Polybius, Histories

Translation

Book 12 - Chapter 12

<w lemma="%2Akaqa%2Fper">Καθάπερ</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="kano%2Fnwn">κανόνων</w>, <w lemma="ka%29%5Cn">κἂν</w> <w lemma="e%29la%2Fttwn">ἐλάττων</w> <w lemma="h%29%3D%7C">ᾖ</w> <w lemma="tw%3D%7C">τῷ</w> <w lemma="mh%2Fkei">μήκει</w> <w lemma="ka%29%5Cn">κἂν</w> <w lemma="tw%3D%7C">τῷ</w> <w lemma="pla%2Ftei">πλάτει</w> <w lemma="tapeino%2Fteros">ταπεινότερος</w>, <w lemma="mete%2Fxh%7C">μετέχῃ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="kano%2Fnos">κανόνος</w> <w lemma="i%29dio%2Fthtos">ἰδιότητος</w>, <w lemma="kano%2Fna">κανόνα</w> <w lemma="fhsi%5C">φησὶ</w> <w lemma="dei%3Dn">δεῖν</w> <w lemma="prosagoreu%2Fein">προσαγορεύειν</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Fmws">ὅμως</w>, <w lemma="o%28%2Ftan">ὅταν</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="eu%29qei%2Fas">εὐθείας</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="tau%2Fthn">ταύτην</w> <w lemma="oi%29keio%2Fthtos">οἰκειότητος</w> <w lemma="e%29kpe%2Fsh%7C">ἐκπέσῃ</w>, <w lemma="pa%2Fnta">πάντα</w> <w lemma="ma%3Dllon">μᾶλλον</w> <w lemma="dei%3Dn">δεῖν</w> <w lemma="h%29%5C">ἢ</w> <w lemma="kano%2Fna">κανόνα</w> <w lemma="kalei%3Dn">καλεῖν</w>,

<w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="au%29to%5Cn">αὐτὸν</w> <w lemma="tro%2Fpon">τρόπον</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="suggramma%2Ftwn">συγγραμμάτων</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Fsa">ὅσα</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="h%29%5C">ἢ</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="le%2Fcin">λέξιν</w> <w lemma="h%29%5C">ἢ</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="xeirismo%5Cn">χειρισμὸν</w> <w lemma="h%29%5C">ἢ</w> <w lemma="kat%27">κατ᾽</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fllo">ἄλλο</w> <w lemma="ti">τι</w> <w lemma="diamarta%2Fnhtai">διαμαρτάνηται</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="i%29di%2Fwn">ἰδίων</w> <w lemma="merw%3Dn">μερῶν</w>, <w lemma="a%29nte%2Fxhtai">ἀντέχηται</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="a%29lhqei%2Fas">ἀληθείας</w>, <w lemma="prosi%2Fesqai%2F">προσίεσθαί</w> <w lemma="fhsi">φησι</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="i%28stori%2Fas">ἱστορίας</w> <w lemma="o%29%2Fnoma">ὄνομα</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="bu%2Fblous">βύβλους</w>, <w lemma="o%28%2Ftan">ὅταν</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="tau%2Fths">ταύτης</w> <w lemma="parape%2Fsh%7C">παραπέσῃ</w>, <w lemma="mhke%2Fti">μηκέτι</w> <w lemma="kalei%3Dsqai">καλεῖσθαι</w> <w lemma="dei%3Dn">δεῖν</w> <w lemma="i%28stori%2Fan">ἱστορίαν</w>.

<w lemma="e%29gw%5C">ἐγὼ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="dio%2Fti">διότι</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="h%28gei%3Dsqai">ἡγεῖσθαι</w> <w lemma="dei%3D">δεῖ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="toiou%2Ftwn">τοιούτων</w> <w lemma="suggramma%2Ftwn">συγγραμμάτων</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="a%29lh%2Fqeian">ἀλήθειαν</w> <w lemma="o%28mologw%3D">ὁμολογῶ</w>, <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="pragmatei%2Fan">πραγματείαν</w> <w lemma="au%29to%2Fs">αὐτός</w> <w lemma="pou">που</w> <w lemma="ke%2Fxrhmai">κέχρημαι</w> <w lemma="le%2Fgwn">λέγων</w> <w lemma="ou%28%2Ftws">οὕτως</w>, <w lemma="o%28%2Fti">ὅτι</w>, <w lemma="kaqa%2Fper">καθάπερ</w> <w lemma="e%29myu%2Fxou">ἐμψύχου</w> <w lemma="sw%2Fmatos">σώματος</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="o%29%2Fyewn">ὄψεων</w> <w lemma="e%29caireqeisw%3Dn">ἐξαιρεθεισῶν</w> <w lemma="a%29xreiou%3Dtai">ἀχρειοῦται</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Flon">ὅλον</w>, <w lemma="ou%28%2Ftws">οὕτως</w> <w lemma="e%29c">ἐξ</w> <w lemma="i%28stori%2Fas">ἱστορίας</w> <w lemma="e%29a%5Cn">ἐὰν</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Frh%7Cs">ἄρῃς</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="a%29lh%2Fqeian">ἀλήθειαν</w>, <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="kataleipo%2Fmenon">καταλειπόμενον</w> <w lemma="au%29th%3Ds">αὐτῆς</w> <w lemma="a%29nwfele%5Cs">ἀνωφελὲς</w> <w lemma="gi%2Fnetai">γίνεται</w> <w lemma="dih%2Fghma">διήγημα</w>. — <w lemma="%2Adu%2Fo">Δύο</w> <w lemma="me%2Fntoi">μέντοι</w> <w lemma="tro%2Fpous">τρόπους</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Ffamen">ἔφαμεν</w> <w lemma="ei%29%3Dnai">εἶναι</w> <w lemma="yeu%2Fdous">ψεύδους</w>,

<w lemma="e%28%2Fna">ἕνα</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="kat%27">κατ᾽</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fgnoian">ἄγνοιαν</w>, <w lemma="e%28%2Fteron">ἕτερον</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="proai%2Fresin">προαίρεσιν</w>,

<w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftwn">τούτων</w> <w lemma="dei%3Dn">δεῖν</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="kat%27">κατ᾽</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fgnoian">ἄγνοιαν</w> <w lemma="parapai%2Fousi">παραπαίουσι</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="a%29lhqei%2Fas">ἀληθείας</w> <w lemma="dido%2Fnai">διδόναι</w> <w lemma="suggnw%2Fmhn">συγγνώμην</w>, <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="proai%2Fresin">προαίρεσιν</w> <w lemma="a%29katalla%2Fktws">ἀκαταλλάκτως</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fxein">ἔχειν</w>. — <w lemma="%2Atou%2Ftwn">Τούτων</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="h%28mi%3Dn">ἡμῖν</w> <w lemma="o%28mologoume%2Fnwn">ὁμολογουμένων</w>,

<w lemma="au%29tou%3D">αὐτοῦ</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftou">τούτου</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="yeu%2Fdous">ψεύδους</w> <w lemma="mega%2Flhn">μεγάλην</w> <w lemma="u%28polamba%2Fnw">ὑπολαμβάνω</w> <w lemma="diafora%5Cn">διαφορὰν</w> <w lemma="ei%29%3Dnai">εἶναι</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="kat%27">κατ᾽</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fgnoian">ἄγνοιαν</w> <w lemma="ginome%2Fnou">γινομένου</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="proai%2Fresin">προαίρεσιν</w>, <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="e%29pide%2Fxesqai">ἐπιδέχεσθαι</w> <w lemma="suggnw%2Fmhn">συγγνώμην</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="dio%2Frqwsin">διόρθωσιν</w> <w lemma="eu%29menikh%2Fn">εὐμενικήν</w>, <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="a%29paraith%2Ftou">ἀπαραιτήτου</w> <w lemma="dikai%2Fws">δικαίως</w> <w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="tugxa%2Fnein">τυγχάνειν</w> <w lemma="kathgori%2Fas:">κατηγορίας·</w>

<w lemma="w%28%3D%7C">ᾧ</w> <w lemma="ge%2Fnei">γένει</w> <w lemma="ma%2Flist%27">μάλιστ᾽</w> <w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="eu%28%2Froi">εὕροι</w> <w lemma="tis">τις</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fnoxon">ἔνοχον</w> <w lemma="au%29to%5Cn">αὐτὸν</w> <w lemma="o%29%2Fnta">ὄντα</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="%2Ati%2Fmaion:">Τίμαιον·</w> <w lemma="dio%2Fti">διότι</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29sti%5C">ἐστὶ</w> <w lemma="toiou%3Dtos">τοιοῦτος</w> <w lemma="skopei%3Dn">σκοπεῖν</w> <w lemma="h%29%2Fdh">ἤδη</w> <w lemma="pa%2Frestin">πάρεστιν</w>. —

Timaeus says, that as a rule which is defective in length and breadth but possesses the essential quality of a rule must still be called a rule, but when it has no approach to straightness or any quality akin to straightness, must be called anything rather than a rule,

so in the case of historical works, when they are defective in style, treatment, or any other particular quality but still strive to ascertain the truth they may claim to be styled histories, but when they fall away from truth have no longer any claim to this name.

I quite agree with him that truth is the leading quality in such books, and I made the same statement, writing as follows, that in the case of a living body if the eyes are put out the whole becomes useless, so if you take away truth from history what remains is but an unprofitable fable.

however, that there are two kinds of falsehood, one the consequence of ignorance and the other deliberate,

and that we should accord pardon to those who fall away from the truth owing to ignorance, but should refuse to forgive deliberate lying. This point being settled I affirm

that the difference is very wide between such falsehood as is the result of ignorance and such as is deliberate, the one admitting of pardon and kindly correction but the other deserving implacable condemnation.

And one finds that Timaeus himself is a chief sinner in this respect, as I will now prove.

Walbank Commentary

Overview

12.4.0 - 12.16.0

Timaeus' criticisms of Aristotle about Locri: his criticisms of Callisthenes, Demochares, and Agathocles <emph rend="bold">P.</emph> now passes to a discussion of Timaeus' criticisms of his predecessors (cf. 23. 8) and the polemic about Locri forms part of this section (cf. Pdech, p. xviii). On the view that Timaeus' opinions about Locri furnished the occasion for P. to devote this book to criticism of him see the introductory note, above, p. 317. Aristotle's account of the origins of Epizephyrian Locri was probably contained in his Constitutions, which may well have dealt with foundations too, for Plutarch (Mor. 1093 C) refers to them as <w lang="el-GR">κτίσεις καὶ πολιτεῖαι</w> (cf. Sandys, Aristotle's Constitution of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Athens&groupId=379&placeId=715">Athens</a> <emph rend="superscript">2</emph> (London, 1912), xxix). In 11. 5 P. implies that Theophrastus shared Aristotle's account perhaps in his three books <w lang="el-GR">Νομοθετῶν</w> (Diog. Laert. v. 45), which seem to have touched on Zaleucus (cf. Cic. de leg. ii. 15; ad Att. vi. 1. 18), or alternatively in his twenty-four books <w lang="el-GR">Νόμων κατὰ στοιχεῖον</w> (Diog. Laert. v. 44; Cic. fin. v. 11); and indeed in his treatise On Drunkenness Theophrastus mentioned Zaleucus' law punishing the drinking of wine without a doctor's prescription by death (Theophr. fg. 117 Wimmer = Athen. x. 429). The reference is, however, merely to Timaeus' rejection of Theophrastus and there is no positive evidence that P. was personally familiar with his account. All that P. quotes from Aristotle too (at least in surviving fragments) comes via Timaeus' criticism, and it is possible, despite 9. 1, that P. merely took Aristotle's version from Timaeus and what he was told himself at Locri (cf. von Scala, 127; Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (1)', col. 1470; Brown, 127 n. 7, correctly observes, however, that this can be only a hypothesis). Timaeus' criticism of Aristotle was in his ninth book (FGH, 566 F 11) and this digression arose either in connexion with Pythagoras or else out of his account of the history of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Magna Graecia&groupId=728&placeId=1334">Magna Graecia</a> in the sixth century (so Jacoby, commentary on FGH, 566 F 11–12); Schwartz (Hermes, 1899, 484) argued that as the Locrian laws were usually attributed to Zaleucus (16. 4 n.), who was accounted a Pythagorean, Timaeus, who rejected Zaleucus' existence (FGH, 566 F 130), may well have passed from discussing this question in connexion with Zaleucus to a general account of early Locrian history, and this is possible (cf. Laqueur, RE, 'Timaios (2)', col. 1078). Aristotle's acceptance of the story that Italian Locri was founded by slaves from Locris with whom free-born women had cohabited during their <milestone unit="page" n="330">[330]</milestone> husbands' absence as allies of the Spartans during the Messenian War (cf. 6 b 5 n.) is rejected by Timaeus on eight grounds: <table cols="3" rows="8"> <row> <cell>(i)</cell> <cell /> <cell>the Locrians were not wont to have domestic slaves (6. 7–8);</cell> </row> <row> <cell>(ii)</cell> <cell /> <cell>the inherited friendship of Locri with <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sparta&groupId=660&placeId=1208">Sparta</a> (6 a 2);</cell> </row> <row> <cell>(iii)</cell> <cell /> <cell>the ravaging of Locri by the Athenians (6 b 3);</cell> </row> <row> <cell>(iv)</cell> <cell /> <cell>the Spartans would hardly have stopped the Locrians of Greece from visiting their wives during the Messenian War 6 b 5);</cell> </row> <row> <cell>(v)</cell> <cell /> <cell>the existence of a treaty between Greek Locris and Italian Locri <w lang="el-GR">ὡς γονεῦσι πρὸς τέκνα</w> (9. 3);</cell> </row> <row> <cell>(vi)</cell> <cell /> <cell>the existence of sympolity between the two states (9. 4);</cell> </row> <row> <cell>(vii)</cell> <cell /> <cell>the laws of Locri were those of a colony of free men (9. 5);</cell> </row> <row> <cell>(viii)</cell> <cell /> <cell>the constitution of Locri and its cultural institutions are similar to those of Locris (11. 5).</cell> </row> </table> P.'s answers to these arguments are partly but not wholly valid; they are discussed in the notes (see also Walbank, JRS, 1962, 1–12). They fall into two groups: those based on personal inquiry at Locri (5–6. 6), and those based on probability (6. 7–11. 5). But as between the views of Aristotle and Timaeus, the latter seem to be the more convincing. The story of the slave origins of Locri parallels the similar story of the Partheniae at Tarentum (viii. 33. 9 n.); it seems to be implied in the version which made Locri also a Spartan foundation (Paus. iii. 3. 1). It probably arose in an attempt to explain the matrilineal customs of Locri (5. 6 n.) and may have been given additional prominence in democratic propaganda during the party struggles at the time of Dionysius II (Arist. Pol. vii (v). 7. 1307 a 38, <w lang="el-GR">ἡ Λοκρῶν πόλις ἀπώλετο ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Διονύσιον κηδείας)</w>, which sought to bring the 'Hundred Houses' (5. 6) into disrepute (so Oldfather, RE, 'Lokroi', col. 1315). Timaeus' rejection of it would be explained if he drew some of his information about Locri from a Locrian migr, Echecrates (10. 7 n.). Other points at issue between Aristotle and Timaeus are discussed in the notes. See in general Oldfather, RE, '<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Lokris&groupId=696&placeId=1275">Lokris</a>', cols. 1255–62; 'Lokroi', cols. 1314–15, 1345–6; Dunbabin, 36–37, 183–5; Brown, 44–50; Brard, 201–6; Jacoby on FGH, 566 F 11–12; Lerat, ii. 22–25; Walbank, JRS, 1962, 1–12. On the origins of the inhabitants of Locri see S. Pembroke, Annales, 1970, 1240–70. He relates the view of Aristotle, followed by P., to the tradition preserved in Schol. Dion. Per. 366 (GGM, ii. 445 l. 30) that the slaves had sexual relations with their mistresses and fled with them to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Italy&groupId=656&placeId=1199">Italy</a> when their masters returned; and he applies the statement that nobility was reckoned <w lang="el-GR">ἀπὸ τῶν γυναικῶν</w> only to the first generation (after which descent in Locri was reckoned as it was anywhere else). This view depends on the assumption that the story of the adulterous wives was true; in the commentary I assumed that it was devised to explain matrilineal vestiges surviving at Locri. The tradition is also discussed by Christiane SourvinouInwood, CQ, 1974, 186–98, who points out that the attribution of the foundation-legend of Locri to democratic propaganda directed against the Hundred Families is open to the objection that it would be equally discreditable to the democrats (but presumably birth was less important to them). Associating it closely with the legend of Tarentum, she regards it as reflecting a period of intimate relations between Tarentum and Locri, probably in the sixth century. Both accounts she regards as legendary and as expressions of a 'reversed world', in which normal relationships are inverted (so that women and slaves play the major roles) but subsequently give way to order and a return to normal conditions; the story would thus reflect a non-rational, mythopoeic structure of thought.

12.12.0 - 12.12.0

The exact position of these two fragments from M can be determined only approximately; see above, pp. 19–20.

12.12.1 - 12.12.3

The proverb <w lang="el-GR">Λοκροὶ τὰς συνθήκας</w>. The position of this passage in the book suggests that it forms part of the polemic against Timaeus and therefore that he and Polybius held different views about the meaning of the proverb. The view given in the text, associating it with the invasion of the Heracleidae and the treachery of the west Locrians, would fit Timaeus' general concern to free the people of Italian Locri from the charges made against them; and it may therefore be Timaeus' view. The Corpus paroemiographorum knows two explanations of this proverb. One (Corp. paroem. graec. i. 116) refers it to a law of Zaleucus in Locri, <w lang="el-GR">συγγραφὴν ἐπὶ τῶν δανεισμάτων μὴ γίνεσθαι, ὅθεν πολλῶν ἀρνουμένων τὰ συναλλάγματα ἐπὶ τῶν ψευδομένων ἡ παροιμία ἐκράτησεν</w>. But there is a different explanation ibid. i. 114: <w lang="el-GR">Λοκρῶν σύνθημα, τάττεται δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν παρακρουομένων</w> <emph rend="italics">\?\</emph> <w lang="el-GR">Λοκροὶ γὰρ τὰς συνθήκας πρὸς τοὺς Πελοποννησίους προδόντες μετὰ τῶν Ἡρακλειδῶν ἐγένοντο</w> <emph rend="italics">\?\</emph> <w lang="el-GR">οἱ δὲ ὅτι Σικελοὺς ἠπάτησαν παραλογισάμενοι</w> <emph rend="italics">\?\</emph> . P.'s introductory words <w lang="el-GR">ἐπὶ τῶν ἀθετούντων τὰς ὁμολογίας</w>, 'those who set agreements at naught', could in themselves apply to either the disowning of debts at Locri or the treachery shown by west Locrians towards the Peloponnesians. But, as Wunderer (Phil. 1897, 173) points out, P. would not have mentioned the matter had he agreed with Timaeus; and the view that the explanation in the text is that of P. implies that for some quite unexplained reason he was concerned to give publicity to a legend discreditable not to Locri but to western Locris. The argument of Pdech (pp. xxi–xxii), that P. was trying to show that the bad behaviour of the Italian Locrians was natural since their forebears in Greece were treacherous, seems a farfetched way of countering Timaeus and improbable in view of the other version of the proverb associating it directly with Locri. Hence it seems reasonable to assume that in the words <w lang="el-GR">ἐπὶ τῶν ἀθετούντων τὰς ὁμολογίας</w> P. is giving his own view that the proverb refers to the consequences of the law of Zaleucus, the disowning of <milestone unit="page" n="351">[351]</milestone> debt-agreements; and certainly he goes on later to comment further on Zaleucus' legislation (ch. 16), in which Timaeus disbelieved (FGH, 566 F 130). J. F. Lucht (Phylarchi historiarum fragmenta, Leipzig, 1836, p. ix) conjectured that for <w lang="el-GR">τις</w> in § 1 we should read <w lang="el-GR">Τίμαιος</w>. This was accepted by Wunderer (i. 26 n. 2; Phil. 1897, 172) and Oldfather (Phil. 1908, 447–8) and has much to commend it; the beginning and end of extracts were, of course, especially liable to textual corruption (cf. Brown, 125 n. 8, who is not, however, very explicit). It is just possible that the association of the proverb with Zaleucus' law on contracts (Strabo, vi. 260 = Ephorus, FGH, 70 F 139; Diod. xii. 21. 3) goes back to Aristotle (so Wunderer, Phil. 1897, 177); but such an association is probably unhistorical, since it proceeds from what looks like a primitive refusal to recognize written debt contracts to a general debt repudiation (cf. Oldfather, Phil. 1908, 448; RE, 'Lokroi', col. 1322). Wunderer also argues (Phil. 1897, 174–6) that Timaeus' source was the Atthidographer Demon; he bases his argument on the strung-out participles of this chapter. But Demon's style is hardly likely to have survived into P.'s paraphrase of what will itself have been a paraphrase by Timaeus. Pdech, ad loc., refers the version given here to Ephorus, but gives no reasons. Oldfather suggested (Phil. 1908, 448–9) that the proverb arose in connexion with Locrian piracy in the fifth century and Athenian attempts to suppress it (cf. Plut. Peric. 17). But all explanations are hypothetical.

12.12.1 - 12.12.3

Timaeus' criticism of Callisthenes: Brown, 8–9, argues that Timaeus' criticism reflects the current democratic attitudes in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Athens&groupId=379&placeId=715">Athens</a> at the time of Callisthenes' death, and that it therefore supports an early date for Timaeus' migration to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Athens&groupId=379&placeId=715">Athens</a> (cf. 25 d 1 n.); this seems forced.

12.12.1 - 12.12.1

〈 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">μὸν δια</w></emph> 〉 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">σύρειν</w>:</emph> <w lang="el-GR">θείας εὑρεῖν</w> M. Herwerden's emendation (Mnem. 1874, 73), adopted by Bttner-Wobst, is attractive, though, as Pdech observes, <w lang="el-GR">θειασμός</w> is not found again in P.: 'to ridicule the frenzy . . .'. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῶν ὀνειρωττόντων καὶ δαιμονώντων</w>:</emph> 'who dream dreams and write like men possessed' (Paton). Wunderer (iii. 47) adduces x. 2. 9, and emends to <w lang="el-GR">δεισιδαιμονούντων</w>; but unnecessarily. Despite the fragmentary character of the MS. at this point, it seems certain that P. is saying that Timaeus properly criticizes sensational writing, but being in the same case himself has no right to make such criticisms. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">πολλὴν τῆς τοιαύτης ἐμπεποίηνται φλυαρίας</w>:</emph> 'who have produced a great deal of such nonsense'. Cobet (Mnem. 1862, 21) suggests <w lang="el-GR">ἐμπεφόρηνται</w>, 'who have stuffed themselves up with . . .'. But the text stands quite well.

Specifics

12.12.1 - 12.12.1

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐπὶ τῶν κανόνων</w>:</emph> 'in the case of a carpenter's rule'. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῷ πλάτει ταπεινότερος</w>:</emph> 'deficient in width'. Schweighaeuser takes it of thickness, stressing the meaning of <w lang="el-GR">ταπεινός</w>; but for 'thickness' <w lang="el-GR">τῷ βάθει</w> would be more usual. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῆς πρὸς ταύτην οἰκειότητος</w>:</emph> 'and all conformity to this', i.e. straightness. The verb <w lang="el-GR">ἐκπέ?σῃ</w> is Bttner-Wobst's emendation for <w lang="el-GR">ἐγγίζῃ</w> (or <w lang="el-GR">ἐγγίζει)</w>; though Pdech's criticism of its use with a plain genitive is not valid (cf. 14. 7), his own proposal, <w lang="el-GR">ἐπιδέῃ</w>, is attractive and is approved by Gelzer, Gnomon, 1963, 165.

12.12.2 - 12.12.2

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">λἐξιν . . . χειρισμόν</w>:</emph> 'style . . . treatment'; cf. 28. 10. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">κατ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἄλλο τι . . . τῶν ἰδίων μερῶν</w>:</emph> 'in any other detail'. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἀντέχηται δὲ τῆς ἱστορίας</w>:</emph> cf. Lucian, hist. conscr. 9 for the same distinction; Avenarius, 27.

12.12.3 - 12.12.3

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἡγεῖσθαι δεῖ . . . τὴν ἀλήθειαν</w>:</emph> 'truth must play the main role in works of this kind'. <milestone unit="page" n="350">[350]</milestone> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">αὐτός που κέχρημαι</w>:</emph> i. 14. 6, with unessential variation in the wording. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐμψύχου σώματος</w>:</emph> cf. i. 14. 6, <w lang="el-GR">ζῴου</w>; Diod. xx. 1. 5, <w lang="el-GR">τὸ γὰρ τῆς ἱστορίας γένος ἁπλοῦν ἐστι καὶ συμφυὲς ἑαυτῷ καὶ τὸ σύνολον ἐμψύχῳ σώματι παραπλήσιον</w>. If this prologue of Diodorus derives from Ephorus (Laqueur, Hermes, 1911, 206; Jacoby on FGH 70 F 111), P. may have taken the metaphor from him (Avenarius, 107 n. 10).

12.12.4 - 12.12.4

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">δύο . . . τρόπους . . . ψεύδους</w>:</emph> for the distinction see 7. 6 n. The repetition in §§ 6–7 suggests that in the original text there was a substantial passage between the two.

12.12.1 - 12.12.1

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐπὶ τῶν ἀθετούντων τὰς ὁμολογίας</w>:</emph> 'to those who set agreements at naught'; see the preceding note. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοῦτο δέ τις ἐξεύρηκεν</w>:</emph> <w lang="el-GR">ἐξιστόρηκεν</w> M can be construed without Bttner-Wobst's emendation; nor is Hultsch's reading, <w lang="el-GR">τοῦτο δὲ τίς ἐξιστόρηκεν</w>; (followed by a lacuna), convincing. But Lucht's <w lang="el-GR">Τίμαιος</w> for <w lang="el-GR">τις</w> (see 12 a 1–3 n.) is attractive (cf. Jacoby on FGH, 566 F 162); translate, with this reading, 'But Timaeus' researches have produced this account, that both historians and everyone else are agreed that . . .'. <w lang="el-GR">ἐ?ξιστορεῖν</w> is 'to search out' or possibly 'to set forth' (cf. P. Oxy. iii, 486 l. 12, second century A.D.). <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">καὶ παρὰ τοῖς συγγραφεῦσι . . . ὁμολογούμενον</w>:</emph> so Timaeus alleges; P. himself does not accept this view.

12.12.2 - 12.12.2

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">κατὰ τὴν τῶν Ἡρακλειδῶν ἔφοδον</w>:</emph> Greek legend represented the Dorian invasion as the return of the Heracleidae, viz. Temenus, Cresphontes, and Aristodemus' sons, Eurysthenes and Procles. Tradition made them build ships at Naupactus (hence its name) and cross over from there to the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Peloponnese&groupId=861&placeId=1552">Peloponnese</a> at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rhium&groupId=929&placeId=1662">Rhium</a>, advised by Oxylus, a grandson of Thoas (Paus. v. 3. 5–6, viii. 5. 6, x. 38. 10; Strabo, ix. 426–7; Apollod. Bibl. ii. 8. 2–3; Eustath. ad Iliad. p. 276. 20 f.); but according to Ephorus (Strabo, ix. 426–7 = FGH, 70 F 121) the Locrians built the ships for the Dorians beforehand, and this seems <milestone unit="page" n="352">[352]</milestone> to be the view adopted here. The historicity of these events has been much discussed (cf. Oldfather, RE, '<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Lokris&groupId=696&placeId=1275">Lokris</a>', cols. 1187–8; '<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Naupaktos&groupId=789&placeId=1427">Naupaktos</a>', cols. 1983–4). <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῶν Λοκρῶν</w>:</emph> the western Locrians. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">κατὰ τὸ Ῥίον</w>:</emph> 'by way of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rhium&groupId=929&placeId=1662">Rhium</a>', either the Achaean promontory (iv. 10. 4) or the straits of that name (iv. 64. 2 n.).

12.12.2 - 12.12.2

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">κόλακα . . . τὸν Καλλισθένην</w>:</emph> on Callisthenes see iv. 33. 2 n.; T. S. Brown, AJP, 1949, 242; Pearson, 22–49. Timaeus evidently supported his accusation that Callisthenes was a flatterer (cf. 23. 3–8) by referring to his account of Alexander's visit to the oracle of Ammon at Siwah (see next note), which was described so as to create the impression that Alexander was the son of Zeus (below, 23. 4; Jacoby on FGH, 124 T 20; Strabo, xvii. 814 = FGH, 124 F 14; Tarn, Alex. ii. 350, 357–8). <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">κόρδαξί τε προσέχοντα</w>:</emph> <w lang="el-GR">κόραξί τε</w> is Bekker's certain emendation; cf. Strabo, xvii. 814 (FGH, 124 F 14), <w lang="el-GR">πλανώμενον δ</w>f (sc. Alexander on the way to Siwah) <w lang="el-GR">ὑπὸ τοῦ κονιορτοῦ σωθῆναι γενομένων ὄμβρων καὶ δυεῖν κορά?κων ἡγησαμένων τὴν ὁδόν, ἤδη τούτων κολακευτικῶς λεγομένων</w> (sc. by Callisthenes). The same story is attributed to Callisthenes by Plut. Alex. 27. 3, and it appears in Arrian, iii. 3. 6, as given by Aristobulus, <w lang="el-GR">καὶ ὁ πλείων λόγος ταύτῃ κατέχει</w> (= FGH, 139 F 14), in Diod. xvii. 49. 6, following Cleitarchus, and in Curt, iv. 7. 15. According to Ptolemy (Arr. iii. 3. 5 = FGH, 138 F 8) it was two snakes who guided Alexander; and there were other variants (Arr. iii. 3. 6). <w lang="el-GR">κόραξι</w> is the reading of M, not Bekker's emendation; <w lang="el-GR">κόρδαξι</w> was Wunderer's unfortunate 'correction'. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">καὶ κορυβαντιώσαις γυναιξί</w>:</emph> according to Strabo (xiv. 645, xvii. 814) <milestone unit="page" n="353">[353]</milestone> Athenais of Erythrae, perhaps a reincarnation of the Sibyl of that city, testified to Alexander's <w lang="el-GR">εὐγένεια</w>, i.e. his divine birth (Tarn, Alex. ii. 357); and at Branchidae the prophecies were given by a delirious priestess (Iambl. de myst. iii. 11). Timaeus' reference is to these. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ὑπ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">Ἀλεξάνδρου τετευχέναι τιμωρίας</w>:</emph> Callisthenes ensured Alexander's animosity by his opposition to proskynesis; but his execution followed the Pages' conspiracy, in which he was implicated either directly, or as tutor to Hermolaus, the chief conspirator (cf. Curt. viii. 8. 21–22; Iustin. xv. 3. 3–7; and other sources assembled by Jacoby, FGH, 124 T 17–18). According to Ptolemy (FGH, 138 F 17), Callisthenes was hanged, while others, such as Aristobulus (FGH, 139 F 33), reported that he died in chains, having grown fat and diseased (so Charon, FGH, 125 F 15 = Plut. Alex. 55. 5), thus seeking to absolve Alexander. See below, 23. 3. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">διεφθαρκότα τὴν ἐκείνου ψυχήν</w>:</emph> by representing Alexander as the son of Zeus, particularly in reference to the visit to Ammon (see above). Tarn (Alex. ii. 365) quotes Alexander's refusal of the offer of deification in the Alexander-romance of Ps.-Callisthenes (A'), ii. 22. 12, <w lang="el-GR">κίνδυνον γὰρ φέρει τὸν περὶ ψυχῆς</w>, and argues that the author wrote with this remark of Timaeus in mind.

12.12.3 - 12.12.3

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ῥήτορας . . . τὸν δὲ φιλόσοφον</w>:</emph> the contrast is ironical, the mere rhetoricians, who take up an honest stand, with the so-called philosopher who connives at Alexander's deification. Callisthenes is called <w lang="el-GR">φιλόσοφος</w> elsewhere; cf. Plut. Alex. 52. 2; Iustin. xii. 6. 17, xv. 3. 3; Schol. Lucian, p. 258, 4 R; Philodemus, <w lang="el-GR">περὶ κολακ</w>. i <emph rend="superscript">2</emph> . 4 (FGH, 124 T 7, 9, 18 (e) and (f), 21); Itin. Alex. 92; Suidas, <w lang="el-GR">Νεόφρων</w>. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοῖς τιμαῖς τοῖς ἰσοθέοις ἀντέλεγον</w>:</emph> according to Hyperides (c. Demosth. 31. 15 ff.) Demosthenes nevertheless acquiesced with the words 'let him be the son of Zeus and Poseidon, if he wishes' (cf. Dinarchus, c. Demosth. 94), probably ironical even though they conceded the point (cf. Balsdon, Historia, 1950, 383). According to some late sources, Demades proposed that Alexander should be recognized as a thirteenth god (Ael. Var. hist. v. 12; Val. Max. vii. 2, ext. 13; Athen. vi. 251 B); but this may exaggerate what was intended. There was certainly opposition from Lycurgus (Vit. X orat. 842 D) and Pytheas (Plut. Mor. 804 B). The context of the proposal and debate has been much discussed; see Bengtson <emph rend="superscript">2</emph> , 348 n. 1, for recent bibliography. Despite Hogarth's view (EHR, 1887, 322 ff.; contra E. Meyer, Kl. Schr. i. 330 n. 2) to the contrary, recently revived by Balsdon, loc. cit., the fact that the matter was raised in several states seems to support the hypothesis that some expression of a wish had come from Alexander. The Spartans refused (Plut. Mor. 219 E); for other states see Ael., Var. hist. ii. 19. Aymard (REA, 1937, 26) has tentatively suggested that Hyperides, c. Demosth. 18. 13–16, may refer <milestone unit="page" n="354">[354]</milestone> to a similar wish conveyed to the federal assemblies of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Achaea&groupId=272&placeId=533">Achaea</a> and Aetolia. Its form can be reconstructed. Hyperides, Epitaph. 8. 21 (cf. G. Colin, REG, 1938, 387), seems to establish that the question was linked with the cult of Hephaestion, and that in requesting the setting up of this cult Alexander made clear, without a definite request, that he wished for deification himself (De Sanctis, Riv. fil. 1940, 6; C. Habicht, Gottmenschentum und griechische Stdte (Munich, 1956), 28–36, 222–9). The demand rested on a consciousness of merit (Habicht, op. cit. 35; C. F. Edson, OCD, 'Ruler-cult', 783; CP, 1958, 63–64) and was not related to any political purpose. Tarn (Alex. ii. 370 ff.) has argued that as a god Alexander would 'have a juridical standing in the cities which he could not otherwise have had', and he links the request with the demand that the exiles should be returned; but this demand was made at the Olympic games of 324 by Nicanor, whereas the question of divine honours did not arise until after Hephaestion's death in October 324 (Habicht, op. cit. 33). Further 'no Greek god had a juridical standing in the cities which would allow him . . . to act outside the legal norms' (Bickerman, CP, 1950, 43). <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">αἰγίδα καὶ κεραυνὸν περιθέντα θνητῇ φύσει</w>:</emph> i.e. Callisthenes had made Alexander a god; so too Philodemus, <w lang="el-GR">περὶ κολακ</w>. i. <emph rend="superscript">2</emph> 4 = FGH, 124 T 21, <w lang="el-GR">ἐν . . . ταῖς ἱστορίαις ἀπεθέου τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον</w>. Apelles painted Alexander with a thunderbolt in the temple of Artemis at Ephesus (Plut. Alex. 4. 1; Pliny, Nat. hist. xxxv. 92). Tarn, Alex. ii. 362, argues that Callisthenes never did more than claim Alexander as a son of Zeus, which was not in itself equivalent to divinity. The confusion belongs to the Hellenistic age. See further T. S. Brown, 9; AJP, 1949, 242–5, arguing that Callisthenes was preparing the way for posthumous deification. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ὑπὸ τοῦ δαιμονίου</w>:</emph> the divine force of retribution, which also punishes the sacrilege of Antiochus Epiphanes (xxxi. 9. 4) and Prusias (xxxii. 15. 14); cf. Vol. I, p. 21. Timaeus shared this belief (cf. FGH, 566 F 50, 102, 106; Diod. xvi. 78–81, based on Timaeus).

Addenda & corrigenda

12.5.0 - 12.16.0

on the origins of the inhabitants of Locri see S. Pembroke, Annales, 1970, 1240–70. He relates the view of Aristotle, followed by P., to the tradition preserved in Schol. Dion. Per. 366 (GGM, ii. 445 l. 30) that the slaves had sexual relations with their mistresses and fled with them to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Italy&groupId=656&placeId=1199">Italy</a> when their masters returned; and he applies the statement that nobility was reckoned <w lang="el-GR">ἀπὸ τῶν γυναικῶν</w> only to the first generation (after which descent in Locri was reckoned as it was anywhere else). This view depends on the assumption that the story of the adulterous wives was true; in the commentary I assumed that it was devised to explain matrilineal vestiges surviving at Locri. The tradition is also discussed by Christiane SourvinouInwood, CQ, 1974, 186–98, who points out that the attribution of the foundation-legend of Locri to democratic propaganda directed against the Hundred Families is open to the objection that it would be equally discreditable to the democrats (but presumably birth was less important to them). Associating it closely with the legend of Tarentum, she regards it as reflecting a period of intimate relations between Tarentum and Locri, probably in the sixth century. Both accounts she regards as legendary and as expressions of a 'reversed world', in which normal relationships are inverted (so that women and slaves play the major roles) but subsequently give way to order and a return to normal conditions; the story would thus reflect a non-rational, mythopoeic structure of thought.

12.12.2 - 12.12.2

<emph rend="bold">12 b 2. <w lang="el-GR">κόρδαξί τε προσέχοντα</w>:</emph> <w lang="el-GR">κόραξι</w> is the reading of M, not Bekker's emendation; <w lang="el-GR">κόρδαξι</w> was Wunderer's unfortunate 'correction'.

Polybius, Histories

Bibliography

Archaeology

Places

Walbank Commentary

Commentary