 However, one may object that κατὰ is rather vague and could also mean “around the time” in a broader sense. The relativizing ὥς φασι shows Apollodorus’ careful assessment of his sources and may imply a certain skepticism about the information. While it does not settle the matter, it may hint at the remarkable (and suspicious) coincidence that Archidamus died on the very same day and around the same hour as the battle of Chaeronea.

|| φησίν. ὁμοίως καὶ Ἡρακλείδης ἐν τῷ Περὶ νόσων, ὅτι λαμπρᾶς ἦν οἰκίας ἱπποτροφηκότος τοῦ πάππου. 35 Wright (1981), p. 6 and Goulet (2000), pp. 75–76; Schorn (2004), pp.368–371. 36 Diod. 16,88,3: καθ' ὃν γὰρ καιρὸν ἡ περὶ τὴν Χαιρώνειαν ἐγένετο μάχη, ἑτέρα παράταξις συνέστη κατὰ τὴν Ἰταλίαν τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ὥρᾳ διαπολεμούντων μὲν Ταραντίνων πρὸς Λευκανούς, συναγωνιζομένου δὲ τοῖς Ταραντίνοις Ἀρχιδάμου τοῦ Λακεδαιμονίων βασιλέως, ὅτε συνέβη καὶ αὐτὸν ἀναιρεθῆναι τὸν Ἀρχίδαμον (see also Plut. Camill. 19). 37 He mentions Demetrius of Phaleron as a possible early witness (FGrH 228 F 36), who might be quoted in Vit. Isocr. (Vita Isocratis III, Westermann, p. 258: ἀπέθανε δ' ἐπὶ Χαιρώνδου ἄρχοντος μετὰ τὴν ἐν Χαιρωνείᾳ μάχην, λυπηθεὶς διὰ τὴν ἧτταν). On the precise date of Isocrates’ death see, for instance, FGrH 1026 F 44 (commentary), in: Bollansée (1999), p. 374 n. 35.

158 | Commentary

Information on Menander (16–18) Aulus Gellius preserves three (more or less) original verses from the Chronica, which are devoted to Menander. His remark immediately following the verses shows that Apollodorus had (much) more to say about Menander. Yet it cannot be taken for granted that the information on his victories followed immediately after 18. Apart from Menander’s origin, a precise number of his plays is given, which differs slightly from the numbers transmitted by other authors. The most interesting question evoked by the transmission of the three verses is certainly whether Gellius still had access to the original Chronica (or parts of it) or found the verses in an intermediary source (3.3). A final answer is not possible, but the apparatus criticus to Gellius for these verses may slightly favor the assumption of an indirect quotation. Verse 16: The deme of Kephisia and the name of Menander’s father are transmitted by various literary sources and an inscription.38 Apollodorus is our most ancient literary witness for both pieces of information. It seems that Gellius or his source shortened verse 16, unless we are dealing with a later corruption of the manuscripts. I have adopted Holford-Strevens’ conjecture (correction of the manuscript) τε…τε. Regardless what the exact restoration may be, the sense is clear. Verse 17: The manuscript tradition only has the usual article τοῖς, which has been corrected by Casaubon to τοῖσιν in order to fulfill metrical requirements. The form τοῖσιν – as printed by Jacoby, in PCG (Kassel–Austin), Marache/Yvette (1998), BNJ and the latest edition of Aulus Gellius (Holford-Strevens) – does not seem to have been established beyond all doubt to me. My main problem is that there are no other certain examples for such irregular forms in the original verses of the Chronica. Apollodorus renders his verses in a prose manner and there is no genuine poetic morphology. For sure, in tragedy and comedy the word τοῖσι(ν) is occasionally used instead of the article, but Apollodorus does not seem to have adopted such forms. Jacoby’s statement is obscure, if not mistaken: “frg. 77,2 haben wir die längere Dativform des Pronomens τοῖσι.”39 In tragedy and comedy τοῖσι(ν) never replaces the demonstrative pronoun, but only the article. Jacoby’s “Pronomen” implies that he considers assigning πρὸς τοῖσιν the meaning of “besides”. It is also understood in this sense by Marache/Yvette (1998), who translate “il laissa en outre cent cinq pièces”. It would be necessary to assume that πρὸς || 38 PCG (K.–A.) Menander T 1–5. 39 Jacoby (1902), p. 67.

Commentary | 159

τοῖσιν (“besides”) is as an idiosyncratic Apollodorian expression, maybe comparable to (τὰ) ἐπὶ πᾶσι in verses 25 and 45 (see 4.3), if one wishes to defend “besides”. Furthermore, one wonders exactly what function πρὸς τοῖσιν with the meaning “besides” should have here. Hence, I suppose that we are simply dealing with a number in the “πρὸς τοῖς” manner. Also Rolfe (1927) and Williams (2018) seem to understand πρὸς τοῖσιν as part of the number.40 Normally, one would expect the word order πέντε πρὸς τοῖς ἑκατὸν (cf. col. 25,18–19, which is given in 3.6) for 105, but the trimeter may have led Apollodorus to favor this unnatural composition of the number. Assuming here a number and rejecting “besides”, we might either stick to the unusual τοῖσιν – against the “internal evidence” from the verses – or supplement another short word after τοῖς (breve). In this case, one could assume interpunction after πατρὸς in 16 and supplement a third position μὲν after τοῖς, for which I refer to verses 35,58,80, but especially to the many δὲ in third position in the original verses (see 4.3). The particle μὲν might easily have dropped out in this position, but its contrast is not clear (maybe the victories – see apparatus). The easier solution τοῖσιν, however, is a poetic dative article with no parallel in the preserved verses (whereas many other regular dative plural words or articles occur). I have decided to adopt a more cautious approach and to print only a lacuna in the text. Concerning the number of plays, there circulated two alternative figures to the number 105 as given by Apollodorus. The Suda, Quintus Cosconius (Suetonius/Donatus) and the anonymous author of De comoedia give the figure of 108 plays,41 a number which is also anonymously reported by Gellius before verse 16. In this context Gellius also mentions 109 as an alternative number (for the Gellius text see the apparatus on 16–18). Jacoby regards 109 as a miswriting for 105.42 The apparatus might be interesting, inasmuch as the elision in the manuscript tradition (δράματ᾿) could imply that Gellius’ source had already “contracted” verses in scriptio continua and that Gellius did not copy from the original Chronica anymore. Yet, the elision is hardly a definitive proof. Gellius himself may have elided the original verses when embedding them in his work, or the elision may have been applied later on in the transmission process.

|| 40 Rolfe (1927): “Cephissia’s child, by Diopeithes sired/an hundred plays he left and five besides/at fifty-two he died.” Williams (2018): “Kephissia’s child, by his father Diopeithes,/ wrote a hundred and five plays;/he died at age fifty-two.” 41 Suda, μ 589 (PCG Menander T 1 ); Anon. De com. (Proleg. De com. ΙΙΙ) 60 (Koster; PCG Menander T 3); Donat. Vit. Ter. 5 (PCG Menander T 63), cf. also Scardino/Sorrentino (2014), p. 1062, who missed PCG T 46 (Gellius/Apollodor) as an attestation for 108 plays. 42 Jacoby (1902), p. 359.

160 | Commentary Verse 18: For the verb ἐξέλιπε and alternative phrasings of “to die“, see the overview in 4.3. The single ἐκλείπω is also used in 49,(66),105. δυεῖν instead of δυοῖν is typically Hellenistic (see 4.3). For the precise dates of Menander see Schröder (1996), who dates him between 342/41 and 291/90 BC. These must have been the dates established by Apollodorus, who used inclusive counting (see 3.2). Therefore, we get the indication of 52 years.43 Gellius states that the first performance of a play by Livius Andronicus took place in 240 BC, ca. (circiter) 52 years after the death of Menander. This date or year-number seems to go back to Apollodorus, too.44 It is speculative what followed verse 18. The number of victories is not unlikely and may have been mentioned not long after (see 17).

The conquest of Oreos (19) The Euboean Oreos (earlier name: Hestiaea) was conquered multiple times, but only its capture by the Romans and Attalus I at the beginning of the Second Macedonian War (200 BC) is reported by Livy to have happened at night.45 Stephanus quotes the verse, since Apollodorus did not use the usual ethnicon with diphthong ει, but treated the vowels separately. He may have done so for metrical reasons. I approve of Meineke’s deletion of τῶν for the verse, as Jacoby did in 1902. I am rather skeptical about Jacoby’s (1929) and Billerbeck’s restoration τὴν | τῶν Ὠρεϊτῶν, which basically follows Heyne. Such an isolated article at the very end of a trimeter has no parallel in the surviving verses and this kind of “rough” enjambment or hyperbaton is unlikely to have been tolerated by Apollodorus. The combination “article + (no gen. plural article) + gen. plural ethnicon + πόλις” is well attested in various (prose) authors and certainly acceptable for an Apollodorian trimeter.46 It can also be pointed out that, although αἱροῦσιν might be an historic present, there is no other certain example of this in the work. There is also the possibility that we have a more complex sentence, with a participle (dative plural) referring to a noun in verse before 19, for instance: “It seemed good to the Romans, when (while) they captured the city of the Oretians at night, to …”. || 43 Schröder (1996), p. 42. 44 Gell. 17,21,42; cf. Schröder (1996), p. 42. 45 Liv. 31,46,15–16: muri quoque pars ariete incusso subruta multis iam locis prociderat, perque apertum ruina iter nocte Romani in arcem quae super portum est perruperunt. Attalus luce prima signo ex arce dato ab Romanis et ipse urbem inuasit stratis magna ex parte muris. For the several conquests of the city and the history of the city see Jacoby (1902), p. 378 n. 2 and Hansen/Nielson (2004), pp. 656–658. 46 Only a few examples: Thuc. 2,48: ἐς δὲ τὴν Ἀθηναίων πόλιν; Eur. Or. 1648: ἐνθένδε δ' ἐλθὼν τὴν Ἀθηναίων πόλιν; Plut. Arat. 41: καὶ τὴν Ἀθηναίων πόλιν.

Commentary | 161

The emergence of an island (20) The trimeter must refer to the rise of the small island Hiera (Automate) out of the sea in 197/96 BC. The odds are rather good that the trimeter stems from Apollodorus’ Chronica, although there is no explicit reference.47 Already Meineke (1849) attributed the verse to the Chronica. Thera is of course the modern Santorini, the main island east of the Santorini caldera, whereas Therasia (Thirasia) is the island to the west. Nowadays the emerged Hiera (Automate) can be more or less identified with Palea Kameni, the smaller (southern) of the two little islands between Thera and Therasia. However, the topography of the little island(s) changed over the centuries owing to volcanic activity. There was another eruption in 46 AD,48 in which Thia emerged; maybe Hiera merged with it, or earlier (subsequently?) sank (partly) back into the sea. At the beginning of the 18th century the island Nea Kameni, as seen today, came into being (emerged), which is considerably bigger than Hiera (Automate) and also located between Thera and Therasia.49 The emergence of Hiera is attested by various other authors.50

Fig. 2: Santorini island – NASA, public domain

|| 47 Cf. Jacoby (1902), p. 392 n. 1. 48 On this later eruption see, for instance, Cass. Dio 60,29. 49 Further to the south is a third, very small island named Aspronisi, which had been in existence since the Minoan eruption. 50 One may especially compare Justinus 30,4,1–2: Eodem anno (197 BC) inter insulas Theram et Therasiam medio utriusque ripae maris spatio terrae motus fuit, in quo cum admiratione navigantium repente ex profundo cum calidis aquis insula emersit. Also Eus. Chron. Ol. 145,2 mentions ca. the same date for the emergence, while Plin. NH 2,202 confuses some dates and events, but also seems to have this event of 197/96 BC in mind. The following authors mention the birth of the new island without any chronological indication: Strab. 1,3,16; Plut. De Phyt. orac. 399c; Sen. Quaest. nat. 2,26,4; 6,31,1; Steph. Byz. ι 32 (= 327,6 – reference to Charax– FGrH 103 F 55); Pausan. 8,33,4; Philostr. Apollon. 4,34.

Commentary | 162

Philodemus’ excerpt from the Chronica: New Academy (21–107) As outlined in part I and in the introduction to the edition (chapter 6), the verses preserved by Philodemus do not only represent the vast majority of original verses surviving from the Chronica, but are also devoted to a coherent topic, namely the history of the (New) Academy in the second century BC. Their value lies in the fact that they preserve much unique information and also help assess Apollodorus’ way of arranging his material, notwithstanding the fact that at least one omission is practically certain and a change from book 3 to 4 (other omission) very likely. The (implicit) reference point in verses 21–49/53 is Lacydes, whose pupils and successors are mentioned, whereas in verses 54–107 the reference point is Carneades, whose contemporaries (54–74) and pupils (75–105) are dealt with. In accordance with the table in 5.2, I have identified the following structure or substructure: reference to Lacydes 21–25: Scholarchate and death of Lacydes 26–34: Lacydes’ pupils with a focus on Telecles and Euander 35–44: List of death dates for Lacydes’ pupils 45–49: Death dates for Telecles’ pupils 50–53: Unknown Academic – Carneades? reference to Carneades 54–66: Boethus of Marathon, a contemporary of Carneades 67–72: The scholarch Polemarchus of Nicomedia 73–74: The scholarch Crates of Tarsus 75–78: The scholarch Clitomachus of Carthage – pupil of Carneades 79–87: Melanthius of Rhodes – pupil of Carneades 88–100: Charmadas of Alexandria– pupil of Carneades 101–105: Antipater of Alexandria and Zenodorus of Tyre – pupils of Carneades (106–107: The Academic Socrates?) Basically, the verse numbers give only a relative order and not always the absolute order. This means that because of the fragmentary state of the papyrus and

Commentary | 163

possible omissions, consecutive verse numbers do not necessarily imply consecutive verses. So, for instance, the “life of Clitomachus” probably extended over more than 20 verses, which, however, are lost between verse 76 and 77. Philodemus’ Index Academicorum (PHerc. 1021) is only a draft version or working manuscript. Columns 27–32, i.e. the original verses from Apollodorus’ Chronica, seem to have been copied on a separate and independent 6–column quire (maybe even subdivided after col. 29), which was later literally “pasted” between col. 26 and 33. Essler (2019) has recently discovered and illuminated the interesting “copy and paste technique” applied to this papyrus by identifying various “secondary” kolleseis between columns.

Scholarchate and death of Lacydes (21–25) Verses 21–25 and the related new readings in the following verses are pivotal for establishing the exact dates for Lacydes’ withdrawal from the Academy and his handing it over to his successors. Verse 21: The excerpt from Apollodorus’ Chronica began somewhere in the middle of col. 26 of the Index Academicorum, oddly with the verses on Boethus of Marathon, which were later copied again in col. 28 and 29 (=54–66). These verses (column 26) were not part of the six–columns Apollodorus excerpt, which was “pasted” into the papyrus (see above). Column 26 seems to end with the death of Boethus. Lacydes has already been dealt with in the Index Academicorum in col. 21, where many new lines could be restored. It appears unlikely that in col. 21 information from Apollodorus was rephrased into prose. A comprehensive bibliometrical survey by Essler (2019) has revealed that one column got lost between col. 20 and 21, which probably contained the beginning of the “life of Lacydes” on the recto.51 Col. 21 may have been continued on the verso by col. M. It is difficult to say whether a prose version of 21–24 was written in the first lost lines of col. M. The additional names of successors in col. M might speak against a dependence on Apollodorus. Maybe Philodemus copied Apollodorus’ last verses on Lacydes (21–24) because he somehow wanted to contextualize the following list of pupils or because these verses contained precise dates, which he had not found in other sources. Maybe Philodemus had copied Apollodorus’ account on

|| 51 Essler (2019), p. 19. I may suggest that Antigonus of Carystus could still have mentioned Lacydes, who may have already been scholarch at the time of Antigonus’ writing. However, Philodemus probably had to turn to someone else for the last years of Lacydes.

164 | Commentary

Lacydes in full length and then excised it in the process of pasting his draft. Alternatively, to make sense of verse 22, Philodemus may have felt the need to also copy the number of verse 21, whereby the end of the verb ending in χε̣ ν̣ was somehow left or slipped in. The first “eighteen years” refer to ca. 224/23 BC, when “something happened”. I have extensively discussed the implication of the newly read verses 29,30 for our understanding of this verse and the chronology of Lacydes in general in Fleischer (2021). Until now, scholars believed that the (implicit) date indicated by 21 referred to the (partial) withdrawal of Lacydes and to the handing over of the Academy to Telecles and Euander. Also Williams (2018) bases her commentary on this assumption, which follows from the speculative restoration [ἐπ᾽ ᾽Αντιφίλου δὲ τὴν σχολὴν] | [συσχὼν ἔτη παρέδω]||κε̣ν̣ ὀκτὼ καὶ δέκα. This restoration was first put forward by Crönert (1906) and at least its general meaning has been accepted by Wilamowitz (1910), Jacoby (1929), Dorandi (1991) and Görler (1994).52 Williams concludes (F 47): “Apollodorus says that he spent eighteen years as head until he resigned in 224/3, and then that he died during the archonship of Kallistratos in 207/6 BC”. This is indeed the interpretation or conclusion that scholars had favored hitherto. However, it stands and falls with the now verifiably wrong supplement of verse 21 (preceding verse 21) – κε̣ν̣ is not to be read in the papyrus, but χε̣ν̣.53 Accordingly, the (alleged) parallel to D.L. 4,6054 does not exist anymore and the handing over of the school is probably not what is being reported in this verse. Mekler’s supplement κατέσ]χε̣ ν̣ (see 74) is well arguable. More strikingly, the new restoration of 29,30, which seem to contain the information about the handing over of the school for the first time, speaks against the hypothesis that 21 mentions a handing over or sharing of leadership (224/23 BC). The wording of 29,30 and in particular the identical participle most probably makes these verses (and not 21) a parallel for D.L. 4,60. It is improbable that Apollodorus reported the handing over of the leadership twice

|| 52 One wonders why Williams (2018) does not follow the more conservative ––– παρέδω]||κε̣ ν̣ of Dorandi, which however basically has the same (wrong) implications. Moreover, she does not take into account some recent bibliography in the commentary to F 47 and so partly misses the point. Cf. Crönert (1906), p. 77; Wilamowitz (1910), p. 409; Jacoby (1929), comm. ad F 47; Dorandi (1991), pp. 63–65; Görler (1994), pp. 830–831. 53 Cf. Fleischer (2021). Unfortunately, both disegni of the papyrus have κ (a common miswriting for χ in the disegni), so scholars or editors took this letter for granted against the evidence from the original, which seems to have never been counter-checked carefully. Crönert (1906), p. 77 n. 374 falsely states: “κατέσ]χεν Μ(ekler), aber K sicher.” Jacoby (1929), comm. ad F 47 claims (relying on Crönert): “auch παρέδωκεν ist sicher”. 54 D.L. 4,60: καὶ μόνος τῶν ἀπ’ αἰῶνος ζῶν παρέδωκε τὴν σχολὴν Τηλεκλεῖ καὶ Εὐάνδρῳ τοῖς Φωκαεῦσι.

Commentary | 165

within several verses.55 Furthermore, Euander died (slightly) later than Telecles (30,31), who died in 167/66 BC (44). One should assume for Telecles and Euander at least an age of 30 years at the time of their appointment as (co-)scholarchs. So, a handing over of the school as early as ca. 224/23 BC would result in a birth date around 255 BC. In this case both philosophers would have lived at least ca. 90 years, maybe even longer. This is not entirely to be excluded, but it is hardly a likely assumption, so this biographical-chronographical consideration too is further evidence against a handing over in 224/23 BC.56 Accordingly, the first “18 years” must refer to an event related to Lacydes’ life other than the handing over of the leadership, because a) there is no lexical parallel to D.L. 4,60 anymore in 21; b) the handing over is (first) reported in 29,30, reflecting D.L. 4,60; c) the chronology (age) of Telecles and Euander supports a later date for the handing over. I suggest the following reading for the whole passage: “Lacydes became scholarch under the archon … (other information)….something happened, after (when) he held the school for 18 years.” We do not know what this “something” was. With regard to our testimonies on Lacydes’ life, one could think of the donation of the so-called “Lacydeion” through Attalos I.57 Alternatively, one might consider Lacydes’ refusal to come to Attalus’ court, Lacydes’ late learning of geometry or the Kephisocrates trial.58 Although there is no evidence that Lacydes was granted Athenian citizenship, other Academics received this honor, which makes this possibility well arguable.59 Furthermore, another honor, embassy or (the death of) someone else, somehow related to Lacydes, could have been mentioned. Finally, abandoning the theory of a handing over in 224/23 BC eliminates all alleged divergences between Apollodorus and Diogenes Laertius, who reports that Lacydes led the school only for 26 years, from 241/40 BC.60 Adding the ten-year disease mentioned in 24,25, we get 36 years (2x18), as mentioned in 21,22. The

|| 55 See Fleischer (2021). 56 Fleischer (2021). 57 D.L. 4,60: Ὁ γοῦν Λακύδης ἐσχόλαζεν ἐν Ἀκαδημείᾳ ἐν τῷ κατασκευασθέντι κήπῳ ὑπὸ Ἀττάλου τοῦ βασιλέως, καὶ Λακύδειον ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ προσηγορεύετο. For the Lacydeion see Schalles (1985), pp. 137–138. 58 For the testimonies on Lacydes’ life see Mette (1985), “Lakydes” and the overview at Görler (1994), pp. 830–834 and Dorandi (2005a), pp. 74,75 with the adjustments in Fleischer (2021). 59 Cf. Fleischer (2014a), p. 66 n. 10; Fleischer (2020a), pp. 64–65 and commentary on verses 42 and 98. 60 D.L. 4,61: Ἐτελεύτησε δὲ σχολαρχεῖν ἀρξάμενος τῷ τετάρτῳ ἔτει τῆς τετάρτης καὶ τριακοστῆς καὶ ἑκατοστῆς Ὀλυμπιάδος, τῆς σχολῆς ἀφηγησάμενος ἓξ πρὸς τοῖς εἴκοσιν ἔτη.

166 | Commentary

information in Diogenes certainly goes back to Apollodorus.61 Former hypotheses – that we might have an alternative tradition in Diogenes or that there was a partial handing over – are now obsolete given the new reading in verses 21 and 29,30.62 For the sake of clarity the chronology of Lacydes resulting from the new readings in the Chronica and Diogenes shall be given: 241/40

beginning of his scholarchate (D.L. 4,61)

ca. 224/23

unknown event related to Lacydes ca. 17 years after his appointment as scholarch donation of Lacydeion? (21)

ca. 216

Lacydes withdraws from teaching due to illness and hands over the school to Telecles and Euander (24,25,29,30). He was an active scholarch for ca. 25 years (D.L. 4,61)

ca. 206

Lacydes dies either under the archon Ξallistratυs (207/06) or Pantiades (206/05) ten years after his illness-caused withdrawal (22–25), ca. 17–18 years after the unknown event, and ca. 35 years after taking over the scholarchate (D.L. 4,60 + 24,25)63

Verse 22: For προσλαβὼν compare the new reading ἐπ̣ι⌉λ⌈αβ̣⌉ὼν in 35. The phrasing τοσαῦ⌈τα⌉ δ᾿ ⌈ἕ⌉τερα must refer to the “18 years” mentioned in 21. The 36 years harmonize perfectly with Diogenes Laertius’ “26 years of the scholarchate” and the ten years of illness in 24,25. Verse 23: On the originally euphemistic expression τὴν τοῦ βίου μεταλλαγὴν see 31 and the overview in 4.3. For the verb ἐποιήσα⌈τ᾿ we must assume synizesis of οιη (unlikey) or a miswriting of the Attic form ἐποήσα⌈τ᾿ (see 4.3). The exact dating of Callistratus and Pantiades and the time gap between the archons was long discussed, but on the basis of new evidence it seems very likely that they followed each other.64 Meritt (1977) assigns the two archons to 207/06 and 206/05 BC, whereas Habicht (1982) suggests 208/07 and 207/06 BC.65 The research on the archons produced within the last decade – and ignored by Williams (2018) – has shown that both archons have to be down-dated to 207/06 and 206/05 BC again, || 61 Jacoby (1902) lists D.L. 4,61 under number 69 (with a star, meaning it is uncertain), but does not include it in FGrH (1929), obviously misled by the (supposed) incompatibility with Apollodorus. See also Fleischer (2021). 62 Dorandi (1990), pp. 93–96, who has abandoned his former hypothesis (Dorandi (2005a)), following the concerns of Görler (1994), p. 831. 63 Cf. Fleischer (2021). 64 Cf. Dinsmoor (1939), p. 168. 65 Meritt (1977), p. 179; Habicht (1982), p. 164.

Commentary | 167

which is also accepted by Habicht.66 The year 207/206 BC for Callistratus would imply a double inclusive counting for each “18 years”, provided 241/40 BC as the beginning of the scholarchate (D.L. 4,61). Diogenes (his source) probably ignored the “inclusive-problem” and simply added Apollodorus’ twice “18 years” and then subtracted the ten years illness, so that he ended up at 26 years for the duration of the scholarchate. Verse 24: On the dating of the otherwise unknown archon Pantiades to 206/05 BC, see the commentary on 23. One wonders how Apollodorus was able to provide this additional information (archon). Were there already two separate written Lacydes traditions as early as the mid second century BC or is the archon Callistratus based on Apollodorus’ own reckoning/reconstruction and the archon Pantiades transmitted by another traditional source? Even an oral tradition for one archon, which Apollodorus exploited, cannot be ruled out. The question arises whether the plural ἕτεροι is phraseological or really implies more than one source. The first alternative might be more probable. In any case, the two alternative archons may allow us to date Lacydes’ death diplomatically around 206 BC (see commentary on 23). Maybe Apollodorus (wrongly) came to “his” archon Callistratus by a double inclusive counting, whereas other authors give (more correctly) Pantiades. The supposed sense of the whole passage led Wilamowitz to the emendation ὡς for ὧν, adopted by all later editors and scholars.67 However, Görler (1994) rightly pointed out, that the reading of the papyrus is acceptable, if one assumes only a slightly anacoluthic phrasing.68 Indeed, the relative clause can hardly refer only to the second source: it must refer to an additional fact referring to the second “18 years”. One would expect something like λέγεται in the relative clause, which might have been omitted due to the preceding λέγουσιν, or αὐτὸν … (λέγουσιν). ὧν refers to the last “18 years”. The number ten (δέκα) fits well with the parallel in Diogenes Laertius.

|| 66 This down-dating basically depends on the newly suggested date for the archon Thrasyphon (Osborne (2008)), cf. Bradani/Tracy (2012), p. 291 and Lambert (2014), pp. 22–23. See Habicht (1982), pp. 163–165. A further down-dating of both archons to 206/05 and 205/04 BC seems unlikely, since there are good reasons to date the archon Isocrates to 205/04 BC. 67 Wilamowitz (1910), p. 411. 68 Görler (1994), p. 831: “Zu Unrecht behält Dorandi … eine Konjektur von Wilamowitz bei, die eine andere Chronologie voraussetzt … Der Infinitiv ist – leicht anakoluthisch – durch λέγουσιν in der Parenthese erklärbar”. Williams (2018) ignores Görler’s remark. I may add that almost the whole papyrus was rather carefully corrected and in the well-preserved parts corrections on the part of the modern editor are rarely necessary, which makes a miswriting here even more unlikely. For a discussion see Fleischer (2021).

168 | Commentary

Verse 25: On the anacoluthic phrasing see commentary on 24. For metrical reasons δ̣⌈ι⌉αλιπεῖν would not have been necessary, since διέλιπεν is metrically equivalent. Already Wilamowitz was struck by the rather obscure τἀ⌈π⌉ὶ πᾶ⌈σ⌉ι, which is also used in verse 45. It means “finally” and in this case refers to δέκα ἔτη (“the final /last ten years”).69 On this expression see 4.3. Apollodorus mentions an illness as the reason for Lacydes’ withdrawal from (active) leadership in the last ten years of his life. Diogenes mentions that Lacydes’ died of excess drinking.70 This might be a later anecdotic invention and whether there is any relationship between Lacydes’ illness and alleged death by alcohol must remain open. At any rate, Apollodorus is not more explicit on the issue of Lacydes’ illness.

Lacydes’ pupils with a focus on Telecles and Euander (26-34) Verses 26-49 reveal an arrangement of the material which Apollodorus may also have applied on other occasions in the Chronica. First, he seems to have listed the pupils of Lacydes with some accompanying information on certain philosophers, especially on the most distinguished pupils of Lacydes, Telecles and Euander (26-34). Subsequently and maybe considerably later (omission in Philodemus’ excerpt), he reports their dates of death including those of Telecles’ pupils (3549). While doing so, he provides the reader with further information on some pupils, like their hometowns or fathers’ names. Most of the philosophers mentioned are almost or completely unknown (cf. 5.5). It is astonishing that Apollodorus could gather all these details and dates, for which he may have exploited a more or less contemporary written (Academic) source, unless he had direct access to Academic documents or oral sources. It emerges from the Suda and other passages of the Index Academicorum that there was a kind of parallel tradition on Lacydes’ successors or pupils, possibly rather independent from Apollodorus. In the preserved verses of the Chronica the names of Paseas, Thrasys, Aristippus, Telecles, Euander, Agamestor and two different Eubuluses occur. Moschion was probably also mentioned in the fragmentary lines of the papyrus as a pupil of Lacydes, before his death was reported. Verse 26: Surprisingly, two pupils, Paseas and Thrasys, are mentioned at the very beginning of the list. They are otherwise unknown and, most notably, do not occur among the names of Lacydes’ “successors” in the Suda or in col. M of the

|| 69 Wilamowitz (1910), pp. 410–411. 70 D.L. 4,61: ἡ τελευτὴ δὲ αὐτῷ παράλυσις ἐκ πολυποσίας.

Commentary | 169

Index Academicorum.71 Therefore, I wonder whether both philosophers did not outlive Lacydes (or even died before his withdrawal). Alternatively, they may have taught at other places or even left the philosophical path. In the latter case, their mention in Apollodorus would be strange. Both names are relatively rare and the missing ethnicon does not hint at an Athenian origin, given that the Aristippus of 27 probably came from Cyrene. Verse 27: Aristippus can be identified with the Academic Aristippus of Cyrene, not to be confused with the famous founder of the Cyrenaic school. He is mentioned by Numenius as one of Lacydes’ famous pupils and his name also occurs in a list of homonyms given by Diogenes Laertius. Possibly a work Περὶ φυσιολόγων is to be assigned to him.72 Numenius himself is unlikely to have confused the Academic philosopher with the Cyrenaic, but it is possible that the ethnicon intruded into the manuscript tradition (a mistake by Eusebius himself?). Hence, it is in my opinion not entirely to be excluded that the Academic was in fact not from Cyrene like his famous namesake. The term συνήθει⌈ς͙⌉ signifies pupils, but maybe even more: close aquaintances. It is remarkable that, like Paseas and Thrasys, Aristippus does not appear among the successors of Lacydes in the Suda or the Index Academicorum (col. M). Again, an early death or his leaving Athens might be a possible explanation. Verse 28: Telecles is mentioned as one of the two most renowned pupils of Lacydes (⌈ἐ͙π⌉ισ̣⌈ημ⌉ότ⌈α⌉τοι μάλ̣[ι]⌈στα⌉), and they are obviously separated from the other members of the supposed leading committee after Lacydes.73 Our scanty evidence suggest a leading role of Telecles and Euander in the Academy after Lacydes. However, it is noteworthy that Telecles is missing in the Suda list of Academic scholarchs, while other pupils of Lacydes are mentioned alongside Euander. Telecles had a pupil called Apollonius, who took notes from his lectures.74

|| 71 Cf. Dorandi (1991), p. 65 n. 213. 72 Eus. PE 14,7,14 (Des Places 26): Τούτου δὲ γίγνονται ἀκουσταὶ πολλοί, ὧν εἷς ἦν διαφανὴς ὁ Κυρηναῖος Ἀρίστιππος; D.L. 2,83: τέταρτος ὁ ἐκ τῆς νεωτέρας Ἀκαδημείας. D.L. 8,21: φησὶ δ' Ἀρίστιππος ὁ Κυρηναῖος ἐν τῷ Περὶ φυσιολόγων Πυθαγόραν αὐτὸν ὀνομασθῆναι ὅτι τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἠγόρευεν οὐχ ἧττον τοῦ Πυθίου. For the Academic Aristippus see Glassen (1965); Dorandi (1989b), p. 60; Görler (1994), pp. 837–838. 73 For Telecles see Mette (1985), Telecles von Phokis; Görler (1994), pp. 834–836; Dorandi (2016). 74 Verses 45,46 and Ind. Acad. col. O,32–35.

170 | Commentary

Verse 29: This verse has been newly restored almost in its entirety and probably provides the valuable information (with 30) that Lacydes undertook to hand the Academy over to both philosophers during his lifetime. It parallels D.L. 4, 60: καὶ μόνος τῶν ἀπ’ αἰῶνος ζῶν παρέδωκε τὴν σχολὴν Τηλεκλεῖ καὶ Εὐάνδρῳ τοῖς Φωκαεῦσι. The surviving evidence suggests that Euander was even more renowned than Telecles and the predominant figure in the Academy, though probably not the only scholarch. He is said by Cicero and Diogenes to be the (only and direct) predecessor of Hegesinus, who was succeeded by Carneades.75 What is also instructive is an inscription (a honorary decree for an unknown person related to Pergamon), dating from 193/92 BC, which mentions Euander. It suggests that he held the leading position in the Academy, even if officially there was a kind of joint leading committee.76 The verb ἐπεχ⌈ε̣⌉[ίρ]η̣σε does not mean “tried” (and failed) here, but “successfully endeavored” or simply “undertook”. The α̣[ὐ]τ̣⌈οῖς⌉ refers only to Telecles and Euander, who are clearly distinguished from the three pupils in 26,27 and mentioned again in 30–32. The end of the verse ζ̣⌈ῶ̣⌉ν ἔτι parallels ζῶν in Diogenes (quoted above). Verses 67–74 prove that Carneades did something similar – namely, withdraw during his lifetime – so a kind of parallel for Lacydes’ decision is to be found less than a century later. For ζ̣⌈ῶ̣⌉ν ἔτι compare especially Ind. Acad. col. 25,39–40. Verse 30: The verse has been newly reconstructed. Suggestions for the precise noun or verb have been made by Henry and Puglia.77 The missing article before the possible ἀ[ρχὴν] might be interpreted to the effect that Lacydes did not officially or fully withdraw from the scholarchate, but only gave some power or authority over to the two philosophers, which might nevertheless imply that they were already de facto scholarchs during the time of Lacydes’ illness. Moreover, the missing article might connote ἀ[ρχὴν] as an “office” (the scholarchate), for which we may compare the similar expressions ἀρχὴν ἄρχειν or ἀρχὴν παραλαμβάνειν. I have also considered the possibility ἄ[ρξαι] π̣α̣ρ̣ε̣[ί]˹κ͙˺ειν, but the exact reconstruction remains uncertain for the moment. The infinitive in 31 || 75 On Euander see Mette (1985), Euandros von Phokis; Görler (1994), pp. 834–836; Dorandi (2000) p. 243. The passages are Mette Euander T 1 (D.L. 4,60: παρὰ δ' Εὐάνδρου διεδέξατο Ἡγησίνους Περγαμηνός, ἀφ' οὗ Καρνεάδης.) and Cic. Luc. 16 (audivit enim Hegesinum, qui Euandrum audierat Lacydi discipulum …), ignored by Mette. 76 IG II/III² 886 = IG II³, 1 1261. For the text of the inscription see 3.7, for further thoughts Haake (2007), pp. 99–104. 77 The suggestions were made during a textual seminar on Philodemus’ Index Academicorum (International Workshop – Philodemus’ History of the Academy: Towards a New Edition of PHerc. 1691/1021 and 164 Amalfi (Italy), 13–16 September 2017).

Commentary | 171

and metrical reasons strongly suggest δο]κ̣εῖ, for which compare 9–11. The adjective βρα]χ̣εῖ, for instance, is hardly compatible with the supposed syntax. The verb δο]κ̣εῖ could imply that Apollodorus did not know the precise date of Euander’s death. At any rate, Euander does not occur in the list of death dates (35– 49) and it is questionable or indeed not very likely that his date of death was mentioned in the lost fragmentary verses between 32 and 33. Possibly, Apollodorus only knew that Euander was the immediate predecessor of Hegesinus and inferred (δο]κ̣εῖ) from other evidence that Euander must have outlived Telecles. The pronoun ⌈α̣⌉[ὐτῶν refers to πρότ⌈ερ͙⌉ος in 31. The Oxford disegno preserves the upper part of a triangle, of which only parts survive in the original papyrus. It is possible (though maybe not likely) that the disegno displays here the upper triangle-like part of an omicron. Hence, I have given the alternative ˹ὀ͙˺[λίγωι in the apparatus, which would be compatible with the inferred fact that both Telecles and Euander died around the same time. Verse 31: The restoration of the verb [με]τ̣ηλλαχέ̣ν̣αι was crucial for making sense of the entire passage. Its reading, combined with the restoration of 30, dispels the doubts which Wilamowitz articulated concerning the restoration πρότ⌈ερ͙⌉ος ὁ Τηλ̣[εκλῆ]ς̣: “Wenn man (sc. line) 14/15 πρότε[ρ]ος ὁ Τη[λεκλῆς zu erkennen glaubt, so denkt man leicht, daß von den beiden vornehmsten Schülern des Lakydes die Rede war, und Telekles vor Euander starb. Das ist aber irrig, denn sein Todesjahr wird nachher angegeben und liegt ganz spät; man läßt also selbst von ειπρο τελοσοτηλ besser die Finger.”78 However, the disegno and original papyrus almost certainly have πρότ⌈ερ͙⌉ος and there cannot be any doubt about the philosopher’s name. The article is written, since Telecles had already been mentioned earlier (28). Nonetheless, Wilamowitz’ has a point concerning the death date of Euander and his statement deserves some discussion. Given the relatively late death of Telecles (44) in 167/66 BC and the fact that Hegesinus was scholarch between Euander and Carneades (who was scholarch of the Academy at the latest by 155 BC, but probably already by 159/58 BC),79 Euander must have outlived Telecles only by a short time – and Hegesinus must have been scholarch only for a few years. Maybe his exact date of death was unknown to Apollodorus (see commentary on 30). The expression ⌈τ⌉[ὸ]⌈ν⌉ βίον … [με]τ̣ηλλαχέ̣ν̣αι is a variant of the

|| 78 Wilamowitz (1910), p. 411–412. 79 155 BC is the year of the famous philosophers’ embassy to Rome, of which Carneades was a member. Based on the information from Ind. Acad. col. 25,1–11, Carneades became Clitomachus’ teacher in 159/58 BC and it is not unlikely that he had already been appointed scholarch by that year.

172 | Commentary

expressions in verses 22,23 and 36. The dative specification νό̣[σωι also occurs in 36,48,105 (similar 25, maybe also in 60). One wonders what exactly is meant by this noun. Is Apollodorus alluding to a comparatively short illness when Euander was advanced in years or to a rather long suffering due to a specific illness, or are both possibilities covered by the term? Maybe a broad range of illnesses and durations is covered and it basically only means that the persons did not die suddenly (of old age). The indication is “convenient” for the end of a trimeter, but we should not assume that Apollodorus used it without any real background for merely phraseological-metrical reasons. It is not clear whether Apollodorus returned to Telecles in the lost or fragmentary lines after 32. The funeral epigram on Telecles does not suggest that he headed the Academy as (co)scholarch (see 44). Verse 32: It seems that 32 marks the beginning of a short account on Euander, which may have extended over several verses. It is possible that a certain Socrates wrote notes on his lectures (106–107 and col. N,20ff.) and our sources suggest that Euander was more famous or authoritative than Telecles. Although I have ultimately refrained from putting it in the text, the supplement ὁ Φ]ω̣[κα]ε̣⌈ὺς⌉ is very attractive – with the article because of Euander’s earlier mention, as is the case in 31. Pape and LSJ report the ethnicon with a natural long α,80 but its use in Ps.-Scymnus 250 and 252 shows that it was treated as a short vowel in poetry. Interestingly, there is no explicit mention of Telecles’ ethnicon in the surviving verses. Apart from D.L. 4,60 (Τηλεκλεῖ καὶ Εὐάνδρῳ τοῖς Φωκαεῦσι), the ethnicon is not otherwise attested. The Suda lists Euander with his ethnicon (Λακύδης, Εὔανδρος Φωκαεύς, Δάμων, Λεοντεύς, Μοσχίων, Εὔανδρος Ἀθηναῖος, Ἡγησίνους, Καρνεάδης). Telecles’ funerary epigram is not really helpful for uncovering his origin. Could it be that the plural in Diogenes (τοῖς Φωκαεῦσι) is only a wrong conflation of the information in 28–32 and that Euander alone was from Phocaea? Was Telecles even Athenian, in which case an explicit ethnic indication might have been consciously skipped? Is Εὔανδρος Ἀθηναῖος in the Suda a miswriting for Τηλεκλῆς Ἀθηναῖος? It cannot be ruled out that 32 or the following verse(s) contained Telecles’ Phocean origin in a rather unexpected way (“The Phocaean Euander being a fellow citizen of Telecles” or the like), but it remains possible that Apollodorus did not give Telecles’ origin in the Chronica at all. To be sure, this would not imply that the information in Diogenes is wrong, if he (additionally) drew on sources independent from Apollodorus. || 80 Pape (1911), p. 1655. For reasons of space, I have assumed in the metrical analysis in 4.2.1 an iamb in the second foot.

Commentary | 173

Ca. 10 lost/fragmentary verses between 32 and 33: An omission in this lacuna (Ind. Acad. col. 27,18–35) seems rather unlikely. It seems plausible to assume that there was some more information on Euander and that all the pupils of Lacydes mentioned in the list of death dates (35–44) were dealt with before. It is unlikely that other names occurred in these lost verses, which were not included in the list of death dates.81 In col. 27,24 one reads ]το̣ρ̣ικ⌈οὺς ει⌉[ and in col. 27,35 mid (the verse preceding 33) the sequence α̣ιδα̣μ ̣ ̣ , but the traces after the μ do not favor Δά̣μω̣ν̣, a name mentioned in the Suda (see commentary on 32) and in the variant reading Δήμων in Ind. Acad. col. M,12. Verse 33: Apart from the information on his origin and death in 41–44, Agamestor is only mentioned as one of Lacydes’ successors in Ind. Acad. col. M,18. In addition, his tombstone is preserved (see commentary on 42).82 He was from Arcadia and a son of Polyxenus and became an Athenian citizen at some point. The supposed structure of the sentence suggests interpunction after ⌈τ͙ρ͙α⌉[χ]ύς.83 The supplement is based on metrical and lexical considerations.84 It is uncertain to whom the characterization refers. Moschion might be a candidate. Agamestor is said to have been ἐ]⌈π⌉[ί]⌈δη͙λ̣⌉ος as well. In my translation I have referred πρὸς τού̣τ̣o⌈ι͙ς͙ to all three, Agamestor and the two Eubuluses, but – as is the case with ἔ⌈τ⌉ι and ὁμ̣ῶ̣ς̣ – the precise references are somewhat blurry and alternative translations having almost the same sense are possible. Verse 34: The two Eubuluses are not attested outside the Index Academicorum.85 Outside 37–41, they are listed among Lacydes’ successors in col. M,14–17, where they again appear as a pair. Strangely, their year of death is reported twice on the verso, in col. O,22–24 and 29–31. It must have been a “fun fact” that two Academics with the same name died exactly in the same year (174/73 BC), which might have been even the primary reason why neither has not been forgotten by historians of ancient philosophy. The position of [δ]υ̣᾿ before the name is likely for syntactical reasons, while the traces in the papyrus are meager.

|| 81 At least the tradition of col. M and Suda gives further names, but not col. O, which seems to depend somehow on Apollodorus or a common source. 82 On Agamestor see Dorandi (1989c), p. 60 and Fleischer (2020a). 83 However, in the case of τ᾿ in the lacuna after Ἀγαμήσ⌈τ͙ ⌉[ωρ, interpunction cannot be taken for granted. I prefer δ᾿, but have not put it in the text. 84 Cf. for instance Plut. Alex. 50; Phoc. 10. 85 Williams (2018), ad F 47 seems to have gotten confused by the apparatus and gives a weird text with a double “two”: ὁμ̣ῶ[ς δυ’ Εὐ]|βουλοί τε πρὸς τούτο[ις] δύ[ο], αυ|των.

174 | Commentary

Probable omission in Philodemus’ excerpt between 34 and 35: The evidence from the papyrus and the Oxford disegno make the assumption or restoration of the non-metrical α⌉ὐ⌈τ⌉ῶν in col. 27,38–39 immediately after 34 almost unavoidable. Combined with the reference to 12 years in 35, the pronoun hints at an omission of unknown length by Philodemus (his source, if he did not copy the text directly from Apollodorus). Maybe the information reported after 34 in the Chronica was not relevant for the Academy or was skipped for other reasons. The beginning of col. O suggests that the verses immediately before 35 dealt with the relationship between the Attalids and the Academy, but this is far from certain (see discussion in 3.7 and commentary on 35).86 It seems that the omission was not indicated in the papyrus, which might be due to the close connection of the list of death dates with the preceding list of pupils.87 In any case, it was not Philodemus’ intention to give us an impression of the original Chronica, which he has simply combed for “Academic facts” and excerpted according to his needs.

List of death dates for Lacydes’ pupils (35–44) The precise dates of death of the philosophers listed in the preceding verses are reported with additional information on their origins. Only Euander is missing, but his death has already been implicitly dated in 31. Then, the death of Telecles’ pupil Apollonius and that of a third Eubulus, probably Apollonius’ brother, are given (45–49). The chronological order, from 185/84 BC to 143/42 BC, is strictly maintained. It is stunning that Apollodorus preserved so much unique information on philosophers who have left few or no traces in ancient literature. Verse 35: There is no absolute indication of age in the verse, contrary to what scholars have believed so far, but rather a relative reference. This verse has been restored and extensively discussed in Fleischer (2018d). The supplement was made possible by the exact placement of a detached fragment, drawn on the lower margin of col. 28 in the Oxford disegno. The article shows that Moschion must have been mentioned earlier, most likely in the fragmentary lines between 32 and 33 or in the omission after 34. The particle μὲν, as well as the relative reference, shows that the list of death dates started with Moschion. The number δώ̣[δ]⌈εκ͙᾿ is the only metrically possible supplement compatible with the traces

|| 86 See especially Fleischer (2018d). 87 However, note that the beginning of col. 27,39 is nowadays partly destroyed and a sign of some kind, missed by the disegno, cannot be ruled out. In any case, no spatium was ever there, either before or after α⌉ὐ⌈τ⌉ῶν.

Commentary | 175

in the papyrus. The number refers to either 197/96 BC (exclusive counting) or 196/95 BC (inclusive counting). No event referring to the Academy is known for these dates. Col. O might hint at a connection to the relationship between the Attalids and the Academy, but this is far from certain (cf. 3.7). For ἐπ̣ι⌉λ⌈αβ̣⌉ὼν, which here means “later”, see the similar participle in 22. However, there is no ἕτερα and it is uncertain whether the reference to the twelve years is connected to an event from Moschion’s biography. Moschion is otherwise only attested among Lacydes successors in the Suda and in col. M, 17–18, where we learn his ethnicon.88 He was from Cilician Mallos and his origin may have been stated by Apollodorus, too, possibly in the fragmentary lines between 32 and 33. Verse 36: The archon Eupolemus is securely dated to 185/84 BC. If Moschion did not die a premature death, he must have been one of the early pupils of Lacydes. According to the list, he was the first (renowned) pupil to pass away. However, the information νόσω⌈ι⌉ could be a hint, though barely a proof, that Moschion died sometime before his time (for the implication of νόσωι see the commentary on 31). On the elegant and euphemistic expression τ̣ὸ̣ ⌈ζ⌉ῆν με⌈τήλ⌉λαξεν as a way of saying “to die”, see the overview in 4.3. Verse 37: “Thereafter” ([μ]ετὰ ταῦτα) emphasizes the chronological order of the list, maybe in order to facilitate the reading of the Chronica without having to consult an archon-Olympiad converter (ἀναγραφὴ ἀρχόντων) on every occasion. Most readers may have been satisfied with learning the “relative order” of death dates from such lists. We get the additional information that one of the two Eubuluses mentioned in 34 was from Erythrae. The article is merged with the ethnicon (crasis), for which compare the merging of article and personal name in 45.89 Verse 38: Eubulus of Erythrae’s father was Antenor, who is otherwise unknown. The πατρὸς in the preceding line may have the function of avoiding confusion with the other genitive (archon) in the sentence. The archonship of Alexander dates to 174/73 BC. He is not integrated into the verse with the usual common ἐπὶ + name, but with a kind of genitive absolute extending into the next verse (cf. 4.3). As in the next verses there is a kind of ellipse, the verb is still τ̣ὸ̣ ⌈ζ⌉ῆν με⌈τήλ⌉λαξεν of 36.

|| 88 Cf. Fleischer (2018d), p. 67, n. 4. On Moschion see also Dorandi (2005c), p. 554. 89 On Eubulus of Erythrae see Dorandi (2000), p. 251.

176 | Commentary

Verse 39: The second Eubulus died a few month later under the same archon Alexander. Apollodorus’ exact indication is remarkable. As noted in the commentary on 34, the death of two Academics with the same name under the same archon was certainly a curiosity, which favored its memorizing (transmission) and the coupling (“δύο Εὔβουλοι”) of the philosophers in 34 and in Ind. Acad. col. M,14 and col. O,29–30. Verse 40: Eubulus of Ephesus90 was the son of Callicrates, who is otherwise not attested. Again, we have the article in the verse. The second part of the verse represents a wordy extension of the ethnicon in 41. Verse 41: Eubulus hailed from Ephesus, which is confirmed by two other passages in the Index Academicorum.91 The verse is revealing of how Apollodorus strove to provide clear chronological reference points for his readers in time. He could have expected many readers to be able to associate the capture of the Macedonian King Perseus with a certain point in time (history), not least since it had happened not too long before the publication of the first version of the Chronica (ca. 25 years before). In adding the Perseus reference to the archon Xenokles of 43, Apollodorus elegantly “transcoded” the archon’s date and thereby provided a kind of chronological key for Agamestor’s death. Having established the archon, there would have been no need for Apollodorus to mention Perseus in this verse, if not as an aid for the reader. The reference might imply that Perseus’ capture had already been discussed before in the Chronica. If Apollodorus regarded Rome’s seizure of Macedonia (Perseus’ capture) as a historical-chronographical landmark, he may have referred to it more than once in the Chronica. Verse 42: Concerning the noun ἅ⌈λωσ⌉ιν, I will only recall that Perseus was taken to Rome after the battle of Pydna in 168 BC and died in Alba Fucens in 165 BC. Agamestor originally came from Arcadia.92 The missing mention of a specific town might imply that he was not born in a major (well-known) city in Arcadia. His father Polyxenus is otherwise unknown. Plutarch transmits an anecdote on

|| 90 On Eubulus of Ephesus see Dorandi (2000), p. 251. 91 Ind. Acad. col. M,17; O,22. 92 On Agamestor see Dorandi (1989c).

Commentary | 177

the philosopher, who obviously had a bad leg.93 So far, scholars have ignored an inscription published in 1968 (SEG 25, 237), which reads as follows:94 Ἀγαμήστωρ Πολυξένου Ἀζηνιεύς In Fleischer (2020a) I have made the point that the philosopher and the person mentioned in the inscription are the same. The main arguments are the extreme rarity of the name Agamestor and, consequently, the unlikelihood of there being another father-son pair with the same names. The paleography of the inscription is compatible with a date around 168/67 BC and it should be said that many foreign philosophers, including many Academics, were rewarded with Athenian citizenship.95 It seems that Agamestor became an Athenian citizen at some point, probably when already a member of the leading committee after Lacydes, meaning not much earlier than 200 BC. Interestingly, the famous Academic scholarch Carneades, who was born in Cyrene, was also granted Athenian citizenship at some point and registered in the same deme, Ἀζηνιά.96 Maybe in the second century BC Academics preferred this deme for some reason. A coincidence cannot be excluded but, given the high number of demes, it seems unlikely. Agamestor’s later Athenian citizenship was not really relevant for Apollodorus – if he knew about it at all – whence he labels Agamestor “Arcadian”. As in the case of Carneades (who was still “from Cyrene”), what mattered in a literary context was his early origin, not his later (additional) citizenship. The honor of Athenian citizenship might underline Agamestor’s role as a prominent philosopher in the generation between Lacydes and Carneades. Verse 43: The archon Xenokles can be dated to 168/67 BC with certainty. On Apollodorus’ various ways of expressing the verb “to die” (here: τὴν ἀπ⌈όλ⌉υσιν τοῦ βίου ἐπ⌈ο͙⌉ιήσατ᾿), see the overview in 4.3, where I also noted that it cannot entirely be excluded that the expression implies suicide.97 || 93 Plut. quaest. conv. 621E–622A. On the misspelled name see Fleischer (2020a). p. 63. 94 Andreiomenou (1968), p. 137 n. 18, c. im. ph. pl. 62β. The description in SEG 25, 237 (A. Woodhead) reads: “Columellam marm. caerulei infra fractam, in Via Lenormant inv.”. 95 For the second century BC I will just mention Carneades of Cyrene, Clitomachus of Carthage and Charmadas of Alexandria, cf. Fleischer (2020a), pp. 64-65. 96 Καρνεάδην Ἀζηνιέα | Ἄτταλος καὶ Ἀριαράθης Συπαλήττι[οι] | ἀνέθηκαν. See 3.7. 97 Note, however, that also Telecles and Apollonius depend on the verb/construction and it is not likely that all three committed suicide.

178 | Commentary

Verse 44: For ἐπ⌈ο͙⌉ιήσατ᾿ we should assume an Attic form (a synizesis is unlikely – see the commentary on 23). The archon Nicosthenes can certainly be dated to 167/66 BC. Given the date of Lacydes’ handing over of the scholarchate and the date of Nicosthenes’ death, we have to conclude that Telecles and Euander, who died later, reached at least their eighties. At this point, it should be mentioned that Telecles’ funerary epigram has been preserved (Μette Telekles T 4):98 –––]βιο[––– –––]αι σοφίης πείρατ᾿ ἐφιέ[μ]ενοι· εκ᾿ δ᾿ Ἀκα]δημείης, Τελέκλεες, οὐκ αβόητο[ν] σὸν κλέος] ἰφθίμοις ἔπλετο Κεκροπίδαι[ς]· [καὶ νῦν τῆιδ]έ σε κοῦρος ὑπὸ χθονὶ θῆκε Σέλευκος Though the exact supplements are somewhat doubtful, line 3 should in any case prove that here we are dealing with the famous pupil of Lacydes, who must have maintained a prominent position in the Academy. His reputation may even have extended beyond the lecture hall, if line 3 is not a purely poetical topos. For sure, he is not explicitly said to have been the scholarch (along with someone else), although “formal-administrative” information of this kind is not really expected in such a context. The epigram does not help determine Telecles’ ethnic origin (see the commentary on 32). However, his homeland could indeed have been Phocaea, as Diogenes says. Seleucus is probably the son of Telecles, unless a pupil here is being poetically described by the expression κοῦρος.99 The first two lines should be reconstructed to the effect: “All men striving for the summit of wisdom and … mourn the end of the life (βιο in line 1) of (Telecles)”.100

Death dates for Telecles’ pupils (45–49) Still closely connected to the death list of Lacydes’ pupils are the death dates for the pupils of his prominent pupil Telecles. Apollonius and a certain Eubulus are mentioned in the preserved verses.

|| 98 IG II² 12764, cf. also Haake (2007), pp. 104–106. Unlike Mette Telekles T 4, I do not follow the supplements of Kaibel (GVI 1550). 99 This hypothesis has been brought up by Haake (2007), p. 105 n. 387. Yet, Ind. Acad. col. N seems to give a list of pupils of Telecles, where the name Seleucus does not occur. Moreover, its being a synonym for pupil in a poetic context might be possible, but cannot be taken for granted. 100 Cf. Crönert (1906), p. 75.

Commentary | 179

Verse 45: For ⌈ἐ⌉πὶ πᾶ[σι], which means “finally”, compare 25 and 4.3. Apollonius might not have been mentioned for the first time in this verse, since the meter requires the article or more precisely: a crasis (spiritus asper – long α – Ἁπολλώ[ν]ι̣ο̣ς̣). Maybe Apollonius and his brother Eubulus had already been listed in the fragmentary verse before 33 or in the omitted verses after 34. The list of pupils in col. N suggests the existence of such a list of Telecles’ pupils and Apollodorus may have already mentioned some of Telecles’ pupils earlier. We learn from 46 that Apollonius was a pupil of Telecles. He is probably to be identified with the Apollonius who is mentioned as the first pupil in a list of pupils in the Index Academicorum (col. N,13,14), which is likely to contain pupils of Telecles. The traces in the disegno suggest Cyrene as his hometown.101 Besides, Apollonius is mentioned twice in col. O (18–20 and 32–35). The first passage obviously depends on Apollodorus and gives the information that his brother was a certain Eubulus, who must have been dealt with in 47–49. Eubulus, brother of Apollonius, should not to be confused with Eubulus of Ephesus or Eubulus of Erythrae (34,37–41). Verse 46: The death of Apollonius under the archon Epainetus (166/65 BC), only one year after that of his teacher Telecles (44), and the fact that his brother died more than twenty years later (47–49) suggest that he did not die at a very old age, probably before or in his (mid) sixties. For the variation in expressing archon dates see 4.3. Apollonius’ death under this archon is also reported in col. O,18– 20, even if the text there is very fragmentary (see the commentary on 47). Apollonius is said to have been a pupil of Telecles in col. O (32–35), too, where we learn that he wrote ὑπομνήματα on Telecles’ lectures.102 His first place in the list of col. N, if correctly attributed to Telecles, emphasizes his prominent role among Telecles’ pupils. Verse 47: The next three verses are of some relevance for the book division of the Chronica. It seems the most likely hypothesis to me that these verses implicitly give us the end date of the third book of the Chronica, which would therefore have extended until 143/42 BC (3.5). Bravo’s (2009) thesis that the entire Philodemus excerpt derives from the fourth book only cannot be proven and several reasons

|| 101 Dorandi (1991) is cautious and prints Crönert’s (1906) Κυ[ρηναῖ]|ο̣ν̣ only in the apparatus. The supplement seems rather likely to me. 102 The text of Dorandi (1991) reads as follows (col. O,32–35): | Ἀπολλώνιος δ᾿ ὁ Τηλε̣ [κλέ]|ους μαθητὴς [ὁ κ]αὶ [ἀ]ν[αγεγρα]|φὼς ὑπο[μν]ήμ[ατ᾿ ἐκ τῶν]| σχολ̣[ῶν αὐ]τοῦ [–––. For such lecture notes compare Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 18,35; col. 20,42–43; col. 22,37–23,7 (possibly col. N,20ff.).

180 | Commentary

speak against it (3.5). Philodemus switched from the 3rd to the 4th book after 53 (see the commentary on 53). The embedding of verses 47–49 in book 3 might be supported by the parallel in col. O,18–25, where a continuous section from the Chronica resembling verses 37–49 seems to have been summarized. Even if col. O only indirectly depended on 37–49 or even if, conversely, the Chronica depended on col. O,103 this would be of no relevance for the fact that the death of Eubulus, brother of Apollonius, was in a certain tradition combined with the death of Apollonius and the pupils of Lacydes. For the restoration of verses 47– 49 the parallel in col. O,18–22 is pivotal (for the text see 3.7), especially the phrasing ὁ̣ δ̣᾿ ἀδελφὸς Εὔβουλ[ος] ἐ|π᾿ Ἀρισ[τ]οφῶντος τοῦ [μετὰ] | Θ̣εα̣ίτητον with its characteristic expression μετὰ Θεαίτητον. As outlined in 3.5 the preposition μετὰ does not necessarily indicate an imprecise point of time after this archon, but is a supplement commonly used when there exist two Athenian archons with the same name (in this case another Aristophon was archon in 330/29 BC). The fourth position of δὲ̣ in our verse might be noteworthy. I have supplemented δὲ̣ instead of δ᾿ ὁ̣, which together with the other new supplements in the following verses changes the syntax. We obviously have a genitive absolute at the beginning of the clause. Now, the ⌈τοῦ⌉ νεω̣τέρ[ο]⌈υ⌉ is somewhat puzzling. Who was younger than whom? With regard to col. O, the most likely hypothesis is that the reference is to Eubulus as the younger brother of Apollonius. For reasons of meter and space the name Eubulus can first be supplemented in 49. Furthermore, in 48 the supplement ἀδέλφ]⌈ο⌉υ is hardly possible for reasons of meter and space. Maybe there was a circumlocution or synonym for “brother” in these lines, but it does not seem likely. If the article (crasis) in 45 is accepted as proof that Apollonius had been mentioned earlier – and the preserved verses of the Chronica suggest that Apollodorus used the article only in such a case – an earlier mention of Eubulus as the brother of Apollonius might not be unlikely. Consequently, it would have been absolutely sufficient to write νεω̣τέρ[ο]⌈υ⌉ in order to indicate the younger brother. Verse 48: The supplement ἐπ̣[ὶ] β̣ρ̣αχ̣[ὺ at the beginning of the verse is very attractive, but I have decided not to put it in the text, since the traces are too meager and, for instance, ἔτ̣[ι] (with a different supplement following it) is possible. In the case of ἐπ̣[ὶ] β̣ρ̣αχ̣[ὺ the question arises whether it replaces a dativus mensurae (βραχεῖ) referring to νεω̣τέρ[ο]⌈υ⌉ (slightly younger) or indicates a span of time

|| 103 This assumption is less likely, since there is additional or more detailed information in verses 37–49.

Commentary | 181

(cf. 59) related to a noun/adjective after γ̣εν[ο]μ̣⌈έ⌉ν⌈oυ̣⌉. I supplement the genitive instead of Dorandi’s (Mekler’s) nominative, since the Oxford disegno and the surviving traces make a σ unlikely and hint at a υ. I suppose that γ̣εν[ο]μ̣⌈έ⌉ν⌈oυ̣⌉ does not refer to νεω̣τέρ[ο]⌈υ⌉ (“he was … younger”), but to the following word(s) (“Eubulus, the younger, was …”). I could not find a word meaning pupil or something similar. The ethnicon [Κυρηναί]⌈ο⌉υ (cf. Ind. Acad. col. N,13,14 see the commentary on 45) is too long. Unfortunately, there are too many variables in the papyrus and the overall structure or sense is difficult to determine. On νόσ̣ωι see the commentary on 31. Verse 49: The new reading ἐ̣κ̣⌈λιπ⌉ό̣ν̣[τος, which is also used without further specification in 18,(66),105 (cf. 4.3) is crucial to determine the likely syntactical structure of verses 47–49, namely the use of a genitive absolute at the beginning of the sentence. We would expect to find the name of Eubulus somewhere and it can practically only be supplemented after the participle (the following fragmentary lines are not compatible with the name). It is unclear whether the following letters or traces are still somehow part of the genitive absolute or whether they are already included in the main clause. The name of the archon Aristophon should be mentioned somewhere in the papyrus. The name must have been written in the following three lines (verses) of in the papyrus, since later lines, albeit fragmentarily preserved, exclude the supplementing of his name (cf. the diplomatic transcript of col. 28,20ff.in chapter 9). Ca. 9 lost/fragmentary verses between 49 and 50: It is difficult to say who was the subject of the main clause already beginning in 49 or in the verse following 49. The parallel in col. O may suggest the mention of one or all four Academics named “Ariston”.104 Alternatively, further information on Telecles was provided. However, it is unclear how closely col. O imitated the verses (and in which lines). Basically, an Academic philosopher can be reasonably expected as the subject of 49. Possibly Eubulus was still teaching at the time and his pupils turned to Carneades after his death, but other possibilities are open, for instance something like “After Eubulus died, all of Telecles’ pupils were dead/the philosophers named Ariston…”. While it cannot be excluded that there was an omission of some verses of the Chronica in the fragmentary verses, there is no indication of this and no strong reason in support of a similar hypothesis. Certainly, the most interesting question is whether the philosopher referred to in lines 50–53 was already the subject of the main clause following the genitive absolute in 47–49 and || 104 One of the four “Aristons” of col. O is probably identical with the Ariston mentioned in 58.

182 | Commentary

who this philosopher was. To be sure, Telecles and Euander had already died before 143/42 BC, but one may posit a kind of flashback to Telecles in the context of a discussion about his last prominent pupil. Alternatively, Carneades or another philosopher may have been mentioned. Though no trimeters can be restored from the fragmentary lines, there are remains of words in the papyrus which are of some interest (for more details see the diplomatic transcript and images in chapter 9). First, the expected name of the archon Aristophon may have been written in Ind. Acad. col. 28, l. 19 or 20 or 21 (also “Ariston” somewhere possible). The beginning of line 22 ελ[ could mean that someone “left” his pupils to someone else. At the end of the following line αδ might allow for the supplement “Carneades” (hardly “Academy”), but this is far from certain. At the end of line 23 φι̣κῆ̣ς̣ is rather certain and the supplement σ̣υ̣γ̣γ[̣ ρα]φι̣κῆ̣ς̣ is well arguable. Maybe Carneades’ refusal to write was alluded to105 or someone else’s ability to compose prose works was mentioned. Still, the fragmentary state of the papyrus should prevent us from drawing far-reaching conclusions.

Unknown Academic – Carneades? (50–53) Essentially, these four verses have been newly restored for the first time. An unknown or, more precisely, unidentified philosopher is described. Although the meaning of the verses is partly hazy, it becomes clear that a philosopher’s ability/view and reputation are referred to. It is attractive to identify Carneades with this philosopher, but other Academic Sceptics might match the content of the verses as well. Considering that the philosopher Boethus, to whom Apollodorus devoted 13 verses (54–66), is otherwise completely unknown, 50–53 might even be devoted to a relatively or completely unknown philosopher. The verb in 53 represents rather a present tense than a historic present. In the first case the philosopher would have been still alive, when Apollodorus finished his three-book Chronica around 143/42 BC (see 3.5). A supposed statement on Carneades related to the underworld in 52 has turned out to be a completely false and arbitrary reconstruction. Verse 50: The philosopher mentioned obviously much preferred to be engaged/make efforts (π⌈ονῶ⌉ν̣) for something (ὑπ⌈ὲρ ἧς͙⌉). It is difficult to say, what exactly the relative pronoun refers to; the following verse is only of modest help in helping us figure it out. Maybe an abstractum like “dialectic / the rejection of

|| 105 On this aspect see the new readings in Ind. Acad. col. 22,1–9 (Fleischer (2020c).

Commentary | 183

other opinions / rhetoric / lecturing” 106 was to be found before the relative clause, or the reference is to “school” or “teaching”. For π̣[ολ]⌈ὺ⌉ μᾶ̣λ⌈λ͙⌉ο̣ν see 82. Verse 51: The enjambment, meaning the disconnection of the elements of the coniugatio periphrastica, is rather clumsy, whereas the combination of participle with ἦν is not without parallel (see especially 58 and 80–82). Not many traces of ἦν survive. The present participle might have been intentionally written in order to express the philosopher’s continuous effort. The first part of the consecutive clause means that he persuaded others by means of these abilities/views or actions (δ⌉ιὰ̣ τούτω⌈ν⌉ τ᾿ ἔ⌈π͙ε⌉[ισ]⌈ε⌉). Maybe the abilities/views or actions of the philosopher mentioned immediately before were specified in the relative clause in 50 and were his hallmark, while at least one more ability/trait/virtue must have been mentioned in the preceding verse(s). The aorist ἔ⌈π͙ε⌉[ισ]⌈ε⌉ might refer to philosophical discussions. If Carneades is really meant here, it is conceivable that through his skills he convinced others that he should be elected as leader of the Academy, but this is speculative. Verse 52: The sense of this verse is not straightforward. The range of the word ἕξις and its meaning in this very context as well as the reference of τὰ τῶν ⌈ἄλ͙⌉λων must be discussed. Does τῶν ⌈ἄλ͙⌉λων refer to persons or abstracta? I may suggest the following interpretation: the philosopher’s ability or character (his general state of mind/his personality – ἕξις) encompassed elements/thoughts/traits from other philosophers or persons. He was a quintessential Academic Sceptic, as it were, insofar as he incorporated the abilities of his predecessors or of contemporary philosophers. Moreover, τῶν ⌈ἄλ͙⌉λων could also imply that he adopted other philosophers’ doctrines or methods of teaching to some extent. No doubt, the verses fit well with Carneades, who was an illustrious and gifted man. Another (maybe more remote) possibility would be that τὰ τῶν ⌈ἄλ͙⌉λων π̣α̣ραλαβὼν somehow refers to the dialectical method of the Sceptics, which consisted in leading other theses ad absurdum by adopting them for the sake of argumentation. With regard to 53 the participle seems to have causal sense. This ability/position of the philosopher naturally/logically (ε⌈ἰκ⌉ό̣⌈τ⌉ως̣) leads to the results mentioned in 53. Verse 52 was wrongly reconstructed and interpreted by Gomperz (1875). All subsequent editors and scholars accepted his rather fanciful and far-fetched hypoth-

|| 106 Cf. the new reading in Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 22,3–6 from which it emerges that Carneades was especially keen on teaching his youngest students: see Fleischer (2020c).

184 | Commentary

esis that what we have here is an anonymous quotation (bon mot) about Carneades to the effect that he took others’ doctrines into the underworld.107 The supposed anonymous single-verse Hades quotation even got its own number in Jacoby (FGrH 244 F 52).108 This is a typical example of how rash (mis)reconstructions can endure far over a century. Verse 53: The philosopher enjoyed a good reputation or fame (δ̣ό̣ξ̣α̣ν̣) owing to his characterization in 52. Whereas the philosopher is well respected by others, he also enjoys the greatest frankness of speech (⌈παρ͙⌉ρησ⌈ία͙ν͙⌉ π̣λ̣είστ⌈η⌉ν̣), probably meaning that he “was allowed” to say everything he wanted. This accusative too seems to be connected to the characterization in 52. By adopting others’ attitudes or doctrines, the philosopher shows a certain openness and speaks his mind, meaning that he is not very dogmatic or narrow-minded in his philosophy. He speaks to others or criticizes them with exceptional frankness (π̣λ̣είστ⌈η⌉ν̣), not bound by any conventions. The term might also mean that he was very unconventional, straightforward and sharp-minded, though without any pretentiousness. It might be worth mentioning that Philodemus, who copied these verses, wrote a work (sub)titled Περὶ παρρησίας.109 The most tantalizing problem is represented by the verb form ἔχει, since its intended tense (past or present) has consequences for the attribution of these verses to a philosopher and to a book of the Chronica. In 51 we read the aorist ἔ⌈π͙ε⌉[ισ]⌈ε⌉ and might therefore think of a kind of historic-durative present here, maybe used for metrical reasons instead of a past tense. However, there is no other certain case of a historic present being used (cf. 19,95) and ἔ⌈π͙ε⌉[ισ]⌈ε⌉ could refer to a specific group or situation at a time in the past, whereas the fame and frankness of speech in 53 continue, since the person is still alive. If we are correct in attributing the verses to the 3rd book, the implication of a present tense would be that the philosopher was still alive in 143/142 BC. More or less at this time, Carneades was at his peak and Charmadas began his studies under him in Athens (see 89). The reference τ̣⌈ῶ̣⌉ι Καρνεά̣δ̣η‹ι› in 54 is no guarantee that Carneades was dealt with in 50–53. Nonetheless, it is an arguable hypothesis that the first part of Apollodorus’ biography of Carneades || 107 Gomperz (1875), p. 604 (note). For Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 28,35–38 (= 52,53) Dorandi (1991), following Mekler/Gomperz, gives: ΕΚ̣ΕΙ, “τὰ τῶν ἄλλων [πα]ραλαβὼν εἶ κάτω”· [σιγ]αῖ τε καὶ πᾶ[ς] ῥῆσιν ὑ̣[βρ]ιστὴ[ς] ἔχει. 108 Jacoby (1902), F 96. 109 PHerc. 1471. The standard edition is still Olivieri (1914). English translation: Konstan et al. (1998). The work expands on notes from Zeno’s lectures. I mention it since Philodemus’ interest in this subject might be one reason (among others) why he chose to include these verses in his excerpt.

Commentary | 185

(or part of it) is represented by the verses following 49 or at least by 50–53. A spatium and paragraphus in the papyrus indicate a new section (philosopher), in this case obviously with a “leap” in the Chronica, probably from book 3 to 4. There is no obvious reference for ἔ⌈π͙ε⌉[ισ]⌈ε⌉. Maybe opponents in discussions or other philosophers are meant and an accusative is missing, since it is implicity given by τῶν ⌈ἄλ͙⌉λων (a kind of ellipsis). A remote possibility might be that Carneades convinced others to select or acknowledge him as head of the Academy by virtue of certain qualities he possessed. Probable omission between 53 and 54 and switch to book 4: Note that even if the Academic of 49–53 is to be identified with Carneades, it is extremely unlikely (almost to be excluded) that book three of the Chronica ended with verse 53 and book 4 began with verse 54, not least since there was probably a proem to book 4. It is impossible to say whether also “Academic” information has been skipped by Philodemus. With reference to 64 it is arguable that even Carneades’ death has been omitted. As discussed in 3.5 and 3.8, it is not entirely excluded that Philodemus’ excerpt (21–107) stems from the 4th book only.

Boethus of Marathon, a contemporary of Carneades (54–66) The Academic philosopher Boethus of Marathon is otherwise unknown.110 Hence, it is rather surprising that Apollodorus devotes 13 verses of his Chronica to him. For the first time, the Boethus passage has been (almost) completely reconstructed and a new interpretation of some verses has been offered. We learn a lot about Boethus’ life, skills and activities. His date of death, 120/19 BC, is the last certain date of the Chronica (3.6). It is quite possible that Boethus only made it into the Chronica because of his acquaintance or friendship with Apollodorus of Athens, unless he was included for the simple reason that the limited chronological extension of the 4th book of the Chronica (the “supplement”) led to the treatment of comparatively irrelevant contemporary philosophers. Verse 54: Carneades is used as a reference point. He might have been dealt with immediately before in the 4th book, which is independent from the question whether he might have been the subject of 50–53. Maybe even his death had already been mentioned (note the reference to his death in 64) and his proper biography had been finished by Apollodorus before his contemporary Boethus, his || 110 For Boethos see Gomperz (1875); v. Arnim (1897); Jacoby (1902), pp. 383–385; Dorandi (1991), pp. 71–72; Dorandi (1994), p. 123; Görler (1994), p. 910; Fleischer (2015b), pp. 27–30.

186 | Commentary

(contemporary) successors and his pupils were listed. The verb ἦν̣ is used only here as a main verb (“lived“). The indication κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸ̣ν … ⌈χρό͙ν⌉[ο]ν̣ means that the dates for Boethus’ life more or less coincide with those for Carneades. Verse 55: Like Boethus himself, his father Hermagoras is not otherwise attested – at any rate, no inscription can safely be associated with either Boethus or Hermagoras. The deme (village/town) is of course famous for the battle of Marathon. Accordingly, Boethus was one of the rather few philosophers hailing from Athens (Attica) in the second century BC. Verse 56: The verse was restored for the first time in Fleischer (2015b). The digital images (HSI and MSI) were very helpful. Unlike in my previous edition of the passage, on basis of the Oxford disegno I have decided to put δ᾿ ἔτ᾿ in the text, since the Oxford disegno of this papyrus in general has turned out to be more reliable than I previously thought.111 The ἔτ᾿ should still somehow refer to τò πάλα⌈ι͙. The adjective [ἱ]κ̣⌈α⌉νὸς is used in an absolute sense (capable/virtuous) – compare for instance D.L. 10,25.112 For the expression β[ί]ου τ̣ά̣ξ̣ιν̣ τ[ι]⌈ν⌉ὰ see Isocr. orat. 12,260 and S.E. Adv. math. 11,208. Boethus lived a philosopher’s life from early on and was a capable man. Verse 57: We should read τ⌉[ῶ]⌈ι λόγω⌉ι and not change the Oxford disegno.113 It needs to be clarified whether τ⌉[ῶ]⌈ι λόγω⌉ι δ᾿ ἁπ⌈α̣⌉λώτε⌈ρος means that Boethus was – by contrast to his basically strict and earnest philosophical life – 1) rather soft in the sense of sociable or affable in everyday conversations, 2) soft in the sense of “sweet and pleasant” in his rhetoric, or 3) soft in the sense of “weak” or “bad” at rhetoric. The last meaning has been accepted by Gomperz, followed (among others) by Dorandi and myself in 2015b.114 Yet, I am no longer really sure

|| 111 Contra Fleischer (2015b), p. 29 note 1. The conjecture or, better, emendation of the disegno μ͙ὲ͙ν͙, which I had formerly adopted, has been suggested by Essler, who now regards it as unlikely, too. 112 D.L. 10,25: Ἐτελεύτα (Hermarchus) δὲ παραλύσει, γενόμενος ἱκανὸς ἀνήρ. 113 In Fleischer (2015b), p. 30 I also considered χρόνωι, first suggested by Essler. 114 Gomperz (1875), p. 604: “ …dem nach des Autors Meinung zur Grösse wenig mehr gefehlt hat als die Gabe sich geltend zu machen? War er doch λόγῳ ἁπαλώτερος – und das neben einem Redevirtuosen ersten Ranges wie Karneades! Solcher Unbill des Schicksals will dieser Nachruf nach Kräften steuern.“ Dorandi (1991), p. 197 (“debole nella parola“); Fleischer (2015b), p. 30 (“Für die Verbindung von λόγου/λόγωι/λόγον mit ἁπαλός im Sinne von ‘schwach im Reden’ (rhetorisch wenig begabt) gibt es zwar kein Beispiel in der Literatur, aber ein solches Verständnis scheint doch möglich“).

Commentary | 187

whether the lexical range of the adjective in this context justifies an interpretation to the effect “bad at rhetoric”.115 It might be more fitting to understand the expression to mean that Boethus’ rhetoric or way of speaking was soft and enjoyable, while he was perhaps pleasant in conversation, too.116 The contrast might be between “strict in life and philosophy” (β[ί]ου τ̣ά̣ξ̣ιν̣ … φ[ι]λ̣όσοφ⌈ον) and “rather soft” (casual, pleasant and mild) in his speech or rhetoric (τ⌉[ῶ]⌈ι λόγω⌉ι δ᾿ ἁπ⌈α̣⌉λώτε⌈ρος). A basically positive connotation of the adjective would be supported or paralleled by 63, where λόγος clearly refers to a positive quality of Boethus. Verse 58: Here we have another example of coniugatio periphrastica (50–51,80– 82). The Ariston mentioned is otherwise unknown. He is most likely to be one of the persons by this name occurring in Ind. Acad. col. O,25–29,117 not least since more prominent namesakes hardly fit the chronology. One of these “Aristons” came from Ephesus (col. O,27). Perhaps Ariston’s Ephesian origin was (unintentionally) omitted by Apollodorus, since Eubulus of Ephesus is mentioned in the next verse, but this is far from certain.118 Anyway, there is no article and the philosopher might not have been mentioned earlier in the Chronica. The particle μ⌉ὲν correlates with δὲ in 64. Verse 59: Boethus attended Eubulus of Ephesus’ lectures only for a short time. The reason might have been Eubulus’ death in 174/73 BC (39,40). In any case, Boethus can hardly have been born much later than 200 BC and a slightly earlier date is arguable. He must have reached his eighties, given that he died in 120/19

|| 115 The examples in LSJ for “in bad sense, soft, weak” seem to me to be of a different sort and might not be automatically translated into “weak (bad) at rhetoric”. On the lack of any attestation of the adjective in this sense see Fleischer (2015b), p. 30. 116 Concerning Carneades’ pupils, in Cic. Luc. 16 we read: e quibus industriae plurimum in Clitomacho fuit (declarat multitudo librorum), ingenii non minus in Hagnone, in Charmada eloquentiae, in Melanthio Rhodio suavitatis; bene autem nosse Carneaden Stratoniceus Metrodorus putabatur. The suavitas of Melanthius is somewhat obscure, but may also indicate a pleasurable conversationalist or author (Görler (1994), p. 909 “angenehmer Stil”). 117 Jacoby (1902), p. 385. 118 Dorandi (1991), p. 72 and Dorandi (1999), p. 34 speaks of “Aristo of Ephesus” without any further comment, but the ethnicon in the verses refers only to Eubulus.

188 | Commentary

BC (64–66). The article shows that Eubulus had been mentioned earlier, precisely in 34,39–41. Oddly, for reasons which are not obvious, Philodemus copied verses 59–66 twice in different passages of his Index Academicorum.119 Verse 60: In what follows, I will argue that verses 60–63 describe the lecturing activities of the young Boethus, which are reported by Apollodorus in great detail and in a variety of ways. The naturalness with which Apollodorus lists the “Autolycians” (Αὐτολυκεῖοι) is stunning. They are mentioned as Apollodorus might mention “Academics” or “Stoics”, but we do not know what this sect or group was. Maybe they were still active when Apollodorus wrote the 4th book, and hence he did not feel the need to provide any further explanation. Alternatively, and maybe more probably, they had already been mentioned earlier in the Chronica. Note, however, that in this case the article is no proof or strong hint. One may think of the “Autolycians” as a kind of Academic subsect or a school of mathematicians, if they are in any way related to the mathematician Autolycus, Arcesilaus’ teacher, but this is all very speculative (see 5.5). Be that as it may, the “Autolycians” were probably somehow included in or related to the Academy, since Boethus was either tutored by them or lectured with them – however, a dativus comitativus without σύν is doubtful (61). The identity of Amyntas remains obscure. The article might imply that he had been mentioned earlier. It seems that he was no “Autolycian”. The adverb πολλάκις is discussed in the commentary on 61. Verse 61: We have to analyse the meaning of ἤδη προβεβηκὼς and the function of the datives in 60. Furthermore, we should clarify whether the participles are closely connected (parallel) and what σχολῆς ἡγ⌈ο⌉ύµενο⌈ς⌉ means. Dorandi (1991) translates: “…e aveva già fatto spesso progressi sui seguaci di Autolico (di Pitane) e su Aminta e aveva guidato una scuola”. Williams (2018) seems to understand the passage differently: “He often received guidance from the followers of Autolykos and Amyntēs. And he led the school, …”.120 Dorandi’s translation “make progress” is possible from a lexical point of view (LSJ), but the πολλάκις (“often”) is somewhat disturbing, since it does not really make sense in this translation. Also “on” (Dorandi: “sui”) for the datives is somewhat problematic. William’s || 119 The verses were copied at the end of col. 26 and in col. 29 at the “right place” within the Apollodorus excerpt. Maybe the doublet also extends to verses 56 and 57, but the traces seem to exclude that the whole Boethus biography (from 54 onward) was copied in col. 26. 120 Williams (2018), ad F 57. Hatzimichali (2020–commentary) states: “It is very hard to interpret what precisely was his connection with the ‘Autolykeians’ and Amyntes because of the peculiar use of προβαίνω + dat. (ll. 7–9), which does not normally entail a comparison, so the meaning would be “made progress with respect to the pupils of Autolycus and Amyntes.”

Commentary | 189

translation “receive guidance” for ἤδη προβεβηκὼς implies that both the Autolycians and Amyntes were Boethus’ teachers, which is possible, although teachers have already been listed in the genitive in 58,59. The adverb πολλάκις might be key for understanding this puzzling passage. I would suggest to read the participles together and consider ἤδη προβεβηκὼς as a way to say “to excel, to be superior to others and speak (lecture) before a class of pupils”. In this case, Boethus might have already held some lectures on several occasions in the Academy. We might imagine a kind of tutoring in addition to the main lectures by older and famous Academics. If he did not lecture together with the Autolycians and Amyntes, the dative might be a dativus auctoris/instrumentalis/causae and mean that he excelled with the help (tutoring) of these persons. The καὶ would closely connect the participles with σχολῆς ἡγ⌈ο⌉ύµενο⌈ς⌉, as a variation and specification. I do not think that Apollodorus wishes to say here “leading the school” in the sense of “being the head of an own school”, but more “giving lectures in the Academy”. The adverb πολλάκις might refer to both participles. σχολῆς ἡγ⌈ο⌉ύµενο⌈ς⌉ could still govern the two datives. Maybe this episode should be linked to the time of the leading committee after Lacydes, when Carneades was not yet in charge of the Academy as the only scholarch. I do not believe that Boethus had his own school, as Dorandi implies through the use of the indefinite article (“aveva guidato una scuola”). All participles, including [ἐ]κ⌈τ⌉ιθ⌈ε⌉ί"ς in 62, may basically be describing the same fact, viz. that Boethus was engaged in various lecturing activities within the Academy and was much more than an ordinary student. Moreover, we could understand καὶ in the sense of “also/even”. After Boethus had already often acted as a kind of assistant teacher/advanced student (ἤδη προβεβηκὼς), he also (even) led the school (σχολῆς ἡγ⌈ο⌉ύµενο⌈ς⌉). One wonders why “the Autolycians” (plural) and the unknown Amyntes are mentioned in this context. Maybe they gave special courses from time to time in a certain field. Ultimately, I understand this as well as the preceding and following verses as a description of Boethus’ involvement in teaching activities within the Academy. Verse 62: The verse has been (partly) reconstructed by exploiting the fact that it was copied twice by Philodemus (see apparatus). Besides, the placement of some misplaced layers (sottoposti) was essential. The overall structure of verses 60–63 seems clear now. Some palaeographic-papyrological difficulties should not be passed over in silence, but on the whole the new reconstruction seems well arguable to me. To begin with, Dionysius cannot be identified with a known person. The missing article might imply that he had not been mentioned earlier in the Chronica. The verb/participle [ἐ]κ⌈τ⌉ιθ⌈ε⌉ί"ς also occurs in Ind. Acad. col. 18,41 and

190 | Commentary

col. b,11-12 (PHerc. 1691). In the latter passage the verb has the meaning “to publish”.121 It cannot entirely be excluded that something like a joint authorship is indicated, but the meaning “expound (doctrines)” should fit the context better. Although he was still quite young, Boethus had already conducted a kind of exegesis or explanation of Academic philosophy, obviously with the help or assistance of Dionysios. The quality and features of Boethus’ work of explication are dwelled on in 63. What was written after the probable οὐχ is uncertain. My conjecture [αἱρ]⌈ε̣⌉τῶν could mean that Boethus tackled difficult questions, which had not been much discussed by others. Verse 63: ⌈τ⌉ἀ⌈ν⌉δρὸς is written here for αὐτοῦ and should be referred to Boethus, not Dionysius. Boethus lectured or explained things with his sharpness of mind (ἀγχινοίαι") and τῶι λόγ]ω̣ι. The latter probably means his ability to speak or express himself in clear and enjoyable manner. So, Boethus not only had enormous intellectual potential (ἀγχινοίαι"), but could also explain things clearly when teaching others. There seems to be a connection with the characterization τ⌉[ῶ]⌈ι λόγω⌉ι δ᾿ ἁπ⌈α̣⌉λώτε⌈ρος in 57, which probably has a positive connotation.122 For ἅ[µα] καὶ compare verse 100. Verse 64: As in 54, we have a reference to Carneades. This reference is of some relevance, since it suggests that Carneades’ death had already been discussed in a previous passage of the Chronica, which would mean that he was probably not dealt with in the lost verses after 76. We know from Diogenes Laertius that in his Chronica Apollodorus reported Carneades’ death in 129/28 BC.123 Further evidence from the Index Academicorum and partly from the original verses (70-76) confirms this date. The “tenth” year after Carneades is indeed 120/19 BC, which is assigned to the archon Eumachus (see 65). Again, the average reader of the Chronica hardly knew the date of the archon Eumachus, which is implicitly and elegantly given by the reference to Carneades, whose death many educated readers might have been able to assign to an approximate point in time, particularly since Carneades had died not long before the publication of the 4th book of the || 121 Column numbering according to my new edition of the Index Academicorum. On PHerc. 1691 see Del Mastro (2012), col. b,11–12 (PHerc. 1691): ἐξ̣ε|τίθεσαν and the new reading in Ind. Acad. col 18,41 (Fleischer): [ἐ]ξετίθει. 122 Due to the restoration of 62 and reinterpretation of the participles in 60–62, I reject the idea that a development of Boethus’ rhetorical skills is given here (Fleischer (2015b), p. 30). 123 D.L. 4,65: Φησὶ δὲ Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν Χρονικοῖς (FGrH 244 F 51) ἀπελθεῖν αὐτὸν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἔτει τετάρτῳ τῆς δευτέρας καὶ ἑξηκοστῆς καὶ ἑκατοστῆς Ὀλυμπιάδος, βιώσαντα ἔτη πέντε πρὸς τοῖς ὀγδοήκοντα.

Commentary | 191

Chronica. For the elegant or euphemistic noun µεταλλαγῆς, for which Apollodorus seems to have had a penchant, see 23 (the corresponding verb in 31 and 36). Verse 65: For the variation of expressions used to date by archon see 4.3. The formula in this verse is unique and ⌈π⌉αρ᾿ ἡµῖν should prove that Apollodorus (and maybe the addressee of the 4th book)124 were living in Athens when they wrote this verse. However, the rather unnecessary ⌈π⌉αρ᾿ ἡµῖν is so strange that for a moment I considered the possibility that Apollodorus might even be indicating the current archon of Athens by this expression, not least since he was able to report the precise month of Boethus’ death. If so, the 4th book of the Chronica would have been written in 120/19 BC under the archon Eumachus. However, the arguments for such an interpretation of ⌈π⌉αρ᾿ ἡµῖν are not convincing and other end dates might be preferable (see the detailed discussion in 3.6). The archon Eumachus can also be dated to 120/19 BC independently from this verse.125 Verse 66: The exact indication of the date of death by month is noteworthy (for possible explanations and implications see the discussion in 3.6). There is a loose parallel in 39, where a difference of several months is indicated, while no month name is given. Thargelion was the 11th month of the Attic calendar and corresponds to our May/June. On ⌈ἐξέ⌉λιπεν see the overview in 4.3. Mekler (Dorandi) supplements βίον at the end of the line, but the missing article (written in 71,72) and the fact that ἐκλείπω is used without βίον in 18,49,105, cast doubt on this supplement. With reference to 31,36,48,105 I regard νόσωι at the end of the verse as a better option.

The scholarch Polemarchus of Nicomedia (67-72) In the twelve lost or fragmentary verses following 66 (probably the last verse on Boethus’ life) Carneades’ first successor, Polemarchus of Nicomedia, must have been introduced. Maybe he was even the only or main subject of these verses. Polemarchus succeeded or permanently deputized for Carneades between 137/36 and 131/30 BC, when the latter was still alive (he died 129/28 BC), but had resigned from teaching and active leadership owing to old age. Verses 67–70 have been newly reconstructed or substantially improved for the first time. The new reading of the preposition in 71 has far reaching consequences, inasmuch as it proves – supported by other new readings in two corresponding passages – that there was || 124 See 3.8. 125 See Dinsmoor (1939), p. 199.

192 | Commentary

never a second Academic scholarch named Carneades (son of Polemarchus) or Carneades ‘the younger’. The name of Carneades’ first successor was Polemarchus (of Nicomedia). He is not attested outside the Index Academicorum. Verse 67: Owing to the poor conservation state, the exact wording is not entirely certain.126 Yet, the following verses strongly suggest a genitive absolute bearing this sense, for which one may compare in particular 70 and 71. For the expression “ἔχω + school” with the meaning “leading/running a school” I refer in particular to 75. The phrasing οὐ]κ … [ἔτ᾿] represents a kind of tmesis and goes somehow together with ⌈ἤδη⌉ in the next verse. Together with τό̣τε, reconstructed by replacing a sovrapposto, the expression is somewhat wordy. Verse 68: The causal preposition [διὰ] is practically the only reasonable supplement in this context and provides the reason for Carneades’ resignation, which is referred to three times in the “draft version”of the Index Academicorum (PHerc. 1021).127 In the final edition most probably only one version occurred. Diogenes Laertius also alludes to serious health problems that Carneades experienced in his old age – more precisely, (partial) blindness. The philosopher even considered suicide.128 Up until now, the strings of letters at the end of this verse and at the beginning of the following ones represented a puzzle for scholars.129 However, the Oxford disegno and the original papyrus strongly suggest ἐκ̣εῖ⌉, which refers to the mention of the Academy in 67, where the school and exedra were located. Verse 69: The newly read adjective ⌈πρ͙⌉ῶ̣τος makes good sense: Polemarchus was the first lifetime successor of Carneades, Crates of Tarsos the second (73–74). The exedra must have been a special lecture hall within the site of the Academy. The beginning of book 5 of De finibus confirms that Carneades had lectured in an

|| 126 The reconstruction of the words before οὐ]κ is uncertain, but the article is expected and hardly matches the space before Ἀ̣[κα]δ̣ήμ̣ε̣[ια]ν, whereas [ἔτ᾿] fits nicely and is at least likely in this clause (‘no longer’). ⌈ἤδη⌉ in 68 might be linked to τό̣τε. 127 The three passages are: Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 24,30–25,2; col 25,36–26,4; col. 29,38–30,12 (= verses 67–76). 128 Dorandi (1991), p. 250 noted that “P è corrotto” and consequently printed cruces. Like Crönert (1903a), p. 384 n. 1, Dorandi rejects Mekler’s τᾐνέσει [δ]όντος. Mette Karneades T 3a offers a very arbitrary correction. Already Jacoby (1929), p. 742 had stated: “ich finde keine plausible Deutung von τηνεισεποιατοσ(?)”. 129 D.L. 4,64;66, cf. Görler (1994), p. 853.

Commentary | 193

exedra that was still in existence in Cicero’s time.130 The distinction between ἐ⌉ξ⌈έ͙δ͙ραν⌉ and σχο⌉⌈λ⌉ὴ⌈ν deserves some discussion. Most likely, the first noun indicates the physical teaching place, whereas the second means the “teaching” itself or the institution of the Academy. Unless this is a purely pleonastic phrasing, the two nouns may imply that some teaching activities (σχο⌉⌈λ⌉ὴ⌈ν) within the Academy took place outside the exedra. It might have been necessary to emphasize that Polemarchus also took over the exedra, which means that Carneades was no longer lecturing there. The exedra may have been a kind of main lecture hall exclusively reserved for the scholarch (or at least Carneades), while other assistant teachers would have lectured elsewhere in the Academy. The verb παρ⌈έλα⌉βε⌈ν may indicate that Polemarchus was appointed scholarch by Carneades and not officially elected by other members of the Academy. Verse 70: The reconstruction of the verse has clearly been hindered by Mekler’s almost completely arbitrary correction (δ̣[ι]ε̣[βί]ωσε[ν) for the δομωσε we read at the beginning of line 1 in the Oxford disegno.131 Mekler’s verb has been adopted by Jacoby and Dorandi without any further discussion. Yet, the sequence of the disegno is perfectly good Greek and fits the end of a trimeter: ⌈δ̣᾿ ὁμῶς ἕ⌉ξ̣ ⌈ἔ͙τη⌉.132 We need a verb, probably an aorist middle, with the meaning “leading the school”. The verb ἡγήσατο fits the space and meter better than any other word and is used in a parallel prose passage.133 Given the word ὅμως (acute), a relative clause after σχο⌉⌈λ⌉ὴ⌈ν cannot be taken for granted, while a rather short first clause conditioning the ὅμως in the second clause, might be imagined. I thought of something along the lines of ἦ⌉ν̣ κ̣α[̣ ὶ τό]τ̣᾿ ἔ[ρις, since some scholars have already supposed that the issue of the succession of Carneades gave rise to some quarrels and personal conflicts.134 The whole controversy seems to have had an

|| 130 Cic. fin. 5,4: hoc autem tempore, etsi multa in omni parte Athenarum sunt in ipsis locis indicia summorum virorum, tamen ego illa moveor exhedra. modo enim fuit Carneadis, quem videre videor – est enim nota imago –, a sedeque ipsa tanta ingenii magnitudine orbata desiderari illam vocem puto. On the exedra, which might already have been used by Polemo (D.L. 4,19), see Döring (2008), pp. 268–269. 131 This sequence is to some extent confirmed by the HSI. It should be said that nowadays the first line is no longer really readable with the naked eye. 132 δ̣᾿ ὅμως has already been divided by Mette (Karneades T 3a). 133 Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 25,41. 134 Görler (1994), p. 900, for instance, wrote: “Die Motive für diesen Schritt [i.e. Clitomachus’ foundation of a school of his own in the Palladion in 140/39 BC] lassen sich nur vermuten. Es ist denkbar, dass sich Kleitomachos durch die Autorität des hochangesehenen Scholarchen zunehmend in seiner eigenen Entfaltung behindert fühlte … Die Schulgründung dürfte auch dazu ge-

194 | Commentary

aftermath – or even to have reached its climax – with the invasion of the Academy by Clitomachus and his pupils after Carneades’ death in 129/28 BC (75,76).135 The first clause would explain the ὅμως: although Polemarchus’ leadership was questioned or challenged, he remained in charge for six years. However, the poetic word ὁμῶς (“likewise”) – with circumflex accent – is probably used in 34 and hence arguable in this verse as well. It would most likely imply a supplement of the first part of the verse to mean something other than an internal quarrel. Polemarchus might not even have been a proper pupil of Carneades, but more or less a contemporary of his like Boethus.136 That Polemarchus died after leading the Academy for six years might hint at an already advanced age. Verse 71: I have dealt with this verse and its two corresponding prose versions (col. 24, end and col. 25,36–26,4) in an article entitled “Carneades – the One and Only” (2019), where I have demonstrated that there never was a second Academic scholarch named Carneades (son of Polemarchus). Until the publication of this contribution, all scholars had approved – indeed, with rather good reason – Gomperz’s correction of the περι of the Oxford disegno to παρα, which was apparently unavoidable, given the expected content.137 The meaning and translation of the verse and the following verses had never been called into question: “From Carneades, son of Polemarchus, who died under the archonship of Epicles, Crates of Tarsus took over the school.” Scholars believed that the two corresponding prose versions were firm evidence that the philosopher who succeeded Carneades of Cyrene was also named Carneades (son of Polemarchus).138 Yet, these passages as well as verse 70 had been wrongly reconstructed on the basis of a kind of inherent circularity. The HSI clearly show the sequence προκαρ at the beginning of || führt haben, dass Kleitomachos drei Jahre später (137/136 v. Chr.) bei der Bestellung eines Nachfolgers übergangen wurde. ... Selbst die teilweise verschleiernde Sprache lässt keinen Zweifel daran, dass es sich um eine gewaltsame Besetzung handelte. Ein Zusammenhang mit dem Tod des “älteren” Karneades ist so gut wie sicher ... Offenbar sah sich Kleitomachos nun durch keine Rücksichtnahme mehr gehindert, das Amt für sich einzufordern, das er längst als das seine betrachtete. Ob es bei dem “Einfall” zu Gewalttätigkeiten gekommen ist, wissen wir nicht.“ Also the different versions of the duration of Crates’ scholarchate might hint at a controversy and at conflicts, cf. Görler (1994), pp. 898–901. 135 Cf. the verb ἐπέβαλεν in Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 24,39. 136 This is especially suggested by the fact that his name does not occur in the extended list of pupils of Carneades (Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 22,35–24,mid), which, however, has some lacunae. 137 The phrasing with παρὰ had a close parallel in D.L. 4.60: (sc. Lacydes) παρὰ δ' Εὐάνδρου διεδέξατο Ἡγησίνους Περγαμηνός, ἀφ' οὗ Καρνεάδης. 138 On Carneades ‘the younger’, son of Polemarchus (who is in fact Polemarchus of Nicomedia), see for instance Dorandi (1994), p. 227; Görler (1994), pp. 898–899.

Commentary | 195

the verse. The preposition πρὸ instead of παρὰ changes everything and confirms the existence of Polemarchus (from Nicomedia)139 and the non-existence of a second Carneades. The sentence or verse must mean the following: “When Polemarchus died before Carneades under the archonship of Epicles (131/30 BC), Crates of Tarsus took over the school.” Apollodorus wanted to emphasize the curious fact that although he was Carneades’ successor, Polemarchus died when Carneades was still alive. Polemarchus, whose name must have occurred in the lost verses preceding verse 67 (note the article τοῦ), was probably skilled in dialectic, as emerges from one parallel passage.140 Given the difference in name between Carneades and his successor, there is no longer any reason to speculate that ‘Academic nepotism’ caused a conflict with Clitomachus. Verse 72: The archon Epicles (131/30 BC),141 together with the “six years” of 70, leads to 137/36 BC (exclusive counting) or 136/35 BC (inclusive counting) as the date of Carneades’ withdrawal. The “two years” of verse 74 seem to have been counted “exclusively” on the basis of Epicles (131/30) and the death of Carneades (129/28 BC), so that 137/6 BC might be preferable as withdrawal date. It is possible that Apollodorus applied “exclusive” counting for lower numbers while “counting the archons down” (i.e. adopting inclusive counting) for higher numbers. On the expression τὸν βίον ἐκλείπω see the overview in 4.3. Note that with ἐγλελοι⌈π⌉ότος we have muta cum liquida, but in compounds the preceding vowel becomes long (cf. 4.3) The writing of εγ instead of εκ before nasals is common in Herculanean papyri.142

The scholarch Crates of Tarsus (73–74) The Academic scholarch Crates of Tarsus, who succeeded Polemarchus when Carneades was still alive in 131/30 BC, is not attested outside the Index Academicorum. Verse 73: Crates of Tarsus is otherwise unknown.143 He succeeded Polemarchus in 131/30 BC. In col. 25,43–26,4 Crates is described as a successor and “school|| 139 The ethnicon could be restored in Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 24,32–33 and col. 25,37. For a more detailed discussion see Fleischer (2019a). 140 Col. 25,37–39. Cf. Fleischer (2019a), p. 121. 141 For the date and testimonies for this archon see Dinsmoor (1939), p. 197; Meritt (1977), p. 185. 142 Crönert (1903b), pp. 53–54. 143 On Crates see Görler (1994), p. 898 and Dorandi (1994), p. 495.

196 | Commentary

fellow” (συσχολαστὴς) of Polemarchus, which may be interpreted to the effect that they were not (genuine) pupils of Carneades, but somewhat younger contemporaries (see the commentary on 70). If so, also Crates might have already been rather old when he started leading the Academy. If we take the expression (κ⌈ατέλ⌉ιπεν δὲ || διάδο⌈χ⌉ον) at face value, it was up to Polemarchus to appoint a successor: Carneades may still have played some advisory role, yet would no longer have wielded any formal power.144 Verse 74: The precise duration of Crates’ scholarchate and the date of his death are not entirely certain. The verse does not explicitly say that Crates died in 129/28 BC, but only that Clitomachus entered the Academy with his pupils at a time when Crates had been in charge for two years. The prose version in col. 24,35–38 depends on Apollodorus and the death after two years mentioned there might derive from a wrong understanding of 74. Crates might have been only “expelled” or replaced by Clitomachus, maybe after a period of joint leadership (129/28– 127/26 BC). Such joint leadership is suggested by two passages (col. 25,13–14 and col. 26,3–4) each giving “four years” of leadership for Crates. The information might either derive from a tradition independent from Apollodorus or even go back to a verse of the Chronica in the lost part of col. 30 (after 76). Anyway, Crates might have first died or completely resigned in 127/26 BC.145 The hyper-compound διακατέχω also occurs in Ind. Acad. col. 34,6. The adverb μόνον might also imply that Crates did not die in 129/28 BC, but that he was only squeezed out by Clitomachus and had to share his leadership or even to hand it over entirely.

The scholarch Clitomachus of Carthage – pupil of Carneades (75–78) Upon Carneades’ death, Clitomachus would appear to have moved with his pupils from the Palladion – where he had run a school from 140/39 to 129/28 BC – into the Academy, establishing himself as scholarch (75,76). The whole episode hints at some internal conflicts between Academics in this period.146 Unfortunately, after verse 76 most of col. 30 –ca. 20 verses – is completely lost. The odds are quite good that they contained the biography of Clitomachus and served as

|| 144 Col. 25,43–26,4: κ⌈ατέλ⌉ιπεν δὲ || διάδο⌈χ⌉ον τὸν συσ⌈χο⌉λασ|τὴ⌈ν⌉ Κράτητα Ταρσ⌈έ̣⌉α ⟦⌈τ⌉⟧⸌τ⸍ὸ ⟦⌈σ⌉⟧| γέν⌈ος͙, ἡ⌉γήσατο δ᾿ ⌈ο͙ὗ⌉τ̣[ο]ς̣ ἔτ⌈η⌉ | τέττα⌈ρ⌉α. ⸆ See also Görler (1994), p. 898. 145 Cf. Jacoby (1929), p. 743; Dorandi (1991), pp. 73–74; Görler (1994), pp. 900–901. 146 Cf. Görler (1994), p. 900.

Commentary | 197

the model for the prose version in col. 25,1–18. Verses 77,78 probably represent the end of Clitomachus’ biography (see discussion in 3.6). Verse 75: No doubt, the corresponding prose version in col. 24,38–43 must depend on this and the following verse(s). The missing article suggests that Clitomachus had not been mentioned before. Apollodorus might have first presented Clitomachus as the most renowned of Carneades’ pupils and his (indirect) successor, before focusing his attention on Carneades’ “non-scholarch” pupils, namely Melanthius (79–87), Charmadas (88–100), Zenodorus of Tyre and Antipater of Alexandria (101–105). The Palladion was a public building complex somehow related to the palladium, a cult image of Athena, and which chiefly served as a murder court. Some archaeological remains including a portico located south of the Acropolis might be attributed to the Palladion.147 Clitomachus established his own school there in 140/39 BC and held it for about eleven years.148 Also another famous pupil of Carneades, Charmadas of Alexandria, set up his own school outside the Academy a bit later, in the Athenian gymnasium called “Ptolemaion” (98–100). Verse 76: The verb ⌈μ̣⌉ε⌈τ⌉ῆλθ̣ε sounds less dramatic than ἐπέβαλεν in the corresponding prose version (col. 24,39), which some scholars have taken to indicate an unwelcome invasion.149 Yet, something in the following lost/fragmentary verse might have justified that prose rephrasing.150 The fact remains that Clitomachus entered the Academy with (many) pupils. There is no other example of a genuine preposition being turned into a postposition in the original verses of the Chronica, wherefore I am inclined to reject Gomperz’s γνω[ρίμων | πολλῶν μέτα and have not printed it in the text. His suggestion is a kind of awkward enjambment. To be sure, the sense is provided by the prose parallel (μετὰ πολλ⌈ῶν⌉ γ̣νωρίμων)151, but a dative, for instance at the end of the verse, might be arguable as well. Ca. 20 lost/fragmentary verses between 76 and 77: The lost verses after 76 may have contained the information in col. 24,38–25,18, i.e. Clitomachus’ biography, which Apollodorus may have embedded in the Chronica at the time of Carneades’ || 147 Cf. Wileman (2015), p. 45. Travlos (1971), p. 291 fig. 379 and pp. 412–16. 148 Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 25,8–11. 149 See for instance Görler (1994), p. 900. 150 Note, however, that the composer of this version, probably Philodemus, might have misunderstood the information about Crates’ two-year leadership in the Chronica. This does not really make him reliable when it comes to the nuance of the word ἐπέβαλεν. 151 Col. 24,40.

198 | Commentary

death and the entering of Clitomachus into the Academy. The mention of Carneades’ death in verse 64 makes it seem less likely that Apollodorus came back to Carneades and gave his late biography and death first in the lost verses. As argued in 3.6, the prose version of Clitomachus’ biography in col. 25, with all the detailed archon dates, is likely to depend on the Chronica. In col. 30,14–15, i.e. probably at the beginning of the third verse after 76, I was able to restore λ]αμπρ⌈ο͙⌉|[τ-, which could be a reference to Clitomachus either as the most brilliant of Carneades’ pupils or as someone who was already famous in his home town. The proper “date-based” biography with all the numbers and archons, as occurring in col. 25, probably began with this or the following verse. From the information provided by the ca. 17 prose lines in col. 25152 we may extrapolate a number of ca. 25 poetic (trimeter) lines, which would equal ca. 15 verses (written more or less in col. 30,15–40). After the “dates” there may have been about 5 verses of further general information on Clitomachus, two of which are represented by verses 77,78. If the subject of the lost part of col. 30 was really the biography of Clitomachus – which I think is the most likely assumption (3.6) – an omission in this section seems very unlikely. Verse 77: Column 31 begins with the second part of a trimeter (verse 77). As discussed in 3.6, this and the following verse may alternatively be referred to Carneades’ participation in the philosophers’ embassy of 155 BC, but the reference might be too unspecific (ποτὲ) for an assignment to Carneades and we would expect the mention of this embassy already in the 3rd book, not in the 4th book. Although participation in an embassy on Clitomachus' part is not attested otherwise, it should be noted that at some point he was awarded Athenian citizenship,153 and that the Athenians sent many philosophers on embassies. Antiochus of Ascalon engaged in various diplomatic activities on behalf of the Athenians, too, which are exclusively mentioned in the Index Academicorum.154 Given the relative scarcity of testimonies on Clitomachus, such an embassy – not something particularly noteworthy for a philosopher with connections with the Romans – may have easily been forgotten by the tradition. Apollodorus could not assign this diplomatic activity of Clitomachus to a specific year (ποτὲ). We may also consider the remote possibility that the verses refer to Metrodorus of Stra-

|| 152 Assuming that Philodemus only added the alternative death date for Apollodorus in col. 25,16–17. 153 Mette Kleitomachos T 1b. 154 Phld. Ind. Acad. 34,37–41; cf. Puglia (2000), p. 23.

Commentary | 199

tonicea, who would not appear to have been mentioned in the Philodemus excerpt of the Chronica and is dealt with in one parallel prose version after the mention of Polemarchus and Crates (col. 25,4ff.). Verse 78: No sources inform us that Clitomachus went to Rome as an ambassador, but during his scholarchate and teaching in the Palladion, many Roman noblemen visited Athens, not least to pursue philosophical studies.155 Clitomachus devoted two of his books to two different Roman noblemen.156 Hence, a short stay in Rome on Clitomachus᾿ part on the occasion of an embassy would not really be a huge surprise. Obviously, in Rome he was successful in some matter (παρῆν τ᾿ ἐπ[ι]τυγχάνων). The statement is trivial and does not necessarily refer to the philosophers’ embassy of 155 BC, which, through the participation of Carneades, mitigated the fine imposed on the Athenians for their actions against the Oropians. Whether there is a connection between the fall of Clitomachus’ hometown Carthage in 146 BC, to which he addressed a consolatory epistle,157 and the embassy to Rome is uncertain. Probably he was sent on the embassy when he already enjoyed a certain reputation, which is to say hardly earlier than the founding of his own school in the Palladion in 140/39 BC and maybe after becoming scholarch of the Academy in 129/28 BC.

Melanthius of Rhodes – pupil of Carneades (79–87) Melanthius of Rhodes enjoyed some fame as a tragedian, before he became an Academic philosopher. He studied with Aristarchus of Samothrace in Alexandria, probably around the time when Apollodorus was his pupil. Apollodorus may already have known Melanthius from Alexandria (2.2). The verses devoted to Melanthius are valuable, since we do not know much about him from other sources. Cicero praises his suavitas158 and a certain Aeschines of Neapolis was Melanthius’ student and beloved.159 We learn from these verses that Melanthius preferred Athens over Alexandria as a place where to study and enjoyed either the richness of Athenian philosophical teaching or personal wealth. He might

|| 155 Cf. Habicht (1999), pp. 293–294. 156 L. Marcius Censorinus and C. Lucilius (Cic. Luc. 102 = Mette Kleitomachos F 4); see Görler (1994), pp. 901–902. 157 Görler (1994), p. 902. 158 Cic. Luc. 16. 159 In Ind. Acad. col. 35,22–37 a list of pupils of Melanthius (and also of Aeschines’ pupils?) occurrs, in which Aeschines is mentioned expressis verbis as Melanthius’ pupil, cf. Fleischer (2020b).

200 | Commentary

even have set up an own school, if he did not lecture within the Academy. His dates might be assigned to ca. 180/170–110 BC. Verse 79: A paragraphus in the papyrus indicates a new section of Apollodorus’ account. One may consider the remote possibility that there was even an omission between verse 78 and 79, for instance a possible account on Metrodorus of Stratonicea or even on Clitomachus. The address to a person, who surely (μὴν) knows Melanthius or the following information about him, is of particular interest. On some thoughts on the identity of the addressee (of the 4th book of the Chronica) see 3.8. Interestingly, the ethnicon of Melanthius (“from Rhodes”) is omitted.160 This may indeed indicate that Apollodorus and his addressee were so familiar with Melanthius that an ethnic specification was not necessary or even unconsciously skipped. In addition to Cicero and Diogenes Laertius, Melanthius’ origin is also mentioned in Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 23,14–15. A new reading in this passage has also revealed the name of Melanthius’ father: Aristeus.161 The verb ⌈γι⌉νώσκ⌈εις⌉ with a missing γ is κοινή-Greek (see 4.3) and the accusative in the main clause is proleptic. Verse 80: Wilamowitz162 was the first to identify, on basis of this verse, the Academic philosopher Melanthius of the Chronica with the tragic poet Melanthius, whose only preserved verse “(sc. θύμος) τὰ δεινὰ πράττει τὰς φρένας μετοικίσας” is transmitted five times in ancient literature.163 We do not know when and where Melanthius was awarded a crown at tragic competition (τραγωιδίαι … ἐστεφανωμένο[ς]), but Rhodes – at a time when he was still rather young – might be the most natural assumption. The interpretation of the traces in the Oxford disegno is not entirely certain, but likely. For π̣⸍⌈οτ͙⌉᾿ compare verse 77 and on the coniugatio periphrastica in general see 4.3. Verse 81: From this verse we learn that Melanthius must have spent some time in Alexandria with Aristarchus (unless one makes the unlikely assumption that he was for a very short time Aristarchus’ pupil after his expulsion from Alexandria) before moving to Athens. Given the probable dates for Melanthius, his sojourn in Alexandria may date to the period 155–145 BC and partly coincide with

|| 160 For Melanthius see Capelle (1931); Dorandi (1991), pp. 74–75; Görler (1994), p. 909; Dorandi (2005b), pp. 383–384. 161 Cic. Luc. 16; D.L. 2,64. For the new reading see Fleischer (2019c), pp. 129, 132. 162 Wilamowitz (1894). 163 Plut. De cohibenda ira 453E; De sera numinis vindicta 551; Julian ep. 60,9; Sokr. Hist. eccl. 3,3; Scholia in Hesiodum ad opera et dies 336.

Commentary | 201

the stay there of the author of this verse, Apollodorus, who was also a pupil of Aristarchus. It is very likely that Apollodorus knew Melanthius from Alexandria and could embed the information of this verse in the Chronica “based on his own experience” (see 2.2). Also Charmadas, who left Alexandria in 146/45 BC, may have known Melanthius from Alexandria. There has been the rather persistent theory among modern scholars that verse 81 influenced the phrasing of Ps-Scymnus 21 (biography of Apollodorus): συνεσχολακὼς δὲ πολὺν Ἀριστάρχῳ χρόνον.164 However, as argued in 2.2, there are good reasons to assume that this particular verse had no impact whatsoever on the phrasing of Pseudo-Scymnus, which, however, might echo a similar phrasing in the proem of the Chronica.165 The verb (participle) is frequently used and might mean “being a pupil”, but could also indicate some kind of assistance provided to the teacher.166 The indication of time ἱκανὸ⌈ν⌉ … χρόνον is not specific, but only means a considerable amount of time. Verse 82: The restoration of this and the following verse has been the subject of an article of mine on the Chronica verses devoted to Melanthius.167 My restoration ἐ̣π̣ὶ̣ there is in fact more of a supplement than it is a restoration, since almost no traces survive. Yet, my subsequent experience168 with the Oxford disegni leads me to accept the reading ὡ⌈ς⌉ of the disegno as opposed to Jacoby’s ὢ⌈ν͙⌉, not least since the coniugatio periphrastica ἦν … ὢ⌈ν͙⌉ would be rather awkward. The ὡ⌈ς⌉ might either go together only with ἐ̣π̣ὶ̣ σχο̣λ̣ῆς or introduce a clause covering the entire next verse, on which see the commentary on 83. I have interpreted ἐ̣π̣ὶ̣ σχο̣λ̣ῆς to mean leisure time or “studies“.169 The location ἐν⌉⸍ Ἀθήναις corresponds to a “fictional” ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείαι, which is implied by Ἀριστάρχωι in 81. Melanthius much preferred (πολύ ... μᾶλλον) to spend his time in Athens than in Alexandria. There is also a loose parallel between ἱκανὸ⌈ν⌉ … χρόνον and πολύ ... μᾶλλον, inasmuch the latter obviously implies a comparatively longer time in

|| 164 Jacoby (1902), p. 4 (paragraph 11), 15–17. 165 Boshnakov (2004), p. 26; Bravo (2009), pp. 27–29. 166 Cf. 2.1. 167 Fleischer (2018c). 168 The article was submitted in 2015, before I began my extended, full-time study of this work (in Naples). 169 LSJ (freq. with preps., ἐπὶ σχολῆς at leisure); cf. for instance Plut. Cato Mai. 3,7: καὶ φανεὶς ἡδὺς μὲν ἐπὶ σχολῆς συνεῖναι φίλοις; Plut. Demetr. 4,4: καὶ τοῦ νεανίσκου καθάπερ εἰώθει γενομένου παρ’ αὐτῷ καὶ συνόντος ἐπὶ σχολῆς; Ps.-Plut. Vitae decem oratorum 840E: ἀναλαμβάνων ἐπὶ σχολῆς τὰς παλαιὰς τραγῳδίας; Pl. Tht. 180b: ἀλλ' οἶμαι τὰ τοιαῦτα τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἐπὶ σχολῆς φράζουσιν; Suda: ε 2654 ἀπραγμόνως φιλοσοφεῖν, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ εὐκαιρίας ἢ ἀργίας; cf. Fleischer (2018c), p. 22.

202 | Commentary

Athens. Alternatively, I thought about the supplement ὁ̣λ̣ο̣σχε̣⌈ρ̣⌉ὴς, which might fit the disegno and the original even better. Yet, its meaning would not be obvious. Maybe the many teaching opportunities in Athens made Melanthius feel like finally a “complete” scholar, whatever this may mean. Verse 83: The syntactical nature and meaning of this verse is problematic. First, the question arises whether one should divide the sequence of letters as ἄλλως or ἀλλ᾿ ὡς. The latter normally goes along with a comparison (negation in the preceding clause) and I found it difficult to integrate ἀλλ᾿ ὡς into the (supposed) syntax, but considering the lacuna it is certainly possible. However, also the adverb ἄλλως is often used for comparisons. When it simply means “otherwise” or “besides”, it is normally coupled with another particle or adverb, which is not the case here, where it is directly related to the participle. Consequently, the adverb too causes some difficulties. I have argued that the expression ὑ⟦ ̣⌈ν⟧⸌π⸍ά⌉[ρχων] ἐν μεγάλη‹ι› περιου̣σ̣ί̣α‹̣ ι› describes Melanthius as a very wealthy man. The term ἐν περιουσίαι normally refers to wealth and there exist two rather close parallels for the expression in this verse in ancient literature.170 In this case, the verse would provide some information on Melanthius which is independent from his whereabouts and refers to his general living situation or standard. My new reading περιου̣σ̣ί̣α‹̣ ι› replaces the περισ[τάσει (“difficult position”) of former editors, which is no longer possible.171 Now, reading ὡ⌈ς⌉ in verse 82, the assumption that Melanthius’ wealth is referred to might be challenged to some extent and a different interpretation might be arguable, one which is more philosophical and which also fits well with the adverb ἄλλως in this context. We could regard the words from ὡ⌈ς⌉ to περιου̣σ̣ί̣α̣‹ι› as a syntactical unit and translate: “… and he much preferred to be in Athens, as (since?) there, as opposed to Alexandria, was a great abundance of teaching (i.e. he had many more opportunities to spend his leisure time/pursue various kinds of studies).” The advantage of such an interpretation is that the text would explain Melanthius’ preference for Athens, which

|| 170 Strabo 12,3,37,19: τοῦ ἱερέως ὄντος ἐν περιουσίᾳ μεγάλῃ; Philo De virtutibus 91: ἀλλὰ τῶν μὲν ἐν περιουσίᾳ ζώντων, τῶν δ' εἰς ἀπορίαν ἐσχάτην περιηκόντων. Cf. Fleischer (2018c), p. 21. 171 The old restoration can be traced back to Bücheler (1869), cf. Fleischer (2018c), pp. 19–20. Very interestingly, unlike later editors, Jacoby (1902), p. 68 understood the noun in the same sense as περιουσίαι (and not as “difficult position“): “…scheint, falls die Ergänzung richtig ist, in der gleichen Bedeutung zu stehen, wie häufig bei Polybios, aber auch schon bei Antigonos von Karystos, nämlich gleich apparatus, copiae, opulentia. Die ursprüngliche Bedeutung des Wortes ist die παρουσία πλήθους, in der sich auch das Verbaladjektiv περίστατος gebraucht findet.”

Commentary | 203

is what one would expect, and that we would have an implicit point of comparison for ἄλλως. It might be possible that ἐν μεγάλη‹ι› περιου̣σ̣ί̣α‹̣ ι› here does not mean “very wealthy”, but that it rather indicates a broad offer or choice of study places and teachers in Athens. An understanding of verses 82,83 as contrasting the lively philosophical and “Academic” atmosphere in Athens with the presence of only one teacher in Alexandria, namely Aristarchus, might even be preferable to the interpretation that brings the idea of wealth into play. Melanthius might have enjoyed the broad study opportunities in Athens, before he became (mainly) a student of Carneades or even while he was studying under him. The “flow” of the clause and its inner “philosophical” coherence might favor this understanding.172 Verse 84: Now Melanthius’ discipleship with Carneades seems to have been mentioned. The supplement ἀ̣[κο]υ̣σ̣τ̣ή̣ς̣, for instance, is possible. The phrasing would have a close parallel in 101. Given Melanthius’ earlier career as a tragic poet and his stay in Alexandria, he could hardly have been a very young man when he attended Carneades’ lectures for the first time.173 One lost/fragmentary verse between 84 and 85: The reconstruction of the verse depends on the exact placement of a sottoposto, which is mainly preserved in the Oxford disegno and must in any case be corrected. For the beginning one may tentatively consider ἀ̣π͙⌉ὸ ⌈μ⌉η̣⌈χα͙ν͙⌉[ῆς or ἀ̣π͙⌉ὸ ⌈μ⌉η̣⌈δ͙ε͙ν͙⌉[ὸς, but the whole thing is rather wobbly. At the end of the verse the disegno and original papyrus allow for κ̣˹έ̣ντρω˺[ι τε] κ̣α ̣ ὶ, but maybe the disegno must be changed in order to avoid the somehwat unexpected κ̣˹έ̣ντρω˺[ι. Given the wide range of possible supplements with various meanings, I have decided not to integrate this fragmentary verse in the collection.

|| 172 However, I do not wish to entirely discard my earlier interpretation of these verses as suggesting that Melanthius was wealthy, as this might be supported by his possession of a wellknown garden, where he seems to have taught. Ps.-Plut. Vitae decem oratorum 842E: ἐτάφη (sc. Lycurgus) δ' αὐτὸς καὶ τῶν ἐκγόνων τινὲς δημοσίᾳ· καὶ ἔστιν αὐτῶν τὰ μνήματα ἄντικρυς τῆς Παιωνίας Ἀθηνᾶς ἐν τῷ Μελανθίου τοῦ φιλοσόφου κήπῳ, τράπεζαι πεποιημέναι, αὐτοῦ τε τοῦ Λυκούργου καὶ τῶν παίδων αὐτοῦ ἐπιγεγραμμέναι καὶ εἰς ἡμᾶς ἔτι σῳζόμεναι. On the location of Melanthius’ garden see Ruggeri (2013), p. 113. Cf. also Fleischer (2018c), pp. 22–23. 173 Non-Athenian (Academic) philosophers normally began their studies in Athens in their early/mid-twenties, cf. the overview in Fleischer (2018a), p. 125. If the participle in 81 really indicates some kind of assistance to Aristarchus, Melanthius might have already been in his late twenties when he arrived in Athens.

204 | Commentary

Verse 85: The beginning of the verse may for instance allow for β̣ί̣αι or ἰδ̣ί̣αι, depending on whether one assigns the iota to this or the preceding verse. The reading πρὸς α⌈ὐ͙̣⌉τὸν τ[ was made possible by placing a sovrapposto and a sottoposto. I was able to confirm Mekler’s Ἀκ[α]δημ̣είαι and establish σχολὴ̣ν by means of a sottoposto. We know of at least one pupil of Melanthius, which may imply that he lectured on his own or even ran his own school.174 The supplement τ᾿ [ἐν is not unlikely. The question must remain open whether the verse refers to a possible teaching of Melanthius within the Academy or to Carneades’ teaching there. It is even possible that a kind of conflict between Melanthius and Carneades is alluded to, but maybe only Melanthius’ attendance of Carneades’ lectures or his own lectures are being dealt with. The fragmentary state of the surrounding verses should discourage any far-reaching conclusions. Ca. 5 lost/fragmentary verses between 85 and 86: Although the following lines in the papyrus are too damaged to allow us to isolate any verses and include them in this collection, at least a few isolated words can be read. Immediately after verse 85 ὕ⌈σ⌉[τε|˹ρ͙ο͙˺ν̣ is possible, but this supplement causes some metrical difficulties given the subsequent strings of letters. In the following verse, I read σ̣υγγ⌉ρα[, which may refer to some books of Melanthius, which might have inspired Cicero’s judgment regarding his suavitas.175 Next, we can read ἀ̣[λ]λοτρι⌈ο⌉[ ̣ ̣ , which could imply a certain heterodoxy or straying on Melanthius’ part, but alternative suggestions are arguable as well. A few lines later, in the verse before 86, we read ζην[ ̣ ], which might be associated with the death of Melanthius.176 If Melanthius died before or around the age of 70, his death could still have been reported by Apollodorus in the Chronica. An omission in this lacuna is unlikely. Verse 86: Given the handling of the line division in the papyrus and the general context, the restoration ἀ]κ̣ρ̣ο̣ωμ̣έν̣ο̣υς seems likely. In Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 25,10 the verb συνέχω is used for running a school; it is conceivable here, too. 177 However, a division ν ἔσχε is also possible. The reference is most probably Melanthius, unless the text is saying that a pupil (Aeschines of Neapolis?) took over his pupils.

|| 174 D.L. 2,64; Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 35,22–27, see Fleischer (2020b). 175 Cic. Luc. 16. Görler (1994), p. 909 translates: “Angenehmer Stil”. 176 Cf. verse 36. Another option might be the name of Zenodorus of Tyre (101–105), but there is no obvious connection between the two philosophers. 177 For the passage see 3.6.

Commentary | 205

If the verse preceding 86 really mentioned Melanthius’ death, this verse may have provided some general information on his teaching or pupils. Verse 87: A question of some importance is whether the η in ἐπιεικ͙η⌉[ (it is clear in the disegno) was in fact corrected (see apparatus). In the original there may be an ε written above the line and the η may have been erased, but it is difficult to tell for sure. Maybe we are dealing with a different layer. Assuming an η, as I have, the adjective most likely refers to Melanthius in the nominative and the accusative ⌈καλ⌉ο̣κ[αγα]θ̣[ί]α̣ν refers to it. If we consider an accusative singular, the adjective could refer to the noun (“regarded the goodness as more...”) or, less likely, to Melanthius. Assuming that there was a correction in the papyrus, the nominative or accusative plural ἐπιεικ͙⟦η⟧`ε´[ῖς] is almost unavoidable and should refer to the pupils of 86. Ca. 6 lost/fragmentary verses between verses 87 and 88 (omission unlikely): Most probably at the end of the verse following 87 we read in col. 32,28 βίωι, for which one might compare verse 107. There might be parts of a paragraphus at the beginning of line 28, which would imply that the passage on Melanthius ended with βίωι and the verses on Charmadas started at this line. An omission of some verses by Philodemus in the lacuna seems unlikely. The pupils of Carneades were most probably presented by Apollodorus en bloc.

Charmadas of Alexandria – pupil of Carneades (88–100) Charmadas (ca. 168–103/91 BC) figures among the most prominent Academics of his age and seems to have been the youngest (distinguished) pupil of Carneades mentioned in the Chronica.178 Much information about his biography is practically only preserved in the Chronica. From a new reading in 88 we learn that his hometown was Alexandria. He arrived in Athens at the age of 22 and attended Carneades’ lectures for seven years, before moving to Asia for some time. Despite his reputation there, he returned to Athens, was granted Athenian citizenship and received a school in the Ptolemaion. He always stuck firm to Academic doctrines, although he may have introduced some innovations or changes. He was a gifted rhetorician, famed for his outstanding memory. Along with Philo he is associated with a “Fourth Academy”.179 The last preserved verse on him (100), as

|| 178 On Charmadas see especially Görler (1994), pp. 906–908; Brittain (2001), pp. 312–328. Further thoughts in Tarrant (1985) and Lévy (2005), pp. 60–70. 179 S.E. P. 1 235; Eus. PE 14,4,16 (= Brittain XXIII and XXVIII).

206 | Commentary

well as a present tense in 95, shows that he was still alive when Apollodorus composed the Chronica. Charmadas left Alexandria in 146/45 BC, possibly motivated to do so by the (looming) persecution of intellectuals by Ptolemy VIII. Apollodorus may have known Charmadas personally from Alexandria (cf. 2.2). Verse 88: The first three words κ̣α⌈̣ τὰ⌉ τὴ̣ν ⌈Ἀλ͙⌉ε̣ξ̣ά̣ν̣δρει̣α̣ν̣ have been newly read180 and reveal Charmadas’ origin for the first time: he was Alexandrian. The remote possibility that he only dwelled there before his move to Athens could be excluded based on a subsequent new reading and interpretation of a passage within a list of pupils of Carneades (Phld. Ind. Acad. col 23,7–10). So far, the passage had been transcribed as follows: Phld. Ind. Acad. (PHerc. 1021), col. 23,7–10 (Dorandi 1991): 7

10

Ἀγαθο[κ]λῆς Τύριος, οὗ δοκεῖ πολλὰ̣ μεμιμῆσθαι ⟦Χ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ⟧⸌Χαρ̣μάδας⸍ ⟦δ̣ ̣ ̣ ⟧, Ἀ̣ν̣ τίπατρ[ος] Ἀλεξανδρεύς, [Ἵπ]παρχο[ς Ἰ]λ⸌ι⸍εύς, κτλ.

However, I have argued in detail (2019b) that the evidence from the original and the disegno must in all likelihood be transcribed and interpreted to the effect that the name Charmadas was intended to appear twice in the passage, suggesting that his Alexandrian origin was indicated. I have proposed the following transcription: Phld. Ind. Acad. (PHerc. 1021), col. 23,7–10 (Fleischer 2019b): 7

10

Ἀγα⌈θοκ͙⌉λῆς Τύριος, οὗ ⌈δοκεῖ⌉ πολλ⌈ὰ⌉ μεμιμῆσθαι Χ⌈αρ⌉μ⌈ά⌉- ⸌Χα⌈ρμά⌉-⸍ {⟦}δ⌈α⌉ς{〛}, ⸌δας [καὶ]⸍ [Ἀ]ντίπατρος Ἀλε⌈ξ͙αν⌉δρε⌈ῖ͙⌉ς, [Ἵπ]παρχος̣ [Ἰ]λ̣⸌ι⸍εύς, κτλ. “(The pupils of Carneades were) … Agathocles of Tyre, whom Charmadas seems to have imitated a lot, Charmadas and Antipater, both Alexandrians, Hipparchus of Ilion, …”

The double reading of Charmadas in col. 23 now has an even more solid basis owing to a β that has been identified in the left margin of col. 23 (on basis of the

|| 180 Fleischer (2014a), p. 67.

Commentary | 207

HSI, which were not yet available when the above new reading was first put forward).181 The letter suggests that someone wanted to point out that the double occurrence of the name (β=2) in the passage was sound. The superlative in 88 [ἐ]λλογιμώτα̣τ̣ ̣ ̣ most likely refers to Charmadas, or alternatively to (one of) his teachers or parents.182 Maybe he had already pursued studies in grammar, rhetoric or philology in Alexandria. Yet, we should bear in mind that one of Carneades’ pupils, Zenodorus of Tyre, ran a school in Alexandria (103–105 and Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 23,2–3) and that also Antipater of Alexandria might be associated with the city (104), wherefore Charmadas may have already received some Academic teaching before attending Carneades’ lectures in Athens. Be that as it may, it is noteworthy that Charmadas possibly left Alexandria at the same time as Melanthius (83,84) and Apollodorus of Athens. This fact might have somehow influenced Apollodorus’ mention of this part of Charmadas’ biography. Verse 89: The archon Aristophantos is now dated to 146/45 BC. While this dating is not entirely certain,183 it is certainly intriguing, inasmuch as it strongly hints at a connection between Charmadas’ leaving Alexandria and the expulsion of intellectuals by Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II in 145 BC. Even assuming that Charmadas was not affected directly, the departure of his teachers and other renowned scholars might have been reason enough for him to abandon Alexandria.184 Charmadas had not travelled to Athens (Attica) before (πρῶτον). Obviously, Attica is simply a geographical synonym (totum pro parte) for Athens and it is used for metrical reasons. Verse 90: The verb κατέπλευσ᾿ supports the idea of an Alexandrian origin to some extent, since it excludes at least a few mainland Greek cities from which one would not travel by ship to Athens. The double ε has not been corrected (see apparatus), which is unusual for the papyrus. It is possible that the two ε have been written for the sake of clarity and that they already occurred in the original. It is remarkable that Apollodorus could make this exact statement about Charmadas’ age at the time of his arrival in Athens – maybe it is a hint at personal con-

|| 181 On the HSI see A. Tournie et al. (2019). 182 Cf. Fleischer (2014a), p. 67 with n. 18. 183 Habicht (1988), pp. 244–246. 184 On the impact of this persecution on Alexandrian intellectual life see, for instance, Athen. Deipnosoph. 4,83; Polybius 34,14; other sources in Fraser (1972), pp. 216–217; on the expulsion see Hatzimichali (2011), pp. 27–29.

208 | Commentary

tacts of his and/or at the mention of the birth archon in the fragmentary preceding verses. We may compare his age upon arrival in Athens with that of other second-century BC Academics landing in Athens: Clitomachus of Carthage was 24 when he reached Athens and so was Philo of Larissa.185 Verse 91: Note the approximative ὡς. Perhaps Apollodorus was uncertain about the exact period in which Charmadas attended Carneades’ lectures (ca. 146/45– 139/38) and consequently refrained from giving an exact archon date. Carneades withdrew from active teaching in 137/36 BC (67,68). Other verses having “article+Carneades” at the beginning are 54,68,84,101. Verse 92: Charmadas’ success (εὐ⌈η⌉μερῶν) in Asia (sc. Minor) most probably means that he was roaming the area and teaching at several places, attracting huge crowds of students. One can only speculate why Charmadas left Athens. Was he driven by financial needs or was he just looking for an opportunity to gain teaching experience, which might have been difficult in Athens at that time? The HSI make Puglia’s conjecture ἐ̣ν̣ | [Ἀ]σ̣[ί]αι in col. 35,37–38 possible (list of Charmadas’ pupils).186 The expression seems to refer to Charmadas’ teaching in Asia Minor. Verse 93: Charmadas was seen the “most copious” (⌈πολ⌉υχούστ̣[α]τ̣ος) of the (Academic) philosophers of his age (τῶν καθ᾿ αὑ⌈τ⌉ὸν). The adjective even evoked a reference to this verse in LSJ: “metaph. of a writer or orator, copious, τῶν καθ’ αὑτὸν πολυχούστατος Phld.Acad.Ind.p.102 M., cf. Rh.1.157.” The parallel in Philodemus’ Rhetorica reads:187 “… καὶ δὶα τὸ πολύχους θέλειν φαίνεσθαι [π]ολλὰς ποιούμενος [π]αρεκβάσεις …”. The translation “effusive” might be fitting, too. Anyway, the Greek as well as the English translation is somewhat ambiguous.188 Is Apollodorus referring to the number of books written by Charmadas or to his style/rhetoric? Or, indeed, to the broad range of his studies and their possibly innovative character? Against the first interpretation one may note that the contemporary Clitomachus is credited with having written more than 400 books.189 Could Charmadas really have surpassed this number? With respect to the parallel || 185 Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 25,2–7 (Clitomachus, however, first began his studies four years after his arrival) and col. 33,4–7. 186 In Fleischer (2015c), p. 51 n. 13 I still thought that the traces would exclude a ν at the end of line 37, but this now does not seem necessarily the case. 187 Sudhaus (1892), p. 157 (col. XIV,8–11). 188 Brittain (2001), p. 317 translates “prolific”. 189 D.L. 4,67 (Mette Kleitomachos T 1a), cf. for the number of books also Cic. Luc. 16.

Commentary | 209

in Philodemus’ Rhetorica, we might think of his rhetorical qualities.190 The rhetorical-persuasive qualities of Charmadas are also alluded to in 95.191 Hence, the adjective could refer to Charmadas’ style and rhetorical ability.192 The Latin copiosus is frequently used in a rhetorical context and ⌈πολ⌉υχούστ̣[α]τ̣ος might be the (or one) Greek synonym. A third possibility would be that the superlative alludes to Charmadas’ general innovations, or refinements and elaborations, or to his copious knowledge of all aspects of Academic philosophy. Coupled with the εὐ⌈η⌉μερῶν in 94, the adjective could even signify his reputation and a huge number of pupils. The superlative may signify various aspects of Charmadas’ activities, while a rhetorical understanding prevails in my opinion. Although the positive and comparative forms of the adjective are frequently used, there is only one other attestation of its superlative in ancient literature.193 Verse 94: Dorandi’s edition still had πάλιν εἰ]ς̣ Ἀθήνας ἦλ||θ[ε καὶ] ταύταις ἐ[νὼν as a reconstruction for the verse. Without any autopsy, Bravo (2009) had already suggested κἀν ταύταις,194 which I was able to confirm on the basis of the MSI and of an autopsy (2014a). The HSI have now finally confirmed ἔτ̣η. Verse 95: Basically, the new readings in this verse (particularly ἄγ̣ε̣ι)̣ clarify the overall structure of the sentence and give some important new information on Charmadas’ rhetorical skills. However, what might be most interesting is the present tense (ἔτ̣η | ἄγ̣ε̣ι)̣ . In Dorandi the verse still reads καὶ]| θ̣αυμάτων, ος ποικ[ί]λως {τ᾿} ἐ[πά]|θαιν᾿ ὄχλους and all the corrections should have cast some suspicion on the reconstruction. Most notably, the apparently rather certain θ̣αυμάτων turns into the participle δυ⌈ν͙ά⌉μ̣ενος. No doubt, this example shows how new editions of the papyrus benefit from the MSI/HSI, which Dorandi (1991) could not exploit yet. The difference between the past tense ἦ͙⌉λ⌈θ⌉ε̣ in 94 and the present tense ἄγ̣ε̣ι̣ in this verse might be noteworthy. Charmadas died some time between 103 and 91 BC, in any case after the publication of the Chronica. His

|| 190 Cf. Cic. Luc. 16; Or. 51; De Or. I 84–93; S.E. Adv. math. 2,20–47. On Charmadas’ rhetoric see Brittain (2001), pp. 319–328. 191 Brittain (2001), pp. 318–319 even imagines Charmadas teaching rhetoric in the Ptolemaion, but this is far from certain (cf. Fleischer (2014a), p. 71). 192 Cf. Dorandi (1991), p. 198: “… piú facondo di quelli che erano con lui”. Bravo (2009), p. 154: “… et était considéŕe comme le plus eloquent de ses contemporains…”. 193 Theophr. De causis plant. 4,15,2. 194 Actually Bravo (2009), p. 153 prints κἂν in his edition (and in the text), which, unfortunately, I adopted rather carelessly in Fleischer (2014a). Of course, Bravo and I both thought of the crasis καὶ ἐν, which in fact has no grave accent.

210 | Commentary

death is not mentioned in the following verses. A kind of durative historic present is not to be excluded, but the present tense seems to indicate that he still “spends his years” in Athens, meaning that he is still alive. The imperfect ἦγεν or the aorist ἤγαγε would have been metrically equivalent, so the present tense might have been used on purpose here. LSJ mentions several examples of ἄγω indicating a passing of time in this sense, whereas some closer parallels in Cassius Dio might be due to a “Latinizing” of the Greek.195 The newly read participle δυ⌈ν͙ά⌉μ̣ενος matches the newly read infinitive πε̣ί̣θειν. The expression ποικ[ί]λως πε̣ί̣θειν ὄχλους might refer more to Charmadas’ rhetorical repertoire than to his philosophical persuasion (note especially the term ὄχλους). Maybe Charmadas gave some declamatory speeches with a philosophical-protreptic character or, considering the awarding of citizenship mentioned in 98, he may have been a good advisor or orator on Athenian political issues. Obviously, he was a kind of “demagogue” and could sway his audience. The characterization of one of his pupils, Phanostratos of Tralleis, is reminiscent of this verse.196 Verse 96: The expression γραμμάτων ἔμπειρος replaces the previous πραγμάτων ἔμπειρος, which scholars had taken as evidence of a general experience or political engagement on Charmadas’ part.197 Although the new reading in 95 (see commentary) and the awarding of citizenship (98) make it entirely possible that Charmadas was somehow involved in political affairs, this verse can no longer be invoked as a relevant testimony on the matter. Charmadas’ experience in literature/grammar implies that he had interests and probably a thorough education extending beyond Academic philosophy. This might be rooted in his early years in Alexandria, where – if the superlative in 88 refers to him – he may have excelled in philology or grammar studies. He may even have attended lectures by

|| 195 LSJ (ἄγω): “… of Time, pass, ἀπήμαντον ἄγων βίοτον Pi.O.8.87; ποίας ἡμέρας δοκεῖς μ' ἄγειν S.El.266; ὁ βίος οὑμὸς ἑσπέραν ἄγει Alex.228, cf. ὥραν ἄγειν to be ripe, τῆς γαστρὸς ὥραν ἀγούσης Philostr.VA2.14; ὥραν ἦγε θανάτου Chor.p.38B.; τῆς ἡλικίας ἄγον τὸ ἄνθος Id.p.53 B.; τέταρτον ἔτος ἄγων καὶ τριακοστόν Gal.Lib. Propr. 1.” The examples in Cassius Dio (ἄγω+ἔτη): 40,1,1; 61,3,1; 78,40,3. 196 Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 36,3–5: Φανόστρατο[ς] Τραλ⸌λ⸍ιανὸς | εὖ πρὸς̣ ὄ̣χλ̣ων ψυχαγωγί|αν ἡ⌈ρ͙⌉μ̣ο̣σμέ̣νος· (Fleischer forthcoming); cf. Fleischer (2014b), pp. 476–479 and the additional remarks in Fleischer (2015c), pp. 52–53. 197 Brittain (2001), pp. 318–319 translates “and was sufficiently experienced in political affairs” and adds: “i.e. his skill in public speaking, and his knowledge of political affairs. It is difficult to see how these qualities could explain the grant of citizenship if not as the result of their exercise in connection with Athenian political affairs.” Görler (1994), p. 906 understands “Welterfahrung”, Bravo (2009), p. 154 translates “des affaires”.

Commentary | 211

the most famous Alexandrian grammarian of his time, Aristarchus of Samothrace, as Melanthius (83) and Apollodorus of Athens did (2.2). Apollodorus may have had Charmadas’ possible education in Alexandria in mind, when phrasing this verse. The adjective ἱκανῶν is somewhat problematic. Basically, I approve of Wilamowitz’ correction ἱκανῶ{ν}, since the adverb is frequently used together with adjectives and makes sense. In defense of the reading of the papyrus, one could imagine that ἱκανῶν refers to γραμμάτων and means something like “considerable/sufficient/adequate” literature, but the lexical range of the adjective would seem to weigh against this interpretation.198 Charmadas’ exceptional memory was obviously a “gift from nature”, meaning that it was not mainly acquired through memorization techniques, even though he contributed to such techniques.199 Verse 97: Since the beginning of Charmadas’ biography and consequently his name are missing from the papyrus (which is highly fragmentary), the identification of the philosopher described in these verses is largely based on this and the preceding verse, especially on ⌈κα⌉[ὶ] φύσει μνήμων. The extraordinary memory of Charmadas is referred to by several ancient sources.200 The reason why Charmadas “easily” (ῥα⌈ιδίως⌉) obtained Athenian citizenship and got the school in the Ptolemaion might have been the various qualities listed in 95–97, but ἀ⌈ν͙εγ⌉ν̣⌈ω⌉κὼς δὲ π⌈ο⌉λλ⌈ὰ⌉ seems to provide the main reason for the adverb.201 I do not think that “having read much”202 is still a fitting translation given the new reading γραμμάτων ἔμπειρος in 96. This would be a sort of redundancy or even repetition. We may understand the word here in a broader sense, to mean “read carefully”, i.e. “studied and understands” – one does hardly obtains citizenship “easily” simply by virtue of “reading”. The whole expression ἀ⌈ν͙εγ⌉ν̣⌈ω⌉κὼς δὲ π⌈ο⌉λλ⌈ὰ⌉ might be a circumlocution for “distinguished scholar” and Dorandi’s

|| 198 Cf. Fleischer (2014a), p. 69 n. 26. 199 Cf. the commentary on 97. 200 Plin. NH 7,89; Cic. Tusc. disp. I 59; De Or. II 360; Quint. Inst. 11,2,26; cf. Brittain (2001), p. 315. 201 Brittain (2001), pp. 318–319 (esp. with n. 46) is certainly right, if he explains the adverb with the qualities mentioned earlier (although some aspects of his argument depend on wrong readings), but in defense of Osborne (1983), pp. 104–105 (“and the ease with which he allegedly acquired citizenship is quite intelligible, for the citizenship was by then a readily available commodity to those who desired it”) one may at least mention the awarding of citizenship to Carneades, Clitomachus and also to Agamestor (cf. commentary on 42) in the second century BC. 202 Brittain (2001), p. 318.

212 | Commentary

translation “conoscitore di molte cose” seems to make good sense.203 The participle might indeed, as it were, be used to summarize the above-mentioned skills,204 which depend on the present tense in 95, and thereby be more adequate for the past tense ἔ⟦ ̣⟧⸌τ̣⸍⌈υ͙⌉χε in 98. Verse 98: The new reading κἀνδόξου σχολ⟦α⟧⸌ῆ⸍[ς] replaces Wilamowitz’s conjecture κἀν[ῶ]ιξε (σχολὰ[ς (goes back to Bücheler), which had not been questioned for a century, though a simple look at the original would have been sufficient to falsify it. The “opening of a school” induced scholars to draw several conclusions on Charmadas’ teaching and standing within the Academy.205 Can the new reading be taken to have more or less the same meaning as κἀν[ῶ]ιξε? There might be at least a different connotation, if the new reading does not mean that the school was in fact not Charmadas’ “own” school. The school was granted to him along with the citizenship, if we follow the syntax closely. Given what we know about the Ptolemaion (see the commentary on 99), we may consider the possibility that the Athenians appointed Charmadas as a kind of supervisor or “manager” of the Ptolemaion, which included a library and was mainly associated with the education of ephebes. The question arises whether the school in the Ptolemaion was already renowned (ἐνδόξου) by the time Charmadas “got” (ἔ⟦ ̣⟧⸌τ̣⸍⌈υ͙⌉χε) it or whether he was the first to make the school famous (a kind of ὕστερον πρότερον). Maybe the Athenians had endowed some sort of chair for the education of the ephebes and Charmadas was allowed to lecture on Academic philosophy in the Ptolemaion, but still had to fulfil some library duties and lecture to ephebes. What may speak against the presence of an already established and famous “chair” in the Ptolemaion is the fact that we do not know of a famous school there from any other source. On the other hand, testimonies are equally lacking about a notable (Academic) school that Charmadas run in the Ptolemaion. For sure, it is arguable that the Athenians simply gave him permission to lecture in the Ptolemaion (so he literally had his “own” school there), when mak-

|| 203 Dorandi (1991), p. 198. 204 In Fleischer (2014a), p. 69 I considered – still, to some extent, on the basis of the uncertainty of the reconstruction of the whole clause, which the HSI has now resolved – the possibility of a closer relation with the preceding φύσει μνήμων, but now it seems more reasonable to assume that the participle refers to all qualities mentioned in the preceding verses. 205 For instance, Brittain (2001), p. 319, writes: “… was granted citizenship and opened a school. It is curious that the opening of Charmadas’ school is connected, in the phrasing of the report, to his rhetorical skills and the reward he received. The sort of school which the sentence suggests is an Academic school of rhetoric.”

Commentary | 213

ing him an Athenian citizen, but his activities may have extended beyond philosophy and encompassed civic-educational aspects as part of his teaching there.206 The fact that no “opening” in the papyrus survives as well as the verbs ἔ⟦ ̣⟧⸌τ̣⸍⌈υ͙⌉χε and the new readings in 100 make it at least unlikely that the establishment of ”Charmadas’ school” in the Ptolemaion was due to hostility associated with internal controversies between him and other Academics. By contrast, this might have been a reason for Clitomachus’ lecturing in the Palladion (75,76). Brittain (2001) hypothesized that the school in the Ptolemaion was a rhetoric school.207 On the granting of citizenship to distinguished philosophers see the commentary on 42 and 77. Verse 99: The genitive τῶ[ν] ἀλειφομένων causes some perplexity, but might be explained with Apollodorus’ intention to indicate that the Ptolemaion was a gymnasium, where athletes exercised. Maybe he wanted to avoid confusion, since “Ptolemaion” could have been associated with another place in Athens and not with the gymnasium.208 The supposition that Charmadas’ Alexandrian origin (88) played a role in his “getting” (ἔ⟦ ̣⟧⸌τ̣⸍⌈υ͙⌉χε) the school there is not very likely. The gymnasium was located inside the city walls, close to the agora, and is also known to have been the teaching place of Antiochus of Ascalon at the time Cicero heard one of his lectures.209 Several inscriptions connect the Ptolemaion to the education of ephebes, who were obliged to donate books to the library in the Ptolemaion.210 This library was the first public library in Athens.211 Hence, it is conceivable that a kind of “chair” or “school” was part of the gymnasium which Charmadas “got” or “received” (96,98). His grammatical (96,97) and philosophical skills might have qualified him to be in charge of such a library and school, which might not have had an exclusively Academic character, but was probably

|| 206 For this possibility and the character of the school see also Fleischer (2014a), p. 71. 207 Brittain (2001), pp. 318–319. 208 Discussion of the dedicator in Schaaf (1992), p. 73. Habicht (1982), pp.112–117 makes the point for Ptolemy III Euergetes, whereas Goette/Hammerstaedt (2004), p. 221 favour Ptolemy VI. 209 Cic. De fin. 5,1. See for instance Tsouni (2018), p. 139. For the location cf. Paus. 1,17,2; Plut. Thes. 36,4. 210 IG II² 1006, IG II² 1029, IG II² 1043. On the ephebes see Burckhardt (2007) and Haake (2007), pp. 44–46. On the book donations see esp. the above-mentioned IG II²1029, l. 25: ἀνέθηκαν δὲ] καὶ βυβλία εἰς τὴν ἐν Πτολεμαίῳ βυβλιoθήκην ἕκατον κατὰ [τὸ ψήφισμα. Other inscriptions with book donations: IG II² 1030, l. 36; 1041, l. 22; 1042, l. 1; 1043, l. 50; «Hesperia» XVI (1947), p. 171 n. 67,31; SEG 22,111,30; Agora XV, 304,16 ff. The sources for the Ptolemaion are collected in Wycherley (1957), pp. 142–144 n. 456–463; Bringmann/v. Steuben (1995), pp. 45–48, esp. p. 47. 211 Goette/Hammerstaedt (2004), p. 221.

214 | Commentary

associated with the teaching of ephebes. Interestingly, we read about Charmadas’ legendary memory in Plinius NH 7,89: Carmadas quidem in Graecia quae quis exegerat volumina in bibliothecis legentis modo repraesentavit. This statement could imply – although it certainly does not have to – that Charmadas worked for a certain time in a library (the plural may mean “reading rooms”). The location of the Ptolemaion and its character as a public place for education suggest that Charmadas’ activities there also included some general instruction and not only highly specialized Academic studies. Since Charmadas died between 103 and 91 BC, I may put forward the remote hypothesis that Antiochus of Ascalon, whom Cicero heard in the Ptolemaion in 79 BC, “succeeded” Charmadas directly in the Ptolemaion – not in an institutional sense, but only in terms of the “Academic” presence there. Moreover, it is possible that Charmadas continued to pursue his Academic studies partly or even mainly in the Academy. At any rate, Cicero describes him as having been at the Academy around 110 BC and in 103 BC.212 The extreme assumption, so to speak, would be that the famous school in the Ptolemaion had no relation to Academic philosophy at all and that the exclusive or main place for Charmadas’ teaching of philosophy remained the Academy. Anyway, given all we know about the Ptolemaion, it is not too far-fetched to suppose that Charmadas held a (semi-)public position there and that the Athenians allowed or supported his lecturing there in order to create an intellectual atmosphere in the Ptolemaion.213 For ἐκεῖ at the beginning of a sentence see 92. Verse 100: The restoration of this verse could be regarded as somewhat too daring, but its appearance in the text and not in the apparatus only might be justified for the following reasons. The MSI und HSI show the sequence ιαν at the end of the verse, which is expected for metrical reasons. The Oxford disegno reads ταταν. The traces of the original hint at a χ before the ι, which might have been mistaken for α and the upper left stroke of a τ in the disegno. A search on the TLG did not provide any reasonable supplement for the ending χιαν, while an accusative parallel to ἐξέδραν or somehow defining this word is expected.214 Now, it seems that ἅ⌈μ͙⌉α̣ [καὶ is a suitable supplement, for which one may compare 63. The HSI suggest that the ν of the disegno is in fact a μ – these two letters are often confused.215 || 212 Cic. Or. 1,45; 82; 84. See Görler (1994), p. 907. 213 For a discussion of the character of Charmadas’ school in the Ptolemaion, see also Fleischer (2014a), pp. 69–71. 214 In Fleischer (2014a), pp. 71–72 I was assuming an accusative as well, but considered the possibility of a ξ, which now seems unlikely in the light of the HSI and the Oxford disegno. 215 There seems to be a horizontal rather than an oblique stroke between the vertical ones (cf. especially the μ in col. 32,9).

Commentary | 215

Then we have what is probably the left foot of a letter, which is compatible with α. For reasons of metre and space the supplement σχολα]⌈ρ͙χ͙⌉ίαν is ideal. The vertical stroke of the first τ of the Oxford disegno might in fact be the vertical stroke of the ρ, while its upper right part represents parts of the ρ and the following χ. At the beginning of the verse, after the α there are tiny traces at the top of the line, maybe belonging to a vertical stroke. After a lacuna, the Oxford disegno has a vertical stroke, which is confirmed to some extent by the original. Let us assume for the moment that there really was a vertical stroke. We need a short vowel. I could not find a third person singular verb (present tense) ending in ιν and fitting the context, so that the supplement τιν would be necessary. A verb, which can be referred to both accusatives (the latter an abstractum) might be [ἔχει]. A particle ἄρ̣᾿ could have conclusive/consecutive character: “He got the school in the Ptolemaion. And so (it follows that) he has there (until the present day) an exedra and the scholarchate (leadership).” As the subject of 101 shows, Charmadas first died after the publication of the Chronica (between 103 and 91 BC). A gymnasium normally had more than one exedra, so that Charmadas had one of them (τ̣⌈ι̣ν). However, it cannot be excluded that the vertical stroke of the disegno actually represents the upper part of an original ε, which has been misinterpreted. The original papyrus does not rule it out.216 The verb ἀπέλαβεν is possible and fits the context well. Did Charmadas exercise leadership over the “Ptolemaion institution” (i.e. as scholarch) or was he the head of his own school within the Ptolemaion? The verb may suggest that he received an established school (i.e. was entrusted with the scholarchate) and that he was the head of a kind of public school related to the Ptolemaion. Maybe Charmadas led the Ptolemaion and additionally lectured there in an exedra. So he might have become the head of an already existing school (institution), where he also lectured in Academic philosophy. My σχολα]⌈ρ͙χ͙⌉ίαν deserves some further discussion. Contrary to what one would expect, the word “scholarchate” (σχολαρχία) does not occur in ancient literature. However, there might be good reasons for putting a supplemented hapax legomenon in the text. Except for a few entries in lexica and scholia, the corresponding verb σχολαρχεῖν only occurs three times in “real” literature. All three attestations are to be found in Diogenes Laertius and go back to Apollodorus’ Chronica.217 This || 216 I supposed an aorist in Fleischer (2014a), p. 72. 217 D.L. 4,1: καὶ ἐσχολάρχησεν ἔτη ὀκτώ, ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς ὀγδόης καὶ ἑκατοστῆς Ὀλυμπιάδος· Χαρίτων τ' ἀγάλματ' ἀνέθηκεν ἐν τῷ μουσείῳ τῷ ὑπὸ Πλάτωνος ἐν Ἀκαδημείᾳ ἱδρυθέντι (= Jacoby (1902), 53 a; for the attribution see Jacoby (1902), pp. 312–313); D.L. 4,61: Ἐτελεύτησε δὲ σχολαρχεῖν ἀρξάμενος τῷ τετάρτῳ ἔτει τῆς τετάρτης καὶ τριακοστῆς καὶ ἑκατοστῆς Ὀλυμπιάδος, τῆς σχολῆς ἀφηγησάμενος ἓξ πρὸς τοῖς εἴκοσιν ἔτη· ἡ τελευτὴ δὲ αὐτῷ παράλυσις ἐκ πολυποσίας (= Jacoby (1902), F 69* – I have shown in Fleischer (2021) that this

216 | Commentary

suggests that already Apollodorus may have used this particular rare verb and probably also the corresponding noun σχολαρχία, which has many analogous compounded nouns (compare μοναρχέω – μοναρχία and σχολαρχέω – σχολαρχία). The expression ἅμα καὶ should be a word-group, so the resolution into two brevia is justified.

Antipater of Alexandria and Zenodorus of Tyre – pupils of Carneades (101–105) Now, two less prominent pupils of Carneades, who taught outside Athens, are dealt with: Antipater of Tyre and Zenodorus of Tyre (and not Metrodorus of Stratonicea). Zenodorus taught in Alexandria, maybe after lecturing in Carthage for a while. Antipater might have had pupils in Alexandria as well. Academic activities in Alexandria in the second century BC may suggest that later Academics lecturing or discussing problems in Alexandria (esp. Antiochus of Ascalon and Dio of Alexandria) may have been building upon a certain “Academic” environment in Alexandria established by Academics of earlier generations.218 Verse 101: My new reconstruction of this verse implies that the life of Carneades ended with verse 100. The contrast, to be specified in 102, is between Carneades’ pupils, who lectured in Athens, namely Clitomachus, Melanthius and Charmadas (75–100), and the two pupils who taught outside the city, namely Antipater and Zenodorus (102–105). Carneades is the reference point again. For the verb in this context compare 26 and 84. At the end of this verse or the beginning of the next verse the number “two” (δύο) is not unlikely. It cannot be exactly determined which traces belong to this verse and which to following, so the division between this verse and the beginning of 102 is only a plausible guess. Verse 102: The phrasing οὐκ ἐν ἄστ[ει] does not only mean “outside the city walls” (in opposite to the Palladion or Ptolemaion), but also “in a place other than Athens”, as the new readings in the following verses and the otherwise attested teaching of Zenodorus prove. The expression τὰ[ς] ⌈σ͙χ͙⌉ολὰς πεποι⌈η⌉μέ[νοι] might primarily mean “giving lectures”, but also imply “founding a school

|| passage derives from the Chronica, see the commentary on 42); D.L. 5,58: ἀλλὰ καὶ καθηγήσατο Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Φιλαδέλφου καὶ ἔλαβε, φασί, παρ' αὐτοῦ τάλαντα ὀγδοήκοντα· σχολαρχεῖν δέ, καθά φησιν Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν Χρονικοῖς (FGrH 244 F 40 = Jacoby (1902), F 73), ἤρξατο τῇ τρίτῃ καὶ εἰκοστῇ καὶ ἑκατοστῇ Ὀλυμπιάδι, τῆς σχολῆς ἀφηγησάμενος ἔτη ὀκτωκαίδεκα. 218 On this point see the instructive remarks by Lévy (2012), pp. 291–292.

Commentary | 217

branch”. The perfect tense may be due to metrical reasons or imply that some school branches that had been founded were still active. As in 23 and 44, we should assume that πεποι⌈η⌉μέ[νοι] was intended to be read as πεπο⌈η⌉μέ[νοι]. Verse 103: The crucial improvement in this verse is the name of Zenodorus (Ζ[ηνό]δ̣ωρ[ο]ς̣). There is a clear Z in the papyrus and the former reading “Metrodorus” is no longer possible. Speculations that Metrodorus of Stratonicea might have lectured outside the city owing to his divergent views on certain aspects of Academic philosophy becomes obsolete with this new reading.219 Zenodorus of Tyre is attested to “have led (a school) in Alexandria” in Phld. Ind. Acad. 23,2–3 (Ζηνό⌈δ⌉ωρος Τύ⌈ριος⌉ κατ᾿ | ⌈Ἀλ͙ε͙ξ⌉άνδρει⌈α⌉ν ἡγη⌈σ͙ά⌉με[νος) and this is all we know about him. Note that this information, like the whole list of Carneades’ pupils in Philodemus, is basically independent from Apollodorus. Intuitively (based on the common use of the expression in literature), we would expect that ὁ ⌈μ͙έν⌉ refers to the first philosopher mentioned, so Ἀ]λεξ̣άν̣ δρ⌈ε͙⌉[ια]⌈ν͙⌉ in 104 should be associated with him.220 He is mentioned in Philodemus’ list of Carneades’ pupils in col. 23,9–10 after Zenodorus, Hagnon and Charmadas with the ethnicon “Alexandrian”.221 Accordingly, verse 104 must mean that Antipater at some point returned to Alexandria and lectured there, as Zenodorus did, if the accusative does not refer to his origin (and his teaching place was mentioned in the following verse). Alternatively, one may consider the possibility that ἔτι δὲ somehow separates the names to such an extent that ὁ ⌈μ͙έν⌉ could refer to Zenodorus and something like [κατὰ τὴν Ἀ]λεξ̣άν̣ δρ⌈ε͙⌉[ια]⌈ν͙⌉ [ἡγήσατο (cf. col. 23,2–3) was written in the lost parts of the verse. However, such a reference of ὁ ⌈μ͙έν⌉ to the second rather than the first element of the preceding clause would be very unnatural. Verse 104: As outlined in detail in the commentary on 103, a reference to Antipater is more likely than one to Zenodorus. However, I am inclined to assume that not Antipater’s ethnic origin, but his later teaching place is meant here. Basically, it is not implausible that after his studies under Carneades in Athens he returned || 219 For instance Görler (1994), p. 906:“ Wahrscheinlich wegen dieser unorthodoxen Ansichten durfte Metrodor unter dem Scholarchat des konservativen Kleitomachos nicht in der Akademie selbst lehren.“ and Stanzel (2000), p. 135: ” …und vertrat seinerseits offenbar eine Position, die den radikal-skeptischen Standpunkt aufzuweichen suchte. Deshalb lehrte er unter dem Scholarchen Kleitomachos wohl nur noch außerhalb der Akademie.“ Polito (2012), p. 40 did not regard this lecturing outside Athens as a departure from Academic orthodoxy. 220 In Fleischer (2014a), p. 74 I had not reconstructed verse 105 yet, so I still assumed that ὁ ⌈μ͙έν⌉ was more likely to refer to Zenodorus. 221 The passage is quoted in the commentary on 86.

218 | Commentary

to Alexandria. If he did not teach there at the same time as Zenodorus was there, one may imagine that he was a victim of the persecution launched by Ptolemy VIII. in 145 BC, and that Zenodorus, as it were, “succeeded” him there (see the commentary on verse 105). In this case he would have been an early pupil of Carneades and would not have lectured in Alexandria for long. Ca. 3 verses lost between 104 and 105: Although a reasonable reconstruction of these verses in their entirety was not possible, the (fragmentary) words between 104 and 105 are highly revealing. It might be the most practical and convenient approach to present the fragmentary lines (probably three verses lost) line by line, as they shall appear in my forthcoming editio maior of the Index Academicorum (overlaps with 104 and 105).222 Phld. Ind. Acad. (PHerc. 1021), col. 32,17–24 (Fleischer) ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ Ἀ]λεξ̣άν̣ δρ⌈ε͙⌉[ια]⌈ν͙⌉ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ]ν[ ̣ ]⌈τη⌉ ̣ ̣ ε ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]ε[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ ̣ ̣ 20 α[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]⌈ν⌉ ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ [ ̣ ̣ τερ ̣ [ ̣ ̣ Κα]⌈ρχηδ⌉ο̣[ν ̣ ̣ ]⌈κ⌉ε ̣ ⌈ταθ⌉ε⌈ ̣ ⌉[ ̣ ] ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ]⌈υσε ̣ ⌉[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ [ ̣ ]α[ς ⌈δ⌉᾿ ὕ̣σ⌈τ⌉[ε]ρ̣[ον] | ε̣ἰ̣[ς τ]ὴν̣ ⌈Ἀ⌉[λε]⌈ξ͙ά⌉[ν⌈δ⌉ρ⌈ε⌉ιαν ἐξ̣έ̣λ̣[ι]⌈π͙ε⌉[ν] ν̣ό̣[σ]ωι. _____________________________________________________________________ 17

20–21 [πρό]|τερο̣[ν conieceris

21 Κα]ρχηδο̣[ν- Jacoby: [ἐν Κα]⌈ρχηδ⌉ό̣[νι conieceris

ἐ]⌈κ⌉εῖ̣

conieceris 22 fin. [ἀπ]ά̣[ρ]α[ς conieceris 23 ⌈δ⌉᾿ ὕ̣σ⌈τ⌉[ε]ρ̣[ον] KF

The philosopher in question later (ὕ̣σ⌈τ⌉[ε]ρ̣[ον]) went to Alexandria and died there, which implies that he was previously dwelling in another city. His earlier studies in Athens can hardly be meant here, since he seems to have already been the subject of the preceding lines. For the sequence ⌈ρχηδ⌉ Jacoby supposed traces of the word “Carthage”, a supplement, which in terms of word division is very attractive indeed. The string ⌈υσε ̣ ⌉ might be the end of an aorist. The combination τερ could belong to [πρό]τερο̣[ν and ἐν before a possible Κα]⌈ρχηδ⌉ό̣[νι is possible (εἰς with the accusative is less likely for reasons of space). Probably the verse ended with Κα]⌈ρχηδ⌉ό̣[ν- and ἐ]⌈κ⌉εῖ̣ at the end of line 21 represents the || 222 For the critical apparatus of the overlaps with 104 and 105, see the edition of the verses in this book.

Commentary | 219

beginning of a new verse. Be that as it may, the philosopher obviously moved from Carthage to Alexandria. The third Punic War (149–146 BC) and the destruction of Carthage might have led to this decision. In this context it might be worth recalling that Clitomachus apparently had already pursued philosophical studies in his hometown Carthage before moving to Athens, albeit allegedly in his mother tongue.223 Consequently, it is not absurd to assume that the Academic Zenodorus lectured on philosophy in Carthage before the city’s complete extinction. Given that he was an (early) pupil of Carneades, he cannot have lectured more than a few years in Carthage (no earlier than from 155 BC) and his association with Alexandria in the list of Carneades’ pupils in the Index Academicorum (col. 23,2–3) might be explained by a much longer sojourn there. Verse 105: The verse has been reconstructed in its entirety for the first time. The paragraphus in the papyrus marks the end of the Antipater/Zenodorus section, but it can hardly signal the transition from Apollodorus to a new source, since Philodemus usually indicates this with a diple obelismene. For the expression ἐξ̣έ̣λ[̣ ι]⌈π͙ε⌉[ν] see 18,49,(66) and the overview in 4.3. For the specification ν̣ό̣[σ]ωι at the end of a verse compare (21),31,36,48,(66). The philosopher, probably Zenodorus, later (ὕ̣σ⌈τ⌉[ε]ρ̣[ον]) moved to Alexandria (see the commentary on the preceding fragmentary verses). As outlined above, the identity of the philosopher – Antipater or Zenodorus – is not beyond any doubt, but ὁ ⌈μ͙έν⌉ in 103 strongly suggests Zenodorus. He might have lectured in Alexandria for a comparatively long time from around 149–146 BC, so the source of Philodemus’ pupil list (col. 23,2–3) exclusively presents him as the leader of an Alexandrian school. Concerning Ptolemy VIII’s persecution of Alexandrian intellectuals in 145 BC, Lévy (2012) remarks: “Notwithstanding the chronological uncertainties which remain regarding the date at which Zenodorus opened his school in Alexandria, the very fact that he was not a citizen of that city may have been an advantage for him.”224 The mention of Zenodorus’ death in this verse suggests that he was one of the more senior pupils of Carneades, born maybe around 180 BC. If he really came to Alexandria as early as the fall of Carthage or the persecution of 145 BC, he could have lived there for more than 30 years and Apollodorus would still have been able to report his death in the Chronica. If “Alexandria” in 104 does not refer to Antipater’s ethnic original, it must mean that Antipater too lectured in Alexandria. The question whether Zenodorus joined him there after 149–146 BC (145 BC),

|| 223 D.L. 4,67 (Mette Kleitomachos T 1a):… καὶ τῇ ἰδίᾳ φωνῇ κατὰ τὴν πατρίδα ἐφιλοσόφει. 224 Lévy (2012), p. 291.

220 | Commentary

or whether he joined Zenodorus, must remain open. Antipater is mentioned before Zenodorus in 102 and maybe Zenodorus “succeeded” him in Alexandria. Was Antipater too a victim of the persecution of 145 BC? All this is speculative. Fraser (1972) and Glucker (1978) opposed Crönert’s idea (1906) of a branch of the Academy in Alexandria (based on Phld. Ind. Acad. 23,2 and col. N,16ff.),225 but Lévy (2012) has argued convincingly for serious and enduring Academic activities in the second century BC in Alexandria and for an Academic Athens–Alexandria connection: “Although the information is difficult to interpret, it is safe to assume that a network, bringing Alexandrian students to Athens, had been established at least since the time of Carneades, and it is highly unlikely that these students would sever all contact with their native city.”226 The fact that the new reading in 103 now suggests that not only Zenodorus but also Antipater taught in Alexandria supports the hypothesis of a kind of Academic school branch there. Yet, one should not think of a highly “institutionalized” branch receiving and obeying orders from Athens, but rather of an independent yet essentially “orthodox” Academic school.227 Maybe already the Theris mentioned in col. N,16ff. and his pupils are to be associated with Alexandria.228 This school or, more conservatively, the teaching activities of some Academics there might have laid the ground for later Academic “activities” in Alexandria, namely those of Antiochus, possibly Heraclitus,229 and Dio of Alexandria.230

The Academic Socrates? (106–107) Although some uncertainty remains, it seems that col. 32,25–34 still contained verses from the Chronica. Two of the probably six verses (106,107) are discernible and can be restored to some extent, whereas the crucial name (Socrates) is to be read in the fragmentary verse after 106. In Ind. Acad. col. N,20 the name of Socrates appears in a rather obscure context. Obviously, he is mentioned there as a

|| 225 Crönert (1906), p. 76 n. 364; contra: Fraser (1972), p. 703 n. 67; p. 707 n. 92 and Glucker (1978), p. 95. Cf. Görler (1994), p. 910. Some of the objections by Fraser and Glucker were based on now obsolete readings. 226 Lévy (2012), p. 291. Hatzimichali (2020), p. 265 speaks of an “internalisation of Academic teaching towards the Egyptian capital”, but is sceptical about an official annexe (note 28). 227 Hatzimichali (2011), pp. 26–27 interprets col. 23,2–3 “as a reference to a group of personal pupils that Zenodorus ‘led’ … rather than to an official Academic annexe”. 228 Cf. Crönert (1906), p. 76 n. 364. 229 Cf. Fleischer (2017d), pp. 81–82. 230 For further thoughts on continuous Academic activities in Alexandria, see Fleischer (2016), p. 467.

Commentary | 221

‘great-grandpupil’ of Euander.231 Crönert supposed a list of pupils from an Alexandrian school branch in col. N,17ff. Socrates’ immediate mention after the philosophers Antipater and Zenodorus, who are both associated with Alexandria (103–105), basically supports this identification. Since this Socrates is otherwise unknown, a reference to the famous Socrates of Athens, who might have been compared to an Academic philosopher, cannot be entirely excluded and the verses may refer to another, unidentified Academic philosopher. Verse 106: The traces at the beginning of the verse are difficult to tell apart. There might have been a crasis (⌈τ̣ἄ⌉[̣λ]λ̣ο) or a negation before (οὐ]⌈κ̣ ἄ⌉[̣λ]λ̣ο). The noun [δύ]ν̣α⌈μις was probably accompanied by an auxiliary verb (ἦν) in this or the next verse. The power or capability here obviously refers to the Socrates in the next verse. There is even a certain probability that Σωκρά[τε]ι̣ in the next verse marks the end of verse 106. Ca. 4 lost/fragmentary verses between 106 and 107: The reading Σωκρά[τε]ι̣ at the beginning of the following verse is the most interesting word in the lacuna and suggests the identification with the Academic mentioned in col. N,20 who might be associated with Alexandria. The sequence ⌈ι⌉σθα in the same verse might belong to an infinitive referring to [δύ]ν̣α⌈μις in 106. About two verses later, we read α̣νδρ̣ο̣[ ̣ , which might be a form of ἀνήρ, but col. N,22ff. might refer to the ὑπομνήματα which Socrates wrote on Euander, so the latter name might be a possibility as well. At the end of the verse preceding 107 one reads δυ ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ ̣ τωι [λ]ό̣γωι. Verse 107: A fragmentary paragraphus in col. 32,34, which might in fact be a diple obelimene, marks the end of Philodemus’ excerpt from the Chronica. Part of the list of Carneades’ pupils, already copied in col. 23,38ff., begins at the line 34 after the β̣ί̣ο̣ν̣ of 107 (probably after a little spatium). It seems as though someone copied the last part of this verse at the beginning of col. 33,1 again (see 2.3), where a kind of deletion sign or note occurs at the beginning of the line. This has something to do with the draft character of the Index Academicorum (PHerc. 1021): the Chronica excerpt was inserted (glued on) after the text had been copied on quires.232 We may assume that 107 was “continued” by the life of Philo in the final version (col. 33) and that the doublet at the end of col. 32 was intended to be de-

|| 231 His ethnicon might be “Athenian”, but the Oxford disegno is unclear. 232 Cf. Essler (2019), pp. 18–20.

222 | Commentary

leted. Anyway, the phrasing [τ]ῶι λόγω[ι καὶ τὸν] β̣ί̣ο̣ν̣ remotely resembles the description of Metrodorus of Stratonicea in Phld. Ind. Acad. col. 26,4–6 (Μητρόδ⌈ω⌉ρος δὲ ὁ Στρατονικεὺς μέγας καὶ βίωι καὶ λόγωι γε⌈γ⌉ονὼς), but there is not really any good reason to identify the philosopher of 106,107 as Metrodorus. An aorist meaning “making similar/equal” before [τ]ῶι might be imagined or an adjective/participle referring to β̣ί̣ο̣ν̣ in the sense of “equal/in accordance with” and depending on ἔ̣χ. It is uncertain whether the philosopher (Socrates) was still alive when Apollodorus wrote these verses. Since τωι [λ]ό̣γωι is to be read at the end of the preceding verse, the overall sense of the passage might have been: “…he was capable in philosophical doctrine. He also lived in accordance with his philosophical doctrine (made his life similar/equal/correspond to the doctrine or had a life also complying with his doctrines).” Since there is no longer any reference to Carneades in 106 or 107, the connection to the preceding verses might indeed be Alexandria, and Socrates may have only ever attended Academic philosophy lectures there.233 His teacher is the otherwise unknown Dion of Thracia, who is not attested to have been a pupil of Carneades (but he was a pupil of the otherwise also unknown Theris of Alexandria, who was a pupil of Euander).234

Philodemus’ excerpt from the Chronica ends with verse 107 The siege of Doros (108) Stephanus quotes this verse from the 4th book of the Chronica. The seaside city of Dor/Doros (Δῶρος or Δῶρα), located in the north of (what was later to become) Caesarea maritima, is mentioned several times in ancient literature and particularly in the Bible as a Canaanite city which later became part of the kingdom of Israel and finally a Hellenistic city.235 The verse refers to the besieging of the strongly fortified Doros in 139/38 BC, to which the Seleucid king (or usurper) Diodotus Tryphon fled around the end of his reign. The city was besieged by his opponent Antiochus VII. Sidetes (and Simon).236 In the end, Tryphon had to leave

|| 233 Even if his ethnicon really is “Athenian”, this possibility is arguable. 234 Cf. Ind. Acad. col. N,12ff. 235 For Doros see Stern (1994) (for the Hellenistic period and Tryphon esp. pp. 211–213) and Köckert (1997). 236 For Tryphon see Hoffmann (1939), esp. col. 722.

Commentary | 223

the city. He fled further north and was defeated at Apameia in 138 BC, before committing suicide. With regard to the parallels in Maccabees I and Josephus,237 the trimeter (the preposition εἰς) most likely refers to Tryphon’s attempt to find refuge in Doros (unless the reference is to Antiochus’ attack on the city). Apollodorus might have added the information about the coastal location of Doros either in order to distinguish the city from a small town by the same name in Caria or – more likely – because the seaside location was somehow relevant for Apollodorus’ report. The same precise location occurs in Mac. I 15,11 (τὴν ἐπὶ θαλάσσης). A few lines later one reads (Mac. I 15,14): καὶ ἐκύκλωσεν τὴν πόλιν, καὶ τὰ πλοῖα ἀπὸ θαλάσσης συνῆψαν, καὶ ἔθλιβε τὴν πόλιν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς καὶ τῆς θαλάσσης, καὶ οὐκ εἴασεν οὐδένα ἐκπορεύεσθαι οὐδὲ εἰσπορεύεσθαι. Maybe there is a relation here with Tryphon’s later flight by ship (Mac. I 15,37: Τρύφων δὲ ἐμβὰς εἰς πλοῖον ἔφυγεν εἰς Ὀρθωσίαν).

Unknown Charidemus (109) Jacoby (1902) laconically writes that he does not know who this Charidemus was and why he was mentioned in the 4th book. In FGrH he makes the rather obscure statement: “Buchzahl doch wohl korrupt; aber dieser Charidemos ist unbekannt.”238 The whole lemma, as edited by Billerbeck (2017), reads: πόλις Καρίας. ὁ πολίτης Χαλκητορεύς. Ἀπολλόδωρος δ̅ χρονικῶν “μεθ’ οὗ Χαρίδημος ἦν φυγὰς Χαλκητορεύς”. Κρατερὸς δ’ ἐν τῷ περὶ ψηφισμάτων Χαλκήτορας αὐτούς φησι. Billerbeck adopts Boeckh’s (1886) emendation Καρίας against the manuscript tradition, which has Κρήτης. Jacoby accepts this conjecture, too. There was indeed a city (town) by the name of Χαλκήτορες (Χαλκήτωρ) in Caria, while no Cretan city by this name is known.239 Moreover, Charidemus seems to have been a popular name in Caria.240 I have considered the possibility

|| 237 Mac. I 15,11: καὶ ἐδίωξεν αὐτὸν Ἀντίοχος, καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς Δωρα φεύγων τὴν ἐπὶ θαλάσσης; Jos. Ant. 13,223: εἴς τε Δῶρα φρούριόν τι δυσάλωτον ἐπολιόρκει συμφυγόντα. The entire “Tryphon in Doros” episode is reported by Mac. I 15,11–38, cf. also Jos. Ant. 13,223 and the quotations in Steph. δ 150,48–51 (= 255,22 = Charax FGrH 103 F 29). See also Kolbe (1926), p. 63 and, on archaeological evidence of this siege, Stern (1994), pp. 211–213. 238 He does not explain why he considers it a corruption, cf. Williams (2018), ad fragmentum. It does not seem unlikely to me that Jacoby simply forgot to write a “nicht” before “korrupt”. 239 Strab. 14,1,8; 14,2,22. The ethnicon is attested in various Carian inscriptions, cf. Hansen/Nielsen (2004), pp. 1113–1114 and Williams (2018), ad fragmentum. 240 There are 25 attestations of the name Charidemus in Caria (LGPN 5b – 2013), cf. Williams (2018), ad fragmentum.

224 | Commentary

that the verse might concern Rome’s acquisition of the kingdom of Pergamon (133–129 BC), but this is very speculative.

9 Diplomatic transcript with trace description, HSI, MSI and disegni (Index Academicorum) In the following pages, a diplomatic transcript and a description of traces are provided for the columns of the Index Academicorum which contain the verses from the Chronica (col. 26-32). This rather painstaking and almost pedantic work was pivotal for coming up with new readings. The diplomatic transcript and description represent a verifiable and solid basis, as it were, for the restitutio textus. From the diplomatic transcript it emerges that Philodemus’ excerpt began somewhere in the middle of col. 26 and ended in col. 32,34. Furthermore, it becomes clear that the verses were written “continuously” (and not one verse per line) in the Index Academicorum. The diplomatic transcripts of col. 26-32 of the Index Academicorum follow the same principles I will apply for the forthcoming editio maior. It might be useful to outline them. In addition to the usual Leiden conventions, two Herculanean peculiarities have to be taken into consideration. The upper square brackets ⌈ ⌉ mean that the letter is taken from a disegno (Oxford disegno = O or Neapolitan disegno = N), since – the letter is only preserved in one of the disegni and nothing survives in the original papyrus – the letter is only partly preserved in the original (i.e. uncertain), but the disegno gives more information and the traces in the original papyrus do not rule out the letter of the disegno. Basically, the Oxford disegno is more reliable than the Neapolitan disegno, since it was executed soon after the unrolling of the papyrus.1 However, it is not superior in every passage. If the letters in the disegni differ from each other, only a dot is used in the transcript and the two alternatives are given in the trace description. However, if the letter(s) in the disegni differ from each other and one disegno provides a more complex piece of information (letter) “of the same kind”,

|| 1 Cf. 6.4. The abbreviations VH² and I (always combined with N to NI) above the trace descriptions refer to the Collectio altera (VH²) or to engravings-proof sheets (I), which are both more or less identical with N. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110703726-009

228 | Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni

the reading of the more complex letter is chosen. For example, a ν (vertical stroke, oblique, vertical stroke) of O would be chosen over an ι (vertical stroke) of N. Another characteristic of Herculanean papyri is misplaced layers, i.e. ones which got stuck (glued) in the wrong place during the process of unrolling the papyrus. These fragments are either one (two, three or more) winding(s) (volutes) too far to the left (sovrapposto) or too far to the right (sottoposto) and have to be replaced/shifted because of certain mathematical or bibliometrical requirements, which were first comprehensively established about a decade ago. The highly precise placement of these frustula now enables a better textual reconstruction.2 Every replaced (i.e. shifted) letter is written in bold in the diplomatic transcript and the trace description indicates whether a sovrapposto (+1) or a sottoposto (-1) has been replaced. Higher numbers correspond to higher (multiple) layers. Finally, some remarks concerning the description of traces are in order. Unlike with papyri from Egypt, it is often difficult to provide an entirely “objective” description, not least since the images (MSI and HSI) often display ink which cannot be detected in the original. It is also difficult to distinguish the ink and the fibers or background, given all the various shades of black or grey in the images. Hence, I have decided to adopt a conservative approach and to avoid over-interpreting traces. I have used slightly idiosyncratic (abbreviated) terms for describing the traces in the papyrus. The system of the trace description works as follows: if a letter in the original has been damaged to such an extent that two or more alternatives are arguable, a dot is used in the diplomatic transcript and the surviving traces are described. Each dot, replaced letter or letter taken from the disegno marks one entry, while strings of letters from the disegno or strings of replaced letters are combined (only if they provide exactly the same information). An example might be instructive: col. 29,39:

̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ η̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣]ν̣ τ̣ ̣ τε[ ̣]⌈ου⌉

39 rising obl. and then maybe desc. (α,δ,λ,χ likely) || ink (right foot?) at bottom || ink at top (upper part of μ?) || ink at bottom || ο or ω || τε+1 || ου O

|| 2 Essler (2008).

Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni | 229

Every dot in the diplomatic transcript (outside the square brackets) corresponds to one uncertain letter (not preserved in the disegno or less well preserved in the disegno than in the original), whose traces are described (trace description). The individual entries in the description are separated by two vertical strokes (||). This means we have five uncertain letters in our example, where the disegno provides no or no better information than the original. Next, the two letters τε are taken (i.e. shifted) from a different layer. Since they follow each other, they are coupled in the trace description, from which we learn that a sovrapposto (+1) has been replaced here. At the end of the line the papyrus has been completely destroyed. However, one disegno preserves the letters ου (upper square brackets in the diplomatic transcript). We learn from the trace description that the Oxford disegno (O) preserves these letters. The description also implies that the Neapolitan disegno (N) provides no information (or less information than O). The diplomatic transcript and the description are the basis for interpreting the images, which are partly misleading. By misleading I mean in particular that holes, wrinkles or the shadows of bulges appear as ink on the MSI or HSI or that misplaced layers cannot always be identified on the images. The diplomatic transcript (and the images) also show what exactly can be read in the highly fragmentary passages/verses, which were not included in the verse collection. In the following pages, the diplomatic transcript is printed on the left-hand side of the book and the trace description on the right-hand side for each column (col. 26-32). In the subsequent pages the images (HSI and MSI) and the disegni (Oxford disegno and Neapolitan disegno) of the same column follow. Alongside the diplomatic transcript the corresponding verse numbers are given. The Neapolitan disegno, the Multispectral Images (MSI) and Hyperspectral Images (HSI) of PHerc. 1021 are reproduced by courtesy of the Ministero dei beni e delle attività culturali e del turismo (© Biblioteca Nazionale, Napoli – Brigham Young University, Provo, USA - Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche – Istituto di Scienze del Patrimonio Culturale), the Oxford disegni by courtesy of The Bodleian Libraries, The University of Oxford (Ms. Gr. Class. c 4 0755-0761). All rights are reserved.

230 | Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni

Col. 26

δια̣δο⌈χ⌉ον̣ τον̣ συσ̣⌈χο⌉λ̣ασ

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ κ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ α ̣ α[ ̣] ̣ ̣

τη⌈ν⌉κρ̣ατηταταρσ⌈ ̣ ⌉α̣⟦⌈τ̣⌉⟧⸌τ⸍ο⟦⌈σ⌉⟧

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ κα[ ̣ ̣] ̣ απ̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

γεν̣⌈οεη̣⌉γησατοδ⌈αυ⌉ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ετ⌈η⌉

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣]⌈ ̣ ω⌉[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

τεττα⌈ρ̣⌉α ⸆ μητροδ⌈ω⌉ροσ

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ α̣⌈ρ⌉[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

5 δεοστρατονι̣κευσμεγ̣ασ

30 ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]εχ[ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

καιβιωικ̣αιλογωιγε⌈γ̣⌉ο̣νωσ

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

ουκ⌈α⌉ναλογουσασεδ⌈ ̣ κ̣⌉ει

̣] ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ⌈υαν⌉ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

χαριτα⌈σ⌉ε̣χεινοσεφη̣⌈ ̣ ⌉αρ

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ε̣φεσι̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣]α̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣

νεα⌈δ⌉ουπαρακηκ⌈οενα⌉ι

τ̣ ̣ ν̣[ ̣]⌈ ̣ ⌉β̣⌈ουλ⌉[ ̣]υ̣[ ̣] ̣ ο̣ν⌈οναι⌉[

10 πα̣ντασουγαρακ̣α ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣

35 ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ λυκει⌈νη⌉σ̣τω̣ι̣τα⌈ ̣ ⌉ ̣ ̣

π⌈τα⌉ν̣[ ̣]νομ⌈ι⌉κ̣εν⌈αιπ⌉α̣ ̣[ ̣ ₍ ̣ ₎

τ̣⌈θα⌉[ ̣ ̣ ̣]λακι⌈ση⌉δηπροβε[ ̣ ̣

π̣α̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣]ν̣οστεκα[ ̣ ̣]⌈εν⌉[ ̣ ̣

κ⌈ω⌉ ̣ κ̣αισχοληση ̣ ου ̣ ̣

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ τοκαι̣⌈ ̣ ⌉[ ̣ ̣]⌈τιζ⌉[ ̣

νο̣⌈σ⌉διον ̣[ ̣]⌈τ⌉ωι⌈μου⌉[ ̣ ̣ ̣]⌈ ̣ ⌉τ̣ων

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]⌈αυ̣τ⌉αντων̣⌈ομ⌉[ ̣ ̣ ̣

⟦ν̣ ̣ ̣ ⟧[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣] ̣ ⌈ι⌉ιθ⌈ε⌉[ ̣ ₍ ̣ ₎]⌈ ̣ ⌉ηι

15 ⌈τ⌉[ ̣]κ̣α̣[ ̣]⌈ο⌉ν̣οισυπε̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣

40 αγχινοια̣[ ̣]⌈τ⌉α⌈ν⌉δ̣ρ⌈ο⌉σ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣]κ̣α⌈ι⌉

̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ₍ ̣ ₎]⌈ ̣ ι⌉κ̣οι̣ σεισε⌈κα⌉ ̣ ̣[

τωιλογωι⌈δ⌉εκατωιδε[ ̣] ̣ σ

̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣]π̣[ ̣]χειρ̣ει⌈κωσκ⌉α̣⌈ ̣ ⌉[ ̣ ̣

τουκαρνεαδο⌈υ⌉μεταλλα

̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ⌈ ̣ αγα⌉[ ̣ ̣

γησυστερονε⌈ν̣λ⌉ρχοντοσ̣

̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣]ρ[ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

⌈π⌉α̣ρημινε̣υ̣μ̣α̣⌈χ⌉ου̣θαρ⌈ιτ⌉

20 ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]ε̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣ η ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ⌈κα⌉[ ̣]⌈αι⌉λ̣ιπ̣ε̣ι̣ν̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣] ̣ ν̣κ̣⌈αρπ⌉ ̣ ⌈α⌉δ̣ε̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ 25 ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ⌈τ⌉ω̣⌈ν⌉και̣π̣ρ̣ο̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣

45 λι̣ωνοσμηνοσ⌈εξε⌉λιπεν

Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni | 231

Verses 59-66 (doublet) PHerc. 1021, cr. 6, col. 26 = IV 755 O = col. 26 NI = I 187 VH² 1 χ O: ink P || χ O: ink at bottom P || ο ON: ink at mid P σ ON: ink P

2 ν O: ink at bottom P || curve O || τ̣ Ο: ink (σ or τ?) P ||

3 o O: ink at bottom P || ε O || η̣ O: ink P || α O: ink at top P || υ O || π or τ P: erased letter O || ink

at bottom P: erased letter O || η ON: two feet at bottom P || vert. at bottom O || κ̣ O

4 ρ̣ O || ω O: ink at mid P

6 γ̣ O

7 α ΟΝ: α,δ,λ P

8 σ O: ink at top P || right part of horiz. at top O: ink (right part of horiz.?) at top P

9 δ O || ο ON: curve at bottom P || ε O: curve at bottom P || ν O || α ON: α,δ,λ P at bottom/top, right foot P || ι O || α O: ink P || ι O || π ON || ink at bottom possible) || ε O || ν O: ink at bottom/top P

10 ink at bottom

11 τα O: ink

12 α̣-1 || curve at bottom and mid (κ

13 ink at bottom and top (ε likely) || ris. obl. O || τιζ O

right foot? P || υ̣τ O: π or υτ P || ο O: ink (curve?) at top P || μ O

14 α O:

15 τ O || ο O || ink at bottom || ink at bottom

16 left foot (α,δ,λ likely) || ink || ink || α,δ,λ O || ι O: ink at bottom P || κα O: curve at mid, left foot at bottom P || π or τ || ink at bottom 17 ink (right part of triangle?) at top || κωσκ O: slightly curved horiz. at mid, vert. at top, ink at mid, ink at mid P || vert. N

18 ink || horiz. at top || two vert.s at bottom (π possible) || α,λ,μ,ν || ink at

mid bottom and horiz. at top || curve at bottom || ink || right part of μ or ν (?) O: ink P || αγα O: ink, ink, desc. at bottom P

19 π or τ || vert. || β,ο,ω || ι or σ likely

20 part of two vert.s with joint (μ likely) || υ,φ,ψ

at top and mid || faded traces || ink (curve?) at bottom letter, τ likely) || ink || ink ||. ink || ink || ink || ink

21 ink

22 || ink || ink || ink at bottom and then horiz. (if same

23 ink (horiz.?) at mid || κα O: curve at mid, left foot P || α

O: ink at mid P || ι O || curve at bottom || ink at bottom

24 ink (right foot?) || vert. with horiz. at mid/top || α

Ο: α or λ P || ρ O: γ,μ,ν,ρ P || π Ο: vert. and then ink at top (if same letter ν likely) P || ε or θ || α Ο: ink at bottom and top P

25 ink at top || ink (curve?) at top || ink at mid || lower part of vert. || τ O: σ or τP || ν O: vert. (right 26 ink (vert.?) at top || ε,ι,ο,ω || π or τ+1 || α+1 || vert.+1 || ink at top ||

part of ν likely) P || ink (triangle?) at top ink at top

+1

27 ink at mid || ink at top || α+1 || π̣+1 || ink (vert.?) 28-32 the stratigraphy and alignment is

uncertain 28 ink at mid || vert. with joint at top (ρ?) || ink (triangle?) at top || horiz. at top O: ink P || ω O: ink P 29 ink (ε?) || ink || ρ O: rising obl./vert. at bottom P same line/layer?) || ink at bottom (α,δ,λ?) || α,δ,λ

30 ink at top || vert. || ink at top

31 curve (ο or ε ?

32 ink at top || curve at top || vert. || ink || υαν O: ink at

bottom, tiny triangle at top, hook (upper left part of ν?) P || vert. and then ink at top and vert. again (τι?) ink at top || ink at top

ink at top || ο O || ν Ο: two feet P || αι O

35 ink at top || desc. at bottom || ink at top || foot || ink at top || νη O:

ink, ink at top P || vert. O: ink at mid P || ink at top (υ likely) || ink vert. at top P

33

34 ink at top || vert. O: ink at mid P || ουλ O: ink at top, ink at mid, ink at bottom P || 36 || θα O: ε,η,θ,κ, inkt P || ση O: ink at top,

37 ω O: ink at bottom P || curve at top || horiz. at top || ink at bottom || curve

38 σ O: curve at

bottom P || ink at mid || τ O: ink P || μου O: horiz. at top, curve, ink at top and then bottom (two letters probable) || horiz. at top O

39 [ink above the ν̣ and probably above the following letter(s) (in O and P) - just deletion of

the letters below or correction - if correction, first letter might be a π, second or third curve; the deletion might have been extended over more letters] || [after deletion stratigraphy uncertain, cf. col. 25] ris. obl. at bottom and ink at top (λ ?) || ink at bottom and top (vert.? κ?) || ι O: π or τ P || ε Ο || horiz. at top O: ink at top (horiz.?) P 40 τ ΟN: horiz. at top P || ν ON || ο O: curve at top P || ι O: ink P ν̣λ O: vert., right foot P

41 δ O || ink at top

44 π Ο: horiz. at top P || χ O: curve P || ι OΝ: vert. P || τ Ο

42 υ O: ink at top P

43

45 ε Ο: o N: curve P || ξε

O Signs along lines 44-45: The vert. on the left, ca. extending over two lines and with a slight hook to the right at its end, is still visible in the original. The sign on the right is mainly preserved in O and the original only shows remains at the end of line 45 and possibly below line level.

232 | Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni

Fig. 3: HSI col. 26

Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni | 233

Fig. 4: MSI col. 26

234 | Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni

Fig. 5: Ox. col. 26

Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni | 235

Fig. 6: Neap. col. 26

236 | Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni

Col. 27

χ̣ ̣ ̣ οκτω⌈καιδε⌉κατοσαυ⌈τα⌉

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]θ̣ ̣

δ⌈ε⌉τεραπροσλαβ̣ωντηντου

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ε̣ ̣

βιο̣υμεταλλαγηνεποιησ̣α̣

̣ ̣]τ̣α̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[

⌈τε⌉πι⌈κ⌉αλλιστρατουεπιπα[ ̣

̣ ̣ λα̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣]λε[

5 τ̣ι⌈α⌉δο̣υδετεροιλεγουσιν

30 ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣

ωνδεκαετη ̣ ⌈ι⌉αλιπειν

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

τα⌈π⌉ιπα⌈σ⌉ι⌈δ⌉ιανοσ̣ονεγενον

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣

το̣δ̣αυτουπασεασ̣τεκαιθρα

̣] ̣ ε⌈κ⌉α⌈ ̣ ̣ αν⌉[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣

σ⌈ι⌉σ̣τριτοσδαριστ⌈ιπ⌉ποσσυνη

̣ ₍ ̣ ₎]⌈ησπαμ⌉α ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣]η̣[

10 θε̣ι̣⌈ν⌉καιδυο⌈σ̣π⌉ι̣ ̣ ⌈ημ̣⌉ο̣τ⌈̣ α⌉τοιμα

35 ̣ ̣ ⌈σ⌉[ ̣] ̣ ι̣δ̣ ̣ μ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ν

̣[ ̣]⌈στα⌉τηλε⌈κλη⌉[ ̣]⌈τ⌉ ̣ ̣ α̣ ̣ ευ̣αν̣

⌈υτα̣⌉[ ̣]υ̣σαγ̣αμ̣ησ⌈α⌉[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

̣[ ̣ ̣]σ̣επεχ⌈ ̣ ⌉[ ̣ ̣] ̣ σε ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ⌈οισ⌉[

⌈πδ ̣ ̣ ⌉οσ⌈η⌉νε⌈τ⌉ιο ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣[

̣[]⌈ ̣ ⌉ν̣ετια[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ⌈ζ⌉ειν

⌈δ⌉ο̣υλοιτεπροσ̣το ̣ ̣ ọ⌈τα⌉υ

⌈τ⌉[ ̣]⌈ν̣⌉βιονδ⌈ ̣ ⌉[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ειπρο

⌈τ⌉ων⌈ ̣ μοσ̣⌉χιωνμενδ̣ ̣[ ̣]⌈ε⌉

15 τ̣⌈ελ⌉οσoτη ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ηλλα

40 ⌈τ̣ε ̣ ι⌉λ̣⌈α ̣ ⌉ωνετηεπε̣⌈υθι⌉ο

χ̣ ̣ ̣ αιν ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ⌈υσ⌉δε̣υ̣

⌈λε ̣ oυ⌉ ̣ ̣ ⌈ζ⌉ηνμ̣ε̣⌈τηλ⌉

̣ ν̣δροσ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]⌈ουσ⌉ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣ α ̣

λαξεννο̣σω̣⌈ι⌉[ ̣]ε̣τατ̣αυ

̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ⌈αγ⌉[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ⌈ ̣ ⌉ασ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣

ταδου⌈ρη⌉θρα⌈ι⌉ο̣σευβο̣υλοσ

̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣

πατροσα̣ντ̣ ⌈η⌉νοροσγεγο

20 ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ⌈ε⌉ ̣ ⌈αιτ̣⌉[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]τ̣ ̣ ̣ ικ⌈ουσει⌉[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣[ 25 ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣]⌈κα⌉[ ̣]⌈τ̣αλ⌉[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ε̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣[

45 νωσαλεξα⌈ν⌉δ⌈ρ⌉ουτοτε

Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni | 237

Verses 21 -38 PHerc. 1021, cr. 6, col. 27 = IV 756 O = col. 27 NI = I 188 VH² 1 curve at bottom || vert. || κα OΝ: vert., α or λ P || ι O || δε O: ink (desc.?) at mid, ink at bottom P || τα O: ink at top, ink at bottom P 2 ε O: ink P

4 τ O: ink at bottom P || ε O || κ O: ink at bottom P

|| ι Oֹ || 7 π O || σ O: ink at bottom P || δ O

5 α O: α,λ,χ P

6 α,λ,χ

9 ι ON: ink at bottom and top P || ι O || π O: two feet at bottom P

10 ν O || σ̣π O || ι̣+1 || ink at bottom (curve?)+1 || η O || μ̣ O: ink at top and then at bottom (μ likely) P || α O: α,δ,λ P

11 desc. at top || στ O: curve at bottom, ink P || α ON: desc. P || κλη O || τ O: ink at mid P || ink || ink at top ||

α+1 || ink at top

12 parts of ris. obl. || ink (curve?) at mid O: ink at mid P || ink at top (right part of η likely) ||

ink || ink (triangle?) at mid || horiz. at top+1 || o O: curve + curve at top+1 P || ι ON: ink at bottom P || σ ON

13

ink || curve (σ or part of ω likely) Ο: curve P || vert. and then part of horiz. at top || ink (ris. obl.?) at top || ink at bottom || ζ O: ζ,κ,ξ,χ P: ξ N

14 τ O: ink at bottom P || ν̣ O: ink at mid P || α,δ,λ O: ink at top P || ink at top

ε O: ink at bottom P || λ O || ink at bottom || ink (horiz.?) at top || ink at top

15

16 ink || ink at mid || ink (curve?)

at top || curve at bottom || ink (foot?) at bottom || υσ ON: ink at bottom, ε,ο,σ P υ O: vert. at bottom P || σ O || ink at top || ink at top || γ or τ || ink at bottom

17 ink || ink at bottom || ο O || 18 ink || αγ O: α,δ,λ,χ, vert. at

bottom P || line uncertain: vert. and horiz. (κ likely) || line uncertain: α or δ || line uncertain: vert. || π or τ O: part of horiz. P || ink at top || ink || ink at bottom (two letters?) || ink || ink || ink ink (horiz.?) at bottom/mid

19 horiz. at top || curve || ink || vert. at bottom || ink at mid

20 curve (θ?) || ε or θ likely || ink at top || horiz./desc. at mid (ν?) || ink || ink || 21 ink at mid || ink || ink

22 hook || ink at top || ink at top || vert.?

ink || ε Ο: ε or θ P || ink at bottom || α O: ink at bottom P || ιτ̣ O || ink at mid

23 ink ||

24 curve at bottom || ink at top

(desc.?) || ου O: ink at top and mid, vert. at bottom P || σει O || ink (curve?) || ink at top || vert. with joint (ν likely) 25 ink || ink at mid || κ O: vert. at bottom P || α O || τ̣αλ O: ink at bottom, rising obl., α,δ,λ,ν P || vert. at top || two connected vert.s (μ or ν ?)

26 ink at top (assignment of line uncertain, maybe insertion above the line - ` ̣ ο´)

27 ink at top || hook at top 28 ink at bottom (vert.?) at mid || scatt. ink at bottom bottom || ink at bottom || ink at mid

29 ink at mid || vert. || ink at mid || ink (horiz.?) at bottom || ink

30 ink at mid || ink at mid || ink at bottom || ink at mid 32 ink (vert..?) at mid || curve (σ likely) || ink

31 ink at

33 ink at bottom || κα O:

ink at bottom and top, ink at bottom P || vert. at top O: ink at bottom P || horiz. at top O || αν O || ink at bottom 34 ησ O: part of vert., curve at bottom P || π O: ink P || α Ο || μ O: μ or ν P || horiz. at top (γ,ξ,τ likely) || ink at bottom, mid, top (ε or θ likely) || ink at top || α,δ,λ (same layer?)

35 ink at bottom || ink at bottom || σ O ||

α,δ,λ || α,δ,λ || α,δ,λ,ο,ω || ink at top || ink || curve at bottom || ink || ο or ω

36 υτα̣ O || α O: ink at top P

37

π O: τ N || δ Ν: α Ο: α or δ P || curved ink O || desc. at bottom O: ink at bottom P || η O: vert. with hook to the right at top P || τ ON: ζ or τ P || ink at mid || ink (curve?) || curve || ink || ink at bottom || rising obl. at bottom || part of horiz. at top || τ O || α ON: triangle at mid P at top P || μοσ̣ O || curve at bottom || ε O: σ Ν: curve P

38 δ O: ink at bottom P

39 τ O: ink at top P || curve O: ink

40 τ̣ O: ink at top P || ε O || part of horiz. at top O || ι O

|| α O || β or ρ O || υ O: ink at bottom/top P || θ O || ι ON: (right) vert. P

41 λ O: ink at bottom P || ε O || right

foot O || ο O || υ O: ink at bottom P || ink at bottom || ink at mid || ζ O: ink (left part of trianglε?) at bottom and then again ink at bottom P || τηλ O: ink at top, ink at top, ink at bottom P ink at top, ink at bottom P || ι O: ink at bottom P at mid P || ρ O

42 ι O: ink at bottom P

44 η ON: right part of horiz. at top P

43 ρη O:

45 ν ON: ink (vert.?)

238 | Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni

Fig. 7: HSI col. 27

Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni | 239

Fig. 8: MSI col. 27

240 | Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni

Fig. 9: Ox. col. 27

Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni | 241

Fig. 10: Neap. col. 27

242 | Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni

Col. 28

αρχο⌈ν⌉το̣σεπι̣⌈τ⌉ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣

̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ν ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣]ν̣κα ̣[ ̣] ̣

μετ⌈αμ̣⌉ηναστ⌈ι ̣ ⌉ασ⌈ο⌉ ̣ αλ̣

̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣] ̣ κου̣σ ̣[

λικρατ̣ουσευβο⌈ ̣ ⌉ ̣ ο̣σω ̣ ν

̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣

δετωιγε⌈ν⌉ειεφ[ ̣ ̣]⌈ι̣ ̣ ⌉σ̣αγα

δ[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣

5 μηστωρδεμετ[ ̣]τ̣ηνπερ

30 χ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣

σεωσα⌈λωσ⌉ινα̣⌈ικ⌉ασυιοσ

̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

ωνπολυξε̣⌈νουπ⌉πιξενο

⌈ταιο⌉ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

κλεουσ̣τη̣ν̣απ̣⌈ολ⌉υ̣σιντου

τ⌈ρ⌉ ̣ ν̣φ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ν̣ ̣ ̣[

βιουεπ⌈α⌉ι̣ησατεπ[ ̣]νικο[ ̣] ̣ ε

υπ̣⌈ερητ⌉ ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣]⌈υ⌉μ ̣ λ̣

10 ν̇ο̇υ̇σδο̣τη ̣ ⌈ν⌉ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣]⌈ε⌉πιπα[ ̣ ̣

35 ⌈χ⌉ο̣νπ⌈ονω̣⌉ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣]⌈ιστεδ⌉ι ̣

δαπολλω[ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ θ̣ο⌈̣ ν⌉[ ̣ ̣] ̣

τουτω⌈ν⌉τ̣ε̣⌈υτε⌉[ ̣]⌈ε⌉κα̣ι̣⌈μια⌉ι

νον⌈ε⌉π[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ⌈ο⌉ ̣ η̣ρχε̣[ ̣

εξ̣ειτατω̣ν̣⌈αχ̣⌉λων̣ ̣ ̣

τη⌈ν⌉[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ⌈ ̣ ⌉ακ⌈η⌉κ̣ο̣ωσ[

ραλαβω̣νε⌈ικ⌉ ̣ ⌈τ⌉ω ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

μετ̣⌈α⌉[ ̣ ̣]ν̣θ̣ ̣ ̣ ιτη⌈ ̣ ο⌉ν̣δ ̣

τεκαι⌈παι⌉ρησ⌈ιντ⌉ ̣ ̣ ε̣ιστ⌈η⌉ ̣

15 ⌈του⌉νε ̣ τερ̣[ ̣]⌈υ⌉ε ̣[] ̣ α ̣[

40 εχει ⸆ ̣ ⌈ ̣ ⌉ι̣καρνε ̣ ̣ ηδε̣

γ̣εν[ ̣] ̣ ⌈ε̣⌉ν⌈ο ̣ ⌉[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]⌈ο⌉υ̣νο

κατατον̣αυτ ̣ νη ̣ ⌈χρεν̣⌉[ ̣] ̣

̣ ωι ̣ ̣ ⌈λ̣ι̣π⌉ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

β⌈ο⌉η̣θοσ⌈υ⌉ιοσερμαγ ̣ ρο⌈υβα⌉

̣ υ̣ν̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ε ̣ ⌈α⌉[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ 20 ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ] ̣ ν̣ ̣[ ̣]το[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ελ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ου[ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]δε ̣ ̣ ⌈χεμ⌉ ̣ ̣ τ̣ουσ̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣]σ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣]αδ ̣[ ⌈τεν⌉ο̣σ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣]φ̣ ̣ κ ̣ ̣[ 25 ⌈κινυ⌉σ̣τε[ ̣] ̣[ ̣]η ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ σ̣[ ̣] ̣

43 ρ̣α⌈̣ θ⌉ω̣νι̣ο̣σ̣τοπ̣αλα⌈οδετ ̣ ⌉ ̣[

Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni | 243

Verses 39-56 PHerc. 1021, cr. 6, col. 28 = IV 757 O = col. 28 NI = I 189 VH² 1 ν O || τ ON: foot at bottom P || ink (right foot?) at bottom || κ,υ,ψ || α or δ || curve at bottom

2 αμ̣ O: ink at

bottom and then ink and again ink at bottom, ink at bottom P || ι O || μ or ν O: ink at top P || ο O || ink at bottom 3 desc. at top ON || desc. at bottom

4 ν ON: vert. P || ι̣ O || triangle at top O: ink at top P

bottom, ink at mid P || σ ON || ικ O: rising obl. at bottom, ink at bottom/top P ink at mid P: ε O || υ ON: ink at mid P || π O: ink at top P top P || parts of vert. at top

8 ν̣-1 || ο ON: ink at bottom P || λ ON

preserved in O) ν O: ink at top P || ink || ink || ε ON: curve at top P at bottom || vert. || ο N: ink at bottom P || ink || ink || α,δ,λ,χ O: ink P || η Ο

9 α O: ink at

10 (there are three dots above the line between the end of ν and υ, the last only 11 ink at top || ink at top || curve || ink at

bottom and mid (κ likely) || inn at bottom and right foot || ν O: vert. P || ink

ink at top P || ink at bottom

6 λω O: ink at

7 ν ON: ink at bottom || ο N:

12 ε O: curve at top P: σ N || ink

13 ν Ο: part of ris. obl. at bottom and part of desc. at top P || ink

14 α O: ink at bottom P || curve at mid || ink at bottom || horiz. at top O || ο O: 15 τ O || oυ O: curve at bottom (ε,ο,σ), ink at mid P || ink at bottom || υ O: ink at

top P || part of horiz. at top || ink at top (two letters?) || part of horiz. at top ο ON: curve at top P || left foot O || ο O: ink at top P

16 ink at mid || ε̣ O: ink at top P ||

17 ε,θ,σ || ε,θ,κ || ink at bottom and top (κ or χ likely) || λ̣

O: desc. at bottom P || ι̣ O: part of vert. P || π O: vert. with part of horiz. attached on top P || curve || rising obl. || ink at top || ink at top || ink at top || ν or υ

18 curve || ink at bottom || foot || ink at top (α,δ,λ?) || vert. || α O:

ink (curve?) at bottom P || ink at mid (β or δ ?) || ink at mid (curve?)

19 ink at top || ink at top || rising obl.

20 ink at bottom || horiz. at mid || ink at mid (α,δ,λ ?) || ink at bottom

21 twice ink at bottom (ω?) || α,δ,λ ||

rising obl. and then parts of desc. at top (ν likely) || ink (horiz.?) at bottom at bottom || rising obl./vert. at bottom || rising obl./vert. at bottom

22 γγ,π,τ || desc. at bottom || ink

23 χεμ O: curve at bottom, ink at bottom,

ink at bottom P || ink at bottom || vert./ris. obl. || π or τ || ink at bottom/top || ink (vert.?)

24 τε O: ξ or τ, ε or

θ P || ν O || ink at top || ink at mid || rising obl. at bottom || ink || ink || ink || ink || ink at top || vert. || vert. || ink at top

25 κιν Ο || υ O: ink at bottom P || vert. with joint (if same layer η likely) || horiz. at top || left and right foot

(α likely) || vert. || ink at mid ink at top

26 ink || ink || ink at bottom || vert. at top || ink at bottom || ink at mid || ι,σ,τ ||

27 ink at top || vert. at bottom || horiz. at mid || desc. at bottom || ink || vert. || rising obl.

28 τ or

υ || ink at top || ink at bottom || ink at mid || α,δ,λ || ink at mid || horiz. and vert. (two letters?) || curve

29 ο or

ω || ink at bottom and top (υ?) || vert. || hook at bottom || ink at top

30 ink at top || ink (horiz.?) at bottom

31 ink at bottom || ink

32 ταιο O: γ or τ, α or λ, ink at top, λ or μ (if one letter) P || vert. at bottom || vert. at

bottom || ink || desc. || ink at top || ink

33 ρ O || ink || desc. || vert. || ink at bottom || ink at bottom (foot?) || vert.

|| scatt. ink (if same letter as preceding ν likely) || ink at mid (curve? ε,ο,κ?) || ο or υ || ris. obl. (κ?) 34 ερη O: curve (ε,ο likely), vert. at bottom, vert. and then another vert. P || τ Ο || ink at mid and top || ink at bottom/top || ink (two feet?) || α,δ,λ || vert. and then ink at bottom || υ O: rising obl. P || ink at bottom (α?)

35 χ O || ο O:

ink at bottom/top P: σ N || ν ON: vert. at bottom P || ω̣ O || ink at mid (vert.) || vert. || vert. || ιστε O || δ O: ink (desc.?) at bottom P || α or λ

36 ν O || υτε O: ink at bottom/top, horiz. at top and ink at bottom (τ possible),

curve P || ε O: ink at mid P: σ N || μ Ο: rising obl. at bottom P || ι O || α Ο: ink and then foot at bottom P O: α,δ,λ, two feet P || vert.s at bottom || desc.

37 αχ̣

38 ι ON || κ O: vert. (κ likely) P || ink (probably curve, tiny

letter): α Ο || τ O: horiz. at top P || ε,θ,ο,σ || faded α,δ,λ || ink at top || ζ or ξ: α O || α or λ || ink at mid and then bottom

39 πα ON: left part of horiz. at top, top of letter P || ι N || ιντ O: ink at bottom, ink (hook?) at mid and

then ink at bottom, ink (part of vert.?) P || ink (feet?) at bottom || ink at mid || η N: ει O: feet of a letter (η likely) P || ink

40 ink (faded τ?) || o or ω O: ink P || left foot || right foot

χρεν̣ O: α,λ,χ, ris. obl., ink, vert. with joint P || ink at top βα O

41 ink at bottom || vert./obl. at bottom ||

42 ο O || υ O || ink at top || υ ON: ink at bottom P ||

43 θ O: ink P || οδετ O: ink, ink, ink, ink P || vert. O || ink

244 | Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni

Fig. 11: HSI col. 28

Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni | 245

Fig. 12: MSI col. 28

246 | Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni

Fig. 13: Ox. col. 28

Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni | 247

Fig. 14: Neap. col. 28

248 | Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni

Col. 29

̣ ⌈α⌉ν̣οσβ[ ̣]ου ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ντ[ ̣]⌈ν̣⌉α

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

ε̣χωνφ̣[ ̣] ̣ οσοφ⌈οντ⌉[ ̣]⌈ιλο⌉

] ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ω̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

⌈γω⌉ιδαπ̣⌈ ̣ ⌉λω̣τε̣⌈ροσου⌉τοσ

̣ ̣ ̣]α̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

⌈δ⌉α̣ριστω⌈ν̣⌉ο̣⌈σ̣μ⌉ενηνακη

̣ ] ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

5 ⌈κο⌉ωστ̣ο̣[ ̣] ̣ εφεσιουβ ̣ ⌈α⌉χυν

30 ν̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

⌈τ⌉ιν̣ευβο[ ̣]⌈λ̣ο⌉υ̣χρονοντοισ

̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

⌈τ⌉α̣⌈υ⌉τ̣ο̣λ⌈υ⌉κ̣⌈ε⌉ι̣ο̣⌈ι⌉στωι⌈τ⌉αμυν

̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ α̣[] ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣

⌈τ⌉ηιπ̣ολλακισηδηπρ̣ο̣βε

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ α ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

β ̣ ⌈κ⌉ω̣σκ[ ̣ ̣]⌈σ⌉χολησηγ⌈ο⌉[ ̣ ]̣μ̣⌈σ⌉

̣ ω̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ν̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

10 ⌈μ⌉ο⌈ ̣ ⌉δ⌈ι⌉ο̣[ ̣ ̣]⌈σ̣⌉ιωιτου̣⌈σ⌉χ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

35 ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ οσεσ ̣ ε̣[ ̣ ̣

̣ ̣[ ̣]λ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ηι⸌ ̣ ⸍α⌈ ̣ ⌉[ ̣ ̣ ̣

̣ α̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ⌈δ⌉σχ̣ων̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ⌈ν⌉ ̣ ρ̣οσα̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣]⌈ων⌉

̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ι̣δ̣ε̣κατ[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

̣] ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ₍ ̣ ₎]κ̣ε ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣]⌈οσ⌉

̣ ̣ ̣]αρνε̣αδο̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ η̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣]ν̣τ̣ ̣ τε[ ̣]⌈ου⌉

15 ̣ ̣] ̣ ⌈υ⌉στ⌈ερ⌉ονε̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

40 κα̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ⌈α⌉δ̣ο̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣]γ̣ηρασ̣⌈ηδη⌉

τ̣οσ[ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

τ⌈ηνε ̣ ειπο⌉ ̣ το̣σπαρ̣⌈ελα⌉

̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

β̣ε⌈νε⌉ ̣ ⌈σχρα⌉ν̣τ̣ε̣⌈καισχο⌉

̣ ι⌈γ⌉ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ 20 ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ α̣ ̣ νε[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ α[ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[] ̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ν̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ι̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣[ ̣]ο̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ρ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ 25 ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]τ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

43 ⌈λ⌉η⌈νη⌉ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ε̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni | 249

Verses 56-70 PHerc. 1021, cr. 7, col. 29 = IV 758 O = col. 29 NI = I 190 VH² 1 parts of vert. at top || α O: desc. at bottom P || ink at top || α or λ || horiz. at top || ink at top || ν̣ O: parts of desc. at top P

2 desc. || ον O: ο or ω, ink at top P || τ ON || ι O: ink P || λο ON: κ,λ,χ, curve at top (ο likely) P

3 γω

O: ink at bottom, ink at top P || desc. O: ink at bottom P || ρ ON: ink at bottom P || οσο Ο || υ ON: vert. at bottom P

4 δ O: rising obl. at top P || ν̣ O || σ̣ O || μ O: horiz. at top P

5 κo O: vert. and curve at top, ink at bottom P

|| horiz. at top with vert. towards bottom (τ likely) || part of vert. at bottom P: λ Ο || α Ο: ink at bottom P O || λ̣ο O

6τ

7 τ O: ink at bottom and top P || υ O: vert. with joint at bottom P || υ O: ink at bottom P || ε O: ε or θ

P || ι O: ink at mid P: ω N || τ ON: horiz. at top P

8 τ O: ink at bottom

σ O: curve at bottom P || ο O: curve at mid (ε,ο,σ) P || μ̣+1 || σ O

9 part of two vert.s || κ ON: vert. P ||

10 μ O: foot P || curve O: ink at bottom P || ι

ON: ink at mid P || σ̣ O: ink (curve?) P || σ O: (curved) ink at mid (possibly deleted letter –insertion above the line – ε corrected into σ?) P

11 ink (vert.?) and ris. obl. at top (same letter?) || ink at top (same layer/letter?)

|| ink at top || ink at top (curve? ε or θ?) || ink at top (curve? ε or θ?) || parts of vert. || ink at top || maybe ink/insertion (vert.) above the ι || vert./rising obl. ON (ω likely) || α,δ,λ || vert. vert. || ink

17 ink at top || ink (α,δ,λ ?) || ink at bottom || ink

top || ink at top bottom

12 ink || ink || ink || ink || α,δ,λ || ν O: μ or ν P || α,δ,λ 13 curve

15 curve || υ O: ink at bottom P || ερ O: ink at top, ink at mid P

19 ink at top

20 ink at top

16 ink at mid ||

18 ink at bottom || γ O: γ or π P || ink || ink at

21 triangle at bottom (α or δ likely) || horiz. at mid || vert. at

22 ink at mid || curve at bottom || horiz. at mid/top || ink || ink || ink at bottom/top || vert. at bottom

|| vert. at bottom

23 ink || ink at top || γ,π,τ || ink at bottom || α or λ

foot of a letter (α likely) || curve || ink at top

24 λ or χ likely || ink (vert.?) at mid ||

25 ink at top (different layer?) || curve at bottom || curve at bottom

26 ink at top

27 ink at bottom || ink at bottom || horiz. at mid || ink || ink at mid || ink || ink at top

vert. || horiz. at mid || left foot or ε curve || ink at bottom

29 ink || ink || ink || α or δ

28

30 vert. at bottom || parts of horiz. at top ||

31 ο or ρ || vert. || ink at top || ink at bottom

32 ink at top || ink at top || horiz. at mid,

joining a right vert. at mid (μ,ν likely) || ε,ο,σ || horiz. at mid || curve

33 ink || π or τ || curve at bottom || α,λ,χ

|| desc.. at bottom

34 ink at bottom || vert. with parts of horiz. at top and then maybe other vert. || vert. with

parts of horiz. on top (τ possible) || ink (curve?) at mid (ε likely) || vert. || curve

35 ink at top || curve (ε

likely/same line?) || ink at bottom and mid || rising obl. at bottom and part of horiz. at top+1 || ε̣+1

36 ε,κ,ξσ

|| ris. obl. with joint (μ likely) || horiz. at top with vert. below (same layer?) || δ O: ink at top (δ not likely, curve?) P || ν̣+1

37 ink at top (μ or ν likely) || ink || ink || curve || π or τ || ink at top (ρ?) || ων O

38 ink at top || ink at

top (same letter as preceding?) || ink at bottom and top (curve?) || vert. and ink at top (η,π τ? two letters?) || ink at top (ris. obl.?) || οσ O

39 rising obl. and then maybe desc. (α,δ,λ,χ likely) || ink (right foot?) at bottom || ink

at top (upper part of μ?) || ink at bottom || ο or ω || τε+1 || ου O || η O: vert. P || δη O

40 ink at top || ink || curve || α O || ink at bottom

41 η O: ink at top P || νε O || curve (κ,σ,χ, likely) Ο || ε O: ink (foot?) at bottom P || ιπο O

|| ο or ω || ε O: scatt. ink (ε possible) P || λα O

42 νε O || parts of two horiz.s P: ο O || σχ O: curve, ink (desc.?)

at top P || ρα O || και O: vert. and then ink at top (κ likely), ink, ink at bottom P || σ O: ink P || χο O

43 λ O: γ

or λ P || νη O: ink at top, ink at bottom P || ink || ink (horiz.?) at mid || ink and desc. (α,δ,λ,χ ?) || ink at top and rising obl. below (ζ or τ likely) From line 20-35 the stratigraphy and attribution to lines is difficult, so the transcript presented might not be exact. Some letters/traces may actually belong to another layer or line (in particular, some at the beginning of the lines might actually belong to the end of the line). Even the exact number of lines in the column (probably between 4244) is doubtful.

250 | Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni

Fig. 15: HSI col. 29

Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni | 251

Fig. 16: MSI col. 29

252 | Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni

Fig. 17: Ox. col. 29

Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni | 253

Fig. 18: Neap. col. 29

254 | Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni

Col. 30

⌈ ̣ ομωσε⌉ ̣ ⌈ωτη⌉π̣ρ̣ο⌈κ⌉α̣ρ̣

[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]

νεαδουδε̣το ̣ υπολεμαρ

[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]

⌈κ⌉ουτονβιο⌈ν̣⌉ε̣πε̣π̣ικλεουσ

[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]

⌈αρ⌉χ̣⌈ο⌉ν̣το⌈σ̣⌉εγλελοι̣⌈π̣⌉οτοσ

[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]

5 ̣]⌈ρ⌉ατ̣ησοτ̣⌈α⌉ρσευ̣στ⌈η̣⌉ν

30 [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]

⌈σ⌉χο⟦δ⟧⸌λ⸍ηνδ⌈ι⌉ε̣δεξατο⌈τ⌉ου

[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]

τουδεδυετ⌈η⌉διακατα̣σχον

[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]

τ̣οσμονονκλειτ̣ομα

[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]

̣ οσεν ̣ ̣[ ̣]⌈π⌉αλλ⌈αδι⌉ωι

[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]

10 ̣]χο̣⌈λ̣⌉ηνε̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣ ⌈ε⌉ιστηνα

35 [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]

κ⌈αδημ⌉ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣]⌈ ̣ ⌉ε̣⌈τ⌉η̣λ ̣ εγνω

[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ⌈ο⌉υ̣

[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ μεν̣ ̣ ̣ υ

[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]αμπρ̣⌈ε⌉

[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]

15 ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣

40 [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]

[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]

[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]

[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]

[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]

[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]

[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]

[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]

44 [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]

20 [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] 25 [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]

Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni | 255

Verses 70-76 PHerc. 1021, cr. 7, col. 30 = IV 759 O = col. 30 NI = I 191 VH² 1 right part of triangle at bottom (δ likely, β possible) O || ο O || μωσε O:μ or ν, ink, part of curve, parts of curve P || ζ or ξ || ωτη O: ink at top (curve?), ink at top, parts of horiz. and vert. (η likely) P || κ O: vert. P κ O: κ or χ P || ν̣ O

4 α O || ρ O: curve at top P || ο ON: ink at bottom P || σ̣ O || π̣ O

and top P || α O: right foot P || η O: ink at top P P

6 σ O || ι O || τ O: ink at top P

3

5 ρ Ο: ink at bottom

7 η O: foot and top of vert.

9 κ or χ || parts of horiz. at top || vert. (slightly curved?) || π O: parts of horiz. at top P || α ON: α,λ,δ P ||

δ O: ν N: right foot P || ι O: ink at bottom P curve at top P

10 λ̣ O: ink at bottom P || ink at bottom || foot of vert. || ε ON:

11 κ +1 || α +1 Ο: desc. at top P || δ +1 O || ημ ON: ink at top, μ or ν P || ε,θ,ο,σ,ω || vert. ON: left

and right foot P || τ ON || ink

12 hook at top || ink (τ likely) || curve || vert./rising obl. || ο O: curve P

right foot at bottom || ink at bottom/top || ink at bottom

14 ε ON: ε or ο P

13

15 ink at bottom

Ca. 30 lines are missing. It is not entirely to be excluded that there are some tiny and faded ink traces at the end of the line at line-level 20, 25 and 30

256 | Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni

Fig. 19: HSI col. 30

Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni | 257

Fig. 20: MSI col. 30

258 | Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni

Fig. 21: Ox. col. 30

Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni | 259

Fig. 22: Neap. col. 30

260 | Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni

Col. 31

δε̣πρεσβευ̣σασποτε⌈σ⌉πλευ

δ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ⌈μεπιειζη⌉ ̣ ̣ ̣

σ⌈ ̣ ⌉ν̣εισρωμηνπαρ̣η̣ντε

η̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣]μ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ φ̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣]α̣σ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

π̣[ ̣]τ̣υγχανων⸆καιμην

̣ ̣ ̣ ω̣ι̣β̣ι̣ω̣ι̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

μ⌈ε⌉λανθιονγε⌈γι⌉νωσκ⌈εισ⌉

̣ ̣] ̣ α ̣ ν̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣]χ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣

5 ο̣⌈υ⌉ιτραγωιδιαιμεν⟦⌈μεν⟧⸌ζην⌉ ̣ ⸍⌈οι⌉

30

̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣

εστεφανωμενο[ ̣]ικανο⌈ν̣⌉

̣] ̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ν̣ιμ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

ταρισταρχωισυνεσχ⌈ολο⌉

̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ κη̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣] ̣ α̣μ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

κωσχρονονπολυτ⟦⌈ ̣ ̣ ̣ ⟧⸌οσεν⌉⸍

̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ α̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣]ω̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

αθηναισμαλλονω⌈σ̣⌉ ̣ ̣ ̣

̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ⌈o⌉σ̣ω̣ν̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

10 σχ ̣ ⌈ ̣ ⌉ησαλλωσυ⟦ ̣ ⌈ν⟧ ⸌π⸍α⌉[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

35 ⌈π⌉ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ⌈τα⌉τ ̣ ν̣⌈α ̣ ⌉ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

ενμεγαληπεριο ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ο ̣

δρε̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣]λλογιμωτ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

κ̣α ̣ ν̣ε̣αδου̣δε⌈νχν̣η⌉ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣

ε̣π̣α̣ρ̣ι̣στ̣̣ο̣φαντουπρω̣

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ⌈υτ̣ ̣ τ⌉ο⌈μ⌉ ̣ ⌈χητ⌉[ ̣ ̣

τ̣ο̣νε̣⌈ι⌉σ̣⌈γε⌉να⌈τ⌉τικ⌈ε⌉νκατε̣

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]τ̣οσ ̣ ⌈ ̣ ντρω⌉[

πλευσε⌈ ̣ ⌉τωνωνεικοσι̣ν

15 ̣ ̣] ̣ α̣ ̣ ̣ αιπροσα̣⌈ ̣ ⌉τ̣ οντ̣[ ̣ ̣

40 τ⌈ο⌉και̣[ ̣]υ̣οτ[ ̣]⌈ι⌉καρνεαδου

ακ̣[ ̣]δ̣η̣ ̣[]ειαι̣σχολ̣ ̣ νυ⌈σ⌉[ ̣ ̣

δω̣σε⌈ ̣ τ⌉αδιακο⌈υσ⌉ασετη

⌈σα⌉ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣]ν̣ου⌈σ⌉ανα̣⌈ ̣ ⌉εινα⌈ ̣ ̣ ⌉[

ειστην⌈α̣⌉σ̣ιαναπηρε̣κειδευ

̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣]σ̣α⌈τ⌉ ̣[] ̣ ⌈χω[] ̣ υγγ⌉ρ̣α̣[

⌈η⌉μ̣ερωνκαιτωνκαθαυ

̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ σ̣ε̣[ ̣]⌈ ̣ ομ⌉ε⌈ν̣⌉[ ̣ ̣

⌈τ⌉ονφα⌈ι⌉νομε̣νοσ̣⌈πολ⌉υχου̣σ

20 ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣]λ̣ο̣τ̣ρ̣ι⌈̣ ο̣⌉[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ α ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣]ν̣ο̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣[ ζην[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ⌈εν⌉[ ̣ ̣ ⌈τι⌉ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣]⌈νεσ⌉χε⌈τ⌉[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ 25 ω ̣ ε̣ ̣ ̣ υ̣σ̣⌈καλ⌉ο̣ ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[] ̣ ν̣

45 ̣[ ̣] ̣ ο̣σε[]στα ̣ αθηνα⌈σκ⌉λ̣

Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni | 261

Verses 77-94 PHerc. 1021, cr. 7, col. 31 = IV 760 O = col. 31 NI = I 192 VH² 1 σ Ο: ε or σ P 2 curve O: ink P

4 ε O: ink at bottom/top P || γι O: vert., ink at bottom P || εισ ON

5 υ O: ink

at bottom and parts of horiz. at top (?) P || μεν Ο: ink, ink, ink P || ζ O || η O: ink P: ο N || ν ON: vert. P || ink at top || ο ON || ι O

6 ν̣ ON

7 ολ ΟΝ: ink at top, ink at top P || o O: ink P 8 vertical O: part of vert. P || ink

(curve?) O: ink P || curve (ε or ο likely) O: ink P || ο O: ink (same layer?) P || σ Ο || ε O: ink (same layer?) P || ν O (maybe there was no correction and O has displayed other layers or corrected his own miswriting)

9 σ̣ O:

ink P || ink at bottom and top (upper part of ε or o?) || ink at top || ink 10 ink || vert. and ris. ob. (par of ρ? O):ink at bottom, mid, top (ρ possible) || ink || ν (not erased) ON: ink (deleted letter? triangle? ν?) P || πα O: γ or broad π, α or δ P 11 ris. obl. || curve || upper part of vert. || α or δ || right part of horiz. at top || ink at mid

12 ink at

top || νχ O: vert./rising obl., ink at mid P || ν̣η O-1 (layer uncertain): vertical+1, curve at bottom+1 P || desc. 13 ink || ink || ink || ink || horiz. at mid (same layer?) || υ ON: υ or χ (same layer?) P || τ̣ N: horiz. at top with joining vert. (τ?) P || desc. O: ink (desc.?) at top P || τ ON:π (likely) or τ P || μ ON: μ (likely) or ν P || η,π,ι +letter P: α Ο: κ N || χητ O -1: ink, ink, ink P- 1 14 [the layer of τα at the beginning of the line is doubtful – not placed in the diplomatic transcript] ink at bottom and top, then ink again (η,κ,π?) || ink and curve at bottom (ε,σ,ω ?) +1

and curve at top O-1 || ν O-1 || τ Ο-1: ink (other layer?) P || ρ Ο-1 : ink P-1 || ω Ο-1

15 [maybe τ̣ο is not a

sovrapposto, but belong to the beginning of the line] ink at mid ||| vert. || ink at bottom (α,δ,λ,ξ? two letters?) || vert./ris. obl. N and ink at top+1 || τ̣ ο+1 || ντ-1

16 ink || ink at top -1 || νυ -1 || σ O- 1: curve at bottom P -1

17 σα

Ο (same layer?) : ink, ink P || vert. with hook (ν ?) || faded ink (ε ?) || vert. and then ink (κ?) || ink (vert.?) || σ Ο: ε,θ,σ P || vert. ON || εινα -1 || ι Ο-1: vert. P-1 || part of vert. O -1: traces at bottom/top P -1

18 horiz. at top || τ

ON: foot at bottom P || ink at mid || vert. || χω Ο: horiz. and ink at bottom/mid (ξ or τ?), curve at bottom P || curve at bottom -1 O || υγγ O -1: μ,ν,υ,αι,λι, hook at top, ink at bottom P -1 || ρ̣α̣-1 (horiz.?) at mid || ink at bottom O-1 || ομ O -1: ink, foot P -1 || ε-1 || ν̣ O-1: μ or ν P-1

19 ink || ink at top || ink 20 ink || ink at bottom ||

λ̣ο̣τ̣ρ̣ι̣ -1 || ọ O-1: ο or ω P -1 21 triangle at top (ρ?) || ink at top || ink at bottom/top (left foot?) || vert. mid || vert. || curve (σ?) || ink at top

22 ink at

23 ink at mid || ink at top || ink at bottom (curve?) || desc. || εν O (ink in

P and accordingly O might be at least partly +1 )

24 τ O: ink at mid P || ι O || ink at mid || νε O || σ O: ink at mid

P || τ O: horiz. at top P || ink at mid || vert. (with curve at top?) || ink at top

25 μ or ν || ε or ο || ink (vert.?) || κ

O || α O: part of triangle at bottom P || λ O || vert. with joints (κ likely) || ink at top || triangle (α,λ,δ)

26 scatt.

ink || scatt. ink || scatt. ink || scatt. ink || με O || πι O: ink at top and then vert. at bottom (τ?), ink at bottom P || ει O || ζη O: ink at mid, ink P || ink || ink || ink

27 π or τ || ε or θ || vert. and ink (κ likely) || ν or α,δ,λ +ι || horiz.

28 [the paragraphus is only partly preserved] ink | ink | ink | horiz. at top and vert. (τ likely) || ink top || ink at top || ink at mid || ε,θ,σ || ε,ο,ω || ink at top || ink at mid

31 ink at top || ink at top || ν̣ιμ+1 || ink at bottom (curve?)+1

ink at bottom || κ,σ,χ+1|| α̣μ+1 || ink at bottom ink at top || ω̣+1

29 ink at

30 κ or χ || foot at bottom || curve (κ?) || λ+letter or ν 32 ink at mid || desc. (α likely) ||

33 ink (η likely) || ink (right part οf horiz.?) at top || ink at top ||

34 left foot at bottom || foot at bottom || curve || curve || vert. || ο O: ink at mid P

35 π Ο:

foot at bottom and horiz. at top (γ?) P || vert. with hook at bottom (ε or ι?) || ink at bottom || faded triangle at top || τα O: parts of vert. and horiz. (τ possible), ink at top and right foot (α possible) P || ink at bottom (η or ο likely) || α O: ink at top P || vert. O: ink at top P || curve at top || ink || ink at top || ink (vert.?)

36 ink on a loose,

twisted fragment (ι possible) || ink on a loose, twisted fragment (α possible) || ink at mid || foot at bottom || horiz. at top || curve at tiop (ο likely) || ink top P || ε O: ink P

at top P || υσ O: ink at top, faded ink P at top, ink at top P || λ O bottom P

38 ι O: ink at bottom P || γε O: vert. at bottom, ink P || τ O: ink at

39 ε,θ,ο O: ink at bottom P 40 ο O: faded ink P || ι O: ink P 42 α̣ O: ink P 43 η O

41 horiz. at top O || τ Ο: horiz.

44 τ O || ι Ο || πο O: vert.s at bottom and horiz.

45 part of horiz. at top || part of horiz. at top || ink at top || σ ΟΝ: ink P || κ N: ink at

262 | Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni

Fig. 23: HSI col. 31

Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni | 263

Fig. 24: MSI col. 31

264 | Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni

Fig. 25: Ox. col. 31

Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni | 265

Fig. 26: Neap. col. 31

266 | Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni

Col. 32

⌈θ⌉ ̣ καν̣ταυταισε ̣ ηα̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

⌈μισω⌉ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ σ̣ω̣κρ ̣ ̣α̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣

δυ̣⌈μα⌉ ̣ ενοσποικ[ ̣]λω̣σπ ̣ ̣

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣]⌈ι⌉σθα ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[

θεινοχλουσκαιγραμ̣μ̣α

μ̣ε ̣ ̣[ ̣]ε̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ εξ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

τω̣νεμπ̣ειροσικαν̣ω̣ν⌈κα⌉[ ̣

̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ν[ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]δ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣

5 φυ̣σ̣ειμνημωνα⌈υεγ⌉ ̣ ⌈ω⌉

30 ̣ ρ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ν[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ν̣δ ̣ ̣[

κω̣σδε̣π⌈ο⌉λλ⌈α⌉ρ̣α⌈̣ ιδιωσ⌉ε̣⟦ ̣⟧⸌ ̣ ⸍⌈ ̣ ⌉

̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣

χεπολιτειαστεκανδοξου̣

̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣]δ̣υ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ τ̣ωι

σχολ⟦α⟧⸌η̣⸍[ ̣]ε̣ντωιπ̣⌈π⌉ ̣ λ ̣ μαι̣

̣] ̣ γ̣ωι ̣ χ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ₍ ̣ ₎] ̣

ωιτω[ ̣]α̣λειφομε̣ν̣ω̣ν

̣]ωιλoγ̣ω̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣

10 εκεια ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ⌈ ̣ ν⌉εξ̣εδραν

35 κλει̣δ̣η̣σ̣[ ̣] ̣[]⌈μ⌉[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ι̣[ ̣ ̣

α⌈ν⌉ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]⌈τατ⌉ια̣ντου

καιδι̣ο̣γεν̣ ̣ σ̣κ̣ ̣[ ̣]ηροδο

⌈κ⌉α⌈ι⌉[ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣]⌈υλ⌉[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ο̣ντακ ̣ ̣ ̣

τοσκαι̣στρατ̣ ̣ ̣ ποσν̣ι̣κο

⌈τ⌉αι[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]⌈ ̣ ̣ ⌉[ ̣ ₍ ̣ ₎]ο̣υκεν

μ̣⌈η⌉δ[[⌈ισ⌉]]̣εισβατ⌈α⌉κ̣ησνι⌈κα⌉ι[ ̣ ̣

αστ[ ̣ ̣]τα[ ̣]⌈ασ⌉ολασπεποι

⌈αρ⌉ο̣π⌈̣ ειθ⌉η̣σπ ̣ ⌈α⌉ ̣ ⌈γ̣ο⌉σ⌈κροτ⌉[ ̣]⌈ ̣ α⌉

15 ⌈η⌉με[ ̣ ̣ ̣]⌈ ̣ ⌉ντ̣[ ̣]πατροσετι

40 ⌈τα⌉μισηνοσδι̣⌈ο⌉μεδ⌈ω⌉ν[

δ̣εζ[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ωρ[ ̣] ̣ ωνο⌈νεν⌉

ταρσ⌈ε⌉υσπαμφ̣ι̣λοσα ̣ ο̣ ̣[ ̣

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]λε ̣ ̣ νδρ̣⌈σ⌉[ ̣ ̣]⌈υ⌉[

ανδρουμα⌈γν⌉η̣σαπολλ⌈ω⌉

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣]ν̣[ ̣]⌈τη⌉ ̣ ̣ ε̣

νι⌈ο⌉σ̣β̣α̣⌈ρα⌉αιοσ ̣ ικο⌈στρ⌉α⌈ ̣ ο⌉[

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ε̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ 20 α[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]⌈ν⌉ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ τερ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]⌈ρ̣χηδ⌉ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣]⌈κ⌉ε̣ ̣ ⌈ταθ⌉ε⌈ ̣ ⌉[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣]⌈υσε ̣ ⌉[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣]α[ ⌈δ⌉ ̣ σ̣⌈τ⌉[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣]η̣ ̣ ⌈α⌉[ ̣ ̣]⌈τα⌉[ ⌈δ⌉ρ̣⌈ε⌉ια̣ν̣ε ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣]⌈τε⌉[ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣]ω̣ι[ 25 ⌈ουσ⌉ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣]⌈ ̣ α⌉[̣ ̣] ̣ ο̣[ ̣] ̣ α[

44 ⌈αλεξα⌉νδρευσβ⌈οη⌉θο̣σπα⌈ρ⌉[ ̣ ̣

Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni | 267

Verses 94-107 PHerc. 1021, cr. 7, col. 32 = IV 761 O = col. 32 NI = I 193 VH² 1 θ Ο: ε or θ P || ε or θ || ink at bottom || ink (vert.?) || ink at mid || vert.

2 μ O: μ or ν P || α Ο: α,λ,δ P || ink at

top and bottom P: τ O || ink at top || ink at bottom

5 υεγ O: ink at mid, ink at mid, horiz.

at top P || μ or ν || ω O

4 κα ON: ink, ink P

6 ο Ο: ink P || α ON: desc./vert. P || ι O || διωσ O: rising obl. at mid, ink, ink, curve at

top P || ink P: τ Ο || vert. || ο or ω O: ris. obl. P

8 π Ο: horiz. at top P || ink (o possible) || ε or ο P

10 ink at

top || ink at top || ink at top || ink at top || vert. at top O: ink (vert.?) at top P || ν O: top of vert., maybe with joint and then other vert. P

11 ν ON: vert. with horiz. to right at top and then ink (if same letter μ or ν likely) P ||

ink (?) || τατ O: ink at mid, ink at bottom and top and then part of horiz. at top with rising obl. below (ατ ιν Ο= χ?) P

12 κ O: κ or χ P || ι O: vert. P || curve at bottom || α,δ,λ || υλ O: ink at bottom, faded triangle P || curve at

top (ο likely) || ink (upper part of υ ?) at top || ink P

13 τ O: part of horiz. at top P || vert. O: ink P || curve O: ink

14 τα+2 || ασ O: curve at bottom, ink at bottom P

curve at top || ν Ν: μ or ν O: vert. P || εν O: ink, vert. P υ O: right part of letter at top (ν ?) P

15 η O: part of right vert. P || desc. Ο

16 right foot ||

17 ink at top || faded traces (α ?) || σ O: curve at top P ||

18-26 [the combination of different parts of the lines and the disegno is

not entirely certain] 18 ν or υ || τη O: vert. with ink at top , ink (vert.?) and then vert. (η or κ ?) P || ι or (left part of) π P: τ̣ O || γ or π P: τ̣ O 19 ink || ink (ris. obl.at top?) || ris. obl. at top || curve at top

20 ν O: rising obl. with joint at mid P || ink

21 ink (curve?) at bottom || ρ̣χ O || ηδ O: ink at mid, parts of a triangle P || vert. at bottom

|| κ O || ink at bottom (curve?) and top

22 τ O: ink at mid P || α O || θ O: ink at top P || vert. O: ink at mid P ||

ink at top || υσ O: desc., rising obl. P || ε Ο || vert. O: ink a top (λ or ν ?) P || ink

23 δ O || ink at mid and then at

bottom || τ O: ε,σ,τ P || ink at top || ink at mid and top (ε?) || ink at top (vert.?) || vert. || α O: α or λ P || τα O: part of horiz. at top, top of letter P

24 [paragraphus in O, only parts in P] δ O: α,δ,λ P || ε O: right part of horiz. P ||

ν̣+1 || ε+1 || ζ or ξ +1 || ε or θ+1 || ris. obl. at bottom || τε O: ink at top, faded ink (σ,ε,o?) P || curve (ω,ο likely) 25 ου Ο: curve at bottom, desc. (α?) P || σ O || ink at bottom and horiz. above and then vert. || vert. || ink at top || horiz. at top O || α O: ink at mid P || right foot || μ or ν

26 μισω O: vert. and then horiz., ink at top, ink at mid,

vert. P || vert. || ink at mid and top (ε?) || horiz. and vert. || vert. || ink at bottom || ink at top

27 desc. at top ||

ink at mid || ink at mid || ink (curve?) || ink || α,δ,λ || ε,θ,σ || ink || ι O: ink at top P || ink (joint of two letters?) || ink || π or τ || ο or ω

28 μ̣ε+1 (layer not entirely certain) || ink at top (ν or ρ?) || ink (vert. at mid) || ink at top (υ

or χ likely) || α,δ,λ,χ || horiz. at mid

29 ink at top || ink. at top || ink at mid || ink at mid

at top || ink || ink || α,δ,λ || vert. || ο or ω

at top || horiz. at top (two letters?) || γ or τ at bottom

30 right foot || ink

31 ink at top || α or δ || part of triangle at mid || ink at top || curve || ink 32 curve (ω?) || vert. || ink || horiz. at bottom (δ ?) || ink (curve?)

33 curve at bottom || curve at bottom || ink (curve?) at bottom || ink || ink (μ,ν,υ likely) || ink (ν

likely) 34 desc. at mid || ink (vert.?) || ο or θ || vert. and then desc. at top (ν likely) vert./curve P ||horiz. at top

35 faded α,δ,λ ||| μ O:

36 ink at bottom || α,δ,λ || ηροδο-1 37 ink || two feet at bottom || ν̣ι̣κο-1 38 η O:

ink at bottom P || ισ Ο: deleted letter P || α O: ink at bottom P || κα O: ink, desc. P

39 α O: α,δ,λ P || ρ O || [ink

above ο – correction?] || ειθ O: curve, ink at bottom, ε or θ P|| α O: α,δ,λ,χ P || ink || γ̣ο O: ink, ink P || κ Ο: foot at bottom P || ρο O || τ Ο: ink at bottom P || desc. O: ink (desc.?) P || α O: ink P ο O: ε,ο,σ P || ω O: ink at mid P 41 ε O: curve P || vert. with joint at top || foot || ω O: ο or ω P

42 γν O: parts of vert., μ or ν P

43 ο O: curve P || ρα O: ink, ink P || vert. || στρ Ο: ink at top, ink at bottom, ink (curve?) at top

P || υ or χ O: ink (horiz.?) P || ο O and ink P

40 τ O: ink P || α O: right foot P ||

44 αλ ON|| ε O || ξα O: ζ,ξ,τ, α,δ,λ P || οη O: curve, horiz. at top P || ρ O: vert.

268 | Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni

Fig. 27: HSI col. 32

Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni | 269

Fig. 28: MSI col. 32

270 | Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni

Fig. 29: Ox. col. 32

Diplomatic transcript with images and disegni | 271

Fig. 30: Neap. col. 32

10 Index of the verses of the Chronica Index nominum Note that in the case of Philodemus and Stephanus the line numbers in brackets refer to the exact line(s), where the name occurs. Consequently, they often differ slightly from the line numbers in the table of concordance in 6.6.

Ἀγαμήστωρ 33 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,36); 41 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,4-5) Ἀθῆναι 82 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,9); 94 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,45) Ἀθηναῖος 9 (= D.L. 8,52) Ἀκαδήμεια 67 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,39); 76 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,10-11); 85 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,16) Ἀλεξάνδρεια 88 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,35-36); 104 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,17); 105 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,23-24) Ἀλέξανδρος 38 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,45) Ἀμύντης 60 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,7-8; 26,35-36) Ἀντήνωρ 38 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,44) Ἀντίπατρος 103 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,15) Ἀπολλώνιος 45 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,11) Ἀρίσταρχος 81 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,7) Ἀρίστιππος 27 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,9) Ἀριστοτέλης 12 (= D.L. 8,52) Ἀριστόφαντος 89 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,37) Ἀρίστων 58 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,4) Ἀρκάς 42 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,6) Ἀσία 92 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,42) Ἀττική 89 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,38) Αὐτολυκεῖοι 60 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,7; 26,35) Βόηθος 55 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,42) Γλαῦκος 6 (= D.L. 8,52) Διονύσιος 62 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,10; 26,38) Διοπείθης 16 (= Aul. Gel. 17,4,4) Δυμαῖος 1 (= Steph. Byz. δ 140,32) Δῶρος 108 (= Steph. Byz. δ 150,43)

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110703726-010

276 | Index of the verses of the Chronica

Ἐπαίνετος 46 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,12) Ἐπικλῆς 72 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,4) Ἑρμαγόρας 55 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,42) Ἐρυθραῖος 37 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,43) Εὔανδρος 29 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,11-12); 32 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,16-17) Εὔβουλος (Ἐρυθραῖος) 34 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,37-38); 37 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,43) Εὔβουλος (Ἐφέσιος) 34 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,37-38); 40 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,3); 59 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,6; 26,34) Εὔβουλος 49 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,17) Εὔμαχος 65 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,16; 26,44) Εὐπόλεμος 36 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,40-41) Ἐφέσιος 41 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,4); 59 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,5; 26,33) Ζηνόδωρος 103 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,16) Ἡρακλείδης 13 (= D.L. 8,52) Θαργηλιών 66 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,17; 26,44-45) Θεαίτητος 47 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,14) Θήρα 20 (= Steph. Byz. θ 44,2) Θηρασία 20 (= Steph. Byz. θ 44,2) Θούριοι 4 (= D.L. 8,52) Θράσυς 26 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,8-9) Καλλικράτης 40 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,2-3) Καλλίστρατος 23 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,4) Καρνεάδης 54 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,40); 64 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,14; 26,42); 68 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,40); 71 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,1-2); 84 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,12); 91 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,40); 101 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,12) Κηφισιεύς 16 (= Aul. Gel. 17,4,4) Κλειτόμαχος 75 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,8-9) Κράτης 73 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,5) Μαραθώνιος 55 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,42-43) Μελάνθιος 79 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,4) Μέτων 4 (= D.L. 8,52) Μοσχίων 35 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,39)

Index of the verses of the Chronica | 277

Νικοσθένης 44 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,9-10) Ξενοκλῆς 43 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,7-8) Παλλάδιον 75 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,9) Παντιάδης 24 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,4-5) Πασέας 26 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,8) Περσεύς 41 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,5-6) Πολέμαρχος 71 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,2-3) Πολύξενος 42 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,7) Πτολεμαῖον 99 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,8-9) Ῥώμη 78 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,2) Συράκουσαι 8 (= D.L. 8,52) Ταρσεύς 73 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,5) Τηλεκλῆς 28 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,11); 31 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,15); 44 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,10); 46 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,13) Χαιρωνικός 15 (= Steph. Byz. χ 6,2,30) Χαλκητορεύς 109 (= Steph. Byz. χ 16,3) Χαρίδημος 109 (= Steph. Byz. χ 16,2) Ὠρεϊτής 19 (= Steph. Byz. ω 14,9)

278 | Index of the verses of the Chronica

Index verborum Note that in the case of Philodemus and Stephanus the line numbers in brackets refer to the exact line(s), where the word occurs. Consequently, they often differ slightly from the line numbers in the table of concordance in 6.6.

ἀγνοέω 9 (= D.L. 8,52) ἀγχίνοια 63 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,11-12; 26,40) ἀγω 95 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,1) αἱρέω 19 (= Steph. Byz. ω 14,9) ἀκουστής 101 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,11-12) ἀκούω 46 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,13); 58 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,4-5) ἀκροάομαι 86 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,24-25); ἀλείφω 99 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,10) ἄλλος 50 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,34); 52 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,37); 83 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,10) ἅλωσις 42 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,6) ἅμα 63 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,12; 26,40); 100 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,11) ἀναγιγνώσκω 97 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,5-6) ἀνήρ 63 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,12; 26,40) ἀπαίρω 92 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,42) ἁπαλός 57 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,3) ἀπό 3 (= Steph. Byz. ε 76,2) ἀπολαμβάνω 100 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,10) ἀπόλυσις 43 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,8) ἄρχω 46 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,12) ἄρχων 39 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,1); 65 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,15-16; 26,43); 72 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,4) ἄστυ 102 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,14) αὐτός 5 (= D.L. 8,52); 12 (= D.L. 8,52); 26 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,8); 29 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,12); 30 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,14); 39 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,1); 54 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,41); 85 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,15); 93 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,4344) βίος 22 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,3); 30 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,14); 43 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,9); 56 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,1); 71 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,3); 107 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,34) βραχύς 59 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,5; 26,33)

Index of the verses of the Chronica | 279

γάρ 10 (= D.L. 8,52); 12 (= D.L. 8,52) γε 11 (=D.L. 8,52); 79 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,4) γένος 40 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,4) γῆρας 68 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,40) γίγνομαι 26 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,7-8); 38 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,44-45); 48 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,16); 84 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,12); 101 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,12) γιγνώσκω 79 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,4) γνώριμος 76 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,11-12) γράμμα 96 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,3-4) γράφω 17 (= Aul. Gel. 17,4,5) δέ 4 (= D.L. 8,52); 7 (= D.L. 8,52); 13 (= D.L. 8,52); 22 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,2); 24 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,5); 26 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,8); 27 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,9); 29 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,12); 30 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,14); 32 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,16); 33 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,36); 37 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,43); 39 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,1); 40 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,4); 41 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,5); 44 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,10); 45 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,11); 47 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,14); 54 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,40); 56 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,43); 58 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,3); 64 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,13; 26,41); 67 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,38); 70 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,1); 71 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,2); 74 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,7); 77 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,1); 84 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,12); 87 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,26); 91 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,41); 92 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,42); 97 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,6); 101 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,12); 103 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,16) δέκα 21 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,1); 24 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,6) δέκατος 64 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,13; 26,41) διά 25 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,7); 51 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,35); 68 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,40) διαδέχομαι 73 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,6) διακατέχω 74 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,7-8) διακούω 91 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,41) διαλείπω 25 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,6) δοκέω 10 (= D.L. 8,52); 30 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,14) δόξα 53 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,38) δρᾶμα 17 (= Aul. Gel. 17,4,5) δύναμαι 95 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,2) δύναμις 106 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,25-26) δύο 18 (= Aul. Gel. 17,4,6); 27 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,10); 34 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,37); 74 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,7); 90 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,40) δώδεκα 35 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,39-40)

280 | Index of the verses of the Chronica

ἐγώ 9 (= D.L. 8,52) εἴκοσιν 90 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,39) εἰκός 52 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,38) εἰμί ἦν 4 (= D.L. 8,52); 10 (= D.L. 8,52); 14 (= D.L. 8,52); 33 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,37); 51 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,35); 54 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,41); 56 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,43); 58 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,4); 80 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,5); 109 (= Steph. Byz. χ 16,2) οὖσαν 108 (= Steph. Byz. δ 150,43) ὤν 16 (= Aul. Gel. 17,4,4); 33 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,35); 40 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,3); 42 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,7); 90 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,39) εἰς 4 (= D.L. 8,52); 8 (= D.L. 8,52); 76 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,10); 78 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,2); 89 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,38); 92 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,42); 94 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,45); 105 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,23); 108 (= Steph. Byz. δ 150,43) εἷς 51 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,36) ἐκ 16 (= Aul. Gel. 17,4,4) ἑκατόν 17 (= Aul. Gel. 17,4,5) ἐκεῖ 68 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,41); 92 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,42); 99 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,10) ἐκεῖνος 8 (= D.L. 8,52) ἐκλείπω 18 (= Aul. Gel. 17,4,6); 49 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,17); 66 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,17-18; 26,45); 72 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,4); 105 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,24) ἐκτίθημι 62 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,11; 26,39) ἐλλόγιμος 88 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,36) ἔμπειρος 96 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,4) ἐν 75 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,9); 82 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,8); 83 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,11); 94 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,1); 99 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,8); 102 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,13) ἔνδοξος 98 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,7) ἐνίστημι 1 (= Steph. Byz. δ 140,32) ἕξ 70 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,1) ἐξέδρα 69 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,42); 100 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,10) ἑξήκοντα 12 (= D.L. 8,52) ἕξις 52 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,37) ἐπί 23 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,4); 24 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,4); 25 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,7); 36 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,40); 39 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,1); 43 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,7); 44 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,9); 45 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,10); 65 (=

Index of the verses of the Chronica | 281

Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,15; 26,43); 72 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,3); 89 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,37) ἐπίδηλος 33 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,36-37) ἐπιεικής 87 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,26) ἐπιθαλάττιος 108 (= Steph. Byz. δ 150,43-44) ἐπιλαμβάνω 35 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,40) ἐπίσημος 28 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,10) ἐπιτυγχάνω 78 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,2-3) ἐπιχειρέω 29 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,12) ἑπτά 91 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,41) ἔρχομαι 6 (= D.L. 8,52); 94 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,45-32,1) ἐσθίω 3 (= Steph. Byz. ε 76,2) ἕτερος 22 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,2); 24 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,5) ἔτι 13 (= D.L. 8,52); 29 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,13); 33 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,37); 56 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,43); 67 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,39); 103 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,15) ἔτος 12 (= D.L. 8,52); 18 (= Aul. Gel. 17,4,6); 25 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,6); 35 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,40); 70 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,1); 74 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,7); 90 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,39); 91 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,41); 94 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,1) εὐημερέω 92 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,42-43) ἔχω 2 (= Steph. Byz. ε 76,2); 53 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,40); 57 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,2); 67 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,38); 75 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,10) ζάω 29 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,13); 36 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,41) ἤ 10 (= D.L. 8,52) ἡγέομαι 61 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,9-10; 26,37-38); 70 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,43) ἤδη 61 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,8; 26,36); 68 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,40) ἡμεῖς 65 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,16; 26,44) ἱκανός 56 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,43-29,1); 81 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,); 96 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,4) ἱστορέω 7 (= D.L. 8,52) ἰχθῦς 2 (= Steph. Byz. ε 76,2) καί 18 (= Aul. Gel. 17,4,6); 20 (= Steph. Byz. θ 44,2); 21 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,1); 26 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,8); 27 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,10); 28 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,11); 51 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,36); 53 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,39); 61 (= Phld. Ind.

282 | Index of the verses of the Chronica

Acad. 29,9; 26,37); 63 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,12; 26,40); 69 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,42); 79 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,3); 90 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,40); 93 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,43); 94 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,1); 96 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,4); 98 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,7); 100 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,11); 107 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,34) καλοκἀγαθία 87 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,25) κατά 15 (= Steph. Byz. χ 6,29); 45 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,11); 54 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,41); 88 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,35); 93 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,43) καταπλέω 90 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,38-39) κέλης 14 (= D.L. 8,52) κτίζω 5 (= D.L. 8,52) λέγω 24 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,5) λόγος 57 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,2-3); 63 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,13; 26,41); 107 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,34) μάλα μάλιστα 28 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,10-11) μᾶλλον 50 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,34-35); 82 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,9); 87 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,26) μάχη 15 (= Steph. Byz. χ 6,2,30) μέγας 83 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,11) μέν 4 (= D.L. 8,52); 35 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,39); 58 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,4); 80 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,5); 103 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,16) μετά 8 (= D.L. 8,52); 37 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,42); 39 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,2); 41 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,5); 47 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,14); 109 (= Steph. Byz. χ 16,2) μεταλλαγή 23 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,3); 64 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,14-15; 26,42-43) μεταλλάττω 31 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,15-16); 36 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,41-42) μεταξύ 20 (= Steph. Byz. θ 44,2) μετέρχομαι 76 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,11) μήν 79 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,3) μήν, μηνός 39 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,2); 66 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,17; 26,45) μνήμων 97 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,5) μόνος 74 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,8) νέος 47 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,15) νεωστί 5 (= D.L. 8,52)

Index of the verses of the Chronica | 283

νόσος 25 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,7); 31 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,16); 36 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,40); 48 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,17); 105 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,24) νύξ 19 (= Steph. Byz. ω 14,9) ὅθεν 1 (= Steph. Byz. δ 140,33) οἴκοθεν 7 (= D.L. 8,52) ὀκτώ 21 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,1) ὁμώνυμος 14 (= D.L. 8,52) ὁμῶς 34 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,37) ὅς 24 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,6); 45 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,11); 50 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,34); 103 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,16); 109 (= Steph. Byz. χ 16,2) ὅσπερ 11 (= D.L. 8,52) ὅτι 79 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,5) οὐ 67 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,38); 102 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,13) οὐκέτι 10 (= D.L. 8,52) οὗτος 14 (= D.L. 8,52); 34 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,38); 37 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,4243); 51 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,36); 58 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,3); 74 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,6-7); 94 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,1) ὄχλος 95 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,3) πάλαι 56 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,43) παντελής 5 (= D.L. 8,52); 10 (= D.L. 8,52) πάππος 14 (= D.L. 8,52) παρά 65 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,16; 26,44) παραλαμβάνω 52 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,37-38); 69 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,41-42) πάρειμι 78 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,2) παρρησία 53 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,39) πᾶς 25 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,7); 45 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,10) πατήρ 16 (= Aul. Gel. 17,4,4); 37 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,44) πείθω 51 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,36); 95 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,2-3) πέντε 17 (= Aul. Gel. 17,4,5) πεντήκοντα 18 (= Aul. Gel. 17,4,6) περιουσία 83 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,11) πλέω 78 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,2-3) ποιέω 23 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,3-4); 44 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,9); 102 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,14-15) ποικίλος 95 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,2) πολεμέω 8 (= D.L. 8,52) πόλεμος 1 (= Steph. Byz. δ 140,32)

284 | Index of the verses of the Chronica

πόλις 19 (= Steph. Byz. ω 14,9); 108 (= Steph. Byz. δ 150,44) πολιτεία 98 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,7) πολλάκις 60 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,8; 26,36) πολύς 50 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,34); 53 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,39); 62 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,11; 26,39); 82 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,8); 97 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,6) πολύχους 93 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,44-45) πονέω 50 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,35) ποτε 77 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,1); 80 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,5) πρεσβεύω 77 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,1) πρό 71 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,1) προβαίνω 61 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,8-9; 26,36-37) πρός 9 (= D.L. 8,52); 17 (= Aul. Gel. 17,4,5); 34 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,38); 85 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,15) προσλαμβάνω 22 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,2) πρότερος 31 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,14-15) πρῶτος 69 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,41); 89 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,37-38) ῥᾴδιος 97 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,6) στεφανόω 80 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,6) συνήθης 27 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,9-10) συσχολάζω 81 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,7-8) σχολαρχία 100 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,11) σχολή 61 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,9; 26,37); 69 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,42-43); 73 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,6); 75 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 30,10); 82 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,10); 85 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,16); 98 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,8); 102 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,14) τάξις 56 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,1) τε 1 (= Steph. Byz. δ 140,32); 16 (= Aul. Gel. 17,4,4); 20 (= Steph. Byz. θ 44,2); 26 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,8); 28 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,11); 34 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,38); 51 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,36); 53 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,39); 59 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,5; 26,33); 60 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,7; 26,35); 62 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,10; 26,38); 63 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,11; 26,40); 69 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,42); 78 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,2); 81 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,7); 82 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,8); 90 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,40); 98 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,7) τέλειος 9 (= D.L. 8,52) τελευτάω 13 (= D.L. 8,52) τιθασός 2 (= Steph. Byz. ε 76,2)

Index of the verses of the Chronica | 285

τις 39 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,2); 56 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,1); 59 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,6; 26,34) τοσοῦτος 22 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,1) τότε 38 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,445); 67 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,39) τραγῳδία 80 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,5) τραχύς 33 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,36) τρίτος 27 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 27,9) τυγχάνω 98 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,6-7) υἱός 4 (= D.L. 8,52); 42 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,6); 55 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,42) ὑπάρχω 83 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,10) ὑπέρ 50 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,34) ὑπεργηράω 11 (= D.L. 8,52) ὕστερος 65 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,15; 26,43) φαίνομαι 11 (= D.L. 8,52); 93 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,44) φεύγω 7 (= D.L. 8,52) φημί 6 (= D.L. 8,52); 13 (= D.L. 8,52); 15 (= Steph. Byz. χ 6,230) φιλόσοφος 57 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,2) φυγάς 109 (= Steph. Byz. χ 16,2) φύσις 96 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 32,5) χείρ 3 (= Steph. Byz. ε 76,2) χρόνος 45 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,11-12); 54 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,41); 59 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 29,6; 26,34); 81 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,8) ὡς 7 (= D.L. 8,52); 15 (= Steph. Byz. χ 6,230); 82 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,9); 91 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 31,41) ὥστε 51 (= Phld. Ind. Acad. 28,35)

Bibliography A. Andreiomenou, in: Ἀρχ. Δελτ. XXIIIA (1968). F. de Angelis, Archaic and Classical Greek Sicily: A Social and Economic History, New York, 2016. H. v. Arnim, Boethos (5), in: RE II,1 (1897), p. 603. F. Bahnsch, Quaestionum de Diogene Laertio fontibus initia, Königsberg, 1868. R. Bedrosian, Translation of Euseb. Chronicon from the Armenian (2008 – online). A. Berthelot, Ora maritima, Paris, 1934. M. Billerbeck, Stephani Byzantii Ethnica (= Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae vol. 43), 5 vol., Berlin, 2006–2017. D. Blank, The Life of Antiochus of Ascalon in Philodemus’ History of the Academy and a Tale of Two Letters, in: ZPE 162 (2007), pp. 87–93. J. Bollansée, Felix Jacoby. Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker continued. Part four. Biography and Antiquarian Literature. IV A 3. Hermippus of Smyrna, Leiden, 1999. K. Boshnakov, Pseudo-Skymnos (Semos von Delos?). Τὰ ἀριστερὰ τοῦ Πόντου. Zeugnisse griechischer Schriftsteller über den westlichen Pontosraum, Stuttgart, 2004. V. Bradani/S. Tracy, Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores. Pars I. Leges et decreta. Fasc. 5. Leges et decreta annorum 229/8 – 168/7, Berlin, 2012. B. Bravo, La Chronique d’ Apollodore et le Pseudo-Skymnos, Leuven, 2009. K. Bringmann/H. v. Steuben, Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechische Städte und Heiligtümer – Teil 1. Zeugnisse und Kommentare, Berlin, 1995. C. Brittain, Philo of Larissa. The Last of the Academic Sceptics, Oxford, 2001. K. Brodersen, Dionysios von Alexandria: Das Lied von der Welt. Griechisch und Deutsch, Hildesheim, 1994. K. Brodersen, Apollodoros: Götter und Helden der Griechen, Darmstadt, 2012. F. Bücheler, Academicorum philosophorum index Herculanensis, Greifswald, 1869. L. Burckhardt, Die Attische Ephebie in hellenistischer Zeit, in: D. Kah/P. Scholz (ed.), Das hellenistische Gymnasion. Festschrift Klaus Bringmann, Berlin, 2007, pp. 193–206. U. Bussemaker, Fragmenta poematum rem naturalem vel medicam spectantium (pars of Poetae bucolici et didactici), Paris, 1851. A. Cameron, Avienus or Avienius, in: ZPE 108 (1995), pp. 252–262. W. Capelle, Melanthios (12), in: RE XV,1 (1931), pp. 430–431. P. Castillo Maldonado, Avieno: ”Ora maritima”, in: A. Pocina Pérez/J. Garcia González (ed.), En Grecia y Roma. 2: Lecturas pendientes, Granada, 2008, pp. 49–65. I. Casaubon, Strabonis res geographica, Geneva, 1587. P. Christesen, Olympic Victory Lists and Ancient Greek History, Cambridge, 2007. H. Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, Oxford, 1824. C. Cobet, Novae lectiones, Leiden, 1858. W. Crönert, Die Überlieferung des Index Academicorum, in: Hermes 38 (1903a), pp. 357–405. W. Crönert, Memoria Graeca Herculanensis, Leipzig, 1903b. W. Crönert, Kolotes und Menedemos, Leipzig, 1906. H. Diels, Chronologische Untersuchungen über Apollodors Chronika, in: RhM 31 (1876), pp. 1– 54. J. Descroix, Le trimètre iambique des iambographes à la comédie nouvelle. Paris, 1931. A. Diller, Studies in Greek Manuscript Tradition, Amsterdam, 1983. https://doi.org/10.1515//9783110703726-011

288 | Bibliography

W. Dinsmoor, The Archons of Athens in the Hellenistic Age, Harvard, 1931. W. Dinsmoor, The Athenian Archon List in the Light of Recent Discoveries, New York, 1939. K. Döring, Platons Garten, sein Haus, das Museion und die Stätten der Lehrtätigkeit Platons, in: F. Alesse et al. (ed.), Anthropine Sophia, Rom, 2008, pp. 257–273. T. Dorandi, La “Cronologia” di Apollodoro nel PHerc. 1021, Naples, 1982a. T. Dorandi, Filodemo, Gli Stoici (PHerc. 155 e 339), in: CErc. 12 (1982b), pp. 91–133. T. Dorandi, 244. Apollodore d’ Athènes, in: R. Goulet (ed.), DPhA 1, Paris, 1989a, pp. 271–274. T. Dorandi, Aristippe de Cyrene, in: R. Goulet (ed.), DPhA 1, Paris, 1989b, pp. 370–375. T. Dorandi, Agamestor, R. Goulet (ed.), DPhA 1, Paris, 1989c, p. 60. T. Dorandi, Gli arconti nei papiri ercolanesi, in: ZPE 84 (1990a), pp. 121–138. T. Dorandi, Per la cronologia di Lacide, in: RhM 133 (1990b), pp. 93–96. T. Dorandi, Filodemo. Storia dei filosofi. Platone e l’Academia (PHerc. 1021 e 164). Edizione, traduzione e commento, Naples, 1991. T. Dorandi, Boéthos de Marathon, in: R. Goulet (ed.), DPhA 2, Paris, 1994a, p. 123. T. Dorandi, Carnéade le Jeune, in: R. Goulet (ed.), DPhA 2, Paris, 1994b, p. 227. T. Dorandi, Cratès de Tarse, in: R. Goulet (ed.), DPhA 2, Paris, 1994c, p. 495. T. Dorandi, Chronology, in: K. Algra et al. (ed.), The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, Cambridge, 1999, pp. 31–53. T. Dorandi, Euandros de Phocée, in: R. Goulet (ed.), DPhA 3, Paris, 2000a, p. 243. T. Dorandi, Euboulos d’ Éphèse, in: R. Goulet (ed.), DPhA 3, Paris, 2000b, p. 251. T. Dorandi, Euboulos d’ Érythrée, in: R. Goulet (ed.), DPhA 3, Paris, 2000c, p. 251. T. Dorandi, Lacydès de Cyrène, in: R. Goulet (ed.), DPhA 4, Paris, 2005a, pp. 74–75. T. Dorandi, Mélanthios de Rhodes (87), in: R. Goulet (ed.), DPhA 4, Paris, 2005b, pp. 383–384. T. Dorandi, Moschion de Mallos, in: R. Goulet (ed.), DPhA 4, Paris, 2005c, p. 554. T. Dorandi, Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Cambridge, 2013. T. Dorandi, Téléclès de Phocée, in: R. Goulet (ed.), DPhA 6, Paris, 2016, p. 731. H. Essler, Rekonstruktion von Papyrusrollen auf mathematischer Grundlage, in: CErc 38 (2008), pp. 273–307. H. Essler, Copy-Paste in der Antike, in: ZPE 212 (2019), pp. 1–24. H. Estienne/L. Carrion, Auli Gelii Noctes Atticae, Paris, 1585. K. Fleischer, Der Akademiker Charmadas in Apollodors Chronik (PHerc. 1021, Kol. 31–32), in: CErc. 44 (2014a), pp. 65–75. K. Fleischer, Phanostratos von Tralleis, in: Hermes 142 (2014b), pp. 476–479. K. Fleischer, Der Stoiker Mnesarch als Lehrer des Antiochus im Index Academicorum, in: Mnemosyne 68/3 (2015a), pp. 413–423. K. Fleischer, Die Charakterisierung des Boethos von Marathon (PHerc. 1021, coll. 28,38–29,3), in: SEP 12 (2015b), pp. 27–30. K. Fleischer, Die Schüler des Charmadas (PHerc. 1021, XXXV 32–XXXVI 14), in: CErc. 45 (2015c), pp. 49–53. K. Fleischer, New readings in Philodemus’ Index Academicorum – Dio of Alexandria (PHerc. 1021, col. 34,17–18), in: T. Derda et al. (ed.), Proceedings of the 27th International Congress of Papyrology 2013 (Warsaw), Warsaw, 2016, pp. 459–470. K. Fleischer, Die Lokalisierung der Verso-Kolumnen von PHerc. 1021, in: ZPE 204 (2017a), pp. 27–39. K. Fleischer, New Evidence on the Death of Philo of Larissa (PHerc. 1021, col. 33,42–34,7), in: CCJ 63 (2017b), pp. 69–81. K. Fleischer, Starb Philo von Larisa im Alter von 63 Jahren?, in: APF 63/2 (2017c), pp. 335–366.

Bibliography | 289

K. Fleischer, The pupils of Philo of Larisa and Philodemus’ stay in Sicily (PHerc. 1021, col. XXXIV, 6–19), in: CErc 47 (2017d), pp. 73–85. K. Fleischer, Dating Philodemus’ birth and early studies, in: BASP 55 (2018a), pp. 119–127. K. Fleischer, Eine neue Hypereidesrede aus Herkulaneum: Gegen die Gesandten des Antipatros (PHerc. 1021 Kol. 11+12), in: ZPE 207 (2018b), pp. 21–38. K. Fleischer, Melanthios von Rhodos in Apollodors Chronik (PHerc. 1021, XXXI), in: Philologus 162/1 (2018c), pp. 15–24. K. Fleischer, Moschion von Mallos in Apollodors Chronik und eine mögliche Auslassung Philodems (PHerc. 1021, Kol. 27,35–38), in: CErc 48 (2018d), pp. 67–74. K. Fleischer, The Complete Title of a Work of Hermippus (FGrHist 1026 39,40), in: ZPE 206 (2018e), pp. 40–46. K. Fleischer, Carneades – The one and only, in: JHS 139 (2019a), pp. 116–124. K. Fleischer, The Academic Philosopher Charmadas of Alexandria: Uncovering His Origins, in: Quaderni del Museo del Papiro XVI (2019b), pp. 153–164. K. Fleischer, Zur Abstammung der akademischen Philosophen Melanthios von Rhodos und Metrodor von Stratonikeia (PHerc. 1021, Kol. 23,10–20), in: APF 65/1 (2019c), pp. 124–132. K. Fleischer, Agamestor zwischen Papyrologie und Epigraphik (PHerc. 1021 und SEG 25, 237), in: ZPE 211 (2020a), pp. 62–65. K. Fleischer, Der erste Neapolitaner…”, in: CErc 50 (2020b) (accepted). K. Fleischer, New Evidence on Carneades: Reasons for His Avoidance of Writing and an Epistemological Pun, in: OSAPh 2020c (accepted). K. Fleischer, Zu Lakydes’ Biographie und Übergabe der Schulleitung (Neulesungen in PHerc. 1021, col. 27), in: RhM 164 (2021) (accepted). S. Fornaro, Glaukos von Rhegion (7), in: DNP 4 (1998), pp. 1093–1094. R. Fowler, Aristokles (33), in: BNJ (2008). R. Fowler, Early Greek Mythography, Oxford, 2000+2013 (2 volumes). P. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, vol. II, Oxford, 1972. K. Gaiser, Philodems Academica, Stuttgart–Bad Cannstatt, 1988. K. Geus, Eratosthenes von Kyrene. Studien zur Hellenistischen Kultur- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Munich, 2002. R. Giannattasio Andria, I frammenti delle "Successioni dei filosofi, Naples, 1989. C. Glassen, Bemerkungen zu zwei griechischen “Philosophiehistorikern”, in: Philologus 109 (1965), pp. 178–181. J. Glucker, Antiochus and the Late Academy, Göttingen, 1978. W. Görler, Älterer Pyrrhonismus – Jüngere Akademie – Antiochus aus Askalon (Fünftes Kapitel), in: H. Flashar (ed.), GGPh 4.2, Basel, 1994, pp. 717–989. H. Goette/J. Hammerstaedt, Das antike Athen: ein literarischer Stadtführer, Munich, 2004. T. Gomperz, review of „D. Comparettį – Papiro ercolanese inedito”, in: Jenaer Literaturzeitung II (1875), pp. 602–608. T. Gomperz, Philodem und die aesthetischen Schriften der Herculanischen Bibliothek, in: Sitzungsberichte der kaiserl. Ak. d. Wissenschaften in Wien 123 (1891), pp. 1–88. R. Goulet, Empédocle d’Agrigente, in: R. Goulet, DPhA 3, Paris, 2000, pp. 66–88. R. Goulet, Sosicrate de Rhodes, in: R. Goulet (ed.), DPhA 6, Paris, 2016, pp. 483–484. J.-B. Gourinat/F. Alesse, Panétius de Rhodes, in: R. Goulet (ed.), DPhA 5/1, Paris, 2012, pp. 131– 138. B. Grenfell/A. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (vol. 10), London, 1914. A. Gudeman, Helladios (2), in: RE VIII, (1912), pp. 98–103.

290 | Bibliography

M. Haake, Der Philosoph in der Stadt, Munich, 2007. C. Habicht, Studien zur Geschichte Athens in hellenistischer Zeit, Göttingen, 1982. C. Habicht, The Eponymous Archons of Athens from 159/58 to 141/0 B.C., in: Hesperia 57 (1988), pp. 237–247. C. Habicht, Athens and the Attalids in the Second Century BC, in: Hesperia 59 (1990), pp. 561– 577. C. Habicht, Athens from Aleander to Antony, Harvard, 1999. M. Hansen/T. Nielsen, An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford, 2004. M. Harder/A. MacDonald/G. Reinink, Calliope’s Classroom: Studies in Didactic Poetry from Antiquity to the Renaissance, Leuven, 2007. M. Hatzimichali, Potamo of Alexandria and the Emergence of Eclecticism in Late Hellenistic Philosophy, Cambridge, 2011. M. Hatzimichali, The Academy through Epicurean Eyes: Some Lives of Academic Philosophers in Philodemus’ Syntaxis (chapter 15), in: P. Kalligas et al., Plato’s Academy. Its Working and its History, Cambridge, 2020, pp. 256–275. M. Hatzimichali, Commentary on the Index Academicorum, in: P. Kalligas et al., Plato’s Academy. Its Working and its History, Cambridge, 2020, appendix. K. F. Hermann, Rez. Hübner – vol. 2 (1831), in: Zeitschrift für Altertumswissenschaften 1 (1834), pp. 101–112. T. Heath, Greek Mathematics I, Oxford, 1921, pp. 348–353. C. Heyne, Apollodori Atheniensis bibliothecae libri tres et fragmenta. Curis secundis illustravit Chr. G. Heyne, Göttingen, 1803. W. Hoerschelmann, Exegesis in Hephaestionis enchiridion, in: R. Schöll/W. Studemund (ed.), Anecdota varia Graeca et Latina I, Hildesheim, 1886, pp. 32–96. W. Hoffmann, Tryphon (1), in: RE VII A1 (1939), pp. 715–722. L. Holste, Notae et castigationes in Stephanum Byzantium De urbibus, Leiden, 1692. F. Hultsch, Autolyci De sphaera quae movetur liber, De ortibus et occasibus libri duo, Leipzig, 1885. R. Hunter, The Prologue of the Periodos to Nicomedes (`Pseudo-Scymnus´), in: M. Harder et al. (ed.), Groningen Workshops on Hellenistic Poetry: Beyond the Canon, Leuven, 2006, pp. 123–140. G. Huxley, Glaukos of Rhegion, in: GRBS 9 (1968), pp. 47–54. F. Jacoby, Apollodors Chronik, Berlin, 1902. F. Jacoby, Glaukos (36), in: RE VII1 (1912), pp. 1417–1420. F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. II,3, Berlin, 1929 (commentary 1930). R. Janko, Philodemus. On Poems, Books 3–4. With the Fragments of Aristotle, On Poets, Oxford, 2011. C. Jungck, Gregor von Nazianz. De vita sua. Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar, Heidelberg, 1974. P. Kalligas /V. Tsouna, Appendix (Philodemus’ History of the Philosophers–translation), in: P. Kalligas et al., Plato’s Academy. Its Workings and its History, Cambridge, 2020, pp. 276– 383. J. Karst, Eusebius’ Werke. Fünfter Band, Die Chronik (aus dem Armenischen übersetzt), Leipzig, 1911. R. Kassel, Damokrates in Pap. Ant. III 139 und 186, in: ZPE 174 (2010), pp. 49–50. M. Köckert, Dora, in: DNP 3 (1997), p. 776. R. Körte, Simylos (2), in: RE V2 (1927), pp. 216–217.

Bibliography | 291

W. Kolbe, Die Attischen Archonten von 293/2–31/0 v. Chr., Berlin, 1908. W. Kolbe, Beiträge zur syrischen und jüdischen Geschichte, Berlin, 1926. D. Konstan et al., Philodemus. On Frank Criticism, Atlanta, 1998. M. Korenjak, Die Welt-Rundreise eines anonymen griechischen Autors (`Pseudo-Skymnos´), Hildesheim, 2003. W. Kroll, Lehrgedicht, in: RE XII 2 (1925), pp. 1842–1857. M. Lakakis/A. Rizakis, Paysages d’Achaïa 1. Le bassin du Péiros et la plaine occidentale, Paris, 1992. S. Lambert, Inscribed Athenian Decrees of 229/8–198/7 BC (IG II³ 1, 1135–1255), AIO Papers 4 (online – July 2014). G. Lanata, Poetica pre-platonica: Testimonianze e frammenti, Florence, 1964. R. Laurenti, Aristotele: I frammenti dei dialoghi, Naples, 1987. C. Lévy, Les Petits Académiciens: Lacyde, Charmadas, Métrodore de Stratonice, in: M. Bonazzi/V. Celluprica (ed.), L’eredità platonica. Studi sul platonismo da Arcesilao a Proclo, Naples, 2005, pp. 51−77. C. Lévy, Other followers of Antiochus, in: D. Sedley (ed.), The Philosophy of Antiochus, Cambridge, 2012, pp. 290–306. C. De Luca, A proposito di alcuni grammatici e della cronologia di Apollodoro di Atene nel POxy 1241, in: PapLup 7 (1998), pp. 82–89. E. Maass, Commentariorum in Aratum reliquiae, Berlin, 1898. R. Marache/J. Yvette, Aulu-Gelle: Les nuites attiques 4 (livres XVI-XX), Paris, 1998. D. Marcotte, Le poème géographique de Dionysios, fils de Calliphon: edition, traduction et commentaire, Louvain, 1990. D. Marcotte, Géographes grecs. Tome I, Introduction générale; Ps.-Scymnos: Circuit de la terre, Paris, 2000. G. Del Mastro, Altri frammenti dal PHerc. 1691: Filodemo, Historia Academicorum e Di III’, in: CErc 42 (2012), pp. 277–292. S. Matthaios, 6. Philologie, in: B. Zimmermann/A. Rengakos (ed.), Griechische Literatur der Antike II, Munich, 2014, pp. 502–553. M. McOsker, Hiatus in Epicurean Authors, in: CErc 47 (2017), pp. 145–162. A. Meineke, Menandri et Philemonis reliquiae, Berlin, 1823. A. Meineke, Stephani Byzantii Ethnicorum quae supersunt (vol. 1), Berlin 1849. J. Mejer, Diogenes Laertius and his Hellenistic Background, Wiesbaden, 1978. S. Mekler, Academicorum philosophorum index Herculanensis, Berlin, 1902. B. Meritt, Athenian archons 347/6–48/47 B.C., Historia 26 (1977), pp. 161–191. H. Mette, Weitere Akademiker heute: Von Lakydes bis zu Kleitomachos, in: Lustrum 27 (1985), pp. 39–148. J. Miller, Lives of Eminent Philosophers – Diogenes Laertius (translation P. Mensch), Oxford, 2018. A. Möller, Epoch-Making Eratosthenes, in: GRBS 45 (2005), pp. 245–260. F. Montana, “Zwischen Philologie und Geschichte”. Il contributo dei FGrHist all’ edizione dei grammatici greci antichi, in: C. Ampolo (ed.), Aspetti dell’ opera di Felix Jacoby, Pisa, 2006, pp. 201–226. F. Montanari, 7. Apollodor aus Athen, in: DNP 1 (1996), pp. 857–860. J. Murphy, Ora maritima or Description of the seacoast, Chicago, 1977. M. Nardelli, Ripristino topografico di sovrapposti e sottoposti in alcuni papiri ercolanesi, in: CErc. 3 (1973), pp. 104–115.

292 | Bibliography

A. Olivieri, Philodemi ΠΕΡΙ ΠΑΡΡΗΣΙΑΣ libellus, Leipzig, 1914. M. Osborne, Naturalization in Athens, Brussels, 1983. M. Osborne, The Date of the Archon Thrasyphon, in: ZPE 164 (2008), pp. 85–99. W. Pape, Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen (revised: G. Benseler), Berlin, 1911. G. Perl, Kritische Untersuchungen zu Diodors römischer Jahrzählung, Berlin, 1957. O. Perlwitz, Titus Pomponius Atticus: Untersuchungen zur Person eines einflussreichen Ritters in der ausgehenden Römischen Republik, Stuttgart, 1992. R. Pfeiffer, History of classical scholarship from the beginnings to the end of the Hellenistic age, Oxford, 1968. R. Polito, Antiochus and the Academy, in: D. Sedley (ed.), The philosophy of Antiochus, Cambridge, 2012, pp. 31–54. F. Pownall, Eratosthenes of Cyrene (241), in: BNJ 2016 (online). E. Puglia, Le biografie di Filone e di Antioco nella Storia dell’Academia di Filodemo, in: ZPE 130 (2000), pp. 17–28. A. Rhoby, Vom jambischen Trimeter zum byzantinischen Zwölfsilber, in: Wiener Studien 124 (2011), pp. 117–142. A. Rizakis, Achaïe I. Sources textuelles et histoire régionale, Athens, 1995. A. Rizakis, Achaïe III. Les cités achéennes: épigraphie et histoire, Athens, 2008. G. Röper, Review of Bücheler (1869), in: Göttinger Philologischer Anzeiger 2 (1870), pp. 22–28. J. C. Rolfe, The Attic nights of Aulus Gellius, vol. III, London, 1927. V. Rose, Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta, Leipzig, 1886. C. Ruggeri, Die antiken Schriftzeugnisse über den Kerameikos von Athen – Das Dipylon-Gebiet und der äußere Kerameikos (part 2), Wien, 2013. F. Ryan, Der sogenannte Pseudo-Skymnos, in: QUCC 87 (2007), pp. 137–143. C. Scardino/G. Sorrentino, Menander, in: B. Zimmermann/A. Rengakos (ed.), Handbuch der griechischen Literatur der Antike II, Munich, 2014, pp. 1061–1087. H. Schaaf, Untersuchungen zu Gebäudestiftungen in hellenistischer Zeit, Köln, 1992. H. Schalles, Untersuchungen zur Kulturpolitik der pergamenischen Herrscher im dritten Jahrhundert vor Christus, Tübingen, 1985. C. Schindler, Geographische Lehrdichtung, in: W. Hübner (ed.), Geographie und verwandte Wissenschaften, Stuttgart, 2000, pp. 163–184. S. Schorn, Satyros aus Kallatis. Sammlung der Fragmente mit Kommentar, Basel, 2004. S. Schröder, Die Lebensdaten Menanders (mit einem Anhang über die Aufführungszeit seines ΕΑΥΤΟΝ ΤΙΜΩΡΟΥΜΕΝOΣ), in: ZPE 113 (1996), pp. 35–48. A. Schulten, Avieni Ora maritima, Barcelona/Berlin, 1922. E. Schütrumpf, Heraclides of Pontus: Texts and Translation, New Brunswick, 2008. D. Sider, Didactic Poetry: The Hellenistic Invention of a Pre-existing Genre, in: R. Hunter/A. Rengakos/E. Sistakou (ed.), Hellenistic Studies at a Crossroads. Exploring Texts, Contexts and Metatexts, Berlin, 2014, pp. 13–30. E. Sistakou, 4. Hexametrische Lehrdichtung (Hellenistische Dichtung), in: B. Zimmermann/A. Rengakos (ed.), Griechische Literatur der Antike II, Munich, 2014, pp. 115–140. B. Snell, Griechische Metrik, Göttingen, 1982. G. Solaro, La biblioteca di Alessandria e i dilemmi di POxy 1241, in: ZPE 198 (2016), pp. 22–38. L. Spengel, Die Herculanensichen Rollen, in: Philologus suppl. II (1863), pp. 493–548. K. Stanzel, Metrodoros aus Stratonikeia, in: DNP 8 (2000), pp. 134–135. P. Steinmetz, Panaitios aus Rhodos und seine Schüler, in: H. Flashar (ed.), GGPh 4/2, Basel, 1994, pp. 646–669.

Bibliography | 293

E. Stern, Dor, ruler of the seas, Jerusalem, 1994. W. Studemund, Index lectionum in Universitate litterarum Vratislaviensi per hiemem anni MDCCCLXXXVIII–LXXXIX a die XV. mensis Octobris habendarum: Praemissa sunt Damocratis poetae medici fragmenta selecta edente Guilelmo Studemund, Breslau, 1888/1889. F. Sturz, Empedocles Agrigentinus: De vita et philosophia eius exposuit carminum reliquias ex antiquis scriptoribus (two volumes), Leipzig, 1805. S. Sudhaus, Philodemi Rhetorica, I, Leipzig, 1892. H. Tarrant, Scepticism or Platonism? The Philosophy of the Fourth Academy, Cambridge, 1985, pp. 34–40. P. Toohey, Epic Lessons. An Introduction to Ancient Didactic Poetry, London, 1996. R. Tosi, Typology of Lexicographical Works, in: F. Montanari et al., Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship (vol. 1), Leiden, 2015, pp. 622–636. A. Tournié/K.Fleischer/I. Bukreeva/F. Palermo/M. Perino/A. Cedola/C. Andraud/G. Ranocchia, Ancient Greek text concealed on the back of unrolled papyrus revealed through shortwave-infrared hyperspectral imaging, in: Science Advances 5/10 (2019) – https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/10/eaav8936. S. Tracy/C. Habicht, New and Old Panathenaic Victory Lists, in: Hesperia 60 (1991), pp. 187– 236. J. Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens, New York, 1971. G. Tsouni, The „Academy“ in Rome: Antiochus and his vetus Academica, in: G. Müller/F. Zini (ed.), Philosophie in Rom – Römische Philosophie, Berlin, 2018, pp. 139–150. A. Tuilier/G. Bady/J. Bernardi, Saint Grégoire de Nazianze. Oeuvres poétiques, I.1: poèmes personnels II, 1, 1 – 11, Paris, 2004. L. Valckenaer, Diatribe in Euripidis perditorum dramatum reliquias, Leiden, 1767. J. P. Villalba, (edition and translation), in: J. Mangas/D. Pácido (ed.), Testimonia Hispaniae Antiqua I. Avieno. Ora Maritima, Descriptio Orbis Terrae, Phaenomena, Madrid, 1994. S. Vogt, “... er schrieb in Versen, und er tat recht daran.“ Lehrdichtung im Urteil Galens, in: T. Fögen (ed.), Antike Fachtexte/Ancient Technical Texts, Berlin/New York, 2005a, pp. 51– 78. S. Vogt, Damokrates, in: K.-H. Leven (ed.), Antike Medizin. Ein Lexikon, Munich, 2005b, pp. 207–208. S. Vogt, Servilius Damokrates. Iambische Pharmaka im Corpus Galenicum. Einleitung, Edition und kommentierte Übersetzung (in preparation). K. Volk, The Poetics of Latin Didactic. Lucretius, Vergil, Ovid, Manilius, Oxford, 2002. J. Vooys, Lexicon Philodemeum (pars prior), Amsterdam, 1934. J. Vooys/D. van Krevelen, Lexicon Philodemeum (pars altera), Amsterdam, 1941. U. Walter, Die Communes Historiae des Lutatius: Einleitung, Fragmente, Übersetzung, Kommentar, in: GFA 12 (2009), pp. 1–15. F. Wehrli, Herakleides Pontikos, Basel, 1969. G. Wentzel, Aristokles (18), in: RE II,1 (1895), pp. 935–936. R. Werner, Der Beginn der Römischen Republik: historisch-chronologische Untersuchungen über die Anfangszeit der libera res publica, Munich, 1963. M. West, Greek Metre, Oxford, 1982. J. White, The Iambic Trimeter in Menander, in: CP 4 (1909), pp. 139–161. J. White, The Verse of Greek Comedy, London, 1912. F. Wieck, Sphaeram Empedoclis quae dicitur recensuit et dissertationem adiecit, Greifswald, 1897.

294 | Bibliography

U. v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Antigonos von Karystos, Berlin, 1881. U. v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Der Tragiker Melanthios von Rhodos, in: Hermes 29, (1894), pp. 150–154 (= Kleine Schriften II, Berlin 1941, pp. 90–94). U. v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Lesefrüchte, in: Hermes 45 (1910), pp. 387–417. J. Wileman, Past Crimes: Archeological and Historical Evidence for Ancient Misdeeds, South Yorkshire, 2015. M. F. Williams, Apollodoros of Athens (244), in: BNJ (2018). G. Wöhrle, War Parmenides ein schlechter Dichter? Oder: Zur Form der Wissensvermittlung in der frühgriechischen Philosophie, in: W. Kullmann/J. Althoff (ed.), Vermittlung und Tradierung von Wissen in der griechischen Kultur, Tübingen, 1993, pp. 167–180. M. Wright, Empedocles: The Extant Fragments, New Haven, 1981. M. Wright (with a response by C. Osborne), Philosopher Poets: Parmenides and Empedocles, in: C. Atherton (ed.), Form and Content in Didactic poetry, Bari, 1997, pp. 1–35. R. Wycherley, The Athenian Agora III: Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia, Princeton, 1957. M. Zanatta, Aristotele: I dialoghi, Milan, 2008.

Index General Index Academy passim

Aratus 60, 91f.

– New Academy 101, 162 (passim)

Arcesilaus 34f., 38, 53, 57

– Fourth Academy 205

Archidamus III 157

Aeschines of Neapolis 199, 204

Archinomos 151

Agamestor of Arcadia 34, 53, 105, 173,

archon passim

176f.

– inclusive counting (archons) 11, 27, 32,

Agathocles of Tyre 206

160, 167, 175, 195

Agrigentum 152

– exclusive counting (archons) 11, 32,

akme 13, 151f.

175, 195

Alexander (archon) 175f.

Aristaichmus (archon) 16, 18, 44

Alexandria passim

Aristarchus (archon) 42–48

Amyntes (Academic) 188f.

Aristarchus of Samothrace 9–16, 199–

anapaest 65, 79–85, 154

203, 211

Antenorus (father of Eubulus of Erethria)

Aristippus of Cyrene 169

175

Aristippus of Cyrene (Academic!) 168f.

Antigonus of Carystus 27, 163

Aristo (Academic) 52, 187

Antiochus of Ascalon 42, 48, 198, 213f.,

Aristocles (musician) 12f.

216, 220

Aristocles of Rhodes 12

Antiochus VII. Sidetes 222

Aristophanes (comedian) 80–84, 93

Antipater of Alexandria 99, 197, 206f.,

Aristophantus (archon) 207

216–221

Aristophon (archon) 37, 39, 52, 180–182

Antipater of Tarsus 10, 17

Aristotle 27, 86, 151, 155f.

Apameia 223

Aristoxenus 26f.

Apollodorus (kepotyrannos) 17

Asclepiades (father of Apollodorus) 7, 23

Apollodorus of Athens (grammarian) pas-

Athenian citizenship 47, 165, 177, 198,

sim

205, 211

Apollodorus of Athens (not the grammar-

Athens passim

ian) 17

Attalids 28f., 52–56, 174f.

Apollodorus of Seleucia 17

Attalis (phyle) 54

Apollonius (Academic) 36–39, 52f., 178–

Attalus I 53–55, 160

180

Attalus II 12, 23, 52–56

Apollonius of Rhodes 92

Attalus III 23, 56

https://doi.org/10.1515//9783110703726-012

296 | Index

Aulus Gellius 95, 112, 116–118, 123, 158

coniugatio periphrastica 87, 183, 187,

Autolycians 108, 188f.

200f.

Autolycus of Pitane 108, 188

Corinth 26

Avienius 92

Cornelius Nepos 30

Azenia (deme) 177

cornice 35, 114

Bibliotheke 23f.

crasis 86, 175, 179f., 209

Boethus of Marathon 13f., 33–40, 47–51,

Crates of Tarsus 33, 41f., 45, 99, 194f.

163, 182, 185–191

Cynoscephalae (battle of) 55

caesura 79, 84f.

dactyl 65–84

– penthemimeres 79

Damocrates (Servilius) 62, 80–84, 90f.,

– hephthemimeres 79

93

Callicles (Academic) 16, 18–20

Damon/Demon (Academic) 173

Callicrates (father of Eubulus of Ephesus)

Demetrius of Magnesia 30

176

Demetrius of Phaleron, 27, 157

Callimachus 92

dialectics 182f., 195

Callistratus (archon) 166f.

didactic poem 3, 5, 22, 28, 60–64, 90–93

Caria 223

Dinon 27

Carneades passim

Diodorus Siculus 29

Carneades, son of Polemarchus 33, 103,

Diodotus Tryphon 222

192, 194

Diogenes Laertius 3, 5, 30–32, 95, 98,

Carthage 23, 199, 216, 218f.

112–118, 123, 151–156,

Castor of Rhodes 29

Diogenes of Seleucia (Babylon) 10f., 17,

Catullus 30

23

Cephisia (deme) 159

Dion of Thracia (Academic) 222

Chaeronea 157

Dionysios, son of Calliphon (poet) 80–83,

Chalketor 223

90–92

Charidemus 223f.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus 29f.

Charmadas of Alexandria 15, 23, 47, 97–

Dionysius (Academic) 189f.

103, 205–217

Dionysius (archon) 37

Chronica passim

Dionysius Periegetes (of Alexandria) 91

chronography 27

Diopeithes (father of Menander) 159

Clemens of Alexandria 30

dittography 85

Clitomachus of Carthage 12, 16–20, 33,

dodecasyllable 92

40–51, 196–199, 213, 216

Dorus 222f.

Comic trimeter 64–85, 91–94

Dyme 148–150

concordance 119–122

Elis 148f. Elorus 150

Index | 297

embassy (of philosophers – 155 BC) 31,

hexameter 60f., 63f.

34, 39, 46f., 56, 100, 198f.

hiatus 19f.

Empedocles 30, 60, 95, 151–157

Hiera (Automate) 161

Epainetus (archon) 52, 179

Hippocrates of Gela 150

Ephebes (Athens) 212f.

hoplitodromos 148f.

Ephoros 27

horse race 156f.

Epicles (archon) 41f., 194f.

Hyperides 19

Eratosthenes 26–31, 58, 60, 151, 155f.,

Hyperspectral images (HSI) 4, 34, 114f.,

Euander of Phocaea 34, 53f., 164–173,

214, 229

174, 178, 182, 221f.

iambic didactic poem (poets) 3, 5, 28,

Eubulus (brother of Apollonius, Academic)

60–64, 78, 80–84, 87, 90f., 93

36–39, 52f., 179–181

Iambic trimeter (iambus) 3, 18f., 28, 61–

Eubulus of Ephesus 34, 52 f., 173–176,

65, 82–84, 86, 91–94

187f.

Index Academicorum (Phld.) passim

Eubulus of Erythrae 34, 52f., 173–176

Isocrates 157

Eumachus (archon) 12, 50f., 190f.

Isocrates (archon) 167

Eumenes I 52–55

Israel 222

Eumenes II 52–55

Kephisocrates 165

Eupolemus (archon) 55, 175

Lacydeion 165f.

Eusebius 30, 149, 169

Lacydes passim

Exainetus 151, 157

Livius Andronicus 160

Favorinus 154

Lucania 157

Galen 62, 80, 91

Lycurgus (Sparta) 28, 203

George Pisides 92

Marianus 92

Glaucus of Rhegium 26, 152

Marmor Parium 28

Gregory of Nazianzus 92

Melanthius of Rhodes 14f., 33, 38, 47,

Hades 184

56f., 197, 199–205, 207, 211, 216,

hapax legomenon 87, 215

Menander 80–84, 93, 95, 158–160

Hegesinus 54, 102, 170f.

Meton (father of Empedocles) 151

Helladius 92

Metrodorus of Stratonicea 42, 102, 198,

Heraclides Ponticus 27, 151, 155–157

200, 216f., 222

Heraclitus (presocratic) 155

Mnesarchus (Stoic) 10, 16–18, 20

Heraclitus of Tyre 42, 48, 220

Moschion of Mallos 53, 55, 168, 173–175

Hermagoras (father of the Academic Boe-

Multispectral Images (MSI) 4, 114, 229

thus) 186

muta cum liquida 85, 195

Hermippus 19, 151, 156

Naples 4, 114, 201

Hesiod 60

Nea Kameni 161

298 | Index

Nicander 60, 92

Porson’s law 65, 79, 84

Nicetes (archon) 44f.

Pseudo–Lucian (De Longaevis) 30

Nicomachus (archon) 16, 18

Pseudo–Scymnus 4, 7–11, 14f., 22f., 25,

Nicomedia 33, 41f. 103, 191f.

28f., 32, 39, 60–62, 80–84, 90–93, 201

Nicosthenes (archon) 178

Ptolemaion (Athenian gymnasium) 15,

Nikias (archon) 37

197, 205, 209, 211–216

Nymphodorus of Syracuse 150

Ptolemy III Euergetes 213

Olympic games 156f.

Ptolemy IX 13

Oreos 160

Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II 10, 12f. , 15, 55f.,

Palea Kameni 161

206f., 218f.

Palladium (Athenian court) 103, 193,

Pythagoras (Pythagoreans) 26, 28

196f., 199, 213, 216

Quintilian 31

Panaetius of Rhodes 10f., 21, 23, 57

Quintus Cosconius 159

Pantiades (archon) 43, 166f.

Quintus Lutatius Catulus 30

paragraphus 37, 185, 200, 205, 219, 221

resolution (metric) 63, 78–87, 90f., 93f.,

Parmenides 60, 152

216

Peloponnesus 153

Rome 176, 199

Pergamon 170

Santorini 161

Perseus (Macedonian king) 26, 176

Satyrus of Callatis 151, 156f.

Phanostratus of Tralleis 210

scriptio plena 48–51, 85

Philemon of Athens 92

Second Macedonian War 54, 160

Philo of Larissa 14–21, 29, 40, 44f., 48,

Sicily (Sicilian expedition) 26, 151–153

51, 57, 205, 208, 221

Simon 222

Philodemus passim

Simonides 27

Phocaea 54, 172, 178

Simylus (poet) 91

Photius 23, 91

Socrates (Academic) 99f., 105, 172, 220–

Pisans 148–150

222

Plato 35f.

Solinus 31

Pliny the Elder 31, 91, 150

Sosicrates 29

Plutarch 30, 176

Sparta 26f., 157

poeta doctus 60

spatium historicum 28

Polemarchus of Nicomedia 33, 41f., 46–

Sphaera Empedoclis 80–84, 90–93

48, 99, 103, 191–196

spondee 65, 78–84

Polyclitus (archon) 16, 18, 42–45

Stephanus of Byzantium 25, 30, 32, 40,

Polyxenus (father of Agamestor) 173,

50f., 95, 104, 107, 112f., 116, 123, 148–

176f.

150, 160, 222

Porphyrius 30

suicide 88, 177, 192, 223

Index | 299

Syracuse 150, 152f.

Thurii 151–153

Tarent 157

Timaeus of Tauromenion 27f., 150–153,

Tatian the Syrian 30

156,

Telecles of Phocaea 34f., 52–54, 164–

Titus Pomponius Atticus 31

174, 177–182

tribrach 65, 78, 82–84

Thargelion (months) 12, 14, 50, 191

Troy (date of fall) 3, 9, 11, 27, 32

Theaetetus (archon) 36–39, 52

Velleius Paterculus 31

Theocritus 92

Wortbild 153f.

Theophrastus 91

Xenokles (archon) 176f.

Thera 161

Xenophanes 60

Therasia 161

Zeno of Sidon (Epicurean) 184

Theris of Alexandria (Academic) 220, 222

Zenodorus of Tyre 99, 102, 197, 204, 207,

Thrasyllus 30

216–221

Thrasyphon (archon) 167 Thrasys (Academic) 168f.

Index locorum Anon. De com.

– F 63 b 30

– Proleg. De com. ΙΙΙ 60 129, 159

– F 63 c 28 – F 65 28

Apollodorus of Athens (FGrH 244)

– F 67 31

– T 1 7, 9, 10

– F 68c 30

– T 2 7, 8-10

– F 190 149

– T 3-9 9

– F 191 149

– T 4 13

– F 333 31

– T 7 31

– F 336a 31

– T 8 31

– F 337 30

– T 19 31

– F 338d 30

– T 20 31

– F 339 28

– Chronica

– F 342 30

– F 7b 31

– F 347d 31

– F 13 113

– F 348 31

– F 19b 147 – F 38b 29

Aristotle

– F 43 31

– Rh. 1408b 86

– F 63 a 30

300 | Index

Athenaeus

– Nat. deor. I 93 17

– 4,75 12

– Orat. 51 209

– 4,83 207

– Tusc. I 59 145, 211

– 8,3 150 – 14,40 12

Demetrius of Phaleron (FGrH 228) – F 36 157

Avienius – Ora maritima 92 Aulus Gellius – 17,4 128 – 17,4,4-6 verses 16-18 – 17,21,42 129 Bible – Mac. I 15,11-38 223

Diodorus Siculus – 12,10 152 – 16,88,3 129, 157 Diogenes Laertius – 2,64 200, 204 – 2,83 169 – 4,1 215 – 4,19 193

Cassius Dio

– 4,29 108

– 40,1,1 210 – 60,29 161 – 61,3,1 210

– 4,60 54, 102, 131, 133, 164f., 170, 172

– 78,40,3 210

– 4,61 165-168, 215 – 4,64 192 – 4,65 190

Catullus – 1,1-7 30

– 4,66 192 – 4,67 48, 208, 219 – 5,58 216

Choeroboscus – Scholia in Heph. 183 92 Cicero – De fin. 5,1 213 – De fin. 5,4 193 – De or. I 45 57, 214

– 8,51 127, 129, 151, 156 – 8,52 verses 4-14 – 8,53 129 – 8,67 151 – 8,71 153 – 8,73 154f.

– De or. I 82 214

– 8,74 129, 152, 154f.

– De or. I 84-93 209

– 9,38 152

– De or. II 360 211

– 10,25 186

– De senect. 23 10 – Luc. 102 199

Dionysios, son of Kalliphon

– Luc. 11 48

descriptio Graeciae 90

– Luc. 16 209

Index | 301

Donatus

– IG II² 1014 37

– Vit. Ter. 5 129, 159

– IG II² 1029 213 – IG II² 1030 213 – IG II² 1041 213 – IG II² 1042 213 – IG II² 1043 213 – IG II² 1926 129

Empedocles – DK 38 A 2 151 Epicurus

– IG II² 3781 54

– De nat. 28 (PHerc. 1479/1417), fr. 13 XIIII 37

– IG II² 12764 178 – IG XIV 1184 129

Eratosthenes (FGrH 241) – F 1a 27

– SEG 22,111,30 213 – SEG 25, 237 177

– F 11a 28 Isocrates Euripides – Or. 1648 160

– Orat. 12,260 186 Josephus – Ant. 13,223 223

Eusebius – Chronicon 1.28 127, 148

Julian

– Chronicon Ol. 122,1 129

– Ep. 60,9 200

– Chronicon Ol. 145,2 129 – PE 14,4,16 205

Justin

– PE 14,7,14 169

– 30,4,1-2 129, 161

Galen

Libanius

– De ant. I 14 62

– Or. 25,66 129

– Lib. Propr. 1 210 Livius Hermippus of Smyrna (FGrH 1026)

– 31,46,15-16 129, 160

– F 44 157 Pausanias – 7,154 150

– 1,17,2 213 – 5,8,8 156 – 8,33,4 129, 161

Inscriptions

Philo of Alexandria

– Agora XV, 304 213 – IG II/III² 886 = IG II³ 1, 1261 170

– De virtutibus 91 202

Herodotus

– IG II² 1006 213 – IG II² 1012 37

302 | Index

Philodemus of Gadara

– NH 25,87 91

– De Stoicis (PHerc. 155 + 339), col. 4,6-12 37

– NH 32,16,7 127, 150

– Index Stoicorum (PHerc. 1018) – col. 51,6-7 17

Plutarch

– col. 52 10

– Arat. 41 160

– col. 53,7-8 17

– Camill. 19 129, 157

– col. 69, 3-5 10

– Cato Mai. 3,7 201

– Index Academicorum (PHerc. 1021/1691)

– Demetr. 4,4 201

– col. 11,38-39 19

– Thes. 36,4 213

– col. 22 34, 46, 100, 182f., 194

– De Phyt. orac. 399c 129, 161

– col. 23,1-4 147, 219f.

– De cohibenda ira 453E 200

– col. 23,7-10 147, 206f., 217

– De sera numinis vindicta 551 200

– col. 24,30-26,4 41-51

– Quaest. conv. 621E-622A 177

– col. 26, mid-32,34 verses 21-105 – col. 33,1-17 16-21, 44f., 96, 221

Polybius

– col. 33,17-19 44

– 34,14 207

– col. 34,44-35,2 11 – col. 35,37-36,5 145, 208

Pseudo-Plutarch

– col. M 35, 133, 163, 168f., 173-176

– Vitae decem oratorum 840E 201

– col. N 35, 53, 99, 135, 147, 178-181, 220-222

– Vitae decem oratorum 842 E 203

– col. O 35, 37, 39, 52-56, 135, 169, 173-181 – col. P 35

Pseudo- Scymnus

– col. b,11-12 (PHerc. 1691) 190

– 16-49 (proem) 8-13, 25, 28, 32, 39, 52, 61f.

– Rhetorica I,14,7-8 208

– 120,121 22

Philostratus

P. Med. 19 24

– Apollon. 2,14 210 – Apollon. 4,34 129, 161

P. Oxy. 1241 13

– Gym. 7 127, 148f.

Quintilian

– VS 2,11,1 87

– Inst. 11,2,26 145

Pindar – Nem. 9,40 150

Schol. Aristoph. ran.

– O. 8.87 210

– ad 694 38

Pliny the Elder

Schol. ad Pind.

– NH 2,202 129, 161

– Nem. 9,95 127, 150

– NH 7,89 145, 211, 214 – NH 24,43 91

Index | 303

Schol. in Hesiodum

– χ 6,29-30 verse 15

– Ad opera et dies 336 200

– ω 14,9 verse 19

Seneca (elder)

Stobaeus

– Quaest. nat. 2,26,4 129, 161

– I,51,1 91

– Quaest. nat. 6,31,1 129, 161

– IV,18,4 91

Sextus Empiricus

Strabo

– P. 1 235 205

– 1,3,16 129, 161

– Adv. math. 2,20-47 209

– 8,3,2 148

– Adv. math. 11,208 186

– 12,3,37 202 – 14,1,8 223

Socrates

– 14,2,22 223

– Hist. eccl. 3,3 200 Suda Solin

– ε 2654 201

– 1,27 30

– μ 589 129, 159 – π 1707,24-27 35

Sophocles – El.266 210

Theophilus – Ad Autol. III 122 A 91

Sphaera Empedoclis 80–85, 90f. Theophrastus Stephanus of Byzantium

– De causis plant. 4,15,2 209

– δ 140,32-33 verse 1 – δ 150,43-44 verse 106

Thucydides

– δ 150,48-51 223

2,48 160

– ε 76,2 verses 2-3 – θ 44,2 verse 20 – ι 32 19,161 – χ 16,2-3 verse 109

Vita Isocratis – Vita Isocratis III (Westermann, p. 258) 157