Polybius, Histories
Layout
Translation

Bibliography

(1)
Author: Craige Champion
Year: 1997
Title: The Nature of Authoritative Evidence in Polybius and Agelaus' Speech at Naupactus
Source type: Journal Article
View

Archaeology

Places

Book 12 - Chapter 25k

1
<w lemma="%2A%28%2Fina">Ἵνα</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tau%3Dta">ταῦτα</w> <w lemma="bebaiwsw%2Fmeqa">βεβαιωσώμεθα</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="a%29po%2Ffasin">ἀπόφασιν</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="u%28pe%5Cr">ὑπὲρ</w> <w lemma="%2Atimai%2Fou">Τιμαίου</w>, <w lemma="kaqa%2Fper">καθάπερ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="u%28pe%5Cr">ὑπὲρ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="a%29gnoi%2Fas">ἀγνοίας</w>, <w lemma="e%29%2Fti">ἔτι</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="e%28kousi%2Fou">ἑκουσίου</w> <w lemma="yeudografi%2Fas">ψευδογραφίας</w>, <w lemma="braxe%2Fa">βραχέα</w> <w lemma="prooiso%2Fmeqa">προοισόμεθα</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="o%28mologoume%2Fnwn">ὁμολογουμένων</w> <w lemma="au%29tou%3D">αὐτοῦ</w> <w lemma="lo%2Fgwn">λόγων</w> <w lemma="e%29p%27">ἐπ᾽</w> <w lemma="o%29no%2Fmatos">ὀνόματος</w>.
2
— <w lemma="o%28%2Fti">ὅτι</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="dedunasteuko%2Ftwn">δεδυναστευκότων</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="%2Asikeli%2Fa%7C">Σικελίᾳ</w> <w lemma="meta%5C">μετὰ</w> <w lemma="%2Age%2Flwna">Γέλωνα</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="a%29rxai%3Don">ἀρχαῖον</w> <w lemma="pragmatikwta%2Ftous">πραγματικωτάτους</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fndras">ἄνδρας</w> <w lemma="pareilh%2Ffamen">παρειλήφαμεν</w> <w lemma="%2A%28ermokra%2Fthn">Ἑρμοκράτην</w>, <w lemma="%2Atimole%2Fonta">Τιμολέοντα</w>, <w lemma="%2Apu%2Frron">Πύρρον</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29hpeirw%2Fthn">Ἠπειρώτην</w>, <w lemma="oi%28%3Ds">οἷς</w> <w lemma="h%28%2Fkist%27">ἥκιστ᾽</w> <w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="de%2Foi">δέοι</w> <w lemma="peria%2Fptein">περιάπτειν</w> <w lemma="meirakiw%2Fdeis">μειρακιώδεις</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="diatribikou%5Cs">διατριβικοὺς</w> <w lemma="lo%2Fgous">λόγους</w>.
3
<w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="de%2F">δέ</w> <w lemma="fhsin">φησιν</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="th%3D%7C">τῇ</w> <w lemma="mia%3D%7C">μιᾷ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ei%29kosth%3D%7C">εἰκοστῇ</w> <w lemma="bu%2Fblw%7C">βύβλῳ</w>, <w lemma="kaq%27">καθ᾽</w> <w lemma="o%28%5Cn">ὃν</w> <w lemma="kairo%5Cn">καιρὸν</w> <w lemma="%2Aeu%29rume%2Fdwn">Εὐρυμέδων</w> <w lemma="parageno%2Fmenos">παραγενόμενος</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="%2Asikeli%2Fan">Σικελίαν</w> <w lemma="pareka%2Flei">παρεκάλει</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="po%2Fleis">πόλεις</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="%2Asurakosi%2Fwn">Συρακοσίων</w> <w lemma="po%2Flemon">πόλεμον</w>, <w lemma="to%2Fte">τότε</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="%2Agelw%2F%7Cous">Γελῴους</w> <w lemma="ka%2Fmnontas">κάμνοντας</w> <w lemma="tw%3D%7C">τῷ</w> <w lemma="pole%2Fmw%7C">πολέμῳ</w> <w lemma="diape%2Fmyasqai">διαπέμψασθαι</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="%2Akamarinai%2Fous">Καμαριναίους</w> <w lemma="u%28pe%5Cr">ὑπὲρ</w> <w lemma="a%29noxw%3Dn:">ἀνοχῶν·</w>
4
<w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="proqu%2Fmws">προθύμως</w> <w lemma="decame%2Fnwn">δεξαμένων</w>, <w lemma="meta%5C">μετὰ</w> <w lemma="tau%3Dta">ταῦτα</w> <w lemma="presbeu%2Fein">πρεσβεύειν</w> <w lemma="e%28kate%2Frous">ἑκατέρους</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="e%28autw%3Dn">ἑαυτῶν</w> <w lemma="summa%2Fxous">συμμάχους</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="parakalei%3Dn">παρακαλεῖν</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fndras">ἄνδρας</w> <w lemma="e%29kpe%2Fmyai">ἐκπέμψαι</w> <w lemma="pistou%2Fs">πιστούς</w>, <w lemma="oi%28%2Ftines">οἵτινες</w> <w lemma="ei%29selqo%2Fntes">εἰσελθόντες</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="%2Age%2Flan">Γέλαν</w> <w lemma="bouleu%2Fsontai">βουλεύσονται</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="dialu%2Fsews">διαλύσεως</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="koinh%3D%7C">κοινῇ</w> <w lemma="sumfero%2Fntwn">συμφερόντων</w>.
5
<w lemma="paragenome%2Fnwn">παραγενομένων</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="sune%2Fdrwn">συνέδρων</w>, <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="diabouli%2Fou">διαβουλίου</w> <w lemma="proteqe%2Fntos">προτεθέντος</w> <w lemma="toiou%2Ftois">τοιούτοις</w> <w lemma="tisi%5C">τισὶ</w> <w lemma="xrw%2Fmenon">χρώμενον</w> <w lemma="ei%29sa%2Fgei">εἰσάγει</w> <w lemma="lo%2Fgois">λόγοις</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="%2A%28ermokra%2Fthn">Ἑρμοκράτην</w>.
6
<w lemma="e%29paine%2Fsas">ἐπαινέσας</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="proeirhme%2Fnos">προειρημένος</w> <w lemma="a%29nh%5Cr">ἀνὴρ</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="%2Agelw%2F%7Cous">Γελῴους</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="%2Akamarinai%2Fous">Καμαριναίους</w>, <w lemma="prw%3Dton">πρῶτον</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="au%29tw%3Dn">αὐτῶν</w> <w lemma="poihsa%2Fntwn">ποιησάντων</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="a%29noxa%2Fs">ἀνοχάς</w>, <w lemma="deu%2Fteron">δεύτερον</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Fti">ὅτι</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="dialu%2Fsews">διαλύσεως</w> <w lemma="gene%2Fsqai">γενέσθαι</w> <w lemma="lo%2Fgous">λόγους</w> <w lemma="ai%29%2Ftioi">αἴτιοι</w> <w lemma="kaqesth%2Fkasi">καθεστήκασι</w>, <w lemma="tri%2Fton">τρίτον</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Fti">ὅτι</w> <w lemma="pronohqei%3Den">προνοηθεῖεν</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="mh%5C">μὴ</w> <w lemma="bouleu%2Fesqai">βουλεύεσθαι</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="plh%2Fqh">πλήθη</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="dialu%2Fsewn">διαλύσεων</w>, <w lemma="a%29lla%5C">ἀλλὰ</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="proestw%3Dtas">προεστῶτας</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="politw%3Dn">πολιτῶν</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="safw%3Ds">σαφῶς</w> <w lemma="ei%29do%2Ftas">εἰδότας</w> <w lemma="ti%2Fna">τίνα</w> <w lemma="diafora%5Cn">διαφορὰν</w> <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="po%2Flemos">πόλεμος</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fxei">ἔχει</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="ei%29rh%2Fnhs">εἰρήνης</w>,
7
<w lemma="meta%5C">μετὰ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="tau%3Dta">ταῦτα</w> <w lemma="du%2F%27">δύ᾽</w> <w lemma="h%29%5C">ἢ</w> <w lemma="tri%2Fa">τρία</w> <w lemma="labw%5Cn">λαβὼν</w> <w lemma="e%29pixeirh%2Fmata">ἐπιχειρήματα</w> <w lemma="pragmatika%2F">πραγματικά</w>, <w lemma="loipo%2Fn">λοιπόν</w> <w lemma="fhsin">φησιν</w> <w lemma="au%29tou%5Cs">αὐτοὺς</w> <w lemma="e%29pisth%2Fsantas">ἐπιστήσαντας</w> <w lemma="maqei%3Dn">μαθεῖν</w> <w lemma="h%28li%2Fkhn">ἡλίκην</w> <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="po%2Flemos">πόλεμος</w> <w lemma="diafora%5Cn">διαφορὰν</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fxei">ἔχει</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="ei%29rh%2Fnhs">εἰρήνης</w>, <w lemma="mikrw%3D%7C">μικρῷ</w> <w lemma="pro%2Fteron">πρότερον</w> <w lemma="ei%29rhkw%5Cs">εἰρηκὼς</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Fti">ὅτι</w> <w lemma="kat%27">κατ᾽</w> <w lemma="au%29to%5C">αὐτὸ</w> <w lemma="tou%3Dto">τοῦτο</w> <w lemma="xa%2Frin">χάριν</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fxei">ἔχει</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="%2Agelw%2F%7Cois">Γελῴοις</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="mh%5C">μὴ</w> <w lemma="gi%2Fnesqai">γίνεσθαι</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="lo%2Fgous">λόγους</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="polloi%3Ds">πολλοῖς</w> <w lemma="a%29ll%27">ἀλλ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="sunedri%2Fw%7C">συνεδρίῳ</w> <w lemma="kalw%3Ds">καλῶς</w> <w lemma="ginw%2Fskonti">γινώσκοντι</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="toiau%2Ftas">τοιαύτας</w> <w lemma="peripetei%2Fas">περιπετείας</w>.
8
<w lemma="e%29c">ἐξ</w> <w lemma="w%28%3Dn">ὧν</w> <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="%2Ati%2Fmaios">Τίμαιος</w> <w lemma="ou%29">οὐ</w> <w lemma="mo%2Fnon">μόνον</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="pragmatikh%3Ds">πραγματικῆς</w> <w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="do%2Fceien">δόξειεν</w> <w lemma="a%29polei%2Fpesqai">ἀπολείπεσθαι</w> <w lemma="duna%2Fmews">δυνάμεως</w>, <w lemma="a%29lla%5C">ἀλλὰ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="tai%3Ds">ταῖς</w> <w lemma="diatribai%3Ds">διατριβαῖς</w> <w lemma="e%29pixeirh%2Fsewn">ἐπιχειρήσεων</w> <w lemma="ou%29k">οὐκ</w> <w lemma="o%29li%2Fgon">ὀλίγον</w> <w lemma="e%29lattou%3Dsqai">ἐλαττοῦσθαι</w>.
9
<w lemma="pa%2Fntes">πάντες</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="dh%2Fpouqen">δήπουθεν</w> <w lemma="oi%29%2Fontai">οἴονται</w> <w lemma="dei%3Dn">δεῖν</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="a%29podei%2Fceis">ἀποδείξεις</w> <w lemma="fe%2Frein">φέρειν</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="a%29gnooume%2Fnwn">ἀγνοουμένων</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="a%29pistoume%2Fnwn">ἀπιστουμένων</w> <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="a%29kroatai%3Ds">ἀκροαταῖς</w>, <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="h%29%2Fdh">ἤδη</w> <w lemma="ginwskome%2Fnwn">γινωσκομένων</w> <w lemma="mataio%2Ftaton">ματαιότατον</w> <w lemma="ei%29%3Dnai">εἶναι</w> <w lemma="pa%2Fntwn">πάντων</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="paidariwde%2Fstaton">παιδαριωδέστατον</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="kaqeuresilogei%3Dn">καθευρεσιλογεῖν</w> <gap extent="15" /><w lemma="menon">μενον</w> <w lemma="h%29%5C">ἢ</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="ginwsko%2Fmenon">γινωσκόμενον</w>.
10
<w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="xwri%5Cs">χωρὶς</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Flhs">ὅλης</w> <w lemma="paraptw%2Fsews">παραπτώσεως</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="diateqei%3Dsqai">διατεθεῖσθαι</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="plei%3Dston">πλεῖστον</w> <w lemma="me%2Fros">μέρος</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="lo%2Fgou">λόγου</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="kaqa%2Fpac">καθάπαξ</w> <w lemma="mh%5C">μὴ</w> <w lemma="prosdeo%2Fmena">προσδεόμενα</w> <w lemma="lo%2Fgou">λόγου</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="lh%2Fmmasi">λήμμασι</w> <w lemma="ke%2Fxrhtai">κέχρηται</w> <w lemma="toiou%2Ftois">τοιούτοις</w>,
11
<w lemma="oi%28%3Ds">οἷς</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="%2A%28ermokra%2Fthn">Ἑρμοκράτην</w> <w lemma="ti%2Fs">τίς</w> <w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="kexrh%3Dsqai">κεχρῆσθαι</w> <w lemma="pisteu%2Fseie">πιστεύσειε</w>, <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="sunagwnisa%2Fmenon">συναγωνισάμενον</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="%2Alakedaimoni%2Fois">Λακεδαιμονίοις</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="%2Aai%29go%5Cs">Αἰγὸς</w> <w lemma="potamoi%3Ds">ποταμοῖς</w> <w lemma="naumaxi%2Fan">ναυμαχίαν</w>, <w lemma="au%29tandri%5C">αὐτανδρὶ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="xeirwsa%2Fmenon">χειρωσάμενον</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="%2A%29aqhnai%2Fwn">Ἀθηναίων</w> <w lemma="duna%2Fmeis">δυνάμεις</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="strathgou%5Cs">στρατηγοὺς</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="%2Asikeli%2Fan">Σικελίαν</w>, <w lemma="a%29ll%27">ἀλλ᾽</w> <w lemma="ou%29de%5C">οὐδὲ</w> <w lemma="mei">μει</w>
In confirmation of my charge against Timaeus on this count also, besides that of his mistakes and his deliberate falsification of the truth, I shall give some short extracts from speeches acknowledged to be his, giving names and dates.
Of those who were in power in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sicily&groupId=973&placeId=1724">Sicily</a> after the elder Gelo, we have always accepted as a fact that the most capable rulers were Hermocrates, Timoleon, and Pyrrhus of Epirus, and these are the last to whom one should attribute childish and idle speeches.
But Timaeus in his twenty-first book says that at the time when Eurymedon came to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sicily&groupId=973&placeId=1724">Sicily</a> and was urging the towns to pursue the war against <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Syracuse&groupId=994&placeId=1753">Syracuse</a>, the Geleans, who were suffering by the war, sent to Camarina begging for a truce .
The people of Camarina gladly consented, and upon this both cities sent embassies to their allies begging them to dispatch trustworthy commissioners to Gela to discuss terms of peace and the general interests of all concerned.
When, on the arrival of these commissioners, a resolution was proposed in council he represents Hermocrates as speaking somewhat as follows.
This statesman, after praising the people of Gela and Camarina first of all for having themselves made the truce, secondly for being the originators of the negotiations, and thirdly for seeing to it that the terms of peace were not discussed by the multitude but by the leading citizens who knew well the difference between war and peace,
after this introduces one or two practical reflexions and then says that they themselves must now give ear to him and learn how much war differs from peace, and this after having just said that he was thankful to the Geleans for this very thing that the discussion was not held by the multitude but in a council well acquainted with such changes.
From this it appears that Timaeus was not only deficient in practical sense, but does not even attain the level of the themes we hear in schools of rhetoric.
For there all, I suppose, think they ought to give their hearers proofs of things wow they are ignorant or which they disbelieve, but that to exercise our wits in speaking of what our hearers already know is most foolish and childish . . .
Apart from his general mistake in devoting the greater part of the speech to a matter that does not require a single word, he employs such arguments as none could believe to have been used by,
I will not say that Hermocrates who took part with the Lacedaemonians in the battle of Aegospotami and captured the whole Athenian army with its generals in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sicily&groupId=973&placeId=1724">Sicily</a> but, by any ordinary schoolboy.

Walbank Commentary

Overview
12.23.0 - 12.28.0
<p rend="Plain Text">Timaeus' methods and the qualities of the historian</p> <p rend="Plain Text">Despite repetition and overlapping both here and in relation to earlier sections, this part of the work shows three divisions:</p> <p rend="Plain Text">(a) Timaeus' errors and lies (24–25 c),</p> <p rend="Plain Text">(b) Timaeus' political and military inexperience (25 d–26 d),</p> <p rend="Plain Text">(c) the cause of Timaeus' faults and the qualities of the good historian (27–28 a).</p> <p rend="Plain Text">See the analysis of Pdech, pp. xxiii–xxvii.</p>
12.25.1 - 12.25.5
<p rend="Plain Text"> Phalaris' bull: on Phalaris, the tyrant of Acragas (Agrigentum), see vii. 7. 2 n., ix. 27. 7 n. The bull, devised by Perilaus, in which Phalaris' enemies are said to have been roasted alive, was probably copied from the brazen bulls on the top of Mt. Atabyrum <milestone unit="page" n="380">[380]</milestone> in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rhodes&groupId=931&placeId=1665">Rhodes</a>, which lowed when disaster threatened the city (Timaeus in schol. on Pindar, Ol. vii. 160 c: <w lang="el-GR">εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ βόες χαλκοῖ ἐπὶ τῷ ὄρει τῆς Ῥόδου, οἳ ὅταν μέλλῃ τι τῇ πόλει γίνεσθαι κακὸν μυκῶνται</w> = FGH, 566 F 39 (b); Dunbabin, 320; Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 34 n. 3); see above, ix. 27. 7 n. The history of Phalaris' bull is obscure and the evidence on what Timaeus said about it is contradictory. According to a scholiast on Pindar, Pyth. i. 185 (= FGH, 566 F 28 (c)), he stated that the people of Agrigentum sank it in the sea after Phalaris' death, and that a bull exhibited at Agrigentum in his own time represented the River Gela. Both P. (§ 3) and Diodorus (xiii. 90. 4) are agreed that a bull was taken from Agrigentum to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>, and Diodorus says this was done by Himilco after he captured the town in 406/5; P.'s date is vaguer. P. believes this bull to have been that of Phalaris, since it had a door at the joint of its shoulder-blades, through which victims could be let down; accordingly he attacks Timaeus (§§ 4–5) for asserting (a) that the bull at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> was not from Agrigentum, and (b) that there had not been such a bull at Agrigentum. But there is no reason to question the scholiast's statement that Timaeus said that Phalaris' bull was thrown into the sea, and if that is so, P.'s second accusation, as it stands, is false. Perhaps then P. misunderstood Timaeus, who really said that there had been no such bull (i.e. no bull of Phalaris) at Agrigentum at the time when Himilco was said to have removed it (Lenschau, RE, 'Phalaris', col. 1650). Such a statement would not, of course, exclude the existence at Agrigentum of a bull representing the River Gela. (Pdech has an alternative solution. He argues that in § 4 the words <w lang="el-GR">ἐν τῇ προειρημένῃ πόλει</w> refer not to Agrigentum but to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>. But <w lang="el-GR">τοιοῦτον</w> cannot be divorced from the bull just mentioned, as it must be if Timaeus said (a) that the bull from <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> was not from Agrigentum, (b) that there had not been such a bull at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>. Moreover, P.'s assertion that Timaeus tried to give the lie to poets and authors must mean that he believed Timaeus to have denied outright the existence of Phalaris' bull (§ 4).) </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> That there was a bull at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> in 146 is undeniable. As Diodorus (xiii. 90. 5, xxxii. 25) relates, Scipio found it there and restored it to Agrigentum, where it was preserved as a 'monumentum et domesticae crudelitatis et nostrae mansuetudinis' (Cic. 2. Verr. iv. 73). It was in Agrigentum in Diodorus' own time (Diod. ibid.) and possibly in Pliny's (Nat. hist. xxxiv. 89). The existence of this bull was known to Diodorus and P.; and both P. and Diodorus (apparently misled by him; cf. Walbank, CR, 1945, 41) therefore attacked Timaeus for saying (as they thought) that Phalaris' bull had never existed. Their arguments are, however, different. Diodorus navely believes that the restoration of 'the bull' by Scipio refutes Timaeus, assuming without argument that 'the bull' must be that of Phalaris; whereas <milestone unit="page" n="381">[381]</milestone> P. realizes that this point has to be established, and seeks to establish it by the argument that the bull had a trapdoor in the shoulders. The present extract from P. contains no reference to Scipio's restoration of the bull; and in CR, 1945, 39–42, I argued that this was because P. composed this book before 150, and so before the sack of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> disclosed the bull. I am now inclined to accept Jacoby's view (on FGH, 566 F 28) that P.'s confident description of the trapdoor must rest on autopsy, and so be later than 146. The absence of any reference to Scipio's generous gesture remains a difficulty; but perhaps it was mentioned in an extension of the fragment which has not survived. It will, of course, have been related also in its proper place in xxxviii. If this view is right, the discussion of the bull could be an insertion in a book written before 150 (or 146) (cf. iii. 1–5 n.); or more probably the bulk of xii was composed after that date (see above, p. 317). </p> <p rend="Plain Text">Whatever the original purpose and significance of Phalaris' bull, Timaeus' statement that it was thrown into the sea (above) appears acceptable. Whether the bull discovered by Scipio (with a trapdoor in its shoulders) was the bull sent to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> from Agrigentum by Himilco, it is impossible to say. Nor is it certain whether P., like Diodorus, dated the sending of this bull from Agrigentum to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> in 406/5; he says merely 'during the Carthaginian domination', and it would be consistent with this statement if the bull which Timaeus knew of in Agrigentum and believed to represent the River Gela was transferred to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> at some date before the First Punic War. On the other hand, the original capture of the city was the most likely date for the removal of such an antiquity to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>. The trapdoor seen by P. certainly suggests either Phalaris' bull or something intended to be taken for it; and Freeman (History of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sicily&groupId=973&placeId=1724">Sicily</a>, ii. 463) thinks that it had been manufactured by the Carthaginians to show to visitors. P.'s words (§ 3) may imply that someone in antiquity had made this allegation, perhaps Timaeus, who said that the bull at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> was not from Agrigentum (§ 4). It is not impossible; but after 146 at any rate Scipio's prestige (and by implication that of P.) was involved in maintaining the genuineness of the bull brought from <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>, since it had been sent back with moral exhortations to Agrigentum.</p> <p rend="Plain Text"> Neither P.'s argument nor that of Diodorus is logically impecable (though P.'s is stronger), and Timaeus comes out of the attack with his reputation undamaged. See for discussion (besides Richard Bentley's famous Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris (London, 1699), 511–12), Freeman, History of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sicily&groupId=973&placeId=1724">Sicily</a>, ii. 458–77; Jacoby, commentary on FGH, 566 F 28. Walbank, CR, 1945, 39–42 (with bibliography); Brown, 54–57; Pdech, ad loc. On the relationship of Diodorus' account to P.'s see Walbank, art. cit.; I am not convinced <milestone unit="page" n="382">[382]</milestone> by the argument of R. Lauritano, <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ΚΩΚΑΛΟΣ</w></emph> , 1956, 10–11, that both go back to Silenus of Caleacte. </p>
12.25.2 - 12.25.7
<p rend="Plain Text">Comparison between medicine and history: for the schematic comparison with its triple arrangement cf. ix. 14. 1–5, xi. 8. 1–2, and the threefold constitution (vi. 3. 5 ff.). The threefold division of medicine is traditional, but P's division differs from that in Celsus, prooem. 9, 'in tres partes medicina diducta est, ut una esset quae uictu, altera quae medicamentis, tertia quae manu mederetur. primam <w lang="el-GR">διαιτητικήν</w> secundam <w lang="el-GR">φαρμακευτικήν</w> tertiam <w lang="el-GR">χειρουργίαν</w> Graeci nominarunt'. P. compresses pharmaceutice and cheirourgia into one and adds the <w lang="el-GR">λογικοί</w>, who are to provide the parallel with Timaeus (cf. 25 e 4); but the division is not necessarily his own, and he may well be drawing on some handbook of medicine from the third or second century (cf. Wunderer, iii. 104). The triple division recalls the empiricists' division of <w lang="el-GR">ἰατρική</w> into three parts: <w lang="el-GR">σημειωτικὸν μέρος?, θεραπευτικὸν μέρος</w> (including <w lang="el-GR">χειρουργία, φαρμακεία</w> and sometimes <w lang="el-GR">δίαιτα)</w> and <w lang="el-GR">ὑγιεινὸν μέρος</w> (cf. K. Deichgrber, Die griechische Empirikerschule (Berlin, 1930), 288–91, and Galen, Subfiguratio empirica, p. 53, ll. 13 ff. in the same work); of these the first corresponds to <w lang="el-GR">λογικόν</w>, the second to <w lang="el-GR">χειρουργικὸν καὶ φαρμακευτικόν</w> and the third to <w lang="el-GR">διαιτητικόν</w>, if this means 'rgime of life' (cf. 25 d 3 n.).</p> <p rend="Plain Text"> The two great names in Hellenistic medicine are those of Hero <milestone unit="page" n="388">[388]</milestone> philus of Calchedon (early third century), who discovered the rhythm of the pulse and developed the theory of humours as the cause of disease, and his contemporary, Erasistratus of Ceos, who contributed much to the study of anatomy and the nerves (cf. Jones, CAH, vii. 284–7). Because of their interest in the causes of disease they were regarded as <w lang="el-GR">λογικοί</w> dogmatici, and they and still more their later followers were felt to be more interested in this aspect than in the curing of disease; cf. Galen, x. 184, <w lang="el-GR">οἱ περὶ τὸν Ἐρασίστρατόν τε καὶ Ἡρόφιλον ἐξ ἡμισείας . . . ὄντες δογματικοί, κακῶς ἰατρεύουσιν ἕλκος μόνα γὰρ ἐπιχειροῦσι λογικῶς θεραπεύειν ὅσα τῶν ὀργανικῶς ἐστι μορίων ἴδια νοσήματα</w>. Apollophanes belonged to this school. The empiricist school, which held that medicine was concerned only with curing illness, and aligned itself with the Sceptics rather as the dogmatists did with the Stoics, began as a breakaway from the Herophileans by Herophilus' pupil, Philinus of Cos; cf. Galen, xiv. 683, <w lang="el-GR">τῆς δὲ ἐμπειρικῆς (αἱρέσεως) προέστηκε Φιλῖνος Κῷος, ὁ πρῶτος αὐτὴν ἀποτεμνόμενος ἀπὸ τῆς λογικῆς αἱρέσεως, τὰς ἀφορμὰς λαβὼν Ἡροφίλου, οὗ καὶ ἀκουστὴς ἐγένετο</w>. Celsus (prooem. 10) makes Serapion of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Alexandria&groupId=1063&placeId=1868">Alexandria</a> (c. 200) the founder of the <w lang="el-GR">ἐμπειρικὴ ἀγωγή</w>, but Galen treats him as Philinus' successor. There is little doubt that when he praises pharmaceutice and cheirourgia as <w lang="el-GR">τὴν ἀληθινὴν προσφερόμενον ἕξιν</w>, P. is displaying his sympathy with the empiricists who developed these two branches; though the empiricists' tendency to reject research into the causes of illness (cf. Deichgrber, op. cit. 282; Beloch, iv. 1. 475) may have caused him some embarrassment (cf. iii. 7. 5, <w lang="el-GR">τί γὰρ ὄφελος ἰατροῦ κάμνουσιν ἀγνοοῦντος τὰς αἰτίας τῶν περὶ τὰ σώματα διαθέσεων</w>;). P. believed that one should study the causes of illness so far as this was necessary for the curing of it, but not for the sake of theoretical knowledge and mere display (cf. 25 d 4; ix. 20. 6). See further T. C. Allbutt, Greek Medicine in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> (London, 1921), 131 ff.; Deichgrber, op. cit. 253 ff. </p>
12.25.5 - 12.25.5
<p rend="Plain Text"> 〈 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">διαθ</w></emph> 〉 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">έσεων, τόπων</w>:</emph> so Bttner-Wobst, but the MS. <w lang="el-GR">ἐνίων τόπων</w> will stand (cf. v. 8. 2): it is kept by Hultsch and Pdech. </p>
12.25.0 - 12.25.0
<p rend="Plain Text">Ephorus' lack of experience of battles: P. discusses this to illustrate the point just made about Timaeus, that practical political and military experience is essential to the historian's craft (cf. § 6, mentioning Theopompus too). If P. quoted similar examples from Timaeus, now lost, they may have stood between 25 f and 25 g.</p>
12.25.4 - 12.25.9
<p rend="Plain Text">The proper use of speeches by the statesman, and how historians can help: P. here returns to the discussion of T.'s speeches as being artificial and the work of a man lacking in political experience; he has already criticized them for their falsity (25 a 3–25 b 4). The argument is not easy to follow owing to the way in which P. switches from the historian to the statesman without clear indication, and it has been frequently misunderstood, most recently by Gomme, Thucydides, iii. 522; it may be paraphrased thus: '4. Few occasions (in real life) allow the speaker to set out all possible arguments; the ones chosen depend on the speaker, where he and his audience lived and to what people they belonged (or belong). 5. A statesman must in fact be selective and not recite every possible argument (as Timaeus makes his speakers do): otherwise he may well fail in his object. 6. Since there is no fixed rule as regards which and how many of the possible arguments a statesman should employ, we (sc. the historians) must use quite a special degree of attention and clear principles (i.e. in reporting speeches) if we are to benefit and not harm our readers (i.e. the statesmen). 7. The right argument (i.e. for a statesman to use on a specific occasion) is a matter hard to convey by precept, but not impossible to ascertain if he reasons from practical experience (and this experience can be conveyed in the speeches included in histories). The matter can best be expressed thus: 8. if writers will indicate first the historical context, then what was actually said, and finally why the speaker succeeded or failed, we (i.e. the statesmen who read the histories) shall be able to apply the lesson to other circumstances and cope successfully with whatever arises.' See further, Vol. I, p. 14 n. 2; Miscellanea Rostagni, 211–13. On this passage see Musti, Societ antica (Bari, 1973), 211–14; Aufstieg und Niedergang, i. 2. 1125 n. 21. He argues that the reference to <w lang="el-GR">οἱ προγεγονότες</w> (§ 4) and to <w lang="el-GR">λόγους λαμβάνειν</w> (§ 5: he translates 'choose speeches') implies that P. is here speaking of the historian rather than the statesman; he assumes that in the first part of this passage P. is criticizing Timaeus on the basis of his own practice (i.e. if one is inventing speeches, they should be appropriate), and that he then goes on to put his own position (that one should record the authentic speech). This is possible, but the transition is not at all clear, so that this explanation of the passage seems to me at least as difficult as the interpretation sketched in the Commentary.</p>
Specifics
12.25.2 - 12.25.2
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐκ τοῦ κατασκευάσματος</w>:</emph> 'from the way it was made'. </p>
12.25.3 - 12.25.3
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">κατὰ τὴν ἐπικράτειαν Καρχηδονίων</w>:</emph> this could include any date within the period from 406/5 to the First Punic War; see above, §§ 1–5 n. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">δι</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἣν ἐν Καρχηδόνι κατεσκευάσθη τοιοῦτος ταῦρος</w>:</emph> the implication is that someone, probably Timaeus, had said that the bull at Carthageits existence was evidently well knownwas a forgery; see above, §§ 1–5 n. </p>
12.25.4 - 12.25.4
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὰς ἀποφάσεις τῶν ποιητῶν καὶ συγγραφέων</w>:</emph> the grouping together of poets and historians is perhaps taken from Timaeus (as in 24. 1). Phalaris' bull was a popular theme in poetry and history alike: early references are Pindar, Pyth. i. 185, Heracleid. Pont., fg. 37 (FHG ii. 223) and Callimachus, fgs. 25, 119, and 149 Schn. = 45–47 Pf. Timaeus could, of course, only refute these stories by denying the existence of Phalaris' bull; clearly therefore P. believes him to have done this (cf. §§. 1–5 n.). </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">μήτ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">εἶναι . . . ἐξ Ἀκράγαντος μήτε γεγονέναι</w>:</emph> probably a slight misrepresentation of what Timaeus really said; see §§ 1–5 n. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐν τῇ προειρημένῃ πόλει</w>:</emph> Agrigentum; against Pdech's view that <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> is meant see §§ 1–5 n. </p>
12.25.5 - 12.25.5
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">πολλοὺς . . . διατέθειται λόγους</w>:</emph> this long discussion in Timaeus was probably introduced in connexion with his account of the capture of Agrigentum by Himilco in 406/5, and so in book xv of his Histories (Diog. Laert. viii. 51; Diod. xiii. 83). </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">κατὰ τῆς Τιμαίου</w>:</emph> sc. <w lang="el-GR">αἱρέσεως</w> (unless this should be inserted with Pdech). Evidently a good deal is missing, however, and it is not even certain that the present criticism links with the discussion of Phalaris' bull. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τί . . . ὄνομα καὶ ῥῆμα</w>:</emph> 'what language'; cf. 7. 5, <w lang="el-GR">πᾶν ῥῆμα καὶ πάσαν φωνήν</w>. Pdech 'quel nom et quel verbe' is perhaps too explicit. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">πάντα γὰρ ἐπιδέχεσθαι . . . τὸ γένος</w>:</emph> 'for to me it seems to merit the bitterest expressions of their kind'. The words <w lang="el-GR">τὸ γένος</w> seem to go more naturally with <w lang="el-GR">τὰ πικρότατα</w> and are so taken by Paton and Mauersberger (s.v. <w lang="el-GR">γένος)</w>; but Schweighaeuser and Shuckburgh make <w lang="el-GR">τὸ γένος</w> the subject of <w lang="el-GR">δοκεῖ</w>, translating 'Timaei ratio, institutum quo ille usus est' (sc. <w lang="el-GR">ἐκείνου)</w> or 'a man of his kind'. Schweighaeuser evidently felt the harshness of this, for in his Lex. Polyb., s.v. <w lang="el-GR">γένος</w>, he inadvertently printed <w lang="el-GR">τὰ πικρότατα ὀνόματα ἐπιδέχεται τοῦτο τὸ γενος</w>. </p>
12.25.6 - 12.25.6
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἀφιλόσοφος . . . καὶ . . . ἀνάγωγος</w>:</emph> cf. xxxvi. 15. 5 (of Prusias): <w lang="el-GR">παιδείας δὲ καὶ φιλοσοφίας καὶ τῶν ἐν τούτοις θεωρημάτων ἄ?πειρος εἰς τέλος ἦν</w>. The two passages may seem to throw light on the importance P. attributed to philosophy as a civilizing force; yet the <milestone unit="page" n="383">[383]</milestone> example quoted suggests that he is thinking of practical knowledge, viz. theory of geography rather than anything normally included in philosophy. See Vol. I, p. 2 n. 9. </p>
12.25.7 - 12.25.7
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐν τῇ μιᾷ καὶ εἰκοστῇ βύβλῳ</w>:</emph> this would imply that Timaeus dealt with Timoleon's career (344/3–337/6) in books xxi–xxii (cf. 26 a 1). Against this is (a) the fact that Athen. vi. 250 AD (= FGH, 566 F 32) assigns events of the younger Dionysius' reign to book xxii, which can hardly have contained these if the account of Timoleon was in xxi; (b) the factstressed by Jacoby, FGH, iii b, p. 545that two books is very little for Timoleon's career, especially if this means that books xxiii–xxxiii were all devoted to the two decades from his retirement to the rise of Agathocles (337/6–317/16). Moreover, according to Athen. xi. 471 F (FGH, 566 F 33), book xxviii was still concerned with Timoleon. Jacoby therefore suggests (and his view is generally shared) that the excerptor has made a mistake (De Sanctis, Storiografia siceliota, 51, suggests less convincingly that the error is P.'s) and that Timoleon's career occupied books xxiii–xxviii, leaving xxix–xxxiii for the period down to Agathocles. Admittedly this theory has to contend with 26 a 1, where it is stated that Timoleon's speech belongs to the same book as events attributed (in 25 k 3) to book xxi: hence one must assume a similar scribe's error in 25 k 3. Since, however, the reading in this passage (q.v.) must certainly be wrong for quite independent reasons, this seems no bar to Jacoby's theory, which is therefore to be accepted. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Τιμολέοντος παράκλησιν</w>:</emph> on Timoleon cf. 4 a 2 n., 23. 4 n. Diodorus records two speeches made to his troops, one before they marched out against the Carthaginians (Diod. xvi. 78. 2) and another a little later (Diod. xvi. 79. 2, cf. FGH, 566 F 118); if that here referred to is the one discussed in 26 a 1, it is the second of the two mentioned by Diodorus (cf. 26 a 1 n.). </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῆς γῆς τῆς ὑπὸ τῷ κόσμῳ κειμένης κτλ</w>.:</emph> cf. Isoc. Panegyr. 179, <w lang="el-GR">τῆς γὰρ γῆς ἁπάσης τῆς ὑπὸ τῷ κόσμῳ κειμένης δίχα τετμημένης, καὶ τῆς μὲν Ἀσίας, τῆς δ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">Εὐρώπης καλουμένης</w> . . . In both passages <w lang="el-GR">κόσμος</w> means 'the heavens' (cf. ix. 15. 6, 15. 12); but whereas for rhetorical purposes Isocrates adopts the old division of the earth into two continents, Europe and Asia, Timaeus makes Timoleon follow the more familiar triple division (cf. iii. 37. 2–8 n.). Since the content and form of expression are both quite normal (Paton's suggestion that P. took exception to the phrase <w lang="el-GR">ὑπὸ τῷ κόσμῳ κειμένης</w> is refuted by the Isocratean parallel), the point of P.'s criticism is obscure. Pdech follows Valesius in thinking that P. is criticizing Timaeus' division of the whole earth, not merely the <w lang="el-GR">οἰκουμένη</w>, into three continents; but if this is a loose way of writing it is common, and found in Isocrates (above), Onesicritus (FGH, 134 F 6 = Arr. Ind. 3. 6), Pliny (Nat. hist. iii. 3, 'terrarum orbis universus in tres diuiditur <milestone unit="page" n="384">[384]</milestone> partes'), and other writers. Pdech argues that the use of <w lang="el-GR">ἀδαής</w> 'ignorant' in § 9 would support this view; but this is not certain, since the sentence breaks off short and does not make clear wherein the ignorance consists. The missing words may have meant 'so ignorant . . . as to imagine that a soldier addressing troops would use such an expression'; and indeed Laqueur, RE, 'Timaios', col. 1080, suggests very plausibly that P. is ridiculing the introduction of such a piece of pedantry into a military harangue, a view supported by the argument of 25 ab and the criticism of other speeches in 25 k, 26, 26 a, and 26 b. </p>
12.25.8 - 12.25.8
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">οὐχ οἷο</w>v <w lang="el-GR">Τίμαιο</w>v:</emph> who composed the speech. Wunderer's proposal (i. 98 n. 2) to read <w lang="el-GR">Τιμολέο</w>v<w lang="el-GR">τα</w> was anticipated by Reiske, but is superfluous. On Margites cf. 4 a 5 n. </p>
12.25.1 - 12.25.1
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐκ τῶν παροιμιῶν</w>:</emph> probably, as Wunderer (i. 5) suggests, a marginal note that has crept into the text: with <w lang="el-GR">φασί</w> it is superfluous and even untranslatable. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">σταλαγμὸν ἕνα . . . εἰς τὸ γνῶναι τὸ πᾶν ἔγχυμα</w>:</emph> cf. Corpus paroem. graec. ii. 644. That this piece of popular observation conceals Stoic doctrine (so von Scala, 283) seem improbable. </p>
12.25.3 - 12.25.3
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοὺς φιλοτιμότερον διακειμένους</w>:</emph> cf. ix. 37. 1: 'those who are disposed to be captious'. Orelli's <w lang="el-GR">φιλοτιμαιότερον</w> is ingenious but unnecessary. P. refers, of course, to over-zealous champions of Timaeus, but no particular person is singled out. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">καὶ μελέτης</w>:</emph> so Hultsch and Bttner-Wobst for <w lang="el-GR">καὶ μᾶλλον</w> M; but <w lang="el-GR">μᾶλλον</w> can have the sense of <w lang="el-GR">μάλιστα</w> in P. (cf. v. 55. 8, quoted by Schweighaeuser, s.v. <w lang="el-GR">μᾶλλον)</w>, and the MS. reading should be kept with Pdech. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὰς δημηγορίας καὶ τὰς παρακλήσεις, ἔτι δὲ τοὺς πρεσβευτικοὺς λόγους</w>:</emph> cf. 25 i 3, <w lang="el-GR">συμβουλευτικῶν . . . παρακλητικῶν . . . πρεσβευτικῶν</w>; Diod. xx. 1. 2, <w lang="el-GR">καίτοι γε τοὺς ἐπιδείκνυσθαι βουλομένους λόγου δύναμιν ἔξεστι κατ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἰδίαν δημηγορίας καὶ πρεσβευτικοὺς λόγους, ἔτι δὲ ἐγκώμια καὶ</w> </p> <p rend="Plain Text"><w lang="el-GR">ψόγους καὶ τἄλλα τὰ τοιαῦτα συντάττεσθαι</w>. See also Cic. or. 66; Dion. Hal. ep. ad Pomp. 3. 20, 5. 6; Ant. vii. 66. 3. <w lang="el-GR">δημηγορίαι</w>, which P. claims to record frequently (xxxvi. 1. 3), include not only harangues before popular assemblies but also speeches before councils; <w lang="el-GR">παρακλήσεις</w> are in the main exhortations by generals to soldiers; and <w lang="el-GR">λόγοι πρεσβευτικοί</w> are the speeches of ambassadors. But the distinction is rather rhetorical (for instance Critolaus' speech to the Achaeans in xxxviii. 12–13 has many elements of a <w lang="el-GR">παράκλησις)</w>, and the words <w lang="el-GR">καὶ? συλλήβδην πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτο γένος</w> are perhaps an indication that it is not to be pressed. Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (1)', cols. 1525–7, analyses P.'s own speeches under these three headings; see also Avenarius, 150.</p>
12.25.5 - 12.25.5
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὰ ῥηθέντα . . . οὐδ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ὡς ἐρρήθη κατ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἀλήθειαν</w>:</emph> 'what was said, nor <milestone unit="page" n="385">[385]</milestone> the real sense of what was said' (i.e. neither a transcript nor an accurate rsum of the actual speech) rather than 'what was said, nor the form in which it was actually said' (so Welzhofer, Jahrb. 1880, 541); cf. Walbank, JRS, 1963, 10. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">πάντας . . . τοὺς ῥηθέντας λόγους</w>:</emph> 'all these speeches', i.e. all the speeches according to the historian's version, not the real speeches, which P. insists were not recorded <w lang="el-GR">(οὐ . . . τὰ ῥηθέντα γέγραφεν . . . οὐκ ἐξήγησιν τῶν κατ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἀλήθειαν εἰρημένων)</w>; P. does not express the distinction very clearly. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὰ παρεπόμενα τοῖς πράγμασιν</w>:</emph> cf. 28 a 9. For the same criticism applied to Phylarchus see ii. 56. 10 n.; as in iii. 32. 6 <w lang="el-GR">τὰ παρεπόμενα</w> are the 'concomitant details'. As in tragedy they are used to produce <w lang="el-GR">ἐνάργεια</w> and an emotional effect in the reader; cf. Dion. Hal. v. 56. 1; xi. 1. 3–4; Scheller, 59; Avenarius, 133. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ὡς ἂν εἴ τις ἐν διατριβῇ πρὸς ὑπόθεσιν ἐπιχειροίη</w>:</emph> 'as if one were exercising on a set theme in the schools'. A lacuna is generally assumed after <w lang="el-GR">ἐπιχειροίη</w> (Ghelen, 〈<w lang="el-GR">λέγειν</w>〉, Bttner-Wobst, 〈<w lang="el-GR">διεξοδικοὺς</w> or <w lang="el-GR">μειρακιώδεις λόγους</w>〉); but <w lang="el-GR">ἐπιχειρεῖν</w> in the sense 'attempt to prove, argue dialectically', is found in Plato and Aristotle, and may be used absolutely here (cf. <w lang="el-GR">ἐπιχειρήματα</w> and <w lang="el-GR">ἐπιχειρήσεις</w>, 'rhetorical exercises', 25 b 4, 25 k 8, 26. 9). </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἀπόδειξιν τῆς ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμεως</w>:</emph> 'to show off his rhetorical powers'; this characteristic of historians is frequently criticized: cf. Ioseph. Ap. i. 24; Dion. Hal. i. 1. 3; Diod. xx. 1. 2; below, xxxvi. 1. 7. </p>
12.25.1 - 12.25.1
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῆς ἱστορίας ἰδίωμα</w>:</emph> 'the special function of history', particularly in relation to speeches. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸ πραχθὲν ἢ ῥηθέν</w>:</emph> Pdech, ad loc., observes that Thuc. i. 22. 1–2 also puts <w lang="el-GR">τὰ λεχθέντα</w> and <w lang="el-GR">τὰ πραχθέντα</w> on the same level. </p>
12.25.2 - 12.25.2
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ψυχαγωγεῖ μέ</w>v, <w lang="el-GR">ὠφελεῖ δ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">οὐδέ</w>v:</emph> for P.'s emphasis on <w lang="el-GR">τὸ χρήσιμο</w>v in contrast to <w lang="el-GR">τὸ τερπ</w>v<w lang="el-GR">ό</w>v see Vol. I, pp. 7–8; it is a commonplace in the Histories. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">προτεθείσης δὲ τῆς αἰτίας</w>:</emph> on the importance of causes see iii. 6. 3 n., 7. 4–7 n. </p>
12.25.3 - 12.25.3
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἀφορμαὶ . . . καὶ προλήψεις εἰς τὸ προϊδέσθαι τὸ μέλλο</w>v:</emph> 'the means of forming presentiments about what is to happen' (Paton); cf. 25 e 6 n. P. here clearly defines history as an aid to present action inasmuch as it furnishes examples of what to avoid <w lang="el-GR">(εὐλαβηθῆ</w>v<w lang="el-GR">αι)</w> or imitate <w lang="el-GR">(μιμούμε</w>v<w lang="el-GR">ο</w>v <w lang="el-GR">τὰ προγεγο</w>v<w lang="el-GR">ότα)</w>. Avenarius, 23, compares Thuc. i. 22. 4 (quoted in iii. 31. 12 n.), but as Gomme (Thucydides, i. 149–50) has clearly shown, Thucydides is referring to events in his future, not the reader's, and nowhere claims that his history is to act as a practical statesman's vade-mecum. For the difference in P.'s attitude cf. 25 g 2. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">μιμούμε</w>v<w lang="el-GR">ο</w>v <w lang="el-GR">τὰ προγεγο</w>v<w lang="el-GR">ότα</w>:</emph> 'by imitating what happened pre <milestone unit="page" n="386">[386]</milestone> viously'; when an action ]in the past has been successful we may imitate it and so go ahead confidently, but when it has miscarried we learn to be more careful <w lang="el-GR">(εὐλαβηθῆ</w>v<w lang="el-GR">αι)</w>. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοῖς ἐπιφερομέ</w>v<w lang="el-GR">οις</w>:</emph> 'what confronts us'. </p>
12.25.4 - 12.25.4
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοὺς ῥηθέντας λόγους καὶ τήν αἰτίαν</w>:</emph> since <w lang="el-GR">αἰτία</w> covers whatever leads to the taking of a decision (cf. iii. 6. 3 n.), to suppress or distort relevant speeches involves suppressing the <w lang="el-GR">αἰτία</w> of whatever action they lead up to. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ψευδῆ . . . ἐπιχειρήματα</w>:</emph> Aristotle uses <w lang="el-GR">ἐπιχείρημα</w> for a 'dialectical proof' as opposed to a demonstrative syllogism <w lang="el-GR">(φιλοσόφημα)</w>; but here it seems to mean simply a rhetorical exercise (cf. 25 a 5 n.). On Greek rhetorical exercises see F. Blass, Die attische Beredsamkeit <emph rend="superscript">2</emph> (Leipzig, 1887), i. 61–63; E. Rohde, Der griechische Roman <emph rend="superscript">3</emph> (Leipzig, 1914), 317 n. 2. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">διεξοδικοὺς λόγους</w>:</emph> 'detailed speeches'. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸ τῆς ἱστορίας ἴδιον</w>:</emph> 'the peculiar virtue of history'. </p>
12.25.1 - 12.25.1
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοιαύτης παρ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἐνίοις ἀποδοχῆς . . . καὶ πίστεως</w>:</emph> P. himself gives further testimony to this reputation by the amount of space he has allotted to criticizing Timaeus and by his own decision to begin his introductory books where Timaeus left off. After all his criticism P. admits his failure to account for Timaeus' reputation (28. 6). </p>
12.25.2 - 12.25.2
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">πολυπραγμοσύνην . . . καὶ φύσιν . . . δαιφέρουσαν</w>:</emph> 'remarkable industry and talent' (Paton). </p>
12.25.3 - 12.25.3
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">Στράτωνι τῷ φυσικῷ</w>:</emph> on Strato of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Lampsacus&groupId=666&placeId=1218">Lampsacus</a> see iv. 38. 1– 45. 8 n.; P. probably used him in his discussion of the hydrography of the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Pontus&groupId=910&placeId=1634">Pontus</a> and Maeotis. This is the first surviving example of the title <w lang="el-GR">φυσικός</w>, applied to Strato; it recognizes his preponderant, though not exclusive, interest in physicswhich includes psychology and physiology (cf. Capelle, RE, 'Straton (13)', cols. 284–5). </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ὅταν ἐγχειρήσῃ . . . ψευδοποιεῖν, θαυμάσιός ἐστιν</w>:</emph> von Scala, 189, assumes that P. is thinking of Strato's attack on Ephorus's <w lang="el-GR">Περὶ εὑρημάτω</w>s<w lang="el-GR">ν</w> (cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. vii, index: 'Stratonis qui contra Ephori <w lang="el-GR">εὑρήματα</w> scripsit'; Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 77. 1). But the words <w lang="el-GR">ὁ φυσικός</w> perhaps suggest that it is of Strato's physical (including psychological) writings, in which he is also concerned with refuting his predecessors such as Plato (cf. Capelle, RE, 'Straton (13)', cols. 308 ff.), that P. is thinking; his interest in one aspect of these is apparent from iv. 39. 7–42. 8. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">φαίνεται τοῖς ἐπιστήμοσιν . . . νωθρότερος</w>:</emph> this 'appeal to the experts' shows that P.'s criticism of Strato does not depend solely on his own opinion. How far he was capable of appreciating the subtleties of the points at issue between Strato and his predecessors is a moot point. <milestone unit="page" n="387">[387]</milestone> </p>
12.25.1 - 12.25.1
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἀποκαθίσας . . . Ἀθήνησι σχεδὸν ἔτη πεντήκοντα</w>:</emph> cf. 25 h 1 (without <w lang="el-GR">σχεδόν)</w>, 28. 6, FGH, 566 T 4. The dates of Timaeus' residence in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Athens&groupId=379&placeId=715">Athens</a> cannot be accurately determined, though the suggestion that he was already there when Agathocles banished him (Diod. xxi. 17. 1) is not very probable (Momigliano, Riv. stor. it. 1959, 531, against Brown, 2–3). Laqueur (RE, 'Timaios', cols. 1077–8) suggested a date between 317 and 310 for the beginning of the exile, and Jacoby (FGH, ii b, pp. 530–2) puts it a little before Agathocles' first campaign against Messana in 316/15, linking it with Agathocles' capture of Tauromenium (which Diod. xix. 65 omits to mention in its place). Whether Timaeus returned to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sicily&groupId=973&placeId=1724">Sicily</a> is not recorded. Manni ( <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ΚΩΚΑΛΟΣ</w></emph> , 1960, 170 n. 7) suggests that he went back to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sicily&groupId=973&placeId=1724">Sicily</a> in 266/5 or 262. Brown (2–9), however, thinks he returned soon after Agathocles' death in 289, and that the fifty years fall within the period 339–278 (contra, Momigliano, Riv. stor. it. 1959, 531). Not all Brown's arguments are equally cogent (cf. 8. 3 n., 12 b 1–3 n.), but Timaeus' lack of political and military experience (25 g 1–3, 25 h 1, 28. 6) and his inexperience in public speaking (Cic. de or. ii. 58) would match an early removal to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Athens&groupId=379&placeId=715">Athens</a>. On the other hand, the reference to fifty years presumably echoes Timaeus' own statement (25 h 1), and it does not follow that he necessarily returned at the end of fifty (or 'nearly fifty') years. <w lang="el-GR">καταβιώσας</w> (28. 6) may, if pressed, suggests that he lived out his life at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Athens&groupId=379&placeId=715">Athens</a>. </p>
12.25.3 - 12.25.3
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">διαιτητικοῦ</w>:</emph> 'concerned with diet': the most famous representative of the school concentrating on this branch of healing was Asclepiades of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Bithynia&groupId=402&placeId=748">Bithynia</a> (first century B.C.). The empiricists regarded diet as one part of <w lang="el-GR">θεραπευτικόν</w> (see previous note); and Celsus regards the empiricists as a branch of that school quae uictu morbos curat, who, however, rejected rationalis disciplina (prooem. 9–10). It has been suggested by van Paassen (The Classical Tradition of Geography (Groningen, 1957), 294) that <w lang="el-GR">διαιτητικόν</w> here means 'concerning one's way of life' (cf. <w lang="el-GR">δίαιτα</w> in i. 59. 12, iv. 18. 2), in which case it would correspond to the empirical <w lang="el-GR">ὑγιεινόν</w> (see previous note). </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">γένους . . . τοῦ ἐπιτηδεύματος</w>:</emph> Boissevain read <w lang="el-GR">καὶ τόλμαι καὶ καταψεύδεσθαι</w> and Pdech proposes (as a pis-aller) <w lang="el-GR">φαρμακευτικοῦ γένους, ὁλοσχερῶς ἐ</w>〈<w lang="el-GR">νίοις</w>〉 <w lang="el-GR">τόλμῃ καὶ καταψεύδεσθαι τοῦ ἐπιτηδεύματος</w> <milestone unit="page" n="389">[389]</milestone> 〈<w lang="el-GR">συμβαίνει</w>〉. <w lang="el-GR">τοῦ ἐπιτηδεύματος</w> will be the art of medicine, which is brought into contempt by some of its representatives in every branch. Against Wunderer's suggestion that P. here referred, in the lacuna, to <w lang="el-GR">διαιτητική</w> see below, § 7 n. </p>
12.25.4 - 12.25.4
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸ δὲ λογικόν</w>:</emph> the first aspect (taken up by <w lang="el-GR">τοῦτο)</w>. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">παρὰ τῶν Ἡροφιλείων καὶ Καλλιμαχείων</w>:</emph> Herophilus' school were famous; Galen frequently mentions them. They included Andreas (v. 81. 6 n.), Baccheius of Tanagra (c. 250), Demetrius of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Apamea&groupId=340&placeId=660">Apamea</a>, perhaps a contemporary of Baccheius, Zenon (early second century), Mantias (c. 150) and Callimachus (see below); cf. Wellmann in Susemihl, i. 778, 817–18, 820–5. Instead of the more usual reference to Erasistratus P. alone mentions the followers of Callimachus, a doctor of Herophilus' school who concerned himself with Hippocrates' writings and himself wrote 'de coronis . . . quae nocerent capiti' (Pliny, Nat. hist. xxi. 12); his date is uncertain. No conclusions can be drawn from P.'s reference to the names of the group as current in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Alexandria&groupId=1063&placeId=1868">Alexandria</a> <w lang="el-GR">(ἐκεῖ προσαγορευομένων)</w> for we know neither P.'s source nor its date; see further Wellmann in Susemihl, i. 827. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">κατὰ . . . τὴν ἐπίφασιν καὶ τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν</w>:</emph> 'in its ostentation and the claims it makes'; cf. ix. 20. 6 for a general rejection of knowledge for mere display. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοιαύτην ἐφέλκεται φαντασίαν</w>:</emph> cf. xxii. 9. 12, xxiv. 11. 5; 'give themselves such an air of superiority'. </p>
12.25.5 - 12.25.5
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">οἱ μηδὲν ἀνεγνωκότες . . . ἰατρικὸν ὑπόμνημα</w>:</emph> though they, the <w lang="el-GR">λογικοί</w>, lay so much weight on medical literature. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">διὰ τὴν ἐν λόγῳ δύναμιν</w>:</emph> 'impressed by their rhetorical powers' (Paton); 'sur la foi de leur force dans le raisonnement' (Pdech). The latter suggests their published works; but the former fits better the reference to the speeches which they deliver (§ 6). On speeches made by doctors to attract custom see Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 5. </p>
12.25.6 - 12.25.6
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοῖς ἐκ βυβλίου κυβερνῶσιν</w>:</emph> Wunderer, i. 65, takes <w lang="el-GR">κυβερνῶσιν</w> to mean 'governing a state', but the literal meaning gives the better simile. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">μετὰ φαντασίας</w>:</emph> 'with great clat' (Shuckburgh): preferable to Pdech, 'environns d'illusion'. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐπειδὰν . . . ἐπ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ὀνόματος</w>:</emph> Hultsch, followed by Pdech, takes <w lang="el-GR">ἐπ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ὀνόματος</w> with what follows, and Pdech translates 'ils apostrophent par leur nom ceux qui ont donn. . . . la vraie preuve de leur valeur'; but <w lang="el-GR">ἐπ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ὀνόματος</w> goes awkwardly with <w lang="el-GR">ἄγουσιν</w>. Various attempts have been made at correction, of which perhaps the most convincing is Bttner-Wobst's suggestion of a lacuna after <w lang="el-GR">ὄχλους</w> (so Orelli for MS. <w lang="el-GR">λόγους)</w>, which he fills with 〈<w lang="el-GR">μόνον οὐ καλοῦντες</w>〉 (cf. v. 35. 2; xi. 15. 1). This he takes with what precedes (the usual view prior to Hultsch), 'when they manage to collect a crowd, virtually summoning the people by name'; but this seems rather a silly remark, and, <milestone unit="page" n="390">[390]</milestone> with Bttner-Wobst's reading, the phrase will go better with what follows: 'when they have collected a crowd, they reduce skilled doctors to confusion, virtually singling them out by name'. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοὺς . . . δεδωκότας αὑτῶν</w>:</emph> 'those who in actual practice have given proof of their skill' (Paton); cf. xviii. 28. 2. Shuckburgh misses the sense: 'they induce certain people to submit as a specimen to their practical treatment'. <w lang="el-GR">δεδωκότας</w> refers to other doctors, not patients. </p>
12.25.7 - 12.25.7
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸ δὲ τρίτον</w>:</emph> 'the third branch of medicine', cf. § 3; P. refers to surgery and pharmaceutics. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸ τὴν ἀληθινὴν προσφερόμενον ἕξιν ἐν ἑκάστοις τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων</w>:</emph> a difficult phrase, which may have suffered from the epitomator (so Paton). Shuckburgh renders: 'which involves genuine skill in the treatment of the several cases'; and though <w lang="el-GR">τὰ ἐπιτηδεύματα</w> normally means 'profession, branch of professional knowledge' (cf. ix. 20. 6 n.), the best sense is given here if it has the meaning 'case', or 'treatment' (so too Pdech). Translate: 'the third branch, which is concerned with producing genuine skill in each professional treatment'. P. is still concerned with the three branches of medicine, as is clear from 25 e 1, but as he thinks of the first, <w lang="el-GR">τὸ λογικόν</w>, as the branch concerned with theory and dogma, so the third (surgery and pharmaceutics) is envisaged as concerned with practice and experience, and it is in P.'s opinion practice that produces skill (cf. x. 47. 11, <w lang="el-GR">τὴν ἕξιν, ᾗ πάντα τὰ καλὰ γίνεται θηρατὰ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις</w>, where <w lang="el-GR">ἕξις</w> is 'habit'). Wunderer, iii. 63, suggests that P. dealt with the second branch, dietetics, in the lacuna in § 3; but, as Pdech points out, <w lang="el-GR">ὁλοσχερῶς</w> suggests a general observation, and in addition such a reference would be out of place, coming before the discussion of the <w lang="el-GR">λογικὸν γένος</w> in § 4. </p>
12.25.1 - 12.25.1
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῆς πραγματικῆς ἱστορίας</w>:</emph> 'political history'; cf. Vol. I, p. 8 n. 6; i. 2. 8 n., ix. 1. 4 n. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τριμεροῦς</w>:</emph> cf. 25 d 2; P. distinguishes (1) the study and collation of written sources, (2) autopsy, the visiting of sites and study of geographical features, and (3) political experience. The historian who (like Timaeus) concentrates on the first of these is comparable to the <w lang="el-GR">λογικοί</w> (§ 4), who allow theory to divert them from the primary duty of healing; but how far the other two categories are paralleled from medicine is doubtful. Political experience may perhaps be compared with the practice of surgery and pharmaceutics (25 d 3); and Pdech, 130, suggests that as the dietetics of the second century tended to reject theories and controversies and to rely on observation, it can be compared with the historian's geographical investigations. But the parallel is forced and there is no evidence that P. was concerned to press it beyond the equation of <w lang="el-GR">λογικοί</w> and library-historians. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">λιμένων</w>:</emph> 'harbours'; Paton mistranslates 'lakes' (cf. vii. 9. 2). <milestone unit="page" n="391">[391]</milestone> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοῦ περὶ τὰς πράξεις τὰς πολιτικάς</w>:</emph> 'political activity', not, with Paton, 'the review of political events'; that the historian should have personal political experience is a cardinal point for P. </p>
12.25.2 - 12.25.2
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐφίενται μὲν ταύτης πολλοί</w>:</emph> 'many aspire to write history'; <w lang="el-GR">ταύτης</w> refers to <w lang="el-GR">πραγματικὴ ἱστορία</w>, and Shuckburgh is wrong in referring it to 'political activity' in defiance of sense and grammar. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">διὰ τὴν προγεγενημένην περὶ αὐτῆς δόξαν</w>:</emph> 'owing to the high opinion in which political history has been held'; not 'owing to their preconceived opinions on the subject' (Shuckburgh). </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">δίκαιον οὐδέν</w>:</emph> 'nothing to justify themselves'; cf. xi. 29. 7. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">εὐχέρειαν καὶ τόλμαν κτλ</w>.:</emph> cf. xv. 13. 1, xxii. 3. 8, xxiii. 5. 6 (in all of which, however, it bears a complimentary sense): here it is 'irresponsibility and recklessness' (cf. xvi. 18. 3). <w lang="el-GR">ῥᾳδιουργία</w> is 'roguery' (cf. 9. 5). </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">παραπλήσιον τοῖς φαρμακοπώλαις δοξοκοποῦντες</w>:</emph> 'courting favour like vendors of drugs'. These had a reputation as quacks; cf. Plut. Mor. 80 A; [Arist.] Oec. ii. 3. 1346 b 2–3; Horace, Sat. i. 2. 1; and Sext. Emp. Math. ii. 41 relates them to doctors as demagogues to statesmen; here they stand to doctors as charlatans to historians. For the hostile allegation that Aristotle had been a druggist see 8. 4 n. Further references and discussion in W. Morel, RE, 'Pharmakopoles', col. 1840. </p>
12.25.4 - 12.25.4
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῶν δοκούντων εὐλόγως προσάγειν κτλ</w>.:</emph> 'those who appear to be justified in undertaking the composition of history' (as distinct from the quacks): it is in this category that P. places Timaeus. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">καθάπερ οἱ λογικοὶ τῶν ἰατρῶν</w>:</emph> cf. 25 d 4. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold">. . . <w lang="el-GR">μέρος</w>:</emph> no supplement for the lacuna is wholly satisfactory; Bttner-Wobst reads 〈<w lang="el-GR">καιπὲρ προσαγαγόντες προδήλως ἓν μόνον</w>〉 <w lang="el-GR">μέρος</w>, which must be something like the sense. </p>
12.25.6 - 12.25.6
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">συνεφίστησι γὰρ . . . πρὸς τὸ μέλλον</w>:</emph> 'past events direct our attention to the future'; cf. 25 b 3 n. The wording recalls Isoc. ad Nic. 35, <w lang="el-GR">ἃν γὰρ τὰ παρεληλυθότα μνημονεύῃς, ἄμεινον περὶ? τῶν μελλόντων βουλεύσει</w>. But this was already a commonplace by the late fifth century: cf. Soph. O.T. 915–16; Andoc. 3. 2; Lysias, 25. 23; Isoc. Arch. 59, Paneg. 141, ad Dem. 34; Arist. Rhet. i. 9. 1368 a 40; H. Ll. HudsonWilliams, CQ, 1948, 81. </p>
12.25.7 - 12.25.7
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἀπ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">αὐτῆς ταύτης</w></emph> 〈 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῆς</w></emph> 〉 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">δυνάμεως ὁ?ρμηθέντα</w>:</emph> 'relying upon this ability in research alone'. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">γράφειν τὰς ἐπιγινομένας πράξεις</w>:</emph> P.'s point is that to develop the technique of researching in libraries is not enough to enable a historian to write an adequate history of more recent events <w lang="el-GR">(τὰς ἐπιγινομένας πράξεις)</w>, not, of course, because the written sources do not cover these events (which is self-evident), but because the <milestone unit="page" n="392">[392]</milestone> composition of more recent history demands the different technique of direct inspection and inquiry, and the understanding that comes from personal experience of politics. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὰ τῶν ἀρχαίων ζωγράφων ἔργα θεασάμενος</w>:</emph> a general reference. Wunderer, Phil. 1907, 472, argued that <w lang="el-GR">ζωγράφος</w> here means 'animalpainter' and sees a reference to Nicias of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Athens&groupId=379&placeId=715">Athens</a>, who was especially famous for animal paintings (Pliny, Nat. hist. xxxv. 133; Paus. i. 29. 15). This is quite fanciful. P.'s point is that just as one can become a painter only by practical activity and not merely studying old masters, so the historian can master his craft only by active investigations and practical experience of politics. Wunderer's argument, that the contrast between scholarship and practical experience is only relevant to an animal-painter, because painters of people, being concerned with the individual personality, can in any case paint only from real life (and not from old masters) whereas one animal is much like another, seems a piece of hair-splitting. See below, 25 h 2 n. P. is thinking of library research less as the investigation of sources than as an inadequate method of acquiring a necessary skill: hence the criticism made above, Vol. I, p. 10 n. 2, is not wholly valid. </p>
12.25.1 - 12.25.1
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῶν μὲν κατὰ θάλατταν ἔργων</w>:</emph> Pdech, ad loc., suggests that as a native of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Cyme&groupId=510&placeId=960">Cyme</a> Ephorus probably grew up with an acquaintance with naval affairs, and Gomme, Thucydides, i. 286 n. 2, takes P.'s criticism seriously. It is true that as an Arcadian he was not likely to have had much knowledge of naval warfare himself (cf. Livy, xxxv. 26. 3–4, based on P., on Philopoemen); but his explorations in the outer ocean in 146 will have filled that gap in his experience (cf. Vol. I, p. 5). See further Schwartz, RE, '<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ephoros&groupId=570&placeId=1066">Ephoros</a> (1)', col. 10; H. Peter, Wahrheit und Kunst, Geschichtschreibung und Plagiat im klassischen Altertum (Leipzig–Berlin, 1911), 165; Barber, 141. In REG, 1969, 43–55, Pdech compares the naval battles of Cyzicus, Mytilene, and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Notium&groupId=798&placeId=1442">Notium</a> in Xenophon with the accounts of the same battles in Diod. xiii. 49–51 and 77–79, and in Hell. Ox. 4 (Bartoletti). Since Ephorus is Diodorus' source, he assumes Diodorus to be going back through Ephorus to the Hell. Ox.; and in consequence he explains Ephorus' competence in naval matters as due not to his being a native of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Cyme&groupId=510&placeId=960">Cyme</a>, but to his use of the Oxyrhynchus historian. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῶν δὲ κατὰ γῆν ἀγώνων ἄπειρος εἶναι τελέως</w>:</emph> cf. Plut. Mor. 803 B (= FGH, 70 T 21): <w lang="el-GR">ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν Ἐφόρου καὶ Θεοπόμπου καὶ Ἀναξιμένους ῥητορειῶν καὶ περιόδων, ἃς περαίνουσιν ἐξοπλίσαντες τὰ στρατεύματα καὶ παρατάξαντες, ἔστιν εἰπεῖ?ν</w> ee<w lang="el-GR">οὐδεὶς σιδήρου ταῦτα μωραίνει πέλας</w>". </p>
12.25.2 - 12.25.2
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὰς περὶ Κύπρον ναυμαχίας</w>:</emph> the war between Evagoras, King of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Cyprus&groupId=119&placeId=356">Cyprus</a>, and the Persian satrap Tiribazus, which began in 391/0 (Diod. xiv. 98; cf. Xen. Hell. iv. 8. 24), ended with the naval defeat of Evagoras off <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Citium&groupId=115&placeId=352">Citium</a> in 381 at the hands of the Persian admiral Glos (Diod. xv. 2–4, 8–9; Isoc. Paneg. 134–5, 140–1; Evag. 58–67; <milestone unit="page" n="393">[393]</milestone> Theopompus, FGH, 115 F 103). Diodorus derives from Ephorus (cf. Jacoby, FGH, ii C, p. 33) but his account of the battle is too short to give any impression of the original. See Cary, CAH, vi. 58–59; Beloch, iii. 1. 97–98, 2. 226–7. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">καὶ τὰς περὶ Κνίδον</w>:</emph> the Spartan domination after the victory over <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Athens&groupId=379&placeId=715">Athens</a> in the Peloponnesian War was shattered in the Aegean in 394, when a Persian fleet commanded by the Athenian Conon, and largely manned by Greek crews, destroyed the Spartan fleet under Peisander, the brother-in-law of King Agesilaus, off <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Cnidus&groupId=481&placeId=902">Cnidus</a> (Xen. Hell. iv. 3. 11–12; Diod. xiv. 83. 4–7 (based on Ephorus); cf. Iustin. vi. 3; Nepos, Conon, 4. 4; Polyaen. i. 48. 5; Philochorus, FGH, 328 F 144–5 = Did. in Demosth. 7. 39 ff.). See Cary, CAH, vi. 43–44; Beloch, iii. 1. 76–77, 2. 211. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">πολλὰ τῶν χρησίμων . . . πρὸς τὰς ὁμοίας περιστάσεις</w>:</emph> cf. 25 e 6 n. Here too P. is thinking of the use of history to the practical man. </p>
12.25.3 - 12.25.3
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὴν περὶ Λεῦκτρα μάχην</w>:</emph> the Spartan defeat at Epaminondas' hands in July 371 (cf. i. 6. 1 n.); Xen. Hell. vi. 4. 3–15; Diod. xv. 52–56; Plut. Pelop. 20–23; Paus. ix. 13. 3–13; Polyaen. ii. 3. 8; cf. Cary, CAH, vi. 80–82; Beloch, iii. 1. 167–8. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὴν ἐν Μαντινείᾳ</w>:</emph> Epaminondas' last victory of springsummer 362; see above, ix. 8. 1–13 with notes. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὰς ἐκτά?ξεις καὶ μετατάξεις</w>:</emph> 'the battle formations and changes in these'. </p>
12.25.4 - 12.25.4
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ὁ . . . ἐν τοῖς Λευκτροῖς κίνδυνος ἁπλοῦς γεγονὼς κτλ</w>.:</emph> after a preliminary cavalry skirmish in which the Spartan horse was driven back, the Theban left, 50 ranks deep, charged and broke the Spartan contingent, which was drawn up 12 ranks deep on the right. Success on this wing decided the battle; hence <w lang="el-GR">καθ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἕν τι μέρος τῆς δυνάμεως</w> is 'in which only one part of the army was engaged' (Paton), rather than 'tout d'une pice' (Pdech). In both halves of the sentence <w lang="el-GR">ὁ . . . κίνδυνος</w> is really 'Ephorus' account of the battle', and the second half should mean: 'his battle of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Mantinea&groupId=731&placeId=1339">Mantinea</a>, while giving an appearance <w lang="el-GR">(ἔμφασιν μὲν</w> . . .) of being recounted with much detail and technical virtuosity, is in fact <w lang="el-GR">(ἔστι δ</w>f . . .) left hanging in the air and completely incomprehensible to the historian'. The difficulty here lies in the words <w lang="el-GR">τῷ συγγραφεῖ</w>, which can hardly refer to anyone but Ephorus, who is called <w lang="el-GR">ὁ συγγραφεύς</w> in §§ 2 and 4; but P. can hardly mean that Ephorus' account is incomprehensible to himself. Pdech translates 'incomprhensible l'historien' as if the historian were some undefined reader; but why should P. think of the reader of Ephorus' account as 'the historian' rather than any reader in general? Mauersberger s.v. <w lang="el-GR">ἀδιανόητος</w> translates 'unverstanden von . . .', i.e. 'misunderstood by Ephorus'. But this requires the words <w lang="el-GR">ὁ περὶ? τὴν Μαντίνειαν</w> to be taken as referring to the actual battle, which Ephorus has misunderstood, whereas <w lang="el-GR">ἀνυπόστατος</w> <milestone unit="page" n="394">[394]</milestone> 'without foundation', 'in the air' equally requires the sense 'Ephorus' battle of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Mantinea&groupId=731&placeId=1339">Mantinea</a>'. Moreover (though in view of the fluctuations in the meaning of adjectives in -<w lang="el-GR">τος</w> this need not perhaps be serious) <w lang="el-GR">ἀδιανόητος</w> does not elsewhere mean 'misunderstood'. The simplest solution is to delete the words <w lang="el-GR">τῷ συγγραφεῖ</w> as a gloss; the sense is perfectly clear. But if <w lang="el-GR">τῷ συγγραφεῖ</w> is kept, one can only assume a shift in meaning and translate with Paton 'the description is quite imaginary and the battle was not in the least understood by the author'. </p>
12.25.5 - 12.25.5
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοὺς τόπους . . . ἐπιμετρῇ κτλ</w>.:</emph> <w lang="el-GR">ἀληθινῶς</w> is probably to be taken with <w lang="el-GR">ὑποθέμενος</w>: 'if we get a correct idea of the ground and check the movements etc.'; but the sense could also be 'if, relying on the topography, we measure exactly the movements etc.' (so Pdech). It is implied that P. has studied the battlefield of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Mantinea&groupId=731&placeId=1339">Mantinea</a> on the spot, which is, of course, likely. </p>
12.25.2 - 12.25.2
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸ δυνάμενον ὠφελεῖς ἡμᾶς</w>:</emph> for P.'s utilitarianism cf. ix. 20. 6 n., and for the usefulness of his history iii. 4. 8, 7. 4 ff., 31. 12–13, xii. 25 b 1–4, and the passages quoted in Vol. I, p. 7 nn. 12–13. The tautology of <w lang="el-GR">ὠφελεῖν . . . ἀνωφελές</w> is clumsy. </p>
12.25.3 - 12.25.3
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ὄντες ἀτριβεῖς τῆς τοιαύτης ἐμπειρίας</w>:</emph> 'without having any experience of this kind', i.e. knowledge of the locality (cf. iii. 90. 1, iv. 57. 8, viii. 20. 1); that P. is thinking of personal study rather than experience of writing monographs (so Pdech) is suggested by § 4, <w lang="el-GR">ἀορασίαν</w>. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">πολλὰ μὲν . . . οὐκ ἀξίων ὄντων</w>:</emph> a lack of proportion in dealing with material is also the charge P. makes against writers of monographs generally (cf. vii. 7. 6, xxix. 12. 6). </p>
12.25.4 - 12.25.4
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὴν ἀορασίαν</w>:</emph> 'failure to make a personal inspection' (Shuckburgh). </p>
12.25.1 - 12.25.1
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐν τῇ τριακοστῇ καὶ τετάρτῃ βύβλῳ</w>:</emph> this 'quotation' is probably from the introduction to the first of the five books dealing with Agathocles (cf. Diod. xxi. 17. 3, <w lang="el-GR">τὰς ἐσχάτας ε βίβλους . . . καθ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἃς περιείληφε τὰς Ἀγαθοκλέους πράξεις</w>, = FGH, 566 T 8); these will have been books xxxiv-xxxviii. P. is hardly quoting literally for (a) he says <w lang="el-GR">πεντήκοντα συνεχῶς ἔτη</w> whereas in the polemic of 25 d 1 it is merely <w lang="el-GR">σχεδὸν ἔτη πεντήκοντα</w>, (b) <w lang="el-GR">ὁμολογουμένως</w> hardly reads like Timaeus' own word, (c) <w lang="el-GR">ἐγένετο</w> is third person, and should probably remain despite Mai's emendation to <w lang="el-GR">ἐγενόμην</w> and the bracketing of it by Bttner-Wobst; see Jacoby on FGH, 566 F 34; Susemihl, i. 565 n. 237. C. Clasen, Timaios von Tauromenion (Kiel, 1883), 11, suggested that the quotation ended at <w lang="el-GR">ξενιτεύων</w>; and Jacoby proposed 〈<w lang="el-GR">ὅθεν</w>〉 <w lang="el-GR">ἁπάσης (ἁπάσης</w> is Boissevain's reading of the MS.: <w lang="el-GR">καὶ πάσης</w> Heyse). There may, however, be some distortion by the epitomator. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἄπειρος . . . καὶ τῆς τῶν τόπων θέας</w>:</emph> Timaeus, who made a special <milestone unit="page" n="395">[395]</milestone> claim to have consulted records (10. 4) and inscriptions (11. 2), can hardly have made this admission in such general terms, and P. may have twisted a reference to Timaeus' long exile from his native <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sicily&groupId=973&placeId=1724">Sicily</a> (so Jacoby, FGH, iii b, commentary on 566 F 34). On the length of Timaeus' residence at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Athens&groupId=379&placeId=715">Athens</a> cf. 25 d 1 n.; the tense of <w lang="el-GR">διατρίψας</w> cannot be pressed as evidence that when he said this Timaeus' exile was over (so Manni, <w lang="el-GR">ΚΩΚΑΛΟΣ</w>, 1960, 170 n. 7). </p>
12.25.2 - 12.25.2
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">εἴς τι τῶν μερῶν τούτων</w>:</emph> matters of war or topography. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοῖς ξωγράφοις</w>:</emph> for the comparison with the historian cf. 25 e 7; Lucian, hist. conscr. 50–51 says that the historian should emulate the good sculptor. This comparison shows that P. does not object to <w lang="el-GR">ἐναργεία</w> in itself (cf. xx. 12. 8) provided it is based on <w lang="el-GR">αὐτοπάθεια</w>. Cf. Avenarius, 132–4. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν</w></emph> 〈 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἀνασεσ</w></emph> 〉 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">αγμένων θυλάκων ποιουμένοις τὰς ὑπογραφάς</w>:</emph> <w lang="el-GR">ὑπογραφάς</w> (Dindorf, for MS. <w lang="el-GR">ἀπογραφάς)</w> will mean 'sketches'; <w lang="el-GR">ἀπογραφή</w> does not have this sense (despite Wunderer's defence in Phil. 1907, 472). P. refers to the use of stuffed dummies for the artists' preliminary work. The real subject need not be an animal as Wunderer (ibid. and Pol.-Forsch. iii. 51 n.) also argues, for <w lang="el-GR">ζῷον</w> can include human beings; indeed the use of <w lang="el-GR">ζῷον</w> to denote any figure in a work of art, not only an animal (cf. Herod. iii. 88) and not necessarily even a living creature (cf. Herod. iv. 88though this picture contained persons) suggests that in § 3 P. is using it in quite a general sense for the living subject of a painting. Wunderer (iii. 51 n.) conjectures <w lang="el-GR">σκυλάκων</w> for <w lang="el-GR">θυλάκων</w>, but this is improbable. <w lang="el-GR">θύλακος</w> is a bag, not a skin (as Shuckburgh translates, thus supporting his belief that animal-painters are referred to). W. W. Hyde, CJ, 1937, 431, compares the American slang expression 'stuffed shirts'; but the context is not parallel. </p>
12.25.3 - 12.25.3
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸ . . . τῆς ἐμφάσεως καὶ τῆς ἐνεργείας</w>:</emph> 'vividness and animation'; on P.'s success in achieving <w lang="el-GR">ἔμφασις</w> see Pdech, Mthode, 276–89. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῶν ἀληθινῶν ζῴων</w>:</emph> 'of real living creatures' (human or animal); the contrast is between the stuffed dummy and the living model. Wunderer (Phil. 1907, 473) would keep <w lang="el-GR">ἀλκίμων</w>, read by Mai, Heyse, and Boissevain; but <w lang="el-GR">ἄλκιμος</w> can hardly mean 'living' (as <w lang="el-GR">ἔμψυχος</w>? in i. 4. 7), and Bekker's correction seems right. </p>
12.25.4 - 12.25.4
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐκ τῆς αὐτοπαθείας</w>:</emph> 'from personal experience'; cf. 25 i 7, 28 a 6; Vol. I, p. 10. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">οἱ μὴ δι</w>f <w lang="el-GR">αὐτῶν πεπορευμένοι τῶν πραγμάτων</w>:</emph> cf. § 6. Obviously P. is not claiming that no one can describe particular events unless he has personally experienced themwhich would recoil on himself and render history writing virtually impossible. <w lang="el-GR">αὐτῶν τῶν πραγμάτων</w> must mean 'public life, political events', including those near in time and kind to what is being described. This is what § 5 implies and § 6 specifically asserts. G. Schepens, Riv. stor. dell' antichit, 1975, 185–200, argues that <w lang="el-GR">οἱ δι</w>f <w lang="el-GR">αὐτῶν πεπορευομένοι τῶν πραγμάτων</w> (§§ 4 and 6) does in fact mean 'those who have experienced the events themselves', this being part of Duris' theory that actual experience is a way to achieving vivid and convincing writing. <milestone unit="page" n="396">[396]</milestone> </p>
12.25.5 - 12.25.5
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">περὶ βιωτικῶν</w>:</emph> 'private life'; cf. ix. 17. 6. Ziegler (RE, 'Polybios (1)', col. 1462) is probably right in concluding from this passage that P. was himself married with a family; he would hardly make demands on a historian which he was personally unable to fulfil. </p>
12.25.6 - 12.25.6
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοῦτο τὸ μέρος περιπεποιημένοις τῆς ἱστορίας</w>:</emph> 'and have made this aspect of history their own', in the sense both of understanding it and of being able to treat of it; for this sense of <w lang="el-GR">περιποιεῖσθαι</w> cf. v. 75. 6. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῶν . . . μεγίστων καὶ κοινοτάτων</w>:</emph> 'the most important and those of most frequent occurrence'. </p>
12.25.1 - 12.25.1
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ὁ ποιητής</w>:</emph> Homer, as usually; clearly P. applies his criterion to poets as well as historians. For the close bond between the two in ancient thought see Walbank, Historia, 1960, 216 ff. </p>
12.25.3 - 12.25.3
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῶν συμβουλευτικῶν καὶ παρακλητικῶν . . . λόγων</w>:</emph> cf. 25 a 3 n. (presumably <w lang="el-GR">συμβουλευτικοὶ λόγοι</w> are the <w lang="el-GR">δημηγορίαι</w> of that passage). The three types are exemplified in the speeches criticized in 25 k–26 a. </p>
12.25.4 - 12.25.4
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">πάντας . . . διαθέσθαι τοὺς ἐνόντας λόγους</w>:</emph> 'to set out all possible arguments'; as in § 5 <w lang="el-GR">λόγοι</w> will be 'arguments', rather than 'speeches' <milestone unit="page" n="397">[397]</milestone> (as in § 3). This change is sense is quite in P.'s style, cf., for example, <w lang="el-GR">καιρός</w> meaning 'occasion' in § 4 and 'what is opportune' in § 7; for another example cf. xiv. 8. 4 n. Here the reference is to the arguments used by the statesman, not to speeches composed by a historian; and if <w lang="el-GR">ἀνάληθες</w> in § 5 seems at first sight to refer more easily to the latter than the former, in 26 d 6, which refers back to the present passage, it is statesmen who in studying the harangues in Timaeus become <w lang="el-GR">ἀναλήθεις</w>. For the argument cf. xxxvi. 1. 6–7. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῶν ὑπόντων</w>:</emph> 'of those that occur to one'. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">οἱ νῦν . . . οἱ προγεγονότες</w>:</emph> i.e. a contemporary audience finds different arguments acceptable <w lang="el-GR">(προσίε</w>v<w lang="el-GR">ται)</w> from those which would </p> <p rend="Plain Text">have been acceptable to an earlier generation.</p>
12.25.5 - 12.25.5
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">καὶ τὸ μὲ</w>v <w lang="el-GR">ματαίως κτλ</w>.:</emph> Bttner-Wobst's emendation for the uncertain MS. reading <w lang="el-GR">(καὶ διό |περ ἀθη</w>v<w lang="el-GR">αῖοι καιρῶι</w> Mai, . . .|<w lang="el-GR">περ ἀθη</w>v<w lang="el-GR">αῖοι καιρῶι</w> Heyse); Hultsch reads <w lang="el-GR">τὸ δὲ παρεκβαί</w>v<w lang="el-GR">ει</w>v and suggests other possibilities in the apparatus; Pdech suggests 〈<w lang="el-GR">καίτοι τὸ μὲν κατὰ μέρος</w>〉 <w lang="el-GR">πά</w>v<w lang="el-GR">τας διεξιέ</w>v<w lang="el-GR">αι κτλ</w>. The sense must be something like, 'to expand a speech so as to include every possible argument . . .'. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ὃ ποιεῖ Τίμαιος πρὸς πᾶσα</w>v <w lang="el-GR">ὑπόθεσι</w>v <w lang="el-GR">εὑρεσιλογῶ</w>v:</emph> 'as Timaeus, with his trick of inventing arguments, does in relation to every proposal'. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἀνάληθες καὶ μειρακιῶδες καὶ διατριβικό</w>v:</emph> 'is false, and full of affectation and pedantry'; cf. 25 k 2, 26 d 6. After <w lang="el-GR">διατριβικό</w>v Boissevain confirms Mai's <w lang="el-GR">φαί</w>v<w lang="el-GR">εται</w>, which is clearly preferable to Heyse's <w lang="el-GR">ἅμα</w>. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">πολλοῖς ἀποτυχίας αἴτιο</w>v . . . <w lang="el-GR">καὶ καταφρο</w>v<w lang="el-GR">ήσεως</w>:</emph> 'the cause of failure and contempt for many statesmen'. Shuckburgh says 'many writers', but P. is speaking of statesmen and merely quotes Timaeus' speeches as an example of what is to be avoided. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸ δὲ τοὺς ἁρμόζο</w>v<w lang="el-GR">τας καὶ καιρίυς ἀεί λαμβά</w>v<w lang="el-GR">ει</w>v:</emph> sc. <w lang="el-GR">λόγους</w>. This is the task of the statesman; that of the historian is to record what was said (§ 8). </p>
12.25.6 - 12.25.6
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἀστάτου . . . χρηστέο</w>v:</emph> 'since there is no fixed rule as to which and how many of the possible arguments should be used on a particular occasion', i.e. by the statesman. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἀλλοιοτέρου . . . ζήλου καὶ παραγγέλματος</w>:</emph> 'there is need of an unusual degree of attention and clarity of principle', i.e. on the part of the historian. P. switches at this point to the historian whose informed procedure is to help the reader including the statesman, who will turn to him for information on speeches previously delivered. </p>
12.25.7 - 12.25.7
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ὁ καιρὸς . . . δυσπαράγγελτος</w>:</emph> 'what the situation demands is always something hard to formulate'. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">διὰ τῶν ἐκ τῆς αὐτοπαθείας καὶ τριβῆς θεωρημάτω</w>v:</emph> 'through precepts based upon personal experience and practice'. The precepts are given to the statesman by the historian whose works he reads: and these precepts are based on the historian's own experience and practice. <milestone unit="page" n="398">[398]</milestone> This is essential for a correct account of the situation, and an assessment of why the various speakers succeeded or failed (§ 8). </p>
12.25.8 - 12.25.8
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὰς ὁρμὰς καὶ διαθέσεις τῶν βουλευομένων</w>:</emph> 'the aims and circumstances of those deliberating' (Shuckburgh). </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοὺς κατ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἀλήθειαν ῥηθέντας λόγους</w>:</emph> cf. 25 b 1, xxxvi. 1. 7. This is a point on which P. never wavers. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἅμα μὲν διακρίνοντες</w>:</emph> 'by distinguishing', i.e. what fails from what succeeds. </p>
12.25.9 - 12.25.9
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἀλλ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἔ?στιν, οἶμαι, κτλ</w>.:</emph> the rhetorical pomposity of this final sentence, with its contrast of <w lang="el-GR">τὸ μὲν α ἰτιολογεῖν</w> and <w lang="el-GR">τὸ δὲ ῥησικοπεῖν</w>, of <w lang="el-GR">τὸ μὲν ὀλίγα καιρίως εἰπεῖν</w> and <w lang="el-GR">τὸ δὲ πολλὰ διαθέσθαι καὶ ματαίως</w>, and </p> <p rend="Plain Text">the uariatio of <w lang="el-GR">ὀλίγοις ἐφικτόν</w> followed by <w lang="el-GR">τῶν ἐν μέσῳ κειμένων καὶ κοινόν</w>, furnishes a suitable conclusion for this confused and clumsy formulation of how the historian deals with the problem of speeches.</p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">αἰτιολογεῖν</w>:</emph> 'tracing causes', i.e. of success or failure. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸ . . . ῥησικοπεῖν</w></emph> 〈 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐν</w></emph> 〉 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοῖς βυβλίοις</w>:</emph> 'to string together phrases in books': Paton has 'by the aid of books', but P. is here speaking of the historian. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">καὶ τούτου παραγγελίαν εὑρεῖ?ν</w>:</emph> 'and to discover the rules governing this'; omitted by Paton. Cf. § 6, <w lang="el-GR">παραγγέλματος</w>, 26. 9, <w lang="el-GR">παραγγελματικῶς</w>. </p>
12.25.1 - 12.25.1
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">καὶ περὶ ταῦτα</w>:</emph> evidently the point at issue here is Timaeus' lack of political sense; cf. § 8. P. refers to the first two subdivisions of this final part of the book: Timaeus' lies and errors (24–25 c) and his political incompetence (25 d–26 d). See above, 24–28 a n. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῶν . . . λόγων</w>:</emph> P. now criticizes examples from Timaeus of each of the three types of oration mentioned in 25 i 3: those of Hermocrates <w lang="el-GR">(συμβουλευτικός)</w>, of Timoleon <w lang="el-GR">(παρακλητικός)</w>, and of Pyrrhus <w lang="el-GR">(πρεσβευτικός)</w>. The third is lost. </p>
12.25.2 - 12.25.2
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">μετὰ Γέλωνα τὸν ἀρχαῖον</w>:</emph> cf. 26 b 1–5. Gelo, the son of Deinomenes, made himself tyrant of Gela in c. 491 and of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Syracuse&groupId=994&placeId=1753">Syracuse</a> c. 485. In concert with Theron of Acragas he defeated the Carthaginians at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Himera&groupId=632&placeId=1163">Himera</a>, so destroying the great invasion of 480, and making himself virtually master of all <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sicily&groupId=973&placeId=1724">Sicily</a>; cf. Hackforth, CAH, iv. 369–82. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">Ἑρμοκράτην, Τιμολέοντα</w>, P<w lang="el-GR">ύρρον</w>:</emph> on Timoleon see 4 a 2 n., 23. 4 n. and below, 26 a; on Timaeus' work on Pyrrhus cf. 4 b 1 n. Hermocrates, son of Hermon, the Syracusan statesman, first came into prominence at the time of the Congress of Gela in 424 B.C.; his speech urging Sicilian unity is recorded by Thucydides (iv. 59–64; other speeches in Thuc. vi. 33–34, 76–80). He later played a prominent part in the defence of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Syracuse&groupId=994&placeId=1753">Syracuse</a> against <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Athens&groupId=379&placeId=715">Athens</a>, and his stratagem led to the final defeat of the Athenians (below, § 11; Thuc. vii. 73. 3). Between 412 and 410 he fought in the Aegean on the Spartan side; the loss of the Syracusan ships at Cyzicus in 410 led to his banishment, <milestone unit="page" n="399">[399]</milestone> and he was refused entry into <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Syracuse&groupId=994&placeId=1753">Syracuse</a> on his return to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sicily&groupId=973&placeId=1724">Sicily</a> in 408; in spring 407 he fell in a street fight trying to force his way into <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Syracuse&groupId=994&placeId=1753">Syracuse</a> (Diod. xiii. 75. 6–9). See in general Westlake, Bull. Ryl. Lib., 1958–9, 239–68. For P.'s statement that he fought at Aegospotami see § 11 n. </p>
12.25.3 - 12.25.3
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐν τῇ μιᾷ καὶ εἰκοστῇ βύβλῳ</w>:</emph> this figure must be wrong, for Athen. vi. 250 A (FGH, 566 F 32) assigns events of Dionysius the younger to book xxii (cf. 25. 7 n.). Jacoby (FGH, iii b, pp. 544 and 553) therefore suggests that this fragment belonged to book xii, and that the Congress of Gela ended this. It is true that 26 a 1 puts Timoleon's speech 'in the same book', i.e. book xxi, and 25. 7 also dates Timoleon to that book. But it is difficult to believe that Timaeus dealt with such an event as the Congress of Gela only incidentally in connexion with Timoleon, omitting it in its proper place (like Diodorus); for the account of Hermocrates' speech shows that it was dealt with in detail. See Schwartz, Hermes, 1899, 489; Laqueur, RE, 'Timaios', col. 1080; De Sanctis, Storiografia siceliota, 51. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">καθ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ὃν καιρὸν Εὐρυμέδων . . . παρεκάλει τὰς πόλεις</w>:</emph> in 424 the Athenian general Eurymedon arrived in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sicily&groupId=973&placeId=1724">Sicily</a> to build up a coalition favourable to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Athens&groupId=379&placeId=715">Athens</a> (Thuc. iv. 48. 6), but the Sicilian Congress of Gela thwarted this plan. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοὺς Γελῴους . . . διαπέμψασθαι πρὸς Καμαριναίους</w>:</emph> at this time Dorian Camarina was allied with <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Athens&groupId=379&placeId=715">Athens</a> and her coalition; for the truce now made cf. Thuc. iv. 58. </p>
12.25.4 - 12.25.4
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">οἵτινες . . . βουλεύσονται περὶ διαλύσεως</w>:</emph> cf. Thuc. iv. 58, <w lang="el-GR">εἶτα καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι Σικελιῶται ξυνελθόντες ἐς Γέλαν, ἀπὸ πασῶν τῶν πόλεων πρέσβεις?, ἐς λόγους κατέστησα</w>v <w lang="el-GR">ἀλλήλοις, εἴ πως ξυναλλαγεῖεν</w>. </p>
12.25.5 - 12.25.5
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">διαβουλίου προτεθέ</w>v<w lang="el-GR">τος</w>:</emph> 'on the opening of the conference' (cf. iii. 20. 1); but Paton's version 'a resolution was proposed in council' is not impossible (cf. v. 49. 6 n.)though less likely with <w lang="el-GR">τοῦ</w> before <w lang="el-GR">διαβουλίου</w> (so Boissevain). </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοιούτοις . . . χρώμε</w>v<w lang="el-GR">ο</w>v <w lang="el-GR">εἰσάγει λόγοις τὸ</w>v <w lang="el-GR">Ἑρμοκράτην</w>:</emph> cf. Thuc. iv. 59–64 for his version of the same speech. As Gomme remarks (Thucydides, iii. 523), it is curious that P. in criticizing Timaeus' version never adduces the obvious argument that it bears no resemblance to Thucydides', and hence that one (or both) must be false. Whether Timaeus was silently trying to outdo Thucydides (cf. Plut. Nic. 1. 2, <w lang="el-GR">ἐλπί?σας τὸ</w>v <w lang="el-GR">μὲν Θουκυδίδην ὑπερβαλεῖσθαι δεινότητι)</w> is a matter of opinion; cf. H. Fuchs, Augustin und der antike Friedensgedanke (1926) 177–8 n. 2; Jacoby on FGH, 566 F 22 n. 213 b. The sources of both Thucydides and Timaeus for this speech are unknown; but Antiochus of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Syracuse&groupId=994&placeId=1753">Syracuse</a>, a contemporary, ended his history with the Congress of Gela (Diod. xii. 71. 2 = FGH, 555 T 3), and Thucydides may have used him (Gomme, op. cit. iii. 521–2). Nestle (Phil. Woch. 1932, 1357–59; Der Friedensgedanke in der antiken Welt, Phil. <milestone unit="page" n="400">[400]</milestone> Suppl.. B. 31 (1938), 17–18) has argued that Timaeus based his speech on the famous Olympiakos of Gorgias. His points are (1) that the speech recorded by P. is full of Gorgianic antitheses, and since one of these (26. 7) also occurs in Herodotus (i. 87. 4), it is not Timaeus' invention; (2) the atmosphere of the speech is sophistic (cf. 26. 7, <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ φύσι</w>v); (3) the paradox of Heracles, the founder of the Olympian games and truce, is sophistic and especially appropriate to an Olympian speech; (4) the Homeric quotations (26. 3–4) are a mark of sophistic composition; cf. Plato, Protag. 338 E, <w lang="el-GR">περὶ ἐπῶν δει</w>v<w lang="el-GR">ὸ</w>v <w lang="el-GR">εἶ</w>v<w lang="el-GR">αι</w>. Nestle has successfully shown the sophistic character of Timaeus' composition, but he has not proved that Gorgias' Olympiakos was its model; nor since only two fragments of this survive (Diels, FVS, ii. 82. B 7–8) is it likely that the proof could be made (despite the statement of Philostratus, uit. Soph. i. 9. 493 that Gorgias <w lang="el-GR">στασιάζουσα</w>v <w lang="el-GR">τὴν Ἑλλάδα ὁρῶν ὁμονοίας ξύμβουλος αὐτοῖς ἐγέ</w>v<w lang="el-GR">ετο)</w>. Brown, 65–66, argues that P. gives a fair report of Timaeus' speech, and indeed there are no grounds for thinking that he attributed to it anything Timaeus did not say; but he is very selective, and it is easy to quote communes loci out of context and make them sound ridiculous (cf. Jacoby, FGH, iii b, p. 554). </p>
12.25.7 - 12.25.7
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐπιχειρήματα πραγματικά</w>:</emph> 'practical proposals': an unusual meaning for <w lang="el-GR">ἐπιχείρημα</w>, distinct from that in 25 b 4. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὰς τοιαύτας περιπετεί?ας</w>:</emph> so Heyse for MS. <w lang="el-GR">παρα . . . γας</w>; but his other suggestion <w lang="el-GR">παρ</w>〈<w lang="el-GR">αλλα</w>〉<w lang="el-GR">γάς</w> seems preferable (cf. vi. 7. 5), and is read by Jacoby, FGH, 566 F 22. <w lang="el-GR">παρ</w>〈<w lang="el-GR">αλλα</w>〉<w lang="el-GR">γάς</w> was suggested, apparently independently, by Pdech and approved by Gelzer, Gnomon, 1963, 165. </p>
12.25.8 - 12.25.8
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῆς πραγματικῆς . . . ἀπολείπεσθαι δυνάμεως</w>:</emph> 'deficient in political sense' (Paton) rather than 'fails to show the ability of a historian' (Shuckburgh); cf. xxxviii. 7. 1, <w lang="el-GR">Ἀσδρούβας . . . πολὺ? κεχειρισμέ</w>v<w lang="el-GR">ος τῆς πραγματικῆς καὶ στρατηγικῆς δυνάμεως</w>. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῶν ἐν ταῖς διατριβαῖς ἐπι</w></emph> 〈 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">χειρήσεων</w></emph> 〉 <emph rend="bold">:</emph> cf. 25 a 5, <w lang="el-GR">εἴ τις ἐν διατριβῇ . . . ἐπιχειροίη</w>. For the supplement cf. 7. 4, 26. 9. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> 〈 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">οὐκ ὀλίγον</w></emph> 〉 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐλαττοῦσθαι</w>:</emph> 'he falls well below the standard of'. </p>
12.25.9 - 12.25.9
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">πά</w>v<w lang="el-GR">τες? γὰρ</w>. . .:</emph> 'for everybody', not 'all these', i.e. in the schools of rhetoric (so Paton). </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸ καθευρεσιλογεῖ</w>v:</emph> 'to think up arguments': <w lang="el-GR">ἅπαξ λεγόμε</w>v<w lang="el-GR">ο</w>v. The following lacuna is filled by Boissevain 〈<w lang="el-GR">πρὸς τὸ πι</w>〉<w lang="el-GR">στευ</w>〈<w lang="el-GR">ό</w>〉<w lang="el-GR">με</w>v<w lang="el-GR">ο</w>v <w lang="el-GR">ἢ τὸ γι</w>v<w lang="el-GR">ωσκόμε</w>v<w lang="el-GR">ο</w>v 'with reference to what is common knowledge or belief'providing a chiasmus with <w lang="el-GR">τῶν ἀγ</w>v<w lang="el-GR">οουμέ</w>v<w lang="el-GR">ω</w>v <w lang="el-GR">καὶ τῶν ἀπιστουμέ</w>v<w lang="el-GR">ω</w>v. For the sentiment Pdech quotes Lucian, hist. conscr. 56–57. </p>
12.25.10 - 12.25.10
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">λήμμασι κέχρηται τοιούτοις</w>:</emph> 'he used such arguments' (Paton). </p>
12.25.11 - 12.25.11
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸ</w>v <w lang="el-GR">συ</w>v<w lang="el-GR">αγω</w>v<w lang="el-GR">ισάμε</w>v<w lang="el-GR">ο</w>v . . . <w lang="el-GR">τὴν ἐν Αἰγὸς ποταμοῖς ναυμαχίαν</w>:</emph> false. Hermocrates perished in 407 (§ 2 n.) whereas Aegospotami was <milestone unit="page" n="401">[401]</milestone> in 405 (i. 1. 6 n.). Lenschau (RE, 'Hermokrates (1)', col. 886) suggests that the words <w lang="el-GR">τὴν ἐν</w> <emph rend="bold" /> <w lang="el-GR">Αἰγὸς ποταμοῖς ναυμαχίαν</w> may be an intrusive gloss on an original phrase <w lang="el-GR">τὴν ἐν Ἑλλησπόντῳ μάχην</w>, referring to the battle of Cynossema. This would save P. 's credit, but is clearly not susceptible of proof. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">αὐτανδρὶ δὲ χειρωσάμε</w>v<w lang="el-GR">ο</w>v . . . <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ Σικελίαν</w>:</emph> only indirectly, by means of the false message which led the Athenians to postpone their departure from <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Syracuse&groupId=994&placeId=1753">Syracuse</a> after the defeat in the harbour (Thuc. vii. 73. 3–74. 1). Timaeus has turned this to the glory of Hermocrates. </p>
Addenda & corrigenda
12.25.1 - 12.25.1
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold">25 f 1. <w lang="el-GR">τῶν μὲν κατὰ θάλατταν ἔργων</w>:</emph> in REG, 1969, 43–55, Pdech compares the naval battles of Cyzicus, Mytilene, and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Notium&groupId=798&placeId=1442">Notium</a> in Xenophon with the accounts of the same battles in Diod. xiii. 49–51 and 77–79, and in Hell. Ox. 4 (Bartoletti). Since Ephorus is Diodorus' source, he assumes Diodorus to be going back through Ephorus to the Hell. Ox.; and in consequence he explains Ephorus' competence in naval matters as due not to his being a native of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Cyme&groupId=510&placeId=960">Cyme</a>, but to his use of the Oxyrhynchus historian. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold">25 h:</emph> G. Schepens, Riv. stor. dell' antichit, 1975, 185–200, argues that <w lang="el-GR">οἱ δι</w>f <w lang="el-GR">αὐτῶν πεπορευομένοι τῶν πραγμάτων</w> (§§ 4 and 6) does in fact mean 'those who have experienced the events themselves', this being part of Duris' theory that actual experience is a way to achieving vivid and convincing writing. </p>
12.25.4 - 12.25.9
<p rend="Plain Text">on this passage see Musti, Societ antica (Bari, 1973), 211–14; Aufstieg und Niedergang, i. 2. 1125 n. 21. He argues that the reference to <w lang="el-GR">οἱ προγεγονότες</w> (§ 4) and to <w lang="el-GR">λόγους λαμβάνειν</w> (§ 5: he translates 'choose speeches') implies that P. is here speaking of the historian rather than the statesman; he assumes that in the first part of this passage P. is criticizing Timaeus on the basis of his own practice (i.e. if one is inventing speeches, they should be appropriate), and that he then goes on to put his own position (that one should record the authentic speech). This is possible, but the transition is not at all clear, so that this explanation of the passage seems to me at least as difficult as the interpretation sketched in the Commentary.</p>

Commentary