The Lamian War-stat magni nominis umbra

Author(s): N. G. Ashton
Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 104 (1984), pp. 152-157
Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/630286 .
Accessed: 17/11/2011 08:52
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

NOTES
Hoplites and heresies: a note

enemy.7 Such actions might certainly explain the

description of a fallen hoplite as promachos.8But it is
perhaps as probable that promachosis simply a poetic
substitute for the technical protostates-a front-rank
soldier, not one who fights in front of the ranks. In
either case, the word lends no support to the suggestion
that it was usual for hoplites to break ranks and come
forward to individual combat when one phalanx was
advancing against another.

A. J. Holladayhas effectivelyreassertedthe traditionalview of the hoplitephalanx-that it wasa dense

massof men,relyingon theweightandcohesionof the
wholeratherthanon theprowessof individuals
in order
to breakthe enemy'sline.1
Furtherevidencein hissupportis providedby Plato's
Laches,2where Nicias is made to praisethe art of
fighting(thatis, singlecombat)in hoplitearmour,asa
J.K. ANDERSON
fittingpartof a liberaleducation.But whenit comesto
Universityof California,Berkeley
its utilityin warfarehe is lessenthusiastic.
'Thisscience
will help somewhateven on the actual battlefield, 7 Thuc. iv 127; X. Hell. iii 4.13-15; iv 4.15-17 and elsewhere;
wheneverone hasto fight rangedin orderwith many Anderson (n. 5) 117-26.
8 Holladay (n. 1) 94 n. 4.
others.But its chiefbenefitwill be when the ranksare
broken,and one has to fight singlehandedagainsta
andeither,in pursuit,attacksomeone
singleadversary,
who is defendinghimself,or else, in retreat,protect
oneselffromtheattackof another.'Niciasclearlyhasin
The Lamian War-stat magninominisumbra'
minda situationlikethatfromwhichSocratesextracted
himselfso handsomelyat the Battleof Delium,as the
Fortheuprisingof 323and322BCby theGreekstates
speakersin the dialoguehave just recalled;3though againstthe Macedoniandomination,the name 'The
Socratesof coursemadehis retreatwithoutbenefitof LamianWar' has universalcurrency,identifyingthe
the newfangledartof fencing.
overallconflictthroughreferenceto the siegeof Lamia
Laches,replyingto Nicias,is muchless favourable, in the winterof 323/2.Giventherelativeinsignificance
eventin determiningthe outcomeof
and,in dismissingthe art of singlecombataltogether, of thatparticular
have no the war, the name does not seem to be particularly
particularlystressesthat the Lacedaemonians
use for it. Clearly neither Nicias nor Lacheseven appropriate.Yet there is ample ancientevidenceto
~'
was used
envisagesthepossibilitythatthebattlemaybeginwith a indicatethat the term 6 AaptaK 7TrrdAELOS
seriesof singlecombats.
also in antiquityto signify this struggle. The full
Thisimaginaryconversation
doesnot of coursecarry catalogue,in chronologicalorder,is:
the samehistoricalweightas the Thucydideanpassage,
(D.S. xvii iii.i)
6
KA7)OE
Aatzua,cd
quoted by Holladay, that describesthe advancing
'OtKov
... rT6/L0zo
-rv ovoLa(uE'v7a (D.S. xviii 8.1)
to
the
to
the
of
hoplitesedging
right gain
protection
AatLaK'dv
theirneighbours'shields.Herearerevealednot merely
7V AaCtqLaKbv
(D.S. xviii 19.1)2
ITOdAov
the movementsbut the feelingsof front-ranksoldiers Kard7v AaktuaKCj
ITOALpo
(D.S. xviii 24.1)
rco
Tv AattLaK6v
pLE7a
goinginto battle.4But Plato,likeeveryAthenianof his
TrrdOAE/ov (D.S. xviii66.5)
p JK orrOA4lw
classand time, understoodthe basic facts of hoplite
(D.S. xx 46.3)3
7vAr
Aal
o AaptaKb
(Straboix s5.o)4
....7T.OELo0
warfare,andhe andThucydidesbearone anotherout.
7Trptr v AalttLaK6v
TOdAsE/ov (Plut.Pyrrh.1.6)
Not only was the front rank too closely packedfor
([Plut.] Mor. 849f= X or. vit.
0ro AaptaKoo ITroAl/ov
individualskill to be of much accountas the armies
'Hyperides')
closed,but the followingranks,beingmadeup of files
Kad-a-v Aaav
IAataK
E/rfLov
(D.L. iv 9)
whose duty was to follow their file-leaderclosely,5
K7 rrdAE/o~
(Euseb.Chron.Oly. 114.2)
. AaLaGL
would havebeen equallypacked.Therewas certainly AaptLaKo
(Steph.Byz. s.v. 'AadLa')
7TOdAEfo0
no room for front-rankmen to fallbackbetweenthe
There
is
also
a
possiblereadingof E'vro AafttaKcj
files(whetherby mutualconsentor not) aftertheyhad
hadenough.
1 Lucani 135.Theargumentof thispaperformedthebasisof a talk
To conclude,Holladayrightlynotes that, afterthe
to the facultyandgraduatestudentsof the Departmentof Classicsat
Athenianshaddefeatedthe Syracusans
on the Anapus,
Universityon 22ndJanuary,1981.
someof the victorioushoplitesdidbreakranksandrun Stanford
2 A variantreadingAaAatLaKdv
occursin MS F.
in
until
were
checkedby the enemy's
out pursuit,
to D.S. xviii
they
... .rOv ovo/LauOE'vra
3 In the Argumentum
rdAT'Epov
is foundin ?vi and7rv AatkLaKbv
cavalry.6Moreover,even Spartanhoplitesregularly AaptLaKOv
in xiv.
TrrdOMtov
4 Atx 1.6thetextof Straboreads:
met attacksof peltastsandotherlight-armedtroopsby
Ka7rEU7pad7S7E T
E3r7pa Ev 7ro
CO -rr' al3Spov7ro1
A.
IroAp
orderingthe younger men to run out againstthe MaALaKc?
'AO-qvawvrTpaTnryol,.
1 A. J. Holladay, 'Hoplites and heresies',JHS cii (1982) 94-7.

2 Pl. Lach. 18id-182b.

3 Pl. Lach. 18ib.

4 Thuc. v 71.1; Holladay (n. 1) 94.
s X. Cyr. ii 2.6-9, 3.21; Lac. Pol. 11.4-6;J. K. Anderson, Military
Theory and Practicein the Age of Xenophon (Berkeley 1970) 94-110o
(with further references).
6 Thuc. vi
70.3; Holladay (n. 1) 96.

Journalof HellenicStudiesciv (1984) 152

Meineke, in his edition (Leipzig 1866), emended MaALaKCj

to
on thebasisof a conjectureby Casaubon.A scribalerrorin
AapaKc
and muis not difficultto envisage,andas all
transposingthe lambda
extant MSS are descendedfrom the so-calledarchetype,the one
original transpositionwould explain the constant MS reading
Givenwhat is known of the activitiesof Phaedrus,the
MaALaKcj.
Athenianstrategos,
it is highlyprobablethattheMSreadingshouldbe
so emended.On the careerof PhaedrusseeJ. K. Davies,Athenian
Families6oo-3ooB.C. (Oxford1971)524-5 no. 13964.
Propertied

Journalof HellenicStudiesciv (1984) 152-157

NOTES

153

[noAEc'p]in a scholionto the text of Aeschines.s To the that this referenceis to the so-called LamianWar. Lines
Greek referencesshould be added the Latin term bellum 16 and 17 mention the archonshipof Cephisodorus,and
Lamiacumin the prologues to the lost HistoriaePhilippi- 18 and 25 the admiral Euetion.12
caeof Pompeius Trogus.6 The ChronicleofJerome also
At lines 9 and 10 of IG ii2 50o6the restoredreadingis
containsthe term as a translationof the Eusebiuspassage ro oAci[oU yEvotLEvoU70rT EAAqrvt]KOO.13There is
cited above.7
reference to naval matters at line 10 and a virtually
a70"
Such then is the complete register of occurrencesof certain naming of Cleitus, the Macedonian admiral
the name 'The LamianWar'. In each case the source is a during the war.14 Further,the date of the inscriptionis
literary one, and no corroborating epigraphical evi- in accord with the above framework. Lacking the full
dence for the title has been found.
prescript(including the archon year) to this decree, we
The war was also known in antiquity, however, as 0 cannot assign it a precise date. However, the proposer
The evidence for this is primarily was one Lysicrates,son of Lysistratus,also known from
rTOAEtOSg.
'EAAhTvLKO9
The
epigraphical.
inscriptionsare firmly datable in the an honorary decree firmly dated 304/3,15 within the
main, and attest contemporaryand near-contemporary chronological boundaries of the two previously cited
use of that title." At IG ii2 448, in the second of two inscriptionsin which the term 6 'EAAqvLK'rdTAEo"LOS
is
decrees,which is from the Athenianmonth Maimacter- attested. This indicatesthat a date of c. 302/I for IG ii2
lines 43 50o6,as proposed in IG, is to be accepted.
ion in the archonshipof Archippus(318/17
BC),
Albeit scanty and fragmentary, the epigraphical
and 44 read [Kati'd T70n
r ovOoAE4Ov
701O] EAAqVLKov3.9
That this is the Lamian War is certain. Not only is the evidence is conclusive. In Athens the term 06
first of the two decrees from the archonship of
was the official name for the war tEAArvLKo
of 323 and
TOdAEpos
Cephisodorus (323/2) but the entire context of both 322, at least down to 301.16
A single literary reference corroborates the epigradecrees is the advent of Sicyon into the Greek alliance
for the war which began in that year.'0
phical evidence. At Plut. Phoc. 23.1, in an account of a
In IG ii2 505, from the Athenian month Scirophorion, in the archonshipof Nicocles (302/1), line 17 reads
conception of citizenship and the role of foreigners in fourth century
70r 'EAArYLKo3
ro ov. There can be no doubt Athens', Eirenevi (1967) 25.
r7TL
s There are two scholia to Aeschines ii 21, each providing
biographical details in elaboration of a textual reference to an
Athenian strategos,Leosthenes, who had gone into exile in 361 BC. The
scholioncommon to MSS L and M confuses this Leosthenes with the
one later so prominent in the Lamian War, and includes the comment
U
VUTEpov
Ev V 7C ~AtLaKKKaLd7TrOavE
AOV
KarTE
auTpaT7ryqafv
but in the margin of M another
7pwOdOl.Both L and M read rAtLaKcj
hand has written otfpaL AaptLaKp.Despite a conflation of two
Leosthenes, this sentence does appear to refer to the Athenian general
who commanded the forces at the siege of Lamia, and who died there
as a result of a blow. If so, then the reading AattaKWCshould be
understood. For the two
preferred, with the supplement [7rroAmAl]
scholiaand the adscript see W. Dindorf, ScholiaGraecain Aeschinemet
Isocratem(Oxford 1852; repr. Hildesheim 1970) 46.
6 Pompeius Trogus Prol. xiii. Although there is a variant MS
reading lansacum(or lamsacum),the context makes it certain that the
reading of Lamiacumpreferred by J. Bongars in his edition ofJustin's
epitome (Paris 158i) is correct, and it is now accepted without
exception. For the text and apparatus see O. Seel, Pompei Trogi
Fragmenta(Leipzig 1956) 120.
7 The
parallel passages are 6
EKLv'O7r(EuseAapt/aK, 7TrrdAE/o09
bius) and Lamiacumbellummotum(St Jerome).
' The MarmorParium
apart, I have examined first hand each of the
inscriptionscited in this article. My thanks to Mrs D. Peppas-Delmousou and her staff at the National Epigraphical Museum at Athens for
their aid and expertise.
9 The restoration is beyond question, as is evident both from the
immediately adjacent context (lines 43-51) and from the subject
matter of the whole, on which see below n. 1o.
10 Part a, the first decree, from the archonship of Cephisodorus in
323/2, honours Euphron of Sicyon for bringing Sicyon into the Greek
alliance (lines 8-15). Part b, from the archonship of Archippus in
318/17, comes from the year of the 'restored democracy' and harks
back to the Hellenic (i.e. Lamian) War when the above honours were
granted, recalling the reasonsfor the bestowal (lines 43-9). This decree
reaffirms the previous honours and orders that new stelae recording
them be erected (62 ff.).
11 An Athenian honorary decree in favour of Nicander of Ilium
and Polyzelus of Ephesus, metics who had contributed to the
Athenian navy during the Lamian War. On their status and r61esat
Athens see R. Thomsen, Eisphora(Copenhagen 1964) 237-42, and J.
PeEirka, The Formulafor the Grant of Enktesis in Attic Inscriptions
(Prague 1966) 8o-I together with his 'A note on Aristotle's

12 That Euetion was the Athenian naval commander in this war is

known from D.S. xviii
15-9.
13 The restoration by U. Koehler in IG ii 271. These lines could not
be restored as ov KaLTro3TrroAE[ovyEvoLE'VO
as this
roT3
KGo)
AaOat,
supplement would account for only 32 of the 33 stoichoi.
14 The text of IG ii2 506 is fragmentary. Only the left hand
sections can be read with any confidence. The first fourteen letters
of line io are legible; the line reads: KO! KaL y7rAEvaav[ av
9
It is likely that there is a further naval
mTyv
vEC^v ..........].
reference at
line
which
survives
as
follows:
12,

[..]HPEIEKAEI-[.. .....................

]. Although no

full restoration of a line is yet possible, from line o0it is clear that the
general context is naval. Koehler therefore proposed that the missing
first two letters of line 12 are PI and that the final letter of the previous
line should be T. The problem of the remaining extant letters in line
12 was resolved by A. Wilhelm, 'Ein neues Bruchstiick der parischen
Marmorchronik', Ath.Mitt. xxii (1897) 193, proposing to restore the
name of Euetion's opponent KAETroS. That Cleitus was the
Macedonian vav'apxog in the Lamian War is known from D.S. xviii
15.8. With the final letter of line i1, line 12 would read: 7]
[pt]4LIELp

KAELTr[....

15 IG ii2 488.6-7. Lysicrates and his genealogy are discussed by

Davies (n. 4) 425.
16 In the summary of the epigraphical evidence for the name
6
I have not included IG ii2 546, an Athenian
'EAA'qVLK'9
7Td'AEo
decree
the
of
Lines
and
are
restored
14
15
concerning
people Dolopia.
to read as follows in IG ii2: [aivvav-raLtdya0v K]atL
vi KaiL v [r(ct
.... Here the entire 75C
'EAAqVLK6jLO7TAO'oWL
TOg
aTrprTEUvop'voLs
1 a restoration
and one not easily substantiatedin
is
'EAA'qtVLKL
TOArpM
view of the extremely fragmentary nature of the inscription and the
difficulty in supplying a date for it. (The prescriptis deficient, notably
in the name of the archon.) In IG ii2 the inscription is placed in the
period 318/17-308/7, but since the publication of IG ii2 in 1913 it has
been shown that referencesto the
are not confined to the
uov7rpdoEpot
period after 319/I8. Subsequently IG ii2 546 has been assigned to the
year 321/2o--as a possibility by W. K. Pritchett and B. D. Meritt
(1940); more positively by Meritt (1961); tentatively by S. Dow
(1963). If 321/20 is to be accepted as the date for IG ii2 546, then I
believe that the acceptability of iv r 'EAAqVLKC 7TOA as a
rpm
supplement for lines 14-15 is greatly reduced. There is no surviving
Athenian decree from the years between 322 and 318 which mentions
that war-not surprising in view of the degree of control exercised
over Athenian affairsin that period by the Macedonians, both by the
garrison at Munichia and by the constitution imposed by Antipater.

NOTES

154

Although it has been recognised for some time that

disagreement between Phocion and Leosthenes, the
Lamian War strategos,the text reads: C0; U ecpwov 'The Hellenic War' was a contemporary name for the
event which is more widely known as 'The Lamian
ELSr'v
EvEa/EaEv6 AewaOevE rqv rodAAw
'EAAwqvLKV
ndAEpqov.... Following Xylander, editors have gener- War', there has been no complete tabulation and
to AaptLaKOv,thereby excis- examination of the evidence for each name. Nor has
ally emended
'EAAqTvLKbV
ing the sole extant literary evidence for the name's use there been any attempt to determine at what stage the
for this war. That such a drastic revision of the text is name 'The Lamian War' came into being, or for how
unwarrantedis demonstratedby its epigraphicaloccur- long the term 'The Hellenic War' continued to be
rences.The original text, retainedin the earlierTeubner used.23
editions of Plutarch's Lives by Sintenis, has been
Epigraphy has preserved only one other method of
maintained, rightly, by Ziegler.17
referring to this conflict. The war was recorded as that
In the light of contemporary propagandait should
'Avrtra-rpov by the author of the Marmor
rrp3S
not be a matter of surprise that the title was 0 Parium,24
terminology which was probably employed
The funeral speech given by also in IG ii2 467.6-7, where the restoredreadingis E[v
'EAArvLK~S
rdrAEpOS.
LWLJv
Iv d 8/OS 0 'AY vaIwvY
Hyperides in honour of the Athenian dead after the Tn
rTErroAE"xLKE]
r7ToAEj
Diodorus provides a direct
'Avrt1arpov.25
siege of Lamia provides ample indication of how the [7rp3s
Athenians viewed the war's issues. Not only is it literary parallel with 'AOlqvatLot
SE Trps 'Av-r&ratrpov
apparent that the primary catchword was JEAEvOEpla, 7TdA/LovE'jvEyKav, andJustin and Orosius supply the
but on seven of the eight occasions where that noun Latin equivalent bellumcumAntipatro.26There are two
occurs it is linked with forms of 'EAAdhor "EAAhrvEs.literary instances in which the war is called that
rrpos
There is also one occurrence of the verb E'AEvOepdow, MaKE6dva~,27
and one
optLKi' rd'A0os.28
tPt9ro
three
with
adds
to
to
that
of
these
There
is
Hellas.18 Epigraphy
any
ways
again directly coupled
nothing suggest
our knowledge of the practice.At lines 7 and 8 of IG ii2 of referring to the war attained widespread usage.29
All extant literary sources in which the name 6
467 (3o6/5), it is recordedthat the Athenianshad waged
In AaptaKo
the war[`7rEp T~7 A]EvOEptas~ ['E]AA7j[vwv.
is found are derivative.The earliest,
7(,,
rTOAnEdLos
similar vein, lines 43-5 of IG ii2 448
(318/17) read [KaL' Diodorus, uses the term on six occasions and is
70
2ETL-roVoAELpo]|v
[IUara-rod0 consistentin that thereis no instanceof the alternative6
8v
70ro 'EAAqvLKOl3,
in his references to this war.
This
[v].E
`] l7rp rwcv EAA4jvwv.'9
8poS d 'AOr'vaLw`v
'EAArVLKOTOrdAEPLOS
concept of an Hellenic War, fought for E'AEvEpla and Scholars all agree that Hieronymus of Cardia is the
avrovopla20 against a foreign foe, was most openly majorsource for Bks xviii to xx of Diodorus' history,30
expressed by Hyperides, who likened the struggle to and it is within the span of these books that five of the
that waged by the Greeks against the Persiansin the six occurrences of the name 'Lamian War' are to be
early fifth century.21These slogans,so prominent in the found. In particularthe sections ofBk xviii in which the
contemporary evidence, are also found in the derivative account of the LamianWar is given31 bear the marksof
sources,22and demonstratewell the emotional environ- Hieronymus. T. S. Brown has pointed to the somewhat
ment in which the name 6 'EAArVLK
attitude to Greek attempts at freedom which is
was
rrTOdAEpLOScynical
coined for the war of 323 and 322.
prevalent throughout Bks xviii-xx,32 and which
17 Xylander's edition was printed at
Heidelberg in 1561. In the
Teubner, C. Sintenis' first edition was in 1839 (4 vols) and the second
in 1874 (5 vols). See now K. Ziegler (ed.), PlutarchiVitaeParallelaeii.x
(Leipzig 1964) 18, and the n. to line 24.
1s Hyperides, Epitaphioscol. 5 tros "EAAqprlo[]
ds -rv EAEvOEplav
and 7r 7-Jv 'EAAvvwov
col. 6 r7Tinp r(]v 'EAAivwv
EAEvOEptla,
ri[S
col. 9 r+jv KOLV'?v
AEvOEpplagand 7r 'EAAd8&[r'/v]
i
i
col.
.JA.[v8Op]av,
"EAAquvy,
-ros0
y'[voLt' av 7-roi"EAjIAvow
EA[Ev]OEplav
q8t[ov q 7ratvo 7rjv] 7r-v EAEvOEpl[av7rapaaKEU va]Iaiv-wv
[I7TOTwv
MaKES']vwv, col. 13 EL77V KOLVVEAEVOEEplav
Trcv 'EAAovwv.The
single occasion in this speech when the word is not linked in that way
is in col. 7 KaL-r7rv EUv
Ert o[KO[L]vbv
EAEvOptlav
Ka-rEEav.
At the commencement of col. 13 is of WrrUL
rTiv
EAAd.[a]
uavr-ES.
AEVOEpP
19 Above n. 10.
20 For
av"rovolpa see Epitaphios col. 9.23.
21
Hyp. Epit. cols 12-13.

23 For example, H. Schaefer, Der lamischeoder hellenische

Krieg
(Diss. Giessen 1886), despite his title, virtually ignores the question of
the name of the war (only a brief indication at 62 n. 76). The most
comprehensive tabulations of the sources for both names are: A.
Schaefer, DemosthenesundseineZeit2 iii (Leipzig 1887) 372 nn. 1-2; H.
Bengtson, Gr. Gesch.5 (Munich 1977) 372 n. 3; and F. Staehelin, RE
xii (1925) 'LamischerKrieg' 562, but in each case there are omissions
and/or inaccuracies. E. Lepore, 'Leostene e le origini della guerra
Lamiaca', PP x (1955) 161-85 has suggested that the name 'Hellenic
War' originated in the climate of the restored democracy of 318 (176
and n. 6), having noted that the first surviving use of the appellation is
in an inscription from that year. However, on the absence of such
references for the years 322-318 see above n. 16.
24 FGrH 239 B 9.
25 The
in line 7 is supported by
supplement [7rpo' 'Av1rLTarpov]
the proposed restoration of line 16 in A. Wilhelm, Akademieschriften
zur griechischenInschriftenkunde
(1895-1951) ii (Leipzig 1974) 145 as

22 D.S. xviii 9.5 has both avrovoplta

and JAEvOEpcuoat,
plus
references
to EAEvOEpla
at xviii9.1, 10.2 and12.3. TheEAEvOEp(a
Ka[L OTE
EKpdrquE, otSaaLcij] .
26 D.S. xviii 8. 'A]vrT['rwarpo
is alsoechoedin Plut.Phoc.26.1andSudas.v. 'Aapta'. aKE8dL
; Justin xiii 5.8; Orosius iii 23.15.
catch-cry
with multae
civitates 27 Paus. iv 28.3 and Arg. to D.S. xviii, pt 2 ?lix.
Justinxiii 5.5 providesthe Latincounterpart
28
libertatembello vindicandam
fremebant.There is also evidence from a

Dexippus, FGrH ioo F 33.

29 Lepore (n. 23) has demonstrated that the account of the
origins
secondof theliterary
papyrifromHibeh,beingpartof a rhetorical of the war at D.S. xvii 111.1ff. presents Leosthenes as the prime
writtenbetween280and240.Theeditorsbelievethat mover. There is no suggestion, however, that the conflict was ever
composition
theoccasion
isanaddress
to theAthenians
on termed 'Leosthenes' War'.
byLeosthenes
depicted
theLamian
War-an opinionsupported
'Notessur
30 See, most recently, Jane Hornblower, Hieronymusof Cardia
by G. Mathieu,
RPhlv (1929)159-70,who (Oxford 1981) esp. ch. 2.
Athines laveilledelaguerre
lamiaque',
alsotentatively
ofLampsacus
asthesource(16o-I,
31 D.S. xviii 9.1-13.6; 14.4-15.9; 16.4-18.9.
positsAnaximenes
32 T. S. Brown,
167). At line 122 (col. V) of the papyrus the text reads: 7TrrpT7-1
'Hieronymus of Cardia', AHR lii (1946-7) 693
KOLV77
and n. 71.
EAEVOEP[tLaf.

papyrusfragment.HibehPap.i (90o6)15 (=FGrH o05F 6) is the

NOTES
doubtless is a reflection of Hieronymus' opinions,
resulting not only from his connections with the
Macedoniandynastsbut also from his own background
in Cardia, whose dependence on Macedonia in the
fourth century BC is well attested.33 This cynicism is
especially noticeable in Diodorus' account of the
attempt to break from the Macedonian domination in
323 and 322, with the accompanying Greek catch-cries
of
and av-rovolila. The attitude is most
,AEvOEpla
demonstrated in xviii Io, reporting the public
clearly
debate at Athens which resultedin an open declaration
of war againstAntipater.In its entirety the tone of D.S.
xviii 10 is pessimistic-not unexpectedly so given that
the source is Hieronymus.34
in D.S.
The five instances of d
TOdAE[Los
AattaKgs
with confidence to Hierxviii-xx can be attributed
onymus, but the remaining occurrenceis at xvii I I I. I,
and despite continuing controversy as to Diodorus'
major source for Bk xvii, there is no suggestion that
Hieronymus was used at all here.35 On the single
occasion where the name 'Lamian War' does occur in
xvii the phraseology is interesting. The sentence reads:

155

for the full account of the conflict, employed 6

in xvii to maintainconsistencywith
AaptGaKs
9r7Td~AO1s
what followed in xviii. That Diodorus was conscious of
the link between these two passagesin the successive
books is quite clearlyattestedat xviii 9.1, where specific
reference is made to the earlier account 4v T? 7Trp
6
WrdEPLOS
6jAp. The proposalthatAa0/ltaKds
-rav-rr-,s
in xvii was a deliberate
(with the addition of KAqrlOEL)
foreshadowing of the term used by Hieronymus is
virtually confirmed by the first use of that name in xviii,
where the text reads:
rT77V
"P68LOL
tIIv EKaAvrVEs
KaTa TE7 Eva)3p"rn7v
7rV rTdoLAv,
MaKESovLKv cpOOUvpdlV
?AEUV0'pWoav

Tpb
'AOfqvatot
Sr

Tov ovo/La(uOEvra

7TdoAEOVE5$jvEyKav
'Av-rrTatrpov

AatKv.36
Elsewherein Bks xviii-xx the war is referredto merely
as 6 AaptaK~s rr~ATELos.Presumably,in first employing the term in xviii where the name is derived from
Hieronymus, Diodorus felt it necessary to mirror the
terminology of xvii I I.I in order to form a precise
bridge with the earlier account of the origins of the
conflict. It therefore appears most likely that HierKa-rar7v 'EAAaSa
aqpaS' -rorot 7TparroLpEVOLS
in
onymus used the name 6 AaptaKos
KaL 7Tpayt aTWV KaLVCov
ovvLUTavTO
rTOAELOSg
rapaxaL
referringto the war of 323 and 322, but that Diodorus'
~E~V d
iaE
KA7OGELSG
source for Bk xvii did not do so.
rTOEELOS
KLV?rELS~,
AaotzaKo
EK
aLTLaS.
TOLtavT7rSTLVOS
Ty7V aopr7,
Plutarchis the most intriguing of the literarysources
in referringto the name of the war is for this matter. In the Liveshe uses both 6"EAAqVLKb3
The use of
KA-r'qE1
and 6
in referringto the
strangeand would suggest that Diodorus might well not Arrd/Eos
TrrdMEtE~
AaptaKs
standsalone. 6A"aptaK rrOTAEP~OS
be echoing his source at this point. Since 6 AaptaKo~ war, and in this he
is
is used consistently from Bk xviii to xx when found in the Pyrrhus,and there is no doubt that for parts
Td6AEpLOSo
Diodorus'
source is Hieronymus, the likely supposition of this Plutarchhad as his source either Hieronymus, or
is that in referringto the origins of the LamianWar in perhapsmore likely an intermediaryHieronymus-based
xvii I I I the source used by Diodorus did not referto the source.37 On three separate occasions in Pyrrhus
forthcoming war by that name at all. Diodorus, who Plutarch cites Hieronymus as his authority,38 and it is
was aware that this was to be the name used in Bk xviii known from Pausaniasthat Hieronymus' history included information as to the death of Pyrrhus.39
33 References to Cardia in the speeches of Demosthenes show
in a biography
Plutarch'suse of 6 AauaKj~S rrTOqLEOS
clearly that it was only the support of the Macedonian monarchy
which prevented Athens from assertingcontrol over Cardia. A full list
for which the detail was derived to some extent at least
of the evidence from Demosthenes, together with that from D.S. xvi
from that source adds weight to the proposal that
and Plut. Eumenesis given by Brown (n. 32) 690 n. 56. For Cardian
Hieronymus referred to the war by that name.
animosity towards Athens and inclination towards Macedon see
The only surviving literary referencewith the name
Hornblower (n. 30) 175.
'EAAqvLKbS
CTdhAEPOSis in Plutarch's Phocion,40 in
d
34 Hornblower (n. 30) observes that 'the account of the Lamian
War in (Diodorus) xviii reveals a distinctly Macedonian slant' which Duris of Samosis twice mentioned as a source.41
(6o--reiterated at 66, 165 and more fully at 171). Nonetheless it is Although the evidence for Duris' life is far from
claimed at 176-7 that in xviii io there is a sympathetic analysis of the
comprehensive, it is certainthat his forebearsmust have
Greek problems in preparing for this war. Against this proposal see been removed from their homeland in the expulsion of
A. B. Bosworth's review of Hornblower's work in ]JHS ciii (1983) the Samians
by the Athenians in 366/5, and that Duris
209-IO. On Hieronymus' historical perspectives note also K. Rosen,
was born in exile, possibly in Sicily, c. 330. In the
'Politische Ziele in der friihen hellenistischen Geschichtsschreibung', restorationof the Samianexiles
by the general recall of
Hermescvii (1979) 460-77.
Duris
came
to
Samos, where both his
322/1
presumably
35 The most likely candidate is still Cleitarchus of Alexandria, who
father Kaios and he are attested as -r'pavvot. At some
is now widely accepted as the source, directly or indirectly, for D.S.
xvii. A thorough re-examination of the evidence is in J. R. Hamilton,
'Cleitarchus and Diodorus 17', Greeceand the EasternMediterraneanin
Ancient History and Prehistory, Fests. Schachermeyr(Berlin 1977)
126-46. Tarn's theory of a so-called 'mercenaries' source' on whom
Diodorus relied heavily up to the battle of Issus(Alexanderthe Greatii
esp. 71-5, 105-6, 128-30) has been laid to rest by P. A. Brunt, CQ xii
(1962) 141-55. On the contentious subject of the date of Cleitarchus,
recent works by J. R. Hamilton, 'Cleitarchus and Aristobulus',
Historiax (1961) 448-58; E. Badian, 'The date of Clitarchus', PACA
viii (1965) s-I1; F. Schachermeyr, Alexander in Babylon und die
nachseine Tode(Vienna 1970) 211-24 have argued for c.
Reichsordnung
310. If Cleitarchus was the source for the reference at D.S. xvii i 1.1 a
date of c. 310 would accord well with the proposition below that the
source which Diodorus used at that point could not have employed
'
the term A
Tr'AEtoJ.
eaKu!as

36 D.S. xviii 8.1.

37 Plut. Pyrrh. 1.6 which is, admittedly, in the prefatory section.
On the question of whether Plutarch made use of sources contemporary with the subjectsof his Livesor relied upon secondary sources, see
K. Ziegler, RE xxi.i (1951) 'Plutarchos' no. 2 esp. 91g1 f. and the
introduction to J. R. Hamilton, Plutarch, Alexander:a Commentary
(Oxford 1969) xliii-xlix. The general belief, following E. Meyer,
Forschungenzur alten Geschichteii (Halle 1899) 65-71, is that Plutarch
did use secondary sources in the main, but that for the period of the
Diadochi he could have had direct access to the work of Hieronymus.
38 Plut. Pyrrh. 17.7=FGrH
154 F iI (280 BC); 21.12= F 12 (279
BC);27.8=F 14 (272 BC).
39 Paus. i 13.9=FGrH 154 F
1540 Above
p. 153-4.
41 Plut. Phoc.
4.3-4=FGrH 76 F 50; 17.10=F 51.

I56

NOTES

time after307 Duris,alongwith his brotherLynceus,

went to Athens to study under Theophrastus,and
thenceseemsto havereturnedto Samosc. 300.42
Duris'mostrenownedwork,theMacedonian
History,
beganwith the eventsof 370/69 (takingas a starting
point the deathof Amyntas,fatherof PhilipII)43and
probablyconcludedwith those of 281/8o. The last
datableevent in the extantfragmentsis the deathof
in 281.44The year281/80wouldhavehad
Lysimachus
particularsignificanceas a concludingpoint for the
Macedonica
as it markedthe annexationof Samosby
Ptolemy II and the downfallof Duris'rule.45Given
boththetopicof theHistoryandthathe wasa citizenof
Samos,it is to be expectedthat Duris would have
includedan accountof the LamianWar,the causesof
which (fromthe Athenianviewpoint)were so closely

EpyCo8EIpOVapXLKS
dALyapyXLKis,
KaTaUTrEoEW

yEvorLEV,

td 77v 70ro)[OiaApEoJws
8vaptv.49

The phraseologyat first sight appearsunnecessarily

awkward, viz. drrAn
rwv AaptzaK6vKat 7rj rTEpL
Kpavvywva
pdXqc.Had Plutarch'ssourceat thispoint
used the name 'LamianWar' for the conflict,then a
U would have
simple drr roii AaptaKo troA ov
sufficedand been more explicit.It would seem more
likely that the sourcewas one to whom the term d
was unknown, so that even if
rrdATEpos
AaptzaK~s
Sweet is correct in positing an Hieronymus-based
this is not one
sourcefor some sectionsof Demetrius,
whichcanbe attributed
to thatsource.Durisapparently
to have
knew thiswar as 6 'EAAqVILKVS
wdATEPoCs-but
usedthe namein a statementreviewingthe pastcould
have created some ambiguity. Plutarchhimself is
linked with the question of the cleruchieson Samos.46 evidence enough for the fact that the name 0
Duriswas in Athensduringthe last decadeof the `EAAqVLK~SzEpos
hadbeenappliedto manymilitary
rdCother than that of 323 and 322.50 It is
fourthcenturyand had returnedto Samosby c. 300. engagements
Now this is preciselythe periodfor which we have possiblethatPlutarch's
sourceavoidedthemoregeneral
unequivocalepigraphicalevidencethat at Athensthe 6 eEAAqvtLKkS
7dTALOSin favourof themoredescriptive
war was known as, and officiallyrecordedin public and completely unambiguous references to -rd
It would not,
documentsas, 0d EAAq1VLK0~
AazptaKdand 77TEpL
Kpavvwva pa*X7,the only two
if Duris~TOdAqo0S.
therefore,be surprising
employedthattermino- theatresof the war on land where majorGreekand
logy. That Plutarchusesthe namein the Phocion,for Macedonianforces met. Such a descriptionof the
which Duris is twice attestedas a source,raisesthe LamianWar is consistentwith one who had a near
possibilitythatPlutarchderivedthe namefrom him. contemporaryknowledgeof the events,especiallyas
Thatpossibilityis strengthened
of they werereportedin Athens.Inthesurvivingpassages
by anexamination
Plutarch'sDemetrius,as it has been demonstrated of Hyperides'Epitaphios
therearereferencesto a
tadx
to
conclusivelythatmuchof the materialfor thisLifewas immediatelypriorto the besiegingof Lamia,and
drawnultimatelyfrom Duris.47Sweet also proposes
to
the
of
the
but
never
to
subsequent
lifting
siege,
IdcxaL
wasderived an actual
thatthehistoricalframeworkforDemetrius
at Lamiaitself.51The phraseologyat
tdaXcq
from an intermediaryannalistichistory based on Plut. Demetr.
10.2 is absolutelyaccurate,andprecisein
The Demetrius
containstwo references distinguishingbetween the type of engagementat
Hieronymus.48
to the LamianWar,the firstof whichis expressedin a Crannon and the events earlier at Lamia. Duris'
mannersignificantfor this discussion.Afterrecording presencein Athensin the immediate
decades
the overthrow of Demetriusof Phalerumin 307, wouldhaveequippedhim with that post-war which
knowledge,
Plutarchcontinues:
to theonly namecurrentatthat
providedanalternative
6
time,
ETEL
EAA~TVLK~S
d7TOEOS.52
'A0-qvaot8' 7rroAafld'v7sE
rev8)L8OKpaTrav
The relativedatesat which Durisand Hieronymus
7 7TL
7I v
EV7EKvEKarS,
v 8td avOUXpdVOVa
Ao'7T
wrote their historiesare reasonablywell established.
s Aodyw
AaptaKW^V
Kat TEp'Kpavvw
va p*Xqc
"riS
tv
Droysenfirstproposedthat Duriswrote beforeHierattackedby Koehler,
onymus-a theorysubsequently
42 For the early life of Duris see R. B. Kebric, In the Shadow
of but convincinglyupheldbyJacoby,andnow accepted
Macedon:Duris of Samos,Historia Einzels. xxix (Wiesbaden 1977) 2-4;
asestablished,
ashasbeenJacoby'sfurtherproposalthat
for the date of their arrivalat Athens, id., 'A note on Duris in Athens',
wrotein partin reactionto, andrefutation
Hieronymus
CPh lxix (1974) 286-7, with good arguments for between 304 and
of, Duris.53As notedabove,54the indicationsarethat
302. That Duris had returned to Samos by c. 300 is indicated by the
Durisbeganhis historyshortlyafter281/80 when his
issue of a hemidrachma
at that time, see J. Barron, The Silver Coins of
rule in Samoswas terminatedby Ptolemy II. HierSamos (London 1966) 137-8.
43 D.S. xv 6o.6.
onymusis recordedas havinglived to an age of one
44
hundred
andfour,55whichwouldput hisdeathc. 250.
=
NH
viii
F
FGrH
143
76 55.
Pliny
45 Kebric (n. 42) 51-4.

46 One extant fragment of the Macedonicaindicates that the matter

was discussedin Bk x, as the Sudarecords that in that section of Duris'
work was to be found an account of an harangue by Pytheas against
Demosthenes (s.v. 'WrOLepoV7Zp
FGrH 76
OK EeT r
OVKP
F 8). Plutarch, citing Phylarchusas his source, alsokva?rat'=
has a description of
that public verbal clash to which the Duris fragment appearsto refer
(Dem. 27.3 = FGrH 8 IF 75).
47 W. E. Sweet, 'Sources of Plutarch's Demetrius',Cl. Weeklyxliv
(1951) 177-8 ; Kebric (n. 42) 55-6o; Hornblower (n. 30) 68-70; P. de
Lacy, 'Biography and Tragedy in Plutarch', AJP lxxiii (1952) 159--71.
Lynceus of Samos, the brother of Duris, is the only source named in
this biography (Plut. Demetr.27.3). Hieronymus is attested at 39-3-7
as having been appointed by Demetrius as epimeleteand harmostover
the Boeotians (=FGrH 154T 8).
48 Sweet
(n. 47) 178.

49 Plut. Demetr. 10.2.

50 The
expression occurs in seven separateLives from the fifth and
fourth centuries Bc--Them. 6.5; Cim. 18.6; Lys. 27.3; Ages. 15.2; Pel.
17.11; Art.20.4; Phoc. 23.1.

51 Coll. 5-6. Events rrepl AatL'av are discussed further in the

examination of Plb. ix 29.2 below.
52 How Hieronymus referredto the same event is demonstrated at
D.S. xx 46.3: t0iv
7O
ovv 8
Evr(LA tuaKTJ
K
6
KaraAvELS
1oso~
) ITT
'AvwT7drpov/LeTr'
EVTEKaLS'EQKa
rWapaSd4WS T7I
v
ir'
KOtLUGaTO
7a-rpLov7ToAvrTEav.
53J. G. Droysen, 'Zur Duris und Hieronymos', Hermesxi (1876)
465; U. Koehler, 'Ober die Diadochensgeschichte Arrian's', Sitz. d.
Kin. Preuss.Akad. d. Wiss. Berlin(1890) 586 ff.; F. Jacoby, RE viii.2
(1913) 'Hieronymos' no. io 1549 and FGrH iiD (Comm.) 544.
54 Above nn. 44 and
45.
ss [Lucian] Macrob.22=FGrH 154 T 2.

NOTES

I57

Although that figure is open to question, it is certain fighting there was like the sally which cost Leosthenes
that he lived long and that his history included events his life .... The likelihood is that P. has confused the
name of the decisive land battle with that of the town
down to at least 272.56
As far as the state of the sourceswill allow, it appears noteworthy for the most memorable incident of the
certain that Hieronymus used the name 06AatLaKoS war as a whole....'60 The confusion in Polybius is
for the war. On the other hand, it seems likely explicable if it is understood that by the time this
wTdOAPoso
that Duris, writing within a decade earlier than abbreviatedaccount of the war was written, the name 6
was in circulation. Polybius has
Hieronymus, referred to it as 6
W7TdOEAOSo
W7TdE/os
,EAArvLK0S
and had no knowledge of an alternative
name. What Aa/LtaKS
mistakenly assumed that the decisive land battle must
little evidence we do have suggests that Hieronymus have been near the city which had given its name to the
might well have been the first to use the name which overall conflict of 323 and 322, and by that error
later became standardfor the war. That such a change in supplies the first indication of the time by which the
T
dE/Aos had attained widespread
terminology could have occurred around the 260s has name 6 AaLaKos
o7T
some support from epigraphy. The MarmorParium, recognition.61
If Hieronymus was the first literaryfigure to use the
although not having an overall name for the war, does
record the struggle at Lamia and the naumachianear name
it remains to ask why.
o7TdAELOs,
Aa/,LaK8o
has arguedthat Hieronymus' final revision
Amorgus in the entry for 323/2. The reference to the Hornblower
events at Lamia reads:
of the early sections of his work was undertakenin the
260s, after Athens had capitulatedto Antigonus Gonatas
Jw 70rotwoALTovrot70yvoLEIvov
7wEOp Aapalav in the Chremonidean War. Not only were there
'A'qrvatols rpOs 'AvrwlTarpov.57
parallelsto be drawn between the 'Hellenic War' of the
Here, for the first time in the extant evidence, the 320s and the Greekstruggle for freedom from Macedon
military engagements at and around Lamia have been in the 260s, but for a contemporary historian (with
an indication that in some quarters pro-Macedonian tendencies) the recording of the
labelled a wrldTApoS,
the Lamianevents had been elevated in importance to a former revolt needed careful rewriting in view of the
point from which it was no great step to identify the current developments.62 In particular the traditional
entire conflict with the
at that location. It is name of 'EAAyqVLK~S
would have presented
d~E7TMEOS
'wTTdoAoso'
known from the prescript
tofr. A of the MarmorParium problems-both emotive and in the matterof precision.
that the chronicle recorded selected events down to the It is in that light, I would suggest, that Hieronymus
archonshipof Diognetus at Athens in 264/3,s8 which is decided to refer to the war of 323 and 322 BC as o
virtually synchronous with Hieronymus' time of writ- Aa/taKOS 7To0dEpOS.
N. G. ASHTON
ing.
That the name 6 AataLLaKsWdTO
The Universityof WesternAustralia
/oS was in circulation in the second century BCseems confirmed by an
60 F. W. Walbank, A HistoricalCommentaryon Polybiusii (Oxford
odd reference to the war by Polybius:
1967) 16761 A confusion somewhat similar to that in the Polybius

is

passage
VK'4jaa
evident at Paus. vii 6.5. There it is stated that of the people of Achaea,
"EAA'vas, KaKLUTa
v
Troi?
XpruaaTo
"70VS
only the noted wrestler Chilon of Patrae was present ir7LTr v 7p~s
TraatalrpoLs 'A6rlvatots 61Aol'ws S KaL TOL^s Aapda
7rd7AEov. However, in this case it is perfectly

I-v
'Av-rtwa-rpos

v 7^7TEpL

pa X

Aapv
/

&aAots.59

As it standsthis account of what transpiredis nonsense.

Not only is it difficultto decidejust what is meant by the
AapClav, but Polybius also states that
Idx/ rrEpL
Antipater achieved a victory over the Greeks here. In
fact, what battles were fought TrrpLt
Aaptav were
certainly in favour of the Greek forces-the first
resulting in Antipater being shut up in Lamia, and the
latercausinghim to flee northwardsfollowing the death
of Leonnatus and defeat of his cavalry. If it was
Polybius' intention to refer to a decisive victory on land
for Antipater, then only that near Crannon, fought
some months later in 322, would fit the bill. Walbank,
in his commentary on this passage,observes: 'What P.
means by the "battle of Lamia" is not clear; the only
56 For Hieronymus' life and the
span of his work see Hornblower
(n. 30) ch. i.
57 FGrH 239 B 9. It is recorded in A. Wilhelm, 'Ein neues
Bruchstiick der-parischenMarmorchronik', Ath.Mitt. xxii (1897) 193
that there is a space with an erasure between 7rEp and the lambdaof
are inscribed over an
Aaplav, and that the final two letters of
Aapav erased in
erasure.Jacoby believes the original inscription,
part for the
correction AAMIAN, was EAAAMINA (FGrHiiB 239 p. 1oo3 n. to
line 8). For the Amorgus naval engagement see N. G. Ashton, 'The
Naumachianear Amorgos in 322 B.C.', BSA lxxii (I977) 1i-".
58 FGrH 239 A lines 2-3.
59 Plb. ix 29.2.

KaAoipEtvov
from the context of vii 6.5 and from an additional
clear, both
reference at vi 4.6-7, that Pausaniasmeant to refer only to the events
Aaplav and not to the war as a whole.
rEpL
62 Hornblower
(n. 30) 172 ff.

Placing SectioCanonisin historical

and philosophical contexts
The constructionof Pythagoreanmusicaltheory
rests philosophicallyon the foundationprovidedby
SectioCanonis.Indeed,thetreatisemayhaveperformed
this role historicallytoo. AndrewBarkerhas recently
contributedto thisjournala discussionof the methods
andaimsof the Sectio-JHS ci (1981) 1-16. Inso doing
he haspinpointedlapsesin the theoreticalreckoningof
the treatise,especiallyin the case of propositionII
(Pi i). I shouldlike to reply to Barker'sarticle.My
remarksconcerntheauthorship
anddateof thetreatise,
theintroduction,a few propositions,
andultimatelythe
historicalandphilosophical
settingsfor the Sectio.
Barkerchoosesto avoidtheissueof authorship
of the
and
Sectio,stating:'Whetheror not they [introduction
areby Euclidhimself,thereis no
twentypropositions]
good reason to assign at least the first eighteen
propositionsto a datelaterthanEuclid's,or to suggest
Journalof HellenicStudiesciv (1984)157-161